PZC Packet 090710 (2)IF ART of the VALLEY
� I 1
l V L V R M U V
I. Call to Order (5:00pm)
II. Roll Call
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda for September 7, 2010
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the August 17, 2010 Meeting Minutes
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 II, LLC
Description: Review of a new Master Sign Program for the Seasons building in keeping
with the recent exterior modifications to the structure and site.
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.
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.
X. Adjourn
Posted on September 3, 2010 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• Avon Public Library
• On the Internet at http://www.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
1
Staff Report — Special Review Use
September 7 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission AV 0
p g g ss onMeetmg ���,;R;�0
Report date September 3, 2010
Project type Special Review Use
Legal description Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning Industrial and Commercial (IC)
Address 77 Metcalf Road, Suite 102
Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner I
Summary of Request
Martha Teien of the Mountain Montessori School (the Applicant), representing BBG Holding
Corporation (the Property Owner), has submitted a Special Review Use (SRU) application for the
existing Montessori Preschool located on Lot 22, Block 1 of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision, also described as 77 Metcalf Road (the Property). The request is to renew an expired
SRU approval for the preschool on the Property.
Staff is recommending approval of an SRU with the following conditions:
1. The use shall not be enlarged without prior review and approval from the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and
2. The use is approved in perpetuity, unless complaints against Mountain Montessori are
received by the Community Development Department at which time the Planning and
Zoning Commission will re -review the application.
Process
The SRU process is used to review uses in zone districts where the use could be compatible with
the allowed uses in the zone district under certain situations. The SRU process requires public
notification to all properties within three -hundred (300) feet of the subject property a minimum of
twelve (12) days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Staff has mailed a notice to all affected
property owners on August 12, 2010 to satisfy this requirement.
Property Description
The Property is 0.89 acres of land (38,768 square feet) and is located to the north of the
intersection of Metcalf Road and Nottingham Road. The Property is zoned Industrial and
Commercial (IC) and has been developed with a 13,882 square foot office building and associated
parking. The building is currently occupied by Evans Chaffee Construction Group on the second
floor, Mountain Montessori, Vail Home Rentals, and Spark Creative (a marketing firm) on the first
floor.
The uses on adjacent properties include: a carpet and flooring retail store to the south, self storage
to the west, and warehouse spaces to the east across Metcalf Road. A Vicinity Map (Attachment
A) is attached for reference of the property location. The Property is almost entirely covered with
building and asphalt parking areas including drive aisles. A triangle shaped strip of landscaping
approximately 47 feet at its widest point is located to the south of the building where the
playground for the preschool is located. This landscape area sits in between the subject Property
and the building to the south occupied by Ruggs Benedict.
The Property does have sufficient parking for the preschool, which requires 3 spaces. A drop-
off/turnaround area for parents is located to the west of the building.
Background
In September 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) approved Resolution 04-23,
granting Mountain Montessori an SRU to occupy the Property with three conditions:
1. A sign permit shall be required for any signage associated with this use;
2. This permit is valid and subject to a review by Staff and renewal exactly 5 years from the
date of issuance (September 21, 2009); and
3. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by
the applicant or applicant representatives) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall
be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
The SRU expired on September 21, 2009, and therefore the Applicant was required to submit a
new application. Although the application is for a new SRU and the existing SRU has expired, the
use has continued in this location since its original approval in 2004.
Planning Analysis
A preschool use is not listed as an allowed or special review use within the IC zone district. At that
time, the Community Development Director made a zoning interpretation that, although not listed,
the preschool use was compatible with the other uses within the Property and with the surrounding
uses, and therefore determined this should be permitted as a special review use.
According to the Sec 17.48.040, AMC, the following criteria shall be used when reviewing a
Special Review Use permit application:
1. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the Zoning
Code.
2. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the Town Comprehensive Plan.
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
4. That the granting of the special review use request provides evidence of substantial compliance
with the public purpose provisions of the Zoning Code as specified in Section 17.28.085, as
follows:
a. The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements
cannot achieve.
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.
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.
The use does comply with all other requirements of the Zoning Code, such as parking. The use
generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging development of neighborhood and
community based day-care facilities. This location for the preschool use is convenient for the large
residential population of the Wildridge Subdivision and will not have a negative impact on the
surrounding uses.
2
The proposed use does offer a public purpose by providing an additional location within the Town for
educational facilities, whether they are schools, preschools, or daycares. The approval of this
application will continue to provide community benefits that the strict interpretation of the municipal code
could not provide.
