The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 03-03-2009 (2). _ilii AVON C O L O R A D O WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda for March 3, 2009 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the February 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes VI. Minor Project Property Location: Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge / 4271 Wildridge Road West Applicant: /Owner. Kyla Marsh Description: The applicant is proposing to modify an existing structure by adding livable space above the existing garage. The addition will utilize similar windows to the existing structure as well as stucco as an exterior building material. The stucco will match the existing home's color. The addition will have a pitched roof with asphalt shingles. VII. PUD Amendment — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Wildwood Resort / Buck Creek Road Applicant: Brian Sipes, Zehren & Associations /Owner. Oscar Tang Description: The applicant is proposing to amend the existing Wildwood Resort PUD Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, into a total of six (6) lots and two tracts. The proposed is planned to allow for new land uses, including but not limited to: fire station hub with separate administration building, 42 townhome units, Montessori school with office space, and natural science school campus with employee housing. There is a corresponding Preliminary Subdivision application that is tracking concurrently with this zoning application. VIII. Other Business IX. Adjourn Posted on February 27, 2009 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 Internet at httD:Uwww.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions ° Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission DRAFT Meeting Minutes for February 17, 2009 VO1\ Avon Town Council Chambers l� Meetings are open to the public C o r o R A D o Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) I. Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:40 pm It. Roll Call All Commissioners were present III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Timeshare west sign modification moved to consent agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Lane stated that he had a Conflict of Interest on Item VII., PUD Amendment, Lots 1, 2 & 3, Wildwood Resort V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the February 3, 2009 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Goulding moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended by him. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. It was approved 7-0. VI. Historic Preservation Committee Property Nomination — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Nottingham Blacksmith Shop Property Location: Lot 1, Filing 4, Eaglebend Subdivision 12000 Hurd Lane Applicant: Historic Preservation Advisory Committee / Owner. • Frank A. Doll Marital Trust/Imogene L. Doll Family Trust Description: Greg Macik and Jeanette Hix, on behalf of the Avon Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, submitted a recommendation for a structure to be considered for Historic Landmark designation — the Nottingham Blacksmith Shop. This item was tabled from the February 3, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker stated that the Public Hearing should be opened and closed. The public hearing was opened and closed. Action: Prince motioned to table the item, Green seconded and the motion passed 7-0. VII. PUD Amendment— PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Wildwood Resort Subdivision / Buck Creek Road Applicant. Brian Sipes, Zehren & Associations /Owner. Oscar Tang Description: The applicant is proposing to amend the existing Wildwood Resort SPA Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, into a total of six (6) lots and two tracts. The proposal is planned to allow for new land uses, including but not limited to: fire station hub with separate administration building, 42 townhome units, Montessori school with office space, and natural science school campus with employee housing. There is a corresponding Preliminary Subdivision application that is tracking concurrently with this zoning application. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented Staffs Report and outlined the project. Matt Pielsticker outlined the current allowed uses on the three lots and outlying tracts on the subject property. Matt Pielsticker highlighted the proposed uses on the subject property. Matt Pielsticker also explained all of the proposed development standards. Commissioner Green questioned the timing the applicant received the Town of Avon Engineering comments. Matt Pielsticker explained the comments have been ongoing, but were officially distributed last week. Commissioner Goulding questioned the heights of the adjacent properties. Matt Pielsticker responded that the surrounding uses are allowed a maximum of 35 feet under current zoning. Commissioner Goulding questioned the allowed hotel use on the site. Jay Peterson, Tanavon Corporation, stated that the uses were for the former Wildwood Subdivision (currently Mountain Star). He stated that the hotel was envisioned.as a great location for a highway hotel. He said that the Town and its current direction have changed and the use is no longer functional. David Kaselak, Zehren Associates, presented the members of the applicant's team. He stated that the original entitlements are from the original plat approved in the early 1980s. David presented the previous reiterations of the proposal. David stated that the townhouses are to be limited to 2,700 gross square feet. This measurement is inclusive of a 2 car garage netting at approximately 2,300 livable square feet. He stated that the townhouses are to be in duplex and triplex configurations. David stated that Lot 1A was a close representation of the GPEH zone district, but was a bit more restrictive. He presented SketchUp models of the potential administration and fire house buildings on Lot 1A. Lot 1B had a maximum height of 44 feet which was comparable to the RMD zone district. David did suggest that instead of using DU's per acre, the proposal would only allow a maximum of "x" number of units on each lot. David compared the proposal to the Comprehensive Plan and stated how the proposal met each goal and planning principal. David discussed the access along Nottingham Road. The Commissioners questioned the need for a roundabout at either Buck Creek or Swift Gulch roads. Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer, stated that the level of service was worse at the Swift Gulch intersection and that it would fail quicker than the intersection at Buck Creek road. Commissioner Green questioned the factors that would cause the failure. Justin stated that the constraints include the lack of land to build a roundabout and the increased traffic along Swift Gulch Road and Nottingham Road. Jay Peterson questioned Justin's comments about the 2000 Traffic Study. Justin stated that Swift Gulch would be a right in, right out intersection in that traffic study, and the roundabout would be located at Buck Creek Road. He stated that since the Buck Creek roundabout is not needed the intent was to place the roundabout at the Swift Gulch intersection. David stated that they had "will serve" commitments from all utilities with the exception of the Water and Sanitation District, but he had confidence that with ample time to review they will receive that commitment as well. Commissioner Evans questioned if there was a need for water rights. David stated that this plan actually used less water than the current entitlements. David outlined the proposed housing plan and what percentage of housing they are mitigating. Commissioner Green questioned the proposal and how the applicant showed they could mitigate at 100% as well as what AMI the free market units would be sold at. Commissioner Prince questioned the current entitled building heights on Lot 1. Matt Pielsticker stated that there was no maximum for building heights prescribed in the current zoning documents. Mr. Kaselak presented the request for an exemption to stream setback on Lot 3. He stated that the locations of the encroachment on this lot would actually further the school's mission and could enhance the wetland. He stated that the encroachment would be a total of 467 square feet of space at the discovery hall building, and 189 square feet for the smaller building. Markian Finchak, representing the Gore Range Natural Science School, outlined the need for the encroachments and highlighted the campus. He stated that there was a desire for LEEDs certification and using the most stringent building codes. Commissioner Green asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Commissioner Roubos asked if the traffic study looked at the traffic getting off the highway, especially during rush hour. Commissioner Prince questioned the Mountain Star ownership and their notification as well as the ownership of the trailhead parking. Markian responded that Mountain Star owned the trailhead land but there was a public easement on the land for the public access. Commissioner Roubos questioned the details of the Montessori school. Jay Peterson stated that it was for the daughter of the owner of the land, who currently has a Montessori school in Eagle and would potentially like one up valley. The Public Hearing was opened and closed with no comments received. Commissioner Goulding questioned the phasing of the project. David responded that the phasing was either north to south or south to north. Commissioner Goulding wondered about the timing. Markian stated that the Science School would hope to start as early as 2010 based on donations. Charlie Moore stated that their fire house project was based on funding and his earliest start date was 2010 as well. Commissioner Goulding stated that he thought this was a great application, but voiced some concerns. He would like to see the roundabout situation dealt with, and the egress with the Fire Station during emergencies addressed. He also stated that the setback could be encroached upon at a certain level, but realistically there would be a larger construction encroachment. He wants to see a diagram that shows why no encroachment would not be a viable design solution. Mr. Goulding also requested information on pavement area and landscaping. He commended the attainable housing mitigation, but questioned the market rate homes. He would hope to see a study that states these sizes of homes are more applicable to primary homes, not second home. He felt that the heights are a bit tall and would like to see them brought down slightly. Commissioner Struve stated that he agreed with some of the comments Commissioner Goulding made. He had concerns with the phasing on the property and would like a better plan that outlines specific times for each lot. He also has concerns with building heights on all the lots. He wants to see native landscaping on the site. He stated that he wants the project to happen for the Town. Commissioner Roubos stated that this iteration is much better than the current entitlements. She did state that the building heights are a bit tall. She also stated that the traffic is an issue. She had concerns in the morning with the current level of traffic and how the school would impact it. She asked about the number of units on each site. Jay Peterson responded that the unit numbers were brought down from the original plan due to the native vegetation, setbacks, and wetlands. Commissioner Roubos questioned the setback and a potential variance approval. Matt Gennett stated that findings of fact would need to be made in order to approve the variance. Commissioner Struve stated that a site visit for the next meeting would be beneficial. Commissioner Roubos once again stated her concerns with the building heights. She also questioned the market housing and how attainable it would be for locals. Jay stated that no deed restrictions were envisioned and he thought the size of the home would dictate its local need. Commissioner Prince said that he would like to see a response from the Mountain Star HOA. He questioned the location of the parking lot for the Fire Station and its visibility from Nottingham Road. He also had concerns about the Traffic study. He questioned the size and potential price of the homes and stated that they most likely would be priced out of the locals range. He questioned the need for a potential bus stop and other potential public transportation needs. He was unconcerned with the setback encroachment, and thought that this is the only location where he would feel it is acceptable in the Town. He would like to see the encroachment conditioned for the Science School use only. Commissioner Green wants to see the sustainable building practices on the science school site brought forth into the rest of the properties. He also wanted to see a better level of conceptual architecture for the townhouse residences. He had concerns with the traffic impact from the site onto Buck Creek Road. He agrees with Commissioner Prince on the setback encroachment and does not feel that it is an issue. Commissioner Goulding asked about the need for a PUD on this property and how that would jive with the new Unified Land Use Code project. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to table the application to a future meeting. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. (Commissioner Evans left early). VIII. Other Business • Timeshare West Monument sign • New format for future Planning and Zoning Commission meetings • Vested Property Rights approved by Town Council • Trails Master Plan IX. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:40. Staff Report 1Z :u i MINOR MODIFICATION AV C O L O R A D O March 3, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date: February 27, 2009 Project type: Addition Legal description: Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning: PUD — 2 Units Address: 4271 Wildridge Road West Introduction The applicant, Kyla Marsh, is proposing an addition to a single-family residence along Wildridge Road West in the Wildridge Subdivision. The proposed modification would add livable space on top of the existing garage. The proposed addition design utilizes stucco and wood siding on the exterior walls, asphalt shingles, and windows that plan to match the existing structure. Attached to this report are a Vicinity Map (Exhibit A), pictures of the existing structure (Exhibit B) and a reduced plan set (Exhibit C) containing existing/proposed floor plans and elevations. Design Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zonina Code. • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density. The lot is zoned for a duplex, and the property retains the potential to convert into a two -unit building in the future. • Lot Coverage: Since the project is not increasing the site coverage, the home and this proposal are in compliance as determined during the previous reviews for this property. • Setbacks: The application is in conformance with the prescribed setbacks. The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a twenty-five (25') foot front yard setback, and ten (10') foot side and rear yard building setbacks. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — Marsh Addition °�' March 3, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 4 �.. p N • Easements: This property contains typical Utility, Slope Maintenance, Drainage and Snow Storage Easements. This application does not impede these easements. • Building Height The proposed modifications will increase the maximum height of the structure to thirty-four feet and eight and one quarter inches (34'-8.25"). This is under the maximum height of thirty-five feet (35') and complies with zoning. An improvement location certificate (ILC) would be required at framing to confirm compliance with this zoning standard. • GradinglDrainage: There are no modifications to the existing grading and drainage for this property. • Parking: This project requires three (3) spaces for the proposed single-family residence (three (3) per unit over 2,500 sq. ft). The applicant has provided a total of two (2) interior and at least one (1) fully functional exterior space. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist for the property. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and industrial Design Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: This application complies with this subsection of the Design Guidelines due to the application not affecting the site design. The extent of the modifications are to the exterior of the building and overall height of the property. o Site Access: Access to the site is provided with an existing driveway from Wildridge Road West. There are no planned modifications to the driveway. o Parking and Loading: Adequate parking and turnaround currently exist on the property. o Site Grading: There are no proposed modifications to the.existing grading on the site. o Snow Removal and Storage: There currently exists ample snow storage area on the site. B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: The proposed materials and colors appear to comply with the Design Guidelines and match the existing structure. The applicant is proposing to utilize stucco on the entire exterior of the addition with the exception of the area under the gables which would be wood siding. The stucco and wood siding will match the existing stucco Town of Avon community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — Marsh Addition °QIWR March 3, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 4 and wood siding colors on the residence. The applicant also plans on matching the window sizes, types, and colors to the existing residence. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest: As proposed, the wall colors and materials should be compatible with the site and the surrounding buildings. The architecture of the addition will also match the existing structure as well as the surrounding properties. The proposed design does meet the requirements of the Design Guidelines and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Although Staff does have concerns with the amount of stucco area on both the East and West elevations, Staff has determined that the use of wood siding or the inclusion of larger windows, to match the existing structure, on a portion of the elevations affected by the addition would enhance the architecture of the building. The applicant is proposing to use asphalt shingles on the pitched roof form above the addition. This will not match the existing tile roofing on the pitched roof that currently exists on the structure. The applicant has stated that the color of the new shingles will match the color of the existing tiles. The asphalt shingles are acceptable and sufficiently durable but when the tile roofing needs replacement it should be replaced with the same shingles applied to the new pitched roof. o Outdoor Lighting: No new exterior lighting is proposed with this application. C. Landscaping: o Design Character. There are no modifications to the existing landscaping nor will any of the existing landscaping be damaged. o Irrigation/Watering: There will be no modifications to the existing irrigation plan. o Retaining Walls: Not applicable. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The design and building are compatible with the site topography. The proposed modifications do not affect the existing vegetation. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. While the building massing is altered with this proposal, the appearance of these improvements should not have any negative impact as viewed from neighboring properties or from the public way. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision — Marsh Addition MUe March 3, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. No monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with this construction. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted goals and policies and is a use by right pursuant to the Wildridge Subdivision. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this Minor Modification application for an addition to the Marsh residence on Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. Recommended Motion "I move to APPROVE the Minor Modification application for an addition to the residence on Lot 64, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision with the FINDING that the design is in conformance with the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Town of Avon Design Review Guidelines, and the project is hereby approved subject to the following CONDITIONS to be resolved prior to applying for a building permit: 1. The applicant will revise the east and west elevations to provide more architectural interest through varying the exterior building material or utilizing larger windows to help break up the expanse of stucco; and 2. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval." 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. Respectfully submitted, A � JBarnes Planner I Exhibits: A: Vicinity Map B: Photos of the existing structure C: Reduced plan sets Town of Avon community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 .� �� .. ;.. { � t to � Y� ... , ,F n � g � � i � rc -�!!` �. 1 by *,., .� A ` µ� �� . .%'€ 111 "F5q �F 1 � A _�r,i '�j _ A .i � 4 j/1) 1 ? � I , �5.. � ��.. ,t ,4 A � ; � A,;' ,' � � ,. -+ % '� _ - � � t A? * l } t `� } •� •� 's,_' ��J��. !t,V ' 7-!t, "- C - t ?e LC r lti. O dd '.-,1N(1dd =r19'd9 'NdA`d -40l pd NMd0 LU Ui m v1 ■ 15�M G7bdzl �941�Q�1M ILZbp w ' ry u ILI Q lu �. w UJ J z< o i 1 . o L �- dd) .o -,s o � .0-s .os a,zi .e ti ,� .0-,L 0 IT - O'D 'Jl1NnoD Dwvd i 'NOAV =40 NMOlO N O N 15�M adOz1 �941Z14�IM ILZf� IS) LU ui N n 1 II__II II__II _ 0�Lid ui �� V Q Q w D Q J H W T 1 .0 -.PZ NI II 1 III O + \ \ QIrl 0 \� Q J I I \ w Lu LU \ \\ LL Z Q I =till \\ Q \ 0 11 I I �\ II ,ILI III LU 7-1 ILI J w I. p 41 \ I I 11 i i I I O i-- - - - - _ J' t !I\�__. II Si \ I I I Fs_________—t___ Lt ILI X I � I• � I I I N LU t_ u JJ w \ 'P w II I III I III p II I III ' hl III r_--_—____� w ..______________��_�_-_-�_---��_I� .o -,s .o -.s .0-,Z1 .e .�-,oi .o,? 2 07 ',1dNno D D-1,gvD 'NO/\d =�O NMOi p 0 Q O M LU m 1S�]M OVOZl 9901?J41IM ILZ-VNO wry N LUo .r/I 0I-.9 .b/I 8 -.II .Z/IG-5 C � i I os9Z-fr1 .9r1z .r/E i',�'\ ski E .oi.a I C Z iq IL b I I -U wI \LL E_� I i^ I� I n ir I IL ------ I ul ulIT it C�j I IS ➢ 1 f►/ a II F-�--- �I Va I m I I I ..0-.5 "I N <w �FF1 III I IyI WZD LOLLZI'b—L Q Ox J II _ � O o Ivy I N -l1 III ME _ I Q i °W r- e _ w I I I r 1 I III 2 074 II i, • ill •I ( I II I I LI i I I pIL i I a Ng v- -----------J u III r1 �� I� it I 11; I ' I1 I7;i I III III III III III III 4yl P --------- - — - - -- - 07 ',I iNno D g-i9`d�i "NO^V =40 NMOl p O O LU _ 159M adO'd D9Q1Z!J411M ILZ-b U) wry 1 "1CIOl�I f�5'�l�l Q 0 in0 in 1° C .o-Itiz I I I I LIB I Zl e I11 ED I II I I �1 I II III I II I III � II I III II I I O III I III \ I\` MIII O A I \/ III a /� N I I ii 1 I _ II LL I 10 � III wl- I IL— --- I ml° 1 LC—Z III & lzO�w I i / III O III iS o p I III rf� IN \ I II MINIr I L 19 1L - ll Ir 1 LP Uri -,Ir --=---I I I L_____J ,r_ —L_L___JL_==._.I .o -s LI°4 O y a� � I b oO • jDo_ --_ I LLy Ji � • G I 1 T � I G 1 I Q 1 I I N W • i I .A �I O I c0 rr O'D 'Jk1N(107 g-levD 'NOAV =40 NMO1 p O � O LU 1SDM adOZl D94214-1IM ILZb �� w ('4- M (Yw LU Q Q Q � �b �4 �b �� • b QF W QF J Ia W Y I � I I I L; I- =-li � j ! • I Z t� . I I J I, W r ' " Z -------- -- Ili n I! I ff l _ (-----------'�, _ II r lu El n r. I 1: II II -----------111 L' 07 ',.iNf109 �ngvD 'NO^d =40 NMOl IS 9 C1 T W O In N LU 15�M ad0?� �941?�Q�IM ILZb �� tli cv M �CtOl�l f�5'�l�l Q Q 0 0 E i Al O'�) ',liNnoq �i9b�i "NOAV =10 NMOl L O LU N _ 15AM dVO?8 AOCIENa-111M ILZi7 Np w ' uj UA l N QQ C, O IN ,.0 -,Se/' Nijjn l/i V 1f7✓% II i z 0 0 LLI ® O 0 tt LL O LL tll II N II JO J II I W H W $ $ W t' J M ' I ' . i J � � J p b J! m G) OO �S� N� n J1 u if JJ II O J I W F W H W -& f� W .A. - 00 ',11Nno D 'NOAV =40 NMOI _ 15�M 4Ib'_O'� ��9(a1?'JJ�a�ICM ILZ1t�Iwl Im x 11 nl 1H913H 39421 137/1 0-377 ; I 1H919H :XHW O -ISS o i o' I LU Q ®� od d II � II O JJ II �w I-wJ W Y /I _ II I II I li 1i II I I I I it I i II N 'K�Vt -------� � II X11 II I J I JI! 111 W I I I II i I -- ----------- II :i I �= I ! N ' J -�' O j 00 Q II J � II O II II O J �w w � I,- LU 1ul 07 'J.1Nf1O7 �novD 'NO^V =�O NMO-L p O N O wm N 1SDM OVO?J �1941zJ4-IIM ILE�, 06 w N ui LU ! i i �J _ w - I j i z� - 7 u 1-7 ==, i EL--LE:I Z I J Staff Report PUD Amendment March 3, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Report date: Project type: Legal description: Current zoning: Address: I. Introduction AVON C O L 0 R A D 0 February 27, 2009 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Preliminary Plan for Subdivision Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4, Wildwood Resort Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD) NA (No addresses assigned) The applicant, Zehren and Associates, along with Jay Peterson, representing the owner of the property, Tanavon Corp, are proposing to amend the existing Wildwood Resort PUD Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the existing Wildwood Resort Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 and to create two new Lots. This application was first heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 17, 2009. Since that meeting, the Town has verified that the future construction of a round -a -bout and associated improvements at the intersection of Nottingham Road and Swift Gulch will not impact the proposed PUD development on Lot 1 A of this submittal. Changes to the PUD have occurred since the last meeting, including the lowering of building heights for Lot 1A, Lot 1B, and Lot 2. The maximum allowable building height for Lot 1A has been lowered from 50' to 45', and the allowable architectural projections from 60' to 50'. The maximum allowable height for the residential units on Lot 1B and Lot 2 has also been lowered by two feet from 44' to 42'. The maximum height for Lot 3 (GRNSS) was also reduced from 45' to 38'. There is new information provided by the applicant attached to this report as Exhibit C; and this information is intended to either replace outdated binder pages, or is additional, supplemental information to be added to the PUD binder. First, please find revised Development Standards to replace those in your current Buck Creek PUD binder. There is a Development Plan attached for your review and consideration. All of the Development Standards are incorporated on the Development Plan, in addition to General Notes. Finally, a Geologic Hazard Study has been included and should be placed in your binder for reference. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 11 AL!1R The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads, is presently zoned as the "Wildwood Resort SPA" (Specially Planned Area), and is platted as the Wildwood Resorts Subdivision. The proposed amendments would modify the existing approved land uses, and would modify the existing platted lot configurations. The southern most lot, currently platted as Lot 1, would be split into two lots: Lot 1A and Lot 1 B. A new Fire Station and separate administration building are proposed for Lot 1A with the administration building located at the corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads. Lot 113 would include eleven (11) residential units in either a single-family, duplex, or three unit building configuration. Further to the north, Lot 2 is proposed for the remaining thirty-one (31) whole ownership residential units, also in either a single-family, duplex, or three unit structure mix. All of the residential units on these lots are proposed to be a maximum of 2,7110 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant is proposing to construct a campus for the Gore Range Natural Science School on Lot 3, the northern most property in the subdivision. The uses proposed for this lot are consistent with the uses allowed in the Government, Park, and Employee Housing (GPEH) zone district. Lot 4 is to remain open space, and will likely be used for a future round -a -bout project at the intersection of Swift Gulch and Nottingham Roads. Lot 5 is to be used for a Montessori school or other similar early education facility, and also for an associated office use. The current allowed uses for the development site are detailed in the governing zone document, Ordinance No. 85-4, Series of 1985 and are referenced below in Section II of this report. In addition to what is outlined above, the applicant is proposing to further define and modify the allowed uses that are detailed in the governing ordinance and the accompanying plat. Background In 1985, Section 36, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and Wildridge Development Company, a Colorado partnership, applied to the Town of Avon for certain amendments to the Zoning District Map and Zoning Code, and these amendments were eventually approved by Ordinance No 85- 4, which is attached to this report as Exhibit A. Pursuant to Ordinance No 85-4, the Town of Avon Zoning District Map was amended to permit the "following uses" on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Wildwood Resort Subdivision, respectively, in addition to specifying restrictions for Tracts "AA" and "BB": 150 hotel, motel and/or lodge (accommodation) units, together with accessory uses and related commercial uses as allowed in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district, to be located on Lot 1, Wildwood Resort. Private park and recreation and related commercial uses including clubhouse building for indoor and outdoor sports activities and customary support facilities: swimming pools, tennis courts, archery range, restaurantllounge, pro shop and other similar activities or services to be located on Lot 2, Wildwood Resort. 50 residential multiple family dwelling units, together with accessory uses, located on Lot 3, Wildwood Resort. The only uses permitted on Lot 4, KriIdwood Resort, shall be open space, drainage, landscaping and signage. Tovm of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3, 2009, Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 11 MIA The only allowed uses permitted on Tract AA, Wildwood Resort shall be snow storage, landscaping, drainage, signage and open space. The only allowed uses permitted on Tract BB, Wildwood Resort shall be snow storage, landscaping, parking, drainage, signage and open space. These permitted uses are also listed "for information purposes only" on the final plat. The final plat was approved by the Avon Town Council on April 9, 1985, establishing the Wildwood Resort as an SPA (Specially Planned Area). Accordingly, the Wildwood Resort's current development rights exist as explicitly listed within Ordinance No. 85-4 and detailed upon the corresponding plat. Any proposed amendments involving additions or changes to the uses listed in Ordinance No. 85-4, and the reconfiguration of the subdivided lots depicted on the corresponding plat, constitute a fundamental rezoning of the subject property. Section 17.20.1100)(1) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code specifically states, with regard to "precise or specific" development plans, " ...terms, conditions, and agreements contained within those PUDs shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town". It is evident that the precise or specific terms of the Wildwood Resort development plan as a whole remain binding on both the Town and the developer as approved by the Town in the form of Ordinance No. 85-4 and the corresponding Wildwood Resort final plat. IV. Surrounding Land Uses The existing land use and zoning for the surrounding properties are as follows: • North: Trails / Opens Space • South: Vacant Building, Coastal Mart, Vacant Land / Neighborhood Commercial Zoning • West: Low Density Residential / Open Space • East: Open Space, Commercial / Open Space V. Referral Comments The subject application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to property owners within 300' of the subject property. To date, Staff has received no public comments regarding the applicant's request. In addition to the required public notice, Staff has transmitted the application material to the following agencies, with their comments summarized below: Eaole River Fire Protection District Comments were received from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief of the District. According to her comments, revisions have been made to better accommodate ladder trucks in the residential areas. Additionally, hydrant locations have been discussed in a preliminary manner. Colorado Deoartment of Wildlife While the DOW acknowledges the lesser impact of this amendment proposal, they cited impacts to winter range habitat for mule deer migration. They recommend enhancement projects to replace the loss of winter range, and closing access to the power line road that may be accessible from the east side of the property. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3. 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 11 AIiN The DOW takes exception to the stream setback requests due to the negative impacts that these encroachments present. There is no clear rationale for the requested setback variances, and their letter states that the PUD does not provide any mitigation for the impacts to wildlife. Eagle County School District Comments To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments. Colorado Deaartment of Transportation To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments. Eagle Countv Plannina Deoartment Staff has received comments from the Planning and Engineering Departments of Eagle County and they are attached hereto. Eaale County Health Services District To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments. ECO Trails Staff was contacted via e-mail by Ellie Caryl, the Eagle Valley Trails Coordinator. Ellie had no comments on the subject application. She requested clarification that this project will not inhibit the Buck Creek Trail, located further to the North, and this was confirmed. United States Forest Service To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments. In addition to the agency referral comments summarized above, and attached hereto, the Public Works and Transportation Department and Engineering Department comments are attached to this report for your review and consideration. Please refer to Exhibit B for their updated comments. As stated above, no public comments have been received in response to the Public Notice mailed to all property owners (or associations) within 300' of the subject property. VI. 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. 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. Included in the applicant's binder is a detailed response to the following criteria: 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. The areas within the Comprehensive Plan that offer policy direction relative to the proposed land uses are the Future Land Use Plan, the District special area policies, and the General Goals and Policies of the Plan. The Future Land Use Plan designates the proposed site by the delineation of each existing, platted lot as follows: Lot 1 is Neighborhood Commercial; Lot 2 is Residential - low density, and Lot 3 is designated for Civic/Public land uses. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 740.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3, 2009, Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 11 A The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation is described as follows: These areas are intended to provide neighborhood -focused retail and service uses (such as markets, childcare, restaurants, and cafes) that are conveniently located near and connected with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff suggests that both the Existing and Future Land Use maps be amended if this application is approved so that the proposed mix of land - uses on this property can be accurately depicted. Residential low-density calls for a maximum density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre. This proposal contemplates a density consistent with that density, and therefore is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Plan designation. The CiviclPublic land use designation, which Lot 3 currently falls into under the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, does contemplate school uses within these areas, but also includes the following language: "Each proposed public use should be evaluated separately in terms of its land area and topographical constraints, as well as its compatibility with adjacent uses". The subject property is also located within District 13: Nottingham Road Commercial District under the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area as a secondary commercial district and contains specific planning principles to be applied for this area. This application adheres to the following District 13: Nottingham Road Commercial District planning principles: • Limit Access points on Nottingham Road to simplify traffic movements • Limit building heights to that which is compatible with the existing surrounding development. • Development intensity and activity should diminish when traveling north on Buck Creek Road. There are several Goals and Policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan which can be applied to this property. Staff is in agreement with the majority of the Goals and Policies highlighted in the applicant's binder, with a particular emphasis on the following: Goal C.1.6 — Include sufficient land for public uses such as schools, recreation, community facilities (such as childcare), and government services near the people who use them. Goad D.1 — Ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with existing and planned adjacent development and contributes to Avon's community image and character. Goal H.4.3 — Require use of innovative and environmentally friendly appliances and building techniques including water conservation approaches for new and existing development. Goal J.Z5 — Develop neighborhood and community-based childcare facilities and include youth in the programming of community or public facilities. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3. 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting mom Page 6 of 11 419. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the -sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. With respect to establishing and maintaining a design theme, this submittal is clearly in conformance with the 'theme' and level of quality established with recent Town of Avon projects, and is consistent with the overall design theme of the Town. While the level of detail varies depending on which portion of the project you are reviewing, the conceptual architectural studies generally comply with the Design Guidelines of the Town. A more detailed review will follow with the standardized Sketch and Final Design review processes. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. There has been a deliberate attempt to not only respond to the topography and constraints of the site, but to the greater design of the immediate environment and adjacent properties. One deliberate departure to this response to the natural environment is the proposal to encroach upon the setback from the live stream in a small portion of the development. The 6,726 square foot "Mountain Discovery Center", part of the GRNSS campus, is requesting the permittance of an encroachment into the Town's standard 30' setback from the mean annual high water mark of Buck Creek. The east end of the building would encroach between 20' — 25' lineal feet into said setback. An at grade porch would also encroach into this setback. Please refer to either Sheet C2.1 or Sheet C2.5 of the J&K Plan Set for a detailed view. The Avon Municipal Code defines "Stream Lot Setback" as: "a thirty-foot strip of land measured horizontally from the mean annual flood high water mark on each side of any live stream located within the boundaries of a proposed subdivision and shall be protected in its natural state, with the exception that footpaths, bridges, irrigation structures, flood control and erosion protection devices may be constructed thereon... Underground utilities may be located in such protected area, provided that there is no practical alternative location for such utilities, that the plans are approved by the Town Council through its designated representative and that all construction scars are revegetated." On Sheets C2.1 and C2.5 you will also find a building encroachment, to a lesser extent than the Discovery Center, for a portion of the 1,233 square foot Learning Studio building. it is understood that these encroachments were intentional in the effort of the property owner to bring students closer to the living river environment. As mentioned above, the architectural designs are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent properties. The scale of development has been significantly decreased compared to the existing entitlements, especially at the southern end of the PUD with the elimination of the 150 unit hotel building. The building heights proposed with this submittal are as follows: Lot 1A (Fire House) Lot 1B (11 Townhomes) Lot 2 (32 Townhomes) Lot 3 (GRNSS Campus) 45 feet; 50 feet for architectural projection 42 feet 42 feet 38 feet Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment p' March 3, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 11 Lot 4 (Open Space) N/A Lot 5 (Montessori School) 35 feet These building heights should be generally compatible with the surrounding properties and are appropriate for buildout. While this site is surrounded by lower building heights (35' maximum), the buffer space between development and the orientation of the structures appears to be compatible with the immediate environment and neighborhood. The Planning and Zoning Commission suggested the implementation of lower building heights for Lot 1A, Lot 1B, Lot 2, and Lot 3. The Commission requested an explanation as to why the proposed heights are warranted. Staff is comfortable with all of the reduced building heights. And while the building heights are higher than those of the neighboring properties, this property not only acts as a gateway to other neighborhoods in the Town, but also affords the opportunity to make an architectural statement that is typical with civic/public buildings. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding, uses and activity. The uses and density with this master planned development provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. The density has been reduced from current approvals, and the intensity of use has also been diminished with the elimination of the hotel. The surrounding uses and activities include Swift Gulch and Buck Creek Roads, Pizza Hut, the Goodyear building, and two gas station/convenience stores. There are also two vacant Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoned parcels immediately south of the proposed Fire Station lot on Nottingham Road. The surrounding lands to the east, west, and north are primarily open space in nature. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study, as required by the Subdivision Code, is provided in the Appendices sections of the applicant's binder. The soils report provided prepared by HP Geotech identifies sever soil stability issues and construction challenges, as well as identifies the need for a geologic hazards report. A Geologic Hazard report has been submitted to the Town and is currently under review. A copy of this study is attached as part to this report and should be placed in your binder. After a preliminary review of the Geologic Hazard report document, there are potential hazards associated with development. However, there are no hazards that cannot be avoided or otherwise mitigated. Please refer to the Engineering Department comments for additional comments related to the identification and mitigation of natural and geologic hazards. 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 general site plan layout produces a functional development; and while the building footprint locations are conceptual in nature, the final building locations and designs will be governed by the Town's adopted design review process. According to the Development Plan, final building locations will be permitted to move a reasonable distance (up to 5') and Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 11 0.. as long as the intent of the PUD is maintained, provisions are included to allow Staff approval for minor PUD amendments. As mentioned, Staff has determined that future potential round -a -bout construction at Nottingham/Swift Gulch Roads will not be impeded by the construction of the fire station hub building, or vice a versa. The Planning and Zoning Commission should consider the Division of Wildlife's comments with respect to limiting disturbances and encroachments into the 30' live stream setback. The GRNSS buildings that are currently depicted as encroaching this setback should be reviewed in detail. Perhaps the discussion should be framed around the acceptable level of encroachment that the Commission feels appropriate, if any. At the first hearing there were mixed responses to this encroachment request' The existing open space lot (Lot 4) remains as open space. This is an appropriate designation given the future potential need for the Town to use this parcel for Town infrastructure. Tracts AA and BB are likewise unaffected by the subject application. 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. The internal vehicular circulation system is functional. According to the applicant, one key internal pedestrian connection is being added immediately adjacent to Buck Creek Lane connecting to Nottingham Road through Lot 1A. This improvement will provide better pedestrian connectivity through the project. The Engineering Department will require an improved crosswalk with ADA ramps across Swift Gulch Road to the east of the project across Lot 4. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. The applicant has made significant efforts to optimize and preserve the natural features of the property. The development plan avoids natural stands of trees to the extent possible, and some of the outdoor spaces will be protected due to the wetlands and other associated development constraints. There are several easements old and new that will naturally restrict development in large portions of the property. Landscape plans will be reviewed in detail during the standard design review process. 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. A construction phasing plan is included in the applicant's binder. Please refer to Sheets CEA — CE.4 of the "Preliminary Construction Plans", prepared by J&K, Inc. The plan for Phase I is to construct traffic control measures, retaining walls associated with Buck Creek Lane, utilities necessary to serve the Gore Ranch Natural Science School (GRNSS), and the GRNSS campus in its entirety. All forty-two (42) "townhome" units, and associated utility improvements, would be constructed as part of Phase II of this development. The phasing demonstrates that each phase can be workable, without relying upon completion of future project phases. It became clear at the first hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that phasing for Lots 1A and 3, the fire station hub and Gore Range Natural Science School, will depend on available funding and construction could begin as early as 2010. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-0030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3, 2009, Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 11 10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. Some of the appropriate public service entities have submitted letters stating that they are willing and able to service the areas subject to this amendment. While the water demand of this proposal appears to be less than that of the current entitlements (118.6 SFE), this must be certified with further analysis. It is important to note that this submittal does not contain evidence of approval by utilities for water and sewer services, as required by the Avon Municipal Code. 11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated trafFc within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. The internal street, Buck Creek Lane, is designed to meet the Town of Avon Standards and Specifications. Surrounding the property are three public Rights -of -Way: Buck Creek Road (west), Nottingham Road (south), and Swift Gulch Road (east). A Revised Traffic Impact Study prepared for Tanavon Corporation by Kimley-Horn and Associates can be found in the Appendices of the applicant's binder. 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. There is a public purpose inherent with educational facilities which are not currently possible with the existing zoning. By relocating a regional fire station onto the property from the Town Core, the Town's long-term Town Center West Implementation plans will continue to evolve and be made possible. 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. The approval of this zoning application should not cause any adverse impacts to the long term economic, cultural or social well being. There are cultural and social community benefits inherent with the construction of an improved/expanded Fire Station, GRNSS, and Montessori (or similar early education) school. 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. This zoning application will undoubtedly increase the amount of public benefit the property can offer over current entitlements. While cultural resources are preserved and enhanced with educational land -uses, the impact on environmental resources must be reviewed carefully. VII. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending that the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 17.12.100 of the Avon Municipal Code, and recommend Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 11 A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this application to the Avon Town Council, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final form and content of the Buck Creek PUD Development Plan shall be reviewed and found acceptable by Staff prior to Council review; 2. The property owner shall dedicate to the Town, at the time of Final Plat approval, the necessary road right-of-way along Nottingham Road and Swift Gulch Road, along with associated easements, required for the construction of the Swift Gulch round -a -bout; 3. The property owner shall demonstrate that the site meets or exceeds the minimum 20% snow storage requirement and associated snow storage easements prior to the issuance of building permit; 4. The property owner, or representative, shall process a Comprehensive Plan Amendment application to update the Future Land Use Map to better reflect this PUD Amendment application and associated Land -Uses. This application must be submitted within 90 days of PUD approval. 5. The property owner, or representative, shall process a Subdivision Variance application requesting relief from provisions of Title 16 which cannot be met with the current site plan (grades, cul-de-sac length). This application must be submitted within 90 days of PUD approval. 6. The Town is entitled to use, at it's sole and absolute discretion, any and all water rights for the entire site, which are in excess of the minimum water necessary to serve the proposed uses; 7. The property owner shall satisfactorily address the comments outlined in the Engineering Department's Memo, dated February 20; 2009, prior to approval by the Town Council; and, 8. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Buck Creek, PUD Amendment March 3, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page t t of 11 AYA Staffs recommendation is based on the determination that the Twelve (12) PUD Design Criteria outlined in Section VI of this report have either been met, or will be met with the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval. 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. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pietic r Planner II VIII. Report Attachments Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 85-4, Series of 1985 / Wildwood Resorts Subdivision Plat (1985) Exhibit B: Referral Comments Exhibit C: Geologic Hazard Report Exhibit D: Applicant's Revised or Additional Binder Pages Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 SAME, AS � � .'1'Qi$ OF AVON0� `r'i�� ORDINANCE NO. 85-4 Series of 1985 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 83-21 -AND PROVIDING A FOR THE AMENDHEUT OF THE ZONING COIF OF THE ta(N OF Avon a+/ BY TNS AMENDMENT OF THE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING SPECIALLY PLANNED AREAS IN THE BOCK CREEK AND SWIFT GOWN ABEAB OF THE TOWN OF AVON. Exhibit A 3 1 8 1 6 4 oma Nil ;JOOH1fNNETTE PHILLIPS' TAGLE CTY.RECORDER, .pec B 3` i PA'K WHEREAS, Section 36, iee.. a Colorado corporation, and Wildridge Development Company, a Colorado, partnership, have filed application with the Tosn'of Avon to emend the toning district map and The toning code of the Toys of Avon by effectively transferring certain developmnt.rights•from the area described as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, Swift Gulch Addition to the Town of Awn, (hereinafter referred to as "Swift•Guichn) to the area presently described as Lots 5, 52A and 52B of the Buck Creek SPA which, upon approval of the new Pical Plat shall be hereinafter described as Lots 10 2, 3 and 4 of the Wildmod Reamer Subdivision (heieinafter referred' to as "Wildmod Resore ), through the amendment of the ordinances, which previously established the development rights within each teipective specially planned area; and WHEREAS, public hearings have been held by the Planning and Zoning CommAsaioq of the Tow of Avon,. parsusbt to notices required by lav, at which the applicants and the public vera given an opportunity to express their nipinious regarding the pr6posad.amendmants; and WHEREAS, folloviag•such public hearings, the Planning and Zoning Comudesioh forwarded reports and recommendations on the proposed amendment to the Tom Council; and WPE8EA3,• after notices provided by lav, a public hearing we held before this Council on the 9th day'of April, 1985, at which time the applicants and the public were Liven an opportunity to express their opinions .regarding the proposed, amendmient; and WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of the Master Plan of the Tow of Avon and the recommendations of the Plannicg and Znuiog Commission of the Tow of Avoo, this Council Finds as follw$: 1. The proper posting, publication and public notice was provided as required by lav for -the hearirge before the Planning and Zonirg Commission and the Tom Council of the Tow of Awn. 2. That the Learings before the Planning and Zoning Cmmission and the Tow Council vete both extensive and complete and that all'•pertinent facts, matters and issues•were submitted at those hearings. 3. That the proposed amudmuts to the Znoi4 District Nap and Zoning Code of the Town of Avon are consistent with the Master Plan of the Tow of Awn; provided that certain.limitations heieinafter at -forth be established.in association with the respective specially planned areas. 4. That the requested amendment to the Toning District and the Toning Code of the Tow of Awn will be in the best interest of the health, safety, welfare and morals of the citizens of the Tom of Awe. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY TILE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TGdN OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. -Amendment to Swift Gulch SPA. .Section l of Ordinance No.-. 81-35 of the Tom of Avon as amended by Section 1 of Ordinance 83-21 shall be avid hereby is amended to read as follows: The Zoning District Map of the Tova b£ Awn shall be and hereby in amended to reflect that the certain real property as more fully and legally described hereinabove, shall.be and hereby is included in a Specially Planned Area Zone Iliattietoas such tern is defined and subject to all the teras and conditions thereof wt forth in the Municipal Code of the Tom of Avon, an may from tiae'to time be in effect, provided the was permitted on such lands shall be limited to the following: 105 residential multiple family dwelling units and/or commercial as allowed in the SC (Shopping Center) was district. Section 2. Amudmant to Buck Creek BPA. (to be renamed Wildwood Mozart SPA). Section 1 of ordinance No. 82-20 of the Tom of Avon as mended by Section 2 of Ordinance 83-21 shall be and hereby is amended to read as follow: The Zoning District Nap of the Tom of Avon shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the certain real property as more fully and legally described hereinabove, shall be and hereby is included in a Specially Planned Area Zone District as such term is defined and subject to all the teres and conditions thereof set forth in the Municipal Code of the Tom of Avon, as may from time to time be in affect, provided the uses permitted on such lauds shall be limited to the following uses: A. 150 hotel, motel and/or lodge (accommodation) units, together with accessory was and related commercial uses as allowed in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) cone district, to be located on Lot 1, Wildcood Resort. B. Private park and recreation and related commercial uses including clubhouse building for indoor and outdoor sports activities and customary support facilities: swimming pool,, tennis courts, archery range, restaurant/lounge, pro shop and other similar activities or services to be located on Lot 2, Wildmod Resort. C. 50 residential multiple family dwelling unite, together with accessory uses, located on Lot 3, Wildmod Resort. D. The only was permitted on Lot 4, Wildmod Resort, shall be open space, drainage, laodecapicg and signage. R. The only allowed uses permitted on Tract AA, Wildmod Resort shall be anw storage, landscaping, drainage, signage and open space. F. The only allowed uses permitted on Tract BE, Wildwod Resort shall be snow storage, landscaping, parking, drainage, signage and open space. Section 3. Effective Date. The amendment to the Zoning District Nap and the Zoai� eCod of the Tom of Awn provided fnr herein shall take affect in accordance with the charter and the ordinances of the Tom of Avon, and the Mayor Pro Tam and the Tom Clerk are hereby directed and authorized to execute such documents as may be required to reflect the amendment herein authorized, and to file a certified copy of such documents with the County Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado. INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED POSTED, THIS 26th day of March, 1985 and a public hearing on this Ordinance .ball be held at the regular meeting of the Tom Council of the Tom of Avon, Colorado, on the 9th day of ARF;;,V, L985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Tow of Avon, Ga1P4afo..yafcI.y r Pro Tem Tricia i e INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND HEADING, APPROVED AND ORDERED POSTED this 9tb day of April, 1985. :'$�y n .� A /a Mayor ro am Tory�l•:PTT. ' Tom Clerk.' . 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF EAGLE ) 86. TOWN OF AVON ) NOTICE IS HEBBBY GIVEN OP A PUBLIC HEARING (SECOND READING) BEFORE THE TCWH COUNCIL OF TL1S TOWN OF AVON, CQLORADO, AT 7:30 P.N. ON TEE 9TH DAY OP APRIL, 1985 AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD, AVON, COLORADO FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF OFDIHARON NO. 85fi, SERIES OF 1985: All ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE TOO OF AVON BY THE AMENDMENT OF THE ORDINAECES ESTAN.ISHING SPECIALLY PLANNED AREAS IN THE BOCK CREEK (NILDHOOD RESORT) AHO SWIFT GULCH AREAS OF THE TONE OF AVON. A copy of said Ordinance is attached bereto and is also an file at the office of the tow clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours. Following this hearing, the Council may consider final pissage of this Ordinance. This notice given and passed by order of the Tow Council of the Tow of Avon, Colorado. -.. ... T�VOR, COLOB)�00 L! itrieid J. Doy ,Tow Cle""r4/ POSTED AT THE POLLMAG PUBLIC PIACES WLTHIS°THE TORN -OF AWN ON MARCH 228th, 1985. ~� THE MAIN ENTRAECE OF THE POST OFFICE, THE NEIN ENTRANCE TO CITY MARKET, THE PESTER GAS STATION:, AND TIM MAIN LOBBY IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING Dated this 28th day of Marro, 1985. j t ;� o JJ Q 00 9 aIV 3 0 0 9; V 800 9 !� 2L00 a 2 L 0 0 U 1 000 0i 7039 I000008_. .OSi08i85 T�VOR, COLOB)�00 L! itrieid J. Doy ,Tow Cle""r4/ POSTED AT THE POLLMAG PUBLIC PIACES WLTHIS°THE TORN -OF AWN ON MARCH 228th, 1985. ~� THE MAIN ENTRAECE OF THE POST OFFICE, THE NEIN ENTRANCE TO CITY MARKET, THE PESTER GAS STATION:, AND TIM MAIN LOBBY IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING !; e � 88gb98 eiyi r , Fpa go qa . ii'd,gi a'.y ttcII{ jIG adp q ;fill e 5 11 �ie{28I8$1�H_ IIiIi j j a �i �s P ;! 21 1 0 7 i rS�III �• tl g Saida( C n, E . 19vdlc a�3d{1 ��-orle .Y�l nVali 4{ - da3tl3d3 a � O • � Y m ( U fml ate`` 0 � W WLU o xWs^ Z Y am 2 O Z p < Z a Q J 0 N,WO 0 J —1 Lu D D U WCL �mm D J In Im! O A Q m W 0 U 1 m< W Is wow W� m o C ( yu jW W (m O S b �s P ;! 21 1 0 7 i rS�III �• tl g Saida( C n, E . 19vdlc a�3d{1 ��-orle .Y�l nVali 4{ - da3tl3d3 a �s P ;! 21 1 0 7 i rS�III �• tl g Saida( C n, E . 19vdlc a�3d{1 ��-orle .Y�l nVali 4{ - da3tl3d3 STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Thomas E. Remington, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 wildlife.state.co.us Town of Avon Community Development Attn: Matt Pielsticker Box 975 Avon, CO. 81620 Mr. Pielsticker, Exhibit B UOF'�� For Wildlife- ForPeople February 9, 2009 After reviewing the proposed PUD amendment for Buck Creek PUD, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CROW) offers the following comments and recommendations regarding wildlife for your consideration. Wildlife Imoacts: The proposed PUD amendment would have much less impact on wildlife than the existing plan. However the PUD amendment does not provide all of the associated wildlife impacts or any information on how the PUD would comply with the town's goals. Goal H.1.3 - Require development and redevelopment to accommodate wildlife habitat, including deer and elk migration routes, or otherwise mitigate loss of habitat. The site is within mule deer winter range and migration corridor and elk winter range. The development of the site would impact winter range habitat and could impact the mule deer migration corridor due to both site development and traffic levels. The greatest impact could be an indirect impact from recreation activities by the school and residents that chose to travel the existing power line road cut and disturb deer and elk wintering in the area. Mitigation measures could include: No recreation use of the power line road cut from January 1 to May 1. , Habitat enhancement projects every three years to replace the loss of winter range (generally these would include fertilization projects instead of burns due to the proximity of the town). Stream set backs: Request for exception from stream setbacks: The CDOW does not support the request for the exception. Riparian ecosystems constitute one of the most limited and yet species rich ecosystem in Colorado. The general stream setback for the Town of Avon is 30 feet from the mean high water mark. The plan as shown on the CD shows there are two different encroachments into the stream setback. The largest one is shown as 20-25 feet; this would be a significant encroachment and impact DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hams D. Sherman, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, Vice Chair- Tun Glenn, Secretary Members, Dennis Buechler • Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Faris • Roy MrAnally . Richard Ray • Robert Streeter Ex Officio Members, Harris Sherman and John Stulp on the riparian habitat. The rational listed in the PUD plan: "In both instances the building elements within the encroachment will serve to provide a "window" into the riparian habitat. One of these "windows" will be from the public museum space and the other is from the aquatic leaming studio. Both will allow observation into these environments and will reinforce educational programs designed to promote understanding and stewardship of riparian areas." and "The Gore Range Science Schools has as it's mission "to awaken a sense of wonder and inspire environmental stewardship through natural science education" through a combination of innovative school programs, summer youth science camps, adult seminars, and year-round interpretive programs." Requesting exceptions and negatively impacting limited and highly sensitive habitats is generally not how a learning institution tries to promote and reinforce educational programs and inspire stewardship for the environment. The PUD plan, as submitted, does not contain any information that would be compelling for such an exception to the stream setback requirements. Further, the PUD does not provide any mitigation for the exception and its impacts on wildlife. The Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to make recommendations and be involved with this project. If you have any question or concerns with these comments please feel free to contact DWM Bill Andree at 328- 6563. Sincerely, Perry Will Area Wildlife Manger, Glenwood Springs Cc: Ron Velarde, Bill Andree, file Memorandum. To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner, Town of Avon From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 2/11/2009 Re: Buck Creek PUD Submittal, Case PUD9001 I reviewed the above referenced project for fire department concerns with the following comments: - Alpine Engineering has updated the site plan showing access and turning movements for the ladder truck which is the most restrictive emergency vehicle. Per a phone conversation this week, the updated version shows better access through some of the residential areas. I will coordinate with them to get a copy for our files. - Hydrants will be required within the PiJD. I reviewed possible hydrant locations with Alpine Engineering but based on the final project approval and flow demands, those locations may be adjusted. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 970-7484732. EAGLE COUNTY Matt Pielsticker Town of Avon Community Development P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Email: mpielsticker@avon.org RE: Inter Agency Referral for Buck Creek PUD February 5, 2009 Mr. Pielsticker, REEF/v FEB 17 2oog CofimL117ity p®v®iopment Eagle County would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the Buck Creek PUD proposal. We appreciate the relationship that exists between the Town of Avon and Eagle County. The project has significant merits, including providing a much improved location for the fire district with better access to 1-70. Moving the ERFD from its current location could provide an opportunity for redevelopment and further the town's goals of the new "Main Street" project. This arguably could fall into the category of creating economic opportunity. The Gore Range Natural Science School (GRNSS) portion of the project provides very high marks with regard to building "social capital" in the community, not to mention that the GRNSS's mission is aligned with "protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend." To provide the most quantitative feedback to the Town, we have applied the county's regulatory land use tools to evaluate the Buck Creek development project. Our comments are based on an analysis of the application as if it were being proposed within unincorporated Eagle County under the county's guidelines. We understand and respect that the Town of Avon has different rules and regulations and our analysis and comments are meant to provide the Town of Avon with an additional perspective. Following are the county's comments for your consideration and the county staff would be happy to discuss them with your staff further. Planning/Zoning: 1) As a constructive exercise we applied the new Eagle County Sustainable Community Index (SCI) to the Buck Creek project and have the following comments based on the tool. The SCI is a required finding for new development in unincorporated Eagle County. Please see the attached worksheet for individual checklist item scores. Also, the regulation with additional language supporting the checklist items is available on our community development page of our website www.eaalecountv.us. Below are comments based on the SCI which would improve the score of the project and we felt were applicable to the design and location. Recommended is inclusion of additional renewable energy systems for the development, including more solar and/or micro -hydro. Total score SCI for Buck Creek --57/219 1133 + Exceeds Minimum Standards 67-132 Meets Minimum Standards 0-66fmmmff�," Summary: Buck Creek's score falls within the category of "Does Not Meet Minimum Standards" for the Eagle County Sustainable Communities Index. The SCI score is used as a tool to comprehensively analyze how new developments contribute toward sustainable community development. The intent of the SCI is to give staff, developers, and decision makers an indication as to the level of sustainability a project includes within it, as well as its contribution to the broader community. Eagle County defines Sustainable Community as; a community which fosters economic opportunity and social capital while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which people and economies depend. Eagle County uses the SCI for PUDs, PUD amendments, Final Plats, Major Special Use Permits and Zone Changes as a required finding to be met for approval. In the case of Buck Creek the index would be used to further improve the project with reference to the low point categories such as on-site renewable energy, diversity of housing, affordable housing and public access. It seems that Buck Creek PUD falls short in these categories. A greater commitment to renewable energy such as micro -hydro, or larger scale solar would greatly improve the proposal's score. Another quality opportunity to bolster Buck Creek's SCI score would be to diversify the home types available with regard to size and type. Allowing public access to the GRNSS property as well as the Buck Creek trailhead would also raise the Buck Creek score and provide greater public benefit. A proposal whose score on the index falls in the "Meets Minimum Standards" would most likely not be denied solely on the basis of the index score but said project would have to be favorable with regard to the other criteria used to judge the project such as public benefit and social capital. It is important to understand that the SCI works in conjunction with Eagle County's other goals, plans, and policies. For example, the Town of Avon has a different strategy for affordable housing than Eagle County. The SCI reflects a higher score if the proposal meets the county's affordable housing guidelines. If you have any further questions or comments please feel free to contact me at sean.hanaaan(aaeaalecountv.us or 970328-8748 Sean Hanagan Eagle County Community Development Environmental Planner Commercial mitigation results in a smaller square footage AH requirement, but at a lower price point. ° Developer may increase prices by 10 AMI points if parking is placed below interior residential living space; Affordable Housing may be Affordable Rentals affordable to households eaming 80/90% AMI. °1100% AMI reflects lower sales price for commercial mitigation requirements; rental rates do not change for commercial mitigation, however. 11.3J C_>< (LE -E« 'Opu 0 a,,. ... �7Lr1Lara4L4h41l.C9B:b,..e. ,....''.t•':.`+``:'i�".;>,��..:�,ay'e5�`.�K''�.kt..�5. _ k� PIS. 2, 2-5 LOCATION iNFILL/REDEVELOPMENT: Infill (4), adjacent (2), and/or previously developed (1) S- 5 TRANSIT: Over 50% of the development is within walking distance (1/4 mile) of transit stop (5). y 2.4 PROXIMITY TO EXISTING WATER/WASTEWATER: ties Into existing (4); public extension (2) 0 5 WILDLiFE/ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES: biological study with DOW compliance O 1.3 1IRIPARIANAVETLAND PRESERVATION: 100' setback and water quality testing NQ 3 ]]AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION: Doesn't remove historic/potential agricultural land I 4 1.2 ]]EXISTING VEGETATION PRESERVATION: <10% existing treelshrubs Impacted I A1,41 23 11BROWNFIELDBLIGHT REDEVELOPMENT: Improves blighted lot (2), contamination cleanup (3) 1 i.J 2 IISTEEP SLOPES/RIDGELINES: on slopes less than 20% I_ ( 1 13 IISTORMWATER MANAGEMENT: 100% of surface drainage through bioswalelvegetated system. 17 I1lfIl�IKKeA`kYo[olibA I W.1_ I 2 I 2 IIOPEN COMMUNITY: no gates, amenities are open to the public - 1 01 4 11PUBLIC ACCESS: provides appropriate public access to public lands/rivers (with agency approval) 4 pts. I `i'1 4 11COMPACT DEVELOPMENT: 7 or more unitslacre; commercial>.50 FAR I ( 1 1.2 11REDUCED FOOTPRINT: on previously disturbed area (1); all structures and parking <.50 lot (1) 1 o 1 2 IICLUSTERING: efficient infrastructure, development concentrated in node(s), allowing for open areas. 1l1 13.18 11OPEN SPACE: conservation easement meets components of open space criteria. See regulations. y� 1 O 12-7 ]]REDUCED PARKING FOOTPRINT: less surface parking (2-3), carpool (1), covered bike storage (1-2) 1 7 12-4 PARKING LOCATION: surface parking to rear of structures only (4); to side and screened (2). 