PZC Packet 030513Staff Report — PUD Amendment; Minor Subdivision; Variance
March 5, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date March 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 Road 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), Application Materials dated January 28th, 2013
(Exhibit B), Public Comment (Exhibit C), Revised Application Materials dated February 25th,
2013 (Exhibit D), Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and Recommendation (Exhibit E),
Resolution 13-02 Denial (Exhibit F), and Resolution 13-02 Approval (Exhibit G).
Update
At the February 5th, 2013 meeting, the PZC discussed the proposed application with
respect to the existing zoning, impacts on the property, public input, and compliance
with the applicable codes. The PZC ultimately requested additional information
regarding building footprint sizes and illustrations representing the potential
development from Wildridge Road. The Applicant provided revised drawings to respond
to the PZC comments and a response to the Colorado Geologic Survey's (CGS)
concerns in their resubmission dated February 25th, 2013 and attached to this memo as
Exhibit D.
The PZC also requested additional information regarding the intent of the Steep Slopes
section when discussed during the Development Code adoption by Town Council. Staff
has reviewed the minutes of those meetings and was unable to determine the exact
discussion, but generally speaking the Town Council viewed amendments to the
Wildridge PUD as a resubdivision not a new subdivision, but failed to address the
zoning amendment aspect of the applicability section. Therefore, Staff would suggest
that if the PZC chooses to approve the Variance request a finding related to the zoning
amendment criteria of the Steep Slopes applicability section should be made.
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
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 1 1
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge —Wildridge Point PUD Amendment— PUBLIC HEARING
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, but is included for your
information!
The PZC did hold a public hearing at their February 5th, 2013 meeting and continued the item to
the March 5th, 2013 meeting. Staff will take the PZC recommendations on the Minor PUD
Amendment and subdivision to the Town Council for Final Action.
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 referres 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
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.
At their February 5th, 2013 meeting, the PZC discussed the purpose of the Wildridge PUD and
the intent of the accompanying plat were discussed. The PZC determined that the proposed
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 1 2
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
PUD Amendment would not significantly alter the housing types provided for in the original PUD
and Plat due to the location of the property along with the anticipated development pattern that
would occur on the site.
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). The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) commented on the potential
for increased site disturbances in their public comment (Exhibit C). The Applicant has
responded to these concerns through their proposed revisions in Exhibit D. These revisions
show potential designs of limited building footprint sizes ranging from 2,500 to 3,500 square
feet. These building footprint limitations also show potential driveway locations and preliminary
grading and site retention for the driveways.
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 Wildridge subdivision, wherein a four-plex lot was
converted to three (3) 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 areas; capped unit size; and/or, maximum footprint
size. In each case, these PUDs were approved prior to the inclusion of the Public Benefit
Criteria 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 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, §7.32.020(e)(6),
Buildable Area, and §7.32.020(e)(7), 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". The PZC discussed this request and agreed with the
Applicant that the proposal is a resubdivision, not a new subdivision. In light of this
determination by the PZC, Staff is still of the opinion that the above -referenced subsections
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 13
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
should apply since the application proposes a PUD and 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 on 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. Staff raised previous concerns about Plat
Note #4 which set forth the types of development that cannot occur in "non -developable" areas
by limiting it to "buildings, fences, signs, and roads". The Applicant has addressed this issue
with a revised Final Plat and limited all forms of development from the non -developable areas
unless approved by the Town.
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.
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:
(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 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 agrees with this determination
with the revisions provided in Exhibit D. The reduction in density coupled with the limitation
on maximum building footprint size will likely reduce the impacts on the land by not allowing
the lots be developed with side-by-side or "coast-to-coast" structures. The inclusion of non -
developable areas and limitations on building footprint sizes create a de facto building
envelope, but afford the property owner some flexibility in the location of the structures once
detailed access design and building design are pursued. These limitations also ensure that
the proposed increase in light and air between structures will be achieved.
The Applicant has indicated to Staff, that an acceptable limitation for maximum footprint sizes
would be 3,000 sq. ft. for Lot 2 and 2,500 sq. ft. for Lot 3. Staff is of the opinion that these
sizes are suitable for the subject lots and based on the potential development pattern,
illustrated in Exhibit D, the proposed public benefits can be achieved. Staff has determined
that the above-mentioned building footprint limitation should be included as a recommended
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 14
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
condition of approval for the PUD Amendment and should also be reflected on the
Subdivision Plat.
The Application does not ensure that the total size of the structures will be of a smaller size
than duplex structures or that they will utilize less water rights (SFEs) than duplexes, but the
inclusion of maximum building footprint sizes will provide a clearer understanding of the
maximum bulk of the structures on Lots 2 and 3. Ultimately the public comments (Exhibit C)
by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) will need to be addressed if a
building permit is requested for a structure exceeding 3,000 sq. ft. or the equivalent square
footage of an SFE at the time.