Engineering Analysis
As this application is a SRU and does not propose any improvements to the property nor does it
impact the drainage easement there are no comments from the Engineering Department.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 10-04 due to the findings of compatibility with the review
criteria listed in the staff report.
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Applicant's Response to Review Criteria
C: Photographs of the existing area
D: Approved Resolution 04-23
E: Resolution 10-04
From an - reTal i' mi'.
PI��i• :ry
40h� V
i!-
j
20.
ftp.
Exhibit A
or -
Residential Streets
Property Boundaries
e0hlne - nr Dpgninenr Lxdrns^xp
Ym.pGlp� pnry � r�nrunrw
aau xcY pMrre nalarom evn N'e�x �
..roabn orco�n.�pv Dx+arLpp,.,,r m:.�„Km
Exhibit B
Special Review Use Application for Mountain Montessori at 77 Metcalf Road
July 30, 2010
Review Criteria:
A. Does the Proposed use otherwise comply with all requirements imposed by the
Zoning Code? YES
B. Does the proposed use conform to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan? YES
C. Is the proposed land use compatible with adjacent uses? YES
Martha Teien
Mountain Montessori
PO Box 9298
Avon, CO 81620
970-390-3941
114
r
�-m
op
1
1
� p
a
r
�-m
C
• �' y a '. a _. h '� it •." .'f
w[l, \Yifi.��!r���, �. 1 '.:i�t� � s.,..• `4�K y. �JJ� �,Y fi
'd •k� i r I , t : sl• I rrN '�' ,yt�
� '4 � � n ., 1 ,, t •�. „•' "dry: "`�
mac' • I +N
• '" }
coil
,T•YTe � t�l` lvAVl •C a �i6.
t i .
r, i,,:• � t. S � • Ir ��r�`'. t•� ` ' -. iyy y,� �/ i "; > Y' i {'
li• f r i r � L� 4'. ,
• k y �`
%C
f .. 1r a y t• 1
I
aV
4
Exhibit D
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 04-23
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
OPERATION OF THE MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL ON LOT 22, BLOCK 1,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE
COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Martha Peck, applicant, has applied for a Special Review Use
permit for the Montessori Preschool, as described in the application dated
September 91h, 2004, 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, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission
of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a Special Review Use permit for
a the Montessori Preschool, as described in the application dated September 9`h, 2004, as
stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code for Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, based upon the
following findings:
1. That the proposed use conforms to the requirements as imposed by the Town Zoning
Code.
2. That the proposed use conforms to the Town Comprehensive Plan, particularly with
respect to (Goal Al and Goal D1); and (Policy A1.7 and Policy D1.6).
3. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses as planned and approved through
the design review process.
Subject to the following conditions:
1. A sign permit shall be required for any signage associated with this use.
2. This permit is valid and subject to review by Staff and renewal exactly S years from
the date of issuance (September 21, 2009).
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.
Adopted this 21`r day of September, 2004
Signed:
Date:
Chris Evans, Chairman
Attest:
Date:
Terry Smith, Secretary
HPlnnning & Zoning CammissionlRaolutions\20GARes 04.23 La 22, Block 1, BMBC Montessori Preschool.doc
EXHIBIT F,
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 10-04
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT
TO PERMIT MOUNTAIN MONTESSORI PRESCHOOL IN SUITE
102 ON LOT 22, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Martha Teien, Mountain Montessori, has applied for a Special Review Use
(SRU) permit to operate a Montessori preschool as described in the application dated July
30, 2010;
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon on September 7, 2010, 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 SRU application;
WHEREAS, at their public hearing held on September 7, 2010, the Planning & Zoning
Commission voted to approve Resolution No. 10-04 thereby approving the subject
Special Review Use permit with two conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered
the following review considerations, as required by the Avon Municipal Code section
17.48.040:
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.
D. Whether the proposed use provides evidence of compliance with the Public
Purpose provisions outlined in the Avon Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission
of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a SRU permit for Mountain Montessori
Preschool, as described in the application dated July 30, 2010; and as stipulated in Title
17, Avon Municipal Code, located in suite 102 on Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The use shall not be enlarged without prior review and approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission; and
2. The use is approved in perpetuity, unless complaints against Mountain
Montessori are received by the Community Development Department at
which time the Planning and Zoning Commission will re -review the
application.
