PZC Packet 030414March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – ECO Bus Shelter 1
Staff Report – Minor Design and Development Plan
March 4, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date February 27, 2014
Project type Avon Road Improvements
Zoning N/A – Public Right‐of‐Way
Address N/A – Adjacent to 75 Benchmark Road
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Manager
Introduction
The Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) will review a Minor Design and Development Plan application
for a new ECO bus shelter at Avon Station. The shelter would replace the existing shelter and be placed
adjacent to the Lettuce Shed path further to the north of the existing (temporary) location. Details of the
proposal are attached (Exhibit A) to this Staff Report in a letter from Jared Barnes, dated February 25, 2014.
This Staff Report summarizes the design review criteria and bus shelter design considerations.
Review Criteria
The PZC shall use the Development Plan and Design Review criteria as the basis for a decision on the
Application. Staff has provided a response to each mandatory review criteria below:
§7.16.080(f), Development Plan
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified
in §7.04.030, Purposes;
Staff Response: According to §.7.04.030(d), Development Code Purpose, Avon Municipal Code,
states that the Development Code is intended to “promote effective and economical mass
transportation and enhance effective, attractive and economical pedestrian opportunities.” This
application certainly enhances the experience with an attractive, more appropriately scaled
building that responds to local and regional ridership at this station.
Further, the Development Code is intended to “promote design which is compatible, functional,
practical and complimentary to Avon’s sub‐alpine environment. The design also marks an
improvement in design which is compatible and more complimentary to other improvements in the
vicinity.
(2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.090, Design Review.
Staff Response: The Application is in compliance with the review criteria for Design Review;
specifically, the design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community
(§7.16.080(f) (1). The overall landscape plan is found to be consistent with the character of other
public and private improvements in the community.
(3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2009) includes general guidelines for
transit facility designs and locations. This Plan acknowledges that “transfer centers” or “hubs” such
as Avon Station will need t be designed to match the passenger demand characteristcs and be
larger in size because of the number of passengers they must accommodate. This application
appears to respond to the current and future increased demands.
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – ECO Bus Shelter 2
The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2009) states that sign requirements vary from location to
location but should be compatible with other stop signs. This location will utilize the existing ECO
sign consistent with the West Town Center Guidelines. Additionally, ECO transit will likely utilize
‘next stop’ LED signage technology.
General design standards are included for bus shelters in Appendix D to the Comprehensive
Transportation Plan. For PZC’s consideration, the standards are attached to this report as Exhibit B.
(4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned
development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable;
Staff Response: There are no precedent plans or subdivision plats pertinent to the Benchmark
Road Right‐of‐Way.
(5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code,
including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map,
Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and
Staff Response: The Design Plan does not conflict with any Use Regulations or Development
Standards contained in the Development Code.
(6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to
roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services.
Staff Response: The Town and ECO Transit are set to engage in an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) related to this shelter for construction and continued maintenance.
§7.16.090(f), Design Review
(1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or,
where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole;
Staff Response: As stated above, this Application reinforces the character of other structures in the
vicinity with compatible materials and colors.
(2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development
Code; and
Staff Response: The design plan demonstrates compliance with the development and design
standards established in the Development Code.
(3) The design reflects the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive
Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents.
Staff Response: The design elements in this Application bring forward several of the long range
goals and design criteria form the Avon Comprehensive Plan. The improvements continue to define
Avon as a destination resort with a higher quality design elements. The design directly implements
policies from the Avon Comprehensive Plan, including Policy D.1.4 – Create a unified and cohesive
physical framework and community image by ensuring compatible…. streetscape furnishings,
signage, lighting, etc.
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – ECO Bus Shelter 3
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the PZC approve the Minor Design and Development Application for the new ECO
Bus Shelter, with the following finding and condition:
Finding:
1. The design meets the Development Plan review criteria outlined in §7.16.080(f), Development Plan,
Avon Municipal Code, as outlined in Matt Pielsticker’s February 27, 2014 Staff Report.
Condition:
1. The stop name on the structure will utilize Copperplate Gothic 33BC or Engravers MT; all caps
and/or big and small caps for font pursuant to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Attachments
A ‐ Letter and attachments from Jared Barnes, ECO Transit, Dated February 25, 2014
B – Comprehensive Transportation Plan – Exhibit D Excerpts
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
February 25, 2014
Matthew Pielsticker, AICP
Planning Manager
Town of Avon
One Lake Street, PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Town of Avon Bus Shelter Project
Matthew:
The Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (“ECO Transit”) is requesting approval of one (1)
bus shelter located within the Town of Avon, CO located at Avon Station. The bus shelter construction
project will further reinforce the work completed during two (2) recent studies adopted by ECO Transit:
The Local Spine – Circulator Bus System Feasibility Study (the “Spine Study”); and, the Hub and Park and
Ride Study (the “Hub Study”). These studies were finalized with the assistance of a countywide working
group of planners including the Town of Avon.
