Loading...
PZC Packet 120407Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission 4"W/0' '�0 N Meeting Agenda for December 4, 2007 O Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C o r o R A D o Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road WORK SESSION (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Description: Discussion of Regular Agenda Items. Work session is open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the November 20, 2007 Meeting Minutes. VI. PUD Amendment / Hamel — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative /Owner. Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, from the current zoning entitlements of three (3) duplexes, three (3) single-family homes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex, respectively); to five single-family residences. The five newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes, ECObuild Standards, and restricted to a maximum of 5,000 square feet of interior space for each proposed home. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007, July 17, 2007, September 4, 2007, and November 6, 2007 meetings. VII. PUD Amendment— CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Folson Annexation Parcel / Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC /Owner. • Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a 106 unit condominium building, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. In addition to the condominium building, there would be up to 8 units (4 of which will be deed restricted) in either: duplex, triplex, or fourplex configuration further east on the property. The site is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project. VIII. Other Business IX. Adjourn Posted on November 30, 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 • Avon Public Library • On the Intemet at httD://www.avon.oro / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions A WZ,4;Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission AMeetingiiO'i Minutes for November 20, 2007 Vley' Avon Town Council Chambers c o L o R A D o Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road REGULAR MEETING I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. It. Roll Call All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Lane. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Consent Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Evans revealed conflict with Item VI, Final Design Applications, A and B, Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Property Location: Lot 12 and 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/4080 Wildridge Road West. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the October 16, 2007 Meeting Minutes • Approval of the November 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Struve motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda with Commissioner Foster seconding the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Green abstaining due to absence from the meeting. VI. Final Design Plans — Wildridge Duplexes - CONTINUED A. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West Applicant: Michael Hazard /Owner. Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. B. Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West Applicant. Michael Hazard /Owner. Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Final Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. Jared Barnes highlighted the changes from the previous submittal to the Commission. Commissioner Goulding questioned the property line and Mr. Barnes responded that it was changed from the original presentation. Michael Hazard, applicant, approached the podium and began with commenting on neighbor concerns and the uniqueness of the project, color changes, increase in landscaping, low key exterior lighting and flat roof design. Mark Sidefeld, Little Point resident, questioned the color and commented that landscape design and the final landscape can be different and requested that the landscaping buffer be held to its approved design. Jared Barnes responded that the he would monitor the situation. Peter Warren, 4181 Little Point, approached the podium to comment that the applicant has listened to the input from the neighborhood and wanted to applaud them for the success of the plans. Charlie Sherwood, 4211 Little Point, was initially concerned with the design and voiced that it was well done architecturally; felt it would look like four houses, connection would present two separate houses from the street and his main concern was that this project would be the densest in the area and the ballard lights would need to shine down. Griff Wimmer, adjacent neighbor, expressed that the design was okay but the density was an issue for the wildlife and expressed that perhaps a narrow alley between the duplexes was too dense. Commission review began with Commissioner Goulding expressing the landscaping aspens would benefit by being more spread out, the four would look like one large building and the new design benefited from the colors and the separation between the building, and the bollards could be decreased in numbers. Mr. Hazard responded that it would be photogenic lights and they were only two feet tall with low wattage. Commissioner Struve and Commissioner Foster voiced appreciation with the applicants working with the neighborhood on this project. Commissioner Foster requested the colors to be presented on site with a deferred approval by the Commission. Commissioner Green agreed with color visitation on site and suggested that the bollards be shielded from their rear. Commissioner Smith agreed with the colors on site Commissioner Green motioned for approval of Item VI, Final Design Plans —'Wildridge Duplexes — A., Courtyard Villas of Wildridge, Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West and B., Courtyard Villas of Wildridge Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4090 Wildridge Road West, per this final design which would include the staff recommendations on the staff report and that there be an onsite review of colors prior to approval of the colors. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 5 — 0. VII. Minor Project — Gates at Beaver Creek Property Location: Lot 2, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision / 38390 Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Don Goerig, Ivins Design Group / Owner: CSC Land Description: The applicant, Don Goering of Ivins Design Group, is proposing building, site, and landscaping modifications to the approved final design plans for the Gates at Beaver Creek project. Changes are proposed to the fascia terminations, screening for the gas meters, and landscape modifications. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Terry Peterson of LaJolla, representing the owner, was present to answer questions for the applicant regarding this project. L�• Commissioner Evans voiced that there was no major resistance to the changes but that the landscaping was not to be decreased in number but moved to other locations on the site. Commissioner Struve commented to keep the number of trees on site and the rock work looked better than the original design. Commissioner Goulding questioned the fascia cuts Commissioner Struve motioned to approve Item VII, Minor Project — Gates at Beaver Creek, Property Location: Lot 2, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision / 38390 Highway 6 & 24, subject to the condition as listed by the Staff Report, and the tree count remained consistent with the original plan. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 — 0. VIII. Other Business • Hamel PUD — to return on December 4h, 2007 • UV Building at the Water Plant was contingent on the plan, 4 aspens, 4 spruce trees and assorted shrubs were to be planted and the new project manager questioned which side of the fence the trees were to be planted. The Commission response was that the trees were to shield the fence and be planted on the public side of the fence. IX. Adjourn Commissioner Goulding motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Green seconded. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary &Remo To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner Off Date November 29, 2007 Re: Hamel PUD Amendment Summary: VON C O L O R A D O The subject PUD Amendment application has been tabled four (4) times. Public hearings were conducted at the following Planning and Zoning Commission meetings: June 19, 2007, July 17, 2007, September 4, 2007, and November 6, 2007. This application was tabled from the November 6, 2007 meeting in order to address the Commission's concerns with the driveway appearance that would result from retaining walls, and the impacts of the proposed building footprints immediately adjacent to Lot 37. Since the last Commission meeting, there have been no changes to the development plan. Attached to this Memorandum is the Staff report provided on November 6, 2007, and all the supporting materials attached thereto, including: Application Binder, Plan Set, Vicinity Map, Comprehensive Plan excerpts, and all Public comments received to date. Staff Recommendation: Pursuant to the review of criteria found in Section V of Staffs report, and the Findings cited in Section VIII of the report, Staff is recommending DENIAL of this application. During the December 4, 2007 meeting, Staff will ask the Commission to formulate a resolution, based on findings, to be forwarded to Town Council for final action. Exhibits: • Staff Report (dated October 31, 2007) and all supporting materials December 4, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Page 1 of 1 Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge - Hamel PUD Amendment (Meeting f15) Staff Reports PUD Amendment VON November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting c o L o & A D o Report Date October 31, 2007 Project Type Planned Unit Development Amendment Legal Description Lots 38 a 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision; & Tract O, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Current Zoning Lot 38: 2 Units (Duplex) Lot 39: 4 Units (2 Duplexes or 1 Fourplex) . Tract O: Drainage, Access, and Utility I. Introduction The applicant, Land Planning Collaborative, is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to five single-family residences. The five newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes, and home sizes would each be restricted to 5,000 square feet in size. Building design and "ECObuild" standards would be tied to the new properties. This application has been revised since the original submittal. While the general site planning layout is consistent with the original submittal utilizing a shared driveway concept; the number of single-family lots has been reduced from six to five. The -previous "move -up" housing unit proposed for one-half of a future duplex on Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision has been eliminated from the proposal. Pursuant to feedback received at the July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant is now proposing to enter the sites from the road with a driveway cut through Tract O, a Town owned parcel. Steep existing topography typifies the subject properties, with most of the street frontage and areas within Lot 39 containing slopes of over 40%. A shared private driveway for the five single-family homes is being proposed. This report outlines all of the mandatory review criteria in Section V of this report for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council to consider when reviewing this application. Based on review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this report, Staff is recommending DENIAL of this application. The findings which form the basis for this recommendation can be found in Section VIII of this report. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74&4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUL HEARING p'4W November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 13 II. Discussion Staff struggles with this revised application due to the absence of a previously proposed 'move -up' housing unit. While the site planning work has been improved, and single- family home sites would be compatible with the immediate neighborhood, the Public Purpose provisions and the Comprehensive Plan's housing policies cited in this report make it difficult for Staff to support this application in its current form. Staff provided support for the previous application, largely due to the 'move -up' housing provision that benefited the community, and responded to the Housing Needs Assessment (Dec 2006). All zoning applications must demonstrate a public benefit that cannot be achieved under existing entitlements, which this proposal does not. Green building standards and the possibility of utilizing this subdivision as a pilot project in Avon for the ECObuild standards are positive attributes, and are encouraged for all buildings in Town. However, it is difficult to ignore the level of disturbance and retainage required to install the driveway and utilities proposed in the first phase of construction. The ECObuild standards and green building techniques would result in efficient buildings that could be achieved without a zoning application on a voluntary basis. The rezoning and subdivision variance requests are not necessary to implement these positive practices. The fundamental question is whether or not the removal of one development right constitutes a benefit to the community? The current (revised) application is predicated upon the fact that the removal of one dwelling unit and the inclusion of ECObuild standards are benefits that could not be achieved without a zoning application. III. Background Benchmark Properties created the Wildridge Subdivision in 1979, shortly after the incorporation of the Town of Avon on February 28, 1978. According to the Wildridge Final Plat application for Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions, the overall development concept was for "abundant open space recreation areas around lots" with a density of "barely one dwelling unit per acre". The original Wildridge "Specially Planned Area" (now considered a "PUD" by default) and the accompanying Subdivision plat, were established with a specific purpose and intent: to offer a diverse range of housing types and options to serve a diverse local population. As such, the housing types in the Wildridge PUD and Plat are diverse: single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, etc - because the housing needs of the local population were, are, and continue to be diverse. It was not platted as a solely single-family home subdivision and PUD for a reason: Avon's local population is not homogenous. The population of Avon is comprised of diverse segments of the local (and global) population based on such attributes as income, household size, age, and lifestyle choices (i.e. - single, married, married with children, etc). Wildridge was designed on the premise that not everyone wants, or can afford, to live in a single-family house. When a four-plex, or a duplex, is rezoned and broken out into single-family homes, or effectively "down -zoned", the diversity inherent in the original plat and plan is Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Hamel PUD —CONTINUED PU6 HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 13 diminished, incrementally, over time with each and every such request for a rezoning. Concomitantly, the original purpose and intent of Wildridge is gradually unraveled, leaving fewer housing options for the local population. The intrinsic value of the diversity of housing types imbedded in the original plat and PUD plan become diminished every time a planned type of multi -family housing type, including a duplex, gets reduced to a single-family house product. Additionally, when a four-plex, or a duplex, gets "down -zoned" to separate single-family houses, the corresponding site disturbance with such a configuration increases proportionally with each newly separated -out unit (individual excavation for each foundation, impervious surfaces, roof forms, etc). By way of contrast, Mountain Star is a PUD and Subdivision comprised of solely single- family houses located on large lots meant to serve one homogenous segment of the population, arguably, a largely "second homeowner" population. In 1981, the Wildridge Subdivision was completely replatted with a total of 849 planned development units and is the foundation of the current zoning in Wildridge. Over the years, there have been some PUD amendments and transferring of development rights. Recently, there have been amendments wherein development rights have been altered and replatted. The most recent amendment was for the Dry Creek PUD in Block 2 of the subdivision, wherein a fourplex lot was converted to three single-family residences. This PUD amendment was also predicated on approval of a subdivision variance, and reduced the number of dwelling units by one. Construction of the Dry Creek PUD is now complete, and demonstrates the resulting appearance and disturbance experienced with additional separated single-family structures, as opposed to existing zoning. It should be noted that Staff recommended denial of the Dry Creek PUD, citing the following reasons: (1) The application failed to meet or advance land use and housing goals/policies (Policy A1.5, C1, C1.4 of the 1996 Comp Plan) relative to establishing or maintaining an appropriate mix of dwelling unit types for both lower and middle-income seasonal and year-round residents and their families; (2) The proposed development may be compatible in design, scale, and use with the types housing in the area, however a multi -family building would also be compatible with multifamily developments in the area, particularly the enclave of multi -family developments along Draw Spur, (3) Although the applicant proposed to reduce the allowable lot coverage by 10%, the extent of total site disturbance for 3 single-family residences may exceed the extend of total site disturbance of a clustered fourplex development; The other recent PUD Amendment approval was for the Western Sage PUD in Block 4. That development converted three triplex lots and one duplex lot (total of 11 development rights) into 8 single-family lots. Both of these PUD amendments were approved prior to the public benefit provisions being incorporated into the Town of Avon Zonina Code. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PU6 HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 13 IV. Public Notice Requirement This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to all property owners within 300' of the subject property. To date, Staff has been in contact with several adjacent and surrounding property owners. Several public comment letters have been received since submittal. All written public comment letters received to date are attached to this report as Exhibit D. V. PUD Design Criteria According to the Town of Avon Zonino Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating this application. According to Code, "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." 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Combrehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. District 24 Wildridize Residential District (Comp Plan Page 98-99) The subject properties are located in the "Wildridge Residential District." The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the limited number of existing trees and the general open character of the Subdivision. The Comorehensive Plan states that "special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings." One of the planning principles for this district i along the street to maximize sun exposure, existing surrounding development, and break up use and layout appear to be compatible with e respecting existing view corridors, and further structures on the sites with building envelopes. capitalized with the proposed subdivision layout. Future Land Use Plan (Comp Plan Page 27) s to "site buildings of varying sizes protect views, be compatible with building bulk." The proposed land xisting surrounding development by restricting the allowed placement of The southern exposure has been The Future Land Use Plan envisions continued "Residential Low Density" development on the subject properties. Residential Low Density development is intended to provide sites for single-family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5 dwelling units per acre. This application is in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan, with a density of approximately 2.3 units per acre. This calculation excludes all areas that would be classified by the Zoning Code as "non -developable", or in excess of 40% existing slope. Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Pages 37 - 63) The Comprehensive Plan contains several regional policies related to land use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed PUD Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUB. HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 13 AAM plans in Town. Some of the policies that pertain to this application include the following: _ Policy B.2.3: Encourage cluster style development in areas of less density to promote creative and efficient site design that avoids impacts on environmental resources and augments open space. Staff Comment: This application proposes a cluster style development in a low- density neighborhood. While platted open space is a positive attribute, it is unlikely this development application would result in .a net increase of open space. There would be considerable degradation to the open space (Tract 39F) for construction of the driveway, utilities, and associated retaining walls. 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. Staff Comment: If density were calculated per Avon Zoninq Code, Lots 38A -38E would be at a density of approximately 2.3 units per acre of "developable" land. This density is appropriate for the Wildridge Residential District. Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety of housing densities, styles, and types based upon the findings of a housing needs assessment study. Staff Comment: The Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment was completed in December, 2006. This study finds a lack of most price ranges, particularly units below $450,000 value in Avon and Eagle County. As proposed, the expected housing type would far exceed this targeted home value. The previous submittal earmarked one-half of a future duplex unit on Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, for a 'move up' housing unit. Staff found this potential 'move -up' housing unit to be a strong community benefit; which to some degree eclipsed concerns with the potential for additional second homes in the subdivision. Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than separated from, the rest of the community. Staff Comment: This application does not further this Policy, and may move in the opposite direction. Policy H.1.4: Require appropriate revegetation for all development that requires.grading and excavating. Staff Comment: The applicant states that sagebrush and drought tolerant grasses would be planted in areas receiving over -lot grading. These areas "shall require the use of temporary overhead irrigation systems until established." These provisions appear to be responsive to the site's existing vegetation. 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. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PU6 HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 13 AT, Staff Comment: Development is proposed within areas of steep existing topography. The shared driveway can be considered a benefit; however, it is likely that development would reach further up the steep hillside with this approach, thereby making it more visible. Policy H.4.3: Require the use of innovative and environmentally friendly building techniques including water conservation approaches for new development Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing 'green standards' to be incorporated into this development. Additionally, some of the ECObuild standards work to provide water efficient development. ECObuild appears to be a positive, measurable approach to facilitate environmentally friendly building techniques. It would be difficult to enforce or guarantee that these standards would be met. The applicant is proposing to meet the minimum number of points required for the home sizes proposed (5,000 sq. ft. maximum), which would be 60 points or more. It is Staffs understanding that points could be quantified at building permit submittal. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town. There is a conceptual site plan drawing included in the plan.set. There is also a sample elevation drawing on Page 7 of the applicant's submittal, which demonstrates the general materials and colors that would be utilized in this enclave type development. While the elevation is not binding, it suggests a high level of quality and architectural style. In Section III of the applicant's submittal, there are PUD Design Standards which require the 5 structures to be limited to the same material palette and architectural style. All walls are to be constructed of stone, timber, and/or wood siding. Within each residence the applicant is proposing some fundamental '"Green Footprint" standards for energy conservation including: 'Energy Star' appliances, in - floor radiant heat, 'Low -E' glass requirements, etc. There are also ECObuild standards that would be applied to each new lot. The entire model ECObuild regulations are included in the applicant's binder for your review. Where the PUD criteria are silent to architectural standards, the Town's Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desian Review Guidelines would apply. The Town's 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. There would be a significant amount of disturbance required to construct the proposed private access drive, and associated retaining walls. Aside from the disturbance required for access, each building would be limited to the building envelopes defined by the Subdivision. Staff has some concern with the building envelope language and the possibility of permitting disturbance outside of the envelopes. Specifically, "only minor grading, landscaping, and retaining shall be permitted in the areas immediately adjacent to Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD —CONTINUED PUE, HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 13 building envelopes labeled 'no -build:" Minor architectural encroachments (overhangs, battered stone) may be permitted through the Town design review approval process only." In addition to this language, "over lot grading incidental and necessary for the preparation of and construction of home sites and landscaping shall be permitted in these areas." Unlike some other properties in Town that have platted 'non -developable' areas, or areas that must be left in their present state, this proposal would permit some disturbances. If this development were approved, Staff would recommend that grading and disturbances be limited exclusively to the building envelopes, except that which is required for utilities, drainage, and disturbances related to construction of the private driveway and infrastructure. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. This proposal would be compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation. In terms of design compatibility, a clustered development with uniform building and architectural standards should be compatible with other development in the subdivision. The resulting buffer zones between building envelopes should be reviewed carefully. Instead of two, or possibly three structures that would be experienced with the existing zoning, this development would provide four clustered structures at one end of the development site, and one stand-alone building near the pump house on the east end of the development. There is a mixture of single-family and duplex structures in the vicinity with varying bulk and mass. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The single-family residential use and building envelope layouts provide an efficient, workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. There is a mix of single- family and duplex buildings in close proximity. Staff has no objection with single- family land use as it relates'to compatibility with surrounding uses in the vicinity; however, the Wildridge Subdivision conscientiously platted varied densities (i.e. single-family lots, duplex lots, 4plex lots, 6plex lots, etc) in order to provide, a mix of housing types. The continued shift to larger single-family homes may not work to further the purpose and intent of the Wildridge Subdivision. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. There have no been no geologic outcroppings are present, which investigations report that steep sides. hazards identified on the subject properties. Rock is indicative of bedrock in the area. Preliminary ,xcavations would likely be possible on these hill Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD —CONTINUED PUL • HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 13 AIIN 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. The existing topography is steep throughout. Most notably, the grades adjacent to Wildridge Road East, and the area in the middle of Lot 39 are exceptionally steep. This portion of Lot 39 would remain free from home site development as proposed; however, the driveway would cross through "Tract 39F." 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 possible, the site layout and driveway do not appear to be particularly sensitive to the natural features of the site. The proposed driveway runs directly through areas that exceed 40% slope and may result in buildings higher than would be experienced with existing entitlements. A four-plex or two duplexes on Lot 39 (as current zoning permits) may result in a more responsive development to the existing topography. Extensive site retention and mitigating measures would be essential for this development to function. Of particular concern to residents and the Planning and Zoning Commission at the public hearing was the appearance of the long, linear series of retaining walls associated with driveway construction. The applicant has attempted to limit the visual scars of these retaining walls by taking height off the upper walls, and adding it to the lower walls. The intention is to further mitigate the appearance with landscaping in front of the lower walls. 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 20' wide driveway for the five proposed residential units. A hammerhead turnaround is also proposed between Lot 38C and Lot 38E. This turnaround was designed with fire department and Trash removal vehicle maneuverability in mind. It appears that visibility is good in each direction entering and leaving the proposed curb cut location. The applicant's preferred access option is through Tract O, which is due to lesser existing grades and the ability to keep the Lot 35A home site lower. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. As mentioned, the 1+ acre platted open space would remain undeveloped except for the driveway and associated retaining walls and infrastructure installations. The applicant is proposing the minimum landscape area be increased from 25% to 30%. The platted building envelopes further define open space and may help to preserve views; however, all of the homes on Longsun Lane have been surveyed and the ridges of the structures on Lots 38A -38E would not inhibit views from above. The views from the homes below the project site on Wildridge Road East are focused to the south and in the opposite direction. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUB. HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & zoning Commission meeting Page 9 of 13 AW 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. This development is non-functional without approval of the subdivision variance request. The PUD amendment application is predicated on approval of a preliminary subdivision plan and subdivision variance application, which has been submitted in conjunction with the application for review by Town Council. The applicant has included a timeline for completion of the project on Page 11 of the submittal. The driveway access and utilities would be constructed in the first phase of construction. After construction of the driveway in 2009, the phasing plan indicates the construction of approximately one house per year. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. Adequate services can be provided for this proposal. Letters expressing the ability to serve have been included in the Appendices of the applicants binder from: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Xcel Energy, Holy Cross Energy, and Comcast. 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. Wildridge Road East is suitable to cant' the anticipated traffic, and the visibility entering and leaving the driveway appears safe. 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: 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 the overall quality of development, and the site planning that has gone into the design. However, the current zoning entitlements would not preclude the aforementioned public purpose and the quality is possible without rezoning the PUD. 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: Staff does not foresee any potential adverse economic impacts as a result of the zoning change proposed. Social community benefits are difficult to measure; however, the housing style contemplated with this PUD zoning application does not demonstrate social benefits. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD —CONTINUED PUL ;HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 13 """ Large single-family residences have continually widened the housing gap in Avon, creating an incentive for locals to move down valley or elsewhere. While price per square foot numbers indicate that multi -family residences are not significantly different than those for single-family residences, it can be argued that that multi- family units such as those that would be built on Lot 39 under current entitlements would be smaller, and therefore a benefit for those trying to buy or stay in Avon. Other adverse impacts include the greater amount of site disturbance with the increased intensity of use on the land associated with single-family homes. 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 shared access and clustered home sites provide an organized development. The platted building envelopes would guarantee a level of certainty with regard to the siting of development. A. Preliminary Subdivision Plan Pursuant to Sections 16.20 and 16.40 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: 1. Based upon the maximum building sizes proposed and the nature of the units (single family vs. multi -family), the development requires 8.33 SFE's compared to the original 6 SFE's proposed for the lots. 2. Avon Municipal Code Section 16.20.150 (4) requires that owners of record of all parcels adjoining the proposed subdivision, including parcels separated by a public right of way, be included in the maps for the project. 