Village at Avon PUD annexation v3Town of Avon
Annexation & PUD Staff Report
September 1, 1998 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
August 28, 1998
Project type
Mixed use PUD; Annexation
Legal description
Attached
Zoning
Rural Resource: Eagle County
Introduction
This is the second staff report to the Commission regarding The Village at Avon PUD. This report reflects our review of the revised Draft PUD Guide dated August 26, 1998 (delivered in
your meeting packet on Friday), plus several meetings with the applicant. This report endeavors to address comments and concerns expressed by citizens, Commission members, and staff
in the context of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Plan Update (1996), and generally accepted principles of planning.
For previous comments regarding this project, please refer to the Staff reports for the August 18 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and for the August 25 Town Council meeting.
Project summary
The Village at Avon is a mixed-use Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposed for the 1,790 acre Nottingham Ranch property (including the 170 acre Stolport site) located east and north
of the current Town limits. The entire parcel is within unincorporated Eagle County; the applicant is requesting annexation and PUD zoning by the Town.
Maximum limits, timing of development
The Development Plan provides for up to 750,000 square feet of commercial uses, 200,000 square feet of public and semi-public uses (such as ice rinks and entertainment facilities), and
2,400 dwelling units, 500 of which are employee housing. Actual construction of the project will likely take 20 years or longer, depending upon economic conditions.
Density
Commercial and residential densities are highest on the Stolport site, and predominately low-density single family homes in the higher elevations northeast of the proposed I-70 full-diamond
interchange.
The multifamily development immediately north of I-70 and adjacent to Swift Gulch (RMF-2) is mixed-income employee housing. Another multifamily development plus a regional park is located
north of and adjacent to the proposed I-70 interchange. Farther north and east are more residential units, predominately lower-density single family homes (except for up to 95 multifamily
units in RMF-3).
Access
A pedestrian network centers on a linear park running east west through the Stolport site, with connections to the existing East Avon commercial area through Chapel Place and East Beaver
Creek Boulevard.
Proposed vehicle access is through a combination of existing and anticipated routes:
East Beaver Creek Boulevard, which is to be widened;
An improved access from Highway 6 to replace the one now serving the concrete batch plant;
A new full-diamond interchange on I-70, to be constructed at the current ranch road underpass; and
Chapel Place, under construction as part of the Chapel Square project.
The Avon Transportation Plan Update shows Swift Gulch Road extending to the proposed interchange. The Development Plan however does not reflect this extension.
Financing
Funding for construction and operation of the project infrastructure is proposed through bonds issued by two Title 32 Metropolitan Districts, largely repaid through a combination of
sales tax, property tax, real estate transfer tax and accommodation tax generated within the project.
Governance
The project as proposed is to be governed by the Avon Municipal Code with respect to law enforcement, fire, animal control, building and related codes, zoning, subdivision, code enforcement,
operation of public streets, liquor licensing, and licensing of businesses. Architectural and site designs within the project are to be reviewed and approved by a private Design Review
Committee.
Development Review and Approval Process Outline
The development review process for this project includes the following separate yet related elements:
Annexation.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning.
Subdivision
Special District formation
Annexation Agreement
This report focuses primarily on PUD Zoning.
Development Review and Approval Actions to Date
July 10: Application received
July 28: Town Council passed the first resolution of compliance for the annexation petition, and set the public hearing for August 25.
August 4: Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) conducted a public input session.
August 11: Town Council held a public hearing and passed the two Resolutions of Substantial Compliance (Resolutions 98-48 and 98-49), which determined that the proposed annexations are
eligible for annexation.
August 18: P&Z reviewed the project and conducted a public hearing. Final action was tabled until September 1.
August 25: Town Council heard public comment on the project, then passed Resolutions 98-50 and 98-51, granting approval of the service plans for the two Metropolitan Districts within
the PUD. Council then tabled first reading of the ordinances approving Annexation, PUD and the Annexation Agreement until August 8.
August 25: Council directed that an additional meeting be scheduled for the Town’s citizens to ask questions of the applicant and to comment further on the project. That meeting is scheduled
for Wednesday, September 2, at 6:00 P.M in the Council Chambers.
