PZC Minutes 080195 (2)RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
August 01, 1995
The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Jack Hunn at 7:30 PM, August 1, 1995 in the Council Chambers,
Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. All members present
except for Bill Sargis and Buz Reynolds.
Members Present: Jack Hunn, Beth Stanley,
Rhoda Schneiderman, Sue
Railton, Henry Vest
Staff Present: Mike Matzko, Director
of Community Development,
Karen Griffith, Town Planner,
Sheila Kremski, Recording
Secretary
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (6:15pm worksession)
Lots 1 & 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following items were scheduled on the Amended Consent Agenda:
1. Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, Change in roof color and siding color
2. Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Deck Addition
3. Lot 5, Block 2, Eaglebend Subdivision, Fence
4. Lot 42, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Modification, Chimney added, siding
change, minor window modification
5. Lot 40, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Landscape Modification and revised
grading plan
6. Lot 8.5, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Meyerstein, Revision to final plan
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Consent Agenda (Con.'t)
7. Lot 1, Riverside Subdivision, Eaglebend III, Modification, Retaining Wall
8. Approval of the July 18, 1995 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes.
2
Karen Griffith described the Consent Agenda. Henry Vest moved to approve the consent
agenda with the removal of item #6, Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Meyerstein,
Revision to final plan, to better discuss later in the meeting. Seconded by Sue Railton and
the motion unanimously carried.
PUBLIC BEARINGS
Avon Village
Staff stated the Avon Village Annexation Public Hearing was opened on July 18th, with
the public hearing continued to the August 1, 1995 meeting. Staff is not forwarding a
report at this time pending submission of a proposed PUD Ordinance by the applicant.
Staff anticipates completing its report following receipt of the proposed PUD ordinance
from the applicant. If need be, the hearing schedule can be revised. However, the first
reading of the Ordinance remains scheduled for the August 8, 1995 Town Council
meeting.
Staff recommends following public comments, close the public hearing, and following
Commission's questions or comments, table the application.
Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing, continuing the August 1, 1995 Avon Village
Public Hearing.
Sue Wollin Brown was present as the Director of the Eagle County School District Head
Start Program and also a member of the Eagle Valley Family Center. Eagle Valley Family
Center is a health and human services cooperative with over 35 member agencies who
provide comprehensive health and human services for the Eagle Valley. A member list has
been passed out for the Commissions reference. Sue is here this evening with a few
representatives of the various agencies, Nancy Nottingham, the Manager of Children
Services for Vail Associates, Sharon Thompson, a member of the Head Start Advisory
Board and the Mountain Board of Cooperative Educational Services, Ray Suthord,
represents Healthy Babies and Families. The combined groups of the Eagle Valley Family
Center provide services for many residents and many more people when you consider the
groups of students of Colorado Mountain College (CMC). They were present to voice
their interest that the annexation planning process include provisions for growth issues
that are critical to the future health of our community, many times they are left for last
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Village (Con-'t�
when the should be first, like health and human services, housing, and transportation. Sue
has seen an enormous amount of change over the 21 years she has lived in this Valley, but
with the change she has seen tremendous growth issues that should have taken longer to
developed had we grown more slowly. The Family Center is working together
collaboratively to find ways to address and provide solutions to human services needs.
The Town of Avon has a new opportunity to plan for all areas of growth including the
vital human needs that will make this town as the commercial and residential core of the
community and a great place to live, work, and play. Including these community
backbone issues and the annexation the town officials will leave a legacy of vision and
have an accomplishment of which to be truly proud. They encourage town officials and
representatives of the development group to visit with us at another time at the
Commissions convenience and look at opportunities to meet this great growth with great
foresight.
Chairperson Hunn closed the public hearing.
Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, stated that this was the third meeting in front of
the Planning and Zoning Commission, a work session was held on May 2, 1995 and a
public hearing on July 18, 1995, a public information meeting was held on June 22, 1995,
and a field trip to the site for the Commissions on July 20, 1995. At the July 18, 1995
meeting a broad overview of the project and started to get into the detail questions and
comments and now we are continuing the overview tonight. There is a copy of the PUD
guide for the property which contains information that has been in the project notebook
the Commission had received since last April. Clearly one of the major issues has been
traffic improvements through the buildout of the project. Arnie Ulevig, Felsberg, Holt,
and Ulevig, the applicants transportation consultant, were present to give an overview of
the traffic improvements proposed by the applicant. The Town of Avon has had a Master
Transportation Plan for several years which has anticipated more development and trip
coming in and out of the Stolport than the applicant is proposing today. The applicant
realizes that the Town in conjunction with that estimate of the development of this
property several years ago even before the current owner owned this property anticipated
several traffic improvements that would be needed town wide and also in conjunction with
development on the Avon Village property. It is the applicants proposal to make a series
of phase road and traffic system improvements as our development moves forward. The
applicant does recognize that the applicant is the one that is required to make these
improvements that the Town of Avon has long anticipated.
