PZC Packet 0306181 Agenda posted on Friday, March 2, 2018 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, March 6, 2018
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. Conflicts of Interest
V. Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment) Village at Avon PUD – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17001
Legal Description: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon
Applicant: Harvey Robertson
Summary: Amendment to Planning Area F, a 13-acre property located at the intersection of Post
Blvd and East Beaver Creek Boulevard, including: 1) increase density allowance from
18 dwelling unit/ acre to 25 dwelling units per acre; 2) increase maximum allowable
residential development from 50% to 100; and 3) increase allowable building height
from 48’ to 66’ for multi-family buildings. This file was continued from the February
6, 2018 and February 20, 2018 meetings at the applicant’s request.
VI. Action on Records of Decision
• Colorado World Resorts | Rezoning and Preliminary PUD – Action February 6, 2018
• Town of Avon Town-Owned Properties Plan | Comprehensive Plan – Action February 20, 2018
VII. Action on Meeting Minutes
• February 20, 2018 Meeting
VIII. Staff Updates
IX. Adjourn
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 1
Staff Report – Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment)
March 6, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
File #PUD17001
Legal description Lot 1, Village (at Avon) Filing 1 – Planning Area F
Zoning PUD
Address 1000 East Beaver Creek Boulevard
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
-- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING --
Introduction
Before the Planning and Zoning Commission is 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, requires mixed-use projects in PA-F, and multi-family buildings up
to 48’ tall are permitted a density of 18 dwelling units per acre.
All other development standards (i.e. setbacks, parking, minimum landscape area, etc.) remain the same
and no changes are being sought to the PUD Master Plan map. The commercial square footage cap for
the entire PUD remains at 825,000 sq. ft. and the total permitted dwelling units remain at 2,400. A cover
letter explaining changes (Attachment A), review criteria analysis (Attachment B), proposed
modifications to the PUD Guide (Attachment C), existing complete PUD Guide (Attachment D), and PUD
Master Plan map (Attachment E) are attachment to this staff report. A memo from the Town Attorney
regarding public benefits is also included (Attachment F).
Proposed Amendments
The following amendments are proposed to Planning Area F:
o Increase in maximum 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 Removal of mixed-use requirement as follows:
o Current: Residential minimum 0%, 50% maximum;
o Proposed: Residential minimum 0%, 100% maximum;
o Current: Commercial 50% minimum, 100% maximum.
o Proposed: Commercial 0% minimum, 30% maximum.
o Increase building height from 48’ to 58’ for multi-family buildings.
o Heights over 48’ must be at least 40’ from southern and east Property boundaries
o Site Coverage Reduction from 80% maximum to 50% maximum
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 2
File History
This Application was originally noticed and reviewed by PZC in late 2017. After additional changes to the
application were incorporated, the file was the re-noticed and has been continued several times. A
complete history follows:
September 2017 File Submitted to Community Development
Sept – Oct 2017 Staff Review and Agency Referrals
October 17, 2017 Public Hearing No. 1 [continue request until November 21, 2017]
November 21, 2017 Public Hearing No. 2 [continue request until December 5, 2017]
December 5, 2017 Public Hearing No. 3 [application tabled]
- Revised Materials Received, including increase in building height
- Adjacent owners and Vail Daily Re-notified for January 2, 2018 Hearing
January 2, 2018 Public Hearing No. 4
- PZC Review, Direction, and Continuance
January 16, 2018 PZC Hearing No. 5 [continue request until February 6, 2018]
February 6, 2018 PZC Hearing No. 6 [continue request until February 20, 2018]
February 20, 2018 PZC Hearing No. 7 [continue request until March 6, 2018]
March 6, 2018 PZC Hearing No. 8
- Additional modifications for consideration
PUD Master Plan Vicinity Map
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 3
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 an applicant other than the right to submit a final PUD
development plan. There is a six (6) month timeframe following approval of a preliminary PUD plan,
whereby 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 between Chapel Square and Post Boulevard. Additionally, notice was published in the Vail
Daily. No written comments have been received for this Application.
Public Hearings
The March 6, 2018 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.
Staff Analysis
Density Increase
Staff Review: This proposal can be equated to a transfer of development rights from other areas of the
PUD to Planning Area F. The total density for the Village at Avon PUD remains at 2,400 dwelling units. Of
the total 2,400 dwelling units, 500 must be ‘affordable’ by definition. The Buffalo Ridge apartments are
the sole housing project, containing 244 units. Therefore, approximately half of the affordable units have
been constructed and 2,156 dwelling units remain. It should be noted that within planning areas, portions
can exceed the maximum number of dwelling units per acre prescribed if the total density is not exceeded
within the planning area.
By way of example, Planning Area F contains 13 acres and is currently subject to a maximum residential
density of 18 dwelling units per acre (i.e. a total of 234 dwelling units). A 7-acre site within Planning Area
F could be developed with 175 dwelling units (i.e. 25 dwelling units per acre), but the remaining 6 acres
would be limited to not more than 59 dwelling units (or 10 dwelling units/acre), with the resulting density
in the aggregate being 18 dwelling units per acre (i.e. 175+59=234 dwelling units / 13 acres = 18 dwelling
units per acre).
Density by itself does not present substantial impacts beyond the site which cannot be mitigated or are
already mitigated by the location of the site. One impact could be increased traffic from one concentrated
area of the PUD. Post Boulevard includes four lanes of travel and is anchored by roundabouts on both
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 4
corners of the lot, which helps to alleviate traffic concerns. Future transit connections are not fully
understood but should be considered with full buildout of the planning area. The Wal-Mart bus stop on
the other side of Traer Creek Plaza can be used for an interim timeframe for both local and regional transit
connections from PA-F. If the project is phased, staff would encourage sidewalk connections to nearby
networks.
Elimination of Mixed Use Requirement
Staff Review: The Village at Avon PUD includes mixed-use requirements for Planning Areas A, C, D, F, G,
and H. This comprises the valley floor area between Interstate 70 and the railroad tracks. In general
terms, mixed use developments allow for people to live, work, play and shop in one place, which then
becomes a destination for people from other areas. Mixed use developments benefit from increased
pedestrian activity and vibrancy, as can be seen in the nearby Riverwalk development in Edwards.
