The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 120506Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission W71, Meeting Agenda for December 5, 2006 AAvon Town Council Chambers 0 L 0 k A p o Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - WORK SESSION AGENDA - (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items. Open to the Public. - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - I. Call to Order (5:30pm) II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the November 21, 2006 Meeting Minutes • Resolution 06-19, Trees of Colorado permit extension (MEMO ONLY) VI. Transit Center Snowmelt — CONTINUED Property Location: Benchmark Court, Avon Transit Center Applicant: Design Workshop / Owner: Town of Avon Description: Follow up to condition of approval by Planning and Zoning Commission to provide snowmelt at the new Avon Transit Center location. VII. Master Sign Program Property Location: Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 15 Benchmark Applicant. Nick Campbell, The Sign Gallery / Owner.' Avon 56, LP Description: Sign Design application for replacement of all "WestStar Bank Center" signs on this Benchmark Road/Avon Road property to now read "US Bank." This change is required as part of a nation wide corporate identity change. VIII. Other Business A. Update of Various Projects B. Housing Assessment Open House on Thursday from 5-7pm IX. Adjourn Posted on December 1, 2006 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at http://www.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions 'r Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2006 AAvon Town Council Chambers 0 L 0 R A D 0 Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road Work Session — East Avon Design Alternatives Description: Design Workshop to make presentation of four development alternatives produced for East Avon Master Plan project. Review of a draft Market Investigation Report. Stakeholders have been invited and this is a Work Session open to the public. Matt Pielsticker introduced himself as the Project Manager for this job and gave background on the project to date. Mr. Pielsticker introduced the team from Design Workshop and Rebecca Leonard began her presentation with the "Process to Date" and the items to be completed; residential, commercial and retail concerns, parking and traffic issues and projected numbers of vehicles, the impact of the Riverfront project along with the West Avon and the East Avon projects. Ms. Leonard continued by presenting the four Alternatives of the Development Concept Diagram. Commissioner Evans asked Ms. Leonard what benefit the Christie Lodge receives for changes to their property and Ms. Leonard responded that she believed they felt being closer to "Main Street' was beneficial. John Perkins, president of the Christie Lodge Board, voiced that his HOA charter has a drop dead date when the HOA would dissolve. Mr. Perkins remarked that they would be looking for greater density and height. Ms. Leonard mentioned that placing a frontage road behind the Christie Lodge would give them a buffer and better access for and to the Town. She continued that properties within East Avon were under utilized and incentive for redevelopment would be the increase in residential in the area. Open discussion questioned parking issues in Chapel Square, availability of underground parking, some Town Right of Way parking, concerns with trucks and delivery vehicles, and pedestrian access. The presentation continued with "Successful Community Design": - coordination and cohesiveness with neighboring districts, mix of land uses, pedestrian environment, circulation and transportation parking, streetscape improvements, massing and form, and architectural character, and; "Successful Retail": -easy access by cars and people, continuous retail experience, complementary building layout, strong anchors, central orientation elements, parking availability, and visibility. Items to determine a conclusion are: Access - number of access points to and through the district? 2 are encouraged by Design Workshop Commissioner response was varied with preferred Alternatives. - On street parking? Slows traffic down, buffer from pedestrians and cars, provides views of streets and streetlights and good for retail. - De -centralized parking garages? People like to get as close to their uses. Retail Character Role of mid -box retail? With Town Center West having small retailers, mid box retailers would draw and support other retailers and the practical aspect of 200,000 sq ft or 250,000 sq ft requires a lot of small retailers and there is currently available space unused. Discussion included mid box national chains are not what visitors come for but small private stores like those currently in Edwards, others felt that the future visitors would expect such retailers to be here as the population increases, mix of style and appeal of the mid box needs consideration and respect of the smaller retailers. How pedestrian friendly? The term "mid -box" is misleading, and Ms. Leonard recommended "mid- sized". Municipal Involvement - Straightening of 'main street'? Affirmative by some. - Park/Plaza? More view corridors by connection of views. Design Workshop will refine preferred alternative plan for the Open House in January 2007 as the next step with a draft District Plan and a final District Plan to follow. Further conversation determined that another work session was warranted. Site Tour - Village at Avon - CANCELLED Description: People mover to pick up Planning and Zoning Commission and staff for site tour related to Item VIII - Village at Avon Planned Unit Development Amendment. On-site review of parcels. - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Goulding. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Site tour for the VAA was cancelled due to time constraints. Under the "Other Business", review of Walkin the Dog parameters. Item VII, A, Final Design Plan — Residential, Duplex at Beartrap & Old Trail, Property Location: Lot 49, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2610 Beartrap Rd., moved to Consent Agenda. Item IX, A, Master Sign Programs, Chapel Square Amendment, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 240 Chapel Place, moved to Consent Agenda Item X, A., Minor Projects Application, Municipal Building Design Modifications, Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 400 Benchmark Road, moved to Consent Agenda. Item X, B., Minor Projects Application, CenturyTel Radio Dish, Property Location: Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision / 1060 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Smith revealed a letter sent to the Secretary of State regarding a `Disclosure of Possible Conflict of Interest" concerning an amendment to the Planned Unit Development of Traer Creek/Village at Avon. V. Consent Agenda ■ Approval of the October 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes ■ Approval of Item 9A, Master Sign Programs, Chapel Square Amendment, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 240 Chapel Place • Approval of Item 10A, Minor Projects Application, Municipal Building Design Modifications, Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 400 Benchmark Road ■ Approval of Item IX A - Chapel Square Master Sign Program Amendment ■ Approval of Item X B - CenturyTel Communication Dish Commissioner Green motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. VI. Transit Center Snowmelt — CONTINUED Property Location: Benchmark Court, Avon Transit Center Applicant: Design Workshop /Owner. Town of Avon Description: Follow up to condition of approval by Planning and Zoning Commission to provide snowmelt at the new Avon Transit Center location. Steven Spears, Design Workshop, approached the podium to discuss the Transit Center snowmelt as directed by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and agreed by Town Council to pursue. Mr. Spears began by displaying the approved design by Planning and Zoning along with three snowmelt alternatives. Commissioner Evans remarked that the approval by Planning & Zoning was contingent on the Transit Center being snow melted as one design implied no snow melt. Transit Center Snowmelt — Seven Criteria: - Should be located on Town property (with the applicable sub -surface rights) - Should be located to minimize existing underground utilities or drainage systems. - Should be located to allow for easy access by the public works dept. - Should be located where automobiles/transit will not be driving. - Should be located in a place where hardscape occurs, minimizing additional construction costs. Should not be located in an area where pedestrians will congregate (i.e. immediately next to a bus stop, or in proximity to retail or residential units.) Should not be located in the sight distance triangle. The seven criteria generated 12 alternatives with four options presented. Each option would not be beneath the roadway; stacks would be nine feet tall. Commissioner Evans questioned why the snowmelt vault was not being used to heat the Transit Center and Mr. Spears remarked that there are too numerous utility lines under the Transit Center for the vault. The mechanical vault needs 450 sq ft. The ' anticipated schedule would have construction of the Transit Center beginning April 1, 2007. Commissioner discussion revolved around mechanical engineer's design with Mr. Spears unable to respond to specific engineering questions. Commissione Green motioned to table Item VI, Transit Center Snowmelt, Property Location: Benchmark Court, Avon Transit Center, with Commissioner Smith seconding the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. VII. Final Design Plan — Residential A. Duplex at Beartrap & Old Trail Property Location: Lot 49, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2610 Beartrap Rd. Applicant., Michael Pukas, MPP Design Shop /Owner. Matsen Enterprises Description: Design review for a "mountain ranch" style duplex at the corner of Beartrap and Old Trail roads. The building is comprised of stucco, horizontal and vertical wood siding, moss rock stone veneer, asphalt shingles, and cor-ten rusted corrugated metal roofing. Sketch review took place at the Commission's August 15th, 2006 meeting. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. Michaud Duplex Property Location: Lot 9, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5750 Wildridge Road East Applicant. Courtney Giphart / Owner: Roger Michaud Description: Final Design review for a duplex on Wildridge Road East near the top of the Wildridge Subdivision. A variety of high quality materials are being proposed. Sketch review took place at the Commission's October 17, 2006 meeting. At sketch review, the Commission requested the applicant return with a revised sketch application prior to proceeding to final design. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Roger Michaud, property owner, approached the podium to discuss his project and gain Commission understanding and direction. Mr. Michaud provided the Commissioners with pictures of neighboring sites and stated that his team had exhausted all ideas of how to site the building. Commissioner Struve questioned the driveway and the amount of the lot being paved was to be minimized. Commissioner concerns were the massing, color charts and materials weren't submitted (handed out during the session), roof ridge was one long shot, setbacks are an issue, and all colors were not reviewed and those presented were inconsistent with renderings. Commissioner Struve mentioned that this was turning into a sketch review of a final design. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VII B, Michaud Duplex, Property Location: Lot 9, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5750 Wildridge Road East. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with all Commissioners in favor, VIII. PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Village at Avon PUD Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG /Owner. Traer Creek Description: The applicant is proposing to amend the Village at Avon PUD. The proposed amendments to the PUD are focused primarily on relocating Planning Area G, which is and will remain designated for a school to be operated by the Eagle County School District; Planning Area D, which is to be adjusted to allow the school to be located within its existing boundaries; and Planning Area N, which is to now accommodate two separate facilities for the Eagle County Health Services District and the Eagle River Fire Protection District. Matt Gennett presented the Staff Report and stated one error in the report that Resolution No. 17 was for denial and Resolution No. 18 was for approval. Dominic Mauriello, Applicant, approached the podium to discuss the Amendment and began by presenting the Village at Avon and revealing that he would be using the PUD Guide and Annexation Agreement as the "zoning" guidelines. He continued by presenting the original PUD and the proposed PUD, and discussing the changes created, and the public benefits for the changes. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Fred Morse, General Manager of the Ambulance District, approached the podium and provided historical background, staff and equipment information. Mr. Morse continued with maps of the area served, where their current facilities are located, statistical backup for calls and service, demonstrated that the Traer Creek site was in the center of their bell curve response area, and response time calcs. Commissioner Evans asked about co -location with the Fire District. Dr. Larry Brooks, president of the Ambulance District, approached the podium. Dr. Brooks continued with the need for the ambulance service, the critical issue of time in an emergency, and the land was available. Dominic Mariello commented on the collocation issue and mentioned that getting the two parties to agree was not a simple task. Chuck Moore, Eagle River Fire Prevention District, approached the podium to discuss the sites proposed. Commissioner Struve asked if Mr. Moore preferred to be closer to the interstate and the response was affirmative. Commissioner Green questioned if the site proposed was to be a satellite station and the ariswer was yes. Jaime Fitzpatrick, Corum Real Estate Group, voiced from the podium concerns with Traer Creek and a $2,000,000 debt that related to Buffalo Ridge Housing project remained unpaid. Mary Ann Stavney, Eagle County School District, voiced her concern with the school site, stated it was for an elementary school, the School Board's position that a parcel on the north side of the highway was inappropriate for a school site and the Board desired the site on the valley floor. Magnus Lindholm remarked at the podium if the ambulance could get .73 acre instead of the 1.24 acres for both services so that the ambulance service can begin construction immediately. Commissioner Green asked about the ambulance flying out of the driveway and thru a park as an unsafe situation. Commission discussion continued with alternative sites and timing for amending the Plat. Norm Wood, Town of Avon Engineer, commented that a minor subdivision plat could address the site issue and be taken directly to Town Council. Both the ambulance and fire districts were fine with the alternative plan as presented by the Commissioners. Commissioner Evans asked Elizabeth Pierce -Durance, Prosecuting Attorney for the Town of Avon Municipal Court, and Larry Brooks, Town Manager for the Town of Avon, for their input. Ms. Pierce -Durance read from the Agreement regarding the land for the Fire Protection District. Munsey Ayers, Traer Creek Attorney, voiced that a formal agreement would need to be drawn and executed for the dedication of the land. Mr. Ayers mentioned that there was an obligation to provide land for the fire district but not for the ambulance district. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green motioned to approve Resolution No. 06-18, A Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions, of a PUD Amendment Application Amending the Village at Avon PUD, Filing 3, the Village at Avon Subdivision, as More Specifically Described in the Application Dated September 6, 2006, with the following modifications: Condition One be revised to read, "Emergency Service uses shall be housed in a combined campus of approximately 1.5 acres, allowing separate fire and ambulance district structures utilizing a Minor Subdivision Plat immediately adjacent to Swift Gulch Road and Tract G located in Filing 3. Condition Two: Remain as presented. Condition Three: Remain as presented. Condition Four: This would be then allowed as a permitted use. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. School Site: Commissioner Evans approved of the location and agreed with staff on due diligence to make sure the site was viable for a school by a soils report within a reasonable span of time. Commissioner Green was concerned with access to the site with only one way in and one way out. Ms. Stavney remarked that there are other schools with a similar access situation such as Meadow Mountain Elementary and Battle Mountain High School and suspects it would not be an issue with the School District. Commissioners continued with further discussion of the fill on the site, acquisition of the soils report, options if the site is inappropriate for a school and the review process for the transfer of property. Commissioner Struve moved to approve Resolution No. 06-17, recommending to Town Council approval of a PUD Application amending the Village at Avon PUD Filing 1 Application dated September 6, 2006, with the first two 'WHEREAS's' remain, third 'WHEREAS' struck, fourth 'WHEREAS' — the applicant must comply within twelve months to the following additional PUD review criteria (just conditional) and the final 'WHEREAS' will provide evidence of compliance with the public purpose provisions as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Municipal Code. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion and all Commissioners were in favor. The motion passed 6 to 0. IX. Master Sign Programs A. Chapel Square Amendment Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 240 Chapel Place Applicant/Owner: Frances Rolater, Property Manager Description: Sign program amendment application to permit two signs for Unit 109 in Building B in Chapel Square instead of the currently allowed one cabinet sign. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. Riverfront Village Property Location: Riverfront Subdivision Applicant/ Owner: Andy Gunion, East West Partners Description: This sign program includes project identification signage, building identification signage, as well as directional signs that serve both vehicles and pedestrians. Submittal of this sign program was a condition of final design approval for both the Riverfront Lodge and Westin Hotel. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Andy Gunion, East West Resorts, discussed the submittal to the Commissioners. The height of the signs, lighting, light bases, delivery sign and scale was discussed. Commissioner Green moved to approve Item IX, B. Riverfront Village Sign Program, Property Location: Riverfront Subdivision, with the following conditions: that 'wimpy' sign bases are not allowed and need to be reviewed by staff, any sign with a stone base needs to be architectural review, light caps in the front lanterns need to be zinc, no exposed concrete. Struve seconded, all in favor Andy Gunion requested the Commission to consider banners on the elevator shafts to advise what is going on. The Commission approved the display from December, 2006 until March, 2007. X. Minor Projects Applications A. Municipal Building Design Modifications Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 400 Benchmark Road Applicant/ Owner. Town of Avon Description: The Town has submitted a design application for an expansion to the Municipal Complex building on the edge of Harry Nottingham Park. This expansion would be on the west side of the building between the building and parking lot. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. CenturyTel Radio Dish Property Location: Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision / 1060 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard Applicant/Owner. Greg Jaramillo, CenturyTel Description: Proposal for the installation of one rooftop communication device on the Westgate Building. The device is a 2' diameter radio dish for transmission and a temporary dish has already been installed on top of the parapet roof above Agave's space. Moved to Consent Agenda. XI. Other Business A. Update of Various Projects 1. Walkin the Dog: Matt Pielsticker presented the approved plans to the Commission and a different design was built. 2. Town Council is requesting a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission to be on the Village of Avon Design Review Board. Commissioner Evans nominated Commissioner Green. Commissioner Green accepted the nomination. Commissioner Smith seconded the nomination and it passed unanimously. B. Town Center West Design Guidelines XII. Adjourn Commissioner Smith motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary TOWN CENTER NEST & It f A.a• IIII main street public improvements AVON TRANSIT CENTER TO: Avon Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Norman 'Wood, PF, Avon Town Engineer Steven Spears, RLA Design Workshop, Inc. in the Spring of 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the design for the Avon Transit Center with conditions. One specific condition included providing immediate snowmelt for the entire hardscape area of the transit center. Design Workshop presented the conditions to Council in which snowmelt remained an issue to be further designed. Since then, discussions have occurred with staff, Design Workshop and Council on the environmental aspects and energy use of the entire TCW redevelopment. Dan Richardson, Director of the Canary Initiative in Aspen, was brought in by Design Workshop to introduce and discuss the importance of energy efficiency and alternative solutions of energy use for the TCW redevelopment. Per the direction of the Town, Design Workshop is completing the construction drawings for the transit center, specifically with three bid alternates related to snowmelt systerns. The three bid -alternates will include: I . Provide a full snowmelt design. This would include approximately 450 SF underground vault with appropriate access, three smokestacks, approximately 9' tall and 14" in diameter, air intake louver system and proper health/safety criteria. 2. Snowmelt tubing provided, but no mechanical infrastructure. The intent would be to connect the transit center snowmelt into a master boiler system, possibly located in the proposed parking structure. 3. No Snowmelt The purpose of this discussion should focus on item Y 1. Design Workshop has prepared numerous options for the location of the underground vault and have tested them against their criteria (listed below). Out of that process and working with the Town staff, four options have been further refined and are the subject of discussion. Option 41 was presented in isolation to Council last month. Council expressed concern ofthe smokestacks proximity to The Seasons building. A suggestion came out of Council to look at possible locations within the turn around island, in the same area as the environmental art design. Following the Council meeting, options 2, 3 and 4 were developed by Design Workshop and "Town Staff. 'I he purpose of discussion is to reN iew the: four options and provide a recommendation for the preferred option. 0 As mentioned, Design Workshop prepared criteria in evaluating all orthe options discussed since the V condition was made by PL last spring. The criteria for locating the isolated snowmelt vault includes: I. Should be located on Town property (with the applicable sub -surface rights) 2. Should be located to minimize existing underground utilities or drainage systems 3. Should be located to allow for easy access by the public works dept. 4. Should be located where automobiles/transit will not be driving 5. Should be located in a place where hardscape occurs, minimizing additional construction costs (planting over structure costs significantly more than hardscape) 6. Should be located in an area where pedestrians will not dwell (ie. immediately next to a bus stop, or in proximity to retail or residential units) Based on these criteria, Design Workshop has evaluated the flour alternatives. Option One: PRC) 1. It is located on Town property 2. Does not impact existing underground utilities or drainage systems (refer to civil engineer letter) 3. Access will be easy for daily service by Public Works 4. Automobiles and transit will not be driving over the vault structure making structural requirements less. 5. Located completely in hardscape area 6. Located further away from any retail or residential unit than any other option 7. The location is off to the edge making the required smoke stacks and guardrail/handrail are easier to disguise 8. Future connection to a master system will be easier (if Town decides to connect it at a later date) 9. Less planting than in other alternatives, therefore the planting plan will be less disturbed by the heat of the smoke stacks. 10. Landscape will buffer it from the Seasons driveway. There is room for planting that is outside the disturbance area and the sight triangle view plane 11. Easy access in the event a significant part of the system needs replaced CON 1. The proximity of The Seasons driveway entrance (although we are able to have foreground planting to buffer the view outside of the 10' radius landscape disturbance area) 2. Some proposed plant material will be disturbed from the heat of the smoke stacks 3. Cannot be completely screened in the winter 4. Adjacent to Benchmark Court and "passer-by" area Options Two and Three: PRO 1. it is located on Town property 2. Access will be easy for daily service by Public Works (Option #3 creates more of a challenge) J. Automobiles and transit will not be driving over the vault structure =l. Locntcd a'x'2i, frtAnt t111J r1 d{a tri2j? tr,�Jrfie CON I . Approximately 20'-25' closer to Lot 61 residential than Option # 1 distance to The Seasons building 2. Requires relocation of electric, gas, telephone and cable tv. The individual utility companies, with the exception of the electric, are responsible for relocating their facilities when located in public ROW. Additional coordination and timing will be required during construction to get the utility companies to relocate. (See Civil Engineer letter) 3. Located in a planting area. Therefore, the depth of excavation is deeper due to required extra area for soil depth, root control barrier, insulation, water proofing membrane and drain board. More intense structural design for the vault will be required due to the weight design of soil. 4. Heat from smoke stacks will disturb a higher percentage of proposed plant material as part of the environmental art piece 5. The proposed location is a highly visible area from many directions (including riding in a bus). The required stroke stacks and ,=uardrail/handrail will visually disturb the environmental art piece to a point that a redesign of this area should probably be considered 6. Cannot be screened in the winter 7. future connection to a master system will be more difficult (if Town decides to connect it at a later date) 8. Will most likely create a higher construction cost due to extra depth and required structural design 9. Access is more difficult if a significant part of the system needs replaced 10. Option #2, the required smoke stacks and guardrail/handrail is immediately adjacent to the bus travel lane. A concern is that it could be hit if the bus clipped a corner or went over the curb. Option Four: PRO 1. It is located on Town property 2. Access will be easy for daily service by Public Works 3. Located is away from any pedestrian traffic ( 4. The proposed planting plan will be less disturbed by the heat of the smoke stacks, except Option #1 CON 1. Approximately 20'-25' closer to Lot 61 residential than Option #I distance to The Seasons building 2. Requires relocation of electric, gas, telephone and cable tv. The individual utility companies, with the exception of the electric, are responsible for relocating their facilities when located in public ROW. Additional coordination and timing will be required during construction to get the utility companies to relocate. (See Civil Engineer letter) 3. Located in a planting area and in driveway aisle. Therefore, the depth of excavation is deeper due to required extra area for soil depth, root control barrier, insulation, water proofing membrane and drain board. More intense structural design for the vault will be required due to the weight design of soil and to carry transit loads. 