PZC Packet 020513Staff Report — Minor Design and Development Plan
February 5, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ,
Report date February 1, 2013
Project type Residential Construction — Multi -family
Legal description Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Zoning Residential Low Density (RLD)
Address 211 Nottingham Road, 't D
Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner I
Summary of Requests
The Applicant and Owner of Unit D, Adrienne Perer, has submitted a Minor Design and
Development application to convert an existing solarium into an enclosed structure on the south
side of the building on Lot 6, Block 1 of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, also
described as 211 Nottingham Road (the Property). The modification will utilize the same footprint
as the previous solarium, but will replace the existing glass with a roof, siding, and windows to
match the existing structure.
In summary the requested determinations are as follows:
1. Solarium conversion from glass to wood siding with windows and doors installed as
illustrated in Exhibit B;
2. Entry door modifications; and,
3. Entry deck and fencing extension and modifications.
Background and Process
In the Fall of 2012, Staff received a complaint that construction was occurring on the subject unit
and Property without proper approvals. Upon further investigation, Staff did determine that the
Owner had begun a project to remove an existing solarium and replace it with an enclosed
structure. Town Staff informed the owner of the illegal construction and the required steps to
approve the modifications and receive a building permit. In addition, the Chief Building Official
placed a "Red Tag", or Stop Work Order on the Unit to ensure that no additional work would be
completed without first receiving a Building Permit. The "Red Tag" is still in place today.
The Owner of Unit D submitted both a Minor Design and Development application and a Building
permit application, to initiate the approval process. Staff worked with the property owner to receive
proposed plans (Exhibit B). Staff also informed the property owner that HOA approval would be
required for Town approval as the improvements affected common element, specifically the
exterior of the building. In January of 2013, Town Staff received approval separately from each
property owner for the proposed improvements, but some of these individual owners added
"conditions" to their approvals to address other construction projects this property Owner has
undertaken over the years that affected common element, also without Town or HOA approval.
Town Staff informed both the HOA and the Applicant that this item will be brought forth to the PZC
to determine compliance of the proposed improvement with the Review Criteria as outlined at the
end of this Report.
Property Description
The Property slopes downhill from north to south with relatively consistent grades throughout the
site. The Property has been developed with an 8-plex Townhome structure that stretches east to
west across the property. To the north of the structure is a common driveway and parking lot and
February 5, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC — Balas Unit D
to the south of the structure is a rear yard. The Property is bordered to: the north by Nottingham
Road; the east by Tract V, an open space and drainage parcel; the south by a multi -use path and
the 1-70 Right -of -Way; and, the west by the Balas West residential complex.
Planning Analysis
Staff is requesting that the PZC provide development plan and design review determination on the
above-mentioned modification after reviewing their compliance with the review criteria listed below
and code section §7.28.090(c)(6), below.
(6) Duplex, Townhome, and Multi -family Design. Duplex, townhome and multi -family
developments shall be designed in a manner that creates a single unified structure and site
plan. Unified design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building
materials, architectural style, scale, massing, detail, roof forms and landscaping. While
"mirror image" units are not supported, the design intent should be one that creates a
unified structure with enough variety and architectural interest to distinguish a duplex,
townhome, or multi -family structure from a single-family home.
The Application has two (2) main aspects of review. The main aspect of the Application is the
modification from the solarium to the enclosed structure. As seen in the attached photographs 1-3
(Exhibit C), the Application has partially completed the modifications. The Application proposes
the final design to appear as represented in Exhibit B. Photographs 1-3 also represent the pre -
construction conditions by illustrating adjacent solariums. Although the removal of the solarium will
create a different design, the proposed design is compatible with the remainder of the building and
helps promote the single -unified structure design as required in the Design Standards. Staff is of
the opinion that the proposed design will comply with the design standards as set forth in section
7.28.090, Design Standards.
The second aspect of this Application is the Property's compliance with the development code and
design standards as is required in subsections 7.16.080(f)(5) and 7.16.090(f)(2). Over the years,
the Property Owner has modified the subject unit without first receiving design approval from the
Town of Avon. The major improvements include: (1) the entry door remodel; and, (2) the front
deck and fencing extension and remodel. Evidence of these improvements are illustrated in
photographs 5 and 6 (Exhibit C). Photographs 4 and 7 (Exhibit C) show the entry ways of the
other units within the Balas Townhomes complex.
As seen in these photographs, the entry door has been modified for Unit D to include a red door
with glass blocks to the right. The other units' entry doors are all different styles, but each one is
painted the same hue of brown. The areas adjacent to the doors also contain different situations
with some containing windows and others having no windows. Staff has determined that the Red
should be repainted to match the brown hue of the other doors, so that it further creates a single
unified structure, while not creating mirror image units as is required in Design Standards
(§7.28.090(c)(6), see below).
The deck and fencing modification includes an extension of both items beyond the unit's property
line and into common element and is illustrated in photographs 5 and 6 (Exhibit C). With regard to
design, the front deck was modified from a painted and stained wood to a Trex material. In
addition, the fencing material was modified from painted wood to black metal. The attached plat
map (Exhibit D) indicates that each unit only owns their individual unit and two (2) small decks to
the north and one (1) small deck to the south. As is illustrated in photographs 5 and 6 (Exhibit C),
the deck and fencing for Unit D were extended beyond the property line into common element.
The Property Manager and HOA have indicated that these improvements were placed over areas
of existing irrigation lines and these improvements could impact the property's ability to repair and
February 5, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC — Balas Unit D
maintain the lines in the future. As is illustrated by all of the attached photographs, many of the
GI decks on both sides of the building have been extended into common element. The Town and
Balas HOA have approved deck extensions into common element throughout the life of the
building for various units, therefore Staff is not recommending this item be removed from common
element.
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;
(2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.090, Design Review.
(3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
(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 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.
§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;
(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 Recommendation
Staff recommends approving the Minor Design and Development application for Unit D of the
Balas Townhome structure on Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the red entry door will be repainted to a brown hue that is
identical to the other units in the complex in order to fully comply with section
7.28.090(c)(6);
And with the following finding:
1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.080(f), Development Plan, and
§7.16.090(f), Design Review, and was determined to be compliant with the review criteria.
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Proposed Design
C: Existing Condition and Site Photographs
D: Recorded Plat
E: Letter from Kristen McKnight Davis, Attorney representing the Owner of Unit D
February 5, 2013 PZC Meeting — Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC — Balas Unit D
EXHIBIT B
Jared Barnes
From: adrienne perer <ennep73@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 6:38 PM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: Side height
Attachments: Screen shot 2012-11-10 at 4.07.05 PM.png; Perer Exterior Wall W Exisiting — jpg
floi• 1 e ��
k_
Hi Jared,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me today. As per your request here are the missing measurements.
Regards,
Adrienne
I
°%-
-
� .5�-
k �%\WN.2 )
,� z/ �j
•
. -
a. �•.� �(�
,
' - -
�\��\'
(,:
w I
Exhi
�� " ! % ! �} � i \� � / �}
\ ƒ � 2! � !
� \ \\� _ , \; � - m�®\ ��
�� � , \ ; ,\\} , \� �� \ \ \� ' ƒ
��j�� \\� � � \ \ ` j \} : _ - � � `
. : 2 \� § /f ! _ � � \ �� � ,
k°�
�$
�$
Ito i.
Z)
0
F
� §\
� �.�./�.� / > /f2�
lie
. } ~�. � . |�� |§
/ � -� ® ^ �/ ` A \§�
1'E
, �~� -� � ��^` f �/ }i \ }
: / � | �� � k
At D
9.
PLAN HOLD
T—
iF
x -
b
k
t.
p=
�
t
O
=
3
O
O
u
u
J
.I
EXHIBIT E
MOUNTAIN LEGAL
PROFESSIONALS, PC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
KRISTIN MCKNIGHT DAVIS
ATTORNEY
OFFICE (970) 926-3477
FACSIMILE (866) 672-5653
KRISTIN(a1MOUNTAINLEGALPROS. COM
175 MAIN ST., SUITE C-104, EDWARDS, CO 81632
January 31, 2013
Town of Avon
ATTN: Planning & Zoning Commission
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Via Hand Delivery & Email to ibarnes a,avon.org
RE: Unit D, Balas Townhouse Condominiums, Notice of Violation dated November 4, 2012 and
PZC Meeting to be held on February 5, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.
Dear Commission:
Please be advised that this law firm represents Ms. Adrienne Perer and Mr. Sean Phillips, the
owners of Unit D at the Balas Townhouse Condominiums with respect to the Notice of Violation
dated November 4, 2012. I will refer to my clients as the Perer family for ease of reference. The
purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with the Perer family's position on the three (3)
alleged violations of the Town Code as well as the conditional approvals submitted to the Town of
Avon by the neighboring owners in the Balas Townhouse Condominiums.
Ms. Perer, her contractor and I will attend the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
February 5, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Phillips works full time in Thailand and will not be able to
attend. The Perer family pledges to participate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable
resolution with the Town of Avon and to further its purposes of health, safety, efficiency and
economy. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Alleged Violation #1: Removal of Solarium, Framing of New Wall, Siding and Interior Work
related to Wall
We believe the removal of the solarium glass wall and replacement with a stick -built wall on the
exterior of Unit D to be the most important issue for the Town at this time. I will first summarize
the background of the structure and next will address the dire situation that necessitated its removal.
The Balas Townhouses were completed in 1981, over 30 years ago, and consist of 8 Units. The
original building included solariums on the South side for only 3 out of 8 Units. Solariums are
known to have curved glass corners and glass roofs. In the late summer of 2012, the Perer family
experienced multiple leakages from the solarium due to snowmelt and rain and extensive interior
water damage in their Unit. The Perer family includes 2 young sons. As stated above, Mr. Phillips
works out of the country. At the time the leaks were at their worst, the Perer family had plans for
Ms. Perer to take their sons to Thailand for 2 months as it had been quite some time since they had
seen their father. She was in a state of panic about the imminent degradation of the solarium and
contacted Rys Olsen, a local contractor. Mr. Olsen agreed with Ms. Perer that she had to act
immediately to prevent further structural and interior damage to her home as well as to prevent
damage to neighboring units.
Ms. Perer understands now and regrets not contacting the Town of Avon prior to the
commencement of work by Mr. Olsen but she was distraught about the condition and continuous
water puddles in her home and believed that he would only frame the wall and then obtain a
framing inspection and then permit approval. After receiving the Notice of Violation, Ms. Perer
presented pre -construction pictures to the building inspector for the Town, Mr. Gray, and he
commented that he would have condemned the unit due to the condition. There was rotting wood,
weakening glass panes which may have fallen and shattered, and later it was revealed that the entire
project had been infiltrated with carpenter ants.
We acknowledge that the Municipal Code does not have a provision for action based on an
emergency for its citizens (although there is a code section for emergency enforcement by the
Town). It was with a true belief that her home was in a state of emergency that she authorized Mr.
Olsen to start work to demolish the solarium and frame a new wall in the exact same dimensions as
the solarium.
We propose to the Commission that the actual, pre -construction condition and Ms. Perer's worry for
the safety and well-being of her home and family should mitigate the alleged violation.
Additionally, the design of the replacement wall is truly compatible with the building and design
review guidelines. Please see enclosed photos showing the effects of leaking solarium windows,
structural damage, and the replacement wall.
