TC Council Packet 08-17-2010TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 2010
MEETING BEGINS AT 6 PM
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL, DAVE DANTAS, KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS, ALBERT “BUZ” REYNOLDS, JR.
UTOWN STAFF
TOWN ATTORNEY: ERIC HEIL TOWN MANAGER: LARRY BROOKS TOWN CLERK: PATTY MCKENNY
ALL REGULAR MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME DURING CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY INPUT AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLEASE VIEW AVON’S WEBSITE, HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG, FOR MEETING AGENDAS AND MEETING MATERIALS
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL AND RECREATION CENTER, ALPINE BANK, AND AVON LIBRARY
THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4. COMMUNITY & CITIZEN INPUT
5. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Minutes from August 10, 2010
6. ORDINANCES
a. Review and Approve Process for Adopting Ordinance No. 10-14, Development Code (Ron Wolfe,
Mayor) Discuss and approve process which includes the order of input as follows:
1) Staff reports
2) Council questions & comments
3) Public hearing on each section as presented by staff
4) Final council discussion & direction section by section
b. Public Hearing Continued From July 27. 2010, August 10, 2010 on Ordinance NO. 10-14,
Series of 2010, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending the Avon Municipal Code by Enacting
Title 7, The Avon Development Code; Repealing Title 16: Subdivisions; Repealing Title 17:
Zoning; and Repealing Portions of Title 2: Administration and Personnel (Sally Vecchio, Asst Town
Manager Community Development, Eric Heil, Town Attorney) Review proposed Development Code as
adopted by the Planning & Zoning Commission / Review Chapters 7.16: Development Review
Procedures, Chapter 7.36 Annexation & Disconnection Procedures & Chapter 7.40 1041 Regulations
7. TOWN MANAGER REPORT
8. TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT
9. MAYOR REPORT
10. ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA DATES & PROPOSED TOPICS:
AUGUST 24TH: Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 10-14 the Avon Development Code, Budget 2011: Review
Revenue, Fleet and Transit Programs, Update on Monies due from Village at Avon, Joint Meeting
with Eagle County Board of County Commissioners, Pavilion Update
TOWN OF AVON,COLORADO
AVON SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING FOR TUESDAY,AUGUST 17,2010
MEETING BEGINS AT 6 PM
AVON TOWN HALL,ONE LAKE STREET
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL,DAVE DANTAS,KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS,ALBERT “Buz”REYNOLDS,JR.
TOWN STAFF
TOWN ATTORNEY:ERIC HElL TOWN MANAGER:LARRY BROOKS TOWN CLERK:PATTY MCKENNY
ALL REGULAR MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME DURING CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY INPUTAND PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLEASE VIEW AVON’S WEBSITE,HTTP:I/WWW.AVON.ORG,FOR MEETING AGENDAS AND MEETING MATERIALS
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL AND RECREATION CENTER,ALPINE BANK,AND AVON LIBRARY
THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH
1.CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3.DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4.COMMUNITY &CITIZEN INPUT
5.CONSENT AGENDA
a.Minutes from August 10,2010
6.ORDINANCES
a.Review and Approve Process for Adopting Ordinance No.10-14,Development Code (Ron Wolfe,
Mayor)Discuss and approve process which includes the order of input as follows:
1)Staff reports
2)Council questions &comments
3)Public hearing on each section as presented by staff
4)Final council discussion &direction section by section
b.Public Hearing Continued From July 27.2010,August 10,2010 on Ordinance No.10-14,
Series of 2010,First Reading,An Ordinance Amending the Avon Municipal Code by Enacting
Title 7,The Avon Development Code;Repealing Title 16:Subdivisions;Repealing Title 17:
Zoning;and Repealing Portions of Title 2:Administration and Personnel (Sally Vecchio,Asst Town
Manager Community Development,Eric Heil,Town Attorney)Review proposed Development Code as
adopted by the Planning &Zoning Commission I Review Chapters 7.16:Development Review
Procedures,Chapter 7.36 Annexation &Disconnection Procedures &Chapter 7.40 1041 Regulations
7.TOWN MANAGER REPORT
8.TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT
9.MAYOR REPORT
10.ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA DATES &PROPOSED TOPICS:
AuGusT24T’1:Public Hearing on Ordinance No.10-14 the Avon Development Code,Budget 2011:Review
Revenue,Fleet and Transit Programs,Update on Monies due from Village at Avon,Joint Meeting
with Eagle County Board of County Commissioners,Pavilion Update
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL
HELD AUGUST 10,2010
A regular meeting of the Town of Avon,Colorado was held at the Avon Municipal Building,One
Lake Street,Avon,Colorado in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Ron Wolfe called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.A roll call was taken and Council
members present were Rich Carroll,Dave Dantas,Amy Phillips,Brian Sipes and Buz Reynolds.
Kristi Ferraro was absent.Also present were Town Attorney Eric Heil,Town Manager Larry
Brooks,Assistant Town Manager Patty McKenny,Assistant Town Manager Community
Development Sally Vecchio,Assistant Town Manager Finance Scott Wright,Town Engineer
Justin Hildreth,Community Relations Officer Jaime Walker as well as members of the public.
AGENDA APPROVAL &DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mayor Wolfe noted that there would be no changes or conflict of interest at the meeting.
COMMUNITY INPUT
Mayor Wolfe commented on the recent accident on the Heat Recovery Project job site that
resulted in the fatality of Mr.Jack Muransky,an employee of BT Construction.He expressed
the town’s condolences to the family.He noted that further investigations are being conducted.
Town Attorney,Eric Heil,presented an update on the litigation between Traer Creek LLC and
Traer Creek Metro District and the Town of Avon.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Wolfe asked for a motion on the consent agenda.There were some comments made
about the cost estimates related to the Recreation Center roof replacement.Councilor Phillips
moved to approve the consent agenda;Councilor Carroll seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously:
a.Minutes from July 27,2010
b.Intergovernmental Agreement with Eagle County Clerk &Recorder’s Office for
Coordinating the November 2,2010 General Election (Patty McKenny,Assistant Town
Manager I Management Services)IGA that addresses the administration and conduct of the
November 2,2010 election
c.Construction Contract with GE Johnson (Shane Pegram,Project Engineer)Complete the
Recreation Center CMU Block Deterioration Mitigation and Recreation Center Roof Repair
Capital Improvement Projects I It was noted that estimates should always be included even if the
final cost hasn’t been confirmed
d.Professional Service Agreement with Intermountain Engineering (Shane Pegram,Project
Engineer)Complete the design of the Metcalf Gulch Drainage Improvements and Phase I of the
Metcalf Road Bicycle Climbing Lane from Nottingham Road to Wildwood Road
e.Resolution 10-19,Series of 2010,A Resolution Supporting the Grant Application for a
Local Parks and Outdoor Recreation Special Opportunity Grant from the State Board of
the Great Outdoors Colorado for the Eagle Valley Trail Bridge over the Eagle River at
Avon Road (Jeff Schneider,Project Engineer.Justin Hildreth,Town Engineer)Action supporting
the Grant Application for a Local Parks and Outdoor Recreation Special Opportunity Grant from
the State Board of the Great Outdoors Colorado for the Eagle Valley Trail Bridge over the Eagle
River at Avon Road
f.Stipulation and Agreement for Water Court Case Nos.06CW264 and 07CW225 (Town
of Minturn and GinnlBattle Mountain Applications for Conditional Surface and Water
Storage Rights)(Justin Hildreth,Town Engineer)Proposed stipulation and agreement for the
Water Court Case Nos.06CW264 and 07CW225
NEW BUSINESS
Sally Vecchio,Asst.Town Manager Community Development,presented the revised
Intergovernmental Agreement with Eagle County for Building Inspection Services.She made a
brief review of the proposed agreement that arranges for building inspection services from
Eagle County and provides for the same service to Eagle County from Town of Avon.Councilor
Dantas moved to approve the IGA for the Building Inspection Services with Eagle County;
Mayor Pro Tern Sipes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously (Ferraro absent).
ORDINANCES
Public Hearing Continued From July 27.2010 on Ordinance No.10-14,Series of 2010,First
Reading,An Ordinance Amending the Avon Municipal Code by Enacting Title 7,The Avon
Development Code;Repealing Title 16:Subdivisions;Repealing Title 17:Zoning;and
Repealing Portions of Title 2:Administration and Personnel (Sally Vecchio,Asst Town Manager
Community Development,Eric Heil,Town Attorney)Review proposed Development Code as adopted by
the Planning &Zoning Commission /
Ron Wolfe,Mayor,presented a review and asked that the Council acknowledge and approve
the process for adopting Ordinance No.10-14,Development Code.He asked that the format of
the discussion and public input be as follows:
1)Staff reports
2)Council questions &comments
3)Public hearing on each section as presented by staff
4)Final council discussion &direction section by section
Town Manager,Larry Brooks,framed the topic with the fact that the council packet materials did
provide responses for most of the public input.He also asked that Todd Goulding,Chairman of
the Planning &Zoning Commission,be a part of the discussion so as to explain the position of
the commission’s point of view on proposed the code.Sally Vecchio,Asst Town Manager
Community Development,expressed appreciation of the public input as it raised the bar for
analysis of the development code.She then presented Ordinance No.10-14,Series of 2010,
First Reading,An Ordinance Amending the Avon Municipal Code by Enacting Title 7,The Avon
Development Code;Repealing Title 16:Subdivisions;Repealing Title 17:Zoning;and
Repealing Portions of Title 2:Administration and Personnel.She noted that staff would begin
by addressing the following development standards with a review of the proposed revisions
made based on public input:
V Design Standards found in Section 7.28.090
V Retaining Wall Standards found in Section 7.28.070
V Steep Slope Standards found in Section 7.28.100
V Access Drive Requirements found in Section 7.28.030
There was an opportunity for comments from both town council members and chairman of
Planning &Zoning commission as follows:
Mayor Pro Tern Sipes:
V Too many numerical guidelines
V P&Z should make the judgment calls,not the code book
V not supportive of the 45 foot height
V revise the submittal requirements a bit
Chairman Todd Goulding:
>Noted that some of the difficulty lies in providing customer services and meeting the
code requirements
Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 4
10.08.1 0.doc
>staff should not be in a position to make subjective approvals
>Spoke about performance specs that were applied to the process
>asked that the documents include some acceptable pictures to help P&Z make the
appropriate decisions
Councilor Reynolds:
V Many vanables that exist with raw land
V Requirements really stifle the developer and architect
Councilor Dantas:
>the code as proposed suggests that limiting the site will then only create a worse
environment to have to meet the requirements
Councilor Carroll:
V Stay more performance oriented;and stay away from the number requirements in the
code I
Mayor Wolfe:
Prefers leaving the process more subjective and not restrict it by numbers.