3. The Town of Avon Master Drainage Study requires that sites with 25,000 square feet of impervious service provide a stormwater control plan. Plans shall be provided according to section 16.20.180 (4) of the Avon Municipal Code. 4. it appears that the 4' asphalt pan located on the north side of the access road will sheet flow across the drives creating an ice build up during snow storage runoff. Also, clarify how the 4' asphalt pan drains between stations 5+00 and 6+00. 5. Closed mesh drainage grates must be used. CDOT Type `C" inlets are inappropriate for residential development. 6. The drainage pipe shown day lighting between lots 38D and 38B must be extended to the roadside ditch located at the south side of the lot. Erosion control must be provided at the pipe outlet. 7. The storm water, sanitary sewer and water lines must be located at least 10' apart. 8. All retaining walls taller than 4, or supporting a roadway, will require a Building Permit and structural plans stamped by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD — CONTINUED PUL HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning 8 Zoning Commission meeting Page 11 of 13 n"A 9. The existing tank drain line located on the Town's lot east of the new access point must be shown on the utility plan and the proposed development must accommodate the outflow. 10. Top and Bottom of Wall elevations are required on all retaining walls. 11. The west portion of the access easement that ends on lots 38C, D and E must be more clearly delineated. 12. Curve data must be provided for the five new chord lengths along the south side of the existing lot line. 13. Section 16.24.130(2) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires that addresses be shown on each lot with numbers circled. 14. Section 16.24.130(5) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires that township and range lines be shown on the vicinity map. 15. Section 16.24.130(6.0 of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires a title insurance company or attorneys certificate be included on the plat. 16. Section 16.24.130(6.g) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires a recorder's certificate be included on the plat. 17. Section 16.24.130(6.h) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code requires that a statement declaring whether or not lots may be converted to timesharing units be included on the plat. 18. The current Certificate of Dedication and Ownership appears to indicate that the access easement will be dedicated to the Town of Avon. The PUD and certificate must make clear who will be responsible for maintaining the new access road, and that the Town of Avon will not be responsible for maintenance of the drive. 19. If applicable, a lien holder's certificate should be included in the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership. 20. Plat notes should be located on the first page. 21. The current Surveyors Certificate has a grammatical error listing the subdivision as WiIdride". 22. Sheet 6 of 7 Plan and Profile sheet cuts off the northwest corner of lot 38E. Clarify how the north side of lot 38E drains. VII. Subdivision Variance The lot configurations presented in Preliminary Subdivision portion of this application require that a Variance be granted from Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code: Subdivisions. Chapter 16.40.330 of the Avon Municipal Code requires that each lot have a linear frontage span on a dedicated street of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. As presented, four of the seven lots included in the Preliminary Subdivision require a Variance to be granted. The front property lines of lots 38A, 38C, and 38E all have less than a twenty-five foot length abutting Wildridge Road East. According to Chapter 16.12 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Town Council may, at its discretion, grant variances from some or any requirements of the subdivision regulations based up the following criteria: Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD —CONTINUED PUL ;HEARING IIIA November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 12 of 13 (1) Whether a strict, literal application of these subdivision regulations would result in an undue hardship to the subdivider due to the purpose, size, shape, location and character of the proposed subdivision; (2) Whether the provisions of the regulations from which relief is requested are not materially important, in a planning sense, to the orderly controlled development of the tract in question; (3) Whether the granting of the request might adversely affect the use of the land in the immediate area of the tract in question. It is important to note that the Town Council shall hold a noticed public hearing, prior to acting on this Variance request, and it is acceptable to run the notice and public hearing in concurrence with the public hearing required by the zoning amendment and Preliminary Subdivision portion of this application. The public notices that were sent to all owners within three hundred (300) feet of the properties in question indicated that a public hearing would be held considering a Planned Unit Development Amendment application, Preliminary Subdivision, and Subdivision Variance request. There have been other Variances granted from Chapter 16.40.330 of the Avon Municipal Code, the most recent being for the Dry Creek PUD in Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision. VIII. Findings Based on review of the mandatory review criteria outlined in Section III of this report, staff finds the following: 1. The application is in conflict with the following housing -related Policies, as outlined in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan: 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. Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than separated from, the rest of the community. 2. The application fails to provide evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon MuniciDal Code. IX. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends DENIAL of the Hamel PUD application for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, due to the findings cited above. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD —CONTINUED PUL : HEARING November 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 13 of 13 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. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner II X. Attachments EXHIBIT A: Applicants Binder EXHIBIT B: Vicinity Map EXHIBIT C: Comprehensive Plan Excerpts EXHIBIT D: Public Comment Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hares! PUD e — Residential Streets A�®� QProperty Boundaries Town District Planning Principles — However, the gateway approach needs to be redesigned to enhance the overall image of the community including but not limited to lighting, road and right of way materials, enhanced view corridors, and signage. The emphasis should be on the creation of a positive entry experience that extends the character of the Town Center to Avon's front door. Planning Principles: • Enhance the intersections at the ontoff ramps on Avon Road to include streetscape.improvements and special landscape features. • Maintain the cottonwood trees that contribute to the gateway experience. • Improve the I-70 interchange for pedestrians and bikers. District 24: Wildridge Residential District This area consists of a residential subdivision containing varying densities, located on the sunny, south -facing slopes north of the main valley floor. The character for the developed landscape should reflect the area's dry climate and typically steep terrain with low water -requiring plant materials and natural landscaping. Due to the limited amount of existing trees and shrubs and the open character of the property, special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings. Planning Principles: • Redesign the intersection of Metcalf and Nottingham Roads, and implement the other recommendations for District 4 to enhance the entry to Wildridge and provide more direct access from the Town Center to Wildridge. • Construct bicycle lanes along Metcalf and Wildridge Roads. Promote a trail system through open space areas in Wildridge to provide alternatives to the roadways for pedestrian circulation and greater connection to the surrounding open space. Pieserve and enhance the existing open space trails and explore the possibility of developing additional parcels into pocket parks. RIP Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Page 98 Town District Planning Principlesi • -Acq!nire and maintain as public open space the U.S. Forest Service -owned parcel adjacent to Wildridge that includes Beaver Creek Point. • Add an alternative or second access route to Wildridge (perhaps forest service road during the spring and summer). • Identify and delineate all open space parcels and public trails. e Site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, be compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk District 25: Mountain Star Residential District This area is a planned unit development established in 1992, of large -lot, single-family homes, located east of Wildridge on the south -facing slopes north of the main valley floor. This covenant -controlled, gated community has its own design review committee. Planning Principles: • Prohibit significant alteration of natural environment and minimize stress on wildlife and loss of habitat. • Consider the development of a trailhead to access the surrounding public lands. District 26: Swift Gulch District The Town of Avon's Public Works and Transportation Departments are located in the Swift Gulch District. In response to the area's high visibility from I-70, efforts have been made to screen the existing buildings and facilities and ensure that they blend into the surrounding environment. Planning Principles: • Encourage building at a scale that minimizes visibility from I-70. • Screen accessory uses with landforms and landscaping. • Encourage sidewalks and pedestrian connections. own of Avon Comprehensive Plan age 99 AYE N S 0. ®W z LUW d 0 V z O LLQ 0 z 0 W Exhibit D Novernber Planning and Zoning commissioners • • i of Avon P.O. :.• 975 fl CO 81621 RE: StaffRepon fbr Hamel MD Amendment LotsBlock' u l 1 ► askedrve Tambi andGerryY submit thisletter 4{ 1: for the record since 111 f. Y Ilate " cannot attend 111' meeting ! J[ )i i•11 .•+1 it " i i' Y :li til i' I• li li ` g 1 1 Y" 1 : i -I M:11 Y 1 1 1• _JI 11 review processi YI point. i' 1 AIwestarted 11 1 • • i-1'/1 f{ 1.' 1. �. 1 Y L:11 .Y r 1. •' ^• Ix' 1 11 {II :I I. i:11: �. t"1 i/ 1 11 1 1 V «JI 1 [ 'i' .(i:•1 1' `i 1 11 1111 •J 114: Y IT Y'I. '111 1 11 i i i `Allr: ••i'I.Y w• l • i rt i 1:11 1 �:YI:.1 C ! Ix i f .«I) LL ! _ i •I � i [S (i l' ib 6 f i L�1 1•: Y yYfavillillyhard on solving thesite planissues andfeel we have/erl>1 1 1'1 Solution Whichis supported by h•"II the ii i1 ► amendment afteria and 1. precedent MII 1 ► 11 i IY Y Weve YLLI 11responded to yourconcerns over meetingsnow r J hopellilly done better than previous{iend tl tand '.rlr 1 1 you • fi •JYi have1 'JtI{�I.h1all i 1 building :11 Garry w •) M created a rainirmim setback Y: from. PII 1 costing e rr _UU LI 4aand;ladopted h County r * i t Y.IL '1 r 1 part1 1application.1- have also minimized tb'reigning walls " : IA created the best solution toaccessing and t `lit ! coitstruciton of the Foperfies. After 'i muchinvestment oftime:11.1 el-+a:+I.+IR A• «1111andresponding If 1111 • communicatedU us,I YIm«. complete•I M N meif!t staffis recommendingdenial1 Irl application. Citi `!"i (' I�w -1- tll ' 11 : ► li i Y.•.\ . "i A: 1 1 1• yI'.11.1 • 1 'p.t II :.( t • 11. 1' 1 11 I fl.- II 1.1 h1 �1 11 IIt : I.' 1" •J 1' i 1 !• I,i i l'Iwl: f� rr 1 •{ IIO4" 11..: il." •N`: It I' r •.� 11 • rr •4Y i`' I ii is ip I 1 1 41 Ir " •' t L p'1 ri'i i:) i t vf:It i+i t1' I.i 1pt t • 1 • fr « • r r 'Vl ♦i�t: fIr l "r Yt 4' /.-J _// I. /'./I /- I/ f 1•:1 1 IIf11I 4s 1 I.b 1 1 fl.' I 1'1' 1 Irr;l II rl. JI 111 11 ': 1 1 1 1':•: 11 ' f R IS it 1 U �!i 1 _ [I t t1 H if � i-".• I f i ti.Fi i �t>t,:.It ! ( I ��: tl 4 II bl l ILYII M 11 r 11 .1 �, 1 Y 1 Y 11 • G 1 :11 1 11 •. I t 1� I! Y/IU19t1 1. 1 1 1' J!'f 1 Il 11 JI f Al'ALO., P. 1'. I[. :AF= F 3' { ht ♦J' 'itl �iLf ' 4 .A t f 1 �^ i Y. It / � i L11/' -KI • 1'F! I : { 1 f :i 1.1 1 : { 41 1:1 1 11 41 fY 1./ ~•1111 11 � � •111111 1.'!.11':1 1 1' 11' C 1' :34 1 :f 1 . IJ '11' 1 I f 4,409 11111 :n 11 IY".I n'•: / :.M NII•: 1 1 r: lr,Y - 1 1 t' i i / t :•. i i 1 •i IL- I" { / mil IA IYII 1 1:' 'JI 19 L1 1 f : LI 1 1.1 July 17, 2007 To: Avon Town Council and Board of Planning and Zoning From: Greg and Janet Kozan 7956 Steeplechase Drive Paha Beach Gardens, Fl., 33418 SAME AS ORIGINAL � . „t • ` Homeowners o£ 5191 Longsun Lane # A, Wildridge, Co., 81620 Dear P & Z, We wish to voice our opinions at this time on the Wildridge East Road proposed property development, lots #38, #39, #41. There are several different scenarios upon which they can be built. 1. However, we do not want a road built on the property, instead individual driveways for each resident. That extra road and retaining wall will scar Wildridge from miles away. 2. We feel like the middle lot should have been taken into consideration as a non - buildable lot when the builder bought it, instead of trying to make up for lost income now by increasing the density on lots 38, and 39. 3. We are extremely concerned about the heieht and densitv. Therefore, as we discussed, please allow those homes on lots 38 & 39 only to be a maximum of 28-30' high. As far as the density, we all think five homes on two lots is too congested, thus one or preferably two of those homes should be eliminated. 4. If the builder chooses to build multifamily, we are extremely concerned about the values of our nronerties "hieh un" because there are no townhomes (fourplexes) up there to date. So if you approve multi -family, we ask that only duplexes be built on those lots. In addition, since we weren't notified of the first two meeting, please notify us of the next P & Z meeting at the address above. Thank you for your attention in this important matter, and we thought that the P & Z Board had great comments at the July 17th P & Z meeting. You all really seem to care about this little town of Avon. Respectfully, Greg and Janet Kozan AUG��200' Cvmmuni y 47 Avon Planning and Zoning Commission Avon Town Council . 1, , I • i I. i July 30, 2007 Please, Regarding: . PUD Amendment I Hamel — CONTIAlUEA Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildr(dge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative /Owner. Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to six single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes and restricted to 5,000 square feet. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It is our strong opinion that the applicant be denied. The reasons are too many to list here but the highlights are: 1- The applicant bought the property with fultknowledge of the grade, and other obstacles regarding building on the site. 2- The proposed road is not a desirable solution for any of us — especially the wall. 3- The offer of any kind of housing to be dedicated — under any circumstances should not be a reason to consider this project any different then with out the offer. And if the housing is only price controlled for the first purchaser— it is not price controlled. 4- All of us understood when buying are own property the development that was on the books around us. We can live with that. The variance being requested is of a monumental magnitude and we request that you deny it. Using this proposal to build one home on each lot might be considered something to look at. Using this proposal to build the same number of dwelling units on these lots under the conditions being offered are not something we believe should be considered, at all. We plan on attending each and every meeting to ask that you deny this request. We suggest to the owner they go back to the drawing board and use their resources to design and build what is available to them on these lots individually. Brian and Pat Nolan July 17, 2007 To: Town Councilmen From: Greg and Janet Kozan We wish to voice our opinions at this time onithe Wildridge = s Aoq proposed property to be developed by There are 3 lots and they have different scenarios in which they can be built upon. 1. We do not want a road built on the property, instead individual driveways for each resident. 2. We feel like the middle lot should have been taken into consideration as a,non- buildable lot when the builder bought it, instead of trying to make up for lost income now by increasing the density of the other most eastern lots. 3. We are extremely concerned about the height and orivacv, therefore, do not want to see those houses pushed all the way to the back of the lots. . 4. We are extremely concerned about the values of our oronerties "hia-h ud' because there are no townhomes up there to date. Obviously, we have paid higher prices just to be up high in order to take advantage of the views. 