Loading...
PZC Minutes 051324AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ^ MONDAY, MAY 13, 2024 Avon 100 MIKAELA WAY-AVON COUNCIL CHAMBERS ;ak oa. Y,- 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (CHAIRPERSON) MEETING COMMENCED AT 5:30PM. A ROLLCALL WAS TAKEN, AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS KEVIN HYATT, BILL GLANER, OLIVIA COOK AND NEW COMMISSIONERS NICOLE MURAD AND BRIAN SIPES WERE PRESENT. ALSO PRESENT WERE TOWN MANAGER ERIC HEIL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER JENA SKINNER, AICP, PLANNER II MAX MORGAN, AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR, EMILY BLOCK. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS, MARISA AND MERRILL LAHMAN REPRESENTING WALKIN' THE DOG WERE PRESENT AS APPLICANTS FOR SRU24001. PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT BOBBY LADD, AND DEVELOPER SEAN REYNOLDS WERE PRESENT AS APPLICANTS FOR PUD24002, MJR24003, AEC24002, PUD24001, MJR24002, & AEC24001. COMMISSIONERS BRAD CHRISTIANSON AND ANTHONY SEKINGER WERE NOT IN ATTENDANCE. KEVIN HYATT SERVED AS PZC CHAIRPERSON, IN COMMISSIONER SEKINGER'S ABSENCE. 2. SWEARING IN OF NEW COMMISSION MEMBERS ACTION: NEW COMMISSIONERS NICOLE MURAD AND BRIAN SIPES WERE SWORN IN BY DEPUTY TOWN CLERK BRENDA TORRES. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ACTION: COMMISSIONER GLANER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. COMMISSIONER SIPES SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 4. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR EX PARTE COMMUNICATION RELATED TO AGENDA ITEMS COMMISSIONER SIPES SHARED THAT HE RECEIVED AN EMAIL ON MAY 6, 2024 CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR 2332 FOX LANE FROM AN AVON RESIDENT. IN A REPLY EMAIL TO THE RESIDENT SHARED WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER, AICP, COMMISSIONER SIPES EXPRESSED THAT HE IS "NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISCUSS ACTIVE APPLICATIONS", WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE DIRECTOR TO BE THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE. THE PZC COMMISSIONERS MADE NO FURTHER COMMENT ON THIS DISCLOSURE. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1. SRU24001 WALKIN' THE DOG BUSINESS OPERATION- MAX MORGAN, PLANNER 11 PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. THE TOWN RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT VIA EMAIL FROM PAUL JARDIS, PRESIDENT OF THE METCALF COMMERCIAL PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE BOARD, ON APRIL 18, 2024 IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED APRIL 22, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING FOR SRU24001, WHICH WAS CONTINUED TO MAY 13, 2024 IN ORDER FOR THE APPLICATION TO BE PROPERLY NOTICED, IN THE EMAIL, PAUL JARDIS REQUESTED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE "DELAYED", OR IF NOT DELAY, DENIED. THIS EMAIL FROM PAUL JARDIS WAS NCLUDED IN THE PZC PACKET AS PART OF THE SRU24001 APPLICATION. PAUL JARDIS SENT A SECOND EMAIL ON MAY 13, 2024 AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE METCALF COMMERCIAL PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE BOARD, "RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THIS REQUEST FOR AN EXPANDED SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT BE DENIED." THIS EMAIL WAS RECEIVED IN TIME TO BE INCLUDED WITH THE PZC PACKET PUBLISHED ON MAY 10, 2024 HOWEVER, STAFF DISTRIBUTED A PRINTED VERSION OF THE EMAIL TO PZC COMMISSIONERS, AND MADE THE SAME PRINTED COPY AVAILABLE TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 13, 2024. 2. THE TOWN RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM SEAN REYNOLDS (5032 WI LDRI DGE RD E #A) EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR APPROVAL OF SRU24001 ON APRIL 19, 2024. 3. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, WILL CUMMINGS (EAGLE-VAIL) SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR SRU24001 4. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANNE "ANNIE" DEWATERS (2421 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP A) SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR SRU24001 ACTION: COMMISSIONER GLANER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE SRU24001 WITH THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FROM STAFF, INCLUDING ONE REVISION TO RECOMMENDED CONDITION #1, TO REPLACE THE WORD "MAY" FOR'SHALL". THE UPDATED CONDITION READS "THE PERMIT IS VALID FOR TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS; AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION, THE HOLDER OF THE SPECIAL REVIEW USE APPROVAL SHALL APPLY FOR A REVIEW HEARING BEFORE THE PZC." COMMISSIONER COOK SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION PASSED 4-1. COMMISSIONER SIPES REPRESENTED THE DISSENTING VOTE. 5.2. PUD24001 i MJR24002 / AEC24001 NEW RESIDENCE 4644 NORTH POINT -MAX MORGAN, PLANNER II STAFF INTRODUCED THE APPLICATION, AND THE APPLICANT GAVE A PRESENTATION AND ANSWERED QUESTIONS FROM THE PZC AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, CHAD HOLLEMAN (2365 FOX LANE) ASKED A QUESTION CONCERNING POTENTIAL, ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE. 2. ROBERT PFAFF (2345 FOX LANE B) ADDRESSED THE COMMISSION AND STAFF TO INDICATE OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER SIPES CLARIFIED THAT THIS WAS THE PUBLIC'S OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT QUESTIONS TO STAFF CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 4644 NORTH POINT, BUT THE COMMENTS ARE NOTED. 3. MARY ISOM (2421 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP B) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 4. COLIN MEIRING (4660 NORTH POINT A) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. ACTION: COMMISSIONER SIPES MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE APPLICATION FOR PUD24002 TO THE ,TUNE 10, 2024 PZC MEETING IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO SEEK COUNSEL RELATED TO POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE IN THE NON -DEVELOPABLE AREA ON THE LOT. COMMISSIONER GLANER SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. THIS ACTION EFFECTIVELY TABLED THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO MJR24002 AND AEC24001, 5.3. PUD240021 MJR240031 AEC24002 NEw RESIDENCE 2332 FOX LANE- MAX MORGAN, PLANNER II STAFF INTRODUCED THE APPLICATION, AND THE APPLICANT GAVE A PRESENTATION AND ANSWERED QUESTIONS FROM THE PZC AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC COMMENT: 1. ROBIN USATCH (2345 FOX LANE A) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 2. JODY ETTERS (2413 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP A) PRESENTED A HAND-OUT TO THE PZC, STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, AND ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 3. PEPPER ETTERS (2413 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP A), ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 4. DANIELA DEMEILLAC (2395 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO COMMENT ON DEVELOPMENT IN WILDRIDGE AND THE PZC. S. MATT GARNSEY (2101 OLD TRAIL ROAD C) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS SUPPORT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 6. MIKE CHADWELL (2413 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP B) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 7. ANN MARIE CHADWELL (2413 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP B) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 8. BOB ISOM (2421 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP B) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 9. JULIE OZOG (2323 FOX LANE) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPL CATIONS. 10. ANNE "ANNIE" DEWATERS (2421 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP A) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. 11. ANN MARIE CHADWELL REAPPROACHED THE PODIUM AND ADDRESSED THE PZC TO RE -AFFIRM OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.." 12. MARY ISOM (2421 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP B) ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.. 13. PEPPER ETTERS (2413 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP A) RE -ADDRESSED THE PZC TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. TOWN MANAGER ERIC HEIL REMINDED STAFF, THE COMMISSION AND THE MEETING ATTENDEES THAT THEY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY NEW PUBLIC COMMENTS. NO NEW PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE PRESENTED. COMMISSIONERS SHARED COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION. ACTION 1: COMMISSIONER GLANER MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION PUD24002 AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER SIPES SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. ACTION 2: COMMISSIONER SIPES MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR AEC24001 AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WITH NO CONDITIONS. COMMISSIONER GLANER SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. ACTION 3: COMMISSIONER SIPES MADE A MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION MJR24003 °TO HAVE THE APPLICANT REVISIT THE OVERALL SITE DISTURBANCE IN RESPECT TO SETBACK -TO -SETBACK DISTURBANCE ON THE UPHILL PORTION OF THE LOT, AND LOOKING AT THE MASSING THAT IS RESULTING! COMMISSIONER MURAD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-1, WITH COMMISSIONER GLANER REPRESENTING THE DISSENTING VOTE. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1. APRIL 22, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 5.2. RECORD OF DECISION - TMP24003 DNAS TRAILERS CONSTRUCTION STAGING - MAX MORGAN, PLANNER 11 5.3. RECORD OF DECISION - MNR230031 AEC24003 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT FENCE IN WILDRIDGE- MAX MORGAN, PLANNER 11 5.4. RECORD OF DECISION - REZ24001 EAST AVON REZONING - JENA SKINNER, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER ACTION: COMMISSIONER GLANER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER COOK SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. FUTURE MEETINGS 6.1. MAY 27, 2024 -NO MEETING- MEMORIAL DAY 6.2. JUNE 10, 2024 (MONDAY-WITH PZC TRAINING) 7. STAFF UPDATES 7.1. JUNE 10.J0INT DDA I PZC MEETING -SUB AREA PLANS 7.2. USE COHORT 8. ADJOURN ACTION: COMMISSIONER HYATT ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 8:28PM. 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 RECORDING OF THE MEETING, WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE BY SUBMITTING A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST. APPROVED: x CHAIRPERSON ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT A: ETTERS HANDOUT RELATED TO PUD240021 MJR24003 Attachment A Etters Handout for PUD24002 12 May, 2024 To the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council: As Avon Property owners and Neighbors to the proposed development of 2332 Fox Lane, the below signed are united in our opposition to the current application for a Minor Subdivision and Lot Split Amendment for Lot 66, Block 1, Wildndge Subdivision (2332 Fox Lane) As proposed, the Lot Split and corresponding development should be rejected for the following three reasons. First it contradicts the guidelines set forth in the Town of Avon Home Rule Charter ("Town Charter"). Second, it ignores the policies and goals set forth by the Town of Avon in the Comprehensive Plan (updated in 2024) ("Town Plan ) and the 2021 Community Housing Plan ('Community Plan'). Finally, 4 does not follow precedent set by previous successful Lot SpIR Amendments within the Wildridge Subdivision Each of these reasons is explained more fully below Regarding the Town Charter the residences as proposed contradict section 7.16.060(h)(4) as follows: 1 There is no evidence that the lot split results in less total site coverage. 2. There is no provision in the application that explains any attempt to restrict the building envelope to minimize site coverage. 3 There is no apparent effort to minimize or mitigate impacts to properties in the vicinity, as proposed, instead the lot split profoundly exacerbates negative impacts to surrounding properties. a There is no provision to enhance landscaping along the most impactful portions of the development, and the current design precludes doing so due to landscaping setbacks. b In meeting (and exceeding) minimum setbacks within the divided lot between the new residences, the structures further encroach upon neighboring homes and view corridors Although minimum requirements are met, there is no effort to increase setbacks to lessen the impact of the structures on the neighboring homeowners. c. Rather than restrict the building footprint, particularly in the case of Lot B, the development maxes out the building envelope. d. No apparent attempt is made to restrict building heights beyond requirements. e. No apparent attempt is made to restrict architectural massing or square footage. Rather, the current design maximizes the possible developed square footage by encroaching upon minimum setbacks, maximizing building heights, and creating an obstructive architectural mass. These contradictions conspire to excessively and unreasonably restrict the views and quiet enjoyment of the neighboring homes. Many of these issues are