Mayor Pro Tern Sipes:
>Supports the proposed code and encourage everyone not to get bogged down with the
details
Doesn’t support using the numbers
>WR is unique so take a unique approach in evaluating the applications
Must respect the residents in the neighborhoods I
The priorities should include 1)how to correct the bad development pattern on the valley
floor,2)how to deal with the village at avon,3)how does the town build from the center
of town out
Mayor Wolfe opened the public hearing on the development and design standards and the
following comments were made:
+Tripp Plavec:concerned about the landscaping requirements
+Mike Dantas:requests that the town address the residential by allowing for splitting
some of the homes instead of fourplexes and duplexes;asked that the town possibly
redefine the term duplex and asked why the town changed the rules when things weren’t
broken
+Chris Evans:supported the idea of creating opportunities for turning duplexes into
single family lots
The public hearing was closed.
Further Council comments were made:
Mayor Pro Tem Sipes:
V Asked to review the WR design PUD guidelines
Councilor Reynolds:
>Asked that the landscaping guidelines include fire dept.language that would help with
wildfire mitigation
Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 4
10.08.1 0.doc
Councilor Dantas:
v”Asked that the town review the ERWSD water guidelines and incorporate those
restrictions into Avon’s code
Mayor Wolfe provided some concluding comments as follows:
+Many have described the “we want”at this time
••When writing the development code there must be thought placed on creating a balance
between the residents,the town and the buyer
••Propose that the town wants to have performance based standards and maybe these
are adopted separately;
+Review creating an opportunity for creating more single family homes instead of the
multi unit properties duplexes
At this time Eric Heil,Town Attorney,presented the following development code chapters
highlighting the content in the chapters:
7.04:General Provision
7.08:Definitions
7.12 Development Application Review Authority
7.16 Development Review Procedures
There was a review of the public input as it pertained to each section described above.Council
provided input on various sections within each of the Chapters.Mayor Wolfe opened the public
hearing to receive input on the discussions about the above referenced chapters.
•Dominic Mauriello:spoke about the role and intent of using the Comp Plan in the
development code,he asked that there is a thorough review of how this document is
used,as an advisory or regulatory document.
After some wrap up discussions,it was agreed to continue to the review the proposed
development code chapter by chapter.
Councilor Carroll moved to continue until August 17,2010 the public hearing and Ordinance No.
10-14,Series of 2010,First Reading,An Ordinance Amending the Avon Municipal Code by
Enacting Title 7,The Avon Development Code;Repealing Title 16:Subdivisions;Repealing
Title 17:Zoning;and Repealing Portions of Title 2:Administration and Personnel.Mayor Pro
Tern Sipes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously (Ferraro absent).
There being no further business to come before the Council,the regular meeting adjourned at
10:40 PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty McKenny,Town Clerk
APPROVED:
Rich Carroll
__________________________________
Dave Dantas
__________________________________
Kristi Ferraro
_____________________________________
Amy Phillips
____________________________________
Albert “Buz”Reynolds__________________________________
Brian Sipes
__________________________________
Ron Wolfe
_________________________________
Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 4
10.08.1 0.doc
HElL LAW
&PLANNING,LLC
MEMORANDUM
TO:Honorable Mayor Wolfe and Town Council members
CC:Larry Brooks,Town Manager
FROM:Eric Hell,Town Attorney
DATE:August 12,2010
SUBJECT:Annexation and Disconnection Procedures and 1041 Regulations
Summary:This memorandum discusses Chapter 7.36 Annexation and
Disconnection and Chapter 7.40 1041 Regulations.
Chapter 7.36 Annexation and Disconnection Procedures:The existing municipal
code does not contain any procedures for annexation or disconnection of territory from
the Town of Avon.The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 sets forth basic procedures
for annexation and disconnection of territory.Home rule communities have the
authority to adopt their own procedures provided that minimum requirements for
eligibility comply with the 1965 Act.The proposed procedures are based on the
Colorado Model Land Use Code procedures.No public comments have been received
with regard to the Annexation and Disconnection Procedures.
Chapter 7.40 1041 Regulations:Chapter 7.40 1041 Regulations implement the
statutory authority to regulate Areas and Activities of State Interest set forth in §24-65.1-
101 et.seq.1041 Regulations authorize local government review of public facility and
utility projects,large scale development and development which may impact
environmentally sensitive lands.For the purposes of the Town of Avon,the 1041
Regulations are intended to focus on highway improvements (but not repairs)and water
and sewer expansion projects.The proposed Development Code language includes a
reference to flood plain,steep slope and wetland areas;however,regulation of those
areas within the Town of Avon is addressed in the development and engineering
standards of the Development Code.
1041 Regulations generally create procedures whereby the Town may review regional
infrastructure improvements which may have impacts on the Avon community.
Public Comments:One comment received was that the trigger of twenty-five (25)new
residential units for the definition of “Major Extension of an Existing Domestic Water or
Sewage Treatment System”is over-inclusive for the purpose of triggering 1041
Regulations.Staff agrees with this comment.Staff has met with a representative of the
Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District to
discuss a more practical definition of system improvements which should warrant 1041
review by the Town.Proposed revisions would trigger 1041 review when the treatment
Hell Law &Planning,LLC Eric Heil,Esq,A.I.C.P.
1499 Blake Street.Unit 1-G Tel:303.975.6120
Denver,CO 80202 eheil@avon.org
Town Council
RE:Annexation Procedures and 1041 Regulations
August 12,2010
Page 2of2
capacity of a water or sewer plant was expanded such that a state permit was required,
when constructing water storage tanks,or when constructing other improvements which
expand system capacity.As of the date of writing this memorandum,we have not
received written comments from ERWSD or UERWA.
Another public comment received is that the 1041 regulations should also apply to
upgrades,capacity expansion or improvements to electrical transmission infrastructure.
Town Staff proposes revisions to 1041 Regulations to promote consistency with the
timeframes and procedures for other development review,promote appropriate and
meaningful application of 1041 Regulations,and allow concurrent review where
appropriate with state or federal permitting procedures.
Thanks,Eric
Memorandum
To:Honorable Mayor and Town Council Initials
Thru:Larry Brooks,Town Manager
From:Sally Vecchio,Asst Town Mgr,Community Development
Date:August 12,2010
Re:Avon Development Code Review —Commercial Zoning and PUDs
Summary:
Based on a discussion at the last Town Council meeting concerning the proposed PUD and
commercial zone district standards,staff will prepare an updated presentation on these topics
for the Council’s special meeting on August 17th•The PowerPoint presentation from the April
work session on these topics is attached.
The updated presentation will include:1)a design test of the Riverfront PUD comparing the
proposed Town Center (TC)zone district regulations to the entitlements approved by the PUD,
2)the relationship of the regulations to the Town Center Investment Plans,and 3)key elements
of the proposed PUD regulations and suggested revisions based on comments received at the
last meeting.
The special meeting will also include a presentation by the Town Attorney on the Annexation
and Disconnection Procedures (Chapter 7.36)and the 1041 Regulations (Chapter 7.40)in the
proposed Development Code.
Town Manager Comments:
4V7
%I
rL/tj
77
Attachment:
PowerPoint presentation:Topic 1:Commercial Zone Districts
8/12/2010
Town of Avon
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE KEVIEW
Topic I -Commercial Zone Districts
PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION
WORK SESSION
APRIL 6,2010
TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APRIL 13,2010
)OINT WORK SESSION
APRIL 20,2010
Work Plan Update
Phase 1 (Project Initiationid Analysis)Complete
Phase 2 (Diagnosis and Annotated Outline)Complete
Phase 3 (Draft New Land Use Code)Completed
Phase 4 (Public Review/Adoption Process)Underway
1
8/12/2010
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
----------
ZAC Review Draft of Code Feb 2008 —March 2010
Public Review of Code
•PZC Review April—June2OlO
•Council Review July—September2010
PZC REVIEW SCHEDULE
Commercial ZoninglBonus Density
•April 6 PZC work session
•April 13 TC work session
April 20 TCIPZC joint work session
Design and Development Standards
April 27 TC work session
May 4 PZC work session
•May 11 TCIPZC joint work session
Review Redlined Code (other discussion topics TBD)
May 18 PZC work session
June 1 PZC work session
PZC Public Hearing (Targeted Date)June 15
2
8/12/2010
Policy Considerations
East Town Center District Plan
West Town Center District Plan
Avon Comprehensive Plan
Avon Transportation Plan
Improve Vitality of Town Core
Encourage Transit Oriented Design
Improve Circulation (Vehicles and Pedestrians)
Promote Residential Opportunities
5
Clarion Zoning Diagnosis
Reduce the use of PUDs for development
approvals.
Establish baseline uniform development
standards.
Provide more specific information about the public
benefit process.
Create appropriate zone districts and overlays.
3
8/12/2010
•No limits on
development size &
scale.
calculating bonus
density.
•Limited review by
PZC &Council.
Impact fees and
management of fees
required for
affordable housing,
transportation,
recreation.
ZONE FOR MAX
DENSITY
•All development
standards negotiated.
•All public benefits
negotiated.
•Outcome and
process unpredictable.
•Guidelines for
•All elements of
development and
density proscribed
by Code.
•Baseline development
standards.
approve bonus density
TC discretion to
only.
•Predictable review
process.
I
Zone Districts Updated &Amended
4
8/12/2010
Baseline Development Standards Added
Parking,Loading and Access
Mobility and Connectivity
Landscape,Walls and Fences
Design (Building Orientation,Massing,Articulation)
Natural Resource Protection
Sustainability
Bonus Development Process Added
•Density bonuses tied to goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
•Identifies allowable density increases for specific public benefits.
•Bonus density caps at 35%above base density.
•Town Center,Neighborhood Commercial &Mixed Commercial
Zone Districts eligible for bonus.
•Formulas provide guidance.Council has final discretion to
approve.
5
8/12/2010
PUD District Modified I
Overlay District intended for larger properties and
Town Core properties.
Underlying zoning controls density and uses.
Allows developer to integrate and cluster a mix of
land uses,preserve open space,provide community
facilities (school site,parks,rec center,etc).
Does not allow density increases.
Development Review Process Revised
04
6
8/12/2010
Policy Issues
(j;
Floor Area Ratio -What is appropriate base density in
the Town Core?
Bonus Density —do the incentives and public benefits
listed reflect community goals?