Conditions From Neighbors to Solarium Removal Approval
As stated above, there are 8 units. Please find enclosed approvals in writing from Units A & B (we
also believe the owner of Unit G will be providing her approval). I am in receipt of the emails from
4 owners in Balas Townhomes placing unrelated conditions on their approval of the removal of the
glass solarium. I would like to address the legal reasons why the Town should not be concerned
with these unrelated conditions. First, it appears that each owner is acting independently and not as
an association due to the separate and different responses. It is noteworthy that all owners have
stated their approval to the removal of the solarium's glass wall but also attempt to impose
conditions that are unrelated to the solarium. These emails should be taken as HOA approval of the
material change to the existing wall. The conditions should be dealt with by the association in a
legally proper manner and without using this Town proceeding to accomplish individual owner
desires on matters not relevant to this proceeding.
Second, several of the matters raised by the other owners are outside the one-year statute of
limitations to associations found in C.R.S. §38-33.3-123(2) and, as such, are improper and
irrelevant to these proceedings. Because the owners would be barred from bringing these matters
up in a court of law, they should be precluded from raising them in this proceeding.
Finally, the Town Code provides that "[i]n no case shall the Town be obligated to enforce the
provisions of any easement, covenants or agreements between private parties." The matters raised
by the other homeowners that do not implicate the Town's jurisdiction should not be the subject of
these proceedings. As such, the issue of fencing the deck, items on front deck, and other immaterial
conditions are for these private parties to resolve.
We will present testimony from Mr. Olsen at the meeting that Tracey Schmiedt, owner of Unit E,
said that she liked the plans for Unit D's solarium and was interested in doing it herself. Ms.
Schmidt also made a defamatory statement to Mr. Olsen regarding Ms. Perer that inferred that Ms.
Perer may not pay Mr. Olsen for his work. She had absolutely no basis to make such a false
statement. We do not want to get the Town involved in this civil matter of defamation of character
but point this out for credibility of Ms. Schmidt and inconsistency in her position about the
solarium.
This association has a history of lack of structure and improper meeting practices. In fact, the
association is non-compliant with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) as it has
failed to adopt the governance policies, which include a required policy for alternative dispute
resolution which could have been helpful in this case. At this point, we request that the PZC
consider the other owners' approvals of the solarium plans and issue a building permit to complete
the project.
Further, we advise the Commission that another owner is interested in the replacement of her
solarium because she has had decay issues with her solariums, although not as pressing as the Perer
family. See attached letter from Margaret Parker, Owner of Unit B. Her intention is to also to
eventually replace the solarium and do so in harmony with the structure and similar to Unit D's
plans.
Alleged Violation #2: Mechanical Work not inspected or permitted
I believe this matter has been resolved in that the Perer family will absolutely agree to inspection of
the mechanical work within the unit. Mr. Barnes has been made aware of this consent.
Alleged Violation #3: Matter of South -Facing Rear Deck "Extension"
In regard to the matter of the deck extension, first, there was no extension, only a replacement of an
existing deck. I was advised by Mr. Barnes that he has a signed planner approval of this matter as
well as an approval by the Balas Townhouse Association in the Town's file.
The allegation that the extension is across common areas under a neighbor's window is simply
untrue. The window above the section in controversy is the Perer family's window.
Most importantly, no storage or other items are present under the window and, thus, there is no
impact to ingress or egress from this window.
For any other unit owner at Balas to attempt to raise this issue again is in bad faith and an attempt to
place the Perer family in a bad light. The email dated January 8, 2013 from George and Dyann
Linger contains untrue and libelous statements alleging the Perer family "was deceptive in getting
the judgment passed." The matter was resolved by a lawsuit in Eagle County Small Claims Court
in 2007 and the Association was represented by an attorney. In a mediation which occurred on
July 18, 2007, the HOA agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. A Joint Motion to Dismiss was filed signed
by the attorney for the Balas Townhouse Association and Ms. Perer and Judge Sullivan approved
the Stipulation by Order dated August 20, 2007. Please see attached Order.
Proposal for Resolution
In good faith and with respect to the Town of Avon and its design standards, the Perer family
proposes the following resolution:
(1) Town will authorize retroactively the removal of solarium wall and replacement with a
stick -built wall conditional upon passing necessary framing and other required
inspections.
(2) Town will allow completion of construction of wall, including windows, according to
submitted plans.
(3) If approved, the Perer family will share design plans with other 2 solarium owners.
(4) If approved, Town will perform mechanical work inspection.
(S) The Perer family will be authorized to complete painting of North -side siding and South-
side trim.
(6) The Perer family will complete gutter repair to South -side wall of Unit D and at Perer
family's expense.
Please let me know if you need any additional information or documentation in advance of the
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting to be held on February 5, 2013. My email address to
Kristin'frMountainLegalPros.com Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
MO TAIN LEGAL PROFESSIONALS, PC
1�sti�nM=ni ht Davis
KMD:kmd
Encls.
cc: Adrienne Perer & Sean Phillips
Jared Barnes (via email)
i
r4 4
t
� 1.
' l
F�
� 1.
' l
i
B
i
Ilk
F;.j
El
�.
.. � ,�y �
Y` ,
1
{� � f
y �, ..� _�
�.` - H ,
y � �.
ti�i
- b � . , . J - i9:
... �6 ` .�_ �.
'�� r fiN' � � �
- � i� >. , ✓
�. .� c t
r_. �)
�d� �s s� � :y� n - ,,F ��
p� a i~ � � -� 4 � �� ��� J} ��- - �'��� i^ ��
�r -
`- � `�_• Y
n�C ' �i �.." ' � ,;� * - 4 - a... fib
M
i
1°.
1, arrow
law
Alm
OF
-dew
Ap
4f
Ilk
-M
7_7 p• r,. � I� � t r
k#
�,►. L.aMa
'10.
'lf-M A IF
i
b- .
rx�r� --'
rr�tra�:
APPROVAL OF UNIT D'S
SOLARIUM REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH
EXTERIOR WALLS
Owner of Unit A, Balas Townhouse Condominiums
To: Town of Avon
• I currently own Unit A at the Balas Townhouse Condominiums.
• I approve the exterior construction to Unit D.
• I believe the removal of the solarium on Unit D and completion of the
construction with windows in accordance with Unit D's plans will enhance the
entire property when Unit D is allowed to complete construction.
• To require Unit D to tear it down would be an economic waste and I believe she
should be allowed to complete the construction in accordance with her plans.
_1/30/13
,-/�doseph Jacks¢ Date
Unit A
Phone: 949 290 6510
APPROVAL OF UNIT D'S
SOLARIUM REMOVAL AND RECONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH
EXTERIOR WALLS
Owner of Unit B, Balas Townhouse Condominiums
To: Town of Avon
• I currently own Unit B at the Balas Townhouse Condominiums.
• I approve the exterior construction to Unit D.
• I believe the removal of the solarium on Unit D and completion of the
construction with windows in accordance with Unit D's plans will enhance the
entire property when Unit D is allowed to complete construction.
• To require Unit D to tear it down would be an economic waste and I believe she
should be allowed to complete the construction in accordance with her plans.
• My unit has a solarium and I do not have the pressing deterioration issues but I
believe the deterioration of the solarium is inevitable and will likely apply to the
Town to remove it and replace it in a similar way to Unit D upon it becoming
necessary.
1 4
Margaret Parker
Unit B
Phone: a10 q 0 4 1 S0 ,
' 30 3
Date
FROM :BRIAN E W REILLY PC FAX NO. :970 949 9044 Aug. 17 2007 02:31PM P2
SMALL CLAIMS COURT/COUNTY COURT
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
0885 Chambers Road
Eagle, Colorado 81631
970/32&6373
Pladintif0
BALAS TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION,
a aon-profit corporation
v
Case No.06 S 144
Div. S
Defendant:
ADRIENNE PERER
ORDER
THIS MATTER having came on to be heard ex parte upon the Joint Motion of the Plaintiff
and Defendant, and the Court being fully adviec in the premises:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be vacated, and that this matter be dismissed
with prejudice, each party to pay her or jN oven attorney's fees and costs.
DONE at Eag1c, Colorado, this.v day of 12007.
ITHE COURT:
UMC
JUDGE/
MAGISTRATE
Staff Report — PUD Amendment; Minor Subdivision; Variance
S
February 5, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting A 0 [,!,
Report date February 1, 2013
Project type PUD Amendment; Minor Subdivision; Variance
Legal description Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 5081 & 5091 Wildridge R d East
Prepared By Jared Barnes, Planner I
Introduction
The Applicant, Dominic Mauriello of Mauriello Planning Group, representing the owner,
Mountain C.I. Holdings LTD, has submitted a Minor PUD Amendment, Minor Subdivision, and
Variance applications ("the Application"). The Application requests a zoning amendment to the
Wildridge PUD to modify two (2) duplex lots, Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision ("the
Property'), into three (3) single-family lots, Lots 1-3, Wildridge Point Subdivision. Included with
this report are a Vicinity Map (Exhibit A) and Applicant Materials dated January 28th, 2013
(Exhibit B).
Application Process (§7.16.020, AMC)
Public Notification
In order to comply with the Public Hearing and pertinent noticing requirements, a mailed notice
was provided to all property owners within 300' of the property. In addition, a notice was
published in the Vail Daily newspaper on Friday, January 25, 2013.
Public Hearings
Each of the separate requests within the Application has different review criteria. The PZC will
review and render a decision on the Variance application. The PZC shall review the PUD
application and provide a recommendation to the Town Council after conducting a public
hearing, as discussed below. The Minor Subdivision will be reviewed by the Town Council after
holding a public hearing and does not require review by the PZC.
PUD Process
In the Fall of 2012, the Applicant approached the Town inquiring about the process for a Minor
PUD amendment for parcels within the Wildridge Subdivision. The Town produced a letter for
the applicant stating that such request would be processed under section 7.16.060(h),
Amendments to a Final PUD. This section referred the application to section 7.16.020(g), Minor
Amendments, which allowed for this process so long as the application does not result in a
change to the housing mix. This section also allows the Director to render a decision on a Minor
Amendment so long as there is not a material change to the approved development application.
Staff determined that the proposed application did not result in a change to the housing mix, but
did result in a material change to the approved development application and as such the
Director is referring the Application to both the PZC and Town Council for public hearings.
Background
Benchmark Properties created the Wildridge Subdivision in 1979, shortly after the incorporation
of the Town of Avon on February 28, 1978. The Plat was amended a few times with the most
recent version being 'Wildridge Replat No. 2". According to the Wildridge Final Plat application
for Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions (currently Mountain Star PUD and Subdivision), the
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 11
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
overall development concept was for "abundant open space recreation areas around lots" with a
density of "barely one dwelling unit per acre".
Proposed Application
The Application proposes to convert two (2) duplex lots into three (3) single-family lots. In order
to process this request Town Staff determined that three (3) separate applications are required
as follows: (1) a Minor PUD Amendment application; (2) a Minor Subdivision application; and,
(3) a Variance application. The Minor PUD Amendment and Minor Subdivision are required to
change the zoning of the two (2) existing lots and plat three (3) new lots, while the Variance is
required to allow for development on slopes in excess of forty percent (40%). Each of these
requests will be discussed as a whole in the Planning Analysis section as well as a Staff
Response to the Review Criteria and Required Findings.
Planning Analysis
The original Wildridge "Specially Planned Area" (now considered a "PUD" by default) and the
accompanying Subdivision plat were established with a specific purpose and intent: to offer a
diverse range of housing types and options to serve a diverse local population. As such, the
housing types in the Wildridge PUD and Plat are diverse: single-family homes, duplexes,
triplexes, four-plexes, and other forms of multi- family structures - because the housing needs of
the local population were, are, and continue to be diverse. It was not platted as a solely single-
family home subdivision and PUD for a reason: Avon's local population is not homogenous.
