PZC Packet 101607\ �N, Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
AMeetingVON
Agenda for October 16, 2007
Avon Town Council Chambers
C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
WORK SESSION (5:00pm - 5:30pm)
Description: Discussion of Regular Agenda Items. Work session is open to the public.
REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm)
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the October 2, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
VI. Site Tour Follow-up I Timeshare West - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision 1218 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner. Starwood Vacation
Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Timeshare West project.
This design was approved at the May 1, 2007 Commission meeting, and an on-site mockup
review for this item is now required. Formal mockup review will be November 6, 2007.
VII. PUD Amendment — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24
Applicant. Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC /Owner. Craig Folson
Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 unit
condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The property is
immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project currently under
construction. This application was tabled from the February 20, 2007 Planning Commission
Meeting.
VIII. PUD Amendment —CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Village at Avon PUD
Applicant. Dominic Maudello, MPG/ Owner. Traer Creek
Description: Amendment request to reconfigure the planning area boundaries of Planning
Areas H, Neighborhood Center, I, Neighborhood Center, E, Village Residential; and F, Village
Residential, in order to create a larger. buffer between commercial uses and the adjacent
existing Eaglebend drive residential neighborhood. Also part of the request is a text
amendment to the PUD guide that will result in a modification to the current percentages and
ratios of commercial -to -residential uses in order to permit more residential density in areas that
Posted on October 12, 21)07 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 hfo://www.avon.orq / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
are presently planned for more commercial square footage. This item was tabled from the
August 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
IX. Sign Code Variance — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 77 Metcalf Road
Applicant/Owner. BBG Holding Corporation
Description: The applicant is requesting a Variance from Section 15.28.080(15) of the Town of
Avon Sign Code. The request is to allow a freestanding sign within 10' from the front lot line.
X. Final Design Applications - CONTINUED
A. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West
Applicant/Owner. Michael Hazard / Advanced Home Technologies, LLC
Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of
Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in
Stucco and wood to diminish scale.
B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West
Applicant/Owner. Michael Hazard / Advanced Home Technologies, LLC
Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of
Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in
Stucco and wood to diminish scale.
XI. Master Sign Program - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 2, Riverfront Subdivision / 126 Riverfront Lane
Applicant: Andy Gunion / Owner. Riverfront Village Hotel, LLC
Description: A Master Sign Program Amendment to allow for tenant identification signs
around the public plaza and gondola area. The signs include blade signs, awning signs,
window signs, and freestanding signs.
XII. Minor Project Application
A. Shed Addition - CONTINUED
Property Location: Lot 41-B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road
Applicant. James G. Downs, Tuff Shed, Inc. l Owner: Tony Prior
Description: Construct an attached shed to the side of the subject property. The shed exterior
finish will match the existing residence.
B. Lau Deck Remodel
Property Location: Lot 95A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2380 A Old Trail Road
Applicant. Gary DeKoker/Owner. David Francis -Lau
Description: A Minor Project application to remodel an existing deck on one half of a duplex
structure. The remodel will include the addition of 370 square feet and the change from stucco
to wood as the major material used. The application also includes a color change on both
halves of the duplex structure.
XIII. Other Business
XIV. Adjourn
Posted on October 12, 2007 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 htto://www.avon.oro / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
0
� �
Staff Report AVON
PUD Amendment C0 L 0 R A D 0
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date October 11, 2007
Project type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
Legal description The Village at Avon Planned Unit Development,
Planning Areas H, I, E, and F
Current zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address NA (No addresses assigned)
Introduction
The applicant, Dominic Mauriello of the Mauriello Planning Group, representing the owner of the
property, Traer Creek -RP, LLC, is proposing to amend the Village at Avon (VAA) PUD. The
proposed amendments to the PUD include a request to reconfigure the planning area
boundaries of Planning Areas H, Neighborhood Center, I, Neighborhood Center, E, Village
Residential, and F, Village Residential, for the stated purpose of creating more of a buffer
between commercial uses and the adjacent residential neighborhood that currently exists along
Eaglebend Drive. The applicant is also proposing a text amendment to the PUD guide that will
result in a modification to the current percentages and ratios of commercial -to -residential uses
in order to permit more residential density in areas that are presently planned for more
commercial square footage. The proposed and revised PUD Development Plan is included as
Attachment A. Planning Area E is currently approved to be 5.5 acres and the applicant is
proposing to reduce it down to one (1) acre. Planning Area F is approved to be 9.5 acres in size
and the applicant is proposing to increase it to 14 acres. Planning Area H is presently approved
to be 3.2 acres in size and the applicant is proposing to increase it to 7.7 acres. Planning Area I
is currently approved at 5.7 acres in size and the applicant is proposing to decrease it down to
1.2 acres. In both the current and proposed versions of these planning areas, the total acreage
adds up to 23.9 acres (see tables depicted below).
Planning Approved Proposed
Area
E - 5.5 acres 1 acre
F 9.5 acres 14 acres
H 3.2 acres 7.7 acres
Town of Avon Community Development
5.7 acres 1.2 acres
(970) 7484030
Fax (970) 949.5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment 4
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 11
I Planninq Area
Residential
Commercial
Minimum
Maximum
%
%
Minimum %
Maximum %
Village Center (A)
30
80
20
70
Village Residential (D, E)
90
100
0
10
Village Residential (F)
9070
100
0
4030
Neighborhood Commercial (H,
q
0
2-050
9050
100
Regional Commercial (K, L)
0
20
80
100
Rettional Commercial (J)
0
- 2050
9050
100
(Existing % to be amended shown in strikethreugh, proposed in bold)
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends to the Avon Town Council approval of Ordinance 07-10 approving the
request to amend the Village at Avon PUD, as proposed, subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. Planning Areas E, F, H, I, and J shall be limited to a 5 -year vesting period,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 06-09, the Town's vested rights regulations;
2. Section 1(12xd) of the Village at Avon PUD Guide shall be amended to
include Planning Areas B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J;
3. The applicant shall quantify the proposed traffic impacts with respect to trip
generation, impact to existing travel times, and stacking for all modes to the
satisfaction of the Town Engineer through submittal of a Traffic Study
prepared by a qualified licensed Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of a
building permit within Planning Areas E, F, H, I, and J;
4. At such time as formal approval by Town Council is granted for this
amendment, the applicant will have provided sufficient language to be
incorporated within the PUD development plan and annexation agreement
which guarantees a portion of the remaining attainable housing requirement
be realized in Planning Areas E, F, and H; and
5. The applicant shall initiate and properly maintain mass transit service
connecting West Avon to the easternmost commercial parcels and Buffalo
Ridge of the District, at a level of service no less frequent than is provided
within the Town, from time -to -time, and pursuant to Section 4.10 of the
Village at Avon Annexation and Development Agreement, prior to the
issuance of a building permit within Planning Areas E, F. H, I, and J.
It is important to note that the approval of a PUD Amendment does not mean anything definite
will occur within the context of an approved PUD development plan. According to Section 3.5 of
the Village at Avon Annexation and Development Agreement, there is "No Obligation to
Develop". Without an accompanying subdivision, or re -subdivision, application, there is no
trigger for mandatory, previous conditions of approval, and nothing is formalized to guarantee a
certain action will occur. A PUD Amendment alone may never reach fruition or be realized at
any point in the future because, in the end, the developer may choose to do something different,
than what is contemplated with the amendment, or nothing at all. Within the context of this
particular PUD, the only applications, which cause a condition of approval to go into effect, are
an application for subdivision, or a building permit application. However, the reason that full
scrutiny of such PUD amendments is so critical is they can result in an expanded range of
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74&4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
A The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 11
flexibility for the developer, the effects of which may result in unintended consequences for the
PUD in question, or the Town as a whole
Vested Property Rights
The applicant is requesting that, in accordance with Section H.1.(c) of the PUD Guide for The
Village (at Avon), the amendment and associated modifications to the PUD Master Plan create
vested property rights for the duration of the term set forth in Section 1.3 of the Annexation and
Development Agreement (35 years from 1998, of which 26 years remain).
Section HA(c) of the PUD Guide requires that any amendment to it create vested rights for the
duration of the term set forth in Section 1.3 of the Annexation and Development.
However, by Ordinance No. 06-09, the Town's vested rights regulations were amended to
provide that any property right vested after June 1, 2006, remain vested for a period not to
exceed five years.
Accordingly, approval of the application will need to be conditioned (Condition #1) upon an
amendment to Section 1.3 of the Annexation and Development Agreement, adding the proviso
that any amendment to the PUD Guide and/or the Sketch/PUD Development Plan shall be
limited to a term of five years from the date of approval.
Public Benefits
Staff is recommending (Condition #2) that all Regional and Neighborhood Commercial Planning
Areas (A, B, C, D, E, F. G. H, I, and J) located on the "Valley Floor" of the PUD Master Plan be
subject to the public benefit language located in section 1(12xd) of the Village at Avon PUD
Guide. Currently, the provision for an Ice Skating/Events Center that is proposed for Planning
Area C is to be initiated by to the development of 200,000'^ square foot of commercial space
within Planning Area A. Staffs concern is that the balance of current commercial entitlements
(approximately 400,000 square feet) may be exhausted prior to triggering this public benefit. By
including Planning Areas B. C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, and J (Neighborhood/Regional Commercial Plan
Designations), the Town has a greater opportunity to realize these benefits.
Transportation
Staff has also included a condition (Condition #3) requiring the provision of mass transit service.
To date, the traffic and mass transit demand created by the existing commercial development
within the VAA (e.g., Home Depot and Wal-Mart) has not been properly mitigated.
Demonstration of the mass transit demand has been recorded when Avon Transit provided
mass transit service (without reimbursement from the District) from June 2006 and April 2007;
ridership was substantial (12,850 service hours and 350,000 passenger -trips) and continued to
increase throughout this time. Any subsequent development will only increase traffic and transit
demand and exacerbate this problem. Immediate initiation of mass transit service connecting
West Avon to the east -most commercial parcels of the District, and the Buffalo Ridge Affordable
Housing Project, should be required in conjunction with any amendment or further project action
by the District.
Staff has also requested a provision of a Traffic Study — The amendment refers to compliance
with the Town's "Transportation Plan", however, it does not reference any specific document.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 11
The proposed amendment has not demonstrated consistency with Avon's current transportation
planning, traffic engineering, transit planning, or multi -modal initiatives (see Policy G.1.10). The
applicant should quantify its proposed impact with respect to trip generation, impact to existing
travel times, and stacking for these modes, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer through
submittal of a Traffic Study prepared by a qualified, licensed Traffic Engineer.
Housing
The application states that one of the driving principles of the amendment request is to improve
the "diversity" of housing and increase the mix of uses based on input from the community. Of
equal importance is the balance and mix of attainable housing. One of the shortcomings of the
existing Village at Avon PUD is the lack of integration regarding the attainable housing at
Buffalo Ridge since it is isolated from the rest of the uses within the Village at Avon as a whole.
The current application is an opportunity for the applicant to offer a tangible public benefit that
meets one of the Comprehensive Plan's goals, which is to provide a wide spectrum of housing
options integrated into the community.
Background
Prior Amendments to Annexation and Development Aareement
The original Annexation and Development Agreement was entered between EMD LLC, PVRT
NOTT I LLC, PVRT NOTT II LLC, PVRT NOTT III LLC, and the Town of Avon on October 13,
1998 and later recorded with Eagle County on November 25, 1998. This agreement provided
vesting and property rights for the Village (at Avon) annexation property.
Amendment #1
Approved by Ordinance No. 01-16 on November 13, 2001 & recorded December 10, 2001 with
Eagle County. Amends portions of the original agreement including: responsible parties and
ownership are clarified, Administrative Amendment No. 1 to the Development Plan is correctly
referenced, 1-70 Improvements and related bonding for construction, East Beaver Creek
Boulevard Improvements, Swift Gulch Road Improvements, Public Works Site, one acre Fire
Station dedication, Retail - Real Estate Transfer Fee - Accommodation Lodging Fees, Use tax /
fee establishment, lost sales tax revenues for Wal-Mart and City Market.
Amendment #2
Approved by Ordinance No. 03-08 dated May 27, 2003 & recorded July 30, 2003 with Eagle
County. This amendment changed the Highway 6 Exaction requirement and replaces it with a
Highway 6 Trail Exaction requirement. The trail exaction was for the design and construction
costs for sections of the pedestrian trail system along Highway 6. Trail exaction was a result of
public concerns expressed by Eagle -Vail residents through their Metro District and the County
Commissioners. It includes a cost sharing agreement outlining funding for the project.
Amendment #3
Approved by Ordinance No. 04-17 on October 26, 2004 & recorded December 22, 2004 with
Eagle County. This amendment addresses two issues: 1) Correcting the method of computing
the cost of police services and agrees to a new formula that reflects that the Village pay for the
actual cost of police services provided to it; and 2) Deferment of the construction of the
improvements on East Beaver Creek Boulevard from 2005 to completion in 2009. This is a
result of the development pattern so far primarily taking place on the east side of the Village
property.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 5 of 11
PUD Amendment History
Administrative PUD Amendment #1
Request: Amendment to the PUD Development Plan map showing planning area locations, and
general street alignments. This amendment also moved the location of the school tract to the
north side of the Interstate. Action: Approved administratively with signature of the Community
Development Director on May 14, 2001.
Administrative PUD Amendment #2
Request: PUD Guide Amendment to permit building setback encroachment for Lot 3, Filing 1
(Planning Area K), from Fawcett Road Right -of -Way for Southwest comer of Wal-Mart and
associated outdoor nursery sales center. Action: Approved administratively and recorded
February 19, 2002 with Eagle County via 'Certificate of Landowner Request'
Administrative PUD Amendment #3
Request: PUD Guide amendment that prioritizes the sale and rental of the requirement
employee housing units first to people employed in the Village (at Avon) property, second to
people employed in the Town, and third to people employed in Eagle County. Action: Approved
by Community Development director and recorded May 15, 2002 via 'Certificate of Landowner
Request'
Administrative PUD Amendment #4
Request: Amendment to PUD Guide, specifically adding language concerning swift gulch road
allowing for 11' travel lanes with 2' shoulders in sections that include a 10' wide paved
separated pedestrian trail. Language added to supplemental Regulations, Section 1.5 Design
and Improvement s Standards as a new subsection (b) (vi). Action: Approved by Community
Development director administratively and recorded May 15, 2002 via 'Certificate of Landowner
Request'
Formal PUD Amendment #1 (Denied)
Request: Submitted on May 30, 2003 and included the following points:
• Creating an additional 19.2 acres of Regional Commercial (Planning Area Q)
immediately adjacent to the new interstate exchange. This commercial area is
divided by Post Blvd. into separate parcels. The east parcel is approximately 7.8
acres and the west side consists of two parcels: 7.8 acres and an additional 3.6
acres. As a frame of reference: Christy Lodge is 6.35 acres and Original Wal-
Mart 6.33 acres.
• Planning Area Q also includes 1.0 acre for the Fire District Regional Facility as
required by the Annexation and Development Agreement.
• Relocating the school site to Planning Area M and increasing the planning area
for the school site by almost 2.0 acres.
• Reducing the Community Park from 29.0 acres to 17.4 acres. The loss of
useable acreage for the community park is limited to 3.4 acres. The existing
topography and steep slopes were not considered in the original planning area
designation for the Community Park. Traer Creek LLC has agreed to replace the
park area when RMF -1 and RMF -4 are developed. The Village (at Avon) still
retains approximately 500 acres of open space.
• Increasing Planning Area RMF -1 from 146 residential dwelling units (24.2 acres -
6.0du/acre) to 307 residential dwelling units (30.7acres-10.Odu/acre).
• Providing a mix of 310 dwelling units on RMF -4 which surrounds the new school
site. Planning Area M is specifically excluded in the Village at Avon PUD Guide
from the total development rights currently approved. Therefore, this amendment
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 6 of 1 I
includes the addition of 310 dwelling units (8.0du/acre) to the previously
approved 2,400 dwelling units for the Village (at Avon). Since the additional
density is above what has been previously approved, Staff has recommended
transit services be required for this development area combined with the school
to mitigate the impacts and isolation from the rest of the Town of. Avon.
Action: The Planning Commission approved Resolution 03-14 after four public hearings,
recommending approval to Council. The Town Council approved Resolution 0341
which denied the amendment.
Formal PUD Amendment # 2 (Approved)
Request submitted on October 3, 2006, and included the following points:
• Relocation of Planning Area G on the PUD Development Plan, which will remain
designated for a school to be operated by the Eagle County School District;
• Planning Area D has been adjusted to allow the school to be located within its
previous boundaries; and
• Planning Area N, which is, by way of this text amendment to the PUD Guide, the
site upon which two separate facilities for the Eagle County Health Services
District and the Eagle River Fire Protection District will be located.
Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission approved, with conditions, Resolutions
06-16 and 06-17. The Town Council approved Ordinance 06-17, thereby allowing the
amendments outlined above.
Surrounding Land Uses:
The existing land use and zoning for the surrounding properties are as follows:
• North: Interstate 70
• South: Medium -High Density Residential / Village at Avon PUD
• West: Mixed Use/ Village at Avon PUD
• East: Mixed Use / Village at Avon PUD
This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to property owners within
300' of the subject property. To date staff has received no public comments regarding the
applicant's requests. In addition to the required public notice, staff has transmitted the
application material to the following agencies, with their comments summarized below:
Eaqle Countv School District Comments
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments
Eaqle River Water and Sanitation District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments
Colorado Department of Transnortation
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eaale Countv Plannina Department
Eagle County did not have specific referral comments related to this application.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Eagle Counter Fire Protection District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Colorado Deoartment of Wildlife
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eagle County Health Services District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
ECO Trails
A letter from Ellie Caryl is attached for the Commission's review.
Proposed Amendments
Page 7 of 11
Attached to this report is a summary of the requested amendments (Attachment A) to the current
PUD Guide map and the Development Plan, as prepared by the applicant. The proposed
amendments are detailed in the introduction section of this report.
PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zonina Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be
used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to
demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of
the following design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a
particular development solution is consistent with the public interest.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
The sections within the Comprehensive Plan that offer policy direction relative to the
proposed land uses are the Future Land Use Plan, the District 7 (Village at Avon West
District) special area policies, and the General Goals and Policies of the Plan.
The Future Land Use Plan designates the planning areas proposed to be amended by this
application as Residential -High Density and Neighborhood Commercial. The general area
upon which the applicant has proposed amendments is identified on the District Priorities
Map as a Medium Priority District. The subject properties are also located within District 7:
Village at Avon West District, which designates the area as a "pedestrian -oriented urban
village".
The Comprehensive Plan also identifies several regional policy goals related to land use
and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to the proposed Village at
Avon PUD amendment. The goals and policies that pertain are as follows, each with a
review comment regarding this application's compliance:
Goal CA: Provide a balance of land uses that offers a range of housing options,
diverse commercial and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations,
and high quality civic and recreational facilities, working in concert to strengthen
Avon's identity as both a year-round residential community and as a commercial,
tourism and economic center.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 8 of 11
Review Comments: The changes proposed involve shifting the location and type of
proposed development, including the reallocation of commercial and residential uses within
Planning Areas F, H, I, and J; in addition to modifying the approved physical size of
Planning Areas E, F, H, and I. In consideration of the broad scope of Goal CA, the impacts
of this text amendment upon the remainder of the Village at Avon PUD as a whole must be
given careful consideration. Staff is concerned about the impacts of enlarging Planning
Area H and increasing its maximum residential percentage from 20% to 50% of the total
square footage; while concurrently lowering the minimum commercial percentage on
Planning Area H from 80% to 50% of the total square footage. Likewise, increasing the
maximum residential percentage from 20% to 50% of the total square footage on Planning
Area J; while concurrently lowering its minimum commercial percentage from 80% to 50% of
the total square footage is of concern as well. The pattern of development that has occurred
thus far in the Village at Avon PUD has resulted in infrastructure inefficiencies, particularly
with respect to transit, and this proposed amendment will likely only serve to exacerbate
those inefficiencies. Similarly, because the proposed amendment will likely result in an
increased residential density in the subject planning areas, there should be a formal
consideration given to achieving a diverse range of housing with this application. The
application mentions, in passing, the policy objective of creating or contributing to an overall
diversity of housing options, but no commitment has been made on behalf of the applicant to
inject some attainable housing options into this amendment proposal. Staff suggests this is
an appropriate time to request that some of the residential capacity involved with this
proposal be formally dedicated and restricted to attainable housing units. Also, with regard
to transit, since this amendment will produce an increased level of inefficiency based on the
development pattern from east to west, a commitment to contributing toward a transit
system to serve this increased residential population located well outside the Town's core is
appropriate at this time.
Additionally, under the broad scope of Goal CA is the topic of high quality civic and
recreational facilities working in concert to strengthen Avon's identity. Given the amount of
commercial square footage contemplated (approximately 185,000) within the subject area,
staff is concerned about the impacts on the build -out of Planning Areas A, B and C. There
is a threshold of commercial development that must be reached in Planning Area A in order
for the Ice Skating/Events Center planned for on Planning Area C to be realized, and staff is
concerned that this application may preclude the development of these highly beneficial
civic uses. In this regard, staff has recommended a condition of approval related to a
tangible public benefit, such as the uses approved for Planning Area C, to be achieved prior
to the approval of further amendments, such as this one.
Goal 17.1: Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse
segments of the population.
Review Comments: As stated above, this is an opportunity to make a formal commitment
toward achieving a diverse range of housing within the core area of the Village at Avon
PUD. At present, the applicant has not proposed anything specific with respect to injecting
an amount of attainable housing into the planning areas proposed to be modified with this
application.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area
design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
No specific or detailed designs have been submitted with this proposal. The Village (at
Avon) Design Review Board governs design review for the entire PUD.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 9 of l 1
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
No specific or detailed designs have been submitted with this proposal; however, schematic
renderings depicting possible cross sections of buildings with vague bulk and mass studies
have been submitted with this application.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
As outlined in the first criterion under this section, the uses, activity, and density that will
result from this PUD amendment may not provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity. However, staff has recommended
conditions centered on the phasing sequence, transit, and attainable housing, which will
result in this criterion could being met.
5.' Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
There do not appear to be any natural or geologic hazards on the area of property upon
which this PUD amendment is proposed.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The proposed PUD amendment, as submitted, does not appear to impact this criterion.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
As detailed above, there is no change proposed to the circulation system designed for the
PUD, however, the Town's existing transit system is not designed for residential and
commercial densities located well beyond the village core of Avon.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
Landscaping and open space associated with the proposed amendment have not been
planned beyond a conceptual level. Additionally, the Village at Avon Design Review Board
governs design review for the entire PUD.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional; and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall
clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without
relying upon completion of future project phases.
No phasing plan has been submitted, and phasing of public improvements will be
coordinated through the subdivision review process.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Transportation systems have not been given consideration with this PUD amendment
proposal; however, staff has recommended a condition to address how this application will
further exacerbate the inefficient conditions of development which are observable thus far in
the existing state of the Village at Avon PUD.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 11
11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
The road and street improvements will be reviewed through the subdivision process. It
should be noted however that the developer is required to complete the final construction of
the roads in this area, complete with streetscape, with the subdivision process.
12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial
compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section
17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code:
A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning entitlements
cannot achieve.
No demonstrable public purpose is contained within the PUD amendment requested with
this application beyond what the applicant claims could result in more of a buffer between
the existing residences on Eaglebend Drive and new commercial uses in the subject
Planning Areas. The approval of this PUD amendment application alone will not guarantee
that any buffer is achieved between residential and commercial uses.
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.
The potential adverse impacts of the proposed zoning application will outweigh any potential
long term economic, cultural or social community benefits unless such elements as an ice
skating rink or events center are specifically tied down with conditions of approval for an
application such as this.
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.
There exists no guarantee within the contents of the subject application, as submitted, that
the approval of this proposal 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. However, with a few well worded conditions of
approval to which the applicant would be willing to adhere, this criterion could be met with a
tangible link to the elements contemplated herein.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-
4002, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully
Matthew R. Gannett, AICP
Senior Planner
Tom of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 11 of 1 l
Report Attachments
Attachment A: PUD Amendment Application Packet
Attachment B: Vicinity Map
Attachment C: Pertinent Excerpt from the Approved Annexation and Development Agreement
Attachment D: Letter from ECO Trails dated August 31, 2007
e
Attachment E: Letter from the Applicant received October 11, 2007
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes for October 2, 2007
AVO K Avon Town Council Chambers
C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building 1400 Benchmark Road
REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm.
IL Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Goulding
who arrived toward the end of the meeting.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
Item IX, Minor Project Application — "Wildridge Townhouses", Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3070 Wildridge Road, moved
to the Consent Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Evans revealed a conflict with Item IX, Minor Project Application —
"Wildridge Townhouses", Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge, Property Location: Lot 10, Block 1,
Wildridge Subdivision / 3070 Wildridge Road.