Parking Regulations —how should parking
requirements be addressed in the Town Core?
Design Tests
Determined existing density in Town Core
Tested new development standards
oParking requirements
oReduced lot coverage requirements
oFAR
oDevelopment Bonus formulas
7
8/12/2010
Chapel Square Bldg B
Mixed Use Commercial Zone
Design Test
Design Test Conclusions
Current TC Zoning —3:1 FAR (w/out parking)
Existing Density in Town Center
FAR range 1:1 to 2.75:1 (w/reduced parking)
PUDs provided variances to:
Building Height,Lot Coverage,Parking Reductions
and Dwelling Units.
PUDs did not increase FAR or Public Benefits.
8
8/12/2010
The Seasons Building
Town Center Zone District
Design Test
--
Chapel Sq.Development Comparison
Existing Conditions New MC Zoning w/Bonus
Site Coverage 33%Site Coverage 70%
FAR 11 120,762 sf FAR 1.5:1 179,435 sf
2:1 max bonus 239,247sf
Dwelling Units 69 Dwelling Units 55
w/rnax bonus 75
Max Bldg Ht 66’/1o7’ft Max Bldg Ht 6o ft
W/max bonus 8i ft
Parking 297 spaces required Parking 418 spaces required
262 spaces provided
9
8/12/2010
Seasons Development Comparison
Existing Conditions New TC Zoning w/Bonus
Site Coverage 65%Site Coverage 8o%
FAR 1.25:1 /175,800 sf FAR 2.5:1 350,650 sf
FAR 3:1 420,000sf
FAR 4.05:1 568,000sf
Dwelling Units 103 Dwelling Units 97
w/max bonus 130
Max Bldg Ht 79 ft Max Bldg Ht 8o ft
w/max bonus io8 ft
Parking Provided 364
Parking Required 410 Parking Required 410 spaces
Avon Center
Town Center Zone District
Design Test
10
8/12/2010
Sheraton Mtn Vista PUD
Design Test
1Kz,
Avon Center Development Comparison
Existing Conditions New TC Zoning w/Bonus
Site Coverage 54%Site Coverage 80%
FAR 2:1/155,000sf FAR2.5:1 193,000sf
FAR3:1 231,500sf
FAR 4.05:1 312,500 sf
Dwelling Units 55
Dwelling Units 53
w/rnax bonus 72
Max Bldg FIt 97 ft
Max Bldg Ht 8o ft
w/max bonus 108 ft
Parking Provided 119
Parking Required 214 Parking Required 214
*pllased for off-site parking
11
8/12/2010
Avon 21
Town Center Zone District
Design Test
Sheraton Development Comparison
Build out Approval New TC Zoning w/Bonus
Site Coverage 55%Site Coverage 8o%
FAR 2.7:1 /382,211 sf FAR 2.5:1 353,000 sf
FAR 3:1 423,400sf
FAR 4.05:1 (max bonus)571,590 sf
Dwelling Units 239
Dwelling Units 97
Max Bldg Ht 100 ft v/max bonus 131
Parking Required 374 Max Bldg Ht 8o ft
w/max bonus io8 ft
Parking Required 431
12
8/12/2010
Avon 21 Development Comparison
PUD Zoning New TC Zoning w/Bonus
Site Coverage 59%Site Coverage 8o%
FAR 3.62:1 /865,021 sq ft FAR 3.1 716,649 sq ft
v/rnax bonus 967,476 sq ft
Dwelling Units 237 Dwelling Units 164
w/max bonus 219
Max Bldg FIt 110 ft Max Bldg FIt 8o ft
w/max bonus io8ft
Parking 590 spaces Parking 900 spaces
765 (-i%)
Avon 21 Public Benefit Comparison
PUB Zoning New TC Zoning w/Bonus
Attainable Housing 12 DU Attainable Housing Units
Transportation Improvements 35%of max du/acre (164)=55 units
Residency restricted 27(50%of 55)Transit Stops Valuation capped 14(25%of 55)Pedestrian Crosswalks
Open Space Linkages to Optimize Public Spaces
Pedestrian Routes 95k sq ft Plaza =95k residential sq ft
Public Plaza 95,000 sq ft
Transportation Improvements
Main St realignment Realignment of L Main Street.crosswalks,
sidewalks and transit stops
13
Larry Brooks
From:Ron Wolfe email
Sent:Thursday,August 12,2010 8:50 PM
To:Larry Brooks;Sally Vecchio
Cc:Buz Reynolds;Brian Sipes Remote email;Kristi Ferraro email;Ron Wolfe email;Dave Dantas
email;AMY PHILLIPS;Rich Carroll email;Patty McKenny;Goulding Todd
Subject:Formal Input to LUC Review and Approval
Attachments:Formal Input to Draft LUC.docx
Attached is a formal submission of ideas and suggestions that I request be
evaluated and responded to during the continuing LUC adoption process.
Ron
1
Formal Input to Draft TOA DeveloDment Code
Role PUD:PUD’s should be an alternative to Zone District compliance anywhere in
the current town and for any annexations.There should be no size or other
limitations.Hopefully good Zone District parameters and dkimensions will allow more
development within them and minimize the use of the PUD process.If they do not
there is no negative associated with PUD defined development.Is it correct to
interpret that in a PUD process,the “bonus”provisions and standards will be
applicable in order to exceed the dimensions of the underlying zoning?
Building Height:I have long contended that in Town Center (and possibly in Town
Core)we should be using a more imaginative definition of “building height.”The
current definition drives use of the PUD process or a height development bonus
application to achieve significant vertical building articulation beyond any permitted
as an “architectural projection.”I contend we are unnecessarily promoting the use of
the PUD process,inhibiting more beneficial street-level design,promoting bulky and
monolithic buildings and perhaps also inhibiting building design that efficiently
accesses views and the creation of higher value space.To remediate this
weaknesses,I want to introduce “footprint weighted average height”as follows:
“FWHt”(Footprint Weighted Height)=(Z[SN x HN])/ZSN,provided that
“FWHt”<Zone District Maximum Building Height and
HM Zone District Maximum Building Height +20’;(which is 80’+20’in TC)
where SN is a specific portion of the building footprint measured in square feet,1
through N portions comprise the total footprint which when combined,over which
there is single and unique measured height,HN is the height above that portion,
Feet,measured as we usually do and as defined in the Code,HM is the height of the
tallest portion of the building footprint,Feet,and which is limited to the Zone District
Height plus 35’or 44%.In TC the 80’maximum height is increased to 100’for some
portion of the building and is offset by other portions of the building being below the
Zone District Maximum Building Height.
This method of defining and calculating height does not add any volume to the
building
Height Bonus:This bonus should now be applied to the above “FWHt,”as an
increase in HM to Zone District Maximum Building Height +45’;(which is 80’+
45’in TC).Therefore in TC the maximum height of any portion of a building will be
125’offset by some other portions being lower.
The standards for granting a height bonus should be used as drafted with the
additional requirement to (A)and (B)that “dedicated”space and uses be
memorialized in a legally binding and perpetual way so that the owner,town and
public cannot “forget”the provision that justified the bonus at a later amendment of
change of use
This Bonus does not add any volume to the building.
FAR:In TC the maximum FAR is too low and will drive development to the PUD
process and/or application for FAR Bonus.A FAR of 3 to 3.5 seems to be required
to shut off alternative approaches.This is a negative outcome if we wish to minimize
the use of the PUD process but is a good outcome if we which to potentiate gaining
the TOA benefits required to award a FAR Bonus.So perhaps 2.0 is a good point.
FAR Bonus:Three standards are available to grant a FAR Bonus:a restricted
housing requirement,a quantified and dedicated public improvement or benefit and
a water dedication.
1.Housing standards are reasonable and may or may not be attractive to
Developers.I suggest adding:
“100%of the added FAR is irrevocably committed to the sale,lease or free provision
to workers required to be employed by the project and/or the businesses uses
resident in it.”Our prior use-worker correlation may be useful in analyzing whether
or not the added floor area can be justified by the employee needs created by the
project.
2.The Public Improvement standard is a good one except our starting point
of 75%is likely too high to engage interest.We should bring into play the probable
gross profit margin of a successful project,say 2O%(?)and share in that extra profit
at perhaps 50%.That approach results in a lO%factor.I suggest that this argument
be refined and that it is more appropriate and leverages the Developer’s basic
project plan and investments for mutual benefit.
3.Dedication of one SFE of water per 1,000 of additional floor area is
acceptable.
Density Bonus:Same as Height Bonus adding the employee standard in C!)
above.
Ron Wolfe
August 12,2010
Patty McKenny
From:Dominic Maurieflo [dominic@mpgvail.com]
Sent:Thursday,August 12,2010 8:45AM
To:Eric Heil Email;Sally Vecchio;Matt Gennett
Cc:Town Council Members
Subject:Re:Development Code
That would be great.
I have been thinking about all of the discussion related to parking in the core of Avon.It was stated that many
PUD’s obtain deviations to parking requirements and yet I was unaware that there was really a parking
problem at any of the properties in the core (maybe the Season’s building is an exception when VR occupied
the space intensively).
I have been involved with and studied many residential and mixed projects for parking requirements,though
mostly in Vail.My experience is that core area properties that are mostly residential tend to be over parked,
meaning they built too many parking spaces and the parking structures are largely empty 98%of the time.On
mixed use projects (usually developed with a mixed use reduction)the problem tends not to be that there
isn’t enough parking spaces but how they are restricted.Here I think the Town needs to focus on creating
more public parking areas within the parking structure that are open to customers (not the general public)
without the need to have a restricted pass to enter.The Westin is an ok example of this.I can enter to go to
the club and I get a pass or pay to exit.
Trying to require excessive amounts of parking under the theory that those spaces will be available for public
consumption is not a realistic approach.In some instances the parking requirements of code for a mixed use
project can be excessive.
Below is a section of the Town of Vail code that allows for a site specific study of parking demand and
utilization.Having a provision like this in Avon’s code would be helpful on larger more complicated
development projects.
12-10-20:SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12-10-18 of this chapter,the planning and environmental
commission may approve a reduction to the number of required spaces specified in section 12-10-10
of this chapter,provided a report documenting the presence of unique parking characteristics is
provided by a qualified consultant and the following findings are made by the planning and
environmental commission:
A.The parking demand will be less than the requirements identified in section 12-10-10 of this
chapter;and
B.The probable long term use of the building or structure,based on its design,will not generate
additional parking demand;and
C.The use or activity is part of a demonstrated permanent program (including,but not limited to,
“rideshare”programs,shuttle service,or staggered work shifts)intended to reduce parking demand
that has been incorporated into the project’s final approved development plan;and
1
D.Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation (including,but not limited to,public
transit or shuffle services)is significant and integral to the nature of the use or business activity.