ADOPTED THIS 7`" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
Signed:
Date:
Chair: W. Todd Goulding
Attest:
Date:
Secretary: Phil Struve
y
Staff Report — Master Sign Program Amendment AVON
September 7, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting C U L n R � o
Report Date September 1, 2010
Legal Description Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning Town Center (TC)
Address 137 Benchmark Road
Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner I
Summary of Request
Matt Trasen (the Applicant), representing the commercial interest of the Seasons at Avon
located at 137 Benchmark Road (the Property) has requested an amendment to the Master
Sign Program (MSP) for the Property. The proposed MSP, dated August 23, 2010 is attached
as Exhibit B.
Process
All new MSPs as well as amendments to existing MSPs require review and approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The original MSP was approved in 1994 and is all but
obsolete given the current tenant mix in the building. In 1994, Vail Associates was the primary
tenant in the building (occupying nearly half of the first floor tenant space). Vail Associates has
since left, and the building has been converted to allow for a greater number of first floor
tenants. The 1994 MSP (Exhibit C) sign program included building identification and directional
signage, as well as tenant signs for up to eight (8) first floor north facing tenants.
As a condition of the PZC's approval of the exterior remodel of the Property, the Applicant was
required to submit a MSP Amendment application for a new sign program. This application
satisfactorily addresses this condition.
Property Description
The Property is 3.25 acres with Benchmark Road frontage on the south and west sides of the
building, the future planned Main Street on the north side, and the pedestrian focused Lettuce
Shed Lane on the east side. The exterior 'facelift' of the building is nearly complete, which
included an entire repaint, aesthetic treatments to the port-cochere, and other treatments
predominately on the south building elevation. The improvements range from new paint to new
materials, including the introduction of a stone base element. Landscaping alterations are also
underway, as is some of the final upper level painting.
There are a mix of uses currently in the building including general office uses, restaurants, a
preschool, and 104 dwelling units on the upper levels.
Policy Analysis
The Property is located within the West Town Center Investment Plan Area, which promotes
buildings that address and engage the future Main Street, which runs along the north side of the
Property. The Property includes a number of new ground level retail spaces with tenant signs
oriented to Main Street, which is consistent with this goal.
The West Town Center Plan also includes Design Guidelines that are intended to create a
pedestrian -oriented and community enhancing, visually cohesive and economical viable district.
The Design Guidelines include standards for private signs (E.10), which encourage creative
sign designs that enhance the building appearing and aide in way -finding. The proposed sign
materials, fabrication and colors are consistent with these Design Guidelines.
The Guidelines also require that all signs be externally illuminated with the fighting components
bearing a U.L. label. The MSP amendment proposes internally illuminated signage with the
exception of the tower identification signs (F1 and 172) and main entry identification sign (G1).
Planning Analysis
The proposed MSP includes mounted and site signage for the entire Property. A Sign
Placement Plan, which shows the locations of the building identification and ground -mounted
monument signs, is located on page 1 and a Sign Placement Plan for Tenant Signs is located
on page 2 of the MSP.
The Building Identification Signs and Tenant Signs will have reverse pan channel lettering with
internal LED illumination. Building service signs are not illuminated. All: Building identification
letters are to be painted dark green and olive. All Building Service signs are painted semi -gloss
black. The color and design of Tenant Signs will be tenant preference.
The proposed location of the Building Identification Signs is consistent with what currently
exists, except for Building identification signs E1, E2, G1, and 11. The proposed quantity and
location of Tenant Signs has increase significantly from the existing sign plan due to the
conversion of the Vail Resorts office space into smaller office and retail spaces.
Two double -sided monument signs are proposed at each driveway entrance to the port-cochere
on Benchmark Road. The monument sign adjacent to the western most driveway is 6 ft high
and 3 ft wide, with a stone base (11). Push through back lit letters with up to 4 tenant panels is
proposed. The monument sign adjacent to the eastern most driveway is 5 ft high and 10 ft wide,
with a stone base (12). Push through back lit lettering with up to 4 tenant panels is proposed.
The site access off of Benchmark Road is one-way from the east to west.
The western monument sign is located at the exit ramp of the port cochere driveway and
therefore serves no direct purpose in assisting traffic into the building. The eastern monument
sign is located at the driveway entrance to the building and would therefore be better suited for
a monument sign. In addition, the Sign Code requires all signs to be a minimum often (10) feet
from all properties lines. The eastern monument sign is too large for the propose site and does
not appear to meet this setback requirement. Staff recommends that the Applicant remove the
western monument sign and modify the eastern monument sign to reduce the size. The
Applicant will also need to provide sufficient documentation to ensure that the sign is at a
minimum ten (10) feet from all properly lines.
