PZC Packet 0116181 Agenda posted on Friday, January 12, 2018 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
-Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org
Please call 970-748-4023 for questions.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
If you require special accommodation please contact us in advance and we will assist you. You may call David McWilliams at 970-
748-4023 or email cmcwilliams@avon.org for special requests.
I. Call to Order – 5:00pm
II. Roll Call
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment) Village at Avon PUD – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17001
Legal Description: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon
Applicant: Harvey Robertson
Summary: PUD Guide amendment for changes to Planning Area F, a 13-acre property located at
the intersection of Post Blvd and East Beaver Creek Boulevard, including: 1) increase
density allowance from 18 dwelling unit/ acre to 25 dwelling units per acre; 2) increase
maximum allowable residential development from 50% to 100; and 3) increase
allowable building height from 48’ to 66’ for multi-family buildings.
VI. Meeting Minutes
• January 2, 2018 Meeting
VII. Approval of Record of Decision
• PUD17003 – Buck Creek PUD Amendment
VIII. Work Session
Summary: Discuss and formulate agenda for upcoming joint work session meeting with Avon Town Council.
The session is tentatively scheduled for February 13th, and possible items include:
• Short Term Rentals
• AEC Process and Natural Resource Protection Standards
• Noticing Requirements
IX. Staff Updates
X. Adjourn
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 1
Staff Report – Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment)
January 16, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
File #PUD17001
Legal description Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon – Planning Area F
Zoning PUD
Address 1000 E. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
-- PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 2, 2018 MEETING --
Introduction
The Applicant, Harvey Robertson, is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment (“the
Application”) to amend the Village at Avon PUD Guide and standards for Planning Area F (PA-F). This
Planning Area measures approximately 13 acres and is situated at the northwest corner of the Post
Boulevard and East Beaver Creek Boulevard (referred to as “the Property”). The Village at Avon PUD
Guide, the governing zoning document, currently permits a number of mixed-use and commercial uses,
including multi-family buildings up to 48’ tall and density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Amendments
proposed to Planning Area F include the following:
o Increase in maximum allotted density from 18 dwelling units per acre (or approximately 234
dwelling units total), to 25 dwelling units per acre (or approximately 325 dwelling units total).
o Removal of mixed-use requirement as follows:
o Current Residential minimum 0%, 50% maximum; Current Commercial 50% minimum, 100%
maximum.
o Proposed Residential minimum 0%, 100% maximum; Proposed Commercial 0% minimum,
100% maximum.
o Increase building height from 48’ to 66’ for multi-family buildings.
PUD Master Plan Vicinity Map
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 2
All other development standards (i.e. site coverage, setbacks, building height, parking, and minimum
landscape area) remain the same and no changes are being sought to the PUD Master Plan map. The
commercial square footage cap for the entire PUD remains at 825,000 sq. ft. and the total permitted
dwelling units remain at 2,400. All the details of the Application, the PUD Guide, PUD Master Plan map,
and written statements are included as Attachment A. A Powerpoint presentation from the Applicant is
also included as Attachement B, with more information on the intended development plan
Process
Major PUD Amendment
Since the Application does not meet any of the qualifying administrative amendments outlined in the
Village at Avon PUD Guide, this application is being processed as a “Formal Amendment” accordingly
under §7.16.060(h), Amendments to a Final PUD, AMC. Subsection (1)(v), states that a PUD amendment
that is not classified as an administrative or minor amendment shall be considered “major”. Subsection
(2)(iv) sets forth the review procedures for process which includes preliminary and final PUD applications.
Before PZC is the preliminary PUD application. The PZC shall review a preliminary PUD application and
shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council after conducting a public hearing.
The Town Council shall review and render a final decision on a preliminary PUD application after
conducting another public hearing. Unless otherwise approved by the Town Council, approval of a
preliminary PUD application shall vest no rights to an applicant other than the right to submit a final PUD
development plan. There is a six (6) month timeframe following approval of a preliminary PUD plan,
whereby the applicant must initiate the second stage of the process by filing a final PUD plan and proceed
through the same process with PZC and Town Council.
Public Notification
In compliance with the Public Hearing and noticing requirements, a mailed notice was provided to all
property owners within 300’ of the property. While the subject property of PA-F is limited to 13 acres, the
300’ notice was provided to all landowners within 300’ of Lot 1, which encompasses the majority of the
valley floor between Chapel Square and Post Boulevard. Additionally, a notice was published in the Vail
Daily. No written comments have been received for this Application.
Public Hearings
The January 16, 2018 meeting completes the public hearing requirements with the PZC. As noted, the
Council will make the final decision on this preliminary PUD after holding an additional public hearing. The
Town Council hearing is scheduled for action on January 23, 2018.
Staff Analysis
Density Increase
Staff Review: This proposal can be equated to a transfer of development rights from other areas of the
PUD to Planning Area F. The total density for the Village at Avon PUD remains at 2,400 dwelling units. Of
the total 2,400 dwelling units, 500 must be ‘affordable’ by definition. The Buffalo Ridge apartments are
the sole housing project, containing 244 units. Therefore, approximately half of the affordable units have
been constructed and 2,156 dwelling units remain. It should be noted that within planning areas, portions
can exceed the maximum number of dwelling units per acre prescribed if the total density is not exceeded
within the planning area.
By way of example, Planning Area F contains 13 acres and is currently subject to a maximum residential
density of 18 dwelling units per acre (i.e. a total of 234 dwelling units). A 7-acre site within Planning Area
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 3
F could be developed with 175 dwelling units (i.e. 25 dwelling units per acre), but the remaining 6 acres
would be limited to not more than 59 dwelling units (or 10 dwelling units/acre), with the resulting density
in the aggregate being 18 dwelling units per acre (i.e. 175+59=234 dwelling units / 13 acres = 18 dwelling
units per acre).
Density by itself does not present substantial impacts beyond the site which cannot be mitigated or are
already mitigated by the location of the site. One impact could be increased traffic from one concentrated
area of the PUD. Post Boulevard includes four lanes of travel and is anchored by roundabouts on both
corners of the lot, which helps to alleviate traffic concerns. Future transit connections are not fully
understood but should be considered with full buildout of the planning area. The Wal-mart bus stop on
the other side of Traer Creek Plaza can be used for an interim timeframe for both local and regional transit
connections from PA-F. If the project is phased, staff would encourage sidewalk connections to nearby
networks.
Elimination of Mixed Use Requirement
Staff Review: The Village at Avon PUD includes mixed-use requirements for Planning Areas A, C, D, F, G,
and H. This comprises the valley floor area between Interstate 70 and the railroad tracks. In general
terms, mixed use developments allow for people to live, work, play and shop in one place, which then
becomes a destination for people from other areas. Mixed use developments benefit from increased
pedestrian activity and vibrancy, as can be seen in the nearby Riverwalk development in Edwards.
While the current minimum commercial percentage requirement (50%) seems disproportionate given the
current trends in commercial/retail development, staff would like the planning commission to discuss and
determine whether the complete elimination of commercial space is appropriate for this area. In many
ways, this planning area acts as a transition zone between regional commercial and arterial roadways, to
more of a local setting on East Beaver Creek Boulevard. That may explain why this eastern part of the
valley floor has a higher minimum percentage of commercial than the west side adjacent to Chapel
Square.
The western side of the Village at Avon is referred to as Planning Area A (PA-A) and includes residential
minimum and maximum percentages as 30% and 80% respectively. The commercial minimum and
maximum for PA-A is 20% and 70%; it may have been viewed as more flexible given its relationship to an
already established less-dense development pattern.
It could be possible to set aside property or portion of building(s) adjacent to East Beaver Creek Boulevard
(“Main Street”) to accommodate future commercial land use when demand is realized. While a single
development will not tip the scale for commercial, when critical mass of nearby projects is met,
commercial space would be desirable and benefit the entire community. The conceptual site
development plan layout reinforces the roundabout corner of the property with building frontage. Are
there other ways to activate Main Street besides commercial space and/or building frontage?
Height Increase
Staff Review: Currently, PA-F is permitted 48’ tall buildings. The proposal would allow for multi-family
buildings within PA-F up to 66’. The buildings would be visible from various vantage points including Post
Boulevard, properties to the south, and future development to the west.
Based upon the location of the site at the toe of a large steep hillside leading to Interstate 70, and the
fact that the site orients south and will not shade adjacent roadways or sidewalks, minimal impacts are
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 4
anticipated to adjacent uses. View corridors should also not be affected based on the elevation of
adjacent topography and the location of the planning area. The Planning Commission requested an East-
West section through the entire development and adjacent developed properties (i.e. Traer Creek Plaza)
to fully understand the impact of taller buildings. At the first public hearing, the applicant presented that
of the buildings meet 48’ at a conceptual level, but portions of the 5-story and uphill development would
exceed 60’. Staff recommends that the building height increase be limited in some way (i.e. % of the
buildings, or limited by phase) at Final PUD submittal.
PUD Review Criteria
Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, the PZC shall consider the following criteria when
forming the basis of a recommendation:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or incorporates
creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and represents an
improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the
otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in quality may include, but
are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection;
tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and services; or
increased choice of living and housing environments.
Staff Response: The Application acknowledges the changed conditions in the housing market, with
increases in demand over which was envisioned even 7 years ago. C hanges are not proposed to the
existing open space provisions, environmental protections, or use of streets or services.
Density changes and/or changes in the residential/commercial mix of this property would not have a
direct effect on adjacent streets. For example, no additional curb cuts are envisioned, or would be
entertained, on Post Boulevard. Access to PA-F is limited to the Yoder and Post Roundabout on the
north, and the future “Main Street” connection on the south.
At the time PA-F develops, the portion of E. Beaver Creek Boulevard (north abutting road) and “Main
Street” (south abutting road) must be constructed and extended with the elements listed above to
meet the minimum roadway
requirements. For example,
the southern frontage of PA-F
must include a 50’ Right of
Way with 11’ minimum travel
lanes, 6’ landscape areas, 4’
sidewalks, and snow storage.
It is the expectation that these
abutting roadway sections will
be constructed at least to the
western limits of any new
development within PA-F.
In order to achieve the
mobility goals of the Town,
staff recommends that the
roadway profiles include bike
lanes, wider sidewalks and a
potential bus pullout on both
sides of Main Street. Staff
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 5
recommends that the road profile be provided at Final PUD to understand how the project will
achieve the minimum PUD standards and the mobility goals of the Town.
