PZC Packet 0516000
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Site Tour
May 16, 2000
12:00 PM
Town of Avon Municipal Building
400 Benchmark Road
I. Site Tour
Site visit of projects considered for review at the
May 16, 2000 Regular Meeting
Meet in front of the Municipal Building. Lunch is available to
those who RSVP by 10:30 AM, Monday.
Bob's Place Signage @ Avon Center
Posted on May 12, 2000, at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Avon / Beaver Creek Transportation Center
• City Market, main lobby
On the Internet at http: / /www.avon.org
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Work Session
May 16, 2000
5:30 PM
Council Chambers
Town of Avon Municipal Building
400 Benchmark Road
Agenda
II. Work Sessions
Discussion of regular meeting agenda items.
Dinner will be served.
Posted on May 12, 2000, at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Avon / Beaver Creek Transportation Center
• City Market, main lobby
On the Internet at http: / /www.avon.org
I
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
May 16, 2000
6:00 PM
Council Chambers
Town of Avon Municipal Building
400 Benchmark Road
Agenda
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda
A. Approval of the May 2, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes [Tab 1 ]
VI. Final Design Review
A. Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision [Tab 3]
Project Type: Four -plex
Applicant: Bob Mach
Owner: Claus Holm
Address: 2170 Saddleridge Road
Posted on May 12, 2000, at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Avon / Beaver Creek Transportation Center
• City Market, main lobby
On the Internet at http: / /www.avon.org
B. Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision [Tab 4]
Project Type: 4 -Plex
Applicant: TAB Associates
Owner: Andy Schifanelli
Address: 5113 Longsun Lane
C. Lot C, Avon Center Subdivision
Project Type: Time -Share & Employee Housing Phase 1A -1C
Project Name: Mountain Vista
Applicant/Owner: Vistana, Inc.
Address: 0160 Beaver Creek Boulevard West
XI. Work Session
A. Cottonwood PUD
Lots 1, 2 and 3 — Wildwood Resort Subdivision
Project Type: PUD Application
Project Name: Cottownwood PUD
Applicant/Owner: Ray Nielson — Fieldstone Development
XII. Other Business
A. Staff Approvals:
1. Lot 76, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
2481 Drawspur Road
Buffalohead Townhomes
Roof material change
2. Lot 76, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
2355 Old Trail Road
Mountain Shadows Condominium
Exterior color change
3. Lot 46 -A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
2410 Saddleridge Loop
Exterior color change
Posted on May 12, 2000, at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Avon / Beaver Creek Transportation Center
• City Market, main lobby
On the Internet at http: / /www.avon.orn
4. Lots 46 & 47, BMBC
410 Nottingham Road
Nightstar
Modifications to Approved Plans
5. Lot A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Bob's Place
Exterior Deck Approval
6. Lot 40, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Exterior Color Change
Savage Residence
XIII. Adjourn
Posted on May 12, 2000, at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Avon / Beaver Creek Transportation Center
• City Market, main lobby
On the Internet at http: / /www.avon.org
Town of Avon
Final Design Staff Report
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date May 11, 2000
Project type Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Legal description Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Current Zoning Town Center (TC)
Address 160 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
Pursuant to the requirements of the Lot C PUD Site Development Plan, the applicant is
seeking final design approval for 133 time -share units, 20 employee housing units, 374
parking spaces and a total of 7,300 sq. ft. of GLFA of retail space (5,800 sq.ft. GLFA on
W. Beaver Creek Blvd. and 1,500 -sq. ft. on Benchmark Road). The phasing
requirements must be complied with as set forth in the PUD. Design review approval will
be required for Phase 1 B and 1 C.
In response to the Work Session held on May 2, 2000, the applicant has revised the
plans as follows:
1. Revised the time —share entry detail.
2. Revised the planter detail increasing the planter box dimensions to allow
for more planting.
3. The clock has been revised.
4. Corrugated metal has been added in place of the galvalume siding.
5. More columns and architectural detail have been implemented on the
Benchmark Road elevation.
6. Split face masonry has been added to the materials proposed.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the
Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of
the Zoning Code.
• Allowed use: PUD — time - share, retail, and employee housing are authorized
uses
• Density. 210 dwelling units
31,850 sf GLFA retail space
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff repo rts\2000\51 600\1 otc.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Lot C —Final Design Review, page 2
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeti
• Lot Coverage: 70%
• Setbacks: The project complies with the setback and encroachment
requirements for this project.
• Easements: There are no encroachments with regard to existing easements.
There are several agreements for drainage and access, which must be submitted
prior to commencement of construction.
• Building Height. 100'0 elevation and 103'0 for elevator /equipment room — staff
still requires clarification for determining the absolute height.
• Grading: The grading plans submitted by the civil engineer comply with Town
requirements. There are some discrepancies in the architectural plans, which
conflict with the civil drawings and do not comply with Town standards.
• Parking: 374 parking spaces, which include 30% covered compact spaces.
• Snow Storage: Snow will be taken off -site — there are many surface areas
proposed with snowmelt systems.
• Landscaping: All of the landscaping information has been submitted.
2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
The project complies with the rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
The type and quality of materials are consistent with Town requirements except
for the areas proposed with split face masonry.
4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights -
of -way and easements.
The grading and drainage plans appear to comply with Town requirements.
The architectural plans and civil drawings do not match in access area to surface
parking from Benchmark Road. The 4% grade shown on civil drawings appears
to conflict with information shown on architectural drawings by a minimum of 2.5
feet.
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site
disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or
other significant alteration of existing topography.
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height,
orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors.
The applicant has improved the architectural style and massing to create
architectural interest complimentary to the Town. The colors appear consistent
with design standards, but require specific approval with an on -site mock -up.
The Commissioners must specifically approve the split face masonry.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity
that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals,
Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\2000 \51600 \lotc.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Lot C —Final Design Review, page 3
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the final design application for Lot C, Avon Center at
Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. All development shall occur consistent with the requirements of the PUD Site
Development Plan and Development Agreement adopted by Town Council on
February 22, 2000 via Ordinance 00 -02.
2. Final design approval will be obtained for Phase 1 B and 1 C.
3. The access agreements must be approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. The Stormwater Storage and Pollution Control Facilities Agreement on Town
property must be submitted and approved by Town Council prior to issuance of a
building permit.
5. A master sign program must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission
on or before September 1, 2000.
6. The colors, materials and paving materials are not approved. The Planning &
Zoning Commission must approve all colors and materials by an on -site mock up
of the colors and materials on or before September 1, 2000.
7. Provide roof detail and elevations of all the roof elements — specifically the
elevation of mechanical equipment and the elevator shaft to ensure compliance
with height restriction and impact from off -site views.
8. Provide detail of bus stop consistent with Town standards.
9. Revise pool equipment enclosure with more detail.
10. Provide all lighting cut sheets.
11. Provide detail of sculpture area and seating.
12. Ensure all parking aisles are 24'0" wide and the parking space dimensions
comply with Town standards.
13. The West Beaver Creek Blvd. and delivery entrances are required to have a
13'6" vertical clearance.
14. All sidewalks must be 8'0" wide — the revised planter appears to be 5'0" in width
thereby diminishing the sidewalk width — clarification is required.
15. All entrances must comply with the 4% grade requirement for the first 20'0 ".
Recommended Motion
I move to recommend approval of the final design application for Lot C, Avon Center at
Beaver Creek Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. All development shall occur consistent with the requirements of the PUD Site
Development Plan and Development Agreement adopted by Town Council on
February 22, 2000 via Ordinance 00 -02.
2. Final design approval conforming to all conditions of the PUD will be required for
Phase 1 B and 1 C.
3. The access agreements must be approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff repo rts\2000 \51600 \1otc.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Lot C —Final Design Review, page 4
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
4. The Stormwater Storage and Pollution Control Facilities Agreement on Town
property must be submitted and approved by Town Council prior to issuance of
any construction related permit including excavation or building permit.
5. A master sign program must be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission
on or before September 1, 2000.
6. The colors, materials and paving materials are not approved. The Planning &
Zoning Commission must approve all colors and materials by an on -site mock up
of the colors and materials on or before September 1, 2000.
7. Provide roof detail and elevations of all the roof elements — specifically the
elevation of mechanical equipment and the elevator shaft to ensure compliance
with height restriction and impact from off -site views.
8. Provide detail of bus stop consistent with Town standards.
9. Revise pool equipment enclosure with more detail.
10. Provide all lighting cut sheets.
11. Provide detail of sculpture area and seating.
12. Ensure all parking aisles are 24'0" wide and the parking space dimensions
comply with Town standards.
13. The West Beaver Creek Blvd. and delivery entrances are required to have a
13'6" vertical clearance.
14. All sidewalks must be 8'0" wide — the revised planter appears to be 50" in width
thereby diminishing the sidewalk width — clarification is required.
15. All entrances must comply with the 4% grade requirement for the first 20'0 ".
(Information submitted indicates parking structure deck surface is approximately
2.5 feet above indicated driveway grade in West Beaver Creek Blvd. surface
parking entrance. This must be clarified prior to issuance of any permit, i.e.
permit for work within the public right -of -way.)
