PZC Packet 101717
1 Agenda posted on Friday, October 13, 2017 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
-Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org
Please call 970-748-4023 for questions.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
One Lake Street
If you require special accommodation please contact us in advance and we will assist you. You may call David McWilliams at 970-
748-4023 or email cmcwilliams@avon.org for special requests.
I. Call to Order – 5:00pm
II. Roll Call
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Consent Agenda:
A. Sign Design – 51 Beaver Creek Place
File: SGN17010
Legal Description: Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Applicant: Frankie Sheridan
Summary: Sign Design that does not match the property’s Sign Program.
B. September 19, 2017 Meeting Minutes
V. Conflicts of Interest
VI. Temporary Use Application: Construction Parking - PUBLIC HEARING
File: TMP17003
Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Applicant: Schaefer Hyde Construction
Summary: Proposal to park up to ten vehicles on partially improved area through November 15,
2017.
VII. Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment) Village at Avon PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17001
Legal Description: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon
Applicant: Harvey Robertson
Summary: Proposal to increase density in Planning Area F from 18 dwelling unit/ acre to 25
dwelling units per acre; and removal of mixed use requirements for same area.
VIII. Minor PUD Amendment – Riverfront PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17002
Legal Description: Riverfront Subdivision
Applicant: East West Resorts Development XIV, L.P., L.L.L.P.
Summary: Minor PUD Amendment affecting lots 4-7 of the Riverfront Subdivision, which
includes all property west of the Timeshare West building. The amendment would
allow greater flexibility with building placement, while maintaining density standards.
2 Agenda posted on Friday, October 13, 2017 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
-Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org
Please call 970-748-4023 for questions.
IX. Rezoning – Short Term Rental Overlay (STRO) - Nottingham Road Residential Area - PUBLIC HEARING
File: REZ17002
Legal Description: Lots 6-9; 43-51; 70 and 70a, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Applicant: Town of Avon
Summary: Rezoning to apply the STRO district to residential properties on Nottingham Road.
This application was initiated by the Avon Town Council at the recommendation of
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
X. Variance - Solar PV Regulations – 2809 Shepherd Ridge - PUBLIC HEARING
File: VAR17002
Legal Description: Lot 4 Wildridge Acres Subdivision
Applicant: Bob Matarese
Summary: Application to build ground mounted solar panels and not “maximize” the
construction of roof mounted solar, as required by code.
XI. Special Review Use and Minor Development Application – Live/ Work Units – 431 Metcalf Rd - PUBLIC
HEARING
File: SRU17002 and MNR17050
Legal Description: Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Applicant: Jeff Manley
Summary: Application to construct two (2) housing units within the Avon Mini Storage building.
XII. Staff Approvals
• MNR17049 – garage color change at 2250 Old Trail
• MNR17047 - tree removal at 2909 June Creek Trail
• MNR19039- Addition and deck addition at 5780 E Wildridge
XIII. Adjourn
Staff Report – Sign Design
October 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project type: Sign Design
Zoning: Shopping Center (SC - Retired Zone District)
Address: 51 Beaver Creek Place, Unit #2, Avon CO 81620
Location:
Prepared By:
Lot 69, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
David McWilliams, Town Planer
Staff Report Overview
This staff report contains one application for consideration by the PZC:
1. SGN 17010: The Applicant is requesting approval of an individual business sign that is
not in accordance with the approved Master Sign Program for 51 Beaver Creek Place, originally
approved in December, 1998.
Background
There are five (5) tenant spaces in the commercial retail center and four (4) current businesses.
The existing tenants (from south to north) and their respective sign types are as follows:
Unit #1: Boost Mobile : Internally lit pan channel (conforming to MSP)
Unit #2: Fancy Pansy: No existing sign (proposed sign is not conforming to MSP)
Unit #3: Colorado Meat Company: Wood and brushed aluminum sign (not conforming to MSP)
Unit #4: Columbine Bakery: Individual lettering with up-light (permitted nonconforming)
Unit #5: Domino's Pizza: Internally lit cabinet sign on two sides (east and north) of tower
(not conforming to MSP; sign variance approved by PZC in 1991).
The MSP requires a pan- channel letter sign design located above the front windows of each
storefront. The MSP grants an exception to tenant unit #5, which is currently occupied by
Domino's Pizza, and has a backlit cabinet style wall sign mounted to the tower. Tenant space
#4 is currently occupied by Columbine Cafe & Bakery and contains small individual letters
mounted to the facade above the front entry with an up-light mounted just below the lettering.
This style conforms to the sign requirements prior to the current version and is allowed to
remain according to the MSP. Tenant space #1 is occupied by Boost Mobile and has a pan-
channel sign that was approved in 2015 and meets the MSP requirements.
Photo of the two nonconforming signs, and the third proposed location
Summary of Request
Leasing tenant space #2 from the property owner is Frankie Sheridan (Applicant). The Applicant
has submitted an individual sign application (Exhibit A) for new business signage proposed to
be located above the front entrance to 51 Beaver Creek Place, Unit #3 (the Property).
The Applicant is opening a new business in Avon called Fancy Pansy, a flower shop. The
business sign proposed by the Applicant is not in accordance with the approved Master Sign
Program (MSP) for the Property and the Applicant would like to utilize signage that better
represents the business than that allowed by the outdated MSP. The Property Owner,
represented by Hal Allen, has provided the Applicant with permission to move forward with the
proposed sign design and has provided the requisite application forms.
The proposed sign represents a purple pansy and the business name in black cursive. It will be
located on the triangle space above the front door. An existing up-light mounted on the building
fascia would light the sign from below.
15.28.080(16) Sign Programs
Sign programs are encouraged for all projects, and are required as a part of the design review
process for all proposed projects. Sign programs shall be in accordance with:
a. Sign programs shall be compatible with the site and building, and should provide for a similarity of
types, sizes, styles and materials for signs within a project. Several alternatives for signage should
be included in the program so as not to be so restrictive as to eliminate individuality.
b. Sign programs may be proposed or changed only by the owners of the building or the owners'
association. Sign program changes or proposals may not be made by an individual business.
c. Proposed signs, not in accordance with an approved sign program, will only be considered by the
Planning and Zoning Commission upon receipt of written evidence that the proposed sign is
acceptable to the owners of the building or the owners' association.
d. All sign programs shall be in written and plan form. Plans shall indicate size, location, type and
number of signs for the site and buildings.
e. Programs may include limitations on wording, colors, design, lighting, materials and other
restrictions, and deemed appropriate by the applicant.
51 Beaver Creek Place Master Sign Program
1. Lettering style may vary to suit the individual store.
2. Signage will be limited to 20 square feet/tenant. Store #5 (currently Domino's) will be allowed
to have an additional sign on the north side of the building up to 20 square feet. Store #5 may
use a) the existing tower for their signs or b) the locations above their windows as is done with
stores #1 through #4.
3. Individual letters must be no smaller than 6" and no larger than 18". This will be dictated by the
number of letters in the store name.
4. The lighting will be internally lit pan channel.
5. The returns of the pan channel to the building will be black.
6. Service entry signage will be vinyl or hand painted lettering matching the style and color of the
main lettering on the back door. This signage will not be required of the store.
7. Existing signage installed and maintained in conformance with the previous master sign
program may remain in place, until replaced or substantially repaired.
8. Signs will be of the following colors: white, black, red, blue, green, maroon and brown. Any
other colors must receive approval from the Town of Avon.
9. The existing lattice work must be maintained.
Proposed Deviation from MSP
Total
Business
Signs
Total Sign
Square Ft Type Lighting Letter Size
51 BC Place
MSP
One (1) in
designated
location
20 square
feet; 2' tall x
10' wide
Pan Channel Internally lit Between 6"
- 18"
Unit 2
Proposed
One (1) on
the tower
13.56 square
feet 56" x
34.86"
Custom
Acrylic
lettering and
background
One (1)
existing up-
light
Compliant
Planning Commission Review
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing proposed
designs:
15.28.060 - Sign design guidelines.
(a) Harmonious with Town scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials and
colors should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood and
with the Townscape.
Staff Response: T he proposed sign location is in the designated space, above the front entry on
the front facade just below the gabled roof. The configuration, design, materials and colors of
the proposed sign are all custom, high-quality and unique to the business. Other signs in the
vicinity are similar to the sign proposed by utilizing wood and routed letters.
(b) Harmonious with building scale. The sign should be harmonious with the building
scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue
attention to itself.
Staff Response: The proposed sign location helps make the business more readily identifiable
and easier for customers to find, while remaining smaller in size than current allowances. The
proposed location above the front entrance to unit #2 is a suitable scale to the building.
(c) Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted
wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior-lit, individual Plexiglas-faced letters; or three-
dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign materials ,
such as printed plywood , interior-lit box-type plastic and paper or vinyl stick-on window signs
are discouraged , but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to the location, at the
sole discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff Response: The proposed sign materials utilize custom, quality materials that are
harmonious with the sign design guidelines contained herein.
(d) Architectural harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony
architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures.
Staff Response: The proposed sign, mounted flat against the facade contains colors and is
architecturally harmonious with surrounding structures which employ a variety of sign types.
(e) Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all freestanding signs, and should be
designed to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping.
(f) A minimum of five (5) lineal feet out from, and around the perimeter of, the sign
shall be landscaped.
Staff Response: Not applicable to this design guideline since the proposed sign is a wall sign.
(g) Reflective surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed.
Staff Response: The sign does not propose reflective materials.
(h) Lighting . Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the
sign visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting
sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles, and
should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a disturbing manner.
Staff Response: The Applicant proposes to use an existing light source mounted to the facade
above the front door to illuminate the sign. Staff is recommending an advisory that the
Applicant utilize an LED type bulb to ensure light is directed onto the sign and for energy
conservation.
(i) Location. On multi-story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be
limited to the ground level.
Staff Response: The Property is a single-story building.
Staff Recommendation for Case #SGN17010
Staff recommends approving the proposed Individual Sign Application for tenant space #2 at
51 Beaver Creek Place with an advisory that the Applicant utilizes an LED type bulb to ensure
light is directed onto the sign as well as energy conservation.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to approve Case #SGNl7010, an application for an individual sign for the Fancy Pansy
at 51 Beaver Creek Place U nit #2 together with the findings presented by staff.”
Recommended Findings:
The following findings may be applied:
1. The individual sign was reviewed in accordance with §15.28.080(16), Sign Programs , and
found to be in conformance with the recommendations and requirements of the Sign Code;
2. The design of the proposed sign complies with the review criteria set forth in
§15.28.060, Sign Design Guidelines, of the Avon Municipal Code;
3. The proposed sign is compatible with the site and provides consistent quality and aesthetics
to other improvements in the 51 Beaver Creek Place retail plaza.
Attachments
a. Application Materials
Attachment A
1
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
I. Call to Order - The meeting was called to order at 5:05pm by Chairperson Hardy
II. Roll Call
Present: Golembiewski, Hardy, Minervini, Howell, Glaner, and Nusbaum.
Absent: Barnes
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts were disclosed.
V. Temporary Use Applications - Temporary Vehicle Display – PUBLIC HEARING
File: TMP17002
Legal Description: Lot 2 Riverfront Subdivision
Applicant: Kristen Pryor
Summary: Proposal to park a display vehicle on plaza at Riverfront for up to three (3) years.
Action: Commissioner Minervini motioned to Table the application pending more information
from the applicant. Commissioner Golembiewski seconded the motion and the
motion carried unanimously.
VI. Comprehensive Plan for Town Properties & Multi-modal Transportation & Parking Plan – CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING
Files: CPA17001 & CPA17002
Legal Description: N/A
Applicant: Town of Avon
Summary: Review and consideration of two master planning documents: 1) Town of Avon
Properties Development Strategies - dated July 26, 2017, and 2) Avon Multimodal
Transportation and Parking Plan - dated July 6, 2017. Comments will be taken on the
entire plan; however PZC will be focusing on: Wildridge Fire Station; Wildwood
properties; Swift Gulch site; Village at Avon park site; Village at Avon school site; and
the Public Works site.
Action: Commissioner Howell motioned to Table the application pending adequate
information to address unknowns of the application. Commissioner Glaner seconded
the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
VII. Work Session - Folson Property
Summary: PZC reviewed plans for a hotel at the Folson Annex property on US Highway 6.
VIII. Sign Design – 150 Lake Street
File: SGN17009
Legal Description: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Applicant: Town of Avon
2
Summary: Proposal for new sign above north entrance, and relocation of existing sign to the
Mikaela Way side of the building.
Action: Commissioner Glaner motioned to approve the application without the relocation of
the current sign, with the following finding:
The Application was reviewed in conformance with Section 15.28, Sign Code, and
found to be in conformance with the design review criteria outlined in Section
15.28.070, Avon Municipal Code.
Commissioner Nusbaum seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
IX. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• September 5, 2017 Meeting
Action: Commissioner Minervini motioned to approve the meeting minutes as presented.
Commissioner Golembiewski seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously, with Commissioner Glaner abstaining.
X. Approval of Record of Decision
• AEC17005, Record of Decision for Fence
• CTA17002, Code Text Amendment for Family Definition
Action: Commissioner Minervini motioned to approve the record of decision as presented.
Commissioner Howell seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously,
with Commissioner Glaner abstaining.
XI. Staff Approvals and Updates
• MNR17043 Patio Addition at 5177 Longsun Lane
• MNR17044 Cell Array on Avon Center
• TMP17003 Temporary Parking for Northside Café construction
XII. Adjourn
Approved this 17th Day of October, 2017
SIGNED: ___________________________________________
Lindsay Hardy, Chairperson
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Temporary Construction Parking Permit 1
Staff Report – Temporary Use Permit
October 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Case #TMP17003
Project type Temporary Use Permit
Legal description Lot 3 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning Neighborhood Commercial
Address 0121 Nottingham Road
Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner
Introduction
Dennis Thompson (the Applicant) is requesting an extension of the Temporary Use Permit (TMP)
to park construction-related vehicles on Lot 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision (the
Property) until November 15, 2017.
This application is processed under §7.24.080(c), Temporary Uses and Structures Review
Procedures, AMC. Staff approved the initial permit on September 6, 2017. Because the time
required for the construction parking exceeds 30 days, the application is now being processed as a
Temporary Use Permit with a public hearing as required by the Avon Development Code. The
Application materials are attached to this report.
Photo of Lot 3
Picture of the lot
Staff Analysis
The Property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial and is currently unimproved land. The staff-level
permit conditioned the approval based on site mitigation, and a bond was issued to provide for that
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Temporary Construction Parking Permit 2
work. The Application is generally compliant with the Temporary Use Permit Review Criteria and
findings and staff recommends the PZC extend the Temporary Use Permit for the duration of the
construction project. Staff has corresponded with this business in an effort to eliminate this use
from the site in the future.
Temporary Use Permit Review Criteria
Pursuant to §7.24.080(h), Review Criteria, AMC, the PZC shall consider the following criteria
when forming the basis of a recommendation:
(1) The temporary use or structure shall not cause unreasonable negative impacts to properties,
residents, business or public uses in the vicinity, which cannot be mitigated through the imposition
of conditions on such temporary use or structure. Such negative impacts to consider include, but are
not limited to: visual, noise, vibration, trash, hours of operation, traffic congestion, parking, safety,
soil and vegetation disturbance, natural resource impacts and reasonable expectations of enjoyment
of property based upon zone district designations and community planning documents;
Staff Response: The parking is located adjacent to the current Northside overflow lot. The
entrance is off the street and does not change traffic patterns in the area. The site has silt fencing for
potential runoff issues. It does not impact parking, safety or soil and vegetation disturbance nor
does the display impact natural resources or reduce the use and enjoyment of property.
(2) Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas, electricity, police and
fire protection, roads and transportation, as applicable) will be available to serve the proposed
temporary use or structure while maintaining adequate levels of service for existing development;
Staff Response: The temporary use for parking will not require change to utilities, facilities, or
services.
(3) The temporary use shall comply with all applicable general and specific regulations of this
Section, other Town ordinances, and state and federal law unless otherwise expressly stated;
Staff Response: The applicant will remain compliant with all applicable general and specific
regulations of the Avon Development Code.
(4) The applicant has demonstrated that he or she possesses the requisite skills and experience to
ensure that the particular activity will be conducted in a safe and orderly manner;
Staff Response: The applicant has demonstrated that the parking will be conducted in a safe and
orderly manner.
(5) The temporary use or structure is not of a nature that will become impractical to cease or remove
over time;
Staff Response: The parking lot is temporary in nature and is practical to remove. The parking
from the adjacent business is being addressed during this process.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Temporary Construction Parking Permit 3
(6) Adequate plans or sureties are proposed to guarantee restoration of the property after the
temporary use or structure ceases;
Staff Response: The applicant provided sufficient bonding to mitigate the site during the initial
application process. No further assurances are needed by the Town.
(7) All temporary signs associated with the temporary use or structure shall be properly permitted
pursuant to Chapter 15.28, Sign Code, and removed when the activity ends or permit expires,
whichever occurs first;
Staff Response: The applicant is not proposing additional signage.
(8) The temporary use or structure shall not violate any applicable conditions of approval that apply
to a principal use on the site;
Staff Response: The temporary parking lot does not violate any conditions of approval pertaining
to the existing site use.
(9) The temporary use regulations of this Section do not exempt the applicant or operator from any
other required permits, such as food service or building permits;
Staff Response: The temporary use requirements for this Application do not trigger any additional
provisions.
(10) The temporary use or structure, including any associated parking and traffic circulation, shall
not disturb sensitive or protected resources, including required buffers, one-hundred-year
floodplains and required landscaping, and the applicant shall agree to restore all disturbed areas of
the site to the condition that existed prior to the temporary use or structure;
Staff Response: The temporary lot will not disturb sensitive or protected resources.
(11) Tents and other temporary structures shall be located so as not to interfere with the normal
operations of any permanent use located on the property, shall be anchored and meet the
requirements of the Building Official, including fire rating;
Staff Response: No temporary structures are proposed.
(12) Off-street parking shall be adequate to accommodate the proposed temporary use or an
acceptable parking plan shall be approved with the temporary use or structure;
Staff Response: The parking area does not induce any additional vehicular traffic other than what is
proposed to be housed on the premise.
(13) The temporary use will not result in excessive demands for police, ambulance, fire or other
essential public services which may negatively impact the capacity of existing public services to
meet existing public service demands or the applicant agrees to mitigate the increased demands for
public services;
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Temporary Construction Parking Permit 4
Staff Response: The parking lot will not create demand for emergency response. The vehicle
movement will not interfere with Police, Fire, or other emergency services in the area.