Arnie Ulevig, principal of the firm of Felsber, Holt, and Ulevig, was hired by the applicant
to do the transportation planning for the Avon Village. The Avon Transportation Plan
was prepared in 1991 and with a project of this size it is important to go back and make
sure to see how that project relates to the Town's Transportation Plan. Back in 1991 no
one knew what Avon Village was but staff at that time provided to us an estimate of what
they thought might happen with different mixes of commercial and residential for
Planning R Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Village (Con.'-)
transportation planning purposes. For the area encompassed by Avon Village the planning
at that time accounted for 5300 peak hour trips which is a benchmark for Arnie to use in
determining roadway requirements, a sum total of all of the commercial and the residential
uses that were assumed at that time. With that magnitude of trip making anticipated the
transportation plan that was developed with a roadway network was developed and
published in 1991 as a part of the transportation plan for the Town. The 1991 plan was
comprehensive and covered the entire town from west to east but relative specifically to
the Stolport site and the areas to the east the plan identifies four or five key items in order
to accommodate this 5300 trip travel demand. There were some obvious improvements
that were identified along Avon Road including Benchmark Road, improvements to
Beaver Creek Boulevard, improvements to the interchange, improvements at Swift Gulch
Road, and primary improvement was the recommendation that before anything significant
could happen in the Avon Village area or Stolport as it was referred to at the time was
that another access had to be provided across the railroad tracks. Many improvement are
needed in terms of turn lanes and signalization on the existing street system but a major
new entry point is needed to be provided into the Stolport site to even begin to
accommodate this travel demand. At that time it was identified basically the location of
Stonebridge has changed and is located now over further to the east, basically located
opposite the underpass at I-70 over in the area where the cement operations currently
occur. At a minimum it was recommended that at that crossing of the railroad track and
the river be three lanes and had to be a bridge. The current proposal is provided not only
as a bridge crossing of the river and the railroad tracks but also provide a five lane cross
section. It was also recognized at that time that an upgraded underpass of I-70 would be
required in order to accommodate anything to the north. The first task was to compare
the maps and development estimates that the Commission has seen for the past 30 to 60
days and compare them back with the travel demand estimates that were made in 1991 to
see if the roadway recommendations that were made then still make sense. If all of the
Avon Village area and the current development proposals total peak hour trip demand that
is estimated for the Avon Village is about 5200 peak hour trips or maybe closer to 5100,
which is at the same level that was basically contemplated in 1991 or maybe 3 to 4% less.
The obvious conclusion is that in order for the Avon Village to go ahead it basically has to
accommodate all the highlighted roadway improvements that were identified in the Avon
Transportation Plan in 1991. Those include improvements to the intersection to Swift
Gulch Road, Beaver Creek Boulevard, and Benchmark Road, with the key item to provide
an additional crossing into the site from Highway 6.
Arnie noted that major amounts of development cannot proceed these roadway
improvements so the task before the applicant was to start to identify at least some
benchmarks where some development occurs and then improvements had to be made
before the next phases of development can occur. Basically the applicant is in that process
and has to work through a lot of the details and review with town staff. A question from
the public was what can happen now without any additional roadway improvements can
any development occur. The applicant believes the Town retained another transportation
engineer to take an initial look and they analyzed the 25% increment of buildout and
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 5
August 1, 1995
Avon Village (Con.'!)
basically concluded that that was too much and the applicant concured that this is too big
of a first phase piece to expect the existing road system to accommodate. The applicant
anticipate that the number would be lower, closer to 20%. The vast majority of the
proposed Avon Village, 80%, cannot occur until some of these roadway improvements
are made.
Arnie discussed the next key item would be to provide that additional access to Highway
6. This access can occur in many different ways; a simple road that makes an intersection
and single turn lanes, dual left turn lanes into the site and out of the site; or add increments
of development that can be accommodated but at a minimum just providing abasic
connection that would probably allow the town the ability to allow up to 40% of the
proposed development to occur depending on how sophisticated it became with the
intersection improvements that might be 50% but still in the 40 to 50% range is the initial
estimate. If the intersection was frilly upgraded a total of eight phase signal control, dual
turn lanes that number would climb to 70% or 80%. In summary the full development of
an intersection at Highway 6 with its full turn lanes can accommodate up to 70% of what
the current proposal is. The final 30% depends on another basic increment to roadway
system capacity and at this time conversations are going on with Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) and initial studies have been done to include an interchange at I-
70 which if that happened it would provide significant excess capacity over what is needed
for Avon Village but also allow use by general public to divert traffic from Avon Road. In
summary there is a 20% threshold point beyond which no more can happen on the existing
road system then an access onto Highway 6 will let that number grow to 40% if you make
full turnlane improvements that number could get up to 70% without additional capacity
provided somewhere else in the system.