According to the Town of Avon Sian Code, Section 15.28.070, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following criteria in reviewing this design application:
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.
Staff Response: The materials are of high quality and appropriate for the site and the
building.
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements.
Staff Response: There are several existing and planned public improvements in the vicinity
of the Property, as well as a number of locations where the proposed signs can be viewed.
The majority of the signs in the surrounding area are either internally lit box signs such as at
the Avon Center, or internally lit pan channel letter signs at Avon Town Square and the
Slifer, Smith, and Frampton building to the east. The proposed MSP is consistent with the
quality of the surrounding and planned improvements, but does not comply with the West
Town Center Investment Plan requirement that signs be externally lit.
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement.
Staff Response: The materials to be utilized are of high quality and appropriate for their
application.
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent or
neighboring property.
Staff Response: When the Main Street improvements are constructed the entire north side
of the building will be highly visible from the pedestrian mall and adjacent buildings. The
Tenant Signs are proposed to be internally lit, and the Applicant is also requesting a non -lit
option. The West Town Center Plan, General Sign Requirements (E.10), requires all
building signs in the District to be externally illuminated, and that signs remain illuminated
during shopping/business hours.
In addition, the large Building Identification signage on upper portion of the east elevation
(E2) could have a negative impact on a future building on Lot 61 (located directly to the east
of the Property). Staff recommends that this sign be removed or lowered.
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.
Staff Response: Monetary and aesthetic values of other signs in the vicinity will not be
impaired by the proposed MSP.
6. Whether the type, height, size, and/or quality of signs generally complies with the
Sign Code, and are appropriate for the project.
Staff Response: The type, height, size, and quality of signs are generally in compliance with
the Sign Code; however, some discrepancies do exist. The addition of tenant signage on
the two monument signs is redundant with the proposed tenant signage (C1 -C32), which is
highly visible and does not necessitate additional signage at the vehicular entrance and
exits of the building. The purpose of a building identification sign is to introduce the building
and not individual building tenants. Furthermore, staff is concerned with the location of the
monument signs, which need to be at least ten feet from the property line.
As stated above the location, type and size of the Building Identification signs located on the
east elevation could have a negative impact on future buildings. In addition this sign and the
west elevation sign do not promote the pedestrian nature of the West Town Center District.
Specifically the east elevation signage should be designed for pedestrian travel along
Lettuce Shed Lane. Staff recommends that these signs be both reduced in height on the
building and overall size of the sign area and individual letters. In addition, the applicant
should consider treating the blank walls on these elevations with murals, color, or some
other treatment to add visual interest to the adjacent common spaces.
Although the Design Guidelines require externally lighting on signs, staff believes that the
requirement was intended for retail and commercial signs visible from the public right-of-way
and common areas. The Building Identification signs located on the port-cochere (Al and
A2) as well as the ones located on the east and west elevations (E1 and E2) could be
permitted to have internal illumination, because they are not visible and are not intended to
address the retail element or pedestrian nature of Main Street.
The signage for the three second -level tenant spaces is unsuitable for this application.
Given the significant increase in the number of tenant signs requested and the additional
building identification signs, the second story signs will add clutter to the building fagade and
distract from the streetscape. Staff therefore recommends that the second story signs not
be permitted.
Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether
the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
Staff Response: The monument signs and a majority of the building identification signs are
oriented to vehicular traffic, while the tenant signs are orientated to both pedestrian and
vehicular traffic.
Recommendation
Staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Master Sign Program Amendment
application for Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, subject to the
criteria and corresponding findings listed in this report, and with the conditions included in the
recommended motion below.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve this Master Sign Program Amendment application Lot 62/63, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, with the following conditions:
1. The western monument sign (11) be removed from the MSP;
2. 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 the all property lines
prior to permit. Correspondingly, the size of these signs shall be reduced to one that is
no larger than the proposed western monument sign (11);
3. All first floor tenant signs be modified to remove the non -lit option as well as modify the
signage specifications to require external illumination;
4. The second level tenant signs (C13, C30, and C32) must be removed as options; and
5. Reduce the size of the building identification signs on the east and west elevations and
lower the height to better address the pedestrian nature of these areas.
and subject to the FINDING that the MSP is in conformance with the Sign Code (Chapter 15.28
of the AMC), if the listed conditions are met."