(14) The size, nature or location of the temporary use or structure is not reasonably likely to cause a
clear and present danger of injury to persons and property;
Staff Response: The temporary use will not likely cause danger to persons or property.
(15) Another temporary use permit application has not been received prior in time or has already
been approved for the same time and place requested by the applicant or so close in time and place
to that required by the applicant that the issuance of both permits would cause undue traffic
congestion;
Staff Response: No other applications or requests have been submitted for the subject property that
would conflict with this application.
(16) The location of the temporary use or structure will not substantially interfere with any
construction or maintenance work scheduled to take place upon Town streets; and
Staff Response: There is no scheduled work that will be interfered with.
(17) The temporary use or structure shall be for a duration which is appropriate considering the
location, use, planned development and activities in the vicinity and impact on nearby properties;
however, in no event shall a temporary use be granted for more than three (3) years. (Ord. 11-06 §2)
Staff Response: The duration request, through November 15, 2017, is reasonable since the
construction is anticipated to finish at that time.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested Temporary Use Permit with the following findings and
one condition:
Recommended Motion
“I move to approve Case #TMP17003, an application for a Temporary Use Permit for Lot 3, Block
1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, together with the findings and conditions as
recommended by staff.”
Findings:
1. The application generally complies with §7.28.100(3) of the Avon Municipal Code and is
eligible as a “Minor” Temporary Use.
2. The temporary use complies with all applicable Review Criteria and is not detrimental to
property or improvements in the surrounding area.
Conditions:
1. Temporary erosion control including Straw Bales and Silt Fence will be maintained to
mitigate damage from vehicles.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Temporary Construction Parking Permit 5
2. Roadways will be kept clean.
3. Areas of disturbance will be revegetated upon vacation.
4. No parking will be allowed upon vacation of construction related vehicles.
Attachment
A: Selected pages from the September 6, 2017 TMP Approval.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT
APPLICATION TYPE: Temporary Use Permit
FILE NUMBER: TMP17003
LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
ADDRESS: 121 Nottingham Road
OWNER: Jim Pauelich
APPLICANT: Schaffer Hyde Construction
SUMMARY: Temporary construction of ten (10) parking spaces for the Northside construction
project. TMP permits are valid for 30 days after issuance.
AVON MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEW STANDARDS:
• §7.24.080 Temporary Use and Structures
• §12.04 Construction Work Within Public Ways
STAFF DECISION:
Approved with the following Findings and Conditions.
FINDINGS:
1. The application generally complies with §7.28.100(3) of the Avon Municipal Code and is eligible as a “Minor”
Temporary Use.
2. The temporary uses are not detrimental to property or improvements in the surrounding area.
CONDITIONS:
1.Valid for 30 days, and subject to PZC approval for longer time.
Temporary erosion control including Straw Bales and Silt Fence will be installed prior to parking vehicles.
2. Roadways will be kept clean.
3. Areas of disturbance will be revegetation upon vacation.
4. No parking will be allowed upon vacation of construction related vehicles.
DATE: September 6, 2017
BY: David McWilliams, Town Planner
Attachment A
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Riverfront Minor PUD Amendment 1
Staff Report – Minor PUD Amendment
October 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
File #PUD17002
Legal description Lots 4-7, Riverfront Subdivision
Zoning PUD
Address 254-358 Riverfront Lane
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
Introduction
Jim Telling with East West Resorts Development XIV, L.P., L.L.L.P. (“the Applicant”), is requesting a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment (“the Application”) to modify the building type and
placements upon lots 4-7 of the Riverfront PUD and Subdivision (collectively referred to as “the
Property”). The Riverfront PUD Development Plan, the governing zoning document, entitles the
Property with a large condominium building on lot 4, and smaller buildings with diminishing densities
moving east to west on lots 5, 6, and 7. The Application proposes the following amendments:
• Removal of current building footprint restrictions and internal lot lines
• Modified parking requirements for condominium development – 1.2 per/unit to 1.0 per/unit
• Architectural Guideline changes to roof pitch and materials
• Provision of trail access easement and two (2) deed restricted affordable housing units
All of the details of the Application are included as: Exhibit A – Riverfront Village Narrative, and Exhibit B
– Riverfront Subdivision PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Subdivision.
Process
Minor PUD Amendment
This application is processed under §7.16.060(h), Amendments to a Final PUD, AMC. Subsection (1)(ii),
sets forth criteria for a Minor Amendment, while subsection (2)(ii) sets forth the review procedures for
the same process. According the Avon Development Code, a proposed PUD amendment is considered
minor if it meets the following criteria for decision and has been determined as such by the Director:
(A) The PUD amendment does not increase density, increase the amount of nonresidential land use
or significantly alter any approved building scale and mass of development.
(B) The PUD amendment does not change the character of the development and maintains the
intent and integrity of the PUD.
(C) The PUD amendment does not result in a net decrease in the amount of open space or result in
a change in character of any of the open space proposed within the PUD.
The application, as submitted, meets the criteria for a Minor Amendment. The review procedures
require a public hearing with the PZC. Council would make the final decision through either a Resolution
or an Ordinance.
Public Notification
In compliance with the Public Hearing and noticing requirements, a mailed notice was provided to all
property owners within 300’ of the property. Additionally, a notice was published in the Vail Daily. No
written comments have been received.
Public Hearings
The October 17, 2017 meeting completes the public hearing requirements with the PZC. As noted, the
Council will make the final decision on this Application after holding an additional public hearing. The
Town Council hearing is tentatively scheduled for November 14, 2017.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Riverfront Minor PUD Amendment 2
PUD Review Criteria
Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, the PZC shall consider the following criteria when
forming the basis of a recommendation:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and
represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict
application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in
quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access;
environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and
other utilities and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
Staff Response: The stated purposes of §7.04, Development Code, AMC, and §7.16.060, PUD, AMC,
includes statements regarding the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; regulating intensity
of use; avoiding increased demands on public services and facilities; and providing for compatibility
with the surrounding area, among other statements. The Application and amendments would
preserve the environmental resources of the river and result in more flexibility with respect to future
development.
All other applicable development standards would remain intact, or be superseded with standards as
outlined in the attached PUD Development Plan. The Application advances many Comprehensive
Plan policies, along with subsections (n) from the Purpose Statement of the Development Code. A
range of housing types are provided with condominium, townhomes, and affordable workforce
units. General areas of open space would be maintained by existing platted setbacks, landscape
easements, naturally steep areas, and the new provision of a trail easement on the west side of the
development.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: Staff finds no detrimental effects on the public health, safety and/or welfare of the
Town, its residents, or guests.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
Staff Response: The proposed PUD
amendment is part of an established
PUD, and is therefore not subject to the
eligibility criteria or Public Benefit
requirements outlined in §7.16.060(b).
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
is required and analysis is provided
below. The Comprehensive Plan includes
this property within District 2: The
Riverfront District.
The planning principals for The Riverfront
District speak heavily to connectivity and
respecting the river environment. All of
the planning principles are included on
the following page, with bolded
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Riverfront Minor PUD Amendment 3
principles that relate specifically to this Application.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This Application proposes to provide a direct connection, via easement, to the Riverfront Park and
Eagle Valley Regional Trail on the Eagle River. This advances the planning principles and helps
connect the entire Town Core and Nottingham Park with a more convenient access portal south of
the railroad tracks to the riverfront park and trails. Buildings would be sited to protect the river by
maintaining the 75’ riparian setback. It is expected that future development will be at a lower
overall scale compared to the existing development plan approval.
Additional Goals and Policies from the Comprehensive Plan that this application is consistent with
include the following:
Policy A.2.1: Continue to inventory, analyze, and prioritize lands adjacent to the developed
portions of Town for acquisition and/or preservation as open space or other public purposes.
Policy A.2.2: Encourage cluster style development in areas of less density to promote
environmentally and aesthetically sensitive site design.
Goal D.3: Increase the number of visitors to Avon by enhancing the year-round mountain
resort community.
Goal E.1: Achieve a diverse range of housing densities, styles, and types, including rental and
for sale, to serve all segments of the population.
Policy E.1.3: Provide attainable housing through alternative means, including but not limited to:
payment-in-lieu, land dedication, regulatory requirements, deed restrictions, waiver of
development and building fees, and public-private partnerships that reduce the price of units.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Riverfront Minor PUD Amendment 4
Policy E.1.4: Integrate attainable housing within large developments and throughout Town.
Policy E.2.1: Place perpetual deed restrictions on all Town supported housing projects and
enforce compliance.
Policy G.1.3: Work with public and private landowners to identify opportunities for
conservation easements, permanent open space protection tools, and access to open space.
Policy H.1.1: Evaluate and seek parcels or easements for open space, trails, and recreation.
Policy H.1.3: Support development and annexation to incorporate recreational amenities, land
for trails, and open space accessible to the public.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire
protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: This PUD amendment does not change the demands or ability of future development
to be served by existing installed or planned facilities and services. Many of the utilities were
installed at the time of original subdivision development in 2006-2007. The potential building
placement locations is the primary change being proposed; overall density allotment is retained.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife,
and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: When compared to the existing zoning, the proposed Minor PUD Amendment will
not result in any adverse impacts upon the natural environment, wildlife, vegetation, noise, or air.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: Approval of this PUD amendment could result in a lesser overall impact to
neighboring properties since the proposed development would not provide a building at the western
edge (Lot 7). Instead of a duplex on Lot 7 a trail connection would be provided. Impacts are
contained within the property and would be mitigated accordingly.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on
other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: The future uses on the subject tracts would remain residential/resort and consistent
with other properties in the vicinity. The scale and density of development is retained with existing
setbacks and dwelling unit ranges.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending approval of the Application. The PZC shall conduct a public hearing, consider
public comments, and direct Staff to prepare a formal Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and
Recommendation to Council pursuant to Section 7.16.020(f)(3), Findings.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Riverfront Minor PUD Amendment 5
Recommended Motion
“I move to recommend conditional approval of Case #PUD17002, an application for a Minor PUD
Amendment for Riverfront PUD.”
The following Findings may be applied should PZC make a favorable recommendation to Council:
1. The Application meets the eligibility requirements for a Minor PUD Amendment by not
increasing density, increasing the amount of nonresidential land use, or significantly altering any
approved building scale and mass of the development.
2. The PUD Amendment does not change the character of the development and maintains the
intent and integrity of the Riverfront PUD.
3. The Application is in conformance with §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, and compared to
the underlying zoning, the Minor PUD Amendment is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon the natural environment.
The following Conditions may be applied:
1. Easement(s) for a trail connection from the Eagle Valley Regional Trail to Riverfront Lane will be
provided concurrent with the first Development Plan proposal for Lot 4.
2. Two (2) units in the Condominium Building, each a minimum of 800 sq. ft., will be permanently
deed restricted to Eagle County employees by form approved by Town of Avon. Deed
restrictions must be executed prior to temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) of the
Condominium Building.
Attachments
A: Riverfront Village Narrative
B: Riverfront Subdivision PUD Development Plan and Preliminary Subdivision
RIVERFRONT VILLAGE
Minor PUD Amendment
Minor PUD Amendment Submitted:
Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 | Riverfront Village PUD September 29, 2017
Updated 10/3/2017
Exhibit A
2 | Page
A. INTRODUCTION
The applicant and owner East West Resorts Development XIV, L.P., L.L.L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership registered as a limited liability partnership (“EWRD”) is hereby requesting a Minor PUD
Amendment to amend Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7, of the Riverfront Subdivision.
As represented in Exhibit A to Ordinance 06-03 (see Sheet 3 of 3 below) the PUD Development Plan
currently in effect identifies specific building footprints for Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7. The specific development
plan and density represented is no longer valid and economically feasible in present day conditions. The
goal of the request is to amend the exhibit and allow for a range of residential units and density in the
development plan in order to provide greater flexibility. This will allow the plan to adapt to market
conditions. We propose that densities could range from 40 to 108 units depending upon the
development plans to be submitted. This maintains the density in the current PUD for Lots 4-7 while
allowing flexibility for a reduced density of 40 units.
Sheet 3 of 3 of Riverfront Subdivision – Exhibit A to Ordinance 06 -03
*Note specific building outlines and footprints proposed on Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 that are included in the
development plan. These outlines are proposed to be removed from Exhibit A.
Exhibit A
3 | Page
Specifically, the applicant is requesting the Town of Avon to remove Sheet 3 of Exhibit A of the PUD
Development Plan and replace with new exhibits showing a subdivision plan with no specific building
footprints and no internal lot lines consolidating lots 4-7 into one single ‘new’ Lot 4 that preserves most
of the existing easements assigned in the PUD. Preliminary level subdivision plat maps are included as
part of this submittal showing the removal of internal lot lines for Lot 4-7 while maintaining existing
easements and setbacks, with the exception of vacating a driveway & utility easement specific to Lot 7.
New sheet for Exhibit A of PUD Development Plan showing all lots (existing and proposed).
New sheet of Exhibit A showing new Lot 4, with all existing easements reflected
Exhibit A
4 | Page
The applicant is also requesting minor amendments to Sheets 1 and 2 of Exhibit A, including minor
adjustment to the condominium parking requirements and architectural guidelines.
Minor amendment of Parking Requirements:
Amendment to specific parking requirement for Condominiums is proposed to reduce the requirement
for condominiums from 1.2 spaces to 1 space per unit, while maintaining the town home requirement
for parking at 1.2 spaces per unit. This request is made with the intent to provide one space per
condominium and reduce the impact of vehicle traffic and circulation of the overall development and
Town infrastructure. Ultimately, in addition to these requirements, the parking for the proposed new
Lot 4 development will need to meet the Town parking code and associated conditions during the final
development review. Therefore, new language ‘or as approved in the Development Plan’ has also been
added to the parking requirement for both condominiums and town homes.
The intent of the request to reduce the condominium parking requirement from 1.2 to 1 is to leverage
the transit oriented location of Riverfront Village, encourage use of Avon, Beaver Creek, and Eagle
County bus transit systems, the Riverfront gondola, and the pedestrian network that has been established
as part of the Riverfront PUD and by the Town through-out the West Town Center district. The entire
Lot 4 is within a quarter mile of the Avon Transit Center and the Riverfront Gondola, and meets the
criteria for a transit oriented development, which supports the proposal for reducing the parking
requirement by (0.2).
The proposed reduction in condominium parking requirement also limits the use of private vehicles
realizing a significant energy savings and reduction in carbon footprint, in support of and consistent with
the Town’s Climate Action Plan. In a bigger picture the development intends to limit the impact on
congestion of vehicle on Interstate 70, and by limiting each condominium unit to one parking space.
From a site stand-point the proposal would minimize the use of the site for parking and maximize the
limited developable land, since the PUD preserves the area within the 75' riparian setback. A reduction
in the parking requirement will result in less impervious surfaces and open parking areas in the interface
with the riparian environment.
The request is supported by comparable condominium developments in resort environments. As a
direct example, East West Partners current developments underway in Snowmass Village are averaging
.75 spaces per unit. There is also historical research that supports the request.
The firm of DMJM Harris, Inc. conducted a study in the peak winter season of 2001-2002 that provides
parking lot survey data from eleven mountain destination resorts in Colorado and Utah, as a part of the
Parking Study for Beaver Creek Landing at Avon (2001). According to this study, the average number of
parked vehicles over the surveyed properties at the peak time of demand per occupied dwelling unit
was 0.86. It should be noted that many of the properties surveyed included multiple bedroom units, and
still had a relatively modest observed parking demand:
Exhibit A
5 | Page
The Beaver Run Resort and Conference Center in Breckenridge, Colorado consists of a total of
426 units, 121 of which contain at least two bedrooms, but still has a maximum observed
parking demand rate of 1.01 vehicles per occupied unit.
The River Run project in Keystone, Colorado consists of 402 units, 164 of which contain at least
two bedrooms, with a maximum observed parking demand rate of 1.09 per occupied unit.
The proposed adjustment to the condominium parking requirement is made with these precedents in
mind and consistent with the transit oriented approach of the intended development based on its
location and context within the Town of Avon. Ultimately the parking requirements will be established
during a major development review as part of the Town’s planning and development process.
Minor amendment of Architectural Guidelines:
The following amendments to items 5 and 6 of PUD Design Standards, Section IIIA Architectural Design
Guidelines ‘Building Form and Massing’ are proposed to introduce more flexibility in the architectural
expression of the future development, deliberately leaning towards a’ fresh’ mountain contemporary
aesthetic with clean and simple forms, materials, and details: (reference bold italicized text for new
proposed text additions).
5) The roofscape of Riverfront Village is also critical to the success of the neighborhood
and its relationship to the Town of Avon. The visual coherency of the Village should be
reinforced through the use of similar and compatible roofing materials, textures and colors
throughout the Village, helping to knit the individual buildings together when seen from the
Gondola or Beaver Creek above.
6) Pitched roofs expressive of an alpine tradition and the incorporation of dormers, shed
roofs and chimney forms, should be employed, while allowing variation in roof pitches to
break up building mass and height. Primary roofs will have pitches ranging from a minimum of
2:12 to a maximum of 8:12. Secondary roofs—such as at dormers, porte cocheres, building
protrusions, and similar additive forms—may be flat, but only if they are finished in materials
similar in quality to roof or wall materials on the building, such as pavers, colored stone, etc.
When secondary roofs are pitched roofs, the minimum pitch required shall be 2:12. Flat roofs
may be permitted for primary roof forms in order to help address views and reduce overall
height of buildings along the river interface. Ideally flat roofs should be developed as terraces
and other functional spaces.
Likewise, amendments to items b). and c) of PUD Design Standards, Section IIIC Architectural Design
Guidelines - Exterior Materials, Details, and Colors are proposed to allow greater flexibility in the style
of architecture and leaning towards the mountain contemporary. These include: (reference bold
italicized text for new proposed text additions).
b) Stucco conveys mass in a subtle, “quiet” way and is therefore a recommended material
for building middles and tops. However, building accents comprised of non-stucco materials,
such as metal, wood and cement materials replicating wood, shall be allowed in building
middles and tops to help provide interest, except as prohibited by Codes. When used, stucco
shall be carefully detailed to ensure longevity when it comes near the ground plane at building
walls. Greater variation in materials for Town Homes is contemplated with less reliance on
use of stucco in lieu of use of recycled and other siding materials.