The Spine Study was performed in 2012 and suggested restructuring the existing bus routes to create a
system that was more efficient, frequent, and convenient. The system was instituted for the winter
schedule of 2013‐2014. During the installation of the new system, ECO Transit began another study, the
Hub Study. This study, performed during 2013, surveyed the new system’s use of existing facilities and
identified which were inadequate and needed improvements, sufficient and needed no improvements,
or underutilized and should be removed. This study has yet to be formally adopted by ECO Transit, but
some of the findings of the study have identified shelter improvements such as those being proposed to
the Town of Avon.
The Hub Study also sets forth standards for bus shelter improvements. These standards include two (2)
different shelter sizes (small and large), a revised shelter design, ADA improvements, and options for
additional improvements such as, bike racks and trash receptacles. The new shelter designs are
illustrated in the attached images, but are highlighted with a simple shed roof form, metal roofing,
corrugated metal siding or textured colored concrete, wood siding and metal support beams. The new
designs have different options that could provide a more customized design for an individual site based
on surrounding characteristics. The intent of the standard design is to provide a similar mass and overall
design for all ECO Transit shelters in the system as well as standard materials that reduce cost and
improve efficiency in ongoing maintenance operations for the ECO Transit staff.
The current system utilizes Avon Station as a major transfer hub for the following routes: Valley Express
(Eagle to Vail service); Valley Commuter (Gypsum to Vail service); Vail/Beaver Creek Express (AM and
PM service between the two Resorts); Swift Gulch to Avon Station; Highway 6 (Edwards to Vail); and,
Leadville (upon request only). Avon Station also serves as a critical connection from ECO Transit routes
to Avon Transit routes, including the Black Line, Buffalo Ridge service, the Restaurant shuttle, and Skier
Express. In addition, some shuttles for local hotels and timeshare properties use Avon Station as a drop‐
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
off point to access the ski resorts and transit systems through the options discussed above. The
proximity to the Westin Gondola also enhances this stops connectivity to Beaver Creek Resort.
The Hub Study identified this shelter as having a poor size and lacking improvements typically seen in a
transfer station. This stop serves an average of 611 riders per day during the winter and 326 riders per
day during the summer and is essential to providing connections between ECO Transit buses and other
Transit systems. With the construction of the Wyndham Timeshare project and Main Street and Lettuce
Shed Lane improvements, ECO Transit sees this as an opportune time to improve the ECO Transit Shelter
at Avon Station. Currently, ECO Transit owns and maintains a small shelter to the south side of existing
station (Exhibit A). This bus shelter can seat 4 individuals at a time, while providing limited standing
room within the shelter. Due to the high volume of riders that pass through this stop, better facilities
are required to improve passenger waiting conditions.
Initially a shelter location was identified in the southwest corner of the Wyndham development (Lot 61)
adjacent to Lettuce Shed Lane. As the development plans evolved for the Wyndham property and
Lettuce Shed Lane streetscape project, it became clear that this site was not ideally situated for a larger
bus shelter. Upon further investigation of the Transit Center, the most ideal location was further north
of the existing shelter as illustrated in Exhibit B. This location provides a direct line of sight between
passengers and busses, greater space to construct a larger bus shelter, and additional space in front of
the shelter for passing pedestrians.
The shelter will require a concrete pad, but should not need additional concrete work for any benches,
bike racks or trash receptacles. The site plan (Exhibit B) shows installing additional benches to either
side of the shelter, while leaving the existing bike racks, newspaper stands and trash receptacles where
they are. It may make more sense to consolidate these items to the north side of the shelter while
installing a single bench to the south side of the shelter. The proposed shelter design will be the
standard large shelter (Exhibit C). The design consists of a textured concrete base, steel beams, wood
siding, and a corrugated metal roof. The shelter will measure approximately seven feet (7’) wide by
fourteen feet (14’) long with one (1) to two (2) foot roof overhangs.
ECO Transit intends to match the shelter colors with those of the existing Town of Avon Shelter across
the Transit Center as well as those identified in the West Town Center District Investment Plan (Exhibit
D). Conversely and if the Planning and Zoning Commission desires, ECO Transit would be willing to
instead match the colors approved for the Wyndham project. The proposed design does have flexibility
with a base material of corrugated metal siding instead of textured concrete if the Planning and Zoning
Commission would prefer that base material.