The population of Avon is comprised of diverse segments of the population based on such
attributes as income, household size, age, and lifestyle choices. Wildridge was designed on the
premise that not everyone wants, or can afford, to live in a single-family house. When a multi-
family structure, or a duplex, is rezoned and broken out into single-family homes, or effectively
"down -zoned", the diversity inherent in the original plat and plan is diminished, incrementally,
over time with each and every such request for a rezoning. In time, this will unravel the original
purpose and intent of Wildridge, leaving fewer housing options for the local population.
Additionally, when a multi -family structure, or a duplex, gets "down -zoned" to separate single-
family houses, the corresponding site disturbance with such a configuration increases
proportionally with each newly separated -out unit (individual excavation for each foundation,
impervious surfaces, roof forms, site retaining, etc).
By way of contrast, Mountain Star is a PUD and Subdivision comprised of solely single-family
houses located on large lots meant to serve one homogenous segment of the population,
arguably, a largely "second homeowner" population.
Over the years, there have been amendments wherein development rights have been altered
and replatted through the PUD and Subdivision process. The most recent amendment was for
the Dry Creek PUD in Block 2 of the subdivision, wherein a four-plex lot was converted to three
single-family residences. This PUD amendment was also predicated on approval of a
subdivision variance, and reduced the number of dwelling units by one (1) and limited the
maximum site coverage allowed per lot.
Other PUD Amendment approvals include: Western Sage PUD in Block 4; Point View PUD in
Block 1; Wildridge Acres in Block 2; and, Lots 42 & 43 in Block 4. Each of these examples
provided multiple public benefits including, but not limited to: loss of at least a single
development right; platted non -developable area; capped unit size; or, maximum footprint size.
In each case, these PUDs were approved prior to the inclusion of the Public Benefit Criteria
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 12
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
being added to the PUD review criteria and prior to the adoption of the Avon Development
Code.
The Property, as platted and zoned today, can be developed with either two (2) duplex
structures, two (2) single-family structures, or one (1) duplex structure and one (1) single-family
structure. The Application proposes to amend these development rights by creating a new PUD
and Subdivision within the Wildridge PUD, called "Wildridge Point". As is exhibited on page 8 of
Exhibit B, the new lots will meet the minimum lot size standards for the Residential Low Density
(RLD) zone district and the Wildridge Subdivision. Page three (3) of the proposed Final Plat
shows the topographic map, shading areas that exceed forty percent (40%) in slopes. As seen
on this survey, a majority of Lot 34 is developable with areas less than forty percent (40%)
slope, while a majority of Lot 33 contains areas exceeding forty percent (40%) slope. Upon
further review of the survey, some of the area that exceed forty percent (40%) slope approaches
sixty percent (60%) slope within the proposed developable area, with some of the areas
exceeding seventy percent (70%) slope in the proposed "non -developable" area. In summary, a
vast majority of Lot 33 is extremely steep.
The applicant argues that the proposal is simply a resubdivision and addition of a lot line and
should not be subject to the regulations of §7.28.100(a), Steep Slopes, and §7.28.100(e)(6),
Building Envelopes. Section 7.28.100(a)(2), Applicability, requires the standards on the Natural
Resources section (§7.28.100) to apply to "any new subdivision, PUD or zoning amendment
when any portion of the lot contains naturally occurring slopes of thirty percent (30%) or
greater". Staff has determined that the application proposes a new subdivision as exhibited by
the proposed lots' legal description: Lots 1-3, Wildridge Point Subdivision; also, a zoning
amendment by modifying two (2) existing lots with the development rights for two (2) duplex
structures, or the options discussed above, into three (3) single-family lots.
The Wildridge Point subdivision will also plat "non -developable" areas of each new lot. The
proposed "non -developable" areas encompass the downhill portions of the lots and likely areas
that would not be affected by the existing or proposed style of development, due to the
existence of a thirty foot (30') wide utility easement. Plat Note #4 sets forth the types of
development that cannot occur in these areas by limiting it to: "buildings, fences, signs, and
roads". Staff is concerned that these areas do not limit grading, retaining walls, landscaping,
and other forms of improvements that are deemed "development" as defined by the Avon
Development Code and the Wildridge Replat No. 2. Staff suggested to the Applicant that this
plat note be modified to include all forms of development.
The proposed subdivision also includes a no-build/view easement on proposed Lot 1. This
easement is for the benefit of the neighboring property to the west: Lot 35, Block 4, Wildridge. It
is governed by Plat Note #5 and states that berming and landscaping may occur in this area
only with written approval from the owner of Lot 35. Staff is concerned that this note doesn't
adequately address the Town's required approval process and suggests that the note be
modified.
Additional Staff analysis will be included in the Staff response to each individual review criteria.
Review Criteria - PUD
Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, the PZC and Town Council shall consider a
number of review criteria when evaluating this application. The following criteria must be
considered when forming the basis of a recommendation or decision on a PUD plan:
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 13
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town,
and/or incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this
Development Code and represents an improvement in quality over what could have
been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or
development standards. Such improvements in quality may include, but are not limited
to: improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection;
tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities
and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
Staff Response: The Application is to modify existing platted lots within the Wildridge PUD.
The intent of this subdivision, as a diverse housing option for locals, was discussed earlier in
this report. Staffs opinion is that a conversion from duplex to single-family residences will
overtime impact the subdivision's ability to provide a diverse range of housing options for all
price points. The Application inaccurately states that the entirety of the lots are developable
today as Staff would contend that the areas encumbered by the thirty foot (30) wide utility
easement and the areas downhill from that are likely undevelopable today.
The Application states that the proposed no -build zone, reduction in density, development
pattern ensuring light and air between the structures, and smaller building footprints are a
public benefit as stated on pages 17-18 of Exhibit B. Staff does not agree with these
comments for some of the following reasons. The reduction in density may not reduce the
impacts on the land as the existing zoning does not require that the lots be developed with
side-by-side or "coast-to-coast" duplexes as shown on page 4 of Exhibit B. A variety of
other development patterns may occur including, but not limited to a "top and bottom" duplex
or a single-family home with a legal lock -off, care -taker unit or "mother-in-law suite". The
steepness of the lots may encourage a developer to look at less impactful duplex
development options. These different styles of "duplex" structures could in fact have the
same impact on the land with regard to building footprint and site grading and retention as
two (2) single-family residences. Therefore, the proposed Application has the potential to
increase impacts on the Property, by including a third building footprint and associated
grading and site retention.
Furthermore, the Application does not ensure that the size and footprint of the proposed
single-family residences will be of a smaller size than duplex structures or that they will utilize
less water rights (SFEs) than duplexes, as is discussed in the public comments (Exhibit C)
by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD). The applicant states there is an
increase in light and air with the Application, but the increase in space between structures
could create a development pattern that forces construction further to the east, therefore
reducing the amount of open space and increasing the construction impacts on the Property.
Staff would suggest that limitations on building footprint sizes would ensure that the
Application could reduce building footprints, increase light and air between units, and
potentially lessen the impact on the Property.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: The Application has little impact on the health, safety and welfare of the
Town. The current allowed development rights and the proposed development rights will
create the same ongoing impacts, with respects to this criterion, for the immediate
neighborhood and Wildridge as a whole.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes
of this Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 14
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
Staff Response: The proposed PUD amendment appears to comply with a portion of the
Avon Comprehensive Plan. The Application complies with the Future Land Use Plan by
modifying the zoning to a development pattern, single-family residences, which is allowed
within the RLD zone district. Furthermore, the proposed average density of one and a
quarter (1.24) complies with the maximum allowed in the RLD zone district.
Staff has identified the following Comprehensive Plan policies that are not achieved through
the Application and has provided a response to each one:
Policy B.2.3: Encourage cluster style development in areas of less density to promote
creative and efficient site design that avoids impacts on environmental resources and
augments open space
Staff Comment: Although the Application proposes "non -developable" areas, it is not
clear that these areas will further restrict or cluster development to ensure that impacts
on the steep slopes and the natural environment are lessened. Staff would recommend
limiting all development from these areas and increasing the non -developable areas or
limiting maximum building footprint sizes to ensure that the style of development will be
less impactful on the Property.
Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety of housing
densities, styles, and types based upon the findings of a housing needs assessment
study.
Staff Comment: The proposal to modify the lots from duplex structures to single-family
structures further limits the variety of housing densities in the Wildridge Subdivision. In
addition, the Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment, completed in December 2006,
clearly identifies units priced below $450,000 in value, lacking in Avon and Eagle County
as a whole. Even though the Assessment was performed a few years back, the type of
information contained within provides a guide and suggestion for the scale and size of
needed homes within Avon.
Although the applicant has not proposed specific unit layouts, sizes, or price points, the
change in style of development would suggest the units having a higher price point than
that existing style of development. The Applicant could place a size limitation on a
unit(s) within the proposed subdivision, to ensure that it is of smaller size, will reduce
impacts on the natural environment and has the potential to achieve a housing product
and price point that is envisioned in the Housing Needs Assessment and needed within
the Wildridge Community.
Policy H.2.1: Avoid development in environmental hazard areas such as floodplains,
steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards, wildfire hazard areas, and areas with erosive
soils.
Staff Comment: Development is proposed within areas of steep existing topography
with slopes approaching sixty percent (60%). Although the existing platted lots would
allow development on these steep lots, the Application does not further this policy of the
Comprehensive Plan. As stated in previous analysis and review criteria, the Application
could further this policy by capping the maximum footprint size, further limiting the non -
developable areas, or capping the maximum size of a unit to ensure a smaller structure.
The Application also fails to meet all of the eligibility criteria as outlined in §7.16.060(b).
Specifically, §7.16.060(b)(5), Public Benefit, states: "A recognizable and material benefit will
be realized by both the future residents and the Town as a whole through the establishment
of a PUD, where such benefit would otherwise be infeasible or unlikely." As discussed in
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 15
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
Review Criteria #1, above, and stated throughout this report, Staff does not believe the
Application proposes public benefits that would otherwise be infeasible or unlikely. The
applicant discusses a type of development pattern that would occur under the current zoning
and a type of development pattern that could occur with the rezoning, but has not provided a
site specific development plan to ensure that the proposed development pattern is achieved.
Through additional limitations placed on the property, such as increased and actual non -
developable areas or maximum building footprint sizes, a revised application could ensure
that future development patterns as discussed in this proposal, would be followed and the
proposed public benefits are realized.
The Application, as proposed, does not ensure that the public benefits as presented by the
applicant would be better achieved through this rezoning that would be achieved by the
existing zoning. The Application, as proposed, does not comply with the Goals and Policies
of the Avon Comprehensive Plan or the Eligibility Criteria as discussed above.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric,
police and fire protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be
available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service to
existing development;
Staff Response: As proposed, the PUD amendment will have little to no effect on most
services. As mentioned previously in this report, the future development may create the
need for additional water rights (SFEs) due to the uncontrolled or un -capped size of units.