V. Consent Agenda
Approval of the September 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes.
Item IX, Minor Project Application — "Wildridge Townhouses", Lot 10, Block 1,
Wildridge, Property Location: Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3070
Wildridge Road.
Commissioner Smith motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda with Commissioner
Foster seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously with a 6 — 0 vote.,
Commissioner Evans voted in favor of September 18, 2007 Meeting Minutes with
Commissioner Lane and Commissioner Green abstaining due to . absence at the
meeting. The Minutes passed with a 4-0 vote. Item IX, Minor Project Application —
"Wildridge Townhouses", Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge, Property Location: Lot 10, Block 1,
Wildridge Subdivision / 3070 Wildridge Road, passed 5-0 with Commissioner Evans
abstaining due to a conflict of interest.
VI. Special Review Use Review I Walkin' the Dog - CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING
Property Location: Lot 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision / 281 Metcalf Road
Applicant/ Owner: Marisa Lehman
Description: Re -review of the Special Review Use Permit (approved by Resolution 06-
14), issued at the Planning and Zoning Commission's October 3, 2006 meeting. The
permit was approved for one year, subject to re -review no later than October 3, 2007.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Commissioner questions revolved around the parking for employees, and verification
that all items were in compliance. Planner response was that all was compliant except
for a gate that was on order and the only missing item.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
There were no comments made by the public.
CLOSED PUBLIC HERARING
Commissioner review included continued discussion on the gate, one or two year time
frame to review the SRU, no more than 50 dogs at the facility at any time whatsoever,
hours to be 9 — 4, removal of silt fence will take place in Spring due to revegetation and
removal of condition two from the staff report.
Commissioner Green moved to approve Item VI, Special Review Use Review / Walkin'
the Dog, Property Location: Lot 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision 1281 Metcalf
Road, continuation of Resolution 06-14 with Staff recommended Condition #2 struck,
Condition #3 be clarified that no more than 50 dogs at a time at the facility including the
play area, dogs to use the playground between 9 am to 4 pm only. This will be returned
to Planning and Zoning within two years for review. Commissioner Smith seconded the
motion and the motion passed 6 — 0.
VII. PUD Amendment I Sheraton Mountain Vista — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center Subdivision /140 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Applicant/Owner. Points of Colorado, Inc
Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing
property rights and zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application
proposes to eliminate a 125 -room hotel, and increase the number of time-share units in
the project's last phase of development. This application was last reviewed at the July
17, 2007 Commission meeting.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
Ruth Borne, Points of Colorado, approached the podium to discuss this application. Ms.
Borne had submitted to staff a letter of clarification regarding two items that reflected the
recommended motion in the Staff Report with Item 1 being a memo from Norman Wood
dated 2006 that stated the need to provide 19.44 acre feet, and they will work with staff
and the District to provide adequate water rights and regarding Item 2 that at the last
hearing information be provided regarding the studio units available, and that 4 units are
available with three units continuous with one another. Lastly, the vesting period, as
was outlined in the Staff Report, a letter was provided prior to the last meeting, that the
Development Agreement specifically said that vesting period was until February 22,
2012 and upon the commencement of construction and not completion.
Commissioner Green questioned the affordable housing and continued that staff wanted
to double the size of the units rather than have 4 smaller units.
Scott Wright, Assistant Town Manager, discussed the Stan Bernstein Financial Analysis,
fees and costs, stabilization was presented, the model reflected the failure to construct
the hotel and the original PUD provided for a rebate of taxes, real estate transfer tax
goes into the general fund for CIP development. Ongoing revenues pay for municipal
services for the General Fund and Real Estate Transfer Taxes pay for projects.
Commissioner Evans asked which scenario was preferred by the Town and Mr. Wright
responded that the new model has additional guest nights and it was what the Town
needed for the new projects and that practically it might not be quite as good as the
original proposal, but was good enough. Commissioner Evans questioned if room nights
reflected rooms or people. Mr. Wright responded that it was people. Commissioner
Green questioned the water tap fees.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
There were no members of the public that made comment.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Struve remarked on the value was that the time-share would provide
more people to finance Town Center West and could favor timeshares more favorably
than a hotel. Commissioner Foster expressed that timeshare would provide more
activity. Commissioner Smith expressed that the timeshare would be more effective
than the hotel and that the project's massing was more than needed. Commissioner
Lane commented that the time share was good, but concerned about the articulation of
the building proposed. Commissioner Green voiced approval of the time share with
concern of the affordable studio units, landscaping and public plaza design, articulation
was important, the restaurant would be to the Town's best interest but not for a
restaurant to be completed prior to the completion of the building. Commissioner Evans
voiced favor of leaving the recommended motion Condition #5 as it was with revisions
later.
Commissioner Green motioned to approve Item VII, PUD Amendment / Sheraton
Mountain Vista, Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center Subdivision /140 W. Beaver
Creek Boulevard, with staff recommendations 1 thru 6, and clarifying Item 2 that the 4
affordable units need to be reconfigured to be continuous units. Commissioner Struve
seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion*passed 6 — 0.
VIII. Special Review Use Review I Employee Housing Units - PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark Subdivision / 431 Metcalf Road
Applicant. Mark Donaldson / Owner: Daniel Sunday
Description: The applicant is applying to construct two employee -housing units in
conjunction with a business operation. The property is located on Metcalf Road,
between the Svabik/Lawrence building (Beaver Creek Automotive) and the new Qwest
building. The units would be located on the second floor of the building, which is
currently being remodeled.
Matt Pielsticker presented Staffs Report.
Commissioner Green questioned the use of the units if this building's use changed in the
future. The SRU was tied to the specific use of the building and there was no real
correlation.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
There were no comments made by the public.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Struve questioned the duration of the SRU and was responded by
Commissioner Evans that previous SRU applications were specific such as a church
office, pre-school, tree sales.
Commissioner Green motioned to pass Resolution No. 07-01, Item VIII, Special Review
Use Review / Employee Housing Units, Property Location: Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark
Subdivision / 431 Metcalf Road, with conditions of the Staff Report. Commissioner
Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously with all Commissioners
in favor.
IX. Minor Project Application — "Wildridge Townhouses"
Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge
Property Location: Lot 10, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3070 Wildridge Road
Applicant: Steven James Riden, Architect/ Owner. Stuart Borne
Description: Design review application for a complete interior and exterior remodel.
Exterior site and building modifications to a four-plex zoned property including: additions,
doors, windows, roofing, driveway alterations, dormers, decks, and additional
landscaping.
Moved to Consent Agenda.
X. Final Designs - Wildridge Subdivision
Forenza Duplex
Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane
Applicant/ Owner. David Forenza
Description: Final Design for a duplex residence on the last vacant lot on Ferret Lane in
Wildridge. The design features a total of square foot building with wood, stucco, and
stone siding. Sketch review for a duplex on this property took place at the July 17, 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report.
Bobby Ladd, architect, approached the podium to present this project to the
Commission, discussed the differences from the Sketch Plan presentation
Commission review included concern with size and the home situated from lot line to lot
line, concerns with landscaping being in clumps/pods rather than spread out, south side
mirrored images, all lights were high and perhaps some could be lower with a dimmer,
light should reflect downward and not up, specified light fixture needed to be changed,
landscaping had no sod area, landscaping could use a more natural feel, architecture
and design had addressed commission sketch concerns. Staff produced the Sketch
Plans for the Commission to revisit. Additional comments included that the project
looked like two separate homes with a connection, not a unified structure, and not two
duplex units.
Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item X, Final Designs - Wildridge Subdivision,
Forenza Duplex, Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret
Lane, with Commissioner Lane seconding the motion. All Commissioners were in favor
and the motion passed unanimously.
XI. Other Business
• Staff Approvals:
o Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge (Garage Addition)
o Lot 48, Block 1, Wildridge (Reroof)
o Tract A+B, Filing 3, Eaglebend (Reroof)
• Future Agenda Items:
o Folson PUD at next meeting.
o Hamel PUD
o Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge
• East Town Center Plan will be on 10/9 Town Council Meeting.
X. Adjourn
Commissioner Foster motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Goulding seconded. All
Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Y O
From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner c 0 L 0 R A 0 0
Date October 11, 2007
Re: Timeshare West, Riverrront Subdivision
Site Tour - Follow-up to Condition of Approval
Introduction
At the May 1, 2007 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Final
Design Plan for the above-mentioned design application. An on-site mockup review
for final approval of materials and colors was required as part of the approval.
Attached to this Memorandum is a Memorandum from the applicant, which reports
changes to the design of the mockup since the Commission's September 4, 2007
review.
Also attached to this Memorandum is a new colored elevation drawing that shows the
approved Final Design of the Hotel next to the proposed Timeshare West. There is no
site tour planned for your October 16, 2007 meeting; rather, the applicant is seeking
guidance with respect to this revised color scheme for the Timeshare West project.
The relationship between the Westin and Timeshare West is essential to this review.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission TABLE action on the
colors and materials for the Timeshare West. Feedback should be provided to the
applicant to be incorporated into the revised on-site mockup construction and/or
colored elevation drawings. Staff anticipates a formal follow-up mockup review at your
November 6, 2007 regular meeting.
Attachments
• Memorandum from Design Team
• Reduced Colored Elevations and Color Board
Timeshare West, Riverfront Subdivision October 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Staff Report
PUD Amendment AVON
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 0 0 L 0 e A n 0
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Current zoning
Address
I. Introduction
October 12, 2007
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
Folson Annexation Parcel
PUD
Highway 6 & 24 (Not Assigned)
The applicant, Premier Property Holdings, LLC, is proposing a 112 unit condominium
project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. After holding a public
hearing, this application was tabled from the February 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Since that meeting, the application has to a large extent been
revised. The majority of the revisions were in response to public and staff comments
received by the applicant since its first iteration. A follow-up work session with the
Planning and Zoning Commission took place on June 19, 2007 to review this revised
proposal.
The property is located immediately east of the 49 unit "Gates on Beaver Creek"
condominium project, which is currently under construction and reaching completion.
As proposed, there are two phases to the subject project with no timeframe for
completion. The first phase includes 75 condominiums, amenities typical of this type of
project, and underground parking. The second phase is proposed to include 35
additional condominiums, and a combination of structured and on grade parking spaces
on the east end of the project. Phase two would include the aforementioned restaurant
slated to be comprised of between 3,000 and 7,000 square feet.
This submittal proposes to dedicate the upper majority of the site to open space through
a conservation easement. This approach varies from the original submittal, which
originally proposed to split the 21.5 acre site into two lots in a similar fashion to the
"Gates on Beaver Creek" project, and zone the upper portion of the lot as Open Space.
The final access solution to enter the property has yet to be determined; however, the
applicant is proposing to have one main project entrance in the middle of the site
accommodating full traffic turning movements entering and leaving on Highway 6 & 24.
There needs to be a connection with the Gates on Beaver Creek project to the west. It
is uncertain at this time whether that connection will remain open or not. If the access
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC NEARING'
October 16.2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 17
were to be created, staff would prefer it remain open for maximum site circulation and
project benefit.
After providing a background and summary of the public input received to date, this staff
report outlines all of the mandatory review criteria for the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Town Council to consider when reviewing this application. Staff is
recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission CONDTIONALLY APPROVE
this application, with further modifications to the Development Plan.
Background
The Folson Property was annexed into the Town of Avon in 1985 by Ordinance 85-7.
Shortly after annexation, the Town Zoning Map was amended by Ordinance 85-8,
thereby establishing a zoning designation for the property: Special Planned Area (SPA).
There have never been vested rights associated with the property.
There have been several development proposals and conceptual reviews for this
property in the past, with the only serious one taking place in 1997. That project was
called "La Piazza" and contemplated two separate 5 story buildings and a total,of 92
Condominium units. The development had mostly underground parking and the site
was split into two lots in a similar fashion to this proposal, with a 4.4 acre site on
Highway 6 & 24, and a second —17 acre open space tract to be dedicated to the Town
of Avon.
La Piazza was sent to the Avon Town Council with a unanimous recommendation for
denial (Resolution 97-1). The Planning and Zoning Commission found that the project
was incompatible with the site and surrounding land -uses.
According to Resolution 97-1, the Commission cited conflict with the following findings:
1. Failure to conform with the goals and objectives of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Failure to conform and comply with the overall design theme of the town, the
sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
3. Failure to achieve design compatibility with the immediate environment,
neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale,
bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation.
4. Failure to provide uses, activity and density that are compatible, efficient and
produce a workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
5. Failure of the site plan, building design and location, and open space provisions
to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
6. Failure of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems to address on and off
site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
7. Failure to produce functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space that
optimizes and preserves natural features, recreation, views and functions.
At the first hearing with the Town Council, the application was withdrawn by the
applicant. Since La Piazza, there have been no further applications.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'a
October 16, 2107 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 17
In November of 2005, a joint Work Session with Town Council and the Planning
Commission was held to discuss a development concept. That concept was for a 150
unit condo -hotel project. The Commission and Council made some of the following
comments: underground parking or parking behind building would be a benefit; shared
access with Gates should be pursued and other highway improvements are necessary;
limit the size of building(s) to no more than 4 stories; shuttle was positive for
connectivity, and there were general comments on architecture and articulation.
Most recently, in November of 2006, the Town and the current property owner granted
permission for the "Gates on Beaver Creek" to temporarily store materials, park, and
stage for their project next door immediately to the west. It is Staffs understanding that
this staging area will be restored to its original condition and vacated by the end of this
calendar year.
III. Surrounding Land Uses
The existing land uses and zoning for the surrounding properties are as follows:
o North Highway 6 &24, Eaglebend III Apartments, Open Space Tracts on river
o South: White River National Forest
o West. Gates on Beaver Creek / Open Space Tract / Beaver Creek Subdivision
o East. River Oaks Condominiums / Eagle -Vail Subdivision (Unincorporated Eagle
County)
IV. Referral Comments
This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to property
owners within 300' of the subject property. Please find comments from the referral and
public notice attached. In addition to the required public notice, staff transmitted the
application materials to the following agencies, with their comments summarized below:
Eaole Countv School District Comments
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eaole River Water and Sanitation District
A letter was received from Fred Haslee, Regulations Administrator fdr the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District. The letter states that there is adequate water
and handling capability for this development. This letter, along with calculations for
water demand, is included in the Appendix in the applicant's submittal.
If this application is approved, there must be a condition of approval stating that no
permits will be issued for development prior to final commitment of water service.
Colorado Department of TransDortation
To date, staff has not received a direct response to our request for comments.
Included in the applicant's submittal (Section 8) you will find meeting minutes from
Alpine Engineering involving CDOT staff relative to access. Any proposed
improvements to U.S. Highway 6, and the access configuration as submitted, must
be accompanied by approval letters from CDOT and the Gates prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7494030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING'
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 17 Avok
Eaale Countv Plannina DeDartment
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eagle Countv Fire Protection District
Comments from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief for ERFPD are attached in Exhibit
B of this report. The comments are technical in nature.
Colorado DeDartment of Wildlife
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eagle Countv Health Services District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
ECO Trails
According to Ellie Caryl, the plan appears to address ECO Trails' concerns by
providing a sidewalk connection on Highway 6 & 24.
ECO Transit
A response was received from David Johnson, Transit Planner for Eagle County
Regional Transportation Authority. In summary, the Transit Authority has concerns
that the employment generation projected (27) is on the extreme low end of the
spectrum, and the resulting demand for housing is a strong consideration. On-site
housing is preferred from a transit and 'demand for service' standpoint.
There were also comments regarding the bus shelters, pull -offs, and lighting for
those bus stops. ECO Transit's preference is to keep the bus stop in the current
configuration instead of moving it further to the west. Some other comments which
reiterate comments from the Town of Avon Engineering Department in Section VII
of this report include: proper decal; standing and acceleration space; and meeting
ECO Transit's current shelter criteria. A 10 foot buffer for the bike path was
suggested from Highway 6 & 24 for a more attractive and safe pedestrian
environment. It appears that this concern has been adequately addressed.
V. PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria
shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. Also, "It shall be the burden
of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development
plan comply with each of the following design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more
of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution is consistent with the
public interest."
Please refer to Section 3.06 on pages 3-5 of the applicant's binder for their responses to
these principal criteria.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comurehensive Plan's Goals and
Objectives.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 749.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
C"
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 17
District 6 (Comprehensive Plan Pace 81 - Exhibit E)
The Folson Property is located within District 6: Highway 6 Gateway Corridor
(Exhibit E) in the Comprehensive Plan. This district includes the Elk Parking lot in
the Beaver Creek Subdivision, Avon Road/Highway 6 Roundabout, Gates on Beaver
Creek, and the Folson property.
According to the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan, "the Folson property is
intended to provide residentiaModging uses with supporting commercial and service
uses at a scale appropriate to the buildable area." The plan explains that the
property is somewhat isolated with respect to other development and improvements
in Town. The property's terrain makes it unique and is one of only two properties in
the Town located south of Highway 6 & 24.
In the applicant's submittal, Section 3.03, responses to all of the 'planning principles'
have been provided for District 6: Highway 6 Gateway Corridor. The planning
principles for the Highway 6 Gateway District focus on providing a sense of entry in
this area of Town, and strengthening the association between the Town and Beaver
Creek Resort. The Comprehensive Plan envisions buildings of various sizes
(smaller than those in Town Center West) to break up building bulk and "preventing
a canyon effect on Highway 6."
Buildings in the Town Center West are typically no taller than 100'. This proposal
would allow for up to 80' building heights for the entire property. Note that the
existing topography is typically much higher than the road in areas where the height
calculation would take place. The most dramatic example of the proposed building
height with this application would be approximately 100' above the Highway 6 & 24
grade. At build -out, the structure would stretch approximately 725 feet in length,
which is a large part of the Highway 6 & 24 frontage and will likely contribute to a
canyon -like effect.
Future Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan Pace 27 - Exhibit D)
The Future Land Use Plan does provide specific direction for the Folson property.
This map shows the Folson Property split in the same place the applicant is
proposing to split the property with a "Neighborhood Commercial" designation on the
entire Highway 6 & 24 frontage, and an "Open Space" land -use designation for all
portions further to the south. The Neighborhood Commercial District envisions a
maximum density of 7.5 units per acre.
Goals and Policies (Comprehensive Plan Paces 37 - 63)
The Comprehensive Plan also identifies several regional policy goals related to land
use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed
PUD plans in Town. The Goals and Policies that pertain are as follows, each with a
review comment regarding this application:
Policy A.1.2: Refer development Submittals to Eagle County, adjacent
municipalities, and other agencies to ensure that regional issues are identified and
considered as part of the public process.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
poison Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 17
Staff Comment: This application has been referred to Eagle County and other
agencies for review. (See Section IV of this report.) All public input received should
be considered through this review process.
Policy 8.2.4: Work with landowners to identify opportunities for conservation
easements or other permanent open space protection tools.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to keep the upper portion of land for
permanent open space through a conservation easement. The exact terms of the
easement would need to be clarified and approved by the Town, presumably at the
time of Final Plat. In addition, a permanent easement for the proposed hiking trail
would need to a executed.
Policy C.1.1: Ensure that proposed development projects conform to the Future
Land Use Plan's designations and are a scale and intensity appropriate for the
planning district which they are located.
Staff Comment: The scale and intensity should be reviewed carefully. if density
were calculated per Avon Zoning Code., approximately 27 units per acre of
"developable" land would be permitted. This density is similar to that of the Gates on
Beaver Creek property; however, the site constraints are considerable compared to
those of the Gates property.
Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety of
housing densities, styles, and types based upon the findings of a housing needs
assessment study.
Staff Comment: A housing needs assessment study was completed in November of
2006. This study finds a lack of most price ranges, particularly units below $450,000
value in Avon and Eagle County. The applicant is proposing to house one, one
bedroom affordable unit on site. Also part of the submittal is a pay in lieu structure
for up to four additional units. In total, this application proposes to mitigate 20%, or
five (5) of the applicant's projected 25 employees at buildout.
Staff's preference would be to use the calculation methods employed by Eagle
County, which includes both a residential and commercial linkage. The commercial
linkage would only apply to the restaurant space, and the residential linkage applies
to the remaining units. These calculations are based on• average unit size, and total
restaurant area. The numbers are then adjusted for multiple job holdings per
employee, and multiple employees per household.
The end result of these calculations would result in a need for a minimum of six
units. At least 20% of the units mitigated (or 1 unit) would be required on-site, and
the remaining five units could be mitigated with either off site or payment -in -lieu.
The payment would result in approximately $355,000. Therefore, Staff would
recommend either more on-site units or additional payment -in -lieu.
Goal F.1: Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse
segments of population.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 17
Staff Comment: While understanding land costs and the difficulty with developing
this property, staff believes that additional mitigation is necessary with respect to
furthering the diversity of housing options.
Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than
separated from, the rest of the community.
Staff Comment: On-site workforce housing should be a strong consideration given
the jobs produced by this development. The application projects 25 jobs would be
created, which evidently does not include the construction jobs to be generated by
this project and appears to be on the lower end of an accurate projection range.
Staff recommends further monetary mitigation.
Policy G1.7. Ensure that streets effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian,
bicycle and other modes of transportation.
Staff Comment: There is an extension of sidewalk proposed in addition to an
upgraded transit location in the form of a relocated bus stop. The sidewalk could be
used by both pedestrians and those accessing transit facilities and is proposed to be
immediately adjacent to the Highway 6 & 24 paved roadway.
Policy H.1.3: Require development to accommodate wildlife habitat, including
deer and elk migration routes, or otherwise mitigate loss of habitat.
Staff Comment: Portions of the property have been identified as potential range for
elk, deer, bear, and mountain lion. The types of vegetation proposed in the
preliminary landscape plan contradict some of the CDOW recommendations for
appropriate plantings.
Policy H.2.1: Avoid development in environmental hazard areas such as
floodplain, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards, wildfire hazard areas, and
areas with erosive soils.
Staff Comment: There are some sensitive areas within these parcels that could be
considered impossible to avoid; however, reducing development and disturbance in
hazard areas would better respond to this policy. Final geologic reports would be
required at Final Plat.
Policy H.4.3: Require use of innovative and environmentally friendly building
techniques including water conservation approaches for new development.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to pursue a Silver Certificate from LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). This is an exciting prospect for
this or any other development in the Town and should be required. It could be
appropriate to guarantee a Silver Certificate for this development; however, it is
worth noting that such a lofty goal will be very difficult to achieve. Staff struggles
with the pursuit of a LEED certification in lieu of a commitment to achieving this
noteworthy status.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the
sub -area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 746403D Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUO - PUBLIC NEARING
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 8 of 17 POW
`
There are preliminary site plan drawings and building elevations included with this
submittal. While the elevations are not binding, they do represent a certain level of
quality and architectural style. These also show the general massing of the
proposed. development.
A massing model will be available at the pre -meeting work session for the
Commission's consideration. The model is at a 1:40 scale and clearly shows the
property's relationship with the Gates project. A formal design review process by the
Planning and Zoning Commission would follow this zoning application.
The Town of Avon Residential, Commercial. and Industrial Design Review
Guidelines put emphasis on the overall design theme for the Town of Avon.
According to the Guidelines, the theme for the Town shall be to establish an
attractive appearance for visitors and residents, and yet be flexible enough to allow
for appropriate design innovation.
"Buildings and Improvements should be individually designed for the site on
which they are to be placed. The site and its relationship to other structures,
scenic values, views, and climatic orientation should be the dominant factors in
the design and sighting of buildings (Page 26 - Site Development)."
The site plan design indicated on the provided drawings shows a linear building
footprint. The drawings have been revised and the western most portion of Phase
One has been shifted to the east to respond to the "Gates on Beaver Creek"
development. The amount of excavation required for this site layout to function is
significant, requiring a series of shotcrete walls behind the structure.
While the applicant has significantly lowered the overall height of the project, it has
been to the detriment to the articulation of roof forms. The project is now depicted
with long linear roof ridges at approximately 80; which need to be offset by equal
spans of roof ridges that are at a significantly lower height. Staff suggests a method
of height -calculation that ensures roof ridgelines will be broken up and articulated to
avoid a canyon like effect.
The following requirements outlined in the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial..
and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines. should be reviewed against this
application:
02. The location of structures shall complement the existing topography of the
site. Excessive grading andlor the use of engineer -designed retaining walls
are discouraged when an alternative site layout would minimize such
disturbances (Page 27 - Site Design)."
"3. Buildings and improvements shall be designed and sited to conform to the
natural terrain ....terraced buildings and parking will minimize site disturbance
(Page 27- Site Design)."
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, character, and orientation.
Elevation drawings are included in the plan set which imply a certain level of
architectural quality. The scale, bulk, height, and character of the architecture are
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 - Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p' B
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 9 of 17
evident in these drawings. There are high quality materials such as stone and
timbers expressed in the drawings; however, these drawings only provide an
architectural theme and the general massing of development and would thus not be
considered binding.