(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);
Staff Response: The proposed PUD amendment appears to generally 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.
The following policies of the Comprehensive Plan were presented at the previous public
hearing and Staff has provided updated comments in light of the revisions provided by the
Applicant.
Policy 8.2.3: 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 and
building footprint limitations, it is not clear that these areas will further cluster
development. However they do ensure, with the revisions provided, that impacts of
development will avoid the steepest slopes. By restricting the non -developable areas
from all forms of development, the Applicant has provided areas that will visually appear
as open space, although public access will not be allowed.
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: Town Staff brought forth issues with this style of development with
regard to the Housing Needs Assessment, completed in December 2006. The PZC
discussed this issue at their previous meeting and determined that the current zoning or
potential development pattern on this property did not intend to provide housing for the
middle segment of the housing market. They also commented that the proposed PUD
Amendment does not further detriment the Town's housing goals or priorities as outlined
in the Housing Needs Assessment.
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 15
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
Although the Applicant has not proposed limitations on the maximum building sizes, the
limitations on the building footprint sizes will, when viewed in context with the maximum
height requirements, limit the total achievable square footage.
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: The existing platted lots would allow development on these steep lots
and development is proposed within areas of steep existing topography. Although the
Application does not avoid all development on steep slopes, it does help further this
policy of the Comprehensive Plan by providing building footprint limitations on Lots 2 and
3, where the steeper slopes occur. This provision will ensure that the buildings are
limited in their impact on the steep slopes, which cannot be ensured under the current
zoning.
Based on the discussions at the previous PZC meeting , the Application meets all of the
eligibility criteria as outlined in §7.16.060(b). Most notably, §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 Review Criteria #1, above, and stated
throughout this report, Staff does believe the Application proposes public benefits that would
otherwise be infeasible or unlikely under the current zoning. The inclusion of building
footprint limitations and non -developable areas ensure that the development pattern that will
occur on the property will be responsive to the natural environment and will provide
increased access to light and air. The Application, as proposed, does ensure that the public
benefits, as presented by the applicant, would be better achieved through this rezoning than
would be achieved by the existing zoning.
(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 if required.
(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 evidence that the proposal
will reduce the impacts on the natural environment. The proposed three (3) single-family
structures, and associated lots, with building footprint limitations and platted non -developable
areas will ensure a reduced impact on the existing topography and natural environment that
cannot be achieved with the development of two (2) duplexes as the current zoning permits.
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 1 6
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge —Wildridge Point PUD Amendment— PUBLIC HEARING
(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 and the more certain pattern of proposed development will likely reduce the impact
the other properties in the vicinity. Due to the limitation on maximum building footprint size
for Lots 2 and 3 and the non -developable area, the project could experience reduced
aesthetic impacts by ensuring light and air and limitations on the structures "growing" down
the hillside. These limitations will also likely reduce the need for additional site retention on
the steeper slopes that exist on the southern and southeastern portions of the property. The
proposed massing studies included in Exhibit D illustrate potential visual impacts of these
structures next to the existing single-family residence on Lot 35 as viewed from the properties
along Wildridge Road East above.
(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.
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: 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.
(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: The Application should have a lesser effect on light and air as discussed
previously in this report. 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
units resulting in a greater amount of development on the total lot area. 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.
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 17
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge — Wildridge Point PUD Amendment — PUBLIC HEARING
(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: This criterion is specifically intended to address additional factors that the
decision-making body, the PZC, deems applicable to the proposed variance. At their
February 5, 2013 meeting the PZC had no additional criteria that the Application needed to
address.
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 (i.e. Three (3) buildings
instead of two (2)).
(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
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 if the properties rezoned.
Staff Recommendations
Based on the discussion of the February 5t", 2013 meeting, it appeared that the PZC did not
agree with the Staff Analysis and Recommendation for both applications. As discussed in this
report, the Applicant had made changes to the application that allows Staff to support the PUD
Amendment application. Therefore, Staff does recommend approval with conditions of the PUD
March 5, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 18
Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge —Wildridge Point PUD Amendment— PUBLIC HEARING
Amendment Application as drafted in the "Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and
Recommendation" (Exhibit E).
Staff cannot recommend approval of the Variance request as the Application does not comply
with the mandatory review criteria or required findings as discussed. Staff has prepared Draft
Resolution 13-02, recommending Denial of the Variance application (Exhibit F), and
recommends the PZC approve this draft resolution.
As stated above, at the February 5, 2013 meeting the PZC did not agree with the Staff
determination of the Variance application. Therefore, Staff has prepared the framework for a
Resolution approving the Variance application which is attached to this report as Exhibit G. If
the PZC determines the Variance application is approvable, they should act on this version of
Draft Resolution 13-02, and provide more detailed findings to document and record the rationale
for approval.