Staff would encourage the provision of wider sidewalks since 4’ is no longer viewed as an inviting
experience for pedestrian activity. Additionally, as mentioned, a bus stop should be planned for
westbound Main Street toward the west end of PA-F.
No substantive changes in utilities are expected. If developed with additional density as proposed, the
development could provide increased living and housing options in an area already served by transit
and other connections to existing services.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: Staff finds no detrimental effects on the public health, safety and/or general welfare
with changing density or commercial mix on one portion of the Village at Avon PUD.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
Staff Response: The eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b) are not applicable to this Application as
it is already zoned PUD and this is an amendment thereto. This includes the provision of compensatory
public benefits. As stated in the Town Attorney’s memo (Attachment C), the appropriate analysis for
any requirement is the incremental increased impact of the proposed amendment. Because the
application would not result in an increase of overall residential or commercial density of the Village
(at Avon) PUD as a whole, staff does not believe any change to the existing requirements (i.e.
affordable housing) is appropriate.
Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan is documented in the Applicant’s narrative and this
application can be found in general conformance with the plan. The Avon Comprehensive Plan
applicable to this application is the 2006 plan and not the recently approved May 2017 Avon
Comprehensive Plan. This is based upon the current PUD Guide definitions and Development
Agreement approvals that govern the property.
According to the 2006
Comprehensive Plan the
Property is located within the
Village at Avon West District.
This district discourages large
single use buildings, seeks to
connect the existing
streetscape improvements of
the East Town Center and
Chapel Square, and
encourages public plazas,
green spaces, and vertically
mixed-use projects.
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 6
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire
protection, and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property
while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: This PUD amendment does not change the overall demands of, or ability to be served
by existing installed or planned utilities. The mainline utility services are located directly adjacent to
the Property and the area is served by all municipal and special district services. Water consumption
is limited per agreements; the entire Village at Avon PUD is required to create a “Water Bank” to track
available quantities of water. Staff will request additional details with regards to the Nottingham
Puder Ditch running through the middle of PA-F since development will impact that infrastructure.
Additionally, there is a Wet Well on the east side of PA-F, used by the Town for raw water irrigation
purposes, that will need to be accessed periodically after development. As conditions of Final PUD,
staff will recommend specific conditions related to a revised Nottingham-Puder Ditch easement, and
an amended Wet Well easement.
As discussed above, mobility facilities should be demonstrated at Final PUD for adjacent Main Street
connection which will be constructed concurrently with development of PA-F.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife,
and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: The proposed Application will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the
natural environment, compared to the underlying zoning.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adv erse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: Compared to the underlying PUD zoning for PA-F, changes in building height should
not result in significant impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The cross section(s) that PZC
requested at the first public hearing should help to alleviate any lingering concerns with height. With
that being said, setting a percentage of building footprint area which will exceed 48’ may be helpful
to align the approval with the development plan proposed at Final PUD.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on
other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: Staff’s review of compatibility is focused on the existing approval and PUD (50%
maximum residential @ 18 DU/Acre maximum) and that proposed (no mixed-use requirement and 25
DU/Acre maximum). To ensure that site design, building orientation, and height are acceptable staff
requests that design details be presented at Final PUD
As outlined, staff finds the Application’s proposed use and scale is generally compatible with other
existing and future potential uses in the vicinity. This compatibility is a consequence of natural and
manmade buffers, existing regional commercial uses in the vicinity, as well as a high level of
development potential on areas of Planning Area C to the west.
PA-F is located with substantial buffering with Interstate 70 to the north, Post Boulevard on the east,
“Main Street” to the south, and future mixed development to the west. No significant impacts are
anticipated if increased density or height were developed on the Property. Visual examples of
different density developments are provided within the Application to provide an overall feel of the
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 7
proposed increase. Other high density residential projects can be found within the Town for
comparison, including the following:
Buffalo Ridge – 244 Units on 15 acres - 16.25 DU/Acre
Eaglebend Apartments – 240 Units on 7.38 acres - 32.50 DU/Acre
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends conditional approval of the Application. PZC shall conduct a public hearing, consider
public comments, and direct Staff to prepare a formal Findings of Fact, Record of Decision, and
Recommendation to Council pursuant to Section 7.16.020(f)(3), Findings.
January 16, 2018 PZC Meeting – Village at Avon Preliminary PUD /Major Amendment 8
Recommended Motion
“I move to recommend conditional approval of Case #PUD17001, an application for a Preliminary PUD – Major
Amendment to the Village at Avon PUD, with the conditions and findings listed in staff’s report.”
Recommended Findings and Conditions
Section 7.16.020(f)(4) provides guidance on Conditions, with states:
Conditions. The reviewing authority may recommend approval or may approve a development
application with conditions where such conditions are deemed necessary to ensure compliance
with the applicable review criteria and the purpose and intent of this Development Code.
Conditions shall be in written form and attached to the approved plan, plat or permit. Conditions
may include specific time limits for performance of any condition. Conditions may include financial
performance guarantees from the applicant where the condition requires improvements for
mitigation, where deemed necessary to public health, safety or welfare or where deemed necessary
to protect adjacent property or public infrastructure. Financial performance guarantees shall be in the
form of an agreement which is acceptable to the Town and shall be executed by the applicant.
The following Conditions and Findings may be applied should PZC make a favorable recommendation to
Council:
Findings-
1. The Application provides sufficient information to determine that the development application
complies with the relevant review criteria.
2. The Application demonstrates compliance with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan.
3. The Application is in conformance with §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, as outlined in staff’s
report and the written Application.
4. Compared to the underlying zoning of PA-F, the PUD amendment is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity.
5. Future uses on PA-F will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on other
properties in the vicinity.
Conditions to be addressed with Final PUD submittal:
1. Scaled architectural drawings will be provided including site plan(s), property cross sections, and
renderings from at least two vantage points.
2. The Main Street road profile will be provided, including bike lanes, sidewalks wider than 4’, and
bus pullouts. The planned E. Beaver Creek Boulevard ROW will also be depicted.
3. Building Height will be limited to a portion and/or percentage of the Planning Area.
Attachments
A: Application Materials, including existing PUD Guide and Master Plan
B: Powerpoint Presentation – received January 11, 2018
C: Memo from Eric Heil, Town Attorney
PUD Amendment Application
The Village (at Avon)
9/1/2017
Revised and re-submitted 12-5-17
Attachment A
One Lake Street – PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 www.avon.org
Town of Avon Community Development Department
ENSURE A COMPLETE SUBMITTAL BY INCLUDING THE REQUISITE FORMS – ASK FOR A SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
Application Type (Check All That Apply):
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Code Text Amendment
Rezoning
Administrative Subdivision
Minor Subdivision
Major Subdivision – Prelim Plan
Major Subdivision – Final Plat
Temporary Use Permit
Administrative PUD Amendment
Preliminary PUD
Final PUD
Annexation
Minor Development Plan
Major Development Plan
Major Development Plan (TC)
Minor PUD Amendment
Major PUD Amendment
Appeal
Special Review Use
Variance
Alt. Equivalent Compliance
Right-of-Way Vacation
Vested Property Right
Sign Design
Master Sign Program/Amend.
1041 Regulation
Project Name:
Project Location:
Street Address:
Legal Description (Lot, Block, Subdivision): Parcel Number(s):
Applicant:
Name:
Mailing address:
City: State: ZIP Code:
Phone: Email: Fax:
Property Owner:
Name:
Mailing address:
City: State: Zip Code:
Phone: Email: Fax:
Signature:
Date:
FEE PAID_____________________________
DATE RECEIVED________________________
APPLICATION/CASE #__________________
CASE MANAGER_______________________
Attachment A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOA
X
X
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Graphic Examples
Attachment A
Table of Contents
1.Land Development Application
2.Project Narrative (revised and resubmitted 12-5-17)
3.Written Statement (revised and resubmitted 12-5-17)
4.PUD Map & Guide
4.1. PUD Map
4.2. Conceptual Master Plan
4.3. Planning Area F
4.4. Uses by right, Special Review Use, Temporary Uses
4.5. Proposed Revisions (revised and resubmitted 12-5-17)
4.6. PUD Guide
4.7. Quantitative Summary
4.7.1. Plat1
4.7.2. Alta Survey
4.7.3. Existing Topography1
4.7.4. Drainage Study1
4.7.5. Utility Plan1
4.8. Roads Streets and Pedestrian (see PUD Map & Master Plan) 1
4.9. Public and Private Open Spaces (see PUD Map & Master Plan) 1
4.10. Drainage Facilities (see Drainage Study) 1
4.11. Existing and Proposed Utilities (see Utility Plan) 1
4.12. Statement of Compliance with Development Code (see Written Statement and Project Narrative) 1
4.13. Statement Providing Public Benefit (see Written Statement and Project Narrative) 1
5.Attachments
5.1. Executed Agreement to Pay Form1
5.2. Authorized Representative Form1
5.3. Property Ownership Disclosure1
5.4. Certificate of Title and Title Report1
5.5. Affidavit of Property Owners List1
5.5.1. Adjacent Property Owners Map1
5.5.2. Adjacent Property Owners List1
5.5.3. Courtesy List1
5.6. Utility Approval and Verification Form (not complete) 1
6.0. Visualization
1Items in Italics have been provide to the town planner and have not been reprinted
Attachment A
2. Project Narrative
The applicant (Traer Creek-RP LLC) is requesting a revision to the existing “The Village (at
Avon) Amended and Restated PUD Guide, dated November 7, 2012” (the “PUD”)(Included in
Section 4). This would be an amendment to a final PUD pursuant to Section 7.16.060 (h) of the
Town Code.
The amendment would revise Planning Area F (PA-F) to allow for:
(See Section D.6(e)(i) of the PUD) “Allowable density units per acre” (DU/ac)
changed from 18 DUs/acre to 25DUs/acre.
(See Section B.6 of the PUD) “Maximum allowable residential development”
percentage changed from 50% to 100%; and “Minimum allowable commercial
development” changed from 50% to 0% and “Maximum allowable commercial
development” changed from 100% to 50%.
(See section 6.(d) (3) b. of the PUD) “Maximum building height”: Multi-family
Dwellings from 48 feet to 66 feet.
The current zoning was approved in November 2012 with permitted density of 850,000 SF of
commercial space and 2400 DUs spread throughout the PUD. The DUs were proportioned per
planning area based on best planning practices for the 2012 market place. We anticipated that
development across the valley floor from east to west consist of a transition from existing
commercial development to a mix of new commercial and residential development to residential
development to a mixed-use development on the western edge that would connect to the East
Avon Plan “main street concept”.