Exhibit A
6 | Page
c) Roof materials will include rubber shingles, asphalt shingles and other materials suitable
for mountain environments. Standing seam metal may be used for primary roof planes, and for
small and/or special roof features such as shed dormers, retail roof forms, porte cocheres, and
other selective roof elements.
Aside from the items requested in this Minor PUD Amendment, all other aspects of the current PUD
remain unaltered and in effect for all Lots that are part of the PUD.
The property is 18.9 acres and is surrounded by the Eagle River to the south, Riverfront Lane to the
north, the Westin Timeshare building to the east and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District land to
the west. The Eagle Valley Regional Trail and the Riverfront park that border the site to the south are
part of the program of amenities and public benefits that have been implemented as part of the
Riverfront PUD. The proposed Minor PUD amendment respects most setbacks and easements that are
currently in place. The PUD amendment proposes only to eliminate the driveway and utility easement
for Lot 7, since the Lot becomes part of Lot 4. There is no proposed change in land use or density
increase. A range of density from 40 to 108 units is requested to provide greater flexibility for the
development to adjust to market conditions. Preliminary development concepts will be shared with the
Town during the minor PUD amendment review demonstrating the intended development plan
consistent with the requested PUD amendment.
The remainder of this narrative provides an evaluation of the proposed Minor PUD amendment against
the criteria for review as set forth by the Town, as well as an analysis of compliance against the Town’s
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code.
Exhibit A
7 | Page
B. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
Section 7.16.060. (e)(4) establishes the criteria for review of a PUD amendment. Section
7.16.060(e)(4) states:
Review Criteria. The PZC and Town Council shall consider the following criteria as the basis for a
recommendation or decision to rezone a property to PUD Overlay, and approve a preliminary PUD
plan, or process a PUD amendment:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and
represents an improvement in the over what could have been accomplished through strict application
of otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in quality may
include, but are not limited to: improvements in the open space provision and access: environmental
protection; trees / vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and
services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
Applicant Response: The proposed minor amendment to the Riverfront Village PUD is to remove the
specific development plan and allow a range of density from 40 to 108 units. This request will provide
greater flexibility for the development to adjust to market conditions. The request is appropriate as it
respects the majority of original easements and setbacks of the property, and remains consistent with the
original approval of the Riverfront Village PUD. The PUD amendment will allow greater flexibility for
the coordinated development of the land area within the existing four lots. Eliminating specific building
footprints, may allow a reduction in the overall size, bulk and mass of the proposed condominium
buildings. A greater variety of townhome development with a functional and efficient layout through-
out the site taking advantage of the views, topography and adjacencies of Lots 4-7 of the PUD may be
possible with greater flexibility in the density. The amendment will allow future development to apply
different units and development prototypes that are more appropriate for present day market conditions
and demands. The amendment preserves and honors the town’s 75’ riparian stream setback, and the
riparian and recreation corridor previously established by the Riverfront Village is maintained.
Additionally, trees and vegetation will be maintained or mitigated. Furthermore, the applicant proposes
to convey an easement for a trail connection from the Eagle Valley Regional Trail to Riverfront Lane at
the time of development review. Lastly, it is also the intent of the applicant to reserve two condominium
units to be placed in the Town’s attainable housing program, which would be in addition to the
$846,000 Employee Housing Contribution that was part of the original PUD in 2006.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Applicant Response: All aspects of the current Riverfront Village PUD remain in place and in effect as
originally approved in 2006. The PUD amendment only seeks flexibility in density for Lots 4 – 7, to
allow a revised development concept but otherwise remains consistent with the overall vision and
residential land uses for the area within Lots 4-7. Remaining consistent with the original PUD will
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the Town. Open space is being preserved and
public river access is being maintained and possibly enhanced via this Minor PUD Amendment
application.
Exhibit A
8 | Page
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7. I 6.060(b);
The eligibility criteria for a PUD are outlined in Section 7. I 6.060(b) and state the following:
(I) Property Eligible. All properties within the Town of Avon are eligible to apply for PUD
approval.
(2) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Avon Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Consistent with PUD Intent the proposed development shall be consistent with the intent and
spirit of the PUD purpose statement in §7. I 6.060(a).
(4) Compatibility with Existing Uses. The proposed development shall not impede the continued
use or development of surrounding properties for uses that are permitted in the Development Code or
planned for in the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
(5) Public Benefit. A recognizable and material benefit will be realized by both the future residents
and the Town as a whole through the establishment of a PUD, where such benefit would otherwise be
infeasible or unlikely.
(6) Preservation of Site Features. Long-term conservation of natural, historical, architectural, or
other significant features or open space will be achieved, where such features would otherwise be
destroyed or degraded by development as permitted by the underlying zoning district
(7) Sufficient Land Area for Proposed Uses. Sufficient land area has been provided to comply with
all applicable regulations of the Development Code, to adequately serve the needs of all permitted uses
in the PUD projects, and to ensure compatibility between uses and the surrounding neighborhood.
Applicant Response: As demonstrated within this document, all aspects of the current Riverfront Village
PUD remain in place and in effect as originally approved in 2006 and therefore the PUD amendment is
consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7. I 6.060(b) and
the purpose of the Town’s Development Code. The PUD amendment seeks greater flexibility in
density as well as minor revisions to the condominium parking requirement and architectural guidelines
of the PUD Development Plan as described in the introduction. No deviations or variances from the
Town’s Development Code are proposed nor anticipated in association with the minor PUD
amendment. The proposal is consistent with the eligibility criteria for a PUD given the conformance and
adherence to all aspects of the original PUD Development Plan approval granted in 2006.
The purpose of the Development Code is provided in Section 7.04.030 Purposes of the Avon
Development Code:
The Development Code is intended to promote and achieve the following goals and purposes for the
Avon community, including the residents, property owners, business owners and visitors:
(a) Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection,
construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry,
Exhibit A
9 | Page
residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot areas; regulate and determine
the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings; establish building lines and locations of buildings
designed for specified industrial, commercial, residential and other uses within such areas; establish
standards to which buildings or structures shall conform; establish standards for use of areas adjoining
such buildings or structures;
(b) Implement the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
planning documents of the Town;
(c) Comply with the purposes stated in state and federal regulations which authorize the
regulations in this Development Code;
(d) Avoid undue traffic congestion and degradation of the level of service provided by streets and
roadways, promote effective and economical mass transportation and enhance effective, attractive and
economical pedestrian opportunities;
(e) Promote adequate light, air, landscaping and open space and avoid undue concentration or
sprawl of population;
(f) Provide a planned and orderly use of land, protection of the environment and preservation of
viability, all to conserve the value of the investments of the people of the Avon community and
encourage a high quality of life and the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality;
(g) Prevent the inefficient use of land; avoid increased demands on public services and facilities
which exceed capacity or degrade the level of service for existing residents; provide for phased
development of government services and facilities which maximizes efficiency and optimizes costs to
taxpayers and users; and promote sufficient, economical and high-quality provision of all public
services and public facilities, including but not limited to water, sewage, schools, libraries, police,
parks, recreation, open space and medical facilities;
(h) Minimize the risk of damage and injury to people, structures and public infrastructure created
by wild fire, avalanche, unstable slopes, rock fall, mudslides, flood danger and other natural hazards;
(i) Achieve or exceed federal clean air standards;
j) Sustain water sources by maintaining the natural watershed, preventing accelerated erosion,
reducing runoff and consequent sedimentation, eliminating pollutants introduced directly into streams
and enhancing public access to recreational water sources;
(k) Maintain the natural scenic beauty of the Eagle River Valley in order to preserve areas of
historical and archaeological importance, provide for adequate open spaces, preserve scenic views,
provide recreational opportunities, sustain the tourist-based economy and preserve property values;
(I) Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, practical and complimentary to
Avon's sub-alpine environment;
Exhibit A
10 | Page
(m) Achieve innovation and advancement in design of the built environment to improve efficiency,
reduce energy consumption, reduce emission of pollutants, reduce consumption of non-renewable
natural resources and attain sustainability;
(n) Achieve a diverse range of attainable housing which meets the housing needs created by jobs
in the Town, provides a range of housing types and price points to serve a complete range of life stages
and promotes a balanced, diverse and stable full time residential community which is balanced with
the visitor economy;
(o) Promote quality real estate investments which conserve property values by disclosing risks,
taxes and fees; by incorporating practical and comprehensible legal arrangements; and by promoting
accuracy in investment expectations; and
(p) Promote the health, safety and welfare of the Avon community.
Applicant Response: As demonstrated within this document, the proposal is consistent with and in
substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code by allowing greater flexibility in
overall density that is currently allocated for Lots 4-7. The proposal will maintain setbacks to the
sensitive riparian area within the 75’ stream setback that will remain mostly open space, with the
potential for a new easement at the west end to allow for additional connectivity from Riverfront Lane to
the Eagle Valley Regional Trail which will be provided by the Town in the future. No deviations or
variances from the Town’s Development Code are proposed nor are anticipated in association with the
minor PUD amendment. The ultimate development plan will meet the goals of Avon’s Comprehensive
and Development codes by providing a development concept that promotes quality real estate
compatible with surrounding land uses and fulfills the vision of the Riverfront Village PUD. Further, the
applicant intends to place two of the future condominium units in the Town’s attainable housing
program as part of the development of Lot 4 which would be in addition to the $846,000 Employee
Housing Contribution that was part of the original PUD in 2006.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire
protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable will be available to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Applicant Response: Facilities are in place and available per the current development in place at
Riverfront Village PUD and the infrastructure and service network is already implemented in
anticipation of the full build-out for the PUD. All utility and access easements (except access easement
for Lot 7) in place and originally established by the original PUD are being honored and preserved.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant
adverse impacts upon the natural environment, Including air, water, noise, storm water management,
wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Applicant Response: Given the proposed flexibility in density from the current PUD underlying zoning,
the PUD amendment proposal is not likely to result in significant impacts to the natural environment.
The existing easements including the 75’ stream setback will be maintained and respected with potential
enhancement of the edge along the Eagle Valley Regional Trail.
Exhibit A
11 | Page
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant
adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Applicant Response: The proposed PUD remains consistent with the current PUD in effect, with the
same land use assignments and similar condominium and town home development concept. Only
greater flexibility in the overall density is proposed, which is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses
on other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Applicant Response: The proposed amendment is to allow greater flexibility in the overall density of
development in the areas occupied by Lots 4-7. The proposed range of density of 40 to 108 units will
allow the applicant to create a development plan that responds to current economic and market
conditions. The density is not increased per the original PUD approval and there is no change in the
existing underlying residential land use. Therefore the uses on the subject track will be compatible in
scale with uses or potential future uses on other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon PUD Amendment 1
Staff Report – Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment)
October 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
File #PUD17001
Legal description Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon –Planning Area F
Zoning PUD
Address 1000 E. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
Introduction
The Applicant, Harvey Robertson, is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment (“the
Application”) to amend the Village at Avon PUD Guide and standards for Planning Area F (PA-F). This
Planning Area measures approximately 13 acres and is situated at the northwest corner of the Post
Boulevard and East Beaver Creek Boulevard (referred to as “the Property”). The Village at Avon PUD
Guide, the governing zoning document, entitles the Property with a number of mixed-use and
commercial uses, including multi-family buildings up to 48’ tall and density of 18 dwelling units per acre.
Amendments include the following:
o Increase in maximum allotted density from 18 dwelling units per acre (or approximately 234
dwelling units total), to 25 dwelling units per acre (or approximately 325 dwelling units total).
o Modifications to minimum and maximum ratios of consolidated gross square footage of
commercial space and consolidated gross square footage of residential as follows:
o Current Residential minimum 0%, 50% maximum; Current Commercial 50% minimum, 100%
maximum.
o Proposed Residential minimum 0%, 100% maximum; Proposed Commercial 0% minimum,
100% maximum.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon PUD Amendment 2
No changes are being sought to the other development standards (i.e. site coverage, setbacks, building
height, parking, and minimum landscape area) or the Village at Avon PUD Master Plan map. All of the
details of the Application, the PUD Guide, PUD Master Plan map, along with written statements are
included as Exhibit A to this staff report.
Process
Major PUD Amendment
Since the Application does not meet any of the qualifying administrative amendments outlined in the
Village at Avon PUD Guide, this application is being processed as a “Formal Amendment” accordingly
under §7.16.060(h), Amendments to a Final PUD, AMC. Subsection (1)(v), states that a PUD amendment
that is not classified as an administrative or minor amendment shall be considered “major”. Subsection
(2)(iv) sets forth the review procedures for process which includes preliminary and final PUD
applications. Before PZC is the preliminary PUD application. The PZC shall review a preliminary PUD
application and shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council after conducting a public hearing.
The Town Council shall review and render a final decision on a preliminary PUD application after
conducting another public hearing. Unless otherwise approved by the Town Council, approval of a
preliminary PUD application shall vest no rights to the applicant other than the right to submit a final
PUD development plan. Within six (6) months following approval of a preliminary PUD plan, the
applicant must initiate the second stage of the process by filing a final PUD plan and proceed through
the same process with PZC and Town Council.
Public Notification
In compliance with the Public Hearing and noticing requirements, a mailed notice was provided to all
property owners within 300’ of the property. While the subject property of PA-F is limited to 13 acres,
the 300’ notice was provided to all landowners within 300’ of Lot 1, which encompasses the majority of
the valley floor. Additionally, a notice was published in the Vail Daily. No written comments have been
received for this Application as of October 13th.
Public Hearings
The October 17, 2017 meeting completes the public hearing requirements with the PZC. As noted, the
Council will make the final decision on this preliminary PUD after holding an additional public hearing.
The Town Council hearing is scheduled for action on November 14, 2017.
PUD Review Criteria
Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, the PZC shall consider the following criteria when
forming the basis of a recommendation:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and
represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict
application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in
quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access;
environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and
other utilities and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
Staff Response: The Application acknowledges the changed conditions in the housing market, with
increases in demand over which was envisioned even 7 years ago. Changes are not proposed to the
existing open space provisions, environmental protections, or use of streets or services. Density
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon PUD Amendment 3
changes and/or changes in the residential/commercial mix of this property would not have a direct
effect on adjacent streets. For example no additional curb cuts are envisioned, or would be
entertained, on Post Boulevard. Access to PA-F is limited to the Yoder and Post Roundabout on the
north, and the future Main Street connection on the south.
Pursuant to the PUD Guide and Development Agreement approvals for the Property for provision of
streets, sidewalks and other streetscape elements (i.e. lighting, landscaping). At the time PA-F
develops, the southern and northern roadways must be constructed and extended with the
elements listed above to meet the minimum requirements. For example, the southern frontage of
PA-F must include a 50’ Right of Way with 11’ minimum travel lanes, 6’ landscape areas, 4’ sidewalks,
and snow storage. It is the expectation that these abutting roadway sections will be constructed at
least to the western limits of any new development within PA-F.
No changes in utilities are expected. If developed with additional density as proposed, the
development could provide increased living and housing options in an area already served by transit
and other connections to existing services.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: Staff finds no detrimental effects on the public health, safety and/or general welfare
with changing density or commercial mix on one portion of the Village at Avon PUD.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
Staff Response: The eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b) are not applicable to this Application
as it is already zoned PUD and this is an amendment thereto. This includes the provision of
compensatory material public benefits. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan is
documented in the Applicant’s narrative and this application can be found in general conformance
with the plan. It should be noted that the Avon Comprehensive Plan applicable to this application is
the 2006 plan and not the recently approved May 2017 Avon Comprehensive Plan. This is based
upon the current PUD Guide definitions and Development Agreement approvals that govern the
property.
According to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan the Property is located within the Village at Avon West
District. This district discourages large single use buildings, seeks to connect the existing streetscape
improvements of the East Town Center and Chapel Square, and encourages public plazas, green
spaces, and vertically mixed-use projects.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon PUD Amendment 4
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire
protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: This PUD amendment does not change the overall demands of, or ability to be served
by existing installed or planned facilities. The mainline utility services are located directly adjacent to
the Property and the area is served by all municipal and special district services. Water consumption
is limited per agreements; the entire Village at Avon PUD is required to create a “Water Bank” to
track available quantities of water.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife,
and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: The proposed Application will not result in any major “significant” adverse impacts
upon the natural environment, compared to the underlying zoning.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: Planning Area F is located with substantial buffering with Interstate 70 to the north,
Post Boulevard on the east, E. Beaver Creek Boulevard to the south, and future mixed development
to the west. No significant impacts are anticipated if increased density were developed on the
Property. Visual examples of different density developments are provided within the Application to
provide an overall feel of the proposed increase. Other high density residential projects can be
found within the Town for comparison, including the following:
Buffalo Ridge – 244 Units on 15 acres - 16.25 DU/Acre
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon PUD Amendment 5
Eaglebend Apartments – 240 Units on 7.38 acres - 32.50 DU/Acre
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on
other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: Staff’s review of compatibility is focused on the existing approval and PUD (50%
maximum residential @ 18 DU/Acre maximum) and that proposed (no mixed-use requirement and 25
DU/Acre maximum). Other factors such as site design and building orientation are not up for review
as they are site specific applications to the Village Design Review Board.
As outlined, staff finds the Application’s proposed use and scale is compatible with other existing
and future potential uses in the vicinity. This compatibility is a consequence of natural and manmade
buffers, as well as the high level of development potential on areas of Planning Area C located
immediately to the west.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Application. The PZC shall conduct a public hearing, consider
public comments, and direct Staff to prepare a formal Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and
Recommendation to Council pursuant to Section 7.16.020(f)(3), Findings.
Recommended Motion
“I move to recommend conditional approval of Case #PUD17001, an application for a Preliminary PUD –
Major Amendment to the Village at Avon PUD.”
The following Findings may be applied should PZC make a favorable recommendation to Council:
1. The Application is complete and provides sufficient information to determine that the
development application complies with the relevant review criteria.
2. The Application demonstrates compliance with the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The Application is in conformance with §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, as outlined in
staff’s report and the written Application.
4. Compared to the underlying zoning of PA-F, the PUD amendment is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract.
October 17, 2017 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon PUD Amendment 6
5. Future uses on PA-F will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on other
properties in the vicinity.