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Application Materials
C: Public Comment received from ERSWD
D: Revised Application Materials
E: "Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and Recommendation" for the PUD Amendment
F: Draft Resolution 13-02 Denying the Variance request
G: Draft Resolution 13-02 Approving the Variance request
March 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
1313 Sherman Street, Room 715
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone 303.866.2611
Fax 303.866.2461
February 5, 2013
Jared Barnes
Town of Avon
Community Development
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Location:
SW'/4 NE'/4 Section 35,
T4S, R82W of the 6th P.M.
Karen Berry
Acting State Geologist
Subject: Wildridge Point PUD and Subdivision Application
Case #s PUD12004, SUB12005, and VAR13001; Eagle County, CO; CGS Unique No. EA -13-0006
Dear Jared:
Colorado Geological Survey has completed its site visit and review of the above -referenced project. I
understand the applicant proposes to convert two duplex lots within the Wildridge subdivision into three
single family lots of approximately 0.5 to one acre each. The applicant seeks a variance to exempt the
proposed PUD and subdivision from complying with minimum lot size requirements and steep slope
development limitations. With this referral, I received a Final Plat (Peak Land Consultants, October 24,
2012), and a Wildridge Point Minor PUD Amendment, Minor Subdivision, and Variance application
document (Mauriello Planning Group, December 31, 2012). No geologic or geotechnical information was
provided. No description of how the applicant intends to achieve site grading necessary for driveways and
building pads was provided.
According to available geologic mapping (Tweto et al, 1978, Geologic map of the Leadville I' x 2°
quadrangle, northwestern Colorado: U.S.G.S., Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-999, scale
1:250,000), the site is underlain by the Eagle Valley Formation, consisting of "siltstone, shale, sandstone,
carbonate rocks, and local lenses of gypsum." The shale and siltstone fractions are often associated with
slope instability, and the carbonate and gypsum fractions are often associated with hydrocompaction
(collapse under wetting), and dissolution features such as subsurface voids and sinkholes.
CGS opposes approval of the variance request. All but approximately 4000 sq. ft. of existing Lot 33
contains very steep slopes of 50% to 60%. It appears that insufficient attention may have been given during
the original Wildridge platting process to the existing slope conditions on Lot 33, corresponding to proposed
Lots 2 and 3. Regardless of their designation at platting in 1981, we disagree with the applicant's statement
(page 5) that "Lots 33 and 34 are entirely developable."
The proposed resubdivision would result in one of the proposed lots (Lot 3) containing virtually no area with
slopes less than 50%. Some combination of very large, retained fills and/or substantial cuts and retaining
walls would be required to develop proposed Lots 2 and 3. The retaining walls would require extensive site
characterization, analysis, and design. Slope stability analysis would be required to verify that temporary
cuts would be stable during retaining wall construction. Stability analysis would be required to determine
the potential impact on slope stability of large fill(s) and structures placed at the head (upper portion) of the
slope below proposed lots 2 and 3. Eagle County geologic hazard mapping indicates that potentially
unstable slopes are a concern in this area, so it is possible that the steep slope on and below proposed Lots 2
and 3 would be destabilized as a result of changes to the existing slope, loading and drainage configuration.
EA -13-0006_1 Wildridge Point PUD and Subdivision
3:20 PM, 02/05/2013
Jared Barnes
January 5, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Slope movement or failure could result in disruption (damming) and subsequent flooding or catastrophic
release of water in Metcalf Creek below the site. It appears that the lower slope and Metcalf Creek are
located within Town of Avon open space.
CGS recommends that the town require, at a minimum and in support of its deliberations regarding the
requested slope variance, (1) conceptual grading and drainage plans that reflect all of the grading (driveways,
building pads, etc.), retaining walls and drainage that will be needed for development of the lots as proposed,
and (2) that the feasibility and long-term stability of proposed cuts, fills and retaining walls be evaluated by a
qualified geotechnical engineer. CGS looks forward to reviewing any grading plans or additional
documentation provided by the applicant.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have questions or need
clarification of issues identified during this review, please call me at (303) 866-2611 ext. 8316, or e-mail
jill.carlson@state.co.us.
Sincerely,
Jill Carlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
EA -13-0006_1 Wildridge Point PUD and Subdivision
3:20 PM, 02/05/2013
u
Mauriello Planning Group
February 25, 2013
Jared Barnes,Town Planner
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Wildridge Point
Dear Jared:
The applicant is submitting this letter as a formal response to the comments of the Avon Planning and
Zoning Commission, along with some of the comments from staff and referral agencies.
At the previous hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a limitation on building
footprints on Lots 2 and 3. It was stated at the hearing that Lot I should not be restricted at all. We
have submitted some studies indicating footprint limitations of 2,500 sq. ft., 3,000 sq. ft., and 3,500 sq. ft.
As you can see from the studies, these footprints can be accommodated on the lots with the impact of
grading relatively the same in each square footage study. We believe that a footprint limitation of 3,000
sq. ft. for Lot 2 and 2,500 sq. ft. for Lot 3 will accommodate an appropriate amount of development
while allowing for adequate open space and minimizing site disturbance to a reasonable degree. The
applicant is acceptable to a condition placed on the PUD amendment as stated above.