PA-F allowed for a mix of commercial and residential, but was previously contemplated to be a
power center comprised of mid-sized “box” retail ranging from approximately 7,500 SF to
20,000 SF. Mid-sized box retail is no longer in demand in Avon (and elsewhere in the country)
for a number of reasons and as seen by the vacancy at Chapel Square of 20,000 square feet.
There is also stalled project in Eagle (RED) that has never taken off either. Traer Creek is
submitting to the Town a PUD Amendment that responds to changing economic conditions and
the valley’s increasing need for residential projects. We wish to amend the PUD to
accommodate the development of housing west of Post Boulevard on PA-F. We feel that this is
consistent with the Town’s needs, as evidenced by the following:
“Achieve a diverse range of quality housing to serve a diverse segment of the
population.” Town of Avon Comprehensive plan, F. Housing, Goal F.1 (page 52)
This application supports the demand for housing for young and middle aged professionals from
a broad range of employment, and provides additional alternatives for housing with no additional
burdens.
Attachment A
Post Boulevard acts as the “eastern door” or entrance to the Town and is an ideal buffer between
the existing commercial development at the Traer Creek Shopping Center and the proposed new
residential development. The roundabout at Post Boulevard and Fawcett Road would serve as the
primary and direct access to PA-F, and we foresee a pedestrian access to the commercial from
this residential development. All of the necessary infrastructure is conveniently in place and
adjacent to PA-F to accommodate a residential community.
The demand exists for this type of project and would benefit the community by, among other
things, increasing choice of living and housing environments. In addition, and perhaps most
significantly, this type of housing would generate additional tax revenues including property tax
revenues to the Town of Avon (as well as to the Village metropolitan district), real estate transfer
fees, building permit fees and other revenues to the Town and metropolitan district. In addition,
all of the added benefits to Avon that accompany residential communities would apply, including
more patrons frequenting Avon’s restaurants and other retail establishments including shopping
at City Market and Wal-Mart as well as creating additional employment opportunities.
Below we address the Eligibility Requirements (7.16.060(e)(4)) review criteria
1.The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of the Development Code and
represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict
application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in
quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access;
environmental protection; tree/vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and
other utilities and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
Broadly, the PUD provides for a large-scale, master-planned mixed-use development. The
uses, dimensional limitations and development standards, among other matters, set forth in the
PUD will provide for flexibility in the development of The Village (at Avon) and will encourage
innovative and coordinated development and design, consistent with Section 7.16.060 of the
Development Code. The PUD provides for a mix of integrated uses and public facilities and
amenities, including natural open space, community and pocket parks, trail and pedestrian
connectivity, a diverse housing mix and retail and commercial services for The Village (at Avon)
and the Town as a whole. The Declaration of Master Design Review Covenants for The Village
(at Avon) and The Village (at Avon) Design Review Guidelines provide for high quality design
with respect to the built environment and preservation of open space and existing vegetation.
The PUD Amendment does not increase the overall permitted density within the Village,
rather there is a reallocation to allow for more dwelling units within Planning Area F to respond
to the current market conditions. This amendment addresses a unique situation in that it allows
for more residential product responsive to the market and is consistent with the zoning that the
Town has in the Town Center. The PUD Amendment results in more efficient use of existing
streets, roads and other utilities and services, as well as increased choice of living and housing
environments. As previously stated, this PUD amendment would allow for a residential product
that would generate additional tax revenues including property tax revenues to the Town of Avon
(as well as to the Village metropolitan district), real estate transfer fees, building permit fees and
other revenues to the Town and metropolitan district. In addition, all of the added benefits to
Avon that accompany residential communities would apply, including more patrons frequenting
Attachment A
Avon’s restaurants and other retail establishments including shopping at City Market and Wal-
Mart as well as creating additional employment opportunities.
2. The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety and general welfare.
This application will benefit the community “by increasing choice of living and housing
environments”1, “generating property tax, real estate transfer fees, Building permit fees, retail
sales fees and accommodation fees”4, and providing additional employment opportunities.
3. The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of the
Development Code and the eligibility criteria outlined in Section 7.16.060(b) of the Development
Code.
The eligibility criteria applicable to the PUD (see Section 7.16.060(b) of the
Development Code) are addressed in the Written Statement submitted as a part of the application
for the PUD Amendment. The PUD is a “site specific development plan” and has vested
property rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PUD amendment is consistent with the
following (among other) policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan: A.1.5, B.1.1, B.1.3, B.1.5,
B.1.6, B.1.8, B.2.1, B.2.3, B.3.1, B.3.4, C.1.2, C.1.3, C.1.5, C.1.6, C.1.8, C.2.1, C.2.2, C.2.3,
C.3.1, C.3.2, C.4.3, C.5.1, C.5.2, C.5.3, D.1.1, D.1.2, D.1.4, D.2.2, D.2.5, D.2.6, D.3.1, D.3.4,
E.1.2, E.3.8, E.3.10, F.1.1, F.1.2, F.2.1, F.2.3, F.2.4, F.2.8, G.1.1, G.1.4, G.1.7, G.1.9, G.1.12,
G.1.15, H.1.3, H.2.1, H.2.2, H.4.2, I.1.1, I.1.4, V.2.2, and V.2.3.
1 Avon Development Code (7.16.060(e) (4) 4 Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, Appendix G, Fiscal Analysis of the Land Use Plan
4. Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police
and fire protection, and sewage and waste disposal) will be available to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development.
Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and
fire protection, sewage and waste disposal) will all be available to serve the property while
maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development. The PUD amendment is
consistent with the Town Transportation Master Plan and facilities and services will be available
and adequate to serve the subject property. The PUD, together with the Development
Agreement, provide, and have provided for, mitigation of impacts of the proposed development
of The Village (at Avon) including within PA-F, including the prior provision of certain impact
fees, public dedications, public facilities, natural open space and roads.
5. Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant
adverse impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water
management, wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated.
The PUD amendment will not result in any adverse impacts upon the natural
environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife or vegetation. A
wildlife mitigation plan is included as a part of the PUD Guide. Section C of the PUD Guide
sets forth certain requirements for allocation of water rights to serve The Village (at Avon). A
significant portion of The Village (at Avon) will be maintained as natural open space. Further, a
comprehensive storm drainage study has been produced for The Village (at Avon).
Attachment A
Attachment A
6. Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant
adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract.
For the reasons provided in response no. 5 above, and because the PUD is compatible in
scale with other uses or potential future uses on other adjacent properties as discussed in
response no. 7 below, this PUD amendment will not result in significant adverse impacts upon
other property in the vicinity of PA-F. In fact, development to the east would benefit from this
PUD Amendment and allowing PA-F to meet the market demand.
7. Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future
uses on the other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
The uses, densities and dimensional limitations set forth in the PUD Guide are
compatible internally with respect to abutting planning areas within the project and allow for a
mix of uses and densities, while providing for a reasonable transition among abutting planning
areas, generally providing for more dense development on the valley floor (including PA-F).
This PUD Amendment will be compatible in scale and use with the properties in the vicinity of
the subject tract. The proposed uses would be consistent with the residential uses west of PA-F
on the valley floor and would be compatible with the existing commercial uses to the east. There
would be a pedestrian connection from roundabout 3 to the east so that the residents on PA-F can
walk to the commercial at the Traer Creek shopping center (Traer Creek Plaza, Wal-Mart, Home
Depot). The scale will not be an issue with proper grading and site planning.
Attachment A
Attachment A
3. Written Statement
Pursuant to Section 7.16.070(b) of the Town Development Code, the following are the eligibility
criteria for a property to be eligible to apply for PUD Amendment approval. A response
describing how the application for a PUD Amendment satisfies such eligibility criteria, to the
extent applicable, follows each eligibility criteria.
1. Property Eligible: All properties within the Town of Avon are eligible to apply for PUD
approval.
The property subject to the PUD, The Village (at Avon), is wholly within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Town of Avon (“Town”).
2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The proposed development shall be consistent
with the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
Please see response no. 3 of the project narrative submitted with the application for the
PUD Amendment, which addresses the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
3. Consistent with PUD Intent: The proposed development shall be consistent with the
intent and spirit of the PUD purpose statement in §7.16.060(a).
As discussed in the project narrative submitted with the application for the PUD
Amendment, the PUD provides for a large-scale master-planned mixed use development and this
PUD Amendment is consistent with the intent and spirit of the PUD purpose statement. The uses,
dimensional limitations and development standards, among other matters, set forth in the PUD
Guide and this PUD Amendment will provide for flexibility in the development of The Village
(at Avon) and will encourage innovative and coordinated development and design, consistent
with the intent and spirit of Section 7.16.060 of the Development Code. The PUD provides for a
mix of integrated uses and public facilities and amenities, including community facilities to be
constructed by the Town on Planning Area B (as depicted on the PUD Map), preservation of
natural open space, community and pocket parks, trail and pedestrian connectivity, a school site,
a diverse housing mix (including affordable housing) and retail and commercial services for The
Village (at Avon) and the Town as a whole. Existing and planned roads and utilities are
contemplated to facilitate convenient and efficient extension of such services to comprehensively
serve The Village (at Avon). The Declaration of Master Design Review Covenants for The
Village (at Avon) and The Village (at Avon) Design Review Guidelines provide for high quality
design with respect to the built environment and preservation of natural features and open space
and existing vegetation. The Village (at Avon) includes, among other public facilities and
services, fire protection and ambulance service uses. Impact fees and public dedications
previously have been provided to mitigate development impacts of The Village (at Avon), and
certain future public dedications are contemplated as discussed in the project narrative submitted
with the application for the PUD Amendment.
Attachment A
Attachment A
2
4. Compatibility with Existing Uses: The proposed development shall not impede the
continued use or development of surrounding properties for uses that are permitted in the
Development Code or planned for in the Avon Comprehensive Plan.
As discussed in response no. 7 of the project narrative submitted with the application for
the PUD Amendment, the PUD amendment would allow for uses, densities and dimensional
limitations that would benefit the existing commercial development to the east and allow for a
better transition to the future residential to the west, all as permitted by the PUD. The PUD
Amendment eliminates the need to construct additional mid-size box retail and replaces it with
more dwelling units to respond to the existing market demand.
5. Public Benefit: A recognizable and material benefit will be realized by both the future
residents and the Town as a whole through the establishment of a PUD, where such benefit
would otherwise be infeasible or unlikely.
