Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PZC Packet 08-04-2009 (2)
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda for August 4, 2009 VON Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street C O L O R A D O REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) I. Call to Order it. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the July 21, 2009 Meeting Minutes. ZONING VI. Stonebridge PUD Amendment Property Location: Tract B, Filing 3, Eaglebend Subdivision Applicant: /Owner. Richard Landy, Stonebridge HOA Description: A proposal to amend the zoning of an Eaglebend Subdivision tract of land. Currently, the tract is commonly owed by the Stonebridge HOA and is zoned for "open space, landscape, drainage, pedestrian trails, and utilities." The proposal is to carve out a new lot ("Lot 20") from Tract B, thereby reducing the net open space for Filing 3, and zoning the new lot for one single-family dwelling unit. VII. Gandorf PUD Property Location: Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Applicant. Dominic Mauriello, MPG /Owner. Gandorf Tract B LLC Description: A proposal to rezone the only commercial lot in Wildridge to zoning that permits two duplex structures. Each half of the duplex will be a maximum of approximately 1,800 square feet. VIII. Other Business Transportation Master Plan Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer Description: Presentation of the draft Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan, which includes an assessment of the current and future vehicular, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure demands. IX. Adjourn Posted on July 31, 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 hftr)://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission i� Draft Meeting Minutes for July 21, 2009 AVON Avon Town Council Chambers Avon Municipal are open to the public Building / One Lake Street C O L O R A D O REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:15pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items; Open to the public Color Board Clarification for Lot 59. Block 3. WR (5:15Dm — 5:30oml Discussion: Jared Barnes discussed the clarification necessary. Millie Aldrich presented the colors and the reason for the grey color. Commissioner discussion ensued. The Commissioners approved the modifications to conditions #4 and #6 of the previous approval to state, "AII Materials and Colors will be reviewed and approved through an on-site mock-up that is a minimum size of 4'x 8'." REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the July 7, 2009 Meeting Minutes. Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion. Commissioner Goulding asked that the word "Unique" be added to finding 4 of Item Vl. Commissioners Green and Roubos accepted the amendment and the motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Lane abstaining due to his absence at the previous meeting. ZONING (PUBLIC HEARING) Vl. ZaccaZa Special Review Use (SRU) Property Location: Lot 2, Filing 1, Village at Avon Applicant: Cody Kennedy /Owner. Traer Creek —L2 LLC Description: The proposal is to permit outdoor amplified sound for live music in the evenings from 3pm until 10pm. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented Staffs report. Cody Kennedy asked if the hours could be adjusted. He also asked if the approval could run with the lease of the property to avoid having to pay the SRU application fee of $500 on an annual basis. Commissioner Roubos questioned the process prior to this application. Matt Gennett responded that the applicant had applied for a amplified sound permit in previous years. He stated further that it wasn't until after a compliant was made and the Planning Department was asked to look into the zoning allowance that this process embarked. Paul Ferzacca clarified the application that was made. The Public Hearing was opened. Howard Tate, a property owner in Eagle -Vail, commented that he wasn't opposed to live music played at ZaccaZa, but he did have concerns over the volume. He asked the board to lessen the volume that the amplified sound is played at. Commissioner Green asked if the he heard the music on a regular basis. Howard responded that it was regular and when he called ZaccaZa, the manager usually turned it down. Commissioner Goulding asked if there was a level of noise that is enforced. Matt Gannett commented that the code refers to the Colorado Revised Statues that measure amplified sound from the property boundaries. Commissioner Anderson stated that he lives adjacent to the gentleman who previously spoke and he commented that he could clearly hear every word of the music. Paul Forzacca, commented that he isn't trying to make anyone upset, but what is fair for the rest of the community should also be fair for this property. Howard Tate responded that the built environment helps lessen the sound of amplified sound from Finnegan's. The Public hearing was closed. Doug Sheric, an adjacent property owner, commented that he thought the sound was reasonable and not too loud. Commissioner Prince asked Staff what was being approved. Matt Pielsticker responded that the Commission is only approving the use and that the Council will be approving the Permit. Commissioner Lane commented that he is fine with the use and only thinks the time frame should be from noon to 10 pm. Commissioner Prince had no comments. Commissioner Struve stated that location is a factor to him. Commissioner Green stated that the comments from the Mr. Tate are very important. He doesn't have a problem with the use or sound on the deck. He does have concerns over the sound and volume. He commented that it should be reasonable. Commissioner Goulding stated that a subsequent review should take place to deal with the issues. Commissioner Struve commented that he would not be in favor of big screen TVs playing amplified sound for events like fall football. Commissioner Green asked that the sound be reasonable. Commissioner Goulding asked how "reasonable" is quantified. Commissioner Roubos wanted the approval to be reviewed every year. Commissioner Struve stated that he would want condition 1 to be open ended in terms of dates and that the hours be noon to 10 pm. Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to table until the applicant's tenant space is usable for the proposed SRU since active construction is currently preventing the commencement of the proposed amplified sound use. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. VII. Other Business Transportation Master Plan Applicant., Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer Description: Presentation of the draft Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan, which includes an assessment of the current and future vehicular, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure demands. Discussion: Justin Hildreth introduced Charles Buck, consultant with FHU, who drafted the plan. Justin explained that the current 1996 Plan is outdated and highly auto -orientated. He stated the Town's current direction is for a more pedestrian -orientated plan that helps to bring the Town's master plans to fruition. Charles gave a PowerPoint presentation and explained the various Level Of Service (LOS) measurement techniques. Commissioners made comments throughout the presentation regarding lack of information and lack of access for non -motorized transportation. Commissioner Struve questioned the safety of an underpass versus an overpass when proposed for the 1-70 corridor. Commissioner Green questioned the document and its ability to propose future plans and solutions. He specifically commented the bike traffic up and down to Wildridge. He commented that this document is more of a report than a plan. He wants to know how this plan ties into Main Street and the future build out of both East and West Town Center. Commissioner Struve stated it is a great start and wants the plan to be more aggressive and present the issue, not the solution. He commented that the way finding in town is not adequate. He also stated that Traer Creek needs to be involved in this plan. He stated that Avon could be known as the most bike friendly community in the Valley if this plan is executed properly. Commissioner Roubos stated that the safety issue in the roundabouts is paramount. She also commented on the safety issue along Wildridge road heading into Wildridge. She expressed her concern over the access to the bike path along Nottingham. Commissioner Prince agreed with his fellow Commissioners comments. He stated his concerns over the pedestrian connection along Highway 6 and from the Folson Annexation parcel to the core of Avon. Commissioner Lane stated his concern was that future pedestrian and vehicular arteries would be cut off. He stated the biggest hole in the proposed plan is that there is no schematic or intent of what the solution is. Commissioner Anderson questioned the connection between the East and West Town Center Plans and this proposed Transportation Plan. He stated that the Avon Road roundabout crossing should be revised to better relay the Town's desires to potential developers. He stated sight distance issues could be addressed in the plans. He commented on the skier parking in town and how that would effect the potential pedestrian and vehicular movement throughout town. Commissioner Goulding stated, "If we build it, everyone will come." He wants to know the East-West connection through Avon Road. He also wants to know how we will successfully get through all of the North-South barriers. He stated that bike connection for the various types of bikers. He wants to make the pedestrian movements throughout town easy to navigate. Commissioner Green asked to °piggyback° on Commissioner Goulding's final comments with additional closing thoughts of his own and Commissioner Goulding acquiesced. Action: No action necessary. VIII. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:40. Staff Report ur PUD Amendment August 4 2009 Planning& ZoningCommission Meeting C O L O R A D O Report date: July 31, 2009 Project type: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, & Preliminary Plan for Subdivision Legal description: Tract B, Filing 3, Eaglebend Subdivision Current zoning: PUD / Open Space Proposed zoning: Single-family residence Address: 3000 Eaglebend Drive Introduction and Summary The applicant, Richard Landy, president of the Stonebridge Homeowners Association, is proposing to amend the zoning of a portion of Tract B, a Tract of land that is commonly owned by the Stonebridge HOA. Currently, the Tract is commonly is zoned for "open space, landscape, drainage, pedestrian trails, and utilities." The proposal is to carve out a new lot ("Lot 20") from Tract B, thereby reducing the net open space for Filing 3, and zone the new lot for one single-family dwelling unit. After holding a public hearing in accordance with Section 17.12.100 of the Avon Municipal Code, Staff is recommending that the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission make a formal recommendation for Denial of this application to the Avon Town Council. The basis for this recommendation is the failure to meet the mandatory review criteria cited in the recommended motion section (VI) of this Staff report. Additionally, the applicant has not demonstrated that one or more of the criteria are not applicable. After carefully consideration on the review criteria, it was difficult for Staff to support this application due in large part to the lack of a logical community benefit — as required with all rezoning or PUD amendment applications. While the applicant claims that rezoning the property will benefit the Town in the form of additional real estate taxes and the providence of a formalized easement across Lot 20 (for the existing sewer line running under the property), it is difficult to consider these as true "community" benefits that outweigh any potential adverse impacts experienced with developing a platted non buildable area of an open space Tract. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Stonebridge PUD Amendment August 4, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting I1. Background Page 2 of 6 i7yo In 1980 the Eagle County Commissioners approved the Eaglebend project for Residential/Suburban Medium (RSM) density zoning, and in 1981, the Commissioners approved the final subdivision. Shortly thereafter, between 192 and 1983, the first 12 of 19 Stonebridge Townhomes, part of Filing 3 of the Eaglebend Subdivision and PUD, were constructed. These units were designed and built in a clustered orientation with shared amenities. In May of 1985, the Eaglebend developers approached the Town of Avon to discuss the possibility of annexation to the Town, for the purpose of rezoning to smaller, more affordable and marketable housing units to be constructed on the property. The entire subdivision was eventually annexed in 1986 after receiving favorable reviews by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Two additional single-family units (Lots 17 and 18) in Filing 3 were then constructed in 1990. These homes were built on the east end of the filing. These two homes were distinguished from the rest of Stonebridge by their standalone design and separate driveway access off Eaglebend Drive, separating them from the rest of the subdivision. In 1997, Filing 3 (Stonebridge) of the Eaglebend PUD was amended to relocate the building footprints of the five remaining development rights. At the time the applicant stated that changes in regulations and markets required re-evaluating the original Stonebridge plan, prior to completing the remaining five units. These five units were constructed in much the same fashion as the original 12 clustered units near the intersection of Stonebridge and Eaglebend roads. III. Process As required by the Avon MuniciDal Code, this report serves as the official findings and recommendations of the Community Development Department- After holding a public hearing before the Planning Commission, a report of the Planning Commission stating its findings and recommendations and this report shall then be transmitted to the Town Council. The Town Council shall then consider this application in accordance with Section 17.28.050 of the Avon Municipal Code. The Town Council hearing shall be held no later than thirty (30) days following the Planning and Zoning Commission action. Following this hearing, the Council shall consider the comments and evidence presented at the hearing and evaluate the application in accordance with Section 17.28.080 and either approve, approve with conditions or deny the application, in whole or in part. IV. Public Notice Requirement This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to all property owners within 300' of the subject property. Public comments received to -date are attached hereto as Attachment C. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Stonebridge PUD Amendment August 4, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting V. PUD Design Criteria Page 3 of 6 AAM 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. According to the Town of Avon Zonino Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. Staffs primary focus with this application as it relates to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives is the inability to demonstrate a clear benefit to the community, as required by the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. The premise of a Rezoning or PUD application must be the demonstration of outweighing benefits to the Town that would not otherwise be present with current entitlements. Changes to zoning should only be considered when benefits outweigh any possible negative impacts that could be experienced with the change in zoning. According to the Comprehensive Plan, Policy C.1.5, PUD developments "should be considered... if it would allow a more effective development pattern. However, such flexible zoning will only be allowed where it provides a benefit to the community, is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan, and is compatible with surrounding development. Variations from standard zoning may be permitted only as needed to achieve a clearly demonstrated community benefit." The applicant's response to providing a community benefit is to provide a 10' drainage easement bordering the newly created property line, for the Town's use with an existing 24" sewer line that runs through the property. This provision may technically benefit the Town public works department or water district in the event the Town needs to service the line, but it is hardly necessary to perform future work on the infrastructure. One of the primary environmental goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to "Protect Avon's unique natural setting and its open spaces (Goal H.1)." Further, the Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the importance of open space by establishing a Policy (1.1.4) to "Require new development to include or otherwise contribute to land for trails, open space, and recreation purposes." This application directly conflicts with these envisioned goals and policies by eliminating approximately 7,500 square feet of land that is zoned for open space, landscaping, drainage, pedestrian trails, and utilities. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. If this application is approved, the development plan and design of the single-family residence would then be reviewed against the Residential Design Review Guidelines. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Stonebridge PUD Amendment August 4. 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 6 7YO 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. The architectural design of the potential single-family residence, including scale, bulk, and height could be addressed through the design review process. It appears that these attributes could be compatible with the immediate environment and adjacent properties given the development pattern in the vicinity; however, the subject land is located within a platted 100' building setback and natural buffer that appears to have been created to buffer the higher and lower densities between Filing No. 3 and Filing No. 1 of the Eaglebend Subdivision. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. A single-family home is compatible with neighboring uses and densities. There is a mix of single-family, duplex, clustered single-family homes, and rental apartment units in the area. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. There have been no natural or geologic hazards identified with the proposed single- family property. 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 application is in direct conflict with this review criterion. Tract B is currently zoned for, and was always envisioned for the use of open space, trails, drainage and utilities. When the property was annexed into the Town the nature of the subject property was discussed in the Subdivision Report. The report stated that there "will be a large open space/picnic area at the east end of Filing 3 to serve as a buffer between Stonebridge and the duplex lots." Developing this portion of the Eaglebend Subdivision does not respond to the mature vegetation of the property, and would sever the natural buffer established between the two Eaglebend filings. 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. Does not apply. S. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. While the subject portion of Tract B is not actively being used by the owners of Stonebridge, the area's aesthetic value should be taken into account. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Stonebridge PUD Amendment August 4, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 6 AraN plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. No phasing plan is required for this application. Functionally, a single-family residence could be constructed without relying on other improvements to Filing 3 of the Eaglebend subdivision. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. All services are in place for this proposal to function, as this would be an infill lot in a built out subdivision. Letters have been received from the serving entities 11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. Does not apply. 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. 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. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. Staff is unable to support this application due to the lack of a clear community benefit. The approval of this application would not result in better siting of development given the fact that the area was zoned for open space and the Eaglebend Subdivision deliberately platted a 100' to maintain a separation of buildings and densities between two of the Eaglebend filings. The potential adverse impacts resulting with the proposed change in zoning rights outweigh any possible long term economic, cultural, or social community benefits to the Town or residents in the area may experience with the proposed change in zoning rights. This is the basis for Staffs recommendation for denial. VI. Recommended Motion 'I move to recommend of DENIAL of the PUD Amendment and corresponding Preliminary Subdivision application to the Avon Town Council with the FINDING that the application and supporting materials fail to demonstrate compliance with the following review criteria Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Stonebridge PUD Amendment August 4, 2009, Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting Page 6of6 A 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. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 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." 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 Pielstic Planner II VII. Report Attachments A: Vicinity Map B: Application Information C: Public Comments D: Proposed Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 ti. T t ti <. ti. d ` 1 t ii b PL— Exhibit B Stonebridge Condominiums Recommendation to Amend PUD (h) Design Criteria. The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD district. 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 (1) or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Where the PUD district is being requested in connection with the review of a development agreement pursuant to Chapter 17.14 of this Code, not all design criteria may be applicable as determined by the Community Development Department. (1) Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives: Response: We have reviewed the City of Avon Comprehensive Plan and identified Stonebridge as part of Medium Priority District 7, Village of Avon West District. This proposal is congruent with the Plan and its stated desire for "smaller residential neighborhoods". By adding one more home on Eagle Bend Drive we complete the neighborhood. Our low residential density with continue to make this area attractive. (2) Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town. The sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town: Response: Our proposal is to free up a vacant lot for development. It meets the guidelines adopted by the Town. (3) Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation; Response: The east end of Eagle Bend Drive is a mix of single family homes and duplexes. This proposal for an additional single family unit will add to the neighborhood. (4) Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities; Response: The addition of one single family residence will have no impact on density, etc. (5) Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affects the property upon which the PUD is proposed. Response: The property gently rolls down from Eagle Bend Drive to the Eagle River. There are no hazards. (6) Site Plan, building 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; Response: Since this proposal is intended to free up the vacant lot for future development, only a site survey plan and topographical survey are provided. Since the site is currently heavy with brush and undergrowth, a landscape plan as part of a later state of development will improve aesthetics. (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; Response: This proposal will end up adding one relatively short driveway on Eagle Bend Drive. No impact otherwise. (8) Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views, and function; Response: To be addressed as part of the development of the lot. (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 on completion of future project phases; Response: N/A (10) Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks and police and fire protection; Response: For one additional residence, we have secured a commitment from the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority to provide potable water. Sewer services available on Eagle Bend Drive. No impact on the others. (11) That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. Response: No material impact on traffic flows. (12) That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions of the Zoning Code as specified in Section 17.28.085. Response: Our proposal will provide the data required in Zoning Code Section 17.28.085. RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND PUD By: Stonebridge Homeowners Association The original PUD for the Eagle Bend Condominiums (Tract B, Eagle Bend Subdivision Filing No. 13) was approved in 1981 and called for the construction of 19 zero lot line units. The original developer built 12 units before he encountered financial difficulties and ceased further construction. During this construction hiatus, two single family homes (not zero lot line) were built on the East end of the property (Units 17 and 18). A long legal battle between the HOA and the owners of the two single family homes built on Stonebridge property resulted in these two single family homes remaining part of the HOA and paying significant unpaid HOA assessments in 1999. During the 1990's, a new developer acquired the right to develop the remaining 5 zero lot line units. He constructed and sold those units which are a part of our 19 member HOA. Today, Stonebridge is an eclectic grouping of 12 original and architecturally similar 25 year old town homes, 5 newer town homes which blend fairly well with the original units and two units that appear to be stand alone single family homes with little in common with Stonebridge. A passing observer would not make a visual connection with the two apparent single family homes with the condominium association. In fact, most services that often work well for condo associations because of scale economics (i.e. trash collection, landscaping, snow removal, etc.) are all "force fit" to accommodate our "outlying units". In addition, due to the manner in which Stonebridge was developed, we have a vacant wooded parcel "hanging off' the East end of our property. While much of Stonebridges' five plus acre4 is attractively landscaped and maintained and used for homeowner activities, this parcel with its "off the end" location is not suitable for similar use. Therefore, for 25 years it has sat idle and unmaintained. It has been encroached on for landscaping and an off road parking space without our knowledge or consent. In its unmaintained state, it invites potential abuse as a possible dump site. It serves no benefit to Stonebridge or the area. We request a PUD amendment to create a new Lot, Lot 20. Which we wish to permit to sever the East lot from Stonebridge in order to create separate, free standing lot or parcel which we would then sell to a developer to build a single family residence separate from the Stonebridge HOA. We present the recommended Lot, Lot 20 on a surveyors plat. It is a 7,688 sq ft Lot which conforms with the City of Avon guide lines and Master Plan. It is a new clean Lot and will be attractive for development. Further, with the creation of this Lot we provide public benefit by providing an easement for a 24 inch drainage line from Eagle Bend Drive. All of the utilities required to bring a new home on line - electric, gas, telephone, water and sewerage are all readily available. We have a commitment from the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority to provide potable water. There are no infrastructure impediments to this project. During it's more that 25 years in existence, Stonebridge has developed with a number of anomalies. Nevertheless, we have been successful in making this community an asset for its owners, the surrounding community and the City of Avon. We respectfully request your approval to proceed. Stonebridge HOA PUD Amendment, Zoning Analysis: The current zoning for Stonebridge HOA, Tract B Eagle Bend Subdivision filing No. 3 is for 19 single family residences. The properties east of Stonebridge on Eagle Bend Drive are a mixture of single family and duplexes. There are no commercial or high density multi family residences in this area. The creation of the recommended Lot 24 and its separation from Stonebridge would create the opportunity to add one single family home on Eagle Bend Drive- consistent with the current zoning in the city of Avon Master Plan. STONEBRIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 3000 Eaglebend Drive Avon, CO 81620 May 13, 2009 Mr. Matt Pielsticker Planner II P.O. Box 975 400 Benchmark Road Avon, CO 81620 ✓U,v tFO 2 X47, 9100 ly�koIIT 1 Re: Planned Unit Development Application (File No. PUD 09003) Preliminary Subdivision Application (File No. SNW09002) Dear Mr. Pielsticker: In response to your letter dated March 19, 2009, Paragraph 1, I offer the following: The public benefit criteria outlined in 17.28.085 created by separating proposed lot 20 from the current Stonebridge PUD are two- fold. First, the creation of a new buildable residential lot in the City of Avon will initially attract construction funds and jobs as a homeowner or developer builds the single family home we expect to see constructed on this site. Upon completion of construction, we expect the home to contribute to both Avon and Eagle County by adding to the real estate tax base. These contributions far outweigh the value created by the current zoning entitlement which is an empty vacant lot. The long term positive impact and tax cash flows from a newly constructed home in a current residential area which already receives City services and thereby creates no incremental cost to the City for these services is incremental gain and public benefit. The second benefit of freeing up this lot which "the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve" or have somehow been overlooked, is we offer the formalize an easement across proposed lot 20 for the existing City sewer line running from Eaglebend Drive under the subject property. Our proposal formally creates that easement in favor of the City and residents of Avon. I believe the above paragraph addresses the three Public Benefit Criteria outlined in 17.28.085, but if you think it needs further clarification, please advise. In regards to paragraph number two of your March 191h letter, please accept this letter as a formal letter from the Stonebridge Homeowners Association certifying that the Board has approved pursuing this application. As President of the Stonebridge HOA, I am operating as their agent on behalf of the HOA. I hope the above addresses paragraph one and two of your letter to your satisfaction. I am working with Michelle Rampelt of Bold Solutions to furnish the additional data you requested. I can be reach via email at rilandv2na.aol.com. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard J. Landy, President Stonebridge Homeowners Associaton Exhibit C Matt Pielsticker From: Elsa Rosenberg perozoo@comcast.netj Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:43 PM To: Matt Pielsticker Cc: 'Sondra Slappey'; 'Julia Evershade'; 'Cheryl A Towning' Subject: Developing the lot next to 3720 Eaglebend Hi Matt, I am one of the co-owners, along with my sisters Julia Evershade and Cheryl Towning, of 3720 Eaglebend. It was brought to our attention that a sign has been posted on the adjacent vacant lot concerning the start of the application process for developing that lot. As owners of the next-door property, we would like to go on record as opposing this development. That lot was originally dedicated green space by the original PUD developer, and that was my parents' understanding when they purchased 3720 Eaglebend. Please keep us posted on the status of the application and what further input we, as the owners who stand to be negatively impacted by development, rightfully have. Your attention to our record of opposition is most appreciated. Best, Elsa E. Rosenberg elsa Oxtremeconsultino.com Xtreme Consulting Group, Inc. People. Technology Solutions www.xtremeconsultinci.com Phone: 303-526-1671 Cell: 303-905-3125 7/23/2009 July 30, 2009 Mr. Matt Pielsticker Planner II Community Development Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Re: Stonebridge Cluster Homeowners Association Tract B, Filings, Eagle Bend Subdivision Dear Mr. Pielsticker; RECEIVED 3uL E 0 2009 00mmunlri Development The purpose of this letter is to strongly oppose the proposed rezoning of the existing Tract B from open space, landscape, drainage, pedestrian trails, and utilities to allow construction of a single family home. When the Stonebridge complex was originally developed, the intent was to provide a buffer to the neighborhood properties to the east and a landscape separation. Nothing in the last 28 years has changed to eliminate the need for the open space since this was one of the conditions for the original approval of the PUD. The fact that Stonebridge has never fully landscaped or maintained the area should not release them of the requirement to maintain this area as open space. Please contact me with any questions. I unfortunately cannot attend the Planning Commission Hearing on August 4, 2009 due to previous commitments. Sincerely, Ned K. White, AIA Owner: 3772 Eagle Bend Drive Home Address: 545 Spyglass Drive Littleton, Colorado 80123 Whitney Goulden P.O Box 19124 Avon, CO 81620 July 28, 2009 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission Avon Municipal Complex P.O Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Rezoning of the Stonebridge PUD (Track B, Filing 3, Eaglebend Subdivision, 3000 Eaglebend Drive) Dear Members: own and reside in a residential property located at 3770 Eaglebend Drive in Avon, CO. I am writing to you in connection with the rezoning application that has been filed by Stonebridge Cluster Homeowners Association to rezone the open space greenbelt area immediately to the west of my property. Several of my neighbors and I are adamantly opposed to this application. We believe that the present level of density in this neighborhood should not be increased under any circumstances nor should a lovely wooded area zoned as open space be leveled to the ground simply for the financial benefit of the Applicant. The following summarizes the reasons I personally oppose this application: • Lackino a True Public Benefit: It is my understanding that the Applicant must substantially comply with the "public purpose provisions of the Zoning Code". (Section 17.28.085). After reviewing the Applicant's letter (5/13/09) that discusses this matter and also reviewing the code, I really don't see any truly compelling public benefit that the rezoning of this open space would provide. How does leveling a green space and filling the space with a home, preserve "valued environmental ...resources and increase the amount of public benefit..."? Sorry but I think my neighbors and I receive more benefit from strolling by a natural open space vs. a two car garage! The Applicant's letter lists two points that they feel are public benefits. One has something to do with providing an easement that is related to a sewer line. The second suggests that the building of one house would some how be like a stimulus package to our community by initially attracting construction funds and jobs. Sounds like Home Depot is more likely to benefit from this then our community. Then the letter states that once the house is completed it will contribute to the real estate tax 1 base. At best this is certainly a very loose interpretation of providing "long tenn- economic" benefit to the communitv. Severelv Imoacts My Pror)ertv: I purchased my property 17 years ago from John and Sue Railton who designed; self built and lived in their home for 7 years prior to me acquiring it. My key buying factor was the dual views the home provided of the creek to the south and the greenbelt area to the west. Having two unobstructed views is unique for our neighborhood since almost all of the homes on the creek only have a south facing view. It was no accident that John designed and strategically positioned the property to take advantage of this west view. He was the architect and planner of the Stonebridge PUD and therefore knew first hand that the land immediately to the west of his lot would always remain as open space based on the zoning and use restrictions governing this PUD. In fact this open space per John was used as a dumping area for huge boulders that were excavated during the development of the first phase of the PUD. Top soil was brought in to cover a majority of the boulders. But the boulders that are visible today represent just "the tip of the iceberg". For 24 years the Town's zoning ordinances have protected the Railtons initially and then me from exactly what is now being proposed by the Applicant. To allow development of this abutting greenbelt area would esthetically and functionally ruin my home. My west facing views would be obliterated and my privacy compromised. Questions Abilitv to Rely on Recorded Document/Zoninq Requirements & Restrictions: Prior to purchasing my home and also quite recently, I reviewed the title history and documents that were pertinent to this open space greenbelt area. The document of particular significance was the Zoning Plat for the Stonebridge PUD. This document was recorded in approximately 1981 and declares the land in question to be open space. The plat specifically states that this land is "for open space, landscape, drainage, pedestrian trails, and utilities". Also the plat defines a 100ft east to west setback between my property and Lot 17 in the PUD filing. This setback further substantiates the "no build" restriction placed on this land. Around 1997 the final build -out was completed and the PUD reached its 19 unit max. Now the Applicant wants to add another unit which is in direct conflict with the density restrictions and the open space ratio requirements as defined in this plat. In fact, the sole purpose of this open land has always been to balance out the density allowed on the rest of the PUD. The Applicant is attempting to thwart the clear intent and to avoid the clear meaning and goals of the recorded documents. If this application was to be approved, it would shed serious doubt on one's ability to rely on any type of public record or codes within our community. 2 I purchased property in this area relying upon the zoning and use restrictions that were in existence. I was told that the open space greenbelt area would always remain undeveloped and free from any conditions that would bring added density to the neighborhood. I believed these representations, and I also believed that the recorded documents that backed up these statements meant what they said. If the Town now allows a change in the zoning affecting this open space greenbelt area, the Town would be permitting the Applicant to indirectly achieve what he would otherwise be prohibited from achieving (i.e. adding density, building within a setback, eliminating open. space ratios, changing land use purposes). This action would also negate the zoning restrictions that protect my property and that I have relied upon since I purchased my home in 1992. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Whitney Goulden 3 I purchased property in this area relying upon the zoning and use restrictions that were in existence. I was told that the open space greenbelt area would always remain undeveloped and free from any conditions that would bring added density to the neighborhood. I believed these representations, and I also believed that the recorded documents that backed up these statements meant what they said. If the Town now allows a change in the zoning affecting this open space greenbelt area, the Town would be permitting the Applicant to indirectly achieve what he would otherwise be prohibited from achieving (i.e. adding density, building within a setback, eliminating open space ratios, changing land use purposes). This action would also negate the zoning restrictions that protect my property and that I have relied upon since I purchased my home in 1992. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, � V Whitney Goulden 3 i j O i 4 I« i �0 1 I' Ts S _ "! a3��'s§aErg � MUMS m jt I n N $ i t It ` u 1 a 1111 ` tea« O N m N o e i j O i 4 I« i �0 1 A 3 i CC cr g o x m m 3 G N h \o h = s 3 dim wo r- Y SI 00 A.ti LLJ m Lij s (� afvxsrn (� 1 g .00" AD t LLJ 9 ssaes S h A- 1 g eft 8�t0s •ostr % /'6S r0 N g �• � �oaf'0�tf � h 1 ryry N �� rv^ C) ! / to g S, 0 yry 40 a 1 J L' N h C7� ZQ ( testy ' Nry glfO O J �v I �r• M8f ff tS P<gt N ( ^ ^� t] 1 ~r O rGo I t0 Z ' s r � + G5 �/..y �AA���• (� Y✓ 1 Og ft � � ~3'86 ID .at'fa1 X02 $ rz ry 0 a 0 CIO r/ co W 6 ...j 45f 1 0 �6rI I M golf r� ,-14to ¢ 1 ton W Dog AV, z Z nt oos �1s oo' ' 3.9c.0 £ON ~~ n CO- tp f� r Y M Mf 8 M •St'f $'o5'tf ` i Wa MMj` a�O NMM�O_h og o o t Ni F+�1 r Y iit ��6O Y Y Qf M 'K tp ft f \I I ry t aT5 I Y H C A M �Y�p fs �t I $ r } S 0 Il a m N z N a M r N sJ) 8 Z s i 12 � .sg Sr O 1 a , Z V 1 N N ~�~ w IN' � W .apa J o<gt t d til 'Ago m a° J m { �ddrt>m fKGdrt)QJ oro ~Y� ry I I ti r0 j/`•f �'� r0 >'R i I" Il 1 m 0 f. m l l m 10 W a Doff r0 Ws ~\��~. � J .oaa f $ �<f .sszts vi w 1 � ~ b M.pf Lda `t O t bb •W pt / r ti .4 .6D yt '�</~ t S i m`'j .aS6r r °ps p�8 8 l 1 ao8tX61 $ r0 'ooS w J S / OSS S O tlj fit! t Q M� �St '� U 41 13'0550 3of•�bt $ $ 1 ! Al q�f 3 $ sg Sf p y \ Y) N LO0ltJ ~~~ w �e< v�. J 'Poa ^�• i~ ! 1 N in { I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 m$ •o •ao se 1 y^+h til! C,S '� " O ! / 0 / 80 "1 .-N MY5f1WrOJm ,-,-.-ta! ! ryrr rrrrrrrrrrrf L)/0000000000000 �a v\\ �`� �\ � 0�) ����`O syiZN �� �gB�\��rr" �t� •'atf �,h ? � 1, '` 1 � 00 n ( co N z Z #un rw W is �01 ifi V Y O 4i -cq— C4 C4 01Y i M N 01r N Z d N ZON d OJi�3+z�0 7 ¢Od�t�J f� =�N O(IVJ-Uoj0D'AJLNfj0D 9qDVa'&0AV JO "01 0 133H5 09f -90 nxsev SSW 6U' (046)1(Q) • WSW, (0461 0do AS 031WH3 0MIR 03 *U" 1 St x0Q O'd DNilid NOISIARMIS GNaE1a'IDV9 35 AS AM V$O :)Il IsulAamns jlov2ll do 1-1 vi v 600elrilt 35 asuim agog OZ jo-1 (IgSojo-dd - MV-j,,jkjLj-jjjfl V JVW DIH(IVXDOdOJ, 6 Z z 2 U- 0 0 ? co t LLI t SCS 3 zz .11 4 9 LLI -41 ICX & or 7 Kin C) LAj (Z� I Q) 'e ll�� Ij cll�l i / f i 'A 0 U < tv os, L) 9 .0" IL �1 d _ 04 3W 1 2- 0 ow w D z z 2: z 0 ow 9 -' m =10 QW, 10 13: 0. wV;0 0 10 z > I w z C4 'zg- 11 w" 54 2 .9 0 0-:'0" 00 S'w �- i a - aoJ co z W0- Da z < 0 mw m ' 0 Z< w�- 20 g 9-. -u u w w z 0 Z4 9 -0 �-'q z lw�i-:) w 0 c; -z- 50 u t= mzw A §4 -. p �n 0 W -0w "i z w 0 w 1 5 0 i=10 SZ O� i ; x -, ;'� P'� � ujd �4 0 :5 0 MID OU1 0 3.9C.6Z-00Nj Staff Report PUD Amendment AVON August 4, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting c o L o R A D o Report Date: July 31, 2009 Project Type: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Legal Description: Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Current Zoning: "Light Commercial" (see below) Introduction and Summary The applicant, Gandorf Tract B LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group (MPG), is proposing an amendment to the zoning designation of Tract B, Wildridge Subdivision and PUD. Tract B is located at the corner of Old Trail Road and Saddleridge Loop (Attachment A) and is comprised of 16,522 sq ft or .38 of an acre. As stated in the heading of this report, the existing zoning of Tract B is "Light Commercial" which is described as follows (verbatim): Light Commercial — Retail sales and commercial service uses limited to food, groceries, household and automotive items limited to the sale of gasoline, oil, and related products, but not automotive repairs, provided for the convenience of Wildridge residents, their guests and visitors; caretaker apartment units and municipal services are included in Light Commercial. The applicant has made the statement that the proposed amendment would effectively amount to a "down -zoning" thereby resulting in an overall reduction of negative impacts to the immediate neighborhood and the larger community as well. Staff does not disagree with the applicant's statement that such a reduction is possible or that the commercial uses are not realistically viable, however, staff does question whether there is a one-to-one relationship between caretaker apartment units and actual dwelling units given the context of the existing zoning language. Upon reviewing the Definitions listed under Note 4 of the governing plat (Attachment B) wherein the excerpted zoning language cited above is contained, it is obvious an effort was made to clearly distinguish the difference between a "caretaker apartment unit" and "dwelling units" in the Wildridge PUD and on the Final Plat for the entire Wildridge Subdivision. In consideration of this distinction between unit types, the existing zoning, the size and dimensional limitation of the site, and the character of the development immediately surrounding Tract B, staff is recommending Approval with Conditions, the most pertinent of which is the maximum density will not exceed three (3) dwelling units, the size of each unit shall not exceed 1,500 sq ft, and the required configuration, is one triplex structure. The criteria and findings for the staff recommendation with the complete list of suggested conditions of approval are contained in the Recommendation section of this report. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tract B, Wildridge PUD and Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING p'a August 4, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 8 II. Background Benchmark Properties created the Wildridge Subdivision in 1979, shortly after the incorporation of the Town of Avon on February 28, 1978. According to the Wildridge Final Plat application for Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions, the overall development concept was for "abundant open space recreation areas around lots" with a density of "barely one dwelling unit per acre". The original Wildridge "Specially Planned Area" (now considered a "PUD" by default) and the accompanying subdivision plat were established with a specific purpose and intent: to offer a diverse range of housing types and options to serve the diverse, year-round local population. As such, the housing types in the Wildridge PUD and Plat are diverse: single- family homes, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, etc - because the housing needs of the local, year-round population continue to be diverse. The population of Avon is comprised of diverse segments of the local population based on such attributes as income, household size, age, and lifestyle choices (i.e. - single, married, married with children, etc). Wildridge was designed on the premise that not everyone wants, or can afford, to live in low density neighborhoods and a diversity of unit types is required to serve the year-round population. The intrinsic value to the public of the diversity of housing types imbedded in the original plat and PUD plan become diminished when a planned type of multi -family is removed and replaced with duplexes or single-family housing. In 1981, the Wildridge Subdivision was completely replatted with a total of 849 planned development units and is the foundation of the current zoning in Wildridge. Over the years, there have been numerous PUD amendments and some transfers of development rights. Recently, there have been amendments whereby certain- development rights were modified and corresponding subdivision plats created to amend the existing plat(s). The most recent amendment to the Wildridge PUD and Final Plat was for the Dry Creek PUD, previously located within Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision and now its own stand-alone subdivision, whereby a "fourplex" lot was converted to accommodate three (3) single-family detached structures. The approval of the Dry Creek PUD was predicated upon factors such as the approval of a subdivision variance for lineal lot frontage and the reduced number of dwelling units by one. Construction of the Dry Creek PUD is now complete, and demonstrates the resulting appearance and disturbance experienced with detached