5. We are developers in Palm Beach Florida and if there is anything we disa ee with. it is a variance. We do not believe there should be a variance in the case due to it setting a precedence here in Wildridge and thus, continuing to decrease our values. Thank you for your attention in this important matter, and we thank you ahead for any cooperation or compromise that you afford us as property owners and neighbors. Sincerely, Greg and Janet K`::oJJJzan 5.191 Longsun Lane JUL 17 2007 .ZIt (A7B+JTtl1,y DI`l 9Tt? To: Recording Secretary, Town of Avon (sent via email to Matt Pielsticker, mvielsticker0avon.org) From: Anne Clark and Doug Baird, homeowners�T�-sTl��y`'"'" 5021(E) Wildridge Road East anneclark(a)nsn.com 748-4565 Re: Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting for June 19, 2007 PUD Amendments – Public Hearing Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East Date: June 17, 2007 The following is to voice our concerns about the proposed amendment to the Wildridge PUD. We have reviewed the Hamel PUD Amendment document of May 11, 2007 and are familiar with the proposal. While some of the benefits are appealing, there are a number of issues that are problematic: 1. The clustering of five single-family units at the west end of the property creates a massing of homes. This is inconsistent with the Town of Avon's goal to minimize the (visual) impact of development. 2. The homes proposed on the west end of the property are remarkably close to the existing homes on the west and north boundaries. 3. Clustering five homes at the west end of the site, close to existing development to the west, intrudes into—and most likely blocks—an important wildlife migration corridor that runs north -south at the west end of the property. 4. Lots 38 and 39 appear to be among the steepest in Wildridge. The builder would need to cut into the bedrock to construct the homes. We're concerned whether the site can sustain six -5,000 square foot homes. 5. In general, we are concerned about overall safety, the traffic impact, and the treatment of the rock face. We understand that six dwelling units are consistent with the original zoning and that development is inevitable. However, we question the original thinking to put so many units on such a steep site; we concerned about whether the site can support six single- family residences of (up to) 5,000 square feet each. We urge the Town Council to decline the proposed amendments requested by the Hamel development project. Thank you for your consideration. E-1 5 Cawdor Bum Road Brookfield, Ct 06804 Tel 203-775-6431 June 18, 2007 Steven G and Elsa B Reiss 5021 Wildridge Road East, Unit W Avon, Colorado Tel 970-748-1412 To: Recording Secretary, Town of Avon (sent via email to Matt Pielsticker, moielstickerO-avon.ora) From: Steven and Elsa Reiss elsareissO)aol.com 203-770-0485 cell Re: Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting for June 19, 2007 PUD Amendments — Public Hearing Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East We have reviewed the Hamel PUD Amendent document of May 11, 2007 and we oppose adopting this amendment. We are pleased that the building philosophy will be "green" and the building style will be consistent with current homes in the area. The donating of a lot and deed restricted home in Lower Wildridge is certainly a plus, however, the negative aspects of this project are alarming. Building six large individual homes on such a small amount of buildable land does not work well for these lots. The larger lot is zoned for 2 duplexes or one fourplex. Since most of the land on that lot is unbuildable, the builder is designating that as open space. Five of the six houses are being built very close together on the western end, creating a huge mass of large buildings. This is not in keeping with the ambiance of the rest of the Wildridge development. There have been many rock and soil slides, and we are concerned not only about the Visual impact of this mass of buildings, but also the environmental impact. Because these lots are the steepest in Wildridge, we feel that the town of Avon should be very careful in what they approve to be built there. It seems that because it is too difficult for the builder to build what has already been approved, he is seeking changes from the Town of Avon for his purposes only. These changes will not benefit us enough to allow this site to be developed as he wishes. We would recommend that only three houses ke allowed to be built in that area instead of six. The homes that are proposed to be built on the western end are much too close to existing homes and to each other. The density of these proposed homes will impact wildlife migration, an important aspect of Wildridge living. .: Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the meeting on July 19"'. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 87/16/2BBB 19:85 4128875872 C'.* ltl litl 11 'l $1 1fir,'41M)) 11 MATT PIELSTIt[UR COFWIT[ ]DEVELOPMENT AVOID, CO. rr ua -71ap 8IAmilm AW Z0WMG CMUSSICE JULY 169 2007 AVOW, CO. Fly acme is John. H. Salko, and I live on 5177 Longum Lane in Wildridge Subdivision. I am about 30 feet from the proposed new development on Wildridge Rd. Past'. I bought this East ]Duplex Home in 1986(the first_ Unit on Longsun Lane)from Dues Reynolds Corp. and enjoyed living in this lovely home in 4ildridge. Each morning I was awatetQ by the beautiful sun- rise from the. F.ast. and the specteculor setting of tie sun in the evening. A thought that for the rest of toy life I would enjothe beauty of Dea- ver Creek, Bachelor Gulch, Arrow Head and the Hew York Mountain Range. And then this pass week I found out from my neighbor(uot from the tow of Avon) that the lots which are 30 feet from my property were being developed for one single home and a five unit duplex. Can you image the feeling I had in my heart to see the lose of a million dollar view disappear in a flash of a sosiellt. The thought of not having this beautiful view sadden me very much. As you can tell from the words that I as definitely against this proposed ntw development. Everyone on Longsun Lane is very, very up- set that the to'm of Avon would allow this development to move forward. I strongly hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission would at hear to the voices of the r,:sidents on Longsun Lane and not allow this development to go any further. This development would drastically over the value of all the hoose on Longsun Lane. It is my hope and the ho of all the residents on Longsun Lang, that this proposal will be defeated. Thank you so such for listening to my words and I hope that this letter g' es the Planning and Zoning Board a nerter idea of how the residents on I sun Lane feel about this proposed d--volopmeat. With beat regardas John H. Salto Leslie Roubos 5039 Wildtidge Road E P.O. Box 2119 Avon, CO 81620 July 16, 2007 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission clo Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O: Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 To Whom it May Concern: Mt, I am writing a second letter to ask for your consideration in not approving the amendment, as it has been submitted, for the Wildridge PUD for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East). I have met with the developer's planner and architect to review their plans, and we walked the property together. I think they've done a good job in trying to do what the developer wants; however, I think that what the developer wants is too much and, as someone who is directly impacted by this development, I strongly urge you require him to alter his amendment request As I stated in my original letter to you date June 16, 2007, when I purchased my lot, which is directly below Lots 38 and 39,1 did so on the reliance of the current PUD designation for this property. I knew that this meant that there would be two, possibly three, years of construction on the site. I, and my existing neighbors, purchased our properties in good faith based on the existing zoning and construction timeframes. My understanding now, after my meeting with the planner, is that this project will most likely take 7 years of construction; l year for the driveway and infrastructure followed by I year per home. That is absolutely unacceptable and is in no way at all good for the surrounding community. As I mentioned in my first letter to you, we moved here for the quality of life and knew that based on the current zoning, we would be subject to 2 — 3 years of construction on those two lots. To now propose 7 years of construction would 3gyercly impact the quality of life of am only those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhood but also of every single person who lives in the Wildridge subdivision. In addition to the excessive years of construction, I strongly believe that the developer should be required to reduce the density from 6 to 5 units. Single family homes are more Fes: Alice Leads [atHu� Com] Yhuaaday, June 14, 2007 8:O1 PRO .aom Emalling: ffllf ridge Sill Family Homes 0011R0,1Mikifte Sgl Family Homes 002.jpg, Il D&Wp® So Family Homes 003.jpg 141 loaaomao�: YV kkfte Sgl Family Homes 001.jpg;1}yp fta Sgl Family Homes 002.jpg; Vy Mddpe So Family Homos ODS)W i FamNy Homes 00� 00gi � 0033—. 6 Hi Scott - Thanks so much for taking the time to get involved with the petition for the Wildridge lots. I've attached three photos that I just took of five single family homes that was built below me in lower Wildridge, similar to what they want to rezone for by us. I hope these photos will help show the density when trying to squeeze in too many homes. Good luck, Alice The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachmenta: Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 001.jpg `.dridge 3g1 Family Homes 002.jpg Aridge Sgl Family Homes 003.jpg Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. RIEFO-Elmer) JUfq �'rfij 33�+�v�i f r� 0 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Name: 41.1cE /EFDs Address: 5631 4 k)4a&dne 12d. &zr- Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: .JUM 1 ys 9ij(i] { r ififiN�lrf i Div 3}r►,i �tLw7? To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East Name(�kln .q �k)OVz-6 v "Address: Name: ��eiT'Address: 3-D"ZA bv%DoAOO nP Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEJI1ED ,JUN 1 c 9-007 .DoThm J rMyNvI4 'ftmj To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Name* --Address:- -- 7 Address:rri WO N=4 C,3 Name: -<--/ Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: F �ENK ,IUM a t20,37 L�?iffifllL'i1t^I �'F71:�,.�11t3; i, To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 33 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wile Road East. Address: Name 5�.3? �140�� /&,z7 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: !IE051YED MI I � 2007 �rarru.�its� oyr��Mr,:m: Leslie Roubos 5039 Wildridge Road E P.O. Box 2119 Avon, CO 81620 June 18, 2007 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission cto Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 To Whom it May Concern: I am writing in protest of the request for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road Fast). When I purchased my lot, which is directly below Lots 38 and 39, I did so on the reliance of the current PUD designation for this property. I knew that this mean that there would be two, possibly three, buildings on the site. It is not appropriate to increase the number of buildings and size of each footprint given that all of us who already live in this area purchased our properties in good faith based on the existing zoning. The owner of the property purchased it knowing what the current zoning called for, as did the rest of us in Wildridge. Changing the zoning to allow for six 5,000 square foot units is not in the best interest ofthe neighborhood. The proposed homes are excessive for the size of the lots and would create 6 separate buildings on the sites as opposed to two or three separate buildings as currently zoned. Allowing six separate structures increases the impact to the land and a general loss of open area that would have existed around the buildings. We all moved up here for the quality of life and knew that based on the current zoning, we would be subject to 2 —3 years ofconstructionon those two lots. To now propose, realistically, 5-6 years of construction (presumably one year per home) would severely impact the quality of life of not only those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhood but also of every single person who lives in the Widdridge subdivision. The noise pollution and traffic during construction is already unbearable and to propose to increase that by another 3 years or so is unacceptable. To that end, while I do not think that a fourplex on one of the lots is appropriate either, given the quality of the surrounding homes, I do believe that 3 duplexes, limited in size to 4,000 square feet each, would be a much more appropriate option and would fit in nicely with the surrounding neighborhood. In the spirit of looking for solutions, and despite my -1 +YtiVf i- i" Y+ i - {. 4+ 1 Il /` t S {t 1✓_ G Ari et FI /' - t I " i s i I ,i A { i ;G 1 Iel' 11 1- 1 1:. 1:1 1Y"i 1� +:' :'IJ 11 Il lrRojo All 1 IIII Simmly+ _ „r• 1 it — •'lla�� 0 t Leslie Roubos cc: Ron wolf Tamm Underwood Dave Dantas Kristi Ferraro Rich Carroll Amy Phillips Brian Sipes Staff Report PUD Amendment VAN December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting c 0 L 0 R A 0 0 Report date Project type Legal description Current zoning Address I. Introduction November 28, 2007 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Folson Annexation Parcel PUD Highway 6 & 24 (Not Assigned) The applicant, Premier Property Holdings, LLC, is proposing a 114 unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. Up to 106 of the condominium units, in addition to the restaurant, would be located in a large standalone building on the west end of the property. This structure would have mostly underground structured parking, with some elevated surface parking immediately adjacent on the east side of the building. The remaining 8 condominium units (4 to be affordable) would be separate from the main building further to the east on the property. After holding the first public hearing, this application was tabled from the February 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Since that meeting, the application has, to a large extent, been revised. The majority of the revisions were in response to public and staff comments received by the applicant since its first iteration. A follow-up work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission took place on June 19, 2007 to review the revised proposal. The file was again tabled from the October 16, 2007 Commission meeting. At your October 16, 2007 meeting, the applicant presented a new development concept. The attached binder reflects the revised concept, and includes the following changes: • One phase of construction instead of two (or three, as originally proposed) • Building height allowance is increased to 104' for no more than 60% of the Highway 6 & 24 street frontage. 500' maximum building length. • Up to 8 condominium units in duplex/triplex/fourplex configuration further to the East on the property. 4 of these units to be attainable, targeting 120-140% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 14 50+ surface parking spaces added immediately east of the 106 unit Condominium Building. • Smaller overall condominium unit size, with the exact unit mix to be determined. 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. 11. 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 of 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. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 740-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'a December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 14 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. More 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 immediately to the west. It is Staffs understanding that this staging area will be restored to its original condition and vacated by the end of this calendar year. 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 on river 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. 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: Eaole Countv School District Comments To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments. Eaale 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 involving CDOT staff relative to access. Any proposed Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p' December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 14 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 issuance of construction permits. Eagle 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, and they have been updated since last review to respond to the new development plan. Colorado Department of Wildlife A response was received from Bill Andre during a previous. 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 appears to address ECO Trails' concerns by providing a sidewalk connection on Highway 6 & 24. This path would not span the entire frontage of Highway 6 and 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 the bus shelters, pull -offs, and lighting for those bus stops. ECO Transit's preference is to keep the bus stop in the current configuration instead of moving it further to the west, as previously proposed. 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 4 and 5 of the applicant's binder for their responses to these principal criteria. 