This need will be mitigated through a surcharge applied to each building at the time of
Building Permit issuance.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise,
storm water management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be
substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: The property was originally zoned and platted as a "Specially Planned
Area" and therefore does not have an underlying zoning. When the proposed PUD
Amendment is compared to the existing Wildridge PUD, there is no evidence that the
proposal will reduce the impacts on the natural environment. Three (3) single-family
structures could have greater impacts on the existing topography and natural environment
than the development of two (2) duplexes as the current zoning permits. The creative design
of two (2) duplexes and only two (2) structures could have less need for site retention than
three (3) separate structures, especially in light of the location of the third structure to the
east. The Application could cap building footprints, limit the size of a single dwelling, and
increase non -buildable areas or other measures to ensure that the PUD amendment reduces
the impacts on the natural environment.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: As discussed in the previous review criteria, the uncertain pattern of
existing or proposed development may impact the other properties in the vicinity. Due to the
allowable size of the proposed three (3) single-family structures, the project could experience
increased aesthetic impacts due to the need for additional site retaining on steep slopes for
an additional structure that might be otherwise be mitigated through a creative duplex or
single-family structure design. The impacts of these structures will be minimal as viewed
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 16
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
from the properties along Wildridge Road East above, as the height limitations and the steep
slopes will likely cause the structures to develop downhill, but their impacts will be seen from
other properties lower in the Wildridge Subdivision as well as vehicular traffic elsewhere in
the subdivision. The creation of three (3) structures instead of two (2) could have a negative
impact on these properties especially with regard of the lack of surety of the size of the
proposed unit's footprint when compared to the potential for creative designs for two (2)
structures that could limit footprint size. The limitations on building footprint size or additional
areas deemed non -developable, especially on the steeper slopes to the east could help
mitigate this issue; as proposed, the Application does not ensure a less impactful design will
be achieved.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential
future uses on other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: The single-family residential use provides an efficient, workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity, as does the duplex land use. There is a mix of single-
family and duplex buildings in close proximity to these lots. Staff has no objection with
single-family land use as it relates to compatibility with surrounding uses in the vicinity;
however, the Wildridge Subdivision conscientiously platted varied densities (i.e. single-family
lots, duplex lots, 4plex lots, 6plex lots, etc) in order to provide a mix of housing types. The
continued shift to larger single-family homes may not work to further the purpose and intent
of the Wildridge Subdivision as a mixed density local's subdivision.
Review Criteria — Variance
Pursuant to §7.16.110(c), Review Criteria, AMC, and §7.16.110(d), Required Findings, AMC,
the PZC shall consider a number of review criteria when evaluating this application and are
required to make a number of findings prior to recommending approval. The following criteria
must be considered when forming the basis of a recommendation or decision on a PUD plan:
(1) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements
of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of the Development
Code without grant of special privilege;
Staff Response: Staff is of the opinion that the Application will grant a special privilege to
the Property. As stated previously in this report, the Property may develop today as either:
two (2) duplex structures; two (2) single-family structures; or, one (1) duplex structure and
one (1) single-family structure. The applicant is requesting to modify this allowable
development pattern to three (3) single-family structures that is not allowed by current zoning
of the parcel and to develop two (2) of those structures primarily in areas exceeding forty
percent (40%) slope. As is exhibited by both the Development Code and the Comprehensive
Plan policies, development and disturbance on steep slopes should be avoided. The
Application does not ensure that these objectives will be mitigated in a greater fashion than is
allowed by the current zoning, therefore, this approval would grant a special privilege to this
property.
(2) The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety;
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the Application will have a lesser effect on light and
air or distribution of population. The amendment to three (3) structures as opposed to two (2)
structures could impact and increase the overall length of development by spreading out the
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 17
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
units resulting in a greater amount of development on the total lot area. The potential for
improved light and air between the structures could be negated due to the need for
landscaping to meet code requirements and the steep slopes and "non -developable" areas
that will limit locating plantings downhill. The reduction from four (4) to three (3) dwelling
units will have a negligible impact on traffic and public safety, but the size of the proposed
units could consume an equal or greater amount of water than the development options that
exist under the current zoning, including potential duplex structure designs.
(3) Such other factors and criteria related to the subject property, proposed
development, or variance request as the decision-making body deems applicable to
the proposed variance.
Staff Response: As discussed throughout this report, Staff is of the opinion that the
Application has not addressed the review criteria, but this criterion is specifically intended to
address additional factors that the decision-making body, the PZC, deems applicable to the
proposed variance. If the PZC has any additional criteria that will need to be addressed,
informing the applicant and Staff of those criteria at this meeting will allow for the Application
to address those additional criteria prior to a future meeting.
The PZC shall make the following written findings before granting a variance:
(1) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district;
Staff Response: As discussed in review criteria #1, Staff is of the opinion that granting this
variance and allowing for a different style of development enjoyed by other properties within
the same district would in fact be granting of special privilege.
(2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity;
Staff Response: The granting of this variance would likely not impact the public health,
safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties in the vicinity.
(3) That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
(i) The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of the Development Code;
(ii) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone; or
(iii) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same zone district;
Staff Response: Staff does not believe the variance is warranted for any of the above-
mentioned reasons. The property may still develop as discussed throughout this report as: two
(2) duplex structures; two (2) single-family structures; or, one (1) duplex structure and one (1)
single-family structure. Therefore the request to waive the steep slope requirements will not
result in practical difficulty or undue physical hardship, or deprive this property owner of rights
allowed under current zoning or by other properties within the zone district. The property was
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 18
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
platted with steep slopes that are not exceptional or extraordinary within the Wildridge
Subdivision, therefore the same applicable codes would apply to all properties within this zone
district equally.
Staff Recommendation
Staff cannot recommend approval of a PUD Amendment or Variance request as the Application
does not comply with the mandatory review criteria as discussed throughout this report. Staff
recommends that the Application be continued to a future meeting to allow the Applicant to
address the concerns raised by Staff.
If the PZC does not agree with the Staff Analysis and Recommendation, Staff would then
suggest that the PZC continue the Application to the February 19th, 2013 PZC Meeting, and
direct Staff to prepare a "Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and Recommendations" for the
PUD Amendment application and a Resolution for the Variance application. Furthermore, Staff
would suggest that the PZC provide any conditions and findings at this meeting, so that the
above-mentioned documents can be complete and ready for review and approval at the next
meeting. If the PZC decides to follow this path, Staff will be able to comply with public notice
requirement for the February 26th, 2013 Town Council meeting, which would be the next
available review date for this application regardless of a decision at the February 5th, 2013
meeting.
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Application Materials
C: Public Comment received from ERSWD
February 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 19
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
t ti
+^, a
ti
f m
rtj
NO-
'67
- r { 3 rre
� '
3. ��� r 71� k�"fit ♦ � .,.n G��"' � ,e {! f ` 'r� �i �`�'Yt{r i � ���� f°. ,
}gh���•:a h" �. ••- „ �}��' _\ - ... Fid :.xM ✓.� � / _r * �,sfa �..r E �k. .t r�l
:i {fir iy2• }i -ywl • i >.s. 4� �L ` , tr; i �r "' "1
:,+�,�+` 1�'{; i 1 t_.. ! . ,� •I��rY, ,-„ .'�4 1 rl x` r N'.�' 7�,r�j�� A 'rti
V
^ � �. k'• .{: '' ,l• � �'F t,°, xTS.i y�, q ,3rd
J
t �' Z. • �y�r+•• S`• ► 4 � s y., t'a, a� r �'�+" '• y - �`7+t. .
R ��.#��'E�}T t- "Yy ai~'r a �l \ ip r r. " � `�•,.1 a � s .
�� +` t �� .1 �'� t''-. � '1 � F'ry *+'Ta. PI st `"C' 1. %•'SJ � ' k 1 �, + n' r
•r"+ WyW.. A
t4 a � ' q 1�Y�.�'vt,• t '1 srr'Y-..�� y'�`�� � `.. ,C
`1641 �'� •c�l���+�Yi"��.t'�fd�.. ,tl � °r r - y! J,.0 f.✓ ��, f 6 ,6p �p 4 r ,A�. j y
y�1i34}�. ti la_ ✓.'L r i'r,..�.�,F
�a'� I �4��s + �� � '�'�ic: � ` �• � 3�i' ; �t�t' +.tF}�+ , rt
-'�`� � `�i-• rR Tc�/� " '•'j,tr�'e�l, � 1' : e y`�,.. s � '' t;'� ..f • ,u - ,�r .a, ,: T '�
�"�'� }+�'! y"ti '�i a, �t r J. c:.� ... + ry � �`�.r �. e .�. ✓ ,.. `'tir :s;' ��� 4�'•t .lv,�r if 7`ikt� � L.
�'�•�l���f •� -1`.1 {�� �•�'ir%' !�'i 'b'' F.'a,
Yl } i,'h „ .r '�' ..;,,{sjklff
id t
� `` �� '�+y., a'R' 4`S,, t` - :'[ l '� ,x ` 'f � 1' � l rV}„ �, ""• i r, 1 vs� '`�#"}�l� �1 t
v•�� �� 7 41J r .�; et .. i 1i7,.t j-}EtYrk '.
t P t ti f e 3i `C/
A�}��. 4��. � �! `�1. 'CK �c i,; t 5• ���111p- F�`��, r�•�yy� � �?+'°4.t J+: Yfi.
f� Q ,ts a, y yt "�';Y• i y r
��� t � Y YM' {"! J3 3 �..t,e.°' i' 'S' �` 1 e- •%YS'� ! G+ a !}a�.'_'� S �..
[Y �' 1 fi k! �cr,+iy Nc i"x� If1� \}�t-a1 �I ��i�t•y i
�i17 Y- i E Y�i{ •'it �y �;. 4'`P i. `:o
V�r"�I}_� •" •�1�,1�+ 1E. ,fe..y �'' a 3 � e'er. ?t� F _ s�.� y,� ^i ,t: �}r�,atri � {� e t �ti.... � : a}�,. �r
:tR
N,
M I — RcQirlor.+ial C+ mg%fa I IIS1111 u
s
s � s,a: � ... Y �' a:=�p +, x� �l"�"S�A''ii`x�x+•YiC �'�� � f, $..
> *... 4- ,� ,3 �r'y� r'•�., fir.
. "' .; � .;, X� 3,y-- ,` a . =-.'l +�'" * •� r� lea
.- 1 �. ori .`t +�5.�..:iJ�y.- _ - - ._��l.. `o✓ .; ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Introduction
B. Background
C. Precedent and Other Similar Applications
D. Zoning Analysis
E. Criteria for Review - Minor Subdivision
F. Criteria for Review - Final Plat
G. Criteria for Review - Variance
H. Criteria for Review - Planned Unit Development
I. Adjacent Addresses
J. Appendices
1. Proposed Final Plat and Topo Survey of Wildridge Point
2. 1981 Wildridge Final Plat
3. Letter from Staff 9/19/12
4. Title Reports
3
4
6
8
9
15
16
17
23
24
3
A. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Mountain C.I. Holdings LTD, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is
requesting a Minor Amendment and Minor Subdivision for Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Wildridge
Subdivision. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance from the standards of
Sections 7.28.1oo.a. and 7.32.020.e.6. Lots 33 and 34 are duplex lots, allowing for a total of 4
units on the site. The applicant is requesting to create Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Wildridge Point
Subdivision, which would be single-family lots, therefore reducing the total to 3 dwelling
units on the site. Because the lots are located within the Wildridge PUD, a minor
amendment and a minor subdivision are required. The proposed final plat is included in the
Appendix. Below is a portion of the plat, indicating the lot line to be vacated and the new
proposed lot lines creating Lots 1, 2, and 3.
By reducing the density and allowing for 3 smaller lots, the overall building mass and
footprints are reduced in overall scale. The three units are appropriately spaced and allow
for views, light, and air between the homes, giving a feeling of more openness. The
drawings that follow give an example of the perception of open space as viewed from the
roadway vs. the duplex format.