Staff would like to focus on the scale and possible bulk of development in relation to
the immediate environment. As proposed in the Development Plan, the buildings
would be phased and connected at completion of the project. This connected
fashion combined with the proposed building heights and building setbacks would
create a canyon -like feel as approaching or leaving the Avon Road roundabout.
There has been an effort to provide a stepped fagade to break up the bulk of the
buildings. A ghosted elevation study showing the original proposal highlighted in a
dashed red line behind the current proposal is included on Sheet A3.3. There are
also site plan studies included in the submittal.
As mentioned, this submittal has pushed the entire building and associated
disturbances to the east as far as 'possible, while still recognizing the steeper
topography as one moves east on the lot.
According to the Development Plan (Sheet A1.2), there would be 7.5 foot side yard
building setbacks platted. The drawings indicate that the buildings would be located
approximately 38' from the western property line, and 305' from the east property
line. Staff would recommend submittal of a revised Development Plan with setbacks
reflective of the improvements depicted in the drawings.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The land uses proposed: residential condominiums, and ancillary restaurant, are
appropriate for this property with respect to the surrounding uses. The Gates on
Beaver Creek project is entirely condominium and the Eaglebend III project across
highway 6 & 24 could be considered "workforce" residential. The abutting areas of
the Eagle -Vail subdivision to the east are also entirely residential in nature.
As referenced earlier in this report, the density proposed equates to approximately
27 dwelling units per acre. The 'non -buildable' areas have been backed out of the
calculation since the Municipal Code excludes these areas from density calculations.
There are approximately 4.1 'buildable' acres out of the entire 21.52 acre site, due to
excessive grades that exceed 40%.
"The Gates on Beaver Creek" project is being constructed with a density of
approximately 27 units per acre. That particular project is buffered to the west by
Beaver Creek, a flowing stream, and an open space tract of land.
Eaglebend III is the other project in the immediate vicinity that has a direct
relationship with this property. That project includes 21.5 dwelling units per acre (54
units on 2.5 acres) and is buffered by the river and large tracts of open space on
three sides.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Poison Annexation - Madison Partners PUO - PUBLIC NEARING
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
m ATH
Page 10 of 17
There are significant geologic hazards associated with developing this property. The
applicant's submittal includes a Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Preliminary
Geologic Site Assessment, both dated December 13, 2006 (see Appendix).
Through field exploration (borings) and geotechnical engineering studies to observe
the geologic conditions of the property, several hazards or potential hazards have
been identified. Slope instability, debris flows, debris avalanches, and rock fall risk
are all considerations for developing this site. According to an updated Geologic
Hazard mitigation report (dated 'August 31, 2007), rock fall danger would be of lesser
significance and will likely be mitigated by the option presented in the report.
In general, more disturbances to the site and steep hillsides result in a greater risk
for encountering and requiring mitigation of the aforementioned geologic risks.
Fallowing these preliminary studies, the applicant is proposing to utilize a
combination of debris troughs/catchments, and freestanding retaining wall systems
for mitigation.
It should be noted that these investigative reports are preliminary in nature, and
according to the August 31, 2007 report cited above, additional geotechnical design
would be required, Of note, the mitigation options studied would divert debris flows
and floods from their natural deposition path and could impact the "Gates on Beaver"
Creek to the west, and the existing apartments to the east.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
There appears to be a high degree of alteration to the existing site required to
enable this development to properly function. While the buildings would be linear in
fashion to avoid the hillside as much as possible, the site layout does not appear to
be sensitive to the natural features of the site. Extensive site retention and
mitigating measures would be essential for this development to function.
Instead of responding and working with the existing topography of the site, it is
evident that the buildings were placed on the site plan with little sensitivity to the
natural topography. Some areas of mature Douglas Fir forest vegetation would be
removed with this proposal. Development is inevitable on this property; however;
the overall natural aesthetic quality of this site to the community should be reviewed
carefully as this is one of few areas in Town with this unique vegetation and
orientation.
The upper portion of the site would be preserved as open space through a
conservation easement method of preservation. The natural features of the upper
15+ acres would be left in their natural state, preserving the natural quality and
vegetation that exists. This can be considered a benefit to the community.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town
Transportation Plan.
There is a functional driveway proposed for passenger vehicles and fire response
vehicles. A pedestrian connection, in the form of a 10' wide sidewalk, would connect
Town of Avon Community Development {978} 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING'
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Pagel 1 of 17 Am
to the Gates sidewalk for increased pedestrian circulation. There is a pedestrian
crossing at the main entrance to the property. Staffs preference would be to
guarantee this path is constructed during Phase One of construction.
According to the pedestrian access plan provided by Alpine Engineering, there
would be a trail connection from the bus stop location on Highway 6 & 24 up and
over the project. One trail would then travel back east to a lookout; the other trail
would follow the approximate Fleck Ditch delineation toward Beaver Creek. The
feasibility and logistics necessary for this trail to effectively function are unclear. The
trail proposed to head toward Beaver Creek would travel through the Town Open
Space parcel above the "Gates on Beaver Creek" project prior to entering the United
States Forest Service Lands. An easement would be required to ensure the
prospect of this trail. There are no plans from the USFS for a trail connecting to this
trail. _
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
A preliminary landscape plan is provided on sheet A1.3. This plan clearly shows the
intention to buffer this project with landscaping, and the plan also shows the
treatment where open space abuts the development. Landscaping has been
increased since the first review.
There would be a significant amount of native mature trees eliminated, especially
with the construction of Phase 2. This area of the property is also where existing
grades exceed 40%. Development in this area of the project would not further this
design consideration.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing
plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional
and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases.
The Development Plan shows a two phase approach to development. It has not
been demonstrated that each phase could function independently of one another,
particularly with respect to grading and retaining wall requirements. A complete
phasing plan would be required that accurately depicts associated grading, soil nail
wall extent, and the like, for each phase independent of one another.
The applicant has explained that each phase could function independently and
phasing would likely be dependent upon sales. There would be no need to build all
retaining walls at the same time, according to the applicant. Retention and
mitigation of geologic hazards could be phased.
10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Please refer to the Appendix of the applicant's submittal
Traffic Study for evidence of utility letters. Letters have
River Water & Sanitation District (ERWSD), Xcel Energy,
Qwest. All applicable utilities are able to serve this project.
Town of Avon Community Development
(970) 74&4030
immediately following the
been included from Eagle
Holy Cross Energy, and
Fax (970) 949-5749
Fotson Annexation - Madison Partnere PUD - PUBLIC HEARING AlK
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 12 of 17
11.That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed
PUD.
The document titled Traffic Impact Analysis, Folson Mixed -Use, is included in the
appendix of the applicant's binder. The road and street improvements would be
reviewed in detail through the subdivision process. As mentioned in the introduction
of this report, the applicant is seeking approval from the Colorado Department of
Transportation, the governing authority for state highway 6 & 24, for a full turning
movement intersection at the entrance to the project. A connection to the "Gates on
Beaver Creek" project would benefit all if eventually agreed upon, and is required by
ordinance.
12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of
substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as
outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code:
A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning
entitlements cannot achieve.
Staff Comment: This development will impact the general fund balance of the Town.
However, this supposed benefit must be weighed against the resulting scale and
intensity of development based on the area of developable land.
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.
Staff Comment: A financial analysis has been completed and is attached as Exhibit
E.
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.
Staff Comment: The policies and goals outlined in the Town's Comprehensive Plan
should be considered with this application. The entire .upper 15 acre portion of the
site would be preserved through a conservation easement. All of the proposed
development would be on the lower quarter of the site. The building footprints
depicted in the drawings show that development has been consolidated; Phase one
has been shifted to the east, Phase three has been eliminated, and Phase two has
been expanded. The resulting development has been shifted west, further from the
40-60% slopes at the northeast corner of the parcel. Staffs primary concern at this
point is with the maximum building height as it relates to existing grades, and the
appearance of continuous linear roof forms.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'a
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 13 of 17
VII. Preliminary Subdivision Plan and Improvement Standards
Pursuant to Sections 16.20 and 16.40 of Town of Avon Municipal Code, the application
for Preliminary Plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department for compliance
with the appropriate design and improvement standards. The following comments
pertaining to the applicant's Preliminary Plan (for subdivision) resulted from this review:
Any proposed improvements to U.S. Highway 6, and the access configuration as
submitted, must be accompanied by approval letters from CDOT and the Gates
prior to approval.
The project requires a Highway Access Permit from CDOT.
2. Building 3 appears to be located largely on undevelopable areas containing 40%
slope or more.
Satisfactorily addressed. The third building has been removed. However, a
portion of Building 2 and the eastern parking lot appear to be located on
areas with greater than 40% slope. The application states that 4.1 acres of
land is less than 40% slope, while the developed acreage is 5.1 acres.
3. The phasing plans should show areas of staging during construction. For
example, where will construction staging for Phase 3 be located if Phases 1 and 2
are built and occupied?
A detailed phasing plan must be submitted with the construction plan and
building permit submittal.
4. The proposed bus stop does not conform to ECO Mid Block Bus Bay design
guidelines requiring a 75 -foot incoming taper, a 65 -foot staging area, and a 40 -
foot taper exiting into through traffic.
Satisfactorily Addressed
5. Stormwater drainage from the eastern half of the site appears to be directed into a
culvert beneath U.S. Highway 6 that contains a note on page 1 reading "End of
culvert location undetermined." Also, the size of the culvert is not shown. The
effluent location should be located and verified prior to adding site drainage.
Not Addressed. The pipe may have to be repaired or replaced depending on
its condition before it can be utilized to discharge storm water.
6. Improvements to U.S. 6 may require additional signage. For example, the speed
limit sign noted "to be relocated" is not shown in the plans in its final destination.
Additional signage may also be required to properly sign the entrance to the site.
Not Addressed. The additional signage must be addressed as part of the
State Highway Access Permit and Construction Drawings.
7. The Preliminary Plat erroneously shows "Town of Vail" instead of "Town of Avon"
as property owner on the adjacent parcel across U.S. Highway 6.
Not Addressed
8. A spot grade shown on the proposed roundabout is erroneously shown to be
"x%."
Satisfactorily Addressed.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 14 of 17
YIN
9. A detail of the proposed "Debris Flow Barrier and Pedestrian" fence should be
provided. Furthermore, Town of Avon Design Guidelines prohibit the installation
of fences in most applications.
Satisfactorily Addressed. The fence was removed from the drawings.
10. The proposed design does not allow much separation between the access drive
and U.S. Highway 6. This may inhibit future expansion of the highway right of
way.
Not addressed. The US 6 Corridor Feasibility Study shows that US 6 will
require two lanes in each direction in this location. The applicant needs to
demonstrate that the addition of the accel/decal lanes will not prohibit the
future widening of US 6. If there is not adequate ROW then the ROW will
need to be dedicated to accommodate the accel/decal lanes required for this
project This is supported by CDOT comments contained in the meeting
minutes included in the application.
11. Numerous maps such as USGS quadrangles and the FIRM show an irrigation
ditch known as the 'Fleck Ditch' traversing the property, though it does not appear
on any of the site maps. It is mentioned as abandoned in the PUD narrative.
Please provide documentation confirming abandonment.
Not Addressed.
12. It does not appear that "back of house" functions such as deliveries and refuse
removal are feasible given the proposed garage clearances and access
configuration.
Satisfactorily Addressed.
13. The newly proposed "Tract 2" must have a minimum of twenty-five feet of street
frontage in order for it to be legally subdivided.
Satisfactorily Addressed. Tract 2 was removed from the submittal.
14. All Topo and Aerial Maps should show the new property line that subdivides the
21.52 Acre PUD into Tracts 1 and 2, and the two tracts should be labeled as such.
Satisfactorily Addressed. Tract 2 was removed from the submittal.
15. Prior to submittal of Final Plat, the vicinity map shown on the plat will need to be
revised to a scale of not less than one inch equals one thousand feet and include
section lines, and township and range lines in accordance with section 16.24.130
(E) of the Avon Municipal Code.
Not Addressed.
16. The property lines labeled as "Gates" on sheet 1 of 1, Aerial Map, should be
removed to reflect the current Gates property lines.
Satisfactorily Addressed.
17. The proposed entrance from U.S. Highway 6 to the Porte Cochere does not
appear to include a pedestrian crossing to allow safe connection from the east to
west sidewalk.
Satisfactorily Addressed.
Additional Comments:
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
October 16, 2007 Planning 8 Zoning Commission meeting
Page 15 of 17 b
18. The drawings should have a table of contents or index.
19. The plan should include how and when the debris flow channel must be
maintained.
20. The debris flow plan must demonstrate that it will not impact the adjacent property
owners.
21. The parking lot grading must be modified to ensure the debris flows do not enter
the parking garage.
22. Trees are not allowed in the debris flow channel.
23. The proposed contours should be shown for the entire disturbed area on the
grading plan. Furthermore, it does not appear that top of wall or bottom of wall
elevations, and associated grading, are provided for the retaining walls south of
the debris flow channel.
24. There are many items that are not labeled on the grading plan. They need to be
labeled clearly.
25. The detention must be provided for the entire site, not just the western portion.
26. There are conflicts between the water, sewer and storm sewer. Please show the
storm sewer and underground detention on the water and sewer plans.
27. Additional information will be required regarding the proposed storm water quality
method at the Construction Drawing phase.
28. The sidewalk on U.S. Highway 6 should end at the east property line as stated in
the application.
29. The applicant must dedicate an access easement that is identical to the one
dedicated by the adjacent property owner, The Gates.
30. Detailed retaining wall designs must be submitted by a registered professional
engineer at building permit stage.
31. Fire hydrant locations must be approved by ERFPD.
32. The curb and gutter at the proposed bus stop does not offer adequate bus refuge
from through traffic on Highway 6. ECO mid block bus bay guidelines require 11 -
feet from face of curb to the edge of the through traffic lane. Curb and gutter
should be shifted to the south and the shelter relocated to the south edge of the
proposed sidewalk.
33. A public access easement for the proposed hiking trails should be dedicated at
final plat.
34. Several proposed retaining walls and a portion of the debris flow channel appear
to be located within the proposed conservation easement.
35. What are the terms of the proposed conservation easement? Please provide a
draft for review by the Town.
36. The vicinity plan on sheet A1.2 appears to refer to the previous submittal.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'
October 16, 2(x17 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 16 of 17
VIII. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Madison Partners PUD
application. As currently presented, Staff finds conflict with some of the mandatory
review criteria outlined in this report; however, staff would recommend approval with the
following conditions:
1. The Development Plan will be revised as follows prior to final
approval:
• Building Setbacks must reflect the proposed building footprints
as minimum setbacks.
• Maximum allowable building height for Phase One is 80', with
no more than 50% of the primary ridgeline at or near this
maximum building height. The maximum building height for
Phase Two shall not exceed 60', with no more than 50% of the
primary ridgeline at or near this maximum height. The existing
grades are considerably higher in this portion of the lot. This is
meant to avoid the continuous linear ridgelines that are currently
depicted with the elevation plans.
• A 10' Bike Path and required Bus stop improvements will be
constructed during Phase One. This path will reach the eastern
property line.
• All building square footages will be changed to maximums, not
"approximates."
2. Access permit(s) must be approved by the Colorado Department of
Transportation prior to a building permit being issued. Access between the
Gates on Beaver Creek will be facilitated with no gate.
3. The proposed restaurant shall be open and operating prior to final
completion of the project.
4. Public easement(s) for the proposed hiking trail shall be executed prior to
approval of the Final Plat.
5. A development agreement between the developer and the Town will be
executed prior to final approval. A minimum of 1 deed -restricted for sale
Employee housing unit will be provided, targeted to not more than 140% of the
Area Median Income. The unit will be identified and approved during Final
Design review. The payment -In -Lieu amount will be increased to not less than
$355,000 to mitigate for the remaining 5 units. Vesting for this project will also
be outlined in the development agreement.
6. The 15+ acre Conservation Easement will be executed and recorded prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Adequate Water Rights must be obtained prior to issuance of a building
permit. No letter of commitment from ERWSD has been received.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 17 of 17 A
MR
8. Final design of debris/drainage facilities must be approved by the Town
prior to construction. All facilities will be constructed during Phase One, unless
a phasing plan is approved that demonstrates it is feasible to construct only a
portion of the facilities.
8. All Wildlife and Fire Mitigation concerns shall be addressed to the
satisfaction of the Commission prior to Final Design approval.
9. A complete detailed phasing plan is required no later than Final Design
submittal that accurately depicts grading, soil nail wall/retaining wall extent,
and staging for each phase independent of one another.
10. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations
made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in
public hearings shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of
approval.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department in the Municipal
Complex.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Piels Ic er
Planner II
IX. Report Attachments
EXHIBIT A: Applicant's Proposal Binder
EXHIBIT B: Agency Referral & Public Comments
EXHIBIT C: Future Land Use Map, Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
EXHIBIT D: District #6, Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
EXHIBIT E: Financial Analysis, dated March 7, 2007
EXHIBIT F: Vicinity Map
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Weinora11durn
To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner I, Town Of Avon
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Date: 2/13/2007
Re: Madison Partners, Folson Tract, Town of Avon, PUD Application
As summarized in the meeting minutes from Glen Palmer of Alpine Engineering, a
meeting was held in December with the following items discussed:
A 75% reduction in fire flow requirements may be acceptable with additional
fire protection such as horizontal standpipes and radio communication provided.
The concern is that the buildings are not accessible on the south side so
additional protection maybe required. This will need to be evaluated on a
"whole picture " basis to confirm the intent of the fire code is being met.
Fire flow requirements should be established upfront to determine adequate pipe
sizing and if a fire pump will be required to meet those flows. Fire flow
requirements for the adjoining project, The Gates, are currently computer
modeled and will be verified this spring as weather permits. 100 psi required at
the most remote standpipe outlet may be adjusted based on the strength of the'
hydraulic calculations.
Fire department connection (FDC) locations were discussed as being located in
the general vicinity of the garage entry doors and clearly labeled.
- ' Access is proposed via the Port Cochere and east/west garage entrances. The
shared access between The Gates and this project would benefit both and greatly
enhance firefighting capabilities.
Several options were discussed concerning the interface with Highway 6 and
emergency response into the project and clearing the site after an incident. I
believe further discussion was needed between CDOT and The Gates before a
final proposal was presented.
Please give me a call at 970-748-4741 if there are any questions or concerns.
y)yrt.:•�T
Pagel of 2
Matt Pielsticker
From: David Johnson [David.Johnson@eaglecounty.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Matt Pielsticker
Cc: Harry Taylor, Kelley Collier
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
Employment and employee housing
The amount and location of affordable housing is important to ECO. Eagle County estimates that traffic
generation will triple over the next 20-30 years, requiring over $500 million in road expansion and improvements.
As an alternative, ECO Transit's 2030 Vision advocates regional rail service on the UP line and local feeder bus
service in each town center connected at multimodal transit stations. The key to success of transit will be transit -
supportive, pedestrian -oriented land use. This includes mixed-use, high-density walkable communities with a
variety of housing options, particularly surrounding the intermodal stations.
Please review the two files I have attached regarding employment generation. According to County -specific
employment generation studies by RRC Associates over the past ten years, bar/restaurant space generates 8.9
employees/1000ft2. The restaurant alone, under these assumptions will generate 27 employees. The applicant
also proposes to have concierge, maintenance, valet, and transit employees on staff. It is also possible, I assume,
that these units may be put under fractional ownership or rented out Under all these assumptions, this project
could generate far more than 27 employees to sustain the project. In addition, these residents will create
demands for services off-site—including shopping, entertainment, health care, etc.—which will generate more
employment.
According to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Eagle County will be the leading employment
generator in the Intermountain region. Eagle County's demand for employment and lack of attention to employee
housing will create an estimated labor shortage of 30,000 jobs by 2025-2030 ( see slide 22 of
htto:/Avww.nwc.coa.co.us/Second%20Home%2OStudy/NVVCCOG%202ndHome%2OStudv%). Therefore, 1 ask
you to consider requiring the applicant to provide housing for at least a portion of employees to be generated by
this project, and that this housing be placed within walking distance to transit and services. I do not believe that
$225,000 in -lieu is a fair housing mitigation to Avon. If the affordable housing is not built or it is not built into the
right place or not integrated into the community, Avon may suffer from increased competition for employees and
the entire community will pay, directly or indirectly, from increased road maintenance costs, traffic congestion, and
air quality impacts as employees commute from outside the Town.
Transit Improvements
It is my understanding that the applicant wishes to reduce the number of parting spaces required for this project.
I also understand that there will be little if any parking available for employees. IF the parking requirements are
going to be reduced, it will be important to provide the proper infrastructure and alternatives to allow residents,
visitors and employees to get around without private automobiles. Residents and visitors should be encouraged to
leave their cars parked underground —if they have cars—and to use the two bus systems and the developer's
proposed shuttle. As the applicant reconfigures Highway 6, the applicant should create safe and attractive bus
pull -offs, walkways, shelters, and lighting. There are two passenger waiting areas in front of the applicant's site.
Both of these will need the pull -offs, shelters, and lighting. Although there may an opportunity to move the current
boarding locations, it is ECO's preference that they remain at their current sites. The pull -offs will need to be
constructed with proper deceleration, standing and acceleration space and the shelters will need to meet design
criteria of ECO Transit's current shelters. I also suggest that the walkway incorporate a 10 -foot buffer from
Highway 6 and pedestrian lighting for a safe and attractive pedestrian environment.
David Johnson, AICP
Transit Planner
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority
2/13/2007
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Bruce McCloskey, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
uildlije.stataco.us
February 6, 2007
To" of Avon
Community Development
Attn: Matt Picisticker
Box 975
Avon, CO. 8 1620P Box 298
Mr. PicLticker,
For 11rildlife-
For People
After reviewing the proposed PUD amendment for Madison Partners PUD, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) offers the following comments and
recommendations regarding wildlife for your consideration.
The wildlife report has a couple of amrs.
EEC
• The wildlife report states "Elk winter range has been mapped on the majority of the southern portion of the site." The site has been mapped not
only as elk winter mage but also as elk winter concentration areas and elk severe winter range.
Black Bear.
• The wildlife report states "The area has not been mapped by CROW as blackbear habitat" This is inconat the ma, has been mapped as overall
black bear range and as human conflict areas.
The summary in the wildlife report states "The potential impacts to elle habitat arc often encountered in development of this region; however, the stated
recommendations should alleviate most of the anticipated wildlife impacts." The only recommendations in the report on mitigation of impacts to elk an: using
plant species that aro unpalatable for clk. Many of the plant species listed are palatable for elk (such as Mountain Mahogany, Choke Cherry, and Big
sagebrush). Thee is n section on dim the steep portion of the southern pan of the site have limited access to human traffic during the winter. Further that this
area maybe dedicated to theTown of Avon. However there is no information on whether the closue or the dedication to the town will be required. Themis
no discussion on the direct impact of the loss of approximately six (6) acres of habitat fiom the development The impact from the indirect impacts (increased
human and dog use) on the adjacent clk habitat needs to be further explained and the mitigation measures spelled out in the PUD plan The reportneeds to
include how these direct and indirect impacts will be mitigated.
The discussion an black bears does correctly point out the requirements in dere Town of Avon for utiliatioa of wildlife resistant refuse containers. However the
mitigation for black bear should include the not planting vegetation that produces berries or fmhs. Several of the plant species listed in the unpalatable list
produce berries or fruit that are attractive to beats.
The Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to make recommendations and be involved with this fencing project If you have any question or cone ms
with these commems please feel fire to contact DWM Bill Andree at 328-6563.
Siacaely,
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manga, Glenwood Springs
Cc: Ron Velatdo, Bill Andra, file
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Execu e.Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary
Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Rick Enstrom • Richard Ray • James McAnally • Ken Torres
Ex Offiido Members, Harris Sherman and John Ship
Page 1 of 1
Matt Plelsticker
From: Ellie Caryl [EIIie.Caryl@eaglecounty.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:34 AM
To: Matt Pielsticker
Cc: David Johnson; Harry Taylor
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
Hi Matt — I got the referral package on the above project. It seems that there plan addresses
what would have been my comment — provide a sidewalkitrail 'in front of the project to conform
to the recommendations of the Highway 6 access plan. 1 am passing the packet along to ECO
Transit in the event they have any comments for you. David Johnson is the Transit Planner I
will relay the info to.
Thanks—
Ellie
Ellie Caryl
ECO Eagle Valley Trails Program Manager
(970)328-3523 /fax 328-3539
PO Box 1070
Gypsum, CO 81637
2/1/2007
Watersi—A Environmental Cont. Itants, Inc,
Wetland Sciences • Environmental Planning • Hydrology • Habitat Inventory/Restoration • Permitting
P.O, Box 3722
Eagle, CO 8163 I
March 5, 2007
Matt Pieisticker
Town of Avon, Community Development
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Chateau Wilgeaux PUD
Dear Matt:
• Voice & Fax: 970/328-4364
Website: www.waterfolks.com
RECEIVED
AFAR 12 2007
COttxnwk t ovftment
Thank you for forwarding the staff report and comments by the Colorado Division of Wildlife
(CDOW) in the application referral letter of February 6, 2007.