The western side of the Village at Avon is referred to as Planning Area A (PA-A) and includes residential
minimum and maximum percentages as 30% and 80% respectively. The commercial minimum and
maximum for PA-A is 20% and 70%; it may have been viewed as more flexible given its relationship to an
already established less-dense development pattern.
PA-F acts as a transition zone between regional commercial and arterial roadways, to more of a local
setting on East Beaver Creek Boulevard. That may explain why this eastern part of the valley floor has a
higher minimum percentage of commercial than the west side adjacent to Chapel Square.
The applicant’s letter outlines the origin of the mixed-use requirement and previous intent for a “mid
box” development in the area of PA-F. Retail trends have continued to shift and it is an unrealistic
expectation to see a mixed-use project with so much weight on commercial space. And while the current
minimum commercial percentage requirement (50%) seems disproportionate given the noted trends, the
planning commission did not appear to agree with a complete elimination of commercial space. The
Commission offered created ways to “activate” the street frontage, particularly for the East Beaver Creek
Boulevard frontage.
It could be possible to set aside property or portion of building(s) adjacent to East Beaver Creek Boulevard
(“Main Street”) to accommodate future commercial land use when demand is realized. While a single
development will not tip the scale for commercial, when critical mass of nearby projects is met,
commercial space would be desirable and benefit the entire community. The conceptual site
development plan layout reinforces the roundabout corner of the property with building frontage. Staff
is recommending that a minimum percentage of commercial be retained, or square footage, with a
conditional approval.
Height Increase
Staff Review: Currently, PA-F is permitted 48’ tall buildings. The proposal would allow for multi-family
buildings within PA-F up to 58’. The buildings would be visible from various vantage points including Post
Boulevard, properties to the south, and future development to the west.
Based upon the location of the site at the toe of a large steep hillside leading to Interstate 70, and the
fact that the site orients south and will not shade adjacent roadways or sidewalks, minimal impacts are
anticipated to adjacent uses. View corridors should also not be affected based on the elevation of
adjacent topography and the location of the planning area.
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 5
As recommended by PZC and staff, the building height proposal has been modified further to address
concerns. Staff supports the changes, including reduced overall height, and finds that the modifications
further limit any potential impacts of taller buildings.
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 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.
At the time PA-F develops, the portion of E. Beaver Creek Boulevard (north abutting road) and “Main
Street” (south abutting road) must be constructed and extended with the elements listed above to
meet the minimum roadway 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.
In order to achieve the
mobility goals of the Town
and the stated purposes of
the Development Code, staff
recommends that the
roadway profiles include bike
lanes, wider sidewalks and a
potential bus pullout on both
sides of Main Street. Strong
consideration should be given
for the 80’ right-of-way profile, currently limited to the “central” segment of East Beaver Creek
Boulevard, in order to further “promote effective economical mass transportation, and enhancement
of effective, attractive and economical pedestrian opportunities (Development Code 7.04.030(d).”
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 6
Staff would encourage the wider right-of-way profile because 4’ sidewalks and the absence of bike
lanes and other mobility improvements should be continuance across the valley floor, and the
increased residential density will further impact these networks. Recent experience in planning and
design work for West Beaver Creek Boulevard demonstrates that an 80’ right-of-way is essential to
best serve all transportation modes. Further, having segments of higher density residential with
fragmented and narrowed improvements would not improve the overall quality of the development.
If the 80’ right-of-way were provided, half of the property would come from PA-F and half of the
property would come from PA-E, the Town owned school site across the street.
No substantive 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
public benefits. As stated in the Town Attorney’s memo (Attachment D), the appropriate analysis for
any requirement is the incremental increased impact of the proposed amendment. Because the
application would not result in an increase of overall residential or commercial density of the Village
(at Avon) PUD as a whole, staff does not believe any change to the existing requirements (i.e.
affordable housing) is appropriate.
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. The Avon Comprehensive Plan
applicable to this application is the 1996 plan, not the 2006 plan as previously cited by staff. This is
based upon the current PUD Guide definitions and Development Agreement approvals that govern
the property.
According to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan the Property is located within the “Urban Village.”
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 7
(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 utilities. 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. The creation of the Water Bank must be done prior to any building permit
approval or further subdivision.
Staff will request additional details with regards to the Nottingham-Puder Ditch running through the
middle of PA-F since development will impact that infrastructure. Additionally, there is a Wet Well on
the east side of PA-F, used by the Town for raw water irrigation purposes, that will need to be accessed
periodically after development. As conditions of a Final PUD, staff will recommend specific conditions
related to a revised Nottingham-Puder Ditch easement, and an amended Wet Well easement.
As discussed herein, mobility facilities should be assured with the provision of adequate right-of-way
to accommodate bike lanes, sidewalks, and on-street facilities to meet the increased demands and
connectability of the area to adjacent transit and commercial developments.
(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 significant adverse impacts upon the
natural environment, compared to the underlying zoning. The Nottingham-Puder ditch should be
enhanced with a future project, or protected so that water quality is not degraded. The area has been
disturbed over the years with highway-related construction, and other grading activities, leaving no
area “natural” in the sense of this review criteria.
(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: Compared to the underlying PUD zoning for PA-F, changes in building height should
not result in substantial impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The modified proposal includes
building setbacks for any portions of structures that would exceed the current 48’ maximum height.
(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: As outlined, staff finds the Application’s proposed use and scale is generally
compatible with other existing and future potential uses in the vicinity. This compatibility is a
consequence of natural and manmade buffers, existing regional commercial uses in the vicinity, as well
as a high level of development potential on areas of Planning Area C to the west.