B. BACKGROUND
The Town of Avon was incorporated in 1978, and Benchmark Properties created the
Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions shortly thereafter. Subsequently, the Wildridge
Subdivision was completely replatted in 1981. The Wildridge PUD and Subdivision are unique
in comparison to more recent PUDs created in the Town of Avon. In general, the
requirements of the PUD are provided on the 1981 plat of Wildridge. It is this plat that
includes all of the allowable land uses, building heights, setbacks, etc., which are regulated
by the Town. Along with these standards, the 1981 plat provides the "developable area" of
certain lots within the subdivision. The developable area is indicated in the following
manner:
APPROXIMATE. LIMIT OF nEVELOPABLE AND NON-
(D1MF.NSInNS SHALL BE NnTEn FROM THE PLAT)
------------�
VEMOPABLE^^
AREAS
N-DEVELOPABLE AREAS
DEVF.LOPME.NT SHALL OCCUR ON THE NON -DEVELOPABLE AREA WITHOUT WRITTEN SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE CnVFNANTS CnW7Tr FE
THF TOWN OF AVON. DF.VFI.OPMFHT SHALL INCLUDE. BUILDTNOS, FENCES, SIGNS. ROADS, AND C.RAOTNf.. NnV-R1FCEI.OPARI.F.
AS SHALL BF PHYSICALLY IR4n15TPRRED AND LEFT IN THFTR PRFSF.NT NATDRAI STATE. F.XCF.PT FOR APPRown AC(TRS A.4O 1TILTTY
EMF.NTS .
Lots 33 and 34 do not include any non -developable area, as indicated on the 1981 plat:
E�
U ff AD
AI
10l /• � ^R
afz
L� i
Sa..Ti
ARAaEA
�- T"a
RL1CwaMDac Rip
r
PACKS
Duplex Format
Single -Family Format
V
A
B. BACKGROUND
The Town of Avon was incorporated in 1978, and Benchmark Properties created the
Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions shortly thereafter. Subsequently, the Wildridge
Subdivision was completely replatted in 1981. The Wildridge PUD and Subdivision are unique
in comparison to more recent PUDs created in the Town of Avon. In general, the
requirements of the PUD are provided on the 1981 plat of Wildridge. It is this plat that
includes all of the allowable land uses, building heights, setbacks, etc., which are regulated
by the Town. Along with these standards, the 1981 plat provides the "developable area" of
certain lots within the subdivision. The developable area is indicated in the following
manner:
APPROXIMATE. LIMIT OF nEVELOPABLE AND NON-
(D1MF.NSInNS SHALL BE NnTEn FROM THE PLAT)
------------�
VEMOPABLE^^
AREAS
N-DEVELOPABLE AREAS
DEVF.LOPME.NT SHALL OCCUR ON THE NON -DEVELOPABLE AREA WITHOUT WRITTEN SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE CnVFNANTS CnW7Tr FE
THF TOWN OF AVON. DF.VFI.OPMFHT SHALL INCLUDE. BUILDTNOS, FENCES, SIGNS. ROADS, AND C.RAOTNf.. NnV-R1FCEI.OPARI.F.
AS SHALL BF PHYSICALLY IR4n15TPRRED AND LEFT IN THFTR PRFSF.NT NATDRAI STATE. F.XCF.PT FOR APPRown AC(TRS A.4O 1TILTTY
EMF.NTS .
Lots 33 and 34 do not include any non -developable area, as indicated on the 1981 plat:
E�
U ff AD
AI
10l /• � ^R
As a result, Lots 33 and 34 are entirely developable and the requirements of Sections
7.28.1oo.a. and 7.32.02o.e.6 are therefore not applicable since this PUD specifically allows for
developable areas and is a resubdivision of existing platted lots. A variance application has
been submitted to vary from standards that are "applicable to a new subdivision." The
Applicant disagrees that these standards were ever intended to apply to an amended plat or
a Minor PUD amendment but has applied for the variance in deference to the staff opinion.
The variance request is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the review
can be called -up by the Town Council.
Various amendments within the PUD have occurred within the subsequent 30 years. These
amendments have been in various forms: amendments to the PUD, new PUDs within the
PUD, etc. However, with the recently adopted Avon Development Code, the process has
been simplified to a minor amendment (Section 7.16.020):
(g) Minor Amendment. The applicant may apply to the Director for minor amendments to an
approved development application. Minor amendments to an approved development application
may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied administratively by the Director. The
Director is authorized to approve minor amendments only if the development approval, as so
amended, complies with the standards of the Development Code. The Director may refer a minor
amendment to the decision-making body that was responsible for the original approval if the
Director determines the amendment may result in a material change to the approved development
application. Proposed amendments to an approved development application which are determined
by the Director to not be a minor amendment shall be reviewed and processed in the same manner
as would be required under this Development Code for the original application for which the
amendment is sought and shall include full application fees.
Minor amendments shall consist of any of the following.
(1) Any change to any permit or other form of approval that was originally subject only to
administrative review and was approved by the Director, provided such change would not have
disqualified the original application from administrative review under this Development Code
had it been requested at that time; and provided that the minor amendment does not result in
an increase of more than ten percent (lo%) in 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.
(2) Correction of any errors caused by mistakes that do not materially alter the substance of the
development plan or plat as represented to the Council.
(3) A change to an approved design which results in a ten percent (lo%) or less increase to lot
coverage; ten percent (io%) or less increase to building height; adjustments to building
footprints, access and parking configurations which are less than ten (10) feet; alterations to the
landscaping plan or drainage plan which substantially comply with the original approval; and,
changes to doors, windows, roofs, or building articulation which are less than two (2) feet and
which do not alter or diminish the overall design character as approved; as are all determined by
the Director.
(4) Changes to an approved development application which do not result in:
(i) An increase in the approved number of dwelling units;
(ii) An increase in the amount of square footage of a non-residential land use or structure;
(iii) A change in the housing mix or use mix ratio; or,
(iv) A change in the character of the development.
In this case, the Planning Staff interpreted that the change from two duplex residences to
three single family residences does not constitute a change in the housing mix and that this
application will be reviewed as a Minor Amendment since today the property can either be
developed with 2 single family houses or 2 duplexes (4 units). However, Staff is referring the
application to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council for public
hearings. The letter of this determination by staff is included in the Appendix.
In addition to the Minor Amendment process, the proposal is reviewed as a minor
subdivision, which is described as follows:
(i) Minor Subdivisions. Minor subdivisions include all subdivisions which would create less than four
(4) separate parcels of land, subdivisions which do not require or propose public improvements,
subdivisions which consolidate two (i) or more lots into a single lot in a previously recorded
subdivision plat, and subdivisions which move any lot lines by more than two (i) feet; but shall not
include subdivisions which are administrative subdivisions. Condominium and timeshare
subdivisions more than four (4) units which do not propose public improvements shall be processed
as minor subdivisions.
Because the proposal creates 3 lots from 2 existing lots, the application is reviewed as a
Minor Subdivision. As such, the Wildridge Point Subdivision is reviewed only by the Town
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission has no review authority over the Minor
Subdivision.
C. PRECEDENT AND OTHER SIMILAR APPLICATIONS
Similar projects have been approved by the Town of Avon in the past. For example, the
following plat shows a resubdivision of Lot to and 11, Block 2, Wildridge approved by the
Town of Avon in 2002. This plat took 2 existing duplex lots and re -platted them as 3 single-
family lots, a reduction of one dwelling unit.
ur
MAL PUT
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 10
AND LOT 11, BLOCK 2. WILDRIDGE
Town of Avon, Counq of ?A* &ate of Colorado
L'VAc
crro r..� c�xx•amw .e. � .cnxy
0 !.55 `' a
W.
7,
m
1:24LT ►.�C.S..-...���..
�"
0 !.55 `' a
In 2005, the Western Sage PUD allowed for 3 triplex lots and 1 duplex lot to be re -platted
into 8 single-family homes, a reduction of 3 dwelling units for the site.
rp"L PIAT
WESTERN SAGE DEVELOPMENT
A RL]CORMU IN OF tOn 84. 56, n. k Ro, ipatt 4, WUDR M
— a M . r cowff. tOatlp
•ami''' .�'� a-"�ra_i..�
'y4Z.•—Lt--9CLL
-• L.
Y� r
—N -;W0—
krlw�.�
The Dry Creek PUD, approved in 2oo6, was another similar approval by the Town of Avon.
The Dry Creek PUD allowed for Lot 44 which was permitted 4 units to be re -platted into 3
single-family lots, a reduction of one dwelling unit.
�1a� arr_n,
DRY 6—
lREEE'E'
K PUD
A lL=bdiviskot ofLot�4. Block 7, Mkkidpe
Toon of Awn. County of Eoglel &ate of Ceionndo
AR
I
\ t t
A
i
��...u�% i''"t;�'_i=.' -- :ria —_. t caTcrcaxrz.•-. watri
While these examples were processed in different ways (PUD within a PUD, amendment to a
PUD, etc.) the recently adopted Avon Development Code provides a clear process for minor
amendments to an existing PUD, simplifying the approval process for applications such as
these.
D. ZONING ANALYSIS
Current:
Standard
Lot 33
Lot 34
Total
Lot Size (acres)
1.34
1.07
2.41
Units Allowed
2.00
2.00
4.00
Density (du/acre)
1.49
1.87
1.66
Lot Frontage
142 ft.
88 ft.
230 ft.
Proposed:
Standard
Lot i
Lot 2
Lot 3
Total
Lot Size (acres)
1.037
0.572
0.809
2.41
Units Allowed
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
Density (du/acre)
0.96
1.75
1.24
1.24
Lot Frontage
70 ft.
83 ft.
77 ft.
230 ft.
There are no changes to any other standards of the Wildridge PUD, with setbacks and height
remaining as outlined on the plat. Front setbacks are 25 ft. while side and rear setbacks are
io ft. The maximum height limitation is 35 ft.
E. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW - MINOR SUBDIVISION
The Avon Development Code provides the criteria for review for a Minor Subdivision as
follows:
(i) Minor Subdivision. Minor subdivisions shall require final plat review and approval only where no
public improvements are proposed; however, the review criteria for a preliminary plan shall apply to
review of minor subdivision final plats in addition to the review criteria for a final plat. The Town
Council shall render the final decision on a minor subdivision application after conducting a public
hearing. Minor subdivisions shall be approved by resolution or ordinance of the Town Council.
As a result, the criteria for a preliminary plan are provided below, along with the criteria for
final plat review:
(i) The proposed subdivision shall comply with all applicable use, density, development, and
design standards set forth in this Development Code that have not otherwise been
modified or waived pursuant to this Chapter and that would affect or influence the layout
of lots, blocks, and streets. Applicants shall not create lots or patterns of lots in the
subdivision that will make compliance with such development and design standards
difficult or infeasible;
Applicant Response: Because the proposal is a minor subdivision of Z lots into 3 lots,
with a reduction in density from 4 units to 3 units, this criterion is not applicable. The
subdivision complies with all use, density, development and design standards and has
no affect on the layout of other lots, blocks or streets.
