No preview available
PZC Packet 100620Notice Avon Notice of Regular Avon Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 6, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. MST WEBINAR MEETING ONLY Avon Town Hall operations are limited due to COVID-19 pandemic health orders to restrict gatherings. Physical attendance of the Avon Planning and Zoning meeting is not allowed. Please go to https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwscO6prT8pG9PF Ozl9gbWkZ2F7bAx4zLXN to register and join the meeting. You can also find the agenda and meeting packet materials for the meeting under Government > Planning & Zoning Commission > Agendas, Packets & Materials. We apologize for the inconvenience. _______________________________________________________________________________ MEETING AGENDAS AND PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: WWW.AVON.ORG AGENDAS WERE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, AVON RECREATION CENTER, AVON ELEMENTARY AND AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, CALL TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS AT 970-748-4023 OR EMAIL CMCWILLIAMS@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS. 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020 MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM VIRTUAL MEETING ONLY 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (CHAIRPERSON HARDY) 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS 4. BUSINESS ITEMS 4.1. 358 & 368 RIVERFRONT LANE LANDSCAPING - LOT 6 & 7 RIVERFRONT SUBDIVISION MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN AS REQUIRED IN TOWN COUNCIL AND PZC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MJR20005. (TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS & JIM TELLING) 4.2. MNR20025 & AEC20006 MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE FOR A FENCE WITH MESH WIRE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL (TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS AND MARCIE GREIS) 4.3. MNR20038 & AEC20007 MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE FOR A FENCE WITH MESH WIRE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL (TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS AND SUE GILLIES) 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1. SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 MEETING MINUTES 5.2. SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 MEETING MINUTES 5.3. SUB20004 – 330 RIVERFRONT LANE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION 5.4. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL – LCE200001 AND TEN19001 – 950 WEST BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS 6. STAFF UPDATES 7. ADJOURN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairperson Lindsay Hardy called the regular meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. A roll call was taken, and Planning Commission members present were Rebecca Smith, Jared Barnes, Donna Lang, and Steve Nusbaum. Also present were Town Planner David McWilliams, Planning Director Matt Pielsticker, and Town Manager Eric Heil. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to approve the agenda. Commissioner Lang seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0. 3. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS Commissioners Smith and Hardy noted conflicts with items 4.1 and 4.2. Action: After some discussion between the applicant of 4.1 and PZC, Commissioner Barnes motioned to accept the conflict for Commissioners Hardy and Smith for items 4.2 and reject the conflict for 4.1. Commissioner Lang seconded the motion. Upon discussion, Commissioner Nusbaum asked if the motion could be split for each item. The motion was rescinded, and Commissioner Barnes motioned to accept the conflict for Commissioners Smith and Hardy for item 4.2. Commissioner Lang seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 3-0 with Commissioners Barnes, Lang, and Nusbaum in favor. Commissioner Barnes motioned to reject the conflict for Commissioners Smith and Hardy for item 4.1. Commissioner Lang seconded the motion and it carried 2-1 with Commissioners Barnes and Lang in favor and Commissioner Nusbaum voting in opposition. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS 4.1. SUB20004 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 5D, RIVERFRONT SUBDIVISION, CREATING 6 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 TRACTS. TITLED “RIVERFRONT TOWNHOMES, PHASE II, A RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT 5D, RIVERFRONT TOWNHOMES PHASE I.” (TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS & JIM TELLING) PUBLIC HEARING Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to recommend Town Council approve the case with the following findings: 1. The application is complete; 2. The application provides enough information to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in Code Section 7.16.020; 4. The PZC held a public hearing on September 1, 2020, after providing necessary public notification in accordance with the Code; 5. The review criteria in Code Section 7.16.070(e) was reviewed and substantial compliance with the criteria was found; 6. The application complies with the stated purposes of the Development Code. Commissioner Lang seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0. 4.2. LOT 6 & 7 RIVERFRONT LANDSCAPING MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN AS REQUIRED IN TOWN COUNCIL AND PZC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MJR20005. (TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS & JIM TELLING) Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to continue the item to the September 15 meeting. Commissioner Lang seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 3-0. 4.3. EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT LANDSCAPE / OTHER ITEMS MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN AS REQUIRED IN TOWN COUNCIL AND PZC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LCE20001 AND TEN19001. (TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS, MELISSA MARTS, SIRI ROMAN AND LORI HANSON) Action: Commissioner Smith motioned to approve the conditions of approval with the condition that the landscaping elements be brought to PZC before a building Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1. AUGUST 4, 2020 MEETING MINUTES Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Lang seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0. 6. STAFF UPDATES Action: Staff mentioned some building projects around Town. 7. ADJOURN There being no further business before the Commission adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. These meeting minutes are only a summary of the proceedings of the meeting. They are not intended to be comprehensive or to include each statement, person speaking or to portray with complete accuracy. The most accurate records of the meeting are the audio of the meeting, which is housed in the Town Clerk' s office. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________________ David McWilliams, Town Planner APPROVED: __________________________________ Lindsay Hardy, Chairperson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Planning Director Matt Pielsticker called the meeting to order. No Commissioners were present. Due to a lack of quorum, all items were continued to the October 6, 2020 PZC meeting. 2. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 pm. These meeting minutes are only a summary of the proceedings of the meeting. They are not intended to be comprehensive or to include each statement, person speaking or to portray with complete accuracy. The most accurate records of the meeting are the audio of the meeting, which is housed in the Town Clerk' s office. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________________ David McWilliams, Town Planner APPROVED: __________________________________ Lindsay Hardy, Chairperson PZC Recommendations: #SUB20004 Page 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL DATE OF DECISION: September 1, 2020 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Subdivision PROPERTY LOCATION: Tract 5D Riverfront Subdivision 330 Riverfront Lane FILE NUMBER: SUB20004 APPLICANT: CRP/EWP Riverfront Avon Owner I, LLC These recommendations are made in accordance with the Avon Development Code §7.16.060: DECISION: Recommend approval of the Major Subdivision. FINDINGS: 1. The application is complete; 2. The application provides enough information to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in Code Section 7.16.020; 4. The PZC held a public hearing on September 1, 2020, after providing necessary public notification in accordance with the Code; 5. The review criteria in Code Section 7.16.070(e) was reviewed and substantial compliance with the criteria was found; 6. The application complies with the stated purposes of the Development Code. THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED: BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson PZC Record of Decision: Conditions of approval for #LCE20001 & TEN19001 Page 1 of 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION DATE OF DECISION: September 1, 2020 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditions of Approval PROPERTY LOCATION: Tract N and O Block 3 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision FILE NUMBER: LCE 20001 & TEN190001 APPLICANT: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District DECISION: Approval of the Conditions of Approval with the following condition: CONDITION: 1. The landscaping element be brought to PZC at a later date and other conditions be addressed before a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED: BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson Page 1 of 3 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: David McWilliams, AICP, Town Planner RE: Conditions of Approval - MJR20005 Lots 6 and 7 Riverfront Subdivision / 358 and 368 Riverfront Lane DATE: August 26, 2020 STAFF REPORT OVERVIEW: This Staff report contains required materials to achieve the Conditions of Approval from case MJR20005 as described in the Town Council and PZC records of decision. The application for two duplex structures was approved in summer 2020 with unfinished items for PZC review. Now, Jim Telling (the Applicant) presents a plan required to respond to the following items: • realigning the Eagle Valley Trail, particularly the corner of duplex number 4 • use of “Redi Rock” retaining walls • strategic placement of the felled cottonwood trees will be presented The Applicant produced a wetland report that verifies compliance with applicable regulations for the siting of the buildings, landscape features, and the relocated Eagle Valley Trail (the Trail). Additional items for review include: • The Garden Level entrances and stepping stone paths have been removed from Residences 3+4. These were added for Town Council review. • The boulder walls at the west side of Residence 4 have been changed to Redi-Rock walls. These are intended to match the existing walls along the path switchback. • Additional drought tolerant native landscaping has been added to the interior of the path switchback per the direction from ERWSD. This area will receive only above grade temporary irrigation. • Boulder wall configuration has changed on the east side of Residence 3 • Additional boulder wall has been added on the west side of Residence 2. • Rain garden location and grading have been updated on the south side of the Duplex 1-2. • Minor adjustments to the plant layout and species along the west side of Residence 4. • Addition of concrete aprons at the garage doors of all four units. • Trail has been shifted by 5’-0” to the south at Residence 4. These Condition of Approval items are not subject to a public hearing, but their satisfactory completion is required. While this is not a public hearing, Staff encourages PZC to consider any public comment on the matter. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lots 6 and 7 are .45 and .2 acres, respectively. The lots are currently in the grading permit process with Staff based upon the development approval from case MJR20005. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Lot Coverage, Setback and Easements: Lots 6 and 7 both have the following building envelope and easements: Front Side Eagle River (Back) 10' O' 75' (or property line, whoever is more restrictive) Page 2 of 3 Both duplexes have elements that protrude over the rear setback. Per the PUD Design Standards, the property is permitted, "limited minor encroachments as allowed in the development plan" in the river setback. PZC and Town Council both discussed the protrusions in depth and approved them as proposed. The Applicant modified the Duplex 1-2 size and the Duplex 3-4 angle for Town Council review in response to PZC comments. Now, the Applicant proposes a further amendment of the Trail and additional landscaping between Residence 4 and the Trail. Staff finds that these changes achieve a more appropriate overall aesthetic. One missing element on the plan is the use of removed trees to limit access to the river. Staff met with the contractor on site to ensure that the recycling of trees will be part of the grading permit process. DESIGN STANDARDS ANALYSIS: Landscaping & Irrigation: The total landscape area proposed is 13,824 square feet combined. 276 landscape units are required, and 741 units are proposed, primarily of spruce, pine, aspen, several deciduous shrub species, grasses, ground cover, and mulch areas. Notable changes include the area above the path on Lot 7 that has landscaping, and the additional landscaping on Tract H. Tract H will not be permanently irrigated due to Eagle River Water and Sanitation District policy. The applicant has not proposed an irrigation plan, and hydrozones are not expressly demarcated. A satisfactory irrigation plan must be presented to Staff before a building permit is issued. The plan does approximate an irrigated area (to be determined with the full plan) of 8.9% and 15.6% of the landscape area for Lots 6 and 7, respectively. Of note is that drip irrigation is encouraged in ADC and counted as 3 square feet per head. The wetlands study demonstrates no concerns for the eastern boulder wall or realigned Trail. The wetlands below the cul-de-sac are proposed to be preserved. The realigned boulder wall on Lot 6 preserves existing trees and creates a more natural buffer between the Trail and the development. The application still removes native landscaping within the building envelope as well as within the 75’ river setback, and the PUD Development Plan states, “the 75-foot river setback will be largely left in its natural state.” Retaining Walls: All retaining walls are proposed as boulder materials, except for the Redi-Rock walls on the western side of unit 4, as required in the Conditions of Approval. This wall was chosen to match the adjacent walls installed as part of the path project. All walls are between four (4') and two (2') feet tall. Snow Storage: The changes to the snow storage plan are proposed in this plan are negligible. DEVELOPMENT PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW - REVIEW CRITERIA § 7.16.0SO(f), Development Plan 1. Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes; 2. Evidence of substantial compliance with §7.16.090, Design Review; 3. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan; 4. Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned Page 3 of 3 development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; 5. Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and 6. That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. Staff Response: Staff finds that these modifications address the applicable review criteria and achieve them better than the original application. These modifications comply with the Riverfront PUD design guidelines. Adherence to the Conditions of Approval creates a more appropriate design. §7.16.090(1), DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA 1. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole; 2. The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and 3. The design reflects the long- range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents. Staff Response: The modifications are compliant with these Design Review Criteria. AVAILABLE ACTIONS: • Accept the modifications as proposed • Require additional information or additional modifications STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the modifications as proposed. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: “I move to approve the Conditions of Approval for case MJR20005 for landscaping considerations on Lots 6 and 7, Riverfront Subdivision.” ATTACHMENTS (a) Landscape Plan (b) Wetlands Report Thank you, David McWilliams 970-749-4023 / cmcwilliams@avon.org © 2020 Zehren and Associates, Inc. east west partners 08.25.2020The Residences at Riverfront 2 56 PLANT LEGEND: EVERGREEN TREES DECIDUOUS TREES SHRUBS PERENNIALS MIXED SPECIES (1 GAL) 294 SF NATIVE SEED MIX (GRASS / WILDFLOWERS) GROUND COVER ORNAMENTAL GRASSES BLUE SPRUCE (14' HT) QTY - 7 Picea pungens 'Fastigiata' WEEPING WHITE SPRUCE (12' HT) QTY - 2 Picea glauca 'Pendula' BRISTLECONE PINE (10' HT) QTY - 1 Pinus aristata MULTI-STEM ASPEN (3" CAL / 14' HT) QTY - 10 Populus tremuloides ROCKY MTN GLOW MAPLE (3" CAL) QTY - 4 Acer grandidentatum MUGO PINE (6' HT) QTY - 17 Pinus mugo var. rostrata WOODS ROSE (15 GAL) QTY - 13 Rosa woodsii MORDEN GOLDEN GLOW ELDERBERRY (15 GAL) QTY - 13 Sambucus racemosa 'Morden Golden Glow' RED TWIG DOGWOOD (15 GAL) QTY - 25 Cornus sericea 'Baileyi' TIGER EYES SUMAC (15 GAL) QTY - 15 Rhus typhina 'bailtiger' COMMON LILAC (14' HT) QTY - 9 Syringa vulgaris 'Andeken an Ludwig Spaeth' FRAGRANT SUMAC (15 GAL) QTY - 21 Rhus aromatica HARRISON'S YELLOW ROSE (15 GAL) QTY - 25 Rosa x harisonii 'Harrisons Yellow' GAMBEL OAK (15 GAL) QTY - 25 Quercus gambellii SERVICEBERRY (15 GAL) QTY - 19 Amelanchier alnifoila BLUE MUFFIN VIBURNUM (15 GAL) QTY - 12 Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin' GOOSEBERRY (15 GAL) QTY - 20 Ribes aureum ORANGE ROCKET BARBERRY (15 GAL) QTY - 9 Berberis thunbergii 'Orange Rocket' DIABOLO NINEBARK (15 GAL) QTY - 12 Physocarpus opulifolius 'Diabolo' MONTGOMERY SPRUCE (3' HT) QTY - 2 Picea pungens 'Montgomery' COMMON JUNIPER QTY - 19 Juniperus communis var. depressa CRUSADER COCKSPUR HAWTHORN QTY - 2 (3" CAL) Crataegus crus-gali inermis "Crusader' NANKING CHERRY (6' HT / Multi-stem) QTY - 3 Prunus tomentosa LANDSCAPE UNIT QTY (TREES) 16 8 102 70 28 14 12 13 LANDSCAPE UNIT QTY (Shrubs) TOTAL LU FOR TREES = 306 (45%) TOTAL LU FOR SHRUBS = 282 (41%) 13 25 15 19 9 21 25 25 19 12 20 9 12 2 LANDSCAPE UNIT QTY FEATHER REED GRASS (15 GAL) QTY - 79 Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Forester' RUSSIAN SAGE QTY - 43 Perovskia atriplicifolia 43 BLUE AVENA GRASS (5 GAL) QTY - 9 Helictotrichon sempervirens 9 85 1 TOTAL LU GRASSES / PERENNIALS = 95 (14%) SYMBOL LEGEND: PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PATIO PAVERS 102 SF (60mm) VEHICULAR PAVERS 3,123 SF (80mm) EXISTING TREE TO BE PRESERVED BARK MUCLH 4,814 SF (3" DEPTH) NATIVE SEED 6,904 SF CONCRETE LIMIT OF WORK BUILDING ENTRY 12.25 BOLLARD LIGHT - QTY 5 RIVER ROCK COBBLE NOTES: 1. ALL TREE AND SHRUB PLANT BEDS ARE TO RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 3" DEPTH OF BARK MULCH. 2. ALL DISTURBED OR RE-GRADED AREAS TO BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A NATIVE WILDFLOWER AND GRASS SEED MIX. 3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE MOISTURE SENSOR AUTOMATED AND TIME CLOCK OPERATED. SHRUBS, TREES, AND PERENNIALS TO BE DRIP OR MICRO SPRAY TYPE IRRIGATION. 4. NATIVE SEED AREAS SHALL BE TEMPORARY IRRIGATED FOR AND ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. TREES AND SHRUBS WITHIN THE NATIVE SEED AREAS SHALL HAVE PERMANENT DRIP IRRIGATION. 5. SILT FENCE OR HAY BALES ARE TO BE PLACED AT THE LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. A CONSTRUCTION FENCE WILL BE PLACED AT THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE WHERE THE SILT FENCE OR HAY BALES ARE NOT USED.GRAND TOTAL LOT 6 & 7 LANDSCAPE UNITS = 683 TOTAL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE UNITS PER CODE = 188 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1" = 10'-0" 2 LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST TRAIL 1" = 10'-0" LANDSCAPE PLAN Scale: 1” = 10’ 0 10’5’20’ Note: Native Seed Areas shall have temporary irrigation for establishment and are not Included in Irrigation Calculations Landscape Area Provided Lot 6 =9,772 SF Lot 7 = 4,052 SF 49.7% Lot 6 Area 46.2% Lot 7 Area Total Irrigated Area Lot 6 = 873 SF Lot 7 =635 SF 8.9% of Lot 6 Landscape Area 15.6% of Lot 7 Landscape Area Spray Area (Perennials) Lot 6 = 189 SF Lot 7 = 104 SF 21.6% of Lot 6 Total Irrigated Area 16.4% of Lot 7 Total Irrigated Area Drip Area (Trees / Shrubs) Lot 6 =684 SF Lot 7 = 531 SF 78.3% of Lot 6 Total Irrigated Area 83.6% of Lot 7 Total Irrigated Area IRRIGATION AREA CALCULATIONS Note: Total Irrigated Area is calculated on a per plant basis using the following areas: • 6 SF per Tree • 3 SF per Shrub • 3 SF per Grass • Total area of Perennials LOT 7 LOT 6 Attachment A August 16, 2020 Jesse Gregg Zehren & Associates P.O. Box 1976 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Wetlands Evaluation Riverfront Lots 6 & 7 – Avon, CO Dear Jesse, Per your request we visited Lots 6 & 7 of the Riverfront at Avon project area to update the wetland map, which has expired, and determine whether the proposed project would impact wetlands. An aerial overview of the project site is provided in Photo 1. METHODS Field reconnaissance was completed on June 29 and July 9, 15 and 31, 2020. The wetlands evaluation was conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) and the Regional Supplement for the Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast (2010). The limit of wetlands was evaluated using the vegetation, soils, and hydrology criteria of the manuals, and is consistent with the methodology used for a formal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation. The boundary determination was completed by Heather Houston of Birch Ecology and Dave Buscher, a certified professional soil scientist with Buscher Soil & Environmental. The study area extended from the project site to the stormwater drainage that borders the eastern side and the northern edge of the Eagle River Wetland south of the Eagle Valley Trail (Figure 1). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is on a steep south-facing slope just north of the Eagle River (Photo 2). Riverfront Lane provides access and is adjacent to the parcel at the top of the slope. The existing Eagle Valley Trail, a paved recreational path, is located at the southern edge of the study area near the Photo 1. Aerial Overview of the Project Site. Attachment B Eagle River (Photo 3). There are a few social trails that cut through the parcel, down the steep hillside to connect Riverfront Lane to the Eagle Valley Trail. West of these social trails, a stand of aspen (Populus tremuloides) and narrowleaf cottonwood (Poplulus angustifolia) trees grows with dense understory of serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana var. melanocarpa) shrubs and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), a noxious weed (Photo 4). The central part of the property has been seeded with upland grasses including smooth brome (Bromus inermis) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) (Photo 2). A few scattered weeds occur in this area such as ox eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), white top (Cardaria draba), and musk thistle (Carduus nutans ssp. macrolepis), all state-listed noxious weeds. The eastern part of the property is bordered by a drainage swale that emerges from a culvert in the large, curved retaining wall and connects to another culvert below the Eagle Valley Trail, which drains into the Eagle River (Photo 5). This area has an overstory of narrowleaf cottonwood trees growing with a dense understory of willow hawthorn (Crataegus saligna), dogwood (Cornus sericea), and Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii), with Canada thistle in the shaded understory (Photo 6). The Eagle River Wetland lines the bank of the Eagle River south of the project area (Photos 8 & 9). The riparian overstory includes a dense cover of sandbar willows (Salix exigua) along the ordinary high water line, with shrubs including river birch (Betula occidentalis), dogwood (Cornus sericea), and willow hawthorn and an overstory of mature narrowleaf cottonwood trees. In the wetland understory, areas of variegated horsetail (Equisetum variegatum), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and creeping spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) grow in the sandy soil, with native forbs including shooting star (Dodecatheon pulchellum), and northern green orchid (Platanthera aquilonis). RESULTS The results of the field investigation are summarized in the attached Figure 1. We did not identify any vegetated wetlands within the Lot 6 project area; however the “bed and bank” drainage channel that connects the culvert outfall at the retaining wall to the culvert below the bike path, which drains to the Eagle River, is a regulatory drainage (Photo 7). Soil Pit 1 was used to confirm that no regulatory wetlands occurred adjacent to this bed-and-bank drainage channel. The soil in this location was not hydric and lacked indicators of a wetland hydrology (Photo 10). The Eagle River Wetland is located south of the project area. As shown by Figure 1, a slight realignment of the Eagle Valley Trail is proposed near the condominium buildings. This shift would primarily disturb an unvegetated strip next to the asphalt path, and a sliver of upland habitat between the trail and the Eagle River Wetland (Photo 11). The delineated boun dary of the Eagle River Wetland is more than 50 feet away and would not be disturbed by the proposed trail relocation. Attachment B SUMMARY The proposed Townhome buildings would not impact jurisdictional wetlands or other Waters of the U.S. since the limits of disturbance are outside the area of the drainage swale. Moreover, the proposed changes to the Eagle Valley Trail will not disturb the Eagle River Wetland. It is our assumption that the two pipe discharges to be located south of the bike path could be designed to avoid wetland impacts, and therefore would not require a wetland permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Please call if you hav e questions. Sincerely, Heather Houston President & Senior Ecologist Attachment B Photo 2. The project is located on a steep south-facing hillside just north of the Eagle River and Eagle Valley Trail. Photo 3. View of the Eagle Valley Trail with the proposed project site pictured at left. This is near Residence 4. Attachment B Photo 4. Aspen and narrowleaf cottonwoods with an understory of Canada thistle in the western part of the project site. Photo 5. Culvert outfall at the top of the bed and bank drainage. Attachment B Photo 7. The bed and bank drainage ends at a culvert below the Eagle Valley Tail, which drains into the Eagle River. Photo 6. Riparian vegetation along the bed and bank drainage. This area does not support wetlands. Attachment B Photos 8 & 9. The Eagle River is lined by riparian wetlands. Attachment B Photo 10. Pit 1 was used to confirm that no vegetated wetlands occur on the project site adjacent to the bed and bank drainage. Photo 11. The bike path will be slightly shifted to the left, disturbing a mostly unvegetated area adjacent to the existing asphalt path. Attachment B Pit 174247425742673987425742074057415742074257410107415742074237422740099980274057410120274157410020200.01617070809741011127410072 4 2 3 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 312110908 24019899740024232221EAGLE RIVERBike path to be slightlyrelocatedLimit of regulatorydrainage channelidentified in 2020100-Year Floodplain75-Foot StreamSetbackLocation of proposedstormwater dischargesadjacent to existing pipesExisting sidewalkProposed boulderretaining wallsProposedTownhomesProposedTownhomesEAGLE VALLEY TRAILBoundary of EagleRiver WetlandPit 2Pit 3Pit 4Figure 1. Waters of the U.S. MapRiverfront TownhomesDate: August 2020Contour Interval = 2 ftScale: 1 in = 25 ftLEGEND:Wetlands Delineated in 2020100-Year Floodplain75-ft Stream SetbackSoil PitsPit 1Wetland flagging was surveyed byEagle Valley Surveying ofAvon, CO.BIRCH ECOLOGYBirch Ecology LLC 429 Main Street P.O. Box 170 Lyons, CO 80540 (720) 350-2530 www.birchecology.comprepared by:Property BoundaryProposed ContoursAttachment B Page 1 of 5 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: David McWilliams, AICP, Town Planner RE: MNR20025 and AEC20006 Public Hearing Lot 33B Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision / 4571 Flat Point #B DATE: October 2, 2020 STAFF REPORT OVERVIEW: This Staff report contains two applications for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC): Minor Development Plan and Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) for a proposed fence on the property. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Marcie Greis (the Applicant) proposes a two-rail split rail fence to enclose a portion of her back yard with deer mesh to keep dogs in. Fences in Wildridge are subject to strict standards, detailed below. The fence delineates the internal duplex property line. The duplex neighbor is opposed to the fence location but states willingness to accept a different design. The Applicants proposal does not comply with the Avon Development Code (ADC) as the proposed fence delineates the property, requires neighbor consent and would use mesh rather than solely wood. Therefore, the Applicant has submitted an AEC application, which requires a public hearing by the PZC and final decision by this board. The Applicant had been given Staff approval for a fence in 2017. This application should have required an AEC and Staff was in error issuing the approval. Because the fence was not built within the 2 (two) year timeframe required for development approvals (ADC Sec. 7.16.020(g)), a new review process is required. The prior approval has no bearing on this application process. The duplex neighbor is concerned Staff overlooked submission requirements. Staff has generally waived requirements like survey and title report due to the straightforward way fences are reviewed. With no grade changes and specific limits imposed by code, fence applications are not conducive to such submittal requirements. The disclosure of property ownership was signed by one of two owners of the property. Staff determined that this disclosure is sufficient and in line with many planning applications. ADC Sec. 7.16.020(b) provides the Community Development Director “may waive submission requirements where appropriate to specific applications; however, the waiver of any submission requirement shall not preclude the Planning and Zoning Commission or Town Council from requiring such information where deemed necessary for evaluation of the development application with the applicable review criteria.” Staff feels the materials presented before PZC are sufficient for a complete review. PROCESS: Certain design sections of ADC are permitted to be reviewed through the AEC process (detailed on page 3) as a method to deviate from the requirements of the code. Of note in this case is that duplex neighbor approval of the fence is a design-related provision and not a submittal requirement. An application can be considered complete even if it does not include duplex neighbor approval. PZC is therefore instructed to view the application as complete, and to base its decision on the available facts of the case. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the September 25, 2020 edition of the Vail Daily in accordance with Sec. 7.16.020(d) of the AMC. Mailed notice is not required for this application type. Page 2 of 5 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 33B is located on Flat Point, tucked away from the road. The yard is well maintained, and the duplex yards are relatively integrated. Lot 33A has an existing nonconforming fence installed on the west and north section of the yard. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Sec. 7.28.080(b), of the ADC offers the following intent and design of fence structures in Wildridge: Although discouraged in Wildridge and Wildwood, in all instances fences should complement the property and landscape rather than contain the property. Fences that delineate property boundaries are not permitted. Fences will be considered for approval by Staff only when demonstrated by the applicant that the design is consistent with the following criteria: i. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four (4) feet in height; ii. Fences shall be constructed using a split rail design with no more than two (2) horizontal rails; iii. Fences shall not delineate property lines; iv. Fences shall not enclose an area of two thousand (2,000) square feet or more; v. Fences shall ensure that wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design; vi. If a fence is part of a multi-family project, approval shall be received from the association and the fence design shall be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property; and vii. If a fence is located on a duplex property, written approval shall be received from the adjoining property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design. Staff Response: The proposed fence would enclose a portion of the improved section of the yard. While fences are required to be made of wood only, aesthetically appropriate two-rail split rail fences with mesh have been approved by PZC. Whether or not the fence complements rather than contains the property is debatable. The lack of neighbor approval and delineation of the property line is concerning to Staff. The property delineation occurs within the view of the neighbor’s kitchen. PZC has rarely allowed deviations from code requirements other than material. DESIGN STANDARDS ANALYSIS: Landscaping: No landscaping changes are proposed. The backyard is mostly short manicured grasses with various shrubs and trees. MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW - REVIEW CRITERIA: § 7.16.080(f), Development Plan 1. Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes; Staff Response: The PZC should carefully weigh if the application complies with the applicable purposes outlined in the Development Code (linked below). (e)Promote adequate light, air, landscaping and open space and avoid undue concentration or sprawl of population; (l)Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, practical and complimentary checking to Avon's sub- alpine environment; Staff feels that this fence does not compliment the property. 2. Evidence of substantial compliance with §7.16.090, Design Review; Staff Response: This application should be assessed for compliance with the Design Review Criteria of the Development Code, found below. The Design Review section seeks quality development that is visually harmonious with the site and the surrounding vicinity. 3. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The site is located in the Northern Residential District (District 11 of the Comprehensive Plan, linked below), which states, “The character for the developed landscape should reflect the area’s dry climate and typically steep terrain with Page 3 of 5 low water-requiring plant materials and natural landscaping. Due to the limited number of existing trees and shrubs and the open character of the property, special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings.” Staff is concerned that the chosen location does not conform to this ideal because delineating a property line between duplex neighbors does not suggest special care. 4. Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; Staff Response: Except where noted, the application conforms with the accompanying requirements of the PUD zoning and the ADC. 5. Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and Staff Response: The analysis contained in this Staff report addresses all applicable ADC standards. The application does not conform with ADC for the material, neighbor approval, and property delineation. 6. That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. Staff Response: Not applicable. §7.16.090(f), Design Review: 1. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole; Staff Response: Staff is concerned that the design does not relate to the character of the surrounding community. To Staff’s best recollection, fences approved by PZC have complied with all fence regulations except materials. PZC should carefully weigh if the location of the proposed fence relates to the character of the surrounding community. 2. The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and Staff Response: Except as noted, the design is compliant with the development and design standards contained in the Development Code. 3. The design reflects the long- range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents. Staff Response: Applicable adopted plans include the Avon Comprehensive Plan and ADC. The design has been evaluated for conformance with these plans and Staff is concerned that the proposed design does not meet the requirements as stated above. 