PA-F is located with substantial buffering: Interstate 70 to the north, Post Boulevard on the east, “Main
Street” to the south, and future mixed development to the west. No significant impacts are
anticipated if increased density or height were developed on the Property. The Applicant’s narrative
presents higher density project in Town to provide an overall feel of the proposed increase in units. It
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 8
should be noted that some of the examples provided (i.e. Westin Mountain Villas) are high density
accommodate projects that are on much smaller footprint properties Other high density residential
projects, that are located on larger properties similar to PA-F can be found within the Town for
comparison, including the following:
Buffalo Ridge – 244 Units on 15 acres - 16.25 DU/Acre
Eaglebend Apartments – 240 Units on 7.38 acres - 32.50 DU/Acre
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 9
Options for PZC Action
The Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend approval as submitted, approval with conditions,
denial, or continuance if additional information is requested. The file must be acted upon not later than
the April 3, 2018 meeting in order to remain in compliance with the processing requirements in the
Development Code. The April 3, 2018 hearing is the final hearing within the ninety-five (95) day window
for public hearings, originating with the January 2, 2018 hearing. Based upon the direction received at
previous meetings, staff is providing a conditional approval motion, as well as a motion for denial. The
conditional approval motion includes findings and conditions that may be deemed necessary to ensure
compliance with the applicable review criteria.
Findings and Conditions
Section 7.16.020(f)(4) provides guidance on Conditions, with states:
Conditions. The reviewing authority may recommend approval or may approve a development
application with conditions where such conditions are deemed necessary to ensure compliance
with the applicable review criteria and the purpose and intent of this Development Code.
Conditions shall be in written form and attached to the approved plan, plat or permit. Conditions
may include specific time limits for performance of any condition. Conditions may include financial
performance guarantees from the applicant where the condition requires improvements for
mitigation, where deemed necessary to public health, safety or welfare or where deemed necessary
to protect adjacent property or public infrastructure. Financial performance guarantees shall be in the
form of an agreement which is acceptable to the Town and shall be executed by the applicant.
Approval Motion
“I hereby recommend that the Avon Town Council approve the application for a Preliminary PUD
Amendment, File PUD17001, citing the following findings and recommended conditions:
Findings:
1. The Application, with additional information provided at Final PUD, 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 Avon Development Code Section 7.16.060(e)(4), Review
Criteria, as outlined in staff’s report and the applicant’s written response to the Review Criteria.
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.
5. Future uses on PA-F will be compatible in scale with potential future uses on other properties in the
vicinity.
6. Increased residential density on the subject property, along with reduced commercial land use, will
result in increased pedestrian demand and usage in the area; wider sidewalks and pedestrian friendly
improvements connecting the property to other parts of Town will accommodate the demand shift.
7. A continuous streetscape and multi-modal transportation network, compatible with other adjacent
and planned east-west thoroughfares (i.e. West Beaver Creek Boulevard, and Urban Local Road –
Main Street (central segment) is warranted for the PA-F frontage with a continuous 80’ right-of-way
to facilitate shifting trends in mobility.
Conditions:
1. Amend the Village (at Avon) PUD Guide as follows: B. TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY, 6. shall be
amended to strike Planning Area F from the third line and add a fourth line which reads, " Planning
Area F, Residential Min%: 0%, Residential Max%: 95% Commercial Min%: 5% Commercial Max%: 95%.”
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 10
Fifth line and note added that states Minimum Commercial Gross Square Footage shall be a
Minimum of 5% of the total Gross Square Footage of Planning Area F, or 1,500 sq. ft., whichever is
less.
2. As part of a complete Final PUD application, the Applicant shall propose a palette of exterior
building materials, including providing physical samples of such materials, shall define minimum
architectural designs and features, and shall define minimum and maximum percentage use and
coverage of such exterior materials for any building or structure which exceeds 48' in height. The
exterior building materials, and percentage use, and architectural designs and features shall be
similar to existing buildings in Avon with a building height in excess of 48' which have been erected
since 2006.
3. Amend the Village (at Avon) PUD Guide, Appendix F, Illustrations 7 and 8, to revise the Urban Local
Road, Main Street (eastern segment) to depict a minimum 80’ right-of-way with 6' wide minimum
sidewalks on each side of the road, bicycle lanes, landscape buffers, and potential for on-street
parking and/or vehicle turn lanes and bus pull offs.
Denial Motion
“I hereby recommend that the Avon Town Council deny the application for a Preliminary PUD Amendment,
File PUD 17001, citing the following findings:
1. The Application provides sufficient information to determine that the development application fails
to comply with Avon Development Code Section 7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, including:
a. Criteria 1 – the PUD Amendment fails to provide an incremental public benefit compensatory
to the PUD amendment request; including no improvements in open space provisions,
environmental protections, or others.
b. Criteria 3 - The PUD Amendment is not consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan as
outlined in the remainder of this motion.
c. Criteria 7 – the submitted materials are insufficient to determine whether the development
on the subject parcel will be compatible with future uses on other properties in the vicinity.
2. The Application fails to comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Village area, with no mix
of uses provided.
3. Compared to the underlying zoning of PA-F, the PUD amendment is found to be incompatible with
other property in the vicinity by eliminating all commercial land use, and failing to transition from
regional commercial to neighborhood commercial scaled uses.
4. Increased Building heights of up to 56’ at any point(s) within the Planning Area will create building
forms that are not consistent or compatible with existing and future buildings in the vicinity.
5. Planning Areas C and Planning Area D collectively provide 40 acres that allow for 90% to 100%
residential development and therefore already provide areas that are planned for and allow
apartment and higher density development as a use by right.”
Continuance Motion
“I hereby continue the Preliminary PUD Amendment, File PUD 17001, to the March 20, 2018 meeting public
hearing, pending additional information to determine conformance with the Review Criteria.”
Attachments
A: Cover Letter from Mauriello Planning Group, dated February 27, 2018
B: Letter addressing Review Criteria from Mauriello Planning Group, dated March 2, 2018
C: PUD Guide Modifications
D: Current PUD Guide
March 6, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 11
E: PUD Development Master Plan
F: Memo from Eric Heil, Town Attorney
February 27, 2018
Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Matt Pielsticker, AICP
Planning Director
Town of Avon
1 Lake Street
Avon, CO 81620
Re: PUD 17001 - Village at Avon Planning Area F Amendment
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members:
I have been hired to assist with the processing of the PUD amendment application which makes
modifications to the development standards for Planning Area F, The Village (at Avon). I have reviewed the
application materials, some of the comments provided by the P&Z, the letter from Eric Heil clarifying the
P&Z’s role and legal basis for placing conditions, and other correspondence from the Town.