This is not related to the establishment of a PUD but is an amendment to an existing
PUD. Many substantial public benefits have been provided as set out in the Development
Agreement and PUD and include but are not limited to:
1) 244 affordable housing units constructed when 100 affordable housing units were
required under the original Development Agreement. Traer Creek is the only land
owner to not only satisfy the affordable housing obligation but also far surpass the
minimum requirements;
2) Traer Creek dedicated a 4 acre public works site for the Town’s exclusive use at no
cost to the Town (with utilities brought to the site) with no obligation to do so as
opposed to dedicating a joint site to the Town and Eagle River Fire Protection District
(ERFPD) per the original Development Agreement;
3) Traer Creek dedicated a 1.231 acre site to the ERFPD at no cost to ERFPD instead of
the above mentioned joint site with the Town.
4) Traer Creek dedicated a .611 acre site to the Eagle County Health Service District
(ECHSD) in a strategic location with easy access onto I-70 east and west,
substantially reducing emergency response times to the surrounding area, without any
obligation to do so. Traer Creek did so at no cost to ECHSD with utilities up to the
site.
5) Traer Creek conveyed a 3.536 acres site known as PA-E to the Town at no cost to the
Town for a school site as set out in the Development Agreement. That site is located
adjacent to existing utilities.
6) Traer Creek conveyed 4.1 acres to the Town at no cost to the Town for the Planning
Area B Community Facilities.
7) The PUD preserves substantial natural open space.
Attachment A
Attachment A
3
8) Traer Creek has made advances in the past totaling over $10,000,000 to assist in the
construction of the public improvements within the Village without any obligation to
do so.
9) Traer Creek paid for the Landscaping / Visual Mitigation along Eagle Bend in order
to provide additional screening for properties south of the railroad and their views
north into the Village. Traer Creek went above and beyond by paying extra to fix the
landscaping installation.
10) The Village (at Avon) design standards are stringent and have resulted in award
winning projects. Traer Creek Plaza won the Gold Hard Hat award for outstanding
mixed use project as well as a Building of America Aware presented by The Real
Estate & Construciton Review – Colorado edition. The canopy in front of the Wal-
Mart and Home received an award from Architectural Design Elements, which
honored the canopy’s effect of minimizing the standard big box nature of traditional
Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores. The canopies also were featured in the Wood
Design and Building and Wood Le Bois magazine. They draw inspiration from the
lettuce sheds that used to be in Avon.
Traer Creek has already provided substantial public benefits to the Town by way of
satisfying large up front exactions, obligations and dedications to accommodate the existing
development rights under the Development Agreement and PUD and has only desired quality
development. Traer Creek has increased total fees and taxes generated within Avon with the
existing projects within the Village. This PUD Amendment does not request an increase in the
total permitted density for residential and commercial as set out in the PUD and Traer Creek has
met all of its requirements pursuant to the Development Agreement and PUD Guide. This PUD
Amendment will accommodate additional diverse residential product that will be integrated into
the surrounding development as well as create additional revenues to the Town of Avon and the
metro district. Those revenues include:
1) Town collects a 4% sales tax on the retail sales fee within the Village.
2) Town assesses property taxes on all property within the Village.
3) Town will charge building permit fees on any new projects.
4) Town receives a .75% add on retail sales fee within the Village.
5) Town receives a portion by Eagle County’s sales tax via the sales tax rebate (.15%)
6) Traer Creek will approach different triggers faster as set out in the Development
Agreement and PUD such as N North with the issuance of additional building permits.
6. Preservation of Site Features: Long-term conservation of natural, historical,
architectural, or other significant features or open space will be achieved, where such features
would otherwise be destroyed or degraded by development as permitted by the underlying zoning
district.
Attachment A
Attachment A
4
A significant portion of The Village (at Avon) has been preserved as natural open space.
As described in the project narrative for the application for the PUD Amendment, certain open
space parcels within The Village (at Avon) have been dedicated to the Town. Planning Area B
(as depicted on the PUD Map) has been conveyed to the Town for community facilities,
including the construction of a natural amphitheater and preservation and development of a water
storage feature, along with other complementary public amenities. Trail connections to off-site
public lands are provided as set forth in the PUD. Cluster development is anticipated for the
“hillside residential” lots (Planning Area K as depicted on the PUD Map), maximizing the
preservation of open space and steep slope features. Future development within PA-F will go
through the design review process to ensure that proper site planning is done to maintain the high
level aesthetics already achieved within the Village and to respect the surrounding area.
7. Sufficient Land Area for Proposed Uses: Sufficient land area has been provided to
comply with all applicable regulations of the Development Code, to adequately serve the needs
of all permitted uses in the PUD projects, and to ensure compatibility between uses and the
surrounding neighborhood.
The Village (at Avon) comprises nearly 1780 acres, including land designated for
residential (including affordable housing), commercial, industrial, mixed use, open space, parks,
school sites, public facilities and other public amenities. The PUD, Declaration of Master
Design Review Covenants for The Village (at Avon) and The Village (at Avon) Design Review
Guidelines provide for a comprehensive, master-planned mixed use development with
appropriate development and design standards to provide for a high quality development and to
adequately serve the needs of all uses contemplated within The Village (at Avon). Development
of The Village (at Avon) will comply with the density and dimensional limitations set forth in
the PUD. As discussed in response no. 4 above, the PUD provides for compatibility between
uses within The Village (at Avon) and with adjacent properties. This PUD Amendment
accommodates the existing market for residential and based on the proposed number of dwelling
units would satisfy applicable development standards as set out in the PUD.
Attachment A
Attachment A
4. PUD Map & Guide
4.1. PUD Map
4.2. Conceptual Master Plan
4.3. Planning Area F
4.4. Total Permitted Density
4.5. Uses by right, Special Review Use, Temporary Uses
4.6. Proposed Revisions
4.7. PUD Guide
4.8. Quantitative Summary
4.8.1. Plat
4.8.2. Alta Survey
4.8.3. Existing Topography
4.8.4. Drainage Study
4.8.5. Utility Plan
4.9. Roads Streets and Pedestrian (see PUD Map & Master Plan)
4.10. Public and Private Open Spaces (see PUD Map & Master Plan)
4.11. Drainage Facilities (see Drainage Study)
4.12. Existing and Proposed Utilities (see Utility Plan)
4.13. Statement of Compliance with Development Code (see Written Statement and Project
Narrative)
4.14. Statement Providing Public Benefit (see Written Statement and Project Narrative)
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment AAttachment A
The Village (at Avon) - Conceptual
Attachment A
Attachment A
The Village (at Avon) – Planning Area FDEVELOPMENT STANDARDSLAND USE: Regional Commercial Mixed Use ProjectsPA-F: 12 AcresDENSITY:18 DU / acreLOT COVERAGE: 80%SET BACKS: 25’ Front, 0’ Side, 10’ RearInd. and Res. 25’ Front,7.5’ Side, 10’ RearBUILDING HEIGHT: 35’ SFR & Duplex, 80’ Medical facilities, 48’ all othersAttachment A
Attachment A
4.4 Allowable Density
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 6-8)1
B. TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY. The total permitted density for The Village (at
Avon) PUD shall not exceed:
1. Planning Areas A, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, RMF 1 and RMF 2 shall not
exceed:
(a) Commercial Uses.
825,000 consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space.
(b) Dwelling Units.
2,400 Dwelling Units. Pursuant to the terms of the Affordable Housing
Plan, 500 of the 2,400 Dwelling Units shall be constructed as affordable
housing, and, subject to satisfaction of the conditions precedent set forth in
the Affordable Housing Plan, an additional 23 of the 2,400 Dwelling Units
shall be constructed as affordable housing.
3. Density calculations, as applicable, for development of Dwelling Units within all
Planning Areas where Residential Uses are permitted shall be based on the gross acreage within
the applicable Planning Area as reflected in the land use table contained in the PUD Master Plan.
Density calculations shall be on a Planning Area by Planning Area basis rather than on a Final
Plat by Final Plat basis or on a Site by Site basis.
6. At final build-out of the particular Planning Area, the following minimum and
maximum ratios of consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space and consolidated
Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses, stated as a percentage of the aggregate Gross Square
Footage the Planning Area [e.g., Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space -;- (Gross Square
Footage of Commercial Space + consolidated Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses) =
percentage of Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space], shall apply within the following
Planning Areas:
Planning Area Residential Commercial
Min% Max% Min% Max%
Planning Area A 30% 80% 20% 70%
Planning Areas C and D 90% 100% 0% 10%
Planning Areas F, G and H 0% 50% 50% 100%
1 The Village (at Avon), Amended and Restated PUD Guide, November 7, 2012
Attachment A
Attachment A
4.5 Uses by Right
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 22-24)1
6. Planning Areas F, G, H and I - Regional Commercial Mixed Use Projects.
(a) Uses by Right: Except as specifically identified as Special Review Uses
in Section D.6(b) below or specifically prohibited in Section D.6(c) below, the following
Primary Uses and Accessory Uses:
(i) Commercial Uses, provided, however, no single retail business on
Planning Area F shall occupy more than 60,000 of consolidated Gross Square Footage.
(ii) Residential Uses.
(iii) Mixed Use Projects (provided, however, no Uses specifically
prohibited in Section D.6(c) below shall be included in such Mixed Use Project,
and no Uses specifically identified as Special Review Uses in Section D.6(b)
below shall be included except pursuant to the review and approval processes set
forth in Section E below).
(iv) Agricultural Uses (as an Interim Use only).
(v) Community Facilities.
(vi) Cabled Telecommunications Equipment, Cabled Television Facilities
and Cabled Telecommunications Services, each of the foregoing being subject to
review and written approval of such Use by the Design Review Board.
(vii) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment (excluding antenna
towers), Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (excluding antenna towers) and
Wireless Telecommunications Services, each of the foregoing being subject to
review and written approval by the Design Review Board authorizing such Use.
(viii) Infrastructure.
(ix) Dry Utilities.
(x) Private and public transportation and transit, including without
limitation, Bus Stops, Bus Shelters, rail stations, tramways, gondolas and lifts.
(xi) Religious Facilities, museums, libraries and public buildings.
(xii) Indoor recreation and/or entertainment facilities that do not include
the use of amplified music.
(xiii) Outdoor entertainment facilities that include the use of amplified
music (subject to review and written approval of such Use by the Design Review
Board).
(xiv) Outdoor recreation and/or entertainment facilities that do not include
the use of amplified music.
(xv) Parks and Open Space. (xvi) Child Care Center.
(xvii) Animal Boarding (excluding outdoor Animal Boarding), subject to
review and written approval by the Design Review Board authorizing such Use
(xviii) Kennels (excluding outdoor Kennels), subject to review and written
approval by the Design Review Board authorizing such Use.