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 14 District 6 (Comprehensive Plan Pace 81 - Exhibit C) The Folson Property is located within District 6: Highway 6 Gateway Corridor (Exhibit E) in the Comprehensive Plan. According to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, "the Folson property is intended to provide residenfiablodging 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 in Town. The planning principles for the Highway 6 Gateway District 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 the Town Center West are typically no taller than 100'. This proposal would allow for104' building heights for up to 60% of the building frontage. As proposed, the building could reach up to 500' in length, and therefore the 104' maximum height could span up to 300'. The building would then step down on either side to not more than 80'. It is important to note that the existing topography is higher than the road in areas where the height calculation would take place. The most dramatic example of the proposed building height with this application would be approximately 135' above the Highway 6 & 24 grade. At build -out, the structure would be allowed to span 450'- 500', which is a large part of the Highway 6 & 24 frontage and will likely contribute to a canyon -like effect, especially with the imposing, linear effect of the excessive height. Future Land Use Plan (Comprehensive Plan Pace 27 - Exhibit E) 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 (Comprehensive Plan Paces 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. All public input received should be considered through this review process. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p'P December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 14 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 portion of land for permanent open space through a conservation easement. The exact terms of the easement would need to be clarified and approved by the Town, presumably at the time of Final Plat. In addition, a permanent easement for the proposed hiking trail would need to executed. The retaining walls should not be located within the easement, as currently depicted. The applicant acknowledges that the exact location of the easement line would be determined after final construction drawings. 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. Staff Comment: The scale and intensity should be reviewed carefully. If density were calculated per Avon Zonino Code, approximately 27 units per acre of "developable" land would be permitted. This density is similar to that of the Gates on Beaver Creek property. Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety of housing densities, styles, and types based upon the findings of a housing needs assessment study. Staff Comment: 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. The applicant is proposing to house four attainable units targeted to 120% - 140% of the Area Median Income. In order to calculate an acceptable employee mitigation formula, staffs preference would be to use the methods employed by Eagle County, which include both a residential and commercial linkage. The commercial linkage would only apply to the restaurant space, and the residential linkage applies to the remaining units. These calculations are based on average unit size, and total restaurant area. The numbers are then adjusted for multiple jab holdings per employee, and multiple employees per household. The end result of these calculations would result in a need for a minimum of six units. At least 20% of the units mitigated (or 1 unit) would be required on-site, and the remaining five units could be mitigated with either off site or payment -in -lieu. Goal F.1: Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse segments of population. . Staff Comment: This proposal introduces 4 attainable units. This commitment to affordable housing should help create a further diversified housing option. 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 is being proposed on-site. While these units would be separate from the main condominium building, they would be integrated with up to 4 other condominium units on the east end of the project. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74BA030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7of14 RflN 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 in addition to an upgraded transit location in the form of a relocated bus stop. The sidewalk could be used by both pedestrians and those accessing transit facilities and is proposed to be adjacent to the Highway 6 & 24 paved roadway. There have been discussions relative to the possibility of getting pedestrians across Highway 6 & 24 in a safe manner. The Engineering Department has requested that the applicant produce a feasibility study, to help determine what would be required to accomplish this measure. 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 for appropriate plantings. This could be addressed during final design review, and the environmental analysis has been updated. Policy H.2.1: Avoid development in environmental hazard areas such as floodplains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards, wildfire hazard areas, and areas with erosive soils. Staff Comment: There are sensitive areas that could be considered impossible to avoid; however, reducing development and disturbance in hazard areas would better respond to this policy. Final geologic reports would be required at Final Plat. It should be noted that the 8 separated condominium units would be located entirely within slopes exceeding 40%. 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), 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; however, this goal will be very difficult to achieve. Staff struggles with the pursuit of a LEED certification in lieu of a commitment to achieving this noteworthy status. Registering the project for an eventual LEED certification status is the first step. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and, Design Guidelines of the Town. The site design shows a linear building footprint and massing. The amount of excavation required for this site layout to function is significant, requiring a series of shotcrete walls behind the structure. One of the major differences with this submittal is that large portions of retaining walls would be visible from the roadway and other Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 14 MR areas of Town. This is a result of narrowing the footprint of the main condominium building, and adding a surface parking area. The project maintains linear roof ridges (and massing) of between 80' — 104' in height, which needs to be offset by equal spans of roof ridges that are at a significantly lower height. Staff acknowledges the difficulty with developing this site, mostly due to the existing natural terrain; however, the unsightly appearance of the mitigating measures required for this site layout would now be visible from Highway 6 & 24. The following requirements outlined in the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines should be reviewed against this application: T. 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)." "3. 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)." 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. Staff would like to focus on the scale and possible bulk of development in relation to the immediate environment and neighboring development. The linear fashion of the building, combined with the proposed building heights and building setbacks, would create a canyon -like feel. The main condominium building has been shifted to the east, away from the Gates on Beaver Creek project. This buffer is beneficial in order to break up building bulk between projects; however, when viewing the mass and height of the building in relation to the Gates project it is difficult to support the proposed height that results from this revised proposal. Not only would' the building stand approximately 130' above the highway, up to 60% of the building could be 50' higher than the Gates ridgeline. The other portions of the building would be approximately 25' higher than the Gates. Scale, bulk, and the building height of the main building are a major concern to Staff. There has been an effort to provide a stepped fagade to break up the bulk of the buildings. A ghosted elevation study showing the original proposal highlighted in a dashed red line behind the current proposal is included on Sheet A3.2. 4. Uses, activity, -and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The land uses proposed: residential condominiums, and ancillary restaurant, are appropriate for this property with respect to the surrounding uses. All abutting uses are residential in nature. After discussions with the applicant, it may be more Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING' . December 4. 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 9 of 14 appropriate to eliminate the restaurant land use. This is not due to compatibility concerns; rather, it is due to parking concerns, additional employee generation, and the visual appearance of surface parking. The density of this proposal appears to be appropriate for the site, and should provide a workable relationship with surrounding land uses and activities. 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 (see Appendix). 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. According to an updated Geologic Hazard mitigation report (dated August 31, 2007), rock fall danger would be of lesser significance, and will likely be mitigated by the option presented in the report. In general, more disturbances to the site and steep hillsides result in a greater risk for encountering and requiring mitigation of the aforementioned geologic risks. Following these preliminary studies, the applicant is proposing to utilize a combination of debris troughs/catchments, and freestanding retaining wall systems for mitigation. It should be noted that these investigative reports are preliminary in nature, and according to the August 31, 2007 report cited above, additional geotechnical design would be required. Of note, the mitigation options studied would divert debris flows and floods from their natural deposition path and could impact the "Gates on Beaver" Creek to the west, and the existing apartments to the east. 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. There appears to be a high degree of alteration to the existing site required to enable this development to properly function. While the buildings would be linear in fashion to avoid the hillside as much as possible, 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, particularly with the separated 8 condominium units, it is evident that the buildings were placed on the site plan with little sensitivity to the natural topography. Some areas of mature Douglas Fir forest vegetation would be removed with this proposal. Development is inevitable on this property; however; the overall natural 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 portion of the site would be preserved as open space through a conservation easement method of preservation. The natural features of the upper Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7464030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 14 AM 15+ acres would be left in their natural state, preserving the natural quality and vegetation that exists. This can be considered a benefit to the community. 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 proposed for passenger vehicles and fire response vehicles. A pedestrian connection, in the form of a 10' wide sidewalk, would connect to the Gates sidewalk for increased pedestrian circulation. There is a pedestrian crossing at the main entrance to the property. Staffs preference would be to guarantee this path is constructed during Phase One of construction. According to the pedestrian access plan provided, there would be a trail connection from the bus stop location on Highway 6 & 24 up and over the project. One trail would then travel back east to a lookout; the other trail would follow the approximate Fleck Ditch delineation toward Beaver Creek. The feasibility and logistics necessary for this trail to effectively function are unclear. The trail proposed to head toward Beaver Creek would travel through the Town Open Space parcel above the "Gates on Beaver Creek" project prior to entering the United States Forest Service Lands. There are no plans from the USFS for a trail connecting to this trail. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 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 abuts the development. Landscaping has been greatly increased since the first review. The ability to plant trees between the multi -layered retaining walls is not certain; and the possible inability to substantially landscape these areas could greatly affect the end appearance of the project. There would be a significant amount of native mature trees eliminated, especially with the construction of the eastern parking lot and separated condominium units. This area of the property is also where existing grades 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 proposes one phase of construction. A final grading plan would be required final to construction, along with final mitigation and retaining wall designs. 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 Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING p' December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 11 of 14 River Water & Sanitation District (ERWSD), Xcel Energy, Holy Cross Energy, and Qwest. All applicable utilities are able to serve this project. 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 titled Traffic Impact Analysis, Folson Mixed -Use, is included in the appendix of the applicant's binder. 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: A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. Staff Comment: This development will impact the general fund balance of the Town. However, this supposed benefit must be weighed against the resulting scale and intensity of development based on the area of developable land. There are benefits such as preservation of land, affordable housing units, and the possibility of a hiking trail. 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: A financial analysis has been completed and is attached as Exhibit D to this report. 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 application. The entire upper 15 acre portion of the site would be preserved through a conservation easement. All of the proposed development would be on the lower quarter of the site. The building footprints depicted in the drawings show that development has been consolidated. Staffs primary concern at this point is with the maximum building height as it relates to existing grades, and the appearance of continuous linear roof forms in relation to the Gates at Beaver Creek and other neighboring projects. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING A December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 12 of 14 VII. Preliminary Subdivision Plan and Improvement Standards Pursuant to Sections 16.20 and 16.40 of Town of Avon Municioal 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: The drawings should have a table of contents or index. Satisfactorily Addressed 2. The plan should include how and when the debris flow channel must be maintained. This comment must be addressed as part of the construction drawing and building permit submittal. 3. The debris flow plan must demonstrate that it will not impact the adjacent property owners. Satisfactorily Addressed 4. The parking lot grading must be modified to ensure the debris flows do not enter the parking garage. Satisfactorily Addressed 5. Trees are not allowed in the debris flow channel. There are trees located at the debris flow channel outlet. They need to be relocated so that maintenance vehicles can enter the channel. 6. The proposed contours should be shown for the entire disturbed area on the grading plan. Furthermore, it does not appear that top of wall or bottom of wall elevations, and associated grading, are provided for the retaining walls south of the debris flow channel. This is a preliminary grading plan. A final grading plan will need to be submitted as part of the building permit and construction drawing submittal. 7. There are many items that are not labeled on the grading plan. They need to be labeled clearly. The labeling is clearer. The labeling can be completed as part of the final grading plan. 8. The detention must be provided for the entire site, not just the western portion. The capacity of the receiving storm pipe must be analyzed to ensure it can handle the undetained flow. 9. There are conflicts between the water, sewer and storm sewer. Please show the storm sewer and underground detention on the water and sewer plans. Satisfactorily Addressed Tam of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC HEARING December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 13 of 14 """ 10. Additional information will be required regarding the proposed stormwater quality method at the Construction Drawing phase. It is not clear how this will function in the winter. Additional information must be provided demonstrating that the proposed water quality method can function properly in the winter. 11. The sidewalk on U.S. Highway 6 should end at the east property line as stated in the application. Satisfactorily Addressed 12. The applicant must dedicate an access easement that is identical to the one dedicated by the adjacent property owner, The Gates. Applicant has agreed to this condition 13. Fire hydrant locations must be approved by ERFPD. This condition must be met before building permit and construction drawing submittal. 