single-family structures, as opposed to what was expected under the existing zoning. It should be noted that Staff recommended DENIAL of the Dry Creek PUD, citing the following reasons: (1) The application failed to meet or advance land use and housing goals/policies (Policy A1.5, C1, C1.4 of the 1996 Comp Plan) relative to establishing or maintaining an appropriate mix of dwelling unit types for both lower and middle- income seasonal and year-round residents and their families; (2) The proposed development may be compatible in design, scale, and use with the types housing in the area, however a multi -family building would also be Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tract B, Wildridge PUD and Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING p' August 4, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 8 compatible with multifamily developments in the area, particularly the enclave of multi -family developments along Draw Spur; (3) Although the applicant proposed to reduce the allowable lot coverage by 10%, the extent of total site disturbance for 3 single-family residences may exceed the extent of site disturbance from a fourplex development; Another recent PUD Amendment approval was for the Western Sage PUD in Block 4. That development converted three (3) triplex lots and one (1) duplex lot (total of 11 development rights) into eight (8) single-family lots. Both of these PUD amendments were approved prior to the public benefit provisions being incorporated into the Town of Avon Zonino Code. III. Process Section 17.20.110(k) sets forth the following process for amending an existing PUD, which defers to the required procedures for the establishment of a new PUD: (k) Amendment procedures. (1) Amendments. Requests for amendments to an approved Planned Unit Development District shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described above. Amendments that propose substantial changes to land use in connection to existing development agreements and development plans as outlined in Chapter 17.14 of this Code may require additional information and/or development agreements and amendment to development plans. (2) Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the PUD and owners of all property within the PUD that may be affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Community Development Department). Additionally, in accordance with Section 17.20.110(m), the proposed PUD amendment does not necessitate the administration of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: (m) Preliminary Subdivision Application with PUD. Where subdivision approval will be required to implement development in a proposed PUD, a Preliminary Subdivision Plan application must be filed concurrently and in conjunction with the PUD application. The provisions and procedures for public notice, hearing and review for a PUD as prescribed in this Title shall apply to the Preliminary Subdivision Plan application. No development may be implemented in a PUD prior to approval and recording of a corresponding Final Subdivision Plat. (Ord. 05-03 §2; Ord. 04-12 §§3-8; Ord. 04-03 §3; Ord. 91-10 §1(part) Subdivision approval is not required to implement development in the proposed PUD amendment and the existing configuration of Tract B is to remain as platted on the current, governing final plat of the Wildridge Subdivision. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tract B, Wildridge PUD and Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING August 4, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 8' AIIB IV. Public Notice Requirement This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to all property owners within 300' of the subject property. Public comments received to -date are attached hereto as Attachment D. V. PUD Design Criteria According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating this application. According to Code, "it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution is consistent with the public interest." Please refer to Attachment C for the applicant's responses to these principal review criteria. 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comorehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. District 24 Wildridae Residential District (Comp Plan Page 98-99) The subject properties are located in the "Wildridge Residential District." The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the limited number of existing trees and the open character of the Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states that "special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings." One of the planning principles for this district is to "site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, be compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk." While the residential land use is certainly appropriate, the proposed density and configuration would not result in a visually compatible arrangement of structure types. Future Land Use Plan (Comp Plan Page 27) The Future Land Use Plan envisions continued "Residential Low Density" development. Residential Low Density (RLD) development is intended to provide sites for single-family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's proposal would amount to 10.5 dwelling units per acre and is not in conformance with the maximum density of the RLD designation. Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Pages 37 - 63) The Comprehensive Plan contains several regional policy goals related to land use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed PUD plans in Town. The goals and policies most applicable to this proposal speak to clustering development and other creative design solutions in order to achieve lower densities, and to which this proposal does not demonstrate conformance. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tract B, Wildridge PUD and Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING August 4, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 8 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub- area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town. Where the PUD is silent to architectural standards the Town's Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review Guidelines would apply. The Town's Guidelines put emphasis on the overall design theme for the Town. According to the Guidelines, the theme for the Town shall be to establish an attractive appearance for visitors and residents, and yet be flexible enough to allow design innovation. The site design and corresponding development standards appear to be in general conformance with this criterion, however, there would be a significant amount of disturbance required to construct the proposed duplexes and the density exceeds what is designated for the site using the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Staffs recommendation is based primarily on keeping the density closer to the 7.5 DUs per acre prescribed by the Residential Low Density (RLD) designation and restricting the size to something affordable to year-round local residents. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. The proposed density and configuration of development would not be compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to bulk, mass, buffer zones, character and orientation. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed use may provide an efficient, workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities, but the higher density is not compatible. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. There have no been no geologic hazards identified on the subject property. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. There appears to be a high degree of alteration to the existing site required to enable this development to function. The site layout and driveway do not appear sensitive to the natural features of the site, particularly with respect to the excessive paved area. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan. There is a functional 24' wide driveway for the four (4) proposed residential units. The turnaround could also be used for trash removal vehicles. It appears that visibility is good in each direction entering and leaving the proposed curb cut location. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tract B, Wildridge PUD and Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING August 4, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8 7Y, " 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. As stated previously, the asphalt driveway/parking area is an excessive amount of paved area in comparison to the size of Tract B and does not appear to optimize or preserve natural features, recreation, views, and site functionality. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. The applicant has proposed one phase of development. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. Letters expressing the ability to serve have been included in the applicant's binder and include those from: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Xcel Energy, Holy Cross Energy, and Comcast. Adequate services can be provided for this proposed development. 11.That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. Old Trail Road is suitable to carry the anticipated traffic, and the site distance visibility entering and exiting the driveway appears safe. 12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code: A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. Staff Comment: The applicant has asserted that the change in use alone constitutes a public benefit or purpose and staff is not in agreement with this statement. While the smaller unit sizes may indeed render each half of the proposed duplexes more affordable than most other duplexes in Wildridge and the Town as a whole, this does not create a public benefit considering there are no entitlements for stand-alone dwelling units under the existing zoning. Caretaker, accessory apartments are for -rent units that are secondary to the primary use and cannot be built independently of the allowed commercial use, and this is what necessitates the need for a zone change. B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. Staff Comment: The existing zoning rights would seem to provide a more sustainable, long-term economic and social benefit to the community than a strictly residential development. While there is no question that someone would have to be creative to make the commercial use viable, the lasting benefit to the neighborhood and the entire Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tract B, Wildridge PUD and Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING August 4, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8 community can be measured by the positive environmental impacts of less daily vehicle trips between Wildridge and Avon's town core. There is also a tangible cultural/social benefit to having a well situated commercial entity to serve as a community center and common gathering place. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. Staff Comment: There is not adequate evidence of the proposed amendment resulting in an increased amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. As stated previously in this report, the existing zoning and the planning behind it have been designed to achieve a certain public benefit which would be removed should theproposed PUD amendment be approved as submitted. A. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending a CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the proposed PUD amendment for Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The maximum density in terms of the number of Dwelling Units (DU) allowed on Tract B is three (3) and they must be contained within one triplex structure; 2. The maximum Gross (habitable) Floor Area of each unit cannot exceed 1,500 sq ft and each unit must be sold with a deed restriction which allows only prequalified Eagle County residents to purchase and reside in these units; 3. Revised plans reflecting the new configuration and density must be submitted to staff for a Sketch Design to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to an application being submitted for Final Design; 4. 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; and, With the following findings of fact: 1. That the Conditional Approval recommended by staff provides a more compact, lower density development option which is in greater conformance with the twelve (12) Design Criteria for a PUD Amendment and is more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and, 2. That the recommended Conditional Approval will provide a real, tangible public benefit that is more consistent with the original zoning designation for the site and which better conforms to the Housing Goals and Policies contained in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Ted B. Wildridge PUD and Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING August 4, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8 Milk If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4002, or stop by the Community Development Department at the Avon Town Hall. Respectfully submitted, Matt Gennett, AICP Planning Manager Attachments A. Vicinity Map B. Sheet 1, Final Plat of Wildridge (Amendment 2) C. Applicant's materials D. Public comments Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Vicinity Map - Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge Attachment A e— Residential Streets Q Property Boundaries p a5 90 nasus y mmunty oe.woman oeavnxn SV ju W s 1 ...• . : c Eai cr :-,7 ti..K €sem f� r E. o� r= .y . H. -ei,-via•- c s C'wo o = •� u a '" rz5=` _ leans < �'IS� �r���e€W _� c r "s• <._�_` „. v a�Lt s E` fro a�s y<�53$vs t ?�eC§ E tg nis 12_ `�f �5 �ti F, S,oar enzo : " <� iQ`ca9ou€ '�'� "^g �� ��Fv`� Y£:�«a: <9.3� s $8 wS" 8- 8 W"> �i gr e t°as �n� sus 'Q9de�o;� m..�€ - _ �gr s 9��^a€a €sod a oxa-"= ids € �S d oin €- C<: 88`0 " 3 m"'�`cGc` ;8 c "<o € >~�""-" `'tt6BSoPIy 8� g 8 ..�NJ� ��_ � V a` G "-oo`LLH`Ggx$ SiM t �c � e d -ins mo �>" F` �"<:� -3 Y8°ud _ G fig" X0'3€ k0. ~ _c i<' ��oC` :.GCGa_.7 "_ �s�a: r€dG`� �s� d ;g€}�j` < *Y� c"v "a ��;� s� <� �d ro We " SSi g5 � .: SKSIM . `s. '. � '� c --s:� ok�K�<E . a m c o ��� 8<� s.YB 5€ " 8 e=W`e H = g r pe."� "xss <"w �N " � ts0ms 5.or, Ise �v „s �.'s�ea�a�� 2 a - '�l:ac R1W D r, r F mMri-.r �� ��F..F f�'F� t"•'�_f_F X•'f'�� i= 1 ���v`�����✓i c=. C s N ■■■•LLLllli}LLii•••i. I W c' _ T 0 z 9 W oma, "�"$o 'cc •i ` • O a a 14 - \ f Y w "AC t� Q�� a E[ I w .•�SW=� .. ^ ,. «nn <^ a .. LL � a �=� nl'' "� c _� �1 • C9 _oe'"rLL Z!____-_-__ Q s =c W m1pa-== ---------. I >` Vis& €`- = Q� �\..� a u,.00 ' ' j Q<d.