Loading...
PZC Minutes 090710-.HEART of the Vq(;GF.4' i I. Call to Order (5:OOpm) Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for September 7, 2010 Avon Town Council Chambers The meeting was called to order at 5:04pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present wit III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street • Approval of the August 17, 2010 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Prince moved to approve the minutes, as amended. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and the motion passed with a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Green abstained due to his absence from the August 17, 2010 meeting. VI. Master Sign Programs Seasons at Avon Property Location: Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 137 Benchmark Road Applicant/ Owner: Matthew Trasen, Avon Partners ll, LLC Description: Review of anew Master Sign Program for the Seasons building consistent with the recent exterior modifications to the structure and site. Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted the staff report, specifically the discrepancies between the submitted sign program and both the West Town Center Investment Plan and the Sign Code requirements. Jared explained the rationale for Staff's recommendation (approval, with conditions) to the Commission. The chairman opened the meeting for Commissioner questions of Staff. Commissioner Struve asked what implications the West Town Center District Investment Plan are on this application. Jared responded that the property is located within the district boundaries and is therefore subject to the guidelines including signage regulations. The plan is meant to guide all development in this district. Commissioner Green asked if Staff was clear on what type of sign the tenant reverse pan - channel was. Staff replied yes. Matt Trasen explained that the reverse pan -channel lettering does not actually light the individual letters, it only halo backlights the letters. Commissioner Green wanted to know If Staff was comfortable with this submittal and the types of signs included with the new MSP. Jared responded in the affirmative, citing reasons including the proposed variation sign types, colors and designs. Commissioner Prince questioned what is in the West Town Center Plan regarding 2nd level tenant signage. Jared responded that there is nothing specifically prohibiting second level sings in the West Town Center District Investment Plan; rather, Staffs comments and recommendation with regard to eliminating second level signage is a matter of consistency with other recently approved sign programs approved in Town. Commissioner Goulding requested clarification on a submittal requirement for this application, as conditioned from the previously approved design application. Did the condition state that the program must be approved, or only submitted? Matt Gannett stated the condition requires approval of a sign program. Commissioner Goulding asked whether more or less light would be experienced with, the proposed tenant signs compared to an indirect, exterior lit sign option. Matt Trasen addressed the Commissioner's question and stated the second level on Main Street is an important piece of the program. Mr. Trasen further explained that the second level at each end of the building has separate entrances, and a separate tenant could occupy those spaces as constructed. In terms of lighting, the main entrances on the north entrance have goose -neck lights installed. Mr. Trasen commented on signs 11 and 12, and explained that those signs were placed there in order to capture the presently significant traffic around the building. He explained that sign 12 can be setback 10' and they have a survey to verify this sign location. Commissioner Patterson ran through the conditions of approval that Staff recommended with the applicant. The applicant clarified that they would like to retain second level signage and the ability to keep the monument sign, as proposed. Commissioner Patterson was not overly concerned with second level signage. Commissioner Green felt that there was not enough creativity built into the program. The Commission had a discussion related to the second story signage proposed on the building. Commissioner Patterson asked Staff if there would need to be any modification to the program to allow for second level signage. Staff clarified the proposal includes such a modification. Commissioner Patterson said the ground floor would house the tenants that require signage and the second floor tenants would typically be less retail based and more likely to be a CPA or attorney's office. Commissioner Roubos felt that the east and west building mounted signs were huge and redundant. She was content with the port cochere signs to identify the building as proposed. Commissioner Green expressed concern that all of the tenant signs were to be surface mounted signs. Looking through the West Town Center District Investment Plan there are examples of 3D signs that might help to make for a cool main street. He also pointed out that there was no allowance for any type of window signage in the program as proposed. Again, Commissioner Green stated his desire to allow for creative signage, and to not preclude it. Commissioner Struve commended the applicant for taking a very difficult building and making it look a lot better. He had no problem with the monument signs as long as they were not in the setback. Commissioner Struve also was in agreement with the sign on Benchmark as well. Commissioner Goulding commented on the monument signs and asked if there is room for more than six tenant signs on the monument signs. The applicant explained the nature of the tenant panels and stated that they could possibly be on a rotating calendar for tenants if there was not enough space. This was common with other properties