I have discussed the comments with Bill Andree at the CROW and am supplying you with the
following supplemental responses. The following responses should clarify the CDOW
comments for your consideration in the land use proceedings at this time:
CDOW Comment: The area has been mapped as overall black bear range and as human
conflict areas. The site has been mapped not only as elk winter range but also as elk winter
concentration areas and elk severe winter range.
Response: The Environmental Impact Report contains a wildlife section that reviews existing
available information on the extent of mapped range conditions. While the available mapping
provided by Eagle County at the time of my report was not accurate, however the report
recommends that all garbagetrefuse handling is per the Avon Municipal Code provisions for
wildlife resistant containers. This mapping has been revised and the correction noted to Bill
Andree in our conversation, the corrected map is included herein.,
CDOW Comment The only recommendations in the report on mitigation of impacts to elk
are usingplant species that are unpalatable far elk Marry of the plant species are palatable for
elk (such as Mountain Mahogarry, Choke Cheery, and Big sagebrush).
Response: Comments duly noted and we will revise and resubmit a recommended planting
list for the landscape plan with appropriate plant species considering elk and bear use in
conjunction with the design review application (as required by the Town of Avon). Detailed
recommendations will be reviewed with Bill Andre and CDOW staff to ensure there are no
obvious conflicts.
wa•terrshed \'wbt-ar-'shed\ adj: The region above a specific point on a stream from which water drains into the stream. A turning
point, critical factor, and new way of working with the environment.
CDOW Comment: There is a section on that the steep portion of the site has limited access to
human ftzolc during the winter. Further, that this area may be dedicated to the Town of Avon.
However, there is no information on whether the closure or the dedication to the town will be
required
Response: The EIR recommends closure of the southern portion of the property to human
access from December 15 through April 156, consistent with other area closures for Elk winter
habitat. That said, the details of this dedication and closure are to be decided by the applicant
and the Town of Avon if they are to become owners of this tract, including the appropriate type
and timing of legal access to the tract.
CDOW Comment: There is no discussion on the direct impact of the loss of approximately six
acres of habitat from the development. The impact from the indirect impacts (increases human
and dog use) on the adjacent elk habitat needs to be further explained and the mitigation
measures spelled out in the PUD plan
Response: No information was provided to WEC with respect to covenants regulating pet
ownership on the tract. The loss of six acres of habitat should be addressed in the form of a
mitigation fund. Prior to recording of the final plat, a wildlife mitigation plan outlining a
compensation fund dedicated by the developer can be prepared as requested by CDOW.
Preliminary estimates based on the area of impact are about $1,000 to be generated every year
(based on current mitigation rates), which would be held in a fund by the Colorado Wildlife
Heritage Foundation and distributed for use and managed by the CROW. These monies will be
used to enhance wildlife habitat in the immediate area (typically within a four mile radius of the
impacted site) as compensation for loss of this habitat. A detailed mitigation plan can be
prepared by final plat and submitted for review to the CDOW as deemed necessary by the
developer and the Town.
Matt, I am confident that this letter of response is adequate in addressing the concerns raised by
the CDOW with respect to the proposed Chateau Wilgeaux. If you have any questions, please,
feel flee to contact me.
Kind Regards,
Daiva Katieb
Cc. Bill Andree, Division of Wildlife, 50633 Hwys 6 & 24, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601;
Greg Macik, TAB Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 7431, Avon, CO 81620-7431;
Larry Vineyard, Madison Partners, 3100 Monticello Ave., Ste. 260, Dallas, TX 75205
LEONARD & ANN KENT
P.O.BOX 7533
AVON
CO - 81620
RECEIVED
MAR 0 6 2001
Oomrtiufilry Development
CHRIS EVANS, Chairman, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O.Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Sir:
Following up on my previous letter mailed to you on February 12
from our home In Hanover, NH, I would like to let you know that we
are very pleased that the February 20th hearing on the proposed
condominium, Chateau Willgeaux, resulted in the issue being
tabled. We are sure that you must be deeply involved in ongoing
negotiations with the developer. We wish to let you know of our
continuing opposition to this project. We greatly regret the
existence of the Gates Condominium on what was for so many
years a natural area that we were told would remain as BLM land.
We are horrified at the possibilitty that another monstrous
structure, which will take years to construct, might be built on
the remaining open land directly across from Canyon Run.
We are sure that your Comission is asking uWhat benefit will
accrue to the Town of Avon, and what future burdens might
be imposed by this project". In this connection, 1 am enclosing
a copy of an interesting commentary from the Vail Daily of
February 27, 2007. If you wish; you may circulate this article
amongst the members of the Commission.
We wish you, and the Town, good luck in your deliberations
Sincerely yours,
X)170 z )
Leonard Kent
Fmnk & Susan Diasparra
0400 Hurd lane 1.102
Avon CO 81620
97D-746.6986
Gank@newagamtuns.com
Full Time Avon Residents
February 20, 2007
Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Atm: Avon Town Clerk, Patty McKenny
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission:
I am writing to you in response to the proposed development plan for "Chateau WilgeaW'.
My wife Susan and I have been full time residents in Avon for the better of 8 years now and over that
time have seen significant growth and development in Avon. Most of the changes over that time
have been for the better of the community and the valley. However, I must say that the proposed
development plan for "Chateau MargeaW' is the most preposterous proposal that has ever been put
forth to our zoning and planning commission during our time in Avon!
What is this developer thinking? Three buildings ranging in height from 155 feet to 95 feet on
Highway 6! The natural hillside view from the north side of Avon will be replaced with a sprawling
complex that is detrimental to our community, not only in environmental disruption and esthetics but
would create an insurmountable traffic and noise reflection crisis that cannot he remedied on the
Highway 6 corridor and the Beaver Creek roundabout leading into Avon and down valley towns to
the west. We already experience traffic congestion on Highway 6, on a normal rush hour and tourist
basis AND this road is the ONLY alternative to East — West traffic whenever Mother Nature &
accidents force closure / detours from I-70. This plan cannot address the Highway 6 congestion in
any positive way.
Let's not forget wildlife in our impact assessment; the Vail Valley and state of Colorado in general
take great pride and go to great lengths to protect and promote the wildlife that are a bedrock of our
beautiful state. Much of our local wildlife come down to the river from the hills that "Willgeaux"
will destroy. In addition, what will be the impact to the fish and vital water supply that the Eagle
River provides?
Look at this proposal closely and with a very careful eye to our future. I trust you will see, as we and
many of our fellow Avon residents do, that while this development plan may be appropriate for the
Los Colinas suburb of Dallas, it has no merit and to the contrary will be TOTALLY detrimental to
Avon, Eagle County and our beautiful state.
It is our objective to have you, the Avon Planning & Zoning Commission to see this absurd proposal
in the same light as we, the tax paying citizens of Avon do.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank & Susan Diasparra
.................0....0.....
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: Patty McKenny
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:50 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Chateau Wiilgeaux opposition
more comments below:)
From: michael bergin[mailto:berginmichael@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Patty McKenny
Subject: Chateau Wilgeaux opposition
Hello Commission Members,
I am a Board member at Avon Crossing on Hurd Lane. I was made aware of the planned development of the
Highway 6 parcel and have some opposition to the proposal as it It currently stands. The three problems that I
have with the current proposal are that: 1) The height of the proposed building could reach 9 stories in places.
That is way out of line with what Avon ordinance would deem allowable for any proposed development. As far as
I know, 6 stories is the maximum allowed. 2) Excavating the site to build on would require some
extensive erosion control, which currently hasn't been established. 3) Aestetically, this proposed development
would have a dramatic impact on the Highway 6 corridor and Avon/Beaver Creek entrance. We live in the
mountains because we want to live in the mountains. High-rise building belong in the city, not here.
My suggestion to the Commission is to "Table" the proposed development, at least until the developer can
give more precise details on these problems. I am not opposed to development on this site, it just has to be
better thought out. Currently, there is no reason that I can see why it is in the interest of this Town and
Commission to move forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Michael Bergin
970-331-9653
175 Hurd In. 3-207
Avon, Co 81620
Help make tax time less taxing, easy-to-use tools right at your fingertips. Check it out!
2/20/2007
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2007
LEONARD KENT Community Development
KENDAL #365
80 LYME ROAD
HANOVER, NH 03755
February 12, 2007
CHRIS EVANS, Chairman, Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Sir:
My wife and I have owned condo D-202 in Canyon Run since it was built in
1996-7. At that time we were led to believe that the land across from us on
the far side of Route 6 was too steep to ever be built upon. For many years
we have enjoyed looking at undeveloped land with the occasional wild animal
and bird life. We are appalled by the prospect of looking at the Chateau
Wilgeaux development across from us instead of looking at the natural slope
of the rocky mountainside.
We are also concerned that this development is far from the concepts
embodied in the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Route 6 corridor which
remains a major access to the Town of Avon. We hope the Planning and
Zoning Commission will put the long range needs of the Town ahead of the
short range profit that this Texas developer expects to make with a high
class condo with restaurant structure that would not be out of place up at
Bachelor Gulch or elsewhere up the mountainside. We believe this
development will not only destroy the natural terrain but will also create
additional traffic problems, parking problems, policing problems and other
unforeseen situations which will inevitably affect future Town of Avon
budgets as well as further degrading the few remaining natural areas close
to the center of Avon.
Please consider the total impact of this proposal and act against it.
Very Truly Yours,
e(w)?altd ° wl-
P.S. Please distribute copies of this letter to whomever wishes to see it.
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans,
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
RE, Chateau Wilgeoux
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2007
Community Development
My name is Dale Aden, I own a unit in the Canyon Run complex, specifically E building
unit 103. I have owned this unit since it was new. We lived full time in this condo from
June 2005, through November 2006.
My reason for writing this letter is to object to the proposed new development along the
south side of Hwy 6, and east of the Gates development. I believe it is called Chateau
Wilgeoux. From what I have seen of this plan, it is a massive building, some 8 stories tall
and as long as a football field. This size building will of course ruin the hill side views
from the back of Canyon Run, where many of us set on our balconies, weather
permitting, and enjoy the views.
I don't know how you can take a building of this size, and make it esthetically pleasing
on the narrow corridor of land that exists there, and building it into the side of a steep
hillside, will look even worse. Talk about a wall of concrete and glass, are we in to
making our own canyons now? We need to preserve some open space, most of us moved
here for the natural flow of the land, the hills and mountains, it would be a shame to
destroy that for capital gain. Are we that greedy that we have to take an area that steep,
and build housing?
This development does not fit in with the planned building construction for the west side
of downtown, where you have created a planned community, where it will be easy to get
around, with controlled traffic flows, and amenities within walking distance. Can you
imagine the traffic problems on Hwy 6, both foot traffic, and automobile traffic caused by
this new development? All of this in front of a busy 2 lane highway. I have seen
mornings and evenings now where traffic is backed up on Hwy 6 getting in to the
roundabout.
The City has come forward with a very well thought out comprehensive plan for
expansion and development, and in my wildest dreams I do not see a structure like this
fitting in.
I hope you will study this project closely, and agree with me, that this is a project that
needs rejected.
Thank you for listening,
Dale Aden��
P.O. 2024
Avon, CO.
PS Please make this letter part of the public record, and share it with all of the
Commissioners.
J. F. & Margaret B. Abel
0170 Hurd Lane, Unit C-202
P.O. Box 289
Avon, CO 81620
February 19, 2007
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 81620
Sirs,
We are writing concerning the Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal that is to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning commission tomorrow evening. We will not be able
to attend the meeting, so we are writing to record our objections to the project.
Our principle objections are the enormous size of the project, and the inappropriateness
of the chosen site. If the building is constructed as proposed, it will block from view all
but the top of the wooded hillside and chalk cliffs on the south side of route 6. Most of
what is now a lovely natural hillside full of game trails will be replaced with retaining walls
rising up to 90 feet in height. Development will require destruction of hundreds of healthy
fir and spruce trees, and excavation on a scale not yet seen in our town.
Other than some potential tax revenue, we see no benefit to the town and its citizens
that would justify approving such an enormous and inappropriate project. It would strip
the route 6 corridor of any of its natural attraction, and offer nothing in the way of
balanced affordable housing. And it is in direct conflict with many of the principles of the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
We urge the commission to reject the Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal. We ask
that a copy of this letter be given to each member of the Planning and Zoning
commission before the Feb. 20 meeting, and that it be made part of the record.
Thank you,
J. F. Abel Margaret B. Abel
February 14, 2007
Bette E. Todd
9698 E. Maplewood Circle
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Canyon Run H101
Mr. Chris Evans, Chairman
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Evans,
Since learning of the PUD application of Madison Partners for Chateau Wilgeaux two
weeks ago, I have spent countless hours familiarizing myself with the PUD application and the
Avon Comprehensive Plan in an effort to determine how this steep hillside along Highway 6 could
suddenly become the potential home to a 115 foot high, 430,000 square foot condominium
complex. The Madison Partners PUD appears to be in conflict with so many of the goals,
policies, and principles of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and town development standards that it
made me question why such a plan would even be submitted to the town for approval. I urge you
to deny this PUD as proposed because it will not benefit the Town of Avon.
Recognizing the commission is well qualified to assess the tremendous impact approval of
this PUD would have on Avon, I will not list all of my many concerns here (it would take pages),
however I would like to call your attention to a few areas of particular concern. The staff report
was not yet available at the time of this writing so I apologize if items overlap.
Goal H 2 of the comprehensive plan addresses protecting the health, safety and welfare of
citizens through avoiding or adequately mitigating environmental hazards.
Policy H.2.1 specifically states, "avoid development in environmental hazard areas such
as flood plains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards....': The geologic report attached to
the Madison Partners PUD clearly identifies several geologic hazards associated with the property.
The hazards are so severe that the report recommends shielding the building with direct protection
and further indicates that protecting the pool and patio area may not be possible.
Policy H.2.2 states, "Require development and redevelopment to minimize degradation of
sensitive natural areas by restricting development on steep hillsides. " The applicant proposes to
build on 6 acres of land while less than 3 buildable acres actually exist on the valley floor at the
building site, the fourth acre being way up the hillside and inaccessible. The result is that the
buildings in phases two and three sit entirely on land with greater than a 40% slope causing large
cuts into the hill and considerable degradation of the hillside. Rather than minimizing the
degradation, this proposal maximizes it. I would suggest that the PUD asks the town to
completely disregard this policy as well as sections of the municipal code related to building on
slopes greater than 40%.
Goal C deals with land uses, and Avon as an economic center.
Policy C.1.1 The very first policy in this section states, "Ensure that proposed development
and redevelopment projects conform to the Future Land Use Plan's designations and are of a
scale and intensity appropriate for the planning district in which they are located." The
Planning Principles for District 6 state, "Site buildings of various sizes, (but smaller than those
found in the West Town Center District)." Chateau Wilgeaux at 115' is taller than the Sheraton
and its 430,000 square feet is greater, I believe, than anything currently exiting in West Town
Center. Furthermore, while I have not yet obtained the densities for the surrounding properties,
there can be no doubt that this project displays densities well in excess of any properties currently
in the Highway 6 corridor or anywhere in the near vicinity.
Policy C.1.7 "Encourage development applicants to meet with adjacent residents,
businesses, and property owners prior to and during design, planning, and application
phases... " Unlike East West Partners or the Town of Avon who have sought public input and kept
residents informed, Madison Partners has made no effort to seek input from residents or even
inform us that any proposal was being considered- for the property. It was only by chance that we
discovered the PUD had been filed. I am troubled by a PUD application that states, "the property
will need to respects the Gates" but never mentions anything about the existing residents of Avon
even those whose properties will be severely impacted by the proposed development.
The language in the PUD application seems to repeatedly imply the proposed project is
comparable to The Gates next door. I believe this may not be based on fact for the following
reasons.
1) While I am not an expert on how building heights are computed in Avon, it seems clear
that a building that reaches a height of 115 feet and sits on ground, higher than its neighbor, is
simply not the same as a building 75-80 feet in height that sits on lower ground. The impact of the
proposed PUD will be much greater than the Gates.
2) The Gates is a project of 49 condominiums that is sited on a corner so the mass of the
building is never visible from any one angle, a considerably different situation than the Madison
Partners PUD that proposes three buildings sited more or less straight down Highway 6 and, as
designed, appear as one very long structure. In addition much of the Gates is hidden behind large
mature trees.
3) The Gates required much less disturbance of the terrain as is evidenced by the fact that the
retaining walls at the Gates are approximately 30 feet in height while the retaining walls for the
proposed PUD appear to begin at approximately 50 feet and rise to almost 90 feet up the hillside.
4) The Gates has underground parking and only one level of garage wall is exposed along the
Highway 6 corridor. The proposed PUD design provides significant above grade parking resulting
in two stories of windowless garage wall exposed in many areas as the main view for people
traveling down Highway 6.
5) The assumption that because one property is suited for a certain density another must be as
well is flawed. Topography, building siting, and other issues come into play.
It seems that the proposed PUD is out of character and not compatible with both the
Highway 6 corridor, and the surrounding community in terms of its scale, bulk, and height. There
is simply nothing like this along the Highway 6 corridor from Minturn to Edwards and beyond.
Eagle Vail, Avon, Arrowhead and Edwards, all have low profile buildings ranging from 1-4
stories with two to three stories as the average along the Highway 6 corridor. Avon, specifically,
has the Eaglebend housing complex, Canyon Run, Brookside, Rivers Edge, Sundridge and The
Gates. The Gates is the exception rather than the rule here and even The Gates is much lower in
height and less dense than the proposed project. All of the other properties are 2-4 stories in
height as they front Highway 6. Most projects along Highway 6 are broken up into several
buildings with significant green space and highway setbacks.
Surely Mr. Folson realized when he purchased the property that it had limited
development potential. Likewise, those who purchased property across from this land recognized
that fact as well. I respect Mr. Folson's desire to develop his land. That said, any development
on the property should be done in such a way as to be sensitive to the topography, the wildlife,
Avon residents, taxpayers and visitors. Anything built there should be much lower in profile and
less dense than proposed, built on land that meets the Avon definition of buildable land as defined
in section 17 of the municipal code and comply with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, PUD Design
Criteria and Avon development standards. Otherwise, why do we have them?
The residents of Canyon Run have been supportive, quiet residents and taxpayers of Avon
since its inception. We have embraced the development and redevelopment in West and East
Avon. We watched quietly and selflessly during the development of The Gates, in spite of the fact
that it would obstruct the views up the valley to the Landing and Bachelor Gulch enjoyed by most
Canyon Run residents. But the current proposal is just too much. It will severely impact all of
Avon, residents and visitors alike. It will change the face of Avon forever. Please consider this
proposal carefully and deny it as it is proposed.
Thank you for all your time and efforts on behalf of Avon.
Bette E. Todd
Littleton Capital Partners
5711 South Nevada Street
Littleton, Colorado 80110
February 18, 2007,
Dear Avon Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
My name is Jonathan Bush and 1 am a homeowner at Canyon Run, 270 Hurd Lane, unit D-203. Asyou are aware, the proposed
Chateau It ilgeaux project is directly across the river from Canyon Run.
Ido not support this project in ltspresent design. My concern stems from two primary reasons: I) the design and massing ofthe
project are not in keeping with orsynpathetic to the hillside on which the project is located and 2) I believe the project jails to meet
several key elements of the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
When w•e first acquired our property at Canyon Run and asked about the land south of Highway 6 we were told that the steep terrain
would prevent any future development, which at the time made sense. Our concern was stimulated by the Gates development that was
occurring Just west of this site. Although the jury may still be out on the Gates project, myfirst reaction was that the Gates
development was not oja size or scalefor the site but time will be the judge. I recognize that the CW property is shown as PUD in the
Comp Plan but my guess is that it never contemplated a development of this size or character. As I understand the plan, the tallest
building will stand over 112', which is 30' taller than the Gates building which alreadyjeels out ofscale This doesn't seem to make
much sense unless the theory is that by going taller it will make the Gates project feel better. Also, ar I try to understand the North
elevation, it appears that the bare of the bitilding is all large walls and garage doors- a design in my opinion which will just add to
the over -massive effect of the project. Given what appears to be the true build -able area on this site, it feels like the proverbial 10 lbs
is being sit fed into a 5 lbs bag.
My second concern is how• this project relates to the Comprehensive; plan. In my view, the plan jails the Comp Plan in jour major
areas:
1. The development does not provide a sense of arrival and departure for those coming to Avon and it does not appear to
create a landscaped bo ulevard/parkw•ay. Rather, it seems to destroy the natural landscaping along the hillside that already
exists and ultimately does not create an arrival for the Town ofAvon.
1. The buildings do not seem to be sited to protect views, break up building bulk a prevent a canyon effect on Highway 6.
Instead, the three phases appear to create one continuous building that stretcher jar hundreds and hundreds offeet. While
the developer has made an effort to step the building so that it is not completely monolithic, it is hard to imagine that this
will create anything but a canyon along Highway 6.
3. The project does not preserve steep slopes but instead cuts into the hillside as much as 90 feet in some areas. In order not
to create a worse canyon on Highway 6, the unintended consequence is that the project is then forced to destroy the
hillside. Back to the 5lbs bag. It does not appear that the buildings are built into the hillside either but instead rise straight
up at the rear of the project. Again, this may be a result of trying to create some sun exposure but is limited once again by
a site that is not well suited for a project of this size.
4. Lastly, iijust doesn't seem to pass the test ofbeing compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent
properties. In an area dominated by 3-5 story projects, 8 stories is not compatible nor in keeping with the rest of the area.
Although I am without the benefit oja site plan, it does not appear that there is a generous open space allowance which
would also be in keeping with other projects in the area, a goal of the camp plan and something that would enhance the
entrance to Avon.
In conclusion, the developer has attempted to be thoughtful about details such as the materials and how the massing is broken up.
Unfortunately, what the project looks like on an 8112 X Ilsheet ofpaper is very different than what it is going to look like in context
of the surrounding properties, Highway 6 and the town afAvom I believe the scale of the project is such that is not appropriate or
considerate of the site and hillside on which it is located If the Gates project feels out ofscale and touch, this massive development
will dw•arfit by comparison. A site will ultimately always reveal its limitations, and I think jar the reasons cited above, this particular
design is not the right solution
Thankyou foryour consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bush
February 14, 2007
Dear Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
My name is Alice Jackson Bush. I am a homeowner at Canyon Run located at 270 Hurd
Lane, D-203 in Avon, CO. I am opposed to the Chateau Wilgeaux project. I respectfully
ask that this letter please be added to the public record and a copy of it given to each of
the planning commissioners. I would like this letter to be read out loud at the hearing on
Chateau Wilgeaux, February 20, 2007.
I have lived in Colorado for 40 years. We purchased our place in this lovely riverside
location in Avon because we loved the view of the beautiful hillside across the river. We
love to hear the river waters running. We watch deer and wildlife from our window on
that hillside. We fish in the stream and our children play beside it. We are avid "skiers
and hikers. We love that Highway 6 is not a built up, blocky row of monster buildings.
It is a lovely drive into the gateway to Avon and to Beaver Creek. We applaud the city
for rescuing the water wheel along the river and rescuing some of Avon's history. We
could have bought in Vail. We chose our Avon place for the wild hillside on the river.
Despite the Gates project, we still can feel like we are in the mountains as we travel Hwy.
6 and as we view it from our Canyon Run home. This being in the mountains feeling is
all due to the open space on that steep hillside on the south side of Highway 6, across
from Canyon Run. The wild steep slope suits Avon. It is part of Avon's history.
I am greatly concerned with the Chateau Wilgeaux Building proposal for a variety of
reasons. The number one concern is the giant monstrosity of the proposed project. It
does not fall in compliance with Avon's comprehensive plan. The developer has no
regard for the beauty of the valley and in my opinion, his plan looks like the wall of
China. It seems to be a non-Coloradoans interpretation of what living in the mountains
must mean. High density, bulky and huge makes that area a canyon of building blocks.
It does not fit Avon.
I am also very concerned about polluted runoff into the already taxed Eagle River from a
project such as this. I'm concerned about the increase in traffic that would result from
any development along that stretch, not only clogging of that artery but also the increased
noise pollution. Already that is a busy stretch along Highway 6. I can imagine the
echoing noise level effect that walling in Highway 6 all the way down would cause. The
park -like feel that exists due to that green in summer mountain as you enter into Avon,
would be lost forever.
Please do not put this monster in our backyards. Please don't make Avon into another
block street of buildings. Please don't box us in.
