PZC Packet 022007Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
�( Meeting Agenda for February 20, 2007
AVON.
Avon Town Council Chambers
C 0 L 0 R A 0 0 Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
Site Tour - 95 Avon Road (12:00pm)
Description: Meeting at the Confluence Site to Review the mockup for the Riverfront Lodge.
Open to the Public. Follow-up to 10/3/06 review of on-site mockup for Lot 4, Riverfront
Subdivision, Riverfront Lodge whole ownership Final Design Review. For final approval of
materials and colors.
It. Work Session (5:00pm - 5:30pm)
Discussion of regular meeting agenda items.
III. Call to Order (5:30pm)
IV. Roll Call
V. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
VI. Conflicts of Interest
VII. Consent Agenda-
Approval
gendaApproval of the February 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes
IVIII. Site Tour Follow-up
Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane
Applicant. Zehren & Associates / Owner: East West Partners
Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Riverfront Lodge. The project is
comprised of 75 whole ownership units with underground parking garage. This item was first
reviewed by the Commission at their May 16, 2006 meeting, and later reviewed and approved at the
October 3, 2006 Commission meeting. An on-site mockup review for this agenda item took place at
that meeting, but was not formally approved. Action is now required prior to removal of the mockup.
IX. PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24
Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC /Owner. Craig Folson
Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 unit
condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The development is
titled Madison Partners PUD. The property is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek
condominium project currently under construction. As proposed, there are three phases to the project
with no timeframe for completion. The first phase includes 58 condominium units with underground
parking. The second and third phase would each include 27 units respectively. Phase two would
include the aforementioned restaurant of at least 3,000 square feet.
X. Adjourn
Posted on February 16, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby °.
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at httD://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
,)
CHRISTOPHER J. TODD
9698 E. MAPLEWOOD Cut.
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
HOME: 720-488-1715
CELL: 303-913-1011
Woruc: 303-390-0129
AVON CONDO: 970-748-0973
HOME EMAIL: CImrSJT0DDZMSN.00M
WORICEMAIL: CrODDONTFIEF.COM
February 15, 2007
Chris Evans, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon; CO 81620
RE: Madison Partners PUD
Project Name: Chateau Wilgeaux
I am the owner of Canyon Run condo unit #E102, 300 Hurd Lane, Avon CO which is
situated on the north side of the Eagle River immediately across from the Chateau Wilgeaux project
proposed to be built on the Folsom/White property. I am writing in response to the request for
public comment at the P&Z Commission hearing scheduled for February 20a'. I am strongly
opposed to the project proposal as presented in the PUD for the reasons detailed below.
The proposed development will greatly degrade the view currently enjoyed by the citizens of
and visitors to Avon. Those most impacted will be the residents and property owners of Canyon
Run condo complex, Avon Crossing condo complex and Chappell Square condo complex which
will have their current, unspoiled view replaced with an extremely large building totally unsuited
for the available land. The forested hillside located on the Folsom/White property is a naturally
attractive area which dominates and is viewable from almost anywhere in the eastern half of the
Town of Avon. It cannot be replaced. It is this type of view which brings people to the mountains
of Colorado and which improves the quality of life in Avon. Diminishing this one -of -a -kind asset
with a large --scale condominium project will be a long-term, irrevocable detriment to the enjoyment
of Avon residents.
The Town of Avon recognized the benefits of retaining the natural beauty of the
Folsom/White property when guidelines were developed for the District 6: U.S. Highway 6
Gateway Corridor as detailed in the Town District Planning Principals (pages 81 and 82). Chateau
Wilgeaux conflicts with several of the stated goals:
• "Enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way as a landscaped boulevard/parkway to
provide a sense of arrival and departure for those traveling to and from Avon and to
strengthen Avon's overall community image and identity." I fail to see how cutting into
a naturally beautiful wooded hillside and replacing it with a 9 -story building is
compatible with a goal of an attractive entrance to a mountain community.
• "Site buildings ... to protect views ... and prevent a canyon effect on Highway 6." It
appears that Chateau Wilgeaux is doing just the opposite.
• "Minimize cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes. Buildings should be built into
the hillside and stepped up with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S.
Highway 6" Again, the proposed project does just the opposite. A significant cut into
the hillside is proposed, and the face of the building facing Highway 6 is completely
vertical without any step up and back aspect to conform to the hillside slope. The PUD
states in §3.03(6)&(7) that it "steps up the slope of the property and from end to end."
This may be true from east to west where there is a very gentle rise, but it is totally
incorrect with regard to the intended meaning of the Planning guidelines which address
the major slope of the property (i.e., front to back). The currently sloping, wooded
hillside does a relatively good job (although not perfect) of absorbing and reflecting
upwards the vehicular noise from Highway 6. A building which steps from front to
back (i.e., somewhat mirrors the slope of the hillside) would provide some degree of
sound reflection upwards, although the noise absorption by vegetation would be lost.
The proposed project, which is straight up-and-down and much closer to the road than
the current slope, would greatly increase the amount of reflected noise directed towards
the residences immediately across the Eagle River.
• "Consider buildable area when determining an appropriate scale and density for
development" More than half the proposed project is on land classified as unbuildable.
Leveling the land be cutting out the hillside should not be an allowable solution to avoid
complying with this goal.
I believe that Chateau Wilgeaux will spoil the natural views enjoyed by the owners of the
three major condominium projects across the Eagle River to such an extent that their property
values will be negatively impacted. Accordingly, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission
should take unusual steps to encourage public input to the approval process. I strongly believe that
the Neighbor 300' notification requirement should be expanded for this project. I would like to see
the hearing process delayed and the developer be required to notify all property owners (not just
condo association managers) in the affected condo complexes. Regardless, I do not believe the
developer met the current requirements when they sent notice to the property manager of Canyon
Run complex and did not send any notification to the individual property owners. I am a property
owner with my address recorded on the property and tax records of Eagle County, yet I did not
receive any notice of the public hearing. Nor did the developer make any effort to inform the media
or introduce the project to the citizens of Avon. This is a case of a developer trying to do the bare
minimum in order to sneak a bad project by the unaware public. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has a duty to look out for its citizens and prevent just this sort of happening, which
although probably meeting the "letter of the law" is not in the best interest of the general public.
Finally, I would like to comment that I think the proposed $225,000 payment in -lieu of
providing affordable housing is a joke. Assuming this money earns interest of $18,000 per year (an
8% yield), this would provide a subsidy of less than $56 per month for each of its 27 employees —
certainly not enough to bring local rents down to "affordable" levels for lower -paid workers.
Please consider the issues I have raised in this letter and reject the PUD as submitted, or at a
minimum delay the hearing process until all affected property owners have been notified and given
the opportunity to provide input to the approval process. Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Ruth Weiss
From: Patty McKenny
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 200710:25 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
I presume you are collecting these letters 5 I am as well for the Council.
-Are you forwarding them to PSZ?
Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.
Thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: JP M Kyrillos (mailto:jp.m.kyrillos@aexp.com)
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Ruth Weiss; Patty McKenny
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
as well as all other Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the
public record and read out loud at the February 20th meeting.
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong
opposition to the proposed Hwy 6 development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I
understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive Plan. Namely,
it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town
beauty, causes a canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter
Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for
development and is now using the Gates project as a way to find a loophole in
the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J. P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food S Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887 (fax)
American Express made the following
annotations on 02/14/07, 09:17:23
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message a
any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please•-
notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and bny
attachments. Thank you."
i
Ruth Weiss
From:
Patty McKenny
Sent:
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:26 AM
To:
Ruth Weiss
Subject:
FW: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: High
Same with this letter, I'll keep a copy for my file & you take care of it for P&Z.
Later.
-----Original Message -----
From: bbkohn@adelphia.net (mailto:bbkohn@adelphia.net)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Patty McKenny
Cc: Ruth Weiss
Subject: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: High
Please make this letter a part of the public record and give a copy to each commissioner.
To all members of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
As a resident and taxpayer of Avon, I am vehemently opposed to the proposed project known
as Chateau Wilgeaux. The proposal for a seven to nine story building, ranging from 95-115
feet in height, and over 400,000 sq. feet, to be built on only 3 acres, seems very
unappealing. Much of the mountain side is over 408 grade and therefore, too steep for
development. The size of this proposed development is overwhelming and out of proportion
to the surrounding areas. It seems to me that this proposal violates almost every aspect
of the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 6 corridor as well as the town planning
principles.
I have chosen to retire to Avon, instead of Vail or Beaver Creek, because of its small
city charm, lack of congestion and the beauty of the mountains. Please do not agree to
Chateau Wilgeaux as it is being presented.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip Kohn
Canyon Run, Apt C104
1
til
Page i of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: JP M Kyrillos Up.m.kyrillos@aexp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:56 AM
To: pmckenny@avon.aexp.com; Ruth Weiss
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission as well as all other
Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the public record and read out loud at the February 20th
meeting.
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Hwy 6
development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan. Namely, it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town beauty, causes a
canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for development and is now using the Gates
project as a way to find at loophole in the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J.P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food & Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887(fax)
2/14/2007
Thomas B. Hix, Jr.
120 Hurd Lane, A-203
Avon, CO 81620
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Mr. Evans:
I am the President of the Canyon Run Condominium Association and I am writing on behalf of the
Association. It has been brought to our attention that a condominium project has been proposed for the
site on the south side of U.S. Highway 6 just east of The Gates. We have documents that refer to this
project as 'Chateau WNgeatW. Our Association opposes approval of this project, as it is currently
proposed. We have a number of reasons for opposing this project, including, but not limited to, the
following:
The scale of the project is not appropriate to the buildable area The site is directly adjacent to U.S.
Highway 6 and is characterized by very steep terrain, with limited buildable area. A very small portion of
the site has grades of 40% or less. In the applicants own words, referring to a Geological Shrdy, 'we
wig have some challenges with the slope above the site and stabiturtion.• I would propose to you that
when an applicant is forced to describe the geological situation in this manner, then there are some
severe problems with the site.
The location of the project is not appropriate for such a massive complex It will not enhance that
section of Highway 6 as an arrival point to the Town of Avon. It will, in fact, along with The Gates,
create a canyon effect along that section of highway. It will negatively impact the view to the south that
is so important to Avon. This project, as proposed, is considerably larger and taller than The Gates.
We believe this project, as proposed, fails to meet marry of the principles of the Town of Avon's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Town's design and development standards. It is riot necessary for
the purpose of this letter to list all of those here as they are so obvious.
We are not aware of any noise study performed by the applicant We fear this massive complex wiN
curate a noise problem for the portion of Avon located across Highway 6 and the Eagle River by
reflecting vehicle noise from the highway toward Avon and Carryon Run.
This project will create an unable traffic problem. Once The Gates is completed, there WN be a
significant increase in traffic on Highway 6, in particular the roundabout at Avon Road and Highway 6.
An additional 112 units will add even more pressure, and undoubtedly WN cause overflow traffic across
the Eagle River (Stonebridge) onto Hurd Lane, a residential street not equipped to handle through
traffic.
In the application for this project there are a number of references to The Gates. The dear implication is
that since the Town of Avon approved that project they should now approve this one. I disagree, of
course. Just because you approved the one does not in any way commit you to approve the other. But
they do have a point — every time you approve a massive project like these, it makes it more difficult to
reject the next one. One such project along there is more than enough.
h
"-- A
February 13, 2007
Avon is a ski town. We agree with your Comprehensive Plan that the relationship with Beaver Creek is
important The wonderiut view as one drives from Avon toward the Beaver Creek entrance is a key
asset Approving The Gates was a mistake. We urge you not to compound it by approving this project
We are requesting that the Town of Avon remain true to the principles espoused in the Comprehensive
Plan and other Town design and development regulations and reject this application.
��
Cc: Town of Avon Council members
Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans:
Chairman
Town of Avon
Planning and .Zoning Commission
Avon, Colorado 81620
Dear Mr. Evans:
I have recently been made aware of a condominium project to the east of The Gates that
is in the planning stage. It is difficult to tell if the footprint of the project will cover the
Fleck Ditch (Mach Teleck ditch), but the excavation may put the historic site at risk
I am the president of the Avon Historic Preservation and Advisory Committee
(Committee) and the Committee is very concerned that this project will impact one of the
few remaining historic sites in the town of Avon.
The Avon Town Council, in 2005, passed a Resolution to establish the Committee to
protect and preserve the town's historic and cultural history. The Committee has hired an
expert to survey all the historic sites in Avon. The survey is underway, and the Fleck
Ditch is on the list for the survey. The information about the importance of the Fleck
Ditch will be available in the near future.
The Planning and Zoning Commission needs to review this information when making
their determination.
7 t !
eanette Hix
President
Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
Cc: Avon Town Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
r�
Memorandum
To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner I, Town Of Avon
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Date: 2/13/2007
Re: Madison Partners, Folson Tract, Town of Avon, PUD Application
As summarized in the meeting minutes from Glen Palmer of Alpine Engineering, a
meeting was held in December with the following items discussed:
A 75% reduction in fire flow requirements may be acceptable with additional
fire protection such as horizontal standpipes and radio communication provided.
The concern is that the buildings are not accessible on the south side so
additional protection may be required. This will need to be evaluated on a
"whole picture " basis to confirm the intent of the fire code is being met.
Fire flow requirements should be established upfront to determine adequate pipe
sizing and if a fire pump will be required to meet those flows. Fire flow
requirements for the adjoining project, The Gates, are currently computer
modeled and will be verified this spring as weather permits. 100 psi required at
the most remote standpipe outlet may be adjusted based on the strength of the
hydraulic calculations.
- Fire department connection (FDC) locations were discussed as being located in
the general vicinity of the garage entry doors and clearly labeled.
- Access is proposed via the Port Cochere and east/west garage entrances. The
shared access between The Gates and this project would benefit both and greatly
enhance firefighting capabilities.
- Several options were discussed concerning the interface with Highway 6 and
emergency response into the project and clearing the site after an incident. I
believe further discussion was needed between CDOT and The Gates before a
final proposal was presented.
Please give me a call at 970-748-4741 if there are any questions or concerns.
H..,^. 1:, .,�� t Cy .jGll.^p♦.. ,,y -..w .rC'll'.. i.w:^5 Y..j...�'b: Yl
ii k:ii.d - i'Wr'�i�°,"?N.gu; i.� •.cF;,,. ' ...1.`t fY,r`� - .7_w: �� 7 e
d...-..i:a'i....::_....,.::n...li Y:,lr�.:.'.�'S.c •.i ..: !ti ._ ._�.���.�:f..i:'t'.:U+
Pagel of 2
Matt Pielsticker
From: David Johnson [David.Johnson@eaglecounty.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Matt Pielsticker
Cc: Harry Taylor, Kelley Collier
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
Employment and employee housing
The amount and location of affordable housing is important to ECO. Eagle County estimates that traffic
generation will triple over the next 20-30 years, requiring over $500 million in road expansion and improvements.
As an alternative, ECO Transit's 2030 Vision advocates regional rail service on the UP line and local feeder bus
service in each town center connected at multimodal transit stations. The key to success of transit will be transit -
supportive, pedestrian -oriented land use. This includes mixed-use, high-density walkable communities with a
variety of housing options, particularly surrounding the intermodal stations.
Please review the two files I have attached regarding employment generation. According to County -specific
employment generation studies by RRC Associates over the past ten years, bar/restaurant space generates 8.9
employees/1000ft2. The restaurant alone, under these assumptions will generate 27 employees. The applicant
also proposes to have concierge, maintenance, valet, and transit employees on staff. It is also possible, I assume,
that these units may be put under fractional ownership or rented out. Under all these assumptions, this project
could generate far more than 27 employees to sustain the project. In addition, these residents will create
demands for services off-site–including shopping, entertainment, health care, etc.—which will generate more
employment.
According to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Eagle County will be the leading employment
generator in the Intermountain region. Eagle County's demand for employment and lack of attention to employee
housing will create an estimated labor shortage of 30,000 jobs by 2025-2030 ( see slide 22 of
htto:/twww.nwc.coq.co.us/Second%20Home%2OStudv/NWCCOG%202ndHome%2OStudv%). Therefore, I ask
you to consider requiring the applicant to provide housing for at least a portion of employees to be generated by
this project, and that this housing be placed within walking distance to transit and services. I do not believe that
$225,000 in -lieu is a fair housing mitigation to Avon. If the affordable housing is not built or it is not built into the
right place or not integrated into the community, Avon may suffer from increased competition for employees and
the entire community will pay, directly or indirectly, from increased road maintenance costs, traffic congestion, and
air quality impacts as employees commute from outside the Town.
Transit Improvements
It is my understanding that the applicant wishes to reduce the number of parking spaces required for this project.
I also understand that there will be little if any parking available for employees. IF the parking requirements are
going to be reduced, it will be important to provide the proper infrastructure and altematives to allow residents,
visitors and employees to get around without private automobiles. Residents and visitors should be encouraged to
leave their cars parked underground —if they have cars—and to use the two bus systems and the developer's
proposed shuttle. As the applicant reconfigures Highway 6, the applicant should create safe and attractive bus
pull -offs, walkways, shelters, and lighting. There are two passenger waiting areas in front of the applicant's site.
Both of these will need the pull -offs, shelters, and lighting. Although there may an opportunity to move the current
boarding locations, it is ECO's preference that they remain at their current sites. The pull -offs will need to be
constructed with proper deceleration, standing and acceleration space and the shelters will need to meet design
criteria of ECO Transit's current shelters. I also suggest that the walkway incorporate a 10 -foot buffer from
Highway 6 and pedestrian lighting for a safe and attractive pedestrian environment.
David Johnson, AICP
Transit Planner
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority
2/13/2007
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Bruce McCloskey, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
nildllje.srare. co. us
Fcbmary6, 2007
Town of Awn
Community Development
Attn: Matt Piclsticker
Box 975
Avon, CO. 8 1620P Box 298
Mr. Pielsticker,
For 11rildlife-
For People
Ana reviewing the proposed PUD amendment for Madison Partners PUD, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) offers the following comments and
recommendations regarding wildlife for your consideration.
The wildlife report has a couple of errors.
Elk
• The wildlife report states "Elk winter range has been mapped an the majority of the southern portion of the site." The site bas been mapped not
only as elk winter range but also as elk winter concentration meas and elk severe winter range.
Black Bear.
The wildlife report states" Ibe arcs has not been cropped by CDOW as black bear habitat:" This is incorrect the arca has been mapped as overall
black bear range and as human conflict arca.
The summary in the wildlife report states "The potential impacts to elk habitat are often encountered in development of this region; however, the stated
recommendations should alleviate most of the anticipated wildlife impacts:' The only recommendations in the report on mitigation of impacts to elk are using
plant species that are unpalatable for elk Many of the plant species listed are palatable for elk (such as Mountain Mahogany, Choke Cherry, and Big
sagebnah). There is a section on that the steep portion of the southern pan of the site have limited access to human tragic during the winter. Fumha that this
area maybe dedicated to the Towo of Avon. However there is no information on whether the closure or the dedication to the town will be required. Them is
no discussion on the direct impact of the loss of approximately six (6) neves of habitat from the development. The impact from the indirect impacts (increased
human and dog ase) on the adjacent elk habitat coeds to be further explained and the mitigation measures spelled out in the PUD plan. The report needs to
include how these direct and indirect impacts will be mitigated.
The discussion on black boas does correctly point out the requirements in the Town of Avon for utilization of wildlife resistant refuse containers. However the
mitigation fm black bear should include the not planting vegetation that produces berries or fruits. Several of the plant species listed in the unpalatable list
produce buries or fmit that are attractive to bears.
The Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to mato: recommendations and be involved with this fencing project If you have any question or concerns
with these comments please feel free to contact DWM Bill Andra at 328-6563.
Sincerely,
Perry Will
Am Wildlife Manger, Glenwood Springs
Cc: Ron Velarde. Bill Andree, file
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hams D. Sherman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary
Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Ride Ensbom a Richard Ray • James MrAnaliy • Ken Tomes
Ex Offido Members, Harris Sherman and John Shdp
f
Matt Pielsticker
From:
Ellie Caryl IEIIie.Caryl@eaglecounty.us]
Sent:
Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:34 AM
To:
Matt Pielsticker
Cc:
David Johnson; Harry Taylor
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
( Page 1 of I
Hi Matt — I got the referral package on the above project. It seems that there plan addresses
what would have been my comment — provide a sidewalk/trail in front of the project to conform
to the recommendations of the Highway 6 access plan. I am passing the packet along to ECO
Transit in the event they have any comments for you. David Johnson is the Transit Planner I
will relay the info to.
Thanks—
Ellie
Ellie Caryl
ECO Eagle Valley Trails Program Manager
(970)328-35231 fax 328-3539
PO Box 1070
Gypsum, CO 81637
2/1/2007
--..Full-Time-Avon-Residents
February 20, 2007
Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Atm: Avon Town Clerk, Patty McKenny
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission:
Frank & Susan Diatpava
0400 Hurd Lane 1-102
Avon CO 81620
970-748-6986
frank@newagevenlures.cura
1 am writing to you in response to the proposed development plan for "Chateau Wilgeaux".
My wife Susan and I have been full time residents in Avon for the better of 8 years now and over that
time have seen significant growth and development in Avon. Most of the changes over that time
have been for the better of the community and the valley. However, I must say that the proposed
development plan for "Chateau Margeaux" is the most preposterous proposal that has ever been put
forth to our zoning and planning commission during our time in Avon!
What is this developer thinking? Three buildings ranging in height fromj19- feet to 95 feet on
Highway 6! The natural hillside view from the north side of Avon will'be replaced with a sprawling
complex that is detrimental to our community, not only in environmental disruption and esthetics but
would create an insurmountable traffic and noise reflection crisis that cannot be remedied on the
.Highway 6 corridor and the Beaver Creek roundabout leading into Avon and down valley towns to
the west. We already experience traffic congestion on Highway 6, on a normal rush hour and tourist
basis AND this road is the ONLY alternative to East — West traffic whenever Mother Nature &
accidents force closure / detours from 1-70. This plan cannot address the Highway 6 congestion in
any positive way.
Let's not forget wildlife in our impact assessment; the Vail Valley and state of Colorado in general
take great pride and go to great lengths to protect and promote the wildlife that are a bedrock of our
beautiful state. Much of our local wildlife come down to the river from the hills that "Willgeaux"
will destroy. In addition, what will be the impact to the fish and vital water supply that the Eagle
River provides?
Look at this proposal closely and with a very careful eye to our future. I trust you will see, as we and
many of our fellow Avon residents do, that while this development plan may be appropriate for the
Los Colinas suburb of Dallas, it has no merit and to the contrary will be TOTALLY detrimental to
Avon, Eagle County and our beautiful state.