Sue Railton questioned the road marked on the extension of the Swift Gulch area.
Arnie replied that is a part of the plan as well. The idea of potentially connecting Swift
Gulch with the underpass at I-70.
Peter Jamar noted the possibility of the Swift Gulch Road connection across on the north
side since it has very steep terrain. The potential visual impacts of putting a road across
there is far more visual destructive than trying to accommodate a little bit better traffic
capacity in that location. Part of what the 1991 plan anticipated was not really sure how
much development might go into the Swift Gulch area since it was a private development
parcel until the town purchased it for its public works facility.
Rhoda Schneiderman was concerned when the traffic study was done about the proposed
improvements if the applicant looked if it was physically possible to improve all of those
roadways.
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Village Con.'!)
6
Arnie replied yes, in fact the plan as shown at Avon Road at Beaver Creek Boulevard on
the plan has a mark on it that indicates a four lane cross section and acutely a five lane
cross section has been implemented. Benchmark was recommended to be signalized with
a three lane cross section and was accomplished. The extension of a three lane section
along Beaver Creek Boulevard looks doable, much of it is three lanes now at the easterly
end. The real physical constraint is the access off of Highway 6 where a bridge across the
river is required as well as a crossing of the railroad tracks then getting back to grade.
Rhoda Schneiderman stated her point was that on Beaver Creek Boulevard there is a least
one section, the second curve where the back end of Christy Lodge is, the road is already
is within 5 feet of those buildings. On the other side directly across from that same section
Tim Garton already has approved plans to build a shopping center there that takes in to his
very setbacks with pavement. The Commission cannot rescind an approval to widen the
road and the Commission cannot ask the building to be torn down to accommodate the
Commission either. This is a critical section since it is a curved portion of the road.
Where will the road get widened?
Arnie asked how wide it was in that location?
Rhoda Schneiderman replied 3 lanes altogether.
Arnie stated that the 3 lanes was consistent with the town plan. The last aerial Arnie
examined was the narrow width of the pavement that was not ftilly striped for three lanes
was really the last 200 to 300 feet of Beaver Creek Boulevard.
Rhoda Schneiderman also questioned the 5300 peak trip hours and if it was residents
only? Ski season? Off season?.....
Arnie explained it was during a peak day of the year and represents the one hour of travel
during the day when the volume is highest typically in an afternoon one hour period. The
5300 was calculated from the land use assumptions that the town developed in 1991.
Rhoda replied that the applicant is using the 1991 transportation plans 5300 figure or the
applicant did their own.
Arnie explained that the transportation report was done in 1991 and now Avon Village
comes along and the first check the applicant has to make is how many trips can Avon
Village potentially generate and compare it back to that 5300. Clearly if Avon Village
could potentially develop 8500 trips in the peak hour we conclude quickly that just is not
going to fit. It turns out that it generates in the range of 5100 to 5200 trips which was
compatible with what the assumption was in 1991.
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Village (Con.'t)
Rhoda asked on what scale was the applicant basing all of these assumptions. Is it a scale
derived from just the amount of roadways in Avon, Chicago, New York City, L.A., or is it
based on a semi -rural environment? Are there different levels that traffic is considered
acceptable or not acceptable as far as trips per hour or is it just based on the amount of
pavement and stoplights there are and it does not matter what part of the country you are
in.
Arnie explained there are two perspectives on roadway capacity. One is the technical and
a 12 foot lane can carry so many vehicles per day and this is graded on a scale of levels of
service from A through F. Different people and different jurisdictions may want a very
high level of service or middle level of service. The industry standard is the level service
of D is a standard threshold that is used on the technical side to say enough is enough.
Level service E example would be if the gallon bucket was one gallon full, level service D
represents a 90% full condition with a 10% access for maybe seasonal variabilities.
Rhoda replied that it would be nice if we were in a place like Chicago or L.A. where you
only have 10% of your population on the most heaviest tourist season day in the year as
your access. In Avon we have probably 100%. Our town almost doubles in size and not
just 10%. Rhoda's concern is that a traffic plan be workable in all types of situations that
this town encounters not just a buildout with 6,000 actual residents who live here. Not
only do those people generally not leave during the off season now as they may do in Vail,
which is second home ownership, but they are here all year around plus the tourists during
the winter and the summer. Avon has more problems than your typical town which gets
tourists. If the applicant does not need to start improving some of the other areas for
transportation until your 20% buildout where are all the construction vehicles going and
how are they getting to the site?
Arnie answered that at this time the applicant has not done a construction access plan.
Typically in order to answer those questions one needs to know more specifically what
piece of ground is under construction. In general terms you would use the existing
roadways that provide access to that site.
Rhoda asked if there was a stoplight envisioned at Beaver Creek Boulevard and Beaver
Creek Place?