14. The curb and gutter at the proposed bus stop does not offer adequate bus refuge from through traffic on Highway 6. ECO mid block bus bay guidelines require 11 -feet from face of curb to the edge of the through traffic lane. Curb and gutter should be shifted to the south and the shelter relocated to the south edge of the proposed sidewalk. Satisfactorily Addressed 15. A public access easement for the proposed hiking trails should be dedicated at final plat. Applicant has agreed to this condition 16. Several proposed retaining walls and a portion of the debris flow channel appear to be located within the proposed conservation easement. This condition must be met before building permit and construction drawing submittal. 17. What are the terms of the proposed conservation easement? Please provide a draft for review by the Town. This condition must be met before building permit and construction drawing submittal. 18. The vicinity plan on sheet A1.2 appears to refer to the previous submittal. This condition must be met before building permit and construction drawing submittal. Additional Comments 19. The Engineering Department requests that the applicant prepare a feasibility analysis of a grade separated crossing (above or below) of US6. The analysis must include cost estimates, Army Corp and CDOT permitting Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Folson Annexation - Madison Partners PUD - PUBLIC NEARING December 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 14 of 14 A issues, potential layouts and an analysis of any other potential constructability issues. 20. An additional cross section should be added through the parking lot. 21. The height of the lower wall along the townhomes must be labeled. VIII. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends DENIAL of the Madison Partners PUD application, dated 11/02/07. As currently presented, there are conflicts with some of the mandatory review criteria outlined in this report. Staff makes the following findings: 1. The Development Plan fails to conform to the overall design theme of the Town, the sub -area design recommendations, and the Design Guidelines of the Town. 2. The Development Plan does not adequately address or adhere to Criteria #3: Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation, as outlined in this report. 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. Respectfully submitted, Z: Q Matt Pielstick Planner II IX. Report Attachments EXHIBIT A: Applicant's Proposal Binder, dated 11/02/07 EXHIBIT B: Agency Referral & Public Comments EXHIBIT C: District #6, Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan EXHIBIT D: Financial Analysis, dated March 7, 2007 EXHIBIT E: Future Land Use Map, Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan EXHIBIT F: Vicinity Map Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 IILIV W {.WI lV. �r . . r.•••r..rr •.err. • r.� . r r.v• .r .. .. i, il! Iit To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner u Town of Avon Fromm Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Oats: 11/20/2007 Re: Madison partners PUD. Hwy 6, Avon The above project was reviewed for fire department concerns with the following Comments: - Access appears adequate to the front and east side of the main building with the emergency access to the west and the tum into both the townhomes and parking on the east side, This will need to be verified with a review and documentation Of pumper turning movements. Access to the rear of the building does not exist but may be mitigated by additional life safety systems and enhanced communications as previously suggested. The proposed hydrant locations and water system also appear adequate. I met with Glen Palmer of Alpine Engineering and we generally reviewed fire flow demand, line size, the need for a fire pump and psi demand at the roof. This should be evaluated in greater detail as the project moves through the review process to better determine the Flow demands and need for a fire pump. I believe with good engineering and design a pump can be eliminated. Please give me a call at 970-748-4741 if there are any additional questions or concerns. 1 Thomas B. Hix, Jr. 120 Hurd Lane, A-203 RECEIVED Avon, CO 81620 OCT 1 Q 2007 Community Development Mr. Chris Evans Chairman. Planning & Zoning Commission Town of Avon Avon, Co 81620 Dear Mr. Evans: 1 am the President of the Canyon Run Condominium Association and am writing on behalf of the Association. It is my understanding that a revised proposal for the Madison Partners project will soon be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission. As you may recall, I spoke at the meeting in February when this project was first proposed, and explained our strong opposition. At that meeting, the Commission urged the developers to establish a dialog with some of the parties who spoke In oppositon. I would like b commend Madison Partners, as they were very diligent to communicating with me. Mr. Reese and Mr. Neary carne to Houston and visited with me, explaining revisions they Intended to make to their proposal. They listened to my concerns, and made an effort In making revisions to their proposal to address, in some way, these concerns. That being said, we are still opposed to this project and urge you to reject their application. Their revised project is now slightly smaller than originally proposed, but we feel it is still much too massive for that site and location. 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 revised, Is still considerably larger and taller than The Gates. We believe this project as proposed, faits b meet many of the principles of the Town of Avon's Comprehensive Phan, as well as the Town's design and development standards. It is not necessary for the purpose of this letter to fist all of those here as they are so obvious. But I would We b state that we agree with the general concept of the Plan that large residential complexes such as this should be located near the Town centec not across Highway 6 and the river. In the letter I sent you last February 1 also indicated concerns about noise and traffic (diverting cars across the river at Stonebridge onto Hurd Lane, etc.). Their revised proposal does nothing to alleviate two concerns. 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, that just because you approved the one commits 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. 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. • Page 2 Before 1 dose, I feel compelled to make one other point I would like to remind you of the statements made by Mr. Neary at the meeting in February. He stood before the Commission, looked all of the members in the eye, and stated, Quite dearly and unequivocally, that the proposal he was presenting was just as small as it could possibly be and that they weren't going to play games with the Commission by coming In with a 'high-balr proposal so they could later look good by revising it He said the economics just couldn't work if it were any smafler. Yet just a few months later, he and Mr. Reese were showing me drawings for a smaller project and they are now presenting you with a smaller (albeit still massive) project I would ask you to keep these statements in mind as you assess the credibility of other statements they make to you about what they will or won't do in connection with this project Skov y, Thomas B. Hoc, Jr. President, Canyon Run Condominium Association Co: Town of Avon Council members Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members • Page 2 Thomas B. ft Jr. v President, Canyon Run Condominium Association Ca Town of Avon Carnal members Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members Eric Heideman October 16, 2007 RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Community DewQlWwt Town of Avon It has come to my attention that Madison Partners is re -submitting their plans and design for the new development located on Hwy 6, just east of the Gates. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission is taking this matter under consideration this evening, and since I have a previous commitment, I am unable to attend. It appears to me that this project is still ill-conceived, and not appropriate for the land it is planned for. All of the same reasons apply, that were used in the original argument. That being, to much building, both in height and length, for the topography of the land available at this location. I am aware that the builder has made some slight modifications to the plans that were first submitted, however, more needs to be done. This is a unique piece of property, and it will take a unique building to ascetically meet the needs of the town, and the planning commission, as they have established definite criteria for architectural design in Avon. Let's not blow it on one poorly planned project. Thank you, Dale Aden E-103 Canyon Run PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 20. 2007 Meetina, — Sian In Sheet Name Address - �t648E,Ma��rw�Cr 6tzcroa�c�d,t.x.�CU SDIU r;5 - t -Tc dj 300 RoRk, L.A,,zGA L kgoo F 4j14��DJA SPA RP &Zgu -Yod,�l �vshn l 1� �A 5 n. A.2 cQ.4 a .-J CS m,4L �A 1 �zi 'T {+ C�e 0400 *L6 Ime /-/DZ ago /,luted LaAp,, #lot b 5(DOA' aQ Gam, a I-- to-z-- l9/d 1-4r4 tam Ik�,12_ TM�j,�PA(a�tZ� INFORMATION FOR OWNERS OF CANYON RUN CONDOS_ From the Vail Daily of Tuesday, February 27,2007 dais:e}the+~_. F 4 ar ;on Avon Let's crane our necks, shall we, as we dcive.past t ' the'ii ountainsidc%ri the south side of'U.S. Highway 6 between the Gates cijndpminiums miler eans`trae tion next'to the;,Beaver Creek en'and the;; Engle -VM neighbodtood. The Gateswill have 49 high end condos Wild' `stani d 75 feet ail. `This pt*ct next door proposes _k_'115 :condos and.buiWings;ieae�tin'g''an many, as 40, feet higher'than'tha `Gate's„ a'*"g,°the project, i began at highway level. The r'etainiitg walls alone ; l 'for this oneawould stand ne'arlyas` high as th Gates..: j The de'velopeis promise; that their project will impress^ But. is ,that really the i"m"pression "Avon .; wants leave at that edge 6ftown4 About 29 job§ would be created directly to serv- , ice the con orpmum4Sp oncr they're Built .The devel- opera would pay the town' $225;000' for atiordable, I housing ''. good fori housing'it 'ss"t onc, o£ thiase Workers in Avon. .¢- The#,Gn'tes;got awtiyiviitti paying just,$100.000, into the, townis cmptoye�housing, till. So; it's nct as; if Avon's conimuniry leaders have, been exactly derhanding about dealing with the valley's, single+' biggest problem Ttiey'ye got to siert somewhete; though. Makingi developers d6couni'for housing for amere 30 per f, th cent oe jabs they create leaving 70 percent to,. + ,continue exacerbating — the problem = would only be i is thecomtriunity' Iargertinterests;at this.pointfor aU new development,. That this one proposes .to stand: out like a sore thumb in an area unsuited for such height and girth should help spur Avon's leaders to step up. Developers need to be more accountable for the.. eiNtseijuences of then projects on the community at large.Ihe leader's' job is to look out.for their town,' not help developers profit at the ultimate expense of the community: In any case, its past time to raise the bat: - Don Rogers for the editorial hoard' From S.L.Kent, Canyon Run D 202. P.O. 7533, Avon , CO 01620 until March 18 Home address is 80 Lyme road #365, Hanover, NH 03755 Please keep me in touch as this project is not yet approved Watersi-A Environmental Cont Itants, Inc. fit Wetland Sciences • Environmental Planning • Hydrology • Habitat Inventory/Restoration •,Permitting P.O. Box 3722 Voice & Fax. 970/328-4364 Eagle, CO 81631 Website: www.waterfolks.com March 5, 2007 Matt Pielsticker Town of Avon, Community Development P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: Chateau Wilgeaux PUD Dear Matt: RECEIVED MAR 12 2007 Community Davelopment Tbank you for forwarding the staff report and comments by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) in the application referral letter of February 6, 2007. I have discussed the comments with Bill Andree at the CDOW and am supplying you with the following supplemental responses. The following responses should clarify the CDOW comments for your consideration in the land use proceedings at this time: CDOW Comment: The area has been mapped as overall black bear range and as human conflict areas. The site has been mapped not only as elk winter range but also as elk winter concentration areas and elk severe winter range. Response: The Environmental Impact Report contains a wildlife section that reviews existing available information on the extent of mapped range conditions. While the available mapping provided by Eagle County at the time of my report was not accurate, however the report recommends that all garbage/refuse handling is per the Avon Municipal Code provisions for wildlife resistant containers. This mapping has been revised and the correction noted to Bill Andree in our conversation; the corrected map is included herein. CDOW Comment: 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 are palatable for elk (such as Mountain Mahogany, Choke Cheery, and Big sagebrush). Response: Comments duly noted and we will revise and resubmit a recommended planting list for the landscape plan with appropriate plant species considering elk and bear use in conjunction with the design review application (as required by the Town of Avon). Detailed recommendations will be reviewed with Bill Andree and CDOW staff to ensure there are no obvious conflicts. water -shed \'wot-ar-'shed\ adt The region above a specific point on a stream from which water drains into the stream.A turning point, critical factor, and new way of working with the environment. CDOW Comment: There is a section on that the steep portion of the site has limited access to human trait during the winter. Further, that this area may be dedicated to the Town of Avon. However, there is no information on whether the closure or the dedication to the town will be required Response: The EIR recommends closure of the southern portion of the property to human access from December 15 through April 15th, consistent with other area closures for Elk winter habitat. That said, the details of this dedication and closure are to be decided by the applicant and the Town of Avon if they are to become owners of this tract, including the appropriate type and timing of legal access to the tract CDOW Comment: There is no discussion on the direct impact of the loss of approximately six acres of habitat from the development. The impact from the indirect impacts (increases human and dog use) on the adjacent elk habitat needs to be further explained and the mitigation measures spelled out in the PUD plan. Response: No information was provided to WEC with respect to covenants regulating pet ownership on the tract. The loss of six acres of habitat should be addressed in the form of a mitigation fund. Prior to recording of the final plat, a wildlife mitigation plan outlining a compensation fund dedicated by the developer can be prepared as requested by CDOW. Preliminary estimates based on the area of impact are about $1,000 to be generated every year (based. on current mitigation rates), which would be held in a fund by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation and distributed for use and managed by the CDOW. These monies will be used to enhance wildlife habitat in the immediate area (typically within a four mile radius of the impacted site) as compensation for loss of this habitat A detailed mitigation plan can be prepared by final plat and submitted for review to the CDOW as deemed necessary by the developer and the Town. Matt, I am confident that this letter of response is adequate in addressing the concerns raised by the CDOW with respect to the proposed Chateau Wilgeaux. If you have any questions, please, feel free to contact me. Kind Regards, ---� /V-� Daiva Katieb Cc. Bill Andree, Division of Wildlife, 50633 Hwys 6 & 24, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601; Greg Macik, TAB Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 7431, Avon, CO 81620-7431; Larry Vineyard, Madison Partners, 3100 Monticello Ave., Ste. 260, Dallas, TX 75205 LEONARD & ANN KENT P.O.BOX 7533 AVON CO - 81620 RECEIVED MAR 0 6 200'r COMMUfilty Development CHRIS EVANS, Chairman, Avon Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon P.O.Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Sir: Following up on my previous letter mailed to you on February 12 from our home in Hanover, NH, I would like to let you know that we are very pleased that the February 20th hearing on the proposed condominium, Chateau Willgeaux, resulted in the issue being tabled. We are sure that you must be deeply involved in ongoing negotiations with the developer. We wish to let you know of our continuing opposition to this project. We greatly regret the existence of the Gates Condominium on what was for so many years a natural area that we were told would remain as BLM land. We are • horrified at the possibilitty that another monstrous structure, which will take years to construct, might be built on the remaining open land directly across from Canyon Run. We are sure that your Comission is asking What benefit will accrue to the Town of Avon, and what future burdens might be imposed by this project". In this connection, I am enclosing a copy of an interesting commentary from the Vail Daily of February 27, 2007. If you wish, you may circulate this article amongst the members of the Commission. We wish you, and the Town, good luck in your deliberations Sincerely yours, Ael' .70 Z) 4— Leonard Kent Frank & Susan Diasparta 0400 Hurd Lane 1.102 Avon CO 81620 970-748.6986 fmnk@newagevennaes.com Full 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 9 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 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 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 ............................ 