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Photographs of the Property (specifically the monument sign location)
C: Proposed MSP, dated August 23, 2010
D: Existing MSP, dated August, 1994
Vicinity Map - Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Bea, Exhibit
41,
NA .m
cop.,
i
f! 41
4ACi
i
60
WA
.�
(�
C,
zo
LL,
C M
C N
0
z�
w�
Q
Ln
z
Q
W
z
L%i
Exhibit C
1
E
Z
in vi
w z
rLLii
O rc
rc
o<
J
v
Q
p
Q
O
O
S U NU'
QI
w
r
o m m m m h
m
m
m
m v a aU�
Qt
N
m
� S
Zw
u
0
u
¢ Fc
w
g
w
c� -
N�
w
oLL
F_ m
W
G
\_N
�<U
I
r
m
.n
u
�
o
U
Q
M
m
¢y
• Fri
s
�
U
Ln
Fm
Inv
go
N �
Z0
Wc �
L
v
LLI
Q
m LL
Fo
_
g z
=
u
�m
N�
;
_o
=_
=
N LL
�
[c]
s { ■ |\tee §k®-2
! §#!�E !\,
i !
i
LU
o /_� �!a!}�/: |!■I!- |;!! {/
-�1-�l�i$!7 ! ! ! E=J!$
2!g
\\ WEM2\)\kkktk\kf§ )k))kE f\
�# 7, , ,
\
D
Ln
0
�o
�
N C
7
O
$E
y
LU Z
a
_?u
E o
at
E
'v'r�i
b
Lim
2 c�yF
D
<
Q
�
A
$
kik
!
W9�
�§£
k
/7 §
\
@
I£a-
�
0
M.
ƒ
ttw#§
§k
))B7�
El
I
�12
o\f)
$!{§
OL
/)��
IL
]k -2}
75
z $
§
$k
-0
\\Tf0-
El
I
F—
X
LU
}
F-
Z
Lu
F—
V1
LU
ZD
N
o
Y LA
� W
L
V Q
Y
L C
E V L
17,
aZ
z
z30
ZZ
l7z
rn-
na m
F—
X
LU
}
F-
Z
Lu
F—
V1
LU
ZD
N
� a
J-
W'_
m
e
a
z
�
z
q
G
as o..n
e. Z
0
w
a
g
J
Z�
Z
z
� a
J-
W'_
m
e
a
z
�
z
q
G
_
a °
0
Q
J
,X
z
lo -'s
J
W
J-
W'_
w w €g w
a IEIII E
a
z
Z
z
{ Z
G
_
J
,X
z
m
w
N
w w €g w
a IEIII E
a
_
_
z
_
IM -b
,AUG - 1 2- 9 4 F R I 1 1:51
H I G H T E C H SIGNS
DATE: August 12,'1994
TO: Mary Holden'
Town of Avon
FROM: Larry Ast
RE: Seasons v "✓✓
Sony that the attached was not part of the original package.
The sign sizes are based on the layouts attached.
P. 9 1
Fx HT1 TD
Please note that the sign program attached shows a revision of the Tower letters from 16" to 18". (The 16" letter
was not available in the prismatic form.
,ease call with questions.
AIGHTECHSIGNS
P.O. Box 2688
Vail, CO 81658
303.949.4565
FAX 9494670
Production Center
910 Nottingham Road
Suite S.2
Avon. CO 81620
Aspen &:
Glenwood Sprgs.
303.945.6695
Square footage for each sign area:
.......................................
Item #1: Canopy
24" text is 25" h x,203" long = 35.24 square feet with wide spacing be(V4' letters
Item #2: Four towers at 18" high text
DATE:
August 12, 1994
SUMMER 189 x 19 - 24,9 SF
183 x 52 — 66.1 SF
TO:
Mary Holdeh.
WINTER 180 g 19 -23.7
Town of Avon
SPRING 165 x 19 = 21.8
165 x 42 = 48.1
FROM:
LarryAst'''
RE:
Seasons at von
Square footage for each sign area:
.......................................
Item #1: Canopy
24" text is 25" h x,203" long = 35.24 square feet with wide spacing be(V4' letters
Item #2: Four towers at 18" high text
Straight line
Curved line
SUMMER 189 x 19 - 24,9 SF
183 x 52 — 66.1 SF
FALL 105 x 19 13.8
110 x 29 22.1
WINTER 180 g 19 -23.7
173 x 45 = 54.1
SPRING 165 x 19 = 21.8
165 x 42 = 48.1
Item 43: Parking entry
PARKING ENTRY ; .'