Arnie explained that the signal could we warranted now from what Rhoda is describing.
To install a signal is a simple matter of taking traffic counts. If a signal is needed or not is
function of what you count on the road today or 5 years from today. The larger question
is what percent of that need might be attributable to the development of Avon Village
since it would clearly add travel demand to the roadway and it would be a proportionate
partner in that improvement requirement.
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Villasze(Con.'t)
Rhoda's concern was that Avon is a very small town that already has many more traffic
light that probably anybody in the whole valley from Vail to Gypsum. The highway
interchange that the applicant has spoke of is not even considering part of the plan.
Peter commented that the Commission as well as the Council have asked the applicant
about plans of an interchange. This has caused the applicant to look at the overall traffic
plan and demand. The applicant felt that even though the interchange proposed by
CDOT, a half -diamond interchange, was of great interest to everyone the applicant felt it
was not the best solution in that the Eagle -Vail residents were not very keen on the
location near them. This created an opportunity for the applicant to go further to the west
onto the Avon Village property and create a full diamond interchange where there is an
existing highway underpass. Arnie and other transportation consultants report that the full
diamond interchange meets the federal guidelines which the half diamond does not. This
idea was meet with very positive reaction from the Council, Commission and Staff. The
applicant is willing to commit to that the applicant do that interchange roughly the 70 to
80% level of the total buildout or if the interchange cannot be done the applicant would be
stopped at that 70 to 80% of the total proposed development. The applicant is willing to
commit to that at this point and the applicant does not have any way to predict what
CDOT and the Federal Government will do which is probably a three year approval
process
Rhoda replied that it will elevate any traffic that needs to go to Vail or down valley but
there will probably be many full time residents living in the proposed Annexation project
and they still have to go to the Post Office, City Market, and the Bank, et. The
interchange is not helping them in that way since that have to come into Avon everyday.
Probably half of their trips are going to be into town, they are not going to take the
interchange get on the highway and get off at Avon and avoid Beaver Creek Boulevard.
Then there is the problem of people getting off who do not know where they are going
thinking it is a short cut. Any gain the applicant envisions will be offset by some of the
realities of the way people use this town.
Peter feels the other trade offs are for instance if someone coming from anywhere east on
Highway 6 to go to Walmart or City Market will choose this exit rather than to go to the
Avon Road and Highway 6 intersection and go north on Avon Road and fight traffic may
turn in through this project and take one road and end up at City Market or Walmart.
Chairperson Hunn requested a clarification on A through F standard. What standard was
Arnie designing for the Town of Avon.
Arnie noted that everything that has been talked about including in the town plan is based
on level of service D. When you hit a D level and add one more trip then you add a lane
or a signal.
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Village Con.'t)
Beth Stanley asked what the present peak hour trips were?
Arnie replied would need to go back to 1991 to answer the question since this is the last
time everything was added up.
Beth replied that the town has changed so much since 1991.
Arnie explained the 5300 is a calculation on Arnie's part. If someone could tell Arnie
what the total square footage of retail, office, and dwelling units that the town has Arnie
can probably bring a traffic number back to the Commission.
Beth asked if steps have been taken to apply for an interchange?
Arnie replied that the applicant has laid out a plan of the interchange and the applicant was
authorized to proceed with what CDOT calls their systems level and project level
feasibility studies. The applicant has proceeded part way through this process and there
was not much enthusiasm around and it has tailored off a bit.
Chairperson Hunn noted that an hour has been allocated for the Commission review and
Chairperson Hunn recommended allocating more time to this discussion.
Chairperson Hunn asked if anyone in the audience wanted to question the traffic issues.
John Railton felt that there was a commitment for an interchange off of I-70 and is
something that has concerned many people. If we are waiting for a 70% capacity and
doing some things to Highway 6 in an earlier stage would there be some savings in doing
the interchange at an earlier stage or would it be less necessary?
Peter replied that by doing the interchange it would not do certain levels of improvement
to Highway 6 and what they call Baby Bob through there it would not do some of the
additional lane -age that would have been done had it not done the interchange.
Gloria McRory questioned if there would be a railroad crossing? Would that be more
practical to do that first rather than having to go through the town to get that railroad
crossing. That is a year project and who will pay for it?
Peter replied the applicant will be paying for it.
Gloria McRory asked if there was any coordination between the Town of Avon and this
project that will unite both commercial areas and not draw a line between.
Peter replied that the separated grade crossing, Baby Bob, at the east end of the project
would go underneath the railroad and we have met with the railroad and they do not see
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Village (Con.'t)
io
any problems with us constructing that. In terms of unifying the existing commercial area
and the new is something in our best interest. The applicant is willing in there plans to
hold an easement to allow for that type of connection both pedestrian and vehicular.