Exhibit
A: Application Materials
PUD Amendment Application
The Village (at Avon)
9/1/2017
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
One Lake Street – PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 www.avon.org
Town of Avon Community Development Department
ENSURE A COMPLETE SUBMITTAL BY INCLUDING THE REQUISITE FORMS – ASK FOR A SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Application Type (Check All That Apply):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Code Text Amendment
Rezoning
Administrative Subdivision
Minor Subdivision
Major Subdivision – Prelim Plan
Major Subdivision – Final Plat
Temporary Use Permit
Administrative PUD Amendment
Preliminary PUD
Final PUD
Annexation
Minor Development Plan
Major Development Plan
Major Development Plan (TC)
Minor PUD Amendment
Major PUD Amendment
Appeal
Special Review Use
Variance
Alt. Equivalent Compliance
Right-of-Way Vacation
Vested Property Right
Sign Design
Master Sign Program/Amend.
1041 Regulation
Project Name:
Project Location:
Street Address:
Legal Description (Lot, Block, Subdivision): Parcel Number(s):
Applicant:
Name:
Mailing address:
City: State: ZIP Code:
Phone: Email: Fax:
Property Owner:
Name:
Mailing address:
City: State: Zip Code:
Phone: Email: Fax:
Signature:
Date:
FEE PAID_____________________________
DATE RECEIVED________________________
APPLICATION/CASE #__________________
CASE MANAGER_______________________
Exhibit A
Table of Contents
1. Land Development Application
2. Project Narrative
3. Written Statement
4. PUD Map & Guide
4.1. PUD Map
4.2. Conceptual Master Plan
4.3. Planning Area F
4.4. Uses by right, Special Review Use, Temporary Uses
4.5. Proposed Revisions
4.6. PUD Guide
4.7. Quantitative Summary
4.7.1. Plat1
4.7.2. Alta Survey
4.7.3. Existing Topography1
4.7.4. Drainage Study1
4.7.5. Utility Plan1
4.8. Roads Streets and Pedestrian (see PUD Map & Master Plan) 1
4.9. Public and Private Open Spaces (see PUD Map & Master Plan) 1
4.10. Drainage Facilities (see Drainage Study) 1
4.11. Existing and Proposed Utilities (see Utility Plan) 1
4.12. Statement of Compliance with Development Code (see Written Statement and Project Narrative) 1
4.13. Statement Providing Public Benefit (see Written Statement and Project Narrative) 1
5. Attachments
5.1. Executed Agreement to Pay Form1
5.2. Authorized Representative Form1
5.3. Property Ownership Disclosure1
5.4. Certificate of Title and Title Report1
5.5. Affidavit of Property Owners List1
5.5.1. Adjacent Property Owners Map1
5.5.2. Adjacent Property Owners List1
5.5.3. Courtesy List1
5.6. Utility Approval and Verification Form (not complete) 1
6.0. Visualization
1Items in Italics have been provide to the town planner and have not been reprinted
Exhibit A
2. Project Narrative
The applicant is requesting a revision to the existing “The Village (at Avon) Amended and
Restated PUD Guide, dated November 7, 2012” (Included in Section 4).
Revise Planning Area F (PA-F) to allow for:
“Allowable density units per acre” (DU/ac) from 18 DU/ac to 25DU/ac.
“Maximum allowable residential development” percentage from 50% to 100%.
The current zoning was approved in November 2012, with 850,000 SF of commercial space and
2400 DU spread throughout the PUD. The DU’s were proportioned per planning area based on
best planning practices for the 2012 market place. We anticipated that development across the
valley floor from east to west would be a transition from commercial development to residential
development to mixed-use development on the western edge, completing the East Avon Plan
“main street concept”.
The market has changed. It appears that box retail is vanishing and smaller boutique shopping is
more appropriately located in PA-A. Responding to the valleys increasing need for residential
development and a decreasing need for commercial space, we wish to start developing housing
west of Post Boulevard on PA-F.
“…work force housing is increasingly in demand and demand is outpacing supply.”2
“Achieve a diverse range of quality housing to serve a diverse segment of the
population.”3
By providing much needed work force housing and increased choice of living and housing
environments this application supports this need with no additional burdens.
Post Boulevard, our eastern door to the Town, is an ideal buffer between the existing commercial
development and new residential development. Direct access to PA-F would be from East
Beaver Creek Boulevard or from the roundabout at Post Boulevard and Fawcett Rd. This land is
ready to go as all of the necessary utility infrastructures are in place.
Market Development dollars are available for this kind of development and we believe that it
would benefit the community; by increasing choice of living and housing environments,
generating property tax, RETA, Building permit fees, retail sales and accommodation tax, and
providing employment.
1 Avon Development Code (7.16.060(e) (4)
2 Eagle County Housing needs assessment, June 2016
3 Town of Avon Comprehensive plan, F. Housing, Goal F.1 (page 52)
Exhibit A
Below we address the Eligibility Requirements (7.16.060(e)(4))1 review criteria
1. The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of the Development Code and
represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict
application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in
quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access;
environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and
other utilities and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
The PUD provides for a large-scale, master-planned mixed-use development. The uses,
dimensional limitations and development standards, among other matters, set forth in the PUD
Guide will provide for flexibility in the development of The Village (at Avon) and will
encourage innovative and coordinated development and design, consistent with Section 7.16.060
of the Development Code. The PUD provides for a mix of integrated uses and public facilities
and amenities, including natural open space, community and pocket parks, trail and pedestrian
connectivity, a diverse housing mix and retail and commercial services for The Village (at Avon)
and the Town as a whole. A Declaration of Master Design Review Covenants for The Village
(at Avon) and The Village (at Avon) Design Review Guidelines provide for high quality design
with respect to the built environment and preservation of open space and existing vegetation.
2. The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety and general welfare.
This application will benefit the community “by increasing choice of living and housing
environments”1, “generating property tax, RETA, Building permit fees, retail sales and
accommodation tax”4, and providing employment.
3. The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of the
Development Code and the eligibility criteria outlined in Section 7.16.060(b) of the Development
Code.
The eligibility criteria applicable to the PUD (see Section 7.16.060(b) of the
Development Code) are addressed in the Written Statement submitted as a part of the application
for the PUD Amendment. It is the Applicant’s position that the current Avon Comprehensive
Plan does not apply to The Village (at Avon) as the Existing PUD was approved under a prior
comprehensive plan and the Exhibit PUD is a “site specific development plan” and has vested
property rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant submits that the PUD is consistent
with the following (among other) policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan: A.1.5, B.1.1, B.1.3,
B.1.5, B.1.6, B.1.8, B.2.1, B.2.3, B.3.1, B.3.4, C.1.2, C.1.3, C.1.5, C.1.6, C.1.8, C.2.1, C.2.2,
C.2.3, C.3.1, C.3.2, C.4.3, C.5.1, C.5.2, C.5.3, D.1.1, D.1.2, D.1.4, D.2.2, D.2.5, D.2.6, D.3.1,
D.3.4, E.1.2, E.3.8, E.3.10, F.1.1, F.1.2, F.2.1, F.2.3, F.2.4, F.2.8, G.1.1, G.1.4, G.1.7, G.1.9,
G.1.12, G.1.15, H.1.3, H.2.1, H.2.2, H.4.2, I.1.1, I.1.4, V.2.2, and V.2.3.
1 Avon Development Code (7.16.060(e) (4)
4 Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Fiscal Analysis of the Land Use Plan
Exhibit A
4. Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police
and fire protection, and sewage and waste disposal) will be available to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development.
The PUD Guide sets forth certain development limitations and standards specific to each
planning area within the PUD Map, including limitations on site coverage, landscape
requirements (as applicable) and appropriate setback and building height limitations, which will
result in appropriate uses and building envelopes for each site developed within The Village (at
Avon) to facilitate the provision of adequate facilities (including roads) and utility services. The
PUD is consistent with the Town Transportation Master Plan, providing for adequate
transportation facilities and connectivity to abutting properties. The Village (at Avon) includes,
among other public facilities and services, fire protection and ambulance service uses.
5. Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant
adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water
management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated.
The PUD, together with the Agreement (and the existing Annexation and Development
Agreement), provide, and have provided for, mitigation of impacts of the proposed development
of The Village (at Avon), including the prior provision of certain impact fees, public dedications,
public facilities, natural open space and roads. A wildlife mitigation plan is included as a part of
the PUD Guide. Section C of the PUD Guide sets forth certain requirements for allocation of
water rights to serve The Village (at Avon). A significant portion of The Village (at Avon) will
be maintained as natural open space. Further, a comprehensive storm drainage study has been
produced for The Village (at Avon). The development of the subject property as contemplated
by the PUD will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment,
including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife or vegetation.
6. Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant
adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract.
For the reasons provided in response no. 5 above, and because the PUD is compatible in
scale with other uses or potential future uses on other adjacent properties as discussed in
response no. 7 below, the PUD is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon other
property in the vicinity of Planning Area F, The Village (at Avon).
7. Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future
uses on the other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
The uses, densities and dimensional limitations set forth in the PUD Guide are
compatible internally with respect to abutting planning areas within the project and allow for a
mix of uses and densities, while providing for a reasonable transition among abutting planning
areas, generally providing for more dense development on the valley floor, less dense
development north of I-70 and within the “hillside residential” portion of the PUD as depicted on
the PUD Map and more intense uses immediately north of I-70.
Exhibit A
3. Written Statement
Pursuant to Section 7.16.070(b) of the Town Development Code, the following are the eligibility
criteria for a property to be eligible to apply for PUD Amendment approval. A response
describing how the application for a PUD Amendment satisfies such eligibility criteria, to the
extent applicable, follows each eligibility criteria.
1. Property Eligible: All properties within the Town of Avon are eligible to apply for PUD
approval.
The property subject to the PUD, The Village (at Avon), is wholly within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Town of Avon (“Town”).
2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The proposed development shall be consistent
with the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
Please see response no. 3 of the project narrative submitted with the application for the
PUD Amendment, which addresses the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
3. Consistent with PUD Intent: The proposed development shall be consistent with the
intent and spirit of the PUD purpose statement in §7.16.060(a).
As discussed in the project narrative submitted with the application for the PUD
Amendment, the PUD provides for a large-scale master-planned mixed use development. The
uses, dimensional limitations and development standards, among other matters, set forth in the
PUD Guide will provide for flexibility in the development of The Village (at Avon) and will
encourage innovative and coordinated development and design, consistent with the intent and
spirit of Section 7.16.060 of the Development Code. The PUD provides for a mix of integrated
uses and public facilities and amenities, including community facilities to be constructed by the
Town on Planning Area B (as depicted on the PUD Map), preservation of natural open space,
community and pocket parks, trail and pedestrian connectivity, school sites, a diverse housing
mix (including affordable housing) and retail and commercial services for The Village (at Avon)
and the Town as a whole. Existing and planned roads and utilities are contemplated to facilitate
convenient and efficient extension of such services to comprehensively serve The Village (at
Avon). A Declaration of Master Design Review Covenants for The Village (at Avon) and The
Village (at Avon) Design Review Guidelines provide for high quality design with respect to the
built environment and preservation of natural features and open space and existing vegetation.
The Village (at Avon) includes, among other public facilities and services, fire protection and
ambulance service uses. Impact fees and public dedications previously have been provided to
mitigate development impacts of The Village (at Avon), and certain future public dedications are
contemplated as discussed in the project narrative submitted with the application for the PUD
Amendment.
4. Compatibility with Existing Uses: The proposed development shall not impede the
continued use or development of surrounding properties for uses that are permitted in the
Development Code or planned for in the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
Exhibit A
2
As discussed in response no. 7 of the project narrative submitted with the application for
the PUD Amendment, the uses, densities and dimensional limitations set forth in the PUD Guide
for The Village (at Avon) are compatible internally with respect to abutting planning areas
within the project and allow for a mix of uses and densities, while providing for a reasonable
transition among abutting planning areas, generally providing for more dense development on
the valley floor, less dense development north of I-70 and within the “hillside residential”
portion of the PUD as depicted on the PUD Map and more intense uses immediately north of I-
70. The Town Center is adjacent to and west of The Village (at Avon). The roads as constructed
within The Village (at Avon) and as conceptually set forth on the PUD Map are consistent with
the Town Transportation Master Plan.
5. Public Benefit: A recognizable and material benefit will be realized by both the future
residents and the Town as a whole through the establishment of a PUD, where such benefit
would otherwise be infeasible or unlikely.
As discussed in response no. 3 above, in response no. 6 below and in the project narrative
included as a part of the submittal of the PUD Amendment, many substantial public benefits
have been and will be provided in connection with the existing PUD, including dedications for
public facilities (such as fire and ambulance facilities), school sites, community facilities, trail
connections to public lands and natural open space. Substantial natural open space has been
preserved by the establishment of the PUD.
6. Preservation of Site Features: Long-term conservation of natural, historical,
architectural, or other significant features or open space will be achieved, where such features
would otherwise be destroyed or degraded by development as permitted by the underlying zoning
district.
A significant portion of The Village (at Avon) has been preserved as natural open space.
As defined in the project narrative for the application for the PUD Amendment, certain open
space parcels within The Village (at Avon) have been dedicated to the Town. Planning Area B
(as depicted on the PUD Map) has been conveyed to the Town for community facilities,
including the construction of a natural amphitheater and preservation and development of a water
body, along with other complementary public amenities. Trail connections to off-site public
lands are provided as set forth in the PUD Guide. Cluster development is anticipated for the
“hillside residential” lots (Planning Area K as depicted on the PUD Map), preserving open space
and steep slope features.
7. Sufficient Land Area for Proposed Uses: Sufficient land area has been provided to
comply with all applicable regulations of the Development Code, to adequately serve the needs
of all permitted uses in the PUD projects, and to ensure compatibility between uses and the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Village (at Avon) comprises nearly 1780 acres, including land designated for
residential (including affordable housing), commercial, industrial, mixed use, open space, parks,
school sites, public facilities and other public amenities. The PUD, Declaration of Master
Design Review Covenants for The Village (at Avon) and The Village (at Avon) Design Review
Guidelines provide for a comprehensive, master-planned mixed use development with
Exhibit A
3
appropriate development and design standards to provide for a high quality development and to
adequately serve the needs of all uses contemplated within The Village (at Avon). Development
of The Village (at Avon) will comply with the density and dimensional limitations set forth in
the PUD Guide. As discussed in response no. 4 above, the PUD provides for compatibility
between uses within The Village (at Avon) and with adjacent properties.
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
4. PUD Map & Guide
4.1. PUD Map
4.2. Conceptual Master Plan
4.3. Planning Area F
4.4. Total Permitted Density
4.5. Uses by right, Special Review Use, Temporary Uses
4.6. Proposed Revisions
4.7. PUD Guide
4.8. Quantitative Summary
4.8.1. Plat
4.8.2. Alta Survey
4.8.3. Existing Topography
4.8.4. Drainage Study
4.8.5. Utility Plan
4.9. Roads Streets and Pedestrian (see PUD Map & Master Plan)
4.10. Public and Private Open Spaces (see PUD Map & Master Plan)
4.11. Drainage Facilities (see Drainage Study)
4.12. Existing and Proposed Utilities (see Utility Plan)
4.13. Statement of Compliance with Development Code (see Written Statement and Project
Narrative)
4.14. Statement Providing Public Benefit (see Written Statement and Project Narrative)
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
The Village (at Avon) - Conceptual
Exhibit A
The Village (at Avon) – Planning Area FDEVELOPMENT STANDARDSLAND USE: Regional Commercial Mixed Use ProjectsPA-F: 12 AcresDENSITY:18 DU / acreLOT COVERAGE: 80%SET BACKS: 25’ Front, 0’ Side, 10’ RearInd. and Res. 25’ Front,7.5’ Side, 10’ RearBUILDING HEIGHT: 35’ SFR & Duplex, 80’ Medical facilities, 48’ all othersExhibit A
4.4 Allowable Density
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 6-8)1
B. TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY. The total permitted density for The Village (at
Avon) PUD shall not exceed:
1. Planning Areas A, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, RMF 1 and RMF 2 shall not
exceed:
(a) Commercial Uses.
825,000 consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space.
(b) Dwelling Units.
2,400 Dwelling Units. Pursuant to the terms of the Affordable Housing
Plan, 500 of the 2,400 Dwelling Units shall be constructed as affordable
housing, and, subject to satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in
the Affordable Housing Plan, an additional 23 of the 2,400 Dwelling Units
shall be constructed as affordable housing.
3. Density calculations, as applicable, for development of Dwelling Units within all
Planning Areas where Residential Uses are permitted shall be based on the gross acreage within
the applicable Planning Area as reflected in the land use table contained in the PUD Master Plan.
Density calculations shall be on a Planning Area by Planning Area basis rather than on a Final
Plat by Final Plat basis or on a Site by Site basis.
6. At final build-out of the particular Planning Area, the following minimum and
maximum ratios of consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space and consolidated
Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses, stated as a percentage of the aggregate Gross Square
Footage the Planning Area [e.g., Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space -;- (Gross Square
Footage of Commercial Space + consolidated Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses) =
percentage of Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space], shall apply within the following
Planning Areas:
Planning Area Residential Commercial
Min% Max% Min% Max%
Planning Area A 30% 80% 20% 70%
Planning Areas C and D 90% 100% 0% 10%
Planning Areas F, G and H 0% 50% 50% 100%
1 The Village (at Avon), Amended and Restated PUD Guide, November 7, 2012
Exhibit A
4.5 Uses by Right
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 22-24)1
6. Planning Areas F, G, H and I - Regional Commercial Mixed Use Projects.
(a) Uses by Right: Except as specifically identified as Special Review Uses
in Section D.6(b) below or specifically prohibited in Section D.6(c) below, the following
Primary Uses and Accessory Uses:
(i) Commercial Uses, provided, however, no single retail business on
Planning Area F shall occupy more than 60,000 of consolidated Gross Square Footage.
(ii) Residential Uses.
(iii) Mixed Use Projects (provided, however, no Uses specifically
prohibited in Section D.6(c) below shall be included in such Mixed Use Project,
and no Uses specifically identified as Special Review Uses in Section D.6(b)
below shall be included except pursuant to the review and approval processes set
forth in Section E below).
(iv) Agricultural Uses (as an Interim Use only).
(v) Community Facilities.
(vi) Cabled Telecommunications Equipment, Cabled Television Facilities
and Cabled Telecommunications Services, each of the foregoing being subject to
review and written approval of such Use by the Design Review Board.
(vii) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment (excluding antenna
towers), Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (excluding antenna towers) and
Wireless Telecommunications Services, each of the foregoing being subject to
review and written approval by the Design Review Board authorizing such Use.
(viii) Infrastructure.