7.16.120 ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE: As noted above, the Applicant’s proposal does not meet the criteria set forth in Section 7.20.080(b). Therefore, the Applicant is seeking approval through alternative equivalent compliance. Alternative equivalent compliance is a procedure that allows development to meet the intent of the design-related provisions of the code through an alternative design. It is not a general waiver or weakening of regulations; rather, this application procedure permits a site-specific plan that is equal to or better than the strict application of a design standard specified in the Development Code. This procedure is not intended as a substitute for a variance or administrative modification or a vehicle for relief from standards in this Chapter. Alternative compliance shall apply only to the specific site for which it is requested and does not establish a precedent for assured approval of other requests. AEC Review Criteria: The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an application for alternative equivalent compliance: Page 4 of 5 1. The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 2. The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 3. The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and 4. The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title. Applicant Response: According to the Applicant, the fence will be installed with mesh to keep the dog in the yard. While the fence deviates from the design standards for Wildridge, the presence of a noncompliant fence on the neighboring lot that is similar in prominence and conformation should be weighed against lack of approval from the neighbor (Attachment A, page 1). Code requires “property lines” (plural) should not be delineated, and this application only delineates one. Staff Response: The AEC application does not achieve the intent of the development standards. This application results in a weakening of the applicable regulations. The deviation from the established standards of location and neighbor consent is concerning to Staff because it weakens code and offers a site-specific plan that is not appealing. The impacts on adjacent properties are concerning. While the neighbors’ nonconforming fence is not the subject of this review, and Staff finds its aesthetic merits limited, it is largely tucked away unobtrusively from the Applicant’s half of the duplex. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AEC20006 ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE: Staff recommends denial of the AEC application for Lot 33B Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision with the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.120, Alternative Equivalent Compliance; 2. The proposed alternative does not achieve the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 3. The proposed alternative does not achieve the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 4. The proposed alternative does not result in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and 5. The proposed alternative imposes greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of the Code. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to deny Case #AEC20006, an Alternative Equivalent Compliance application for Lot 33B Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings as recommended by Staff." STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MNR20025: Staff recommends denial of the Major Development Plan with the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.080(f), Development Plan, §7.16.090(f), Design Review. The design does not meet the development and design standards established in the Avon Development Code; 2. The application is complete; 3. The application provides sufficient information to allow the PZC to determine that the application does not comply with the relevant review criteria; 4. The application does not comply with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; 5. The demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current capacity is not affected by the application; and Page 5 of 5 6. The design does not relate the development to the character of the surrounding community. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to deny Case #MNR20025, an application for Minor Design and Development Plan for Lot 33B Block 3 Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings of fact outlined by Staff.” ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Approve the applications: If the facts of the case are agreeable to PZC, Staff suggests approving the applications. Continue the public hearing: If PZC feels that more information is needed, Staff suggests continuing the applications. ATTACHMENT: A. Application Materials B. Public Comment LINKS: Avon Development Code Avon Comprehensive Plan Thank you, David McWilliams 970-749-4023 cmcwilliams@avon.org Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A (i) Fence material shall be wood and no more than four (4) feet in height; [Rohn K. Robbins] There is no deviation from the design criteria; the fence will be wood and no more than 4 feet in height. (ii) Fences shall be constructed using a split rail design with no more than two (2) horizontal rails; [Rohn K. Robbins] There is no deviation from the design criteria; the fence Will be composed of no more than two (2) horizontal rails. (iii) Fences shall not delineate property lines; [Rohn K. Robbins] There is no deviation from the design criteria; the fence will not delineate the property lines. (iv) Fences shall not enclose an area of two thousand (2,000) square feet or more; (v) Fences shall ensure that wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design; (vi) If a fence is part of a multi-family project, approval shall be received from the association and the fence design shall be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property; and (vii) If a fence is located on a duplex property, written approval shall be received from the adjoining property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design. [Rohn K. Robbins] The fence does not meet code in this respect but is equivalent to meeting code in that: a. The duplex neighbors—presumably with the approval of predecessor owner to Ms. Greis’ unit—has constructed a similar fence on their property. It appears, however, that there is no record of the neighbor consent or even approval for the original fence which we believe was constructed in or about 1997. b. The neighbors’ fence is non-conforming. In particular, the neighbors’ fence is taller than 4 feet, has three rails rather than two, encloses more than 2,000 square feet, and it has wire mesh attached to the fence. c. While an argument has apparently been advanced that the neighbors’ fence was somehow “grandfathered” (in that it was built in 1997 under older guidelines), even a cursory look at the fence will reveal that it is substantially newer than a 23-years old. It does not appear that the neighbors received Attachment A consent from anyone (the Town or Ms. Greis) to reconstruct this fence in its present conformation. d. The fence proposed by Ms. Greis in no way interferes with the neighbors’ property, in no way limits access to their property, and only very minimally impacts the (unprotected) view corridor from their above-sink kitchen window. e. The duplex neighbors’ fence is in a location and constructed in a conformation (however nonconforming) substantially similar to that which Ms. Greis proposes to construct. f. It would simply be unfair to allow Ms. Greis’ duplex neighbor to obstruct construction of her fence simply out of either caprice or spite while allowing a similar improvement on the duplex neighbor’s lot. The two fences (i.e., Ms. Greis’ and the neighbors’) will be completely compatible and function to the same purpose. g. Owing to the topography of the lot (the only flat area of the lot is in the vicinity where Ms. Greis proposes to construct the fence), the fact that Ms. Greis proposes to construct the fence in order to contain her dogs when the are let out, and that the fenced area will be appurtenant to the rear slider of her home, there is no practical alternative location upon her lot upon which to construct the fence. Please let me know of what further assistance in this matter I may be. Thank you, Rohn Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A From:Dominic Mauriello To:Eric Heil >; Matt Pielsticker; David McWilliams; Paul Wisor Subject:AEC Application for 4571 #B Flat Point Date:Thursday, October 1, 2020 3:41:17 PM Dear David, Matt, Eric, and Paul: We have been hired to represent Dominique Morrone and Antonio Garcia who are the owners of a duplex unit located at 4571 Flat Point, Unit A (Lot 33A, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision) to assist them with the review of an application filed by the purported owner (Marcie Greis) of the adjoining duplex unit located on Lot 33B. My clients are very concerned about this application and do not understand how this file can be reviewed by the Planning Commission as the application is woefully incomplete. Below is a list of required forms, documents, and approvals that are missing or incomplete: 1. Ownership. The County Assessor's office lists the owner of the property as GREISDORF, MARCIE - GLOWACKI, MARTIN who appear to be joint tenants. The name on the application does not match the public records and because the property is owned jointly, we question whether both owners would need to sign the application versus just one. The application is not signed by all of the owners. 2. Ownership of Property Disclosure Form. All applications to the Town require this form to be executed and it is required to be signed by all record owners. This form was not provided. 3. Title Commitment. With this application, the submittal of a current title commitment is required. No title commitment was submitted. 4. Survey. The Development Code requires the submittal of a current survey of the property. No survey was provided. 5. AEC Application. Section 7.16.120(a) states in part "A request for alternative equivalent compliance shall be made concurrently with a site-specific application for a procedure identified in this Chapter.” The application being submitted is a design review application for a fence in the Wildridge PUD. The Fences section at 7.28.080(b) (1)(vii) states: "If a fence is located on a duplex property, written approval shall be received from the adjoining property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design.” The section uses the term “shall” which makes it mandatory that the adjoining property owner sign-off is required. The adjoining owners, my clients, have not provided an approval for this application or the fence. Additionally, the party wall agreement for this duplex also requires approval of all owners to make fence improvements to the property. My clients have not given approval of the current fence design. 6. Other application materials. Several other submittal requirements are missing. Attachment B Given these facts, my clients request that the application be removed from the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda and that the application be returned to the applicant. My clients very much want the neighbors to have a reasonable fence on the property and have been attempting to work with the neighbor in a reasonable fashion. Several offers for a reasonable revised fence location have been put forth by my clients. My clients are agreeable to working with the neighbor. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please also forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 4777 2205 Eagle Ranch Road Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-376-3318 cell www.mpgvail.com Attachment B Page 1 of 4 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: David McWilliams, AICP, Town Planner RE: MNR20038 and AEC20007 Public Hearing Lot 49A Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision /5161 Longsun Lane DATE: October 1, 2020 STAFF REPORT OVERVIEW: This Staff report contains two applications for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC): Minor Development Plan and Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) for a proposed fence on the property. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Sue Gillies and Ben Carroll (the Applicants) propose a two-rail split rail fence to enclose a portion of their back yard with deer mesh to keep their dogs in. The proposal is for a five (5) foot fence to prevent large dogs from escaping. Fences in Wildridge are subject to strict standards, detailed below. The enclosed area traces the duplex property line, which already includes a privacy screen and a garden fence from the neighboring property. That is, the proposed fence will link into an already established barrier along the property line (Attachment A, page 4). Deviation from the Avon Development Code (ADC), in this case for height and material, requires an AEC application, public hearing by the PZC, and final decision by this board. PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the public hearing was published in the September 25, 2020 edition of the Vail Daily in accordance with Sec. 7.16.020(d) of the AMC. Mailed notice is not required for this application type. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 49A is located on Longsun Lane above the Water Department’s pumphouse. The yard is benched and then slops down steeply further from the house. It is a duplex and approval for the project was granted by the duplex neighbor. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Section 7.28.080(b), of the ADC offers the following intent and design of fence structures in Wildridge: Although discouraged in Wildridge and Wildwood, in all instances fences should complement the property and landscape rather than contain the property. Fences that delineate property boundaries are not permitted. Fences will be considered for approval by Staff only when demonstrated by the applicant that the design is consistent with the following criteria: i. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four (4) feet in height; ii. Fences shall be constructed using a split rail design with no more than two (2) horizontal rails; iii. Fences shall not delineate property lines; iv. Fences shall not enclose an area of two thousand (2,000) square feet or more; v. Fences shall ensure that wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design; vi. If a fence is part of a multi-family project, approval shall be received from the association and the fence design shall be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property; and vii. If a fence is located on a duplex property, written approval shall be received from the adjoining property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design. Staff Response: The proposal fences in the majority of the improved section of the rear yard. While fences are required to be made of wood only, aesthetically appropriate two-rail split rail fences with mesh have been approved by PZC. PZC has Page 2 of 4 rarely allowed deviations from other code requirements, including height. DESIGN STANDARDS ANALYSIS: Landscaping: No landscaping changes are proposed. The back yard is mostly short manicured grasses with various shrubs and trees. The applicants will remove the invasive thistle and generally improve the yard in the process of fence installation. MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN & DESIGN REVIEW - REVIEW CRITERIA: § 7.16.080(f), Development Plan 1. Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes; Staff Response: The PZC should carefully weigh if the application complies with the applicable purposes outlined in the Development Code (linked below). (e)Promote adequate light, air, landscaping and open space and avoid undue concentration or sprawl of population; (l)Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, practical and complimentary checking to Avon's sub- alpine environment; Staff feels that this fence generally compliments the property. 2. Evidence of substantial compliance with §7.16.090, Design Review; Staff Response: This application should be assessed for compliance with the Design Review Criteria of the Development Code, found below. The Design Review section seeks quality development that is visually harmonious with the site and the surrounding vicinity. 3. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The site is located in the Northern Residential District (District 11 of the Comprehensive Plan, linked below), which states, “The character for the developed landscape should reflect the area’s dry climate and typically steep terrain with low water-requiring plant materials and natural landscaping. Due to the limited number of existing trees and shrubs and the open character of the property, special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings.” While the location of the fence is supported by Staff, the height is not. 4. Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; Staff Response: Except where noted, the application conforms with the accompanying requirements of the PUD zoning and the ADC. 5. Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and Staff Response: The analysis contained in this Staff report addresses all applicable ADC standards. 6. That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. Staff Response: Not applicable. §7.16.090(f), Design Review: 1. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole; Staff Response: The application proposes a design location that relates to the character of the surrounding community. PZC should carefully weigh if the height of the proposed fence relates to the character of the surrounding community. Page 3 of 4 2. The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and Staff Response: Except as noted, the design is compliant with the development and design standards contained in the Development Code. 3. The design reflects the long- range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents. Staff Response: Applicable adopted plans include the Avon Comprehensive Plan and ADC. The design has been evaluated for conformance with these plans and Staff has determined the proposed design meets the requirements. 7.16.120 ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE: Alternative equivalent compliance is a procedure that allows development to meet the intent of the design-related provisions of the code through an alternative design. It is not a general waiver or weakening of regulations; rather, this application procedure permits a site-specific plan that is equal to or better than the strict application of a design standard specified in the Development Code. This procedure is not intended as a substitute for a variance or administrative modification or a vehicle for relief from standards in this Chapter. Alternative compliance shall apply only to the specific site for which it is requested and does not establish a precedent for assured approval of other requests. AEC Review Criteria: The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an application for alternative equivalent compliance: 1. The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 2. The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 3. The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and 4. The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title. Applicant Response: According to the Applicants, the fence will be installed with mesh to keep the dogs in the yard. It must be five (5) feet tall to keep them contained. While the fence deviates from the design standards for Wildridge, this fence type has been previously approved in the neighborhood and does not impact the neighborhood. It is integrated with the landscaping and does not impact views (Attachment A, page 1). Staff Response: The AEC application achieves the intent of the development standards to the same degree without causing great impacts on adjacent properties. The deviation from height is concerning to Staff, as fences are discouraged in Wildridge and the visual prominence may be increased. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR AEC20007 ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE: Staff recommends approval of the AEC application for Lot 49A Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision with the following findings and condition: Findings: 1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.120, Alternative Equivalent Compliance; 2. The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 3. The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard; 4. The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and Page 4 of 4 5. The proposed alternative does not impose greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of the Code. Condition: 1. The fence shall be a maximum of four (4) feet tall at any location. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve Case #AEC20007, an Alternative Equivalent Compliance application for Lot 49A Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings as recommended by Staff." STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR MNR20038: Staff recommends approval of the Major Development Plan with the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.080(f), Development Plan, §7.16.090(f), Design Review. The design meets the development and design standards established in the Avon Development Code; 2. The application is complete; 3. The application provides sufficient information to allow the PZC to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 4. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; 5. The demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current capacity is mitigated by the application; and 6. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community. RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve Case #MNR20038, an application for Minor Design and Development Plan for Lot 49A Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings of fact outlined by Staff.” ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny the application: If the location and height of the fence are disagreeable to PZC, Staff suggests denying the application. Continue the Public Hearing: If PZC feels that more information is needed, Staff suggests continuing the application. ATTACHMENT: A. Application Materials LINKS: Avon Development Code Avon Comprehensive Plan Thank you, David McWilliams 970-749-4023 cmcwilliams@avon.org Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A