ECO Transit is requesting that the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission review the proposal, provide
comments, and ultimately approve the bus shelter as discussed above and at the hearing. By providing
approval of the designs, ECO Transit can proceed with more in depth design and construction drawings
and remain on schedule for construction during the summer of 2014, with anticipated use no later than
the beginning of the 2014‐2015 winter season.
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
Kind Regards,
Jared Barnes
Multi‐Modal Planner II
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
EXHIBIT A
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel:970/328‐3520 fax: 970/328‐3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
Exhibit D
Base Material – Concrete: Stamped concrete to mimic stone veneer and tan to match the color stone of
Avon Bus Shelter
Metal Frame and Wood Siding: Light brown color to match the base color for the Avon Bus Shelter
Roofing – Corrugated Metal: Green to match the Avon Bus Shelter
Existing/Proposed Shelter Signage
EXHIBIT A
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 14
• Elements such as signs, information kiosks or vendors (where permitted) that can
obstruct the view of oncoming buses should be located "down-stream" from the shelter.
Design
A bus shelter should be designed to reflect the place in which it is located. This is accomplished
through the use of local materials and by the design details. Our recommended standards for
shelter design can be adapted to reflect the unique characteristics of each particular
neighborhood, but should in general have a consistent theme. All well-designed bus shelters
have the following five general qualities: visibility, accessibility, comfort and convenience, public
information, and ease of maintenance.
One example shelter is that installed on Lake Street. Engineering information for this shelter is
attached to these guidelines and available through the Town Engineer.
General Characteristics and Size
• The general aesthetic of the site – uncomplicated shapes, uncluttered façade surfaces
shall be respected wherever possible.
• A weathered, scrubbed look is desirable for buildings and improvements on the site
reflecting the overall nature of the site and Colorado ranching and mining architectural
themes. The look of the aspens, logs, cedar shakes weathered shingles are all icons of
this area.
• Renewable resource systems and materials are strongly encouraged to showcase
sustainable approaches provided that they match these other requirements.
• The size of a bus shelter depends on the climate as well as the number of people who
are expected to use it and the expected use determined by the Department of
Transportation.
Building Massing and Roof Height
• All bus shelters shall be 3-sided. Open canopy designs are not permitted as they do not
protect users from the harsh mountain weather conditions.
• Clerestories and skylights are permitted on a case-by-case basis provided that they are
weather-tight. These features help to bring natural light into the bus stop but tend to
result in higher maintenance and increase the risk of leakage.
Exterior Materials
• Exterior cladding shall be composed of natural or recycled materials.
• No vinyl or aluminum cladding shall be used for siding or trim except in the case of
recycled materials that meet the guidelines set forth in this section.
• Cladding should not change or alternate from front to side to rear elevations if this would
be inconsistent with other surrounding buildings.
• Preferred exterior cladding materials include cedar siding and clapboards, cedar
plywood sheathing, and composite/cement cladding with appropriate shingle or
clapboard-type finish (preferably with recycled materials used). The use of cedar
EXHIBIT B
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 15
eliminates ongoing maintenance and painting requirements and may be left to weather
naturally.
• Recycled, “green” materials, and materials obtained locally are encouraged. These
materials should be compatible with natural wood materials and stone. Exterior
Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) may be used where masonry materials are needed
to repair or rehabilitate existing masonry structures.
• Bus shelters should be composed of structural bolt-together members and inset panels,
not snap-together "curtain walls" or decorative sections that are easily vandalized. Steel
(with protective coating) or wood structures are allowed. Concrete is not allowed as it is
monolithic in appearance and tends to discolor and soil easily.
• Photovoltaic systems on façades or roofs and solar water systems are encouraged.
Seating
• The amount of seating should be based on both the number of people who will use the
shelter and the amount of time people will spend waiting. Where people wait for a long
time, or where the shelter is used by the elderly or infirm, more seating is generally
needed than in areas where the bus comes more frequently.
• The Towns standard material for interior bench seats is a textured light grey TREX or
HPDE lumber with a maximum support spacing of 12 inches due to elastic property of
these materials.
• A bench rail should be provided and located about 3 feet 6 inches above the ground.
Materials of construction should be cedar, Trex, or dimensional lumber made of recycled
materials.
Windows, Doors and Side Panels
• Side panels should generally not be used on the curbside of the shelter, except on very
narrow streets with heavy traffic. If side panels are used on the curbside, an opening at
least 3 feet wide needs to be provided to allow people access to the buses.