In reaching a decision,the planning and environmental commission shall consider survey data
submiffed by a qualified transportation planning or engineering consultant.Projects under “special
review”are subject to additional scrutiny by the planning and environmental commission after
development plan approval if it is deemed necessary to verify continued compliance with the above
listed criteria.The maximum allowable reduction in the number of required spaces shall not exceed
twenty five percent (25%)of the total number required under section 12-10-10 of this chapter.(Ord.
29(2005)§29:Ord.9(2000)§5)
On 8/12/10 7:24 AM,“Eric Heil”<ericheillaw@gmail.com>wrote:
Dominic,I do not know if anyone else has responded to your inquiry but we are making revisions to the
document to the Development Code as discussed.Our goal is to produce the next version of a
complete Development Code for consideration at a public hearing with redlines/strikeouts showing
changes to the July i6 version currently under discussion.Revisions to the Development Code to
incorporate comments have been divided between several Town Staff persons.At this point,we think it
would be important to complete the revisions,then review the entire revised Development Code as
staff from cover to cover to scrub any typos and inconsistencies.We also understand that we would
need to make this next version of the revised Development Code available to the public with a
reasonable timeframe for review and comment.I don’t think we can confirm any timeframe for
completing revisions until Council has discussed all issues raised by the public and raised by
themselves.
That said,if you are receptive,I will try to send select paragraphs with revised language which responds
to your comments with the understanding they are in draft form as we are revising.
Thanks,Eric
Eric Heil,Fsq.,A.l.C.P.
HElL LAW
&Planning,LLC
Blake Street,Unit i-G
Denver,CO 80202
Direct:303.975.6iZ0
Fax:720.836.3337
e-mail:ericheillaxx@gmail.com
This communication may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information.Unauthorized receipt or use of this communicat ion is ,,ot pern,itted.If you have received this communication in error,please
delete the message and coo tact Heil Lair &Planning.LLC..immediately.
From:Dominic Mauriello [mailto:dominic@mjxivail.com]
Sent:Wednesday,August 11,2010 5:05 PM
To:Sally Vecchio;Matt Gennett
Cc:avoncouncilavon.org;‘Eric Heil’
Subject:Development Code
Hi Matt and Sally:
2
I think there has been a lot of productive comments over the last two hearings with the Town Council and a lot
of direction on proposed changes.
I am hoping that before the next hearing the public could have a draft showing additions and deletions
(underline/strike-thru or track changes)from the version the Town Council began with.I think this is an
efficient for all of us to track what changes are occurring.
Let me know if that is the plan as it will give me and others confidence that we are all on the same page with
the changes that are reflective of the Town Council input.
Thanks,
Dominic F.Mauriello,AICP
Mauriello Planning Group,LLC
PD Box 1127
5601A Wildridge Road
Avon,Colorado 81620
970-376-3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
Dominic F.Mauriello,AICP
Mauriello Planning Group,LLC
PC Box 1127
5601A Wild ridge Road
Avon,Colorado 81620
970-376-3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
3
HElL LAW
&PLANNING,LLC
MEMORANDUM
TO:Honorable Mayor Wolfe and Town Council members
CC:Larry Brooks,Town Manager
FROM:Eric Hell,Town Attorney
DATE:August 4,2010
SUBJECT:Responses to Public Comments
Summary:This memorandum responds to a variety of public comments received by
the Town of Avon regarding the draft Avon Development Code as presented to the
Town Council.The responses are intended to provide background information
regarding proposed Development Code language,legal issues and rationale,and
highlight relevant considerations in order to assist with Council’s review of the proposed
Development Code.
Comment:Non-Conforming Structures.We should not be writing codes that create
non conforming uses of the majority of the existing development in the residential areas.
By doing this additional expenses will be created both by Town and the property
owners.Town staff will have a much larger job evaluating remodels,redevelopment
and new development.
ADC 7.04.120(c)Structures only prohibits an enlargement or increase in the non
conformity.Additions or alterations to a non-conforming structure which meet the
requirements of the Development Code are not prohibited.Attention should be given to
the specific regulations which render structures non-conforming in order to understand
the actual impact of regulations.If desired or deemed beneficial,additional language
could be inserted to expressly state,“Additions or alterations to a non-conforming
structure which meet the requirements of the Development Code are not prohibited.”
Comment:Director.This section essentially requires that there be a Director of
Community Development.The Town should have the flexibility to not have this position
in order to react to budgetary requirements.You might consider using a more generic
term like “Administrator”that the Town Manager can designate to enforce and interpret
the Code.This tends to be more common.
The Existing Code section 17.12.080 established a “Planning Department”under the
administration and control of a “Planning Director.”The ADC defines “Directoe’as the
Director of the Community Development Department of the Town of Avon,as such
person is designated by the Town Manager.Avon’s Home Rule Charter,Section 8.3
provides that the Town Manager has the duty to enforce laws and ordinances and has
the authority to hire all employees.Regardless of the term,the Director is the person
Heil Law &Planning,iic Eric Heil,Esq.,ALC.P.
1499 Blake Street,Unit 1 -G Tel:303.975.6120
Denver,CO 80202 eheilavon.org
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 2 of 11
whom the Town Manager appoints and the Town Manager can eliminate the position,
assume the duties of the Director,or delegate such duties to a non-employee contractor
for the Town.The term “administrative officer”or other term could be used to describe
the person to whom application review responsibility was delegated.
Comment:Appeals Process.The other area that I would recommend looking closely
at is the appeals process and the timeframe for hearing and deciding appeals.In my
experience,you might get a verbal decision that you disagree with from staff,but then
getting that in a “final”written form could take weeks.With that and then the process to
get before the P&Z could take weeks.I would not rely on that as much of a relief value.
The appeals process should be discussed by Council.The Existing Code establishes a
process to appeal decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission to Town Council.
This process requires that a written appeal must be filed within 15 days of a decision.
Then,Town Council must review the appeal within 30 days of the date of filing the
appeal,then render a decision within 30 days “following commencement of review”or
may postpone final action for additional 30 days for additional information.The current
Zoning Code did not include an appeals process for administrative decisions and
interpretations.The Existing Code established the Town Council as the Board of
Building Appeals and provides in section 2.20.030(b)that “Any party in interest having a
legitimate pending question may file a request for ruling.”
The proposed Development Code attempts to establish a clear and uniform appeals
process for all administrative and Planning and Zoning Commission decisions such that
the Town Council is the ultimate and final decision on all land use regulation matters
before a property owner or interested party can resort to District Court to challenge the
decision of the Town.As proposed,a written appeal must be filed within 14 days of the
date of a decision.Town Council must render a decision within 35 days of holding a
hearing.The proposed Development Code does not specify the maximum time frame in
which the Council must hold a hearing.
I suggest that a hearing for an appeal should be scheduled within 45 days after the day
that a written appeal is received.Also,a minimum notice should be provided to the
appellant of the date of the appeal hearing.I suggest a minimum written notice of the
date of an appeal hearing to be sent at least 10 days prior to the appeals hearing.
Comment:Cash in Lieu.The definition (in combination with its practice in the Park
Land dedication standards)leaves the issue entirely up for negotiation-no certainty for
investment or calculation of costs associated with development.
The language for the School Site Dedication and Park Land Dedication should be
discussed.The following issues are important for consideration:(1)the land dedication
language should ensure that the dedicated land is suitable for it intended use,(2)cash
in-lieu should be allowed where the size of the development is not sufficient to result in
a usable land dedication or it adequate lands already exist for the public facility which
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 3 of 11
are in a location that can serve the development,and (3)the method of determining the
amount of cash-in-lieu should be based on the estimated value of unimproved,vacant
land after the requested approval for development,annexation,subdivision and/or
zoning.The determination of acceptable land dedications and acceptable cash-in-lieu
payments should be subject to review by the Town to promote land dedications and/or
cash payments which practically meet Town goals.
Comment:Development.Items exempted from the development definition seem to
contradict those areas being defined by the proposed 1041 (AASI)regulations as
development.Also,the definition seems to contradict the non-conforming uses being
created.
Response:The following revision is proposed for the definition of Development.
Development means the grading or clearing of land,the erection,construction or
alteration of structures,the change of use of a property,and the division of property to
create two (2)or more separate ownership interests.
(a)Development shall also include:
(1)Any construction,placement,reconstruction,alteration of the size,or material
change in the external appearance of a structure on land;
(2)Any change in the intensity of use of land,such as an increase in the number of
dwelling units in a structure or on a tract of land or a material increase in the
intensity and impacts of the development;
(3)Any change in use of land or a structure;
(4)Any alteration of a shore or bank of a river,stream,lake,pond,reservoir or
wetland;
(5)The commencement of drilling oil or gas wells,mining,stockpiling of fill materials,
filling or excavation on a parcel of land;
(6)The demolition of a structure;
(7)The clearing of land as an adjunct of construction;
(8)The deposit of refuse,solid or liquid waste,or fill on a parcel of land;
(9)The installation of landscaping within the public right-of-way,when installed in
connection with the development of adjacent property;and
(10)The construction of a roadway through or adjoining an area that qualifies for
protection as a wildlife or natural area.
(b)Unless otherwise regulated by this Development Code elsewhere,Development
shall not include:
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 4 of 11
(1)Work by a highway or road agency or railroad company for the maintenance or
improvement of a road or railroad track,if the work is carried out on land within
the boundaries of the right-of-way;
(2)Work by any public utility for the purpose of inspecting,repairing,renewing or
constructing,on established rights-of-way,any mains,pipes,cables,utility
tunnels,power lines,towers,poles,or the like;provided,however,that this
exemption shall not include work by a public entity in constructing or enlarging
mass transit or fixed guide way mass transit depots or terminals or any similar
traffic-generating activity;
(3)The maintenance,renewal,improvement,or alteration of any structure,if the
work affects only the interior or the color of the structure or the decoration of the
exterior of the structure;
(4)The use of any land for an agricultural activity (refer to 1.15.A.1O);
(5)A change in the ownership or form of ownership of any parcel or structure;or
(6)The creation or termination of rights of access,easements,covenants
concerning development of land,or other rights in land.