4. The proposed location is a highly visible area from many directions (including riding in a bus). The required smoke stacks and guardrail/handrail will visually disturb the environmental art piece 5. Cannot be screened in the winter 6. Future connection to a master system will be more difficult (if Town decides to connect it at a later date) 7. Will most likely create a higher construction cost due to extra depth and required structural dcsigr, 8. Access is more difficult if a significant part of the system needs replaced 9. The required smoke stacks and guardrailthandrail is immediately adjacent to the bus travel lane. A concern is that it could be hit if the bus clipped a corner or went over the curb. CONCLUSION: The Town Council reviewed Option One. In this review:, Council expressed concern of the smokestacks proximity to The Seasons building. The analysis of the three new options present more issue, than Option One, Design Workshop's recommendation is Option One because of the minimal amount of impacts and benefits associated with its location. ATTACHMENTS: !• Perspective Drawing • Transit Center Context (site plan) • Snowmelt Options I.2, & 3 • Snowmelt Vault Details (cross sections) • Letter from Johnson,'Kunkel & Associates, Inc, dated November 14, 2006 (\ } G- u 4-J O 4-0 CIS 1 I 1 II i N 6u!ppnq to aoey of — r !gets tsaieau way aOuels!p 3 n M,i \ 6 m N O C K _a: `ao l2 �8 - ?NO NOIldQ- 1invA 1-13WArNS ` 9 I^ }C YJ 6 0 ro E co Qi \ i I \ U \ { arm 1 i 4 � I r •F S� ` z z 6 E !!nq to aoel of o C'- HOClS ! eau uJ011 a0ue1SIQ —7 / • .�- D :p CD 1 I 1 II i N 6u!ppnq to aoey of — r !gets tsaieau way aOuels!p 3 n -L-.Z9 " 6 m N O C K _a: `ao l2 �8 - ?NO NOIldQ- 1invA 1-13WArNS ` 9 1 I 1 II i ♦6 6 6 ae \p0 'sq, OG J� 6 m N O C K `ao l2 g 8 a 2, 9E c 9 I^ }C YJ 6 0 ro co Qi �^ 1 I 1 II i 4L a_ I O ti CD J I 1 1 I a 0 N O r � c �- V7,9 h 0 Z rpr'i � � 1 ♦cam \� I sl J 0 F W OZ:Cl S� N 7h' W1 w.i O am mry 0 0 6 1 pq jo aaej of \ %Deis 1 eau wal eouelsicl - — S v m GIa 0 W� z lz� \ 6ulppnq jo aoe; of a \ Hoels lsajeeu wo.y eouelsia 4 $ n .,L -.Z4 9 \ .NO N011dO_ . u_l llflVAll3WMONSwo e� T s � C I a O N V/ I 1 1 I a 0 N O r � c �- V7,9 h 0 Z rpr'i .x . MW one TM design Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc. SURVEYING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING • MAPPING November 14, 2006 Steven Spears Design Workshop 120 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Civil Engineering Impacts of Snow Melt Facility Options Dear Steven, I have completed an evaluation of the civil engineering impacts of the proposed snowmelt vault locations which you sent on 11/3/06. 1 have summarized my findings below. The primary impacts of the various snowmelt vault locations are related to utility relocation. To provide a frame of reference for evaluating these impacts I will begin with the utility relocations required by the current design which is without any snowmelt infrastructure. There currently exists telephone and cable TV pedestals in the proposed Benchmark Court, adjacent to and serving The Seasons. The equipment supported by these pedestals will have to be relocated into a proposed underground vault. This is the only utility impact anticipated as part of the current design. The proposed snowmelt vault option ,one location would have no additional utility impacts. From a civil engineering perspective this option has the least complications. Additionally, this option places the boiler flue pipes and stairwell handrails well away from the roadway. The proposed snowmelt vault options two, three and four locations all require the relocation of mainline power, mainline gas, mainline telephone, and mainline cable TV. Coordination with the respective utility companies will be required to complete designs for these relocations. The cost for relocating these utilities and the potential related service outages should be a factor in evaluating these options. Additionally, options two and four would place boiler flue pipes and stairwell handrails near the roadway which could pose a traffic safety issue. I hope that this information helps with the decision process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen L. Miller, P.E. Project Manager P.Q. Box 409 • 1286 Chambers Ave. • Suite 200 • Eagle, Colorado 81631 • Phone: (970) 328-6368 - Fax: (970) 328-1035 A Cf) J T Memo W_z VON To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners c o L 0 R A D O From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner ' Date November 29, 2006 Re: Special Review Use permit Renewal for Tree Sales Resolution No. 06-19 Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision (0095 Post Boulevard) Summary: Attached to this memo is a resolution to renew a Special Review Use permit for'Trees of Colorado', a business that has been operating in Town since approval in March of this year. One of the conditions of approval from Resolution 06-06, the resolution approving this use, states that "the permit is valid for the 2006 calendar year." The intention of Resolution 06-19 is to renew the Special Review Use permit for this business to operate for an additional three years (see condition #2) before another review is triggered. As a renewed condition of approval, staff is recommending (see condition #1) that a 6' foot cedar fence replace the current chain link fence by the end of April, 2007. Staff has not received any complaints about the operation of this business in its current location. This property appears to be a suitable location for this land -use, and staff does not anticipate compatibility issues with the adjacent land -uses. All of the required review criteria are contained within the proposed Resolution 06-19 and within the attached March 7, 2006 staff report. Att: Resolution 06-19 March 7, 2006 Staff Report R• Planning & Zoning Connnission .,Vlenros'2006.Res 06-19 L3 AIcGrady Acres SRU Reneutdoc 10 TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-19 A RESOLUTION RENEWING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL TREE & SHRUB NURSERY ON LOT 31 MCGRADY ACRES SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Paul Doughty has applied for a special review use permit for a retail tree sale nursery, as described in the application dated December 12, 2005, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon on March 7, 2006, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use permit application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered the following: A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; and B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; and C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission approved this permit request on March 7, 2006 and the applicant has maintained the conditions of approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby renews a Special Review Use permit for a retail tree sale nursery, as described in the application dated December 12, 2005, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. F:Tlammng & 7.oningC'omnrission'Resolittions�?006'Res 06-19 A&Grady Acres SRU Renewal 3}r.doc Approved with the following conditions: 1. The chain link fence with green mesh on the northern and eastern property lines will be replaced with a six foot tall cedar fence no later than end of April, 2007. 2. This permit is valid for three years, subject to review by the Planning and Zoning Commission no later than December 31, 2009. 3. If the conditions of the permit become the responsibility of a person other than the applicant (Paul Doughty), the office of Community Development must be notified in writing, identifying the new person or entity responsible for maintaining the conditions of the permit. AMC 17.48.020(d). 4. Hours of operation will be lam - 6pm, with no audible noise at other hours. 5. No lighting is approved for the property, except for an internal light inside the temporary point of sale office. 6. This use may not be modified, enlarged or expanded in ground area, unless such modification receives the prior approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. AMC 17.48.050. 7. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. Adopted this 5th day of December, 2006 Signed: Chair Attest: Secretary Date: Date: F. -'Planning & Zoning Connnission'Resolulions 2006'Res 06-19 McGrady Acres SRU Reneiral 3yr.doc Staff Report �7) SPECIAL REVIEW USE AVON C O L O R A D O March 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date February 22, 2006 Project type Special Review Use (SRU) Permit Legal description Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision Zoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Address 0095 Post Boulevard Introduction Paul Doughty is requesting a Special Review Use permit for retail tree and shrub sales, which includes the outdoor storage of trees in the McGrady Acres subdivision. The lot is bordered by: Eaglebend Subdivision, park, and cul-de-sac to the west, railroad tracks immediately to the north, Post Boulevard to the east, and Lot 6 of McGrady Acres to the South with a developed single-family log home. Included in your packet is a site plan and narrative provided by the applicant. The site is currently unimproved and the site plan indicates several rows of trees with drip irrigation. Also proposed is an area with shrubs and aspen trees next to the existing fence bordering the park of Lot 1, McGrady Acres. The site plan shows the location of a dumpster, portable restroom, gravel loading and parking areas, and the point of sale. The applicant intends to sell primarily ball and burlap (B&B) trees and all areas where vehicles pass over would receive crushed rock or gravel to mitigate dust and mud from leaving the site. A series of 6' tall by 10' wide sections of portable chain link fences (with green mesh netting) would border the north property line and east property line - setback 10' from the existing sidewalk. The property is located within the 'Neighborhood Commercial' land -use district, which allows for the following uses: retail stores, professional offices, car washes, restaurants, accessory apartments, and churches. Since a nursery is not an enumerated allowed use and the proposed use is temporary in nature, a Special Review Use (SRU) is required to operate this use in this location. Criteria for Review According to section 17.48.040 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following criteria when evaluating an application for a Special Review Use permit: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision, Special Review Use Permit - Tree Sales March 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4 1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code. This application would not be in compliance with some of the off street parking requirements (i.e. parking to be open to aisle or driveway of width of 24', all parking shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete); however it is for a temporary basis and could be re -reviewed after one year of operation to ensure a functional land use. 2. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan. Although the subject property was not within Town limits at the time of adoption, the following policies and goals generally appear to support this application: Policy A3.6 - Encourage development throughout the community, where compatible with existing neighborhoods, to more efficiently use land. Goal B1- Enhance the Town's role as a principal, year-round residential community and regional commercial center. 3. Whether the proposed use Is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may be expressed In appearance, architectural scale and features, site design and the control of any adverse impacts Including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. Potential adverse impacts such as noise, dust, lighting, and safety appear to have been addressed within this application. As presented in staff's recommended motion, the applicant would be held to the specified hours of operation (7am - 6pm), and there is no outdoor lighting proposed. Gravel and crushed rock would be installed in all areas where vehicles operate in order to cut back the. possibility of dust leaving the property. The existing wood fence bordering the Eaglebend Drive cul-de-sac and the proposed chain link fencing should provide a functional separation of land -uses. 4. That the granting of the special review use requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code: A. The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. This application would, for a provisional period, allow a land use and commerce that is not currently available as a stand alone business within the Town of Avon. The Municipal Code states the Neighborhood Commercial District intention is "to provide sites for commercial facilities and services for the principal benefit of residents of the community and also to highway -oriented convenience commercial needs." B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision, Special Review Use Permit - Tree Sales March 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4 It is questionable whether long term economic, cultural or social community benefits would be experienced with the approval of this application. However, the potential adverse impacts of this permit appear to be mitigated and this use could be conditioned and reviewed after one year of operation to ensure a compatible land -use. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. As stated above, some of the public goals from the Town Comprehensive Plan would be maintained if this application were approved. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 06-06, thereby conditionally approving this Special Review Use application. Recommended Motion "I move to approve Resolution 06-06 to approve a SRU permit for a nursery/tree sales business on Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. The permit is approved for the 2006 calendar year and must be re -reviewed for 2007. 2: If the conditions of the permit become the responsibility of a person other than the applicant (Paul Doughty), the office of Community Development must be notified in writing, identifying the new person or entity responsible for maintaining the conditions of the permit. AMC 17.48:020(d). 3. Hours of operation will be lam - 6pm, with no audible noise at other hours. 4. No lighting is approved for the property, except for an internal light inside the temporary point of sale office. 5. This use may not be modified, enlarged or expanded in ground area, unless such modification receives the prior approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. AMC 17.48.050. 5. No sales will take place until all site improvements are installed (including all gravel, office, toilet, etc.) and Community Development inspects the site for compliance with the site plan. 6. A business and sales tax license must be obtained prior to the start of business. 7. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval." Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 3, McGrady Acres Subdivision, Special Review Use Permit - Tree Sales March 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 4 A copy of this complete SRU application is available for review during normal business hours in the office of Community Development. If you have any questions regarding this or any other project or community development issue, please call me at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner I Exhibits: A - Site Plan and narrative, dated February 13, 2006 B - Public Comment Letters C - Resolution No. 06-05 Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 EXHIBIT A EMD -CM LLC dba TREES OF COLORADO LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE February 13, 2006 Matt Pielsticker, Planner I Town of Avon Avon, Colorado RE: Special Review Use Application Lots 3&6, McGrady Acres Subdivision Z-PU2005-5 Matt: RECEIVED FEB 1 3 L006 Community Development This letter is intended to be a narrative of operations for the above referenced Special Review Use Application. The operations for Trees of Colorado will include a retail nursery operation. Our emphasis will be the sale of ball and burlap trees (B&B) including Colorado Spruce, various Pines, Aspen, B&B Shrubs and various Deciduous Trees. There are no existing improvements on the property, except for the wood fence along the border with the Eagle Bend Park and the gravel entrance. The trees will be arranged in approximately 16' wide rows, mounded with a combination of soil and wood chips. The irrigation for the trees will be drip lines in order to minimize run-off and to conserve water. In between each set of rows, will be an approximate 12' wide tree access area for customers and equipment to access trees. The trees will be loaded with either a skid loader or comparable equipment. This area will utilize small gravel in order to mitigate dust. A loading area will be west of the main entrance. This area will be used to unload delivery trucks as well as loading customer vehicles. A dumpster for debris, a portable point of sale office, equipment storage and restroom will be in the area at tlue West;'southwest of tilt properly. This urea ��ill utilize 1" gravel in Order to mitigate dust. Currently, there is a wood privacy fence on the west side of the property. Fence panels will be used along the north property line as well as 10' set back from the east sidewalk. The fence will be covered ,%r ith a green screening fabric. 322 East Beaver Creek Blvd., Avon, CO 81620 (shipping) PO Box 640, Vail, CO 81658 (mailing) phone: (970) 470-2939 fax: (970) 845-6380 EMD -CM TREES OF L AND S CAPE AND LLC dba COLORADO D M A I N T E N A N C E A sign will be proposed (separately) for the southeast corner of the property. This will be a landscaped area to highlight the sign. No lights will be used on the property beyond inside the point of sale office. No winter retail operations are anticipated (Christmas trees, etc). Hours of operation will generally be no earlier than lam and will generally be no later than 6pm. This past season, a sale of trees with greatly reduced prices was held. The maximum number of vehicles at one time was 5 cars. We are including sufficient space in the plan for up to 8 cars, including employee parking. Please contact me with any additional questions you may have. Sincerely Pau �Dougjht Project Manager, Trees of Colorado 970-470-2939 970-748-8900 fax p a u l d o u ghty(t&raercre e k. c o m RECEIVED FEB 1 3 2006 cUmmunity 0011vlowrtPnt 322 East Beaver Creek Blvd., Avon, CO 81620 (shipping) PO Box 640, Vail, CO 81658 (mailing) phone: (970) 470-2939 fax: (970) 845-6380 EXHIBIT B JOHN AND CAROL KRUEGER P.O. Box 1551 Fail, Colorado 81658 (regular mail) (970) 949-1198 (H) (970) 949-9115 (W) ckrueger@vail.net February 3, 2006 VIA E- MAIL Recording Secretary, Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Re: Lots 3 and 6, McGrady Acres Dear Sir/Madam: RECEIVED FEB 0 3 2006 Community Development I am writing in connection with the Special Review Use application on file for a landscaping nursery for retail sales. As a neighboring property owner whose residence is a few houses away and also as an owner of property in McGrady Acres, we have no issue with this use being made of the property. I only have several concerns about the material submitted for the application since it very general: 1. What does "B & B" mean on the drawing? I see no structures and so assume there are none planned to conduct sales. 