Staff Comments
The August 26 Draft PUD Guide reflects a number of changes to the original application (July 10):
The PUD Guide now includes the Special Review Use designation in addition to Allowed Uses, within some planning areas. It also includes an outline of the special review and approval
process.
Maximum limits for public and quasi-public uses such as amphitheaters and skating arenas.
More complete standards for setbacks, minimum lot sizes and minimum landscape area.
Building setbacks from the I-70 and Railroad rights-of-way.
Day care as a use by right in all planning areas.
Lockoff units are no longer allowed as a use.
A revised and more complete definition of “Dwelling Unit,” plus a definition for “Extended Stay Hotel,” which addresses accommodation units such as “Residence Inns” and similar hotels
with cooking facilities.
Off-street parking regulations (Exhibit C) based on current Town parking regulations in combination with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) proposed model parking ordinance.
A preliminary set of design standards, attached as Exhibit E, Design Review Guide.
Modified road standards.
The following issues, though not completely resolved, are being addressed and do not necessarily indicate a condition of approval:
Trail users have objected to a perceived loss of trail access, although most of the trails discussed have historically been, and remain, on private property. The applicant and representatives
of the Eagle County Trail Committee met recently, and identified a potential east-west trail connection in the area north of I-70. We will keep the Commission apprised of their progress.
One of the concerns most frequently expressed during public meetings is how construction traffic will be handled to reduce impacts on existing businesses and residences. Until completion
of the I-70 interchange, construction traffic should be directed to the eastern entrance via Highway 6. This strategy will most likely require improvements to Highway 6, including traffic
signals and intersection improvements. In response, Council passed Ordinance 98-13, which effectively prohibits dump trucks and similar construction vehicles from accessing the site
via Beaver Creek Boulevard.
The applicant proposes dedicating a total 4 acres either in site or distributed between multiple sites, at the Town’s discretion, for public uses such as a public works facility, fire
station and other emergency services. The Fire Department recommends incorporating the Fire, Police and Ambulance functions in a combined Public Safety facility, and anticipates needing
the facility in 2003 or 2004. It
isn’t clear whether the proposed 4 acres is sufficient for the uses described. Staff will keep the Commission apprised, as more information becomes available.
Because of wildfire hazard and difficult access to areas north of I-70, it is important that the Fire Department be able to review and approve or disapprove language in the Design Review
Guide and associated covenants that deals with landscaping, architecture, access, water supply, and other elements that relate to wildfire mitigation. This concern is addressed through
condition #1, under the auspices of the Town. The Department also expressed concern about potential delays to fire and police response at the east railroad crossing, should the Union
Pacific resume operations. If we require the applicant to upgrade the east entry, we may want to again consider a separated grade crossing.
The following are comments on issues not yet resolved, and are reflected in the recommended conditions of approval.
It is important to the applicant that the project’s own Design Review Board (DRB) maintains control of all site and architectural design review within the project, and has sole approval
authority of the Design Review Guide. Although the Town P&Z would have a representative on the DRB, she would represent only one vote. Authority over zoning and subdivision issues would
remain with the Town.
Staff does not object to the Village DRB performing the design review function as long as the Town retains the right to review and approve the revised Design Review and future significant
amendments. The applicant is concerned that the Town’s exercise of review and approval authority over the final Design Review Guide could result in protracted negotiations over architectural
details such as roof pitch. Although we appreciate the applicant’s concern, we don’t believe that the Town should delegate the approval of these regulations.
Staff takes issue with some of the language in the PUD Guide, Section A. Purpose/General Provisions, subsection 5. This language is essentially repeated in subsection 4, as well as in
portions of the Annexation Agreement. It reads, in part,
“...application of such Municipal Code provision shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development,
delaying, or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner’s vested property rights set forth in the Development Plan or the Annexation and Development Agreement.”
Staff’s opinion is that this language effectively limits the Town’s ability to enforce existing and future regulations within the Village at Avon, that it would reasonably and normally
do on a Town-wide basis.