__g aiF C GtCt nI k"3" IL 0 0 0 0 0 a5�W€€�� �. Ni � NWS ©.o« � 4 Gandorf Tract B Wildridge PUD Amendment June 2009 Applicant: Phil Matsen & Buz Reynolds PO Box 7796 Avon, CO 81620 970.376.2766 pbmatsen@comcast.net Representative: Dominic Mauriello 5601 AWildridge Road Avon, CO 81620 Ph. 970.376.3318 dominic@mpgvail.com Architect: Michael Pukas MPP Design Shop Edwards, CO 81632 970.390.4931 michael@mppdesingshop.com Introduction The Gandorf Property is located at 2101 Saddle Ridge Loop /Tract B,Wildridge Subdivision. The parcel number is 1943-354-03-005. The property is identified on the Wildridge Subdivision Plat as Tract B, with an allowable land use of"Light Commercial (4 apartments)". The applicant is proposing to amend the PUD to allow for this property to be identified as residential, and allow for 4 dwelling units in the form of 2 duplexes. The amendment does not require an increase in overall density of Wildridge, but eliminates the allowable commercial uses on the site. The amendment results in a less intensive use for the site, while maintaining the same amount of dwelling units allowed by the PUD. The Gandorf Property is a previously platted, existing lot within the Wildridge PUD. The property is identified by the PUD as a more intensive use - "light commercial' - and therefore was previously reviewed for a much more intensive use than proposed with this amendment. "Light Commercial' allows for the following uses: Retail sales and commercial services uses limited to: • food • groceries • household and automotive items (limited to the sale of gasoline, oil, and related products, but not automotive repairs) • caretaker apartment units • municipal services The proposal would allow for 4 dwelling units, in the form of two duplexes. Both multiple -family and duplex 2 development are common in the vicinity. The units would be in the same ownership structure as a condominium project - the units would be individually owned, but the land would be under common ownership and under a common association. The units are relatively small, limited to approximately 1,498 sq. ft. (west units) and 1,888 sq. ft. (east units). The intention of the smaller unit sizes is to appeal to a local buyer, filling the "move -up" niche. Of the more than 500 units in Wildridge today, only 31 units are less than 1,500 sq. ft., and only 104 units are less than 1,888 sq. ft., indicating that this is a market that is lacking in the area. The project has been designed to maximize open space and views, while maintaining pedestrian access into the existing park. A 6 ft. pedestrian easement along the east side of the site has been provided for this purpose, along with an easement on the west side to allow for future mailboxes (should delivery of mail to Wildridge occur in the future.) The proposed amendment eliminates the commercial uses currently allowed on the site while maintaining the density allowed for the property. While the idea of a commercial use on this site is appealing to many Wildridge Residents, the practicality and viability of a commercial use in this low density residential neighborhood has to be considered. Generally, the uses allowed on the site currently might include a restaurant or coffee shop, a gas station, and a convenience store. All of these uses depend on a large population base and/or substantial drive-by traffic in order to be commercially viable. Wildridge is a low density development, isolated from the larger population base of Avon. Any commercial use located on Tract B will be entirely dependent on Wildridge residents for customers. It is not reasonable to believe that consumers from the greater Avon area would make the seven mile trip (14 miles round-trip) to frequent a neighborhood commercial use on this site. It would also not likely be desirable to the Wildridge community to have others adding traffic to the neighborhood. 3 Background The Town of Avon was incorporated in 1978, and Benchmark Properties created the Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions shortly thereafter. Subsequently, the Wildridge Subdivision was completely replatted in 1981. While many amendments have occurred since then, this background is intended to provide the history of Tract B and its designation as "light commercial." The language from the plat defines "light commercial" as follows: LTCHT COMMF.RrTAI, - RFTATL SALES ANP COMIE.RCIAL SERVICE USES LIMITED TO FOOD, CROCFRTES, H0D5FMOIP AND AII7040TIVE ITF45 LTMTTFD TO THF SAIF OF GASOLINE, OIL, ARU RFT.ATED PRODITCTS, RPT NOT ADTOMOTTVF RFP>TRS, PROVInF^ FOR T'IF CONVENIENCE OF ❑TLDRTPCF RFST^FNTS, THFIR �:ITITS, AND VTSTTORF; CARFTAVTP APARTMFNT '.iNTTS AND MI'VTCIPAI ';F-: YU'YS ARF T-1' -r-r LR LIGHT COMMERCIAL. The application for the Wildridge and Wildwood PUD outlined an objective to "create a variety of living spaces with full municipal services in a setting of quiet, uncrowded beauty and open space recreational opportunities" The concept originally included two commercial sites, one in Wildridge and one in Wildwood, each a country store. The commercial uses in Wildridge were described as follows: Other uses planned are a country store located near the main entrance to the subdivision for convenience of area residents, two park sites (a ten acre and half acre) are provided in the higher density area, and approximately 280 acres of open space and walking trails are available for outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, view, slope and drainage protection. The commercial uses in Wildwood were described as: Other uses planned are a rustic country store located in the northeastern area of highest density, four park sites... There are approximately 92 acres of openspace for walking trails, outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat and view, slope, and drainage protection. The focal point of Wildwood will be 12 acres of a very fine Country Club facility on a wooded ridge in the northeastern area of the property, adjacent to the Clubhouse will be an Olympic size swim pool and six to eight tennis courts. Both of these commercial facilities were described as ...For the convenience of area residents, two small, rustic "country stores" with groceries and necessities will be established. The Plan map shows the locations on main entry roads in both Sections and in conjunction with park sites. Tract P, the property designated as "light commercial" in Wildwood has since been incorporated into the Mountain Star PUD. The historical context of the original concept for the commercial lots within Wildridge and Wildwood are important to consider. City Market had not yet been constructed (1980). Beaver Creek had not yet opened (1980). Pizza Hut did not exist yet (1985), nor did either of the gas stations on Nottingham Road (1987 and 2002). Services within Avon were limited, and the idea of a small country store or local gas station was likely appropriate. In the thirty years following the original approval, the commercial uses within Avon grew exponentially, likely well -beyond anyone's original expectations. Now, all of the residents of Wildridge Gancdorf W;Id,r dqP PUO Amendrne.nt 4 pass multiple commercial uses on their way to anywhere, as opposed to driving into Vail for basic service as was the case in 1978. In addition to the commercial growth that occurred with the town center, various amendments have occurred to the Wildridge and Wildwood PUDs from their original adoption. The total combined approved density for Wildridge and Wildwood was 1,558 units on 1,361.48 acres. The Mountain Star PUD completely replaced the Wildwood PUD, drastically changing the character of the original concept, and reducing approved density from 932 units down to only 89 units, nearly a 90% reduction in density. This dramatically reduced the customer base which potentially could have used commercial services in this location. Within Wildridge, various amendments have reduced the overall density of the project, while many duplex -zoned lots were instead constructed as single-family units. Wildridge was approved for 824 units, which was amended in 1981 to 849 units, on 688 acres. This number does not include the "4 apartments" listed for Tract B, but the 4 apartments are clearly included on the land use table. The following table provides an analysis of the changes in density that have occurred since the original conception of the Wildridge PUD. Original 1981 Plat 2009 Density Submittal Actual 824 Units 849 Units 560 Units There are currently a total of 560 dwelling units located in Wildridgel. As a result, the potential commercial customer base of Wildridge is extremely limited. Of these 560 dwelling units, 153 of the units are owned by out -of -Valley residents. Because short term rental of units is prohibited in Wildridge, this severely limits the occupancy of these second homes. This equates to only 406 units owned by Vail Valley residents. With an average of 2.79 persons per household2 (including children), there is a total local, year-round population of 1,132 persons within Wildridge (this number excludes residents of the Wildwood neighborhood, which includes an additional 65 units, of which 53 are locally owned, equating to a population of 148 persons). Even at full build -out of 849 units, assuming similar second home ownership patterns, the potential year-round commercial customer base is limited to 1,660 persons. In the best case scenario, at full -buildout and 100% occupancy of all units, the maximum population of Wildridge could reach 2,370 persons. This population from which to draw customers is a limiting factor in the success of any commercial enterprise on Tract B. In addition to looking at population, commercial businesses look at average vehicle trips per day to determine appropriate locations for various commercial uses. The Town of Avon has done current and I Data from the Eagle County Assessor's Office. Second home vs. in -Valley ownership was determined by location of mailing address. Data was then verified with CO State Demographer estimates of vacancy rates which equates to approximately 30% in the Town of Avon. 2 The CO State Demographer estimates 2.79 persons per household in the Town of Avon. Gondorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 5 historical vehicle counts at various locations within the Town, including at the intersection of Wildwood and Metcalf Roads3. % Increase (+) or Year Number of Trips Decrease (-) from previous year 2002 3,525 2003 3,730 2004 3,580 2005 3,801 2006 3,769 2007 3,778 0% 2008 3,946 4% Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, at full potential buildout and assuming current occupancy trends, the maximum number of average daily trips going past Tract B is approximately 5,700 trips. Assuming full-time occupancy of all units, the maximum average daily trips could reach 7,000 trips past Tract B. To summarize this analysis: Tract B 2009 Current Analysis At Full Build -Out, Following Current Occupancy Trends (30% second home- ownership) Captured Average Daily Vehicle Trips Population 3,946 trips I,132 persons (based on current traffic count at Wildwood and Metcalf Roads) 1,660 persons 5,700 trips At Full Build -Out, assuming 100% full-time residency 2,370 persons 7,000 trips (absolute maximum) A 7-11 Free Standing Site with no gas (convenience store) requires a minimum of 25,000 vehicles per day passing the site. A BP gas station requires 30,000 vehicles per day passing the site and a population 3 From Avon Summer 2008 Traffic Count Summary, TDA Colorado Gondorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 6 of 18,000 within a 2 mile radius. The lack of vehicular traffic, coupled with limited population, makes Tract B commercially unfeasible as a potential location for a gas station or convenience store. There are some local precedents for a commercial use in the midst of a low-density residential neighborhood., including the following: • Cordillera Market • Balata at Singletree • Vista at Arrowhead • Spago at Bachelor Gulch • Summer Thyme at Red Sky Ranch All of the above have had varying degrees of success and have unique circumstances that may allow them to be more successful than others. Cordillera's market has been through four different proprietors in less than five years, includes a commercial kitchen for catering, and is heavily subsidized by the Cordillera home owners. The community includes near -by offices, golf courses, and a hotel, and has still not managed to be successful. Balata is part of the Singletree Gold Club and is also heavily subsidized by members. While one of the more successful examples, members of the club are required to spend a pre -determined amount of money at Balata, ensuring its success. Vista at Arrowhead is relatively new to the Arrowhead location (multiple restaurants have failed in this location in the past) and draws its customers from the golf club in the summer and ski resort in the winter. Spago at Bachelor Gulch is within the Ritz Carlton located at the bottom of a busy ski resort, and even then, this location has been difficult for its predecessors. Summer Thyme at Red Sky Ranch is also part of the Golf Club and is only open during the golf season. Members heavily subsidize the restaurant In conclusion, Tract B is not viable as a commercial site for the following reasons as outlined above: Competition by commercial uses within the town center of Avon. There is a clear reason that businesses locate within a central business district (other than zoning requirements) - commercial uses feed on other commercial uses. It allows customers to minimize and piggy -back their vehicle trips. As an example, a person can stop for lunch at Columbine Bakery before grocery shopping at City Market. In addition, these uses are centrally located, convenient to access by all residents of Avon, and able to pull customers from 1-70 and Highway 6. To compete, commercial uses on Tract B would have to become a destination use, which is highly unlikely. 2. lack of potential commercial customers. The low-density residential character of Wildridge simply means there are not enough customers to support commercial uses. Even at maximum buildout with 100% local occupancy, the population would not support a commercial use on this site. 3. Lack of vehicular trips. All of the commercial uses allowed on Tract B require drive-by traffic for customers. There is simply not enough traffic to sustain commercial uses on the site, especially for a gas station or convenience store. All Wildridge traffic must pass two convenience stores on Nottingham Road already. 4. Lack of compatibility with the neighborhood. Because they are a higher intensity use than residential uses, there are substantial impacts that occur with commercial uses. Increased traffic, t loading and delivery vehicles, large surface parking lots, trash storage and removal, etc., all have detrimental impacts to the adjacent residential properties. Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 7 Town of Avon Process for Amendment to PUD Section 17.20.1 10 of the Town of Avon Zoning Regulations guide the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning designation. Because Wildridge is an established PUD, the applicable section to this application is the following: (k) Amendment procedures. (1) Amendments. Requests for amendments to an approved Planned Unit Development District shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures described above. Amendments that propose substantial changes to land use in connection to existing development agreements and development plans as outlined in Chapter 17.14 of this Code may require additional information and/or development agreements and amendment to development plans. (2) Owners of all property requesting the amendment, or their agents or authorized representatives, shall sign the application. Notification of the proposed amendment shall be made to owners of all property adjacent to the property requesting the proposed amendment, owners of all property adjacent to the PUD and owners of all property within the PUD that may be affected by the proposed amendment (as determined by the Community Development Department). As indicated above, the amendment section actually refers back to the process for establishing a PUD. The submittal requirements that apply to all new PUD applications and any proposed amendments include the following: Submittal Requirement Application form and filing fee Response Submitted A written statement describing the nature of the project, to include information on Submitted proposed uses, densities, nature of the development proposed, contemplated ownership patterns and phasing plans A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor (no older than three [3] years from the date of Submitted application) indicating existing conditions of the property to be included, to include the location of improvements, existing contour lines, natural features, existing vegetation, watercourses and perimeter property lines of the parcel A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed development, to include a square Submitted footage or density breakdown of all proposed uses and parking.Where a structure or building exists, a complete set of plans depicting the existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations), if applicable A vicinity plan showing the proposed improvements in relation to all properties at a Submitted scale not smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet. For projects larger than two (2) acres in size, the appropriate scale shall be determined by the Community Development Department Evidence of available utilities, such as water and sewer service, as provided Submitted Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 8 Submittal Requirement Response Proposed site plan showing the approximate locations and dimensions of buildings, or Submitted approximate