It is our objective to have you, the Avon Planning & Zoning Commission to see this absurd proposal
in the same light as we, the tax paying citizens of Avon do.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank & Susan Diasparra
[� .wM�-••tri-•'A-+9 �R �'�M•..,�MKV'•V�`•TR••'1.'Ir
•It
. It
�� 1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: Patty McKenny
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:50 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Chateau Wilgeaux opposition
more comments below:)
From: michael bergin[mailto:berginmichael@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Patty McKenny
Subject: Chateau Wilgeaux opposition
Hello Commission Members,
I am a Board member at Avon Crossing on Hurd Lane. I was made aware of the planned development of the
Highway,6 parcel and have some opposition to the proposal as it it currently stands. The three problems that I
have with the current proposal are that: 1) The height of the proposed building could reach 9 stories in places.
That is way out of line with what Avon ordinance would deem allowable for any proposed development. As far as
I know, 6 stories is the maximum allowed. 2) Excavating the site to build on would require some
extensive erosion control, which currently hasn't been established. 3) Aestetically, this proposed development
would have a dramatic impact on the Highway 6 corridor and Avon/Beaver Creek entrance. We live in the
mountains because we want to live in the mountains. High-rise building belong in the city, not here.
My suggestion to the Commission is to 'Table" the proposed development, at least until the developer can
give more precise details on these problems. I am not opposed to development on this site, it just has to be
better thought out. Currently, there is no reason that I can see why It Is in the interest of this Town and
Commission to move forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Michael Bergin
970-331-9653
175 Hurd In. 3-207
Avon, Co 81620
Help make tax time less taxing, easy-to-use tools right at your fingertips. Check it out!
2/20/2007
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2007
LEONARD KENT Community Development
KENDAL #365
80 LYME ROAD
HANOVER, NH 03755
February 12, 2007
CHRIS EVANS, Chairman, Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Sir:
My wife and I have owned condo D-202 in Canyon Run since it was built in
1996-7. At that time we were led to believe that the land across from us on
the far side of Route 6 was too steep to ever be built upon. For many years
we have enjoyed looking at undeveloped land with the occasional wild animal
and bird life. We are appalled by the prospect of looking at the Chateau
Wilgeaux development across from us instead of looking at the natural slope
of the rocky mountainside.
We are also concerned that this development is far from the concepts
embodied in the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Route 6 corridor which
remains a major access to the Town of Avon. We hope the Planning and
Zoning Commission will put the long range needs of the Town ahead of the
short range profit that this Texas developer expects to make with a high
class condo with restaurant structure that would not be out of place up at
Bachelor Gulch or elsewhere up the mountainside. We believe this
development will not only destroy the natural terrain but will also create
additional traffic problems, parking problems, policing problems and other
unforeseen situations which will inevitably affect future Town of Avon
budgets as well as further degrading the few remaining natural areas close
to the center of Avon.
Please consider the total impact of this proposal and act against it.
Very Truly Yours,
P.S. Please distribute copies of this letter to whomever wishes to see it.
B
t
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans,
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
RE; Chateau Wilgeoux
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2007
Community Development
My name is Dale Aden, I own a unit in the Canyon Run complex, specifically E building
unit 103. I have owned this unit since it was new. We lived full time in this condo from
Tune 2005, through November 2006.
My reason for writing this letter is to object to the proposed new development along the
south side of Hwy 6, and east of the Gates development. I believe it is called Chateau
Wilgeoux. From what I have seen of this plan, it is a massive building, some 8 stories tall
and as long as a football field. This size building will of course ruin the ,hill side views
from the back of Canyon Run, where many of us set on our balconies, weather
permitting, and enjoy the views.
I don't know how you can take a building of this size, and make it esthetically pleasing
on the narrow corridor of land that exists there, and building it into the side of a steep
hillside, will look even worse. Talk about a wall of concrete and glass, are we in to
making our own canyons now? We need to preserve some open space, most of us moved
here for the natural flow of the land, the hills and mountains, it would be a shame to
destroy that for capital gain. Are we that greedy that we have to take an area that steep,
and build housing?
This development does not fit in with the planned building construction for the west side
of downtown, where you have created a planned community, where it will be easy to get
around, with controlled traffic flows, and amenities within walking distance. Can you
imagine the traffic problems on Hwy 6, both foot traffic, and automobile traffic caused by
this new development? All of this in front of a busy 2 lane highway. I have seen
mornings and evenings now where traffic is backed up on Hwy 6 getting in to the
roundabout.
The City has come forward with a very well thought out comprehensive plan for
expansion and development, and in my wildest dreams I do not see a structure like this
fitting in.
I hope you will study this project closely, and agree with me, that this is a project that
needs rejected.
Thank you for listening,
Dale Aden
P.0.2424
Avon, CO.
PS Please make this letter part of the public record, and share it with all of the
Commissioners.
J. F. & Margaret B. Abel
0170 Hurd Lane, Unit C-202
P.O. Box 289
Avon, CO 81620
February 19, 2007
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 61620
Sirs,
We are writing concerning the Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal that is to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning commission tomorrow evening. We will not be able
to attend the meeting, so we are writing to record our objections to the project.
Our principle objections are the enormous size of the project, and the inappropriateness
of the chosen site. If the building is constructed as proposed, it will block from view all
but the top of the wooded hillside and chalk cliffs on the south side of route 6. Most of
what is now a lovely natural hillside full of game trails will be replaced with retaining walls
rising up to 90 feet in height. Development will require destruction of hundreds of healthy
fir and spruce trees, and excavation on a scale not yet seen in our town.
Other than some potential tax revenue, we see no benefit to the town and its citizens
that would justify approving such an enormous and inappropriate project. it would strip
the route 6 corridor of any of its natural attraction, and offer nothing in the way of
balanced affordable housing. And it is in direct conflict with many of the principles of the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
We urge the commission to reject the Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal. We ask
that a copy of this letter be given to each member of the Planning and Zoning
commission before the Feb. 20 meeting, and that it be made part of the record.
Thank you,
J. F. Abel
Margaret B. Abel
February 14, 2007
Bette E. Todd
9698 E. Maplewood Circle
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Canyon Run H10I
Mr. Chris Evans, Chairman
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Evans,
Since learning of the PUD application of Madison Partners for Chateau Wilgeaux two
weeks ago, I have spent countless hours familiarizing myself with the FUD application and the
Avon Comprehensive Plan in an effort to determine how this steep hillside along Highway 6 could
suddenly become the potential home to a 115 foot high, 430,000 square foot condominium
complex. The Madison Partners PUD appears to be in conflict with so many of the goals,
policies, and principles of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and town development standards that it
made me question why such a plan would even be submitted to the town for approval. I urge you
to deny this PUD as proposed because it will not benefit the Town of Avon.
Recognizing the commission is well qualified to assess the tremendous impact approval of
this PUD would have on Avon, I will not list all of my many concerns here (it would take pages),
however I would like to call your attention to a few areas of particular concern. The staff report
was not yet available at the time of this writing so I apologize if items overlap.
Goal H 2 of the comprehensive plan addresses protecting the health, safety and welfare of
citizens through avoiding or adequately mitigating environmental hazards.
Policy H.2.1 specifically states, "avoid development in environmental hazard areas such
asflood plains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards....". The geologic report attached to
the Madison Partners PUD clearly identifies several geologic hazards associated with the property.
The hazards are so severe that the report recommends shielding the building with direct protection
and further indicates that protecting the pool and patio area may not be possible.
Policy H.2.2 states, "Require development and redevelopment to minimize degradation of
sensitive natural areas by restricting development on steep hillsides." The applicant proposes to
build on 6 acres of land while less than 3 buildable acres actually exist on the valley floor at the
building site, the fourth acre being way up the hillside and inaccessible. The result is that the
buildings in phases two and three sit entirely on land with greater than a 40% slope causing large
cuts into the hill and considerable degradation of the hillside. Rather than minimizing the
degradation, this proposal maximizes it. I would suggest that the PUD asks the town to
completely disregard this policy as well as sections of the municipal code related to building on
slopes greater than 40%.
Goal C deals with land uses, and Avon as an economic center.
Policy. C.1.1 The very first policy in this section states, "Ensure that proposed development
and redevelopment projects conform to the Future Land Use Plan's designations and are of a
scale and intensity appropriate for the planning district in which they are located " Tie
Planning Principles for District 6 state, "Site buildings of various sizes, {but smaller than those
found in the West Town Center District)." Chateau Wilgeaux at 115' is taller than the SheraCztn
and its 430,000 square feet is greater, I believe, than anything currently exiting in West Town
Center. Furthermore, while I have not yet obtained the densities for the surrounding properties,
there can be no doubt that this project displays densities well in excess of any properties currently
in the Highway 6 corridor or anywhere in the near vicinity.
Policy C.1.7 "Encourage development applicants to meet with adjacent residents,
businesses, and property owners prior to and during design, planning, and application
phases... " Unlike East West Partners or the Town of Avon who have sought public input and kept
residents informed, Madison Partners has made no effort to seek input from residents or even
inform us that any proposal was being considered- for the property. It was only by chance that we
discovered the PUD had been filed. I am troubled by a PUD application that states, "the property
will need to respects the Gates" but never mentions anything about the existing residents of Avon
even those whose properties will be severely impacted by the proposed development.
The language in the PUD application seems to repeatedly imply the proposed project is
comparable to The Gates next door. I believe this may not be based on fact for the following
reasons.
1) While I am not an expert on how building heights are computed in Avon, it seems clear
that a building that reaches a height of 115 feet and sits on ground higher than its neighbor, is
simply not the same as a building 75-80 feet in height that sits on lower ground. The impact of the
proposed PUD will be much greater than the Gates.
2) The Gates is a project of 49 condominiums that is sited on a comer so the mass of the
building is never visible from any one angle, a considerably different situation than the Madison
Partners PUD that proposes three buildings sited more or less straight down Highway 6 and, as
designed, appear as one very long structure. In addition much of the Gates is hidden behind large
mature trees.
3) The Gates required much less disturbance of the terrain as is evidenced by the fact that the
retaining walls at the Gates are approximately 30 feet in height while the retaining walls for the
proposed FUD appear to begin at approximately 50 feet and rise to almost 90 feet up the hillside.
4) The Gates has underground parking and only one level of garage wall is exposed along the
Highway 6 corridor. The proposed PUD design provides significant above grade parking resulting
in two stories of windowless garage wall exposed in many areas as the main view for people
traveling down Highway 6.
5) The assumption that because one property is suited for a certain density another must be as
well is flawed. Topography, building siting, and other issues come into play.
It seems that the proposed PUD is out of character and not compatible with both the
Highway 6 corridor, and the surrounding community in terms of its scale, bulk, and height. There
is simply nothing like this along, the Highway 6 corridor from Minturn to Edwards and beyond.
Eagle Vail, Avon, Arrowhead and Edwards, all have low profile buildings ranging from 1-4
stories with two to three stories as the average along the Highway 6 corridor. Avon, specifically,
has the Eaglebend housing complex, Canyon Run, Brookside, Rivers Edge, Sundridge and The
Gates, The Gates is the exception rather than the rule here and even The Gates is much lower in
height and less dense than the proposed project. All of the other properties are 24 stories in
height as they front Highway 6. Most projects along Highway 6 are broken up into several
buildings with significant green space and highway setbacks.
Surely Mr. Folson realized when he purchased the property that it had limited
development potential. Likewise, those who purchased property across from this land recognized
that fact as well. I respect Mr. Folson's desire to develop his land. That said, any development
on the property should be done in such a way as to be sensitive to the topography, the wildlife,
Avon residents, taxpayers and visitors. Anything built there should be much lower in profile and
less dense than proposed, built on land that meets the Avon definition of buildable land as defined
in section 17 of the municipal code and comply with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, PUD Design
Criteria and Avon development standards. Otherwise, why do we have them?
The residents of Canyon Run have been supportive, quiet residents and taxpayers of Avon
since its inception. We have embraced the development and redevelopment in West and East
Avon. We watched quietly and selflessly during the development of The Gates, in spite of the fact
that it would obstruct the views up the valley to the Landing and Bachelor Gulch enjoyed by most
Canyon Run residents. But the current proposal is just too much. It will severely impact all of
Avon, residents and visitors alike. It will change the face of Avon forever. Please consider this
proposal carefully and deny it as it is proposed.
Thank you for all your time and efforts on behalf of Avon:
Bette E. Todd
v
Littleton Capital Partners
5711 South Nevada Street
Littleton, Colorado 80120
February 18, 2007,
Deas -Avon Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
My name is Jonathan Bush and I am a homeowner at Canyon Run, 270 Hurd Lane, unit D-203. As you are aware, the proposed
Chateau Wilgeauri
x project is directly across the verfrom Canyon Rum
i do not support this project in its present design. My concern stems from two primary reasons: 1) the design and massing ofthe
project are not in keeping with or sympathetic to the hillside on which the project is located and 2)1 believe the project fails to meet
several key elements ofthe Avon Comprehensive Plan.
When w•e first acquired our property at Canyon Run and asked about the land south ofHighw•ay 6, we were told that the steep terrain
world prevent any future development, which at the time made sense. Our concern was stimulated by the Gates development that was
occurringjust west of this site. Although the jury may still be out on the Gates project, my forst reaction was that the Gates
development was not ofa size or scale for the site but time will be the judge. I recognize that the CW property is shown as PUD in the
Comp Plan but my guess is that it never contemplated a development of this sue or character. As I understand the plan, the tallest
building will stand over 112, which Is 30'taller than the Gates building which already feels out ofscale. This doesn't seem to make
much sense unless the theory is that by going taller it will make the Gates project feel better. Also, as i try to understand the North
elevation, it appears that the base ofthe building is all large walls and garage doors- a design 1n my opinion which will just add to
the over -massive effect ofthe project. Given what appears to be the true build -able area on this site, it feels like the proverbial 10 lbs
is being sniffed into a 5 lbs bag.
My second concern Is how this project relates to rhe Comprehensive plan. In my view•• the plan fails the Comp Plan in jour major
areas.
1. The development does not provide a sense ofarrival and departure for those coming to Awn and it does not appear to
create a landscaped boulevard/parkway. Rather, it seems to destroy the natural landscaping along the hillside that already
exists and ultimately does not create an arrival for the Town afAvan.
2. The buildings do not seem to be sited to protect views, break sip building bulk or prevent a canyon effect on Highway 6.
Instead, the three phases appear to create one continuous building that stretches for hundreds and hundreds offeet. While
the developer has made an effort to step the building so that it is not completely monolithic, it is hard to imagine that this
will create anything but a canyon along Highway 6.
3. The project doer rat preserve steep slopes but instead cuts into the hillside as much as 90 feet in some areas. In order not
to create a worse canyon on Highway 6, the unintended consequence is that the project is then forced to destroy the
hillside. Back to the 5 lbs bag. It does not appear that the buildings are built into the hillside either but instead rise straight
up at the rear of the project. Again• this may be a result of trying to create some sun exposure but is limited once again by
a site that is not well suitedfor a project of this size.
4. Lastly, it just doesn't seem to pass the test ofbeing compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent
properties. In an area dominated by 3-5 story projects, 8 stories is not compatible nor in keeping with the rest ofthe area.
Although I am without the benefit ofa site plan, it does not appear that there is a generous open space allowance which
would also be in keeping with other projects in the area a goal ofthe comp plan and something that would enhance the
entrance to Awn.
in conclusion, the developer has attempted to be thoughfd about details such as the materials and how the massing is,broken up.
Unfortunately, what the project looks like on an 8112 X Ilsheet ofpaper is very different than what it is going to look like in context
ofthe surrounding propenes. Highway 6 and the town ofAvon. ibelieve the scale ofthe project is such that is not appropriate or
considerate ofthe site and hillside on which it Is located. If the Gates projecl feels out ofscale and torch, this massive development
will dwarfit by comparison. Asite will ultimately always reveal its limitations, and I thinkfor the reasons cited above, this particular
design is not the right solution.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bush
t
February 14, 2007
Dear Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
My name is Alice Jackson Bush. I am a homeowner at Canyon Run located at 270 Hurd
Lane, D-203 in Avon, CO. I am opposed to the Chateau Wilgeaux project. I respectfully
ask that this letter please be added to the public record and a copy of it given to each of
the planning commissioners. I would like this letter to be read out loud at the hearing on
Chateau Wilgeaux, February 20, 2007.
I have lived in Colorado for 40 years. We purchased our place in this lovely riverside
location in Avon because we loved the view of the beautiful hillside across the river. We
love to hear the river waters running. We watch deer and wildlife from our window on
that hillside. We fish in the stream and our children play beside it. We are avid skiers
and hikers. We love that Highway 6 is not a built up, blocky row of monster buildings.
It is a lovely drive into the gateway to Avon and to Beaver Creek. We applaud the city
for rescuing the water wheel along the river and rescuing some of Avon's history. We
could have bought in Vail. We chose our Avon place for the wild hillside on the river.
Despite the Gates project, we still can feel like we are in the mountains as we travel Hwy.
6 and as we view it from our Canyon Run home. This being in the mountains feeling is
all due to the open space on that steep hillside on the south side of Highway 6, across
from Canyon Run. The wild steep slope suits Avon. It is part of Avon's history.
I am greatly concerned with the Chateau Wilgeaux Building proposal for a variety of
reasons. The number one concern is the giant monstrosity of the proposed project. It
does not fall in compliance with Avon's comprehensive plan. The developer has no
regard for the beauty of the valley and in my opinion, his plan looks like the wall of
China. It seems to be a non-Coloradoans interpretation of what living in the mountains
must mean. High density, bulky and huge makes that area a canyon of building blocks.
It does not fit Avon.
I am also very concerned about polluted runoff into the already taxed Eagle River from a
project such as this. I'm concerned about the increase in traffic that would result from
any development along that stretch, not only clogging of that artery but also the increased
noise pollution. Already that is a busy stretch along Highway 6. I can imagine the
echoing noise level effect that walling in Highway 6 all the way down would cause. The
park -like feel that exists due to that green in summer mountain as you enter into Avon,
would be lost forever.
Please do not put this monster in our backyards. Please don't make Avon into another
block street of buildings. Please don't box us in.
Sincerely,
Alice Jackson Bush
Canyon Run, 270 Hurd Lane, D-203 in Avon, Colorado
4)
L
LL
no
14
so
00
00
me
No
so
No
no
so
I—
Town District Planning Principles
Meajurn Freoray J3istncts
> CommunityGateway
Roundabout
Vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
Steep Slopes
District 6: U.S. Highway 6 Gateway Corridor
The U.S. Highway 6 Gateway Corridor is the main entrance to
the community and identifies Avon's image. The area is
characterized by: (1) the flat areas presently used for ski area
parking, and high visibility from U.S. Highway 6; (2) the
primary access to Beaver Creek; and (3) the FolsomfWhite
property (The Gates Development) located on the south side of
U.S. Highway 6.
The undeveloped parcels currently serving as parking areas and
other accessory uses for the Beaver Creek ski area present an
ilk important influence on development within the Town. Although
these parcels are outside of Avon's municipal boundaries, the
Town should be consulted on any proposed development on
these parcels.
This intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and Avon Road is a major
gateway to the Town. As part of the Town's roundabout
improvement project, this intersection was converted to a full
roundabout with attractive landscaping and monumentation
identifying both the Town and Beaver Creek. This corridor area
also includes the Nottingham Station commercial area at the
intersection of Hurd Lane and Avon Road. A pedestrian link is
- needed to connect this commercial area to the East Town Center
District and the Confluence District.
The Folsom/White property is intended to provide
residential/lodging uses with supporting commercial and service
uses at a scale appropriate to buildable area. The area is
somewhat isolated from other development within Avon due to
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 81
0
E :'i 1-11 i31"T 1)
The southern
community
gateway
YIM
A
N
Town District Planning Principles
Medium Priority Districts
its location on the south side of U.S. Highway 6. The area is
characterized by steep terrain, with limited buildable areas
directly adjacent to U.S. Highway 6.
Planning Principles:
• Enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way as a landscaped
boulevard/parkway to provide a sense of arrival and
departure for those traveling to and from Avon and to
strengthen Avon's overall community image and identity.
• Limit development of south side of U.S. Highway 6 to guest
service facilities near the Village Road intersection and to
neighborhood supporting commercial near the Prater Lane
intersection.
• Strengthen the associatioh between the Town and Beaver
Creek through compatible streetscape elements, efficient
access, and cooperative visitor information center.
• Encourage screening of ski area parking areas and other
accessory uses.
• Create strong pedestrian connections to the Confluence and
the East Town Center Districts.
• Site buildings of various sizes (but smaller than those found
in the West Town Center District) to maximize sun
exposure, protect views, break up building bulk, and prevent
a canyon effect on Highway 6.
• Minimize cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes.
Buildings should be built into the hillside and stepped up
with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S.
Highway 6.
• Address access and parking at Nottingham Station.
• Ensure that vehicular access points align with existing roads
and create clean intersections.
• Consider buildable area when determining an appropriate
scale and density for development.
• Encourage shared access when appropriate.
• Enhance river access to the future whitewater park.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 82
ONI ON1833NION3
RE
Nb1d 3�bNtb�iQ
�o� H+ s,n
y[y and s-ta NOn b tly�
ri �d uop!p V YO �' 900L,iL,t( 3"", -
yyy 3 y y F 6 ■`e ' i oN �,, t—
'Y # O $ I MOIL Y�jt)NO) WZ•.t2^l0' Z ------- 03M03Ha �O
800L^LZ^Lt' t "'� NMYaO Z �
sNoivaa
03NOS30
'Z � !� r� � j � � ! ,/. /'j. 31Y0 'ON
®�
/ ! '
(� I { 14-: i LLI
air\ 'I
L -JI
IZ.{ ({ ''j p-
4,41
> iiq
Z
k�� �� a� 1•j�x � � � %:' �' � f �,, ;,5. . a ' y y', '. !'t`' :1' �:it 1 '
/*
11111WI 1,114
FIRM
/17
j .}p }#jt` f� y t r3„` I I .'.'., R�.',,Y, : �.�• is tQ i (y
Yj�P � � i� �'Lg j 1 f� .p. � .� y .1 Nt:'� r �'t � n • ' � 3r'� •�' ' t"9 � i
f �� ;fs s�� � �#�' � �� l.. �♦ �f f(' .f: � �s�,,t'� '.,.`,, t,, ' ., ' t.',i ;',� , .i tl{ i •'y'.', °'I.�;� `i t `I---
sf':��'� � aJ��Si r �gg / �� ,� t 'f';:,:`,:: a ! �, /. .l. • I I!/. r'1.' `�l; ;t; O
��a����r;p ';�. s. 1' % ►t ;`/.*;; !, ! ,; ',�,. f/ ;,:j':�� •'�: `,l- ;i' .cif � "!•''-if"r�-%'�:
7r `
+ !
l' , I ' ',•tel' ! lo-Y,lb`,'. � : _��� / r�. +" 7 � - !
�` ''% • '.fib
�� 5 f:' � / °""'�• ,y1 ����` �-''`. �� r ; •a t 'f •!: «� JJ /. f!(1 iil1111'!l1111{It'!li(1liiill(
/ t � I!i 1111 (11.'1111!!1!3
../'.• �N{1!{41il1111i1x1Ilfliti,�lflH(II
pi
�iY �1 f �1, ! ,� '�' `'� •' �N' � i � � i ('il'{: ;' �' "ift;titi!!; �€� f
l': '{,f1!!lllilili:
e ltt!