Peter Coliopolous was concerned with the traffic study and why they are using a four year
old study. There has been some dialogue as far as the new projects going in and how they
would effect what their doing with proposed plans. Why is there not a more current plan
and if there is a current traffic study how that would effect what is currently being
designed.
Peter explained that the applicant is using a current traffic study. Arnie is comparing back
to a 1991 study that had anticipated more trips generated out their project and then an
update was done revised based on the new numbers as well as anticipated other growth in
the Avon area. The applicants traffic study is current and has been updated.
Peter wanted to respond to a previous question on how the town makes sure that the
projects total amount of development that is proposed on the site is not exceeded which is
something that is clearly stated in the annexation agreement and also in the PUD guide.
Peter also wanted to respond to the question of insuring that public improvements that are
started get completed. Through the subdivision improvements process it is important for
everyone to remember that this is the first planning step of several planning steps that
before anything is built a preliminary plan and final platting of each phase of the project
which at the time lots are created and make the site ready to be buildable for use. A_
subdivision improvements agreement must be created with the town that identifies to
service that phase of the project which improvements are to be completed.
Peter wanted to also get back to a question asked at the previous public hearing which
was how many of the units of the total 2,000 dwelling units did the applicant anticipate
building on the north side of I-70 and how many on the south. The concern was that the
applicant assures that a certain number of the 2,000 dwelling units. The applicant would
agree to decided on a certain percentage of the total be on the south.
Rhoda asked if for any reason why the Commission cannot expect this PUD to adhere to
town standards for setbacks or from roadways, side yard, front yard, et., as everyone else
has to do in the town?
Peter replied that for the most part the applicant has. They have tried to stick as closely to
the town center and reducing the building heights and densities as they move further to the
east. A drawing has been prepared which indicates a concept for the development of the
project illustrating under these development standards the types of buildings and setbacks
and open spaces between buildings and soon. In terms of the development standard the
applicant has tried to stay as closely as they could to the towns
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Avon Village Con.'t)
standards. The applicant is not sure they want to use existing Avon as a model for the
project.
Rhoda stated that if the applicant wishes to improve upon them and increase setbacks
Rhoda will be the first supporter.
Rhoda also asked that the applicant designate the open space pie chart to delineate
between public open space and private open space.
Peter replied that could be done.
11
Rhoda was also concerned with the way of limiting buildings on this whole site with the
PUD, each parcel that was designated is zoned for a specific amount of units and added up
and in total those units exceed 8,000. Where in the annexation agreement does the 2,000
maximum units supersede the excepted zoning PUD. If the applicant builds out 50 on the
north side and 50 on the south side then your left with quite a bit of land on the south side
of the highway as far as density potential goes. The applicant cannot even dispose of that
land.
Peter replied it would be open space.
Rhoda questioned if the applicant sold a piece of land early on before all of these units get
built and then you go through your zoning and get 2,000 units approved where ever they
are and someone has bought a piece of land that is zoned for 20 units per acre and then
they cannot build on this land.
Peter replied that this system of zoning is not different than what currently exists in the
Town of Avon when Benchmark Company originally started the Town of Avon as a PUD.
They were granted a certain density by Eagle County and then had certain zoning on
certain parcels that allowed certain number of units per acre. If every project had gone to
its maximum units per acre it would have exceeded the zoning granted by Eagle County.
The same is true in Beaver Creek. The mechanism that is used is at the time that a niece
of property is sold the applicant would deed a certain number of units to that property
owner. The applicant would also be responsible to keep a tabulation of each one of the
maximum units that are allowed or that have been deeded away on each parcel. The
control with the town is as we go through the future phases and apply for final plats for
each phase the applicant would be providing the town with a running tabulation of units.
ZD
Peter suggested that Rhoda needs some assurance from the town's legal staff that those
mechanisms are in place.
Rhoda noted to staff that she did not know that the Commission was under any obligation
to Eagle County for our zoning plan.
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 12
August 1, 1995
Avon Village (Con.
Peter replied no, that was past history.
Chairperson Hunn asked for comments on wildlife issues.
Bill Andree, Colorado Division of Wildlife - District Wildlife Manager -Vail, was present.
Rhoda asked if Bill was consulted on this Annexation.
Bill replied he was contacted on July 7, 1995.
Rhoda asked if this plan meets with Bill's approval as far as wildlife migration.