• Side panels should be mounted 3 inches off the ground so that debris will not collect
inside the shelter. If more than 3 inches off the ground, they will not keep out drafts.
• Side panels, windows and doors shall be clear, e.g., colorless safety glass, Herculite,
Lexan or other vandalism resistant material, and sized in relatively small sections for
ease of replacement (e.g., due to vandalism). Plastic or Plexiglas, mirrored or colored
glass is not allowed.
• New windows shall be natural/protected wood finish, except in cases of limited
replacement where windows shall match color of existing fenestration. Vinyl (red or
green) clad windows are allowed.
• Only fixed, non-opening windows are allowed.
• Protruding bay windows are not allowed.
• New windows may be constructed of wood, vinyl or aluminum clad, or “plastic” wood
composite materials.
EXHIBIT B
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 16
Roof
• A pitched roof must be used to prevent the collection of snow, rain, and debris.
• Roofing shall standing seam metal for longevity, ease of maintenance and snow and ice
removal.
• Roofs shall drain away from heavy pedestrian traffic areas (e.g., note icicle formation
potential).
• Mechanical equipment shall not be located on roof tops, except for photovoltaic panels,
solar hot water panels, special ventilation systems, and related types of equipment.
• Roof color shall be Toyota Green unless otherwise pre-approved by the Town.
Other
• All color decisions shall be made by the Town of Avon.
• Natural materials that weather well, such as cedar, are encouraged wherever possible
and are preferred over materials that must be painted, stained or sealed.
• Lighting shall be as listed in section 3.16. Shelter lights should be housed in a protective
casing to reduce vandalism, and directed to illuminate the waiting and boarding areas.
An intensity of 20 lumens per square foot is recommended for safety.
• Solar-powered lighting is encouraged for shelters.
• Adjacent street light and bus stop sign (with or without banner) shall be per Elevation 4
on sheets GR9 (with stone clad base if space allows) or GR10 (without stone clad base)
of the West Town Center Design Guidelines.
• Schedule, route information, and a map case should be located in or next to bus shelters
but not so that the view of the oncoming bus is blocked. The Transportation Department
will provide information on the standard sign frame design and size to facilitate display of
the same core transit information at all stops. Bus stop sign text shall be determined for
each stop by the Transportation Department.
• Advertising panels – to be considered on a case by case basis
3.5 Amenities
Benches
All bus stops with more than 25 boardings per day are required to install a bench with the
following guidelines:
• Coordinate bench locations with existing street lights to increase visibility and enhance
the security of a stop.
• Do not locate benches in completely exposed locations, if possible. Coordinate bench
locations with existing shade trees or install landscaping to provide protection from the
elements.
• Install benches on a non-slip, properly drained, pad.
• Install benches away from driveways.
EXHIBIT B
Bus Stop Guidelines and Standards
TransitPlus, Inc. Page 17
• Maintain a minimum separation of 2 feet between the bench and the back-face of the
curb.
• At bench-only stops additional waiting room near the bench should be provided.
• All street furnishings should be compatible with one another in appearance, style, color
and construction quality.
• The Town’s standard component for exterior benches is Landscape Forms, Model
"Chase Park 3-Seat Backed Unit, Surface Mount" 74" in length minimum cast aluminum
back and seat in Toyota Green (olive, stock color) Substitutions may be permitted by the
Department of Transportation with written pre-approval.
Signage and Route Information
Placement and design guidelines for each sign discussed in the street-side section. The Town
will be responsible for the design of the information and providing updated information when
changes are made to the routes and schedules.
Recreational Equipment Storage Facilities
Properly designated and located recreational equipment storage facilities discourage users from
locking bikes or resting skis in nuscience locations such as onto the bus facilities or on an
adjacent property. Proper storage can reduce the amount of visual clutter at a stop by confining
this equipment to one area. Recommendations regarding recreational equipment storage
facilities are as follows:
• Bicycle racks should be installed when demand warrants, specifically at those stops
where commuters and residents are prevalent.
• Bike racks shall be U-lock compatible.
• Locate the bicycle storage area away from other pedestrian activities.
• Coordinate the storage facilities near on-site lighting.
• Provide space to lean both skis and snowboards (2-4 per stop) wherever possible.
Trash Receptacles
Provide one bear-proof garbage can per shelter (Bearsaver Model HA-P (brown) with M__ Kit
Model HA-C/Cedar) The Town has experimented with other types and found no other equal.