148 X 12 =12.3 SF
SYMBOLS & EXIT ONLY
142 X 12 =11.8
SHOPS, OFFICE$ & CONDOMINIUMS
199 X 10 =13.8
CLEARANCE 8' 0"(COPY ONLY)
57 X 3 — 1.2
Item #4: North atrium
Seasons 25" x 203" = 35.2 SF
e
HIGHTECHSIGNS P.O. Box 2688 Production Center Aspen &
Vail, CO 81658 910 Nottingham Road Glenwood Sprgs.
303.949.4565 Suite S.2 303.945.6695
JFAX: 9494670 Avon, CO 81620
9
Item #5: Monument sign- two sides with copy
Logo approximately
Registration .
Vail Associates Corporate Office
Short Term Parkin$ s
Long Term Parking . %
Overall size of anodized panels
:{
Plegse call with questions.
e
22"x8"=1.2SF
2"x20"=
.3
22" x 5" _
.8
.,.
17"x5"-
.6
;.:::•
15'x5"=
.6
total
3.50 per side
30" x 48"-10.0
SF per side
SAME AS
i
e
BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE PROGRAM
SEASONS AT AVON
!` AVON, COLORADO
0
tiJ
• AUGUST , 1994 .
Item #1:.Caiyopy - Exhbit #1
"SEASONS" 1 to 3 sets of cast metal text 24" High. Gold
aimed al 1
p ,n
AIA uSum, pnsmatic etter form.
Iters #2: Four towers- Exhibit #2
Noi�h facing, one set per tower of "SUMMER' •; ,
"FALL" ';`.,5::••:
`.`.SP�NG"
18" high gold painted aluminum, no
illumination proposed.
Item #3: Parking entry - Exhibit #3, illumination proposed.
"PARKINQT ENTRY"
12" high gold painted alum
."SHOPS, OFFICES & CONDOMINIUMS'Y Vhigll'gold alum
"EXIT ONLY"
12" high gold alum
2`tio not enter symbols
12" high red 84 white
CLEARANCE 8' 0"6;
plastiqpipe; red
reflective gia�i�ic§.
1,,14+ 44
m >
Item #4• North Atriu - 14x
."SEASONS" - 24" reverse pan channel letters. fold :color,
prismatic face, white neon glow from rear. '
Item #5; Monument Sign- Exhibit #5
I11iimivated sign, 2 faces, routed metal face'with plex copy,
stucco base.
; •
r:
IlIl�-
�C
U.
M
F. A-
L
W. R
N
s
P:R
IlIl�-
�C
173,
R64.
X
0
2f Im. MAIN ENMFW"
Tm' -
PARKING ENfiY
PA RIJKLING ENTRY
'149 3C
�0 EXIT:.ONLY o X42
.�IHI®1�5�9 G FECES. CONDOM INIUMIS 1s9 x "io
NORTH ARAIU1 4
S ip-1
SONvv vo
'25 2®3
CLEARANCE IE
� IyY x 6
!�T s7��k3, cte AAHCS i• d•
� �RElJlllST-RATEN
1
all S
,mM 1w-lR
nVT
li
-�'ER
SHORT , " M
PARKING
(ION TER
PARKRNG
OCT, -23.-94 SU" 17:42 HI GHTECH SIGNS
DATE: October 23, 1994
TO: Mary Holden
Town of Avon Planning
FROM: Larry Ast
RE: Seasons atjzo�,j
0
V/cl(1J
P - 0 1
At your request I have prepared the following list of approved signage for the Seasons at Avon building. Note
that some of the signage is directional verses property identification or tenant advertising.
c,�uare footage
informational prop ident comm. Ident
—)nitial approval:
1. Monument sign- primarily directional
2 faces 30" x 48" 20
2. Portico 2 faces approx 24!'x 192" 32
3. Parking entry approx 20" x 192" 26
4. Parking exit approx 12" x 168" 14
5. North sign Seasons 24" x 192" 32
6. Four towers - summer, fall, winter, spring s�
size based upon straight line text 84
First amendment:
1. Vail Associates Corp Office- South East Corner 20
2. Wing wall- main entry, Vail Associates 9
Season at Avon 5
J3. East & West Towers approx 128 x 12 each 21
RIGHTECHSIGNS P.O. Box 2688 Production Center Aspen &
Vail, CO 81658 910 Nottingham Road Glenwood Sprgs.