a result of the proposed design itself. All are specifically either driven by or exacerbated by the Lot Split by forcing the 20` setback between units. The resulting building envelopes, in combination with the developers apparent goal to maximize livable square footage, unreasonably and unnecessarily impact the neighboring lots. With respect to the Town Plan and Community Plan, the proposed Lot Split and development directly violate the following public policies and goals: • Policy A.1.5: Promote development that maximizes sun exposure and protects views • Policy B.1.3: Encourage development applicants to meet with adjacent residents, businesses, and property owners during all application phases to identify concerns and strategies to address them. • Policy C.1.3: Design four sided architecture that maximizes solar exposure, protects views, and breaks up building bulk Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 • Policy C.2.4: Encourage landscaping and building locations that enhance neighborhood views and view corridors. • Policy G.1.3: Work with public and private landowners to identify opportunities for conservation easements, permanent open space protection tools, and access to open space. • Policy GA A: Minimize and mitigate potential development impacts to wildlife and watersheds. • DISTRICT 11: NORTHERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 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. Encourage and support development that ■ Prohibits significant alteration of natural environment ■ This area should be highly sensitive to visual impacts of improvements, wildlife preservation, and lighting. ■ Provides the development of a trailhead to access the surrounding public lands. • 2021 Avon Community Housing Plan Grow the inventory of homeownership and "missing middle' inventory, in place of additional rental housing stock, to create a more balanced portfolio with a long-term goal of more home ownership opportunities Finally, the proposed Lot Split does not follow the precedent set by previously successful lot splits within Wildridge. See the attached list of known prior lot splits in Wildridge, all of which were developed while still maintaining reasonable setbacks from neighbors, limiting the impacts on existing homes' views, and sustaining the existing character of the neighborhood. For all of these reasons, we respectfully request that, as supported by the PUD, the Planning and Zoning Commision deny the Minor Subdivision and Lot Split Amendment for Lot 66, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision (2332 Fox Lane) unless and until the requirements from the Town Charter, Town Plan, and Community Plan outlined above are met or exceeded. Furthermore as a general matter, we request that in moving forward with development of the Lot, the developers consider the impacts of their designs on the neighborhood according to the community standards laid out in the Town Plan These Town goals are critical to protecting the unique character of all neighborhoods in Avon, including Wildridge As proposed, the Lot Split and corresponding development do not conform to the nature and character of the existing development within the Wildridge neighborhood and should be rejected Thank you for your consideration, The Neighbors of 2332 Fox Lane- Poo"dy ONWIS) 454mture Diu Lot Address Avpfrty OWMKS) L01 K Property owners} Ld I .. sowure Da* Address DW 2 Attachment A - Etlers Handout for PUD24002 Impact of Current Design on Neighboring Views M 11 Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Example of Impact of Proposed Design Views from Primary Living Spaces of 2413 Saddle Ridge Loop View 2: Outdoor from Master Bedroom Door View 1: Outdoor from Deck ���■ � ,....,. ��� ��r,h �r. _ ��. �?!i 'a y� � E Y �, - a. R ��� !4J � �p +� .�.. I 5 �{3 T��r �4 i � f 4 ts� �a I I � Y •F� 1 �i � �� � + .-. L� _— I � ,�yri if r ' ' } I ��_+ ' SI � ��i.