Comment:Determination of Completeness.A development application shall be
reviewed for completeness by the Director within fifteen (15)business days after
receipt.If the application is determined to not be complete then a written communication
shall be promptly provided to the applicant indicating the specific deficiencies in the
application.The determination that an application is complete or the failure to determine
an application is incomplete within fifteen (15)days shall not preclude the Town from
requiring information which is necessary and relevant to evaluate the development
application for compliance with the review criteria.A determination by the Director that
the application is incomplete may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with
the procedures in §7.16.160.15 days to determine completeness seems fairly
excessive.Completeness of an application should be done in no more than 5 days.
Comment:Determination of Completeness.With the requirement of a pre
application meeting or meetings with any development application,stretching
completeness review to half a month appears excessive especially for smaller classes
of development applications.
The Existing Code does not establish a minimum time frame to determine if an
application is complete.The determination of completeness can often be performed
within a few days;however,the time frame depends upon (1)the number of
applications,(2)the nature and complexity of the application,and (3)the schedule of
staff persons who may be required to conduct the review for completeness.Eagle
County allows 10 working days to determine completeness of a Development
Application.10 working days would be acceptable to Town Staff
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 5 of 11
Comment:Vested Property Rights and Site Specific Development Plan.When
asked during your first reading about the need to approve a development agreement to
receive a ‘Development Bonus’,I was informed that a development agreement is
possible without a site specific development plan or need for a PUD.The code as
penned contradicts this.Which is it?
The proposed Development Code section 7.16.140 defines “Site Specific Development
Plan”as
“Site specific development plan means a planned unit development plan,or any
amendment thereto,approved pursuant to §7.16.060 of this Code,together with
a development agreement approved pursuant to §(CROSS REFERENCE
FORTH COMING)hereof.fcreatesst
erty rig htsiy also includi otherdevelopmentip vals if arovedat
f:theTown.Qii.c.H ‘uest b..i a own;however,such
request shall not result in an application for a development approval other than a
planned unit development plan to be treated as a site specific development plan
for the purposes of C.R.S.§24-68-102.5(1).”
The proposed Development Code establishes a process to review “Development Plans”
in Section 7.16.080.This process,and the term “Development Plan,”has a different
meaning that “Site Specific Development Plan”under the vested property rights statute
and under Section 7.16.140.The vested property rights statute allows a local
government to define “site specific development plan”for the purpose of the application
of the vested property rights statute.The vested property rights section of the Existing
Code was revised in January and February of 2009 to broaden the definition of “site
specific development plan”to mean not only PUDs but also any other development
approval so long as it is (1)approved by Town Council,(2)stated in a development
agreement,and (3)approved by ordinance.
Comment:Comp Plan Amendment.There are new amendment review criteria in this
section which conflict,expand or replace the existing amendment procedures outlined in
Appendix E of the Comprehensive Plan itself —which is it?Why are we proposing a
new criteria and where is the public notice that we now seek to scrap the amendment
procedures of the existing and approved Comprehensive Plan?
The language in the proposed Development Code was drafted by Clarion and
presented to ZAC in early summer of 2009.I do not recall if ZAC specifically discussed
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria at the meeting last summer.Technically,
the review “criteria”are “considerations”because the amendment of a Comprehensive
Plan is a policy and legislative decision.The criteria or considerations in the proposed
Development Code are more detailed and seem appropriate for consideration.
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 6 of 11
With regard to the public notice requirements and amendment of the process to amend
the Comprehensive Plan,Appendix E Amendment Procedure of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan states,
“Any amendment proposed for the Comprehensive Plan shall follow the Town’s
public notice and public hearing procedures as prescribed in the Town Municipal
Code.”
The Town is following the public notice and public hearing procedures.There are no
specific procedures in the Town Municipal Code which govern amendments to the Avon
Comprehensive Plan.For convenience,the Plan Amendment review criteria in the
proposed Development Code is presented as follows:
(1)The surrounding area is compatible with the land use proposed in the plan
amendment or the proposed land use provides an essential public benefit and
other locations are not feasible or practical;
(2)Transportation services and infrastructure have adequate current capacity,or
planned capacity,to serve potential traffic demands of the land use proposed in
the plan amendment;
(3)Public services and facilities have adequate current capacity,or planned
capacity,to serve the land use proposed in the plan amendment;
(4)The proposed land use in the plan amendment will result in a better location or
form of development for the Town,even if the current plan designation is still
considered appropriate;
(5)Strict adherence to the current plan would result in a situation neither intended
nor in keeping with other key elements and policies of the plan;
(6)The proposed plan amendment will promote the purposes stated in this
Development Code;and,
(7)The proposed plan amendment will promote the health,safety or welfare of the
Avon Community and will be consistent with the general goals and policies of the
Avon Comprehensive Plan.
The Amendment criteria in Appendix E,Amendment Procedure of the Comprehensive
Plan states:
1.Include a justification for the proposed change;
2.Be in conformance with the Plan’s overall vision and its supporting goals and
policies;
3.Be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses;and
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 7 of 11
4.Not result in excessive detrimental impacts to Avon’s existing or planned
infrastructure systems.
Comment:Referral to Other Agencies.30 days for a referral is excessive.Referrals
should be limited to 14 days.
The need and time frame for referrals depends upon the nature and complexity of the
application.The Town of Vail mails a notice to agencies at least 15 days prior to a
preliminary subdivision and preliminary plan review.Eagle County establishes several
time frames for referrals depending upon the nature of the development application
which referral periods range from 14 days,to 21 days,to 30 days,or longer if
determined appropriate.The Eagle County approach appears more tailored to
reasonable needs of various development applications.
Comment:Mailed Notice The Town should be responsible for mailing any notices
otherwise will be issues with content and inconsistencies.The application fees should
cover this.You might consider having town staff also generate the list of owners within
300’by using GIS and again eliminating potential errors.Notice and process should be
the most important aspect of the Town’s role and pawning this off on the applicant could
create significant issues
Town Staff or the County can assist with generating a list of owners within 300’.Town
staff should assist and review the form of the public notice.The applicant can supply a
certificate of mailing to verify the mailing of notice.Otherwise,the issue of responsibility
for mailing notices and who should bear the cost is a matter of policy.
Comment:Public Hearings.Why limit the timeframe for tabling?Why not have the
maximum flexibility on behalf of the Town as possible?
A maximum time frame for continuing public hearings was included in the proposed
Development Code,section 7.16.020(e)due to experiences with recent development
applications which continued for lengthy periods.The proposed language allows a
maximum time frame (with consent of the applicant)of 3 months by PZC and 3 months
by Town Council to render a decision on an application.
VAIL BOARD OF REALTOR COMMENTS,July 23,2010 letter from Mr.Matt
Fitzgerald,Chair:Please note that the comments and questions have not been
reprinted in this memorandum.The letter from the Vail Board of Realtors (VBR)is
attached to this memorandum.
Role of a Zoning Map:Changes to the zoning map,or re-zonings,are not proposed
with the Development Code because the adoption of the Development Code is a
legislative process and revisions to the official zoning map,or rezoning of properties,is
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 8 of 11
a quasi-judicial process.A different notification process is required for zoning
amendments.
Comprehensive Plan and Its Relationship with the Development Code:Section
7.04.090 of the proposed Development Code clarifies that the Comprehensive Plan and
all related documents are regulatory documents [NOTE:The definition of Avon
Comprehensive Plan is intended to include other related documents,including the
transportation plan,trails plan and east and west town center investment plans].
Compliance with the Future Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan is
mandatory for rezoning,PUD,subdivision and annexation approvals.An application
which is not consistent with the Future Land Use plan in the Comprehensive Plan
would be required to amend the Comprehensive Plan prior to rezoning,PUD,
subdivision and annexation approval [NOTE:the Town amended the Comprehensive
Plan for the Red House Annexation/Subdivision/PUD approval].Overall,the
relationship of the Comprehensive Plan to the Development Code is the same as the
Existing Code;however,the proposed Development Code expressly clarifies the
relationship.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is a criteria for review for the following
applications:
1.Comprehensive Plan amendments (7.16.030(c)(7)—amendments should be
consistent with general goals and policies of Avon Comprehensive Plan.NOTE:
Appendix E of the Comprehensive Plan,Amendment Criteria 2.states the criteria
as “Be in conformance with the Plan’s overall vision and its supporting goals and
policies;”).
2.Code Text Amendments (7.16.040(c)(2)-promotes or implements goals and
policies with Comprehensive Plan).
3.Zoning Amendment (7.16.050(c)(2)—consistency with Comprehensive Plan —
NOTE:Existing Code 17.28.080(2)has same criteria).
4.Planned Unit Development (7.16.060(b)(2)—consistency with Comprehensive
Plan —7.16.060(e)(4)(iii)—consistency with Comprehensive Plan —NOTE:
17.20.110(h)(1)states criteria as “Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan goals
and objectives.)”
5.Subdivisions (7.16.070(e)(3)—preliminary subdivision plans shall be consistent
with Avon Comprehensive Plan and other community planning documents —
NOTE:Existing Code has similar requirement:16.20.040 Review —
conformance to applicable regulations.(1)The Comprehensive Plan.)
6.Development Plan (7.16.080(f)(3)consistency with Comprehensive Plan —
NOTE:intent is to allow Town to require pedestrian connections and building
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 9 of 11
orientation as contemplated in the East and West Town Center Plans,
Transportation Plan and Trails Plan.The existing Design Review Guidelines
states under General Approval Criteria,2.General conformance with the Goals
and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan,and any sub-area plan
which pertains.
7.Design Review (7.16.090(d)(3)design reflects the long range goals and design
criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable,adopted plan
documents.NOTE:see above regarding Design Review Guidelines).
8.Special Review Use (7.16.100(c)(1)—consistent with Comprehensive Plan.
17.48.040(2)—conformance with Comprehensive Plan).
9.Alternative Equivalent Compliance (7.16.120(d)(2)—proposed alternative
achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or
better degree than the subject standard.NOTE:This is a new section so there
is no comparison to the Existing Code).
1O.Location,Character and Extent (7.16.150(d)(2)—consistency with
Comprehensive Plan.NOTE:This is a new section so there is no comparison to
the Existing Code).
7.04.120(e)(3)[Lot Reduction]:This section is copied verbatim from Existing Code
section 17.32.050(c).I agree with the concerns raised by VBR regarding this language
and recommend that it be deleted from the proposed Development Code.
7.04.160(e)[Persons Liable]:This language was proposed by Clarion in the Module I
draft.I agree with the concerns raised by VBR regarding this language and recommend
that this section be modified to simply state that the property owner is liable for
violations of the Development Code,including violations caused by agents,invitees and
renters of the property.