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me
at 748 -4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
f,
Ruth O. Borne
NOTE: Staff received the colored elevations on Friday, May 11. There
are several items of concern discovered in these drawings which will
be discussed by separate cover prior to the Tuesday evening
meeting. Please call or attend the site visit so we can discuss the
staff's concerns with the new colored elevations.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\2000 \51600 \lotc.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Town of Avon
Final D o rt Staff Re p
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
May 12, 2000
Four -plex project
Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge
PUD — Four -plex
2170 Saddleridge Loop
On May 2, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the application for Lot 15, Block
1, Wildridge Subdivision based upon the following considerations:
1. Retaining walls over 4'0" within the setbacks, which require a variance;
2. Discrepancies between grading, site plan, and elevations with regard to
the building, decks, existing and finished grades;
3. Clarification of eliminating drainage into garage;
4. Maneuvering for vehicles;
5. Safety concerns on the maneuvering area;
6. Clarify the roof drainage;
7. Indicate location of hot tubs on all plan sheets;
8. Stone should wrap the corners.
The applicant has revised the plans and clarified some of the discrepancies as follows:
1. There is no longer a requirement for a variance — the retaining wall on the
southwest corner is now varies from a 5'0" - 8'0" vertical stucco retaining wall
within the setbacks;
2. The maneuvering area now includes a 5" boulder stop to help ensure some of the
safety concerns. Additional landscaping has been added in this area to screen the
project from off -site views;
3. The applicant has added a hammerhead to improve maneuvering on the southeast
unit. Unfortunately, the hammerhead area encroaches into the 50' snow and
storage easement.
4. A roof plan has been submitted;
5. The stone base now wraps the corners;
6. Drainage into the garage has been addressed by adding a trench drain;
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z\staff repo rts\2000 \51600 \I15b1wr.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, page 2
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
7. Some of the landscaping has been removed from the areas posing problems for
site distance — there are a few more trees which need to be relocated;
8. The retaining walls are indicated on the elevations;
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission
shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning
Code.
• Allowed Use: Conforms with the allowed residential use.
• Density: Four -plex residence
• Lot Coverage: The applicant is proposing 9% lot coverage.
• Setbacks: There are no encroachments into the setbacks.
• Easements: The retaining wall supporting the revised hammerhead now encroaches into
the 50' Slope Maintenance and Snow Storage Easement.
• Building Height: The proposed complies with the height restrictions.
• Grading: Some of the retaining walls on the project exceed 4'0" and will require details
stamped by a licensed engineer.
• Parking: The applicant is proposing 16 parking spaces and 10 are required. The
hammerhead area must be revised to eliminate any encroachment into the 50' easement
while providing adequate maneuvering.
• Snow Storage: Submitted plans do not indicate snow storage.
• Landscaping: All disturbed areas will require re- vegetation of three sagebrush per 100
sq. ft. The landscaping is proposed within the 10' Snow and Drainage Easement. The
Town is not responsible for damage to landscaping within this easement. The applicant
may want to consider relocating the landscaping out of the easement.
2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
Most of the technical discrepancies with this project have been resolved. The
hammerhead must be revised to avoid encroaclunent into the easement.
3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
The applicant has added stone to wrap- around the east and west elevations as
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 4, 2000 and May 2,
2000. The stone does not appear to satisfy the Commissioner's concerns by the minimal
application of the stone on the east and west elevations — the applicant may consider
adding additional siding or adding additional stone to create the appearance of a stronger
foundation.
4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights -of -way
and easements.
Details on the trench drain need to be submitted with building permit plans..
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site
disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other
significant alteration of existing topography.
The project does maximize the building site. The units are set back on the property to
minimize visual impact.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z\staff repo rts\2000 \51600 \I15blwr.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, page 3
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to
street, quality of materials, and colors.
The Staff and Commission members have cautioned the applicant of their concern with
developing this site and its exposure as you enter Wildridge. The colors and architectural
style appear to fit well with the site.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and
Programs for the Town of Avon.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the final design application for Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Revise retaining walls supporting the hammerhead to eliminate encroachment into the
50' easement and provide for adequate maneuvering;
2. Submit stamped engineered details of the retaining walls with the building permit;
3. Ensure grading plan and elevations are consistent upon application of building permit
plans;
4. Revise grading /drainage plan to accommodate drainage away from the building on the
west -end of the project;
5. Revise application of stone on the east and west elevations.
Recommended Motion
I move to recommend approval of the final design application for Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge
Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Revise retaining wall supporting the hammerhead to eliminate encroachment into the 50'
easement and provide for adequate maneuvering;
2. Submit detail of retaining walls with building permit;
3. Ensure grading plan and elevations are all consistent upon application of building permit
plans;
4. Revise grading /drainage plan to accommodate drainage away from the building on the
West End of the project;
5. Revise application of stone on the east and west elevations.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748 -4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth O. Borne
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff repo rts\2000 \51600 \I15b1wr.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Town of Avon
Final D o rt staff Re p
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Zoning
Address
Introduction
May 12, 2000
Four -plex project
Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge
PUD — Four -plex
5113 Longsun Lane
The applicant is proposing a four -plex project on 5113 Longsun Lane. The project consists of 3,
4 and 5 bedroom units for a total 12,828 sq. ft. The project is maximizing the property to
provide for the density being proposed by grading to each property line, adding retaining walls
and riprap drainage area in the setbacks, and maximizing the height limitation.
Staff has received a letter from an adjacent property owner, which is attached for your review.
In summary, the letter requests the applicant add more landscaping, increase the berm size, and
review the garage door materials.
Design Review Considerations
According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4. 10, the Commission
shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project:
1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning
Code.
• Allowed Use: Conforms with the allowed residential use.
• Density: Four -plex residence
• Lot Coverage: The applicant is proposing 19% lot coverage.
• Setbacks: There are retaining walls and a riprap drainage area designed in the setbacks.
• Easements: The retaining wall for the driveway encroaches into the 10' Snow and
Maintenance Easement.
• Building Height: The proposed complies with the height restrictions.
• Grading: In order to accommodate the 4 large units, the proposed grading plan extends
to each side property line.
• Parking: The applicant is proposing 12 parking spaces and 10 are required.
• Snow Storage: 800 -sq. ft. of snow storage is indicated on the plans, which complies with
Town standards.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p&z\staff reports\2000 \51600 \I43b4wr.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, page 2
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
• Landscaping: All disturbed areas will require re- vegetation of 3 sagebrush per 100 sq. ft.
More landscaping could be added to the area north of the driveway.
2. The conformance with other applicable rules and regulations of the Town of Avon.
The project is in conformance with the rules and regulations.
3. The type and quality of materials of which the structure is to be constructed.
Staff is concerned with the following:
1. The color scheme does not appear to blend with the natural landscape; the sage
green is limited in its application and does not relate to the entire building. The
gray color scheme is very stark and suburban.
2. The 4 white, front loaded garage doors are very uniform. There is no variety or
architectural interest created on the front elevation.
4. The design of site grading and drainage to minimize impacts to adjacent sites, rights -of -way
and easements.
1. The retaining wall on the southeast corner of the building requires an engineered
design.
2. The width of the driveway entrance must be reduced to comply with standard
entrance requirements and minimize drainage impacts.
5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site
disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other
significant alteration of existing topography.
The project maximizes the building site.
6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring
properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to
street, quality of materials, and colors.
The front elevation as viewed from the road is a mirror image and lacks architectural
interest — each unit mirrors the other. The materials, massing and height are consistent
with the neighborhood. The color scheme appears inconsistent with a natural or earth
tone color scheme.
7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that
monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired.
8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and
Programs for the Town of Avon.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the final design application for Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge
Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Revise the color scheme to blend with the natural landscape;
2. Revise the front elevations to create architectural interest and avoid the mirror image;
3. Diminish the width of the driveway entrance to comply with Town of Avon's Standard
Entrance Details;
4. Submit engineered details of retaining walls that exceed 4' in height.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff repo rts\2000 \51600 \I43b4wr.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, page 3
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Recommended Motion
I move to recommend approval of the final design application for Lot 43, Block 4, Wildridge
Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. Revise the color scheme to blend with the natural landscape;
2. Revise the front elevations to create architectural interest and avoid the mirror image;
3. Diminish the width of the driveway entrance to comply with Town of Avon's Standard
Entrance Details;
4. Submit engineered details of retaining walls that exceed 4' in height.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748 -4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth O. Borne
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\2000 \51600 \I43b4wr.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
8 May 2000
Ruth Borne
Community Development
Town of Avon, CO 81620
RE: 4 -Plex Development by T.S. Properties/ Wildridge Block 4, Lot 43
Dear Ms Borne:
We are the owners of a single family house across the street from Lots 42 &43,
Block 4 in Wildridge. We have reviewed the plans for Lot 43 that the developer
graciously provided at our request. Our goal is to minimize the visual impact of
the proposed 4 -Plex in our neighborhood of single family homes and duplexes.
We respectfully request that you consider the following changes:
l . Raise the berm on the north /northeast side of the property by 2 -3 feet.
2. Sicrni Jcantty increase plantings that Will provide year round screening: add
evergreens and fast growing trees to the landscape plan, especially on the
north, northeast, and east sides. 4 -flex owners are much less likely than single
family and duplex owners to upgrade landscaping, so the trees planted by
the developer at the outset are likely the only trees that will be planted on this
property.
3. Upgrade aaraae doors:_terial of the garage doors
was indicated in the plans, but the existing design - in a bank of 4 double
neither the color nor ma
garage doors - seems quite obtrusive. Perhaps using wood siding, painted to
match the sage cedar shingles or grey cedar lap siding, would be more
subtle and suitable for the site.
We acknowledge the building rights of the owner of these lots. However, we
hope that consideration can also be given to residents of this neighborhood.
Please note that:
• All of the residences in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 4 -Plex are
single family houses.
When we purchased our lot in 1992, we were told by the Avon Town Planner
• that single family houses were being built on Lots 42 and 43 despite the 4 -Plex
zoning.