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:berginmlchael@hotmall.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:46 AM To: Patty Md(enny 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! 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. February 13, 2007 W. 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 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.0.2024A „n - Avon, CO. Di" 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 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 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 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 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." The 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 Sheraton 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 pleases... " 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 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 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 Capital Partners 5711 South Nevada Street Littleton, Colorado 80120 February 18, 2007, Dear Awn 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 Wilgema project is directly across the river from Canyon Porn. 1 do not support this project in i1s present design. My concern stems from 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 jails 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 any fimrre development, which at the time made sense. Our concern was stimulated by the Gates development that was occurringjtcst west of this site. Although the jury may still be out on the Gates project, my first reaction was that the Gates development was not ofa size orscale for the site but time will be the judge. i recognize that the Cif' property is shown as PUD in the Comp Plan but my guess is that it never contemplated a development ojthis size 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, w I try to understand the North elevation, it appears that the base ofthe building is all large walls andgaroge doors- a design in my opinion which will just add to the over -massive effect ofdue 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 5lbs bag. My second concern is how this project relates to the Comprehensive plan. In my view, the plan falls 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 boudevard/parlavay. Rather, it seems to destroy the natural landscaping along the hillside that already exists and ultimately does not create an arrival for the Town ojAwn. 2. The buildings do not seem to be sited to protect views, break up 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 does not preserve steep slopes but instead cuts into the hillside as much w 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 S lbs bag. It does not appear that the buildings are built into the hillside either but instead rise straight up 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 suited for a project of this size 4. Lastly, it just doesn't seem to pass the test of being 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 of the area. Although I am without the benefit oja 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 lhouughtfui about details such as the materials and how the massing is broken up. Unfortunately, what the project looks like on an 8112 X i lsheet ofpaper is very different than what it is going to look like in context ofthe surrounding properties, Highway 6 and the town ojAwn. I believe the scale ofthe project is such that is not appropriate or considerate of the site and hillside on which it is located Ifthe Gates project feels out ofscale and touch, this massive development will dwarf it by comparison. A site will ultimately always reveal its limitations, and 1 thinkfor the reasons cited above, this particular design is not the right solution. Thank you for your consideration of this 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 CHRISTOPHER J. TODD 9698 E. MAPLEwooD CrR. GREErtwooD VILLAGE, CO 80111 HOME: 720.488-1715 CELL: 303-913-1011 WORK: 303-390-0129 AVON CONDO: 970-748-0973 HOMEEMAIL: CHRISTTODDOMSN.COB WORK EMAIL: CrODDra1WYREF.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 #El02, 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 Squarecondo 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 )m: Patty McKenny cent: 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 PAZ? Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page. Thanks. -----Original Message ----- From: JP M Kyrillos (mailto:jp.m.kyrillos8aexp.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, does not preserve areas of steep slope, does not strengthen the overall town auty, 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 development and is now using the the system. Please do not allow future of Avon is in your hands. Thank you for you attention. Best, J.P. Jean-Paul Kyrillos Vice President and Food s Wine 1120 Avenue of the New York, NY 10036 212-382-5638 212-382-5887 (fax) Publisher Americas knew that this plot of land was not fit for Gates project as a way to find a loophole in our beautiful town to become a city. The 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 -)nfidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any isclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message a9, 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." 0 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 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. Heaver 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 ro 1 Page 1 of I Ruth Weiss From: JP M Kyrillos Qp.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 a loophole in the system. Please do not allowpur 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) Ri 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� L I eanette i3ix President Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Cc: Avon Town Council Planning and Zoning Commission 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, Cc 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 Wilgeaux". 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 applicant's own words, referring to a Geological Study, `we will have some challenges with the slope above the site and stab0®tion." 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 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, then: 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 lo 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 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. • Page 2 Fetxrrary 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 he to the principles espoused in the Comprehensive Plan and other Town design and development regulations and reject this application. Sincerely, Cc: Town of Avon Council members Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members 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 :�'14I1f=1 I am the President of the Canyon Run Condominium Association and I am writing on behalf of the Association. It has been brought m 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 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 Wig: 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 Study, Owe 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 to 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 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 taper than The Gates. We believe this project, as proposed, fails lo 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 fist 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 Carryon 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 tare, 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 Gear Implication is that•smoe 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 arty way commit you to approve the other. But they do have a point — every time you approve a massive pr*d like these, it makes lt more difficult to reject the next one. One such project along there is more than enough. e 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 wonderfid 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. Hoc, Jr. President, Carryon Run Condominkrm Association Cc: Town of Avon Council members Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission members Memorandum To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner I, Town Of Avon From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 2/13/2047 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. 140 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. ' 1 • � _. r •V .tom Pagel of 2 Matt P]elsticker From: David Johnson [David.Johnson@eaglecounty.us] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 200711:25 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 altemative, ECO Transit's 2030 Vision advocates regional rail service an 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 6.9 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://www.nwo.coo.00.us/Second%20Home%20Study/NVVCCOG%202ndHome%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 Transifs 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 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor )EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildl ife.stare. co. us February 6, 2007 Town of Avon Community Development Attn: Matt Pielsticker Box 975 Avon, CO. 81620PO Box 298 Mr. Piclsticker, For Wildlife - For People RECEIVED FEB 2 01007 Comf yfrliity UBVBiQpm®nt Alter 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 on the majority of the southern portion of the site." The site has been mapped not only as elk winter range but also as elk 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 habitak" 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 -11C 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 sagebrush). There is a section an 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 these is no information on whedw 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 the development. The impact from the indirect impacts (increased human and dog use) or 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 impact will be mitigated. The discussion on black bears docs correctly point out the requirements in the Town of Avon for utilisation of wildlife resistant refuse containers. However the mitigation for black bear should include the no planting vegetation that produces berries a Wits. 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 male recommendations and be involved with this fencing proj=L If you have any question or concerns with these comments please feel Gee to contact DWM Bill Andree at 328-6563. S r ife Manger, Glenwaol Springs Cc: Ron Velardc, Bill Andree, file DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Claire O'Neal, Secretary Members, Robert Bray • Brad Coors • Rick Enstrom • Richard Ray • James MfAnally • Ken Tomes Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp Page 1 of 1 Matt Pielsticker From: Ellie Caryl [Eliie.Caryl@eaglecounty.usi 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 sidewalkhrail 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/lax 328-3539 PO Box 1070 Gypsum, CO 81837 2!1!2007 Town District Planning t ..nciples hl♦ r L, ., r 1, r 10+ CMMUrgrYCweWW Rour4about IVeWularand Pede danOosOV -y, ❑ weep 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 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 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 residentialflodging 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 gage 81 •tilt Thr+ southerr C0t7411-Maty 9-4to +r,sy Arox Iuwn District Planning Principles 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 O fl Page 82 Exhibit D Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. Financial Planners and Consultants For Local Governments, Municipal Bond Underwriters, and Real Estate Developers 8400 East Prentice Ave., Penthouse Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 Telephone: 303409-7611; Fax: 303409-7612; Email. stanplan@earthlinknet MEMORANDUM , TO: Mr. Matt Pielsticker, Senior Planner FROM: Stan Bernstein, Amy Bernstein DATE: March 7, 2007 — FIRST DRAFT SUBJECT: Analysis of Fiscal Impacts Re: Madison Partners PUD Background Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. ("SBA') has assembled an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Town of Avon ("Town"), associated with the proposed Madison Partners PUD. The SBA analysis measures expected revenues from sales and accommodation taxes, property taxes, real estate transfer taxes, and various fees, and expected incremental costs to the Town. The purpose of the analysis is to identify incremental revenues, expenditures, and fund balances for the Town's General Fund (including transportation costs), Capital Projects Fund, Debt Service Fund, and Water Fund as a result of the proposed Madison Partners PUD. The land use proposals provided by the Developer include 112 residential units (11 one bedroom units, 35 two bedroom units, 60 three bedroom units, 6 four bedroom units). Development is assumed to be completed during 2008 through 2010. The financial planning model is expressed in constant 2007 dollars (i.e., they do not include any inflation). Key financial planning assumptions include annual occupancy rates, average annual ADR (average daily rates) for the rental condominium units, the number of persons occupying the condominium units, resident and guest daily assumed expenditures subject to the Town's sales tax, and sales and market values associated with the residential and hotel units. Because this is a high-end residential development, incremental guest/resident nights are not large compared to guest nights generated from a hotel or factional ownership development (i.e., generally, hotel and fractional ownership type developments have much higher annual occupancy rates than high-end residential developments). Consequently, annual General Fund incremental revenues generated are marginally expected to exceed incremental General Fund expenditures. Real Estate Transfer Tax revenues generated for the Town's Capital Projects Fund, however, are expected to exceed $4 million from initial sales and perhaps as much as $400,000 annually from secondary sales. Mr. Matt Gennett March 7, 2007 Page 2 of 4 The following table summarizes the key findings of our impact analysis including General Fund Balances at Stabilization, initial and secondary Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues, Assessed Valuation, Guest Nights, Sales and Accommodation Tax Revenues, and Retail Sales Tax Revenues. General Fund Balance (Stabilization) Real Estate Transfer Tax (Initial) Annual Real Estate Transfer Tax (Secondary) Assessed Valuation Q Full Buildout Annual Owner Guest Nights (Stabilization) Annual Rental Guest Nights (Stabilization) Annual Sales and Accommodation Taxes (Stabilization) Annual Retail Sales Tax Revenue (Stabilization) 177 Exhibit I, Page .1 4,008,600 Table VI, Page 8 400,860 Table VI, Page 8 15,654,228 Table II, Page 3 59,276 Table III, Page 4 12,877 Table III, Page 4 128,722 Table IV, Page 5 44,837 Table V, Page 7 In addition, the Water Fund could generate $448,000 in incremental tap fee revenues and annual user fee revenues of approximately $4,400 annually. Construction permits are estimated to total approximately $2.0 million. It is assumed that the Town will receive 100% of the 2% RETT revenues generated (i.e., the Developer is not asking the Town to share RETT revenues from initial or secondary sales of real estate product). According to the Developer, one bedroom residential units are assumed to initially sell for $1.08 million per unit,'two bedroom units are assumed to initially sell for $1.53 million per unit, three bedroom units are assumed to initially sell for $1.98 million per unit, and four bedroom units are assumed to initially sell for $2.7 million per unit, (all at an assumed $900 per square foot). It is also assumed that the Town will receive 100% of the Sales and Accommodation Tax revenues. Rey Assumptions Key Assumptions include: • • 112 Residential Units Residential Units are assumed to sell at an average of ($900 per square foot): 1 BR - $1.08 million Mr. Matt Gennett March 7, 2007 Page 3 of 4 • 2 BR - $1.53 million • 3 BR - $1.98 million 4 BR - $2.7 million • Units are assumed to sell during years 2008 - 2010 • 25% of units are occupied year round, 75% of units are occupied 15% of the year • 35% of units not occupied year round are in the rental pool • It is assumed there will be an average of 4 guests per unit (weighted average based on 5 guests per 4 BR, 4 guests per 3 BR, 3 guests per 2 BR, 1.7 guests per 1 BR) • Owner expenditures per day subject to Town Sales Tax (excluding Villages @ Avon) is assumed to be $15.00 (It is our estimate that primary homeowners will spend less per day than rental guests). • Rental Guest expenditures per day subject to Town Sales Tax is assumed to be $18.00 Ski season and non -ski season bus operating costs (as modeled on Table VI, page 6) based upon incremental guest