7.04.190(a)[Right of Entry]:This language is copied verbatim from the Existing Code
17.12.080(b).The proposed Development Code contains additional procedures for
“non-emergency violations”and “emergency violations”which provides greater
guidance with regard to notifying property owners.The right of entry for inspection of
violations is standard enforcement language in land use regulations and I recommend
that this language be retained.
7.04.200(d)[Revocation of Permits]:7.04.200(d)provides that Town Council may
revoke a permit based upon five separate findings,one of which is “violation of any
provision of the Development Code.”7.04.200(d)(ii).VBR suggests that revocation of a
permit for a code violation is unnecessarily severe.Town Council should discuss this
issue.
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 10 of 11
7.16020(a)[Pre-Application Conference]:VBR suggests that pre-application
conferences should be waived for minor development applications.Technically,an
applicant can bring in a fully completed application to a pre-application conference and
if such application is truly complete,the applicant may simply hand-deliver the
application at the end of the pre-application conference.Community Development
believes that pre-applications will improve the application review efficiency for both
Town and the applicant and desires to retain the ability to require pre-application
conferences.
7.16.020(b)(3)[Required Studies and Reports]:VBR states that reports and studies
should only be required where the necessary findings to approve a development
application cannot be made in their absence.I agree that reports and studies should
only be required where necessary for review and I believe the proposed wording in the
Development Code captures this intent.The wording of 7.16.020(b)(3)states,“Reports
and studies may be necessary to adequately evaluate the development application for
compliance with review criteria.”
7.16.080(f)(6)[Development Review Criteria —Concurrency]:VBR questions the
appropriateness of a public facilities concurrency requirement for Development Plan
review.Generally I would agree that a concurrency requirement is not appropriate for
platted and zoned properties which only need a development plan;however,there is a
significant amount of unimproved land in Avon which currently does not have adequate
public facilities.The intent of this section is to rely upon the Town’s capital improvement
plans for public facilities and services provided by the Town and the capital
improvement plans of other public entities which provide other public services.
7.16.090(d)(1),(3)[Design Review Criteria]:VBR expresses concerns that the Design
Review Criteria is vague and suggests objective standards and clearly worded
objectives.I agree with this comment and recommend that Council give attention to
adding and clarifying the standards and criteria for Design Review.My understanding is
that the Design Review Guidelines may be modified or further incorporated into the
Development Code depending upon Council direction.
7.16.100(d),(e)[Special Review Use —Expiration]:VBR recognizes that a Special
Review Use is valid for 2 years unless a longer period is approved,the next section
states that Special Review Uses must be established within 1 year or according to an
approved schedule.I do not believe these two provisions are in conflict because the
default timeframes require the Special Review Use to be established at least 1 year
prior to its expiration.The reviewing entity has the authority to approve both the
timeframe for a Special Review Use as well as a schedule for establishing such use.
7.16.110(c)(3)[Variances —Review Criteria]:VBR comments that the variance review
criteria stated in 7.16.110(c)(3),“such other factors and criteria as the decision making
body deems appropriate”is too vague.This language is copied verbatim from Existing
Code section 17.36.040(4).The nature of a variance request is to consider relief from
Town Council
RE:Response to Public Comments
August 4,2010
Page 11 oflI
strict application of the Code due to unique circumstances,therefore,I believe it is
appropriate to include a statement that the reviewing body can consider other factors
“deemed appropriate”with the understanding that the other factors must be related to
the property and the variance request.The Council may wish to clarify this criteria with
language that states,“such other factors and criteria related to the subject property,
proposed development or variance request as the decision making body deems
appropriate.”
Thanks,Eric
_J VAIL BOARD OF
REALTORS
Town Council
Avon,Colorado
P.O.Box 975
Avon,CO 81620
July 23,2010
Dear Mayor Wolfe and Council Members,
On Behalf of the Vail Board of REALTORS®(VBR),which represents over 700 REALTORS®and
affiliates in Eagle County,we are writing regarding the update of the Avon Development Code.
After our members who reside in Avon attended 2 of the public hearings in May and June,VBR
retained premier land use attorneys to review the update,and advise VBR of its implications.
We commend the Town’s efforts to update the development code.This type of work is lengthy
and detailed.
After review of the draft new Avon Development Code,the Vail Board of REALTORS®has the
following comments that either provide support,opposition,or in many cases,ask for
cia rificat ion:
Role of a Zoning map
Presumably the Town will create and adopt a revised zoning map that reflects the new zoning
district classifications.The new map might alter zoning district classifications.Unfortunately,
the draft of the development code circulated for public comment does not include a revised
zoning map.When will a revised zoning map be prepared in connection with the development
code?
VBR encourages the Council to postpone Council action until a revised zoning map is made
available for public review and comment as part of the public hearing process.
Non-Conforming Status
We are also not aware of any parcel-specific analysis to determine how many properties in
Avon will be downzoned under the Development Code,and how many existing uses and
structures would become non-conforming.Does an analysis exist?
If it does not,VBR suggests that the Town direct the consultants to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the impact that the Development Code would have on the development potential
of specific parcels in Avon.The analysis should compare the development potential that exists
0275 Main Street.Suite G004 Edwards,CO 81632
970-766-1028 (office)970-766.030 (fax)nfo@vbr.net
for parcels under the current zoning code with the development potential under the proposed
Development Code.These maps will help the citizens of Avon,and perhaps the Council,better
understand the proposed changes.
VBR appreciates the Town’s effort to allow non-conforming buildings to exist as is,but require
that non-conforming buildings get up to code when making alterations to their existing space.
VBR believes this is a fair way to move forward without penalizing property owners that aren’t
able to comply with the new code due to financial constraints.
The Increased Cost of Development in Avon
Many of the proposed Chapter 7.28 development standards can be expected to decrease the
development potential and increase the cost of development on affected properties in Avon.
To further the stated purpose of “implementing the comprehensive plan vision for a more
attractive,efficient and livable community,”the Development Code introduces several
restrictive development standards that are likely to reduce the development potential of
property within the Town.Chapter 7.28 establishes detailed and elaborate development
standards for mobility and connectivity;landscaping,screening,walls and fences,and design
standards.These standards will decrease the amount of developable land on affected lots in
the Town.The minimum and strict standards require “high quality,durable building materials”,
and states that all exterior walls “shall be finished with at least two different building materials
in a manner sympathetic to the scale and architectural style of the building.”The policy also
does not allow the use of asphalt siding,imitation brick,and plastic vinyl siding or cementious
board”on the exterior of any structure.
Has the Town considered the effect the Development Code will have on housing affordability
by reducing development potential and increasing development costs?VBR suggests the
Town should evaluate the impact of the development standards on the cost of residential
development and the production of affordable housing in Avon.The Town should ensure that
each proposed development standard is a cost-effective approach to achieving the stated
goal of fostering an “attractive,efficient,and livable community”,taking into account the
development costs and impact on a property’s development potential.
Comprehensive Plan and Its Relationship With the Development Code
The Avon Comprehensive Plan explicitly states that it is an advisory document,however,as
currently drafted,the Development Code appears to give the Comprehensive Plan regulatory
effect as Colorado State Statute C.R.S.31-23-206(1)contemplates.The statute states that the
“comprehensive plan or any part thereof may be made binding by inclusion in the
municipalities adopted subdivision,zoning,platting,planned unit development,or other similar
land development regulations”.Section 7.04.060(b)states that “development applications will
be reviewed for compliance with the Town of Avon’s Comprehensive Plan,with the regulations
and standards adopted in this Development Code,or with such regulations as are applicable in
the Avon Municipal Code or state or federal law.”Several other provisions of the proposed
Development Code contain similar requirements,referencing compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan,including Section 7.16,020(f)(1)review criteria,Section 7.16.080(f)(3)
(Development Plan Review criteria),and Section 7.16.100(c)(1)(Special Review Use-Review
Criteria).As such,the Development Code appears to signal a departure from the understanding
that the Comprehensive Plan is merely an advisory document to guide regulatory policy,and
not a regulatory document in its own right.
Do the Development Code provisions as reference above mean that the Avon Comprehensive
Plan will now serve a regulatory function?If the answer is yes,the Town should explain its
rationale for changing the approach to the Comprehensive Plan.VBR strongly believes that if
the Development Code itself is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan,any proposed development that conforms to the requirements of the Development Code
must also be generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.To
the extent that a development that conforms to the requirements of the Development Code is
not perceived to be consistent with the Comp Plan,Appendix D indicates that amendments
should eventually be made to the either the Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan to
align provisions that are in conflict,but the immediate conflict should be resolved in favor of
the Development Code.VBR believes the Comprehensive Plan should be an advisory
document,leaving the Council and Planning Commission flexibility as economic and
environmental situations change.
Streamlining of Development Application Process and Adherence to Timelines
As currently drafted,the proposed “application processing”requirements arguably are
susceptible to delay and inefficiencies because some provisions do not require the Town’s
reviewing and decision making authorities to perform their duties within specific time frames.
For example,although section 7.16.020(c)(3)requires the Director to “review the development
application in accordance with criteria established in this chapter and to prepare a written
findings of fact,”it does not require those tasks to be completed within a specific timeframe.It
also appears that neither the “General Procedures and Requirements”for development
application review nor the specific review procedures for each type of development application
require that a final decision be issued within a certain period of time after application
submittal.If there is no time limit on these review processes,some applicants could be required
to wait an indefinite period of time for one or more agencies to review a development
application or to issue a decision.Such delays have the potential to increase the cost of
development and undermine the private property rights of the affected applicants.
VBR recommends that the Council revise Chapter 7.16 of the Development Code to include
deadlines for the Town’s reviewing and decision making bodies to perform their duties.
Reviewing bodies should be required to review development applications and to issue
decisions on applications within a specified and reasonable period of time.VBR urges the
Town to reconsider the amount of time provided for development review and to condense the
time between the application and the public hearing.For example,15 business days to review
an application is too long,particularly when an application is straightforward,such as a
special review use or variance application.5 business days seems reasonable for such reviews.
Regarding Specific Provisions of the Development Code
Chapter 7.04:General Provisions
•Section 7.04.120(e)(3)(Lot Reduction-Prohibition Against establishing New Non
Conforming Uses)This provision states:Any “transferee who acquires a lot or parcel of
land in violation of this Section without knowledge of such violation,and any
subsequent transferee shall have the right to rescind and/or receive damages from any
transferor who violates the provisions of this section.”
This appears to create certain rights and liabilities for parties in valved in the transfer
of a lot or parcel created in violation of the Development Code.VBR would like to
know the source of the Town’s authority to create these rights and liabilities.