When our neighbor on Lot 64 (5110 Longsun) purchased their house, they
were told by their real estate agent that the lots were zoned Duplex.
We have both tried to buy the lots over the years; when they finally went on
the market, we only learned of it after they had gone to contract. Together
with our neighbors, we immediately offered to buy the lots from the
purchaser at full price plus a profit, with no response.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider our requests. We look
forward to the Planning and Zoning meeting on May 16th.
Sincerely,
Town of Avon
PUD - Work Session
Staff Report
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Report date April 12, 2000
Project type Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Legal description Lots 1, 2, and 3, Wildwood Resort Subdivision
Current Zoning PUD (expired)
Project Name: Cottownwood PUD (formerly known as Wildwood
Resort PUD, and Buck Creek PUD)
Introduction
The original PUD for this property, Wildwood Resort PUD was approved in 1985. The applicant
did not commence development within the requisite three -year time period and the approval has
expired. The property owner, applicant, Tanavon, Inc. has not changed since the original PUD.
The property is located between Swift Gulch Road and Buck Creek Road (a.k.a. Mountain Star
Road).
This staff report is preliminary only and designed as an overview for the May 16 meeting. A
complete staff report will be provided for the public hearing, which is not yet scheduled. This
application is for PUD zoning only, similar to the Lot C and Confluence PUD approvals. The
applicant intends to apply for Development Plan approval subsequent to PUD approval.
Project Overview
The PUD application for this project requires careful consideration. The site is part of the Buck
Creek riparian corridor. It includes significant wetlands, mature trees, shrubs and herbaceous
species, navigable water and ponds, which support diverse wildlife. Construction setbacks and
permitted encroachments must be specified as well as the limitations on the 30'0" strearl
setback.
Attached for your review is the preliminary Geotechnical Study prepared by Daniel E. Hardin of
Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., the wildlife study prepared by Richard W. Thompson,
Certified Wildlife Biologist of Western Ecosystems, Inc. and the Wetland Delineation Report
prepared by Colorado Alpines, Inc. for this property. Staff's recommendations are based upon
the findings in these reports and the Town of Avon's PUD requirements.
The proposed density for this project includes a total of 65,000 GLFA for commercial space and
120 dwelling units or 260 hotels units, along with 110 residential units and 10- bedroom lodge.
The impact of the proposed density for this project must relate to the current infrastructure and
roadway capacity. Additional transportation information and traffic analysis will be necessary to
support the applicant's proposal.
Discussion
Building Envelopes 1 and 2
This portion of the project will have the most density and contain a variety of land uses.
Commercial square footage is limited to a total of 50,000 -sq. ft. of GFLA with 120 dwelling units,
which consists of 3 hotel rooms or accommodation units equal to one dwelling unit. Special
i own or Avon Lommunlly Development fAp &z \staff reports\ 2000 \51600 \cottonwoodpud- work.doc
(970) 748 -4030 Fax(970)949 -5749
Cottonwood PUD —Work Session
May 16, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2
review uses are provided, which include drive - through services, churches and public
transportation facilities.
Building Envelope 3
The applicant is proposing a combination of uses for Building Envelopes 3, 4 and 5, which
include and additional 15,000 GLFA of commercial space. Staff has requested the applicant
separate Building Envelope 3 from 4 and 5. Staff does not support the development of Building
Envelopes 4 and 5 as office, because of its proximity to the existing habitat and access issues.
Access for building envelopes 3 -7 is problematic. The existing grades on Buck Creek Road
necessitate only one -way in and out from Building Envelope 3. The impact of the 110
residential units for this area requires additional impact study and data in order for staff to
recommend approval.
Building Envelopes 4 and 5 should be limited to residential uses. Parking is proposed as
surface only in this area, and compact spaces should be prohibited consistent with our current
parking requirements. A reduction for parking is also proposed in this area. A maneuvering
area should be provided for life safety considerations as well as delivery and maintenance
concerns.
Building Envelopes 6 and 7
These two building envelopes pose the greatest concern for staff recommending approval. The
applicant is proposing a 10 bedroom lodge and 22 residential units, including condominiums,
townhomes, condo - hotels, and time - share. A road must be constructed across existing
wetlands to access this area. In order to accommodate the density the applicant is proposing,
the road will have to be improved and significantly impact the wetlands and the existing pond.
Staff does not support development of Building Envelopes 6 and 7. This area contains the
highest density of wetlands and valuable wildlife habitat combined with limited vehicle access.
It is the staff's opinion that these envelopes have far more economic value to the community as
permanent wildlife habitat, and should therefore remain undeveloped.
Employee Housing
Generally, the Town has required that 10% of the dwelling units be dedicated to deed - restricted
employee housing, and housing units for 10% of the employees generated on -site. The
applicant has discussed a possible exchange of privately held land for an undetermined number
of employee housing units with Town Council. Therefore, the number of employee housing
units has not been addressed. The developer is proposing transfer of the employee housing
units to a residential project on Metcalf Road, which is anticipated to begin construction later this
year.
Parking
The proposed parking requirements are less than the provisions of our current Zoning Code.
Unlike the Town Center, parking for this project must be self- contained; effective sharing with
adjacent sites will not be available.
The proposed standards for Envelopes 3 -7 include compact spaces within surface parking.
Current regulations allow compact parking only in structured or underground parking. Staff's
recommendation will be that parking requirements for the Cottonwood PUD be consistent with
the Town's Zoning Code.
i own 01 Avon k-ommumty Uevelopment f: \p &z \staff reports\2000 \51600 \cottonwoodpud- work.doc
970) 748 -4030 Fax (970) 949 -5749
Wetland Delineation Report
Benchmark Resort Lots I , 2, and 3
Prepared for
Tanavon Corporation
Prepared by
Colorado Alpines, Inc.
Envirocunental Services Group
July, 1996
1. INTRODUCTION
Colorado Alpmes was retained to identify jurisdictional wetlands that may occur on
approximately 16 acres of land, also known as Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Benchmark Resort,
hereafter referred to as the "Site." The Site is located within Section 1, Township 5 South,
Range 82 West in the Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. As shown in Figure 1, the
Site includes the Buck Creek drainage which runs generally north to south, near the eastern
border of the Site, to its confluence with the Metcalf Ditch. The extent of the survey included
the three lots west of Buck Creek, the east side of Buck Creek was not surveyed for
jurisdictional wetlands.
Historical aerial photographs reviewed from the U.S. Forest Service, indicate that the Site has
been subject to disturbance in the past. The remains of this disturbance are an unvegetated
area approximately I acre on Lot 2, and Buck Creek Road, an unpaved road that meanders
through the three lots. Various remnants of a residential home, such as electrical boxes and
well heads were also noticed on the site.
The general hydrology of the site is influenced by Buck Creek and groundwater springs and
seeps located in various locations on and off -site. We surmise that some of the wetlands may
be a result of a perched water table. There are also two prominent man -made water features
that may affect the local hydrology of the Site. They include a small unlined ditch which
enters the property to the north, near an abandoned cabin, and a large pond approximately 0.3
acres, located on Lot 3. The pond is identified on the National Wetlands Inventory Map as
PUBFx (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Semi- permanently Flooded excavated) (Figure 2)
all surface water flow, and likely groundwater, follow the general topography of the Site
which is from north to the south and toward Buck Creek.
The soil series identified by the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey for the Site is the
Mussel Loam, slope 6 to 12 percent. The soil is well drained and is in the B hydrologic group
(moderate infiltration.) Characteristic of this series soil color is IOYR 3/2 -moist in the 0 -8
inches (A horizon) and IOYR 4/2 -moist in the AC horizon (8 -17 inches.) Its soil taxonomy is
a frigid Ustic Torriorthent. Its seasonal high water table is characteristically greater than 6
inches.
The general vegetation on the Site consisted of a combination of primarily herbaceous and
shrub dominated areas. The northern boundary of the site is occupied by aspen, Populus
lremuloides and various large shrubs, such as alder, Alnus lenuifolia and birch, Betula
fontinalis. The center of the survey area was predominantly open canopy with sparse shrubs
and (orbs. Along the length of Buck Creek, large willows (Salix spp.)were prevalent, with
alders, birch, and a few blue spruce trees. The southern area of the survey was also open
canopy, occupied by grasses and occasional willows. Table 1 lists the plant species identified
in the wetland areas.
Benchmark - Lots I, 2, and 3 page I
II. METHODS USED
The wetland survey was conducted between the weeks of May 27 through June 6. The
wetland delineation methods used were in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual, dated January, 1987. A routine on -site inspection for 'Areas
Equal to or Less than 5 Acres in Size' was performed. Wetland delineation data forms were
used in both obvious and more discrete wetland/upland boundaries. The locations of the
sampling points, and the identified wetland area sizes are shown in Figure 3 and listed in
Table 2. For these sampling points, vegetation and hydrology indicators were observed. in
addition soil pits to a depth of 16 inches were dug to identify the presence of reduced soil
conditions, depth to saturated soil or depth to free water. If time permitted, the soil pits were
left open for 24 hours to observe any variation in depth to free water at which time,
measurements were taken.
Wetland boundaries were determined by the percentage cover of hydrophitic plant species
(obligate, facultative wet and facultative), indicators of wetland hydrology and the presence of
hydric soils. All boundaries were flagged sequentially in the field, and surveyed by Johnson
and Kunkle of Eagle, Colorado. Their approximate location and boundaries are shown in
Figure 3. The following wetland area descriptions are a summary of the jurisdictional wetland
areas delineated. The wetlands are described in order, generally from south to north.