Anchor the receptacle securely to the ground. Locate the receptacle away from the wheelchair
landing pad areas and allow for at least a 3-foot separation from other street furniture. Locate
the receptacle at least 2 feet from the back of the curb.
If the receptacle is adjacent to the roadway, ensure it does not obstruct the site distance of
nearby driveways or land uses.
EXHIBIT B
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 1 of 6
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: February 27, 2014
RE: Light Reflective Value (LRV) Code Review ‐ CONTINUED
Introduction
As the result of an Appeal application regarding a paint color application in the summer of
2013, PZC was directed to review the Light Reflective Value (“LRV”) standards in the
Development Code. In the approved 2014 Work Plan, the following direction is provided:
1.1 Review with the Planning and Zoning Commission the Development Standards for
building colors as stated in the Avon Municipal Code, Section 7.28.090(c), Generally
Applicable Design Standards, specifically related to Building Materials and Colors (v)
and the standard set at a sixty or less Light Reflective Value” “LRV”.
February 18, 2014 PZC Meeting
At the February 18, 2014 meeting PZC discussed the approach to the LRV standard review.
The consensus was that more information was needed in order to make an informed
decision, and ultimately a formal recommendation to Council. The Commission requested
that Staff bring back examples of other color‐related Alternative Equivalent Compliance
(“AEC”), and to present other living LRV examples of recently painted buildings for
reference. Finally, Staff offered to return with examples of how other Towns treat color
guidelines for reference.
The PZC has reviewed a total of thirteen (13) AEC applications, but only one application
involved a variation to the LRV standards. That application was the subject of the appeal
that triggered this review. In terms of other major project that have repainted in recent
years or other LRV examples for PZC to review, please review the following properties and
colors in the field:
Avon Center (2011). New colors included “Portabello” at the wing walls and lower wall
accents with LRV of twenty one (21), “Roycroft Suede” for the upper stucco wall color with
LRV of thirty one (31), and “Whole Wheat” for main stucco color with LRV of fifty (50).
Seasons Building (2008). New colors range from “Brown Horse” with an LRV of eleven (11)
to “Danville Tan” with LRV of forty (40).
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 2 of 6
PZC also requested that Staff come back with additional examples of how other mountain
communities govern color for new construction. Following are several examples of how
other mountain communities handle color standards for their particular design review
boards:
1) Eagle‐Vail
2) Eagle
Facade and roof colors shall have subtle, neutral, or earth tone colors.
Muted colors are encouraged. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black, or
fluorescent colors is prohibited. Exemplary colors are available for review at the Town Hall.
Building trim and accent areas may feature brighter, complementing colors, including primary
colors, but plastic materials and neon tubing is unacceptable for building trim or accent areas.
Plastic light raceways are prohibited.
3) Vail
The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and any
accessory structures upon the site.
Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. Natural
colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utilized. Primary colors or other
bright colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such as upon trim or
railings. All exterior wall materials must be continued down to finished grade thereby
eliminating unfinished foundation walls. All exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be anodized, painted or capable of weathering so as to be non-
reflective.
4) Steamboat Springs
Primary Building and Roof Colors
(a)
Permitted primary building and roof colors may be applied to any building or
roof element and shall consist of the following:
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 3 of 6
(i) Dark reds and maroons;
(ii) Dark and sage greens;
(iii) Browns, sepias, and tans; or
(iv) Variations of the above colors that result from natural weathering or
oxidation processes (rusts, grays, etc.).
Accent Building Colors
Accent building colors shall only be used on wall surfaces—not roofs. Accent
building colors shall consist of the following:
(i) Gray-blues;
(ii) Ochres, yellow-browns;
(iii) Light tans, off-whites; and
(iv) Grays and dark grays.
Bright or highly reflective variations of these colors are prohibited.
6) Beaver Creek
To establish an overall image or “feel” to the architecture that meets the expectation
of a Colorado mountain retreat. As a contrast to urban development, Beaver Creek
is intended to be a mountain retreat, a place to enjoy a balance between nature
and human-built environment. Buildings and the design of spaces shall use forms that
convey a sense of protection from the harsh mountain weather, indigenous materials
that visually link the architecture to the surrounding mountains, and colors that
blend buildings into the natural earth and vegetation. Buildings should also portray
the cultural and natural history of the Colorado Mountains with featured accent
colors that provide complementary distinction from the surrounding buildings and
landscaping.