INV
cr C\1
•�' i, r •.ar n f ;<', 5 ';� `1 ,*i. ,!: ': �. ..'. '`/' Z1rhl.:�
ep
��'l% t 'f�/J a F p�R`` +++�+� ,V +i :l _1 +JIB •''/' /��i �:'1.!r�f�:i•.f �•.,/ � !
J a ��` p'. 4t 1 6#fj i•n�'S��' / ��1' .��1: '(t`��;'t I .��, ! La
�!` �;;, I ;� � as ,- �/ / ( ft ,;;/' � ':./ ,'.I,:;�I,;:j'1:�.�;'1.•T�:a
f' ,•� . if ,iJ �.'1mL :: � ��✓� � • y Zy{' , /: :.' / / .
j'` =d � �, t �� �; , :,., ; t„,. �'#�+�°n• / / ,!I. t"�•i:�♦J�`l : r; ;:J;,,:1,;�.f,:,•' ► r a J
., S + "'• 7:�'.kY�t w'i ., i' ` 6ui .'., t � +. l i % ! 1 ' l r �'. ,, /
'' :'�. �i l�\ -,� Z,1�`�. f/. ,.� `.`` h (r/:. rl' !':: ',/'•''-!' �� r{llii'iUtfllii`irii:Sutttttt
�' z � � a ,r / ��' t ' �&ij•../'it'! ,`!r +yr r I {I !I!. I{il'{hill{li I{liiill;{!i
i11, 1{lillli 1llf; ii111111;`llilllikl!
Illiil 11111 11111111111111111
Hill rJ
l
N
w
N
Q
CL
I M1}yl
1 .�
I
4'Mq
I
OPWOIOO 'uony
swniuiwopuoo
and saau:Ped uosipeW
I�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I�
� IQ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ I
I /I I
I I/ M
I I
I I w
I I d)
a
i I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
Nitsmoo o Co
a~moa)Q
QW
M
yy{{a
Z.-
IN __I 4�
IN
Sit' I
Illlli�`�I
1
�1�14t
� •3i.
I
U
mF[p
�l
W
r
-1
Meetings were held with Eagle River Fire Protection District regarding Fire Dept Access issues, in
September and November of 2006, for which the recommendations have been incorporated in the
plan.
4.08 — Emolovees
Condominium
Concierge -1 on staff
Maintenance — 3 on staff per 2 shift, Amenity Staff — 2 maximum
Valet— 5 (See breakdown per phase below)
Phase 1 only, peak period — 2
+ Phase 2 only, peak period — 2 (This includes Valet for Restaurant)
+ Phase 3 only, peak period -1
Restaurant
Per shift
6 Servers
1 Busperson
1 Hostess
1 Manager
1 Bartender
6 Kitchen Staff—Total 16
Total Maximum Employees - 27
4.09 - Affordable Housing,
Premier Property Holdings, LLC proposes to provide a fee}' lieu of Affordable Housing. We propose
to provide a fee in lieu of in the amount of $225,000.00. /
Parkino Analvsis
Min. Width 9'-0'
Min. Depth 18'-0°
Min. 24'-0' wide aisle for 90 degree parking.
ALL PARKING IS STRUCTURED PARKING, BELOW OR ABOVE GRADE, BUT WITHIN THE
BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
Condo Units
2, 3 and 4 bedroom units
1 bedroom units
Restaurant
3,500 Sq.FL Seating
Employees
Guest Soots
Total
2 per units 210
1.5 per unit 10.5
20
21.5
5
267
(We expect the bus route located In the front of the building and car pooling is expected as part of the
LEED certification so the employee parking spaces do not match maximum employee number. In
addition, a Developer provided on site shuttle will be in use.)
(We propose 14 spaces which are stacked spaces and are intended only for employees. The spaces
behind will be designated only as valet parking spaces.)
Additional Code Information from TOA Code
Compact car reduction, interior and exterior. (Section 7) Up to 30% of total number parking spaces
provided can be reduced to 8 =0" wide by 16 =0' deep.
We are not requesting any compact spaces.
Large single -use project reduction, non -mixed-use projects: (Section 8)
Page -4
rw �5Town of Avon Planning 4 Zoning Commission
AVON
Meeting Agenda for February 20, 2007
Avon Town Council Chambers
C O L U R A o a Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
Site Tour - 95 Avon Road (12:OOpm)
Description: Meeting at the Confluence Site to Review the mockup for the Riverfront Lodge.
Open to the Public. Follow-up to 10/3/06 review of on-site mockup for Lot 4, Riverfront
Subdivision, Riverfront Lodge whole ownership Final Design RevievyFor ir�l approval of
materials and colors. !��
bL Work Session (5:OOpm - 5:30pm)
iscussion of regular meeting agenda items.
Call to Order (5:30pm)
Roll Call
Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
Conflicts of Interest
Consent Agenda
• Approval of the February 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes
I. Site Tour Follow-up
Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane
Applicant. Zehren & Associates / Owner. East West Partners
Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Riverfront Lodge. The project is
comprised of 75 whole ownership units with underground parking garage. This item was first
reviewed by the Commission at their May 16, 2006 meeting, and later reviewed and approved at the
October 3, 2006 Commission meeting. An on-site mockup review for this agenda item took place at
that meeting, but was not formally approved. Action is now required prior to removal of the mockup.
IX. PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24
Applicant. Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC /Owner. Craig Folson
Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 unit
condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The development is
titled Madison Partners PUD. The property is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek
condominium project currently under construction. As proposed, there are three phases to the project
with no timeframe for completion. The first phase includes 58 condominium units with underground
parking. The second and third phase would each include 27 units respectively. Phase two would
include the aforementioned restaurant of at least 3,000 square feet.
X. Adjourn
Posted on February 16, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby °.
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at hftD://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
Memo
To:
From:
Date
Re:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Matt Pielsticker, Planner II
Community Development Department
February 14, 2007
Riverfront Lodge, Riverfront Subdivision
Site Tour - Follow-up to Condition of Approval
Introduction
AVON
C O L O R A D O
At their October 3, 2006 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
Final Design Plan for the above-mentioned design application. An on-site mockup
review for this agenda item took place at that meeting, but was not formally approved.
Discussion
The Final Design plan was approved, subject to the following conditions to be resolved
prior to submittal of a Building Permit:
1. Stamped plans to be provided by Professional Engineer for Shoring
and Driveway retaining walls.
2. An ILC (Improvements Location Certificate) is required at foundation
and framing in order to verify compliance with height requirements.
3. Provide data that supports design of drainage structures.
4. Final fire department connections shall be provided.
5. Final approval of materials and colors subject to review and
approval of the site mockup. Mockup must include hearth detail.
6. A Master Sign Program is to be submitted for all project signage on
building.
7. Cor -ten ("Bysted") bollard style fixtures will utilize 50 -watt Metal
Halide bulbs to be consistent with adjacent Riverfront path lighting
approval.
8. Landscape Plan to be re -reviewed with increased calipers sizes for
select trees.
9. Lighting Plan must be brought back for Commissioner review.
Riverfront Lodge, Riverrront Subdivision
February 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
There have been some minor color changes to the mockup since first review in
October. Namely, the overall range of colors and stain variety has been reduced
giving it a more uniform appearance. Some of the inconsistencies have since been
corrected. Also, the guardrail on the mockup has been adjusted to match the metal
panels per Commissioner comments. No hearth detail has been added to the
mockup.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the mockup as presented or approval with conditions.
The mockup must be moved in the near future due to time constraints and the demand
to stage in it's location for the Westin Hotel.
Riverfront Lodge Mockup Follow-up February 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Ile
J
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2007
AVON Avon Town Council Chambers
C O L O N A D O Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
- SITE TOUR -
(12:00pm) Buck Creek Road site tour for Item VI. Meet on Buck Creek Road at proposed
project entrance location.
WORK SESSION -
(5:00pm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items.
- REGULAR MEETING -
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Green, Commissioner
Goulding and Commissioner Foster.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda.
Staff presented a request for the Residential Final Design Review to be moved before the
Buck Creek Application on this Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest to disclose.
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the January 16, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Smith motioned to approve the Consent Agenda and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Lane. All Commissioners were in favor and motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUD Amendment— CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Buck Creek PUD, Buck Creek Road
Applicant: Steve Isom /Owner. Oscar Tang
Description: The applicant, Steve Isom, representing the owner of the property, Tanavon Corp, is
-proposing to amend the Cottonwood PUD Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the
existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, into a total of five (5) lots and two tracts. The
property is located on the northeast corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads, is presently zoned
as the Cottonwood PUD, and is platted as the Wildwood Resorts Subdivision. The proposed
amendments to the existing plat and PUD are focused primarily on re -subdividing the Wildwood
Subdivision from three (3) developable lots into four (4); to introduce a new, optional Montessori
School use on the subject property; and to reallocate the existing, allowed uses amongst the newly
subdivided lots. This item was tabled from a previous Commission meeting. _
l
Matt Gennett presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Struve questioned the Wetland Rights for the property. Matt Gennett responded that
due to snow on the site, delineation of the site is not possible and was a concern for the Town of
Avon's Engineering Department.
Steve Isom, Applicant, approached the podium, introduced the individuals in the audience on their
team and distributed to the Commission a packet of letters. Mr. Isom discussed the Buck Creek PUD
Concept Plan, commented that it was a schematic, and asked of the Commission if the uses and site
concept made sense. Mr. Isom commented that Oscar Tang was donating Lot 3 of this project to the
Gore Range Science School.
Markian Feduschak, Executive Director of the Gore Range Science School, discussed the site as a
campus type project for the school; plan was to enhance the Wetlands and discuss parking issues.
Commissioner Struve questioned the parking number and was responded with 33 spaces by Mr.
Feduschak. Commissioner Struve remarked that events at the Gore Range Science School would
require sizeable parking, where would the additional parking come from? Mr. Feduschak responded
that since the events were occasional, the parking for the Montessori School should be able to handle
any overflow parking.
Mr. Isom continued by presenting a sketch of the Science School and the proposed hotel and
duplexes. Mr. Isom continued by addressing the concerns of the Engineering Department regarding
the water line on the creek, parking for the Montessori School, underground parking for the hotel site,
access to the hotel site, and mentioned a proposed roundabout. Mr. Isom continued with the Water
Rights to the property and that Fred Haslee from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
deemed that sufficient Water Rights were attached to the property.
Commissioner Evans questioned staff regarding massing information for the site, i.e. Science School,
and that potential massing was not addressed in this application. Mr. Gennett responded that the
Applicant has commented to him that they were not at that level of detail at this time. Staffs main
concern at this point were water rights, access to the site, etc. Commissioner Evans commented to
the Applicant that a PUD Application was presented to the Commission and fundamental issues were
not addressed. Commissioner Evans addressed Mr. Isom that how 50 units look on the site, it was
not provided and that part of the PUD process was to show site impacts. Mr. Isom stated that there
was not an end user for the project at this time and could not present a final product.
Commissioner Evans commented that the Commission was looking for what the site was going to be,
how the residential Would be developed, concept for the Montessori School was good and parking
was an issue with the schools, residential units and office project being considered for the site.
Commissioner Evans continued that Commission needed to see how the layout works prior to PUD
approval and use of the process has been successful in past applications and was needed for this
project. Commissioner Evans mentioned that the PUD can not be open-ended and that if the end
user had revisions, an Amended PUD may be submitted. Commissioner Evans continued that 4
parking spaces for an 8400 sq ft Montessori School would not be enough and does not conform to the
Town's parking standards. Commissioner Lane commented that an architectural theme was not the
issue but the guidelines of the PUD would contain the information. Mr. Gennett suggested a phasing
plan for the project.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
There was no comment from the public.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
0
.•
a
Sharon Green, Mountain Star resident, approached the podium to question if this was the only
opportunity to comment and was responded that it would be open to the public for comment in a
future meeting. Commissioner Struve and Commissioner Smith agreed that guidelines needed to be
applied to both schools at the same time and not as separate projects. Commissioner Lane remarked
that it was not unreasonable to ask for specifics of the site. Mr. Isom questioned the detail for the
model. Mr. Isom requested tabling this Application for thirty days.
Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item VI, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Buck Creek
PUD, Buck Creek Road. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motioned passed 4-0.
VII. Residential Final Design Review
Burkhard Single -Family
Property Location: Lot 21, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4250 Wildridge Road West
Applicant/Owner: Erich Burkhard
Description: Proposal for a single-family residence with first floor caretakers unit on this duplex -zoned
lot. The size of the residence is 4,300 square feet, which includes garage space and a proposed
maximum height of 34.5'. Proposed materials include redwood, colored concrete to match existing
site, aluminum window frames, and asphalt shingles. A sketch design review for this project took
place at the Commission's August 16, 2006 meeting.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Erich Burkhard, Applicant, approached the podium to address Commissioner concerns..
Commissioner Evans questioned the pervious paving system presented and the material for the
retaining walls. Commissioner Struve questioned the height of the retaining wall and queried the
caretaker's unit bathroom. Commissioner Smith mentioned that the Applicant resolved the parking
issue.
Commissioner Struve moved to approve Item VII, Residential Final Design Review, Burkhard Single -
Family, Property Location: Lot 21, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4250 Wildridge Road West, with
the staff conditions and have staff review the stone and driveway material for its approval.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed 4-0.
Claude Banks, neighboring resident to the north of this project, arrived late and Commission permitted
comment. Mr. Banks was concerned about his view and sight lines. Mr. Banks questioned who and
how it was determined that his view corridor would not be disrupted. Mr. Pielsticker commented that
there were no platted view corridors. Commissioner Evans reviewed the application submittal
process and approval process with Mr. Banks.
VIII. Other Business
A. Roundabout #4 Update
Description: The Town previously determined that Roundabout 4, currently a 3/4 roundabout located
at the intersection of Avon Road Benchmark Roads, would better serve the community and provide
more efficient traffic flow between East and West Avon as a full roundabout. Final Plans for
construction will be reviewed for construction of the full roundabout. Construction will begin as soon
as weather permits.
Shane Pegram, Town of Avon Engineer, approached the podium to discuss this project.
Commissioner Struve questioned the grading and drainage, and the north side of the roundabout
would not be changing. Commissioner Evans questioned the concrete blockers.
L
B.. Railroad Bridge Light Fixtures
Description: The Public Works Department is proposing to replace the six light fixtures on the. Union
Pacific railroad bridge at Avon Road. The proposed fixtures would be extra -heavy aluminum wall
construction featuring a vandalism proof design. The fixtures meet the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Memo to the Commission.
C. Upcoming Meetings
• West Town Center meeting 2/15 from 4-6pm, 2/16 will be all day with individual stakeholders.
• Housing Assessment was being developed and on 3/6 will be a formal joint session with Town
Council and East Town Center's preferred alternative will also be presented.
D. Aleksandr Sheykhet, Obermeyer Sheykhet Architects, approached the Commission for comment
on the architectural design revisions for the Westin Riverfront Resort Timeshare West Building in the
Riverfront Subdivision. Mr. Sheykhet commented that a mock up would be provided to demonstrate
color; each elevation was presented and commented as to the changes made per Commission
recommendation.
IX. Adjourn -
Commissioner Struve motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 7:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
To: Avon Planning and Zoning Commissioners,
From: Bette Todd
RE: Madison Partners PUD
Now that I have had an opportunity to review the staff report regarding the
Madison Partners PUD, I would like to address some additional areas of concern. There
are some additional items in the Avon Comprehensive Plan with which this plan also may
not comply. This list is by no means intended to be complete. For the purpose of making
them part of the record I have listed them here.
C.1.7
D.1.2
D.2.2
F.2.1
G.1.6
G.1.8
H.2.2
H.3.4
Recognizing the staff most likely concentrated on those areas they feel are most
important in writing the staff report, I believe some sections of the staff report should
have included some additional points:
H.1.3 I think the staff report should also note that there has been nothing done to mitigate
the loss of the 6 acres wildlife habitat identified by the Department of Wildlife.
Under number 2 on page 7 of the staff report where it talks about the Town of Avon
Residential, Commercial and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, the response in the
staff report should also include that the design does not respond to the criteria cited
namely "Building and improvements should be individually designed for the site on
which they are placed. The site and its relationship to other structures, scenic values,
views ...... should be dominant factors in the design and sighting of buildings." I would
propose this that the plan does not consider scenic values and views in it's siting for
visitors, residents, or those traveling on the Eagle River.
Under number 3 on page 8, I would suggest that in addition to the items mentioned in the
staff report, the height of the building is also not compatible with the immediate
environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties.
Under number 8 beginning on page nine and continuing on to page 10, the narrative was
very kind to the developer. While the developer has attempted to landscape, the
landscaping proposed on the preliminary landscape plan is very minimal. Twenty eight
pine trees and a some aspen along a 1,000 foot right of way does not make up for the loss
of a treed hillside and will not create a parkway or boulevard effect as envisioned in the
Highway 6 planning principles. The sparse landscaping is in part due to the fact that
there just isn't much natural ground available anywhere in this plan with the result that
the landscaping in front of the buildings is sparse as well.
Thank you.
I
Frank & Susan Diasparra
0400 Hurd lane 1-102
Avon CO 81620
970-748.6986
fmnk@newageventures.com
TimeeAVon.Residents_�
February 20, 2007
Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Attn: Avon Town Clerk, Patty McKenny
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission:
1 am writing to you in response to the proposed development plan for "Chateau Wilgeaux".
My wife Susan and I have been full time residents in Avon for the better of 8 years now and over that
time have seen significant growth and development in Avon. Most of the changes over that time
have been for the better of the community and the valley. However, 1 must say that the proposed
development plan for "Chateau Margeaux" is the most preposterous proposal that has ever been put
forth to our zoning and planning commission during our time in Avon!
What is this developer thinking? Twee buildings ranging in height from 155 feet to 95 feet on
,Higflway 6! The natural hillside view from the north side of Avon will be replaced with a sprawling
complex that is detrimental to our community, not only in environmental disruption and esthetics but
would create an insurmountable traffic and noise reflection crisis that cannot be remedied on the
Highway 6 corridor and the Beaver Creek roundabout leading into Avon and down valley towns to
the west. We already experience traffic congestion on Highway 6, on a normal rush hour and tourist
basis AND this road is the ONLY alternative to East— West traffic whenever Mother Nature &
accidents force closure / detours from 1-70. This plan cannot address the Highway 6 congestion in
any positive way.
Let's not forget wildlife in our impact assessment; the Vail Valley and state of Colorado in general
take great pride and go to great lengths to protect and promote the wildlife that are a bedrock of our
beautiful state. Much of our local wildlife come down to the river from the hills that "Willgeaux"
will destroy. In addition, what will be the impact to the fish and vital water supply that the Eagle
River provides?
Look at this proposal closely and with a very careful eye to our future. I trust you will see, as we and
many of our fellow Avon residents do, that while this development plan may be appropriate for the
Los Colinas suburb of Dallas, it has no merit and to the contrary will be TOTALLY detrimental to
Avon, Eagle County and our beautiful state.
It is our objective to have you, the Avon Planning & Zoning Commission to see this absurd proposal
in the same light as we, the tax paying citizens of Avon do.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank & Susan Diasparra
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From:
Patty McKenny
Sent:
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:50 AM
To:
Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Chateau Wilgeaux opposition
more comments below:)
From: michael bergin[mailto:berginmichael@hotmail.cwm]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Patty McKenny
Subject: Chateau Wilgeaux opposition
Hello Commission Members,
I am a Board member at Avon Crossing on Hurd Lane. I was made aware of the planned development of the
Highway 6 parcel and have some opposition to the proposal as it it currently stands. The three problems that I
have with the current proposal are that: 1) The height of the proposed building could reach 9 stories in places.
That is way out of line with what Avon ordinance would deem allowable for any proposed development. As far as
I know, 6 stories is the maximum allowed. 2) Excavating the site to build on would require some
extensive erosion control, which currently hasn't been established. 3) Aestetically, this proposed development
would have a dramatic impact on the Highway 6 corridor and Avon/Beaver Creek entrance. We live in the
mountains because we want to live in the mountains. High-rise building belong in the city, not here.
My suggestion to the Commission is to "Table" the proposed development, at least until the developer can
give more precise details on these problems. I am not opposed to development on this site, it just has to be
better thought out. Currently, there is no reason that I can see why it is in the interest of this Town and
Commission to move forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Michael Bergin
970-331-9653
175 Hurd In. 3-207
Avon, Co 81620
Help make tax time less taxing, easy-to-use tools right at your fingertips. Check it out!
2/20/2007
0
LEONARD KENT
KENDAL #365
80 LYME ROAD
HANOVER, NH 03755
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2007
Community Development
February 12, 2007
CHRIS EVANS, Chairman, Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Sir:
My wife and I have owned condo D-202 in Canyon Run since it was built in
1996-7. At that time we were led to believe that the land across from us on
the far side of Route 6 was too steep to ever be built upon. For many years
we have enjoyed looking at undeveloped land with the occasional wild animal
and bird life. We are appalled by the prospect of looking at the Chateau
Wilgeaux development across from us instead of looking at the natural slope
of the rocky mountainside.
We are also concerned that this development is far from the concepts
embodied in the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Route 6 corridor which
remains a major access to the Town of Avon. We hope the Planning and
Zoning Commission will put the long range needs of the Town ahead of the
short range profit that this Texas developer expects to make with a high
class condo with restaurant structure that would not be out of place up at
Bachelor Gulch or elsewhere up the mountainside. We believe this
development will not only destroy the natural terrain but will also create
additional traffic problems, parking problems, policing problems and other
unforeseen situations which will inevitably affect future Town of Avon
budgets as well as further degrading the few remaining natural areas close
to the center of Avon.
Please consider the total impact of this proposal and act against it.
Very Truly Yours,
e,ern aJ dwt--
P.S. Please distribute copies of this letter to whomever wishes to see it.
e
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans,
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
RE; Chateau Wilgeoux
RECEIVED
Community Development
My name is Dale Aden, I own a unit in the Canyon Run complex, specifically E building
unit 103. I have owned this unit since it was new. We lived full time in this condo from
June 2005, through November 2006.
My reason for writing this letter is to object to the proposed new development along the
south side of Hwy 6, and east of the Gates development. I believe it is called Chateau
Wilgeoux. From what I have seen of this plan, it is a massive building, some 8 stories tall
and as long as a football field. This size building will of course ruin the hill side views
from the back of Canyon stun, where many of us set on our balconies, weather
permitting, and enjoy the views.
I don't know how you can take a building of this size, and make it esthetically pleasing
on the narrow corridor of land that exists there, and building it into the side of a steep
hillside, will look even worse. Talk about a wall of concrete and glass, are we in to
making our own canyons now? We need to preserve some open space, most of us moved
here for the natural flow of the land, the hills and mountains, it would be a shame to
destroy that for capital gain. Are we that greedy that we have to take an area that steep,
and build housmg?