A. Wetland Area A - Wetlands that occur immediately adjacent to Buck Creek
The survey boundary of this riparian shrub -tree wetland begins at a culvert for Buck Creek at
Nottingham Road and terminates at the property boundary at Lot 3. The southern half of the
wetland is typically less than 10 feet wide from the banks of the creek and mostly confined to
the immediate boundary of the creek. The creek banks are relatively steep and the adjacent
vegetation on the upland tends to be out of the influence of the stream water table. The
northern portion of the wetland begins to widen as the creek bed becomes more level with the
surrounding topography. The size of this linear wetland is 1.075 acres.
Vegetation in the southern section of this linear wetland includes Carex rostrata and Agrostis
stolonifera. grading into upland dominated by Broncos inermis (Photograph 1). This is
identified on the National Wetland Inventory maps as PEMC (Palustrine, Emergent,
Seasonally Flooded). This area was inundated at the time of survey. (Sample plots IA, 2A
and 3A represent the herbaceous communities).
The remaining vegetation along Buck Creek to the north includes cottonwood, Popultrs
acuminata and various willow species in the shrub layer and sedges ( Carex sp.) in the
herbaceous layer.
Benchmark - Lots 1, 2, and 3 page 2
B. Wetland Area B - Wetland area east and north of parking lot
This willow dominated wetland area may be a remnant of a wetland prior to disturbance
(Photograph 2). Water appears to be seeping from beneath the parking lot area into this
wetland. Standing water and bright oxidized iron sediments in the southern wet area satisfy
the hydrology and soils criteria for a jurisdictional determination.
The northern herbaceous section of the wetland also had standing water in it and a strong
hydrogen sulfidic odor to the soil (Photograph 3). The boundary of this wetland stops
abruptly at the parking lot edge. Vegetation in this area includes sedges, (orbs and wetland
graminoids. This northern section discharges into Buck Creek via a discrete seep into the
creek bank. The total area of this wetland is 0.134 acres.
C. Wetland Area C - Sedge area
Wetland Area C is north of Wetland, Area B, separated by a strip of upland. It is
approximately 0.233 acres. This wetland is created by seeps and is dominated by a sedge
community bordered by willows (Photograph 4). Free water in the soil pit occurred at 12
inches and saturated soil was at 3 inches. Downgradient of the sedges, toward Buck Creek,
the vegetation becomes predominantly shrubby with willow and alder present. This wetland
area water from the various seeps discharges into Buck Creek via a small drainage located
within the shrubs.
D. Wetland Area D - Meadow north of pond
Wetland Area D is a 0.194 acre herbaceous wetland dominated by silverweed, Potentilla
anserina, and redtop Agrostis stolonifera. It is created as the result of a seep and discharges
south into the pond (Photograph 5). At the time of survey the soil was saturated at less than
I inch and free water occurred at approximately 2 inches.
E. Wetland Area E - Spring originating from road bed, discharging into pond
This herbaceous -shrub wetland area is bisected by Buck Creek Road. The water source was
traced to a spring originating from the base of the road berm of Mountain Star Drive and
maintained by a seep. It then discharges into the pond via a small drainage dominated by
watercress, Nasturtium offinale (Photograph 6). In the northern section of this wetland area
willows dominate around the running water and within the water stream, watercress
predominated (Photograph 7). The open canopy areas are dominated by sedges, cat -tails and
other wetland forbs. (See data forms in Appendix l.) The northern section of this wetland is
0.269 acres.
The continuation of the stream south of the road is primarily herbaceous with vegetation
homogeneous with that of the northern section. This southern section of Wetland Area E is
approximately 0. 188 acres. Immediately adjacent to the road are large specimens of alder and
Benchmark - Lois 1, 2, and 3 page 3
birch. Also noted in this wetland system was a small area of cat -tails on the east side. All
wetland areas at the time of survey were either inundated or saturated within the upper 12
inches of the surface.
F. Wetland Area F - Very small wetland north of Buck Creek Road
This is a very small herbaceous wetland area, approximately 110 square feet, dominated by
watercress. It was inundated at the time of our field survey and is the result of a small spring
at its north end, maintained by a seep (Photograph 8.)
G. Wetland Area G - Water feature
The man -made water feature, referred to in the introduction, creates a small, 0.058 -acre
riparian wetland dominated by Carex rostrata. The wetland vegetation is limited to the
immediate banks of the fast running water (Photograph 9.) In the northern portion of this
feature, closest to the property boundary and abandoned cabin, the vegetation becomes
predominantly large shrubs characteristic of the streamside communities previously found
throughout the site i.e. willows, alders.
H. Wetland Area H - Along Buck Creek Road
This herbaceous wetland area is dominated by cat - tails, sedges, and a few immature willows.
Immediately adjacent to the road, this degraded wetland is likely associated with the large
cottonwood and shrub willow wetland on the west side of Mountain Star Road (Photograph
10.) It is approximately 0.41 acres.
IV. RESULTS
Eight wetland areas were identified on the site and described. The total acreage is
approximately - - - -- acres. The delineated boundaries were verified by Mike Claffey of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers - Grand Junction, on June 6, 1996. This report in addition to the
completed data forms provide details of the specific vegetation, hydrology, and soils of each
of the wetland areas identified.
V. CONCLUSION
Although there is evidence of historical disturbance to the Site, no recent significant impacts
were identified. Therefore the delineation methods utilized were those for 'normal
circumstances.' We are of the opinion the boundaries and acreages surveyed may be used for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, permitting purposes.
Benchmark -Lots l,?, and 3 page 4
VI. LITERATURE CITED
1. Alstatt, D., Moreland, D.1992. Soil Survey of Aspen - Gypsum Area, Colorado. Soil
Conservation Service., Dep. of Agr. Washington, DC.
2. Cronquist A. et al. 1994. Intermountain Flora. Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West,
USA Vol.6 Columbia University Press.
3. Reed, Y.B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands Intermountain
Region 8. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Dep. of Interior. Waslungton, DC.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual.
5. Weber, W.A. 1976. Rocky Mountain Flora. Colorado Associated University Press.
Benchmark - Lois 1, Z, and 3 P(we �
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945 -8454
Phone 970 945 -7988
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
BUCK CREEK PROPERTY
NOTTINGHAM ROAD AND MOUNTAIN STAR ROAD,
AVON,COLORADO
JOB NO. 196 614
JANUARY 24, 1997
PREPARED FOR:
TANAVAN CORPORATION
ATTN: MAXINE MILLER
143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE, SUITE 499A
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
January 24, 1997
Tanavan Corporation
Attn: Maxine Miller
143 East Meadow Drive, Suite 499A
Vail, Colorado 81657 Job No. 196 614
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Buck Creek Property, Nottingham Road
and Mountain Star Road, Avon, Colorado.
Dear Ms. Miller:
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical study for the proposed development of
the Buck Creek property.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the development
area consist of up to 12 feet of topsoil and fill overlying 18 to 40 feet of compressible
sandy clay and silt with organics. Medium dense to dense sand and gravel soils were
encountered below the clay and silt at depths of 21 to 41 feet. Groundwater was
encountered between the ground surface and a depth of 11 feet in the borings.
There is a potential for large settlement of constructed facilities depending on their
types, locations and elevations.
Development of the property should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations.
Building foundation and grading alternatives to mitigate the compressible subsoil
conditions at the site are discussed in the body of the report
The report which follows describes our investigation, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations suitable for planning and preliminary design. It is
important that we provide consultation during design to review and monitor the
implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. Additional subsurface
evaluations and analyses should be conducted for the final design.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
Rev. By: SLP
DEH /kw
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
SITE CONDITIONS 1
GEOLOGIC SETTING 2
FIELD EXPLORATION 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 4
SUBSIDENCE 4
DEBRIS FANS 5
SEISMICITY 5
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 6
FOUNDATIONS 6
FLOOR SLABS ......... ............................... 7
GROUNDWATER AND UNDERDRAIN SYSTEMS ............... 7
SITE GRADING 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE 8
LIMITATIONS .............. ............................... 8
REFERENCES .............. ............................... 10
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 & 5 - SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
FIGURE 6 & 7 - GRADATION ANALYSES TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical study for
development of the Buck Creek Property located north of Nottingham Road, east of
Mountain Star Road, Avon, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The
purpose of the study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and their impact on the
project. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical
engineering services to Szymanski /Ray, dated November 13, 1996.
A field exploration program consisting of a reconnaissance and exploratory
borings was conducted to obtain information on the site and subsurface conditions.
Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the
laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swell and other
engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing
were analyzed to develop recommendations for project planning and preliminary design.
This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions
and recommendations based on the subsurface conditions encountered for the assumed
development.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed mixed use development will include retail, hotel and residential.
The 15 acre site is shown on Fig. 1. Specific design plans have not been developed.
This report will be used for planning and preliminary design.
As development plans progress, we should be notified to reevaluate the
recommendations presented in this report.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed development extends from Nottingham Road northeast about
2,000 feet up the Buck Creek valley. We understand there has been historic
development of the site including a few cabins, barns and a trailer court. These
structures have been mostly removed. Existing structures include a cabin at the north
end of the site and temporary greenhouses located at the south end of the site. There
era
are existing utilities on the site including sewer, water and electric. There is a small
pond in the north central part of the site. Buck Creek runs through the site to the east
of the development area.