2. I am not sure where the fence between the property and the adjacent cul de sac ends, but it does not extend fully around the boundary of the cul de sac (this has always been a concern of mine). I cannot tell where the fence ends on the submitted site plan, but I am concerned about the drive extending to the rear of the property and the placement of parking along the boundary closest to the neighboring residential properties. Please confirm there is a fence along this part of the property. I see no reason why the activities causing visual, noise and other impacts cannot be placed closer to Post Boulevard. 3. I am interested in the parameters of the approval, i.e., whether there is intention to operate at night and what kind of lighting would be necessary for this (I am thinking of Christmas time and the giant Santa on top of the building in Eagle -Vail and whether that could happen here and be illuminated for miles around). I know that the use would need to comply with all applicable codes but the Town can place conditions on a special use that are appropriate for this residential area. I will not be in town on the hearing date of February 7, 2006 but will be interested in the results of the meeting. Thank you for allowing this input. Very truly yours, Carol Krueger Page 1 of 1 Matt Pielsticker From: Greg Bartock [bbivail®comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 200612:19 PM To: Matt Pielsticker Subject: 2/7/06 Matt, I am home owner living next to lots 3&6, McGrady Acres on EagleBend Dr. I have some concerns on Tracer Creek proposal for the landscaping business. 1. Noise control of equipment and trucks 2. Dust control 3. Shortage of trees planted at the end- of EagleBend Dr that was promised in the original contract of the cult a sack construction. Tracer Creek were to donate and plant additional trees would be great. Greg 2/10/2006 /ATOWN CENTER WEST _ r main street public Improvements AVON TRANSIT CENTER TO: Avon Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Norman Wood, PE Avon Town Engineer Steven Spears, RLA Design Workshop, Inc. Steven Spears of Design Workshop and Dan Koelliker of Beadin Ganze will be presenting the proposed snowmelt design of the Avon Transit Center. The presentation will discuss the following questions: 1. What is the proposed isolated snowmelt system? And why was this system selected compared to others? 2. What are the spatial requirements and energy fficiency of the propose system compared to others? 3. What are the requirements of the International Mechanical Code that is driving specific requirements such as air intake, venting, etc.? TOWN TCENTER WEST & 7 main street public improvements AVON TRANSIT CENTER TO: Avon Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Norman Wood, PE Avon Town Engineer Steven Spears, RLA Design Workshop, Inc. In the Spring of 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the design for the Avon Transit Center with conditions. One specific condition included providing immediate snowmelt for the entire hardscape area of the transit center. Design Workshop presented the conditions to Council in which snowmelt remained an issue to be further designed. Since then, discussions have occurred with staff, Design Workshop and Council on the environmental aspects and energy use of the entire TCW redevelopment. Dan Richardson, Director of the Canary Initiative in Aspen, was brought in by Design Workshop to introduce and discuss the importance of energy efficiency and alternative solutions of energy use for the TCW redevelopment. Per the direction of the Town, Design Workshop is completing the construction drawings for the transit center, specifically with three bid alternates related to snowmelt systems. The three bid-altemates will include: I. Provide a full snowmelt design. This would include approximately 450 SF underground vault with appropriate access, three smokestacks, approximately 9' tall and 14" in diameter, air intake louver system and proper health/safety criteria. 2. Snowmelt tubing provided, but no mechanical infrastructure. The intent would be to connect the transit center snowmelt into a master boiler system, possibly located in the proposed parking structure. 3. No Snowmelt The purpose of this discussion should focus on item # 1. Design Workshop has prepared numerous options for the location of the underground vault and have tested them against their criteria (listed below). Out orthat process and working with the Town staff, four options have been further refined and are the subject of discussion. Option #1 was presented in isolation to Council last month. Council expressed concern of the smokestacks proximity to The Seasons building. A suggestion came out of Council to look at possible locations within the turn around island, in the same area as the environmental art design. Following the Council meeting, options 2.3 and 4 were developed by Design Workshop and Town Stab'. The purpose ofdiscussion is to review the four options and provide a recommendation for the preferred option. r As mentioned. Design Workshop prepared criteria in evaluating all of the options discussed since the condition was made by PZ last spring. The criteria for locating the isolated snowntelt vault includes: I. Should be located on Town property (with the applicable sub -surface rights) 2. Should be located to minimize existing underground utilities or drainage systems 3. Should be located to allow for easy access by the public works dept. 4. Should he located where automobiles/transit will not be driving 5. Should be located in a place where hardscape occurs, minimizing additional construction costs (planting over structure costs significantly more than hardscape) 6. Should be located in an area where pedestrians will not dwell (ie. immediately next to a bus stop, or in proximity to retail or residential units) Based on these criteria, Design Workshop has evaluated the four alternatives. Option One: PRO 1. It is located on Town property 2. Does not impact existing underground utilities or drainage systems (refer to civil engineer letter) 3. Access will be easy for daily service by Public Works 4. Automobiles and transit will not be driving over the vault structure making structural requirements less. 5. Located completely in hardscape area 6. Located further away from any retail or residential unit than any other option 7. The, location is off to thq edge making the required smoke stacks and guardrail/handrail are easier to disguise 8. Future connection to a master system will be easier (if Town decides to connect it at a later date) 9. Less planting than in other alternatives, therefore the planting plan will be less disturbed by the (teat of the smoke stacks. 10. Landscape will buffer it from the Seasons driveway. There is room for planting that is outside the disturbance area and the sight triangle view plane 11. Easy access in the event a significant part of the system needs replaced CON I. The proximity of The Seasons driveway entrance (although we are able to have foreground planting to buffer the view outside of the 10' radius landscape disturbance area) 2. Some proposed plant material will be disturbed from the (teat of the smoke stacks 3. Cannot be completely screened in the winter 4. Adjacent to Benchmark Court and "passer-by" area Options Two and Three: PRO I. It is located on Town property 2. Access will be easy for daily service by Public Works (Option 93 creates more of challenge) 3. Automobiles and transit will not be driving over the vault structure A. Located awav from any pedestrian. trnflic CON I. Approximately 20'-25' closer to Lot 61 residential than Option "I distance to The Seasons building 2. Requires relocation of electric, gas, telephone and cable tv. The individual utility companies, with the exception of the electric, are responsible far relocating their facilities when located in public ROW. Additional coordination and timing will be required during construction to get the utility companies to relocate. (See Civil Engineer letter) 3. Located in a planting area. Therefore, the depth of excavation is deeper due to required extra area for soil depth, root control barrier, insulation, water proofing membrane and drain board. Vlore intense structural design for the vault will be required due to the weight design of soil. 4. Heat from smoke stacks will disturb a higher percentage of proposed plant material as part of the environmental art piece 5. The proposed location is a highly visible arca from many directions (including riding in a bus). The required smoke stacks and guardrailfhandrail will visually disturb the environmental art piece to a point that a redesign of this area should probably be considered 6. Cannot be screened in the winter 7. Future connection to a master system will be more difficult (if Town decides to connect it at a later date) 8. Will most likely create a higher construction cost due to extra depth and required structural design 9. Access is more difficult if a significant part of the system needs replaced 10. Option #2, the required smoke stacks and guardrail/handrail is immediately adjacent to the bus travel lane. A concern is that it could be hit if the bus clipped a corner or went over the curb. Option Four: PRO 1. It is located on Town property 2. Access will be easy for daily service by Public Works 3. Located is away from any pedestrian traffic 4. The proposed planting plan will be less disturbed by the heat of the smoke stacks, except Option - #1 CON 1. Approximately 20'-25' closer to Lot 61 residential than Option # I distance to The Seasons building 2. Requires relocation of electric, gas, telephone and cable tv. The individual utility companies, with the exception of the electric, are responsible for relocating their facilities when located in public ROW. Additional coordination and timing will be required during construction to get the utility companies to relocate. (See Civil Engineer letter) 3. Located in a planting area and in driveway aisle. Therefore, the depth of excavation is deeper due to required extra area for soil depth, root control barrier, insulation, water proofing membrane and drain board. More intense structural design for the vault will be required due to the weight design of soil and to carry transit loads. 