} �+ �� ��� Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 A ,nvo n Y. Ol9 --3U TOWN OF AVON PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST FORM REQUEST MAYBE FAXED TO: (970) 949-9 139, Attention Records Custodian or E-Mailed to mlau-m u0avon.om andbtornes0avon.om NOTE: Confirmation of receipt is required for e-mailed requests Name: Pepper Etters Date: 5l9rzo24 Address. PO Box W3 State: CO Zip Code: 81658 City.' Vail Phone: 970 688-0790 E-mail Address. pepperetters6hotmall com FAXNumber Italicized above information is optional unless payment is by check or delivery of copies is requested. Inspection Only Requested: Hard Copies Requested: CD or Electronic Copies Requested: Desired Retrieval Method: Yes No [ ] Yes �] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Pick-up [ ] Mailing [ ] If 0 wjutd be faster I can pick up the records cr mfipe::t rnly first in person E-Mail M Please Indicate the Information desired and/or list each requested document. Please be as specific as possible. (You may attach a letter indicating the requested public records) I am looking for any documentallon for attempted or completed lot spills in Wildrtdge Per Jena Skinner, I was recomended to spedUly request "available plats for Wldrkige, for duplex lot splits resulting In 2-single family lots " I would also love a copy of the building plans for our home at 2413 Saddle Ridge Loop if that is somelhing you have on record [Please note — all faxed requests must be followed up with a phone call to be sure 1 was rece ved All e•mailed requests must receive a confirmation of receipt e-mail from the Records Custodian I I have read the Town of Avon, Colorado Pyblj*ic Records Policy, revised October 24, 2019, and agree to pay all charges incurred in accordance with su licRecords Policy and the attached fee schedule: Sign re of Person requesting Public Record(s) Charges: (To be completed by Records Custodian and attached as invoice) Total S Staff Use Only Date Received: 05/09/24 Time Received: 3:30 p.m. / BT Date Completed: Time Completed: 1 lam Completed By: matt Fielsticker Summary of Response: See attached summary and hyperlink to plats No building plans were located for 2413 Saddle0g­e Loop, only permits. Avon Public Records Policy Adopted July 1, 2023 Page 8 of $ Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Duplex to Single Family Lot PUD Amendments in Wildridge Lot 110, Block 1 Lot 22, Block 1 Lot 10, Block 3 Lot 21, Block 3 Lot 26, Block 3 Lot 31, Block 3 Lot 48, Block 4 Lot 61, Block 4 Link to Plats: Wildridge Lot Splits Attachment A -mom Handout bPUo#2 & k f! | � � k | © 2 � � ! ■ � ■ | f � | � | 2�| | m ■ � A f| ■ �& ! Z� t ! ■ 16� § | f § § § § _ ■■!!f� °���!$�2■��■■ ���a!! IfI&$lIIIIlf� !!f §§§�k2§2kk■[[k \ k k t k!\ 2 k Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Precedents Set by Previous Wildridge Lot Splits We have reviewed the PUDs for each prior successful Lot Split in Wildridge as provided by the Town of Avon. In addition, we have driven by each lot and explored satellite imagery, topographic maps, and Google Street View. Our findings are as follows: • All previously awarded lot splits have maintained the primary view corridors of neighboring properties. In many cases this was facilitated by the relative elevations of the impacted lots in relation to the split lot. The remainder of the time, this was accomplished by locating the building envelope to allow sight lines between or alongside new structures. All properties ensured the built mass did not overpower neighboring lots' primary views through appropriate scale and increased setbacks where appropriate. No property as designed oriented a major axis of the buildings perpendicular to another properties primary view. • The majority of previous split lots maintained much greater than required setbacks from adjacent property lines, especially those oriented along the neighbors primary sight lines. Most were greater than 29. • Only 2 properties with building envelopes that encroached upon minimum setbacks. o The first was limited to 15.75 ft along a single shared property line. The second was limited to 22.64ft respectively. o Neither of these were along primary view corridors for a neighboring lot. • At least 1 of the prior approvals created a decreased setback between units of 12' total. Neighborhood Precedents In exploring presidents within the immediate vicinity of the proposed lot split, we have learned the following: • The proposed development exceeds the square footage of all neighboring units but 1. • The proposed development exceeds the average heated square footage/lot square footage for the neighborhood by almost double. • All existing structures have a building envelope centered within their lot. This facilitates a general character within the neighborhood that avoids encroachment of adjacent properties wherever possible. • Very few neighborhood properties abutt minimum setbacks When they do, the structures run obliquely so as only a corner actually abuts the setback. None run along any length of the setback. Attachment A Etters Handout for PUD24002 Lot 26 Block 3 - 429014411 Wildridge Rd W. View Corridors maintained by position of building envelopes and enhanced by elevations. Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Lot 21 Block 3 - 4250/4254 Wildridge Rd W 00 6 Views maintained by lot elevations Views Maintained by elevation and position of development 1•li�ii d r� �[ r � '. 1 [ LLJ r d 8 O r icl 9 1 mi sill; _ la JCL z i� ,a�li O !E 1� till. 2 z° o2E �° �C �,y 1 ❑ � 41 i 1 ��� '�S E � ! g 35 !s ■ if t !� Ei s � I##t S � � �i li( fi 1 Ir !f� { � e ♦ / -Az •r,• � .,rQyt S 9 -ZZ-- �•�r� s ,�#Aa En 1 � t � Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Lot 48 Block 4 - 5150/5153 Long Sun t Saw.! A;i47 i Views of uphill structures maintained by building envelope positioning ter.• .��-� e � � "Fg�Or4 Y ff 11 a , a 1 t € i R.p W 1 L�yG51i� LINE a`� Y 9 + ] r i till, t#� r•a rs 6 y � \e .Z -�' � © � g4Lr _ \ - )L «. Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 �It1[tji ±, 11 F, t 1 LLJ fif1'�il It ° to ts a sp'•� li � ���ff� 1 �� Z Oij 1 I ,•' 3 •• j tit 1 �� f t � p �t 4 r � fill GIs 3 �j 4� ! �;• � i �� �' �``�iai���a I11ll�t 1 i�r;� �� ° �� 1; y { is f} - f • ..�it . J ,iI.E .1�..� ..t rf ({I��s r7 / 1 �_ � � �;} R � o A. to jj r < ;Id is LpnG l►N � 'ei Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Lot 10 Block 3 - 401014012 Wiidridge Rd W Lot split improves views of uphill property by maintaining view corridor Elevation further maintains views of uphill neighbor (roofline of 4010 just visible below) r� . �P No major infringement of view corridors of uphill neighbors due to elevation and position of development. }'a��}i lf[ # [ail .,a nk 11f, !i t � iM , fR- ' MoV46'26'W M 15' Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Lot 38 Block 3 - 4069/4057 Wildridge Rd W Views of uphill structures maintained by elevations. I Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 Lot 110 Block 1 - 3091/3087 Wildridge Rd. No uphill or adjacent view corridor affected. Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 A A 0 V 0 "-I rl V Od F � 0 z 0 0 Z O t� A GQ W � � .':•fir t Eagle County, CO 202113056 RpIns Olklen OW034021 Pps: 1 04:31:59 PAl 1 REC: $13.00 OOC: f0.00 1 � it ilii��e�'�� i 4 l;��l. till 1 t 'jfill I ' 'r�� (� � r MI�!„j� ,+�� 1 } . t,l ,i,1,, 1 1 lt�i#It�ii111(#l�tt � �� �• ; 'P. N 01R 1121 ti���'P.111i1,1l'r; W 4KIT r�' 14," 420 Eagle County. CO 20190710% n11nnkrv.enl n Mi. L-1 nAi f— D in)Ann) Repina O'Brien 051151Y019 :03 rtEC- $1100 OOC: oo te+ rl�: lk �Ea�Jl� � �� �`�E Ai �t Iij2ADlJi NL {r J J ¢ �� ! V � , Ll a ! A #`fir ■A[ i 11���� !A � i�A1 i E as �! � -.`J � !a �i • cC\r\t � i"�' I s:! e 'y a _ � 1s' � •'t f t �iIt �� 1� t fit Mill oz Cn z Ui OF x !A � 1 1 ; �'l ��� i 1 � i■ � !� � ' ''she's A 1 It g �° 1 ° � ■ 1: i 1. i' ■� i E P�i �1�11� �� i �:� ,�� ��i �_r 11 � 1�6 y J L i J 1 � PA, i i .T * r f + Q �. . y lot / r� Attachment A Etters Handout for PUD24002 7.16.080 - Development plan. (a) Purpose. The general purpose of the development plan review process is to ensure compliance with the development and design standards of the Development Code prior to the issuance of a building permit or concurrent with other required permits and to encourage quality development reflective of the goals and objectives of the Avon Comprehensive Plan. Specific purposes of development plan review include, but are not limited to the following: (1) To prevent excessive or unsightly grading of property that could cause disruption of natural watercourses or scar natural landforms; (2) To ensure that the location and configuration of structures, including signs and signage, are visually harmonious with their sites and with surrounding sites and structures and that there shall be conformance to the Comprehensive Plan of the Town; (3) To ensure that the architectural design of structures and their materials and colors are visually harmonious with the Town's overall appearance, with natural and existing landforms and with officially approved development plans, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located; and (4) To ensure that plans for the landscaping of property and open spaces conform with adopted rules and regulations and to provide visually pleasing settings for structures on the same site and on adjoining and nearby sites. (b) Applicability. A development plan shall be required for