The Buck Creek valley floor is flanked by steep valley sides with 50 % and
steeper slopes to the east and west. Mountain Star Road has been constructed with a
steeply sloping embankment fill near the bottom of the west valley side. The valley
floor is relatively flat and slopes gently to moderately down to the southwest at grades
of 5 % to 8 %. A fill area was identified on the Johnson - Kunkel Wetland Delineation
plan dated June 25, 1996 and is shown in the area of Boring 3 on Fig. 1.
The site is vegetated with scattered fir and aspen trees. The wetland areas were
vegetated with grass and cattail. There was about 1 foot of snow covering the site at
the time of our field work.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is on the northeast end of the Sawatch Range which is a north
trending anticline that plunges to the north in the vicinity of the site. The sedimentary
rock beneath the surficial deposits at the site generally dip northward. Several faults
have been mapped in the general area of the proposed development. However, none of
these faults have been identified as potentially active faults by the Colorado Geologic
Survey or U.S. Geologic Survey (Kirkham and Rogers, 1981).
The bedrock at the site is the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Formation,
consisting of siltstone, shale, sandstone, carbonate rocks and local lenses of gypsum
(Tweto and others, 1978). Outcrops of bedrock are not exposed on the property and
bedrock was not encountered in the five exploration borings drilled at the site.
The surficial deposits within the proposed development consist of alluvium,
mainly below the valley floor, and colluvium, mainly below the valley side along
Mountain Star Road. Some of the valley sides have undergone massive slope failures in
the geologic past producing landslide deposits. Debris flow deposits occurring as debris
fans exist along the base of the steep valley where small tributary drainages to Buck
H -P GEOTECH
;,
-3-
Creek open into the Buck Creek valley floor. The main Buck Creek drainage also
forms an alluvial fan deposit where it opens into the Eagle River Valley, at the southern
end of the site.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on December 19, 20 23 and 24,
1996. Five exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to
evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch and 7 inch
diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck- mounted Longyear BK -51HD
drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth - Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 1 3/8 -inch and 2 -inch I.D. spoon
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows
from a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard
penetration test described by ASTM Method D -1586. The penetration resistance values
are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Shelby tube
samples, 3 inches in diameter by 30 inches long, were pushed in the softer soils with
the drill rig hydraulics. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration
resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples
were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 to 2 feet of topsoil and up to 12 feet of organic
fill overlying 18 to 40 feet of soft to stiff sandy clay and silt with organics and gravel
seams. Medium dense to dense silty to clayey sand and gravel deposits containing
cobbles and scattered boulders were encountered at depths of 21 to 41 feet. Drilling in
H -P GEOTECH
-4-
some of the gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders
and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content and density, Atterberg limits, gradation analyses and
unconfined compressive strengths. Results of consolidation testing performed on
relatively undisturbed shelby tube samples, presented on Figs. 4 and 5, indicate
relatively high compressibility when loaded. Results of gradation analyses performed on
small diameter drive samples (minus 1' /2 -inch fraction) of the more granular subsoils
are shown on Figs. 6 and 7. Atterberg limits testing indicates the clay and silt soils are
generally low plasticity. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I.
Free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and was
measured between the ground surface and 11 feet deep, 1 to 9 days after drilling.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Geologic hazards at the site were not evaluated as part of this study. However,
based on our knowledge of the site, there are several geologic conditions which will
require consideration in the layout and design of the development.
SUBSIDENCE
Some of the bedrock in this area contains high concentrations of gypsum and
anhydrites can be susceptible to dissolution by circulating groundwater. Sinkholes have
been observed on the west side of the valley a few hundred feet above the site. It is
also possible that some of the bedrock underlying the alluvium in the bottom of the
valley may be very erratically eroded or may contain some subsurface solution cavities.
Such anomolies could possibly result in future surface subsidence. However, based on
our experience with similar conditions in the Eagle River valley, the risk of future
subsidence is probably low and mitigated by the presence of a shallow groundwater
table.
H-P GEOTECH
- 5 -
Engineering evaluations of the sinkhole related subsidence problem are not well
established. However, we believe one method is to drill deep exploratory borings
within proposed building areas to assess the presence of subsurface voids. The degree
of confidence achieved by this drilling is related to the number of holes drilled. The
cost of deep exploration within this site would be relatively expensive. The owners
should be aware of the subsidence potential at the site and decide if it is economically
warranted to better evaluate subsidence potential at the building sites by additional
drilling.
DEBRIS FANS
Relatively small debris fans have been formed at the base of small ephemeral
drainages along the west valley side above the site. These drainages have been blocked
by the Mountain Star Road embankment and should not impact the site. The off -site
surface hydrology should be evaluated as part of the drainage plan for the development.
SEISMICITY
The development could experience moderately strong earthquake- related ground
shaking. Modified Mercalli Intensity VI ground shaking could occur during a
reasonable service life for the development, but the probability for stronger ground
shaking is low. Intensity VI ground shaking is felt by most people and causes general
alarm, but results in negligible damage to structures of good design and construction.
The buildings should be designed to withstand moderately strong ground shaking with
little or no damage and not to collapse under stronger ground shaking. The region is in
the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on our current understanding
of the earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, we see no reason to increase the
commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area.
H -P GEOTECH
-6-
PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the
assumed development, subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings,
and our experience in the area. The recommendations are suitable for planning and
preliminary design but site specific studies should be conducted for individual site
development.
The deep deposits of soft soils encountered at the site are compressible and
relatively large settlements are likely for buildings or fill embankments constructed on
them. The shallow groundwater at the site will make excavation difficult.
FOUNDATIONS
Bearing conditions will vary depending on the specific location of the buildings
on the property. Based on the nature of the assumed construction, lightly loaded spread
footings bearing on the natural subsoils may be suitable for building support where the
groundwater level is below any excavation. We expect the footings can be sized for an
allowable bearing pressure on the order of 1,000 psf. However, long term settlements
could be excessive. Buildings that have an average total load of 1,500 psf could
experience settlements on the order of 1 foot or more due to consolidation of the soft
clay and silt soils. To reduce settlements to tolerable levels, the building sites could be
pre - consolidated by placing a surcharge loading of embankment fill. The fill would be
left in place and monitored until settlement is essentially complete and then removed.
The depth of fill and time involved would depend on the type of structure that is built.
In general, fill depths on the order of 10 to 15 feet left in place 3 to 6 months may be
required. Alternative foundations include a shallow raft or mat placed on the settlement
treated subgrade, and deep foundations such as concrete - filled pipe piles or auger cast
piles that extend into the underlying granular subsoils. We expect that piles can
develop allowable capacities in the range of 20 to 40 tons. Foundation walls should be
designed to span local anomalies and to resist lateral earth loadings when acting as
retaining structures. Below grade areas and retaining walls should be protected from
H -P GEOTECH
- 7 -
wetting and hydrostatic loading by use of an underdrain system. Spread footings should
have a minimum depth of 42 inches for frost protection.
FLOOR SLABS
Slab -on -grade construction should be feasible for bearing on the natural soils
provided that the sites are preloaded as described above. To reduce the effects of some
differential movement, the ground floors could be constructed as structural members or
to move independent from all bearing walls and columns. Non - structural floor slabs
should have control joints to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. A minimum 4
inch thick layer of free - draining gravel should underlie slabs to facilitate drainage.
Alternatives to slab -on -grade with lower risk of distress are mat foundations or
structurally supported slabs on deep foundations.
GROUNDWATER AND UNDERDRAIN SYSTEMS
Below grade excavations at this site will probably encounter significant
groundwater and require dewatering. In general, excavation depths should be kept
relatively shallow to limit adverse groundwater impacts on below grade facilities.
Permanent underdrain systems should be provided to protect below grade construction,
such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas from wetting and hydrostatic
pressure buildup. The drains should consist of drainpipe surrounded above the invert
level with free - draining granular material. The drain should be placed at each level of
excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at a
minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low
provided the buildings are located in the relatively flat part of the property as planned
and cut depths are limited. Cut depths for the building pads and driveway access in
steeper sloping areas should not exceed about 10 feet. Fills should be limited to about
4 feet deep, unless the site is preloaded to mitigate potential settlement. Extensive fills
H -P GEOTECH
could result in large settlements of structures including roadways and utilities.
Structural fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor
density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be
carefully prepared by removing the vegetation, topsoil and existing fill. The fill should
be benched into the portions of the site exceeding 20% grade. The on -site soils may not
be suitable for structural fill due to organics and their wet condition. The steep
embankment fill slope of Mountain Star Road and any other slopes that exceed 30%
grade should not be developed.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to
1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation, rock riprap or other
means. This office should review site grading plans as part of the design development
for the project.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The grading plan for the development should consider runoff from steep uphill
slopes through the project and at individual sites. Water should not be allowed to pond
which could impact slope stability and foundations. To limit infiltration into the
bearing soils next to buildings, exterior backfill should be well compacted and have a
positive slope away from the building for a distance of 10 feet. Roof downspouts and
drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. The impact of flooding
and debris flow on the development should be evaluated by a surface hydrologist.
LIMITATIONS
This study has been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical
engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the field reconnaissance, review of
published geologic reports, the exploratory borings located as shown on Fig. 1, the
assumed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include
H -P GEOTECH
-9-
interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory
borings and there could be variations in the subsurface conditions.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for planning
and preliminary design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations
by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued
consultation, conduct additional subsurface evaluations and analyses, and review and
monitor the implementation of our recommendations.
Respectfully Submitted,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
0 REQ
_ c
Daniel E. Hardin. P.E. ; ° 24443
A•
P7 / ?7
•
Reviewed By:
ti.•
N A L ENc
5L�J( MM600
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DEH /kw
cc: Szymanski/Ray - Attn: Steve Szymanski
H -P GEOTECH
Western Ecosystems, cgnc.