Sincerely,
Alice Jackson Bush
Canyon Run, 270 Hurd Lane, D-203 in Avon, Colorado
CHRISTOPHER J. TODD
9698 E. MAPLEWOOD CHL
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
HOME: 720.488-1715
CELL: 303-913-1011
WORK: 303-390-0129
AvoN CONDO: 970-748-0973
HOME EMAIL: CIRISTMI) X"1a M8N.COM
WORK EMAIL: CTODDQWVRFF.COM
February 15, 2007
Chris Evans, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O, Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Madison Partners PUD
Project Name: Chateau Wilgeaux
I am the owner of Canyon Run condo unit 413102,300 Hurd Lane, Avon CO which is
situated on the north side of the Eagle River immediately across from the Chateau Wilgeaux project
proposed to be built on the Folsom/White property. I am writing in response to the request for
public comment at the P&Z Commission hearing scheduled for February 20th. I am strongly
opposed to the project proposal as presented in the PUD for the reasons detailed below.
The proposed development will greatly degrade the view currently enjoyed by the citizens of
and visitors to Avon. Those most impacted will be the residents and property owners of Canyon
Run condo complex, Avon Crossing condo complex and Chappell Square condo complex which
will have their current, unspoiled view replaced with an extremely large building totally unsuited
for the available land. The forested hillside located on the Folsom/White property is a naturally
attractive area which dominates and is viewable from almost anywhere in the eastern half of the
Town of Avon. It emmot be replaced. It is this type of view which brings people to the mountains
of Colorado and which improves the quality of life in Avon. Diminishing this one -of -a -kind asset
with a large—scale condominium project will be a long-term, irrevocable detriment to the enjoyment
of Avon residents.
The Town of Avon recognized the benefits of retaining the natural beauty of the
Folsom/White property when guidelines were developed for the District 6: U.S. Highway 6
Gateway Corridor as detailed in the Town District Planning Principals (pages 81 and 82). Chateau
Wilgeaux conflicts with several of the stated goals:
r '"Enhance the U.S. Highway 6 rigbt-of-way as a landscaped boulevard/parkway to
provide a sense of arrival and departure for those traveling to and from Avon and to
strengthen Avon's overall community image and identity." I fail to see how cutting into
a naturally beautiful wooded hillside and replacing it with a 9 -story building is
compatible with a goal of an attractive entrance to a mountain community.
• "Site buildings ...to protect views ... and prevent a canyon effect on Mghway 6." It
appears that Chateau Wilgeaux is doing just the opposite.
• "Minimize cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes. Buildings should be built into
the hillside and stepped up with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S.
Highway 6." Again, the proposed project does just the opposite. A significant cut into
the hillside is proposed, and the face of the building facing Highway 6 is completely
vertical without any step up and back aspect to conform to the hillside slope. The PUD
states hn §3.03(6)&(7) that it "steps up the slope of the property and from end to end."
This may be true from east to west where there is a very gentle rise, but it is totally
incorrect with regard to the intended meaning of the Planning guidelines which address
the major slope of the property (i.e., front to back). The currently sloping, wooded
hillside does a relatively good job (although not perfect) of absorbing and reflecting
upwards the vehicular noise from Highway 6. A building which steps from front to
back (i.e., somewhat mirrors the slope of the hillside) would provide some degree of
sound reflection upwards, although the noise absorption by vegetation would be lost,
The proposed project, which is straight up-and-down and much closer to the road than
the current slope, would greatly increase the amount of reflected noise directed towards
the residences immediately across the Eagle River.
• "Consider buildable area when determining an appropriate scale and density for
development " More than half the proposed project is on land classified as unbuildable.
Leveling the land be cutting out the hillside should not be an allowable solution to avoid
complying with this goal.
I believe that Chateau Wilgeaux will spoil the natural views enjoyed by the owners of the
three major condominium projects across the Eagle River to such an extent that their property
values will be negatively impacted. Accordingly, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission
should take unusual steps to encourage public input to the approval process. I strongly believe that
the Neighbor 300' notification requirement should be expanded for this project. I would like to see
the hearing process delayed and the developer be required to notify all property owners (not just
condo association managers) in the affected condo complexes. Regardless, I do not believe the
developer met the current requirements when they sent notice to the property manager of Canyon
Run complex and did not send any notification to the individual property owners. I am a property
owner with my address recorded on the property and tax records of Eagle County, yet I did not
receive any notice of the public hearing. Nor did the developer make any effort to inform the media
or introduce the project to the citizens of Avon. This is a case of a developer trying to do the bare
minimum in order to sneak a bad project by the unaware public. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has a duty to look out for its citizens and prevent just this sort of happening, which
although probably meeting the "letter of the law' is not in the best interest of the general public.
Finally, I would like to comment that I think the proposed $225,000 payment in -lieu of
providing affordable housing is a joke. Assuming this money earns interest of $18,000 per year (an
8% yield), this would provide a subsidy of less than $56 per month for each of its 27 employees —
certainly not enough to bring local rents down to "affordable" levels for lower -paid workers.
Please consider the issues I have raised in this letter and reject the PUD as submitted, or at a
minimum delay the hearing process until all affected property owners have been notified and given
the opportunity to provide input to the approval process. Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Ruth Weiss
From: Patty McKenny
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:25 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
I presume you are collecting these letters & I am as well for the Council.
Are you forwarding them to P&Z?
Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.
Thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: JP M Kyrillos [mailto:jp.m.kyrillos@aexp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Ruth Weiss; Patty McKenny
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
as well as all other Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the
public record and read out loud at the February 20th meeting.
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong
opposition to the proposed Hwy 6 development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I
understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive Plan. Namely,
it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town
beauty, causes a canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter
Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for
development and is now using the Gates project as a way to find a loophole in
the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J.P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food & Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887 (fax)
American Express made the following
annotations on 02/14/07, 09:17:23
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++aaa+++++a+aaaaaaaa++a+aaaaa+++++++a+aaaa+a+++++a++a++a+++aaaa+aaaaaaaaaa++++
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message ary�
any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, pleasefL
notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. Thank you." 4
1
Ruth Weiss
From: Patty McKenny
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:26 AM
ro: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: . High
Same with this letter, I'll keep a copy for my file & you take care of it for P&Z.
Later.
----- Original•Message-----
From: bbkohn@adelphia.net [mailto:bbkohn@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Patty McKenny
Cc: Ruth Weiss
Subject: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: High
Please make this letter a part of the public record and give a copy to each commissioner.
To all members of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
As a resident and taxpayer of Avon, I am vehemently opposed to the proposed project known
as Chateau Wilgeaux. The proposal for a seven to nine story building, ranging from 95-115
feet in height, and over 400,000 sq. feet, to be built on only 3 acres, seems very
unappealing. Much of the mountain side is over 408 grade and therefore, too steep for
development. The size of this proposed development is overwhelming and out of proportion
to the surrounding areas. It seems to me that this proposal violates almost every aspect
if the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 6 corridor as well as the town planning
principles.
I have chosen to retire to Avon, instead of Vail or Beaver Creek, because of its small
city charm, lack of congestion and the beauty of the mountains. Please do not agree to
Chateau Wilgeaux as it is being presented.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip Kohn
Canyon Run, Apt C104
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: JP M Kyrillos Up.m.kyrillos@aexp.comj
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:56 AM
To: pmckenny@avon.aexp.com; Ruth Weiss
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission as well as all other
Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the public record and read out loud at the February 20th
meeting.
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Hwy 6
development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan. Namely, it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town beauty, causes a
canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for development and is now using the Gates
project as a way to find a loophole in the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J.P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food & Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887 (fax)
2/14/2007
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans:
Chairman
Town of Avon
Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon, Colorado 81620
Dear Mr. Evans:
I have recently been made aware of a condominium project to the east of The Gates that
is in the planning stage. It is difficult to tell if the footprint of the project will cover the
Fleck Ditch (Mach Teleck ditch), but the excavation may put the historic site at risk
I am the president of the Avon Historic Preservation and Advisory Committee
(Committee) and the Committee is very concerned that this project will impact one of the
few remaining historic sites in the town of Avon.
The Avon Town Council, in 2005, passed a Resolution to establish the Committee to
protect and preserve the town's historic and cultural history. The Committee has hired an
expert to survey all the historic sites in Avon. The survey is underway, and the Fleck
Ditch is on the list for the survey. The information about the importance of the Fleck
Ditch will be available in the near future.
The Planning and Zoning Commission needs to review this information when making
their determination.
7wbik L I'
eanette Hix
President
Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
Cc: Avon Town Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thomas B. Hix, Jr.
120 Hurd Lane, A-203
Avon, CO 81620
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
Avon, Co 81620
�'�ii„rir 7r ,
I am the President of the Canyon Run Condominium Association arab I am writing on behalf of the
Association. It has been brought to our attention that a condominium project has been proposed for the
site on the south side of U.S. Highway 6 just east of The Gates. We have documents that refer to this
project as 'Chateau Wilgeaux•. Our Association opposes approval of this project, as it is currently
proposed. We have a number of reasons for opposing this project, including, but not limited to, the
following:
The scale of the project is not appropriate to the buildable area. The site is directly adjacent to U.S.
Highway 6 and is characterized by very steep terrain, with limited buildable area. A very small portion of
the site has grades of 40% or less. In the applicant's own words, referring to a Geological Study, owe
will have some challenges with the slope above the site and stabilization.• I would propose to you that
when an applicant is forced to describe the geological situation in this manner, then there are some
severe problems with thesite.
The location of the project is not appropriate for such a massive complex. It will not enhance that
section of Highway 6 as an arrival point to the Town of Avon. It will, in fact, along with The Gates,
create a canyon effect along that section of highway. It will negatively impact the view to the south that
is so important to Avon. This project, as proposed, is considerably larger and taller than The Gates.
We believe this project as proposed, fails to meet many of the principles of the Town of Avon's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Town's design and development standards. It is not necessary for
the purpose of this letter to list all of those here as they are so obvious.
We are not aware of any noise study performed by the applicant We fear this massive complex will
create a noise problem for the portion of Avon located across Highway 6 and the Eagle River by
reflecting vehicle noise from the highway toward Avon and Canyon Run.
This project will create an unacceptable traffic problem. Once The Gates is completed, then: Will be a
significant increase in traffic on Highway 6, in particular the roundabout at Avon Road and Highway 6.
An additional 112 units will add even more pressure, and undoubtedlywill cause overflow traffic across
the Eagle River (Stonebridge) onto Hurd Lane, a residential street not equipped to handle through
traffic.
In the application for this project there are a number of references to The Gates. The clear implication is
that since the Town of Avon approved that project, they should now approve this one. I disagree, of
course. Just because you approved the one does not in any way commit you to approve the other. But
they do have a point — every time you approve a massive protect like these, it makes it more difficult to
reject the next one. One such project along there is more than enough.
• Page 2
February 13, 2007
Avon is a ski town. We agree with your Comprehensive Plan that the relationship with Beaver Creek is
important The wonderful view as one drives from Avon toward the Beaver Creek enhance is a key
asset Approving The Gates was a mistake. We urge you not to compound it by approving this project.
We are requesting that the Town of Avon remain true to the principles espoused in the Comprehensive
Pian and other Town design and development regulations and reject this application.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Hoc, Jr. v
President, Carryon Run Condominium Association
Cc: Town of Avon Council members
Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members
Thomas B. Hix, Jr.
120 Hurd Lane, A-203
Avon, CO 81620
Febntary 13, 2''007
.. 4
•r.l• + 1:." 1 • Y h• r pw 1• 1 _ r• la • • 3Y •}p. i iii..•! '1 1 0
Y i 1 tl 1 1 • • •' . ..
- 1]. • 1 Y 4 1- IY 1 6.
1 i SM .1-_ • 1 i hYC T• !•Ii+ .!1 • f i + ♦ • SM i
•.e i
- Y ] i t - • i ?M ♦ i i •• tl t - i i_ r - t + i ?•'I .i _ If
- • - r - 1 1 •Y' _.♦i - t- 11 • Y.IJY I• •. r • •Yf+- a • 1..
• i 1 .- 1 1 - 1-
h [ _ Y. • ah • • i _ aYlf • i 'i.i - •.r t • i ! i i .
• i•r e• i 1•ar +♦••Lu +r♦+♦- •- •rh• Ir - .la.
Y-- I n• r sr ♦ ••Lai a r r- • r♦ s. •' I• 1 Y v
n♦•ar r -.s .•r-♦r.•o 1_ leis • •- - .lan+♦• i -r_! to •-
t.-
the application for this project there• ofreferences 1•The Gates.r r 11
if
0.6%."
• i`•C • i1 • -i 1 • 1 ••w. i r -
'• r _•• •
BIWANIMANAW
ah 1 • • Nr • • aY _ • 1 I + • 1 -
r
t- •••r e WARIAI st • - :-r. -
ool
'• :.,r� r i _a i"MIN r r • - i - u �.- • «• x ter• ^r I c • I - -
. rt - • - • r- — •• -♦ +•• - -r . .•• war
Cc: Town of Avon Cour4 members
Town of Awn Planning and Zoning Commission members
Z
Q
J
a
W
H
Z
W
W
a
O
u
Z
O
unQ
O
Z
O
a D m
>
$
E
p
u o o
u d L � N is is N C
� y
i
E
s f!•! t !' t! R �k !
941 196 t 0 is s It 1 9 f■
MW
4
Pill
°q
h1
me
so
of
A
Town District Planning t. triciples!
t....• -, . t .
10> ConwWroyciatemy
Rom
ve*Ldar 6W Weudan Cronkg
O swv
.,„A Aron Road showcase
Prpmnnmro,:a6a�
SAAm AS
ORIGINAL
District 6. U.S. Highway 6 Gateway Corridor
The U.S. Highway 6 Gateway Corridor is the main entrance to
the community and identifies Avon's image. The area is
characterized by: (1) the flat areas presently used for ski area
parking, and high visibility from U.S. Highway 6; (2) the
primary access to Beaver Creek; and (3) the FolsomlWhite
property (The Gates Development) located on the south side of
U.S. Highway 6.
The undeveloped parcels currently serving as parking areas and
other accessory uses for the Beaver Creek ski area present an
important influence on development within the Town. Although
these parcels are outside of Avon's municipal boundaries, the
Town should be consulted on any proposed development on
these parcels.
This intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and Avon Road is a major
gateway to the Town. As part of the Town's roundabout
improvement prcjcct, this intersection was converted to a full
roundabout with attractive landscaping and monumentation
identifying both the Town and Beaver Creek. This corridor area
also includes the Nottingham Station commercial area at the
intersection of Hurd Lane and Avon Road. A pedestrian link is
needed to connect this commercial area to the East Town Center
District and the Confluence District.
The Folsom/White property is intended to provide
residential/lodging uses with supporting commercial and service
uses at a scale appropriate to buildable area. The area is
somewhat isolated from other development within Avon due to
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
age 81
EXHIBIT D
Ti=v i.,A11{7�'r7
u at,k+v . .
Town District Planning Principles
•.r. Ori{. i4
its location on the south side of U.S. Highway 6. The area is
characterized by steep terrain, with limited buildable areas
directly adjacent to U.S. Highway 6.
Planning Principles:
• Enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way as a landscaped
boulevard/parkway to provide a sense of arrival and
departure for those traveling to and from Avon and to
strengthen Avon's overall community image and identity.
• Limit development of south side of U.S. Highway 6 to guest
service facilities near the Village Road intersection and to
neighborhood supporting commercial near the Prater Lane
intersection.
• Strengthen the associatioh between the Town and Beaver
Creek through compatible streetscape elements, efficient
access, and cooperative visitor information center. "
• Encourage screening of ski area parking areas and other
accessory uses.
• Create strong pedestrian connections to the Confluence and
the East Town Center Districts.
• Site buildings of various sizes (but smaller than those found
in the West Town Center District) to maximize sun
exposure, protect views, break up building bulk, and prevent
a canyon effect on Highway 6.
• Minimize cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes.
Buildings should be built into the hillside and stepped up
with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S.
Highway 6.
• Address access and parking at Nottingham Station.
• Ensure that vehicular access points align with existing roads
and create clean intersections.
• Consider buildable area when determining an appropriate
scale and density for development.
• Encourage shared access when appropriate.
• Enhance river access to the future whitewater park.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
�� 0 N Page 82
EXHIBIT E
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Financial Planners and Consultants
For Local Governments, Municipal Bond Underwriters, and Real Estate Developers
8400 East Prentice Ave., Penthouse
Greenwood Vllage, Colorado 80111
Telephone: 303409-7611; Fax: 303409-7612; Email: stanplan@earthlinknet
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Mr. Matt Pielsticker, Senior Planner
Stan Bernstein, Amy Bernstein
March 7, 2007 — FIRST DRAFT
Analysis of Fiscal Impacts Re: Madison Partners PUD
Background
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. ("SBA") has assembled an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the
Town of Avon ("Town', associated with the proposed Madison Partners PUD. The SBA analysis
measures expected revenues from sales and accommodation taxes, property taxes, real estate
transfer taxes, and various fees, and expected incremental costs to the Town. The purpose of the
analysis is to identify incremental revenues, expenditures, and fund balances for the Town's
General Fund (including transportation costs), Capital Projects Fund, Debt Service Fund, and Water
Fund as a result of the proposed Madison Partners PUD.
The land use proposals provided by the Developer include 112 residential units (11 one bedroom
units, 35 two bedroom units, 60 three bedroom units, 6 four bedroom units). Development is
assumed to be completed during 2008 through 2010.
The financial planning model is expressed in constant 2007 dollars (i.e., they do not include any
inflation). Key financial planning assumptions include annual occupancy rates, average annual
ADR (average daily rates) for the rental condominium units, the number of persons occupying the
condominium units, resident and guest daily assumed expenditures subject to the Town's sales tax,
and sales and market values associated with the residential and hotel units.
Because this is a high-end residential development, incremental guest/resident nights are not
large compared to guest nights generated from a hotel or fractional ownership development (i.e.,
generally, hotel and fractional ownership type developments have much higher annual occupancy
rates than high-end residential developments). Consequently, annual General Fund incremental
revenues generated are marginally expected to exceed incremental General Fund expenditures.
Real Estate Transfer Tax revenues generated for the Town's Capital Projects Fund, however, are
expected to exceed $4 million from initial sales and perhaps as much as $400,000 annually from
secondary sales.
Mr. Matt Gennett
March 7, 2007
Page 2 of 4
The following table summarizes the key findings of our impact analysis including General Fund
Balances at Stabilization, initial and secondary Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues, Assessed
Valuation, Guest Nights, Sales and Accommodation Tax Revenues, and Retail Sales Tax Revenues.
General Fund Balance (Stabilization)
Real Estate Transfer Tax (Initial)
Annual Real Estate Transfer Tax (Secondary)
Assessed Valuation Q Full Buildout
Annual Owner Guest Nights (Stabilization)
Annual Rental Guest NIghts (Stabilization)
Annual Sales and Accommodation Taxes (Stabilization)
Annual Retail Sales Tax Revenue (Stabilization)
177 Exhibit I, Page l
4,008,600
Table VI, Page 8
400,860
Table VI, Page 8
15,654,228
Table II, Page 3
59,276
Table III, Page 4
12,877
Table III, Page 4
128,722
Table IV, Page 5
44,837
Table V, Page 7
In addition, the Water Fund could generate $448,000 in incremental tap fee revenues and annual user
fee revenues of approximately $4,400 annually. Construction permits are estimated to total
approximately $2.0 million.
It is assumed that the Town will receive 100% of the 2% RETT revenues generated (i.e., the
Developer is not asking the Town to share RETT revenues from initial or secondary sales of real
estate product). According to the Developer, one bedroom residential units are assumed io initially
sell for $1.08 million per unit, two bedroom units are assumed to initially sell for $1.53 million per
unit, three bedroom units are assumed to initially sell for $1.98 million per unit, and four bedroom
units are assumed to initially sell for $2.7 million per unit, (all at an assumed $900 per square foot).
It is also assumed that the Town will receive 100% of the Sales and Accommodation Tax revenues.
Key Assumptions
Key Assumptions include:
• 112 Residential Units
Residential Units are assumed to sell at an average of ($900 per square foot):
1 BR - $1.08 million
Mr. Matt Gennett
March 7, 2007
Page 3 of 4
• 2 BR - $1.53 million
• 3 BR - $1.98 million
• 4 BR - $2.7 million
• Units are assumed to sell during years 2008 - 2010
• 25% of units are occupied year round, 75% of units are occupied 15% of the year
• 35% of units not occupied year round are in the rental pool
• It is assumed there will be an average of 4 guests per unit (weighted average based on
5 guests per 4 BR, 4 guests per 3 BR, 3 guests per 2 BR, 1.7 guests per 1 BR)
• Owner expenditures per day subject to Town Sales Tax (excluding Villages @ Avon)
is assumed to be $15.00 (It is our estimate thaf primary homeowners will spend less
per day than rental guests).
• Rental Guest expenditures per day subject to Town Sales Tax is assumed to be $18.00
• Ski season and non -ski season bus operating costs (as modeled on Table VI, page 6) based upon
incremental guest nights and required incremental new buses and hourly operating rate of $54
per hour. Ski season bus costs reduced by 0% as a result of the Gondola. It is assumed that
guests at this property will not use the Gondola because it they are so close to the Beaver Creek
Village bus stop,— transit costs are assumed to be approximately $64,000 annually.
• General Fund property tax revenues assume a continuation of the current 8.96 mill levy.
• Debt Service Fund property tax revenues assume a slight decrease in the current 4.80 mill levy.
• Specific Ownership tax revenues for the General Fund are calculated based upon 7% of all
incremental property tax revenues.
• General Fund revenues generated from the County Road and Bridge Fund assumes a
continuation of the County Road and Bridge Fund of 1.72 mills (i.e., receives 50% of the
property taxes collected from the incremental assessed valuation generated).
• General Fund Franchise Fee revenues are calculated based on 10% of the incremental sales and
accommodation taxes generated.
• General Fund construction related permits and fees are calculated based on 1% of the project
value, and are assumed to offset incremental General Fund related costs.
• Water Fund Water Tap Fee revenues are based upon a $4,000 rate for residential units. Water
Fund Water User Fee revenues are based upon a $39 per year rate for residences.
Mr. Matt Gennett
March 7, 2007
Page 4 of 4
• General Fund revenues generated from various State Shared revenues are calculated based on
2.5% of incremental lodging and retail sales tax revenues generated.
• General Fund revenues generated from the County Sales Tax rebate is calculated based on 8%
of incremental lodging and retail sales tax revenues generated.
• General Fund Police Department costs are based upon 13.0 mills applied to incremental
assessed valuation generated — this calculates to be approximately $207,000 annual and could
be overstated.
• General Fund Road Maintenance costs are based upon 9.5 mills applied to incremental assessed
valuation generated factored by 50% - this calculates to be approximately $76,000 annually.
• General Fund Administrative costs are based upon 7.5% of incremental police, road
maintenance, and transportation costs.
Please call with any thoughts, comments or questions.
IL
U)
w
w
z
I --
ac
0-
z
0
U)
x 4
LLk I
ID ID "I I'- 1'- 10 1- C, 8 0 C, " Grl) c
.D In v r- r- R a IWO ";,I m
"I 'W I*- § C,
I- m IR cl� cc! C� LQ al q ct OCL 1-� Iq I., a- R.
U) to 0) Itf qr C6 C-041
0 N 0 m c
0
0) -It q _q CC) Lo CNJ
to cq cq co
"I CO W 01 C, 01
14 0 m N CD N. C� 0 a CD m �; Cd
LO C-11 -0 1�
.6 vi R V C, r- m r— C,
C4 CIE R CCL It -
r- a �t 4 a qw
rl LO m co CD v
0 r- CD "
10
M OD U� M 0 0)
" a� r�: 0 co N 0 N t-- 0 0 0 0 w CNCH m m 0 w 0 a N cm
C'l co m q m m w WM9
cl! rIlL Iq C9
r- to cD ;E co:$ cq t- 0 m L6 d C;
41 a r-- w N C> w
0i
m m co G> 0 m
" (D r- a m cq CD N fl. a 0 0 CD co � col al
c�! c6 vi ct m w v r— m r� C, co to m 10 M. wa 'COO 0 CS,
cq "r '41 N r- co - . co m r- Iq r- 0 0 CD
fl- LO F .6 ,dr m r- d .1i Cq f�: 6 C6 d d 6 't
W V — —0 0 r-- co cq C� to
Ci
co CD co m CD C)
cq CY! cq a m I aA Iml CDI
In co co t- m
C'! co co q o a N r� w I- m w co 11 W -'m 'o, 20 0, W9 �;l
cq V
r- 'i C5 li Cq t- C6 (6 C; 1: cni v
o to N ow
L6
cn co co m 0 CD 0 0 r -
LO C4 Im a 0 m Lo M m 0 co U) m wmq
cq C6 4 q cq U, co C, 'o 0 C, w co, 'o
w 1, co co m 11 v rl. m 0 co cq
Cq --i -w co 4� V� CT -e Cq PZ wi ci (6 cs 'i
El
C, :� w — �! — —0 Q r- CD cq a (D
m co co ca a,
!g CN q CD m Nr- -M to - - - 2 r-
00 M fl. r� co F- A - W
co m r- V: rl�. c3i ci - ..1 .0
r— cq r v C6:� c; -li cq r-- V) m w 0 v
0 r-- co cm 0 w
C4 'o co P� v
C*4 w
C) m M P- N I- W 0 a a CD M
Cl 00 v
r- 0 w t- m m m to Cl)
cq to -If CR q fl�� rl� R C� -C� Cli rIL R -Ci CL co
P. CC) -4t 0 M W 4 M 0 V C-4 r- to Cl) to 0 tr)
Iq CD r- w 04 C) v
04 v
Cl) C4 CD 0 0)
r- P- q 0 m COD, CC':)) 0- CCqO CLO4 LfT) ;z cc:" Cc, (D (21' 1.0 'cl cr'-)l CDl ol
Iq Lq co -,r c! v Cl) -0 0 CD -It 1w (D co 0 D co �4 - -'t w'- CR C-1 .01
C'
t- m IT Ci
(6 CNT V7 Ld 6 qr V -r C6 (6 csi CST IZ P. cq VA mi
v cq oo cli tO r� Lf) Cl)
cl! to
L6 C14
C11 CD co cli CD 0)
(3) C) Lf) 0 m C, a 0 0 C, v D (74
— C6.4 q 00
mv Lcfo) CS .00 Sl ro*o Coll Cl) C.- V. cs 'v co
cli
— v 6 C6 & a NJ t-: -e (6 d (6 C6 L6
v Lf) r- Lf) (D cli cl) F- Lf)
c'! to co m
C4
CD 0 to r, C) 0)
0) LO 0 co 0 CD ol
C6 4 CL
CUD) C;
Lf,
-CO w C'!