(xix) Construction staging (as an Interim Use only).
(xx) Planning Areas F and I Only:
(1) Recycling Facility.
1 The Village (at Avon), Amended and Restated PUD Guide, November 7, 2012
Attachment A
Attachment A
(xxi) Planning Area I Only:
(1) Pedestrian and vehicular bridges, bridge abutments and
improvements reasonably related thereto.
(2) Automobile Repair Shops (Major and Minor).
(3) Light Industrial Uses.
(xxii) Additional Uses which the Director determines to be similar to the
foregoing Uses by Right.
(xxiii) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to the
foregoing Uses by Right.
(b) Special Review Uses: The following Uses shall be permitted pursuant to the
review and approval processes set forth in Section E below:
(i) Single retail businesses on Planning Area F occupying more than
60,000 of consolidated Gross Square Footage.
(ii) Educational facilities including, but not limited to public and private schools,
universities, and colleges.
(iii) Service Station.
(iv) Animal Boarding (outdoor), subject to review and written approval by the
Design Review Board authorizing such Use.
(v) Kennels (outdoor), subject to review and written approval by the Design
Review Board authorizing such Use.
(vi) Rock and gravel crushing operations related to rock and gravel materials
excavated within The Village (at Avon) PUD.
(vii) Heliport, only as an Accessory Use to a Hospital or other medical facility,
including but not limited to a clinic (subject to review and written approval by the Design
Review Board authorizing such Use).
(viii) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment (antenna towers only) and
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (antenna towers only), each of the foregoing
being subject to review and written approval by the Design Review Board authorizing
such Use.
(ix) Planning Areas F, G and H Only:
(1) Animal Boarding (outdoor).
(2) Kennels (outdoor).
(3) Hospitals.
(x) Planning Area I Only:
(1) Hotel Uses (including without limitation, hotel Uses comprising a
portion of a Mixed Use Project) which exceed 55 feet in Building Height.
Attachment A
Attachment A
4.6 Revisions
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 8)1
B. TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY. The total permitted density for The Village (at
Avon) PUD shall not exceed:
6. At final build-out of the particular Planning Area, the following minimum and
maximum ratios of consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space and consolidated
Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses, stated as a percentage of the aggregate Gross Square
Footage the Planning Area [e.g., Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space ÷ (Gross Square
Footage of Commercial Space + consolidated Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses) =
percentage of Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space], shall apply within the following
Planning Areas:
Planning Area Residential Commercial
Min% Max% Min% Max%
Planning Area A 30% 80% 20% 70%
Planning Areas C and D 90% 100% 0% 10%
Planning Areas F, G & H 0% 50% 50% 100%
Planning Areas F 0% 100% 0% 50%
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 26)1
D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE VILLAGE (AT AVON) PUD
6. Planning Areas F, G, H, and I – Regional Commercial Mixed Use Projects
(d) Building Envelope Requirements:
(ii) Maximum Building Height:
(3) Residential Uses:
b. Multi-family Dwellings: 66 feet
(e) Residential Density Maximum:
(i) Planning Areas F, G & H: 18 Dwelling Units per acre
(ii) Planning Area F: 25 Dwelling Units per acre.
1 The Village (at Avon), Amended and Restated PUD Guide, November 7, 2012
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment AAttachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment A
Attachment AAttachment A
Attachment AAttachment A
Attachment AAttachment A
6. Visualization Density
Attachment A
Attachment A
Development DensityWhat Do Developments at Different Density Look Like?The following slides show examples of developments from around the Bay Area with densities ranging from 25 to 50 units per acre. Attachment AAttachment A
Holloway Terrace, 30 DUAName:Holloway TerraceType of Homes:Family ApartmentsSize:42 homesDensity:30 DUAYear: 1985Details:The design strategy is based on a small residential scale but achieves a high density of units per acre. Using tile roofs, and detail relief on the stucco exteriors, the design reinterprets the stylistic treatment of the surrounding neighborhood.Architect/DeveloperDavid Baker/ Bridge HousingAttachment AAttachment A
Iron Horse Lofts, 25 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Name:Iron Horse LoftsType of Homes:For Sale HousingSize:54 homesDensity:25 DUAYear: 2002Details:Iron Horse Lofts are transit oriented housing for the urban work force commuting from San Francisco to San Francisco. The lofts are market-rate for-sale housing, and were built as part of a development that included affordable apartments. The projects share open green space, play equipment and a pool.ArchitectDavid BakerIron Horse Lofts, 25 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Iron Horse Lofts, 25 DUAColiseum Gardens, 50 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Name:Coliseum GardensType of Homes:Family HousingSize:50 homesDensity:50 DUA (approx)Year: 2006Details:Coliseum Gardens consists of 50 affordable townhome apartments located within a 19-acre, 467-apartment site. The townhomesare organized around a central court with rear-parking. Front stoops, porches and bay windows increase livability and neighborhood safety. Each second level townhome has an ‘outdoor room’ above the carports, overlooking the auto court for increased security. This trellised-covered room is an extension of the eat-in kitchen, allowing it to be used as an outdoor dining room.Architect: PyatokColiseum Gardens, 50 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Tower Apartments, 25 DUAName:Tower ApartmentsType of Homes:Family ApartmentsSize:50 homesDensity:25 DUAYear: 1993Details:At the grand opening County Supervisor Tim Smith commented, "If you had told me two years ago that you could design affordable housing at 25 units per acre in Rohnert Park, I would have said you were crazy. This housing proves you can do it and do it well.“Architect/DeveloperPyatok/Burbank HousingAttachment AAttachment A
Magnolia Row, 30 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Name:Magnolia RowType of Homes:Lofts and Family HousingSize:36 homesDensity:30 DUAYear: 2002Details:Magnolia Row is a hybrid of an urban loft and a residential townhouse. Both the 3-story units along Magnolia and the 2-story units on 32nd Street offer large, open loft-style living areas combined with private bedrooms.Magnolia Row bridges the gap between industrial and residential neighborhoods. Large windows and low-sloped roofs reflect the aesthetic of the nearby warehouses, while the scale of the buildings, lap-board exterior siding, trellises, and gardens mix well with the area's Victorian homes.Architect: David BakerMagnolia Row, 30 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Oak Court, 30 DUAOak Court, 43 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Name:Oak CourtType of Homes:Town Homes over Flats, AffordableSize:53 homesDensity:43 DUAYear: 2002Details:Oak Court lies at the edge of downtown Palo Alto in a neighborhood that has become known as "Professorville," an affluent residential enclave of classic single-family craftsman homes. The project consists of 53 apartments for low-income families in townhomes over flats, above a partial subterranean garage. The architects facilitated several community meetings to help shape the project. The process resulted in buildings that have been very well received by the local homeowners, despite the income and wealth disparities between the new residents and the neighbors Architect/Developer: Pyatok/Palo Alto Housing CorportationOak Court, 43 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Oak Court, 30 DUAGiant Road Homes, 35 DUAName:Giant Road Family HomesType of Homes:Affordable family rentalSize:86 homesDensity:35DUAYear: 2007Details:The overall site features an internal loop street between and around the 5 main buildings. One of the buildings contains laundry facilities, the management/resident services offices, a community space, and a YMCA childcare center that serves approximately 30 children. There is a large landscaped internal courtyard available to residents that includes approximately 2,000 sf of outdoor playground space to be shared with the childcare center.Architect/Developer: HKIT/EBALDCAttachment AAttachment A
Giant Road Homes, 35 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Oak Court, 30 DUAMission Gateway, 28 DUAMission Gateway, 28 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Name:Mission GatewayType of Homes:Mixed UseSize:121 homesDensity:28 DUADetails:Mission Gateway is a mixed-use development that combines affordable family housing with ground-floor retail including a Starbucks store. The design of the building establishes a welcoming street presence through the coffee shop, stairways and windows. A landscaped courtyard with space for playing and relaxing is located over the parking garage. Mission Gateway provides 121 units of affordable family housing and about 3,000 square feet of retail space on a 4.3 acre site. The community building has more than 3,000 square feet of common space, including a community hall with a kitchen, art room, computer lab, resident services office and gym. Other amenities include a barbecue area, swimming pool and children’s play area with a tot lot and basketball half-court.Developer: MidPen HousingMission Gateway, 28 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Oak Court, 30 DUAMission Gateway, 28 DUAPaulson Park, 32 DUAAttachment AAttachment A
Oak Court, 30 DUAPaulson Park, 32 DUAName:Paulson Park Senior HomesType of Homes:1 and 2 bedroom senior homesSize:253 homesDensity:32DUAYear: 2008Details:Paulson Park provides 253 units of senior housing in a peaceful, park-like setting including community vegetable gardens, a computer lab, fitness center, and several recreation and gathering rooms. The sensitive design ensured that the spacious feel of the property was preserved, and green building measures including solar panels were employed. MidPen implemented a major energy-saving rehab of the older units, installing insulation, new siding, and high-performance windows, and adding unit patios for the enjoyment of residents. A major renovation of the extensive grounds was one of the first to follow Bay-Friendly guidelines in Santa Clara County, and included drought-tolerant plants and high-efficiency irrigation systems.Architect/Developer: MidPen HousingAttachment AAttachment A
Metropolitan Design Center | College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture | University of Minnesota
1 Rapson Hall, 89 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 www.designcenter.umn.edu
Suburban Density
November 2005
units
acreWoodbury • 32
A variety of roof lines and facade articulations provides architectural detailing that minimizes the prominence of
the garages and creates an interesting streetscape. In addition, by using a tuck-under design for the garages,
they do not overwhelm the front entrances (left). Many front entrances to the townhomes are highlighted by
porches, creating a single family home-like appearance (right).
In some cases, units are combined in one building that
looks like a large home.
A clubhouse, within this townhome development but
outside the census block featured in this density sheet,
is available for use by the residents.
Attachment A
Attachment A
Suburban Density
Metropolitan Design Center | College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture | University of Minnesota
1 Rapson Hall, 89 Church St. SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 www.designcenter.umn.edu November 2005
0 1/4 1/2 1 mile
N
N
0 100 200 400 feet
units
acreWoodbury • 32
Block Area & Demographic Information
* U.S. Census demographic information (2000) for census block
indicated on photo at left.
** Block area was calculated using a census block layer that was
aligned to street centerlines by The Lawrence Group.
block density 32 dwelling units/acre
number of housing units 77 *
block area 2.4 acres **
occupied housing units 50.6% *
housing units owner-occupied 0% *
average household size 1.9 *
percent white 92.3% *
median age 34.3 *
types of units townhomes
number of floors 2
location Bounded by Grand Forest Lane and Grand
Reserve Boulevard.