After some analysis of the proposal with the applicant and the comments received, the applicant has revised
the proposal to alleviate some of the concerns of the P&Z and Town staff.
The following items are offered to be modified in the proposal to respond to the P&Z as a whole:
•Building Height. The proposal was to increase the allowable building height from 48’ to 66’,
noting that the buildings would be benched into the hillside with a steep backdrop along I-70. There
were concerns raised regarding overall increased height (all buildings within the planning area being
66’), how the increased height interfaced with adjacent roadways including sidewalks within the
ROWs, and the relationship to adjacent properties within the PUD and the Town.
Some comments by P&Z suggested permitting the increase in residential building height while
increasing the setback for buildings within the planning area that are taller than 48’.
After further analysis, the applicant’s proposal to increase the maximum residential building height
has been modified from 66’ to 58’ to address P&Z’s concern. Please note, this 58’ building height
provides greater flexibility for floor to floor dimensions, including, but not limited to, taller ceilings
and architectural elements, including, but not limited to, modern, creative and aesthetically pleasing
building architecture.
•Revised proposal: Maximum Building Height for Residential Uses within Planning Area F.
•58’ in Building Height.
•40’ building setback from Post Boulevard and existing East Beaver Creek Boulevard for any
structure with a Building Height over 48’
1
PO Box 4777
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970.376.3318
www.mpgvail.com
Atttachment A
•Coverage of Buildings in Planning Area F: P&Z raised concerns about the extent of structures
throughout the planning area and at a height of 66’. It was not the applicant’s intent to allow
buildings to cover all of Planning Area F and at 66’. Today, site coverage is limited to 80% of the
Planning Area by virtue of the 20% landscape requirement. From a practical standpoint, you have to
park any use constructed within the Planning Area, further limiting total site coverage. Site coverage
is generally defined by the PUD as a building footprint or that portion of a site rendered
impermeable by buildings. For example, 50% site coverage means that only 50% of a site can be
covered with buildings, leaving the remaining 50% free from buildings in the form of landscape area,
parking areas and driveways.
•Revised proposal:
•50% site coverage within Planning Area F
This change limits the amount of building footprint regardless of building height and is a direct
response to the P&Z concerns. This additional restriction would affect all buildings within Planning
Area F, not just those buildings over 48’.
•Density in Planning Area F: As discussed in the memo from the Town Attorney dated January 24,
2018, The Village (at Avon) has a density cap of 2,400 dwelling units of which zero market-rate
residential units have been constructed. When the PUD was approved in 1998, all impacts of the
entire PUD to the Town were evaluated.
The modification of the number of dwelling units allowed, per acre, does not, therefore, generate
any additional impacts that have not already been taken into consideration but also already been
accounted for in connection with the approval of the PUD and other annexation and development
documents. The proposed amendment simply increases the density on the valley floor within
Planning Area F.
•Proposal (unchanged):
•Increase the allowable density units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre
Allowing for increased density on, and adjacent to, the valley floor should be the goal of the Town.
Planning Area F is the appropriate location for density given its proximity to local services,
transportation routes, and commercial establishments.
Twenty-five units per acre is an appropriate density in the more urban locations in Avon versus the
core areas of Avon.
To provide some context: In the core areas, residential densities range from 50 units per acre to 95
units per acre (upa).
▪Westin Mountain Villas at 95 upa
▪Westin Hotel at 70 upa
▪Avon Center at 50 upa
▪Wyndham at 54 upa
Areas surrounding the core include densities approaching 25 upa:
▪Avon Crossing at 24 upa
▪Avon Lake Villas at 24 upa
▪Sunridge at 20 upa.
2
Atttachment A
The proposal of 25 units per acre is reasonably in line with the densities found throughout Avon and
appropriate on Planning Area F.
•Commercial/Residential Allocation in Planning Area F: Planning Area F is currently restricted
to a maximum of 50% of the floor area developed within it as residential. The commercial floor area
allowed can be 100% of the floor area.
The proposed amendment seeks to reverse that, allowing 100% of the floor area to be residential and
30% of the floor area developed as commercial.
In 1998, and as late as November 2012, Planning Area F was envisioned as a commercial power
center with additional mid-size “box retailers” like Best Buy, Kohl’s, and others. This is why the PUD
currently allows for a regional commercial power center. Neither the Town nor the applicant wanted
commercial larger than 60,000 square feet.
The market has changed. These types of retailers are struggling to survive in the digital age and are
no longer expanding into areas like Avon. The extended vacancy of the old Office Depot space in
Chapel Square illustrates this.
Without a significant population base, even smaller local retail establishments are not feasible. This
retail trend, along with the decline in regional commercial, is evidenced at Traer Creek Plaza, which
was originally designed to be regional and neighborhood commercial and which is now a
neighborhood commercial location. With its vacancy rate of 30-40% on the retail level, this building
has had significant turn over in the retail component due to the lack of proximate residential density
to support local retailers.
Allowing Planning Area F to develop with a higher density for the residential component will help
ensure the success of existing businesses within The Village and within the Town. Many have argued
for years that Planning Area F should not be developed with regional retailers. Their view is that
commercial development in Planning Area F pulls consumers too far from the East Town Center
area. Allowing for the future retail to be more concentrated closer to Chapel Square and capitalizing
on the retail synergy of “East Avon,” seems to be a widely accepted concept. This amendment
supports that concept.
•Revised Proposal:
•Allow Planning Area F to be developed with 100% residential while also restricting
commercial floor area to a maximum of 30% to the total floor area allowed.
Architectural Design Considerations:
The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed some concerns related to design of buildings that would
exceed 48’ in height. As discussed above, the revised proposal reduces the height to a maximum of 58’ with
new building setbacks and site coverage provisions within Planning Area F.