— Cj
0 CD (D C) 0 0)
(3) 00 0 (y) 0 0 0 CD Q a (DICDI CD 0 a a 0 0 0 (DJOI ol CDI of 01 C4
c6 4 q
0 a co t- C) CY)*
o) co C) Cl) 0 0 C) 0 CD a 0 0 0 C) (D 0 cmjczj 0 CD C) c) C) 0 0 0 ol ol C>l CDI ci ci
�6 'i R
LLI
0
z
I uj
IL L)
(n z
LU 4
z
w U)
s M LU
IL U. z
'0 LU
u > w
< != w 0 R M
I, z w 0 U) LU w IL _j
CL 9 <z
U)
� 5 L -u a- z
U, z � . Z. IX 5
g :-gj zw uw 0-: -wj Z LU IL LL
j 0 tu LU
(WN Z' > >2 IL wo r. C3 U) U) U) -i
z -k w w g 0 z
w w x a
z z
p 4. z r, 2 LU C', Lu LU e W LLLLJ z
z > w
ow z 2 zw R -
Z IL 0 0- wz 69 LL LL LL U)
U) —U" U) 15 w �: 1; UO OZ I., OZ 1.0 j -Oj 9 Lu
@) z IL
W Lu o 00 OBOOLU'r- :3 p 0 w 0 0
U, Z LL)
z w w W L, U. LL
-.1 W IWO to) :3 0
ui LU z U�-j
z z U, Ww -i W, W, XL) "U W. f2 E w 9 - z 0.
Z m t LU a. LL > "L LL. W I Ul D
L LLI
w w US
o w zo ---J� �Z- wo U0 � �Z- �Z- -0 -0 g o -j U)
U) > > C.'t, WE ww 2 5, m Lu W
U) 9 :) LLI w W, 'w -,tj � -<J
> z (z)
(L 0 LWL W. 06 IL 9
LL. z 9 'M z lw 6 o w w Lu w w 0 LLJ Z Z
0 0 0 IL z
19Z I >w zi- X Lu
M2.-
0 0 0 a. w LL 0 lu w lz It
=1 0 � g �: 0 : r- =w uw) w 4 , .:R � � w
0 LU -J - w w c) Z 0 -2 ,
z T) LL 44 w z �05LU m . < Lu w Lu ui Lu
z z U) g U) 0: Li , LL LL LL
0 D -j U) lu w w o w w rn g (9 U) U) w I --
(L) U) LU LU �- ". !E: U) 0
04, ;: aauw ZZ -j WLUdZo
d) < LU -j 0 :) T2zzzp L) 0 0 0 c)
Cl) U) z ED Z IL
d) w LU LL � � T E V w
Lu RREL<e,09902 30M z z z z z
I-- ;k A 2 0 a te CL M M M v 0 LL W U LLI 0 �d :C (.) — — —
— csi Y) v ur) (D i- co o) �2 �2:�tLP!g �: �2 �2 c3 " m v u) w r- w 0 m M V M W 1� m m
N NNNNNN"Nm cl) c) m Cl) Cl) m v v v
.0
LL
0
W
-0a
0
k
008
(D 0 Q
CD
Cli
E
Cli
Ick
t
Ct
a
M
Om
cm
to Lf)
v
M1�
000
000
OQ§
coo
C
ci
04
po
R
ci
tf)
ul
000
0004
0 0 Q
Ci
Cli
Q
0
5
0 2
W
W �- �- a
0
2
w
0 z0L,)
-5
z
CM
C)
CIL
a
Iq
CD t:
C,
Ct
0)
2z
z�o
cM
tn
LLI
Ncq
U2,
a.
(D O
CD Q 0
C, Q
000
G
U.,
Cli
Iri
a
z
0 CO =
0
z &.1
0 co
z & -
0 (n =>
A
to U) o
-j
0)
C-4LQ
U')
w
CO
5
C,4
a00
CD 0
CD a
C> (3
0 0 C,
C8
CIL
pdp
Ct
Ni
Nt
Gp
Lf)
Q '� 0
0 C,
8
0 a Q
C>I
Clt
C?000
04
0 C) Cl
a a
0 C, c,
00 CD
"I
Clt
q
i�
04
�2
LO
v
g 0
000
C'4 0 c.
a S
04 0
80
Ci
cqC�
4I
CD 0
000
C-4 Q CD
a
CNI
0 C)
't
a
"t
Cl C) 0
Ct q
(:�
b' OD
00)
04 Cl)
-Ivt 00 co
U,
r_
C', C�
C> CD 0 O
C4 Q
C�
O
Q
(q to
NO
Ct Ci
CL
cd
It
v
to
'Do 0
00 0
(DOO
CDOO
ci 01
aoo
o a o
000
000
ci ol
W
Z CD
CD
Cli
E
0
Ci
Cl)
a
M
W
ul
ul
0
U) z
M uiuj
0
5
0 2
W
W �- �- a
0
2
w
0 z0L,)
-5
z
CD t:
2z
z�o
LLI
o
CL
U2,
a.
-z
D
o (JOT
z
D
0 L -Li (AI7
o it VI)
0, it U)
, LL.
U.,
0
.j
0
z
0 V)
a
z
0 CO =
0
z &.1
0 co
z & -
0 (n =>
>
, 6'
i
to U) o
-j
w
>
C E
w
CO
5
m
a00
cq mr to to r co o)
V:. t2 'N Z;
o a O of O of O OI of �g 41 co
ppOrpOpJ����l� ao,,
N � h N
Lo y
r b
O O
LO
O
U) UJ
r O
US
O
0
I-
aQ
Cb
h
V
F
r
N c0
O
US
U Q
O
N
1n
O O
t0
CD
c
CA
j
lL
M
0 d 0
4 0
O
0
N rO
N
Cr
Cr
Gs
ci'
h
iY' N
GOD
O
U?U)
O
0
h N
COS
V
U !a
O
0
r 0
O
Q z O ^1
m
r
O
N
�
� tJ
M
S
1D0
O
C
rl
.r -O0
of
cO0
o
_
Q
W
�
w}
C
a
.-U
pp
44MNaDr
U
�
�
1�2
m
OGOO
M
.N., tYS
� CA
�C M
)
J
¢
fw..
++� O
Q F-
Q
Hp
r
o6
N
O
O> W C
>�pl'.1._4
y�Kd
0. 0,
Lr)
r
0a
N
tL
w
p
wO
NI
r 40
N 40
O1c,
0
O
h{+}
�Z�`1_.r
OOacsm
UU�m>
0=06
U�m>
0O
U�m>
4O
w
N 0
00
mco a
o
m>>
O
1,
N0h
QOa
h F-�>i _
L) <>
m>>
NUdt-
o
No0
m
tUia
U-
N UD
O
r
N
O
o
t0
M'01
O
0 O
0
O
N 0
N
0
p
h
a,5 CV
0
USN
-11"
4 GOO
h
'a
r
Oor
0
r
N
rI
p
0 Q
�
N O
Cl)
fO01(:,
4
O
CCCO"`NNNi
O
oCTO4ti
NCoh
o
0
0
r
N
O
O O
p
o
C'
r O
C�7 p4
O
COO
O O
O
N
0
0
0
pp
d
M
r"
N
0
h
d'
CD
r
r CO
N
O
O
r
N
e-�
o O
a
N
r O
M
m o
O
m
0 0
O
Ic-,
N
1
O0
00
OS0
N-r
CC
--
O
ES
COO
N N
O
O O
O
co
CA
O
N
p
O
^
.1 N
UTLf,
4OT�
h0
V
OT
r
r 0
t6
O
r
N
h
M
4 0
d'
O
e
r
C
N ?�'
O
Oca
N
p
O
O
h
N
CO0
Mm
0
h 0
h
r
O
O
h
CN'7
N
NOcoNGDOO
Is,
r
d
o ol
CDG
(D OI
0 OI
01
dl rn
8
O
0OT
d
W
N
US
h
o a O of O of O OI of �g 41 co
ppOrpOpJ����l� ao,,
N � h N
Lo y
U) UJ
QJ
aQ
U Q
j
lL
lL.
ll.
LL
yLu
Cr
Cr
Gs
ci'
U !a
O
0
Q z O ^1
m
LL Q F �
� tJ
aT @}
aTt„)d
gT Uc1
w
wo
yyw t4
,�
0�
of
oa
o
_
Q
W
�
w}
C
a
.-U
uiU
oU
�
U
�
�
�z
m
C7 C r
in
L4
.N., tYS
� CA
�C M
)
J
¢
fw..
++� O
Q F-
Q
Hp
h�
=K�
=lr G%
��0.
H
W
'ayU
J
O> W C
>�pl'.1._4
y�Kd
0. 0,
O �
OLm.y0
OD,-.o
0a
o
U
tL
w
p
wO
LLL g
LL l7 LL W
=O�1zsc
ZZ
Z Z >>
ommyy
Z>> 7
Z>>
O
ororoy
a=0T-
GNU
�Z�`1_.r
OOacsm
UU�m>
0=06
U�m>
wm
U��>
U�m>
Q
W
V1
00
mco a
o
m>>
O
O
QOa
h F-�>i _
L) <>
m>>
NUdt-
o
o
v
tUia
U-
rCV M C' UT LO h CO m Or er-rr.�-��� Or �N N N NN N N
LL
O
M
4N
R
qZ►
L
9�
A
6
E
'-1
�m
c
C
m
0.
CO
N
9
N
�ppp1► A
O Q
r 17.
r d
r
No ipN O�O� N �
N M
a
N
N�' 3
�O r
� ` � C
Np �p
N c�j tfj
9
a o� iOM N p d'1O cV m
.t i a� c� N� r- E
coil � ci
o rn
M
U
r -
N u N 1�L)N p�ED N
M
eN-if�'y'i�
M
,0
r
o cMv gi '1 T O
e �N M I
O
O ,o O t'••
Oy a N O •`x'
,rN- � •aQl r M M aa�0000wtttt
t,p 6�
N M
a e uMi
r ,n 4 g M
N O
N � P
.lot 01
_O� of o °' o 4
M S► C') M
N
O �p
M
� 01
01 e t' a
N
p of OI
p e of of � p
p of
N
D
N
N
a
N
L4 N
T 7
O M
y
Uf D
U � Cl)
ifI
N
d N 7
d O
m
T Q
N
Z� V O T@
ISi l7 00
r C 61
Qtr o „1,. {II aaG c c
at9r v tf, �Qc ops
Z N w y�+l N Qj a
0 �4 y � •C S� ate+ w Gt7• � V
Bg
dd (7LL N zyp��{NNS N ju �pp� N" : 61
Ov-
r�00
03NC7stAtoI-
-
q( .§0)m> al
2 C3 oaa «
e
r
.
%
w
\
2L:
�J§
CD CV
k
d
)E�
�
���{k
d
2o� k
J
° \
d
k
)
E&»\
���Sk
U
�
) \2 {
/
02 "big
§ §
O
2
J
U)\�0
oLzze
�04°N
d
�z_j
e«oo
%§§/�§
5ce�22
«
�
04
.0U)■3
�a
��°k
d
�
���\�
d
2
(tar)
q
-
q( .§0)m> al
2 C3 oaa «
e
.
%
2L:
�J§
)E�
� k
\kco
2o� k
J
k
)
E&»\
a
U
) \2 {
«
02 "big
§ §
O
2
J
U)\�0
oLzze
�z_j
e«oo
%§§/�§
5ce�22
«
.0U)■3
\§\\\wI-m=s
10
b
c
J N
211 Iq N1119
m
I 0 1�1 �I m r V N w O r- w m w a r- N ll(f��))JIII r n n
O M uu++JJII c�I O r O n N M N �- N M u�'JJ1I N� �I �1
N O N N O t O O h O C n 0 � r M M
O fel m 11 11 V N 6 O Lq N N CO 'NV N l0 C t^nO"I�I N ( NhJII l!`�O��III n n n
N C N [VWJII O O L O O N M LO
a-
N
O fel
N ��'1JI
° m 0 n V N c0 O
OOO O
T N
N
R
y
NMN
N
a0-
`NO�'11 M N aOJJII
m n 1 r O 1O N
m^ r'OV N6NM�
a- N
cq
A
N N
M
O N N
O
CO In LO C7
N
N�N�
1
W
^ m° n d0' N ccq O r W VN' T Ln V `^M NjII _�M NJII !t`l'fO���I r
N r N CO�JI O O O U, O N o 0 LQ N N LO C`�1 C`�I �I CW
N
N N r o O e CA o O MOOR N O O N In N
O M r �I fO r O n V N O cn t2
N N R N M
N O N N O
toto0RL
---1 M
N �OIr a mem O O M O O R N O Lo
R R l0 l`-(Ny)II
N O I S I m t m� R N O N O co N L I A, 1 Cq,. M ��
O O R 00 CD O Cn a0 01 In
O W OR Olh c-ONM� a- OIIvOOJII
N I r'1 «MM MM CNWI
co 0
co
O) COy' cc! C n 0) m N (3i vel
N M.0 comCOm0� DO CO OR V R O R R R O
M R N N M R N n n N
N
cool oolol o oo 0000 010
oo00 0 O O o011 01 of cm cm of
o w ado 0
N
I
00101 o Cao 00000oo C� 0 0 0 oaaa a s OI 01 c"
ccoo 0
cool o Ol G a 0 0 o 0 0 o o o o o O 0 0 01.0101 of G o1 a OI
o m co
N
W
J
m
R
(A
11
Z C _
Z Z2mA g
a Zc7~ rn z
—w OLL' N O F-
J m O N
fL y y�
Ln r L 3e N N CO) O y
L q . O 0 c
U. f r O cOp N y 7 �.% Z Q a G
`LU
+4—a O g
vC)wu' O cE�� wHv^ U F- OFz O�
Z m d 0 0 �p >> O H 7 (n w 0 y
Q E u LLv a mm�Ntf7 Lo S o } �F I- DC7 fq
w = Z eE mdeeC+ }ov,rny�'c pU y y0H
>NU Q 0 U: cv m•- o cdac e O o'w
� - i = u: 'E 0vxiN'e°aY T� m c y a SEE fA ��vOQi O woZ
Q U c _rninLL3oovUtnro� �+a0a-'iwco Z z W H g
�.LLmm O.av0 3Y C o= N w myy o
w Z= m '� m ro X c U p 0 J o H
FZ5 r NOO��yic'.RdmHOcmv$om w wU'
Q O y g. m CZ+. V, oy c. OYika O ~ yw W OOy O. ma
r, m N o o„ ro m w o U ro x c x c a'. --
E J U Z Z O m
Z O q L 3 m ,yG d m d O — J J w Z
Z Q ILSiC m OOfaU1 SY mf r yd aZ `dam. QZ Q QQ.
OLLKwc uU) doom�wQmcmovovviyrn Z Oy� i`Kw0 z -z .x
Q O pQ~= p, my m 73e ikYy °� 3UJ q�1� m�:Y +a C LLJ zya QQaZ 2 2 V LU
LL. OJ 7 y N.O .O yy m w ro fn y�y w HQ ZI-1-O~ J J Q
5;z Yocmw«ow ��3a'c—x,_Xc LL Quf000at� Q QLL
J ?0 �Z0 w yzQ h E E;P*o ztiatYiiLvizzaep LU Hoa. a o oaZ
Q O O O Z 01 N 0 0 0— in i m in N m o ii N ; .O N .O„ 1i v H Z O O F F O
F-1--H�So Q HFI- wwwwwa#www w w w �
.- N M R O t O n O O O N M R C m r c D O N N N N N N N N N N COMM M M cRM M M M co
Oil
IN-
JAI
V En Na
�
" JA N I v
0
of -1 a of 001 a of a
N
N.1q.1 aAca a a
0
c
0
o
iq
y
Q
CD
EO
M
N
rn
N
N ��EW�DDDiliit
c0111 iEEE�MM```h+71111I1I1I
EDI11
X
l(�
N
y C9p
cc
W Q E
w c
N
r
N
Cn CD
N
O
o
IL
r
V
a
N
g0� m
op
N
za�`ow
zotm
E:
y �
cp
lIY
�
N
V En Na
�
" JA N I v
0
of -1 a of 001 a of a
N
N.1q.1 aAca a a
0
c
0
o
iq
y
Q
CD
rn
c
�
UW
X
_Hc
y C9p
cc
W Q E
w c
c
FigV
O
(n
o
IL
Z J.-
0 w
`0
a
g0� m
op
za�`ow
zotm
E:
y �
om
d
LL, I@
>oZoz— zc
m
Ooc
.— NMvLncorcoCD
T
y
J
Q
Z
Q
F
V
CL 4
otq"'
aXWw
Q z
z
wF-I E
zwL) s
QLu WL� 1n
z Zo
W C
aF-y S
W
'Q U)i 2
LL Wo
w0-j2K o
Y
RR W O Om
�w3�a
to M(01N
OO C) O
O
0
m
O
O Op
N
dO
O O
M
t00
co
O
O
O
m
h i r.>-
W- W
((1 O
m O c+0 V
J
O
c0 d d
a
O
M
o
CO
J
r(M(7 m�-0
V
V
O
O
N
N
w
F
H
Ei
-
LU
w
z
Z
0 0 0 0101
O O O 0101
a
01
((=:)!\�10
O
m-
W 5� o
NI
~
~
~
~
>
F
a
~mmmm
¢
1=mmmm
w
Fa-
¢ >
W�a
Opo
z�NM
?�NMST
V'
dM O
st
a
W
�NM�tn (O I�a00)O �NM V'1nm h ao 070 NM v w m
.--NNNN N N N
O O
O N
N
0000101
a
a
NI0000101
O
N
N
0000IOl
`-
ooaolol
G
C4
o�
N
0 0
O M
O
O
O
O
N
OO 0 o OI
G
01
00
NIOOOGOI
O GI
91
O
O
a1
O
O
O N
N
0000101
Oooaol
G
G
o,
O
o
0
O
N
O
O
O
0 O
O N
N
0000101
0000101
oI
of
o0�q
o
0
o�
m
C.
O N
N
0 0 0 01 OI
0 0 0 0101
O I
0.
\ I O
O
o
N I
0l1
m
m
m
v
o
a
v
0
•
N
N
0
O
0901
a
OI
N
t00
0
100
O0 O
O
M
M (07 100 V
M
eN7
N
V aDM r
�
r
O
�
O
N
�NNI mI
MI
000
o
Oo OI
G0
N
p
000 O
O
m
COO
M
M
N
0 O
M M m V (0
M
r
H
M
V m M r
M
coM�0NIm1
O N
000 O
O
O
c OI
01
0
11j
O
N
O O O O
�O
v0
�
(R
_
N c00 (OD d'O
M
O
M
M � M
m
m
~ol 0 0 0 OI o1
O O O OI of
01
G
Of p CA
of
of
O
N
�
(01 000O101
N
000aol
a
a
cm ci
of
a
of
C
C 0 0 0
O O O O
a0 M(00
d O1Arn rl-
N
m
LL0
m
0
m
-n N
W Z
w
N
J)
W
m
h i r.>-
W- W
J
c0 d d
W W
W
J
J
N
N
w
F
H
Ei
-
LU
w
z
Z
FLU
>
o
o
J
m-
W 5� o
J J
~
~
~
~
>
F
a
~mmmm
¢
1=mmmm
w
Fa-
¢ >
W�a
Ia-
0 0
z�NM
?�NMST
V'
R'
F'-
W
�NM�tn (O I�a00)O �NM V'1nm h ao 070 NM v w m
.--NNNN N N N
m
LL0
m
.r A
AS A
7-4
14
40,
v ,
L
� I
I � 1 d 1y ff
+ r
S� r fir!
• d l., � ry , .% � ,�: � �. fir ;,
YL
J •
n 1
♦
f�
T
N
p ^. od•-
d
n
e • x/f 1
��,'� ]'F ` � .. -. '�'{♦• S, ^� fix
11 TVS
Ink
i yy ..�, 5" - If5
All,
` e
If
4tW-
y 'Ai I.NZ
If
,
�1 @
y ,
' t d
t - • // .j�S u. .M J y �1/y. �S.
m
:0
'ry
Staff Report RAN
SIGN CODE VARIANCE r
C O L O R A D O
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission. Meeting
Report date October 9, 2007
Variance type Sign Code — Front 10' Setback
Legal description Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Zoning Industrial Commercial (IC)
Address 77 Metcalf Road
Introduction
The applicant, BBG Holding Corp., is proposing a variance from a Sign Code
requirement. Section 15.28.080(15) of the Avon Municipal Code requires all
freestanding signs to be set back at least ten (10) feet from all lot lines. The request is
to allow for a freestanding monument sign to be located within the front 10' of the
property, immediately adjacent to the Metcalf Road Right -of -Way.
Due to existing improvements to the property and the location of mature landscaping
and paved areas, there is limited area to place a freestanding sign. The proposed sign
would border the front property line. There does not appear to be a hardship warranting
the approval of this variance request.
Variance Criteria
According to the Section 15.28.090 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to this requested variance:
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity,
B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity,
C. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
requested variance.
Findings Required
Section 15.28.090 of the Avon Municipal Code requires the Planning & Zoning
Commission to make the following written findings before granting a variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity;
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Sign Code Variance— 10' Setback Requirement �,9!
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of t
B. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons.
1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Chapter;
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone;
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
Staff Comments
Approval of this variance request would constitute a special privilege, inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. There have been no other Sign Code
variances granted in this district. It does not appear that the strict, literal interpretation
and enforcement of this Sign Code requirement would result in a physical hardship.
The property is similar to others in the Industrial Commercial zone district; and as such,
there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that do not generally apply to
other Industrial Commercial properties.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends DENIAL of the Sign CODE Variance request for a freestanding sign
within 10' of the front property line on Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision, due to the findings as outlined in the attached resolution 07-02.
Recommended Motion
"I move to approve Resolution No. 07-02, thereby DENYING the Sign Code Variance
request for a sign to be placed in the front 10' setback on Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision."
If you have any questions regarding this or any other project or community development
issue, please call me at 748.4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pi cer
Planner II
Exhibits
A - Variance Application
B — Vicinity Map
C - Resolution No. 07-02
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
0
Exhibit A
VARIANCE APP TION��
Variance Review Fe
Applicant: BBG Holding Corp
Mailing Address: PO Box 8266 City: Avon
Phone #: 970-845-0466 Fax #: 970-845-0465
Owner of Property: BB Holding Corp.
Mailing Address: PO Box 8266 City: Avon
Phone #: 970-845-0466 Fax #: 970-845.0465
State: Co Zip: 81620
Cell #: 970-376-1009
State: Co Zip: 81620 -
Cell #: 970-376-1009
11
Lot: 22 Block: 1 Subdivision: Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Project Name: Free-standing monument sign
Street Address: 77 Metcalf Road, Avon, CO 81620
Current Zoning: UC - Industrial / Commercial
Describe the Variance Requested: variance request Is to allow a free-standing monument sign In the 10'
set back required by the sign code. The main Island is the only realistic place we can place this signage and have it
be visible to the public.
i 1 auiwivas loll lou 1111111 11 i 111 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 a 111111 11 of in
A. Describe the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity:
The variance request Is for a signage variance only. It does not affect the building or any other related structures.