Census Tract & Demographic Information
*** The U.S. Census demographic information (2000) included
here refers to the entire census tract, which extends beyond the
boundaries of the map at left.
census tract density 0.2 dwelling units/acre
Census tract area on which density is calculated includes roads,
open space, commercial, industrial, and other land uses in
addition to housing. Tract densities are almost always lower than
block area densities.
number of housing units 1,630 ***
census tract land area 10,057 acres ***
median household income $104,645 ***
context These larger townhomes are located in
a residential area near Eagle Valley Golf Course.
Valley Crossing Collaborative School is located at
the intersection of Valley Creek Road and Woodbury
Drive. A commercial and industrial area is located to
the north near I-94.
Valley Creek Road
Eagle Valley
Golf Course
Colby Lake Woodbury DrivePowers Lake
Attachment A
Attachment A
eScholarship provides open access, scholarly publishing
services to the University of California and delivers a dynamic
research platform to scholars worldwide.
Peer Reviewed
Title:
Explaining Residential Density [Research & Debate]
Journal Issue:
Places, 16(2)
Author:
Ellis, John G
Publication Date:
2004
Publication Info:
Places
Permalink:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2np5t9ct
Acknowledgements:
This article was originally produced in Places Journal. To subscribe, visit www.places-journal.org.For reprint information, contact places@berkeley.edu.
Keywords:
places, placemaking, architecture, environment, landscape, urban design, public realm, planning,design, research, debate, explaining, residential, density, John G Ellis
Copyright Information:
All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for anynecessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn moreat http://www.escholarship.org/help_copyright.html#reuse
Attachment A
Attachment A
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density34
Explaining Residential Density
John G. Ellis
Attachment A
Attachment A
35 Places 16.2
Research & Debate Attachment A
Attachment A
36
On many occasions when presenting proposals for higher-
density housing at community workshops or planning
commissions, architects are faced with an emotional type
of opposition they fi nd diffi cult to understand. Behind this
opposition, which may have nothing to do with designs
actually being proposed, usually lies a misunderstanding
of terms. In particular, the words “high-density housing”
conjure up images of closely spaced highrise apartment
towers, with a consequent lack of daylight, reduced open
space, and blocked views. Even at medium and lower den-
sities, there is little public awareness of the different poten-
tial confi gurations of buildings and their impact on streets
and neighborhoods.
One reason for this misunderstanding is easy to see.
At the planning stage, describing a project in terms of the
number of dwelling units per acre is about as revealing to
most people as telling them how much the buildings weigh.
Without a sense of what “25 dwellings per acre” means
in real terms, for example, discussion may get bogged
down in abstractions that are diffi cult to resolve. Worse,
without a clear sense of what is being proposed, a simple
fear of change may take over. Any new housing means the
“wrong” type of people will move in, traffi c will increase,
property values will decline, etc.
Ultimately, perceptions of residential density are as tied
to design quality as actual numbers. But even the numbers
may be complicated to explain. One reason is that levels
of residential densities cannot be considered in a vacuum;
they can only be understood with reference to three related
factors: building typologies, parking confi gurations, and
construction types. Thus, housing layouts that require
parking for two cars per dwelling can produce a completely
different density and typology than those that require
parking for only one car. Higher density, therefore, doesn’t
necessarily mean highrise buildings.
In this article, I would like to provide an illustrated
guide to some of these issues. My hope is that this examina-
tion of the current building blocks of residential architec-
ture will be of value both to practitioners and citizens as
they wrestle with choices for how their communities will
meet future housing needs.
The Density/Building Typology Chart
Architects and planners generally use the term “build-
ing typology” to refer to a range of typical structures. In
the fi eld of housing, at the lower densities, these include
such forms as single-family dwellings, semi-detached units
(duplexes, etc.), row houses, and secondary in-law units.
Middle densities can generally be achieved with stacked
walk-up townhouses or fl ats. At the highest densities,
elevator- and corridor-accessed units are necessary.
Parking arrangements generally form a gradient that
corresponds to these increases. It progresses from indi-
vidual garages, to common surface lots, to podiums or
basement garages.
The range of application of different construction types
is determined by local interpretation of national building
codes. But there are common variables, and these may
be used to arrive at a common index of construction cost.
Generally, as densities increase, building construction
changes from wood-framed Type V construction (up to
50 feet) and Type III construction (up to 65 feet), to con-
crete and steel-framed Type I and II construction for
mid- and highrise buildings. For units located more than
75 feet above the ground, the introduction of special
life-safety code requirements has an important impact on
building design.
Considering the above qualifi cations, the accompanying
chart attempts to show how increases in residential density
are related to different building typologies and specifi c
thresholds that trigger different construction types. The
chart also attempts to compare the relative cost of each cat-
egory. This particular study focused primarily on higher-
density urban conditions, where smaller dwelling units and
lower parking ratios were the norm.
In preparing the chart we measured the density of units
per acre in relation to the net area within the property
lines, and excluded the public right-of-way. For the pur-
poses of comparison across unit types, certain assumptions
were also made: all dwellings were in the range of 1,000–
1,200 net sq.ft. in area; a parking ratio of one car per dwell-
ing applied for all off-street parking; and open space of at
least 100 sq.ft. per dwelling was required either as a yard, a
balcony, or communal open space.
Based on these assumptions, the chart divides build-
ing types according to certain categories. These include
stacked vs. unstacked units; units with separate individual
garages vs. those with communal garage types; wood-frame
vs. concrete-frame construction; and units below vs. above
the life-safety limit (75 ft. to the fl oor level of the upper-
most unit).
To fully understand the chart, some additional defi ni-
tions may be required. “Front loaded” means that car
access is from the street; “rear loaded” means it is from
Right: Low-density residential typologies.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density
Attachment A
Attachment A
37
a rear alley or parking court. “Single aspect” means a
unit has windows that face in only one direction; “double
aspect” means the unit faces in two directions. Walk-up
units have stairs only; elevator- and corridor-access units
give residents the choice of stairs and elevators. Flats are
dwellings on one level; townhouses have more than one
level. Lofts are two-story units with a double-height space.
Garages may come in a variety of different types: single car;
or tandem (front and back) and side-by-side for two-car
garages. Secondary units (carriage-house or in-law units)
are smaller units on a single property, and may be located
either in the main structure or in a subsidiary building.
Low-Density Residential Development
To show what these various levels of residential density
mean in physical terms we prepared a series of standard
block diagrams. The fi rst pair illustrates low-density
development in the range of 10-15 dwellings per acre, on
lot sizes that range from 3,000 to 5,000 sq.ft. The building
types considered here are either single-family houses
on 50 x 100 ft. parcels or semi-detached houses on 30 x
100 ft. parcels.
Buildings at this density can be either front loaded,
with parking from the street with a side drive (sometimes
shared), or rear loaded from an alley. The presence of
alleys offers the opportunity to create street frontages that
do not have frequent curb cuts, and so can provide more
on-street parking for visitors. Alleys may also be desirable
to hide all the service activities, cars, trucks, and the other
detritus of everyday life.
The alley can also provide the setting for secondary “in-
law” units above garage spaces. In this way mixed-income
housing can be easily created within the same block. Such
housing also offers a greater level of security because there
are more “eyes on the street,” and it serves as a way of
increasing density without affecting the appearance of the
surrounding streets.
Row Houses
At medium densities of 15-25 dwellings per acre and
up, one moves into groups of dwellings arranged as row
houses. These are shown in the middle two pairings of
block diagrams. Typically, row houses comprise two- or
three-story dwellings ranging in width from 16 to 25 feet.
They can be front or rear loaded, but parking is preferable
at the rear to avoid a street frontage dominated by garage
doors. Where front loading is unavoidable, tandem park-
ing is preferable for two-car garages.
Places 16.2
Research & Debate
• Semi-Detached Houses - 2 Story
Secondary Units over Rear Garages
15 DU / AC Density
Rear Loaded Alley Parking
Alley with Parking
Semi-Detached
Dwelling Units
Secondary Unit
Over Garage
Single Family
Dwelling Units
Alley with Parking
• Single Family Detached Houses
2 Story — 10 DU/ AC Density
Rear Loaded Alley Parking
Single Family
Dwelling Units
Attachment A
Attachment A
Using the row-house typology, various site confi gura-
tions can be used to increase densities without creating an
overwhelming impact on the street. Two such arrange-
ments were developed by nineteenth-century builders in
San Francisco: the tandem house and the mid-block alley.
“Tandem housing” consists of a second row of houses
located behind the street-facing units and accessed through
a garage court or portal. This works well on deeper lots,
because from the street the appearance is the same as for
ordinary row housing, but at double the density.
Alternatively, using a mid-block alley, a new narrow
street lined with single-family two- or three-story row
houses can be inserted between two main streets. This
allows the same number of units as would be accommo-
dated in a pair of taller buildings facing the main streets.
A popular variant on the tandem-housing model is
to place six- or eight-plex row house modules around a
common parking court. This permits a greater number of
units to be built while minimizing the impact on the street
frontage by having a single curb cut on the street. Park-
ing can either be accommodated in an internally located
surface court or in individual garages on either side of a
drive-in court.
Another type of dwelling, known as a “tuck-under,”
consists of a two-story house raised half a level above the
street with a rear-accessed garage half a level down. This
arrangement avoids the arduous building-code require-
ment of a secondary staircase from a third-fl oor bedroom.
The dwelling is measured as a two-story unit from the
street frontage, even though it is three levels high when
measured from the garage alley.
Densities of 25-30 dwellings per acre are possible with
the tuck-under arrangement. It can also be used to create
attractive street frontages, since garages are hidden away at
the rear, and the ground-fl oor rooms are raised half a level
above the street, preserving privacy from pedestrians pass-
ing by on the sidewalk.
Moving up the density scale, four-story stacked walk-up
townhouses over their own garages can be built at a density
of up to 40 dwellings per acre. Stacked units above two sto-
ries, however, require two means of escape, so stairs need
to be provided to give access both from the street and from
rear parking areas.
With units built over their own garages, two vertically
stacked townhouses can be arranged with a rear-accessed
garage on the fi rst level, and a four-story building above
with an interlocking section for the separate units. A 50-ft.
pairing of stacked 25-ft.-wide units can share a common
stair from the garage and require only a total of three stairs
for four units.
Above: Townhouse typologies can create a variety of urban conditions. Examples
from San Jose, California.