In addition to the studies for building footprints, we have provided conceptual view analyses for the
buildings from Wildridge Road East to better understand how the proposed development will be
viewed from the public road. As you can see, the development is consistent with the neighborhood and
will be advantageous to the Wildridge subdivision.
We would like to take this opportunity to respond to the February 13, 2013, letter from the Colorado
Geological Survey. There were some inaccuracies in the letter which are addressed below:
I. The letter states: "we disagree with the applicant's statement (page 5) that `Lots 33 and 34 are
entirely developable:" While understanding that the CGS Geologist may have some concern about
the process to develop the property, as existing platted lots within the Wildridge Subdivision, these
lots are developable under existing zoning and building code requirements. When originally platted,
the Wildridge Subdivision did identify certain portions of lots as "undevelopable," however, these lots
do no include this designation. As a result, the existing Lots 33 and 34 are entirely developable per
Avon regulations. In recognition of this, the proposed plat for Wildridge Point designates the
steepest areas of the lot as undevelopable and improves the current situation for these properties.
2. The CGS Geologist noted concerns about site grading for driveways and building pads. In response,
we have provided conceptual designs for driveways and building sites. At building permit, the
required technical studies and reports needed for development will be provided and reviewed by the
Town Staff, as is the process for development on any site in Wildridge and the Town of Avon.
3. The CGS Geologist states that "the applicant seeks a variance to exempt the proposed PUD and
subdivision from complying with minimum lot size requirements." This statement is inaccurate as
there is no request to vary from the minimum lot size requirements.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Should you have any additional questions or
concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970.376.3318 or by email at dominic@mpgvail.com.
Sincerely,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Principal
r
�`80' UPPER
• � �!� 1�� � � --. — � — � � '70' MAINIGARAGE --r
I 1 � l' r �.rc.... ...., � • � �-,•..-v aa�c• �c7C7vtiT•sr s'�Y9'VS�X"94"JC
�]0' T O.
WAIL 66'BTM WALWAL L 250 S.50,
F '`
68' BTM X64' T.O. � � 0
n BTM WAIL 5� BTM WALL
'rt �
a-�r
GAIN VES �. �- �' �. � � � •�• ••4.
X65' M ovqE
K
r �•. •�Xti�;�;�..• � '�
g 417'"' F.�+�' � � � ' ,�4:��:�' � � ' �'`�C�•_ ,
�1 1� �� � r � �'�' �';(: ' .tr •! /•.' '�'�C �C: • �? :f der'=at �'�'4''C���
TRACT L
OWNER: TOWN OF
AVON
PRECEPTION No. 226431 }
2,500 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT STUDY
Lo
LOTS 2 AND
3
12" = 1'-0"
N
N
co
r
i
r
N
N
O
a�
Qcl
D
U
-o-•+ N
ca 'o
W a
J v E
M O
Q (p U
Q � U
.4 V) °s
U m ��
■ W CO
a m �,
■ f ] w c
� a r
o E
m a�
a
f
O
N
_ O
� O
W .^^O c
c/) o
W
� -0 W
4-
a) I
W
LL
d
M
tLp
f
1 70
a)� ogI70.� s� —
f' r � o" � a,.�=a x,,;;26 ;�.-�-•~"= — � -3,
1�
� r7'TT OO WWAALL O 300 S .F • f
f 1" 69'BTM WALL �(PRIjp
N
UpP BEVEL — r- f -�
ER LEVE r y
j70° GANG VES
Mp1N �E VES r ,.{�''�
�,�..:. J
\-OwE
1 �` UPPER LE EVEI-_ I r r r
s �f! – — 80' RAGE L �. r -°. ,
MAINIGA.. r r f y� r .}:�' °v.