This development does not fit in with the planned building construction for the west side
of downtown, where you have created a planned community, where it will be easy to get
around, with controlled traffic flows, and amenities within walking distance. Can you
imagine the traffic problems on Hwy 6, both foot traffic, and automobile traffic caused by
this new development? All of this in front of a busy 2 lane highway. I have seen
mornings and evenings now where traffic is backed up on Hwy 6 getting in to the
roundabout.
The City has come forward with a very well thought out comprehensive plan for
expansion and development, and in my wildest dreams I do not see a structure like this
fitting in.
I hope you will study this project closely, and agree with me, that this is a project that
needs rejected.
Thank you for listening,
Dale Aden
P.O. 2024
Avon, CO.
PS Please make this letter part of the public record, and share it with all of the
Commissioners.
J. F. & Margaret B. Abel
0170 }curd Lane, Unit 0-202
P.O. Box 289
Avon, CO 81620
February 19, 2007
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 61620
Sirs,
We are writing concerning the.Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal that is to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning commission tomorrow evening. We will not be able
to attend the meeting, so we are writing to record our objections to the project.
Our principle objections are the enormous size of the project, and the inappropriateness
of the chosen site. If the building is constructed as proposed, it will block from view all
but the top of the wooded hillside and chalk cliffs on the south side of route 6. Most of
what is now a lovely natural hillside full of game trails will be replaced with retaining walls
rising up to 90 feet in height. Development will require destruction of hundreds of healthy
fir and spruce trees, and excavation on a scale not yet seen in our town.
Other than some potential tax revenue, we see no benefit to the town and its citizens
that would justify approving such an enormous and inappropriate project. It would strip
the route 6 corridor of any of its natural attraction, and offer nothing in the way of
balanced affordable housing. And it is in direct conflict with many of the principles of the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
We urge the commission to reject the Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal. We ask
that a copy of this letter be given to each member of the Planning and Zoning
commission before the Feb. 20 meeting, and that it be made part of the record.
Thank you,
J. F. Abel Margaret B. Abel
February 14, 2007
Bette E. Todd
9698 E. Maplewood Circle
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Canyon Run HIOI
Mr. Chris Evans, Chairman
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Evans,
Since learning of the PUD application of Madison Partners for Chateau Wilgeaux two
weeks ago, I have spent countless hours familiarizing myself with the PUD application and the
Avon Comprehensive Plan in an.effort to determine how this steep hillside along Highway 6 could
suddenly become the potential home to a 115 foot high, 430,000 square foot condominium
complex. The Madison Partners PUD appears to be in conflict with so many of the goals,
policies, and principles of the Avon Comprehensive Pian and town development standards that it
made me question why such a plan would even be submitted to the town for approval. I urge you
to deny this PUD as proposed because it will not benefit the Town of Avon.
Recognizing the commission is well qualified to assess the tremendous impact approval of
this PUD would have on Avon, I will not list all of my many concerns here (it would take pages),
however I would like to call your attention to a few areas of particular concern. The staff report
was not yet available at the time of this writing so I apologize if items overlap.
Goal H 2 of the comprehensive plan addresses protecting the health, safety and welfare of
citizens through avoiding or adequately mitigating environmental hazards.
Policy H.2.1 specifically states, "avoid development in environmental hazard areas such
asJlood plains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards....': The geologic report attached to
the Madison Partners PUD clearly identifies several geologic hazards associated with the property.
The hazards are so severe that the report recommends shielding the building with direct protection
and further indicates that protecting the pool and patio area may not be possible.
Policy H.2.2 states, "Require development and redevelopment to minimize degradation of
sensitive natural areas by restricting development on steep hillsides." The applicant proposes to
build on 6 acres of land while less than 3 buildable acres actually exist on the valley floor at the
building site, the fourth acre being way up the hillside and inaccessible. The result is that the
buildings in phases two and three sit entirely on land with greater than a 40% slope causing large
cuts into the hill and considerable degradation of the hillside. Rather than minimizing the
degradation, this proposal maximizes it. I would suggest that the PUD asks the town to
completely disregard this policy as well as sections of the municipal code related to building on
slopes greater than 40%.
Goal C deals with land uses, and Avon as an economic center.
Policy.C.1.1 The very first policy in this section states, "Ensure that proposed development
and redevelopment projects conform to the Future Land Use Plan's designations and are of a
scale and intensity appropriate for the planning district in which they are located" Tie
Planning Principles for District 6 state, ".Site buildings of various sizes, (but smaller than those
found in the West Town Center District)." Chateau Wilgeaux at 115' is taller than the SheraCgn
and its 430,000 square feet is greater, I believe, than anything currently exiting in West Town
Center. Furthermore, while I have not yet obtained the densities for the surrounding properties,
there can be no doubt that this project displays densities well in excess of any properties currently
in the Highway 6 corridor or anywhere in the near vicinity.
Policy C.1.7 "Encourage development applicants to meet with adjacent residents,,
businesses, and property owners prior to and during design, planning, and application
phases... " Unlike East West Partners or the Town of Avon who have sought public input and kept
residents informed, Madison Partners has made no effort to seek input from residents or even
inform us that any proposal was being considered- for the property. It was only by chance that we
discovered the PUD had been filed. I am troubled by a PUD application that states, "the property
will need to respects the Gates" but never mentions anything about the existing residents of Avon
even those whose properties will be severely impacted by the proposed development.
The language in the PUD application seems to repeatedly imply the proposed project is
comparable to The Gates next door. I believe this may not be based on fact for the following
reasons.
1) While I am not an expert on how building heights are computed in Avon, it seems clear
that a building that reaches a height of 115 feet and sits on ground higher than its neighbor, is
simply not the same as a building 75-80 feet in height that sits on lower ground. The impact of the
proposed PUD will be much greater than the Gates.
2) The Gates is a project of 49 condominiums that is sited on a corner so the mass of the
building is never visible from any one angle, a considerably different situation than the Madison
Partners PUD that proposes three buildings sited more or less straight down Highway 6 and, as
designed, appear as one very long structure. In addition much of the Gates is hidden behind large
mature trees.
3) The Gates required much less disturbance of the terrain as is evidenced by the fact that the
retaining walls at the Gates are approximately 30 feet in height while the retaining wails for the
proposed PUD appear to begin at approximately 50 feet and rise to almost 90 feet up the hillside.
4) The Gates has underground parking and only one level of garage wall is exposed along the
Highway 6 corridor. The proposed PUD design provides significant above grade parking resulting
in two stories of windowless garage wall exposed in many areas as the main view for people
traveling down Highway 6.
5) The assumption that because one property is suited for a certain density another must be as
well is flawed. Topography, building siting, and other issues come into play.
It seems that the proposed PUD is out of character and not compatible with both the
Highway 6 corridor, and the surrounding community in terms of its scale, bulk, and height. There
is simply nothing like this along the Highway 6 corridor from Minturn to Edwards and beyond.
Eagle Vaif, Avon, Arrowhead and Edwards, all have low profile buildings ranging from 1-4
stories with two to three stories as the average along the Highway 6 corridor. Avon, specifically,
has the Eaglebend housing complex, Canyon Run, Brookside, Rivers Edge, Sundridge and The
Gates. The Gates is the exception rather than the rule here and even The Gates is much lower in
height and less dense than the proposed project. All of the other properties are 2-4 stories in
height as they front Highway 6. Most projects along Highway 6 are broken up into several
buildings with significant green space and highway setbacks.
Surely Mr. Folson realized when he purchased the property that it had limited
development potential. Likewise, those who purchased property across from this land recognized
that fact as well. I respect Mr. Folson's desire to develop his land. That said, any development
on the property should be done in such a way as to be sensitive to the topography, the wildlife,
Avon residents, taxpayers and visitors. Anything built there should be much lower in profile and
less dense than proposed, built on land that meets the Avon definition of buildable land as defined
in section 17 of the municipal code and comply with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, PUD Design
Criteria and Avon development standards. Otherwise, why do we have them?
The residents of Canyon Run have been supportive, quiet residents and taxpayers of Avon
since its inception. We have embraced the development and redevelopment in West and East
Avon. We watched quietly and selflessly during the development of The Gates, in spite of the fact
that it would obstruct the views up the valley to the Landing and Bachelor Gulch enjoyed by most
Canyon Run residents. But the current proposal is just too much. It will severely impact all of
Avon, residents and visitors alike. It will change the face of Avon forever. Please consider this
proposal carefully and deny it as it is proposed.
Thank you for all your time and efforts on behalf of Avon:
Bette E. Todd
Littleton Capitol Partners
5711 South Nevada Street
Littleton. Colorado 80110
February 18, 2007,
Dear Avon Planning and Zoning Commissioners
My name is Jonathan Bush and I am a homeowner at Canyon Run, 170 Hurd Lane, unit D-103. As you are aware, the proposed
Chateau Migeauz project is directly across the riverfrom Canyon Rum
i do not support this project in its present design. My concern stemsfrom two primary reasons: 1) the design and massing ofthe
project are not in keeping with orsympathetic to the hillside on which the project is located and 2)1 believe the project fails to meet
several key elements ofthe Avon Comprehensive Plan.
When we first acquired our property at Canyon Run and asked about the land south ofHighw•ay 6, we were told that the steep terrain
wouldprevent anyfturre development, which at the time made sense. Our concern was stimulated by the Gates development that was
occurring just west ofthis site. Although the Jury may still be out on the Gates project, my first reaction stns that the Gates
development was not of a size orscalefor the site but time will be thejudge. I recognize that the CW property is shown as PUD in the
Comp Plan but my guess is that it never contemplated a development ofthis size or character. As I understand the plan, the tallest
building will stand over 112', which is 30'taller than the Gates building which alreadyfeels out ofscale. This doesn't seem to make
much sense unless the theory is that by going taller it will make the Gates project feel better. Also, as I try to understand the North
elevation, it appears that the base ofthe building is all large walis and garage doors- a design in my opinion which Kill just add to
the over -massive effect ofthe project. Given what appears to be the true build -able area on this site, it feels like the proverbial 10 lbs
is being stuffed into a 5 lbs bag. -
My second concern is how this project relates to the Comprehensive plan. In my viesv, the plan fails the Comp Plan in four major
areas.
1. The development does not provide a sense ofarrival and departurefor those coming to Awn and it does not appear to
create a landscaped boulevard/parkway. Rather, it seems to destroy the natural landscaping along the hillside that already
exists and ultimately does not create an arrival for the Town ofAvan.
1. The buildings do not seem to be sited to protect views, break up building bulk or prevent a canyon effect on Highssay 6.
Instead the three phases appear to create one continuous building that stretches for hundreds and hundreds offeet. While
the developer has made an effort to step the building so that it is not completely monolithic, it is hard to imagine that this
will create anything but a canyon along Highway 6.
3. The project does not preserve steep slopes but instead nuts into the hillside as much as 90 jeer in some areas. In order not
to create a worse canyon on Highway 6, the unintended consequence is that the project is then forced to destroy the
hillside. Back to tine 51bs bag. It does not appear that the buildings are built into the hillside either but instead rise straight
tip at the rear ofthe project. Again, this may be a result of trying to create some sun exposure but is limited once again by
a site that is not well suuitedfor a project ofthis size.
4. Lastly, ii just doesn't seem to pass the test ofbeing compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent
properties. In an area dominated by 3-5 story projects, 8 stories is not compatible nor in keeping with the rest ofthe area.
Although i am without the benefit ofa site plan, it does not appear that there is a generous open space allowance which
would also be in keeping with other projects in the area, a goal ofthe comp plan and something that would enhance the
entrance to Awn.
In conclusion, the developer has attempted to be thoughtful about details such as the materials and how the massing is broken up.
Unfortunately, what the project looks like on an 8112 X I /sheet ofpaper is very different than what it is going to look like in context
of the surrounding properties, Highway 6 and the town ofAwm I believe the scale ofthe project is such that is not appropriate or
considerate ofthe site and hillside on which it is located If the Gates project feels out ojscale and touch, this massive development
will dwarf it by comparison. A site will ultimately always reveal its limitations, and i think for the reasons cited above, this particular
design is not the right solution
Thank you for your consideration ofthis matter.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bush
February 14, 2007
Dear Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
My name is Alice Jackson Bush. I am a homeowner at Canyon Run located at 270 Hurd
Lane, D-203 in Avon, CO. I am opposed to the Chateau Wilgeaux project. I respectfully
ask that this letter please be added to the public record and a copy of it given to each of
the planning commissioners. I would like this letter to be read out loud at the hearing on
Chateau Wilgeaux, February 20, 2007.
I have lived in Colorado for 40 years. We purchased our place in this lovely riverside
location in Avon because we loved the view of the beautiful hillside across the river. We
love to hear the river waters running. We watch deer and wildlife from our window on
that hillside. We fish in the stream and our children play beside it. We are avid skiers
and hikers. We love that Highway 6 is not a built up, blocky row of monster buildings.
It is a lovely drive into the gateway to Avon and to Beaver Creek. We applaud the city
for rescuing the water wheel along the river and rescuing some of Avon's history. We
could have bought in Vail. We chose our Avon place for the wild hillside on the river.
Despite the Gates project, we still can feel like we are in the mountains as we travel Hwy.
6 and as we view it from our Canyon Run home. This being in the mountains feeling is
all due to the open space on that steep hillside on the south side of Highway 6, across
from Canyon Run. The wild steep slope suits Avon. It is part of Avon's history.
I am greatly concerned with the Chateau Wilgeaux Building proposal for a variety of
reasons. The number one concern is the giant monstrosity of the proposed project. It
does not fall in compliance with Avon's comprehensive plan. The developer has no
regard for the beauty of the valley and in my opinion, his plan looks like the wall of
China. It seems to be a non-Coloradoans interpretation of what living in the mountains
must mean. High density, bulky and huge makes that area a canyon of building blocks.
It does not fit Avon.
I am also very concerned about polluted runoff into the already taxed Eagle River from a
project such as this. I'm concerned about the increase in traffic that would result from
any development along that stretch, not only clogging of that artery but also the increased
noise pollution. Already that is a busy stretch along Highway 6. I can imagine the
echoing noise level effect that walling in Highway 6 all the way down would cause. The
park -like feel that exists due to that green in summer mountain as you enter into Avon,
would be lost forever.
Please do not put this monster in our backyards. Please don't make Avon into another
block street of buildings. Please don't box us in.
Sincerely,
Alice Jackson Bush
Canyon Run, 270 Hurd Lane, D-203 in Avon, Colorado
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
AMeetingii Agenda for February 20, 2007
VAvon Town Council Chambers
C O L D R A D O Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
Site Tour - 95 Avon Road (12:00pm)
Description: Meeting at the Confluence Site to Review the mockup for the Riverfront Lodge.
Open to the Public. Follow-up to 10/3/06 review of on-site mockup for Lot 4, Riverfront
Subdivision, Riverfront Lodge whole ownership Final Design Review. For final approval of
materials and colors.
II. Work Session (5:00pm - 5:30pm)
Discussion of regular meeting agenda items.
III. Call to Order (5:30pm)
IV. Roll Call
V. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
VI. Conflicts of Interest
VII. Consent Agenda
Approval of the February 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes
VIII. Site Tour Follow-up
Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane
Applicant. Zehren & Associates / Owner. East West Partners
Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Riverfront Lodge. The project is
comprised of 75 whole ownership units with underground parking garage. This item was first
reviewed by the Commission at their May 16, 2006 meeting, and later reviewed and approved at the
October 3, 2006 Commission meeting. An on-site mockup review for this agenda item took place at
that meeting, but was not formally approved. Action is now required prior to removal of the mockup.
IX. PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24
Applicant. Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC / Owner: Craig Folson
Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 unit
condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The development is
titled Madison Partners PUD. The property is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek
condominium project currently under construction. As proposed, there are three phases to the project
with no timeframe for completion. The first phase includes 58 condominium units with underground
parking. The second and third phase would each include 27 units respectively. Phase two would
include the aforementioned restaurant of at least 3,000 square feet.
X. Adjourn
Posted on February 16, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby °.
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at htto://www.avon.orq / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
'/�/ Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2007
AAVON Avon Town Council Chambers
C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
- SITE TOUR -
(12:00pm) Buck Creek Road site tour for Item VI. Meet on Buck Creek Road at proposed
project entrance location.
- WORK SESSION -
(5:00pm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items.
- REGULAR MEETING -
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Green, Commissioner
Goulding and Commissioner Foster.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda.
Staff presented a request for the Residential Final Design Review to be moved before the
Buck Creek Application on this Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest to disclose.
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the January 16, 2007 Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Smith motioned to approve the Consent Agenda'and the motion was seconded by
Commissioner Lane. All Commissioners were in favor and motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUD Amendment— CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Buck Creek PUD, Buck Creek Road
Applicant: Steve Isom /Owner Oscar Tang
Description: The applicant, Steve Isom, representing the owner of the property, Tanavon Corp, is
proposing to amend the Cottonwood PUD Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the
existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, into a total of five (5) lots and two tracts. The
property is located on the northeast corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads, is presently zoned
as the Cottonwood PUD, and is platted as the Wildwood Resorts Subdivision. The proposed
amendments to the existing plat and PUD are focused primarily on re -subdividing the Wildwood
Subdivision from three (3) developable lots into four (4); to introduce a new, optional Montessori
School use on the subject property; and to reallocate the existing, allowed uses amongst the newly
subdivided lots. This item was tabled from a previous Commission meeting.
Matt Gennett presented the Staff Report.
Commissioner Struve questioned. the Wetland Rights for the property. Matt Gennett responded that
due to snow on the site, delineation of the site is not possible and was a concern for the Town of
Avon's Engineering Department.
Steve Isom, Applicant, approached the podium, introduced the individuals in the audience on their
team and distributed to the Commission a packet of letters. Mr. Isom discussed the Buck Creek PUD
Concept Plan, commented that it was a schematic, and asked of the Commission if the uses and site
concept made sense. Mr. Isom commented that Oscar Tang was donating Lot 3 of this project to the
Gore Range Science School.
Markian Feduschak, Executive Director of the Gore Range Science School, discussed the site as a
campus type project for the school; plan was to enhance the Wetlands and discuss parking issues.
Commissioner Struve questioned the parking number and was responded with 33 spaces by Mr.
Feduschak. Commissioner Struve remarked that events at the Gore Range Science School would
require sizeable parking, where would the additional parking come from? Mr. Feduschak responded
that since the events were occasional, the parking for the Montessori School should be able to handle
any overflow parking.
Mr. Isom continued by presenting a sketch of the Science School and the proposed hotel and
duplexes. Mr. Isom continued by addressing the concerns of the Engineering Department regarding
the water line on the creek, parking for the Montessori School, underground parking for the hotel site,
access to the hotel site, and mentioned a proposed roundabout. Mr. Isom continued with the Water
Rights to the property and -that Fred Haslee from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
deemed that sufficient Water Rights were attached to the property.
Commissioner Evans questioned staff regarding massing information for the site, i.e. Science School,
and that potential massing was not addressed in this application. Mr. Gennett responded that the
Applicant has commented to him that they were not at that level of detail at this time. Staffs main
concern at this point were water rights, access to the site, etc. Commissioner Evans commented to
the Applicant that a PUD Application was presented to the Commission and fundamental issues were
not addressed. Commissioner Evans addressed Mr. Isom that how 50 units look on the site, it was
not provided and that part of the PUD process was to show site impacts. Mr. Isom stated that there
was not an end user for the project at this time and could not present a final product.
Commissioner Evans commented that the Commission was looking for what the site was going to be,
how the residential would be developed, concept for the Montessori School was good and parking
was an issue with the schools, residential units and office project being considered for the site.
Commissioner Evans continued that Commission needed to see how the layout works prior to PUD
approval and use of the process has been successful in past applications and was needed for this
project. Commissioner Evans mentioned that the PUD can not be open-ended and that if the end
user had revisions, an Amended PUD may be submitted. Commissioner Evans continued that 4
parking spaces for an 8400 sq ft Montessori School would not be enough and does not conform to the
Town's parking standards. Commissioner Lane commented that an architectural theme was not the
issue but the guidelines of the PUD would contain the information. Mr. Gennett suggested a phasing
plan for the project.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
There was no comment from the public.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
i•
M
Sharon Green, Mountain Star resident, approached the podium to question if this was the only
opportunity to comment and was responded that it would be open to the public for comment in a
future meeting. Commissioner Struve and Commissioner Smith agreed that guidelines needed to be
applied to both schools at the same time and not as separate projects. Commissioner Lane remarked
that it was not unreasonable to ask for specifics of the site. Mr. Isom questioned the detail for the
model. Mr. Isom requested tabling this Application for thirty days.
Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item VI, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Buck Creek
PUD, Buck Creek Road. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motioned passed 4-0.
VII. Residential Final Design Review
Burkhard Single -Family
Property Location: Lot 21, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4250 Wildridge Road West
Applicant/Owner: Erich Burkhard
Description: Proposal for a single-family residence with first floor caretakers unit on this duplex -zoned
lot. The size of the residence is 4,300 square feet, which includes garage space and a proposed
maximum height of 34.5'. Proposed materials include redwood, colored concrete to match existing
site, aluminum window frames, and asphalt shingles. A sketch design review for this project took
place at the Commission's August 16, 2006 meeting.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Erich Burkhard, Applicant, approached the podium to address Commissioner concerns..
Commissioner Evans questioned the pervious paving system presented and the material for the
retaining walls. Commissioner Struve questioned the height of the retaining wall and queried the
caretaker's unit bathroom. Commissioner Smith mentioned that the Applicant resolved the parking
issue.
Commissioner Struve moved to approve Item VII, Residential Final Design Review, Burkhard Single -
Family, Property Location: Lot 21, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4250 Wildridge Road West, with
the staff conditions and have staff review the stone and driveway material for its approval.
Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed 4-0.
Claude Banks, neighboring resident to the north of this project, arrived late and Commission permitted
comment. Mr. Banks was concerned about his view and sight lines. Mr. Banks questioned who and
how it was determined that his view corridor would not be disrupted. Mr. Pielsticker commented that
there were no platted view corridors. Commissioner Evans reviewed the application submittal
process and approval process with Mr. Banks.
VIII. Other Business
A. Roundabout #4 Update
Description: The Town previously determined that Roundabout 4, currently a 3/4 roundabout located
at the intersection of Avon Road Benchmark Roads, would better serve the community and provide
more efficient traffic flow between East and West Avon as a full roundabout. Final Plans for
construction will be reviewed for construction of the full roundabout. Construction will begin as soon
as weather permits.
Shane Pegram, Town of Avon Engineer, approached the podium to discuss this project.
Commissioner Struve questioned the grading and drainage, and the north side of the roundabout
would not be changing. Commissioner Evans questioned the concrete blockers.
l
B., Railroad Bridge Light Fixtures
Description: The Public Works Department is proposing to replace the six light fixtures on the Union
Pacific railroad bridge at Avon Road. The proposed fixtures would be extra -heavy aluminum wall
construction featuring a vandalism proof design. The fixtures meet the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Memo to the Commission.
C. Upcoming Meetings
• West Town Center meeting 2/15 from 4-6pm, 2/16 will be all day with individual stakeholders.