1 / 1 13 IIREDUCED PARKING: Does not exceed LURs: I pt. Study shows reduced on-site demand (2-3 pts.) I t/ 1 4 IIJOBS/HOUSiNG RATIO onsite housing for mixed-use non-residential ( ee regulations) 1 61 3 11SCHOOL PROXIMITY: within a mfie of a public school —+ w�(„(/ ♦ . / nit/{ 1 c f 11-20 JIDIVERSITY OF USES: 1 point each use category listed in regulations ¢g 1 I 1 1.0 11DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES 1 point each housing type listed in regulations above 2. / 1 Q 11.20 11AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 point each affordable housing unit provided above housing guidelines. I O 1 2.4 IIAFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Onsite rental housing, see regulations. A. All .x1141 &IM I Lo 1 146 I WALKABLE STREETS: see commentary 1 6 1 13 �ISTREET NETWORK: grid small block pattern, 2 pts, pedestrian connection at cul de saes (1) IVA 1 23 ]]TRANSIT FACILITIES: transit stop provided within 1/4 mile (2 pts.), covered bike storage (1 add'1 Pt.) 1 3 1 1.4 II WALKABLE VICINITY: www.walkscore.com score 10-25=1pt, 26.50=2pts, 51-75=3pts, 76-100=4pts. 1 3 1 3 1IBiCYCLE NETWORK: Connection to community center via bleyeleyaths/routes. 1 0 1 2 11 ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES: 90% of units within 1/4 mile of public green space i 1 13 IIACCESS TO ACTIVE SPACE: within 1/2 mile of ball field, 3 -mile recreation trati, and/or dop�park 1 D I_13 II,LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION: private garden areas (1); community garden(s) (2); local market (1) O 1 1-2 ]]LIMITED TURF/SPECIES: <25% landscaped areas turf (1). Turf uses 25% less water than KBG (1). I I I 1 IIDIVERSE NATIVE LANDSCAPE: Landscape plan utilizes 10 or more local native low-water species. 1 d 1 2 IIXERISCAPE: Landscape plan Incorporates seven xeric design principles (see regulations) 1 61 5 11SOLAR ORIENTATION: 75% of all buildings have solar orientation (see regulations) 1 3 133011 RENEWABLE ENERGY 3 points for every 5% total energy offset by onsite renewable system(s). I QJ 1 IIINFRASTRUCTURE RECYCLED CONTENT: Concretelasphalt 75•/e or more recycled content. ]REQUIRED 11RECYCLING: Design Includes areas for recycling co -mingled, paper, and cardboard. IREQUIRED IILIGHT POLLUTION: Exterior lighting minimized, shielded, night sky compliant - I X 11INNOVATION IN DESIGN: Items meeting Intent not listed, case by case review p I225IITOTAL F A14 6 c cz °`P lqK re. Put �0,P MEMORANDUM AVON C O L O R A D O To: Matt Gennett From: Justin Hildreth, Jeffrey Schneider, Shane Pegram Date: February 20, 2009 Re: First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application, Dated January 2009 COMMENTS: The following comments are in response to our review of the above referenced PUD application. General Comments 1. The Town of Avon has been planning construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Nottingham Road and Buck Creek Road since 2000. Upon internal discussions with` Town Staff and the Town's Traffic Engineer, it appears that a roundabout at Swift Gulch Road would have similar favorable benefits to the road system, and require less utilization of developable Buck Creek PUD property. The Engineering Department with the cooperation of Alpine Engineering has determined that the roundabout will not impact the proposed site design. Additional right-of-way and easements are being requested to be dedicated to the Town for the construction of the future Nottingham Road and Swift Gulch Road roundabout. 2. It appears that the project lacks adequate pedestrian facilities, both internal and external. An improved crosswalk with ADA ramps should be constructed across Swift Gulch Road to the east of the project across Lot 4. 3. It appears that the project lacks adequate snow storage. Much of the snow storage areas proposed are shown conflicting with other uses, i.e. fire hydrants, stor:nwater inlets, wetlands, and retaining walls. 4. The submitted plan drawings do not appear to comply with the Town's requirements for drainage and snow storage easements along the public right of way. The Town requires a minimum 10 -foot easement, measured from the front edge of the parcel boundary inward, for Town maintenance uses (snow storage, road drainage) along all public road frontages including Buck Creek Rd., Swift Gulch Rd, and Nottingham Rd. These easements shall be of minimal slope (e.g. <= 4:1) such that a 12 -foot high by 10 -foot wide berm of snow and ice will stand in the area and not fall on to a road, buildings, or other developed areas of the PUD. No hardened structures of any kind should be allowed in this easement area (i.e., no retaining walls, roads, buildings, landscaping, gates, etc.). Landscaping placed in this area is subject to damage from plowing activities and would be "at -your -own -risk." Because the easement area provides storage for snow plowed from the public road, it shall not be counted as the applicant's on-site snow storage area. 5. A minimum of 20% of the total square footage shall be set aside and labeled for storage of snow generated from within this development. If the Applicant agrees to conduct off- site hauling of snow in perpetuity, a plat note should be made to this effect and the plat should designate sufficiently sized snow/ice stockpile area located within the parcel boundaries and outside of the Town's snow storage easements. 6. The driveway radii must be shown on the proposed site plan. 7. _ It appears that Buck Creek Lane is intended to be a private street. The chapter also states that the street must meet all requirements of Title 16. The following issues are noted: Engineering Review of First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application dated January 2009 February 20, 2009 Page 2 of 3 a. Buck Creek Lane violates AMC 16.40.050 (4) in that it is longer than 1,000 feet and serves more than twenty residential units. Commercial uses such as the two school parcels are not permitted to be served via a cul-de- sac. b. The proposed 50 -foot right of way easement width does not contain all required cut and fill slopes as stipulated in AMC 16.40.060. C. A portion of Buck Creek Lane exceeds the maximum grade design criteria of 8 percent as stipulated in 16.40.180(a). d. A maintenance plan or agreement must be submitted stipulating the maintenance responsibilities for all roadway, utility, and drainage infrastructure. Easements must be granted allowing the Town to maintain said infrastructure if the private maintenance is found to be inadequate; a cost recovery agreement for Town maintenance should be submitted along with the required easements. e. Please include the specific modifications to the development standards that are being requested in the PUD. 8. The Preliminary Plan submittal does not contain property lines and owners of record of all parcels adjoining the proposed subdivision, including parcels separated there from by only a public right of way as required in AMC 16.20.150 (4). This will be required to be submitted with the Final Plat. 9. The preliminary plan submittal does not contain a brief description of proposed covenants or a statement demonstrating the needs for the proposed subdivision, as required in AMC 16.20.150(12) g and It, respectively. Please submit the proposed covenants with the Final Plat. 10. The level of detail in the submittal far exceeds the Preliminary Plan requirements. Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the items submitted exceeding preliminary plan requirements such as detailed stormwater, roadway, and utility infrastructure. It. Please submit an exhibit showing turning movements for the largest vehicles realistically expected entering the various townhome access drives, school sites, and cul-de-sac. 12. The area is known to contain geologic hazards. Town Staff is concerned about excavating and potentially compromising the Buck Creek Road fill slope for construction of Buck Creek Lane. Additional detail of proposed retaining walls, including all loading calculations, should be provided in order to ensure slope stability must be submitted with the construction drawings submitted with the Final Plat. 13. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to transit is needed in association with development of this parcel for consistency with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the Comprehensive (Land) Plan. The Applicant should provide a sidewalk or public paved trail along Buck Creek Lane. 14. The proposed configuration of the entrance from Buck Creek Road will create stacking problems for traffic including school buses and cars that must immediately tum left onto Buck Creek Lane during rush hours. Appropriate traffic control methods for this intersection must be analyzed as part of the Final Plat submittal. 15. Lane widths for all roads should be at least 10' wide. Water rights 1. The project is allocated 118.6 Single Family Equivalents (SFE) in the Town of Avon's existing water rights allocation, based on existing zoning. Preliminary calculations indicate that the proposed project will require less then the allocated water rights and C:Oocuments and Settings4nplelstickerLLocal SettingsWemporary Internet FIIes10LK360V2009 02 20 Engineering Comments to PZ.doc Engineering Review o, First Submittal of Buck Creek PUC} Application dated January 2009 February 20, 2009 Page 3 of 3 therefore no additional water will have to be dedicated to the Town to support this development proposal. 2. Staff has not completed the review of the water rights information submitted with this application. Preliminary Plat 1. The plat title needs to be revised to include the previous lot and subdivision names for the property as shown on the topographic survey. C.\E)=ments and Setttngs\mpie( d(arU ocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileskOLK36012008 02 20 Engineering Comments to P7 doe 3 MEMORANDUM To: Matt Gennett From: Justin Hildreth Date: February 26, 2009 Re: First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application, Dated January 2009 Preliminary Analysis of Traffic Impacts COMMENTS: The following comments are in response to questions posed by the Planning and Zoning Commission during the February 17, 2008 hearing 1. The Town of Avon 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan includes Nottingham Road Improvements from I-70 to Buck Creek Road. The improvements consists of widening Nottingham Road to 4 lanes from I-70 to Buck Creek Road and the construction of a roundabout at the Nottingham Road and Buck Creek Road intersection. This project was originally planned in 2001 based on traffic projections. The project was to be constructed in 2005, but was delayed due to neighborhood concerns. Since that time, there have been several land -use changes that have significant impacts to traffic projections; including the proposed zone change of the Buck Creek PUD, the cancellation of the proposed development of the West Avon USFS parcel, and the cancellation of the car wash that was to be located on Nottingham Road. As a result, traffic impact studies commissioned by both the developer and the Town indicate that Nottingham Road will only require 3 lanes, and a roundabout will not be required at Buck Creek Road. The Swift Gulch Road and Nottingham Road intersection will have unacceptable back-up and will require a single -lane roundabout. Staff and the applicant have conceptually analyzed a roundabout at the Swift Gulch Road intersection and it appears that a roundabout could be accommodated but additional right-of-way will be required to be dedicated to the Town. The existing site plan can accommodate the roundabout without any changes. An exhibit showing a conceptual roundabout that can accommodate the largest allowed semi- trailer at the Swift Gulch Road intersection is attached. 2. Planning and Zoning commissioners expressed concern about the impact of the proposed development on the roundabouts located at the I-70 interchange at Avon Road. The proposed development is estimated to generate 792 trips per day, of which 102 are in the weekday peak morning hour and 97 are in the weekday peak evening hour. Eighty percent of the generated trips are expected to go east, creating a traffic impact of 633 trips per day at Nottingham Road north of the interchange. The existing traffic on Nottingham Road, north of the interchange is 10,160 trips per day. This proposed development will only increase traffic 6% at the I-70 interchange and will not significantly impact the level service at the interchange. uaaGWIZ wv vu.vr. 9. 6007,,,zU7 361P tlUv8tj xSvI Gtech HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL I lrpwmth-Pawlal. Umtethm.al. Ing 5222 ( .rant) H"aJ 154 (r leve tail Springs. Colmi In A I hi I Phtme 1)70 NS.7VSs Fa. 970A4545454 email hpgetr2Jtpgeutrch uon GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT PROPOSED BUCK CREEK PUD NOTTINGHAM ROAD AND BUCK CREEK ROAD AVON,COLORADO JOB NO. 109 025A FEBRUARY 24, 2009 PREPARED FOR: TANAVAN CORPORATION ATTN: JAY PETERSON 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, SUITE 208 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 Parker 30i -i41-7119 0 Colorado Slmnks 719-631-5562 • Silverthorne 970.468.1959 TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.......... SITE CONDITIONS ........................... SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ...... REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING.. ............................................. - 1 - .................................. - I - .................................................................... - 2- .................................................. - .................................................. - 3- ................................................. - ................................................. - 3 - GEOLOGICALLY - GEOLOGICALLY YOUNG FAULTS....................................................................... - 4 - PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY.................................................................................... - 4 - EAGEL VALLEY FORMATION AND SINKHOLES(Pe).................................... - 5 - SURFICIAL SOILS AND LANDFORMS.............................................................. - 5 - GEOLOGIC - GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT........................................................................... - 10- FOUNDATION 0-FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS.......................................................... - 10 - DEBRISFLOWS.................................................................................................. - 10 - BUCKCREEK FLOODING................................................................................ . 1 l - CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY ........................................ - 12 - POND EMBANKMENT STABILITY................................................................. - 12 - ROCKFALL......................................................................................................... - 12 - SINKHOLEPOTENTIAL.................................................................................... - 12 - EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS................................................................. - 13- ADDITIONAL 3- ADDITIONALSTUDIES........................................................................................ - 14- LIMITATIONS 4- LIMITATIONS........................................................................................................ - 15- REFERENCES 5- REFERENCES......................................................................................................... - 16- FIGURE 6-FIGURE 1 - PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND BUCK CREEK BASIN AND FAN FIGURE 2 - GEOLOGICALLY YOUNG FAULTS AND LARGER HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES FIGURE 3 - REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP FIGURE 4 - WESTERN COLORADO EVAPORITE REGION FIGURE 5 - PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY MAP FIGURE 6 — PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY SOUTHWESTERN PART FIGURE 7 — PROJECT SITE GEOLOGY NORTHEASTERN PART APPENDIX A — DEBRIS FLOW AND FLOOD NOMENCLATURE AND CHARACTER PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the findings of a geologic site assessment for the proposed Buck Creek PUD, Avon, Colorado. The project site is located northeast of the intersection of Nottingham Road and Buck Creek Road as shown on Figure 1. The study was conducted to evaluate the geology in the project area and assess if there are geologic conditions that could be potentially hazardous or could present major constraints to the proposed development. The study was performed according to our February 3, 2009 proposal to Tanavan Corporation. A field reconnaissance of the project area was performed on February 5, 2009 to observe the geologic conditions. The project site was snow covered at that time. In addition to our field review, we have also reviewed published regional geological reports, looked at aerial photographs and reviewed our previous and in progress geotechnical engineering studies at the project site (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997 and 2009). Based on this information, an assessment of the potential influence of the geology on the proposed development was made. This report summarizes the information evaluated and presents our findings. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT At the time of this study the project was in the preliminary design stage. Most of the proposed development will be a townhome complex. A fire station and administrative building are proposed in the southwestern part of the project site adjacent to Nottingham Road. The location of the proposed project facilities are shown on Figures 6 and 7. Preliminary grading plans indicate that cuts and fill will be less than about 10 feet high. Several retaining walls will be used to reduce the extent of hillside disturbance. If the actual project facilities differ substantially from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the finding presented in this report. Job No. 109 025A G95tec i -2 - SITE CONDITIONS The 23 acre project site is located in the lower Buck Creek valley where the valley joins the main Eagle River valley, see Figure 1. The project site lies at an elevation of about 7,560 feet. The site is located to the north of Interstate Highway 70. Nottingham Road borders the site on the southwest and Buck Creek Road borders the site on the northwest. The Buck Creek valley floor in the proposed development is about 250 to 350 feet wide. The valley floor has a longitudinal slope parallel to'the valley axis of about 6 percent down to the southwest. Transverse valley floor slopes range from less than 2 percent to about 4 percent. The valley floor abruptly transitions to steep valley sides where slopes are usually in the range of 50 to 75 percent. Relief between the valley floor and ridge lines at the top of the valley is about 400 to 500 feet. The project site was essentially undeveloped land and was mostly covered with snow at the time of this study. A small pond with an earth embankment is located in the northeastern part of the property. The pond has a surface area of about 0.02 acres. The valley floor appears to be mostly grass covered. Several marsh areas are present along the northeastern two-thirds of the valley floor, see Figure 5. Willows and other water tolerant plants grow in the marsh area and along Buck Creek. Scattered aspens, conifer trees and cottonwood tree also grow along the creek. Sage and other brush is present on the east -facing valley side and sage and brush with conifer trees are present on the west -facing valley side. The Buck Creek channel is between about 20 and 60 feet wide and has been eroded from 2 to 8 feet below the adjacent valley floor at the project site. An alluvial fan that covers about 120 acres has formed at the mouth of Buck Creek where the creek joins the main Eagle River valley, see Figure 1. Much of the town of Avon is on the fan. The fan head is located on the project site and the up slope drainage basin tributary to the fan covers about 3,027 acres. The basin has a maximum elevation of about 10,500 feet. upstream of the project site Buck Creek is an ephemeral stream that only has surface flow following periods of heavy precipitation and heavy snowpack melt. At the time of our field review in early February, 2004 there was surface flow in the creek. Much of this surface flow is related to groundwater discharge to the marsh area on the property that Job No. 109 025A Gg techl -3 - eventually reaches the creek. A highway embankment fill for the Interstate Highway 70 interchange at Avon crosses the creek about 300 feet to the southwest of the project site, see Figure 5. Buck Creek is conveyed through the highway fill in a 7 -foot diameter culvert. The highway fill would essentially form a dam across the upper part of the Buck Creek fan if the capacity of the culvert were exceeded or the culvert were to become plugged by debris. At Nottingham Road the creek is conveyed below the road in three, 4 - foot diameter culverts. On the project site, the creek flows through an 18 -inch diameter culvert where the existing dirt road crosses the creek in the southwestern part of the site. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Nine exploratory borings have been drilled at the project site at the locations shown on Figures 6 and 7. The 100 -Series borings were drilled in December 1996 as part of a preliminary geotechnical study for the entire project site (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997). The 200 -Series borings were drilled in February 2009 at the proposed fire station and administration building sites to obtain subsurface information for foundation design (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 2009). The project reports may be referred to for boring logs and laboratory test results. REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located in the Southern Rocky Mountains about 15 miles to the west of the Rio Grande rift, see Figure 2. The rift is a north -trending geomorphic and extensional tectonic zone that started to develop about 29 million years ago. In this part of Colorado the rift coincides with the Blue River valley that lies between the Williams Fork Mountains on the east and the Park, Gore and Tenmile Ranges on the west, see Figure 3. The main regional geologic structures in the project area are the Bums syncline to the north and the Sawatch Range uplift to the south. These structures developed during the Laramide orogeny about 40 to 80 million years ago. Pennsylvanian -age evaporites (Pze) in the Eagle Valley Evaporite and Eagle Valley Formation are the near surface formation rocks in the project area. The evaporites were deposited in the Eagle basin that was part of the northwest -trending central Colorado trough during the ancestral Rocky Mountain Job No. 109 025A Gecibech K,E orogeny about 300 million years ago. These evaporites underlie the modem western Colorado Evaporite region which is characterized by two regional evaporite collapse centers, see Figure 4. The project site is located on the eastern side of the Eagle collapse center. The Eagle collapse center is a roughly circular shaped area that covers about 960 square miles. As much as 4,000 feet of regional subsidence is believed to have occurred during the past 10 million years in the vicinity of Eagle as a result of dissolution and flowage of evaporite from beneath the Eagle collapse center (Lidke and Others, 2002). Much of the evaporite related subsidence in the Eagle collapse center appears to have occurred within the past 3 million years which also corresponds to high incision rates along the Eagle and Colorado Rivers (Kursk and Others, 2002). This indicates that long- term subsidence rates have been very slow, between about 0.5 and 1.6 inches per 100 years. It is uncertain if regional evaporite subsidence is still occurring or if it is currently inactive. If still active these regional deformations because of their very slow rates should not have a significant impact on the proposed development. GEOLOGICALLY YOUNG FAULTS Geologically young faults related to evaporite tectonics are present in the Eagle collapse center in the vicinity of the project site but considering the nature of evaporite tectonics these fault are not considered capable of generating large earthquakes. The closest geologically young faults that are less than about 15,000 years old and considered capable of generating large earthquakes are located in the Rio Grande rift to the east of the project site, see Figure 2. The northern section of the Williams Fork Mountains fault zone Q50 is located about 24 miles to the northeast and the southern section of the Sawatch fault zone Q56b is located about 52 miles to the southeast. At these distances large earthquakes in the range of M6.5 on the two geologically young fault zones should not produce strong ground shaking at the project site that is greater than the ground shaking shown on the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazards Maps (Frankel and Others, 2002). PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY The geology in the project area is shown on Figure 5. This map is based on our field observations, aerial photograph interpretations and the exploratory borings at the project Job No. 109 025A G99tech sm site (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical 1997 and 2009). The map is a modification of the regional geology map by Tweto and Others (1978). Enlargements of the geologic map showing the proposed development are presented on Figures 6 and 7. The near surface formation rock at the project site is the Eagle Valley Formation which is usually covered by colluvium and alluvium. The geologic map units and other geologic features in the project area are described below. EAGEL VALLEY FORMATION AND SINKHOLES (Pe) The Pennsylvanian -age Eagle Valley Formation crops out in a road cut on Buck Creek Road near its intersection with Nottingham Road but elsewhere the rock is covered by surficial soil deposits at the project site. Bedding at this outcrop strikes to the northwest and dips 45 degrees to the northeast which is consistent with the regional structure along the southwest limb of the Burns syncline see Figure 3. The Eagle Valley Formation is described as reddish -brown, reddish -gray, gray, tight -green and tan interbedded shale, claystone, siltstone and fine-grained sandstone with common distinctive, dark- to light - gray, finely crystalline limestone beds usually less than 6 feet thick (Lidke, 1998). The formation also locally contains evaporite beds. The evaporate minerals in these beds are relatively soluble in circulating groundwater and subsurface solution voids and related surface sinkholes are locally present in the Avon area where the Eagle Valley Formation is close to the surface. Two large sinkholes with diameters of about f 00 feet are located in the landslide on the hillside about 1,000 feet to the northwest of the project site, see Figure 5. SURFICIAL SOILS AND LANDFORMS Surficial soil deposits and landscape features in the project area are largely associated with cyclic deposition and erosion related to glacial and interglacial climatic fluctuations during the latter part of the Quaternary, about the past 400 thousand years. Road cuts and fills in places have substantially modified the natural geomorphic features in the project area. Job No. 109 025A 9 M. Man -Placed fills (af) Relative targe man -placed fills (af) are present along Buck Creek Road and along Interstate Highway 70, see Figurers 5, 6 and 7. A man -placed fill is also present on the south side of the small pond in the northeast part of the project site. The Buck Creek Road embankment fill ranges up to about 40 feet high and has a slope along its southeastern side of about 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). This fill has substantially modified the morphology of the small alluvial fans (Qf) along the northwestern Buck Creek valley side. The fill slope has a well established grass cover and appears to have perforated satisfactorily since it was'placed in the early 1990's. The Interstate Highway 70 fill was placed for the construction of the Avon interchange, see Figure 5. The highway fill is about 10 to 16 feet high, has a crest width of about 200 feet and slopes between about 4:1 to 4.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Buck Creek is conveyed through the highway fill in a 7 -foot diameter culvert. If future flood flows exceed the capacity of the culvert or if the culvert is plugged by flood debris, the highway fill will act as a dam Flood flow will be diverted to the southeast and pass through the highway fill at the interchange along Avon (toad. The man -placed fill along the south side of the small 0.02 acre pond in the southeastcm part of the project site has a maximum slope of about 3:1 (horizontal to vertical), a crest width ofabout 10 feet and a height ofabout 8 feet. Seepage was observed on the downstream slope of this fill that could be from the pond leakage. A failure of the pond embankment would release the pond water into Buck Creek. Marsh Areas (Qm) Several marsh areas (Qm) are present on the valley floor to the southwest of Buck Creek in the southeastern two-thirds of the project site, see Figures 5, 6 and 7. The marsh areas shown on our geology map correspond to the delineated wetlands identified by the project wetlands survey. Most all of the proposed development facilities have been located to avoid construction in the marsh areas except for about 160 feet of the main access road Job Na 109 025A -7 - and an adjacent retaining wall, see Figure 7. At the time of our field review in February 2009, active spring discharge and surface water flow was occurring in the marsh area at the proposed road crossing. Discharge from the upslope marsh areas supplies water to the small pond in this area. The ground in the marsh area is very soft, wet and has a high organic matter content. Although most all of the proposed development facilities have been placed to avoid construction in designated wetlands, shallow groundwater should be expected at most of the proposed development facility sites. Groundwater levels measured in the five, 100 - Series borings in December 1996 were less than about 10 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater levels measured in the four, 200 -Series boring at the proposed fire station and administration building sites were between 14 and 26 feet below the ground surface when measured in February 2009. Seasonal groundwater level fluctuations should be expected with water levels higher in the spring and summer than in the fall and winter. Colluvium (Qc) Colluvium (QctPe) usually covers the Eagle Valley Formation on the steep valley sides in the project area, see Figures 5, 6 and 7. The colluvium is expected to be less than 10 feet deep in most areas. The colluvium is a matrix supported deposit of gravel- to cobble size rocks in a low plasticity, mixed clay, silt and sand matrix. Pedogenetic soil profiles have not developed in the colluvium or, if present, they are AtBw1C profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). The colluvium is post -glacial, younger than about 15 thousand years. Small Alluvial Fans (QO Several small alluvial fans (Qf) have formed on the lower Buck Creek valley side at the transition with the valley floor, see Figures 5, 6, and 7. The fans have a slope of about 40 percent in their upper parts and about 10 to 20 percent in their lower parts where they cover Buck Creek alluvium (Qa3). On the valley floor in the proposed development areas, the small alluvial fan deposits are expected to be less than about 10 feet deep. The fan deposits are typically a matrix supported deposit of gravel- to cobble size rocks in a low plasticity, mixed clay, silt and sand matrix. Penetration resistance values determined Job No. 109 025A G99 in the borings in the small fans are typically 7 i 4 blows per foot. Pedogenetic soil profiles have not developed in the fan deposits or, if present, they are AJBk profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). The fans formed in post -glacial times during about the past 15 thousand years. They are still geologically active and are potential sites of debris flows and floods associated with runoff from unusually intense thunderstorms. A summary of debris flow and flood nomenclature and characteristics is presented in Appendix A. Buck Creek Alluvium and Landforms (Qul, Qat, Qa3) The alluvium on the Buck Creek valley floor in the project area has been divided into three geomorphic and depositional units, see Figures 5, 6 and 7. The current Buck Creek channel (Qal) is between about 20 and 60 feet wide in the project area. The channel lies about 2 feet below the adjacent Buck Creek alluvial fan (Qa2) and about 6 to 8 feet below the adjacent Buck Creek valley floor alluvium The Buck Creek fan covers about 120 acres and extends well to the southwest of the project site. The fan underlies much of the town of Avon, see Figure 1. The fan surface grades to a prominent river terrace along the Eagle River that stands about 30 feet above the river. Pedogenetic soil profiles developed on the Eagle River terrace alluvium are A/Bk and A/Bt/C profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). The alluvium below this terrace is considered to be outwash from late Pleistocene -age Pinedale glaciations about 15 to 35 thousand years ago. Pedogenetic soil profiles developed on the Buck Creek alluvial fan (Qa2) deposits and Buck Creek valley floor alluvium (Qa3) upstream of the fan are AJBk profiles (National Resources Conservation Service, 2008). The upper parts of the fan and valley floor alluvium were probably deposited in post -glacial times, about the past 15,000 years. The lower parts of these two alluvial deposits may be related to the late Pleistocene -age Pinedale glacial climates about 15 to 35 thousand years ago. The Buck Creek alluvial fan is probably still geologically active and could be the site of future debris floods associated unusually heavy runoff from general storms, thunderstorms and snowpack melting. A summary of debris flow and flood nomenclature and characteristics is presented in Appendix A. Job Na 109 025A G95beCh Our exploratory borings show that the Buck Creek alluvial fan (Qa2) and valley floor alluvium (Qa3) is a two tier stratigraphic sequence. The upper stratigraphic layer is typically 20 to 40 feet thick and consists of a matrix supported deposit of scattered gravel - to cobble -size rocks in a low plasticity (PI = 8 t 3) mixed clay, silt and sand matrix. The upper stratigraphic layer occasionally contains thin, silty sand, gravel and cobble layers. Penetration resistance values in the upper stratigraphic layer are typically 7 t 3 blows per foot. The lower stratigraphic layer is greater than 10 to 35 feet thick at the borings. It is typically a Blast supported deposit of silty and clayey sand with gravel, cobbles and scattered boulders. Penetration resistance values in the lower stratigraphic layer are usually greater than 50 blows per foot. Landslide (Ql) The regional geologic hazards maps for Eagle County show a large landslide on the northwest Buck Creek valley side on and adjacent to the project site (Charles S. Robinson and Associates, 1975). They describe the landside as a debris slide in colluvium which is the oldest of the four landslide age classes shown on their maps. In 1994 a landslide stability analysis of the landslide was performed by Huntingdon (1994). The 1994 Huntingdon study included two deep core borings, groundwater monitoring and limit equilibrium stability analysis using back calculated shear strength values. The 1994 Huntingdon study concluded that the Buck Creek landslide is a deep, rotational landslide in the Eagle Valley Formation that is dormant under current environmental conditions and which has a very tow potential far reactivation. In our opinion, the finds of the 1994 Huntingdon study are reasonable and the landslide appears to present little risk to the proposed Buck Creek PUD. High -Level Alluvium and Rockfall (Qh) A large granitic rockfall block is present near the east -central property line, see Figures 5 and 6. The block has dimensions of about 25 feet by 15 feet by 15 feet and an estimated weight of about 460 tons. The rockfall probably dislodged from an inferred high-level alluvium (Qh) on the ridge line up slope of the rockfall block. A possible second high- level alluvium remnant may be present on the ridge to the northwest of the project site. Job No. 109 025A G -10 - The two high level alluvium deposits lie about 600 feet above the Eagle River valley floor and are probably outwash from pre -Bull Lake glaciations over 400 thousand years ago. GEOLOGIC SITE ASSESSMENT Geologic conditions that could present a severe hazard to the proposed development that can not be mitigated were not indicated by this study. There are, however several conditions of geologic nature that should be considered as project design proceeds. These conditions, their potential risks to the proposed development, additional studies to further evaluate the potential risks and possible mitigations to reduce the risks are discussed below. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS Preliminary foundation design recommendations for the entire project site are presented in our 1997 report and building specific foundation recommendations for the proposed fire station and administration building are presented in our 2009 report (Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997 and 2009). Soft, compressible soils are expected at typical shallow foundation bearing elevations in many parts of the project site. Shallow groundwater is also present over much of the project site and building underdrain systems will probably be need at many of the building sites. Road subgrade stabilization will probably be needed along some of the proposed road alignments where groundwater is near the road subgrade. DEBRIS FLOWS The small alluvial fans (Qt) in the project area are geologically young and potential sites for future debris flows and floods triggered by unusually intense thunderstorms. These triggering storms may have statistical recurrence times of 50 to 500 years, or possibly longer. Without long term observations, it is not possible to describe the statistical recurrence times more precisely. A summary of debris flow and flood nomenclature and characteristics is presented in Appendix A. The fans along the southeastern Buck Creek Job No. 109 025A -11 - valley side do not present a potential threat to the proposed development but the fans along the northwestern valley side could present a risk to several of the proposed buildings located on the fans, see Figures 5, 6 and 7. Additional study of these fans will be needed to define the potential design flow areas and to develop geotechnical information for mitigation design. Mitigation would likely be a deflection wall along the southeast shoulder of Buck Creek Road and/or flood proofing and direct building wall protection of the buildings in the potential design flow areas. BUCK CREEK FLOODING The project storm water management plan should consider flooding along Buck Creek associated with runoff from long duration general storms, short duration thunderstorms and snowpack melt. The drainage basin upstream from the project site covers about 3,027 acres and has a maximum elevation of about 10,500 feet. The basin has a roughness coefficient (Milton number) of 0.24 and a geologically young fan at its mouth with a fan area to drainage basin ration of 4 percent. These geomorphic characteristics indicate that large floods on Buck Creek have the potential for relatively high sentiment concentrations and would be considered debris floods. Debris flows along Buck Creek are unlikely at the project site. A summary of debris flow and flood nomenclature and characteristics is presented in Appendix A. To account for the higher sediment concentrations associated debris floods, the design peak flow discharge determined by conventional clear water flood analysis should be increased by a factor of 1.8 in flood routing analysis. Direct runoff curve numbers typically used in hydrologic analysis of general storms and snowpack melt floods may not be appropriate for high intensity thunderstorms. Guidance in selecting appropriate curve numbers for high intensity thunderstorms can be found in Unites States Bureau of Reclamation (1977). Runoff curve numbers for high intensity thunderstorms are typically in the range of 85 to 95. In addition to mud and rock debris, large floods on Buck Creek will also contain brush, logs and other organic debris which should be considered in the design of culvert size and subsurface storm drain inlets. The debris floods will spread and Job No. 109 025A G9'1 -12 - deposit sediment and debris on the Buck Creek fan surface (Qa2) if the flows exceed the existing channel (Qal) capacity. Channel improvements may be needed to route the design debris flood on the fan. Large flood flows have the potential to scour the existing Buck Creek channel and may exceed the existing channel capacity up stream of the fan. Channel improvements and stabilization may be needed to protect project facilities close to the creek channel. Improved channels should have a minimum freeboard oft feet above the estimated design flow depth. CONSTRUCTION RELATED SLOPE INSTABILITY We do not expect significant problems with construction related slope instability if the grading and retaining walls are properly engineered. Preliminary geotechnical information for the design of cuts and fills is presented in our 1997 geotechnical study (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997). POND EMBANKMENT STABILITY The stability condition of the embankment on the south side of the small pond in the southeastern part of the project site has not been evaluated to our knowledge. Evaluation of the pond embankment stability should be considered if the pond is to remain in service. ROCKFALL Field observations of the high level alluvium (Qh) should be performed when the snow cover has melted and the ground is exposed to look for unstable boulders that could develop into rockfall. If potential rockfall blocks are present, then a rockfall dynamic analysis should be performed to determine if project facilities are located in the potential rockfall runout areas and if mitigation is needed. Mitigation may consist of rock block removal or a rockfall catching structure in the runout zone. SINKHOLE POTENTIAL Geologically young sinkholes are locally present in the western Colorado evaporite region in areas where the Eagle Valley Formation and Eagle Valley Evaporite are near the Job No. 109 025A Gggtedn -13 - surface, see Figure 4. Two large sinkholes with diameters of about 100 feet are located in the landslide on the hillside about 1,000 feet to the northwest of the project site, see Figure S. A few sinkholes in the western Colorado evaporite region are known to have collapsed at the ground surface with little or no warning during historic times. This indicates that infrequent sinkhole formation is still an active geologic process. The likelihood that sinkholes will develop during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed project facilities is considered to be low and no greater than elsewhere in the town of Avon and along the Eagle River valley between west Vail and Edwards. This inference is based on the large extent of sinkhole prone areas in the evaporite region in comparison to the small number of sinkholes that have developed in historic times. Because of the complex nature of evaporite related sinkholes, it will not be possible to avoid all sinkhole risk for the proposed project facilities but the risk can be reduced by building site specific studies. The potential for shallow subsurface voids below building and other movement sensitive facility areas should be evaluated as part of the subsurface exploration for foundation design. If conditions indicative of sinkhole related problems are encountered, an alternative building site should be considered or the feasibility of mitigation evaluated. Mitigation measures could include (1) stabilization by grouting, (2) stabilization by excavation and backfilling, (3) a deep foundation system, (4) structural bridging, or (5) a mat foundation system. Prospective townhome and other facility owners should be advised of the sinkhole risk, since early detection of building distress and timely remedial actions are important in reducing the cost of building repair should an undetected subsurface void start to develop into a sinkhole after construction. Special insurance may also he available to reduce the financial risk to townhome and other facility owners. EARTHQUAKE CONSIDERATIONS Historic earthquakes within 150 miles of the project site have typically been moderately strong with magnitudes of 5.5 and less and maximum Modified Mercalli Intensities of VI and less, see Figure 2. The largest historic earthquake in the project region occurred in 1882 (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). It was apparently located in the northern Front Range Job No. 109 025A G99beCh -14 - about 79 miles to the northeast of the project site and had an estimated magnitude of about M 6.2 t 0.3 and a maximum intensity of VII. Historic ground shaking at the project site associated with the 1882 and the other larger historic earthquakes in the region does not appear to have exceeded Modified Mercalli Intensity VI (Kirkham and Rogers, 1985). Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking should be expected during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed townhomes and other project facilities, but the probability of stronger ground shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction. The townhomes and other earthquake sensitive facilities should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. For firm rock sires with shear wave velocities of 2,500 fps in the upper 100 feet, the U. S. Geological Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Maps indicate that a peak ground acceleration of 0.058 has a 10% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time and a peak ground acceleration of 0.16g has a 2% exceedence probability for a 50 year exposure time at the project site (Frankel and Others, 2002). This corresponds to a statistical recurrence time of about 500 years and 2,500 years, respectively. The soil profiles at the building and other facility sites should be considered as Class D, stisoil sites as described in the 2006 International Building Code unless site specific shear wave velocity studies show otherwise. The earthquake related liquefaction potential at the project site was evaluated by the Simplified Seed analysis. This analysis indicated that the soil profile at the project site does not have a liquefaction potential for the 500 -year peak ground acceleration of 0.05g. ADDITIONAL STUDIES As project design proceeds, additional studies are warranted to evaluate and provide design information to mitigate the constraints of a geologic nature at the project site. Additional studies are needed to evaluate (1) site specific foundation conditions at the townhomes and at the other buildings and facilities, (2) mitigation for the small debris .lob No. 109 025A Gggtech -15 - floods and flows on the northwestern valley side, (3) mitigation of debris floods along Buck Creek, (4) pond embankment stability, and (5) potential rockfall from the high level alluvium. LIMITATIONS This study was conducted according to generally accepted engineering geology principles and practices in this area, at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on our field observations, aerial photograph interpretations, published regional geology information, the currently proposed development plan and our experience in the area. This report has been prepared exclusively for our client and is an evaluation of potential geologic hazards and constraints on the property. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. Respectfully submitted, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ralph G. Mock Engineering Geologist Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P. E. RGMtksw cc: Zehren and Associates — Attn: Brian Sipes Job No. 109025A~( g&ec'1 -16 - REFERENCES Charles S. Robinson and Associates, 1975, Bedrock Geology, Surftcial Deposits and Potential Geologic Hazards Map, Eagle County, Colorado: Prepared for Eagle County, Eagle, Colorado. Frankel, A. D. and Others, 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02-420. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 1997, Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Buck Creek Property, Nottingham Road and Mountain Star Road, Avon, Colorado: Prepared for Tanavan Corporation, Vail, Colorado (Job No. 196 614, January 24, 1997), Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, 2009, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Fire Station and Administration Building, Buck Creek PUD, Nottingham Road and Buck Creek Road, Avon, Colorado: Prepared for Eagle River Fire Protection District, Avon, Colorado (Job No. 109 014A, February 23, 2009). Huntingdon, 1994, Buck Creek Landslide Stability Study, Mountain Star Development, Avon, Colorado: Prepared for Mountain Star Limited Liability Company, Vail, Colorado (Job No. 4 260 92 (1), February 25, 1.994). Kirkham, R. M. and Rogers, W. P., 1985, Colorado Earthquake Data and Interpretations 1867 to 1983: Colorado Geological Survey Bulletin 46. Kirkham, R. M. and Scott, R. B., 2002, Introduction to Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonism and Volcanism in West -Central, Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R. B. and Judkins, T. W. eds., Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectonism and Volcanism in West -Central Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 366, Boulder, Colorado. Lidke, D. J., 1998, Geology Map of the Wolcott Quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-2656. Lidke, D. J. and Others, 2002, Eagle Collapse Center. Interpretations of Evidence of Late Cenozoic Evaporite-Related Deformation in the Eagle River Basin, Colorado, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R. B. and Judkins, T. W. gds., Late Cenozoic Evoporite Tectonism and Volcanism in West -Central Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 366, Boulder, Colorado. Kunk, M. J., and Others, 2002, "AW'Ar Ages of Late Cenozoic Volcanic Rocks within and Around the Carbondale and Eagle Collapse Centers, Colorado: Constraints on the Tinning of Evaporate -Related Collapse and Incision of the Colorado River, in Kirkham R. M., Scott, R B. and Judkins, T. W. eds., Late Cenozoic Evaporite Tectomsm and Volcanism in West -Central Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 366, Boulder, Colorado. Job No. 109 025A clr&bech -17 - National Resources Conservation Service, 2008, Soil Survey of the Aspen -Gypsum Area, Parts of Rio Blanco, Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin Counties, Colorado: Version 5, June 9, 2008. Tweto, O., 1979, Geology Map of Colorado: U. S. Geological Survey. Tweto, O. and Others, 1978, Geology Map of the Leadville I °X 2 ° Quadrangle, Northwestern Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-999. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1977, Design of Small Dams: U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington D. C. Widmann B. L. and Others, 1998, Preliminary Quaternary Fault and Fold Map and Data Base of Colorado: Colorado Geological Survey Open File Report 98-8. Job No. 109 025A G99tECh WY. — — U r''— Moab II 198E M 5.1 \i lanais Mrn.v 1964 M 5.5 VI WY. NB. CO. waaan `\ Llh Pah int �4n C FM / VI W u Gyy� V Gra 0. Sua� t ❑ q Oo�valBrA 1.1 Greeley ¢ �._. 1881 1961 b 198 �`�8 .. Fort Mwger -' M62 Ra�pey K-rftVIVIWVII I Rio Blanco El 1973 M5,7 n) Maagr A 5, SJ � project spools ,. sileO Val lM _ p^,^� Ea910 a rrism pIIIVM yyrr 'per ❑PMkv RJleo❑ rlle9wa 1996691asbr) ebnAa�n CyIM M53 SagGmM 0 P� Grant.lunc5m 19EEbadc� 1 . VI � it Gaga `059b ❑Crloreao BP L 1 "soon, RW9a Gurri 19x0 Mrntraae❑ M5.6 Sawa �_ P 057 pMplMyy 064a 1 - '0City 5 069n r VI WBleende9 NannM � i �� ❑ ,�69r11� 1.1 UT. CO. 1866 w' Explanation: Post -Glacial Faults: Fault younger than about 15,000 years. LargerIstq c Ea o. likes: Eadnqua es wl max mum Intansity, greater than VI or magnilude greater than M 5.0 from 1857 to present. -(- Nuclear Explosion: 7 Historic Seismic Zones: Areas with hblorically high seismic adNity. M Local, surface wave or body wave magnitude VI Modified Mercalll intensity 0 50 mi. I I I Large underground nudear explosion for natural gas References: Scale: 1 in. = 50 ml. reservoir enhancement. Widmann and Others (1998) U. S. Geological Survey Earthquake Catelogs FI 109 025A Geologically You Buck Creek PUD I P G'Cil I Figure 2 ,aP1roR,n.P.M,ur pEp,EGe11GLL ng Faults and Larger Historic Earthquakes j Mz T na r` Tv7 � enure Ks Gren pi \� \ Mz d Kremmn �� YXr Y) r Mt TKi YXr Az d YX YXr Ti w as N % WFP* YX Mz h h,. ate. TKs Xr ra YXr B"'so A Ts Ts J Pz Bb YXz r $ /( F v LL s Tv TS � Tv Mz V Ti X76 �s cYXr Gm /dam sm euea Mz W. S Ts Tv Mz Tv °off Te � lrrjJS i2 O TI Mz O^N TKi Project Site e ?� y r �o YXr �N tevarae Pz Avon ® S'WerlhvmA 'r� I TV Pze \�� Vail A Pz t �1D Ts YXr I � Mz Ts .,yam Mz PZ Min:Um , J q1 Pz 0 \ T TIG RWcne \ 7 , \ o� Mz P YXr / YXr 1I cr �r W� S TKi Xi kin. u m Pendo K TIQw / Pz .. � � TTKI TW PZ In ry r P. az , rre TV Ore YXr TKi J� Mz creno Pz TK g z QMI t P p � 1 TK'. oy y >Como TKs aw` N C / Mz tir Loi TNI iU Ni TKi ® � �' ety4r RK � KI n Leaav�lln Pz Fairplay W Ts SrPlanation: Ts Post-Laramide Sediments Mz Pre-Laramide Mesozolc Sediments Contact Tv Post-Laramide Voleanics Pz Paleozoic Sediments High-Angle Faults Ti Past-Laramide Intruslves Pie Pennsvivanian Evaoorites LL Thrust Faults 0 7 mi. w 1 Laremlde Basin Sediments YXr Precambrian Civstalllne Rocks Synclines I I I KSI Scale: 1:460,000 Laramlde Intruslves _ _. Highways Modified from: Tweto (1979) I I Buck Greek PUD 109 025A -PAP WOMCH I Figure 3 nePxoalH-PANL4N croTccawcAL Regional Geology Map d Q. E l O N 'n W V V 14 Sawatch Range Anticline 0 W WN&MIM II � 3 C9 _ m U C v N� U K� a m�Oni 0 3 A E o m K ti Y 109 025A _ H _ _,_ I WBuck Creek PUP Figure 4 HWS A I�CEGf��7 estem Colorado Evaporite Region — Of Qcl�e i� i I Of US Of m� CIS - slNdde / a Qa3Of Sinkhole i , t `\QcJQ�e a Q � 7 Of 1 - 'acids �45,sen _ lock Nene Of Fan _ o' Oat p' -Head - Oat of F� of 'Qa2 Qa2 6 I\ Oa Qh Qa2 H9hwaY Of Of GQf q Qa2 1� Qa2 Qa2 of Explanation: F-8—f]Man-Placed Fills Oi Landslide Q Sinkholes: Qm Marsh Areas Oh Hiah-Level Alluvium es Strike and Oln: Strike and dip of bedding in ® Small Alluvial Fans Q�e Colluvium/Eaule Vallev Fm. degrees. \I Qat Buck Creek Channel Contact: ♦ Fan Head N Approximate boundary of 0 600 ft. Qa2 Buck Creek Fan map units. 9 Rockfall Block I Qa3 Buck Creek Alluvium Scale: I in- Contour Interval: 60 40 ft. Modified from Tweto and Others (1978) February 2009 H Buck Creek PUD 109 025A c,,9p� I Figure 5 uEasran+-PAw Kn V!M cu. Project Area Geology Map Of Qc�pe. aa� & <• < r vo o Of Of Qm afma\ yr Om :Qa3 LJo fall QsMe - i BI cJt Qf ,-' { Qa3 Qa j. z Fan of \ Head i Qa2 Of QaP of Oar Qa3. '\ L 'Qa2 1. Bioan • Od(pe �i. Qa2 [/ Fire N Station Oa onip9ham Rp �v 7 •J Gulch Rp. 5 of 0a2 Qa2 Of i Qf Explanation: 45 ® Man-Placed Fills Qd� Colluvlum/Eanle Valley Fm. Strike and Dip: Strike and dip of bedding in Qm Marsh Areas Contact: degrees. Approximate boundary of ® Small Alluvial Fans map units. W Fan Head amt Qst Buck Creek Channel aVXpjpry Bort a Rockfall Block Qa2 Buck Creek Fan 100 Series H-P Geotech (1997) 0 150 ft. 200 Series H-P Geotech (2009) ) 1 Qa3 Buck Creek Alluvium Scale: 1 In. = 150 ft. Modified from Tweto and Others (1978) Contour Interval: 2 ft,February 2009 ~ Buck Creek PUD 109 025A I I Figure 6 a� �i�h �c,a. I Protect Site Geology Southwestern Part 9 � G —0J QI Qa3 of p Of n•,: at / 1 Qm `LJ Qa3 i Cal of - \, Of Pond � 8 w' Qm f � Of Of Om Qa3 Qm Explanation: of Man -Placed Fills QI landslide elor • Exploratory Borings: Qm Marsh Areas QCl�e ColluviumfEaple Valley Fm. Approximate locations 100 Series H -P Geolech (1997) Qf Small Alluvial Fans Contact: 200 Series H -P Gentach (2009) Approximate boundary of FQaIJ Buck Creek Channel map units. 