4. The proposed location is a highly visible area from many directions (including riding in a bus). The required smoke stacks and guardrail/handrail will visually disturb the environmental an piece 5. Cannot be screened in the winter 6. Future connection to a master system will be more difficult (if Town decides to connect it at a later date) 7. Will most likely create a higher construction cost due to extra depth and required structural design 8. Access is more difficult if a significant part of the system needs replaced 9. The required smoke stacks and guardrail: handrail is immediately adjacent to the bus travel lane. A concern is that it could be hit if the bus clipped a corner or went over the curb. CONCLUSION: The Town Council reviewed Option One. In this review. Council expressed concern of the smokestacks proximity to The Seasons building. The analysis of the three new options present more issues than Option One. Design Workshop's recommendation is Option One because of the minimal amount of impacts and benefits associated with its location. ATTACHMENTS: • Perspective Drawing • Transit Center Context (site plan) • Snowmelt Options I, 2, & 3 • Snowmelt Vault Details (cross sections) • Letter from Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc, dated November 14, 2006 •r a U Ong Q 0 teals as apl�0]aa1M1 CO m .a.te eaml.a p ala, al +pn, Raiaaa unq aauaivp bv� H O Al G C P. 9 , �' ?Jit • H O Al G C P. roll ll : :, d v i 4 S I s 4 LL p1` p in G WW 12 I s •d Q CL a` m Al 11 A- \ a ou�cwpoww / / wean tsnxau upp aaunoq B . ` L.Zs / / 12:5113NONOLLdO_ y V c b� d9 I N C N k �f t roll ll : :, onA �� designTIA ��►'® Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc. SURVEYING • CIVIL ENGINEERING • ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING • MAPPING November 14, 2006 Steven Spears Design Workshop 120 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Civil Engineering Impacts of Snow Melt Facility Options Dear Steven, I have completed an evaluation of the civil engineering impacts of the proposed snowmelt vault locations which you sent on 11/3/06. 1 have summarized my findings below. The primary impacts of the various snowmelt vault locations are related to utility relocation. To provide a frame of reference for evaluating these impacts I will begin with the utility relocations required by the current design which is without any snowmelt infrastructure. There cutrently exists telephone and cable TV pedestals in the proposed Benchmark Court, adjacent to and serving The Seasons. The equipment supported by these pedestals will have to be relocated into a proposed underground vault. This is the only utility impact anticipated as part of the current design. The proposed snowmelt vault option one location would have no additional utility impacts. From a civil engineering perspective this option has the I&ast complications. Additionally, this option places the boiler flue pipes and stairwell handrails well away from the roadway. The proposed snowmelt vault options two, three and four locations all require the relocation of mainline power, mainline gas, mainline telephone, and mainline cable TV. Coordination with the respective utility companies will be required to complete designs for these relocations. The cost for relocating these utilities and the potential related service outages should be a factor in evaluating these options. Additionally, options two and four would place boiler flue pipes and stairwell handrails near the roadway which could pose a traffic safety issue. I hope that this information helps with the decision process. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Stephen L. Miller, P.E. Project Manager P 0. Box 409 • 1286 Chambers Ave. • Suite 200 • Eagle, Colorado 81631 • Phone: (970) 3286368 • Fax: (970) 328.1035 0 J re. a� C : Staff Report ,�I MASTER SIGN PROGRAM VON C O L O R A D O December 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date November 28, 2006 Project type Sign Design Legal description Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Zoning Town Center (TC) Address 15 Benchmark Road Introduction Nick Campbell, an employee with The Sign Gallery, proposes to replace all "WestStar Bank" signs with "US Bank" signs at the property on the corner of Avon Road and Benchmark Road. Most of the existing signage consists of backlit reverse pan channel type signs. These signs would be replaced with either channel lettering signs or box cabinet type signs. There are no freestanding signs with this proposal. Attached to this report is a site plan,_keyed photographs of all existing building signage, and photo simulations of the new sign designs. You will also find a square footage breakdown for all seven proposed building mounted signs and color samples for the red and blue colors. Master Sign Programs As a reminder, Master Sign Programs act as a Sign Code for a project and allows the sign administrator to approve specific signs that are in compliance with the MSP without requiring subsequent approvals by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Typically, all signs require individual approval by the Planning Commission. Sign Programs are encouraged by the Sign Code for larger projects. Section 15.28.080.16 from the Avon Municipal Code states "sign programs shall be compatible with the site and building and should provide for a similarity of types, sizes, styles and materials for signs within a project." Additionally, "several alternatives for signage should be included in the program so as not to be so restrictive as to eliminate individuality." Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Sion Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing proposed sign designs: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, US Bank Master Sign Program December 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 3 1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to be constructed and the site upon it is to be located. The materials for the proposed signs are appropriate and suitable for this project. Aluminum and acrylic are typical materials for these sign types. Installing the signs in their proposed locations above ground level may not be appropriate. 2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements. This property is located at the northwest corner of round -a -bout #4 at the Benchmark Road and Avon Road intersection. There is high traffic in this area with a mix of residential, commercial, retail, and office land -uses. While not on the planned "Main Street" this property serves as a gateway to the Town Center West district of Town. 3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement. The Sign Code encourages "quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior -lit, individual plexiglass -faced letters; or three dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged." The quality of the proposed materials in this sign program are consistent with the Sign Code and existing signs in the area. 4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or neighboring property. Some of the signage appears redundant. For example, there are three signs (#5, #6, #7) visible from Avon Road totaling 94.5 square feet. The building's new brand identity could receive the same exposure with fewer signs. It is important to note that Sign #6 and Sign #7 are largely obscured by mature landscaping along Avon road, despite the fact that they are proposed 20' above the ground floor. 5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired. There should be no monetary values impaired with the proposed MSP. Having three tower signs (#1, #2, and #5) is redundant and could impair aesthetics when there are other building mounted signs visible from the roadways. 6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with the Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project. The type, height, quality, and size of these signs generally comply with the Sign Code. 7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation. The primary orientation of the proposed signage is to automobile traffic. Discussion The amount of signage being proposed with this application appears excessive, and the same amount of recognition can be achieved with fewer signs. Despite the fact that the building locations for signs #1, #2, #5, #6, and #7 (those on the tower feature and above second level windows facing Avon Road) were approved by a prior Planning Town of Avon Community Development '(970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 J Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, US Bank Master Sign Program December 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 3 Commission, this area of the building does not appear to be a necessary location for signage. According to the Sign Code (AMC 15.28.060 (h) "on multistory buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited to the ground level." Therefore, staff would recommend limiting signage above the ground level of this property. Recommendation Staff recommends Conditional Approval of the Master Sign Program application for US Bank on Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to approve the Master Sign Program application for US Bank on Lot 56, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. Signs #1, #2, #5, and #7 are not approved due to conflict with Municipal Code section 15.28.060 (h) and conflict with Review criteria 4. 