(ix) Dry Utilities.
(x) Private and public transportation and transit, including without
limitation, Bus Stops, Bus Shelters, rail stations, tramways, gondolas and lifts.
(xi) Religious Facilities, museums, libraries and public buildings.
(xii) Indoor recreation and/or entertainment facilities that do not include
the use of amplified music.
(xiii) Outdoor entertainment facilities that include the use of amplified
music (subject to review and written approval of such Use by the Design Review
Board).
(xiv) Outdoor recreation and/or entertainment facilities that do not include
the use of amplified music.
(xv) Parks and Open Space. (xvi) Child Care Center.
(xvii) Animal Boarding (excluding outdoor Animal Boarding), subject to
review and written approval by the Design Review Board authorizing such Use
(xviii) Kennels (excluding outdoor Kennels), subject to review and written
approval by the Design Review Board authorizing such Use.
(xix) Construction staging (as an Interim Use only).
(xx) Planning Areas F and I Only:
(1) Recycling Facility.
1 The Village (at Avon), Amended and Restated PUD Guide, November 7, 2012
Exhibit A
(xxi) Planning Area I Only:
(1) Pedestrian and vehicular bridges, bridge abutments and
improvements reasonably related thereto.
(2) Automobile Repair Shops (Major and Minor).
(3) Light Industrial Uses.
(xxii) Additional Uses which the Director determines to be similar to the
foregoing Uses by Right.
(xxiii) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to the
foregoing Uses by Right.
(b) Special Review Uses: The following Uses shall be permitted pursuant to the
review and approval processes set forth in Section E below:
(i) Single retail businesses on Planning Area F occupying more than
60,000 of consolidated Gross Square Footage.
(ii) Educational facilities including, but not limited to public and private schools,
universities, and colleges.
(iii) Service Station.
(iv) Animal Boarding (outdoor), subject to review and written approval by the
Design Review Board authorizing such Use.
(v) Kennels (outdoor), subject to review and written approval by the Design
Review Board authorizing such Use.
(vi) Rock and gravel crushing operations related to rock and gravel materials
excavated within The Village (at Avon) PUD.
(vii) Heliport, only as an Accessory Use to a Hospital or other medical facility,
including but not limited to a clinic (subject to review and written approval by the Design
Review Board authorizing such Use).
(viii) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment (antenna towers only) and
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (antenna towers only), each of the foregoing
being subject to review and written approval by the Design Review Board authorizing
such Use.
(ix) Planning Areas F, G and H Only:
(1) Animal Boarding (outdoor).
(2) Kennels (outdoor).
(3) Hospitals.
(x) Planning Area I Only:
(1) Hotel Uses (including without limitation, hotel Uses comprising a
portion of a Mixed Use Project) which exceed 55 feet in Building Height.
Exhibit A
4.6 Revisions
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 8)1
B. TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY. The total permitted density for The Village (at
Avon) PUD shall not exceed:
6. At final build-out of the particular Planning Area, the following minimum and
maximum ratios of consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space and consolidated
Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses, stated as a percentage of the aggregate Gross Square
Footage the Planning Area [e.g., Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space ÷ (Gross Square
Footage of Commercial Space + consolidated Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses) =
percentage of Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space], shall apply within the following
Planning Areas:
Planning Area Residential Commercial
Min% Max% Min% Max%
Planning Area A 30% 80% 20% 70%
Planning Areas C and D 90% 100% 0% 10%
Planning Areas F, G & H 0% 50% 50% 100%
Planning Areas F 0% 100% 0% 50%
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 26)1
D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE VILLAGE (AT AVON) PUD
6. Planning Areas F, G, H, and I – Regional Commercial Mixed Use Projects
(e) Residential Density Maximum:
(i) Planning Areas F, G & H: 18 Dwelling Units per acre
(ii) Planning Area F: 25 Dwelling Units per acre.
1 The Village (at Avon), Amended and Restated PUD Guide, November 7, 2012
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
6. Visualization Density
Exhibit A
Development DensityWhat Do Developments at Different Density Look Like?The following slides show examples of developments from around the Bay Area with densities ranging from 25 to 50 units per acre. Exhibit A
Holloway Terrace, 30 DUAName:Holloway TerraceType of Homes:Family ApartmentsSize:42 homesDensity:30 DUAYear: 1985Details:The design strategy is based on a small residential scale but achieves a high density of units per acre. Using tile roofs, and detail relief on the stucco exteriors, the design reinterprets the stylistic treatment of the surrounding neighborhood.Architect/DeveloperDavid Baker/ Bridge HousingExhibit A
Iron Horse Lofts, 25 DUAExhibit A
Name:Iron Horse LoftsType of Homes:For Sale HousingSize:54 homesDensity:25 DUAYear: 2002Details:Iron Horse Lofts are transit oriented housing for the urban work force commuting from San Francisco to San Francisco. The lofts are market-rate for-sale housing, and were built as part of a development that included affordable apartments. The projects share open green space, play equipment and a pool.ArchitectDavid BakerIron Horse Lofts, 25 DUAExhibit A
Iron Horse Lofts, 25 DUAColiseum Gardens, 50 DUAExhibit A
Name:Coliseum GardensType of Homes:Family HousingSize:50 homesDensity:50 DUA (approx)Year: 2006Details:Coliseum Gardens consists of 50 affordable townhome apartments located within a 19-acre, 467-apartment site. The townhomesare organized around a central court with rear-parking. Front stoops, porches and bay windows increase livability and neighborhood safety. Each second level townhome has an ‘outdoor room’ above the carports, overlooking the auto court for increased security. This trellised-covered room is an extension of the eat-in kitchen, allowing it to be used as an outdoor dining room.Architect: PyatokColiseum Gardens, 50 DUAExhibit A
Tower Apartments, 25 DUAName:Tower ApartmentsType of Homes:Family ApartmentsSize:50 homesDensity:25 DUAYear: 1993Details:At the grand opening County Supervisor Tim Smith commented, "If you had told me two years ago that you could design affordable housing at 25 units per acre in Rohnert Park, I would have said you were crazy. This housing proves you can do it and do it well.“Architect/DeveloperPyatok/Burbank HousingExhibit A
Magnolia Row, 30 DUAExhibit A
Name:Magnolia RowType of Homes:Lofts and Family HousingSize:36 homesDensity:30 DUAYear: 2002Details:Magnolia Row is a hybrid of an urban loft and a residential townhouse. Both the 3-story units along Magnolia and the 2-story units on 32nd Street offer large, open loft-style living areas combined with private bedrooms.Magnolia Row bridges the gap between industrial and residential neighborhoods. Large windows and low-sloped roofs reflect the aesthetic of the nearby warehouses, while the scale of the buildings, lap-board exterior siding, trellises, and gardens mix well with the area's Victorian homes.Architect: David BakerMagnolia Row, 30 DUAExhibit A
Oak Court, 30 DUAOak Court, 43 DUAExhibit A
Name:Oak CourtType of Homes:Town Homes over Flats, AffordableSize:53 homesDensity:43 DUAYear: 2002Details:Oak Court lies at the edge of downtown Palo Alto in a neighborhood that has become known as "Professorville," an affluent residential enclave of classic single-family craftsman homes. The project consists of 53 apartments for low-income families in townhomes over flats, above a partial subterranean garage. The architects facilitated several community meetings to help shape the project. The process resulted in buildings that have been very well received by the local homeowners, despite the income and wealth disparities between the new residents and the neighbors Architect/Developer: Pyatok/Palo Alto Housing CorportationOak Court, 43 DUAExhibit A
Oak Court, 30 DUAGiant Road Homes, 35 DUAName:Giant Road Family HomesType of Homes:Affordable family rentalSize:86 homesDensity:35DUAYear: 2007Details:The overall site features an internal loop street between and around the 5 main buildings. One of the buildings contains laundry facilities, the management/resident services offices, a community space, and a YMCA childcare center that serves approximately 30 children. There is a large landscaped internal courtyard available to residents that includes approximately 2,000 sf of outdoor playground space to be shared with the childcare center.Architect/Developer: HKIT/EBALDCExhibit A
Giant Road Homes, 35 DUAExhibit A
Oak Court, 30 DUAMission Gateway, 28 DUAMission Gateway, 28 DUAExhibit A
Name:Mission GatewayType of Homes:Mixed UseSize:121 homesDensity:28 DUADetails:Mission Gateway is a mixed-use development that combines affordable family housing with ground-floor retail including a Starbucks store. The design of the building establishes a welcoming street presence through the coffee shop, stairways and windows. A landscaped courtyard with space for playing and relaxing is located over the parking garage. Mission Gateway provides 121 units of affordable family housing and about 3,000 square feet of retail space on a 4.3 acre site. The community building has more than 3,000 square feet of common space, including a community hall with a kitchen, art room, computer lab, resident services office and gym. Other amenities include a barbecue area, swimming pool and children’s play area with a tot lot and basketball half-court.Developer: MidPen HousingMission Gateway, 28 DUAExhibit A
Oak Court, 30 DUAMission Gateway, 28 DUAPaulson Park, 32 DUAExhibit A
Oak Court, 30 DUAPaulson Park, 32 DUAName:Paulson Park Senior HomesType of Homes:1 and 2 bedroom senior homesSize:253 homesDensity:32DUAYear: 2008Details:Paulson Park provides 253 units of senior housing in a peaceful, park-like setting including community vegetable gardens, a computer lab, fitness center, and several recreation and gathering rooms. The sensitive design ensured that the spacious feel of the property was preserved, and green building measures including solar panels were employed. MidPen implemented a major energy-saving rehab of the older units, installing insulation, new siding, and high-performance windows, and adding unit patios for the enjoyment of residents. A major renovation of the extensive grounds was one of the first to follow Bay-Friendly guidelines in Santa Clara County, and included drought-tolerant plants and high-efficiency irrigation systems.Architect/Developer: MidPen Housing
Exhibit A
Metropolitan Design Center | College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture | University of Minnesota
1 Rapson Hall, 89 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 www.designcenter.umn.edu
Suburban Density
November 2005
units
acreWoodbury • 32
A variety of roof lines and facade articulations provides architectural detailing that minimizes the prominence of
the garages and creates an interesting streetscape. In addition, by using a tuck-under design for the garages,
they do not overwhelm the front entrances (left). Many front entrances to the townhomes are highlighted by
porches, creating a single family home-like appearance (right).
In some cases, units are combined in one building that
looks like a large home.
A clubhouse, within this townhome development but
outside the census block featured in this density sheet,
is available for use by the residents.
Exhibit A
Suburban Density
Metropolitan Design Center | College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture | University of Minnesota
1 Rapson Hall, 89 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 www.designcenter.umn.edu November 2005
0 1/4 1/2 1 mile
N
N
0 100 200 400 feet
units
acreWoodbury • 32
Block Area & Demographic Information
* U.S. Census demographic information (2000) for census block
indicated on photo at left.
** Block area was calculated using a census block layer that was
aligned to street centerlines by The Lawrence Group.
block density 32 dwelling units/acre
number of housing units 77 *
block area 2.4 acres **
occupied housing units 50.6% *
housing units owner-occupied 0% *
average household size 1.9 *
percent white 92.3% *
median age 34.3 *
types of units townhomes
number of floors 2
location Bounded by Grand Forest Lane and Grand
Reserve Boulevard.
Census Tract & Demographic Information
*** The U.S. Census demographic information (2000) included
here refers to the entire census tract, which extends beyond the
boundaries of the map at left.
census tract density 0.2 dwelling units/acre
Census tract area on which density is calculated includes roads,
open space, commercial, industrial, and other land uses in
addition to housing. Tract densities are almost always lower than
block area densities.
number of housing units 1,630 ***
census tract land area 10,057 acres ***
median household income $104,645 ***
context These larger townhomes are located in
a residential area near Eagle Valley Golf Course.
Valley Crossing Collaborative School is located at
the intersection of Valley Creek Road and Woodbury
Drive. A commercial and industrial area is located to
the north near I-94.
Valley Creek Road
Eagle Valley
Golf Course
Colby Lake Woodbury DrivePowers Lake
Exhibit A
eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing
services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
research platform to scholars worldwide.
Peer Reviewed
Title:
Explaining Residential Density [Research & Debate]
Journal Issue:
Places, 16(2)
Author:
Ellis, John G
Publication Date:
2004
Publication Info:
Places
Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2np5t9ct
Acknowledgements:
This article was originally produced in Places Journal. To subscribe, visit www.places-journal.org.For reprint information, contact places@berkeley.edu.
Keywords:
places, placemaking, architecture, environment, landscape, urban design, public realm, planning,design, research, debate, explaining, residential, density, John G Ellis
Copyright Information:
All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for anynecessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn moreat http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse
Exhibit A
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density34
Explaining Residential Density
John G. Ellis
Exhibit A
35 Places 16.2
Research & Debate
Exhibit A
36
On many occasions when presenting proposals for higher-
density housing at community workshops or planning
commissions, architects are faced with an emotional type
of opposition they fi nd diffi cult to understand. Behind this
opposition, which may have nothing to do with designs
actually being proposed, usually lies a misunderstanding
of terms. In particular, the words “high-density housing”
conjure up images of closely spaced highrise apartment
towers, with a consequent lack of daylight, reduced open
space, and blocked views. Even at medium and lower den-
sities, there is little public awareness of the different poten-
tial confi gurations of buildings and their impact on streets
and neighborhoods.
One reason for this misunderstanding is easy to see.
At the planning stage, describing a project in terms of the
number of dwelling units per acre is about as revealing to
most people as telling them how much the buildings weigh.
Without a sense of what “25 dwellings per acre” means
in real terms, for example, discussion may get bogged
down in abstractions that are diffi cult to resolve. Worse,
without a clear sense of what is being proposed, a simple
fear of change may take over. Any new housing means the
“wrong” type of people will move in, traffi c will increase,
property values will decline, etc.
Ultimately, perceptions of residential density are as tied
to design quality as actual numbers. But even the numbers
may be complicated to explain. One reason is that levels
of residential densities cannot be considered in a vacuum;
they can only be understood with reference to three related
factors: building typologies, parking confi gurations, and
construction types. Thus, housing layouts that require
parking for two cars per dwelling can produce a completely
different density and typology than those that require
parking for only one car. Higher density, therefore, doesn’t
necessarily mean highrise buildings.
In this article, I would like to provide an illustrated
guide to some of these issues. My hope is that this examina-
tion of the current building blocks of residential architec-
ture will be of value both to practitioners and citizens as
they wrestle with choices for how their communities will
meet future housing needs.
The Density/Building Typology Chart
Architects and planners generally use the term “build-
ing typology” to refer to a range of typical structures. In
the fi eld of housing, at the lower densities, these include
such forms as single-family dwellings, semi-detached units
(duplexes, etc.), row houses, and secondary in-law units.
Middle densities can generally be achieved with stacked
walk-up townhouses or fl ats. At the highest densities,
elevator- and corridor-accessed units are necessary.
Parking arrangements generally form a gradient that
corresponds to these increases. It progresses from indi-
vidual garages, to common surface lots, to podiums or
basement garages.
The range of application of different construction types
is determined by local interpretation of national building
codes. But there are common variables, and these may
be used to arrive at a common index of construction cost.
Generally, as densities increase, building construction
changes from wood-framed Type V construction (up to
50 feet) and Type III construction (up to 65 feet), to con-
crete and steel-framed Type I and II construction for
mid- and highrise buildings. For units located more than
75 feet above the ground, the introduction of special
life-safety code requirements has an important impact on
building design.
Considering the above qualifi cations, the accompanying
chart attempts to show how increases in residential density
are related to different building typologies and specifi c
thresholds that trigger different construction types. The
chart also attempts to compare the relative cost of each cat-
egory. This particular study focused primarily on higher-
density urban conditions, where smaller dwelling units and
lower parking ratios were the norm.
In preparing the chart we measured the density of units
per acre in relation to the net area within the property
lines, and excluded the public right-of-way. For the pur-
poses of comparison across unit types, certain assumptions
were also made: all dwellings were in the range of 1,000–
1,200 net sq.ft. in area; a parking ratio of one car per dwell-
ing applied for all off-street parking; and open space of at
least 100 sq.ft. per dwelling was required either as a yard, a
balcony, or communal open space.
Based on these assumptions, the chart divides build-
ing types according to certain categories. These include
stacked vs. unstacked units; units with separate individual
garages vs. those with communal garage types; wood-frame
vs. concrete-frame construction; and units below vs. above
the life-safety limit (75 ft. to the fl oor level of the upper-
most unit).
To fully understand the chart, some additional defi ni-
tions may be required. “Front loaded” means that car
access is from the street; “rear loaded” means it is from
Right: Low-density residential typologies.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density
Exhibit A
37
a rear alley or parking court. “Single aspect” means a
unit has windows that face in only one direction; “double
aspect” means the unit faces in two directions. Walk-up
units have stairs only; elevator- and corridor-access units
give residents the choice of stairs and elevators. Flats are
dwellings on one level; townhouses have more than one
level. Lofts are two-story units with a double-height space.
Garages may come in a variety of different types: single car;
or tandem (front and back) and side-by-side for two-car
garages. Secondary units (carriage-house or in-law units)
are smaller units on a single property, and may be located
either in the main structure or in a subsidiary building.
Low-Density Residential Development
To show what these various levels of residential density
mean in physical terms we prepared a series of standard
block diagrams. The fi rst pair illustrates low-density
development in the range of 10-15 dwellings per acre, on
lot sizes that range from 3,000 to 5,000 sq.ft. The building
types considered here are either single-family houses
on 50 x 100 ft. parcels or semi-detached houses on 30 x
100 ft. parcels.
Buildings at this density can be either front loaded,
with parking from the street with a side drive (sometimes
shared), or rear loaded from an alley. The presence of
alleys offers the opportunity to create street frontages that
do not have frequent curb cuts, and so can provide more
on-street parking for visitors. Alleys may also be desirable
to hide all the service activities, cars, trucks, and the other
detritus of everyday life.
The alley can also provide the setting for secondary “in-
law” units above garage spaces. In this way mixed-income
housing can be easily created within the same block. Such
housing also offers a greater level of security because there
are more “eyes on the street,” and it serves as a way of
increasing density without affecting the appearance of the
surrounding streets.
Row Houses
At medium densities of 15-25 dwellings per acre and
up, one moves into groups of dwellings arranged as row
houses. These are shown in the middle two pairings of
block diagrams. Typically, row houses comprise two- or
three-story dwellings ranging in width from 16 to 25 feet.