5) Silverthorne
Require exterior colors to be subtle yet rich colors rather than intense,
bright colors; and color schemes to tie building elements together and to
enhance the architectural form of the building;
Background
At the August 6, 2013 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) reviewed a color
change application (Attachment A) for three (3) properties: the Christy Sports building; the
Benchmark Shopping Center building; and, the Avon Annex building. The applicant received
approval to move forward with the color change on the Christy Sports building, but the
remaining buildings were continued with concerns over how some of the colors would
appear on the site. The PZC directed the applicant to paint samples of the proposed colors
on the Annex and Benchmark Shopping Center buildings, so that a review of the colors
under natural light could be performed. The Applicant complied with this request and in
addition painted alternative color samples for the “Monterey White” color, including,
“Manchester Tan” and “White Sands”.
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 4 of 6
The PZC held a Special Meeting on August 13, 2013 to review these colors, and at that
meeting the PZC discussed their concerns over the (Light Reflective Value) LRV for
“Monterey White”. Ultimately the PZC approved the color change application with the
following conditions and findings:
Conditions:
1. The Christy Sports Building is approved as proposed;
2. The Benchmark Shopping Center is approved as proposed; and,
3. The Annex building colors were approved as follows:
a. “Buckingham Gardens” was approved as proposed as an accent color;
b. “Branchport Brown” was approved as proposed as a roof color; and,
c. “Monterey White” was not approved, but “Manchester Tan” was approved
as a base color.
Findings:
1. The LRV for “Manchester Tan” was nominally outside the Design Standards;
2. The Annex building is a one story building and there will be minimal visual impact as
compared to a taller building;
3. “Manchester Tan” is substantially similar to what exists on the building today;
4. “Monterey White” was approved on the soffits of the Benchmark Shopping Center
as it was limited to the ceiling of the walkways and will have limited application.
Appeal
The Applicant appealed the PZC’s decision, and the Town Council reviewed the appeal at
their September 24, 2013 meeting. At the meeting the Applicant consented to a longer
appeal timeframe, and the Council continued the public hearing and final decision until April
22, 2014. Staff was directed to work with PZC to review the LRV standards and present their
findings, and any potential changes to the color standards in the code. The meeting minutes
from Council’s decision are attached to this Memorandum as Attachment B.
Review Criteria
Section 7.28.090(c), Generally Applicable Design Standards, outline the requirements for building
materials and colors as follows:
(3) Building Materials and Colors
(i) The use of high quality, durable building materials is required. Exterior walls shall
be finished with materials used in a manner sympathetic to the scale and architectural style
of the building.
(ii) Preferred materials reflect the Town’s sub alpine character such as native stone,
wood siding, masonry or timbers.
(iii) The following building materials and wall finishes are not permitted on the exterior
of any structure:
(A) asphalt siding,
(B) imitation brick,
(C) asbestos cement shingles or siding,
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 5 of 6
(D) imitation log siding, or
(E) plastic or vinyl siding.
(iv) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider newly developed materials in
light of subsections (i)‐(iii), above, and make a determination about appropriateness.
(v) Indigenous natural or earth tones such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue, or red in
muted, flat colors with an LRV (Light Reflective Value) of sixty (60) or less are required.
(vi) The following colors are prohibited: neon, day‐glow, fluorescent, reflective, and
non‐earth tones.
(vii) All flues, flashing, and other reflective materials shall be painted to match and/or
appropriately contrast with adjacent materials.
§7.16.080(f), Development Plan
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as
specified in §7.04.030, Purposes;
(2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.090, Design Review.
(3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
(4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned
development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as
applicable;
(5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this
Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official
Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and
(6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not
limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services.
§7.16.090(f), Design Review
(1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community;
or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as
a whole;
(2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this
Development Code; and
(3) The design reflects the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents.
§7.16.120(d), Alternative Equivalent Compliance
(1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development
standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or
better than compliance with the subject standard; and
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than
would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this ordinance.
March 4, 2014 PZC Meeting – LRV Review Page 6 of 6
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the PZC review the generally applicable Color standards in this
report and discuss if there is any desire to amend these regulations. If PZC would like to
make a recommendation for changes (if any), Staff is seeking direction to formulate a
recommendation.
Some questions to consider during the work session:
Is there an appetite to increase the LRV standard Town wide or in certain areas?
Should the LRV standard be removed all together based on how other communities
handle design review?
Does PZC want to have different regulations for Commercial and/or Mixed-Use Projects?