��e _ �- -- J ❑soawu�Rae�ar ,� r� C;`!?? x x,,' ;:c,..:'
/ / I s � r. ,� � . -�� ,•.• � ., i • �r•�:.cr�c3r 3�.c�,�cR3S:r�?'SL76' -_ .r �r+l �'�i'. }:�'•. •'• �'SrY.�� : �_1� - ..i �� {..�s'E`°�'fJ`:���: . ��l!! {': \• �/'.l ,:-'C,.:�-• it-,�.�� �� ,
TRACT L
OWNER: TOWN OF AVON
l (RECEPTION No. 225431)
3,000 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT STUDY
LOTS 2 AND 3
12" = 1'-0"
N
Lp
cn
cn
0
N
N
N
LO
N
N
ch
r
i
r
N
N
O
a�
E
a)
m
U
o
c
a
}
W
J
a
v E
Z
Ci M O
Q � U
o
U
■ W
■ f
m
D m>
] w E
■ ZU
7 E
ir
l
m a�
a
f
0
N
CO
O
.^^O
W
c/)
c
I..L. o
V )
LLI
0) w
o
-0 w
cr-
O
0
It
02
4-
a)
a)
nL
LL
N
Lp
cn
cn
0
N
N
N
C
� s
i
r0'
c0 ak A\ I T r� —70' T
3So 1 k~� �. � r73i.0'WWAlL 66'BTM WALL 70 �� �^ �-�+11� V•
f DOV SF w.r 66BTO WAI.I. �� _ �Gpp S.F • �� r �4
60' BJy AL�� s
FOLo
O � fr
70�RAG vEL �• r � r y � '���
5'MGW ER�EVE,� �� �•- " . �,�,�•;,�.'�f r ��'' � d
r -g — — `801 UPPER LEv GE LEVEL -r ILF f
53 L r •� x 'y . Cv `
58'
•�LOW ER - I �-- I� t r r �x ✓ry'- CT
r' l . } �� �' —1.51'-�'-f`�i— r —� i�,%ti'�`r'<rr +'..(•/tX.?�+y : �i -�,,� XaS'�'i .. f
�- ADDRESS. sORP
��J �' `r –+ �5 Viz;'`!. ` .
..•
Ir f � � _� ` ' � � � r � �_ r ! i. � +�/ �t fes)'?'/�`��'����. � . ,��y'�.]yh�/` . , —+�� '.. ,� � �ya�• ,��. • ti�� .
�' i- -� -f _ .--.-�.•. ..r Ie s. n�'»-s/ ]moi[' 7CiS74lYi•Y�. ~~ ..11P\t'11�'}. I' �'ir \l'�\`' • ���!%"� .s'�.I ;' J.1�.^--• 1�� i.. •t' V_ -•.0 ^ �.� \ �iri:'4
e '
TRACT L
OWNER TOWN OF AVON
(RECEPTION No. 225431)
3,500 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT STUDY
LOTS 2 AND 3
1'-0"
d
N
M
rn
Lp
ch
m
0
N
N
N
LO
N
N
ch
r
i
N
N
O
a�
E
c
Q�
m
U
O
c
a
}
W
J
a
v E
Z
h
0 M O
Q � U
0.2
] 0s
U
■ W
■ f
m 62
8 m>
] w E
■ Z
u E
m a�
a
f
0
N
CO
O
.^^O
W
c/)
c
I..L. o
�^,
Q
W
0) w
O
–0 W
^LL
0 N
LL
001m
M
_
L
NU)
n
LL
d
N
M
rn
Lp
ch
m
0
N
N
N
- 3D View from road #1 (northbound)
U
M
LP
M
M
O
N
N
LO
N
N
ch
r
N
N
O
a�
E
c
U
m
O
W
J
o
v E
z
O M O
O �; u
U OvL
2
■
■
U
w
F
o ma
,_ LL1 E
■ Z
u c
F
l
� m
ci
m
C
L
O
N
O
• O
H
O
W
C/)
O
�
Al Q
W
W
O
a
-0
02
a,
U
1
Qt
ry
M
LP
M
M
O
N
N
n - 3D View from road #2 (northbound)
U
N
N
C`7
r
N
CV
C)
a�
E
c
m
U
O
c
a
w
J
o
v E
z
4"
�
O M O
O �; u
" gs
2
■
■
U
w
F
o ma
,_ LL1 E
■ Z
u c
F
ix
l
� m
ci
m
C
L
O
N
(0
CO
• O
H
O
W
C/)
C
O
�Al
Q
W
m
W
O
a
-0
0
02
N
U)
r)
ry
- 3D View from road #3 (northbound)
U
00
N
N
N
N
C`7
r
N
CV
C)
a�
E
c
m
U
O
c
a
w
J
o
v E
z
4"
�
O M O
O �; u
" gs
2
■
■
U
w
F
o ma
,_ LL1 E
■ Z
u c
F
ix
l
� m
ci
m
C
L
C)
N
(0
CO
• O
H
O
W
C/)
C
O
�Al
Q
W
m
W
O
a
-0
0
02
M
U)
Q
ry
00
N
N
- 3D Viewfrom road #1 (south bound)
U
a
0
N
N
N
N
C`7
r
N
CV
C)
a�
E
c
m
U
O
c
a
w
J
o
v E
z
4"
�
O M O
O �; u
" gs
2
■
■
U
w
F
o ma
,_ LL1 E
■ Z
u c
F
ix
l
� m
ci
m
C
L
C)
N
(0
CO
• O
H
O
W
C/)
C
O
�Al
Q
W
m
W
O
a
-0
0
02
a,
a)
1
0
ry
a
0
N
N
AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION�I
FINDINGS OF FACT, RECORD OF DECISION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AVIN
ooRAvo
CONCERNING THE MINOR
PUD AMENDMENT FOR "WILDRIDGE POINT" ON
LOT 33 & 34, BLOCK 4, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION
The following findings of fact and recommendations are made in accordance with Avon
Municipal Code ("AMC") §7.16.060(h), §7.16.020(g), & §7.16.060(e)(4):
1. Application Submitted. A PUD Amendment Application, Variance Application, &
Minor Subdivision Application (collectively "the Application"), was submitted to the
Community Development Department of the Town of Avon (the "Town") on December
3, 2012 by Dominic Mauriello of Mauriello Planning Group, representing the owner of
the property, Mountain C.I. Holdings LTD (the "Applicant"). AMC §7.16.020(b)(4)
allows concurrent review of multiple development applications which concern the same
property and the Director has consented to concurrent review.