303.949.4565 Suite S.2 303.945.6695
FAX: 949.4670 Avon, CO 81620
DATE: October 17, 1994
TO: Mary Holden
Town of Avon Planning
FROM: Larry As
RE: Seasons Avon
Amendment #2 to Season At Avon Sign Program
0
Change #l: Addition of Corporate Logo and "Vail Associates, Inc. Corporate Training Center"
Material- gold painted aluminum letters. Same as previously approved.
Placement- south west comer of building overhang, flush mounted.
See exhibit 1-A.
Change #2: Addition of Corporate Logo and "Prater Lane Play School'
Material- gold painted aluminum letters. Same as previously approved.
Placement- north west side of building.
See exhibits 2-A.
Change #3: Commercial Tenant Signage
Each tenant located in spaces 1 to 8, as shown on exhibit 3-A will be allowed
one sign area as shown on exhibit 3-B. The square footage allowed for single tenant use is shown
on exhibit 3-C. Raceways will not be permitted.
Materials -
Illuminated portions- gold painted reverse pan channel letters with white glow
from letters onto building. The maximum letter height will be 18".
All illuminated letters will conform to UL standards. The name of
the business will be illuminated. The nature of the business and
logos (total for nature and logos not to exceed 40% of the sign area utilized)
are encouraged to be internally illuminated.
Non -illuminated portions.- gold painted metal letters and logo, minimum of 1/4" thick,
maximum height 8" for text, and 18" for logo. These shall be flush mounted
to the wall. • The gold color, texture and finish shall be similar to the existing
u
1 text on the building.
HIGHTECHSIGNS P.O. Box 2688 Production Center Aspen &
Vail, CO 81658 910 Nottingham Road Glenwood Sprgs.
303.949.4565 Suite S.2 303.945.6695
FAX: 949-4670 Avon, CO 81620
Type styles- not restricted, but minimum stroke of 1.75" is needed for reverse pan
channel letters.
Temporary signage- tenants may hang a temporary banner on the location of the permanent
signage. This may be hung after submission to the Town of Avon for permanent signage
and for application for the temporary banner. The time limit shall be 90 days during
which the application for permanent signage is being approved, and the signs are
being fabricated. Colors shall be a tan banner with brown or gold text.
All signage shall require approval by the condominium association prior to submission to
the Town of Avon.
Window lettering and sale signage shall require approval of the condominium association
and the Town of Avon.
All tenants are required to remove their signs and patch and paint all holes in a professional
manner upon vacating their space. Al signs shall be maintained in a first class
condition.
If a tenant occupies more than one space, they may combine the square footage allowed
for the total space, but the utilized portion for signage cannot exceed 45 square
/ feet. If the space is subdivided, the tenants must share the allocated signage
square footage limitations.
Tenants shall be responsible for obtaining and pay the cost of all permits and signage.
j
i"\
NO
- =3 SIGNS
SIGN
V-2
P.O. BOX 2688. Wk. CO 81658. 303.949.4565 . FAX: 303.949.4670
THE SEASONS AT AVON
m eonrwoc w
AVM C�
PLAY SgFODb
11, r
VAh. Ars�Arsa, ia-
<aaper"C P+A....j C01"
Iv
;EXHIP-r 3-A
JOB #
DATE BY
A/E �/�
CLIENT SEAIMNS
147 AVb'j
CONTACT
SfU/<- ELS„✓
SCALE PHONE
=SIGNS
riwMw.
SIGN
DRAWING-
P.O. BOX 2688. VAIL, CO 81658. 303.949.4565. FAX 303.949.4670
VA -(L125 I
.$r Irf&ef—
JOB # DATE BY.
CLIEN9A)5
SCALE PHONE
A/E
CONTACT <ZTkC-j91Ci
FAX:
1
- MSIGNS
SIGN
DRAWING-
P.O. BOX 2688. VAR, CO 81658. 303.949.4565. FAX: 303.949.4670
space
P
approx
sq. footage max width store
number
allowed allowed frontage
1
30 15 56
2
30 15 36
3
30 15 52
4
30 15 42
5
30 15 30
6
22.5 9 12
7
30 15 44 ,
8
30 15 22
JOB # DATE BY
A/E
CLIENT 21S—SA/ S 4= ,A-VQV
CONTACT
SCALE PHONE
FAX:
xuxr aro<%A1 MY
Memorandum I IF
C 0 L 0 R e D 0
TO: The Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Matt Gennett, AICP, Planning Manager
DATE: September 7, 2010
RE: Duplex -Split Criteria
Summary
During their review of the proposed Avon Development Code, the Council directed staff
to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to establish a better process for
reviewing requests to build two single-family homes on lots zoned for Duplex uses,
particularly in the Wildridge Subdivision. Part of the current problem in Wildridge
appears to be PUD amendment process, which is required to change the lot designation
from Duplex to Single Family. In addition, the lack of criteria specific for this type of
PUD/Subdivision amendment request has been problematic as well.