all new development and any modification to an existing development or development plan. (c) Development Plan Categories. Categories of development plans are established and defined as follows for the purpose of determining the appropriate development plan review procedure: (1) Major Development Plan. Major development plans include all new building construction over six hundred (600) square feet; (2) Minor Development Plan. Minor development plans include the following: (i) All new building construction six hundred (600) square feet or less; (ii) Modifications to Dumpster locations; (III) Screen wall modifications; (iv) Landscape modifications, including but not limited to removal of existing vegetation and addition of new vegetation; (v) Deck modifications, including but not limited to additions, new construction and materials or color modifications; (vi) Mechanical equipment modifications; (vii) Modifications to the exterior of an existing building, including but not limited to windows, doors, minor architectural details, colors and materials; Attachment A Etters Handout for PUD24002 (viii) Modifications to approved development plans which result in a ten -percent or less Increase to lot coverage; ten -percent or less Increase to building height; ten -percent or less increase to the amount of square footage of a land use or structure and does not result in a change in the types of uses In the project; (ix) Modifications to approved development plans which do not change the character of the approved design; and (x) Other similar changes to a structure or property that do not significantly impact the site layout or design of a building. (d) Review Procedures. The general review procedures described in Section 7.16.020. General procedures and requirements, shall apply to development plan applications. Specific additions and modifications to the general review procedures are identified below. (e) Notice and Hearing. PZC shall review and render a decision or recommendation on the development plan application after conducting a public hearing. Town Council shall conduct a public hearing when reviewing a Development Plan applicable in the Town Core. Notice of the public hearing shall be published and posted in accordance with Subsection 7,16,020(d)(1) and mailed notice is not required. The decision of PZC may be appealed to the Town Council pursuant to Appeal. The Director shall not conduct a public hearing for administrative review and decision on development plan applications. (f) Review Authority. The review authority for a development plan application shall be determined by the subdivision category. (1) Major Development Plan. The Director shall review and provide a recommendation to the PZC on all major development plan applications. The PZC shall render the final decision on a major development plan, unless the application is located within the Town Core. The decision of the PZC may be appealed to the Town Council pursuant to Section 7.16.1130. Appeal. If an application is located within the Town Core, the Director shall review and provide a recommendation to the PZC. The PZC shall review and provide a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council shall render the final decision on a major development plan within the Town Core. (2) Minor Development Plan. The Director shall review and render decisions on all minor development plan and minor sign plan applications. The decision of the Director may be appealed to the Town Council pursuant to_Section 7.16.1130. Appeal. The Director may refer to the PZC any plan application that the Director determines warrants review by the PZC. (g) Review Criteria. The following review criteria shall be considered as the basis for a decision on development plan applications: (1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in Sectiop 7.04.030. Purposes; Attachment A Etters Handout for PUD24002 (2) Reserved; (3) The design conforms with the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents; (4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; (5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in 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_Chauter 7.28. Development 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; and (7) The development design conforms with the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole. (h) Expiration. A development plan approval expires pursuant to Subsection 7.16.020[h). (i) Revocation. Approved