building envelopes and all principal site development structures or features. For projects less than two (2) acres in size, the plan shall be prepared at a scale not smaller than one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet. For projects larger than two (2) acres in size, the appropriate scale shall be determined by the Community Development Department. In addition to the above -referenced required submittal requirements, the following additional items may be required as determined necessary: Discretionary Submittal Items Response Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than one- Submitted eighth (%) inch equals one (1) foot in sufficient detail to determine floor areas, circulation, location of uses and general scale and appearance of the proposed development Photo overlays and/or other acceptable techniques for demonstrating a visual analysis of the proposed development in relationship to existing conditions A site -massing model depicting the proposed development in relationship to development on adjacent parcels Environmental impact report Preliminary drainage analysis and grading plans Economic model of the proposed uses and densities where an application proposes uses that may impact the ability of the Town to provide adequate public services Not necessary due to scale of project Not necessary due to scale of project Approved with o r i g i n a I submission To be provided (also approved with original submission) Not necessary due to scale of project Any additional material or information as deemed necessary for proper review of the N/A proposed PUD or PUD amendment Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 9 PUD Criteria The criteria for the establishment of a PUD are addressed below. As the proposed amendments are generally minor changes to the approved PUD, many of the criteria are somewhat irrelevant to the scale of the proposed amendment The Town's code does not contain special criteria for an amendment to the 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 consistent with the public interest has been achieved. (1) Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, Applicant Response: The following goals and objectives from the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan are those that apply directly to the application submitted. C. Land Uses Goal CA: Provide a balance of land uses that offers a range of housing options, diverse commercial and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations, and high quality civic and recreational facilities, working in concert to strengthen Avon's identity as both a year-round residential community and as a commercial, tourism and economic center. Policy C.1.1: Ensure that proposed development and redevelopment projects conform to the Future Land Use Plans designations and are a scale and intensity appropriate for the planning district in which they are located. Policy C.1.2: Ensure each development contributes to a healthy jobs/housing balance in the Town and surrounding area. Policy C.1.3: Focus lodging and guest accommodation in the Town Center Districts to take advantage of the proximity to retail, commercial and other community services. Policy 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. Policy C.1.7: Encourage development applicants to meet with adjacent residents, businesses, and property owners prior to and during design, planning, and application phases. This will allow applicants to identify concerns and propose strategies for addressing them. The Future Land Use Map designates this property as "Low Density Residential" which is defined as follows: Mixed Use GNUIwblic _ Regional commercial Neighborhood cormwcial JI Light industrial commercial OF.,Pace _ Park Residential - high density Nesldennal- medium density Residential - low density Q Town ofAvvn boundary 7Av N J Corporate boundary Parcel I® water Gandorf '✓Vildridce PUL)Amendrr <nr 10 Residential Low Density — Areas designated for residential low density are intended to provide sites for single- family; duplex, and multifamily dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5 dwelling units per acre. This is in contrast to the "Neighborhood Commercial" designation, which is defined as follows: Neighborhood Commercial — 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. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan's Low Density Residential designation for this property. In addition, the current PUD designation of the site is inconsistent and contrary to the Future Land Use Plan. Goal C.2: Ensure that Avon continues to develop as a community of safe, interactive, and cohesive neighborhoods that contribute to the Town's overall character and image. Policy C.2.1: Promote a wide range of residential uses including single family, duplex, multifamily, and vertically integrated residential units (housing on the upper floors of mixed-use commercial buildings) throughout the town. Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety of housing densities, styles, and types based upon the findings of a housing needs assessment study. Policy C.2.3: Require pedestrian, bike, and automobile connections, where appropriate, between proposed and existing residential neighborhoods. The use of multiple access points, traffic calming devices, and/or street design standards will be employed to minimize cut through traffic. Applicant Response: Wildridge is currently a low-density residential neighborhood, with a broad mix of uses, ranging from single-family to multi -family dwellings of various sizes. The proposal is to continue this successful mix of development by constructing 2 small duplexes on Tract B. These units will be condominiumized so that the area surrounding the units will be under common ownership and therefore act more like a multiple -family development The access point has been designed to coordinate with the curb cut directly across the street to minimize vehicular conflicts. Finally, a 6 ft. pedestrian easement will be provided along the east to provide a connection into the park. An easement has also been provided near the common property line with the fire station to allow for future community mailboxes. Goal C.3: Use mixed-use development to create a more balanced, sustainable system of land uses. Policy C.3.1: Require vertical and/or horizontal mixed-use development to occur in those areas Gondorf Wildridqe PUO Amendment 11 identified in the Future Land Use Plan for mixed-use to enhance the Town's ability to respond to changing market conditions. Applicant Response: This goal applies to this project precisely because the existing PUD commercial designation for this site is contrary to the goal stated above. Neither this site specifically, nor this neighborhood as a whole, are designated for mixed use by the Future Land Use Plan. The proposed amendment will make this site consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Goal C.4: Encourage sustainable commercial development that enhances Avon's overall economic health, contributes to the community's image and character, and provides residents and visitors with increased choices and services. Policy C.4.2: Require future commercial businesses, when appropriate, to cluster buildings and to provide publicly accessible amenities. Policy C.4.3: Encourage neighborhood retail and service activities in locations that are convenient to residential neighborhoods. Require such development to provide pedestrian connections to adjacent development and to existing and proposed trail systems. Applicant Response: While the idea of a commercial use on this site may appeal to many Wildridge residents, the key term used within Goal CA is "sustainable:' Wildridge clearly lacks the population to serve a commercial establishment on this site. The lack of other commercial businesses within the vicinity also severely inhibits the site's ability to be a viable commercial establishment (i.e. critical mass). D. Community Character Goal DA: Ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with existing and planned adjacent development and contributes to Avon's community image and character. Policy D.1.1: Encourage creative, forward -thinking development consistent with adopted plans. Polity D.1.2: Ensure that development and redevelopment responds appropriately to adjacent development. Polity D.1.3: Restrict large surface parking areas that directly abut local streets. If a large surface parking area is located next to a local street, use berms, plant materials of varying height, or other materials to buffer and screen these parking areas. Policy D.1.4: Create a unified and cohesive physical framework and community image by ensuring compatible building orientation, scale, massing, siting, street alignments, streetscape furnishings, signage, lighting, etc. Applicant Response: The proposal for 4 dwelling units on this site is consistent with adopted plans and the existing character of the neighborhood. Commercial uses on Tract B would require significant surface parking, and would be incompatible with the adjacent uses in the neighborhood. Commercial uses would introduce added traffic, trash removal, exhaust fumes, and other common impacts not typically found in a residential neighborhood. E. Economic Development Goal E.1: Ensure that there is a positive environment for small businesses. Policy E.1.1: Conduct a retail analysis to identify specific opportunities to increase retail expenditures within Avon, to reduce sales tax migration to other nearby communities, and to supporta year-round retail_mix. Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 12 Policy E.1.2: Permit home occupations and live/work opportunities where there is minimal negative impact to the neighborhood to reduce traffic/commuting impacts in the community and provide affordable options for local entrepreneurs. Policy E.1.3: Encourage small business incubators to support local entrepreneurs. Applicant Response: There will be nothing prohibiting home occupations for live/work opportunities with the proposed four dwelling units on Tract B. As previously shown, a commercial/business use on this site is not commercially sustainable. Goal F.1: Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse segments of the population. Policy F.1.1: Establish policies and programs, as further detailed under Goal F.2., which will address housing needs identified in a periodic housing needs assessment. The Area Median Income (AMI) ranges, as periodically updated by Eagle County, shall be used to establish the affordability of a housing unit when evaluating the mitigation rate required of any development associated with a rezoning application or Planned Unit Development (PUD), or any combination thereof. Policy F.1.2: Encourage private development that provides a diversity of housing types, sizes, architectural styles, and prices ranges appropriate for local working families. Applicant Response: The units have been designed to appeal to a local working family. The units are small in size, ranging from approximately 1,498 sq. ft to 1,888 sq.ft The intent is to make the units more affordable to locals without the need for a deed restriction. Goal F.2: Provide an attainable housing program that incorporates both rental and ownership opportunities, affordable for local working families, that are attractive, safe, and integrated amongst the community. Policy F.2.1: Require that development, annexations, and major redevelopment includes or otherwise provides for attainable housing. Policy F.2.2: Calculate the impact generated by varying types of land use and development, specifically, commercial and residential linkage calculations. The most recent data available, as periodically updated by Eagle County and the State will be used in this regard. Alternative methods of providing attainable housing, including but not limited to: payment -in -lieu; land dedications; and public-private partnerships, may also be considered. Policy F.2.3: Ensure that attainable housing mitigation is applied at the most appropriate rate and is derived with full consideration of all other public benefits, as contemplated by the public benefits criteria referenced in Section 17.28.085 (AMC), provided by any proposal found to be subject to the rezoning and PUD criteria. Polity F2.4: Require that attainable housing be integrated within large developments and the Town as a whole, rather than separated from the rest of the community, including such units proposed with other developments, and done so in a positive manner. Policy F.2.5: Require attainable housing to be within close proximity to existing services and development, serviced by transit (including bike and pedestrian paths), and close to schools/child care. Policy F.2.6: Require minimum, 'live -able" dwelling unit size and quality standards for all attainable housing provided as part of any development or redevelopment agreements to achieve a diverse range of housing types. Such standards shall be proposed at the time a Gandorf Wiidridge PUD Amendment 13 rezoning application is brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a formal recommendation to Council. Policy F.2.7: Adhere to the principle of "no net loss" of attainable housing. Policy F.2.8: Deed restrictions, including, but not limited to: Residency and employment qualifications, price appreciation caps, capital improvement, ownership & rental restrictions shall be determined and implemented at the time a redevelopment application is reviewed, on a project -by -project basis, based on factors such as location, topography, and land use type(s). Applicant Response: This project is not a major development or redevelopment, but a change in allowable uses on the property. the character of the proposed use, small residential units, lends itself to the step-up residential market without the need for deed restrictions. I. Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Goal 1.1: Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the year-round leisure needs of area residents and visitors. Policy 1.1.1: Require new residential and resort developments to incorporate recreational amenities that are accessible to the public. Policy 1.1.2: Continue to evaluate and acquire parcels or easements for open space, trails, and recreation. Policy 1.1.4: Require new annexations and developments to include or otherwise contribute to land for trails, open space, and recreation purposes. Applicant Response: The Wildridge PUD was approved and developed with open space and park areas, including this one adjacent to this property. The project includes a pedestrian easement to provide a linkage across the property into the adjacent park to allow for convenient access of other residents in the neighborhood. (2) Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the subarea design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town, Applicant Response: The future development on the site will be reviewed and approved by the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission for compliance with the overall design theme of the town, sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines. The design of the buildings is intended to be consistent with the neighborhood, including the existing fire station. The materials are compatible with the materials used within Wildridge. (3) Design compatibility with the immediate environment neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height buffer zones, character and orientation, Applicant Response: The proposed development plan is compatible and complimentary to the neighborhood and adjacent properties. The site, because it is surrounded on 3 sides by roadways, has a 25 ft. setback on three sides, creating a compact and efficient building envelope. The height of the buildings has been designed to allow for a 2 -story building on the front facing Old Trail Road, with a 2.5 to 3 story building off the back facing the park, minimizing the appearance of the heights of the structures. The units are small, ranging from 1,498 sq. ft. to 1,888 sq. ft., allowing for a project complimentary in scale and bulk to the neighboring Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 14 properties, which range from multiple -family buildings of up to 6 units, down to duplex and single family dwellings. This section of Wildridge is a true mixture of residential structures. There are many examples of duplex structures along side multiple family structures. (4) Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity, Applicant Response: The adjacent properties include the following uses: W11 q_M Ili Lot Use 101 - Ski VistaTH 6 units 17 - CliffroseTH 4 units 18 - Falcon TH 4 units 16 - Saddleridge at Avon Condo 5 units I - Rocking Horse Ridge 10 units 2 - Claivan 6 units Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 15 Lot Use 3 - Suncrest Condos 4 units Tract B 4 units The property is surrounded by residential uses on the east, west, and north, and the fire station and park to the south. The area includes many multiple family projects, ranging from 10 units to 4 units, and then interspersed within the multiple -family projects are many duplex units. The project is compatible with the surrounding uses, activity, and density. (5) Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed, Applicant Response: There are no natural or geologic hazards on the site. (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; Applicant Response: Because the site is surrounded by roads, it has a 25 ft. setback on three property lines. This allows for a design that has a minimal building envelope and maintains significant open space on the site. Site coverage is only 17% of the lot area. Rather than a four- plex, two duplexes have been designed to allow for a break between the two buildings, allowing for views through the property. Having two smaller structures also allows for a reduced appearance of building mass. (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; Applicant Response: The site circulation has been designed to allow for access off of Old Trail Road. This access point aligns with the access for the Ski Vista Townhomes directly across the street. The modification from commercial to residential minimizes the vehicular trips to and from this site, a benefit to the entire neighborhood. (8) Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function; Applicant Response: The site has been designed to maximize views, along with providing"a view corridor between the buildings. A pedestrian easement has been provided along the site to allow for access into the adjacent park. (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; Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 16 Applicant Response: The project will not be phased as all four dwelling units will be constructed at the same time. (10) Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks and police and fire protection; Applicant Response: Four dwelling units are currently allowed on the subject property and there is no increase in the allowable number of dwelling units proposed with this amendment The amendment actually reduces the intensity of uses on the site based on the current allowable uses, which includes a gas station. Because there is no change to the proposed density, the public services are adequate to serve the four dwelling units. Adequacy of public facilities was evaluated when the original PUD was approved. (11) That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. Applicant Response: The proposal to convert the property from a high intensity use, such as a gas station or community store, to residential will serve to decrease the anticipated traffic associated with this property. Four apartment units are currently permitted on the site, and the proposed amendment maintains this total number of dwelling units for the site. By eliminating the allowable commercial uses, there will be fewer trips generated to the property. The existing streets and roads are suitable to carry the residential traffic associated with the development of this site, as this traffic has always been anticipated. (12) That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions of the Zoning Code as specified in Section 17.28.085. Applicant Response: Up until this point in this report, the analysis has been based on the idea that Tract B is not viable for commercial uses. A new analysis and argument will be provided assuming that Tract B could be viable for the commercial uses allowed on the site, including a gas station, a convenience/grocery store, restaurant and coffee shop to evaluate the impacts of those uses. The impacts of these uses are of important consideration to the review of this application. Tract B is .38 acres, or 16,552 sq. ft. For argument's sake, a 2,000 sq. fc commercial building is assumed with 4 apartments located above the commercial use. A building of this size is equivalent to the size of the shop of the Phillips 66 on Nottingham Road. Any commercial use on this site will have a parking requirement based on the Town of Avon Zoning Regulations, which depending on the use, ranges from 4 (gas station) to 16 spaces (coffee shop). In addition to the commercial parking requirement, there is an additional requirement for 10 spaces for the residential use allowed. A large surface parking lot will be required for commercial development on Tract B. A successful commercial establishment could have detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties and completely change the residential character of the area. In all possible commercial cases, the amount of traffic to and from the site will increase dramatically. A large surface parking lot will be required, and will likely need to include lighting for safety. Loading Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 17 and delivery is required for any commercial use on the site, requiring large trucks to access the property. Deliveries are typically made early in the morning. Use Parking Average Daily Additional impacts Spaces Trips Generated Associated with Use Required (from ITE) S h o p p i n g a n d 8 spaces 204 trips Loading and delivery Convenience Goods Trash storage and removal Retail Restaurant/Coffee 16 spaces 254 trips Loading and delivery Shop Trash storage and removal Commercial kitchen venting Large Parking lot Gas Station 4 spaces 651 trips Parking does not include area for gas pumps 4 apartments 10 spaces 26 trips The public purpose provisions of the Town Code, Section 17.28.085 are as follows: (1) The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. (2) 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. (3) 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. Commercial uses on Tract B would have detrimental impacts to the surrounding property owners. While there may be some in the neighborhood who would love a restaurant or a coffee shop near -by, the impacts of a commercial establishment also need to be considered, including a large surface parking lot, large truck delivery of goods, trash, commercial kitchen venting systems, etc. A residential use on this site will clearly provide a public benefit or purpose by eliminating these negative impacts of a commercial use on Tract B. The proposal to eliminate commercial uses is consistent with the Town of Avon Master Plan, most specifically the Future Land Use Plan, which designates this property as Low Density Residential and not as Neighborhood Commercial. Therefore, the existing allowable commercial uses on Tract B are in direct violation of the Future Land Use Plan. Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment m The proposed change in use, a down -zoning of the property, provides social benefits by eliminating adverse impacts associates with commercial uses located in the middle of a low density residential area. The application eliminates a use that has little opportunity for success. The flexibility afforded in the approval of this application will allow an appropriate use of the land and at an appropriate intensity. The proposed uses will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses and create consistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Gandorf Wifdridge PUO Amendment 19 Preliminary Plan Criteria The criteria for a preliminary plan are provided below. A preliminary plan is generally required when a property is subdivided. In the Gandorf Tract B situation, the property is already platted as Tract B of the Wildridge Subdivision, and therefore some of the criteria are not necessarily applicable to this application. (1) The Comprehensive Plan Applicant Response: A complete analysis of the Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the section above. As indicated in the analysis, this proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. (2) For Planned Una Developments, the relevant Planned Unit Development Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, as reflected in the approval of that Planned Unit Development Applicant Response: A complete analysis of the original Planned Unit Development Master Plan has been provided in the section above. It is important to note that conditions have changed dramatically from the original 1979 concept of the Wildridge and Wildwood PUDs. (3) Physical suitability of lots proposed for subdivision Applicant Response: Because this is a previously platted lot and there are no changes proposed to the lot boundaries, this criteria is not applicable to this proposal. (4) Compatibility with surrounding land uses. Applicant Response: A complete analysis of the surrounding land uses has been provided in the previous section. As the analysis indicates, the surrounding land uses consist of a variety of residential uses, ranging from much larger multiple -family projects to small single-family developments. The adjacent fire station and park use are compatible with the residential uses proposed on this site. Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 20 Zoning Analysis The Wildridge PUD does not provide development standards beyond setback requirements. For comparison, the development standards of Residential Low Density have been included. However, the Wildridge PUD only regulates setbacks and there are no standards for height, site coverage, landscape area,etc. Standard Lot Size Site Coverage East West Allowed 10,890 sf / .25 acre 8,276 sf (50%) Landscape Area 4,138 sf (25%) Proposed 16,553 sf / .38 acres (existing) 2,856 sf (17%) 1,662 sf (10%) 1,194 sf (7%) 9,117 sf (55%) GRFA unlimited 6,772 sf East 3,776 sf West 2,996 sf Garage Area unlimited 1,226 sf East 758 sf West 468 sf Parking 10 spaces 10 spaces East 6 spaces 6 spaces West 4 spaces 4 spaces Setbacks 25 ft. front 25 ft. on east, north, west 10 ft. side and rear 10 ft. on south Gandorf Wildridge PUD Amendment 21 wo3•doysuB!s9pddW@j9Dyo!w l£bb-06£ (OL6) o L£9 L9 00 'wnsdAE) GOD!d GUOIsmOII!M 96 99Z x09 Od out 'dous ubisap ddw ■ Vi Ioo, 1]ET1 OZ919 00 'uony dool a6p!b aIPPDS 10 JZ l 401 '9 40DJI 9 40DJI POPUDE) 07 9 PO4 PopugO ' U NOp N U M M .O 0 00 °_ 00 O Q .� CL m M ° Q Lu O O a rn J N �..a) `oo i V),U y m 3 a LO O @� ^1 U_ Q Q Q �u o CD0 E w 0 w W h N 06M .o ,:r N 'O LO � 00 i -Lr,) 5 a o U 0 x0 CL 0 0 — _v_I W a. Lu � 4.C) E t Q. O co u L U � +- J O m C •� N L j^�—` •� 00 -- _ W^ U o O N 0 ON N N �o �O L. � [ 1 N 0O C N LO L .� N Oi C _ _ (� } 2) 0 O `� ^ U -0O 00 U `r � �I�0—�?r-t cO ° �M�O� �O. ° — N�M� �_ °° �a�°°, L UU 0 a �—�EDo 0 0 m 0 03 ,,nn cc 75 x a cV Q V� Q Q vi � U G m OcL Q D E ;n a � o IL yi L N 4)ll- W Lu V mcc rn J 4 Q L l31 y m Q �u o CD0 E w 0 w W h N 06M .o ,:r N 'O LO � 00 i -Lr,) 5 a o U 0 x0 CL 0 0 — _v_I W a. Lu � 4.C) E t Q. O co u L U � +- J O m C •� N L j^�—` •� 00 -- _ W^ U o O N 0 ON N N �o �O L. � [ 1 N 0O C N LO L .� N Oi C _ _ (� } 2) 0 O `� ^ U -0O 00 U `r � �I�0—�?r-t cO ° �M�O� �O. ° — N�M� �_ °° �a�°°, L UU 0 a �—�EDo 0 0 m 0 03 ,,nn cc 75 x a cV Q V� Q Q vi � U G m OcL Q D E woo•doysu6lsapddw®j9oyolw l£611-06£ (OL6) D OZ918 00 'uony I L£9 18 00 'wnsd/(O dool 96pia appos IOIZT— u U aoo�d auoIsn OMM 96 1401 '9 UDO E m 99Z X09 Od 8 }oo�l }�opuo0 r •ouj ,dot4s ubisap ddwOil 9 10 Oji JJopubE) . -N VV� d tu m� w m t �m z LU .OS) OdO21 39011NO11M O 4-1 VJ N 4-1 O ,n� V nn� !J� dLLL z d VV� d tu m� w m t �m z LU m co m (n Ni �d< < d N IV <ILU d m z �m z LU .OS) OdO21 39011NO11M NmN N T� c ( M'O'd ,OS) dOO1 39QIZI 310Q'v'S N 0 G7' NmN N T� c ( M'O'd ,OS) dOO1 39QIZI 310Q'v'S N 0 II II II � fik•n I I .� I �. I. - \/ A..- woo•doysu6isepddw®le0yolw a s 1£6V-06£ IOLM O OZ9 Le 00 'UOny L£919 00 'wnsd (O 9001d 0004sMOIIIM 96 dool e6plb 9IPPOS IOIZ l 401 '91001 r� eO s ubisa ddu e�l��budo oil oqa1�oPubJ T -T trC i trf trJi i II II II � fik•n I I .� I �. I. - \/ T—T T—..< tr¢ s= C CU >u, ------=---I---h— - - ��------ 7 �I I I I -I I I �-----------------_------1•-7 &— – — – – i I II II I II I I II L------------ sm�:::sm I I 11 m I II II I II m t I I II t I I II I II m --- -----------------� -- AI l-— — m I I I -I I I -�— 11 I II I II i II I II I I 11 I I II I 11 I I I II I II I II I II I II I II I I 11 I I II 1 II I II I I II I II I II ---------u-----------------1—JI tra tr,< a t� A..- JV trJ� mC<U U T—T T—..< tr¢ s= C CU >u, ------=---I---h— - - ��------ 7 �I I I I -I I I �-----------------_------1•-7 &— – — – – i I II II I II I I II L------------ sm�:::sm I I 11 m I II II I II m t I I II t I I II I II m --- -----------------� -- AI l-— — m I I I -I I I -�— 11 I II I II i II I II I I 11 I I II I 11 I I I II I II I II I II I II I II I I 11 I I II 1 II I II I I II I II I II ---------u-----------------1—JI tra tr,< a t� N A..- ou trJ. m U N woo-dot4su6isepddw@19ot4oiw IC6b-06C (OLM 3 L£919 00 'wnsd/,E) 9301d 01-104MOIHM 96 99z X09 Od cul ,dogs u5isep ddw II OZ9 18 00'UOAV dool er)p!N 81PPDS [OLZ L 401'9 4OD11 9 40011 POPUDO oil q 130Ji:POPUO0 ON (D- L70M •d �gg.-' 411111 '11' L OZ9 18 00'UOAV dool er)p!N 81PPDS [OLZ L 401'9 4OD11 9 40011 POPUDO oil q 130Ji:POPUO0 ON (D- L70M woo•doysu6is9pddw®jaoyoiw' IM-06£(OLM 0 OZ9ISOZ) 'uony g m LE9IS OO'wnsdlo dool abpia eippos IOtZ 9001d auoIsM0111M 96 l 401's 4013,11 a 9,9� O�uIdo us u5isa ddw �l�8 oil i0pU0 LL � 00 o m 0 00 u -0) n aw ane as w�< ow awe ac .«� C r—_—_ - 0 0____ I — - I I I a II� _ —v �� 1 _ I J N L— _ 1jrg, Nteg ' LLu10. ag -. ------ I r—i---- -----n I II I -----\I I ! ( I I L I �L_t _ i C - , ca O aw ane as w -s LL ar%�� awc ar n -s u - J m 0 •'-1 �' J OD �J L. N U CO 0- o m o 00 m U 0 lJ o m o r------------------ir----------, I II I II I I —, I I 0 I II I I II I II I I II I I I II I I I I II I I I II I II I I I I I � I I 1 I I I I I IL — L ------------------------ b�- t �— p I I I I I I I t I I I 1 C -- - I I II I I I I II I I e I I I n II II I I I I I 1 I II I I I I II I II I II I I 1 I I I I C I II I I L__________________ -JL__________- __J --------------- .� I I I I I I 00 m U 0 lJ o m o woo•doysu6!sepddw@l9oyo!w L£6q-06£ (OL6) 0 L£9 L8 00 'wnsdAE) Goold auolsnwll!M 96 NZ X09 Od out ,dogs ul5isep ddw � I I I Ivn.o.o.rnom�eaa� y0 t;0 o a 11 m!mlmlttilm t t I 5 d� OZ9 L9 00 'uony dool 96p!b GIPPOS 10 LZ L 101'9 JODJJ 91001 POpuoO 37 9 Pbal JJopupO I w3 :a �d I I 1 w U Eo II as II I z —J rts,, �•s 1 f, � I I I I , 0 I Lu as I O Tract B, Wildridge Application Exhibit D Matt Gennett From: Matt Gennett Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:51 AM To: Dominic Mauriello Subject: FW: Tract B, Wildridge Application From: Ryan Wolffe [mailto:ryanw@sriarchitect.