Bill replied no. The first time he actually saw the plan was on July 3rd or 4th he received
a copy from the Avon Town Staff Bill had a meeting with Tom Bruen and their wildlife
biologist, Rick Thompson on July 7, 1995 and had another meeting with Town Staff and
Tom Breun on July 20, 1995. This was the first time the division had seen the plans or
had any request for impute at that point. Bill handed out a letter from Bill to Mike
Matzko. At meeting between Bill, town staff and Tom Bruen the division had a concern
with the 600 foot wide corridor. The area has the second largest migrating deer herd in
the State of Colorado. If this migration is blocked it is mainly the deer you see that go to
Vail Pass, Red Cliff, Camp Hale, and Homesteak. The division has done extensive work
with the deer herd. From 1970 to 1974 a study was done at Mud Springs, underpass at
Dow Junction, and the tunnel and deer fence were all put up to try to get a way for the
deer not to get hit when I-70 came through. Even with all that effort the study showed
that 40% of the deer herd was lost. Eagle County was in the top four for deer producing
counties in the state and now it is down to the bottom three or four. If it is miss judged by
100 feet or 200 feet with a 600 foot corridor and it is block off this will be significant on
the upper valley. These deer migrate from the summer in the Vail Pass/Red Cliff area to
come down all the way to the Dotsero area in the winter. It is a long migration. Thev
stage in the area around Game Creek and Intermountain and these areas have been closed
to hunting to provide as much protection as they can. The State Highway Department has
spent a lot of money putting up the highway fence to keep them off which will have to be
addressed with a new interchange. The division does not totally agree with the migration
maps that Rick drew. Rick mainly mapped them in the spring. A critical factor for deer
migration in the winter is the snow depth, that is what keys the time for them to migrate.
It cannot just say they could go higher to the forest service property if the snow is too
deep they cannot go there. The Highway Department would not have spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars building a fence along the north side of I-70 at the bottom of this
property if they thought the deer always went up into the forest service to migrate. It is
obvious that the deer come down and they still get hit. They did not put a fence on the
south side since that is not the migratory side. They just fenced the south side in Eagle
since the deer were crossing from the winter range to river and back and
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 13
August 1, 1995
Avon Village (Con.'tt)
forth. Most all of these deer cross I-70 in the Vail area through the underpass and then
travel down the north side of the interstate going toward Dotsero.
Bill stated that the division was concern at the late time they were brought into the
process. The best projects that the division has had the most success for wildlife in
providing the minus amount of impact to wildlife and needed the least amount of
mitigation have come when the division was involved in the project early. That is when
the developer first gets the property and tell the division they want to develop it. That is
when the developer comes to the division and asks what are the concerns and what to stay
away from instead of bringing a plan that already has roads, houses, building envelopes
spotted on it and asking the division what they think. Wildlife biology is not a science but
an art, you can gather 10 different biologist and get 10 different opinions. It will be up to
the Council and the Commission to decided which opinion to take. The letter points out
what the division has looked at. Rick has done some extensive work up there the only
draw back is that it was based on one spring period. The maps the division has are from
1982 and have been updated ever year. The division tries not to base anything on just a
one year period. The perfect example is cabling. The Nottingham Ranch is not great
cabling habitat however if one mapped it the spring of 1995 the entire ranch would have
been mapped as cabling habitat since they could not go anywhere else. With the snow
above it that was where a large percentage of the elk ended up cabling. That is the
problem with a one time quick study.
Peter responded to Bill's letter and comments. When the applicant met with Bill they
indicated they were happy to work with him and his concerns. They agreed to stake
various lots and take a look at the deer migration corridor. The applicant submitted their
application plans to the town in April. It is the town's responsibility to send those out to
the referral agencies. If Bill Andree did not get the application until 3 to 4 months after it
was submitted Peter apologizes. Noting is final at this point. Peter is happy to meet with
Bill and try to understand ways to make the plan better for wildlife. The applicant
consulted the Division of Wildlife map three year ago when the planning process was
initial. The original maps received from the Division of Wildlife indicated the deer
migration route to the east of the property. Some of the discussion is the 600 foot wide
corridor that they are providing wide enough or should it be another 100 feet wider. The
applicant is open to working with Bill.
Bill stated that he drew the maps in 1982. At the meeting with Rick and Tom, Bill
brought in the original 1982 maps that show Rick's maps that he copied from Bill's, he
must have copied wrong, the original 1982 maps show the exact location of the deer
underpass. The town master plan which they got from Bill's maps show the exact location
of the deer underpass. There is always this problem when you make a map, people refuse
to read definitions and how the maps are to be used. Even in Ricks reports he talks about
there are some arrows on Bill's map that go in the general direction and above the
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
14
Avon Village(Con.'t)
property. When the division draws an arrow on a map, a single headed arrow, means that
it is a pattern of movement. It does not say those deer or elk walk that red line. There is
this continuing inability for people to understand and read that all it is telling you is that
the deer migrate west. It does not tell you they walk down that path. In Rick's report he
had several places where our maps were in error. Going back to the division's 1982 maps
he cannot find that they are in error. The maps that Rick have a show severe winter range
in the Buck Creek drainage area.
Chairperson Hunn stated that it sounds like there is a willingness and an intent to work
with the Wildlife Division and work out these discrepancies.
Bill mentioned that a future meeting may be set to look at the migration corridor. Peter is
right, it will be tough to say if it is going to be 600 feet or 2,000 feet.