2. Agency Referrals. On January 3, 2013, pursuant to AMC §7.16.020(c)(2), Staff
referred the Application to outside review agencies, including the following: Eagle
County Planning, Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Eagle River Fire Protection
District, United States Forest Service, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Department
of Wildlife. On January 14, 2013, Staff received public comments from Eagle River
Water & Sanitation District. On February 5, 2013, Staff received public comments from
the Colorado Geological Survey.
3. Notice of Public Hearing. Pursuant to AMC §7.16.020(d), a notice of public hearing
was published in The Vail Daily on January 25, 2013 PZC meeting to review the
Application. In addition to the published noticed, a mailed notice was sent to all property
owners within 300' of the Property on the same date.
4. Staff Report to PZC. Jared Barnes submitted a Staff report to the PZC dated February
1, 2013.
5. Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. On February 5, 2013
the PZC held a public hearing on the Application, which was continued to the March 5,
2013 PZC meeting.
6. Staff Memorandum to PZC. Jared Barnes submitted a Staff Memorandum to the PZC
dated March 1, 2013.
7. Continued Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. On March
5, 2013 the PZC held a public hearing on the Application.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WILDRIDGE POINT LOTS 33 & 34, BLOCK 4, WILRIDGE SUBDIVISION — PUD AMENDMENT
Page 1 of 3
8. Compliance with Review Criteria. PZC makes the following findings with regard to
compliance with the applicable review criteria for Minor PUD Amendment
(§7.16.060(e)(4)) as the basis for a recommendation to Town Council:
PZC RECOMMENDATIONS:
The PZC recommends that Town Council APPROVE the Minor PUD Amendment
Application with the findings and conditions set forth below:
Findings:
(1) The Minor PUD Amendment application was processed in accordance
with §7.16.060(h), Amendment to a Final PUD, which allowed the
application to be processed as a minor amendment pursuant to
§7.16.020(g), Minor Amendment, and utilized the review criteria set forth
in §7.16.060(e)(4), Preliminary PUD Review Criteria.
(2) The Minor PUD Amendment application is in substantial compliance with
§7.16.060(e)(4), Preliminary PUD Review Criteria, AMC;
(3) The Minor PUD Amendment confers a substantial benefit by platting "no -
build" zones, a reduction in development rights from four (4) dwelling
units to three (3) dwelling units, increased access to light and air and
smaller building footprints through the platting of maximum building
footprints on Lots 2 and 3;
(4) The Minor PUD Amendment is not likely to result in adverse impacts
upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water
management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be
substantially mitigated with building footprint maximums.
Conditions:
(1) The building footprint on Lot 2 shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. and the
building footprint on Lot 3 shall be limited to 2,500 sq. ft.; and,
(2) The above mentioned condition shall be included on the Final Plat for the
Wildridge Point Subdivision as a plat note.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WILDRIDGE POINT LOTS 33 & 34, BLOCK 4, WILRIDGE SUBDIVISION — PUD AMENDMENT
Page 2 of 3
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE HEREBY
APPROVED:
BY:
Chris Green,
Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson
DATE:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
WILDRIDGE POINT LOTS 33 & 34, BLOCK 4, WILRIDGE SUBDIVISION — PUD AMENDMENT
Page 3 of 3
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 13-02
SERIES OF 2013
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXEMPT THE WILDRIDGE POINT
SUBDIVISON FROM COMPLYING WITH THE STEEP SLOPE STANDARDS AND
BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 7 OF THE AVON
DEVELOPMENT CODE
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon ("Town") adopted Ordinance No. 10-14 adopting the Avon
Development Code ("ADC");
WHEREAS, the ADC includes provisions for Natural Resource protection for PUD
amendments through steep slope, building area, and building footprint requirements;
WHEREAS, Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group LLC, ("Applicant") submitted a
Variance application to the Town as the authorized representative for Mountain C.I. Holdings
LTD, the owner of properties in the Town described as 5081 & 5091 Wildridge Road E., Avon,
CO 81620, or Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision;
WHEREAS, the Variance application requests exemption from Section 7.28.100(a), Steep
Slopes, Section 7.32.020(e)(6), Buildable Area, and Section 7.32.020(e)(7), Building Envelopes,
to allow the Wildridge Point Subdivision and PUD to permit development on Lots 2 and 3 for
two (2) single-family residences in areas over forty percent (40%) and to not plat specific
building envelopes for those lots;
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held public hearings
on February 5, 2013 and March 5, 2013, after publishing, posting, and mailing notice as required
by law, considered all comments, testimony, evidence and staff reports provided by the Town
Staff, considered such information prior to formulating a decision, then took action to adopt a
resolution;
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission finds the Application does not comply
with the review criteria set forth in Sections 7.16.110(c) or the required findings in Section
7.16.110(d) as described below; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby denies a Variance to allow the construction of two (2) structures in areas over forty
percent (40%) in slope and to not plat building envelopes for Lots 2 and 3, Wildridge Point
Subdivision as described in the application materials dated January 28, 2013 and the revised
application materials dated February 25, 2013, as stipulated in Title 7, Avon Municipal Code,
based upon the following findings:
1. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege by
permitting an additional building inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district; and
2. That the Variance is not warranted for any of the following reasons;
a. The strict literal, interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the site of the Variance that do not apply generally to other properties in
that same zone.