Attachments
A. Annex Building Application presented to the PZC: including Color Samples, Photos of the
paint samples, and AEC request from the Applicant;
B. September 24, 2013 Council Minutes from Appeal
Date: July 30, 2013
Subject: Color Modification for Avon Properties
Part I: Written Description of “color modification” for the Benchmark Shopping Center,
Annex and Christy Sports buildings:
Benchmark Shopping Center
-Base color: Mexicana 2172-30
-Trim color: Branchport Brown HC-72
-Accent on ceiling and walkways: Monterey White HC-27
Annex
-Base color: Monterey White HC-27
-Trim and accent color: Buckingham Gardens 545
-Roof color: Branchport Brown HC-72
Christy Sports
-Trim and accent color: Branchport Brown HC-72
Part II: Response to Review Criteria
(d) Review Criteria. The review authority shall use the following review criteria as the
basis for a decision on an application for alternative equivalent compliance:
(1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or
development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are
equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties
than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this
ordinance.
Attachment A
Response: Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate has identified areas in its existing “Avon
Real Estate Portfolio” where drastic improvement must be made. One of the areas identified
is the repainting of its properties with a more cohesive color palette. We have utilized
professional, local expertize via Worth Interiors to establish a color scheme that is consistent
with Avon’s look, feel and core values. The color “Monterey White HC-27” is crucial in
accomplishing our goals and we are thus requesting a waiver of the required Light Reflective
Value of 60 to allow a LRV of 77.32 represented by the Monterey White.
Best regards,
Greg Hoffmann
Principal
Attachment A
Benjamin Moore “Mexicana” (2172-30) – LRV: 11.9
Benjamin Moore “Branchport Brown” (HC-72) – LRV: 7.58
Attachment A
Benjamin Moore “Buckingham Gardens” (545) – LRV: 30.2
“White” Color options
1. Benjamin Moore “Monterey White” (HC-27) – LRV: 77.32
2. Benjamin Moore “Manchester Tan” (HC-81) – LRV 63.69
Attachment A
3. Benjamin Moore “White Sand” (OC-10) – LRV 68.11
Attachment A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
Attachment B
Attachment B
Page 1 of 4
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 18th, 2014
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street
The Avon Town Council was invited to attend this meeting for Agenda Item VI.
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:07pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Losa and Minervini.
Four Commissioners are present expecting five, Commissioner Bonidy arrived late.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
Matt Pielsticker amended the agenda so that Item VIIB correctly described the legal property
address as Lot 21 instead of Lot 20.
Matt Pielsticker added to the agenda item V11C is missing property address, should be 142
Beaver Creek Place.
There were no other amendments
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Hardy presented a conflict with Items VIIB and VIIC.
V. Consent Agenda
There were no items on the Consent Agenda.
VI. Minor Design & Development Plan
Avon Road Improvements
Property Location: Avon Road Right-of-Way
Property Address: N/A
Applicant: Pedro Campos, Zehren and Associates/ Owners: Town of Avon
Description: On behalf of the Town of Avon, Pedro Campos will be presenting landscaping
modifications to Avon Road. These improvements are planned for installation in summer/fall
of this year.
Discussion: Commissioner Struve asked if the Town would use anything other than LED
lighting, and if there would be a reduction of the number of lights and increased efficiency. Is
Avon over lit?
Commissioner Prince asked if the Town is budgeting for restriping. Staff responded that
striping and overlaying the roadway are in the budget for 2014.
Commissioner Struve asked if the purpose of a roundabout is that you not see through it.
Town Engineer Justin Hildreth responded that is was true, someone not paying attention could
drive right through.
Commissioner Struve asked Town Engineer Justin Hildreth if they would be getting rid of the
zig-zag into Starbucks when they redo the bridge. Justin said that it would be stretched out,
and the switchback would be widened because of the trail under the bridge it is the only way to
do it.
Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Bonidy asked if the Town was relocating the spruce trees in roundabout 1.
Town employees said some the trees are having issues and therefore would likely not “make
it” if they were transplanted.
Commissioner Struve asked Town Engineer Justin Hildreth what the rational was behind the
slip lane. Justin replied that they increase capacity in the roundabout and were designed for
significantly more traffic that we currently experience.
Commissioner Struve asked if there is dirt blow the median. Pedro Campos responded that in
raised portions there is approximately 2 feet of soil. Areas that are shallow do not, and in
some cases it is asphalt below a shallow dirt bed.
Commissioner Struve asked if we would no longer use the big orange portable sign. Matt
Pielsticker responded that we are trying to get away from using it and the new traffic signage
could help for directing traffic.
Commissioner Prince asked what type of signage would be used. Pedro responded that we
are waiting to see what comes out of the branding effort to be sure.
Commissioner Bonidy referenced the totem as worthy of looking at on from Main Street.