They can be front or rear loaded, but parking is preferable
at the rear to avoid a street frontage dominated by garage
doors. Where front loading is unavoidable, tandem park-
ing is preferable for two-car garages.
Places 16.2
Research & Debate
• Semi-Detached Houses - 2 Story
Secondary Units over Rear Garages
15 DU / AC Density
Rear Loaded Alley Parking
Alley with Parking
Semi-Detached
Dwelling Units
Secondary Unit
Over Garage
Single Family
Dwelling Units
Alley with Parking
• Single Family Detached Houses
2 Story — 10 DU/ AC Density
Rear Loaded Alley Parking
Single Family
Dwelling Units
Exhibit A
Using the row-house typology, various site confi gura-
tions can be used to increase densities without creating an
overwhelming impact on the street. Two such arrange-
ments were developed by nineteenth-century builders in
San Francisco: the tandem house and the mid-block alley.
“Tandem housing” consists of a second row of houses
located behind the street-facing units and accessed through
a garage court or portal. This works well on deeper lots,
because from the street the appearance is the same as for
ordinary row housing, but at double the density.
Alternatively, using a mid-block alley, a new narrow
street lined with single-family two- or three-story row
houses can be inserted between two main streets. This
allows the same number of units as would be accommo-
dated in a pair of taller buildings facing the main streets.
A popular variant on the tandem-housing model is
to place six- or eight-plex row house modules around a
common parking court. This permits a greater number of
units to be built while minimizing the impact on the street
frontage by having a single curb cut on the street. Park-
ing can either be accommodated in an internally located
surface court or in individual garages on either side of a
drive-in court.
Another type of dwelling, known as a “tuck-under,”
consists of a two-story house raised half a level above the
street with a rear-accessed garage half a level down. This
arrangement avoids the arduous building-code require-
ment of a secondary staircase from a third-fl oor bedroom.
The dwelling is measured as a two-story unit from the
street frontage, even though it is three levels high when
measured from the garage alley.
Densities of 25-30 dwellings per acre are possible with
the tuck-under arrangement. It can also be used to create
attractive street frontages, since garages are hidden away at
the rear, and the ground-fl oor rooms are raised half a level
above the street, preserving privacy from pedestrians pass-
ing by on the sidewalk.
Moving up the density scale, four-story stacked walk-up
townhouses over their own garages can be built at a density
of up to 40 dwellings per acre. Stacked units above two sto-
ries, however, require two means of escape, so stairs need
to be provided to give access both from the street and from
rear parking areas.
With units built over their own garages, two vertically
stacked townhouses can be arranged with a rear-accessed
garage on the fi rst level, and a four-story building above
with an interlocking section for the separate units. A 50-ft.
pairing of stacked 25-ft.-wide units can share a common
stair from the garage and require only a total of three stairs
for four units.
Above: Townhouse typologies can create a variety of urban conditions. Examples
from San Jose, California.
Right: Townhouse residential typologies.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density38
Exhibit A
39Places 16.2
Research & Debate
Rear Units
Shared Court
2 Story Dwellings
over Garages
with Decks over the
Entry Court
Attached 2 Story
Townhouses
• 2 and 3 Story 'Tandem Housing'
8–Plex Units
20–30 DU / AC Density
Attached Townhouses over
Congregate Parking Shared Courts
Pedestrian Way
Garage Alley
• 'Tuck Under' 2/3 Story
Townhouses with
Rear Loaded Garages
25-30 DU / AC Density
• Stacked 4 Story Walk-up
Townhouses with
Rear Loaded Garages
30-40 DU / AC Density
Stacked Townhouses
Pedestrian Way
Garage Alley
• Mid-Block Alley Housing
3 Story Townhouses
with Front Loaded Garages
35-40 DU / AC Density
20' Wide, 3 Story
Townhouses
Decks over
Entry Portal
Exhibit A
40
A simpler pattern, which achieves the same density but
replaces townhouses with fl ats, involves arranging three
stories of stacked walk-up fl ats around a pair of stairs, one
facing the street, the other giving access to surface parking
at the rear. Each fl at thus has a double aspect, facing both
the street and the rear of the site. With a 25-ft.-wide front-
age, there is also enough room for each fl at to be designed
with side-by-side rooms.
Medium Density to High Density
The last two pairs of images show medium to high-den-
sity residential arrangements. A great number of confi gu-
rations are possible at this end of the density scale, but as
the chart shows they are more expensive to build, largely
because of the need to build common structured parking.
As a general rule, above 45 dwellings per acre one gets
into elevator and corridor access, with communal parking
garages either below grade or in a separate structure. At a
density above 75 dwellings per acre one moves further to
multilevel parking arrangements. These can take the form
of underground basement parking or internal podium
parking on several levels — both of which require mechan-
ical ventilation and fi re-separation. Alternatively, indepen-
dent multilevel parking garages may be designed which can
be naturally ventilated and do not require expensive fi re
separation, but these may require more space.
The simplest and least expensive arrangement is often
to build a multistory, concrete-framed garage in the center
of a block or parcel with a 20-ft. gap around its perimeter
to permit natural ventilation. Surrounding this garage one
can build four-story, corridor-accessed, single-aspect units
in Type V wood-frame construction.
If the surrounding units adjoin the parking garage, the
garage needs to be mechanically ventilated and have a
four-hour separation between the autos and surrounding
residential or commercial/offi ce uses. One alternative is
to build above a parking podium, with special “liner” units
wrapping the perimeter and facing the street.
Mid- and highrise construction can achieve densities
far greater than 75 dwellings per acre. However, life-safety
requirements require such special building features as pres-
surized stair shafts and places of safe refuge in buildings
with fl oors above the reach of a fi re-truck ladder (75 feet
above the street). Midrise buildings built to just below this
life-safety level are typically eight stories high, with a roof
level of up to 85 feet.
Mid- and highrise construction always requires one
or more elevators and two stairs. But building-code
requirements vary from city to city in terms of how these
may be provided. For example, in New York, Chicago and
Above: Examples of medium-density housing in San Jose, California.
Right: Medium- and high-density residential typologies.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density
Exhibit A
High Rise Towers
16 Stories
Stacked Flats
Parking
Podium
5 Story
Stacked Flats
• 16 Story, 160' High
Above Life-Safety Limit
High-Rise Stacked
Flats over 3 or 4 Level
Parking Podium
100-200 DU / AC Density
Type 1 Construction
• 5 Story 65' High Stacked Flats
(Elevator Access over Walk-up Units)
Over 2 Level Basement Parking
100 DU / AC Density
Type 111 Construction
41Places 16.2
Research & Debate
• 8 Story, 85' High
Below Life-Safety Limit
Mid-Rise Stacked Flats
Over 2 Level Parking Podium
75-100 DU / AC Density
Type 1 Construction
8 Story Midrise
Stacked Flats
2 Level
Parking Podium
• 4 Story Stacked Flats
Elevator & Corridor
Access Around 1 Level
Parking Podium
35-40 DU / AC Density
4 Story
Stacked Flats
1 Level
Parking Podium
65' High, 5 Story
Walk-up Flats
Basement Parking
Entry
Exhibit A
42
Vancouver, “scissor stairs” are permitted, where two
straight-fl ight stairs interlock in a single concrete-framed
shaft. This enables the stair shaft to be located behind the
elevators in a compact core, enabling construction of a
small fl oor plate and a slender tower. Vancouver’s residen-
tial towers have fl oor plates as small as 4,000 sq.ft. in area.
In California, the building code requires a minimum
30-ft. separation between the two stair shafts, and on any
fl oor the travel distance between the doors to the stairs
must be half the maximum diagonal dimension of the fl oor
plate. The result is a much bigger core and a larger fl oor
plate. In San Francisco fl oor plates as large as 10,000 sq.ft.
are currently being proposed for highrise towers in new
downtown residential districts on Rincon Hill and around
the Transbay Terminal.
Cost Comparisons
With the help of several contractors, we were able to
develop a cost-comparison index to show the differences
between various construction types. The costs are for
building construction only and exclude the cost of land.
They are presented here in the form of ratios so that com-
parisons can be made easily between the different types.
The cost comparisons are shown at the bottom of the resi-
dential density chart.
If the cost of a single-family dwelling is rated as 1.00,
a semi-detached dwelling is 0.95, because of the savings
provided by a shared party wall. The cost of a row house is
further reduced to 0.9 because of party walls and reduced
frontage. Stacked walk-up units increase in cost to a ratio
of 1.20 because of additional stairs, while elevator-accessed
corridor units over a parking podium increase to 1.25 units
because of increased construction cost of elevators and
shared circulation areas.
Midrise construction costs range up to 1.60 to 2.00,
while highrise units increase in cost to up to 2.50 and more.
These comparisons are ratios, and, of course, should be
considered in relation to many other factors, including
civil-engineering costs and infrastructure and soil
conditions. However, they are useful in helping make a
preliminary assessment of the most appropriate density
in relation to construction type and local market condi-
tions. Most importantly, location affects land costs, and
where these are high, higher densities — and therefore
higher construction expense — can offset the overall
cost of development, since the latter represents a smaller
part of total costs.
Case Study
In a study Solomon E.T.C./WRT produced for the
Greenbelt Alliance in 2003 for the proposed town of
Coyote Valley south of San Jose, California, we used the
density chart and diagrams similar to those here to illus-
trate how a variety of arrangements could be combined to
create a mixed-use, compact, transit-oriented community.
The last image shows a portion of this vision plan.
As a whole, the result of our work was a grid of streets
and blocks that offered a multitude of opportunities for
different types of housing and a range of densities, while at
the same time creating a continuous urban fabric. The
diagrams were especially valuable in helping form a con-
sensus with the local community activists, since it was
possible to give them a clear picture of the nature of hous-
ing and the character of the streets and neighborhoods
being proposed. The diagrams were also helpful in deter-
mining the best overall density that could meet the
requirements for 20 percent affordable units throughout
the 50,000-dwelling-unit town.
Another effective tool for achieving agreement was
to showing photographs of examples of local residential
development in San Jose at various densities that people
were familiar with. Understanding the cost and construc-
tion-type implications was also essential in order to be
realistic about what could be achieved in terms of afford-
able housing on a “greenfi eld” site.
To advocate overall densities that were too high and
required the widespread use of stacked concrete-framed
multistory housing would have been an unrealistic proposi-
tion in the current San Jose market. At the same time,
to propose densities that were too low would have meant
the loss of open space, an inability to support transit ser-
vice, and a lost opportunity to create a pedestrian-friendly,
compact community.
For Coyote Valley we ended up proposing an overall
average density of 28 dwellings per net acre. These dwell-
ings went together to form neighborhoods that consisted
of a wide range of building types, and which offered a
variety of choices for future residents, but which was still
in character with the surrounding environment of San Jose
and its suburbs.
The proposed plan for the Coyote Valley development made use of the residential
typologies described here.
All drawings and photographs accompanying this article are courtesy of Solomon,
E.T.C., a WRT Company.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density
Exhibit A
43 Places 16.2
Research & Debate
Exhibit A
Shingle Creek
Commons
27
75 units
2.8 acres
low-rise apartments
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
Mill District
24
131 units
5.4 acres
mid-rise apartments
ownership data N/A
units
acre
St. Anthony /
Riverplace
20 units
acre
156 units
7.8 acres
side-attached
rowhouses, high-rise
apartments
97% owner-occupied
Lyndale Ave.
& 25th St.
19
78 units
4.1 acres
single-family detached,
duplex, stacked
rowhouse, low-rise
apartments, mixed-use
16% owner-occupied
units
acre
Crocus Hill
18
70 units
4 acres
single-family detached,
duplex, side-attached
rowhouses, low-rise
apartments
29% owner-occupied
units
acre
Hennepin Ave.
& 32nd St.
11
45 units
4.2 acres
single-family
detached, duplex,
low-rise apartments,
side-attached row-
houses, mixed use
55% owner-occupied
units
acre
Portland Place
8
32 units
4 acres
single-family
detached, duplex,
side-attached
rowhouses
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Humboldt
Greenway
7
28 units
4.2 acres
single-family
detached
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Riverside /
West Bank
28
56 units
2 acres
low-rise apartments,
side-attached
rowhouses
32% owner-occupied
units
acre
Linden Hills
32 units
acre
294 units
9.3 acres
single-family detached,
duplex, low- and mid-
rise apartments
5% owner-occupied
Cathedral Hill
34
134 units
3.9 acres
low-rise apartments,
side-attached
rowhouses
25% owner-occupied
units
acre
Stonehouse
Square
40
79 units
2 acres
low-rise apartments,
duplex
ownership data N/A
units
acre
East Village
62
180 units
2.9 acres
low-rise apartments,
stacked rowhouse,
mixed use
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Laurel Village
89
370 units
4.1 acres
low- and high-rise
apartments, mixed-
use
<1% owner-occupied
units
acre
Uptown
110
231units
2.1 acres
low- and mid-rise
apartments
23% owner-occupied
units
acre
Housing Densitydwelling units \ acre20
40
60
80
0
dwelling units \ acre20
40
60
80
0
Prepared for: The Minneapolis Corridor Housing Initiative. Revised April 2004College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture l University of Minnesota1 Ralph Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture l University of MinnesotaExhibit A
Type:
Duplex; Triplex
Plexes
R-2 Medium Density Residential Zone Code Standards
Density 10 -28 DU/acre*
Height 35 feet maximum**
Building Setbacks 10’ min. front;
5’ min. interior
Transition Standards to R-1 Zone None Required
Rowhouses
Type:
Rowhouse; Townhouse
Courtyard
Types:
Courtyard; Multifamily types facing or
clustered around shared open space
Apartment Complex
Types:
Complex of apartment blocks and other
multifamily types such as rowhouses
Apartment BlockSmall Lot Detached Houses
Type:
Small Lot Detached; Narrow House; Cottage
Clusters
Medium Density Housing Types
Where:
Neighborhoods; Infill lots;
20-min. Neighborhoods; Subdivisions
Where:
Infill, Neighborhood Main Streets &
Centers, Buffer Zones; Subdivisions
Where:
Neighborhood Main Streets & Centers
Where:
Corridors, Large Site Development
Where:
Neighborhoods; Infill lots;
20-min. Neighborhoods; Subdivisions
** 7’ height bonus for 6:12 or steeper roof slope
Density:
Example: Friar Tuck; Net Density 10
Density:
Example: Prairie View; Approx. 24 DU/ac
Density:
Example: Turtle Creek; Approx. 13 DU/ac
Density:
Example: Walnut Park; Approx. 16 DU/ac
Density:
Example: Cascade Manor; Approx. 25 DU/ac
Where:
Near Urban Core; Mixed Use Areas; Key Cor-
ridors; Neighborhood Centers
Density:
Example: Lucia; Approx. 28 DU/ac
Types:
Stacked units with a single entrance;
Generally more urban in massing and siting
Medium Density Housing Types in the Urban Form
Small Lot Single Family Detached
Plexes
Rowhouses
Courtyard
Apartment Complex
Apartment Block
www.envisioneugene.org
KEY
Residential & Commercial Types
other than Medium Density
Friar Tuck - Little John Lane & Robin Hood Ave. Walnut Park - Keller Street Turtle Creek - Hatton Avenue Lucia - Friendly Street & W 27th Avenue Prairie View - N. Danebo Avenue Cascade Manor - Portland Street & 29th Place
* Dwelling units per acre Exhibit A
Stillwater
12
36 units
2.9 acres
low-rise apartments,
detached single-family
homes
68.8% owner-occupied
units
acre
Woodbury
11
20 units
1.9 acres
rowhouses
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
North St. Paul
10 units
acre
121 units
11.7 acres
apartments
3.3% owner-occupied
Woodbury
10
53 units
5.5 acres
townhomes /
rowhouses
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Chaska
9
37 units
4 acres
townhomes
2.7% owner-occupied
units
acre
Robbinsdale
9
48 units
5.1 acres
duplexes
33.3% owner-occupied
units
acre
Robbinsdale
9
60 units
7 acres
detached single-
family homes, low-rise
apartment buildings
35.6% owner-occupied
units
acre
Woodbury
8
45 units
5.3 acres
townhomes
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
Hastings
15
44 units
2.9 acres
apartments over
commercial
7.3% owner-occupied
units
acre
Eden Prairie
18 units
acre
317 units
17.9 acres
rowhouses
ownership data N/A
Hastings
18
50 units
2.8 acres
low-rise apartments
and detached single-
family homes
12.2% owner-occupied
units
acre
Woodbury
21 units
acre
Stillwater
22
176 units
8 acres
rowhouses and
owner-occupied
apartments
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Woodbury
32
77 units
2.4 acres
townhomes
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
Minnetonka
50
131 units
2.6 acres
low-rise apartments
98.3% owner-occupied
units
acre
Housing Densitydwelling units \ acre20
40
60
0
dwelling units \ acre20
40
60
0
222 units
10.5 acres
low-rise apartments
0% owner-occupied College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture l University of Minnesota1 Ralph Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455www.designcenter.umn.eduPrepared for: The Minneapolis Corridor Housing InitiativeExhibit A
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 1
Staff Report – Rezoning
October 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project file Case #REZ17002
Current Zoning Residential Low Density (RL) and Residential Duplex (RD)
Proposed Zoning
Short Term Rental Overlay (STRO)
Address Between 160 and 600 Nottingham Road
Legal Description Lots 6-9; 43-51; 70 and 70a, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner
Introduction
The application in front of PZC would overlay all the residential properties along Nottingham
Road, between addresses 160 and 600, with the Short Term Rental Overlay (“STRO”) District.
The Planning and Zoning Commission (“PZC”) will review the application and conduct a
public hearing on October 17, 2017. After reviewing staff’s analysis and considering public
input, PZC will forward a recommendation to the Town Council.
Background
Earlier this year, staff was approached by a homeowner to permit short term rentals in his unit.
After a public hearing, PZC recommended, and Town Council agreed, that this individual
application was not suppo rtable for several reasons . B oth bodies found that the
individual application was not in compliance with comp plan; not compatible with surrounding
uses; and they were unable to determine if there would be significant impacts to surrounding
land uses. Town Council subsequently voted on a motion to have staff initiate pu blic
notification and an application for the inclusion of the entire area of Nottingham Road
residential area in the STRO District .
Process
The review process first requires a noticed public hearing with PZC. Final action is taken on the
Application by Town Council after conducting public hearings and either approval by Ordinance
or denial by motion.