We believe concerns related to architectural quality to be unfounded given the architectural precedent that has
been established by the Design Review Board in the Village at Avon.
3
Atttachment A
Since The Village (at Avon) began, it has been easy to lose sight of
the original vision for the PUD and the remarkable improvements
that have occurred. What is remarkable about the improvements is
how Traer Creek has helped positively transform the Town of
Avon.
The new interchange to I-70 was key to this transformation. By
providing a connection to Highway 6 with the introduction of the
first roundabouts to the Town, this connection provided a relief
valve to the horrendous traffic on Avon Road.
Immediately following was the development of the Home Depot
and Walmart. Both are benched into the hillside and have won
architectural accolades for the attention to architecture. Even
today, these “big box” stores are some of the most attractive in
the state and the country.
The Traer Creek Plaza building followed and, once again, the
developer focused on sustainability and award- winning, world-
class architecture. While there have been issues with the green
roof, which is being addressed, the building out-classed other retail
and office buildings in the region and received the Western Slope’s
first LEED Certification.
Buffalo Ridge was developed to not only meet the employee
housing requirements generated by the retail facilities, but also
went beyond by front-ending employee housing with more than
140 extra workforce housing units. These structures are attractive
buildings for their type and purpose and provide outstanding
views for residents. Finally, the Ambulance District Building site
was donated and then developed. The Village at Avon Design
Review Board again ensured that the architecture was beautifully
executed.
The Village (at Avon) has developed with great attention to
architecture and that will continue into the future. The Design
Review Board process has worked in the past and will continue to
do so.
Affordable Housing and Public Benefit:
As discussed in the memo from the Town Attorney, the PUD
required a total of 500 units of affordable housing. That
provision was put in place to mitigate all of the commercial
(825,000 sq. ft.) and residential (2,400 dwelling units) development
within the entire PUD, including Planning Area F. Of the 500
affordable units required to be developed, 224 or 45% of the
PUD requirement have been developed to-date in Buffalo Ridge.
These affordable units were developed by the Corum Real Estate
Group. Similar to the relationship with any new developer for
Planning Area F, Buffalo Ridge’s design was rigorously reviewed
4
Atttachment A
by the Village at Avon DRB and the result is very appealing architecture for an affordable housing project.
This revised proposal is focused solely on the quality of the development, both from a livability and
architectural perspective. Given the topography of the property and the proposed building setbacks along
Post Boulevard and current East Beaver Creek Boulevard, the impacts of the additional height are being
mitigated.
We will discuss these changes with the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 6, 2018.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Principal
5
Atttachment A
The Village (at Avon) PUD Amendment
Narrative and Review Criteria
February 27, 2018
Narrative:
This analysis and narrative is intended to supplement the materials previously submitted. The application has
been amended to react and respond to comments that have been received from the Planning and Zoning
Commission (P&Z) and result in a more meaningful and beneficial development opportunity in Planning
Area F.
As you are probably well aware, this PUD has been in place for 20 years, and amended in November of 2012
as part of a settlement agreement between the applicant, the Town of Avon and a total of more than 15
parties, that was implemented on August 1, 2014. The amendments proposed are not a drastic departure
from the overall intent and density allowed in the PUD. These refinements are intended to react to market
conditions and the changes nationally in the retailing sector. Locally, we all know that there is a lack of
residential inventory, especially on the valley floor and in multiple-family formats and at multiple price points.
This has created enormous demand for residential units. Planning Area F, given its context and proposed
density, will attract a more urban product that will in large measure address housing for locals in the area.
The proposed changes do not affect the total density of the PUD nor the total commercial floor area. The
amendment just allows the density and commercial floor area to be shifted on the Valley floor. The valley
floor will still be anchored on the east end with the existing retail buildings and in the future by Planning Area
A and the existing Chapel Square and “East Avon” commercial core. As a higher density residential
development area, Planning Area F will help bring life through new patrons and customers to help all of
Avon improve economically. You don’t have to spend much time in Avon to see that local retailers are
struggling to survive with the lack of residential density in the Town. This amendment could help add over
600 beds to the core region of the Town, improving local revenues and Town coffers.
Please see the letter submitted with this application for more details on the proposed amendments.
Review Criteria:
Below the applicant has addressed the PUD amendment review criteria as a supplement to the materials
previously provided. You will note that the criteria is written as if one is proposing a new PUD and asking
for a rezoning. In this case, the proposed amendments have little impact on the overall PUD as the density
and intent of the development, overall, is not being amended. The proposed changes are minor in the overall
scope of the PUD. Additionally, the PUD was found to be consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
As has been previously agreed to by the Town and as adopted in the settlement agreement, the regulating
Comprehensive Plan is the plan adopted in 1996 which calls for this area to be an urban center.
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.
1
Attachment B
Applicant Response:
The proposed amendments do not significantly change the PUD’s conformance with this criterion as the
overall quality of the PUD is unchanged.
Broadly, 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 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. The 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.
The PUD Amendment does not increase the overall permitted density within the Village, rather there is a
reallocation to allow for more dwelling units within Planning Area F to respond to the current market
conditions. This amendment addresses a unique situation in that it allows for more residential product
responsive to the market. The PUD Amendment results in more efficient use of existing streets, roads and
other utilities and services, as well as increased choice of living and housing environments. This PUD
amendment will allow for a residential product that will generate additional tax revenues including property
tax revenues to the Town of Avon (as well as to the Village metropolitan district), real estate transfer fees,
building permit fees and other revenues to the Town and metropolitan district. In addition, all of the added
benefits to Avon that accompany residential communities would apply, including more patrons frequenting all
of Avon’s restaurants and other retail establishments including shopping at from local shops to City Market
and Wal-Mart, as well as benefiting local employers with the potential of additional employees in close
proximity to employment centers.
The proposed application complies with this criterion.
2. The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety and general welfare.
Applicant Response:
The proposed amendments do not significantly change the PUD’s conformance with this criterion as the
overall impacts of the PUD are unchanged.