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:49 PM To: Matt Gennett Subject: FW: Tract B, Wildridge Application Matt, I am a full time resident of Wildridge and work for the Architect Shepherd Resource, Inc. I am hesitant to support the down -zoning of the property referenced below. The only reservation I have is that Wildridge would be giving up the only remaining commercial property should future needs change. I believe the Owner is making decisions based on current economic conditions which would of course make any commercial solution there financial suicide. There is one circumstance that would change my mind to be fully against this proposal. That would be if there were a new fire department built somewhere near Pizza Hut, which would render the firestation in Wildridge unnecessary. At that point, I would like to see the firestation land and the adjacent Tract B combined into one project that contained housing, commercial and community functions. I am not in support of the design of the site or buildings being proposed. I have concerns about the proposed Site Plan as it appears visibility will be further reduced when making a left turn onto Wildridge Road from Old Trail Road. The applicant has told me that they think this will not be an issue as few cars make this left turn. I would argue that enough cars make that left turn to be of concern, especially as downhill traffic has no stop sign. Additionally, I have concern that these buildings will be "affordable" housing, which will tend to attract owners and/or their renters who might not show as much care for their home, yard or community. This is of special concern as this property is located at the main entrance of the residential section of Wildridge. If these conditions were improved I would further consider supporting the downzoning. It is not clear from the Site Plan, but I would be opposed if the "proposed public access easement to park" were to be the only access to the park in the future. Thank you, Ryan Wolffe 2461A Saddleridge Loop Avon, CO 81620 From: Dominic Mauriello [mallto:dominic@mpgvail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:14 PM To: Dominic Mauriello 7/31/2009 Tract B, Wildridge Application MattGannett From: Mad Gannon Bard: Monday, by 27, 2009 8.5o AM To: D=W-Mairleac Subject RE: Trap B. Wididae Application From: Gardner, John M. [mal o0MCW*W*HHIAW.mm) Sent: Tuesday, hay 21, 2003 312 PM Tm moerreftilowaxxg. Cc: Dominic Maudido Subject: RE: Tract B, Wi161dge ApcAMU n Page 1 of 1 Dear Matt - - On the subject discussed In Dominic Maudelio's message below, my wife and l aro In agreement that the proposed downzone of Tract 8 to residential Is of considerable public benefit We now live at 5723 Wlldddge Road Eas4 but forseveral years lived across the street from the subject property, and at that time we were concerned that the tract could be developed for commercial purposes, with the attendant frafRc, parking and nolse Issues. We highly recommend your approval of the proposed change In zoning and plan approval. Thanksil Jack Gardner Hogan &Hanson Direct:903 899.7980 Homs Offiror970•949-0949 Mobile: 970876.1348 From: Dwranic MaurkBo [mallto:dorNNc0ffWVe9.mm) Sent: Tuesday, hay 21, 2009 3:19 PM To: OomI* Mauddo Subject: Tract B, wildklge A Botkn HI 1 am writing you as you may have expressed some support for the down toning of the Wildridge panel located adjacent to the Fire House (Tran B). As the attached submittal document explains in detail, the property today allows for a variety of commercial uses In addition to four dwelling units/apartments. The proposed application seeks to timmone the property to allow for two duplex structures with limited floor area. The project proposes an access easement to the adjacent park and an easement for future community mailboxes. 1 would like to Impose on you to send a quick email to Matt Genneu, Manning Manager for the Town of Avon, to express your support for the change In use and the proposal as two duplex structures To the extent you agree, If you could state that the down zoning Is public benefit to the Wildridge neighborhood that would be helpful as well. Matt's email address IsA staff report is due out next week on the project. If you have any questions, please give me a al. If you don't wish to send an email of support, I understand that as well. Thanks, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Maudello planning Group, LLC PO Box 1127 5601A Wildridge Road Avon, Colorado 81620 970.3763318 mB www.mpgvail.com •101F a101LAW.0010• made the following armotatlana. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TAX AOvICIs DISCAIIHER: Under applicable U.S. Treasury Regulations, we are rewired to inform you that any U.B. tax advice contained in this This electronic message transmission contains Information from this law firm which may be confidential or privileged. The information is lot If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone 1N-202-637-56001 or by electronic mall IPostAaste 7/31/2009 ITINM •, To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Justin Hildreth, P.E., Town Engineer Date: July 29, 2009 Re: Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan Summary: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Plan) is an important tool to assess and project the current and future status of the vehicular, bicycle, transit, and pedestrian infrastructure and experience for the Town of Avon. The most recent Transportation Master Plan was completed in 1990 and updated in 1996, prior to the construction of the Avon Road roundabouts and the annexation of the Village at Avon. Also, over the last few years, the Town adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, the Town Center West Investment Plan, and the East Town Center District Plan; as a result, the previous Transportation Master Plan does not reflect the current status, growth, and future vision of the Town. The Plan analyzes the existing transportation network and recommends improvements that will be required to accommodate the build -out of Avon. The Plan indicates that the existing road network is adequate to serve vehicular traffic but the pedestrian and transit network will require numerous improvements. Because of the size and complexity of the Plan, it is being presented to Planning and Zoning Commission in two parts. Chapter 1, Roadway System and Chapter 2, Bicycle and Pedestrian System of the Plan was presented by Charles Buck of Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig on July 21, 2009. Chapter 3, Transit System will be presented to Planning and Zoning Commission on August 4, 2009. The Plan is currently scheduled to be presented to Town Council on August 11, 2008. Staff is requesting that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to Town Council to adopt the Plan at the end of the August 4 hearing. Discussion: The previous Transportation Plans do not reflect the current philosophy of Avon and were primarily automobile -focused, resulting in poor pedestrian connectivity and inadequate accommodation of alternate transportation modes. The Plan will provide a transportation planning document aligning with the transit and pedestrian -oriented ideals contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan and Town Center West Investment Plan. The scope of work of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes the following items: • Data Compilation and Collection: turning movements at all key intersections, supplemental traffic counts, existing roadway physical characteristics, traffic reports and land use data, and existing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facility inventories • Analysis of Existing Conditions: modeling for Levels of Service (LOS) for Traffic and Transit facilities, analysis of existing parking inventories and land use data, and analysis of the existing trail/sidewalk network • Analysis of Future Conditions: development of long-term traffic and LOS projections and evaluation of potential improvements based on results, analysis of future transit ridership, service levels, and related land use resulting in future route and capital recommendations, analysis of future parking demands, analysis of future pedestrian facilities and trail enhancements or additions • Traffic Calming: analysis of locations where calming measures could be implemented to mitigate pedestrian safety issues • New Town Standards: aid in the development of new roadway cross sections and traffic impact study guidelines for eventual codification In summary, the roadway system in Avon will accommodate the projected future traffic volumes. However, US 6 will require widening to four through lanes. Numerous pedestrian and bicycle improvements are required throughout Avon to improve the non -vehicular transportation system. July 21, 2009 Hearing Response Numerous comments were received by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the July 21, 2009 and are summarized below along with a response describing how the comment is addressed in the Plan: 1. A bicycle connection must be made to Wildridge. The Plan includes a bike climbing lane on Metcalf Road from Nottingham Road to Old Trail Road which will connect to the existing bike/pedestrian lanes in Wiidridge. In addition, the project is included in the CIP 5 -year plan. 2. Why have future build -out turning movements not been provided for the Nottingham Road/Swift Gulch Road/Metcalf Road areas? The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate additional development or different land uses in these areas, therefore Staff did not feel that this data was necessary. Traffic Counts are collected in these areas on an annual basis and will be included in the Plan prior to presentation to Town Council. 3. Additional data is required between Nodes 9 and 10. Tuming movements at this intersection have been projected and added to the Plan. 4. West Beaver Creek Boulevard requires narrowing and pedestrian improvements. Improvements to West Beaver Creek Boulevard, including turn pockets, landscaped refuge medians, and crosswalks are added to the Plan and are included in the CIP 5 -year plan. S. Figure 1.15, should show the valley floor portion of the Village (at Avon) as part of the Core Area for Transit Supportive Services. The Figure has been modified as requested. 6. The wayfinding in the Town is terrible. Wayfinding is not part of the scope of the plan, but Staff will attempt to improve wayfinding throughout the Town. 7. The East-West Connection between the Town Centers needs to be improved, particularly across Avon Road. The Plan proposes a grade separate crossing south of the Benchmark Road roundabout 8. There are several sight distance issues throughout the Town. Sight distance is not part of the scope of the plan and Staff uses the sight distance requirements outlined in Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2004. 9. Access needs to be improved to the Nottingham Road Trail. The plan includes several cuts in the guard rail with stairs down to the trail. 10. Concern that the traffic splits between US6 and 1-70 are not accurate. Charles Buck will discuss the traffic split during the hearing. 11. Impact of skier parking on the Town. Since the Town does not know what the owner of the parking lots intentions are, we can not speculate what the impacts will be. The developer of the parking lots will have to prepare a traffic study that will examine the traffic impacts to meet both CDOT and Eagle County standards. The development proposal should be referred to the Town as required by the existing Intergovemmental Agreement. 0 Page 2 12. Numerous barriers to north -south pedestrian circulation exist in Avon, for example, 1-70, the Union Pacific Railroad Right of Way, the Eagle River, and U.S. 6, and need to be addressed in the Plan. More detail on pedestrian and bicycle improvements in this area have been added to the plan. Separated grade crossings at 1-70, additional Railroad Crossings, the need to safely get pedestrians from the Gates/Folson area across US 6 and the Eagle River into Town, and a pedestrian bridge over the Eagle River in the vicinity of the Whitewater Park have been added to the plan. 13. Bicycles at the 1-70/Avon Road interchange. The Nottingham Road Trail terminates at a 4.5 foot wide sidewalk at the northern ramps. The sidewalks can be widened and streetlights moved to ensure a clear, wide path through the interchange. 14. The Plan needs to balance the requirements of the different bicycle users. Several trail improvements are proposed for the recreational/family cyclists. Road cyclists will need to ride with traffic and bike lanes are proposed on several of the road cross-section standards. 15. Bicycles need to be accommodated through the roundabouts. AASHTO guidance recommends terminating bicycle lanes prior to roundabout entry, or utilizing sidewalks for slower moving cyclists. Pavement markings and signage can be improved on the arterial roads to increase cyclist safety, and sidewalk widening and crosswalk safety improvements can be implemented for slower cyclists. 16. The projected development numbers for the Folson property seem low. The future development numbers were provided by the Community Development department and considered developable area and the adjacent Gates development. 17. The Plan needs to be integrated with the Beaver Creek transit system. Integration with the Beaver Creek transit system is included in the Transit component of the Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 09-30, recommending approval of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan, as drafted, for future adoption by Town Council Attachments: Attachment A— Comprehensive Transportation Plan Attachment B— RESOLUTION 09-50, A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF AVON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, DATED JULY 23, 2009, TOWN OF AVON, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO • Page 3 o TOWN OF AVON AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-10 C O I. O H A U O A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE TOWN OF AVON COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, DATED JULY 29, 2009, TOWN OF AVON, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO WHERAS, the Town of Avon recognizes and affirms the value of a multi -modal transportation vision that includes pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular; and WHEREAS, the Town of Avon's vision is to provide a high quality of life, today and in the future, requiring a diversity of transportation modes that are safe, efficient and effective; and WHEREAS, the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan provides a clear foundation and framework for actions and implementation policies that will encourage the types of growth envisioned in the Plan; including, but not limited to, all modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan incorporates the following Goals and Policies pertinent to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Policy C.2.3: Require pedestrian, bike, and automobile connections, where appropriate, between proposed and existing residential neighborhoods. The use of multiple access points, traffic calming devices, and/or street design standards will be employed to minimize cut through traffic. Goal D.2: Create community gateways and streetscapes that reflect and strengthen Avon's unique community character and image. Policy G.1: Create and integrated transit system that minimizes dependence on automobile travel within the Town by making it easier and more inviting to use transit, walk, ride bicycles, and utilize other non - motorized vehicles. Goal G.4: Provide a safe and efficient vehicular transportation system. Policy G.1.1: Connect pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation systems with regional transit. Policy G.1.2: Devise a public transit service plan that would replace the current one-way loop system with a two-way system that utilizes new road links. Compare annual service hours and productivity (passengers per vehicular hour) estimates of two alternative service plans. Policy GA.T Ensure that streets effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of transportation. Policy G. 1.8: Retrofit existing streets to provide safe and inviting pedestrian sidewalks, shoulders and crosswalks. Policy G.1.9: Ensure that adopted roadway and intersection standards have adequate provisions within the public right of way to fully incorporate both auto and non -auto modes. Policy G. 1.11: Provide a bicycle and/or pedestrian connection across or under I- 70 between Metcalf Road and West Beaver Creek Blvd. Policy G. 1.18: Support a transit system that maximizes ridership by providing frequent service even if higher subsidy levels are required WHEREAS, the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission held public hearings at their July 21, 2009 and August 4, 2009 meetings to review the draft plan entitled "Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan (July 29, 2009)"; at which time the public was given a opportunity to comment on the draft plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN OF AVON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon hereby recommends approval of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan (July 29, 2009) to Town Council. ADOPTED THIS 4th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 Signed: Date: Todd Goulding, Chairperson Attest: Date: Phil Struve, Secretary