Right: Townhouse residential typologies.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density38
Attachment A
Attachment A
39Places 16.2
Research & Debate
Rear Units
Shared Court
2 Story Dwellings
over Garages
with Decks over the
Entry Court
Attached 2 Story
Townhouses
• 2 and 3 Story 'Tandem Housing'
8–Plex Units
20–30 DU / AC Density
Attached Townhouses over
Congregate Parking Shared Courts
Pedestrian Way
Garage Alley
• 'Tuck Under' 2/3 Story
Townhouses with
Rear Loaded Garages
25-30 DU / AC Density
• Stacked 4 Story Walk-up
Townhouses with
Rear Loaded Garages
30-40 DU / AC Density
Stacked Townhouses
Pedestrian Way
Garage Alley
• Mid-Block Alley Housing
3 Story Townhouses
with Front Loaded Garages
35-40 DU / AC Density
20' Wide, 3 Story
Townhouses
Decks over
Entry Portal
Attachment A
Attachment A
40
A simpler pattern, which achieves the same density but
replaces townhouses with fl ats, involves arranging three
stories of stacked walk-up fl ats around a pair of stairs, one
facing the street, the other giving access to surface parking
at the rear. Each fl at thus has a double aspect, facing both
the street and the rear of the site. With a 25-ft.-wide front-
age, there is also enough room for each fl at to be designed
with side-by-side rooms.
Medium Density to High Density
The last two pairs of images show medium to high-den-
sity residential arrangements. A great number of confi gu-
rations are possible at this end of the density scale, but as
the chart shows they are more expensive to build, largely
because of the need to build common structured parking.
As a general rule, above 45 dwellings per acre one gets
into elevator and corridor access, with communal parking
garages either below grade or in a separate structure. At a
density above 75 dwellings per acre one moves further to
multilevel parking arrangements. These can take the form
of underground basement parking or internal podium
parking on several levels — both of which require mechan-
ical ventilation and fi re-separation. Alternatively, indepen-
dent multilevel parking garages may be designed which can
be naturally ventilated and do not require expensive fi re
separation, but these may require more space.
The simplest and least expensive arrangement is often
to build a multistory, concrete-framed garage in the center
of a block or parcel with a 20-ft. gap around its perimeter
to permit natural ventilation. Surrounding this garage one
can build four-story, corridor-accessed, single-aspect units
in Type V wood-frame construction.
If the surrounding units adjoin the parking garage, the
garage needs to be mechanically ventilated and have a
four-hour separation between the autos and surrounding
residential or commercial/offi ce uses. One alternative is
to build above a parking podium, with special “liner” units
wrapping the perimeter and facing the street.
Mid- and highrise construction can achieve densities
far greater than 75 dwellings per acre. However, life-safety
requirements require such special building features as pres-
surized stair shafts and places of safe refuge in buildings
with fl oors above the reach of a fi re-truck ladder (75 feet
above the street). Midrise buildings built to just below this
life-safety level are typically eight stories high, with a roof
level of up to 85 feet.
Mid- and highrise construction always requires one
or more elevators and two stairs. But building-code
requirements vary from city to city in terms of how these
may be provided. For example, in New York, Chicago and
Above: Examples of medium-density housing in San Jose, California.
Right: Medium- and high-density residential typologies.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density
Attachment A
Attachment A
High Rise Towers
16 Stories
Stacked Flats
Parking
Podium
5 Story
Stacked Flats
• 16 Story, 160' High
Above Life-Safety Limit
High-Rise Stacked
Flats over 3 or 4 Level
Parking Podium
100-200 DU / AC Density
Type 1 Construction
• 5 Story 65' High Stacked Flats
(Elevator Access over Walk-up Units)
Over 2 Level Basement Parking
100 DU / AC Density
Type 111 Construction
41Places 16.2
Research & Debate
• 8 Story, 85' High
Below Life-Safety Limit
Mid-Rise Stacked Flats
Over 2 Level Parking Podium
75-100 DU / AC Density
Type 1 Construction
8 Story Midrise
Stacked Flats
2 Level
Parking Podium
• 4 Story Stacked Flats
Elevator & Corridor
Access Around 1 Level
Parking Podium
35-40 DU / AC Density
4 Story
Stacked Flats
1 Level
Parking Podium
65' High, 5 Story
Walk-up Flats
Basement Parking
Entry
Attachment A
Attachment A
42
Vancouver, “scissor stairs” are permitted, where two
straight-fl ight stairs interlock in a single concrete-framed
shaft. This enables the stair shaft to be located behind the
elevators in a compact core, enabling construction of a
small fl oor plate and a slender tower. Vancouver’s residen-
tial towers have fl oor plates as small as 4,000 sq.ft. in area.
In California, the building code requires a minimum
30-ft. separation between the two stair shafts, and on any
fl oor the travel distance between the doors to the stairs
must be half the maximum diagonal dimension of the fl oor
plate. The result is a much bigger core and a larger fl oor
plate. In San Francisco fl oor plates as large as 10,000 sq.ft.
are currently being proposed for highrise towers in new
downtown residential districts on Rincon Hill and around
the Transbay Terminal.
Cost Comparisons
With the help of several contractors, we were able to
develop a cost-comparison index to show the differences
between various construction types. The costs are for
building construction only and exclude the cost of land.
They are presented here in the form of ratios so that com-
parisons can be made easily between the different types.
The cost comparisons are shown at the bottom of the resi-
dential density chart.
If the cost of a single-family dwelling is rated as 1.00,
a semi-detached dwelling is 0.95, because of the savings
provided by a shared party wall. The cost of a row house is
further reduced to 0.9 because of party walls and reduced
frontage. Stacked walk-up units increase in cost to a ratio
of 1.20 because of additional stairs, while elevator-accessed
corridor units over a parking podium increase to 1.25 units
because of increased construction cost of elevators and
shared circulation areas.
Midrise construction costs range up to 1.60 to 2.00,
while highrise units increase in cost to up to 2.50 and more.
These comparisons are ratios, and, of course, should be
considered in relation to many other factors, including
civil-engineering costs and infrastructure and soil
conditions. However, they are useful in helping make a
preliminary assessment of the most appropriate density
in relation to construction type and local market condi-
tions. Most importantly, location affects land costs, and
where these are high, higher densities — and therefore
higher construction expense — can offset the overall
cost of development, since the latter represents a smaller
part of total costs.
Case Study
In a study Solomon E.T.C./WRT produced for the
Greenbelt Alliance in 2003 for the proposed town of
Coyote Valley south of San Jose, California, we used the
density chart and diagrams similar to those here to illus-
trate how a variety of arrangements could be combined to
create a mixed-use, compact, transit-oriented community.
The last image shows a portion of this vision plan.
As a whole, the result of our work was a grid of streets
and blocks that offered a multitude of opportunities for
different types of housing and a range of densities, while at
the same time creating a continuous urban fabric. The
diagrams were especially valuable in helping form a con-
sensus with the local community activists, since it was
possible to give them a clear picture of the nature of hous-
ing and the character of the streets and neighborhoods
being proposed. The diagrams were also helpful in deter-
mining the best overall density that could meet the
requirements for 20 percent affordable units throughout
the 50,000-dwelling-unit town.
Another effective tool for achieving agreement was
to showing photographs of examples of local residential
development in San Jose at various densities that people
were familiar with. Understanding the cost and construc-
tion-type implications was also essential in order to be
realistic about what could be achieved in terms of afford-
able housing on a “greenfi eld” site.
To advocate overall densities that were too high and
required the widespread use of stacked concrete-framed
multistory housing would have been an unrealistic proposi-
tion in the current San Jose market. At the same time,
to propose densities that were too low would have meant
the loss of open space, an inability to support transit ser-
vice, and a lost opportunity to create a pedestrian-friendly,
compact community.
For Coyote Valley we ended up proposing an overall
average density of 28 dwellings per net acre. These dwell-
ings went together to form neighborhoods that consisted
of a wide range of building types, and which offered a
variety of choices for future residents, but which was still
in character with the surrounding environment of San Jose
and its suburbs.
The proposed plan for the Coyote Valley development made use of the residential
typologies described here.
All drawings and photographs accompanying this article are courtesy of Solomon,
E.T.C., a WRT Company.
Ellis / Explaining Residential Density
Attachment A
Attachment A
43 Places 16.2
Research & Debate Attachment A
Attachment A
Shingle Creek
Commons
27
75 units
2.8 acres
low-rise apartments
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
Mill District
24
131 units
5.4 acres
mid-rise apartments
ownership data N/A
units
acre
St. Anthony /
Riverplace
20 units
acre
156 units
7.8 acres
side-attached
rowhouses, high-rise
apartments
97% owner-occupied
Lyndale Ave.
& 25th St.
19
78 units
4.1 acres
single-family detached,
duplex, stacked
rowhouse, low-rise
apartments, mixed-use
16% owner-occupied
units
acre
Crocus Hill
18
70 units
4 acres
single-family detached,
duplex, side-attached
rowhouses, low-rise
apartments
29% owner-occupied
units
acre
Hennepin Ave.
& 32nd St.