The existing PUD was found to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community and
the amendments proposed do not change this overall condition. The amendments do promote this criterion
by increasing the choice of living and housing environments and opportunities within the Town without new
impacts being generated since the overall density and intensity of development within the PUD is unchanged.
The proposed application complies with this criterion.
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.
Applicant Response:
The proposed amendments do not significantly change the PUD’s conformance with this criterion as the
PUD as a whole was found to meet the eligibility criteria and found to be consistent with the Avon
Comprehensive Plan. In this case the operative comprehensive plan is the plan adopted in 1996.
2
Attachment B
The proposed amendments allow the PUD to maintain its compliance with the Avon Comprehensive Plan
because the amendments promote urban center design goals of shifting density to developed areas adjacent
to commercial services.
The eligibility criteria are not applicable to this PUD amendment. The proposed amendments will produce
public benefits by allowing residential density to be shifted to Planning Area F and reducing the amount of
commercial development planned 20 years ago on this parcel due to changes in the retail market and the
internet market place. The amendments will modify the restrictions on this property allowing it to be
developed for higher density residential uses thus potentially producing new and better housing opportunities
for local employees.
The proposed application complies with this criterion.
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.
Applicant Response:
The proposed amendments do not significantly change the PUD’s conformance with this criterion as the
PUD as a whole was found to address all of the issues raised by this criterion. Since the proposed
amendments do not increase the overall density and intensity of development within the PUD, there are no
greater impacts to the facilities and services raised here.
The proposed application complies with this criterion.
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.
Applicant Response:
The proposed amendments do not significantly change the PUD’s conformance with this criterion as the
PUD as a whole was found to address or mitigate all of the issues raised by this criterion. Since the proposed
amendments do not increase the overall density and intensity of development within the PUD, there are no
greater impacts to the issues raised here.
The proposed application complies with this criterion.
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.
Applicant Response:
The proposed amendments do not significantly change the PUD’s conformance with this criterion as the
PUD as a whole was found to address or mitigate impacts to property in the vicinity of the existing PUD.
The change in building height is not a change producing any type of “significant adverse impact” upon
neighboring properties. Planning Area F is at a great distance to any adjoining property that might be
affected by the additional 10’ of building height. The additional height is mitigated by this great distance, as
well as the back drop of the hillside and I-70. Additionally, the introduction of a 50% site coverage limitation
also helps to reduce the potential bulk and mass of future development in the planning area.
The proposed application complies with this criterion.
3
Attachment B
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.
Applicant Response:
The proposed amendments do not significantly change the PUD’s conformance with this criterion as the
PUD as a whole was found to address compatibility in scale with uses on other properties within the vicinity.
The change in building height still allows the PUD to remain compatible in scale with uses in the vicinity.
Additionally, the introduction of a 50% site coverage limitation versus 80% also helps to reduce the potential
bulk and mass of future development in the planning area and allowing it to be compatible with uses within
the vicinity.
The proposed application complies with this criterion.
4
PO Box 4777
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970.376.3318
Attachment B
THE VILLAGE (AT AVON)
PUD GUIDE REVISIONS
FEBRUARY 27, 2018
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.
2. The permitted Commercial Use and Dwelling Unit densities within Planning Area
I shall be determined in the future pursuant to the formal amendment procedures set forth in
Section Error! Reference source not found. of this PUD Guide; provided, however, the
permitted Commercial Space for Planning Area I shall not be less than 196,970 consolidated Gross
Square Footage (which shall be in addition to the 825,000 square feet of consolidated Gross Square
Footage stated in Section A.1(a)), and the permitted Dwelling Units shall not be less than 750
Dwelling Units. The Town acknowledges that Planning Area I is entitled to be developed as
mixed-use development, and Uses may include Residential Uses, Commercial Uses, and public
and institutional uses at densities in addition to those set forth above as approved by the Town.
Until such time as a secondary access road is constructed, no non-Residential Uses shall be allowed
and the maximum density of Dwelling Units shall not exceed 280 Dwelling Units.
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.
4. Subject to the requirement that the maximum number of Dwelling Units within any
particular Planning Area, as applicable, shall not exceed that permitted under the terms and
conditions of this PUD Guide, as applicable, the actual number of Dwelling Units per acre within
Attachment C
a particular Final Plat or Site within the affected Planning Area may exceed the maximum number
of Dwelling Units per acre based on the acreage within such Final Plat or Site. By way of example,
in a Planning Area containing 20 acres and subject to a maximum residential density of 18
Dwelling Unit per acre (i.e., a total of 360 Dwelling Units), a 10 acre Site within that Planning
Area would be permitted to be developed with 300 Dwelling Units (i.e., 30 Dwelling Units per
acre) but the remaining 10 acres could be developed with no more than 60 Dwelling Units, with
the resulting density within such Planning Area in the aggregate being 18 Dwelling Units per acre
(i.e., (300 + 60 = 360 Dwelling Units) / 20 acres = 18 Dwelling Units per acre).
5. Density calculations for development of Residential Uses within Planning Areas A
through I, RMF 1 and RMF 2 shall exclude areas with slopes exceeding 40%. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, areas with slopes exceeding 40% created by the placement of dirt stockpiles shall
not be excluded for density calculations for development of Residential Uses within Planning
Areas A through I, RMF 1 and RMF 2.
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 0% 50%100% 50% 100%30
%
Planning Areas G and H 0% 50% 50% 100%
D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE VILLAGE (AT AVON) PUD.
6. Planning Areas F, G, H and I – Regional Commercial Mixed Use Projects.
(d) Building Envelope Requirements:
(i) Minimum Building Setbacks:
(1) Commercial Uses:
a. Front: 25 feet
Attachment C
b. Side: None
c. Rear: 10 feet
d. Abutting Interstate 70 or railroad right-of-way: 20
feet
(2) Industrial and Residential Uses:
a. Front: 25 feet
b. Side: 7.5 feet
c. Rear: 10 feet
d. Abutting Interstate 70 or railroad right-of-way: 20
feet
e. In Planning Area F, any building over 48’ in height
shall setback a minimum of 40’ from the property line adjoining Post Blvd.
or East Beaver Creek Blvd.