History of STRO
Long after the platting of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Boulevard Subdivision, which split
the Town into residential, commercial, and park areas, the Town adopted a zone district map to
Staff Review &
Report
PUBLIC HEARING:
PZC
Council & 1st
Reading of
Ordinance
PUBLIC HEARING:
Council & 2nd
Reading of
Ordinance
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 2
mimic the general layout and intensity of land uses. The STRO district was created in 2009 as a
way to outright permit short term rentals in a large majority of the valley floor area. During the
public hearings related to the creation of the STRO, several iterations of the map were
presented to the Town Council and public for review. Most of the early versions of the overlay
district included areas of Nottingham Road, Eaglebend Drive, and even the Wildridge
Subdivision. A determination was made that the STRO could not legally be overlaid on PUD
zone districts (i.e. Wildridge, Eaglebend), and through further modifications to the approving
Ordinance, Nottingham Road was dropped out of the overlay area during Council approvals in
2009. The map below is the current STRO in orange, with some of the PUD districts that
explicitly permit short term rentals in green.
Area Description
Typical properties on Nottingham Road are multi-family structures with anecdotally high owner-
residency. The eastern edge of the proposed overlay district is the Medical office building and
the Further to the west on Nottingham Road the zoning changes to Light Industrial and
Commercial and eventually to open space.
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 3
Rezoning Review Criteria Analysis
As outlined in Sec. 7.20.060(b), the RL district “is a mixed dwelling district intended to provide
sites for single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings either in traditional neighborhoods
or in a setting with a mix of dwelling unit types. This district implements the residential low
density classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and can be located as a transitional use
between lower density single family development and medium density or mixed-use development.
Residential low density should be located along a local road.”
The review process and review criteria for zoning amendments are governed by AMC §7.16.050,
Rezonings. PZC shall use the criteria below as the basis for a recommendation on the
Application. Staff responses to each review criteria are provided.
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code;
The entire Purpose statement section from the Development Code (Section 7.04.030 -
Development Code Purposes) is outlined for reference:
(a) Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection,
construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for trade,
industry, residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot areas;
regulate and determine the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings; establish building
lines and locations of buildings designed for specified industrial, commercial, residential and
other uses within such areas; establish standards to which buildings or structures shall conform;
establish standards for use of areas adjoining such buildings or structures;
(b) Implement the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
planning documents of the Town;
(c) Comply with the purposes stated in state and federal regulations which authorize the
regulations in this Development Code;
(d) Avoid undue traffic congestion and degradation of the level of service provided by streets
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 4
and roadways, promote effective and economical mass transportation and enhance effective,
attractive and economical pedestrian opportunities;
(e) Promote adequate light, air, landscaping and open space and avoid undue concentration or
sprawl of population;
(f) Provide a planned and orderly use of land, protection of the environment and preservation of
viability, all to conserve the value of the investments of the people of the Avon community and
encourage a high quality of life and the most appropriate use of land throughout the
municipality;
(g) Prevent the inefficient use of land; avoid increased demands on public services and facilities
which exceed capacity or degrade the level of service for existing residents; provide for phased
development of government services and facilities which maximizes efficiency and optimizes
costs to taxpayers and users; and promote sufficient, economical and high-quality provision of all
public services and public facilities, including but not limited to water, sewage, schools, libraries,
police, parks, recreation, open space and medical facilities;
(h) Minimize the risk of damage and injury to people, structures and public infrastructure created
by wild fire, avalanche, unstable slopes, rock fall, mudslides, flood danger and other natural
hazards;
(i) Achieve or exceed federal clean air standards;
(j) Sustain water sources by maintaining the natural watershed, preventing accelerated erosion,
reducing runoff and consequent sedimentation, eliminating pollutants introduced directly into
streams and enhancing public access to recreational water sources;
(k) Maintain the natural scenic beauty of the Eagle River Valley in order to preserve areas of
historical and archaeological importance, provide for adequate open spaces, preserve scenic
views, provide recreational opportunities, sustain the tourist-based economy and preserve
property values;
(l) Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, practical and complimentary to
Avon's sub-alpine environment;
(m) Achieve innovation and advancement in design of the built environment to improve
efficiency, reduce energy consumption, reduce emission of pollutants, reduce consumption of
non-renewable natural resources and attain sustainability;
(n) Achieve a diverse range of attainable housing which meets the housing needs created by jobs
in the Town, provides a range of housing types and price points to serve a complete range of life
stages and promotes a balanced, diverse and stable full time residential community which is
balanced with the visitor economy;
(o) Promote quality real estate investments which conserve property values by disclosing risks,
taxes and fees; by incorporating practical and comprehensible legal arrangements; and by
promoting accuracy in investment expectations; and
(p) Promote the health, safety and welfare of the Avon community.
Staff Response: The application is compliant with the purpose statements of the Development
Code. The character and primary use of the zone district would remain residential and
consistent with the intent of the zone district classifications of the Town.
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 5
(2) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response: The rezoning application is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
and supporting planning documents listed above. The property is located in District 9: Valley
Residential District. The area includes all of the residential on Nottingham Road, Beaver Creek
Boulevard, and the Aspens Village. Most of the other areas of District 9 also possess the STRO
district as approved in 2009.
The planning principles for this district deal primarily with improving connectivity,
wayfinding, and pedestrian improvements. Staff is concerned that the changes to the area
may bring transient people to an area with little walkability . However, the area has
recently improved in walkability and is continuing to become more attractive to
pedestrians . Pedestrian crossings are being added along Nottingham Road, as well as a
new sidewalk on the north side of Nottingham Road will be installed to connect even
more properties with essential services.
General land use goals and policies from the Avon Comprehensive Plan worth noting include:
Goal B.1: Provide a balance of land uses that offer a range of housing options,
diverse commercial and employment opportunities, inviting guest
accommodations, and high quality civic and recreational facilities
that work in concert to strengthen Avon’s identity as both a year-
round residential community and as a commercial, tourism and
economic center.
Policy B.2.2: Promote a wide range of residential uses throughout the Town.
A common critique of short term rentals is that they limit the availability of housing for residents,
and may drive up housing costs as speculative interests compete with locals for property. On the
other hand, locals report that the ability to offer short term rentals of a spare bedroom allows
them to stay in their house despite high costs of living. PZC should carefully weigh the overlay
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 6
district’s benefits and the costs to the town before making a decision on this application.
(3) Physical suitability of the land for the proposed development or
subdivision;
Staff Response: The Property is physically suitable for the proposed short term rental
overlay district. Staff recognizes that there are negative externalities associated with
incorporating a transient or vacation population into an area. Issues such as parking, trash,
and noise must be considered, and staff feels that HOAs are the best equipped to decide
appropriate rules on an individual basis. If properties are not comfortable with short term
rental, their by-laws can reflect that.
(4) Compatibility with surrounding land uses;
Staff Response: The surrounding land includes commercial, light industrial, open space, and
residential land uses. The STRO appears to be compatible on the scale proposed, and no
major conflicts are anticipated. From a pedestrian perspective, the properties are
somewhat isolated from the core of Town and other public amenities including minimal
sidewalk connections and no current bus routes. Crossing Nottingham Road on foot
is at minimum not compelling, and at worst dangerous. As mentioned above, some
sidewalks and crossings are planned in coordination with budgeted road overlay projects.
Guests would likely need to arrive by private vehicles and would need to travel by vehicle for
any activity.
(5) Whether the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing
conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned;
Staff Response: While the conditions of the area have not changed greatly, the online rental
business has evolved rapidly. Since the STRO district was created in 2009, the environment
for owners to market their properties and for guests in resort areas to shop for rentals has
grown considerably. The barriers to rent out space are much lower due to new technology
and it is a viable option for a wider variety of homeowners. This application responds to the
changing ease of short term property rentals by extending the district to its last logical
location in Avon.
(6) Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development for
the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone compared to the existing zoning,
while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: No additional facilities are required to serve the development if short-term
rentals are allowed in this area. If individual HOAs conclude that they do not have enough
facilities to serve short term rental uses, they can make that determination on their own.
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 7
(7) Whether the rezoning is consistent with the stated purpose of the
proposed zoning district(s);
Staff Response: The Nottingham Road corridor has Residential Low (RL) and a single
Residential Duplex (RD) zoned properties. According to the stated purpose of the RL
district, it “can be located as a transitional use between lower density single family
development and medium density or mixed-use development. Residential low density
should be located along a local road.” According to the stated purpose of the RD district,
“The RD district is established to accommodate single -family and duplex residential
development either as single neighborhoods of similar units or in a development with a mix of
unit types. This district implements both the residential low density and residential medium
density classifications of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located along a local
road.”
The STRO district is intended to “allow short term rentals of properties, including but not
limited to accommodate, apartments, bed and breakfast, condominium, hotel, lodge, motel
and residential properties.” If the corridor was rezoned with the STRO district it would
continue to be subject to all underlying requirements of the zone districts and generally
consistent with the purpose statements of the RL and RD districts.
(8) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in
adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater
management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts upon the natural
environment compared to the existing zoning. No substantive changes to air, water,
noise, etc. are expected. The nature of the use is still residential.
(9) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
Staff Response: No substantial impacts to other properties in the vicinity are envisioned
with a STRO district applied to the corridor. Future uses on the east side of Nottingham
Road could intensify and include more residential development as permitted in the RL
district, however the rezoning is not likely to impact those future adjacent uses.
(10) For rezoning within an existing PUD, consistency with the relevant PUD
Master Plan as reflected in the approval of the applicable PUD; and,
Staff Response: No PUDs are included within the STRO district.
(11) Adequate mitigation is required for zoning amendment applications which
result in greater intensity of land use or increased demands on public facilities and
infrastructure.
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 8
Staff Response: The intensity of use is comparable to existing residential uses. Incremental
changes to the character of the corridor do not increase demands on public facilities or
infrastructure.
Available Options
1. Continue the Public Hearing to a date certain, pending additional information.
2. Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council
approve the application, together with findings.
3. Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council
deny the application, together with findings.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval as explained herein. If amendable, PZC can direct Staff to prepare
a formal Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and recommendation to Council pursuant to
Section 7.16.020(f)(3), Findings, to be presented to the Council for final action.
Additionally, staff feels that the regulations pertaining to STRO are not adequately serving the
community. Resort communities have struggled with this issue, and some are more
sophisticated in their regulations to diminish some of the problems associated with short term
rentals. While not in the scope of this application, an additional process that addresses further
requirements of short term rentals across the entire STRO overlay district is recommended to
reach a more comprehensive policy independent from this application moving forward.
Recommended Motions and Findings:
“I move to recommend Town Council approval of Case #REZ17002, an application for rezoning of
Lots 6-9; 43-51; 70 and 70a, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, together with the
findings of fact.”
The following Findings may be applied:
1. The Application was reviewed in accordance §7.16.050, Rezonings, Avon
Development Code, and is found to be in substantial compliance with the review
criteria and Avon Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the staff report for the
October 17, 2017 public hearing;
2. The Application is substantially compliant with the purpose statements of the
Development Code by providing for the orderly, efficient use of the Property, while
at the same time conserving the value of the investments of owners of property in
Town; and
3. Short term rentals on the corridor would be compatible and pose negligible
impacts upon the current and future potential uses of neighboring properties.
Attachments
REZ17002 Nottingham Road Short Term Overlay 9
a. Public Comments
Attachment A
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Solar Variance 2807 Saddle Ridge
1
Staff Report – Variance Application
October 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project file Case #VAR17002
Legal description Lot 4, Wildridge Acres
Address 2807 Shepherd Ridge
Zoning PUD
Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planer
Introduction
The Applicant, Bob Matarese, submitted a variance application (the proposal) to allow the
installation of ground mounted solar panels without maximizing the solar panels on the roof. The
Applicant is requesting a Variance from Development Code section 7.28.100(g)(2)(i)(C) which states,
“A solar array may only be proposed when a solar collection system has been maximized on a property's
primary structure.” Furthermore, the ground-mounted array is proposed to be approximately 670 square feet,
and exceeds the 600 square foot maximum for ground mounted solar according to 7.28.100(g)(2)(i)(A)(3).
The proposed project size would result in a net -zero electricity house.
This Variance application is being processed without a corresponding Development Plan application. That is,
while the application proposes a rough location of the solar panels, the October 17 public hearing will be based
on the concept of a variance from the required standards, and not on the exact details of the design. The
applicant has not completed a land survey, which would be required for the exact placement of the panels, and
will only be completed pending the outcome of this application. Should PZC choose, it can ask for the
completed minor development to be brought before them, once finalized.
Site Description
2809 Shepherd Ridge is zoned PUD. There is little southern exposed space on the house’s roof
and the available locations are not large enough for the entirety of the proposed solar project.
View of 2809 Shepherd Ridge, viewed from the south
Ground Mounted Solar Panel Requirements
Standards. All ground-mounted solar collection systems shall comply with the following requirements:
(A) Setbacks, Location and Height:
1) A ground-mounted solar collection system shall not be located in the front yard between the
principal structure and the public right-of-way.
2) A ground-mounted solar collection system shall comply with all setback requirements for the zone
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Solar Variance 2807 Saddle Ridge
2
district within which it is located.
3) An accessory ground-mounted solar collection system in any residential district shall not exceed
the greater of one-half (½) the footprint of the principal structure or six hundred (600) square feet,
whichever is less. The size of accessory arrays in mixed-use and nonresidential districts shall not
exceed one-half (½) of the footprint of the principal structure.
4) A ground-mounted solar collection system shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height.
(B) Solar Easements. A property owner who has installed or intends to install a ground-mounted solar
collection system shall be responsible for negotiating with other property owners in the vicinity for any
necessary solar easement and shall record the easement in the Eagle County land records.
(C) Additional Standards. A solar array may only be proposed when a solar collection system has been
maximized on a property's primary structure.
Variance Request
Process
The Planning and Zoning Commission (“PZC”) will review the Application and conduct a public
hearing on October 17, 2017. After reviewing the Application materials, staff’s analysis, and
considering public input, the PZC will make a final determination with written findings and record of
decision.
Purpose
In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships
inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code as would result from strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or
the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the
immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or traffic conditions in the
immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a
regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance.
Review Criteria
The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an application for a
variance:
(1) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites
in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of the Development Code without grant of special
privilege;
Staff Response: The applicant is requesting 100% relief from the requirement that, “A solar array may
only be proposed when a solar collection system has been maximized on a property's primary structure.”
The applicant considers the south-facing garage section and the east facing section of the house the only
places capable of holding panels (or, per code, requiring “maximization”). These sections could potentially
house ten (10) panels, which is the quantity of panels to be relieved. The total project size is 28 panels and
670 square feet. To meet code and achieve the desired output, this arrangement would still require at least
18 (roughly 430 square feet) ground mounted panels and two locations of roof mounted panels. The
aesthetic would be less appealing that a single location containing all the panels, located roughly 40 feet
below the street level.
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Solar Variance 2807 Saddle Ridge
3
(2) 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
Staff Response: The proposed g round mount array would have no effect on any of the above listed
items. The array would be down the hill on the western edge of the property, which is adjacent to
public lands and would have minimal impact any neighboring properties .
(3) Such other factors and criteria related to the subject property, proposed development or
variance request as the decision-making body deems applicable to the proposed variance.
Staff Response: From a functional and aesthetic perspective, a single ground mounted solar array is the
best option for the property. It would be unobtrusive from the cul-de-sac. It would provide the
necessary power output for the property owners, and be in one location, vs. multiple roof areas and a
ground mount.
Findings Required
According to Section 7.16.110(d) of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission
shall make the following written findings before granting a variance:
1. 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;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
3. That the variance is warranted for one (1) or more of the following reasons:
i. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the
Development Code;
ii. 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; or
iii. 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 zone district.
Staff Response
Due to the unsightly nature of the alternative three locations, granting of this variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties. However, staff is wary of
precedent, so included recommended finding # 7, so that the total size of the system corresponds to the
usage of the house. The variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The strict interpretation of the code
would result in a practical difficulty in materials, installation, and maintenance of the system that is
inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.
Recommended Motions and Findings:
“I move to Approve Case #VAR17002, an application for relief of Municipal Code section
7.28.100(g)(2)(i)(C) and 7.28.100(g)(2)(i)(A)(3) on Lot 4 Wildridge Acres, with the findings of fact as
recommended by staff.”
Findings
1. The application complies with the review criteria set forth in AMC Sections 7.16.110(c) and the
required findings in Section 7.16.110(d) as described below;
2. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Solar Variance 2807 Saddle Ridge
4
limitations on other properties classified in the same district;
3. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
4. The variance is warranted because the strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the roof
maximization regulation would result in practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of the
Development Code;
5. Strict compliance with the code would have resulted in an unsightly assortment of solar
collectors on the roof and the ground;
6. The ground mounted panel location will be down a steep slope and minimally visually impactful to
the community; and
7. The project scope of net neutral energy usage is the maximum practical solar array to permit
without roof maximization.
Exhibits
A. Variance Narrative
Attachment A
David,
Per your Request: (Section C)
Review Criteria. The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an
application for a variance:
(1)
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified
regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of the Development Code without grant of special privilege; 100% relief from
the regulation is required. A roof mounted solar array doesn’t supply enough power to be a viable
option, and thus a ground mount would be required anyway. A roof array would span 3 different areas
of the roof, wouldn’t have a uniform or aesthetically pleasing appearance and would only produce about
~30% of the home energy needs.
(2)
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and
traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety; The proposed Ground Mount array would
have zero effect on any of the above listed items. The array would be down the hill on the western edge
of the property, which is adjacent to public lands and would have no impact on any neighboring
property as well.
(3)
Such other factors and criteria related to the subject property, proposed development or variance
request as the decision-making body deems applicable to the proposed variance. From a functional, as
well as aesthetic perspective, a ground mounted solar array is the best option for the property. It would
be “virtually invisible” from the cul-de-sac. It would provide the necessary power output for the
property owners, and be in one location, vs. multiple roof areas AND a ground mount.
Richard Clubine
Active Energies Solar, LLC.
Vail Valley Partnership Small Business of the Year
Solar Sales | Solar Design| Solar Installation
O: 970-306-4233 | C: 970-445-0439 | F: 866-403-3485
Mailing: PO Box 7627, Avon, CO 81620
Physical: 103 Williams St., Minturn, CO 81645
Web: www.activeenergies.com
Keep up on the latest news by following us on Facebook & on Twitter!