(i) The subdivision application shall comply with the purposes of the Development Code;
Applicant Response: The purpose of the Development Code is provided in Section
7.04.030 Purposes of the Avon Development Code:
The Development Code is intended to promote and achieve the following goals and purposes for
the Avon community, including the residents, property owners, business owners and visitors:
(a) Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection,
construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for trade,
industry, residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot areas;
regulate and determine the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings; establish building
lines and locations of buildings designed for specified industrial, commercial, residential and
other uses within such areas; establish standards to which buildings or structures shall
conform; establish standards for use of areas adjoining such buildings or structures;
(b) Implement the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
planning documents of the Town;
(c) Comply with the purposes stated in state and federal regulations which authorize the
regulations in this Development Code,
(d) Avoid undue traffic congestion and degradation of the level of service provided by streets
and roadways, promote effective and economical mass transportation and enhance effective,
attractive and economical pedestrian opportunities,
(e) Promote adequate light, air, landscaping and open space and avoid undue concentration
or sprawl of population;
(f) Provide a planned and orderly use of land, protection of the environment and preservation
of viability, all to conserve the value of the investments of the people of the Avon community
and encourage a high quality of life and the most appropriate use of land throughout the
municipality;
(g) Prevent the inefficient use of land; avoid increased demands on public services and
facilities which exceed capacity or degrade the level of service for existing residents; provide
for phased development of government services and facilities which maximizes efficiency and
optimizes costs to taxpayers and users; and promote sufficient, economical and high-quality
provision of all public services and public facilities, including but not limited to water, sewage,
schools, libraries, police, parks, recreation, open space and medical facilities;
(h) Minimize the risk of damage and injury to people, structures and public infrastructure
created by wild fire, avalanche, unstable slopes, rock fall, mudslides, flood danger and other
natural hazards;
(i) Achieve or exceed federal clean air standards;
(j) Sustain water sources by maintaining the natural watershed, preventing accelerated
erosion, reducing runoff and consequent sedimentation, eliminating pollutants introduced
directly into streams and enhancing public access to recreational water sources;
(k) Maintain the natural scenic beauty of the Eagle River Valley in order to preserve areas of
historical and archaeological importance, provide for adequate open spaces, preserve scenic
views, provide recreational opportunities, sustain the tourist -based economy and preserve
property values;
(1) Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, practical and complimentary
to Avon's sub -alpine environment;
(m) Achieve innovation and advancement in design of the built environment to improve
efficiency, reduce energy consumption, reduce emission of pollutants, reduce consumption of
non-renewable natural resources and attain sustainability;
(n) Achieve a diverse range of attainable housing which meets the housing needs created by
jobs in the Town, provides a range of housing types and price points to serve a complete range
of life stages and promotes a balanced, diverse and stable full time residential community
which is balanced with the visitor economy;
(o) Promote quality real estate investments which conserve property values by disclosing
risks, taxes and fees; by incorporating practical and comprehensible legal arrangements; and
by promoting accuracy in investment expectations; and
(p) Promote the health, safety and welfare of the Avon community.
As demonstrated by this document and the plans submitted, the proposal is consistent
with and in substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code by
reducing the number of units, providing for greater open space and reducing building
footprints within an existing subdivision.
(3) The subdivision application shall be consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan and
other community planning documents;
10
Applicant Response: The Avon Land Use Map indicates the property as Residential -
Low Density as indicated on the map below:
aWdVublk
Regitanal commercial
Mrxetl use
Neighborhood commc+aai
Light Industrial commercial
Open space
Park
Residential high density
Res,dantlal mediumdensity
Residential lowdemiry
7ownofAvonboundary
Parcel
Water
The Comprehensive Plan defines "Residential -Lot Density" as follows:
Areas designated for residential low density are intended to provide sites for single-family,
duplex, and multi -family dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5 dwelling units per acre.
As indicated in zoning analysis of Section D of this submittal, the proposed minor
subdivision complies with the density as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
(4) The land shall be physically suitable for the proposed development or subdivision;
Applicant Response: As indicated on the 1981 Wildridge Plat, the Wildridge PUD
establishes that the entirety of the area of the proposed lot is "developable." As the
guiding document for this PUD, the land has been previously determined to be
physically suitable for development. In addition, the proposal is actually a reduction in
allowable density, making the impact on the land less than is currently allowed.
(5) The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with surrounding land uses;
Applicant Response: As indicated in the map below, surrounding land uses include
Town of Avon -owned open space to the south, east and southwest of the property.
Directly to the north and east are residential uses. The current land use allowed on the
site is residential, as the site is currently permitted 4 dwelling units. The proposed
minor subdivision would allow for 3 dwelling units, a reduction of one unit for this site.
11
Because there is no change to the proposed land use (residential) but there is a net
reduction in density, this subdivision is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
(6) There are adequate public facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste
disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in
relation to schools, police, fire protection and emergency medical services;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application. As a reduction in allowable density, there is
less need for these public facilities and a new increase in water rights by the return of
one SFE to the Town.
(7) The proposed utility and road extensions are consistent with the utility's service plan and
are consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan & Comprehensive
Transportation Master Plan;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application. No utility or road extensions are necessary.
(8) The utility lines are sized to serve the ultimate population of the service area to avoid
future land disruption to upgrade under -sized lines;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application. Because this proposal reduces the
allowable density, there will be less demand on utilities and utility lines are sized
appropriately for the current allowable density.
12
(9) The subdivision is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall
not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area;
Applicant Response: The proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with the
character of the existing land uses in the area. As indicated previously, surrounding land
uses are Town -owned open space tracts and other residential uses. The map below
provides an analysis of the residential lots nearby as a comparison to the proposed
subdivision:
As indicated in the analysis, the proposed lot sizes are similar to those in the area and are
compatible with the existing land uses. The surrounding residential lots are all currently
developed, but this subdivision will not affect the future redevelopment of these sites.
Photos of the surrounding properties are provided below:
13
(1o) A proposed subdivision for an existing PUD shall be consistent with the relevant PUD
Master Plan as reflected in the approval of that PUD;
Applicant Response: The Wildridge PUD is unique in that the PUD Plan is generally
outlined on the 1981 Wildridge Plat. Based on this plat (included in the Appendix), the
proposal is consistent with the PUD.
(») Appropriate utilities, including water, sewer, electric, gas and telephone utilities, shall
provide an "conditional capacity to serve" letter for the propose subdivision;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application.
(u) That the general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities, and other
services within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in a way that minimizes the
amount of land disturbance, minimize inefficiencies in the development of services,
maximizes the amount of open space in the development, preserves existing trees/
vegetation and riparian areas, protects critical wildlife habitat, and otherwise
accomplishes the purposes of this Development Code;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application.
(13) Evidence that provision has been made for a public sewage disposal system or, if other
methods of sewage disposal are proposed, adequate evidence that such system shall
comply with state and local laws and regulations;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application.
(14) Evidence that all areas of the proposed subdivision that may involve soil or topographical
conditions presenting hazards or requiring special precautions have been identified by
the applicant and that the proposed use of these areas are compatible with such
conditions or that adequate mitigation is proposed;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing, platted lots within Wildridge,
this criterion is not applicable to this application.
(15) The subdivision application addresses the responsibility for maintaining all roads, open
spaces, and other public and common facilities in the subdivision and that Town can
afford j`ord any proposed responsibilities to be assumed by the Town;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application.
(16) If applicable, the declarations and owners' association are established in accordance with
the law and are structured to provide adequate assurance that any site design standards
'4
required by this Development Code or conditions of approval for the proposed
subdivision will be maintained or performed in a manner which is enforceable by the
Town; and,
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application. The Wildridge Covenants remain in effect.
(q) As applicable, the proposed phasing for development of the subdivision is rational in
terms of available infrastructure capacity and financing.
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision of existing platted lots within Wildridge, this
criterion is not applicable to this application.
F. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW - FINAL PLAT
The review criteria for a final plat are provided below:
(1) The Town Engineer shall compare the legal description of the subject property with the
County records to determine that:
(i) The property described contains all contiguous single ownership and does not create a
new or remaining unrecognized parcel of less than thirty-five (35) acres in size;
(ii) The lots and parcels have descriptions that both close and contain the area indicated;
and
(iii) The plat is correct in accordance with surveying and platting standards of the state.
Applicant Response: The proposed minor subdivision meets the above criteria.
(i) The final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plan and incorporates all
recommended changes, modifications, and conditions attached to the approval of the
preliminary plan;
Applicant Response: As a minor subdivision, no preliminary plan is required.
(3) The final plat conforms to all preliminary plan criteria;
Applicant Response: The proposed minor subdivision meets the above criteria and a
review has been provided above.
(4) The development will substantially comply with all sections of the Development Code;
Applicant Response: The proposed minor subdivision substantially complies with all
sections of the Development Code.
(5) The final plat complies with all applicable technical standards adopted by the Town; and,
15
Applicant Response: The proposed minor subdivision complies with all applicable
technical standards adopted by the Town.
(6) Appropriate utilities shall provide an ability to serve letter including, but not limited to,
water, sewer, electric, gas, and telecommunication facilities.
Applicant Response: The proposed minor subdivision is already served by utilities.
G. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW - VARIANCE
Section 7.28.1oo.a. Natural Resource Protection, provides regulations for development on
steep slopes. The standards of this section apply to the following:
Applicability. The standards in this section shall apply to any new subdivision, PUD, or zoning
amendment when any portion of the lot contains naturally -occurring slopes of thirty percent (30%)
or greater.
Staff: has interpreted that this application is subject to this section. This section was written
to apply to "any new subdivision" but in this case the subdivision is a resubdivision of
existing platted lots within a existing platted subdivision within an existing PUD. In addition,
Section 7.32.020.e.6 requires that buildable area cannot include areas with 40% slopes. Due
to the existing 40% slopes encompassing a significant portion of the existing platted lots,
this regulation in not possible to comply with, and is not a requirement of the Wildridge
PUD. Due to the strict requirements of this Section of the Avon Development Code (which
would not have allowed Wildridge to be platted today) the applicant is requesting a variance
from Section 7.28.1oo.a. "Steep Slopes" and Section 7.32.020.e.6. "Buildable Area". The
review criteria for a variance are provided below:
(i)The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of the Development Code without
grant of special privilege;
Applicant Response: The proposed request is a reduction in density for this property,
reducing the number of units from 4 dwelling units to 3 dwelling units. Applying the
requirements of Sections 7.28.100.A. and 7.32.02o.e.6 to this resubdivision of existing
platted lots would render the property undevelopable, contrary to what has been
defined as undevelopable in the Wildridge PUD. This would unfairly apply criteria for a
"new subdivision" to a resubdivision, treating this property differently than all other
similar lots within the Wildridge subdivision. As a result, the granting of this variance
would not be a grant of special privilege and is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment among sites in this existing platted subdivision.
(i)The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety;
16
Applicant Response: As a reduction in density, this variance will improve the light and
air. The construction of 3 units vs. 4 units will increase the feeling of openness and green
space for this property. In addition, as a reduction in allowable density and therefore a
reduction in population, there is a reduction of impacts on all transportation facilities,
public facilities, and utilities.
(3)Such other factors and criteria related to the subject property, proposed development, or
variance request as the decision-making body deems applicable to the proposed variance.
Applicant Response: These code sections are clearly intended to apply to new
subdivisions within Avon, not on the resubdivision of existing platted lots within an
existing subdivision. The application of these standards to minor lot line adjustments
that actually serve to reduce density creates a situation where even "administrative
subdivisions" would be required to comply with these same requirements. This is not
possible within a subdivision that was platted long before these regulations were
enacted.
H. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Staff has requested that this submittal include a section reviewing the Review Criteria for a
new Planned Unit Development as outlined in Section 7.16.o6o.e.4, which states:
Review Criteria. The PZC and Town Council shall consider the following criteria as the basis for a
recommendation or decision to rezone a property to PUD Overlay and approve a preliminary PUD
plan.
While the applicant is not proposing a new PUD but rather is proposing to amend the
existing Wildridge PUD to allow two duplex lots to be converted to three single-family lots,
we have provided responses to the PUD review criteria which are really intended for a new
PUD. The criteria are addressed below:
(i)The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development
Code and represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished
through strict application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards.
Such improvements in quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open
space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation;
efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and services; or increased choice of
living and housing environments.