Another important issue is the extension of Swift Gulch Road east to the new interchange. The applicant maintains that the proposed road will be a detriment to the project, as well as
difficult to construct. The applicant instead offered to construct a trail, wide enough to allow emergency vehicle access, as an alternative to an actual road. The Swift Gulch Road
extension is shown in the Transportation Plan Update, and in Staff’s opinion is a critical component of the road system.
Affordable housing for employees is proposed generally consistent with the Town’s current approach. While there are some details to resolve such as the proposed appreciation cap and
location of housing, Staff feels that these issues can be resolved, and should be reflected in a master lease agreement.
The proposed Design and Improvement Standards in the PUD Guide allow variances from Town street standards, flood plain regulations and storm water regulations, but without the benefit
of the information staff would normally require to evaluate such variances. We recommend modifying the
PUD Guide to address the most critical issues, and require that the Town evaluate further variances from Town standards on a case by case basis.
The Fire Department requested that sprinkler systems be required for all new residential structures within the project north of I-70.
Staff asked the applicant to delete or relocate the five single-family homesites in Nottingham Gulch (Lots 1-5), based upon the geologic hazards and environmental impacts. The applicant
did not concur with staff’s assessment. Recognizing that these lots could be great homesites for future residents, and likely represent significant profit to the applicant, we again
reviewed the applicant’s reports on geologic constraints and biotic conditions. Our conclusion, after further consideration, is that the potential long-term environmental and aesthetic
cost to the community makes development of these lots in Nottingham Gulch questionable at best.
Lots 1-5 are located within a Class 4 Constraint area, and so will require deflection berms and other mitigation measures to protect against potential debris flows (landslides). The
geologist recommends building these structures on an area wide basis, rather than on individual sites. This approach that seems likely to increase site disturbance.
An isolated but significant deer migration corridor crosses the Nottingham Gulch adjacent to the stock pond. The wildlife biologist recommends avoiding migration and movement corridors
identified on the map, and maintaining movement corridors within each of the four drainages.
Wetlands are associated with the stock pond, in the drainage below the pond, and in the drainage above the pond adjacent to the building sites. Riparian habitat is sparse on the south-facing
Village property, and supports species that otherwise would not occur on this property. The report states that development should avoid these riparian areas whenever possible.
Planning Area OS-10 is directly adjacent to the Eagle River. Although the allowed uses are already limited, we believe that the uses should be further limited, in order to preserve the
river corridor as much as possible.
The applicant proposes providing 7.3 acres of the required 8.7-acre school site, with cash payment in lieu of the remaining 1.4 acres. Staff feels that the land dedication should be
for the full requirement.
Although the applicant has been very accommodating in taking staff and the Commission on tours of the site, members of the Commission and the public continue to express concern about
the visibility of some portions of the residential development north of I-70, particularly the southern homesites within Lots 6 – 55.
The phasing plan still does not currently address the timing of the park improvements, including the proposed pocket parks.
The staff and applicant have discussed but not reached consensus on how to ensure that each Planning Area develops in the general character anticipated by the Development Plan. One approach
is setting the rough proportions of commercial square footage and residential density allowed within each planning area.
The method used to calculate Commercial Area has significant implications for the developer and for the Town over time. Staff has consistently recommended adopting the Urban Land Institute
(ULI) method of defining commercial area.
Along those same lines, staff has requested that the applicant use the same method for determining density within the Village that the Town uses: that is, lot areas with slopes greater
than 40% are excluded from density calculations. So, if zoning allows 10 units per acre, and 1/2 of a 3-acre lot is on slopes exceeding 40%, then the number of units allowed would be
based on the developable
portion, or 1½ acres: 15 units versus 30 units. Although changing methods creates some inconvenience to the applicant, density calculations are important for some of the same reasons
that Commercial Area calculations are important. Creating two calculation methods within the Town unnecessarily complicates analyses that will become increasingly important.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Development Plan for the Village at Avon PUD, subject to the following conditions:
The final Design Review Guide, once completed by the applicant, must be submitted to the Town for review and approval prior to its final adoption by the Village Design Review Board.