site plan documents shall be binding upon the applicants and their successors and assigns. No permit shall be issued for any building or structure or use that is not in accord with the approved documents or any approved modifications thereto. The construction, location, use or operation of all land and structures within the site shall conform to all conditions and limitations set forth In the documents. No structure, use or other element of approved design review documents shall be eliminated, altered or provided in another manner unless an amended site plan is approved. Any deviation from the approved development plan as approved shall be grounds for revocation of the development plan approval. ( Ord. 21-09 §5; Ord. 18-19 . §6; Ord. 14-09 B ; Ord. 13-09 52; Ord. 10-14 §3) Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 (4) Additional Review Criteria. The PZC shall review a Lot Split Amendment to the Wildridge PUD application and Major Amendments in the Wildridge PUD that include a Lot Split according the following criteria in addition to the review criteria for a preliminary PUD development plan: (i) The application results in less total site coverage and contains restrictions on building envelopes when deemed appropriate to minimize site coverage; (ii) Driveway disturbance is minimized and a shared driveway curb cut is utilized when feasible and when a shared driveway curb cut would reduce site disturbance; (iii) Areas not appropriate for development are designated on the PUD plan; (iv) The proposed development of the site avoids disturbance of slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) or reduces potential disturbance of slopes greater than thirty percent (30%) compared to the existing PUD designation; and, (v) The PUD plan incorporates requirements and/or restrictions as deemed appropriate to minimize or mitigate impacts to properties in the vicinity, including but not limited to: (A) enhanced landscaping; (8) increased building setbacks (i.e. minimum twenty (20) feet separation between buildings and a minimum ten (10) feet setback between properties); (C) designated building footprints; (D) building height restrictions; and, (E) designated architectural massing, including building square footage designation." Attachment A - Etters Handout for PUD24002 (ili) Lot Split Amendment to Wildridge PUD A proposed PUD Amendment to the Wildridge PUD to permit a lot split of a duplex lot into two (2) lots is considered a Lot Split Wildridge PUD amendment if it meets the following criteria for decision and has been determined as such by the Director. (A) The proposed duplex lot split is located in the Wildridge PUD Subdivision on a vacant, undeveloped lot (B) The proposed PUD amendment meets the criteria fora Minor Amendment in Section 7 16.06a(h)(1)(ii). (C) The PUD amendment proposes to split one (1) lot permitting a residential duplex dwelling into two (2) lots permitting one (1) detached single -family - residential dwelling on each lot (iv) Major Amendment, A PUD amendment that is not classified as an administrative amendment. minor amendment or Lot Split PUD amendment to Wildridge PUD is considered a major amendment. (2) Reviewing Authority (i) Administrative Amendments The Director shall review and render decisions on Administrative Amendments A decision of the Director may be appealed to the Council pursuant to Section 7.161 Q, Appeal (d) Minor Amendments. The general procedures set forth in Section 7,16,020, General procedures and requirements, shall apply to minor PUD amendment applications. The PZC shall review all minor PUD amendment applications and shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council after conducting a public hearing. The Town Council shall review and render a final decision, through a resolution, on a minor PUD amendment application after conducting a public hearing. (iii) Lot Split Amendments to Wildridge PUD The general procedures set forth in Section 7.16,020, General procedures and requirements, shall apply to Lot Split Amendments to Wildridge PUD applications The PZC shall review all Lot Split Amendments to Wildridge PUD amendment applications and shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council after conducting a public hearing. The Town Council shall review and render a final decision, through a resolution, on a Lot Split Amendments to Wildridge PUD amendment application after conducting a public hearing.