•Section 7.04.160(e)(Persons Liable)This provision appears to impose liability for
violations of the Development Code on any “owner,tenant,or occupant of any building
or land,any part of the building or land,and any architect,builder,contractor,agent or
other person who participates in,assists,directs,creates,or maintains any situation that
is contrary to the requirements of the Development Code or a permit or approval issued
pursuant to the Development Code.”
VBR is concerned that because “agent”is included in the text of this provision,it
appears this provision could lead to liability for a real estate agent or REALTOR®who
is involved of the marketing of a property where a permit violation or code violation
exists,even though a REALTOR®did not cause and was not aware of the violation.VBR
strongly urges the Town to revise this provision to limit liability for Development Code
violations to responsible parties that were directly involved in the creating the
violations.
•Section 7.04.190(a)(Right of Entry):“Whenever necessary to make an inspection to
enforce any of the provisions of the Development Code,or whenever the Director has
reasonable cause to believe there exists in any building or upon premises any violation
of the development code,the Director may enter such building or premises at all
reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the Director
by the Development Code”.
VBR is strongly opposed to any Town staff entering a private property without express
consent of the property owner or legal occupant of the property.The Director should
first obtain an inspection warrant or other remedy provided under law for gaining
entry under such circumstances.
•Section 7.04.200(d)(Revocation of Permits —Findings):This provision would authorize
the Town Council to revoke “any development permit,building permit,or other
authorization”upon finding “a violation of any provision of the Development Code.”
VBR suggests that revocation of permits is a severe penalty that should be reserved for
serious offenses (e.g.,obtaining a permit by false representation,as provided at
Section 7.04.200(d)(4)(iii)).General enforcement provisions of Chapter 7.04,including
Sections 7.04.170 (Penalties),7.04.180 (Civil Infraction),and 7.04.190 (Enforcement
Authority and Procedures)are sufficient to address common Development Code
violations.
Chapter 7.16:Development Review Procedures
•Section 7.16.020(a)(Pre-Application Conference):Under this section,a pie-application
conference between an applicant and the Director is required “for all development
applications,”unless waived by the Director.
VBR believes that the Town revise this section to make pre-application conferences
voluntary for relatively minor development applications such as administrative
subdivisions,minor subdivisions,minor development plans,special review uses,
variances,and roadway vacations.
•Section 7.16.020(b)(3)(Required Studies and Reports):This section would authorize
the Town to require applicants to submit reports or studies—including studies of soils,
geological hazards,fiscal impacts,market analysis,traffic impacts,and environmental
impacts—in connection with a development application.Such reports must be
prepared by “professionals or other persons qualified to provide the requested reports.”
This is an example of an unnecessarily broad and burdensome requirement that is
likely to increase the cost of development in Avon.Such reports and studies should
only be required where the necessary findings to approve a development application
cannot be made in their absence.
•Section 7.16.080(f)(6)(Development Review Criteria):This section would establish the
following as a criterion for review of development plans:“That the development can be
adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads,water,wastewater,
fire protection,and emergency medical services.”To the extent this criteria could be
applied to deny a proposed development plan on the grounds that it cannot be
adequately served by one or more of the listed city services,Section 7.16.080(f)(6)
appears to be a concurrency requirement.In general,concurrency requirements,also
known as “adequate public facility ordinances”(“APFOs”),tie development approvals to
the availability of adequate public facilities—if existing public facilities do not have
sufficient capacity to serve a proposed development,the proposal may be denied unless
the developer pays for the needed public facility improvements.Typically,a
concurrency ordinance contains two main components:(1)an identification of the types
of public facilities and related levels of service that are needed to permit new
development,and (2)a clear policy about when the public facilities must be in place
relative to the impact of development.Implementation of these requirements
necessitates an ordinance and map that specify the level of service (“LOS”>that must be
maintained by each public facility,a coordination plan among affected service providers,
a long-term capital improvements plan (CIP)to each public facility,a system designed to
measure and monitor the levels of service,and a permit approval process with clearly
articulated standards.
As currently drafted,proposed Section 7.16.O8O(f)(6)does not appear to be tied to a
capital improvements plan (“CIP”)for roads,water,wastewater,fire protection,and
emergency medical services.Moreover,Section 7.16.080(f)(6)does not include specific
level of service standards for the public facilities that would allow developers and
property owners considering a particular parcel to ascertain whether adequate capacity
exists in the public facilities to accommodate a proposed development on that parcel.
Setting LOS standards is one of the most important steps in establishing an APFO.The
LOS standards established for roads,water,wastewater,fire protection,and emergency
medical services will determine how restrictive the concurrency provision would be.
Moreover,the LOS standards adopted under an APFO provide an objective basis for the
reviewing entity to determine whether sufficient capacity exists in the appropriate
public facilities to accommodate the proposed development.In contrast,Section
7.16.O8O(f)(6)includes no objective standards,instead relying upon the ambiguous
“adequately served”standard to determine whether existing public facilities are
adequate.
VBR would like the Town to identify its authority to enact such a concurrency
requirement,and address the concerns identified above.
•Section 7.i6.090(d)(1),(3)(Design Review Criteria):This section would require
development plan designs to “relate ...to the character of the surrounding community”
and to “reflect the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive
Plan and other applicable,adopted plan documents.”
These criteria are vague and susceptible to inconsistent and potentially unfair
interpretation and application.VBR urges the Town to revise the design review
criteria to include objective standards,clearly worded guidelines.
•Section 7.16.100(d),(e)(Special Review Use -Expiration):Section 7.16.100(d)states
that “all special review use approvals shall be valid for two (2)years unless otherwise
stated in the approval ordinance.”Section 7.16.100(e)(1),by contrast,states that
“developments and uses granted by special review use permit shall be developed or
established in accordance with an approved development schedule or within one year
of the date of approval.”
These provisions appear to be inconsistent.These provisions should be revised to
address the apparent conflict.
•Section 7.16.11O(c)(3)(Variances —Review Criteria):This section would establish the
following as a variance application review criteria:“Such other factors and criteria as the
decision-making body deems applicable to the proposed variance.”
This provision appears to allow the Commission to establish ad hoc variance criteria in
connection with individual variance applications.This prevents an applicant from
knowing ahead of time what standards will be applied to its variance application.It
creates a high potential for arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making.VBR notes
that this provision is unfair to the applicant by preventing it from knowing ahead of
time what standards will apply to its application.There is also high potential for to
arbitrary and inconsistent decisions as the Commission might announce new review
standards for every application.
Chapter 7.28:Development Standards
•Section 7.28.030(i)(Bicycle Facilities):This provision would require developments
containing 25 or more parking spaces to provide bicycle parking facilities at a rate of one
bicycle space for every ten vehicle parking spaces,with a minimum of four bicycle
parking spaces.Bicycle parking spaces must be 4 feet by 6 feet in area.In general,the
idea of requiring bicycle parking spaces as a means of reducing motor vehicle
dependency is a good one.
VBR suggests the Town consider offering incentives for developers to include bicycle
parking spaces in new development projects rather than mandating their inclusion.
Reserved spaces for bicycle parking should not be required for all developments having
25 or less vehicle parking spaces.
•Section 7.28.070(a)(Steep Slopes):This provision would prohibit development on
natural slopes of 40 percent or greater and would limit development on slopes greater
than 30 percent.In addition,any lot that contains a natural slope area greater than 30
percent that is larger than 2,500 square feet would require a minimum lot size of one
acre and a minimum street frontage of 150 feet.The current Zoning Code does not
appear to restrict development on steep slopes.As proposed,Section 7.28.080(a)
would reduce the development potential on affected lots with slopes greater than 30
percent and would bar development on natural slopes of 40 percent or greater.The
proposed one acre minimum lot size requirement for lots having 2.500 square feet or
more of 30%slopes apparently would also render lots under an acre unbuildable.
Although Section 7.28.080(a)(2)authorizes the Director to waive the proposed steep
slope regulations for lots platted as of the date of adoption of the Development Code,it
is unclear on what basis the Director would decide whether to grant such a waiver.
Several provisions of Section 7.28.080(a)(3)contain specific quantitative threshold levels
and development restrictions.Below are several examples:
•(C)Minimum Lot Size:Where a lot contains a natural slope area of greater
than thirty percent (30%)that is larger than 2,500 square feet,the lot shall
be a minimum of one (1)acre in size with a minimum street frontage of
one hundred and fifty (150)linear feet.Lots shall not be mass-graded to
avoid this section.
•(D)Limits on Changes to Natural Grade:The original,natural grade of a lot
shall not be raised or lowered more than six (6)feet at any point for
construction of any structure or improvement.Retaining walls must
comply with the requirements set forth in this section.
-(E)Limits on Graded or Filled Man-Made Slopes:
(1)Grading of slopes to twenty-five percent (25%)or less is greatly
encouraged wherever possible.
(2)Graded or filled man-made slopes shall not exceed a slope of fifty
percent (50%).
(3)Cut man-made surfaces or slopes shall not exceed a slope of fifty
percent (50%)unless it is substantiated,on the basis of a site
investigation and submittal of a soils engineering or geotechnical
report prepared and approved by the Town Engineer,that a cut at a
steeper slope will be stable and will not create a hazard to public or
private property.
(4)Bedrock which is exposed in a cut slope may exceed the maximum one
and one-half-to-one (1.5:1)cut slope.
These numerical standards arguably benefit property owners and applicants by providing a
measure of predictability that should result in consistent treatment of similar applications.
However,it is not clear how the drafters of the Development Code arrived at these particular
standards or what their engineering basis is.
VBR suggests the Town revise Section 7.28.080(a)(2)to make the waiver for lots platted on
the date of adoption of the Development Code automatic,or alternatively,to establish clear
and objective criteria for the Director to determine whether to grant a waiver request.What
basis were the quantitative standards set by Section 7.28.080(a)established?
Section 7.28.070(g)(4)(SmaII Wind Energy Systems):
This provision would establish standards for the installation of small wind energy systems in the
Town.Pursuant to Section 7.28.070(g)(4)(ii)(B),the height of any small wind energy system
would be limited to the maximum height allowed in the zoning district.The U.S.Department of
Energy provides the following guidance for small wind energy systems:
In addition to geological formations,you need to consider existing obstacles,
such as trees,houses,and sheds.You also need to plan for future
obstructions,such as new buildings or trees that have not reached their full
height.Your turbine needs to be sited upwind of any buildings and trees,and
it needs to be 30 feet above anything within 300 feet.