0 150 ft. Qat Buck Creek Fen I I Buck Creek Alluvium Scale: 1 in. = 150 ft. Qa3 Contour Interval: 2 ft. Modred from Twain and Others (1970) February 2009 �.. t 1PteBuck Creek PUD 109 025A I C�C7HEPNUftT1-PANLPi( CEmEGiNMCICIA- I Project Site Geology Northeastern Part Figure 7 APPENDIX A DEBRIS FLOW AND FLOOD NOMENCLATURE AND CHARACTER Debris flows and floods are high sediment concentration flows (hyperconcennatcd flows) with volumetric sediment concentrations (Cv) between about 20 and 63%. Because of their high sediment concentration hyperconcentrated flows behave differently than water floods with Cv less than about 20%. Hyperconcentrated flows in Colorado typically result from rapid runoff associated with short duration, unusually intense thunderstorms between June and September and some have resulted from rapid melting of an unusually heavy snowpack in the late spring. The high sediment concentrations are associated with small colluvial landslides in the steeps parts of the drainage basin and channel destabilization and scour. In addition to water, soil and rock debris, hyperconcentrated flows typically incorporate brush, togs and other organic debris. Drainage basins that produce hyperconcentrated flow have geologically young alluvial fans at their mouths. The drainage basin roughness coefficient (Milton number) and fan area to basin area ratio can be used to evaluate if drainage basin will likely only produce debris floods on its fan or if it has the potential for both debris floods and debris flows on its fan. Basins with Milton numbers less than about OS and fan areas that are less than about 15 percent of the basin area typically only produce debris floods on their fans. Basins with Milton numbers greater than about 0.5 and fan areas that are greater than about 15 percent of the basin area typically produce both debris floods and debris flows on their fans. After leaving the confined charnels at the fan head debris flows and floods spread on the alluvial fans and begin to deposit sediment and debris. It is uncommon that an individual debris flow or flood event will cover the entire fan surface but because of sediment deposition and fan surface alluviation it is not possible to predict the path an individual flow event will follow on the fan. Therefore, the entire fan surface should be considered in the potential flood way. Flow routing analysis and mitigation commonly used for water floods are not always applicable for routing analysis and mitigation of hyperconcentmted (tows. DEBRIS FLOODS Debris floods typically have Cv between about 20 and 45% (sediment bulking factors of about 1.3 to 1.8). They flow at relatively high velocity and are capable of transporting boulders primarily as beadload. The coarse soil particles and rock debris carried in suspension settle when flow velocity decreases. Debris floods have fluid matrix viscosities and shear strength somewhat higher than water floods. They spread easily on relatively flat surfaces. DEBRIS FLOWS Debris flows typically have Cv between about 45 and 63% (sediment bulking factors of about 1.8 to 2.7). They flow at lower velocities than debris floods. They have high fluid matrix viscosity and shear strength and are capable of transporting boulders by rafting at the flow surface. Because of flow matrix viscosity and shear strength, debris flows form lobe -shaped deposits that stand above the deposition surface and they also form natural levies along the flow margins. The coarse soil particles and rock debris tamed in the fluid matrix do not settle when the flow stops. Debris flows are capable of traveling relatively long distances on relatively flat slopes but as a general rule debris flow will typically not flow on slopes less than about 5%, AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUCK CREEK PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 01-03 It is the intent of this PUD amendment to create zoning standards that are based upon and closely resemble existing zone district regulations defined in Chapter 17 of the Avon Municipal Code. It is also the intent of this document that proposed modifications generally be more restrictive than the existing definitions and in character with the proposed development. In this way we hope to make understanding these regulations easier. Lot 1A Public Use Modeled after Government, Park and Employee Housing - GPEH (a) Intention. To provide sites for a fire station, fire district facilities and employee housing units. (b) Allowed Uses. The following uses shall be allowed on lot IA: 1. All uses customarily associated with a main branch fire station including but not limited to truck bays, duty quarters, offices, administration, meeting and training rooms.; 2. Employee housing units for fire district employees.; 3. The Zoning Administrator may approve additional uses found to be similar in nature and intent to the Allowed Uses.; (c) Special Review Uses: 1. None (d) Development Standards: 1. Maximum Building Height— forty-five (45) feet with an allowed architectural projection for a tower on a fire station to be fifty-five (55) feet. 2. Minimum building setbacks: Front: twenty-five (25) feet; Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet; Rear: ten (10) feet; 3. Density: Employee Units to Serve the Fire District (not to exceed 7 dwelling units per acre) Lot 1113 Residential Townhomes Modeled after Residential Medium Density — RMD (a) Intention. To provide sites for residential dwelling units consisting of buildings not to exceed 3 units each. (b) Allowed uses. The following uses shall be permitted On lot 1B: 1. Residential dwelling units, including single family, duplex and townhouses. (c) Special review uses: 1. None (d) Development standards. 1. Maximum Building Height — forty-two (42) feet; 2. Minimum building setbacks: Front: twenty-five (25) feet; Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet; Rear: ten (10) feet; SUBMITTED MARCH 3, 2009 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION 01-04 I AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUCK CREEK PUD 3. Maximum dwelling unit size: 2,700 s.f gross floor area; 4. Maximum density: 11 dwelling units 5. Building Configuration: No more than three dwelling units per building. Lot 2 Residential Townhomes Modeled after Residential Medium Density — RMD (a) Intention. To provide sites for residential dwelling units consisting of buildings not to exceed 3 units each. (b) Allowed uses. The following uses shall be permitted on lot 2: 1. Residential dwelling units, including single family, duplex and townhouses. (c) Special review uses: 1. None (d) Development standards. 1. Maximum Building Height — forty-two (42) feet; 2. Minimum building setbacks: Front: twenty-five (25) feet; Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet; Rear: ten (10) feet; 3. Maximum dwelling unit size: 2,700 s.f. gross floor area; 4. Maximum density: 31 dwelling units 5. Building Configuration: No more than three dwelling units per building Lot 3 Natural Science Education Facility (a) Intention. To provide sites for educational facilities and employee housing units supporting the facilities. (b) Allowed Uses. The following uses shall be allowed on lot 3: 1. Schools 2. Employee Housing Units 3. Pedestrian paths and trails 4. Public assembly facilities 5. Museums and public educational facilities (c) Special Review Uses: ftl= (d) Development Standards: 1. Maximum Building Height— thirty-eight (38) feet 2. Minimum building setbacks: Front: twenty-five (25) feet; Side: seven and one-half (7.5) feet; Rear: ten (10) feet; 3. Employee Housing Units and Co -Housing for Employees of the Gore Range Natural Science School Lot 4 Public Use (a) Intention. Area to remain primarily as it exists and to be public or private undeveloped PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED MARCH 3, 2009 AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUCK CREEK PUD Oi-05 open spaces, but to also be available as road right of way in the event adjacent roads and intersections must be reconfigured. Some landscaping and drainage control work may be necessary and desirable. (b) Allowed uses. The following uses shall be allowed on Lot 4: 1. Undeveloped or Open Space 2. Erosion protection structures; 3. Landscaping and screening; 4. Road Rights of Way 5. Pedestrian trails; 6. Bicycle paths. (c) Special review uses. 1. None (d) Development standards. 1. Minimum lot size. NA; 2. Maximum building height. NA; 3. Minimum building setbacks. NA; 4. Maximum site coverage. NA; 5. Minimum landscape area. NA; 6. Maximum density. NA Lot 5 Early Childhood Educations, Day Care and office (a) Intention: To provide a site for early child care education and office space to serve the immediate community. (b) Allowed Uses. The following uses shall be allowed on lot 5: 1. Early Childhood Education facilities 2. Day Care Facilities 3. Professional Office (c) Special Review Uses: 11111111,70M11 - (d) Development Standards 1. Maximum Building Height — thirty (30) feet 2. Minimum Building Setbacks: Front: fifteen (15) feet Side: seven and one half (7.5) feet Back: ten (10) feet (e) Maximum Density — NA SUBMITTED MARCH 3, 2009 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION A19120 - PARKING f. PARKING Lot 1A I AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUCK CREEK PUD Administration Building 12 —14 employees will utilize the building and serve the District and the General Public. We propose 14 employee spaces and 23 spaces for visitors and the general public. Fre Station 11 spaces will be provided for the on duty crew. The crew is on duty for 48 hours and can park in a tandem arrangement. Lot 16 Residential Townhomes 2 spaces per unit within 2 car garage (2,700 sf — 400 sf = 2,000 sf unit for parking Calc) 2 guest spaces in front of each garage Lot 2 Residential Townhomes 2 spaces per unit within 2 car garage (2,700 sf — 400 sf = 2,000 sf unit for parking calc) 2 guest spaces in front of each garage Lot 3 Gore Range Natural Science School School Function 1 space/employee x 15 employees = 15 spaces Discovery Hall (Museum) 4 spaces/1000 sf x 1000 sf = 4 spaces Community Hall (Assembly) 1 space/4 seats x 90 seats = 23 spaces Note: The community hall will not be used for functions at the same time as school programs. The Community Hall will only be filled during the evenings, and by agreement, the GRNSS would utilize up to 9 lot five parking spaces in the evenings when assembly events are held in the Community Hap. Total Parking Requirement = 33 parking spaces Note: As many as 5 employees will be housed on site and it is anticipated not all will own a vehicle. 3 garage spaces and 3 outside spaces are provided for employees at the graduate fellows' residence leaving a requirement of 27 spaces in the main parking lot. Lot 5 Early Childhood Facility 2/1000 sf x 2800 sf = 6 spaces Office Space 3/1000 sf x 3000 sf = 9 spaces Total 15 spaces PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED MARCH 3, 2009 AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUCK CREEK PUD 1 01-07 COMPARISON TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Lot i Existing Development Rights: 150 Hotel, Motel and/or Lodge (Accommodation) units, together with accessory uses and related commercial uses as allowed in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district. No development standards are indicated, but previous applications proposed between 4 and 6 stories of height with significant surface parking. Lot 1 Proposed Development Rights: The lot will be subdivided into two separate lots as follows: Lot 1A: A 2-3 story Fre Station and Fre District Administration building along with dormitory residences for on duty and trainee firefighters, assembly spaces for training and public use and other typical Fre District accessory uses. Lot SB: Three story Townhome residences limited in size and restricted to no more than three dwelling units per building. Lot 2 Existing Development Rights: Private park and recreation and related commercial uses including clubhouse building for indoor and outdoor sports activities and customary support facilities, swimming pools, tennis courts, archery range, restaurant/lounge, pro -shop and other similar activities or services. Again, no development standards are indicated for height site coverage, etc. It is reasonable to assume that these uses would also require significant surface parking and site coverage. Lot 2 Proposed Development Rights: The lot will be subdivided into two separate lots as follows: Lot 2: Three story Townhome residences limited in size and restricted to no more than three dwelling units per building. Lot 5: A two story building housing early childhood education and private office space and required surface parking. Lot 3 Existing Development Rights: 50 residential multiple -family dwelling units, together with accessory uses. Lot 3 Proposed Development Rights: An educational campus for the Gore Range Natural Science School (GRNSS) to include public educational gathering and educational space, leaming studios, administrative offices, employee and graduate student housing and accessory spaces. These spaces will be provided through a cluster of smaller individual buildings to minimize impact on the land. Lot 4 Existing Development Rights: Open Space, Drainage, Landscaping and Signage. Lot 4 Proposed Development Rights: Similar to existing, but with added allowable use of "rights of way" to allow for a future roundabout. SUBMITTED MARCH 3, 2009 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION re o3 AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUCK CREEK PUD THIS PAGE WAS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION SUBMITTED MARCH 3, 2009 o~c~ 00 00 Q� • Ln Cl d Ln 0 0 Dgo==Zo Ln �ZLU w0�pUCL 0~O W0�—�ON V000u-1Q Lu L�7 U O V;inn Z CL LL u� z�u0 C_ m 0 Z m :5uu a Z cd u = 0 Q0 u J t/f a v 0 'F NOLLdnom1311iC 1. I w Nt/ld and6011M 1 c U *f7 A9 � _ • Z µ+CM:)IyV(I O W :7 D C6Z lzj J o cd D 11�j Z V as°� ° O m U a a F LLF a LL Q u OL o d, v T 0 o~c~ 00 00 Q� • Ln Cl d Ln 0 0 Dgo==Zo Ln �ZLU w0�pUCL 0~O W0�—�ON V000u-1Q Lu L�7 U O V;inn Z CL LL u� z�u0 C_ m 0 Z m :5uu a Z cd u = 0 Q0 u J t/f a v 0 'F NOLLdnom1311iC 1. I w Nt/ld and6011M 1 c N .j ��0 l7 �c 5 C dl C � - N v V 71 n �° C O 0 O LA pS <T O rf L9 N h §c t/f V OL o d, v T 0 - k t; V, N yo O Z V� E g0 �i m O. C QQ� O ! L. O �O c C M C F3 p z VIR � Q u CC N f3 33 gVm E J $ �d y deo m y o �i af3 'vd " �� m� 5 Q�� d u C y •C E� y C� t etl r, M M F J 41 vs E o W �. �U a v '° 0 V�Qp� �Id 3 2 i �9 0 p.� �I E E E E o~c~ 00 00 Q� • Ln Cl d Ln 0 0 Dgo==Zo Ln �ZLU w0�pUCL 0~O W0�—�ON V000u-1Q Lu L�7 U O V;inn Z CL LL u� z�u0 C_ m 0 Z m :5uu a Z cd u = 0 Q0 u J t/f a v 0 'F NOLLdnom1311iC 1. I w Nt/ld and6011M 1 c N .j ��0 l7 �c 5 C dl C � - N v V 71 n �° n a .6 §c CL OL o d, v E O vits 17 k t; V, N 0 C4 N r4 N- N � E OOS H' V •� ® . 402 - '� o! v C Ag Qa+ p �mc®5 9 "1f3 5� ® c •:8 m Id c 3 ,¢0 � � ro do , 40 � c E 0 � gv �O c 41 `o oW I .2 ga ~ .J 2 O 01 Jo- O c � F3 p z VIR p 33 g E Y Q I J E J N oC J O 1 0 NVId 1N3WdO13A3a 'a'n'd 'a'n'd N33d:) N:)ne C ` ® a5od E � N .j ��0 l7 �c 5 C dl C � a 0 �+ O � rO w 01 �0 a m b 2 ° '9 V,faS '` '� to �; d, v E O C C C O 0 c4 o co N C MCC G) a O E N E E bb E 0- o � 8 0 c EsLPac�yb o OOS H' V •� ® . 402 - '� o! v C Ag Qa+ p �mc®5 9 "1f3 5� ® c •:8 a E Vc0 Id c 3 ,¢0 � � ro do , 40 � c E 0 � 0 O C',a O 5 b O O - � L =0 O> o, E�� 33y� aba °� 41 `o oW I .2 ga ~ .J 2 O 01 Jo- O c � � r- -6 2 1 1J�Q Q :55 b° CD r - 17 O e00 E E$ O0-5 O O ® ®�s� p ` w O M r. x A ii C 00'a Oiw N N � qo` Var c c&E 3 ,g E- 5 � j `0� �E m -E 1-5 d 5 Q m s deo m y o �i af3 'vd " �� m� 5 Q�� d u C y •C E� y C� t etl r, M M F J 41 M3 Q 'O C ji Oc.5E ,��E vv m�rp�R •' 4101— c O.c `''a o�i+s 2m S E C a v wE 5 id --a O a�-.$�E� p��$ I h v n 0��E � 5 5— m��+.�s 5$ 0 5 O �5 �� EE. �gg JeIa1'�`'i�i."cCryOL O 'a N m a c rg �o m (� J 0 61 QE ay affio g r' '� o i� O3000513.5 '5oE�` - to �� t3 a5 on 0, ' y v EER 5� R �� LLO ps m�U�J � io z U, -a m ®�M 12 C �Aa � uv ,dam c.o1 v c FE �5 s V — rJ ri v- LA �m ui H 3v rv' g -ME n E Go a n n wCL CL OC C y N vw t0 a x 1 $ O x �w c V m Yo v c x x 4 Y m r,, 1°- v M �i— E gZ. s n Y 4) acf a �-0 � EE�� m� � N u J t O J E E bC ER5 > Z Q N $ Z 0 n r W 9 31L1 ui a Q ® Go 0 �8a�'v® Z� 000 2 r U �a c V m J.73fOtld �n � N o ui a Q ® E 0 �8a�'v® Z� 0 r U �a c V m w ii C v e -� o N . a J 0 � � a z E E m T V m ID W a Q ® E E Z J � •Df m c to 0 C v C v 5 a c 7 E E E c m ID Im U m 1J�Q Q :55 b° CD r - �CQZ E— D7 �p Zm mWCL m xm O Q 0 E OC OC Vs ° Q ' ^ w ° _ Ch 40 v $ Y v YO N rl CK o A g 8CD o � A 42 o v L? a $14 3 c �y' g' E i I 0 a V a �, F $ � �` _ w C: v g 33 rZ � S I o ` �^ N U, e� T 1 v z �,• t5 i I g Y� y 8 d L N „ C N om° . }, d E''��ff �j vl Y r0 EC g' °' c {� � g' m ° r z � , ° c y� � b � GJ °' = E - a 4 C A O1 � �y = j y C a aZ M C C � 0 7 app � � O Y{ Q � � �V _ �-r O 10 _ bb c �•j+ Vi .+ Qf -0 O .� O df S T M C �j Z o— E e o L? g g a Lp g, g' €' g' g g' O arig ap�c y`E w" �ov� a$ F —„ a�� a,�pvv v _� N $ �.. _�,Y 1� to g�I—v C �p C Y O ti 5 ae W 7 ° 9 Y v (J O �O 3 II N W Y q t C ++ �� g' N� E E" E c c as E E E E E� H �3 E E b �' L, E E $ o •,a E2 5 En E EEE E E 9t o .J E o o a $ Td E � r� c 2 2 y d `a E F5 z .9 f m 2 v be z Ef ffm 3 0: z° i ig pj 3 uEi� f fT wz ccCLm z aV ffffE� rri q: L9 S .0 .-i to .-i C .-i epi ri � ui S O �4' .-i cv ri Vf ui v) .: O .-i ni ri ti S E .-i ri ri vi tC of .i O V4 nS ri Vi %C ni y � � � C Z m inv u 0 J 2 J O 50 r LLL a v 0 V � m m E3d'9mL-dad 04•PV'wd LEAbZ 6007Igm'Aw- d crm---wpom u%Abxrmm-Iwd em -d FAM N"gqd IN3WdOl3A3G*C7,n*d MAU Ln ao *a*n*d )13-3-'*dD*A:)ne 9 0 AWfOWd 1 1-4 6 LU U. 'I 40d oqcpv,wd towpl 600MA lmpvew cfv XFi�Ag Noudittm(l crw 6oat/tO 0 Z M:) YVI Ny-w OZ 1 9 0 oz 9 Xyo��+ 2 t2---!Uz Z>Z-1 ol z 2 (4 zo; u FAM N"gqd IN3WdOl3A3G*C7,n*d MAU Ln ao *a*n*d )13-3-'*dD*A:)ne 9 0 AWfOWd 1 1-4 6 LU U. 'I 40d oqcpv,wd towpl 600MA lmpvew cfv CO p `p�� a 16 1N3wa 140 xf )IVO 00 'TOS CP 0 ACA Alo g — WN -1 AB NOI1dWS30 31V0 'QN • Z _ /07 VW NMd and' 60/LZ/LO I 1 I 1 Z Z o o NVId 1N3WdOl3A3a *(i*n'd _ z>? Z s d' N? 371LL w 1- 0� O rn e.s Y LM co C:5 a t; O a a � � � a � n d �33�N ns � m z O3fOW dad ogoW Wd WLtiz MOM 2"-und arv- —unr d U%ARMOt5 er -fcud SM -d