Councilman Wolf addressed the Commission stating that we need to be less conservative,
more hip, to think outside of the box for the Roundabout 4 design plans.
Action: Commissioner Prince moved to approve the Minor Design and Development plan with
Staff Recommended Finding:
1. The Application meets the Development Plan review criteria outlined in §7.16.080(f),
Development Plan, Avon Municipal Code, as outlined in Matt Pielsticker’s February 13,
2014 Staff Report.
The Conditions in Matt Pielsticker’s February 13, 2014 Staff report were amended as follows:
1. The forthcoming design elements will be reviewed and approved by PZC:
a. Lighting Plan(s); and
b. Roundabout #4; and
c. Welcome Sign; and
d. Pedestrian crosswalks.
Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
VII. Master Sign Programs
A. Wyndham Resort
Property Location: Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Property Address: 75 Benchmark Road
Applicant: Dominic Mauriello / Owner: 75 Benchmark LLC
Description: New sign program for building identity signage and two potential tenant signs.
Discussion: Dominic Mauriello presented the application and explained that Signs E and F
would be forthcoming once those spaces are occupied. Matt Pielsticker clarified from the Staff
Report that the lettering for the signs would be routed with backlighting.
The Commission was accepting of the high quality appearance and construction of the signs.
Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the MSP for Wyndham Resort.
Commissioner Bonidy seconded and it was passed unanimously with 4-0 vote.
Page 3 of 4
B. Crossing Building Amendment
Property Location: Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Property Address: 182 Avon Road
Applicant: Monte Park, Sign Design / Owner: Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate
Description: Amendment to the existing sign program in order to accommodate new tenant –
Boxcar Restaurant.
Discussion: Monte Park presented the application.
The Commission discussed the differentiated sign design between Christy Sports signage and
the Boxcar Signage. The PZC members were open to a different type of signage for each
building tenant, regardless of this being a MSP, but could not respond to the Christy Sports
signage until the full architectural package was available for review. There were no objections
to the Boxcar signs proposed with this application.
Action: Commissioner Prince moved to approve, with the staff recommendation 1; striking
staff’s proposed finding; and adding the finding that the ‘Planning and Zoning Commission
acknowledges that future signs will be reviewed with forthcoming architectural changes to the
building’.
Commissioner Struve seconded and it was passed unanimously 4-0.
C. Annex Building
Property Location: Lot 65-B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Property Address: 142 Beaver Creek Place
Applicant: Monte Park, Sign Design / Owner: Hoffmann Commercial Real Estate
Description: New sign program for replacement of all tenant and monument identification
signs. This sign program would replace the existing sign program for the property.
Discussion: Monte Park presented the application, representing the property owners.
Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approved, with the condition that interior windows be
limited to 25% per code. Commissioner Bonidy seconded the motion and it was passed
unanimously 4-0.
VIII. Major Design & Development Plan
Dahl Residence
Property Location: Lot 20, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Property Address: 2957 June Creek Trail
Applicant: Jeff Manley, Martin Manley Architects / Owners: Harold and Kathy Dahl
Description: Design review of a single-family home in the Wildridge subdivision at the end of
June Creek Road. The structure measures 4,200 square feet and the construction is with
wood siding, stucco, stone, and asphalt shingle roofing.
Discussion: Jeff Manley gave a brief presentation for the owners of the property Harold and
Kathy Dahl.
Commissioner Struve stated that a wood belly band could help break up the rear elevation.
Commissioner Prince was o.k. with the plans and believed they were in conformance with the
Design Standards in the Development Code.
Commission Bonidy strongly recommended that the orientation of the home be reviewed again
in light of the views of New York Mountain which was more to the south. Jeff Manley
responded that they could look at it, but the height could become an issue if it was shifted in
any way.
Page 4 of 4
Commissioner Hardy appreciated the master bedroom views, and highlighted the light tower
feature in the entry way.
Action: Commissioner Bonidy moved to approved as submitted with the exception that a
bellyband with the dark stained wood be included, and the recommendation that the applicant
look at rotating the house to capitalize on the views. The two (2) staff conditions were added
to the motion and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
IX. Consent Agenda
January 7, 2014 Draft Meeting Minutes
Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Clancy
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously
X. Work Session
Annex Building Color Appeal
Discussion: Commissioner Clancy discussed the background and framed the discussion
regarding the potential for a code text amendment recommendation to Council. The
Commission discussed the LRV standards as they relate to commercial versus residential
buildings. Staff was directed to return with more background information with examples of
LRV standards of other recent approvals and examples of how other municipalities regulate
color.
XI. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55pm.