For comparison purposes,it is worth noting that the model small wind bylaw prepared by the
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources recommends the following height regulation:
Small wind turbines shall be no higher than 250 feet above the current grade
of the land,as measured at the uppermost point of the rotor’s swept area.A
small wind turbine may exceed 250 feet if:
(a)the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that such height
reflects industry standards for a similarly sited wind facility;
(b)such excess height is necessary to prevent financial hardship to the
applicant,and
(c)the facility satisfies all other criteria for the granting of a building permit
under the provisions of this section.
The proposed height limit for small wind energy systems seems inconsistent with industry
standards and is likely to undermine the Town’s efforts to encourage the use of small wind
energy.
We hope you find our comments to be useful in formulation of the Avon Development Code.
We realize our comments are extensive and may require the town to slow the process of
approval of the Development Code down to take these comments into consideration.We
encourage the Town to do so.If you have any questions,please feel free to contact Sarah
Thorsteinson,VBR Government Affairs Director at (970)393-3939 or
sarah@coloradorealtors.com.
Sincerely,
-f
Matt Fitzgerald
Chair
Patty McKenny
,.—From:Tripp Plavec [tripp3867@comcast.net]
Sent:Monday,August 09,2010 8:35 AM
To:Town Council Members
Subject:Dissatisfaction with the new Land Use Code
Attachments:avon land use code.doc;000_0072.jpg;000_0079.jpg;Lot 9 crop.jpg
Dear Mayor and council
I have attached a letter stating my views on the land use code.My orientation is that of a raw land owner that stands to
loose value and thus my comments are only directed to those areas.I have included some photos of my home that would
not comply.
Thank you Tripp Plavec
1
Terramont Building Contractors,Inc.
P 0 Box 3415 Avon CO 81620
George Plavec 970-845-7797,cell 970-390-5382
Dear mayor Wolfe and Town Council Members Avon Colorado
I feel that no town should take an action that would lessen the value of properties in it’s
borders.
According to the 700 members of the Vail Board of Realtors the new development code would
do precisely that by creating rules of development that are far more stringent that what was
accepted previously.
When an entity acquires a piece of raw land they know the conditions by which it can be
developed and the value is based upon those conditions.To change the conditions of properties
that had been previously purchased seems not only unlawful but wrong.With only 10%of the
Wildridge Subdivision left this code appears to be a taking of my property right.I can see no
upside to changing the rules of development on previously platted properties.
As Kristi Ferraro stated that Avon is not looked upon in high regard by other communities which
is true,but I feel that has to do with the mish mash nature of the town’s core and not the homes
and subdivisions.I don’t see how making existing lots impossible to build upon will raise the bar
and make Avon a nicer place.
We should not be writing codes that create non conforming uses on the majority of existing
homes.I currently own three lots in Wildridge that would not be developable within the scope of
the new Land Use Code.
If the town and staff want to revise the way a developer goes through the process,so be it.Let’s
not create obstacles that we know would make the majority of existing raw land undevelopable.I
don’t want to have to ask forgiveness at the start of a project just so I can get on my land.
How do say to a perspective buyer that the town will waive these requirements when you come
in for a pre-construction meeting,you don’t because you won’t have the opportunity.They will
go buy somewhere else that is less restrictive.
Specifics:
7.28.030 8%max driveway grade of north facing slopes,45 radius.(This is too stringent 10%
works well)
Table 7.28-2 First 20’adjacent to ROW to be 90%(This should be first 20’adjacent to paved
Street)
7.28.40 “Creation of highly connected transportation system”(We have a transportation center
that has no parking associated with it.How can I ride the bus to go skiing?The council didn’t do
what it wants the public to do)
7.28.050 Table 7.28-6 25%of lot size is minimum landscape area.(This is does not work for
large lots,I have a 4 acre lot.This indicates I would have to landscape 45000sq ft.This takes
way to much precious water we don’t have)
Section C Retaining walls have to have separation of 5ft (This makes many lots unbuildable for
the slope and driveway,this should be case be case)
7.28.060 30’max ridge line (should be 45 feet)
Section e,3,b,ii,b Steep slope lots need to step up or down and should be allowed more that 45ft
total height.
Section 3,I,a Entry needs to be oriented toward the street (Why is this important?Seems to limit
creativity)
Section 3,ii,b “Massive elements on downhill façade of the house is of particular concern”(This
says nothing and should not be included in a code,this give no direction to future PZC)
Section H,5 Multi family no more than 160 ft (So a 6 or 8 plex building would only have 27 or
20 ft max width per unit,to small)
7.28.070 40%slope or greater is prohibited.(Many existing lots have 40%or greater portions,
this needs to be sight specific for existing lots)
Section C Mm lot size if more that 2500 sq ft is more than 40%then need 150 ft street frontage.
(Who came up with this,What about large lots that have a good building envelope but have steep
sections?This should be a %of the lot in some sort of formula.I have a 4 acre lot with steep
areas and no street frontage.Lot 21 Block 2 Wildridge.But it has a good location for a home but
would not comply with many of the other previously listed items.)
This is my biggest concern
Section 3,ii,d No grade change of more than 6 ft.(All 9 duplexes I have built would not comply
90%of hillside lots and any home with a daylight basement would not comply,This should be
removed completely since it has no relavence for a mountain town)
The town staff should prepare something that shows what lots would be adversely affected and
another document that shows how this new code differs from the past so the public can better
understand the consequences.
I believe there is much work to be done on this code and the council should not rush this through.
I also feel this should be left for the next council to decide so voters can speak through their
newley elected officials as to their opinion of this code.
Putting this in a referendum on the ballot would certainly give the council direction as to the
voters desires.
Thank You
George “Tripp”Plavec 5786 Wildridge Road East unit B,Lots 20,21,25 block 2 WR And Unit c
Villamonte Townhomes on Old Trail Rd.
Patty McKenny
r From:Anthony Cassar [anthonyc@bigpond.net.au]
‘Sent:Monday,August 09,2010 7:33 AM
To:Town Council Members
Cc:Eric Heidemann;Ron Wolfe;Larry Brooks;Gerrard Mifsud
Subject:Beaver Benchmark LLC Comments and concerns about Avons proposed new Unified Code
Attachments:letter to town of Avon.pdf
Monday 9 August 2010
Dear Avon Town Council members:
I hope this letter finds you all well.
As a party with a vested interest in Avon property and potential investors in the Town of Avon,it has
come to our attention that you are considering adoption of a new Land Use Code.It is our
understanding that this update to existing zoning,subdivision and design review processes is
intended to largely modernize and improve your process.In the case of those areas where a specific
redevelopment plan is in place,such as the East Town Center District,we are hopeful that the update
to your codes will result in a more predictable and accurate expectation of outcomes for both
investors and the Town.
From our reading of the material available and through discussions with several well respected
professionals in Avon it appears that the new set of regulations being proposed are actually reducing
(the viability of the redevelopment goals and objectives of both the East and West Town Center
Districts.We certainly hope this is not the case,since as you might imagine it is extremely difficult to
project reasonable profitability and risk in the current market while still maintaining a high level of
design,appropriate character and the provision of public benefits as envisioned in these adopted
Town redevelopment plans.Attracting good investors to a project -while always a challenge -is
made especially difficult today if the new regulatory environment does not facilitate the future vision of
a quality redevelopment of the Town core.
We appreciate the Town’s effort to update and modernize its land use code,but ask for a very strong
internal vetting process before adoption to ensure the goals and objectives of both existing Town
Center zoning and those proposed under the District plans are protected.In this long lasting
economic downturn,we believe there is a need to be creative in meeting the objectives of the Town.
In this downturn,both public and private investment needs flexibility to make a project acceptable in
terms of design and form,but profitable enough to encourage redevelopment in a streamlined
process.We remain hopeful that this type of thinking will help shape your land use code before final
adoption,so that we are encouraged to invest and work with staff and Town officials on a
redevelopment project that will truly make Avon the heart of the valley for many years to come.In this
regard,if we can be of any assistance or provide any specific review and input please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Whatever the new zoning,we ask that the PUD process remain in place at least for dedicated areas
C of special significance,such as the East and West Town Center Districts to allow for full flexibility in
-their redevelopment.
With warmest regards,
1
Anthony Cassar and Gerrard Mifsud
Beaver Benchmark LLC
(
(
2
Beaver Benchmark,LLC
Anthony L.Cassar
Gerrard A.Mifsud
Principals
Monday 9 August 2010
Dear Avon Town Council members:
I hope this letter finds you all well.
As a party with a vested interest in Avon property and potential investors in the Town of Avon,it has
come to our attention that you are considering adoption of a new Land Use Code.It is our
understanding that this update to existing zoning,subdivision and design review processes is
intended to largely modernize and improve your process.In the case of those areas where a
specific redevelopment plan is in place,such as the East Town Center District,we are hopeful that
the update to your codes will result in a more predictable and accurate expectation of outcomes for
both investors and the Town.
From our reading of the material available and through discussions with several well respected
professionals in Avon it appears that the new set of regulations being proposed are actually
reducing the viability of the redevelopment goals and objectives of both the East and West Town
Center Districts.We certainly hope this is not the case,since as you might imagine it is extremely
difficult to project reasonable profitability and risk in the current market while still maintaining a high
level of design,appropriate character and the provision of public benefits as envisioned in these
adopted Town redevelopment plans.Attracting good investors to a project -while always a
challenge -is made especially difficult today if the new regulatory environment does not facilitate
the future vision of a quality redevelopment of the Town core.
We appreciate the Town’s effort to update and modernize its land use code,but ask for a very
strong internal vetting process before adoption to ensure the goals and objectives of both existing
Town Center zoning and those proposed under the District plans are protected.In this long lasting
economic downturn,we believe there is a need to be creative in meeting the objectives of the
Town.
In this downturn,both public and private investment needs flexibility to make a project acceptable in
terms of design and form,but profitable enough to encourage redevelopment in a streamlined
process.We remain hopeful that this type of thinking will help shape your land use code before
final adoption,so that we are encouraged to invest and work with staff and Town officials on a
redevelopment project that will truly make Avon the heart of the valley for many years to come.In
this regard,if we can be of any assistance or provide any specific review and input please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Whatever the new zoning,we ask that the PUD process remain in place at least for dedicated areas
of special significance,such as the East and West Town Center Districts to allow for full flexibility in
their redevelopment.
With warmest regards,
Anthony Cassar and Gerrard Mifsud
Beaver Benchmark LLC
BBLLC c P.O.Box 1988,Edwards,Colorado,CO 81632,a tel:+1 970-390-9348 a anthonyc@bigpond.net.au