Ecological Consultants
905 West (;oath Soao, Boulkr, CO `90302 (303) 442— 6144
July 19, 1999
Mr. Ray Nielson
Fieldstone Development LLC
143 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 499A
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Wildlife assessment of the proposed Buck Creek Village PUD, Town of Avon, Eagle
County, Colorado.
Dear Ray:
A pedestrian village, with residential and commercial development, is proposed on an
approximately 23 acre parcel currently known as the Buck Creek property, as described in
your submittal. This site, composed of three lots, is located along the lower reaches of Buck
Creek between approximately 7,500 and 7,680 feet. The property is bounded on the south
by Nottingham Road, on the west by Buck Creek Road, on the east by the toe of the slope
just east of Buck Creek, and extends past an abandoned cabin on the north. This property
is located within the planning jurisdiction of the Town of Avon (Town) and as such requires
Town approval. Wildlife is a resource of high public concern. Development, such as that
proposed, must consider potential impacts to wildlife and their habitats. Addressed below,
at you request, is a wildlife assessment of the proposed development.
METHODS
September and October 1997 Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Wildlife Resource
Information System (WRIS) maps were used to identify important seasonal wildlife ranges
on and surrounding the subject property. Site surveys were conducted on September 29 and
October 1, 1997 to evaluate habitats on and adjacent to the property as part of a prior
development proposal. Supplemental surveys, including a raptor nest survey, a boreal toad
(Bufo boreal boreal) survey, and habitat characterization, were conducted on July 14, 1999.
1 am also familiar with general wildlife use patterns in this ecological unit based, in part, on
adjacent projects, including Mountain Star, Nottingham Ranch (aka Vail Valley Centre), and
Cottonwood Ranch (aka Cordillera Valley Club). Surveys focused on (1) developing an
ecological understanding of the project area, (2) discerning how key wildlife species
seasonally use local habitats, (3) discerning how potential development areas and their
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 2
wildlife communities fit into the larger landscape, (4) evaluating how existing and approved,
but unbuilt, developments have affected wildlife use, and (5) determining how development
on the property could affect wildlife use.
HABITATS PRESENT
Habitats on the property vary widely in their value to wildlife, depending on the amount of
human disturbance and the degree to which native habitats have been altered.
Approximately 85% of Lot 1, the southern most lot, was until recently an active landscaping
nursery. The operation has been removed and disturbed areas have reverted to weedy
volunteer and introduced vegetation. The lot extends northeast to include the southern edge
of a sapling to mature, narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) stand. This lot also
contains the lowest unaltered channel of Buck Creek, a perennial stream, before it enters
culverts extending under Nottingham Road and I -70.
Approximately 90% of the native habitats on Lot 2 have been removed, partly by a graded,
barren, gravel parking lot and partly as part of the landscaping operation's storage area.
Electric and storm drain infrastructure appears to have been installed in Lots 1 and 2. At
least one seep and an uncapped, artesian well are present on the lot supporting wetland
vegetation. The remainder of the lot is also dominated by weedy, invasive vegetation,
including, but certainly not limited to, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), yellow blossom sweet
clover (Meliotus officinale), and musk (Cardttus nutans), Canada (Cirsutm arvense), and
plumeless thistle (C. acanthoides).
Lot 3 is the least disturbed of the three lots, although the understory of the non - wetland/
riparian community is dominated by smooth brome and Canada thistle, a small, man -made
pond is present near the southern end, and an abandoned cabin is present on the north.
The pond, primarily fed by flows off Buck Creek, was choked with algae during the 1997 and
1999 field surveys, and supported a few, voracious brown trout (Sabno tnttta) weighing 2 -3
pounds each. These fish were apparently stocked by an unknown private party. The middle
of this lot supports a willow (Salix sp.)/ alder (Alnus tenetifolia)/ herbaceous wetland that
extends into the pond. This wetland is supported by runoff from Buck Creek Road that is
diverted under the road through a culvert.
The Buck Creek riparian corridor, extending through all three lots, is in relatively good
ecological condition, although the understory is dominated by smooth brome, a naturalized,
introduced cultivar. Reproducing narrowleaf cottonwoods, alder, willow, and water birch
(Betula fontinalis) occur along the length of this reach. Aspen (P. tremuloides), chokecherry
(Prunus americana), and blue spruce (Picea pungens) are locally present. With the exception
of this woody riparian corridor, the narrow band of habitats east of the creek on the
property, and wetland communities (described in Colorado Alpines 1996), native habitats
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 3
on -site have been removed and replaced with smooth brome that has been invaded by
Canada thistle and other weeds.
WILDLIFE USE
This report addresses only significant wildlife use of the property. "Significant" refers to
those wildlife species and issues, focusing on threatened and endangered species and big
game, that will be of high biological and political interest as a result of the proposed
development. Individual wildlife species and groups not specifically addressed in this report
are not necessarily insignificant, they either do not represent important constraints that need
consideration in this stage of the planning process, or these species and their habitats would
be minimally affected by the ultimate development proposal. Furthermore, if the habitats
required to preserve big game values can be considered and protected during project
planning, then the habitat values of most other species with smaller home ranges will also
be protected. Many of the life history requirements of these unmentioned species, and the
most valuable wildlife habitats, may be protected by clustering development, confining
development to existing zones of disturbance, avoiding Buck Creek, its riparian corridor, and
wetlands vegetation, limiting fencing, and implementing and enforcing protective covenants.
Nevertheless, much of the wildlife use now associated with the property will be displaced
from the proposed urban environment.
Wildlife use of the property is characterized by those species which seasonally utilize (1)
narrow, riparian and wetland habitats and adjacent mountain shrub communities, and (2)
weedy lots with vertical structure on the urban/ wildland interface. For some species,
including big game, habitat effectiveness is limited by (1) the non - native habitats present, (2)
on -site and adjacent human activity and disturbances, and (3) the chronic activity associated
with the Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads and I -70. Wildlife use of the development site
may be characterized by a low to moderate diversity of mostly nongame species whose
diversity values peak in late spring through mid - summer.
There are no habitats of threatened, endangered, or candidate species on -site or in adjacent
areas that the development and use of the property would jeopardize.
Portions of Buck Creek Lots 1 -3 are designated on CDOW WRIS maps as elk (Cervecs
elaphus) winter range, critical habitat, winter concentration area, and severe winter range.
These designations are valid for the limited, fragmented, native, mostly wooded, habitats
remaining on the property, generally those along and east of Buck Creek. Heavy elk barking
on some aspen trees confirms this. Occasional winter elk use on portions of the property
occurs mostly at night when human activity is diminished and when elk are "protected" by
darkness. Non - native habitats on the property may also be used by elk, but gravel parking
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 4
areas and graded, former landscape nursery areas should not be considered "critical
habitats ".
CDOW WRIS maps also designate upper (northern) portions of the property as mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) winter range and critical habitat. A large polygon denoting the deer
migration corridor begins just above (i.e., north of) the property. It is likely that some spring
and fall deer movements also occur across the property. Deer also occasionally use the
property during summer, although this use is mostly limited to nocturnal and crepuscular
periods by the intensity and extent of activities on and adjacent to the site.
Development and use of Buck Creek Road to Mountain Star has resulted in low numbers
of road - killed deer and elk along it. Although spanning bridges (specifically installed to
facilitate deer migration)' are effective, some animals continue to use former routes which
take them across the road, and some animals are killed. The steep fill slope and guard rail
along the road adjacent to Lots 1 -3 restricts some local and migratory movements.
No raptor nests were located in any of the trees on -site, either in 1997 or 1999. Although
the structure of some trees is suitable for raptor nesting, the proximity of land uses on and
adjacent to the parcel and the availability of more suitable and secluded nest sites in the
surrounding area are probably why no nests are present on the property. Active magpie
(Pica pica) nests were present on the parcel in 1997 and 1999.
Habitats on and adjacent to the property are sufficiently unsuitable for the boreal toad that
habitats need not be avoided or buffered solely for the potential benefit of the toad. The
parcel is at the lower elevational range known to be inhabited by boreal toads in Colorado
(Loeffler 1998). No toad populations are known from the Buck Creek or adjacent drainages
that might increase the likelihood of toad presence in, or use of, Buck Creek. The only
reason that boreal toads were identified as a potential concern on the property was because
of the man -made pond. As a water body, this pond potentially represents boreal toad
breeding habitat. However some pond characteristics (e.g., its isolated upland location, lack
of shallow underwater aprons, and its eutrophied conditions) make it questionable as
suitable breeding habitat. Furthermore, suitable (Loeffler 1998) adjacent toadlet habitat,
summer habitat, and overwinter refugia are absent or poorly developed on the parcel.
Because development on the property would be connected to the Town's water system, it
is assumed that proposed use of the site would not result in any water depletions or other
effects to the Eagle and Colorado Rivers that have not been previously considered in
environmental documents.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 5
The proposed development has the potential to adversely affect some important wildlife
habitats. This section identifies potential wildlife conflicts and recommends measures to
avoid impacts and compensate for those that cannot be avoided.
In general, the proposal would sensitively locate development within the parcel, avoiding
higher value riparian and wetland habitats, keeping all development west of Buck Creek, and
siting development within previously disturbed areas and non - native habitats. However, the
development will displace all species from impact footprints and many of the remaining
species from the surrounding zone of influence. This zone of influence will vary by species
and their tolerance of human presence. For example, elk and deer will probably establish
the broadest buffer zones, while magpies should continue nesting in the mature tree on -site.