RECEIVED
SEP 2 1 2007
Community 6eve4xngm
Community Development, P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 (970)748-0030 Fax (970)949-5749 (rev. 12/27/01) Page 1 of 2
B. Describe the degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specific regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or attain the objectives of Title
1736.040 without grant of special privilege:
First, we believe that a monument sign next to the tree in the'main island between the entry and exit of the parking
lot is the best solution for signage at this property. However, the 10' setback runs behind the inside edge of the
center island in the parking lot (See attached plan). The north side of the main entry is below the level of the road
and signage there would not be able to be seen and would have to be built on a high base which would look
awkward. It would also be AFTER the entrance to the building and traffic would potentially be backing up or
turning around, which is a safety hazard. Another option is to locate It on the south side of the EXIT driveway.
This would require removal of a large amount of mature tree branches in order to gain visibility to the sign. The
last option is to do a large building mounted sign that would be Internally lit and significantly larger than the
proposed signage.
C. Describe the effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety:
Granting of this variance request will enhance several of the items listed above. Lighting levels will remain low as
the proposed signage will not be lit (at this time). The future plan will be for low level, solar powered lighting. This
will be significanity lower impact than a backlit, building mounted sign. Publidtrafic safety will also be enhanced
to to the Increased wayfinding.
D. Any such other factors and criteria as the Planning Commission may deem applicable
to the proposed variance: Q
It is our belief that the granting of this variance request is appropriate as it is in no way a speRais
detrimental to public safety. Further we believe that this property is unique in its parking layout that mftakeslpe
relief of the setback requirement warranted. SEP 2 12007
Cw1ft" Development
I (we) represent that all information provided to the Town of Avon in connection with this application
as true and correct, that I (we) understand the Town of Avon regulations applicable to this project,
and understand that incomplete submittals will delay application review. Owner designates Appli-
cant as indicated to act as owner's representative in all application submittals related to this project.
Applicant:
(Print Name): BBG Holding Corp.
Date: 9/21/2007
Owner: /// D T
(Print Name): BBG Holding Corp.
Date: 9/21/2007
Community Development, P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 (970)7484030 Fax (970)949-5749 (rev. 12/27/01) Page 2 of 2
N K Y H • N 6
r
VINFKAk
• `R�y
J••
31%
. APW
54
--
W0
0
of
7��
��
i
' � ' � � �.
t
., t _��
y
€ A � `' �
4 ',- ., �. � ��, . j r= -
_�
.Y. __
- _ ��..
b+ � % �-
.'sh''u;.: ' .:�F �J
' `'' 'i
��'
�jjY�
i 1� � � !
ENHMIT C r
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION No. 07-02
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A
FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE PLACED WITHIN 10' OF A
PROPERTY°LINE, AS STIPULATED IN TITLE 15 OF THE
AVON MUNICIPAL CODE, FOR LOT 22, BLOCK 1,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF
AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS,,BBG Holding Corp, owner of Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision has applied for a variance from Section 15.28.080(15) of the Avon
Municipal Code in order to place a freestanding sign within 10' of a property line; as
presented in the application received September 21, 2007; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to notices required by law, the Planning & Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon held a public hearing on October 16, 2007, at which time the applicant
and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain
information and reports regarding this Variance request; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission have considered the following
criteria when evaluating this application:
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity;
B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege;
C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population,, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety; and
D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to
the proposed variance; and
FAMinning & Zoning Con nLuion1Raoha1am 000MR 07-02L2281 BMBCSign Code Mariann Denlaldoe
WHEREAS, The Planning & Zoning Commission finds the following:
1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the 10' setback
regulation will not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship;
2. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone district;
3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district; and
4. The granting of this Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege,
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies a request for a Variance from Avon
Municipal Code Section 15.28.080(15), as presented in the application dated "received"
September 21, 2007, for Lot 22, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision,
Town of Avon, Eagle County Colorado.
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
Signed:
Chair
Attest:
Secretary
2007
Date:
Date:
F.•1Nann1ng & Zoning CommlulonV ffohd1mu110071Ru 07-0112181 BMBCSlgn Code Vanunu Denlaldoc
Staff Report
FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVO
C O L O R A D O
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date October 11, 2007
Project type Duplex Residences
Legal description Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning 2 Units per Lot— PUD
Address 4080 & 4090 Wildridge Road West
Introduction
The applicant, Michael Hazard, has submitted a Final Design application for two duplex
residences on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lots would be
accessed off of a private drive from Little Point. The four residences (A and B on Lot
13, C and D on Lot 12) are 3,734 sq. ft. (Residence A); 3,952 sq. ft. (Residence B);
4,175 sq. ft. (Residence C); and 3,997 sq. ft. (Residence D) and are designed in a
contemporary architectural style with flat roofs, utilizing wood siding and stucco on the
exterior walls.
It should be noted that in order for this design plan to function, a minor subdivision plat
would first need to be approved to adjust the lot line between Lots 12 and 13.
Included with this report are a vicinity map (Exhibit A) and reduced plan sets,with a site
plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit D).
Review History
At the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting, a Sketch Design for Lots 12 and 13 was
reviewed. There were several comments, including the following: location of private
drive in a Utility and Drainage Easement is problematic, differentiation needed between
duplexes on both lots, and that the materials and colors need to compliment the
neighborhood.
At the Commission's August 7, 2007 meeting, a Final Design application for these
properties was tabled. Prior to the tabling being granted, comments were received from
the public regarding the size of the proposed structure on the lot as compared to
neighboring properties, the differing roof style as compared to the neighboring
properties, and the lack of compatibility with other homes in Wildridge.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review
Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when
reviewing the design of this project:
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 9495749
Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 7
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Town of Avon Zonina Code:
• Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning.
• Density: The lots are zoned for a duplex and the density is appropriate.
• Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is
50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD, proposing 47% lot coverage,
and this coverage ratio is for all impervious surfaces compared to the entire size
of the properties.
• Setbacks: The setbacks for the properties are typical for Wildridge with a 25'
front yard setback and 10' side and rear'yard building setbacks. The 25' front
setback is measured from the property line adjacent to Wildridge Road West for
Lot 12, while it is measured from both Wildridge Road West and Little Point for
Lot 13. There are a few instances where it appears that the buildings encroach
into the setbacks. As seen on sheet A1.1 (Site Plan), the proposed design has a
portion of Residence A, the northern portion of the duplex on Lot 13, encroach
into the front yard setback adjacent to Wildridge Road West. Also on sheet A1.1
(Site Plan), the roof of Residence C, the northern portion of the duplex on Lot 12,
encroaches into the front yard setback. The plans should be revised to show that
neither the roof nor any part of the buildings encroach into the setback. An
Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) is required to document the. exact
locations since the buildings do abut the setbacks on the north and south sides of
Lot 12 and the north, south, and west sides of Lot 13.
• Easements: A Utility and Drainage Easement of 10' in width borders the east
side of both Lots 12 and 13, while a 15' wide (7.5' for each lot) Utility and
Drainage Easement borders the north side of Lot 12 and the south side of Lot 13.
The western side of both lots has a 10' wide Slope Maintenance, Drainage and
Snow Storage Easement. The north side of Lot 13 has a 10' wide Slope
Maintenance, Drainage and Snow Storage Easement, while the south side of Lot
12 has a 7.5' wide Utility and Drainage Easement. It is not advised to place
landscaping within platted easements; however, it is the owner's responsibility if
this landscaping requires removal and replacement in the future. In addition, a
new Utility and Drainage Easement needs to be platted along the adjusted
property line to replace the one affected by the future resubdivision.
• Building Height The maximum allowable building height for these properties is
35.' The designs for each lot are in compliance with. the applicable zoning with all
top of parapet heights at or below 30' for Lot 12 and 34.5' for Lot 13, as
proposed. There are elements such as chimneys that extend above the
proposed height, but they are exempt from the overall height calculation. Again,
this requirement would need to be verified by planning -staff with an ILC at the
time of ridge construction.
• Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site
plan.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design 1
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 7 ...
• Parking: This project requires 3 spaces for each dwelling unit (2 per unit under
2,500 sq. ft. / 3 per unit over 2,500 sq. ft). The applicant is proposing a total of 4
spaces (2 interior and 2 exterior) for each dwelling unit. The plans propose the
exterior spaces for each unit to be in front of their respective entrances in a
paved area. The areas differ between each residence with Residence A having
a 20' wide by 18' long area, Residence B having an 18' wide by 16' long area,
Residence C having a 17' wide by 19' long area, and Residence D have an 18'
wide by 16' long area. The minimum size for a parking space is 9' wide by 18
feet long, as required by the Design Guidelines. It appears that the spaces for
Residences B, C, and'D do not support enough square footage for two vehicles,
but are large enough for one exterior space for each unit. The 2 exterior and 2
interior parking spaces for Residence A and the 1 exterior space and 2 interior
spaces for Residences B, C, D are enough to'satisfy the parking requirements for
each duplex structure.
2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains.
The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements.
Adequate development rights exist on the properties for up to two dwelling units per
lot.
4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through
D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Guidelines.
A. Site Development:
o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on site layout design
and state that structures should blend in with natural settings and limit the
need for extensive site grading and slope retention. Additionally, buildings
should be stepped in appearance where practical and as necessitated by
steep slopes.
Due to the interior courtyard design of each duplex, the project utilizes a
majority of the buildable area on each lot. The proposed project abuts the
setbacks on both the north and south sides of Lot 12, the north, south and
east sides of Lot 13, and is within 2' of the setback on the east side
setback of Lot 12. As stated above, it appears that the roof of Residence
C (Lot 12)'and a portion of Residence A (Lot 13) encroach into the
western setback. The plans should be revised to ensure that there is no
such encroachment.
The Guidelines state that all disturbed areas should be revegetated with
native seed. The applicant intends to restore disturbed areas with
vegetation as shown on the landscape plan and discussed later in this
report.
o Site Access: Access to both lots is provided with a 12' wide driveway
which traverses Lot 13 from Little Point to access Lot 12. The private
drive starts with a 4% grade for the first 20' adjacent to the roadway. The
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision—The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design 711k
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 7 "" "
grades throughout the drive vary from no grade to a 10% grade. The first
20' adjacent to the garage for both Residence A and B (Lot 13) have a
2.5% grade. The first 20' adjacent to the garage for Residence C
(northern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has a 2% grade, while Residence D
(southern half of the duplex on Lot 12) has a 2.5% grade. The Design
Guidelines require no more than a 4% grade for the first 20' of the
driveway entering a site and leaving a garage door. This design appears
to be in compliance with the access requirements. In order to access Lot
12, an access easement must be provided on Lot 13 where the proposed
drive is located for the use of Lot 12. This would be completed during the
resubdivision of these lots.
o Parking and Loading: The intent of the parking guidelines is to provide
residents and guests with suitable parking locations that are also durable
and functional. The parking requirements of this section are discussed
above in the parking' zoning requirements. :The material used for the
driveway/courtyard area is not specified and staff recommends that the
material be asphalt, concrete, concrete pavers, or another impervious
surface as required by the Design Guidelines.
o Site Grading: Grading on the properties is minimal and meets the intent of
the Design Guidelines. Grading is used to alter drainage to the east of the
driveway and in between the two duplexes. The applicant has proposed
to revegetate all the areas disturbed by grading work.
o Drainage: The guidelines have generally been met with regard to
drainage. The eastern easements had minimal grading work to ensure
that drainage is contained within the site. The Construction Management
Plan, which encompasses both Lots 12 and 13, should be revised to show
that straw bales are placed in drainage ways and that these drainage
measures shall stay in place until vegetation has been reestablished. The
Construction Management Plan should also be revised to so that the
Limits of Disturbance fencing encloses the material storage area.
o Snow Removal and Storage: The project has designated the area to the
east of the driveway, located in the Utility and Drainage Easement, as
snow storage for both Lots 12 and 13. The project proposes 1,680 sq. ft.
of snow storage, which exceeds the required 20% of the paved surfaces
(1,306 sq. ft.).
B. Building Design:
o Building Materials and Colors: A variety of quality building materials are
proposed with this application, including: stucco, both smooth and
horizontal banding, horizontal wood siding, and painted steel railings. The
proposed colors are: smooth stucco - "Intricate Ivory" (SW 6350); banded
stucco — "Sociable" (SW 6359); wood siding and soffits — Light Brown
(Parklex 1000 Ayous); metal louvers, railings, and chimney caps —
"Priviledge Green" (SW 6193); and windows and doors — "Pueblo Tan".
The smooth stucco has a light tan to off-white color, while the banded
Town of Avon Community Dove opment (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision —The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design 711K
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 7 '—
stucco is more of a peach/tan color. The colors appear to be earthtone or
indigenous and meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. The two
proposed duplexes have the exact same colors and materials and staff
would recommend slightly altering the colors on one of the two lots to be
complimentary, but not be identical to each other.
o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest The building's massing is
broken up with varying building materials, wall planes, and use of
fenestration. The proposed design for the duplex on Lot 13 differs from
the proposed design on Lot 12 because it has a greater use of wood
siding as a building material. The two duplexes (Lots 12 and 13) appear
to compliment each other but varying some colors, as previously stated,
could help provide a greater amount of differentiation. Each building's
design meets the intent of the Architectural Interest Design Guidelines.
The Guidelines encourage pitched roofs and no unbroken ridgelines,
acknowledging only flat roofs when discussing pueblo architecture. The
proposal is designed in a contemporary architectural vernacular in which
flat roofs are vital to the design.
o Outdoor Lighting: The applicant does not intend to use exterior lighting.
o Duplex DevelopmentThe connections between the two halves of each
duplex are not typical of most Wildridge duplex connections. The
proposed design on Lot 12 has a duplex connection on the lower level and
can only be seen from Wildridge Road on the west elevation, not from the
driveway and east elevation. This connection space is used as a second
bedroom and is a functional area, but the area is not large in terms of
width as it measures only 15 feet. The proposed design on Lot 13 has a
duplex connection on the upper level and the connection is a substantial
one. The space is used by a master suite on both halves of the duplex
and is 23 feet in width. The interior courtyard and garages are below the
connection and are easily viewed from both the east and west elevations.
The designs of each duplex have similarities between the two halves but
they do not appear to be 'mirror images' nor do the two duplexes appear
to -be 'mirror images' of each other. At the Sketch Design review for both
Lots 12 and 13, the Commissioners expressed intrigue and support of this
connection.
C. Landscaping:
o Design Character: The provided Landscape Plan encompasses both lots
12 and 13 since they will be developed at the same time. The design
appears to generally comply with the intent of the Residential Landscaping
Guidelines. In terms of plantings, there are a total 5 Amur Maple trees, 44
Aspen trees, 5 River Birch trees, 4 Rocky Mountain Maple trees, 1
Serviceberry, 14 Spruce trees, 11 Alpine Currant shrubs, 5 Blue Mist
Spirea shrubs, 22 Chokecherry shrubs, 17 Mugo Pines, 18 Peking
Cotoneaster shrubs, 5 Rock Cotoneaster shrubs, 20 Sea Green Juniper
shrubs, 16 Three Leaf Sumac plants, 37 White Potentilla plants, 10
Town of Avon community Development
(970) 7484030
Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision —The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design Al1A
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 7 -" .
Woods Rose plants, and groundcovers. Most of the plant species
proposed are contained in Appendix 1: Recommended Plant List, from the
Town's Design Guidelines.
According to the applicant, all trees would meet the minimum size
requirements as prescribed by the Design Guidelines: 6' minimum height
for evergreens, 2" minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and 5 gallon
minimum for shrubs. The landscape plan appears to be well designed
and meets the intent of the Guidelines.
o Irrigation/Watering: The proposed landscaping plan includes a rain sensor
with irrigation and meets the minimum standards of the Design Guidelines.
o Retaining Walls: There are no retaining walls proposed for this project.
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to
minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and
minimize benching or other significant 'alter ' ation of existing topography.
The design and buildings appear to be' compatible with the site topography. The
structures would be stepped with the grades as they fall to the southwest from Lot
13 to Lot 12. As stated in section 4 of this report, minimal grading is being proposed
to alter drainage between the two duplexes on Lots 12 and 13.
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and
neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style,
massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors.
The applicant has proposed high quality materials and earth tone colors that should
make this project visually compatible with the surrounding environment. Although
the architecture used on the two duplexes is not identical to the neighboring
properties, the lack of architectural conformity in the area promotes this architecture
and design. The massing and appearance of this project do not appear dominating
as viewed from the neighboring properties and public ways.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the
vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
Staff• does not feel that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the
proposed improvements.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted
Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies
and is a use by.right per the Wildridge Subdivision.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this final design plan for two
duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision.
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — The Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Final Design
October 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Recommended Motion
1111
Page 7 of 7 """
"I move to approve the final design plan for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13,
Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions to be resolved by building
permit submittal:
1. A resubdivision application be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit
to adjust the lot line between Lots 12 and 13, provide an access easement on Lot
13 for Lot 12, and to replat a Utility and Drainage Easement between the two
lots;
2. The Construction Staging Plan (Sheet A 1.2) be revised to show straw bales in
drainage ways and a note added that requires the drainage protection to remain
in place until vegetation has been established;
3. The limits of disturbance fencing be revised to include the area called out for
material storage on the Construction Staging Plan (Sheet A 1.2);
4. The Topographical Map be revised to correct the central angle of 22010'45" on
the west lot line of existing Lot 13, to match the Wildridge Subdivision Plat that
shows an angle of 17°46'18";
5. The Topographical Map be revised to show the central angle for the north section
of the west lot line for Lot 12;
6. The landscaping be reviewed and revised to ensure that the plantings do not
prohibit drainage in the eastern Utility and Drainage Easement; and
7. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public
hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748-4023, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Jare es
Planner I
Attachments:
A. Aerial Map
B. Letter from Victoria and Nigel Dagnall dated August 3rd, 2007
C. Other Public Input
D. Reduced plan set and colored elevations
Tovm of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Jared Barnes
From: Nigel Dagnall (dagnall12@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:30 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Proposed Development of Lots 12 & 13
August 3, 2007
Dear Commissioners,
My husband and I appreciate you taking the time to understand our serious concerns with regard to the proposed application
for two duplex residences on Lots 12 and 13 of the Wildridge Subdivision. We fully understand the right and need to
develop vacant lots; however, we feel these huge structures are totally out of keeping with the surrounding area while some
of the design features are "suspect" with regard to the Design Review Guidelines, as outlined below.
1) Roof.
The flat roof design as proposed for this development is extremely contemporary in style and in no way reflects or complies
with the suggested pueblo/adobe or typical mountain architecture with a pitched roof design. The design guidelines state that
"all design shall be compatible with existing built structures". The existing contemporary style homes in the area as
referenced at the June 19t11 meeting all have a pitched roof design (photos to follow).
2) Design
The design of the buildings looks massive and retail/commercial in image, completely out of character with the Wildridge
Subdivision and a mountain lifestyle, and rather more fitting in the Domino/Columbine bakery complex in Avon. The site
coverage although within the guidelines by a mean 2%, again does not reflect the open living space and mountain lifestyle of
Wildridge. We suggest that the design is based purely on monetary gain while sacrificing the environment, image and
lifestyle of the Wildridge Subdivision.
3) Lighting
The many and large windows, although not governed by the light pollution standards for on site outdoor lighting as indicated
in the guidelines, yet the impact and affect to the existing homes is the same as is stated that "the access to a clear and visible
night sky is a strong value to our community. Light pollution is a threat to our clear skies that are part of the heritage of the
Rocky Mountain West". While this proposed development has meet the landscaping requirements, it appears that the
majority of it is between Lots 12 & 14 with minimal coverage around the north and west side of the buildings which
directly affects the community as a whole.
4) Parking
The guidelines call for 3 spaces per residence, you will notice on the plans that this is an extremely confined and compacted
parking area, and the turning spaces seem extremely tight for this type of density and will give difficult access to a number of
the garages. In an emergency situation we believe there will also be difficult access for life safety personnel and their
vehicles. Little Point road clearly states "no parking" on the road side. Should residents of these units have social events this
will cause serious congestion in the area which is likely to have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and the existing
residents.
5) Traffic
With most homes today sharing 24 cars the impact of between 8-16 vehicles sharing a very small and quiet cul-de-sac will
negatively impact the existing residents.
In closing, we would like to bring to your attention points C and D from page 47 number 6 of the Design Review Guidelines
and The Planning and Zoning Commission Review (Final Design Plan Approval Criteria):
Point "C"... "The appearance ofproposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public
ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to the street, quality ofmaterials and colors. "
Point "D "... "the objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or
aesthetic values will be impaired" with regard to these statements most certainly Architectural style, Massing, Height and
8/6/2007
Page 2 of 2
Aesthetics will be totally compromised in comparison to the vicinity of other homes in the immediate area.
It is also our understanding that complete drawings were required to be submitted one week prior to the meeting of August
8th, however only partial drawings of pne lot were submitted for review.
We accept that a building will most likely be constructed at some point on these lots, we -ask that the design is in keeping
with the direction of the Design Guidelines and that the appearance is more residential as opposed to retail or commercial
as defined by the design.
Thank you so much for your time in listening to our concerns, we hope that you will move forward in reevaluate the design
of this proposed application and acknowledging that it is out of keeping for the Wildridge area and insist that what ever
structure is placed on the lots that they are harmonious and aesthetically complimentary to the mountains and not a small
Mall.
Sincerely
Victoria and Nigel Dagnall
4211 S. Wildridge Road West
8/6/2007
1*3911113111
Jared Barnes
From: Karl Krueger [Kruegerarchitect@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07; 2007 3:21 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Cc: mha@vail.net
Subject: Proposed Duplexes for Lot 12 and 13, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon colorado
Planning and Zoning Commission,
In view of citizen's comments received as recently as late this afternoon and because I was unable to be at
today's scheduled meeting due to a long standing appointment, I would request that the Planning and Zoning
Commission table my submittal for final approval until the next available meeting. I had arranged for an associate
to field questions about the Courtyard Villas project already recommended for final approval, but I would prefer to
address concerned citizens comments in person and make a fuller presentation of the project during the next
meeting in order to allay concerns, refute mischaracterizations or misunderstandings and present visual aids
(renderings and/or a model) over and above the final approval requirements already met.
Sincerely,
Michael Hazard Assoc.
8/7/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: john_warnke@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 10:23 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Lots 12 and 13
Jared, we would like to join those opposed to the proposed commercial style duplexes in Wildridge.
We believe design mistakes have been made in the past and hope this one can be avoided. Thanks for
your concern, John and Becky Warnke, 5768 Wildridge Rd. E. Avon, Colo.
8/6/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From:
Harrel Lawrence [harrel3@comcast.net]
Sent:
Monday, August 06, 2007 10:37 AM
To:
Jared Barnes
Subject: building at w!!Idridge road and little pt.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON LITTLE
POINT THAT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD BE A 7-11 STORE AND DOES NOT!!!! FIT THE DESIGNS THAT ARE
IN THE AREA. WE LIVE ON 4313 JUNE PT. AND THINK THAT THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON
THE AREA THAT WILL DOWN GRADE THE VALUES AND THE APPEARANCE AND BEAUTY OF THE AREA.
MARY HARREL LAWRENCE
DONALD J.MCMAHAN
970 949-4060
4313 JUNE POINT, WILDRIDGE
8/6/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From:
Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent:
Monday, August 06, 2007 10:40 AM
To:
Jared Barnes
Subject: Lots 12 and 13 Wildridge
I have lived at 4737 Wildridge Road since 1994 and drive by these Lots every day. Every house shows up on
these sage covered hillsides and it has taken me 12 years to grow trees and vegetation to soften my home.
( which happens to be somewhat contemporary.) This proposed design is the ugliest I have seen in my 24 years
of selling real estate in this valley. It is even too ugly for a commercial store in Denver much less a residential
neighborhood. Do not let this happen. Thank you. Carroll Tyler
Carroll S. Tyler
Branch Broker
Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office
23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657
(970) 479-5762 Direct Line
(970) 476-2421 Receptionist
(970)476-2658 Fax
YYY—v. ifgr.net
8/6/2007
Page 1 of I
Jared Barnes
From: Mike Neff [mneff@insuranceaai.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 12:58 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Lot 12 813, Wildridge Road West 8 Little Point
Mr. Barnes,
I have just been made aware of a pending design approval for the subject property. I do
not believe that this design as depicted is appropriate for the Wildridge sub -division. If
constructed from materials commonly used in architecture of this nature, it will not only
stand out it will detract from the surroundings of our neighborhood. While the design
may be consider good architecture, it will fail to enhance the surroundings.
As evidence of the kind of negative impact this type of architecture has to the visual
appeal of our neighborhood, I only have to relay the comments of all of my guests that
drive into Wildridge for the first time make regarding The Barrancas Townhomes on
Metcalf. I quote. "what in the world are buildings like that doing in an area like this".