c. 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 district.
ACCEPTED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5th OF MARCH, 2013
AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Signed:
Chris Green, Chair
Attest:
Scott Prince, Secretary
Resolution 13-03, Wildridge Point Variance from Steep Slopes and Building Envelopes
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 13-02
SERIES OF 2013
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO EXEMPT THE WILDRIDGE POINT
SUBDIVISON FROM COMPLYING WITH THE STEEP SLOPE STANDARDS AND
BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 7 OF THE AVON
DEVELOPMENT CODE
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon ("Town") adopted Ordinance No. 10-14 adopting the Avon
Development Code ("ADC");
WHEREAS, the ADC includes provisions for Natural Resource protection for PUD
amendments through steep slope, building area, and building footprint requirements;
WHEREAS, Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group LLC, ("Applicant") submitted a
Variance application to the Town as the authorized representative for Mountain C.I. Holdings
LTD, the owner of properties in the Town described as 5081 & 5091 Wildridge Road E., Avon,
CO 81620, or Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision;
WHEREAS, the Variance application requests exemption from Section 7.28.100(a), Steep
Slopes, and Section 7.32.020(e)(6), Buildable Area, and Section 7.32.020(e)(7), Building
Envelopes, to allow the Wildridge Point Subdivision and PUD to permit development on Lots 2
and 3 for two (2) single-family residences in areas over forty percent (40%) and to not plat
specific building envelopes for those lots;
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held public hearings
on February 5, 2013 and March 5, 2013, after publishing, posting, and mailing notice as required
by law, considered all comments, testimony, evidence and staff reports provided by the Town
Staff, considered such information prior to formulating a decision, then took action to adopt a
resolution;
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission finds the Application complies with the
review criteria set forth in Sections 7.16.110(c) and the required findings in Section 7.16.110(d)
as described below; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby approves a Variance to allow the construction of two (2) structures in areas over forty
percent (40%) in slope and to not plat building envelopes for Lots 2 and 3, Wildridge Point
Subdivision as described in the application materials dated January 28, 2013 and the revised
application materials dated February 25, 2013, as stipulated in Title 7, Avon Municipal Code,
and based upon the following conditions and findings:
Conditions:
1. The granting of this Variance is conditional upon the approval of the Wildridge Point
PUD Amendment and will be null and void if the Wildridge Point PUD is not
approved by the Avon Town Council.
Findings:
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; and
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; and
3. That the Variance is warranted for any of the following reasons;
a. The strict literal, interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the site of the Variance that do not apply generally to other properties in
that same zone.
c. 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 district.
4. That the intent of Section 7.28. 1 00(a), Steep Slopes, was to apply to new subdivisions
and not the existing Wildridge Subdivision; and,
5. The Wildridge Point Subdivision is: a resubdivision not a new subdivision; a PUD
Amendment and not a new PUD; and is not a zoning amendment because
, therefore Section 7.28. 1 00(a)(2) should not apply; and,
6. The property is allowed to develop on areas exceeding forty percent (40%) under
existing zoning and the resubdivision to the Wildridge Point Subdivision should be
allowed to develop in the same manner therefore Lots 2 and 3, Wildridge Point
Subdivision should not be subject to Section 7.32.020(e)(6), Buildable Area; and,
7. The Wildridge Point Subdivision through the platting of non -developable areas and
inclusion of maximum building footprint limitations are platting a de facto building
envelope thus complying with the intent of Section 7.32.020(e)(7), Building
Envelope.