The proposed changes to the PUD Amendment process should address the previous
concerns with this process especially the public benefit requirement. In addition, staff
recommends establishing a set of "Duplex -Split" criteria by which to evaluate the issues
and impacts of this type of proposal.
Background
The current PUD amendment process requires applications to demonstrate adherence
to the public benefit criteria (Sec 17.28.085, AMC), which in the case of proposed PUD
amendments accompanied by subdivisions, has historically been accomplished by
offering to give up some of the density rights in exchange for the zone change; and/or to
deed -restrict a unit to keep it affordable. There are also examples in Wildridge where
this has not been required. The proposed PUD Amendment process described in Title 7
Avon Development Code does not include the public benefit requirement and can be
approved administratively. The new code also contains provisions for an administrative
process for Minor Subdivisions which would apply to a Duplex -Split application since
these will involve less than four lots. With the incorporation of appropriate criteria the
new development code provides a more streamlined review process for this type of
application.
Duplex Definition
Section 1.5 of The Third Amended Covenants (1982) for Wildridge contains the following
definition of lots zoned "Duplex" in Wildridge:
Duplex Residential Lot — A lot which can be used solely for residential purposes
and upon which not more than one building, containing no more than two
dwelling units attached by at least one common wall or floor, together with not
more than one garage outbuilding, may be constructed.
Title 17 contains the following definition (17.28.040 AMC):
Duplex dwelling means a detached building containing two (2) dwelling units,
designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively by two (2) families, each living as
an independent housekeeping unit.
And the definition of duplex contained in section in the new Title 7 reads as follows:
Dwelling, Duplex means a building occupied by two (2) families living
independently of one another.
Proposed Criteria
Staff has drafted the following list of criteria to be considered when reviewing a PUD
Amendment and Minor Subdivision request for Duplex Lots proposed to be subdivided
into two single family Lots. .
Proposed Criteria for Duplex Lot Subdivisions:
1. Minimum Lot Size: An existing duplex lot must comprise a gross area of at least
one (1) acre. The newly proposed single family lots must be of approximately
equal size with correspondingly sized building envelopes. For lots between
30,000 sq ft and 1 acre in gross area, a primary/secondary arrangement may be
considered in which the secondary unit is at least twenty -percent (20%) smaller
than the primary.
2. Building Envelopes: All new Lots must include platted building envelopes.
The Preliminary Plan for Subdivision must include building envelopes, for each
home, that conform to existing building setbacks and are sized, configured, and
located in a manner consistent with surrounding development and responsive to
natural contours.
3. Building Separation. There must be at least twenty -feet (20') of separation
between the two proposed single family homes.
4. Compatibility: The newly proposed single-family lots must be compatible with
1) the average size of the ten (10) closest lots to the subject property; 2) the
architectural character of surrounding development within this same proximity;
and, 3) designed to respond to the natural topography without causing excessive
grading and site disturbance.
5. Access & Easements: New Lots must include platted driveway access
easements that are configured based on an engineered design for a driveway.
6. Steep Slopes: On Duplex lots containing areas with average grades in excess
of thirty -percent (30%), building envelopes shall be sited to avoid such areas to
the maximum extent feasible; and certain lots containing significant areas with
grades exceeding 40% may be limited to one structure at the discretion of the
Director..
J
VON
C O L O R A D O
I. Call to Order (5:00pm)
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes for September 7, 2010
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street
The meeting was called to order at 5:04pm.
IL Roll Call
All Commissioners were present
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda
• 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 62163, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 137
Benchmark Road
Applicant/ Owner. Matthew Trasen, Avon Partners Il, LLC
Description: Review of a new 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 Staffs 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 fell 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.
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 El 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 Staff's 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
3
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
for a duplex -split PUD and Subdivision application to be
Avon Development Code, and as contemplated in the
meeting.
IX. Adjourn
8:25pm
received direction to draft criteria
incorporated into the new Title T
memo and discussed during the
13
0