How much more of a detriment to the Wildridge neighborhood will a design of this
nature have? Significant I think.
There have been many homes built in Wildridge over the 10 years I have lived there. (I
am a full time resident, by the way) I have not necessarily liked the design of each one of
them. However, this one goes too far a field to be considered appropriate for the area.
Regards,
Michael Neff, President
Michael Neff Agency, Inc.
970-949-5633
8/6/2007
Page t of I
Jared Barnes
From:
Lynn Brethauer [brethr88@comcast.net]
Sent:
Sunday, August 05, 2007 9:40 PM
To:
Jared Barnes
Subject: Lot 12&13 WildridgeRd
ATTN: Jared Barnes Subject: Unacceptable Construction Project
This is regarding the two duplex residences on Lots 12 &13 Wildridge Rd and Little Point Rd
up for final review this Tues, Aug 8, 2007.
1 find it hard to come up with the proper language to describe such a despicable looking
construction project to be called duplexes/residences. How would anyone on the
board/committee like to have this built next to where they live? I for one want to express my
total displeasure of having such a poorly designed, commercial strip mall looking structure built
in the area of Wildridge. It lends itself to look like a low affordable housing project. Wildridge
has homes, this structure looks like and has the feel of a retail office building—not a mountain
home. Because of its size and being on a corner, I am very concerned about the traffic and
parking situation that would be involved, the light pollution it would cause, and what about the
size of each unit and each structure? I also wonder if this structure will be built with the quality
of the homes in Wildridge that is currently here, or just "built" to get it up and sold.
I feel Wildridge residence deserve better than this and would say so if they knew of this project
design!! This design does not belong in a residential area!!
and Lynn Brethauer
yrs + residence, two lots away from lot 12&13 on Wildridge RD
8/6/2007
Page 1 of 1 '
Jared Barnes
From:
GeraldPHerman@aol.com
Sent:
Monday, August 06, 2007 1:57 PM
To:
Jared Barnes
Subject: duplex proposal for lots 12 &13 Wildridge Rd West and Little Point
My name is Jerry Herman and I live at 5531 Coyote Ridge. I formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd West
My wife, Connie and I believe that the proposed duplexes, which have an ultramodern design, will ruin the
character of Wildridge and in particular, the area near Little Point. While we recognize that there already are a
few residences that are not "Mountain Home" in design, they do nothing to enhance the beauty of Wildridge
and we assume were built before there was an active Planning Commission.
We chose to move to Wildridge in 2000 because of the beautiful mountain atmosphere and the homes which
were compatible with this setting.
The proposed buildings belong in a commercial, not a residential selling in the mountains. Therefore we are
taking this opportunity to strongly protest this proposal. Thank you.
We plan to attend the meeting.
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
8/6/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: nelsonelectric@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 7:54 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Lot 12,13 comm. style duplexs
Jared,
Excuse me, but why do I have a note on my door concerning this project? Isn't this something that
obviously doesn't belong here and should have never made it through the beginning conceptual stage
approval process? When I built my house, I took the plans to the town and inquired. as to whether my
proposed home was something that would be acceptable to the town of Avon. Thiswas done before it
ever got so far as final DRB review.
This is obviously a plan by some greedy developer and egotistical architect. Please just handle these
ridiculous plans earlier in the future and tell them no.
Sincerely,
Steven Nelson
4033 Wildridge Road
8/7/2007
Page 1 of 1 '
Jared Barnes
From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:52 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Aug 7 Planning Meeting
Jared,
Regarding the double duplex planned for lots 12 and 13 off Little Point in Wildridge; the design is very
industrial looking and completely out of character with the overall character of our neighborhood. The
lots in question are beautiful and deserve beautiful homes in line with the standard "mountain" style of
architecture up here. As well, two of these things placed back to back on a prominent ridge will be
visually unappealing and an overbearing eyesore for the entire subdivision. My heart goes out to the
homeowners on Little Point and surrounding Wildridge Road if this design is approved.
Sincerely,
Doss Malone
4700 Wildridge Rd
Avon
8/7/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Chuck Bunting [chuck.bunting@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:23 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Lots 12 813 - Wildridge Road
Jared -
My wife and I are full time residents at 4015 Wildridge Road West. We are concerned that the
appeamce of these buildings in not appropriate for the mountain community where we live. Please have
the builder consider redesigning the exterior to be more compatible with the surrounding homes.
We plan to attend the meeting this evening.
Thank you for your time.
************s*sss**s**sss**s**
Regards,
Chuck Bunting
chuck.buntine(a).email.com
Home: 970-845-6319
Cell: 970-390-4281
Mail:
PO Box 6034
Avon, CO 81620-6034
8/7/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Paul & Teresa Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net)
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:20 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Cc: Paul & Teresa Jeppson
Subject: West Wildridge Rd & Little Point Duplex
Dear Mr. Barnes and the Community Development Board:
My Husband and I have lived in Wildridge since 1988 when we bought our first townhome at Buffalo Head
Townhomes on Draw Spur. We are currently in our third house in Wildridge. We have watched the
development in this area go from sagebrush, to an area that has struggled with it's identity, and today to a
desirable neighborhood that is finally coming into it's own.
Lacks Design Compatibility
Recently there has been many new single family homes and duplexes built that have been of a higher quality - we
are actually seeing properties that are rivaling other neighborhood areas in the valley such as Singletree and
Upper Homestead. This proposed development is not compatitable with the current development trends in
Wildridge (or in the valley) in either style or high-end quality/feel. In fact, it already looks dated circa 1970.
Loss of Property Values and Value on living in Wildridge
The neighboring homes surrounding this development will probably decrease in value and Wildridge will again
risk becoming a place "not to live" because your investment will not be safe. One of the nice aspects of Wildridge
is that the houses do not have that high end track home look (like Cordillera or Eagle Ranch). The town of Avon
has given a lot of latitude in what is considered acceptable design. However, if given too much latitude the
neighborhood will suffer. It will begin to look like some of the neighborhoods in Clear Creek County where
"anything goes". Where an A -fame home can sit next to a modem style home which can sit next to a tog cabin. Is
there really no way (given the large latitude) to make this property more similar to the surrounding properties
(woodAog/stucco)?
Commercial Distant from Metcalf Road
Given the fact that one already enters Wildridge via a'commercial area with large non-descript storage buildings.
It is important that the neighborhood distinguishes itself from this in it's design. Altering this proposed property so
it retains the contemporary feeling yet blends - (perhaps making it an adobe like home) benefits Avon and
Wildridge. There is a reason designs like this are not being
built in other areas of the valley.
1 know you have heard from many residents in Wildridge - I hope you would consider the opinions of your current
residents, the people who are believing and supporting Avon, and tax payers of Avon, over a developer who at
this point is not building a property that will enhance the desirability of living in Wildridge and Avon.
Do we really want to look back in three years and say - "What were we thinking?"
Thank you for your time,
Tem Jeppson
44808 West Wildridge Road
8/7/2007
Jared Barnes
From: Kathleen Kunis [kalhleenkunis@comcast.net]
lent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:20 AM
ro: Jared Barnes
Subject: Commercial Style Duplex
Dear Mr. Barnes:
I would like to express my dismay about the commercial style duplexes that are
proposed for Wildridge Road and Little Point (Lots
12 and 13). We already have a number of architectural disasters on Wildridge. These
structures would definitely represent a new low.
We are living in the mountains! This style is more appropriate to the suburbs of a city or
an industrial zoned area. I cannot imagine what the builder and the architect are
thinking!
I am also disturbed by the fact that this building would cause a great deal of
lighting pollution. I used to be able to see the stars very clearly from Wildridge. This
building would be a disaster for its neighbors. We also have the issue of the buildings'
size, traffic, and parking issues.
I would hope that this building is not allowed to be built in Wildridge. It is the
antithesis of a mountain home!
Sincerely,
Kathy Kunis
5301 Ferret Lane
Wildridge
1
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 4:00 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Thank you
For getting the design for Lots 12 and 13 tabled. Now we need them to redesign this so that it is more in keeping
with the neighborhood and not a light reflecting eye sore. In my opinion, if that duplex were built as is, any
property within that view corridor would be devalued at least $200,000.00. Just because something meets Avon
"guidelines" does not mean that it should be built. Carroll Tyler
Carroll S. Tyler
Branch Broker
Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office
23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657
(970) 479-5762 Direct Line
(970) 476-2421 Receptionist
(970)476-2658 Fax
www.slifennet
10/11/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Doss Malone [malone@vail.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:59 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Wildridge Lots 12113
Jared,
This is a follow up to my e-mail last week concerning the planned development of lots 12/13 in
Wildridge. I loop around the entire subdivision daily on my bike and would like to stress just how
prominent these lots are. As I try to visualize the design that strikes me as industrial, but is
euphemistically described as "contemporary", the words invasive and predatory come to mind. I grew
up in Colorado and have enjoyed this valley for 30 years. I first purchased in Wildridge in 1994 and
have seen the progression of development. While there are certain interesting, unique designs that have
been tucked innocently against the natural topography over the years, this design's departure from the
regional norm will be exaggerated by its location. I don't advocate a bland cookie cutter approach and
appreciate quality and creativity but I do think there is a certain style of architecture that appeals to those
of us who love living here and this design seems out of character. On a positive note, I appreciate the
economical access design using multiple lots that minimizes the excavation required to development
challenging locations.
Sincerely,
Doss Malone
4700 Wildridge Rd.
From: Doss Malone [mailto:malone@vail.net]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 9:52 PM
To: 'jbarnes@avon.org'
Subject: Aug 7 Planning Meeting
Jared,
Regarding the double duplex planned for lots 12 and 13 off Little Point in Wildridge; the design is very
industrial looking and completely out of character with the overall character of our neighborhood. The
lots in question are beautiful and deserve beautiful homes in line with the standard "mountain" style of
architecture up here. As well, two of these things placed back to back on a prominent ridge will be
visually unappealing and an overbearing eyesore for the entire subdivision. My heart goes out to the
homeowners on Little Point and surrounding Wildridge Road if this design is approved.
Sincerely,
Doss Malone
4700 Wildridge Rd
Avon
10/11/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 200712:43 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Property at Wildridge Rd. West and Little Point
My wife Connie and I firmly believe that the proposed houses on Wildridge Rd. West just south of Little Point
are not an appropriate design for the Wildridge neighborhood. They have the appearance of commercial
structures and will only serve to lower the desirability of Wildridge. We urge the P&Z Commision to reject the
design and demand that the architects design something that complements the other homes in the area.
While, we now live at 5531 Coyote Ridge, we formerly lived at 4211 Wildridge Rd. West. We can't believe that
the Commission would even consider such monstrosities in Wildridge.
Thank You.
Gerald P Herman
I also, have a question as to why nothing has happened with the fence built by Ryan Sutter?
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
10/11/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: Harrel Lawrence [harrel3@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:51 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: WILD RIDGE - LITTE PT.
WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE DELAY IN THE WILDWRDGE SITE APPROVE ON WEST ROAD/LITTLE PT.
MEANS THAT THHEY ARE TRYING TO NOT HAVE THE PROJECT LOOK LIKE A 7-11 STORE AND THAT IT
WILL BETTER FIT THE AREA . JERRY MCMAHAN AND HARREL LAWRENCE /// CONCERNED HOME
OWNERS
10/11/2007
plans
Jared Barnes
From: Joanne Morgan [morgangd@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:07 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: plans
Jared,
Page 1 of I
I just spent some time with Michael Hazard looking at his plans for the two duplexes. After seeing the
renderings with shading and recesses more distinct, I like the project.
Joanne
.h IJenL 'Anrg. n G nipHe Ueq n
10/11/2007
Thomas B. Hix, Jr.
120 Hurd Lane, A-203
Avon, CO 81620
141171 !�T--i
Mr. Chris Evans
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Mr. Evans:
RECEIVE®
OCT 1 8 900
I am the President of the Canyon Run Condominium Association and am writing on behalf of the
Association. It is my understanding that a revised proposal for the Madison Partners project will soon
be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission. As you may recall, I spoke at the meeting in
February when this project was first proposed, and explained our strong opposition.
At that meeting, the Commission urged the developers to establish a dialog with some of the parties
who spoke In opposition. I would Oke to commend Madison Partners, as they were very diligent In
communicating with me. Mr. Reese and Mr. Neary came to Houston and visited with me, explaining
revisions they Intended to make to their proposal They listened to my concems, and made an effort in
making revisions to their proposal to address, in some way, these concerns.
That being said, we are stiff opposed to this project and urge you to reject their application. Their
revised project is now slightly smaller than originally proposed, but we feel it is still much too massive
for that site and location. It will not enhance that section of Highway 6 as an arival point to the Town of
Avon. It will, in fact, along with The Gates, create a canyon effect along that section of highway. It will
negatively impact the view to the south that is so important to Avon. This project as revised, is stiff
considerably larger and taller than The Gates.
We believe this project as proposed, fails to meet many of the principles of the Town of Avon's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Town's design and development standards. It is not necessary for
the purpose of this letter to fist all of those here as they are so obvious. But I would Oke to slate that we
agree with the general concept of the. Plan that large residential complexes such as this should be
located near the Town center, not across Highway 6 and the river.
In the letter I sent you last February I also indicated concerns about noise and traffic (diverting cars
across the river at Stonebridge onto Hurd Lane, etc.). Their revised proposal does nothing to alleviate
these concerns.
In the application for this project there are a number of references to The Gates. The clear implication is
that since the Town of Avon approved that project, they should now approve this one. I disagree, of
course, that just because you approved the one commits you to approve the other. But they do have a
point — every time you approve a massive project Oke these, it makes it more dF=ft to reject the next
one. One such project along there is more than enough.
Avon a a ski frown. We agree with your Comprehensive Plan that the relationship with Beaver Creek is
important The wonderful view as one drives from Avon toward the Beaver Creek entrance is a key
asset Approving The Gates was a mistake. We urge you not to compound it by approving this project
We are requesting that the Town of Avon remain true to the principles espoused in the Comprehensive
Plan and other Town design and development regulations and reject this application.
r "M
October 1, 2007
Before I close, I feel compelled to make one other point I would like to remind you of the statements
made by Mr. Neary at the meeting in February. He stood before the Commission, looked all of the
members in the eye, and stated, quite clearly and unequivocally, that the proposal he was presenting
was just as small as it could possibly be and that they weren't going to play games with the
Commission by coming In with a 'high -bait proposal so they could later look good by revising It He
said the economics just couldn't work if it were any smaller. Yet just a few months later, he and Mr.
Reese were stowing me drawings for a smaller project and they are now presenting you with a smaller
{albeit still massive} project. I would ask you lo keep these statements in mind as you assess the
credibility of other statements they make to you about what they YA of won't do in aonneclion with this
prom
/r. I�Yvl
Thomas B. Hbc, Jr.
President, Canyon Run Condominium Association
Cc: Town of Avon Council members
Tom of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members
BBG HOLDING CORP
77 Metcalf Road, PO Box 8266 ph. 970.845.0466
Avon, Colorado 81620 fx. 970.845.0465
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission:
I am asking for a variance from the 30' setback requirement for a free-standing monument sign in the center island
of my commercial property located at 77 Metcalf Road. It is my intention to install a high-quality sign (subject to
DRB approval) immediately adjacent to the tree in this island. This is the ONLY location that a free-standing sign
will work.
When filing the application, the following items are listed on the application form:
Furthermore,
'Variances MAYbe granted for the fallowing hardships:
• Topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the vicinity
• Physical limitations including size, shape, or dimensions of a lot
• The location of existing structures on a lot
• Parking or other zoning requirements
Variances will NOT be granted for the following:
• Cost or convenience to the applicant of a strict or literal compliance
with a regulation
• Classification of uses of property"
'The Commission must make the following written findings before granting a
Variance:
• That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same district,
• That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity;
• That the Variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
o The strict literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of this title,
o There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the Variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the zone,
o The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district."
I believe that this application meets the requirements for a variance to be granted.
1. Due to unique topographic nature of this property compared to others in the immediate zone district
and the physical limitations imposed by the layout of the parking lot on the site, there is no other
location that this sign could be installed in. This certainly results in practical difficulty and hardship
Inconsistent with the intent of these objectives.
2. The physical constraints are unique to this property and are NOT experienced by neighboring
properties. In addition to the unique entry and exit flow of the parking (which keeps delivery trucks
from being a problem) this site has numerous full, mature pines. While providing shade and visual
buffering of the property from the road, they also decrease sight lines from approaching traffic,
making sign placement impossible, except for the center island.
3. Good way finding and signage is a safety enhancement. We have had many people stop at our
building and ask if they are in the right place because we have no signage installed. The tree has
been growing in the center island for many years and is obviously not detrimental to the public
welfare. Therefore, I find it difficult to say that this sign would be.
4. Other properties in the existing zone district enjoy a privilege being denied to my property due to the
above limitations. Two other properties, directly across the street have free-standing monument
signs. They did not need a variance in order to install the signage. Therefore the granting of this
variance request will NOT constitute a "special privilege."
S. I believe that the free-standing monument sign being proposed is in keeping with the architectural
tone of the property and the building renovation recently completed. While an internally -lit sign
could be building mounted, I believe that this would detract from, rather than enhance, the property.
This application for a variance is NOT about convenience or cost -savings. It is about trying to install a high quality
free-standing sign that will enhance the overall look and feel of the property. Given the findings above, I
respectfully request approval of this variance request.
Respectfully submitted,
BBG Holding Corp.
Chris Evans
Vice -President
t
Y fe
f�� r
v(.
l�
Page 1 of l
Jared Barnes
From: Matt Ivy [Ivy@vailracquetclub.com]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:10 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: courtyard villas
Hi Jared,
We are writing in support of the proposed Courtyard Villas of Wildridge. My wife and I live just
up the road from the site at 4274 Wildridge Rd West and will pass the new homes several
times each day. We have seen the plans and the elevations and feel that the project is an
excellent fit for the site. We encourage the Town to approve the project.
Thank you,
Matt and Jane Ivy
Wildridge Home Owners
10/16/2007
Page 1 of 1
r
Jared Barnes
From: Paul & Terese Jeppson [paul4799@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 11:55 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Lots 12 & 13 Residential Units
Mr. Barnes,
We live at 4480B Wildridge Road W. Tem and I have lived in Wildridge since 1988. We have seen numerous
buildings and projects constructed over that time. Some good and some bad. Recently, we have started to see
the influx in the last 4 or 5 years of high end, high quality projects especially at the upper end of Wildridge. This is
consistent with the goal of the majority if not all of homeowners and should be the goal of the P&Z.
The currently proposed project has the same look an feel as a combination circa 1975 condominium complexes
and commercial industrial design. This design is found in the 30 year old portions of Vail, Avon and other
mountain towns. It has no redeeming characteristics that would be pleasing to the eye or that would improve the
value of the proposed projects or improve the values of those neighboring the project. It is interesting to note that
when these older projects are remodeled as you are seeing in Vail, they are all trying to cover up the old design. I
am not an advocate of subdivision building such as you would see in Denver, however the individualistic design
needs to fit the character of upscale mountain projects that will assist in creating a better Wildridge not an
eyesore.
On the way to our house you will pass the "Glass House" duplex and just past it you have a "Frank Lloyd Wright"
copy. In between you have Southwestern, modem Mountain and others. While we as individuals might say I
don't care for that residential design, we don't confuse them with commercial buildings and go "Why did the town
allow that to be built in the neighborhood?" The proposed design would definitely elicit that type of response.
The only reason I can think of for this type of design proposal is that it is the cheapest building concept possible.
You must take the neighborhood in which this project is proposed into account. Wildridge, has been fortunate to
have many beautiful and high-end projects approved and built recently. A poorly designed eyesore in the middle,
could and probably would convince developers to build elsewhere as they cannot count on the town to protect the
overall values. We will regret this project as proposed for the next 20 years is approved.
Please vote no!
Thanks,
Paul A. Jeppson
4480B Wildridge Road W.
10/16/2007
October 15, 2007
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to provide several formal comments regarding the current
proposed development of Lots 12 & 13 in Wildridge, referred to as "The Courtyard
Villas of Wildridge".
Having monitored the evolution of this application and reviewed the current plan
submissions (contained within the spiral -bound booklet), as residents of Little Point and
nearby homes, we have several concerns. Below please find an explanation of each as
well as some suggestions for how the applicant may address each:
1) Homogeneity of architecture — This application is for two (2) duplex units to be
built on adjoining lots. The principle exterior architecture, materials, color
treatments, etc. for all four units are identical. As such, the development is out -
of -proportion and inconsistent with the neighboring residences and with the
Wildridge development in general.
Proposed solutions: An optimal solution to the above will be to execute two
different architectural styles. For example, one duplex unit remain as is and the
other be done in a different style such as a `mountain-esque' structure (e.g. 4214
West Wildridge). Alternatively, one of the duplex units could have several
pitched roof sections incorporated into the execution as a means of differentiating
the two duplexes (e.g. 4220/4224 West Wildridge). Also, the colors of each
duplex could be different, rather than uniform, as a means of further
distinguishing the units (e.g. two duplex units on a shared driveway developed by
ASE at 5101 Longsun Lane).
2) General Mass of the proposed development — By the design (minimal
connectivity of each duplex unit) as well as the placement of the lots, from most
any angle of each of 5 views (east, west, north, south, and top/'above' view), this
development will look like one massive structure. While we are not shown all 4
units within any elevation, the overlapping nature of the walls, even between the
two duplexes themselves, will give the observer the impression that this is one
massive structure. This is not consistent with other single family nor duplex
developments of adjacent lots (e.g. ASE Development of 3 duplexes on Longsun
Lane).
Proposed solutions: If the architecture of each duplex were different, and/or if
there was greater distance between the structures such that `daylight' could be
viewed between the buildings, this could improve the current effects. Perhaps the
use of separate driveway entrances could facilitate a solution. Altering the duplex
connections (and reducing/eliminating the courtyards) could also reduce the
footprint and thus improve the proposed impact.
3) Proposed ancillary treatments — While not portrayed in any current drawings, we
understand there had been discussion of incorporating a gate and signage at the
driveway entrance from Little Point. This is clearly inconsistent with the
neighborhood and is not seen as a positive component of any development in the
area.
Proposed solution: Ensure the entrance treatments are consistent with the
neighboring residences which, in many cases, use natural rocks with simple
residence numbers applied, as a means denoting the specific units served by the
driveways.
We feel strongly about these issues and look forward to working with the
Commission, the Town Council and developers towards a solution that will
complement the neighborhood while delivering a favorable ROI for the
investor(s).
Sincerely,
Pam and Peter Warren (4181 Little Point)
Carel and Marc Slatkoff (4191 Little Point)
Page I of I
Jared Barnes
From:
Carroll Tyler [ctyler@slifer.net]
Sent:
Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:34 AM
To:
Jared Barnes
Cc:
Tina Vardaman
Subject: Little Point duplex
Hi Jared, Mike Hazard gave me a colored rendering of this proposed "Courtyard Duplex." for Little Point in
Wildridge. I am sorry to say that I do not think it is appropriate for our neighborhood. It will cover the entire point
and be visible both from above as well as from the roads. This is a commercial style structure with bars that block
the views and make it look like a jail. It has taken me 13 years to grow trees at my house and no amount of
screening is going to help this one on Little Point. Vote No, please. Carroll Tyler
Carroll S. Tyler
Branch Broker
Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate- Bridge St. Office
23o Bridge Street, Vail, Colorao 81657
(990) 479-5762 Direct Line
(970) 476-2421 Receptionist
(970)476-2658 Fax
www.slifer.net
10/16/2007
Page 1 of 1
Jared Barnes
From: GeraldPHerman@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:47 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: tonights meeting
I, again want to reiterate my opposition to the architectural style of the proposed development at the corner of
Wildridge Road West and Little Point. The design is much too commercial looking in appearance and will
detract from the neighborhood. I realize this is a matter of taste. However, this proposed design belongs on
Metcalf Road in a commercial setting. I ask the P & Z Commission to ask the developer to change the outside
appearance to better fit in to the Wildridge subdivision.
See whars new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
10/16/2007
October 16, 2007
RECEIVED
OCT 1 6 2007
Community De QMWnew
Planning and Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
It has come to my attention that Madison Partners is re -submitting their plans and design
for the new development located on Hwy 6, just east of the Gates.
Since the Planning and Zoning Commission is taking this matter under consideration this
evening, and since I have a previous commitment, I am unable to attend.
It appears to me that this project is still ill-conceived, and not appropriate for the land it is
planned for. All of the same reasons apply, that were used in the original argument. That
being, to much building, both in height and length, for the topography of the land
available at this location.
I am aware that the builder has made some slight modifications to the plans that were first
submitted, however, more needs to be done. This is a unique piece of property, and it will
take a unique building to ascetically meet the needs of the town, and the planning
commission, as they have established definite criteria for architectural design in Avon.
Let's not blow it on one poorly planned project. ,
Thank you,
Dale Aden
E-103
Canyon Run