The following recommendations are suggested to further reduce potential impacts.
1. Elk and Deer Winter Range
Although the development would avoid most native habitats on -site, there would be a net
loss of approximately 3.5 acres of elk and deer winter range resulting from (1) development
footprints, (2) animal displacement from human activity areas, and (3) reduced habitat
effectiveness. Most winter range within this portion of the valley is on private lands, where
development has been accelerating in recent years. Cumulative winter range losses have
reached a point where additional impacts to winter range are critical to deer survival and
are altering both deer and elk distributions and habitat utilization patterns.
However, winter range losses associated with the Buck Creek development could be at least
partly offset by winter range enhancement in adjacent unaffected areas. The approach often
used in the Eagle Valley is compensatory payment into a fund used to support periodic
habitat treatments. Compensation, based on (1) the loss of 3.5 acres (exact acreage should
be determined at the final design stage) of high quality winter range, (2) the need to treat
(via aerial fertilization) 1.57 acres of habitat once every three years in perpetuity to offset
each 1.0 acre of habitat affected, (3) current (1999) fertilization costs of $68.00/ acre, and
(4) an interest rate of 5 %, would require annual payments (in perpetuity) of $124.55, or a
one -time payment of principal totalling $2,491.07 (in 1999 dollars) to be made into the North
Eagle Valley Wildlife Trust Fund (administered by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage
Foundation [CWHF]). Interest generated by this fund will be used for CDOW authorized
wildlife enhancement projects in the Avon- Wolcott area north of I -70. Initial and one -time
compensatory payments would be due before Final Plat approval, since it would take three
years to generate enough interest for the first enhancement effort. It is the intention that
all mitigation efforts would be focused on those animals affected by the Buck Creek
development. Dispersement of funds will be overseen by a committee composed of
representatives from the developer /owner, CDOW, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and County. The BLM and USFS will be included because
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 6
their adjacent lands are important for existing and future wildlife mitigation efforts. The
committee will decide by consensus on what, when, and how enhancement projects will be
conducted.
2. Fencing
Fencing should be restricted throughout the development to facilitate wildlife movements,
optimize habitat availability, and reduce wildlife mortality. Unless required to restrict
domestic livestock grazing on adjacent properties, all existing fencing on the property should
be removed or restrung as a 3- strand barbed -wire fence, with strands located at 18, 30, and
42 inches above mean ground level.
3. Designation of Protected Wildlife Habitat
All lands to the east of the Buck Creek on the property could be designated as Protected
Wildlife Habitat and plat restricted from any future development, including trails and picnic
facilities.
4. Seasonal Wildlife Closures
Portions of the Buck Creek property designated as Protected Wildlife Habitat and adjacent
private and public properties represent critical big game winter range. To encourage
continued elk and deer use of this and adjacent properties, all human use of Protected
Wildlife Habitat should be prohibited during the winter range occupancy period (December
1 to April 1). This closure on adjacent properties should be effective, given the steep
topography of those areas.
5. Dogs
It would be best for wildlife if residential and bed and breakfast owners and guests were
prohibited from harboring dogs on the property. This would prevent any stray dogs
originating on -site, which could adversely affect big game use of adjacent winter range.
As an alternative, the owner(s) of each unit could be permitted to have one dog. Any dogs
must be kept within residences unless adequate community or individual facilities are
provided on -site. An adequate outdoor facility for dogs would include a kennel or a run
fenced on all sides. Runs should additionally have enclosed tops to protect dogs from
possible mountain lion predation. Enclosed runs must be located immediately adjacent to
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 7
the complex and shall not exceed 500 square feet. If facilities are inadequate to contain the
residents' dogs, the animals will be immediately removed from the development until
adequate structures can be built. If individual or community kennels are prohibited at the
complex, dogs must be kept within individual units. At no time are dogs or cats to be
allowed to run freely. If dogs are outside, they must be in a kennel or on a leash not to
exceed 12 feet long.
The Homeowners Association will be responsible for enforcing dog and pet covenants. Stray
dogs may also be controlled by the Town and CDOW. Homeowners not in compliance with
these dog restrictions will be responsible for any and all costs incurred by the Homeowners
Association, Town, and /or CDOW for enforcing these provisions. Homeowners should also
be educated that they should not feed dogs and other pets outside (including decks) to avoid
attracting nuisance wildlife or predators.
Contractors will be prohibited from bringing dogs to the construction site, even if dogs would
be kept inside vehicles.
6. Bears/ Garbage Disposal
The Buck Creek development is located on the edge of high quality black bear habitat.
Most bears do not cause damage where residential areas have encroached into bear habitat.
The key is that if a bear doesn't find food it will move on. Black bears are omnivorous and
while they mostly eat vegetation, they will eat almost anything. They will eat human food,
garbage, hummingbird nectar, bird seed, pet food, grease off grills, suntan lotion, etc.
Garbage generally provides the greatest attraction for bears to suburban developments.
Once a bear has found an easily accessible, consistent food source, it will often overcome
its wariness of people and visit the site regularly. This increases the chance of a bear -human
encounter. After repeated use of the food source, the bear may even act aggressively
toward residents, their pets, or their unsuspecting neighbors. When this happens and wildlife
authorities are notified, the bear is usually killed to protect human safety.
Proper garbage disposal is required to prevent bears and other nuisance wildlife species
from destroying property and posing a threat and nuisance to residents and their pets. An
appropriate number of bear -proof community dumpsters will be incorporated into the design
and operation of the development to accommodate trash. Residents will not be required
to provide their own bear -proof trash containers as long as: (1) residents dispose of their
trash in bear -proof community dumpsters; and (2) bears do not become a problem.
At the first report to the CDOW of a garbage- related bear incident at the Buck Creek
development, the CDOW will analyze the incident to determine if additional measures are
required to preclude bear conflicts. While bears, the species of greatest concern, are only
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 8
active from April through November, proper year -round garbage disposal will preclude other
wildlife species and stray dogs from causing problems.
The following additional measures will be required to reduce potential bear problems:
A. Pets shall not be fed outside. Bowls of pet food left on the back deck will attract
bears and other predators (e.g., coyotes) and nuisance species (e.g., skunks) of
wildlife. Some of these wildlife species may carry disease that can be transmitted to
pets, if the pets aren't eaten.
B. With the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means
of attracting wildlife shall be prohibited.
C. Homeowners will be educated about bears and other local wildlife via the
CDOW's brochure entitled "Living with wildlife in bear country". A copy of the
brochure shall be provided to each homeowner at closing.
7. Avoidance of Riparian and Wetland Vegetation
The trees, large shrubs, and herbaceous species associated with Buck Creek, its riparian
corridor, and local wetlands provide considerable habitat structure to the property and
support the highest wildlife diversity values of any habitat present. Development should
avoid alterations to these communities to maintain the considerable, mostly nongame wildlife
use now associated with these habitats. Appropriate setbacks from these habitats should
also be considered in the project design, as required by the Town. Any trail that is
developed on the property should be kept outside of the Buck Creek riparian corridor.
With the implementation of the above measures, which avoid most potential wildlife conflicts
and which compensate for those that area unavoidable, most functional wildlife use of this
local area should continue.
Mr. Ray Nielson
July 19, 1999
Page 9
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Thompson
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT /s
LITERATURE CITED:
Colorado Alpines, Inc. 1996. Wetland delineation report Benchmark, Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Colorado Alpines, Inc. Avon, CO.
Loeffler, C. (ed.). 1998. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery
of the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas).
Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 66 pp. + appendices.
Thompson, R.W. 1994. Wildlife assessment of Avon School Parcel rezoning. Western
Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 3 pp.
Thompson, R.W. 1996. Wildlife assessment of the Chateau St. Claire development. Western
Ecosystems, Inc. 4 pp.
Thompson, R.W. and D.L. Johnson. 1995. Wildlife and vegetation evaluation of proposed
residential development on Knudson Ranch, Eagle County, Colorado. Western
Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 15 pp.
z
... ........ .
o 4 D,
—
71
R
hk4
1, 14
Is
0 Cf) f
dNZ mu
L
>
>
z
Z 0 � x
M
M
>
:13
> m 0
-4
Ilk
ni
qu
Uf
j. fi ll is
0
it
k
Att.i i
if R t !1
i
it
iif 10; is*
Of
JJ a
11"
Na il
Oil T
F 11
1?
24ilk
zo!
U. I
lilt yj!pg'--"
1, aolki'ml a
is
AA T
Pi -1 I
z
v:.
NMI;
2i fill, N: 'a
'
e
li i
it
s
. I
hk4
1, 14
Is
0 Cf) f
dNZ mu
L
>
>
z
Z 0 � x
M
M
>
:13
> m 0
-4
Ilk
ni
qu
Uf
j. fi ll is
0
it
k
Att.i i
if R t !1
i
it
iif 10; is*
Of
JJ a
11"
Na il
Oil T
F 11
1?
24ilk
zo!
U. I
z a
El
z
v:.
2i fill, N: 'a
'
r it
hk4
1, 14
Is
0 Cf) f
dNZ mu
L
>
>
z
Z 0 � x
M
M
>
:13
> m 0
-4
Ilk
ni
qu
Uf
j. fi ll is
0
it
k
Att.i i
if R t !1
i
it
iif 10; is*
Of
JJ a
11"
Na il
Oil T
F 11
fell
, E
24ilk
0.'
z a
El
hk4
1, 14
Is
0 Cf) f
dNZ mu
L
>
>
z
Z 0 � x
M
M
>
:13
> m 0
-4
Ilk
ni
qu
Uf
j. fi ll is
0
it
k
Att.i i
if R t !1
i
it
iif 10; is*
Of
JJ a
11"
Na il
Oil T
F 11
fell
, E
11
0.'
z a
El
v:.