the owner managed. Commissioner Roubos asked if the monument signs were really appropriate, and expressed concern with the possible result of over -signage. Commissioner Goulding stated Signs E1 or E2 are not needed and inappropriate. He said there seem to be plenty on the north and south sides of building and there is not a need for these additional signs. PA Motion: Commissioner Green moved to approve the application with the following conditions: 1. No individual tenant signage is permitted on the eastern monument sign (12). It must be demonstrated that this sign is setback at least ten (10) feet from all property lines prior to permit; 2. All first floor tenant signs be modified to remove the non -lit option as well as modify the signage specifications to require external illumination; 3. Tenants that occupy both a first and second story unit shall only receive a first story sign; 4. Tenants that occupy a second story unit only shall receive a sign on the second story; 5. Revise the language for tenant signage to encourage three dimensional signs (i.e. blades and/or dimensional creative signs) per E.10: General Sign Requirements of the West Town Center Investment Plan. These signs shall be reviewed by the PZC and the Town may, at its discretion, waive application fees for review.; and 6. Revise the MSP amendment to remove building identifications signs E1 and E2. And with the following finding: 1. The reverse pan channel letters meet the intent of externally illuminated criteria within section EA 0: General Sign Requirements of the West Town Center Investment Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote. VII. Special Review Use Mountain Montessori School Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 77 Metcalf Rd Applicant: Martha Teien / Owner: BBG Holding Corporation Description: Review of an expired Special Review Use (SRU) Permit for the existing Montessori preschool, located in a ground floor tenant space inside the commercial building currently located on the subject property with an adjacent outdoor play area on the lot, to continue operating the school. Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted the report and Staffs recommendation. Commissioner Green commented that he was comfortable with the approval to be written into perpetuity, but if ownership changes this must be re -reviewed. He felt that If conditions don't change, then this would not need to be re -reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Patterson asked that there be an expiration date. Commissioner Goulding said the drafted condition related to a re -review being triggered by a complaint should be re -worded to "the town may re -review" the application if a complaint is received. Commissioner Patterson was more comfortable with replacing drafted condition number 2 with the previous condition from Resolution 04-23 that limited the timeframe of approval since this was not a use by right. Chris Evans, representing the ownership of the building, addressed the Commission with a background of the use. Chris had a problem with condition number 2 as drafted. The state will be policing the site to verify that it is a safe property. He felt that the approval should be tied to the duration of ownership of "Mountain Montessori". He also said the first condition should be eliminated. Commissioner Green asked about the space -to -pupil ratio. Martha Teinen said that it is permitted to be a minimum of 30 sq. ft. per pupil. Additionally, the outdoor space requirement is 1,500 sq. ft. per 30 pupils. She stated that they have 4,500 sq. ft. and have the ability but not intent to house 40 children in their two classrooms. The Commission questioned how many employees they currently have. Martha responded that they currently have 20 students, and they would never even try to accommodate 40 children. The Chairman opened the public comment portion of the hearing. The written letter from Roger Benedict supporting the application was noted. No other comments from the public were received and the public comment portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Patterson clarified that the reason he would like a timeframe on the approval is because it is not a listed SRU in the IC zone district, and it was originally processed (and later approved) based on an interpretation, by the Planning Director at the time, that the subject use was similar enough to other allowed uses as an SRU in the IC district. Motion: Commissioner Struve moved to approve Resolution No. 10-04 based on the findings listed in the Staff report. He clarified that the conditional use shall be for Mountain Montessori only, in accordance with TOA statues. The motion was clarified to remove Martha's name from the resolution, and replace it with Mountain Montessori in the first whereas statement. Commissioner Struve stated that the use is subject to re -review after Ten (10) years from the date of the meeting. He also recommended that the Town refund the $500 for processing this application since the applicant attempted to contact Town Staff without success. Commissioner Green discussed the motion and cited the Findings as listed in the Staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Green and all other Commissioners were in agreement. The motion to approve Resolution 10-04, as amended, passed with a 7-0 vote. VIII. Other Business Discussion: The process by which an applicant can apply to construct two Single -Family Residences on a Duplex Lot in Wildridge and criteria to allow for such a change of unit type. Staff presented the memorandum to the Commission and received direction to draft criteria for a duplex -split PUD and Subdivision application to be incorporated into the new Title T Avon Development Code, and as contemplated in the memo and discussed during the meeting. IX. Adjourn 8:25pm W. Todd Goulding / / Chairper n Secretary 0