ACCEPTED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5" OF MARCH, 2013
AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Signed:
Chris Green, Chair
Attest:
Scott Prince, Secretary
Resolution 13-03, Wildridge Point Variance from Steep Slopes and Building Envelopes 2
Staff Report
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planner II
DATE: March 1, 2013
RE: Northside Parking Lot — Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision: PUBLIC HEARING
Summary
Staff received a Special Review Use, Minor Development Plan, and Alternative Equivalent
Compliance application (collectively the "Application). The Special Review Use portion of the
application required a notice in the Vail Daily, and so the application was noticed for the March
5, 2013 PZC Hearing. Pending revisions to the application pursuant to Engineering Department
comments, the Applicant requested that the Application be continued to the March 19, 2013
PZC hearing.
Recommended Action
Open and close public hearing for public comment.
Recommended Motion
"I move to continue the Northside Parking Lot Application for Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision to the March 19, 2013 PZC meeting."
March 5, 2013 PZC Meeting — Northside Parking Lot Page 1 of 1
RV
ON Staff Report
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planner II
DATE: March 1, 2013
RE: 2013-14 PZC Work Plan
Summary
On February 26, 2013, PZC and Council held a joint work session to discuss roles and
responsibilities, and priorities related to the Town of Avon 2013-14 Strategic Plan ("Strategic
Plan"). At the meeting, Staff agreed to extract relevant priorities from the Strategic Plan and the
2013 Work Plan and bring those back to PZC for review, comment, and approval. This Report
is based on feedback received at the joint work session, and recommends priorities and
timeframes to complete the Work Plan elements that will require PZC involvement. Each
Quarter is outlined in order of priority.
2013 — March 19 Meeting
1.1 Recommend PZC Rules of Procedures to Council for Adoption (§7.12.040(1)).
1.2 Reorganize the meeting room format to ensure a productive, welcoming environment for
applicants ("customers") for PZC meetings
2013-2 d Quarter
2.1 Review land -use application process flow -charts and timeframes for review of
minor/major projects and recommend changes if necessary. Evaluate if any changes to
the regulatory framework (i.e. Wildridge PUD Amendments) can be adjusted to be more
efficient for applicants and meet the test of being solution -oriented.
2.2 Prioritize and schedule work on Municipal Code amendments.
2.3 As requested, review and comment on land development "tool box" created by the
Economic Development Subcommittee
2.4 Develop the scope, public process, including possible Community Survey, and schedule
for commencement and completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update; review with
Town Council
2.5 Commence work on Comprehensive Plan Update
2.6 PZC re -appointments, and Village at Avon DRB appointment
2.7 DOLA or CIRSA Commissioner Training after re -appointments
2.8 Review and comment on Lettuce Shed Lane and Mall Plan modifications, if pursued
2.9 Review Temporary Use Application(s) for the use Village at Avon property for 2013
special events
2013-3 d Quarter
3.1 Continue work on Comprehensive Plan Update
March 5, 2013 PZC Meeting — 2013-14 PZC Work Plan Page 1 of 2
3.2 Review and forward Municipal Code amendments for §7.16.020(g) — PUD
Amendment/Minor Amendment Process & Criteria; §7.28.100 — Natural Resource
Protection Applicability; §7.28.100 — Update Floodplain Regulations to comply with
regulatory changes in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
3.3 Review and comment on Urban Renewal Authority (URA) expansion, if requested.
2013-4 1h Quarter
4.1 Complete work on Comprehensive Plan Update Review and forward remaining
Municipal Code amendments, in order of priority, identified in 3rd Quarter. Amendments
will include, but are not limited to: §7.06.020(d)(2) — Mailed Notice; §15.28 - Sign Code;
§15.24 - Solid -Fuel Burning / Fireplace Regulations; §7.20 — Zone Districts,
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Density Allocation; §7.24.040 - Table of Allowed Uses;
§7.28.050(f)(1) — Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping; Historic and/or Cultural Landmark
Ordinance
4.2 Review 2013 accomplishments and finalize 2014 Work Plan
2014
5.1 Review Comprehensive Plan sub -area plans for updates, including but not limited to:
West Town Center District Investment Plan (2007); East Town Center District Plan
(2008); and Transportation Plan (2009).
Process
The process for Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code amendments are governed by AMC
§7.16.030, and AMC §7.16.040 respectively. Each process follows the general public hearing
review process outlined in the Municipal Code (i.e. Staff recommendation to PZC, PZC
recommendation to Council, and final action by Council).
Given the complexity of a full-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment or full-scale Wildridge
PUD Amendment, Staff anticipates working very closely with PZC in the second quarter of this
year to define a practical schedule of meetings and/or work sessions that provide the needed
focus for the various sub -areas of the plan. All work will be completed "in-house" with planning
staff. There is the possibility of a community survey with an outside consultant if it is determined
to be appropriate.
Staff Recommendation
The PZC should review the attached Strategic Plan and the Work Plan outlined herein and
provide Staff with comments on the order of priority of tasks.
Attachment
Approved 2013-14 Strategic Plan
March 5, 2013 PZC Meeting — 2013-14 PZC Work Plan Page 2 of 2