(3) Vertically-integrated Mixed Use Projects:
a. Front: 25 feet
b. Side: None
c. Rear: 10 feet
d. Abutting Interstate 70 or railroad right-of-way: 20
feet
e. In Planning Area F, any building over 48’ in height
shall setback a minimum of 40’ from the property line adjoining Post Blvd.
or East Beaver Creek Blvd.
(ii) Maximum Building Height:
(1) Commercial Uses:
a. Hotel Uses (including without limitation, hotel Uses
comprising a portion of a Mixed Use Project) on Planning Area I only: 55
feet, provided that such Uses may be permitted up to a maximum Building
Attachment C
Height of 135 feet as specifically identified as a Special Review Use in
Section Error! Reference source not found..
b. Hospitals on Planning Area I only: 80 feet.
c. All other Commercial Uses: 48 feet.
(2) Industrial Uses: 48 feet.
(3) Residential Uses:
a. Single-family Dwellings and Duplex Dwellings: 35
feet.
b. Multi-family Dwellings: 48 58 feet.
(4) Vertically-integrated Mixed Use Projects (except as set forth
in Section A.6(ii)(1) with respect to hotels comprising a portion of a Mixed Use
Project): 48 feet.
(iii) Minimum Landscaped Area: 20%.
(iv) Minimum Lot Area: Not applicable.
(v) Maximum Site Coverage in Planning Area F only: 50%.
(b) Residential Density Maximum:
(i) Planning Areas F, G and H: 18 25 Dwelling Units per acre.
(ii) Planning Areas G and H: 18 Dwelling Units per acre.
(iii) Planning Area I: Subject to this Section A.6(b)(iii), 15 Dwelling
Units per acre, subject to the following: cul-de-sacs may exceed 1,000 feet in length and
service not more than 280 Dwelling Units within Planning Area I, and that the portion of
a cul-de-sac that is in excess of 1,000 feet shall not service Commercial Uses. With respect
to any cul-de-sac located both within and outside of Planning Area I, (i) no Dwelling Units
served by the portion of such cul-de-sac located outside of Planning Area I shall be counted
toward the foregoing 280 Dwelling Unit limitation; and (ii) the portion of any such cul-de-
sac located within Planning Area I shall be deemed separate and distinct from, and not
included with, any portion of the same cul-de-sac located outside of Planning Area I for
purposes of calculating the Dwelling Units counted toward the foregoing 280 Dwelling
Unit limitation.
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment D
Attachment E
Heil Law & Planning, LLC E-Mail: ericheillaw@gmail.com
H EIL L AW
TO: Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Eric J. Heil, Town Attorney
RE: Village (at Avon) – Planning Area F – Preliminary PUD Amendment Application
DATE: December 29, 2017
SUMMARY: This memorandum describes the legal considerations and the past and current policy
regarding the requirement of “Public Benefits” for planned unit development (“PUD”) amendment
applications.
AVON DEVELOPMENT CODE: Avon Development Code 7.16.060(b) states the eligibility criteria for
establishing a PUD, including sub-section (5) which states,
“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.”
This is the provision that establishes “Public Benefit” as a review criteria for approval of new PUDs.
PUD approvals are legislative acts, similar to zoning changes; therefore, the Planning Commission and
Town Council have very broad discretion when reviewing PUD amendment applications. In practice,
7.16.060(1)(e) is the provision that is also applicable when PUDs are amended and the amendment
creates new, different or additional impacts on the community. Staff has correctly cited §7.16.060(e)(4)
as the applicable review criteria for a PUD amendment application.
Due to the legislative nature of approving PUDs and PUD amendments, there is no fixed criteria for
considering “Public Benefits”. General practice within the planning profession would be to consider the
adopted Comprehensive Plan for the community (and other relevant adopted community policy
documents) and to have some rational connection or relationship between the impacts of the proposed
development application and the Public Benefit sought.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Due to the legislative nature of PUD and PUD amendment approvals, the
Town Council has very broad discretion when reviewing and acting upon such applications. There is no
legal obligation for the Town to approve PUD or PUD amendment applications. That said, the Town
consciously sought to move away from PUDs when adopting the current Avon Development Code so
that the development community would have greater guidance and predictability with development
review criteria. The practice in the Town of Avon since adopting the Avon Development Code in 2010 is
to provide greater consideration to the specific incremental impact of a proposed PUD amendment and
consider the appropriate Public Benefit based on the incremental impact and the nature of the impact.
VILLAGE (AT AVON): The PUD Guide and the Development Agreement for the Village (at Avon) set
the maximum residential density for the entire property, the maximum commercial square footage, and
the maximum water rights consumptive use. Therefore, the proposed maximum density per acre
increase for Planning Area F does not increase the overall density of the project. The existing PUD
Guide and Development Agreement addressed public benefits and exactions for the overall density of
the Village (at Avon).
Thank you, Eric
M EMORANDUM& PLANNING, LLC
Attachment F
PZC Record of Decision: #REZ18001 and PUD18001 Page 1 of 2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: February 6, 2018
FINDINGS APPROVED: February 20, 2018
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning and PUD Amendment
PROPERTY LOCATION: Colorado World Resorts Property
FILE NUMBER: REZ18001 and PUD18001
APPLICANT: Greg Macik with TAB Associates
CASE#REZ18001 This decision is made in accordance with the Avon Development Code §7.16.050:
DECISION: Approved with the following findings: 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; 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. MC and OLD districts are found to be compatible with adjacent residential development based upon the intent to integrate mixed-use buildings that transition from residential to commercial development found in the Town Core.
CASE #PUD18001 This decision is made in accordance with the Avon Development Code §7.16.060:
DECISION: Approved with the following findings and conditions:
FINDINGS: 1. The property and project are eligible for PUD approval based on the eligibility requirements in Section 7.16.060 (b), Eligibility Criteria. 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; 3. The Application demonstrates compliance with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; 4. Compared to underlying MC zoning, the PUD overlay exceptions would not result in significant adverse impacts upon other properties; and
PZC Record of Decision: #REZ18001 and PUD18001 Page 2 of 2
5. The tangible public benefits presented with the PUD application are commensurate with the increase in building height, reduction in parking, and limited development on 40% slopes.