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
431 Metcalf Live/Work application Page | 1
Staff Report
Case #SRU17002 Special Use Review and MNR17050 Minor Development
October 17, 2017 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Introduction
This staff report contains two (2) combined applications. Jeff Manley (the Applicant) is
requesting a Special Review Use (SRU) Permit to allow the use of two live/work units at the
Avon Mini Storage Center (Property). Also included is a Minor Development Plan to modify
the exterior of the property. The property is zoned Light Industrial and Commercial (IC).
One proposed unit is a single bedroom unit, and the other is a two bedroom unit. They will be
constructed within the existing working space occupied by Avon Mini Storage, LLC. The
remaining space within the building will be maintained as storage space for the primary
business. The live/work units will have direct access to the exterior, as required by building
occupancy code.
Site Description
Aerial View of the lot
Lot 12 is zoned Industrial Commercial (IC) and live/work units are permitted as a Special
Review Use pursuant to §7.16.100, Special Review Use. T here are two (2) other live/work
units within the building. AMC 7.20.080(g) and Table 7.20-13 permit four (4) dwelling units
per property (Lot), and require Special Use Review of applications. If approved, there would be
Project type Special Use Review and Minor Development
Public Hearing Required Not Required
Legal Description
Zoning
Lot 12 Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Light Industrial and Commercial (IC)
Address 431 Metcalf Road
Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
431 Metcalf Live/Work application Page | 2
the maximum 4 (four) dwelling units on the lot.
Avon Municipal Code Review Standards:
• §7.16.100 Special Review Use
• §7.20.080 – IC Zone District
• §7.24.060 – Special Review Uses
• Table 7.20.13 – Dimensions for the Light Industrial and Commercial Employment District
Special Use Review
Special Use Reviews are regulated in AMC 7.16.100 and, “provides a discretionary approval
process for special review uses that have unique or widely varying operating characteristics
or unusual site development features. The procedure encourages public review and evaluation
of a use’s operating characteristics and site development features and is intended to ensure that
proposed use will not have a significant adverse impact on surrounding uses or on the
community at large.”
Review Criteria. The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an
application for a special review use:
1) The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable
provisions of this Development Code and applicable state and federal regulations;
Staff Response: General Comprehensive Plan references to housing are found below:
Goal B.1: Provide a balance of land uses that offer a range of housing options, diverse
commercial and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations, and high quality civic
and recreational facilities that work in concert to strengthen Avon’s identity as both a year-round
residential community and as a commercial, tourism and economic center.
Policy B.2.2: Promote a wide range of residential uses throughout the Town.
This property is located within District 6: Gulch Area District within the Comprehensive Plan. The
District description states, “Live/ work development opportunities in the Light Industrial and
Commercial zone district that do not possess significant conflicts with surrounding land uses should
be encouraged.” The planning principles state, “Accommodate residential development that
supports primary industrial or employment land uses.”
Staff reviewed the proposed live/work units according to the Municipal Code standards listed above
and found no conflict with the intensity of use or scale of the proposal. The proposed units are
applied to house “Eagle County Employee[s]” (attachment A), whom may or may not use this
industrial area for work. While this proposal satisfies the AMC definition of a live/ work dwelling
(“an attached dwelling unit that contains a commercial component of not more than a specified
percentage of the unit's gross floor area”), PZC has conditioned similar applications with the
requirement that the occupants work for the business or on the property of the dwelling unit. In this
case, the applicant has stated that the real and pressing need of housing in the Eagle Valley require
expanding the area to all of Avon. Staff feels that this is satisfactory to achieve the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan and has therefore modified the Condition to include all of Avon for required
tenant employment. Some additional Municipal Code considerations are listed below the review
criteria.
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
431 Metcalf Live/Work application Page | 3
2) The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in
which it is located and any applicable use-specific standards in the Development Code;
Staff Response: Live/work units are permitted as a Special Review Use in the IC zone district.
Uses permitted in the IC zone district are intended to serve community and regional needs and the
housing uses are consistent with the purpose and intent of the IC zone district.
3) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design and
operating characteristics;
Staff Response: A live/work unit within this specific IC zone is compatible with, and will not
negatively impact, adjacent uses which are non-intensive and commercial in nature. While staff has
not heard of excessive parking pressure on the property, it is certainly a concern. A properly
functioning management plan is paramount to the success of this project to limit these and other
concerns. Staff’s recommended Condition may help alleviate some of the pressures by tying
employment in Avon and residence together, thereby minimizing the need for a car.
4) Any significant adverse impacts (including but not limited to hours of operation, traffic
generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust and other external impacts) anticipated to result from
the use will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent practicable;
Staff Response: Live/work units correspond well to the legally existing use on the property. They
will have a negligible impact on traffic generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust, and other external
impacts.
5) Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas, electricity,
police and fire protection and roads and transportation, as applicable) will be available to
serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service for existing
development; and
Staff Response: The live/work units will be included in all applicable utilities and services,
including police and fire protection. It should have a negligible impact on these utilities and
services.
6) Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided.
Staff Response: Continued maintenance is essential for the property to provide both an appealing
residential component and the continued successful commercial businesses. With one owner, it is
anticipated that the same level of maintenance and oversight of the property will be maintained into
the future.
Additional Considerations
Parking and Traffic
Staff agrees with the analysis (Attachment B) that there is sufficient supply of parking spaces on
the property to accommodate the uses per code. Staff also anticipates increased parking
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
431 Metcalf Live/Work application Page | 4
management issues due to the nature of the development and adjacent uses. This lot has an
advantage over other similar live/ work units in the area because the building has a single owner.
Building Code
The plans have been reviewed by Williams Gray, Town Building Official, and are found to require
some minor modifications regarding egress and fire barriers, which can be achieved after
processing this SRU.
Minor Development Plan
Review Criteria:
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified
in Section 7.04.030, Purposes;
(2) Evidence of substantial compliance with Section 7.16.090, Design review;
(3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
(4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned
development or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as
applicable;
(5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in th is Code,
including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official
Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards;
and
(6) That the development can be adequately served by city services, including but not limited
to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection and emergency medical services.
Staff has reviewed the application and found the addition of aluminum clad slider windows on the
east and north elevations to be in compliance with the applicable Review Criteria.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to approve Case #SRU17002, an application for a live/work unit within the
commercial property on Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision together
with staff’s recommended findings and conditions.”
Findings:
(1) The Application was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the provisions and
procedures outlined in §7.16.100, Avon Municipal Code; and
(2) Live/ work units are supported by the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, as outlined
in Staff’s Report.
Condition:
(1) The live/work units will be leased to employee(s) working within Avon.
(2) The units may not be subdivided.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to approve Case #MNR17050, an application for exterior modifications on Lot 12, Block 1,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision together with staff’s recommended findings.”
October 17, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
431 Metcalf Live/Work application Page | 5
Findings:
(1) The Application was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the provisions and
procedures outlined in §7.16.080, Avon Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) Application description
(B) Application site and floor plan
Date: 09-28-2017
RE: 000431 Metcalf Road #A, SRU and P&Z design review submittal
Town of Avon
Community Dev./Planning
Matt Pielsticker
Avon, CO 81620
Town of Avon,
It is the goal of the Owner of 431 Metcalf Rd, Dan Sunday, to add 1 one bedroom and 1 two bedroom
employee of Eagle County apartments within the existing building. In August of 2007, a SRU was
granted by the Town of Avon for the addition of 1 one bedroom and 1 two bedroom apartment. In
reviewing with the Planning department it was confirmed that current zoning would allow for up to 4
total apartments within the building. We are submitting for the review of a Special Review Use to add
the 2 more apartments, making the total number of apartments at the maximum of 4.
Address: 431 Metcalf Road #A, Lot 12, Block1, is Zoned for Industrial/Commercial
The project addresses the Review Criteria.
(1) The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable provisions of this
Development Code and applicable state and federal regulations:
The proposed mix of apartments within the Industrial/commercial zoning already exists within this
building and other buildings on Metcalf. The addition of more Eagle County Employee housing is
needed and would qualify as a public benefit.
This project complies with all other requirements of the Zoning Code and in conformance with the
Town Comprehensive Plan. Previous approval was granted for the other 2 apartments if 2007. A
Minor Development Plan application is being presented concurrently with the SRU for the exterior and
interior renovations for the additional 2 apartments.
(2) The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it is
located and any applicable use-specific standards in the Development Code;
The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent.
(3) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design and operating
characteristics;
The proposed use is compatible. The conformation is to the fact that there is existing resident
apartments within this building and others along Metcalf Rd.
(4) Any significant adverse impacts (including but not limited to hours of operation, traffic
generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust and other external impacts) anticipated to result from the use
will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent practicable;
No further impacts are anticipated. The current parking lot has sufficient parking to accommodate the
addition of the 2 apartments. A summary is on Sheet A1, Site Plan for calculation of parking and
conformance with Development Code section 7.28.__. The addition of the two apartments will have
little change to the traffic demands of Metcalf. The two apartments will take over space that was
previously used as mini storage, so the demand is not totally new or added.
Attachment A
(5) Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas, electricity, police and fire
protection and roads and transportation, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property
while maintaining adequate levels of service for existing development; and
The current public services are adequate to serve the new development of two apartments. Utilities
will be tied into the existing building’s systems. The existing fire suppression system and alarm will be
reworked as needed to accommodate the new apartments. Both apartments are adjacent to existing
rated exit ways.
(6) Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided.
Continued maintenance is essential to the property as a whole to provide both an appealing residential
component and the continued successful commercial businesses below.
Also,…The proposed residential land use is within the existing building and uses the existing facilities.
Housing is needed in the Town of Avon. This is development is done with no further impact to the site
or footprint of the building. Placing employee housing close to Avon’s core will benefit both the
employee and Town with less travel distance for a local workforce.
There are no anticipated adverse impacts due to the addition of the 2 more apartments.
The application is in compliance with the Town of Avon’s Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you,
Jeffrey P Manley AIA
Martin Manley Architects
970-328-1299 (direct)
jeff@martinmanleyarchitects.com
DDW
DN
DN
WREF.REF.
DW
W
5 6 7 8
6.1
D
C
E
1 2
A
10 11
1
5
5 7
8
1
2 2
32 parking spaces (existing)
PARKING REQUIREMENTS (TABLE 7.28-2)
DWELLING, MULTI FAMILY
2 TWO BEDROOM UNITS x 2 PER UNIT = 4 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
2 ONE BEDROOM (UNDER 2500 S.F.) 1 PER UNIT = 2 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
GUEST PARKING 3-5 UNITS =2 PARKING SPACES
3 PER 1000 S.F. OFFICE-
( 1900 S.F. MAIN +1300 S.F. BASEMENT=3200 S.F. /1000x3)= 9.6 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED
1 PER 800 S.F. INDUSTRY (WAREHOUSE )
(7325 S.F. MAIN LVL /800x1) = 9.2 PARKING SPACES
PROPOSED CALCULATION
(BASED ON A HOUSTON, TX PARKING STANDARD (used since ITE parking generator calculator was not available)
1 PER 40 MINI STORAGE UNITS 20-40 WIRE CAGE UNITS = 1 PARKING SPACE REQUIRED
(5120 S.F. UPPER LVL)
TOTAL PROPOSED REQUIRED PARKING SPACES = 27.8
PER SECTION 7.28.020-PARKING and LOADING, (g) COMPUTATION OF PARKING...,
(2) CALCULATION:, (ii) MIXED USE REDUCTION
If the director determines that the proposed use represents a combination of uses listed in table 7.28-2, Off-street parking, a
15% reduction shall apply to the total parking calculation.
15% of 27.8 spaces is 4.17
27.8 spaces -(4.17 reduction) = 23.63 required parking spaces
EXISTING PARKING LOT HAS 28 PARKING STALLS+ 4 available in front of garage doors= 32 stalls
HC
1 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONS9/28/2017 11:01:23 AMA1SITE PLAN1775Employee Rental unitsSRU and P & Z Design Review Set09-28-17Avon Mini Storage431 Metcalf Road #A , Lot 12, Block 1No.DescriptionDate1" = 20'-0"1 Site Plan
project north
PHOTO OF NORTHPHOTO OF EAST
REPLACE PANELS WHERE DAMAGED OR AS NEEDED TO ADD NEW WINDOWS. MATCH EXISTING
Attachment B
DDW
DN
DN
WREF.REF.
DW
W
UP
UP
5 6 7 8
20' - 0"20' - 0"5' - 0"
Dchase2' - 10"minimize
1' - 6 1/2"
C
1' - 4 1/2"5' - 10"5' - 3 1/2"6' - 7 1/2"2' - 10"17' - 6"12' - 3"39' - 2"E5 1/2"5' - 10"3' - 8"2' - 5"12' - 5"45' - 0"
3' - 10"
5 1/2"
3' - 10"
13' - 0"
MOVE EXISTING DOOR
(20 MIN WITH LIGHT)
FURR OUT EXISTING DUCT
AND COLUMN TO PROVIDE
DRYWALL ENCLOSURE
(MINIMIZE SIZE AS POSSIBLE)
NEW FLUSH 20
MIN. FIRE
RATED DOOR
11 1/2"1' - 11 1/2"
9' - 0"
7' - 7"
6' - 0"6"5' - 2"
5 1/2"
13' - 0"4 1/2"
LIVING
BDRMBDRMBATH12
A
10 11
4,105 s.f.
(R-2) use group
5,120 s.f.
(S-2) use group
Table 508.4
1 hour rating on wall
construction
Table 715.4
Door to have 20 min. fire
rating and closers
existing rated door and 8"
CMU wall construction on
stair enclosure
t r a v e l d i s t a n c e 9 7 's e c o n d a r y d i s t a n c e 1 4 5 '20 minSD
SD
CM
CM
CM
verify existing hall has CO detector
SD
KITCHEN
4' - 11"14' - 2"6' - 10"7' - 4"2' - 7"6' - 3 1/2"
1' - 6"
14' - 11 1/2"
KITCHEN
2' - 5"
3' - 8 1/2"
9' - 11 1/2"5' - 0"5' - 3 1/2"12' - 5 1/2"5' - 10"3' - 7"12' - 5 1/2"30" tall
built-in
table 36" tall
counter
3' - 11"
2' - 2 1/2"8' - 7"BDRM
6' - 2"8' - 3"6' - 1"5' - 6 1/2"SD
SD
SD
CM
smoke detector
carbom monoxide detector
legend1' - 0"6' - 0"5' - 5 1/2"2' - 8 1/2"6' - 0"13' - 2"Employee Housing
Rental Units
0"
Main Level
-14' -0"
5 6 7 86.1
14' - 0"(3)SLIDER10854 (2)SLIDER7254
EGRESS
LINE OF STUCCO PROFILE TO BE REMOVED
NEW STUCCO PROFILE TO WRAPP OVER TOP OF NEW WINDOWS
PROVIDE NEW METAL FLASHING AT TOP.
SLOPE TOP OF STUCCO PROFILE
ALL NEW WINDOWS POSITIONED BETWEEN EXISTING HORIZONTAL GIRTS
ALL WINDOWS ARE ALUM. CLAD SLIDER WINDOWS
Min U-Value of .32
NEW OPENINGS ARE FRAMED BY EXISTING OR NEW C-CHANNEL FRAMES AT ARE 3"
LARGER THAN WINDOE R.O. TO ALLOW FOR 2X BUCK AT PERIMETER FOR NEW WINDOWS
STUCCO WALL TO EXTEND UP TO TOP OF
NEW WINDOWS AND NEW PROFILE
LOCATION
REPAIR EXISTING CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM
TO MAKE A SMOOTH TRASITION FROM
EXISTING TO NEW
CAREFULLY CUT EXISTING METAL PANELS TO CREATE A CLEAN BOTTOM EDGE
1 2 10 11
25' - 8 3/8"
(3)SLIDER10854(2)SLIDER7254
EGRESS
(2)SLIDER7254 (2)SLIDER7254
EGRESS
REPLACE PANELS WHERE DAMAGED OR AS
NEEDED TO ADD NEW WINDOWS. MATCH EXISTING
5 6 7 8
6.1
D
C
E
1 2
A
10 11
9,225s.f.
(B/S-2) use group
(no work in this level)970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONS9/28/2017 11:01:25 AMA2FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATION1775Employee Rental unitsSRU and P & Z Design Review Set09-28-17Avon Mini Storage431 Metcalf Road #A , Lot 12, Block 11/8" = 1'-0"1 Employee Housing Rental Units
1/8" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
Employee Housing
Owner: ALPINE VENDING & VIDEO INC
c/o Danial Sunday
PO Box 5160
Avon, CO 81631
Location: Lot 79, Wildridge Subdivision
431 Metcalf Road
Avon, CO 81620
Parcel #:2105-021-08-001
Class of Work: Renovation
Type of Construction: Type VB
Type of Occupancy: B/S-2/R-2
Levels: 2-story +basement
Sprinklered: Yes
Heating-Base board Heat (gas)
(hydronic off existing boiler)
Existing Parking: 32 spaces
Architect:Martin Manley Architect
Jeffrey P Manley AIA
PO Box 1587
Eagle, CO 81631
970.328.5151
jeff@martinmanleyarchitects.com
Project Description:
Convertion of part of the 2 nd story storage warehouse
area to apartments for rent.
1980 s.f. of warehouse is to be renovated to become 2
apartments. The Owner's goal is to provide more Eagle
County Employee housing. The two bedroom unit shall be
assigned 2 stalls and the one bedroom 1 stall
There are 2 other existing two bedroom apartments in this
building today.
P and Z review items:
Additional windows on the East and north elevations, and
revision to stucco metal panel location on east and north
elevations
existing appartment #1
existing appartment #2
1/8" = 1'-0"3 Main Level
Basement area not shown
(no work in this level)
1300 s.f.
Ceiling mounted
emergency lighting and
signage
Ceiling mounted
emergency lighting and
signage
Ceiling mounted emergency
lighting and signage
Insulation:
The Exterior east and north wall at the new apartments
shall recieve a minimum of R-25 insulation. The wall
between the units shall have R-21 sound batt insulation,
There shall be R-21 batt insulation above the dropped
ceilings
Ceilings:
Ceilings are to be dropped to 9'-6" throughout with
exception of the closets and baths which shall be 8'-1"
Fire sprinkler heads are to be reworked to have a head
above the ceilings and within the ceilings to serve the new
apartments
The ceiling framing shall be rigid enough for a
maintenance person to crawl above ceiling No.DescriptionDatestack
washer
dryer
Ceiling mounted emergency
lighting and signage