• Housing Assessment was being developed and on 3/6 will be a formal joint session with Town
Council and East Town Centers preferred alternative will also be presented.
D. Aleksandr Sheykhet, Obermeyer Sheykhet Architects, approached the Commission for comment
on the architectural design revisions for the Westin Riverfront Resort Timeshare West Building in the
Riverfront Subdivision. Mr. Sheykhet commented that a mock up would be provided to demonstrate
color; each elevation was presented and commented as to the changes made per Commission
recommendation.
IX. Adjourn
Commissioner Struve motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was
adjourned at approximately 7:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
44
Memo
To:
From:
Date
Re:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Matt Pielsticker, Planner II
Community Development Department
February 14, 2007
Riverfront Lodge, Riverfront Subdivision
Site Tour- Follow-up to Condition of Approval
Introduction
Mill Z
AVON
C 0 L O R A 0 0
At their October 3, 2006 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a
Final Design Plan for the above-mentioned design application. An on-site mockup
review for this agenda item took place at that meeting, but was not formally approved.
Discussion
The Final Design plan was approved, subject to the following conditions to be resolved
prior to submittal of a Building Permit:
1. Stamped plans to be provided by Professional Engineer for Shoring
and Driveway retaining walls.
2. An ILC (Improvements Location Certificate) is required at foundation
and framing in order to verify compliance with height requirements.
3. Provide data that supports design of drainage structures.
4. Final fire department connections shall be provided.
5. Final approval of materials and colors subject to review and
approval of the site mockup. Mockup must include hearth detail.
6. A Master Sign Program is to be submitted for all project signage on
building.
7. Cor -ten ("Bysted") bollard style fixtures will utilize 50 -watt Metal
Halide bulbs to be consistent with adjacent Riverfront path lighting
approval.
8. Landscape Plan to be re -reviewed with increased calipers sizes for
select trees.
9. Lighting Plan must be brought back for Commissioner review.
Piverrront Lodge, Piverfront subdivision
February 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
There have been some minor color changes to the mockup since first review in
October. Namely, the overall range of colors and stain variety has been reduced
giving it a more uniform appearance. Some of the inconsistencies have since been
corrected. Also, the guardrail on the mockup has been adjusted to match the metal
panels per Commissioner comments. No hearth detail has been added to the
mockup.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the mockup as presented or approval with conditions.
The mockup must be moved in the near future due to time constraints and the demand
to stage in it's location for the Westin Hotel.
Riverfront Lodge Mockup Follow-up February 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
17
Staff Report
PUD Amendment
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting ` 0 L 0 R A 0 0
Report date February 14, 2007
Project type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment
Legal description Folson Property
Current zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address Highway 6 & 24 (No addresses assigned)
I. Introduction
The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 unit
condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The
development is titled Madison Partners PUD. The property is immediately east of the
49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project currently under construction. As
proposed, there are three phases to the project with no timeframe for completion. The
first phase includes 58 condominium units with underground parking. The second and
third phase would each include. 27 units respectively. Phase two would include the
aforementioned restaurant of at least 3,000 square feet.
All of the parking would be structured for this project with no at grade surface parking
spaces. As part of the PUD approval process and corresponding subdivision review
process, the current 21.5 acre site would be split into two separate tracts. Tract 1 would
be where all development and disturbance take place; Tract 2 is earmarked for Open
Space with no disturbance.
The final access solution to enter the property has yet to be determined; however, the
applicant is proposing to have one main project entrance in the middle of the site
accommodating full traffic turning movements entering and leaving on Highway 6 &.24.
There could also be a connection with the Gates on Beaver Creek project to the west
with a swinging gate. It is uncertain at this time whether that connection will remain
open or not. If the access were to be created, staff would prefer it remain open for
maximum site circulation and project benefit.
After providing a background and summary of the public input received to date, this staff
report outlines all of the mandatory review criteria for the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Town Council to consider when reviewing this application. Staff is
recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission TABLE this application in
order to give the applicant a chance to respond to the citied conflicts with the review
criteria in this report.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING Y98
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 13
II. Background
The Folson Property was annexed into the Town of Avon in 1985 by Ordinance 85-7.
Shortly after annexation, the Town Zoning Map was amended by Ordinance 85-8,
thereby establishing a zoning designation for the property: Special Planned Area (SPA).
There have never been vested rights associated with the property.
There have been several development proposals and conceptual reviews for this
property in the past, with the only serious one taking place in 1997. That project was
called "La Piazza" and contemplated two separate 5 "story buildings and a total of 92
Condominium units. The development had mostly underground parking and the'site
was split into two lots in a similar fashion to this proposal with a 4.4 acre site on
Highway 6 & 24, and a second —17 acre open space tract to be dedicated to the Town
of Avon.
La Piazza was sent to the Avon Town Council with a unanimous recommendation for
denial (Resolution 97-1). The Planning and Zoning Commission found that the project
was incompatible with the site and surrounding land -uses.
According to Resolution 97-1, the Commission cited conflict with the following findings:
1. Failure to conform with the goals and objectives of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Failure to conform and comply with the overall design theme of the town, the
sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
3. Failure to achieve design compatibility with the. immediate environment,
neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale,
bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation.
4. Failure to provide uses, activity and density that are compatible, efficient and
produce a workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
5. Failure to by the site plan, building design and location, and open space
provisions to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to
natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
6. Failure of the vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems to address on and off
site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
7. Failure to produce functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space that
optimizes and preserves natural features, recreation, views and functions.
At the first hearing with the Town Council, the application was withdrawn by the
applicant. Since La Piazza, there have been no further applications.
In November of 2005, a joint Work Session with Town Council and the Planning
Commission was held to discuss a development concept. That concept was for a 150
unit condo -hotel project. The Commission and Council made some of the following
comments: underground parking or parking behind building would be a benefit; shared
access with Gates should be pursued and other highway improvements are necessary;
limit the size of building(s) to no more than 4 stories; shuttle was positive for
connectivity, and there were general comments on architecture and articulation.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030
0
Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING t!!�
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 13 �A
Most recently in November of 2006, the Town and the current property owner granted
permission for the Gates on Beaver Creek to temporarily store materials, park, and
stage for their project next door.
III. Surrounding Land Uses
The existing land uses and zoning for the surrounding properties are as follows:
o North Highway 6 &24, Eaglebend III Apartments, Open Space Tracts
o South: White River National Forest
o West: Gates on Beaver Creek / Open Space Tract / Beaver Creek Subdivision
o East. River Oaks Condominiums / Eagle -Vail Subdivision (Unincorporated Eagle
County)
IV. Referral Comments
This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to property
owners within 300' of the subject property. To date staff has been in contact with
Canyon Run Condominium association on the opposite side of the Eagle River. Please
find comments from the referral and public notice attached.
In addition to the required public notice, staff transmitted the application materials to the
following agencies, with their comments summarized below:
Eaqle Countv School District Comments
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eacile River Water and Sanitation District
A letter was received from Fred Haslee, Regulations Administrator for the Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District. The letter states that there is adequate water and
handling capability for this development. This letter, along with calculations for water
demand, is included in the Appendix in the applicant's submittal.
If this application is approved, there must be a condition of approval stating that no
permits will be issued for development prior to final commitment of water service.
Colorado Department of Transportation
To date, staff has not received a direct response to our request for comments. Included
in the applicant's submittal (Section 8) you will find meeting minutes from Alpine
Engineering, also involved with the project, concerning and involving CDOT staff.
Eaqle Countv Planninq Department
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eaale Countv Fire Protection District
Comments from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief for ERFPD are attached in Exhibit B of
this report. The comments are technical in nature.
Colorado Department of Wildlife
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING I'
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 13
Eagle Countv Health Services District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
ECO Trails
According to Ellie Caryl, the plan seems to address ECO Trails' concerns by providing a
sidewalk connection on Highway 6 & 24.
ECO Transit
A response was received from David Johnson, Transit Planner for Eagle County
Regional Transportation Authority. In summary, the Transit Authority has concerns that
the employment generation projected (27) is on the extreme low end of the spectrum,
and the resulting demand for housing is a strong consideration. On-site housing is
preferred from a transit and 'demand for service' standpoint.
There were also comments regarding improving the bus shelters, pull -offs, and lighting
for those bus stops. Important to note is ECO Transit's preference to keep the bus stop
in the current configuration instead of moving it further to the *west. Some other
comments which reiterate comments from the Town of Avon Engineering Department in
Section VII of this report include: proper decal; standing and acceleration space; and
meeting ECO Transit's current shelter criteria. A 10 foot buffer was suggested from
Highway 6 & 24 for a more attractive and safe pedestrian environment.
V. PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zonina Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria
shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. Also, "It shall be the burden
of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development
plan comply with each of the following design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more
of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution is consistent with the
public interest."
Please refer to Section 3.06 on pages 3 and 4 of the attached binder for the applicant's
responses to these principal criteria.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comarehensive Plan's Goals and
Objectives.
District 6 (Comp Plan Paoe 81 - Exhibit E)
The Folson Property is located within District 6: Highway 6 Gateway Corridor
(Exhibit E) in the Comprehensive Plan. This district includes the Elk Parking lot in
the Beaver Creek Subdivision, Avon Road/Highway 6 Roundabout, Gates on Beaver
Creek, and the Folson property.
According to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, "the Folson property is
intended to provide residentiaUlodging uses with supporting commercial and service
uses at a scale appropriate to the buildable area." The plan explains that the
property is somewhat isolated with respect to other development and improvements
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030
0
Fax(970)949.5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING 7111February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 13
in Town. The property's terrain makes it unique and is one of only two properties in
the Town located south of Highway 6 & 24.
In the applicant's submittal, Section 3.03, responses to all of the 'planning principles'
have been provided for District 6: Highway 6 Gateway Corridor. The principles focus
on providing a sense of entry in this area of Town, and strengthening the association
between the Town and Beaver Creek Resort. The Comprehensive Plan envisions
buildings of various sizes (smaller than those in Town Center West) to break up
building bulk and "preventing a canyon effect on Highway 6."
Buildings in Town Center West are typically no taller than 100'. This proposal would
allow for up to 115' building in height in Phase One and up to 95' of height in Phases
Two and Three. Note that the existing topography is typically much higher than the
road in areas where the height calculation would take place. For example, the
highest ridge on Phase Two could stand approximately 130' above the Highway 6 &
24 grade as proposed. At build -out, the structures could stretch approximately 1,000
feet in length, or the majority of the site frontage.
Future Land Use Plan (Comp Plan Paqe 27 - Exhibit D)
The Future Land Use Plan does provide specific direction for the Folson property.
This map shows the Folson Property split in the same place the applicant is
proposing to split the property with a "Neighborhood Commercial" designation on the
entire Highway 6 & 24 frontage, and an "Open Space" land -use designation for all
portions further to the south. The Neighborhood Commercial District envisions a
maximum density of 7.5 units per acre.
Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Paoes 37 - 63)
The Comprehensive Plan also identifies several regional policy goals related to land
use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed
PUD plans in Town. The Goals and Policies that pertain are as follows, each with a
review comment regarding this application:
Policy A.1.2: Refer development Submittals to Eagle County, adjacent
municipalities, and other agencies to ensure that regional issues are identified and
considered as part of the public process.
Staff Comment: This application has been referred to Eagle County and other
agencies for review. See Section IV of this report. All public input received should
be considered through this review process.
Policy B.2.4: Work with landowners to identify opportunities for conservation
easements or other permanent open space protection tools.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to keep the upper Tract of land for
permanent open space to be deeded to the Town and zoned for such use.
Policy C.1.1: Ensure that proposed development projects conform to the Future
Land Use Plan's designations and are a scale and intensity appropriate for the
planning district which they are located.
0
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING 71HFebruary 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 13
Staff Comment: The scale and intensity should be reviewed carefully. If density
were calculated per Avon Zonino Code. Tract 1 would be at a density of
approximately 40 units per acre of "developable" land. The plan appears to be
aggressive given the limitations of the topography.
Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety, of
housing densities, styles, and types based upon the findings of a housing needs
assessment study.
Staff Comment: A housing needs assessment study was completed in November of
2006. This study finds a lack of most price ranges, particularly units below $450,000
value in Avon and Eagle County. A stronger financial commitment for different price
points should -be addressed, or provided for in another location in Avon or Eagle
County if on-site is not feasible.
Goal F.1: Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse
segments of population.
Staff Comment: While understanding land costs and the difficulty with developing
this property, more diversity should be considered with this development.
Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than
separated from, the rest of the community.
Staff Comment: On-site workforce housing should be a strong consideration given
the jobs'produced by this development. The application projects 27 jobs would be
created at build out. According to RRC Associates, a consultant who has provided
guidance to Eagle County for employment generation studies, the restaurant
independently would create approximately 8.9 employees per 1000 sq. ft. (or at least
26 jobs).
Policy G1.7. Ensure that streets effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian,
bicycle and other modes of transportation.
Staff Comment: There is an extension of sidewalk proposed as well as an upgraded
transit location. The sidewalk could be used by both pedestrians and those
accessing transit facilities and is proposed to be immediately adjacent to the
Highway 6 & 24 paved roadway. A separation between this path and the state
highway surface may benefit users with increased safety.
Policy H.1.3: Require development to accommodate wildlife habitat, including
deer and elk migration routes, or otherwise mitigate loss of habitat.
Staff Comment: Portions of the property have been identified as potential range for
elk, deer, bear, and mountain lion. The types of vegetation proposed in the
preliminary landscape plan contradict some of the CDOW recommendations. A
revised landscape plan may help to address this concern.
Policy H.2.1: Avoid development in environmental hazard areas such as
floodplains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards, wildfire hazard areas, and
areas with erosive soils.
Tovm of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING ice:'
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 13 ru.
Staff Comment: There are some sensitive areas within these parcels that could be
considered impossible to avoid; however, reducing development and disturbance in
hazard areas would better respond to this policy.
Policy H.4.3: Require use of innovative and environmentally friendly building
techniques including water conservation approaches for new development.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to pursue a Silver Certificate from LEED
(Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). This is an exciting prospect for
this or any other development in the Town and should be required. It could be
appropriate to guarantee a Silver Certificate for this development.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the
sub -area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town.
There are preliminary site plan drawings and building elevations included with this
submittal. While the elevations are not binding, they do represent a certain level of
quality and architectural style. These also show the general massing of the
proposed development.
A massing model will be available at the Work Session for consideration. The model
is at a 1:40 scale and clearly shows the properties relationship with the Gates
project. A formal design review process by the Planning and Zoning Commission
would follow if this zoning application were processed as submitted.
The Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Review
Guidelines put emphasis on the overall design theme for the Town. According to the
Guidelines, the theme for the Town shall be to establish an attractive appearance for
visitors and residents, and yet be flexible enough to allow design innovation.
"Building and Improvements should be individually designed for the site on which
they are to be placed. The site and its relationship to other structures, scenic
values, views, and climatic orientation should be the dominant factors in the
design and sighting of buildings (Page 26 - Site Development)."
The site plan design and corresponding development standards do not appear to
respond to the existing topography of the site. Specifically, the amount of
excavation required for this site layout to function is significant. In order for the
amount of excavation to be made possible, a series of shotcrete walls behind the
structures have been proposed.
There are minimum requirements worth noting from the Town of Avon Residential.
Commercial, and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines, including:
"2. The location of structures shall complement the existing topography of the
site. Excessive grading and/or the use of engineer -designed retaining walls
are discouraged when an alternative site layout would minimize such
disturbances (Page 27 - Site Design)."
03. Buildings and improvements shall be designed and sited to conform to the
natural terrain ....terraced buildings and parking will minimize site disturbance
(Page 27- Site Design)."
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030
b
Fax (970) 949-5749
0
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING 7151,
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 13
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment,. neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, character, and orientation.
Elevation drawings are included in the plan set which imply a certain level of
architectural quality. The scale, bulk, height, and character of the architecture are
evident in these drawings (see sheets A3.1, A3.2 & A3.3). There are some high
quality materials such as stone typified in the drawings. These drawings only
provide an architectural theme and general mass of development, but as mentioned
before, they would not be considered binding.
Staff would like to focus on the scale and possible bulk of development in relation to
the immediate environment. As proposed in the Development Plan, the buildings
would be phased and all connected at completion of the project. This connected
fashion combined with the proposed building heights and building setbacks could
create a canyon feel as approaching or leaving the Avon Road roundabout. There
has been effort to provide a stepped fagade to break up the bulk of the buildings. A
ghosted elevation/ picture study will be available at the meeting.
The apparent lack of buffering with the Gates on Beaver Creek project immediately
to the west should be discussed at the Commission meeting. That project was
approved prior to the Comprehensive ,Plan's adoption and before a specific vision
was created for this part of Town.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The land uses proposed, residential condominiums arid ancillary restaurant, appear
appropriate for this property with respect to the surrounding uses. The Gates on
Beaver Creek project is entirely condominium and the Eaglebend III project across
highway 6 & 24 is all locals' workforce residential use. The abutting areas of Eagle -
Vail subdivision are also entirely residential with some pocket parks.
The density proposed equates to approximately 40 dwelling units per acre. The
'non -buildable' areas have been backed out of the calculation since the Municipal
Code excludes these areas for density calculation.
The Gates on Beaver Creek project is being constructed with a density of
approximately 27 units per acre. That project is buffered to the west by Beaver
Creek, a flowing stream, and open space tract of land to the south.
Eaglebend III is the only other project in the immediate vicinity that has a direct
relationship with this property. That project includes 21.5 units per acre (54 units on
2.5 acres) and is buffered by the river and large tracts of open space on three sides.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
There are significant geologic hazards associated with developing this property. The
applicant's submittal includes a Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Preliminary
Geologic Site Assessment, both dated December 13, 2006 (Appendix in Exhibit A).
o
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74&4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING 1011
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 9 of 13
Through field exploration (borings) and geotechnical engineering studies to observe
the geologic conditions of the property, several hazards or potential hazards have
been identified. Slope instability, debris flows, debris avalanches, and rock fall risk
are all considerations for developing this site. In general, the more disturbances to
the site and steep hillsides results in a greater risk for encountering and requiring
mitigation of the mentioned geologic risks.
After a preliminary level of study, the applicant is proposing to utilize a combination
of debris trough/catchment and freestanding retaining wall systems for mitigation.
What concerns staff is the level of disturbance to the natural steep hillside required
for this development, and the preliminary nature of the geotechnical analysis
performed. Additional evaluations are required for a hillside stability analysis and to
inform the project engineer of the preferred mitigation methods.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
As proposed, there appears to be a high degree of alteration to the existing site
required to enable this development to function. While the buildings would be linear
in fashion to avoid the hillside as much as passible, the site layout does not appear
to be sensitive to the natural features of the site. Extensive site retention and
mitigating measures would be essential for this development to function.
Instead of responding and working with the existing topography of the site, it is
evident that the buildings were placed on the site plan with little sensitivity to the
natural topography. Large areas of mature Douglas Fir forest vegetation would be
removed with this proposal. Development is inevitable on this property; however;
the overall aesthetic quality of this site to the community should be reviewed
carefully as this is one of few areas in Town with this unique vegetation and
orientation.
The upper 15.5 acre portion of the site referred to as Tract 2 in the Preliminary Plan
subdivision sheet would be dedicated as Open Space to the Town of Avon. It
should be noted that apart from a visual protection as open space, it is unlikely this
tract could be used for a public use such as a trail. Access to this lot is not possible
given the configuration of this property, and according to subdivision code all lots
must have at least 25' of frontage.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town
Transportation Plan.
There is a functional driveway for passenger vehicles and fire response vehicles. A
pedestrian connection to the Gates has been provided for increased pedestrian
circulation.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
0
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 9445749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING Yt�
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 13
A preliminary landscape plan is provided on sheet A1.2. This plan clearly shows the
intention to buffer this project with landscaping, and the plan also shows the
treatment where open space (including Tract 2' open space) abuts the
development. Perhaps more buffering 'on the west and east side of the project
would better optimize and preserve the natural features of the site..
There would be a significant amount of native mature trees eliminated, especially
with Phase 3 construction. This area of Tract 1 is also where existing grade
contours exceed 40%. Development in this area of the project would not further this
design consideration.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing
plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional
and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases.
The Development Plan shows a three phase approach to development. It has not
been demonstrated that each phase (l, II, & III) could function independent of one
another particularly with respect to grading and retaining wall requirements. A
complete phasing plan would be required showing associated grading, soil nail wall
extent, etc. for each phase independent of one another.
The applicant has explained that each phase could function independently. There
would be no need to build all retaining walls at the same time. Retention and
mitigation of geologic hazards could be phased.
10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Please refer to the Appendix of the applicant's submittal immediately following the
Traffic Study for evidence of utility letters. Letters have been included from Eagle
River Water & Sanitation District, Xcel Energy, Holy Cross Energy, and Qwest.
Included as�Exhibit B to staffs report are comments from the regional transportation
authority.
11.That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed
PUD.
The document entitled Traffic Impact Analysis, Folson Mixed -Use, is attached in the
appendix of the applicant's submittal. The road and street improvements would be
reviewed in detail through the subdivision process. As mentioned in the introduction
of this report, the applicant is seeking approval from the Colorado Department of
Transportation, the governing authority for state Highway 6& 24, for a full turning
movement intersection at the entrance to the project. A connection to the Gates on
Beaver Creek project would benefit all if eventually agreed upon.
12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of
substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as
outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code:
o
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING 11
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 11 of 13
A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning
entitlements cannot achieve.
Staff Comment: It can be argued that a public benefit is demonstrated with respect
to monetary results and overall quality of development. This must be weighed
against the resulting scale and intensity of development based on the area of
developable (or "buildable" land).
B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or
social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse
impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights.
Staff Comment: There will be significant economic impacts with this project;
presumably in the Town's favor. A financial model is under way by Stan Bernstein,
the Town's financial referral and will be available in the near future.
C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better
siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural
resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the
community master plan documents.
Staff Comment: The policies and goals outlined in the Town's Comprehensive Plan
should be considered with this project. While the entire upper portion of the site
would be preserved, the siting of the development appears to be aggressive. Given
the topography and vegetation, there appears to be a benefit in preserving a greater
portion of the east side of Tract 1.
VII. Preliminary Subdivision Plan Design and Improvement Standards
Pursuant to Sections 16.20 and 16.40 of Town of Avon Municipal Code, the application
for Preliminary Plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department for compliance
with the appropriate design and improvement standards. The following comments
pertaining to the applicant's Preliminary Plan (for subdivision) resulted from this review:
I. Any proposed improvements to U.S. Highway 6 and the access configuration as submitted,
must be accompanied by approval letters from CDOT and the Gates prior to approval.
2. The bus stop relocation should be at the western end of the site, so that it can serve the
Gates Project as well as the Madison Partners PUD.
3. Building 3 appears to be located largely on undevelopable areas containing 40% slope or
more.
4. The phasing plans should show areas of staging during construction. For example, where
will construction stagingforPhase 3 be located if Phases I and 2 are built and occupied?