Rhoda Schneiderman motion to continue Avon Village Annexation, Public Hearing to
August 15, 1995 with the strong recommendation that all the public turnout for that
meeting also.
Seconded by Sue Railton. Motion unanimously carried.
FINAL, DESIGN REVIEW
Lot 31 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Mach Duplex
Staff stated the concept design was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at
the June 6, 1995 meeting. The building site is a northeast facing, .6 acre lot near the end
of Long Spur. The project is a 3,800 square foot duplex, with the square footage evenly
divided between the two units. The building is placed in the middle of the site. Each side
is unique design, with "European Alpine" and "Lodge Style" elements. The buildings
feature blue -gray siding, stone and pine accents and a gray -black shingle composition roof.
Staff recommends approval with the conditions of grading plan be revised for staff
approval prior to submittal for building permit and the minimum planting height of the
dwarf pine be revised to 6 feet.
Robert Mach was the applicant present.
Rhoda Schneiderman felt the landscape plan was not adequate, especially since the
building is all stucco.
Robert wanted the wood siding as an alternate since the stucco is more expensive.
Rhoda asked the applicant which he preferred, stucco or siding?
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes I;
August 1, 1995
Lot 31, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision (Con 't)
Robert replied it was a budget consideration and would prefer it to be stucco.
Rhoda asked if it is stucco than what will the window frame trim be?
Robert replied gray trim and gray facia.
Rhoda does not feel comfortable with so many possibilities. The applicant needs to make
some decisions and come back to the Commission with those decisions.
Chairperson Hunn questioned where the driveway meets the street does not show the
required flares the town would require so there are some radius the applicant should talk
to the town about. A culvert is typically required under the driveway. The staff report
indicated that the driveway grade hit the town's maximum of 10% and is a north-east
facing orientation. The applicant should be aware in the placement of the driveway since
they sometimes move up or down in percentages. The staff report also indicates that
some of the regrading exceeds the 11 maximum and is closer to a 1:1.
Robert replied he should have shown a dry stack wall on the north side.
Chairperson Hunn asked staff what the town's position was on dry stack walls in the
setback.
Staff replied they would not be a structure and would be acceptable as opposed to a
concrete type of retaining wall.
Chairperson Hunn agrees with Rhoda that the Commission needs to understand what the
application is so they can act on that.
Chairperson Hunn also encouraged the applicant to install an automatic irrigation system.
Henry Vest motioned to table Lot 31, Block 1, Wddridge Subdivision, Mach Duplex with
the recommendation to come back with colors for the stucco, colors for garage door,
sample colors for the window, an updated landscape plan, and a revised site plan showing
a dry stack as well as a revised driveway.
Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman.
Lot 1_ Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision Clark Fourplex
Staff stated this is a 1535 s.f per unit fourplex on a steep, southeast -facing 1.39 acre lot
on Old Trail Road. The design is basically a repetition of one unit, with the structure
aligned with the slope. The Commission reviewed the concept design a the June 20, 1995
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 16
August 1, 1995
Lot 1, Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision (Con '0
meeting, and suggested the more visual interest to the units, using additional windows and
perhaps dormers. Each unit should have a slightly different design and color to avoid
repetition. The applicant has since added bay windows to all units, as well as alternating
shed and gable roofs. Staff recommends approval with the condition that a building
permit not be issued until staff determines that the grading plan meets Town slope
requirements.
Laddie Clark was present as the applicant. Bay windows have been added with alternating
shed roofs with gables. The landscape plan has been strategically placed in the corner of
building from the back.
Rhoda felt the applicant did a lot of cosmetic stuff to the front elevations but when you
end up with four rooflines that are the same level straight across it does not matter what
you do, it is when someone is driving by to see that you have four identical units and that
is not attractive.
Sue Railton how all the windows in stucco are trimmed out)
Laddie replied clad windows with turned stucco.
Henry Vest was for repetition in the units.
Chairperson Hunn noted that when the Commission suggested that the applicant find ways
to differentiate these units maybe we should have gone on to say that some of these
changes should be in the massing of the buildings.
Chairperson Hunn questioned the elevations of all four units being the same, are they?
Laddie replied yes.
Sue Railton moved to approve Lot 1, Block 2, Final Design Review, Wildridge
Subdivision, Clark, Fourplex with the following conditions:
CONDITIONS:
1. the bays on the front and rear elevation be changed back to the plain gable
bays.
2. include an automatic sprinkler system;
staff recommendations.
Seconded by Beth Stanley. Motion carried. Rhoda Schneiderman nay.
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 17
August 1, 1995
Lot 71 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision Perkins Duplex
Staff stated that at the July 18, 1995 meeting, the Commission commented favorably on
the building design; the key issue was the intrusion of the wall into the building setback.
Staff recommends approval.