nights and required incremental new buses and hourly operating rate of $54 per hour. Ski season bus costs reduced by 0% as a result of the Gondola. It is assumed that guests at this property will not use the Gondola because it they are so close to the Beaver Creek Village bus stop — transit costs are assumed to be approximately $64,000 annually. • General Fund property tax revenues assume a continuation of the current 8.96 mill levy. • Debt Service Fund property tax revenues assume a slight decrease in the current 4.80 mill levy. • Specific Ownership tax revenues for the General Fund are calculated based upon 7% of all incremental property tax revenues. • General Fund revenues generated from the County Road and Bridge Fund assumes a continuation of the County Road and Bridge Fund of 1.72 mills (i.e., receives 50% of the property taxes collected from the incremental assessed valuation generated). • General Fund Franchise Fee revenues are calculated based on 10% of the incremental sales and accommodation taxes generated. • General Fund construction related permits and fees are calculated based on 1% of the project value, and are assumed to offset incremental General Fund related costs. • Water Fund Water Tap Fee revenues are based upon a $4,000 rate for residential units. Water Fund Water User Fee revenues are based upon a $39 per year rate for residences. Mr. Matt Gennett March 7, 2007 Page 4 of 4 • General Fund revenues generated from various State Shared revenues are calculated based on 2.5% of incremental lodging and retail sales tax revenues generated. • General Fund revenues generated from the County Sales Tax rebate is calculated based on 8% of incremental lodging and retail sales tax revenues generated. • General Fund Police Department costs are assessed valuation generated — this calculates be overstated. based upon 13.0 mills applied to incremental to be approximately $207,000 annual and could • General Fund Road Maintenance costs are based upon 9.5 mills applied to incremental assessed valuation generated factored by 50% - this calculates to be approximately $76,000 annually. • General Fund Administrative costs are based upon 7.5% of incremental police, road maintenance, and transportation costs. Please call with any thoughts, comments or questions. I. J w O cj D m z z 0 Of N LL W Wz z� F Qay a z LL o p 'DOS O a zy?Z� to pr ISIOZ12SVERH0aPOD<�1:10.Yryyy� Ym�pNN OgpO tpp'!m �aWyO 1 Ol .Sig t� o� W ga00 Qt7N m1� �OmNNOmQ �-1 TNNajJ� r {D N r N f0 N7I Ap-"j Q 'fO�N��� aNaooll a�o,!1 Nnm �i �Q NNN Nmtr'f OM P W pYp N�mA� 000 rr�SJVo QN mll fpm'MII On mN b iCmmN71 Qpol� Q� m N Q SPS N A n m N f O Q11lll QQII �Ny Qq q o AA �y tp QQ aopD tt�� }c`'p�� mp�� AN;b¢p 17Q"M W ONAmr7000O0pO m n0P�apgqI� Q{mN+�J� I 'm�I PN mII trV n`�`�i Opfm Pl L v�a.`8i,�$� nN Q N��N�e�-r PN AnmN �P ��JJ:�yJ qJJ `ur�$�i,$M ��ncAmo�000f$ �na000iTil O mpt(V�R1� ORp�. . . . at Appp PN i0N '�m r �In Q�-fr0�� h wo�a$g 000 ao7 3 oS m�1 mz_4 k o J G SJ N Q �y NN1II ' m N oo A i!i!22SS !��'II�p''1JI Q r m Y f A l7 CCII m m ' a oo�N$ 0000... 0 000100000q of of mvpg 8 'aR-illl oo�$q� 00000000000000101 0000000aol q q G .I .l m P2v oo�Amg� oo o o...... o...l of 0000000001 .1 q G q Ol ti ru N Y U W Z = O U > Z x 6 F U N O N N w w < W w m J of�' LL w rz :1 W '� ', W P d � N � F O C w d' J J J fn Z 2Wa:zol u 0-0 Z j 1W 7 a LLiigoi� hw ia� mx Z KK z c o y J N KIK&N--O�J OEI}�LL NIY W i. w, x0' VN LL Z Z Z Q NK � WWxi?i$7>t N o 3 .1 SELL; J w LL LL to o g _ u�l�l p c�c��>�®1'�xi '-z Ki ��'ocwio O U J , J » a�wWzmE w� J <a' �w No z d Q mpzJiuz H WWa�¢O�!�lwi�'iWcyx°x� H 1>-}�p�"'�`�z� cW7 -1 W 0 W KKK"WJ`W�mNmW`C F0 W W"f.1�W W` J F m J z O p LL w N Z T O G; Z � X LL l� > yy �C W>=JU ` w�Ol < W qw` W � a yj �l�KK� . W W C.) C W W my�Nd'� ILmLLt V wrO M, < Win OMz Lu W W W W W W �wz��z oo�luw..1O; J`oZa! DOo 7Qso o z z z z z O°3ulu gi K'!!8 O yO i>y0~. W 00 q ;§) DKK `ff °\} §] Oak § 00¥ 00§ .0§ a] § \ \ § Oaf Q§ Ocf 00§ a § q 0.§ \ 00§ 0.§ a§ Q --\ ��f \ / a§ Oak § « /§ 0-f \§ ° Q § .0§ Q§ a§ -° am ,■ ©2 § -§§ ;: "§§ -§§ ]] «« ,� § as q as § § § § ■ B 1-1 All oil - 111 1 11 All $ - 111 1� 11 Al $ - 111 R I I '"' I I all .011 �N nil Ell - 11 1 1N nil ell o q I $ J!2R 11 All ell - 11 1 11 All all - 11 1 a 11 211 Ell - �R 010, Toa Ta at a� N oq�a oa oa oa a x a�, 3g��7JI � n a fA 0 w J 7 iw4 I y A o U)� LL LL LL LL R w w > > > > W w> �� iJ s' N�m N�w m2n mcg � w ;� plm� N��a ��a j�a• j�a w p, t W O t S m S N SMI O's N W Q -0Yc oo >� o >9 o >2 off'- f w? mm,s�o_ m o m o to ;2 0 O U �O § R■a� 2�AQ� 2 § °<Qa K°!Q® cm § 0■2� K°<2° _ � \�2���§ C. § � at j§ �e �j§ § i \-1§`��§ § ; �)�§���§ ] g§w, » � �k � y| Ir � i§o � | |� �i \-�j§ �`�C�j� § �! k §2 \cc § R■a� 2�AQ� 2 § °<Qa K°!Q® cm § 0■2� K°<2° _ � C. k J i ; g§w, » � �k � y| Ir � i§o � | |� �i � e �! k §2 \cc i�§E! §ƒ\� f£Rcz !, ■gr a 3&2222 ) ■`A �2|!¢oJ2}//o `=il � § �$ | . d§�p§ o N N 11A oaa ag o ae0008.00 0 0 0 0010101 G 04 aaa m o p1 oaol ae o ae0000000 0 0 0 oaolol a s aaa iyFJl '$ ago N fl Y J r z a Z og L• 0 N SXcm F go 0 < W oRy !n U C o s 3F W o W g � •�ggr x e _ 11Tr1 oZ y U p ��y^ ? OF N N ir/i �Z EE zgti�m �ee x F- oz owm ! m�° c =z�ie �ia`�gS g'�. N gz�i z �,'aZ N~ ~ 23LL mmN�vSffil� YI�°a�t Z z ° >- � �8� C7so >o • N ' C U'�xcx }� J NCWi%,OZ0 O mmFQ- F za c� O z° g Q HAY <Fi < <V j U. Q �o ow 'b� lzI'l. 2 oy Jj �N zz ZiOW f LU F<�{1t[� FF0 ,`1 .`.1a W > O Z 2Z' Y O G • m b O O A 7 4C4�♦% W .t 3 y -Z, N2< M id#O y2f)<NLNLZa�O V a io0�zi�z�71t1�71�1�7SO�M�� Z ° o r r° I cli �R o oNIN RA l N F r1 Mq Ori •Pl ll�Jll t0 �^mNYNo8t�l� ^�V ctc�V�J�� 1v(�N]�J�� 1f`�fV`JJ�� f`1�f`��JJ F �1 MM N �1�'f')ql1��`yl1 � � � � � R o F � � N � � � lll�Vryyryyl�l�l t`�Y���J fl•�fl•ffV��II�JI��1 O NI tVI f0 o � ,6 N e� pp pp r��a0 01 qp1y1�.y1��11 �a,J'1'i o O isn,k 6N$oNW Rum N m q S�Ci�I oaa aeoX000g000 0 c'"o 0 0 0 .1 .1 of a s aaa oaa ag o ae0008.00 0 0 0 0010101 G 04 aaa m o p1 oaol ae o ae0000000 0 0 0 oaolol a s aaa iyFJl '$ ago N fl Y J r z a Z og L• 0 N SXcm F go 0 < W oRy !n U C o s 3F W o W g � •�ggr x e _ 11Tr1 oZ y U p ��y^ ? OF N N ir/i �Z EE zgti�m �ee x F- oz owm ! m�° c =z�ie �ia`�gS g'�. N gz�i z �,'aZ N~ ~ 23LL mmN�vSffil� YI�°a�t Z z ° >- � �8� C7so >o • N ' C U'�xcx }� J NCWi%,OZ0 O mmFQ- F za c� O z° g Q HAY <Fi < <V j U. Q �o ow 'b� lzI'l. 2 oy Jj �N zz ZiOW f LU F<�{1t[� FF0 ,`1 .`.1a W > O Z 2Z' Y O G • m b O O A 7 4C4�♦% W .t 3 y -Z, N2< M id#O y2f)<NLNLZa�O V a io0�zi�z�71t1�71�1�7SO�M�� Z ° o r r° I I §I§ Il] § § 2 aqa aqa -4 -4 § aqa afa a m § aqo aqa a CH $ ■ ) f � � LU §ms ] ]"§ Nil ] §§§ ]I )i§ § 2 f ]I2 d91 \ § 911 Nil q § ! , !i kk§ ƒf � � 9§a E R!f ! IT ■ > O R; I §I§ Il] § § 2 aqa aqa -4 -4 § aqa afa a m § aqo aqa a CH $ ■ ) f � � LU §ms ] §§§ ! , !i kk§ ƒf � � 9§a E R!f ! IT ■ > O R; �■2 5 !i! �a� ■ � ■ZEA I M a 4 'OZ�z o■� o_ 7 §0b j11 1!ƒ_! ) UH oggg N kZlijill U kZ N Jill L P ool of `NJ'1 000gq q q C e3 1 �q 000aa 000aa a a � 5a n� 000aa cNJ 000aa a a e] it 000aa 0000l of d of � f 000I'll 000aa of LU z �y 000aa 000aa a a awl z o 0 0 0101 0 0 0 cm" 04 of aq of YVR"1RI cFK > a Z Z N91a W W 5aWMs o o t- J N J � W,gQ mmmm~ �mmmm~ G, O uj O O ! 000aa 000aa a a a93a a a 000aa 000aa a a a�a a a , UH oggg N U L P C e3 W R v W N C7 W e V O y o v F LU z FF' w W awl z � � N J .� W U) _ N� R y J W W � H cFK > N W Z Z a'o W W 5aWMs o o t- J N J � W,gQ mmmm~ �mmmm~ G, O uj O O ! H r /T.1 a �NMgRKK 1 p?Q v � " ,e CNgi ® " 7?i1 November 29, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon RE: Hamel PUD Amendment, Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge As the owner of the half of Lot 37 closest to this project, 1 am impacted more than anyone with what happens on Frank's property. Any development on the lot next to me (Lot 38) will negatively impact me, but after spending time reviewing the plans for both duplexes and the proposed PUD I have no doubt that constructing a duplex with a separate access lower on their property will negatively impact me and impact my primary views more than what is proposed. Beyond that, both Gerry and Tambi have worked with me over the last few weeks to address the home that was my biggest concern in the proposed amendment- Lot 38E. After surveying the exact location of my house and windows and walking the site with me, they have shrunk and moved the building envelope and created a setback of 70 feet from Lot 38E envelope to my windows instead of the 10 That setback required by zoning code. They have also lowered the maximum height of this home to 32 feet and lowered the maximum square footage of this home to 4,000 square feet and agreed to intensive landscaping to buffer the home and lights shining into my upper level from the driveway after understanding my concerns with light beaming into my upstairs windows. ' Language has also been added to this application that requires the design of any home on this lot to consider impacts to my property when a home is actually designed, and both Gerry and Frank have told me they would review the home design with me and from my perspective when they actually design it. While I would rather have no development right next to me impacting any of my views or privacy I enjoy, t want you to know that the proposal is no doubt better for me than having a large duplex constructed lower on the lot and right in front of my main living area views. Gerry, Tambi and Frank have worked with me to solve my biggest issues and even though anything built here impacts me, I hope you support this project over construction of duplexes on this lot. Sincerely, -5GvoV —aQG/f Scott Retie RECEIVED 5024 Wildridge Road NOV TO 2007 �oqnmwt+nr pa,dt+m Inter -Mountain mgineeriinguiL November 19, 2007 Frank Hamel 2147 Inglehart Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 RE: Hamel PUD, Wildridge-Layback of Cuts in Formation Rock Dear Frank: The purpose of this letter Is to clarify the information presented on the private drive sections drawing Included with the preliminary plat application for the referenced PUD. HepworUrPawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (H -P Geotech) reviewed preliminary development plans and, In their letter dated December 11, 2006 (copy attached), stated that the bedding of the formation rock is relatively flat lying and favorable to steep excavations. They indicated that uphill cuts could be 1 (hortzontal):1 (vertical) in the formation rock and 2:1 In the soils above the rock. The sections attempt to show two sets of information for planned uphill excavations: 1. anticipated worst case (matching the plans, maximum length and height of wads required in the event that formation rock is not encountered in the excavations) and 2. anticipated best case (laying back the formation rock at 1:1 and the sods above It at 2:1, minimizing the overall length and height of walls needed, based on assumed formation rock elevations calculated from H -P Geotech's boring logs) at 100 -foot intervals along the planned private drive. Under the latter scenario, the 2:1 layback In the soils above the anticipated formation rock elevations at sections 3+00, 4+00 and 5+00 do not catch the existing ground surface. Should that prove true during excavation operations on-site, walls not shown on the plans (worst case), will be required (above the formation rock) to catch existing ground. 1 hope that explains the two sets of information (i.e. one corresponding to no formation rock encountered In the excavations and another corresponding to a 1:1 layback in anticipated formation rock and a 2.1 layback In anticipated sods above k) indicated In uphill cuts on the sections. If not, please contact me at (970)949.5072 for further discussion. 6551 S Revere Parkway. Sulta 185 • Centeradal, Colorado 80111.303949 8220 • Fax 303 948 6526 40801 US Hwy 6 624. Suite 203. PO Box 976. Avon. Colorado 81820.970 949 5072. Fax 970 949 9339. Tog Free 980 856 2258 ,r 918 Palmer Street.. Salla. Colorado 81201 •719 5391183. Fax 719 5391183 AS NOWAN iLLVG VN aavweiauw aim wHouwn mnutx+c. aouprnaenwm ua uxan(otY9YR9a OJTR1Y Iu1tO. �9191R9AANc111aw •MyM M -M �N sy_ wap -4w 44 'l1EI��� �iM~ OGVi10100 uttnoa 31DV3 'rant do wMot g y�jw ��- 'ole b 1'JYYL am 'at sloe um so {. )p ^ 'C v "' ``JJ,��,�, w � w •r .. � w 3001U0'11M 'NOISY110Bf16 '0'fl'd 'Ci17YH gq ' �f MM wfm BNOIL�78 311�J0 3LVM�d� � 12 a a a a 11fIIIIIIIIII a a a a l f f a l l 1��IIIC`�!1 :1l:1 IVIG 21111111111111111� VIA ■1 lulls a1 111lrr�l�l■ 111 I E 11 K \ E t J zw- + c N \ R R a r , S � k i s a a a a a a a a a s a 1 a a a s O O 5 ix MORS, r � \y\\\\\\I,�1(111111111111111. �I � +I�111`�Illlllllll lll� I �� �ti1�\ill �)Illllllllll �I '� 111111�i iiil111111 t '1�1111� 1111111�11111� �1 II I l j 111111111111 � 1 � X11 III► II111j1i1�� w�I,, . 1,111111 �I Il,l 11111111 111111j�1 l 121 h /ISI I�� Iillllllllil1111 �� / l�Jll)11 III I �l/ , llll�lll111 II1 4 %%i K / S� F V1 Sao„ tl x Uvv� 5 ix MORS, r � \y\\\\\\I,�1(111111111111111. �I � +I�111`�Illlllllll lll� I �� �ti1�\ill �)Illllllllll �I '� 111111�i iiil111111 t '1�1111� 1111111�11111� �1 II I l j 111111111111 � 1 � X11 III► II111j1i1�� w�I,, . 1,111111 �I Il,l 11111111 111111j�1 l 121 h /ISI I�� Iillllllllil1111 �� / l�Jll)11 III I �l/ , llll�lll111 II1 4 %%i K / S� i a o, A- r -1 w 1 0 s I � r Q 0 �oo U Cr O sa Hill w"PPo� w►lr �' e P4 �qq wz Cyd \ 2 Cr O sa M �b�pppp,• ry��j�Ob a�O"h2 / /• Hill w"PPo� w►lr �' e P4 �qq wz Cyd \ 2 / /• I J I_ l � I / I rd I ¢W M � I I III'" "--- \ I o I HIM,, \ + ----- --------------— .�.ot —---------- , 99 9f 3.05;5/.00N Vj! III LI ILEI LM r- ) I� J 0 [8 E] HE FRIN U=� J a m Loll Z € " ---------N N go Z~ seg s �mW px Z LL LL ppL �� a ... L A is IZo z a 3 W J W ❑Rp .09;n d � Mh d 6 Y 0o U x Vj! III LI ILEI LM r- ) I� J 0 [8 E] HE FRIN U=� J a m Loll Z € " ---------N N go Z~ seg s �mW px Z LL LL ppL �� a ... L A is IZo z a 3 W J W ❑Rp .09;n d � Mh d 41 r z O =Q N > W H W W cc (3 N J C1 CC 0Mix 4 WW= �* Z k = of o 0 i �ji? Wo X Y O CSF 12J x 5 �NJW G ego 0 E 4� 0 OO E r=aa� tl ` 1 u4p 3•Y � tl o� 41 r z O =Q N > W H W W cc (3 N J C1 CC 0Mix 4 WW= �* Z k = of o 0 i �ji? Wo X Y O CSF 12J x 5 �NJW G ego 0 E 4� 0 ,N91-06 IOL%Yd IZ61-CO6 (OZo4d OQVaO IOD 'NOAV (Dope lo)- 1 +,1C It,no,{ 44 N BC TT T T A � �€ - od gm g; g w� =F � M1 �ayn.,odroou MOW�aa✓I� .+►a11�ag Ys _ - IJ m s-- p N z z g.o2 oaoo 00o g g¢ J - - - R J - - cs IL u,I, M1 ag �a p 8 � C U/ I I I o� I I 2� Q_ I I x 1,l1 � r* \ I I � I ,V, I- I� 3 \I U/ / M=== c- V E ami u E N o��4 io m m Com m m m M ycn s � ��� �3€ (n pp CV N N to LO M co) M N E r .� n E £ c c 30 F$ m = m m 2 rn o 3 y� UUOU O g L m 4£0, N� m c �:�'2 E 2 2 2 2 O c v a m 5go�@� �m^„gig `og m yam 'a ca CL CL a 0 co tm rn 7 mc at o xv, Xv, Xc o 0 0 o n U f A °E EEE2 E Y Y E mE .2.2.2 0 m oU JUU co d O1 $k n_ 3 8�9sm �o� 3mo ” E0 m o $p 25 ,� y� _ .. rim, wv E c �9_ 'v nE m� E o m m Ea@ &��ga 3 m�mvo �� �3X 0 t L g? L. E N m m 28. : Y) O _ ca 'p O O Cyp' U m m U m 7 m Y .5 S O t m tG VI •C N c T y c m m g� ,�'m m Ht, `o m= g o.y, E c w m 'rj m M9 y•- C C m e .c m m .� c `m, Wa ,�• 3?� ucm_S" nw cm.3 E9m ma > '2 m m N '� X '�y\ m r9i cm�mU m mc2m �5ay�m E T O C E O 7 N m p,mL 3•• m W sigd m c m E c c c c o E c w N N OmXR E -S? m m m m m c 2 m y cm Cavo m 'wc E azwoac Z mmm0) m m m m o m m E re— C C C C O. p .: m > •O 0 U),�§ V - S m m 32 m n m' o. `o ... O a7o_an � - y m m x c L m q am � :v =c o tsg 8 E:A 3 Ell �$ gg Z c m 7 7 7 c m m v E 3 N m a3QQE mm cc �ooRE.� 'y - c m m cc m 7 d L U m_ E CC (7 N W m m d C E C .� r 7 f:) °° 7 m Ems^ `o4mg'p 2yEm atm 0 u� m 0 2 o 2 0 o m m�� 07 0�3 E m„ �y�3 w m'auno a a U a a cn a > m e a c 4 �? .x m_ $ o J Y Sj 4 l0C to s y u m -m m gym mU 1=. a m f9 pZc� tgy >Qwym cp pSms f!J N N m Dal � S`S$ 8 � �� m '� L � m` Jam' 10NNM a0 co N I� O m N M i LL'9 O!�E __ �a•�33 £ o $ c m � 3 �� �s m S, S m aE m S �m=z Z yg $ g x vp w o-mt m tc Q E _��/_ /��j yNm�3:c s4c'•FF x Cogm�_q m�oco �'r2cn��'g ao rnt=Ec c, _7 T Aj�J'C,,,f O O o XxXgig =�= s 03 �d Sa..m<mcC7QN3aQJnZZm~5 mLLc a In <jf '� ly�.Yy 2ME ---" . =� m2NN 1. . (9 2 9C Norrie �N cnm ma �fi� m� NN� I I I o� I I 2� Q_ I I x I � I I � I — I- 3 \I \ \ / M=== c- V E ami u E N o��4 io m m Com m m m M ycn s � ��� �3€ (n pp CV N N to LO M co) M N E r .� n E £ c c 30 F$ m = m m 2 rn o 3 y� UUOU O g L m 4£0, N� m c �:�'2 E 2 2 2 2 O c v a m 5go�@� �m^„gig `og m yam 'a ca CL CL a 0 co tm rn 7 mc at o xv, Xv, Xc o 0 0 o n U f A °E EEE2 E Y Y E mE .2.2.2 0 m oU JUU co d O1 $k n_ 3 8�9sm �o� 3mo ” E0 m o $p 25 ,� y� _ .. rim, wv E c �9_ 'v nE m� E o m m Ea@ &��ga 3 m�mvo �� �3X 0 t L g? L. E N m m 28. : Y) O _ ca 'p O O Cyp' U m m U m 7 m Y .5 S O t m tG VI •C N c T y c m m g� ,�'m m Ht, `o m= g o.y, E c w m 'rj m M9 y•- C C m e .c m m .� c `m, Wa ,�• 3?� ucm_S" nw cm.3 E9m ma > '2 m m N '� X '�y\ m r9i cm�mU m mc2m �5ay�m E T O C E O 7 N m p,mL 3•• m W sigd m c m E c c c c o E c w N N OmXR E -S? m m m m m c 2 m y cm Cavo m 'wc E azwoac Z mmm0) m m m m o m m E re— C C C C O. p .: m > •O 0 U),�§ V - S m m 32 m n m' o. `o ... O a7o_an � - y m m x c L m q am � :v =c o tsg 8 E:A 3 Ell �$ gg Z c m 7 7 7 c m m v E 3 N m a3QQE mm cc �ooRE.� 'y - c m m cc m 7 d L U m_ E CC (7 N W m m d C E C .� r 7 f:) °° 7 m Ems^ `o4mg'p 2yEm atm 0 u� m 0 2 o 2 0 o m m�� 07 0�3 E m„ �y�3 w m'auno a a U a a cn a > m e a c 4 �? .x m_ $ o J Y Sj 4 l0C to s y u m -m m gym mU 1=. a m f9 pZc� tgy >Qwym cp pSms f!J N N m Dal � S`S$ 8 � �� m '� L � m` Jam' 10NNM a0 co N I� O m N M i LL'9 O!�E __ �a•�33 £ o $ c m � 3 �� �s m S, S m aE m S �m=z Z yg $ g x vp w o-mt m tc Q E _��/_ /��j yNm�3:c s4c'•FF x Cogm�_q m�oco �'r2cn��'g ao rnt=Ec c, _7 T Aj�J'C,,,f O O o XxXgig =�= s 03 �d Sa..m<mcC7QN3aQJnZZm~5 mLLc a In <jf '� ly�.Yy 2ME ---" . =� m2NN 1. . (9 2 9C Norrie �N cnm ma �fi� m� NN