Applicant Response: The Town of Avon was incorporated in 1978 and Benchmark
Properties created the Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions shortly thereafter. The
Wildridge PUD and Subdivision are unique in comparison to more recent PUDs created in
the Town of Avon. It was the original Wildridge PUD which met the above -referenced
criteria and this proposed minor amendment has no adverse effect on the originally
approved Planned Unit Development and all of the public benefits it provided to the
17
community including things like open space and the increased choice of housing and
living environments. In this particular situation, the entirety of the subject property is
buildable under the original PUD. The proposal protects areas of the proposed lots as a
no -build zone, protecting slope area in excess of 40%. The lot configuration allows for
development to occur in such a way as to provide more light and air and green space
than could be developed currently without the proposed minor amendment.
Furthermore, as a reduction in density, there is a public benefit by reducing traffic
impacts, reducing water demand, lessening demand for public services such as police
and fire, reducing impacts to the school system, etc.
(i)The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Applicant Response: As a reduction in allowable density and the corresponding
reduction in traffic and demand on public utilities and services, the streets of Wildridge
will be safer than under the current allowance. While there is no PUD rezoning
associated with this application, the proposal will promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
(3)The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.o6o(b);
Applicant Response: The Avon Land Use Map indicates the property as Residential - Low
Density as indicated on the map below:
E
Gvicftbhc
Regional cgmmerdal
Mb W use
Neigt*t h d commerdal
Light mdustdal commercial
[� Open space
Park
RepdentW - high dermy
!taidenttal - medium deity
Reldential • lowderwty
Q TomcfAvonboundary
Parcel
Water
is
The Comprehensive Plan defines "Residential -Lot Density" as follows:
Areas designated for residential low density are intended to provide sites for single-family,
duplex, and multi -family dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5 dwelling units per acre.
As indicated in zoning analysis of Section D of this submittal, the proposed minor
subdivision complies with the density as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan
with an overall density of 1.24 units per acre proposed.
The purpose of the Development Code is provided in Section 7.04.030 Purposes of the
Avon Development Code:
The Development Code is intended to promote and achieve the following goals and purposes for
the Avon community, including the residents, property owners, business owners and visitors:
(a) Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection,
construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for trade,
industry, residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot areas,
regulate and determine the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings, establish building
lines and locations of buildings designed for specified industrial, commercial, residential and
other uses within such areas; establish standards to which buildings or structures shall
conform; establish standards for use of areas adjoining such buildings or structures;
(b) Implement the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
planning documents of the Town;
(c) Comply with the purposes stated in state and federal regulations which authorize the
regulations in this Development Code;
(d) Avoid undue traffic congestion and degradation of the level of service provided by streets
and roadways, promote effective and economical mass transportation and enhance effective,
attractive and economical pedestrian opportunities;
(e) Promote adequate light, air, landscaping and open space and avoid undue concentration
or sprawl of population;
(f) Provide a planned and orderly use of land, protection of the environment and preservation
of viability, all to conserve the value of the investments of the people of the Avon community
and encourage a high quality of life and the most appropriate use of land throughout the
municipality;
(g) Prevent the inefficient use of land; avoid increased demands on public services and
facilities which exceed capacity or degrade the level of service for existing residents, provide
for phased development of government services and facilities which maximizes efficiency and
optimizes costs to taxpayers and users, and promote sufficient, economical and high-quality
provision of all public services and public facilities, including but not limited to water, sewage,
schools, libraries, police, parks, recreation, open space and medical facilities;
(h) Minimize the risk of damage and injury to people, structures and public infrastructure
created by wild fire, avalanche, unstable slopes, rock fall, mudslides, flood danger and other
natural hazards;
(i) Achieve or exceed federal clean air standards;
(j) Sustain water sources by maintaining the natural watershed, preventing accelerated
erosion, reducing runoff= and consequent sedimentation, eliminating pollutants introduced
directly into streams and enhancing public access to recreational water sources;
19
(k) Maintain the natural scenic beauty of the Eagle River Valley in order to preserve areas of
historical and archaeological importance, provide for adequate open spaces, preserve scenic
views, provide recreational opportunities, sustain the tourist -based economy and preserve
property values,
(1) Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, practical and complimentary
to Avon's sub -alpine environment;
(m) Achieve innovation and advancement in design of the built environment to improve
efficiency, reduce energy consumption, reduce emission of pollutants, reduce consumption of
non-renewable natural resources and attain sustainability;
(n) Achieve a diverse range of attainable housing which meets the housing needs created by
jobs in the Town, provides a range of housing types and price points to serve a complete range
of life stages and promotes a balanced, diverse and stable full time residential community
which is balanced with the visitor economy;
(o) Promote quality real estate investments which conserve property values by disclosing
risks, taxes and fees; by incorporating practical and comprehensible legal arrangements; and
by promoting accuracy in investment expectations; and
(p) Promote the health, safety and welfare of the Avon community.
As demonstrated by this document and the plans submitted, the proposal is consistent
with and in substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code by
reducing the number of units, providing for greater open space and reducing building
footprints by adding a lot line and the required setbacks it creates within an existing
subdivision.
Finally, Section 7.16.o6o(b) provides the Eligibility Criteria for a property to be eligible for
PUD approval. These criteria areas follows:
(1) Property Eligible. All properties within the Town of Avon are eligible to apply for PUD
approval.
(z) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development shall be consistent with
the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
(3) Consistent with PUD Intent. The proposed development shall be consistent with the intent
and spirit of the PUD purpose statement in §7.16.o6o(a).
(4) Compatibility with Existing Uses. The proposed development shall not impede the
continued use or development of surrounding properties for uses that are permitted in the
Development Code or planned for in the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
(5) Public Benefit. A recognizable and material benefit will be realized by both the future
residents and the Town as a whole through the establishment of a PUD, where such benefit
would otherwise be infeasible or unlikely.
(6) Preservation of Site Features. Long-term conservation of natural, historical, architectural,
or other significant features or open space will be achieved, where such features would
otherwise be destroyed or degraded by development as permitted by the underlying zoning
district.
(7) Sufficient Land Area for Proposed Uses. Sufficient land area has been provided to comply
with all applicable regulations of the Development Code, to adequately serve the needs of all
20
permitted uses in the PUD projects, and to ensure compatibility between uses and the
surrounding neighborhood.
As demonstrated by this document and the plans submitted, the proposal is consistent
with and in substantial compliance with the these reducing the number of units,
providing for greater open space, and reducing building footprints within an existing
subdivision. The property is located within the Town of Avon; the property is consistent
with the Comprehensive plan as indicated above with a development density of 1.24
units per acre and with a residential use proposed; the proposal is consistent with the
PUD intent as indicated above; the proposal is consistent with adjacent residential uses
as indicated below; the proposed amendment does not change the public benefits it
received when the Wildridge PUD was originally created in 1978 and additionally the
addition of no build zones, the additional provision of light and air, and the reduction in
impacts from the reduction in density all provide recognizable and material benefit to
the residents and the Town; the preservation of site features through the establishment
of a no build zones; and the proposal has demonstrated sufficient land area for the
proposed uses.
(i7)Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and
fire protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the
subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Applicant Response: The proposed minor subdivision is already served by utilities. As a
reduction in density, there will be less demand on these utilities.
(18)Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result insignificant
adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water
management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Applicant Response: There is no underlying zoning and no rezoning associated with this
application. As a reduction in allowable density, any impacts that were associated with
the existing allowable density will be reduced.
(i9)Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant
adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Applicant Response: There is no underlying zoning and no PUD rezoning associated with
this application. As a reduction in density, any possible impacts of development on this
property will be reduced.
(2o)Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future
uses on other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Applicant Response: The proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with the
character of the existing land uses in the area. As indicated previously, surrounding land
21
uses are Town -owned open space tracts and other residential uses. The map below
provides an analysis of the residential lots nearby as a comparison to the proposed
subdivision:
SFRVLot3
1.15 ac
D
SFR .81 ac
1.1 ac
Lot 2
57ac
Lot �
1.04 ac
As indicated in the analysis, the proposed lot sizes are similar to those in the area and are
compatible with the existing land uses. The surrounding residential lots are all currently
developed, but this subdivision will not affect the future redevelopment of these sites.
Photos of the surrounding properties are provided below:
d
� •' t i '.._-.,�.�°-::,mss- :.
22
� •' t i '.._-.,�.�°-::,mss- :.
22
I. ADJACENT ADDRESSES
(within 30o Feet)
1943-354-01-002
1943-351-01-001
TOWN OF AVON
PO BOX 975
AVON, CO 81620
1943-351-03-002
WORK FAMILY US REAL PROPERTY TRUST
3240 RIVER RD RR5
NoA1Eo CAYUGA ONTARIO
CANADA
1943-351-03-004
ALLEN, TERENCE C.
468 GLEN RD
SPARTA, NJ 07871
1943-351-03-026
STRANDJORD, DAVID
PO BOX 9669
AVON, CO 81620
1943-351-03-027
HARRY S. GREENBERG RESIDENCE TRUST
AGREEMENT #1- ETAL
2611 WYLIE RD
DEXTER, MI 48130-9781
1943-351-03-007
BACA, BRUCE A. & SUSAN S.
PO BOX 2033
AVON, CO 81620
1943-351-02-020
SCHWARTZ, ROBERTA A. & JONATHAN M.D.
PO BOX 1120
AVON, CO 81620
1943-351-03-024
REISINGER FAMILY TRUST
817o E KALIL DR
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260
1943-351-03-025
ZUMBO, PAUL, JR & MARIE A.
3029 SHORE DR
MERRICK, NY 11566
1943-351-03-023
GERRITY, MICHAEL J. & JUDY - ETAL
2202 N ROGERS
OLATHE, KS 66062
1943-351-03-022
BAUMANN, BARBARA M. & FREDERICK J.
110 EUDORA ST
DENVER, CO 80220
1943-351-03-021
KARSH, BRICE W.
53 GLENMOOR WAY
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113-7120
1943-351-03-020
DECKER, MICHAEL GEORGE- KRAJICEK, CATHERINE
LEE
4238 CANARY ISLE CT
KATY, TX 77450
23
J. APPENDICES
i. Proposed Final Plat and Topo Survey of Wildridge Point
2. t98i Wildridge Final Plat
3. Letter from Staff 9h9/i2
4. Title Reports
24
1. Proposed Final Plat and Topo Survey of
Wildridge Point
a =
F
r
-
P
F Cum;
u e"=Phgo�D9°Y e � Stl � aB b Y� � a d 99
It
bi
�39� z �r�r �➢ tl
� e
W
C7 O
AQ
A O r=
6�
F C7 .a I I Pe a 3e7 2 3$ n�'se:� ."Mi _
d A I . I 3i rs: gA 3 I ag��:aa z YP g$g a�ga gs
8 p p z�yp,yy A pp Qg dna ad4tl �2b
� E• 9� 89?@@� 3�� fia6°6[ s4AY ec-ggp� E v �y: �3sa �e��o� dd��
I I b7'r °g3 E2EH8 ° a G = 4�
Q O U a tlgy $03 �g9�� �@p$a @$4s es :' °•".� ��Y� ��� p g ''�
�i Z z ii Y�-Y Y4f Y3i§ r5se s�-aza $:: tlee[ g2a�ea 3
-
a
d
]z
W3
d
p bibg
fillyY9.