CONDITIONS: 1. A complete Final PUD must be submitted within six (6) months of Town Council action; 2. The application will include the following submittal requirements: a. Landscape Plan prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect. Irrigation and water budgeting based on best management practices and environmentally responsible/reasonable use shall be incorporated into the PUD guide at the requirement of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (UERWA). b. Preliminary Subdivision, as specified by Section 7.16.060(e), Procedures, shall be submitted concurrently with Final PUD. c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be submitted for Mixed-Use designation on Future Land Use Map. d. Water Rights obtained by UERWA. e. Development Agreement. 3. The PUD Guide will be amended, Page 25 -Building Height, in order for the "L" portion of the structure to match the building height of the plans as presented.
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED:
BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson
Attachment F
PZC Recommendations: #CPA17002 Page 1 of 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECCOMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL
DATE OF DECISION: February 20, 2018
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Comprehensive Plan
PROPERTY LOCATION: Various throughout, Avon
FILE NUMBER: #CPA17002
APPLICANT: Town of Avon
These recommendations are made in accordance with the Avon Development Code (“Development Code”) §7.16.030(c):
DECISION: Recommendation that Town Council Approve the Comprehensive Plan titled:
Town of Avon Town-Owned Properties Plan, with the following findings: 1. Integrating additional worker housing units into future development of the Wildridge Fire House, Swift Gulch, Public Works Site can be made compatible with existing and future planned land uses by careful design; 2. The relocation of the Hahnewald Barn helps to preserve the historical importance of Avon’s history and identity; 3. Transportation services and infrastructure can serve the proposed future land uses contained in the Plan; 4. Public services and facilities have adequate current capacity to serve the proposed future land uses; 5. The proposed land use in the Plan will result in a better location and form of development for the Town, with critical mass focused in the Town Center and less intensive land uses on outlying Town-Owned properties; 6. Strict adherence to the current Comprehensive Plan documents would result in a situation that contrasts with the current direction of the Town; 7. The Plan complies with the purposes of the Development code; in particular, the Plan provides a deliberate and orderly use of lands, conserving the value of the investments of the people of the Avon Community; 8. Compliance with the mandatory review criteria outlined in Section 7.16.030(c) are documented herein; and 9. The Plan will promote the health, safety and welfare of the Avon Community and will be consistent with the general goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the Staff report to PZC.
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED:
BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson
1
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:28 pm.
II. Roll Call – All Commissioners were present except for Commissioner Barnes.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda – There were no additions or amendments to the agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest – There were no conflicts disclosed.
V. Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment) Village at Avon PUD – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17001
Legal Description: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon
Applicant: Harvey Robertson
Summary: PUD Guide amendment for changes to Planning Area F, a 13-acre property located at
the intersection of Post Blvd and East Beaver Creek Boulevard, including: 1) increase
density allowance from 18 dwelling unit/ acre to 25 dwelling units per acre; 2) increase
maximum allowable residential development from 50% to 100; and 3) increase
allowable building height from 48’ to 66’ for multi-family buildings. The applicant
requested that this public hearing be continued to the March 6, 2017 PZC meeting.
Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to continue the public hearing to the March 6,
2017 PZC meeting. Commissioner Howell seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously 5-0.
VI. Comprehensive Plan Amendment –Town-Owned Properties Plan - PUBLIC HEARING
File: CPA17002
Legal Description: Various Properties throughout Avon
Applicant: Town of Avon
Summary: Staff presented the master planning document Town of Avon Town-Owned Properties
Plan which proposes various uses and buildings for properties throughout town. The
Commission was tasked to make a recommendation on the plan to the Avon Town
Council, who takes final action with an Ordinance.
Public Comments: Tamera Underwood spoke in favor of the Barn relocation. Christy Ferraro spoke in
favor of the Barn relocation. Andrew Pranger spoke in favor of including the Vail
Valley Art Guild in any final design of Tract G.
Action: Commissioner Golembiewski motioned to approve the application recommendation
with the following findings:
1. Integrating additional worker housing units into future development of the Wildridge
Fire House, Swift Gulch, Public Works Site can be made compatible with existing and
future planned land uses by careful design;
2. The relocation of the Hahnewald Barn helps to preserve the historical importance of
Avon’s history and identity;
3. Transportation services and infrastructure can serve the proposed future land uses
contained in the Plan;
2
4. Public services and facilities have adequate current capacity to serve the proposed
future land uses;
5. The proposed land use in the Plan will result in a better location and form of
development for the Town, with critical mass focused in the Town Center and less
intensive land uses on outlying Town-Owned properties;
6. Strict adherence to the current Comprehensive Plan documents would result in a
situation that contrasts with the current direction of the Town;
7. The Plan complies with the purposes of the Development code; in particular, the Plan
provides a deliberate and orderly use of lands, conserving the value of the
investments of the people of the Avon Community;
8. Compliance with the mandatory review criteria outlined in Section 7.16.030(c) are
documented herein; and
9. The Plan will promote the health, safety and welfare of the Avon Community and will
be consistent with the general goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan as
outlined in the Staff report to PZC.
Commissioner Glaner seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0.
Action: Commissioner Howell motioned to recommend to Town Council to prioritize the
Hahnewald Barn understanding that the timeline to move it is quickly coming.
Commissioner Glaner seconded the motion and the motion carried 3-2 with
Commissioner Golembiewski and Nusbaum voting in dissent.
VII. Meeting Minutes
• February 6, 2018 Meeting
Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to approve the meeting minutes. Commissioner
Howell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 4-0 with Commissioner
Hardy abstaining.
VIII. Staff Updates
Staff gave an update on the Colorado World Resorts application and mentioned the possibility of a joint
Town Council PZC work session on February 27.
IX. Adjourn – The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm.
Approved this 6th Day of March 2018
SIGNED: ___________________________________________
Lindsay Hardy, Chairperson