S. The proposed bits stop does not conform to ECO Mid Block Bus Bay design guidelines
requiring a 7S foot incoming taper, a 6S foot staging area, and a 40 foot taper exiting into
through traffic.
6. Stormwater drainage from the eastern half of the site appears to be directed into a culvert
beneath U.S. Highway 6 that contains a note on page I reading "End of culvert location
c
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING y p j
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 12 of 13
undetermined. " Also, the size of the culvert is not shown. The effluent location should be
located and verified prior to adding site drainage.
7. Improvements to U.S. 6 may require additional signage. For example, the speed limit sign
noted "to be relocated" is not shown in the plans in its final destination. Additional
signage may also be required to properly sign the entrance to the site.
8. The Preliminary Plat erroneously shows "Town of Vail" instead of "Town of Avon" as
property owner on the adjacent parcel across U.S. Highway 6.
9. A spot grade shown on the proposed roundabout is erroneously shown to be X'® "
10. A detail of the proposed "Debris Flow Barrier and Pedestrian" fence should be provided.
Furthermore, Town of Avon Design Guidelines prohibit the installation offences in most
applications.
11. Infrastnucture installation in the front lot setback is very intense, and the vehicle speed
along Highway 6 requires that there be a ten foot separation between back of curb and the
proposed sidewalk. Development will need to be shiftedfurther south of the roadway.
12. Numerous maps such as USGS quadrangles and the FIRM show an irrigation ditch known
as the Fleck Ditch' traversing the property, though it does not appear on any of the site
maps. It is mentioned as abandoned in the PUD narrative. Please provide documentation
confirming abandonment.
13. It does not appear that "back of house "fimctions such as deliveries and refuse removal are
feasible given the proposed garage clearances and access configuration.
14. All subdivided lots must have twenty-five feet of lot frontage.
15. All Topo and Aerial Maps should show the new property line that subdivides the 21.52
Acre PUD into Tracts I and 2, and the two tracts should be labeled as such.
16. Prior to submittal of Final Plat, the vicinity map shown on the plat will need to be revised
to a scale of not less than one inch equals one thousand feet and include section lines, and
township and range lines in accordance with section 16.14.130 (E) of the Avon Municipal
Code.
I Z The property lines labeled as "Gates" on sheet I of 1, Aerial Map, should be removed to
refect the current Gates property lines.
18. The proposed entrance from U.S. Highway 6 to the Porte Cochere does not appear to
include a pedestrian crossing to allow safe connection from the east to west sidewalk.
VIII. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends TABLING the Madison Partners PUD application. As currently
presented, staff is unable to develop a favorable recommendation for this request given
the citied conflicts with the mandatory review criteria in this report. In particular, this
application appears to have some conflict with the following PUD Design criteria:
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and
Objectives.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub-
area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town.
0
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Folson Property - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
February 20, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 13 of 13 Y1a
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, character, and orientation.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department in the Municipal
Complex.
Respect, submitted,
t95 _NS
Matt Piels ' er
Planner II
IX. Report Attachments
EXHIBIT A: Applicant's Proposal Binder
EXHIBIT B: Agency Referral & Public Comments
EXHIBIT C: Future Land Use Map, Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
EXHIBIT D: District #6, Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
EXHIBIT E: Staff prepared Vicinity Map
Town of Avon Community Development
(970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749
CHRISTOPHER J. TODD
96981;. MAPLEWOOD CIR.
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
HOME: 720488-1715
CELL: 303-913-1011
WORK: 303-390-0129
AVON CONDO: 970-748-0973
HOMEEMAIL: CIiRISTTODDOMSN.COM
WORKEMAIL: CrODD(aiWYRERCOM
February 15, 2007
Chris Evans, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Madison Partners PUD
Project Name: Chateau Wilgeaux
I am the owner of Canyon Run condo unit 413102, 300 Hurd Lane, Avon CO which is
situated on the north side of the Eagle River immediately across from the Chateau Wilgeaux project
proposed to be built on the Folsom/White property. I am writing in response to the request for
public comment at the P&Z Commission hearing scheduled for February 20th. I am strongly
opposed to the project proposal as presented in the PUD for the reasons detailed below.
The proposed development will greatly degrade the view currently enjoyed by the citizens of
and visitors to Avon. Those most impacted will be the residents and property owners of Canyon
Run condo complex, Avon Crossing condo complex and Chappell Square condo complex which
will have their current, unspoiled view replaced with an extremely large building totally unsuited
for the available land. The forested hillside located on the Folsom/White property is a naturally
attractive area which dominates and is viewable from almost anywhere in the eastern half of the
Town of Avon. It cannot be replaced. It is this type of view which brings people to the mountains
of Colorado and which improves the quality of life in Avon. Diminishing this one -of -a -kind asset
with a large—scale condominium project will be a long-term, irrevocable detriment to the enjoyment
of Avon residents.
The Town of Avon recognized the benefits of retaining the natural beauty of the
Folsom/White property when guidelines were developed for the District 6: U.S. Highway 6
Gateway Corridor as detailed in the Town District Planning Principals (pages 81 and 82). Chateau
Wilgeaux conflicts with several of the stated goals:
• "Enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way as a landscaped boulevard/parkway to
provide a sense of arrival and departure for those traveling to and from Avon and to
strengthen Avon's overall community image and identity." I fail to see how cutting into
a naturally beautiful wooded hillside and replacing it with a 9 -story building is
compatible with a goal of an attractive entrance to a mountain community.
• "Site buildings... to protect views ... and prevent a canyon effect on Highway 6." It
appears that Chateau Wilgeaux is doing just the opposite.
0
• "Minimize cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes. Buildings should be built into
the hillside and stepped up with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S.
Highway 6." Again, the proposed project does just the opposite. A significant cut into
the hillside is proposed, and the face of the building facing Highway 6 is completely
vertical without any step up and back aspect to conform to the hillside slope. The PUD
states in §3.03(6)&(7) that it "steps up the slope of the property and from end to end."
This may be true from east to west where there is a very gentle rise, but it is totally
incorrect with regard to the intended meaning of the Planning guidelines which address
the major slope of the property (i.e., front to back). The currently sloping, wooded
hillside does a relatively good job (although not perfect) of absorbing and reflecting
upwards the vehicular noise from Highway 6. A building which steps from front to
back (i.e., somewhat mirrors the slope of the hillside) would provide some degree of
sound reflection upwards, although the noise absorption by vegetation would be lost.
The proposed project, which is straight up-and-down and much closer to the road than
the current slope, would greatly increase the amount of reflected noise directed towards
the residences immediately across the Eagle River.
• "Consider buildable area when determining an appropriate scale and density for
development " More than half the proposed project is on land classified as unbuildable.
Leveling the land be cutting out the hillside should not be an allowable solution to'avoid
complying with this goal.
I believe that Chateau Wilgeaux will spoil the natural views enjoyed by the owners of the
three major condominium projects across the Eagle River to such an extent that their property
values will be negatively impacted. Accordingly, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission
should take unusual steps to encourage public input to the approval process. I strongly believe that
the Neighbor 300' notification requirement should be expanded for this project. I would like to see
the hearing process delayed and the developer be required to notify all property owners (not just
condo association managers) in the affected condo complexes. Regardless, I do not believe the
developer met the current requirements when they sent notice to the property manager of Canyon
Run complex and did not send any notification to the individual property owners. I am a property
owner with my address recorded on the property and tax records of Eagle County, yet I did not
receive any notice of the public hearing. Nor did the developer make any effort to inform the media
or introduce the project to the citizens of Avon. This is a case of a developer trying to do the bare
minimum in order to sneak a bad project by the unaware public. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has a duty to look out for its citizens and prevent just this sort of happening, which
although probably meeting the "letter of the law" is not in the best interest of the general public.
Finally, I would like to comment that I think the proposed $225,000 payment in -lieu of
providing affordable housing is a joke. Assuming this money earns interest of $18,000 per year (an
8% yield), this would provide a subsidy of less than $56 per month for each of its 27 employees —
certainly not enough to bring local rents down to "affordable" levels for lower -paid workers.
Please consider the issues I have raised in this letter and reject the PUD as submitted, or at a
minimum delay the hearing process until all affected property owners have been notified and given
the opportunity to provide input to the approval process. Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Ruth Weiss
From: Patty McKenny
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:25 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
I presume you are collecting these letters 6 I am as well for the Council.
-Are you forwarding them to P&Z?
Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.
Thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: JP M Kyrillos tmailto:jp.m.kyrillos@aexp.com)
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Ruth Weiss; Patty McKenny
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
as well as all other Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the
public record and read out loud at the February 20th meeting.
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong
opposition to the proposed Hwy 6 development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I
understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive Plan. Namely,
it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town
beauty, causes a canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter
Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for
development and is now using the Gates project as a way to find a loophole in
the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J.P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food & Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887 (fax)
American Express made the following
annotations on 02/14/07, 09:17:23
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message arm
any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us by reply'e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. Thank you."
1
Ruth Weiss
From:
Patty McKenny
Sent:
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:26 AM
To:
Ruth Weiss
Subject:
FW: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: High
Same with this letter, I'll keep a copy for my file & you take care of it for P&Z.
Later.
-----Original Message -----
From: bbkohn@adelphia.net [mailto:bbkohn@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Patty McKenny
Cc: Ruth Weiss
Subject: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: High
Please make this letter a part of the public record and give a copy to each commissioner.
To all members of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
As a resident and taxpayer of Avon, I am vehemently opposed to the proposed project known
as Chateau Wilgeaux. The proposal for a seven to nine story building, ranging from 95-115
feet in height, and over 900,000 sq. feet, to be built on only 3 acres, seems very
unappealing. Much of the mountain side is over 90& grade and therefore, too steep for
development. The size of this proposed development is overwhelming and out of proportion
to the surrounding areas. It seems to me that this proposal violates almost every aspect
of the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 6 corridor as well as the town planning
principles.
I have chosen to retire to Avon, instead of Vail or Beaver Creek, because of its small
city charm, lack of congestion and the beauty of the mountains. Please do not agree to
Chateau Wilgeaux as it is being presented.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip Kohn
Canyon Run, Apt C104
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: JP M Kyrillos Qp.m.kydllos@aexp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:56 AM
To: pmckenny@avon.aexp.com; Ruth Weiss
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission as well as all other
Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the public record and read out loud at the February 20th
meeting.
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Hwy 6
development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan. Namely, it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town beauty, causes a
canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for development and is now using the Gates
project as a way to find a. loophole in the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J.P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food & Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887 (fax)
�19
2/14/2007
Thomas B. Hix, Jr.
120 Hurd Lane, A-203
Avon, CO 81620
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
Avon, Co 81620
Dear Mr. Evans:
I am the President of the Canyon Run Condominium Association and I am writing on behalf of the
Association. It has been brought In our attention that a condominium project has been proposed for the
site on the south side of U.S. Highway 6 just east of The Gates. We have documents that refer to this
project as 'Chateau Wilgeaux". Our Assodation opposes approval of this project as it is currently
proposed. We have a number of reasons for opposing this project, including, but not limited to, the
following:
The scale of the project is not appropriate to the buildable area The site is directly adjacent to U.S.
Highway 6 and is characterized by very steep terrain, with limited buildable area. A very small portion of
the site has grades of 40% or less. In the applicant's own words, referring to a Geological Study, rove
will have some challenges with the slope above the site and stabilization.' I would propose to you that
when an applicant is forced to describe the geological situation in this manner, then there are some
severe problems with the site.
The location of the project is not appropriate for such a massive complex It will not enhance that
section of Highway 6 as an artval pant to the Town of Avon. It will, in fad, along with The Gates,
create a canyon effect along that section of highway. It will negatively impact the view to the south that
is so important to Avon. This project, as proposed, is considerably larger and taller than The Gates.
We believe this project as proposed, fails to meet marry of the principles of the Town of Avon's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Town's design and development standards. It is not necessary for
the purpose of this letter to list all of those here as they are so obvious.
We are not aware of arty noise study performed by the applicant We fear this massive complex will
create a noise problem for the portion of Avon located across Highway 6 and the Eagle River by
reflecting vehicle noise from the highway toward Avon and Canyon Run.
This project will create an unacceptable traffic problem. Once The Gates is completed, there will be a
significant increase in traffic on Highway 6, in particular the roundabout at Avon Road and Highway 6.
An additional 112 units will add even more pressure, and undoubtedly will cause overflow traffic across
the Eagle River (Stonebridge) onto Hurd lane, a residential street not equipped to handle through
traffic.
In the application for this project there are a number of references to The Gates. The clear implication is
that since the Town of Avon approved that project, they should now approve this one. I disagree, of
course. Just because you approved the one does not in any way commit you to approve the other. But
they do have a pant — every time you approve a massive project like these, it makes it more difficult to
reject the next one. One such project along there is more than enough.
0 Page 2
February 13, 2007
Avon is a ski town. We agree with your Comprehensive Plan that the relationship with Beaver Creek is
important The wonderful view as one drives from Avon toward the Beaver Creek entrance is a key
asset Approving The Gates was a mistake. We urge you not to compound it by approving this project.
We are requesting that the Town of Avon remain true to the principles espoused in the Comprehensive
Plan and other Town design and development regulations and reject this application.
Thomas B. Hot, Jr.
President, Canyon Run Condominium Association
Cc. Toxin of Avon Council members
Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans:
Chairman
Town of Avon
Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon, Colorado 81620
1 have recently been made aware of a condominium project to the east of The Gates that
is in the planning stage. It is difficult to tell if the footprint of the project will cover the
•Fleck Ditch (Mach Teleck ditch), but the excavation may put the historic site at risk
1 am the president of the Avon Historic Preservation and Advisory Committee
(Committee) and the Committee is very concerned that this project will impact one of the
few remaining historic sites in the town of Avon.
The Avon Town Council, in 2005, passed a Resolution to establish the Committee to
protect and preserve the town's historic and cultural history. The Committee has hired an
expert to survey all the historic sites in Avon. The survey is underway, and the Fleck
Ditch is on the list for.the survey. The information about the importance of the Fleck
Ditch will be available in the near future.
The Planning and Zoning Commission needs to review this information when making
their determination.
7�
eanette Hix
President
Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
Cc: Avon Town Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner I, Town Of Avon
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Date: 2/13/2007
Re: Madison Partners, Folson Tract, Town of Avon, PUD Application
As summarized in the meeting minutes from Glen Palmer of Alpine Engineering, a
meeting was held in December with the following items discussed:
A 75% reduction in fire flow requirements may be acceptable with additional
fire protection such as horizontal standpipes and radio communication provided.
The concern is that the buildings are not accessible on the south side so
additional protection may be required. This will need to be evaluated on a
"whole picture " basis to confirm the intent of the fire code is being met.
Fire flow requirements should be established upfront to determine adequate pipe
sizing and if a fire pump will be required to meet those flows. Fire flow
requirements for the adjoining project, The Gates, are currently computer
modeled and will be verified this spring as weather permits. 100 psi required at
the most remote standpipe outlet may be adjusted based on the strength of the
hydraulic calculations.
- Fire department connection (FDC) locations were discussed as being located in
the general vicinity of the garage entry doors and clearly labeled.
- Access is proposed via the Port Cochere and east/west garage entrances. The
shared access between The Gates and this project would benefit both and greatly
enhance firefighting capabilities.
- Several options were discussed concerning the interface with Highway 6 and
emergency response into the project and clearing the site after an incident. I
believe further discussion was needed between CDOT and The Gates before a
final proposal was presented.
Please give me a call at 970-748-4741 if there are any questions or concerns.
S"',�'":t��:i l'1j`^I a:If S":yl�Kih':.irh �•1t �'4^..i.y ,:}I:t. }.r �`L'j/}.�Y{: T �]i{
]. tom? .ii��•'i� w�•.: :aq-.4Y �1 ,..{{-,,�.. �i-,"
it^11 •}�� , : - .-tJ" .,t,y..
yv. .. �R. .�
ii �n�?:. �'t- y. c'r N�iM4.�, '. }y k. Ip.k7t :���• -- ° `r -.u:.. S C �
Pagel of 2
Matt Pielsticker
From: David Johnson IDavid.Johnson@eaglecounty.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Matt Pielsticker
Cc: Harry Taylor, Kelley Collier
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
Employment and employee housing
The amount and location of affordable housing is important to ECO. Eagle County estimates that traffic
generation will triple over the next 20-30 years, requiring over $500 million in road expansion and improvements.
As an alternative, ECO Transit's 2030 Vision advocates regional rail service on the UP line and local feeder bus
service in each town center connected at multimodal transit stations. The key to success of transit will be transit -
supportive, pedestrian -oriented land use. This includes mixed-use, high-density walkable communities with a
variety of housing options, particularly surrounding the intermodal stations.
Please review the two files I have attached regarding employment generation. According to County -specific
employment generation studies by RRC Associates over the past ten years, bar/restaurant space generates 8.9
employees/1000ft2. The restaurant alone, under these assumptions will generate 27 employees. The applicant
also proposes to have concierge, maintenance, valet, and transit employees on staff. It is also possible, I assume,
that these units may be put under fractional ownership or rented out Under all these assumptions, this project
could generate far more than 27 employees to sustain the project. In addition, these residents will create
demands for services off-site–including shopping, entertainment, health care, etc.—which will generate more
employment.
According to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Eagle County will be the leading employment
generator in the Intermountain region. Eagle County's demand for employment and lack of attention to employee
housing will create an estimated labor shortage of 30,000 jobs by 2025-2030 ( see slide 22 of
htto:/twww.nwc.coa.co.us/Second%20Home%20Study/NWCCOG°/a202ndHome%20Studv%). Therefore, I ask
you to consider requiring the applicant to provide housing for at least a portion of employees to be generated by
this project, and that this housing be placed within walking distance to transit and services. I do not believe that
$225,000 in -lieu is a fair housing mitigation to Avon. If the affordable housing is not built or it is not built into the
right place or not integrated into the community, Avon may suffer from increased competition for employees and
the entire community will pay, directly or indirectly, from increased road maintenance costs, traffic congestion, and
air quality impacts as employees commute from outside the Town.
Transit Improvements
It is my understanding that the applicant wishes to reduce the number of parking spaces required for this project.
I also understand that there will be little if any parking available for employees. IF the parking requirements are
going to be reduced, it will be important to provide the proper infrastructure and alternatives to allow residents,
visitors and employees to get around without private automobiles. Residents and visitors should be encouraged to
leave their cars parked underground —if they have cars—and to use the two bus systems and the developer's
proposed shuttle. As the applicant reconfigures Highway 6, the applicant should create safe and attractive bus
pull -offs, walkways, shelters, and lighting. There are two passenger waiting areas in front of the applicant's site.
Both of these will need the pull -offs, shelters, and lighting. Although there may an opportunity to move the current
boarding locations, it is ECO's preference that they remain at their current sites. The pull -offs will need to be
constructed with proper deceleration, standing and acceleration space and the shelters will need to meet design
criteria of ECO Transit's current shelters. I also suggest that the walkway incorporate a 10 -foot buffer from
Highway 6 and pedestrian lighting for a safe and attractive pedestrian environment.
David Johnson, AICP
Transit Planner
0
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority
2/13/2007
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Bruce McCloskey, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 60216
Telephone (303) 297-1192
nvldlije.state.co.us
February 6, 2007
Town of Avon
Community Development
Ann: Matt Piclsticker
Box 975
Avon, 00. 81620PO Box 299
Mr. Pichxickur
For Wildlife -
For People
After reviewing the proposed PUD amendment for Madison Panner PUD, the Colomdo Division of WlWhfe (CDOW) offers the following comments and
raommendatioas regarding wildlife for your consideration.
The wildlife report has a couple of errors.
Ell:
• The wildlife report states "Elk winter Tanga I= been mapped on the majority of the southrm portion of the site." The site has been mapped not
only as elk winter range but also as elk winter conremration areas and elk severe winter range.
Black Bc r.
• The wildlife report states "lee area has not han napped by CDOW as black bear habitat." This is incorrect the etre has been mapped as overall
black bear range and as human conflict areas.
The summary in the wildfire report states "The potential impacts to elk habitat aro often encountered in development or this region; however, the sated
recommendations should alleviate most of the anticipated wildlife impacts." The only recommendations in the report ore mitigation of impacts to elk am using
plant species that are unpalatable for elk Many of the plant species listed are palatable for elk (such as Mountain Mahogany, Choke Cherry, and Big
sagebrush). There is a section on that the steep portion of thesouthern part of the site bane limited access to human traffic during the winter. Furtherthat this
area may be dedicated to the Town of Awn. However than ism information on whether the closure or the dedication to the town will be required There is
no discussion on the direct impact of the loss of approximately six (6) acres of habitat from thedevelopmenL The impact fmm the indirect impacts (increased
human and dog use) qn the adjacent elk habitat needs to be further explained and die mitigation measures spelled out in the PUD plan. The report needs to
include how these direct and Indirect impacts will be mitigated.
The discussion on black hours does correctly point out the requirements in the Town of Awn for utilization of wildlife resistant mfuse containers. However the
mitigation for black bear should include the not planting vegetation that produces barks or faits. Several of the plant species listed in the unpalatable list
produce berries or fruit flat am attractive to bears.
The Division of Wildlife appreciates; the opportunity to make recommendations and be involved with this fencing project If you have any question or concerns
with these wmments please fat free to contact DWM Bill Andra at 328-6563.
Sincerely,
Perry will
Area Wildlife Manger, Glenwood Springs
Cc: Ron Vdarde, Bill Andra, file
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, EvIcu ive Dhrectar
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair. Tom Bunko, Vice Chair • Claire O Neal, Secretary
Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Rick Enst om • Richard Ray. James McAnally. Ken Torres
Ex Offiao Members, Harris Sherman and John Shdp
Page 1 of 1
Matt Pielsticker
From: Ellie Caryl [EIIie.Caryl@eaglecounty.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 200711:34 AM
To: Matt Pielsticker
Cc: David Johnson; Harry Taylor
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
Hi Matt — I got the referral package on the above project. It seems that there plan addresses
what would have been my comment — provide a sidewalk/trail in front of the project to conform
to the recommendations of the Highway 6 access plan. I am passing the packet along to ECO
Transit in the event they have any comments for you. David Johnson is the Transit Planner
will relay the info to.
Thanks—
Ellie
Ellie Caryl
ECO Eagle Valley Trails Program Manager
(970)328-3523 /fax 328-3539
PO Box 1070
Gypsum, CO 81637
2/1/2007
Z
Q
J
a
W
N
Z
W
W
crma
O
u
z
0
LLM0
z
0
u
E
A
E
A
C
V
E
V t
O d
E
V M
., 'rn x
g
L
To
j LI�-
D
wiIIL
di
I � � � � " � � ft ft a* w r F a 0• 0 f! 0 0 f a 0 0 0 0 f c f 0& 9 4 9 9 6! f*& r
00 Town District Planning Principles,
Ivtet7+urt? t,rc,.ry Cictr,ta
no
so I Conununity Gateway
so Roundabout
so d Vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
Lie ❑ Steep Slopes
Awn Road Showcase
+ LyPem roemeaiw' �. _
Access to Beer
CreekSkl Area
District 6. U.S. Highway 6 Gateway Corridor
The U.S. Highway 6 Gateway Corridor is the main entrance to
the community and identifies Avon's image. The area is
characterized by: (1) the flat areas presently used for ski area
parking, and high visibility from U.S. Highway 6; (2) the
primary access to Beaver Creek; and (3) the Folsom/White
property (The Gates Development) located on the south side of
U.S. Highway 6.