The language in the PUD Guide, Section A, subsection 5, that reads “…application of such Municipal Code provision shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of altering, impairing,
preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying, or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner’s vested property rights set forth in the Development Plan or
the Annexation and Development Agreement,” should be amended to read “…application of such Municipal Code provision shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of unreasonably
affecting any of Owner’s vested property rights set forth in the Development Plan or the Annexation and Development Agreement.” All similar statements in the PUD Guide, Annexation Agreement
and other documents adopted as part of the approval of this project should likewise be amended.
The applicant should immediately initiate the approval and design process for the extension of Swift Gulch Road to the proposed interchange, and proceed to completion at the earliest
opportunity.
The applicant will enter into a master housing agreement with the Town, which will reflect at a minimum the Town’s adopted limits and policies regarding pricing, appreciation, capital
allowances and real estate transaction fees.
The PUD Guide, Supplemental Regulations, Subsection I-5, should be amended to read:
“5. Design and Improvement Standards
Development within the Village (at Avon) shall comply with the Design and Improvement Standards contained within Section 16.40 of the Avon Municipal Code in effect on June 1, 1998, with
the following modifications:
(a) Roadway standard modifications for public and private roads located north of Interstate Highway 70:
i. Cul-de-sac serving more than 250 residential units – maximum length 0.3 miles, constructed to collector street standards.
ii. Cul-de-sac serving 60 to 250 residential units – maximum length 2.5 miles constructed to local street standards.
iii. Cul-de-sac serving fewer than 60 residential units – private only:
Minimum driving surface width – 22 feet
Minimum shoulder width – 1 foot
Design speed – 25 MPH
Maximum grade – 10%
Minimum Sight Distance – 150 fee
(b) Curb, gutter and an equivalent width sidewalk may be installed in lieu of required shoulders.
(c) Variances from Town of Avon Design and Improvement Standards in Section 16.40 of the Avon Municipal Code will be considered on a case by case basis at the Preliminary Plan review
stage as sufficient details are provided to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed variances.”
Construction of all residential structures in the areas north of I-70 shall include installation of appropriate fire sprinkler systems.
Lots 1-5 and associated infrastructure, including the access road should be deleted from the development plan, and the area designated as Open Space.
The following uses within Planning Area OS-10 should be reclassified from “Allowed Use” to “Special Review Use:” (iii) Lakes, ponds, reservoirs and irrigation ditches; (iv) Park and
picnic facilities and related parking; (v) Public or private roads and utilities including but not limited to utility improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services and buildings.
Land dedication for the school site should conform to the Town’s requirements in Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code.
The applicant should provide, for Town review and approval, a phasing plan for park improvements, including the Regional Park, linear park, and pocket parks.
Parks, recreation, and trails facilities should be open to the public, in accordance with Town regulations.
The PUD Guide should include proportions of commercial square footage and residential density allowed within each planning area.
The PUD Guide should reflect the Urban Land Institute (ULI) definition in “Dimensions of Parking” third Edition, Appendix C.
Density calculations (number of units/area of parcel) should exclude areas with slopes > 40%.
This recommendation of approval of the Development Plan as modified by these conditions, is based upon the following findings:
The density, land uses and overall pattern of development in the Village at Avon conform to the Avon Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives (Fig. 4.2, page 40).
The Village at Avon Development Plan conforms to the overall design theme of the town, the Subarea design recommendations and design guidelines;
The project Design is compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character,
and orientation;
The project proposes a mix of uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity;
The Development Plan identifies and proposes mitigation and/or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property;
The general pattern of development as represented by the Development Plan and associated depictions of representative structures, plus the amount and location of open space, appear to
be designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community;
The project incorporates a circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the town transportation
plan;
The project proposes functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space that will optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function;
The phasing plan appears adequate to maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan clearly demonstrates that each
phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases;
There are, or will be as needed, adequate public services including sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection;
That the existing streets and roads are or will be upon modification suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and near the proposed PUD.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss any aspect of the project or this report prior to Tuesday’s meeting, please contact me at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development
Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Matzko
Director of Community Development