John Perkins was present as the applicant. John feels he has responded to the comments
from the Commission at the conceptual meeting. Regraded the driveway. The roof line is
now steeped at the garages.
Chairperson Hunn questioned the type of irrigation system.
John replied an automatic drip and spray.
Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve Lot 71, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final
Design Review, Perkins, Duplex with the following conditions:
CONDITIONS:
1. staff comments or recommendations
2. an automatic irrigation system to be installed for all landscaped areas
3. the 6 blue spruce to be a minimum of 6 feet in height with a recommendation of
variety.
Seconded by Henry Vest. Motion unanimously carries.
Lot 42, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Final Design Review, Loux Duplex
Staff stated the conceptual plan was presented to P/Z at the June 3, 1995 hearing. The
site is a.38 acre lot at the northwest corner of Long Spur and Saddle Ridge Loop. The
concept plan was redesigned in June from a previous submittal in spring of 1995. The
duplex is approximately 2000 square feet per side, not including basement. The roof is
built up, nearly flat pitch. The proposed duplex is a southwestern style, 3 story synthetic
stucco building. The building features a sand color, with natural cedar stain log and wood
accents. A primarily natural landscape is proposed including relocated sage and grasses,
aspen, cottonwood and pine trees are proposed with wildflower beds. The approval is
valid for two years the original site plan has expired and the applicants are requesting final
approval again. Staff recommends approval, subject to revising the landscape plan to
reflect minimum 2 inch caliper deciduous trees and 6 foot minimum height evergreen trees.
Theodore Loux was present as the applicant. At the conceptual there was very little that
the Commission wanted changed. The caliper of the trees have been changed.
Chairperson Hunn noted that at the conceptual meeting the Commission talked about the
different that they saw in a character sketch that was hand drawn and the drawings that
the applicant was showing was hard lined and the Commission wanted to be sure some of
the character that was liked in the hand drawn sketch was going to be achieved in the final
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995
Lot 42 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision (Con 't)
product. Radius corners and radius returns to windows were mentioned and are those
details still part of the plan?
Theodore replied yes.
Rhoda Schneiderman asked how the stucco would come into the windows. Are the
windows recessed?
Theodore replied yes. The windows are recessed about 2 inches.
Chairperson Hunn questioned the exterior light fixtures
Theodore answered he does not have them shown. Minimal exterior lighting.
Chairperson Hunn asked if the applicant was familiar with the town's lighting standards?
Theodore replied yes. That is why lie did not show much.
Chairperson Hunn questioned the type of irrigation system proposed.
Theodore replied an automatic sprinkler and drip system.
Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Lot 42, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Final
Design Review, Loux, Duplex with the following condition:
CONDITIONS:
1. all plant materials meet accepted town standards as well as being irrigated;
2. a gravel ballast will not be required;
3. recommendation that the stucco color be brought back;
4. subject to revising the landscape plan to reflect minimum 2 inch caliper
deciduous trees and 6 foot minimum height evergreen trees.
Henry Vest seconded. Motion unanimously carries.
Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Modifications Driveway Revision Myerstein
This item was pulled from the consent agenda for better discussion of the request.
Staff stated the Commission approved the project on June 20, 1995, subject to these
conditions that the applicant bring back an alternate roof material, the front door be
redesigned to match the previous second set of plans and that the town engineer review
the driveway entrance grades, and if revisions materially affect the design of the building
18
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 1, 1995.
to the Commission. There was consensus that this plan would come back to the
Commission.
Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, (Con 't)
Chairperson Hunn noted procedurally this project has been granted a final approval with
the condition that they satisfy the Commission with regard to this driveway redesign.
Rhoda Schneiderman does not feel comfortable with the way the retainage is being
handled.
Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to table Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision,
Meyerstein, Driveway with the condition that before the applicant resubmits work with
town staff to redesign the driveway access and or garage placement.
Seconded by Henry Vest. Motion unanimously carries.
Other Business
1) Rhoda questioned the Eaglebend III stucco. Panels put up instead of actual stucco
treatments. What was that approval.
Chairperson Hunn mentioned that stucco panels were talked about and it was rejected.
Staff did not find anything specific. Staff will research.
2) Rhoda spoke about getting a regular tape recorder. This tape could be a record to
refer to.
20
Staff replied that we have the use of the Town Clerk's recorder therefore we do not need
to purchase one.
Staff also responed that the official record of this body is the minutes as they are printed,
approved and signed.
Chairperson Hunn suggested the commitment for the applicant is embodied in the
drawings and his application. Maybe get the applicant to commit in the application what
those material are it will be better off
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 AM.
Plannim_ & Zoning_ Commission Nleetiniz- Minutes
Au`Tustr! , 1995 V
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila Kremski
Recordinu, Secretary
Commission Approval _Date /% S
B
S
R
A
!l
B
H
J.