The undeveloped parcels currently serving as parking areas and
other accessory uses for the Beaver Creek ski area present an
important influence on development within the Town. Although
these parcels are outside of Avon's municipal boundaries, the
= Town should be consulted on any proposed development on
_ these parcels.
This intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and Avon Road is a major
gateway to the Town. As part of the Town's roundabout
improvement project, this intersection was converted to a full
roundabout with attractive landscaping and monumentation
identifying both the Town and Beaver Creek. This corridor area
r also includes the Nottingham Station commercial area at the
intersection of Hurd Lane and Avon Road. A pedestrian link is
needed to connect this commercial area to the East Town Center
District and the Confluence District.
The Folsom/White property is intended to provide
residential/lodging uses with supporting commercial and service
uses at a scale appropriate to buildable area. The area is
somewhat isolated from other development within Avon due to
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Wage 81
R
EXHIBIT D
The southern
community
gateway
YON
Town District Planning Principles
Medium Priority Districts
its location on the south side of U.S. Highway 6. The area is
characterized by steep terrain, with limited buildable areas
directly adjacent to U.S. Highway 6.
Planning Principles:
• Enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way as a landscaped
boulevard/parkway to provide a sense of arrival and
departure for those traveling to and from Avon and to
strengthen Avon's overall community image and identity.
• Limit development of south side of U.S. Highway 6 to guest
service facilities near the Village Road intersection and to
neighborhood supporting commercial near the Prater Lane
intersection.
• Strengthen the association between the Town and Beaver
Creek through compatible streetscape elements, efficient
access, and cooperative visitor information center.
• Encourage screening of ski area parking areas and other
accessory uses.
• Create strong pedestrian connections to the Confluence and
the East Town Center Districts.
• Site buildings of various sizes (but smaller than those found
in the West Town Center District) to maximize sun
exposure, protect views, break up building bulk, and prevent
a canyon effect on Highway 6.
• Minimize cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes.
Buildings should be built into the hillside and stepped up
with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S.
Highway 6.
• Address access and parking at Nottingham Station.
• Ensure that vehicular access points align with existing roads
and create clean intersections.
• Consider buildable area when determining an appropriate
scale and density for development.
• Encourage shared access when appropriate.
• Enhance river access to the future whitewater park.
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan
Page 82
. 1 '17
44F
too -
Mv li,e�
to
AL
AW
-4e- A
7,1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
February 20, 2007 Meetina — Sian In Sheet
Name Address
/ %q8 E. MPPLCWooNcr Ga �orn�,L� CU 80111
C1Y.'s la/d 3o0 Ro2jlS L-AACAEIOZ
--l-;* Lf /x ILo 44UIZn Lni . ifi A-2-03
4, LAS �) )ABPA Rid
Codd
JUsmv ]�IgSPXtz"
Awl N64t-ua�a.--
u
0 400 *k-5 1p(nl e /- l 6L
380 464-d L A49, ///o l
-7-70 44-tAZ
Frank & Susan Diasparm
0400 Hurd Lane 1-102
Avon CO 81620
970-748.6986
frmk@newagevennues.=n
_ .. -�. .<..- r•
Fu11 Time Avon Residents
February 20, 2007
Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Attn: Avon Town Clerk, Patty McKenny
Dear Planning & Zoning Commission:
I am writing to you in response to the proposed development plan for "Chateau Wilgeaux".
My wife Susan and I have been full time residents in Avon for the better of 8 years now and over that
time have seen significant growth and development in Avon. Most of the changes over that time
have been for the better of the community and the valley. However, I must say that the proposed
development plan for "Chateau Margeaux" is the most preposterous proposal that has ever been put
forth to our zoning and planning commission during our time in Avon!
What is this developer thinking? Three buildings ranging in height from 155 feet to 95 feet on
Highway 61 The natural hillside view from the north side or Avon will be replaced with a sprawling
*complex that is detrimental to our community, not only in environmental disruption and esthetics but
would create an insurmountable traffic and noise reflection crisis that cannot be remedied on the
Highway 6 corridor and the Beaver Creek roundabout leading into Avon and down valley towns to
the west We already experience traffic congestion on Highway 6, on a normal rush hour and tourist
basis AND this road is the ONLY alternative to Fast— West traffic whenever Mother Nature &
accidents force'closure 1 detours from I-70." This plan cannot address the Highway 6 congestion in
any positive way.
Let's not forget wildlife in our impact assessment; the Vail Valley and state of Colorado in general
take great pride and go to great lengths to protect and promote the wildlife that are a bedrock of our
beautiful state. Much of our local wildlife come down to the river from the hills that "Willgeaux"
will destroy. In addition, what will be the impact to the fish and vital water supply that the Eagle
River provides?
Look at this proposal closely and with a very careful eye to our future. I trust you will see, as we and
many of our fellow Avon residents do, that while this development plan may be appropriate for the
Los Colinas suburb of Dallas, it has no merit and to the contrary will be TOTALLY detrimental to
Avon, Eagle County and our beautiful state.
It is our objective to have you, the Avon Planning & Zoning Commission to see this absurd proposal
in the same light as we, the tax paying citizens of Avon do.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank & Susan Diasparra
:f-,•�a'•1'..•'�v',•. yh.`•,t, �_•, ck �-J'i •� 1.Y ••r}}
_:.r •.t3: Ytc Y'i-....•: ti::..�.x.r� '.n �•dr:d'.r �-::'st r_.. . <•. � Y
b
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From:
Patty McKenny
Sent:
Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:50 AM
To:
Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Chateau Wilgeaux opposition
more comments below:)
From: michael bergin[mailto:berginmichael@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Patty McKenny
Subject: Chateau Wilgeaux opposition
Hello Commission Members,
I am a Board member at Avon Crossing on Hurd Lane. I was made aware of the planned development of the
Highway 6 parcel and have some opposition to the proposal as it it currently stands. The three problems that I
have with the current proposal are that: 1) The height of the proposed building could reach 9 stories in places.
That is way out of line with what Avon ordinance would deem allowable for any proposed development. As far as
I know, 6 stories is the maximum allowed. 2) Excavating the site to build on would require some
extensive erosion control, which currently hasn't been established. 3) Aestetically, this proposed development
would have a dramatic impact on the Highway 6 corridor and Avon/Beaver Creek entrance. We live in the
mountains because we want to live in the mountains. High-rise building belong in the city, not here.
My suggestion to the Commission is to 'Table" the proposed development, at least until the developer can
give more precise details on these problems. I am not opposed to development on this site, it just has to be
better thought out. Currently, there Is no reason that I can see why It is in the interest of this Town and
Commission to move forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Michael Bergin
970-331-9653
175 Hurd In. 3-207
Avon, Co 81620
Help make tax time less taxing, easy-to-use tools right at your fingertips. Check it out!
Q
-C
2/20/2007
t
1' RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2007
LEONARD KENT
KENDAL #365
80 LYME ROAD
HANOVER, NH 03755
Community Development
February 12, 2007
CHRIS EVANS, Chairman, Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Sir:
My wife and I have owned condo D-202 in Canyon Run since it was built in
1996-7. At that time we were led to believe that the land across from us on
the far side of Route 6 was too steep to ever be built upon. For many years
we have enjoyed looking at undeveloped land with the occasional wild animal
and bird life. We are appalled by the prospect of looking at the Chateau
Wilgeaux development across from us instead of looking at the natural slope
of the rocky mountainside.
We are also concerned that this development is far from the concepts
embodied in the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Route 6 corridor which
remains a major access to the Town of Avon. We hope the Planning and
Zoning Commission will put the long range needs of the Town ahead of the
short range profit that this Texas developer expects to make with a high
class condo with restaurant structure that would not be out of place up at
Bachelor Gulch or elsewhere up the mountainside. We believe this
development will not only destroy the natural terrain but will also create
additional traffic problems, parking problems, policing problems and other
unforeseen situations which will inevitably affect future Town of Avon
budgets as well as further degrading the few remaining natural areas close
to the center of Avon.
Please consider the total impact of this proposal and act against it.
Very Truly Yours,
P.S. Please distribute copies of this letter to whomever wishes to see it.
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans,
Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission
RE; Chateau Wilgeoux
RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2007
Community Development
My name is Dale Aden, I own a unit in the Canyon Run complex, specifically E building
unit 103. I have owned this unit since it was new. We lived full time in this condo from
June 2005, through November 2006.
My reason for writing this letter is to object to the proposed new development along the
south side of Hwy 6, and east of the Gates development. I believe it is called Chateau
Wilgeoux. From what I have seen of this plan, it is a massive building, some 8 stories tall
and as long as a football field. This size building will of course nun the hill side views
from the back of Canyon Run, where many of us set on our balconies, weather
permitting, and enjoy the views.
I don't know how you can take a building of this size, and make it esthetically pleasing
on the narrow corridor of land that exists there, and building it into the side of a steep
hillside, will look even worse. Talk about a wall of concrete and glass, are we in to .
making our own canyons now? We need to preserve some open space, most of us moved
here for the natural flow of the land, the hills and mountains, it would be a shame to
destroy that for capital gain. Are we that greedy that we have to take an area that steep,
and build housing?
This development does not fit in with the planned building construction for the west side
of downtown, where you have created a planned community, where it will be easy to get
around, with controlled traffic flows, and amenities within walking distance. Can you
imagine the traffic problems on Hwy 6, both foot traffic, and automobile traffic caused by
this new development? All of this in front of a busy 2 lane highway. I have seen
mornings and evenings now where traffic is backed up on Hwy 6 getting in to the
roundabout.
The City has come forward with a very well thought out comprehensive plan for
expansion and development, and in my wildest dreams I do not see a structure like this
fitting in.
I hope you will study this project closely, and agree with me, that this is a project that
needs rejected.
Thank you for listening,
Dale Aden �
P.0.2024
Avon, CO.
PS Please make this letter part of the public record, and share it with all of the
Commissioners.
N
J
J. F. & Margaret B. Abel
0170 Hurd Lane, Unit C-202
P.O. Box 289
Avon, CO 81620
February 19, 2007
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 81620
Sirs,
We are writing concerning the Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal that is to be
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning commission tomorrow evening. We will not be able
to attend the meeting, so we are writing to record our objections to the project.
Our principle objections are the enormous size of the project, and the inappropriateness
of the chosen site. If the building is constructed as proposed, it will block from view all
but the top of the wooded hillside and chalk cliffs on the south side of route 6. Most of
what is now a lovely natural hillside full of game ti*ails will be replaced with retaining walls
rising up to 90 feet in height. Development will require destruction of hundreds of healthy
fir and spruce trees, and excavation on a scale not yet seen in our town.
Other than some potential tax revenue, we see no benefit to the town and its citizens
that would justify approving such an enormous and inappropriate project. It would strip
the route 6 corridor of any of its natural attraction, and offer nothing in the way of
balanced affordable housing. And it is in direct conflict with many of the principles of the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan.
We urge the commission to reject the Chateau Wilgeaux development proposal. We ask
that a copy of this letter be given to each member of the Planning and Zoning
commission before the Feb. 20 meeting, and that it be made part of the record.
Thank you,
J. F. Abel Margaret B. Abel
February 14, 2007
Bette E. Todd
9698 E. Maplewood Circle
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Canyon Run H101
Mr. Chris Evans, Chairman
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Evans,
Since learning of the PUD application of Madison Partners for Chateau Wilgeaux two
weeks ago, I have spent countless hours familiarizing myself with the PUD application and the
Avon Comprehensive Plan in an effort to determine how this steep hillside along Highway 6 could
suddenly become the potential home to a 115 foot high, 430,000 square foot condominium
complex. The Madison Partners PUD appears to be in conflict with so many of the goals,
policies, and principles of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and town development standards that it
made me question why such a plan would even be submitted to the town for approval. I urge you
to deny this PUD as proposed because it will not benefit the Town of Avon.
Recognizing the commission is well qualified to assess the tremendous impact approval of
this PUD would have on Avon, I will not list all of my many concerns here (it would take pages),
however I would like to call your attention to a few areas of particular concern. The staff report
was not yet available at the time of this writing so I apologize if items overlap.
Goal H 2 of the comprehensive plan addresses protecting the health, safety and welfare of
citizens through avoiding or adequately mitigating environmental hazards.
Policy H.2.1 specifically states, "avoid development in environmental hazard areas such
as flood plains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards...." The geologic report attached to
the Madison Partners PUD clearly identifies several geologic hazards associated with the property.
The hazards are so severe that the report recommends shielding the building with direct protection
and further indicates that protecting the pool and patio area may not be possible.
Policy H.2.2 states, `Require development and redevelopment to minimize degradation of
sensitive natural areas by restricting development on steep hillsides." The applicant proposes to
build on 6 acres of land while less than 3 buildable acres actually exist on the valley floor at the
building site, the fourth acre being way up the hillside and inaccessible. The result is that the
buildings in phases two and three sit entirely on land with greater than a 40% slope causing large
cuts into the hill and considerable degradation of the hillside. Rather than minimizing the
degradation, this proposal maximizes it. I would suggest that the PUD asks the town to
completely disregard this policy as well as sections of the municipal code related to building on
slopes greater than 40%.
Goal C deals with land uses, and Avon as an economic center.
Policy. C.1.1 The very first policy in this section states, "Ensure that proposed development
and redevelopment projects conform to the Future Land Use Plan's designations and are of a
scale and intensity appropriate for the planning district in which they are located." Thr-
Planning
hePlanning Principles for District 6 state, "Site buildings of various sizes, (but smaller than those
found in the West Town Center District)." Chateau Wilgeaux at 115' is taller than the Sheratolx
and its 430,000 square feet is greater, I believe, than anything currently exiting in West Town
Center. Furthermore, while I have not yet obtained the densities for the surrounding properties,
there can be no doubt that this project displays densities well in excess of any properties currently
in the Highway 6 corridor or anywhere in the near vicinity.
Policy C.1.7 "Encourage development applicants to meet with adjacent residents,
businesses, and property owners prior to and during design, planning, and application
phases... " Unlike East West Partners or the Town of Avon who have sought public input and kept
residents informed, Madison Partners has made no effort to seek input from residents or even
inform us that any proposal was being considere&for the property. It was only by chance that we
discovered the PUD had been filed. I am troubled by a PUD application that states, "the property
will need to respects the Gates" but never mentions anything about the existing residents of Avon
even those whose properties will be severely impacted by the proposed development.
The language in the PUD application seems to repeatedly imply the proposed project is
comparable to The Gates next door. I believe this may not be based on fact for the following
reasons.
1) While I am not an expert on how building heights are computed in Avon, it seems clear
that a building that reaches a height of 115 feet and sits on ground higher than its neighbor, is
simply not the same as a building 75-80 feet in height that sits on lower ground. The impact of the
proposed PUD will be much greater than the Gates.
2) The Gates is a project of 49 condominiums that is sited on a comer so the mass of the
building is never visible from any one angle, a considerably different situation than the Madison
Partners PUD that proposes three buildings sited more or less straight down Highway 6 and, as
designed, appear as one very long structure. In addition much of the Gates is hidden behind large
mature trees.
3) The Gates required much less disturbance of the terrain as is evidenced by the fact that the
retaining walls at the Gates are approximately 30 feet in height while the retaining walls for the
proposed PUD appear to begin at approximately 50 feet and rise to almost 90 feet up the hillside.
4) The Gates has underground parking and only one level of garage wall is exposed along the
Highway 6 corridor. The proposed PUD design provides significant above grade parking resulting
in two stories of windowless garage wall exposed in many areas as the main view for people
traveling down Highway 6.
5) The assumption that because one property is suited for a certain density another must be as
well is flawed. Topography, building siting, and other issues come into play.
It seems that the proposed PUD is out of character and not compatible with both the
Highway 6 corridor, and the surrounding community in terms of its scale, bulk, and height. There
is simply nothing like this along -the Highway 6 corridor from Mintum to Edwards and beyond.
Eagle Vaif, Avon, Arrowhead and Edwards, all have low profile buildings ranging from 14
stories with two to three stories as the average along the Highway 6 corridor. Avon, specifically,
has the Eaglebend housing complex, Canyon Run, Brookside, Rivers Edge, Sundridge and The
Gates. The Gates is the exception rather than the rule here and even The Gates is much lower in
height and less dense than the proposed project. All of the other properties are 24 stories in
height as they front Highway 6. Most projects along Highway 6 are broken up into several
buildings with significant green space and highway setbacks.
Surely Mr. Folson realized when he purchased the property that it had limited
development potential. Likewise, those who purchased property across from this land recognized
that fact as well. I respect Mr. Folson's desire to develop his land. That said, any development
on the property should be done in such a way as to be sensitive to the topography, the wildlife,
Avon residents, taxpayers and visitors. Anything built there should be much lower in profile and
less dense than proposed, built on land that meets the Avon definition of buildable land as defined
in section 17 of the municipal code and comply with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, PUD Design
Criteria and Avon development standards. Otherwise, why do we have them?
The residents of Canyon Run have been supportive, quiet residents and taxpayers of Avon
since its inception. We have embraced the development and redevelopment in West and East
Avon. We watched quietly and selflessly during the development of The Gates, in spite,of the fact
that it would obstruct the views up the valley to the Landing and Bachelor Gulch enjoyed by most
Canyon Run residents. But the current proposal is just too much. It will severely impact all of
Avon, residents and visitors alike. It will change the face of Avon forever. Please consider this
proposal carefully and deny it as it is proposed.
Thank you for all your time and efforts on behalf of Avon.
Bette E. Todd
Littleton Capital Partners
5711 South Nevada Street
Littleton, Colorado 80110
February 18, 2007,
Dear A von Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
My name is Jonathan Bush and I am a homeowner at Canyon Run. 270 Hurd Lane, unit D-203. As you are aware, the proposed
Chateau {lilgeaux project is directly across the riverfrom Canyon Run.
I do not support this project in its present design. My concern stems from two primary reasons: 1) the design and massing of the
project are not in keeping with orsympathetic to the hillside on which the project is located and 2) l believe the project falls to meet
several key elements ofthe Avon Comprehensive Plan.
When we first acquired our property at Canyon Run and asked about the land south of Highway 6, we were told that the steep terrain
would prevent anyfuture development, which at the time made sense. Our concern was stimulated by the Gates development that was
occurringjust west ofthis site Although thejury may still be out on the Gates project, myfirst reaction was that the Gates
development was not ofa size or scale for the site but time will be the judge. I recognize that the CW property is shown as PUD in the
Comp Plan but my guess is that it never contemplated a development of this size or character. As I understand the plan, the tallest
building will stand over 111; which is 30' taller than the Gates building which already feels out ojscale. This doesn't seem to make
much sense unless the theory is that by going taller it will make the Gates project feel better. Also, as I try to understand the North
elevation, it appears that the base of the building is all large walls andgarage doors- a design in my opinion which will just add to
the over -massive effect ofthe project. Given what appears to be the true build -able area on this site, it feels like the proverbial 10 lbs
is being stuffed into a 5 lbs bag.
My second concern is how this project relates to the Comprehensive plan. In my view, the plan faits the Comp Plan in four major
areas:
1. The development does not provide a sense of arrival and departure for those coming to Awn and it does not appear to
create a landscaped boulewrdlparkw•ay. Rather, it seems to destroy the natural landscaping along the hillside that already
exists and ultimately does not create an arrival for the Town ofA van.
1. The buildings do not seem to be sited to protect views, break up building bulk orprevent a canyon effect on Highway 6.
Instead, the three phases appear to create one continuous building that stretches for hundreds and hundreds offeet. Kile
the developer has made an effort to step the building so that it is not completely monolithic, it is hard to imagine that this
will create anything but a canyon along Highway 6.
3. The project does not preserve steep slopes but instead cuts into the hillside as much as 90 jeer in some areas. In order not
to create a worse canyon on Highway 6, the unintended consequence is that the project is then forced to destroy the
hillside. Back to the 51bs bag. It does not appear that the buildings are built into the hillside either but instead rise straight
up at the rear of the project. Again, this may be a result oftrying to create some sun exposure but is limited once again by
a site that is not well salted for a project of this size.
4. Lastly, it just doesn't seem to pass the test ofbeing compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent
properties. In an area dominated by 3-5 storyprojects, 8 stories is not compatible nor in keeping with the rest ofthe area.
Although I am without the benefit ofa site plan, it does not appear that there is a generous open space allowance which
would also be in keeping with other projects in the area, a goal ofthe comp plan and something that would enhance the
entrance to Awn. -
In conclusion, the developer has attempted to be thoughhl about details such as the materials and how the massing is broken up.
Unfortunately, what the project looks like on an 8112 X l /sheet ofpaper is very d fferent than what it is going to look like in context
of the surrounding properties, Highway 6 and the town ofA von. I believe the scale ofthe project is such that is not appropriate or
considerate ofthe site and hillside on which it is located. lfthe Gates project feels out ojscale and touch, this massive development
will dwarf it by comparison. A site will ultimately always reveal its limitations, and I thlnkfor the reasons cited above, this particular
design is not the right solution.
1.
Thankyou for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bush
r
February 14, 2007
Dear Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
My name is Alice Jackson Bush. I am a homeowner at Canyon Run located at 270 Hurd
Lane, D-203 in Avon, CO. I am opposed to the Chateau Wilgeaux project. I respectfully
ask that this letter please be added to the public record and a copy of it given to each of
the planning commissioners. I would like this letter to be read out loud at the hearing on
Chateau Wilgeaux, February 20, 2007.
I have lived in Colorado for 40 years. We purchased our place in this lovely riverside
location in Avon because we loved the view of the beautiful hillside across the river. We
love to hear the river waters running. We watch deer and wildlife from our window on
that hillside. We fish in the stream and our children play beside it. We are avid skiers
and hikers. We love that Highway 6 is not a built up, blocky row of monster buildings.
It is a lovely drive into the gateway to Avon and toBeaverCreek. We applaud the city
for rescuing the water wheel along the river and rescuing some of Avon's history. We
could have bought in Vail. We chose our Avon place for the wild hillside on the river.
Despite the Gates project, we still can feel like we are in the mountains as we travel Hwy.
6 and as we view it from our Canyon Run home. This being in the mountains feeling is
all due to the open space on that steep hillside on the south side of Highway 6, across
from Canyon Run. The wild steep slope suits Avon. It is part of Avon's history.