2i fill, N: 'a
'
r it
oil
exud Iv..uilllMlet .. - •.q.._
6157 ..
.� i � �•��y. 1 D C � v i
'I�'i !•I �// \\ D ✓i� e; �� �� � � � d � � � � 7 �� '6 � � � �� C' � X18 e
Z; WR
1p~. .\ ` ` �•�` V'�
1'
'the 17;
• \ \ ` U I t ,•DIY` ?4 ^. I !�,(S1 •. • ''\ \
AAR 124
! d �P li i5v } y Ci7 t •\ \
ry{r,6�l{ •e �� � � dR� g:.}� as i 3. O f9 \� ` .` •I '\ \
tr
to
tj psL[L[L[ N� 1� � � iSP � �i� t � Q• \ \ \• \\ 1 /•' `�,,
cn
till
txi
PL
o -
/ El corcmuiGN`PI "c xut Johneon, Nuukel Aeencktee, Ina _ WIO 9VRV[YN1G YIPPING
2 96610IP• IXcmN NG PidNow.
41
I it tit I
PA
%
:t.
tu
.1 0
o
CD Q.
�j 0
In
to
0
C) 0
PL
L4
99
C) 0
,f�lr � � fi F 9 a � !,'u
I � 4 a '�� f
A A
73
lt
hn..n, Kunkel
,2 l —i t— 1".
■
■
■
■
■
� �rn
0
S
Un A MOUNTAIN SAGE TOWNHOMES
r LOT 15, BLOCK 1 2170 SADDLE RIDGE RD.
WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION AVON, COLORADO
i
m
0
�� i�ooi Cgtg�Lp�
RR �
E
9
R
A
NN
a
o ►. 16 jo
0 00
C
��C_NpNpNpLSSS A
i
O D
U —
`P
N
r i
m
Un A MOUNTAIN SAGE TOWNHOMES
r LOT 15, BLOCK 1 2170 SADDLE RIDGE RD.
WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION AVON, COLORADO
i
m
0
�� i�ooi Cgtg�Lp�
RR �
E
9
R
A
NN
rn�Dn
i
O D
U —
�Z
D
P=Tl
N
Z
�
Z
>
�Zy
d
X
• DESIGN GROUP o
pa box ON • avm, eokmth • a=- M-M -70W
\800- 899 \806 \dwg \BO6- TIMS5 -8.dwg Mon May OB 16:28:06 2000 TG
/ � c
/
/
er
_
V )
D
FTI
9 �
v
"1
a
c
z
p;
`
�v ------ - - - -
--
0 r- m <
�
cmn D
—�
CD M
m Z
HOLM FOURPLEX
IJ
m°
O
co
co
—
LOT 15, BLOCK 1 2170 SADDLE RIDGE RD.
,
°
z
—i
WILDRIDGE
SUBDIVISION — AVON, COLORADO
°
rrn r
0 0 c—
(D rnrnc)c�"
—i --i
om
m
z
U) t-
o
F ttt
%A)
'r
o ttt
Itt
r
CTI
r
Ul O
11
°' O
cn A)
o
_nr
1>
Z
�Z
Ar
tJ O
O
(f) V
or
No
r
r
m
m
r
V
O
O
Yl
r
Z
N
MOUNTAIN SAGE TOWNHOMES
2170 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP LOT 15, BLACK 1
WILDRIDGE AVON, COLORADO
i
I
e
I
t
t
GD WEYF
Low c� aTm
Fl
r
1p
-
v
Y
U
0
.fJwl«a= • pknnfn • end .ppHati.
4
o"
f
MOUNTAIN SAGE TOWNHOMES
2170 SADDLE RIDGE LOOP LOT 15, BLACK 1
WILDRIDGE AVON, COLORADO
i
I
e
I
t
GD WEYF
r
♦ DESIGN GROUP •
.fJwl«a= • pknnfn • end .ppHati.
pn bm 16196 • avm wkca s • 8M- 910414.70l4
1110
ion
son
NMI
NMI
NMI
31"M iii i
NMI
MON
am=
On
ii
CC
as
mmi
C/)
r
o�
CD c W �
o 00 44h
CD
CL %A 0 o'n o � �
G� w
°o cn 0 �
cCr 0
3
o a i
CD
CD
D Cn 0 E TS Lot 43 Fourplex
o Block 4 Wildrid e i I •¢!$ 0 D
CD 9 Avon, CO N
4D
ILI
r!
F's
—8�
,y^Y
O T ,
00
01) cr r� '
o cn a s �a•�_.
�I
Nor
K
I•
Z'S., �.4
r
mm
f
IM
I
A
a �
1 W
T
i
,
,
,
�D
fir]
gai
S
� A
: m•
�R
v
i�
i
u • � i i I ••I'
fA
be—
LO 114i
. . ' ..'.
\ /
Pit
4 �
N
I
TS Lot 43 Fourplex ��s$
4 Wildrid e • a
Block g �, o�
�. �
Avon, CO � � ,
IV g TS Lot 43 Fourplex
I a m[ 1 e' 1 Block 4 Wildnd a
j m = Avon, CO
sr -nj•
22--1I• i.
�O
�g
I ��1
S I
�D W r 2 do
0j A p
�= TAZ tq
i I ❑ ❑ —___�----
�O
OF LI
D Ell 7
I
®
Z
I
Z I
N
I
I
�
U I
i
T�
^^
{0
do
II
I
—r3 II
mz y�0 II
m�
i = %Tz
I
I
r-
L� I I
D r -- - - --II
y!
- -- \
pqp I
i I
�O
I
❑ w ❑ I
I
Al I
�..q'
s• -sl' I
srai•
i. -�.
sr -�•
D TS Lot 43 Fourplex It 111!181
3 m 0 Block 4, Wildndge 3 �4 oo
—I 9
N � Avon, CO
Lmmmmmm� I LMMMOMMOMMMMJ - - Ell , 2
�O
�g
I ��1
S I
�D W r 2 do
0j A p
�= TAZ tq
i I ❑ ❑ —___�----
I
0-1
+ i
w
D Ell 7
D TS Lot 43 Fourplex It 111!181
3 m 0 Block 4, Wildndge 3 �4 oo
—I 9
N � Avon, CO
Lmmmmmm� I LMMMOMMOMMMMJ - - Ell , 2
o TS Lot 43 Fourplex $� .�
Block 4 s a
9 Wildrid M� tF �� D
IV If cD m P�
Hill e� 6 I
D g Avon, CO
O 0
0
DO I
I I 1 1 I
6
I
I
All
®
�
I
•�
N
I
0 E7:1 71
�
I
0
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
I L
c
I
i
i-i
II
II
I
I
I
I
nD �,rm do II
Z 3 II
� ( 'Mu m II
L m=4 ± I Ll ❑ --- -� - - --
I
1
I
I
II
II 9
W
O
3
II I
�z A�p jl I
P I
AZ
� k
G
I
I
o TS Lot 43 Fourplex $� .�
Block 4 s a
9 Wildrid M� tF �� D
IV If cD m P�
Hill e� 6 I
D g Avon, CO
O 0
�g
6
All
®
�
•�
N
I
0 E7:1 71
L
�
I
I L
c
i
i-i
II
Q
nD �,rm do II
Z 3 II
� ( 'Mu m II
L m=4 ± I Ll ❑ --- -� - - --
I
I
I
II
II 9
W
O
3
o TS Lot 43 Fourplex $� .�
Block 4 s a
9 Wildrid M� tF �� D
IV If cD m P�
Hill e� 6 I
D g Avon, CO
o
0 m
�A?
m
m
r
ar.w�•
Ts'.ei• 7•.1 .
I
1•1. 1
♦ 00
-- -i= —iii
0 � II
wcm
u
n
n
n
00 1 p
r! Oo
` t ICE
II
II
II
II
s
Z
II
n
II
ii
I
I
I
Li
yn'AZ
r =1
m
I
Nd
O
ON
O
I
I
❑ 00
I
I
4p I
4
I<
0
IL
NQ i 33
O
pN
O
1
a
�
6Y-
I
HOUKP W MOOM OA AWN
Haul o NO" O" AM lOLLIQO� lows a0lwn
C TS Lot 43 Fourplex �� liffIll
it i : < Block 4 Wildnd e { y� ! ((F �� �� a
w '' Avon, CO
Musa 0 90" O* AM
I I
�
wcm
u
n
n
n
00 1 p
r! Oo
` t ICE
II
s
U,-qu
m
ii
yn'AZ
r =1
m
pp
F I
m
I
L-- - - - - --
NQ i 33
O
pN
O
1
a
�
.Y
I
4 I
1�� I
�
® O
O
Haul o NO" O" AM lOLLIQO� lows a0lwn
C TS Lot 43 Fourplex �� liffIll
it i : < Block 4 Wildnd e { y� ! ((F �� �� a
w '' Avon, CO
aD
r
y
r
CD TS Lot 43 Fourplex ��Fj ji w �
Block 4 Wildrid e E J� f g� �� v
O g
� � Avon, CO � N ,
I
rr.MU.
1 r 6 i
y Z TS Lot 43 Fourplex ��e$
w w° i f 6 Block 4, Wildnd a g¢ l$ �• v
(� O A
Li Avon, CO 19 Im
MM.i L� C)
' A
,v.
I
zo