I $ 3QeS q
Y gR
@ [Y 5 7�tlY R ; fit °
Y r4
! e
o a b y S
ag�
tl gY
3 eY 3ap
�ptl gid 9$ $�g'zh!
e3
W
co
Aq
�E
Aly,
,4 O
z�
U
p [z
oxo
5 "W
F
Q E --F
O W
d�Aa
t7
dzCO
zp O
w�E�
F
W O z
QOu
(� o z
QCO>
�o
ao
a
Val -
''Sorg y�
�h
jai
!
yly Y�
F
2. 1981 Wildridge Final Plat
eK
.-a5 tet�p�
.-p - k''
d °
e
e� �g
�_ aQeeE
a!a a pdppsp �:
Cii y9�9 .: iEFBHe
a
z
U
lE��Ee
�
SsH��I.
ko°�ne
Bei^
��BgdE
9�
EG
aE
a• a
9E�¢�F8°E
F'
sa
s�3s�s
Ee'.a�
;regKF
B%
sF
3gl
Ei g
!
HF
l H�
HF
sE.?r.
gaQ
5 altl
a
F�3
.
as s
r
�g�ge�-�s�2
3--
i� V_91
It�
' 1
�. G.G
H •� g •
§
/y
i
ggFHlFs_d�a
Edei
4
-
x
s e8t�9
�G
es
�SgGo:Qg5,�gg
Q
u:kc
8pe�lC
ee
�B
95f
r$
5a�1,'ysQeQ�a�
883EE.
s
'H'�-Ei
�°d
E.!?�°
i8 F
8:b
3H g
a
as
�sG
g
a
e.
otl
5
Gg
8i�lgE�-HBsi
gH, E=rH G
!F tc
Y3:5FQ
_ga'Hg
�9YlQttl
geE
a
cp86
�8F
.@c� EEaeQ
°-pHleCEE`sg
�°gg°g$gg•gE
�B7Qs�6@g
gill
g
Its
c.FFesF:
Q �SgAe
es: EsE
es
i
kI
EB Map c
a
z
U
r Es
f5. 5p
_ 6
6:F
age �E E• sB �a :@
pcF a a; m eFK
eE 1�GG
�.- •> 5/ Here a s -e 8C
�is K= 8f sg,aSgEg -K
H�E yE,€� a EeGs �E ei�
8 ;:'geEr E BY�KBa' �.gE
��� F8ya"si88o_e€`�R"jea ua8
id e3'e�G�88�l1� t6F�i-a:
4=� :F12e�_M11151.3{•Ecez41
.on 9y1h6 a: Ell E¢6_xe
e F CHEg
G E•
888 8888'888888 888 �p'e Ftes
r.G.G F.r.FFCLFFFFGFrE- FFFFFFF i� 09:tlrrKrtl:rr=k Eg•E
BSBES 6SEEEY6E'SE6EE6E6% E666Ee6 4989999999965:" ' S•la`
e s�
GGFFFGGGGFGF �•j•-
s _ _.y;I:i:= = 5FEE6EiE6EH aE:
5555 1555555555555555.5 1.555555; -'-
c van
E =
e�e22 Hi 88848545445�Sa� .a rl �3€� p�`
81 • --= f �E:
S 9 58 995 95 _ 4R E E4
88. 88 888-8 8 8-, t.. iSsF_..
6EEEEdif.EEEE.EEEEEEE E"s"sfidsEdaEE _ _ aF KE�S �;: FFgg
GaG E �a
e
cFpeeF a Vis@ e. s_ i:�sEGa
8'�- 4�24`eEife R
.air•as^±eeeae_o- "''i_Gs_•_zl.466:
55555555555555555555 ��555555555`- e4r 4gG:g=a
EE�� �tst;�GC'Cz
5 e`; �E9: iyE
It�
' 1
/y
Edei
4
-
x
•1 1g
�B
95f
r Es
f5. 5p
_ 6
6:F
age �E E• sB �a :@
pcF a a; m eFK
eE 1�GG
�.- •> 5/ Here a s -e 8C
�is K= 8f sg,aSgEg -K
H�E yE,€� a EeGs �E ei�
8 ;:'geEr E BY�KBa' �.gE
��� F8ya"si88o_e€`�R"jea ua8
id e3'e�G�88�l1� t6F�i-a:
4=� :F12e�_M11151.3{•Ecez41
.on 9y1h6 a: Ell E¢6_xe
e F CHEg
G E•
888 8888'888888 888 �p'e Ftes
r.G.G F.r.FFCLFFFFGFrE- FFFFFFF i� 09:tlrrKrtl:rr=k Eg•E
BSBES 6SEEEY6E'SE6EE6E6% E666Ee6 4989999999965:" ' S•la`
e s�
GGFFFGGGGFGF �•j•-
s _ _.y;I:i:= = 5FEE6EiE6EH aE:
5555 1555555555555555.5 1.555555; -'-
c van
E =
e�e22 Hi 88848545445�Sa� .a rl �3€� p�`
81 • --= f �E:
S 9 58 995 95 _ 4R E E4
88. 88 888-8 8 8-, t.. iSsF_..
6EEEEdif.EEEE.EEEEEEE E"s"sfidsEdaEE _ _ aF KE�S �;: FFgg
GaG E �a
e
cFpeeF a Vis@ e. s_ i:�sEGa
8'�- 4�24`eEife R
.air•as^±eeeae_o- "''i_Gs_•_zl.466:
55555555555555555555 ��555555555`- e4r 4gG:g=a
EE�� �tst;�GC'Cz
5 e`; �E9: iyE
- 9
W
R
cr
a
$ 0 . t
yam'.=Po.....
0
sat r F
it
62
ow
19'1 fir,—_ 2rox2ow�mlr uv �: ' �''Ja
`��\\ i eOY�y6^/ / ^�� �trE,�E •q r . •JY
17
\ r
39
i••
W ; \
i1 I ,gip; - -•� ' p -/�. •. . / � \ �� � 2
� / Q
/ 8
E �
x � 7`�� r• b . F'
r, �g ptr •� r •' �
F
qi
Ut "y "
�w a Y � d � J6 •+ / / ei
t 133X6 332
.s.. she ';ra s• _•• �_�e—Q� pQ B
z—=eta°= :='L��::¢=�••e� � 9 .
I � i
,; ny \ •� 9
J.
O � /
H y m �: ! hr �r •
---------------
Ile r •: . g: t
:Y�
1 P rj5 On % 5r J .•4.\ v
* by i Cj
E � e �i e o. • ,� I �m
A
EV
--- leltlOf IrNCLLrN Y3NY ZM. �OY'9I G M�fY�K.00N
K
(OY.IMTIIMI IS 33S ,0�11LL /1, LO,LO .COS
A w
CD
J_
rrrrruappuun
�tLGL'L'tiLGGLE[C
F o
y Y ,jJ � f � •IG \ \
_ _ oL y 4R j{r to,�,' `�����+o*r�•• yCI.IJ �' \ \\\ ��� \\\
i� +Y '": �_�_ °mai+---- �• \ e' \
133AS 333
laouMnlMl 1f 'a3c ,0►'61LC M,tO,fO,00i
�s
Sy t rY
•�Y
�'�-
� y �y�
s
e \
Y
I , g ny
Ir•
•.�•
Y
m \
� o¢
Qy a
o: wY a mY
5i 5a 5"
�•
\ �
my \
� I
gy
• ,may 5z ��I
oY 9a oY
eY Sy /
�a s
iy •Y \
\ mN�
ey
o
Yy•
\
9
/ •n
Is
ny +
�
!�!!
&
E
R
$
.
§
■
��
`
RX
_. a_I
. AZ _ .
]�
{
.�
)
.
�
k
§
§
v`
�zo
ƒCZ
___ r k
0
3. Letter from StafiF g/lg/1z
September 19, 2012
Dominic Maurielio
PO Box 477
Eagle, CO 81631
SENT VIA E-MAIL: Dominic@mpgvail.com
Post Office Box 975
One Lake Street
Avon, CO 81610
970-748-4000
970-949-9139 Fax
970-845-7708 TTY
RE: Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Wiidridge Subdivision: Requirements for Amending the PUD
Dear Dominic:
This letter responds to your recent inquiry concerning the process Involved to amend the Wildridge PUD
for an amendment to Lots 33 and 34, Block 4. The purpose of request is to take two (2) lots that have
Duplex development rights and amend the PUD to allow for three (3) single-family residences.
PUD Amendment Process: Avon Development Code ("ADC") Section 7.16.060(h), Amendments to a
Final PUD, states that Subsection 7.16.020(8), Minor Amendments, is applicable to PUDs. Section
7.16.020(8) states that the applicant may apply to the Director of Community Development for a minor
amendment and sets forth the following standards:
(1) Any change to any permit or other form of approval that was originally subject only to
administrative review and was approved by the Director, provided such change would not have
disqualifled the original application from administrative review under this Development Code had it
been requested at that time; and provided that the minor amendment does not result in an Increase of
more than ten percent (10%) In 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.
(2) Correction of any errors caused by mistakes that do not materially alter the substance of
the development plan or plat as represented to the Council.
(3) A change to an approved design which results Ina ten percent (10%) or less Increase to lot
coverage; ten percent (10%) or less Increase to building height; adjustments to building footprints,
access and parking configurations which are less than ten (10) feet; alterations to the landscaping
pian or drainage plan which substantially comply with the original approval; and, changes to doors,
windows, roofs, or building articulation which are less than two (2) feet and which do not alter or
diminish the overall design character as approved, as are all determined by the Director.
(4) Changes to an approved development application which do not result In:
(1) An Increase In the approved number of dwelling units;
(ii) An Increase In the amount of square footage of a non-residential land use or structure,
(iii) A change in the housing mix or use mix redo; or,
(Iv) A change in the character of the development.
It further states that, 'The Director may refer a minor amendment to the decision-making body that was
responsible for the original approval if the Director determines that the amendment may result in a
material change to the approved development application." The Planning Staff has reviewed your
request to allow the above mentioned PUD Amendment to be processed as a Minor Amendment. The
Planning Staffs Interpretation is that a change from two (2) duplex residences to three (3) single family
residences does not create a change in the housing mix, thus complying with subsection (4)(111), but does
constitute a change to the approved development application.
Therefore, Staff believes that the Minor Amendment Process can apply to your potential application.
Furthermore, the Director of Community Development will refer the applicant to the both the Planning and
Zoning Commission as well as the Town Council for public hearings prior to any formai action being
taken.
If you have any questions concerning this letter please contact me at (970)748-4023.
V
es
c
ny, Acting�anager, pursuant to
pment Cod n 7.04.040(f)
EXHIBIT C
Jared Barnes
From: Tug Birk <dbirk@erwsd.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:25 AM
To: Jared Barnes
Subject: RE: Wildridge Point PUD Referral
Jared,
Thanks for the referral. I see only a couple of potential issues. The first potential issue is the ability of the developer to
keep construction debris out of the easement. The second is that there are a total of 4 SFE's associated with these two
properties and these 4 SFE's cannot be exceeded by the 3 new lots without water rights becoming an issue. Please let
me know if you have any questions for me.
Thanks,
T,tL37,LV4z
Development Review Coordinator
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
970-477-5449
tbirk@erwsd.or
From: Jared Barnes [mailto:jbarnes0avon.org]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 3:19 PM
Subject: Wildridge Point PUD Referral
Hello,
Pursuant to the Town of Avon's development code, I am providing you with a referral request for the proposed
Wildridge Point PUD and Subdivision. Attached is a summary of the request as well as a link to the Town of Avon's
website, where the application documents are stored.
Thank you in advance for your time and please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. If you could
also provide me with any comments you have no later than February 4, 2013 at 5:00pm, I can make sure they are
presented at the public hearing the following day.
Regards,
Jared Barnes
Planner I
Community Development
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
970-7484023