I am greatly concerned with the Chateau Wilgeaux Building proposal for a variety of
reasons. The number one concern is the giant monstrosity of the proposed project. It
does not fall in compliance with Avon's comprehensive plan. The developer has no
regard for the beauty of the valley and in my opinion, his plan looks like the wall of
China. It seems to be a non-Coloradoans interpretation of what living in the mountains
must mean. High density, bulky and huge makes that area a canyon of building blocks.
It does not fit Avon.
I am also very concerned about polluted runoff into the already taxed Eagle River from a
project such as this. I'm concerned about the increase in traffic that would result from
any development along that stretch, not only clogging of that artery but also the increased
noise pollution. Already that is a busy stretch along Highway 6. I can imagine the
echoing noise level effect that walling in Highway 6 all the way down would cause. The
park -like feel that exists due to that green in summer mountain as you enter into Avon,
would be lost forever.
Please do not put this monster in our backyards. Please don't make Avon into another
block street of buildings. Please don't box us in.
Sincerely,
Alice Jackson Bush
Canyon Run, 270 Hurd Lane, D-203 in Avon, Colorado
f
CHRISTOPHER J. TODD
9698 R MAPLEWOOD CHL
GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111
HOME: 720488-1715
CELL: 303-913-1011
WORK: 303-3904129
AVON CONDO: 970-748-0973
HOME EMAIL: CHRiSTfODDOUSN.COM
WORKEMAIL: CPODDraiwYREF.COM
February 15, 2007
Chris Evans, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Madison Partners PUD
Project Name: Chateau Wilgeaux
I am the owner of Canyon Run condo unit NEI 02, 300 Hurd Lane, Avon CO which is
situated on the north side of the Eagle River immediately across from the Chateau Wilgeaux project
proposed to be built on the Folsom/White property. I am writing in response to the request for
public comment at the P&Z Commission hearing scheduled for February 20th. I am strongly
opposed to the project proposal as presented in the PUD for the reasons detailed below.
The proposed development will greatly degrade the view currently enjoyed by the citizens of
and visitors to Avon. Those most impacted will be the residents and property owners of Canyon
Run condo complex, Avon Crossing condo complex and Chappell Square condo complex which
will have their *current, unspoiled view replaced with an extremely large building totally unsuited
for the available land. The forested hillside located on the Folsom/White property is a naturally
attractive area which dominates and is viewable from almost anywhere in the eastern half of the
Town of Avon. It cannot be replaced. It is this type of view which brings people to the mountains
of Colorado and which improves the quality of life in Avon. Diminishing this one -of -a -kind asset
with a large–scale condominium project will be a long-term, irrevocable detriment to the enjoyment
of Avon residents.
The Town of Avon recognized the benefits of retaining the natural beauty of the
Folsom/White property when guidelines were developed for the District 6: U.S. Highway 6
Gateway Corridor as detailed in the Town District Planning Principals (pages 81 and 82). Chateau
Wilgeaux conflicts with several of the stated goals:
"Enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way as a landscaped boulevard/parkway to
provide a sense of arrival and departure for those traveling to and from Avon and to
strengthen Avon's overall community image and identity." I fail to see how cutting into
a naturally beautiful wooded hillside and replacing it with a 9 -story building is
compatible with a goal of an attractive entrance to a mountain community.
• "Site buildings—to protect views ... and prevent a canyon effect on Highway 6." • It
appears that Chateau Wilgeaux is doing just the opposite. r
.z
"Minimize cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes. Buildings should be built into
the hillside and stepped up with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S.
Highway 6" Again, the proposed project does just the opposite. A significant cut into
the hillside is proposed, and the face of the building facing Highway 6 is completely
vertical without any step up and back aspect to conform to the hillside slope. The PUD
states in §3.03(6)&(7) that it "steps up the slope of the property and from end to end."
This may be true from east to west where there is a very gentle rise, but it is totally
incorrect with regard to the intended meaning of the Planning guidelines which address
the major slope of the property (i.e., front to back). The currently sloping, wooded
hillside does a relatively good job (although not perfect) of absorbing and reflecting
upwards the vehicular noise from Highway 6. A building which steps from front to
back (i.e., somewhat mirrors the slope of the hillside) would provide some degree of
sound reflection upwards, although the noise absorption by vegetation would be lost.
The proposed project, which is straight up-and-down and much closer to the road than
the current slope, would greatly increase the amount of reflected noise directed towards
the residences immediately across the Eagle River.
"Consider buildable area when determining an appropriate scale and density for
development " More than half the proposed project is on land classified as unbuildable. .
Leveling the land be cutting out the hillside should not be an allowable solution to avoid
complying with this goal.
I believe that Chateau,Wilgeaux will spoil the natural views enjoyed by the owners of the
three major condominium projects across the Eagle River to such an extent that their property
values will be negatively impacted. Accordingly, I believe the Planning and Zoning Commission
should take unusual steps to encourage public input to the approval process. I strongly believe that
the Neighbor 300' notification requirement should be expanded for this project. I would like to see
the hearing process delayed and the developer be required to notify all property owners (not just
condo association managers) in the affected condo complexes. Regardless, I do not believe the
developer met the current requirements when they sent notice to the property manager of Canyon
Run complex and did not send any notification to the individual property owners. I am a property
owner with my address recorded on the property and tax records of Eagle County, yet I did not
receive any notice of the public hearing. Nor did the developer make any effort to inform the media
or introduce the project to the citizens of Avon. This is a case of a developer trying to do the bare
minimum in order to sneak a bad project by the unaware public. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has a duty to look out for its citizens and prevent just this sort of happening, which
although probably meeting the "letter of the law" is not in the best interest of the general public.
Finally, I would like to comment that I think the proposed $225,000 payment in -lieu of
providing affordable housing is a joke. Assuming this money earns interest of $18,000 per year (an
8% yield), this would provide a subsidy of less than $56 per month for each of its 27 employees —
certainly not enough to bring local rents down to "affordable" levels for lower -paid workers.
Please consider the issues I have raised in this letter and reject the PUD as submitted, or ata
minimum delay the hearing process until all affected property owners have been notified and given
the opportunity to provide input to the approval process. Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
C!sto'pher 1. ..,
Ruth Weiss
From: Patty McKenny
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 200710:25 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
I presume you are collecting these letters & I am as well for the Council.
Are you forwarding them to P&Z?
Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page.
Thanks.
-----Original Message -----
From: JP M Kyrillos (mailto:jp.m.kyrillos@aexp.com)
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Ruth Weiss; Patty McKenny
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
as well as all other Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the
public record and read out loud at the February 20th meeting.
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong
opposition to the proposed Hwy 6 development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I
understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive Plan. Namely,
it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town
beauty, causes a canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter
Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for
development and is now using the Gates project as a way to find a loophole in
the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J.P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food & Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887 (fax)
American Express made the following
annotations on 02/14/07, 09:17:23
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+a++++a++a+aa++aaaaa+aa+aaaaaaa++a+aaaa+aa+aa++++a++++++++++++++++++++++++++a+
"This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain o
confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message arloft
any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us by reply e-mail and immediately and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. Thank you." m !
M
1
Ruth Weiss
From:
Patty McKenny
Sent:
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:26 AM
To:
Ruth Weiss
Subject:
FW: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: High
Same with this letter,.I'll keep a copy for my file 6 you take care of it for PSZ.
Later.
-----Original Message -----
From: bbkohn@adelphia.net [mailto:bbkohn@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:46 PM
To: Patty McKenny
Cc: Ruth Weiss
Subject: Letter regarding Chateau Wilgeaux
Importance: High
Please make this letter a part of the public record and give a copy to each commissioner.
To all members of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission:
As a resident and taxpayer of Avon, I am vehemently opposed to the proposed project known
as Chateau Wilgeaux. The proposal for a seven to nine story building, ranging from 95-115
feet in height, and over 400,000 sq. feet, to be built on only 3 acres, seems very
unappealing. Much of the mountain side is over 40% grade and therefore, too steep for
development. The size of this proposed development is overwhelming and out of proportion
to the surrounding areas. It seems to me that this proposal violates almost every aspect
of the Avon Comprehensive Plan for the Highway 6 corridor as well as the town planning
principles.
I have chosen to retire to Avon, instead of Vail or Beaver Creek, because of its small
city charm, lack of congestion and the beauty of the mountains. Please do not agree to
Chateau Wilgeaux as it is being presented.
Respectfully submitted,
Philip Kohn
Canyon Run, Apt C104
1
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: JP M Kyrillos Up.m.kyri[los@aexp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:56 AM
To: pmckenny@avon.aexp.com; Ruth Weiss
Subject: Proposed Hwy 6 Development
Please deliver this letter to Chris Evans, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission as well as all other
Commissioners. In addition, please have added to the public record and read out loud at the February 20th
meeting. .
Dear Chris,
As an owner at Canyon Run, C102 in Avon, CO, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Hwy 6
development, Chateau Wilgeaux. From what I understand, it is in direct violation of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan. Namely, it does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town beauty, causes a
canyon effect on Hwy 6, blocks mountain views as you enter Avon and is not compatible with the environment.
It is obvious that this developer knew that this plot of land was not fit for development and is now using the Gates
project as a way to find a loophole in the system. Please do not allow our beautiful town to become a city. The
future of Avon is in your hands.
Thank you for you attention.
Best, J.P.
Jean-Paul Kyrillos
Vice President and Publisher
Food & Wine
1120 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
212-382-5638
212-382-5887 (fax)
2/14/2007
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans:
Chairman
Town of Avon
Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon, Colorado 81620
Dear Mr. Evans:
I have recently been made aware of a condominium project to the east of The Gates that
is in the planning stage. It is difficult to tell if the footprint of the project will cover the
Fleck Ditch (Mach Teleck ditch), but the excavation may put the historic site at risk
I am the president of the Avon Historic Preservation and Advisory Committee
(Committee) and the Committee is very concerned that this project will impact one of the
few remaining historic sites in the town of Avon.
The Avon Town Council, in 2005, passed a Resolution to establish the Committee to
protect and preserve the town's historic and cultural history. The Committee has hired an
expert to survey all the historic sites in Avon. The survey is underway, and the Fleck
Ditch is on the list for the survey. The information about the importance of the Fleck
Ditch will be available in the near future.
The Planning and Zoning Commission needs to review this information when making
their determination.
eanette Hix
President
Historic Preservation Advisory Committee
Cc: Avon Town Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thomas B. Hbc, Jr.
120 Hurd Lane, A-203
Avon, CO 81620
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
Town of Avon
Avon, Co 81620
KIM!: 17 rirA:N.Tiq
I am the President of the Canyon Run Condominium Association and I am writing on behalf of the
Association. It has been brought to our attention that a condominium project has been proposed far the
site on the south side of U.S. Highway 6 just east of The Gates. We have documents that refer to this
project as 'Chateau Wdgeaux'. Our Association opposes approval of this project, as it is currently
proposed. We have a number of reasons for opposing this project including, but not limited to, the
following.
The scale of the project is not appropriate to the buildable area. The site is directly adjacent to U.S.
Ho way 6 and is characterized by very steep terrain, with limited buildable area. A very small portion of
the site has grades of 401/6 or less. In the applicants own words, referring to a Geological Study, 'we
will have some challenges with the slope above the site and stabilization.* I would propose to you that
when an applicant is forced to describe the geological situation in this manner, then there are some
severe problems with the site.
The location of the project is not appropriate for such a massive complex It will not enhance that
section of Highway 6 as an arrival point to the Town of Avon. It will, in fact, along with The Gates,
create a canyon effect along that section of highway. It will negatively impact the view to the south that
is so important t?,Avon. This project as proposed, is considerably larger and taller than The Gates.
We believe this project, as proposed, fails to meet many of the principles of the Town of Avon's
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Town's design and development standards. It is not necessary for
the purpose of this letter to list all of those here as they are so obvious.
We are not aware of any noise study performed by the applicant We fear this massive complex will
create a noise problem for the portion of Avon located across Highway 6 and the Eagle River by
reflecting vehicle noise from the highway toward Avon and Canyon Run.
This project will create an unacceptable traffic problem. Once The Gates is completed, there will be a
significant increase in traffic on Highway 6, in particular the roundabout at Avon Road and Highway 6.
An additional 112 units will add even more pressure, and undoubtedly will cause overflow traffic across
the Eagle River (Stonebridge) onto Hurd Lane, a residential street not equipped to handle through
traffic.
In the application for this project there are a number of references to The Gates. The dear implication is
that since the Town of Avon approved that project they should now approve this one. I disagree, of
course. Just because you approved the one does not in any way commit you to approve the other. But
they do have a point— every time you approve a massive project ike these, it makes it more dff=ft to
reject the next one. One such project along there is more than enough.
• Page 2
February 13, 2007
Avon is a ski town. We agree with your Comprehensive Plan that the relationship with Beaver Creek is
important The wonderful view as one drives from Avon toward the Beaver Creek entrance is a key
asset Approving The Gates was a mistake. We urge you not to compound it by approving this project.
We are requesting that the Town of Avon remain true to the principles espoused in the Comprehensive
Plan and other Town design and development regulations and reject this application.
`- -�fg•/��Iy 9
Thomas B. ft Jr.
President, Carryon Run Condominium Association
Cc: Town of Avon Council members
Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members
0
Thomas B. Hix, Jr.
120 Hurd Lane, A-203
Avon, CO 81620
February 13, 2007
Mr. Chris Evans
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission
`Town of Avon
Avon, Co 81620
- •Y.IY � ♦' Y • 1• • .IIL 1• I Yt IY • Y }Y .. •1y t •Y•.}Y • 1 -
•1 • i- t t• f-• • i 3{YY - M.f :•ice
K 0 • i } }0.M• -•Y !} C • i } •. •- Y l • «i .• -v t•
} «.. I' •w 1 I Y•' .JY 1 I• Y Y,Y /61J • Y Y «••..- • •' I .
••• r,. `• «-} a •�.,« •c 1 - }u.•} v 1.. 1+ 1 . - 1 _ 1 - • -
The location of the project is not appropriate for such a massive complex_ It will not enhance that
section of Highway 6 as an arrival point to the Town of Avon. It will, in fact, along with The Gates,
create a canyon effect along that section of highway. it will negatively impact the view to the south that
is so Important to Avon. This project as proposed, is considerably, larger and taller than The Gates.
We are not aware of any noise study performed by the applicant We fear this massive complex will
create a noise problem for the portion of Awn located across Highway 6 and the Eagle River by
reflecting vehicle noise from the highway toward Awn and Carryon Run.
In the application for this project there are a number of references to The Gates. The Gear implication is
that since the Town of Awn approved that project, they should now approve this one. I disagree, of
averse. Just because you approved the one does not in arty way commit you to approve the other. But
they do have a point — every time you approve a massive project Oce these, it makes it more cNicult to
reject the next one. One such project along there is more than enough.
c
February 13, 2007
Avon is a std town. We agree with your Comprehensive Plan that the relationship with Beaver Creek is
important The Wonderful view as one drives from Avon toward the Beaver Creek entrance is a key
asset Approving The Gates was a mistake. We urge you not to compound it by approving this project
We are requesting that the Town of Avon remain true to the principles espoused in the Comprehensive
Plan and other Town design and development regulations and reject this application.
Cc: Town of Avon Council members
Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members
0
To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner I, Town Of Avon
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Date: 2/13/2007
Re: Madison Partners, Folson Tract, Town of Avon, PUD Application
As summarized in the meeting minutes from Glen Palmer of Alpine Engineering, a
meeting was held in December with the following items discussed:
A 75% reduction in fire flow requirements maybe acceptable with additional
fire protection such as horizontal standpipes and radio communication provided.
The concern is that the buildings are not accessible on the south side so
additional protection may be required. This will need to be evaluated on a
"whole picture " basis to confirm the intent of the fire code is being met.
Fire flow requirements should be established upfront to determine adequate pipe
sizing and if a fire pump will be required to meet those flows. Fire flow
requirements for the adjoining project, The Gates, are currently computer
modeled and will be verified this spring as weather permits. 100 psi required at
the most remote standpipe outlet may be adjusted based on the strength of the
hydraulic calculations.
- Fire department connection (FDC) locations were discussed as being located in
the general vicinity of the garage entry doors and clearly labeled.
Access is proposed via the Port Cochere and east/west garage entrances. The
shared access between The Gates and this project would benefit both and greatly
enhance firefighting capabilities.
- Several options were discussed concerning the interface with Highway 6 and
emergency response into the project and clearing the site after an incident. I
believe further discussion was needed between CDOT and The Gates before a
final proposal was presented.
Please give me a call at 970-748-4741 if there are any questions or concerns.
uw4't�
Y L��`-.`r��7: i'.�iiF io�r,f'r:.�°L�'-:.G
��yy ry�� .v� i+3 •, �y.,.. �:.'._'(ctt icy
R . Y �"'�i `�p�`, J vr��„i�4•a"-i,, TBv.� P^�,% �`}...y�. �. ��V,` ,1 , y;(
Page 1 of 2
Matt Pielsticker
From: David Johnson [David.Johnson@eaglecounty.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:25 AM
To: Matt Pielsticker
Cc: Harry Taylor, Kelley Collier
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
Employment and employee housing
The amount and location of affordable housing is important to ECO. Eagle County estimates that traffic
generation will triple over the next 20-30 years, requiring over $500 million in road expansion and improvements.
As an alternative, ECO Transit's 2030 Vision advocates regional rail service on the UP line and local feeder bus
service in each town center connected at multimodal transit stations. The key to success of transit will be transit -
supportive, pedestrian -oriented land use. This includes mixed-use, high-density walkable communities with a
variety of housing options, particularly surrounding the intermodal stations.
Please review the two files I have attached regarding employment generation. According to County -specific
employment generation studies by RRC Associates over the past ten years, bar/restaurant space generates 8.9
employees/10002. The restaurant alone, under these assumptions will generate 27 employees. The applicant
also proposes to have concierge, maintenance, valet, and transit employees on staff. It is also possible, 1 assume,
that these units maybe put under fractional ownership or rented out Under all these assumptions, this project
could generate far more than 27 employees to sustain the project. In addition, these residents will create
demands for services off-site–including shopping, entertainment, health care, etc.—which will generate more
employment.
According to the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Eagle County will be the leading employment
generator in the Intermountain region. Eagle County's demand for employment and lack of attention to employee
housing will create an estimated labor shortage of 30,000 jobs by 2025-2030 ( see slide 22 of
htto://www.nwc.coo.co.us/Second%20Home%2OStudv/NVVCCOG%202ndHome%2OStudv%). Therefore, I ask
you to consider requiring the applicant to provide housing for at least a portion of employees to be generated by
this project, and that this housing be placed within walking distance to transif and services. I do not believe that
$225,000 in -lieu is a fair housing mitigation to Avon. If the affordable housing is not built or it is not built into the
right place or not integrated into the community, Avon may suffer from increased competition for employees and
the entire community will pay, directly or indirectly, from increased road maintenance costs, traffic congestion, and
air quality impacts as employees commute from outside the Town.
Transit Improvements
It is my understanding that the applicant wishes to reduce the number of parking spaces required for this project
I also understand that there will be little if any parking available for employees. IF the parking requirements are
going to be reduced, it will be important to provide the proper infrastructure and alternatives to allow residents,
visitors and employees to get around without private automobiles. Residents and visitors should be encouraged to
leave their cars parked underground —if they have cars --and to use the two bus systems and the developer's
proposed shuttle. As the applicant reconfigures Highway 6, the applicant should create safe and attractive -bus
pull -offs, walkways, shelters, and lighting. There are two passenger waiting areas in front of the applicant's site.
Both of these will need the pull -offs, shelters, and lighting. Although there may an opportunity to move the current
boarding locations, it is ECO's preference that they remain at their current sites. The pull -offs will need to be
constructed with proper deceleration, standing and acceleration space and the shelters will need to meet design
criteria of ECO Transit's current shelters. I also suggest that the walkway incorporate a 10 -foot buffer from
Highway 6 and pedestrian lighting for a safe and attractive pedestrian environment
David Johnson, AICP
Transit Planner
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority
2/13/2007
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNrrY EMPLOYER
Bruce McCloskey, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlire.stafe.co. us
FeMuary 6, 2007
Town of Avon
Community Development
Atm: Matt Pielsticker
Box 975
Avon, CO. 81620PO Box 298
Mr. Pielstickcr,
For Wildlife -
For People
RECEIVED
FEB 2 U 2001
CDMMU* Deve1OPMent
After reviewing the proposed PUD amendment for Madison Partners PUD, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) offers the following comments and
recommendations regarding wildlife for your consideration.
The wildlife report has a couple of errors.
Etc
The wildlife report states "Elk winter range has been mapped on the majority of the southern portion of the site." The site has been mapped not
only as elk winter range but also as enc winter concentration areas and elk severe winter range.
Black Bear.
The wildlife report states •The area has not been mapped by CDOW as black bear habitat" This is incorrect the area has been mapped as overall
black bear range and as human conflict areas.
The summary in the wildlife report states "'rte potential impacts to elk habitat are often encountered in development of this region; however, the stated
recormrendations should alleviate most of the anticipated wildlife impacts." The only recommendations in the report on mitigation of impacts to elk are using
plant species that are unpalatable for elk. Many of the plant species listed are palatable for elk (such as Mountain Mahogany, Choke Cherry, and Big
sagebrush). There is a section on that the steep portion of the southern part of the site have limited access to human traffic during the winter. Further that this
area may be dedicated to the Town of Avon. However there is no infonmtion on whether the closure or the dedication to the own will be required. There is
no discussion on the direct impact of the loss of approximately six (6) acres of habitat from the developmenL The impact from the indirect impacts (increased
human and dog use) on the adjacent elk habitat needs to be further explained and the mitigation measures spelled out in the PUD plan. The report needs to
include how these direct and indirect impacts will be mitigated.
The discussion on black bears does correctly point out the requirements in the Town of Avon for utilization of wildlife resistant refuse containers. However the
mitigation for black bear should include the not planting vegetation that produces berries or fruits. Several of the plant species listed in the unpalatable list
produce berries or fruit that are attractive to bears.
The Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to make recommendations and be involved with this fencing project. If you have any question or concerns
with these comments please feel free to contact DWM Bill Andree at 328-6563.
S'
rd;hrc
Manger, Glenwood Springs .
Cc: Ron VeLvde, Bill Andree, file
0
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Ex attive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary
Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Ride Enstrom • Richard Ray. James McAnalty e Ken Torres
Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Shtlp
Page 1 of I
Matt Pielsticker
From:
Ellie Caryl [EIIie.Caryl@eaglecounty.us]
Sent:
Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:34 AM
To:
Matt Pielsticker
Cc: David Johnson; Harry Taylor
Subject: Madison Partners PUD
Hi Matt — I got the referral package on the above project. It seems that there plan addresses
what would have been my comment — provide a sidewalk/trail in front of the project to conform
to the recommendations of the Highway 6 access plan. I am passing the packet along to ECO
Transit in the event they have any comments for you. David Johnson is the Transit Planner I
will relay the info to.
Thanks—
Ellie
Ellie Caryl
ECO Eagle Valley Trails Program Manager
(970)328-3523 / iax 328-3539
PO Box 1070
Gypsum, CO 81637
2/1/2007