2. All damage to the building from sign removal will be professionally repaired prior to complete installation of new signs. 3. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748.4413 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respeclully submitted Matt Pielsticker Planner I Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Cobank Location: 946-03 Site Plan PK R Bank Buildingcc _ 9 OB R ■ l7 04� 10 R_ R 90,8 F05 R " 01 R R R [2 03 LR~1 R . ,1 z I W. Benchmark Rd. _� Y N ACTION R=REPLACE ,J CODES K=REMOVE 1 !& C=CUSTOM I I IND, DILATES I INDICATES L =LEAVE SIGN PHOTOS N=NEw icon m..my arui«. B [Mbank o Location: 946-03 Overview Photos Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3 Photo d . '. K f •w:cV3 .Si Photo 7 Photo 5 Photo 6 Photo 8 Photo 9 Photo 10 Photo t l Photo 12 embank #946-03 15 W. Benchmark Rd. Avon, CO Icon IJenlity Sa'.uLom embank Sign Test: comments: �Y y J I Recommendation Comments: SMIE, AS ORIG11VAL t kL aj ��Stp6 Sfgn?last ilr�'SI• 9 fir };` r�. vim_ t, � a M WM q41L51A�r Jj:Af! Viii:'-•. Location: 05 Existing Signage: Existing Sign Description: Reverse Cluumel Letters Height: W Width: 0" Depth: 0" Letter l leight: Is" Overall 11 eight above grade•. II. Face Mlaterial: 0" Wall Material: 11" Available Height: T-0" Available Width: 14' -3 - Illuminated: Yes Double Face: No Proposed Signage: Sign Type: BIL -9 Action: Replace Description: Wall Cabinet Ground Height: .� Height: Width: Max Sq Ft: Mill Sq Ft: 'l Illumination: Wall Repair: 31-0., 9'-f0.. A -M :eia VID Urne: 08-2.1-06 17 icon SATIV, AS' OKIGINAL (Mbank Location: 946-03_— -- --- Sign \b. 03,04 Existing Signage: Existing Sign Descriplim, r1111mu umt /lute Lettert Comments: Proposed Signage: Sign Type: P/N-/1Blue Letters Actinic Replace Description: Plate Lettere Ground Height: JE ,above grade: Height: 1'-0114" 1Vidth: Face Material: 0" a, ! Min Sq Ft: N/.d W. pOp. Wall Repair: all Mi Width: r i�(«,'k.:t1b`�''rt',+ S',>+. , a st.+:-^t •' ;>yr^-_'�..tl: Available neigh(: e 2 - .-...,.-.,-..; ..,.. - _... ---- ..-t - —,-,. _... _•--.-- . ...-... Available Width: Depth: a:• _. - s - q i- a` t r ar, r-� No Double Face: No _ Letter Ileighl: 10" ' - 1. '/.• 1 Overall height Comments: Proposed Signage: Sign Type: P/N-/1Blue Letters Actinic Replace Description: Plate Lettere Ground Height: JE ,above grade: Height: 1'-0114" 1Vidth: Face Material: 0" a, ! Min Sq Ft: N/.d W. No Wall Repair: all Mi r i�(«,'k.:t1b`�''rt',+ S',>+. , a st.+:-^t •' ;>yr^-_'�..tl: Available neigh(: 4' -ll" - .-...,.-.,-..; ..,.. - _... ---- ..-t - —,-,. _... _•--.-- . ...-... Available Width: T -O" q i- a` t r Illuminated: No Double Face: No SignText: Comments: Comments: Proposed Signage: Sign Type: P/N-/1Blue Letters Actinic Replace Description: Plate Lettere Ground Height: NL'1 Height: 1'-0114" 1Vidth: 5'-4.7/4" Max Sq Fl: NM Min Sq Ft: N/.d Hlundnation: No Wall Repair: //!b Vale, 08.14-06 IV Rct; • 00-00-05 Y.Y icon SARTE AS /► L! 3bank AL Sign Text: Comments: Recommendation Comments: Location: 946 - Sign No. 116 Existing Signage: Existing Sign Descri pli un: Reve, sr Orann, I I ern•r. llefght: 11•• Width: 11.. Depth: D" Letter Ileight: IN 1A Overall Ileight above grade: (1" Face Ntaleriol: I1.• Wail'Vlalerial: ll" Available Ileight: T -O" Available Width: 23. 0" Illuminated: Ycc Double Face: No Proposed Signage: Sign Type: US! -30 Rhrr Leurr'.r Action: Replace Description: Cluuurel Leur•rr Ground llcigh l: ,d/rl Ileight: JO•, \IazSgFl: +V/,A Min s(t Ft: ,vil IIIn1111119tin11: YPS Wall Repair. !!i!) Dare 68-24 -66 11 icon SAIAV', AS OKIGINAL %bank DLBnNo. t�a6_u3 Sign No. 117 t Salk Catel mm i Sign Text: Comments: Continents: Existing Signage: Existing Sign Description: Revery Channel lxnery Height: US'I-.iORlueLeiters Width: D" Depth: G Letter Ileight: N/A" IV/11 Overall Height Illumination: above grade: 0" TRU Face Material: 0" Nall Material: 0" Available Height: T O" Available Width: 23'-0" Illuminated: Yes Double Face: No Proposed Signage: Sign Type: US'I-.iORlueLeiters Action: Replace Description: Channel Letters Groundiieight: NIA Height: 30.. Width: 13'--4 314 Max Sq Ft: .Val Alin Sq Fl: IV/11 Illumination: 14`s Wall Hepair: TRU � n P Dale: 08-24-06 /1 icon) Rei: OR -29-06 7'/ :a,.n, c........ F embank Location: 946-03 Sign No. 08, 09 Existing Signage: Existing Sign Description: Door Un %-I Height.- W Width: 011 Depth: 0" Letter Height: N/A" Overall Height ubove grade: 111 Face Material- 0" Wall Material- Available Height: N/A" Available Width: 30" Sign Text: Comments: Recommendation Comments: 9 314" I I �tcl� N 2� WYYYY Y�.ill'.1rN 1/2' KT-1-Mrm M M mr48 Illuminated: No Double Face: No Proposed Signage: Sign Type. Dorn rine! Action: Replace Description: Vim'I ropy Ground Height: NIII Height: f0 Width: 9314 Max Sit Ft: IV/A Min Sq Ft: :\YA Illumination:\" Wall Repair: Dore: OS -24.06 I! Rev.: 08.29.1/6 17 [Mbank Location946-03Sign No. 10 Sign Text: Comments: Comments: F07M 0 0 U 7 N z' C7 � M J� a• M 0 Existing Signage: Existing Sign Ret.: OR -29-04 fl Description: Window Ifnvl Height: 01. Width: N/A Depth: 01, Letter Height: N/A" - Overall Height 1 above grade. II Face Material: 0" Nall Material: 0" Available Height: N/A" Available width: 36" Illuminated: No Double Face: No Proposed Signage: Sign Type: Door vinvl Action: Replace Description: 15u 0 rapy Ground Height: 'VIII Ret.: OR -29-04 fl Height: 10 Width: 9 J14 Max Sq Ft: N/A Min Sq Ft: 'VIII Illumination: Na Null Repair. +\a Dare: 08-24-00 /1 icon Ret.: OR -29-04 fl I.....n s0...... 0 _�C_ 5) . 6) 33 5 -7) 33.'7c' &Abri`: AS ORIG11VA% E i LANDLORD APPROVAL SIGN DESIGN DOCUMENTS To: Cynthia Cartney, Vice President U.S. Bank Corporate Real Estate 2800 East Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 From: Avon 56, LP P.O. Box 1210 Gypsum, CO 81637 Project: U.S. Bank Sign Conversion Re: Landlord Approval I have reviewed the attached sign design documents and, Khave initialed ouch page indicating my approval of the sign design documents es submitted. lir addition, I hereby give notice to the sign permitting authority that I approve the sign design documents as submitted. I nuthorize the sign vendor under contract with U.S. Bancorp to make application for and secure tho necessary permit(s), remove the existing signs, install the new approved signs and repair any resulting visible wall damage [ ] I have made notations on the sign design documents indicating my concerns. Please address these concerns and submit revised sign design documents for my review and approval. [ ] I have attached a letter with additional information for your consideration. BMBC - Blk 2, Lot 56 pot ss Boundaries HEAR1Fof the VALLEY 4 I I e e e e November 29, 2006 Mr. Dan Leary, Chairman Traer Creek Metro District PO Box 640 Vail, CO 81620 Aron... a smoke-free canounnily Post Ogce (Jar 975 400 Benchmark Road Aron. Colorado 81620 970.7.18 4000 970-949-91j9 1.7n• Reitzv recognized uvm:aron.ax SUBJECT: Town of Avon -Village at Avon Design Review Board Interface Dear Mr. Leary, The Council is committed to improving and refreshing the interface and communications with The Village at Avon. Part of that effort is to restructure the Design Review aspect of Avon's relationship with the Village DRB. As provided by Section 4.13, that DRB shall include "...a member of the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission designated by the Town..." The Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission has selected a new appointee to the DRB. In doing so we used the following criteria: 1) The Village DRB appointee will report to both Council and P&Z on all meetings and topics that they have interfaced -on with the Village DRB or staff. This may be verbal or written with the objective of achieving greater awareness and cohesiveness between P&Z and Council. 2) The appointee will also be one of the P&Z members of the Council Community Development Subcommittee which is a joint planning and liaison group between P&Z and the Council. This duality of role will strengthen communication within the town and hence with The Village. 3). The Council determined that the appointee will be a "design professional." We believe that our goal of an improved interface with The Village is best served by this professional requirement. Next steps in the evolution of The Village may include their greater participation in the Town Center planning process, their preparation of Design Guidelines for the next planning areas to be developed and their greater use of professional planning resources. The Town DRB Member must have the skills and experience to successfully interact with The Village in their work and must be able to coordinate Village plans with the Avon Comprehensive Plan and Town Center Plans. We believe that this will be foster a better understanding between us. The Planning & Zoning Commission nominated and the Council approved Chris Green to replace Terry Smith our current DRB appointee. This change is effective immediately. We look forward to an improved design review process. CC: Mr. Magnus Lindholm, Traer Creek LLC Mr. Chris Evans, Avon Planning & Zoning Chairman Mr. Larry Brooks, Avon Town Manager Mr. Chris Green, Avon Planning & Zoning Commissioner Mr. John Dunn, Avon Town Attorney TCMD Village DRB Page 2 of 2