11
45 units
4.2 acres
single-family
detached, duplex,
low-rise apartments,
side-attached row-
houses, mixed use
55% owner-occupied
units
acre
Portland Place
8
32 units
4 acres
single-family
detached, duplex,
side-attached
rowhouses
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Humboldt
Greenway
7
28 units
4.2 acres
single-family
detached
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Riverside /
West Bank
28
56 units
2 acres
low-rise apartments,
side-attached
rowhouses
32% owner-occupied
units
acre
Linden Hills
32 units
acre
294 units
9.3 acres
single-family detached,
duplex, low- and mid-
rise apartments
5% owner-occupied
Cathedral Hill
34
134 units
3.9 acres
low-rise apartments,
side-attached
rowhouses
25% owner-occupied
units
acre
Stonehouse
Square
40
79 units
2 acres
low-rise apartments,
duplex
ownership data N/A
units
acre
East Village
62
180 units
2.9 acres
low-rise apartments,
stacked rowhouse,
mixed use
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Laurel Village
89
370 units
4.1 acres
low- and high-rise
apartments, mixed-
use
<1% owner-occupied
units
acre
Uptown
110
231units
2.1 acres
low- and mid-rise
apartments
23% owner-occupied
units
acre
Housing Densitydwelling units \ acre20
40
60
80
0
dwelling units \ acre20
40
60
80
0
Prepared for: The Minneapolis Corridor Housing Initiative. Revised April 2004College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture l University of Minnesota1 Ralph Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture l University of MinnesotaAttachment A
Attachment A
Type:
Duplex; Triplex
Plexes
R-2 Medium Density Residential Zone Code Standards
Density 10 -28 DU/acre*
Height 35 feet maximum**
Building Setbacks 10’ min. front;
5’ min. interior
Transition Standards to R-1 Zone None Required
Rowhouses
Type:
Rowhouse; Townhouse
Courtyard
Types:
Courtyard; Multifamily types facing or
clustered around shared open space
Apartment Complex
Types:
Complex of apartment blocks and other
multifamily types such as rowhouses
Apartment BlockSmall Lot Detached Houses
Type:
Small Lot Detached; Narrow House; Cottage
Clusters
Medium Density Housing Types
Where:
Neighborhoods; Infill lots;
20-min. Neighborhoods; Subdivisions
Where:
Infill, Neighborhood Main Streets &
Centers, Buffer Zones; Subdivisions
Where:
Neighborhood Main Streets & Centers
Where:
Corridors, Large Site Development
Where:
Neighborhoods; Infill lots;
20-min. Neighborhoods; Subdivisions
** 7’ height bonus for 6:12 or steeper roof slope
Density:
Example: Friar Tuck; Net Density 10
Density:
Example: Prairie View; Approx. 24 DU/ac
Density:
Example: Turtle Creek; Approx. 13 DU/ac
Density:
Example: Walnut Park; Approx. 16 DU/ac
Density:
Example: Cascade Manor; Approx. 25 DU/ac
Where:
Near Urban Core; Mixed Use Areas; Key Cor-
ridors; Neighborhood Centers
Density:
Example: Lucia; Approx. 28 DU/ac
Types:
Stacked units with a single entrance;
Generally more urban in massing and siting
Medium Density Housing Types in the Urban Form
Small Lot Single Family Detached
Plexes
Rowhouses
Courtyard
Apartment Complex
Apartment Block
www.envisioneugene.org
KEY
Residential & Commercial Types
other than Medium Density
Friar Tuck - Little John Lane & Robin Hood Ave. Walnut Park - Keller Street Turtle Creek - Hatton Avenue Lucia - Friendly Street & W 27th Avenue Prairie View - N. Danebo Avenue Cascade Manor - Portland Street & 29th Place
* Dwelling units per acre Attachment AAttachment A
Stillwater
12
36 units
2.9 acres
low-rise apartments,
detached single-family
homes
68.8% owner-occupied
units
acre
Woodbury
11
20 units
1.9 acres
rowhouses
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
North St. Paul
10 units
acre
121 units
11.7 acres
apartments
3.3% owner-occupied
Woodbury
10
53 units
5.5 acres
townhomes /
rowhouses
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Chaska
9
37 units
4 acres
townhomes
2.7% owner-occupied
units
acre
Robbinsdale
9
48 units
5.1 acres
duplexes
33.3% owner-occupied
units
acre
Robbinsdale
9
60 units
7 acres
detached single-
family homes, low-rise
apartment buildings
35.6% owner-occupied
units
acre
Woodbury
8
45 units
5.3 acres
townhomes
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
Hastings
15
44 units
2.9 acres
apartments over
commercial
7.3% owner-occupied
units
acre
Eden Prairie
18 units
acre
317 units
17.9 acres
rowhouses
ownership data N/A
Hastings
18
50 units
2.8 acres
low-rise apartments
and detached single-
family homes
12.2% owner-occupied
units
acre
Woodbury
21 units
acre
Stillwater
22
176 units
8 acres
rowhouses and
owner-occupied
apartments
ownership data N/A
units
acre
Woodbury
32
77 units
2.4 acres
townhomes
0% owner-occupied
units
acre
Minnetonka
50
131 units
2.6 acres
low-rise apartments
98.3% owner-occupied
units
acre
Housing Densitydwelling units \ acre20
40
60
0
dwelling units \ acre20
40
60
0
222 units
10.5 acres
low-rise apartments
0% owner-occupied College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture l University of Minnesota1 Ralph Rapson Hall, 89 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455www.designcenter.umn.eduPrepared for: The Minneapolis Corridor Housing InitiativeAttachment A
Attachment A
Village (at Avon) –PUD Map
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) –Master Plan
Attachment B
Planning Area F
PA -F
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) –Planning Area F
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
LAND USE: Regional Commercial
Mixed Use Projects
PA -F: 13 Acres
DENSITY:18 DU / acre
LOT COVERAGE: 80%
SET BACKS: 25’ Front, 0’ Side,
10’ Rear
Ind. and Res. 25’ Front,
7.5’ Side, 10’ Rear
BUILDING HEIGHT: 35’ SFR & Duplex,
80’ Medical facilities,
48’ all others
Attachment B
Conceptual Site Plan
Apartment Community
PA -F
Infrastructure ready site
Walking distance to
local and regional
transportation
Walking distance to
retail and commercial
businesses
Expands sidewalk and
trail network
Access from Urban
Local Road
Buffer to Regional
Commercial
“Achieve a diverse range of quality housing to serve a diverse segment of the
population.” Town of Avon Comprehensive plan, F. Housing, Goal F.1 (page 52)
Attachment B
Conceptual Building Section
PA -F
Attachment B
Conceptual Building Section
PA -F
Attachment B
Conceptual Building Elevation
PA -F
Attachment B
Conceptual Building Elevation
PA -F
Attachment B
Allowable Density
PA -F
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 6-8)1
B. TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY. The total permitted density for The Village (at
Avon) PUD shall not exceed:
1. Planning Areas A, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, RMF 1 and RMF 2 shall not exceed:
(a) Commercial Uses.
825,000 consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial
Space.
(b) Dwelling Units.
2,400 Dwelling Units. Pursuant to the terms of the Affordable
Housing Plan, 500 of the 2,400 Dwelling Units shall be
constructed as affordable housing, and, subject to satisfaction of
the conditions precedent set forth in the Affordable Housing Plan,
an additional 23 of the 2,400 Dwelling Units shall be constructed
as affordable housing.
Attachment B
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 26)1
D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE VILLAGE (AT AVON) PUD
6. Planning Areas F, G, H, and I – Regional Commercial Mixed Use Projects
(e) Residential Density Maximum:
(i) Planning Areas F,G & H: 18 Dwelling Units per acre
(ii) Planning Area F: 25 Dwelling Units per acre.
Development Standards
PA -F
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) –Planning Area
Density Units per acre
PA -A
25 DU/ac
Town Center PA -C, D
18 DU/ac
PA -F, G, H
18 DU/ac
PA -J
18 DU/ac
Attachment B
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 8)1
B. TOTAL PERMITTED DENSITY. The total permitted density for The Village (at Avon) PUD
shall not exceed:
6.At final build-out of the particular Planning Area, the following minimum and
maximum ratios of consolidated Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space and consolidated Gross
Square Footage of Residential Uses, stated as a percentage of the aggregate Gross Square Footage
the Planning Area [e.g., Gross Square Footage of Commercial Space ÷ (Gross Square Footage of
Commercial Space + consolidated Gross Square Footage of Residential Uses) = percentage of Gross
Square Footage of Commercial Space], shall apply within the following Planning Areas:
Planning Area Residential Commercial
Min%Max%Min%Max%
Planning Area A 30% 80% 20% 70%
Planning Areas C and D 90% 100% 0% 10%
Planning Areas F,G & H 0% 50%50% 100%
Planning Areas F 0% 100% 0% 50%
Allowable Density
PA -F
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) –Planning Area
Max. % Residential / Min. %Commercial Mix
PA -A
80:20
Town Center PA -C,D
100:0
PA -F,G,H
50:50
PA -J
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) –Commercial Centers
Attachment B
Excerpt from PUD Guide (part pages 26)1
D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITHIN THE VILLAGE (AT AVON) PUD
6. Planning Areas F, G, H, and I – Regional Commercial Mixed Use Projects
(d) Building Envelope Requirements:
(ii) Maximum Building Height:
(3) Residential Uses:
b. Multi-family Dwellings: 48 66 feet
Development Standards
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) –Planning Area
Max. Building Height Multi-family Residential
PA -A South
55’
Town Center
80’
PA -C,D
48’
PA -F,G,H
48’
PA -A North
80’PA -J
48’
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) -Site Section #3, & #4
3 4
4
3
Attachment B
The Village (at Avon) -Site Section #5
5
4
3
Attachment B
Public Benefits
PA -F
□Added much-needed housing options to Town of Avon
□“Increase in choices of living and housing environments” Avon Development Code (7.16.060(e)(4)
□More residents, and consequently retailers and new businesses in a central location in proximity to Avon
Town Center -adding vibrancy to the community
□Makes Town of Avon more attractive to retailers and new business -adding vibrancy to the community
□Added work force in Avon Town Center
□Increased revenue streams to Town of Avon through property tax, permit fees, sales and accommodation
tax
□Added living options near existing public transportation
□Added living options near existing retail in Traer Creek Plaza
Attachment B
Public Benefits in place
PA -F
□244 affordable housing units constructed at Buffalo Ridge
(an extra 144 units were provided when only 100 units were and are actually required)
□I-70 interchange, Post Boulevard Road, railway underpass, and utility infrastructure
□.611 acre land dedication to Eagle County Paramedic Service for ambulance response station
□1.231 acre land dedication to ERFPD for station site
□3.536 acres dedicated to TOA for school site on valley floor build ready
□4.01 acres dedicated to TOA public works site on valley floor build ready
(an extra 1.231 acres was provided for Public Works Dedication)
□4.1 acres dedicated to TOA for public parks
□2 acre land dedication to TOA for linear parks and multi-purpose trails
□Revenues generated from economic activities
□Award winning architecture and responsible development
Attachment B
Street Standards
PA -F
EXHIBIT F –Street Standards
Amended and Restated PUD Guide November 7, 2012
A.Street Design and Improvement Standards. Development within The Village (at Avon) shall
comply with the street design and improvement standards contained within Sections 7.28
and 7.32 of the Development Code, as modified by the standards set forth in this Exhibit F.
1. Street Descriptions and Types.
(vi) East Beaver Creek Boulevard (conceptual): this Urban Local Road
extends from Avon Road at the western edge of Lot 1. to Post Boulevard
(constructed). Curb, gutter, and sidewalk shall be provided along the
roadway within a 50' (min.) R.O.W. as generally depicted on the conceptual
illustration attached as a part of this Exhibit F (illustration 7 or 8).
(vii) Main Street (conceptual): this Urban Local Road extends from the
western edge of Lot 1 at Chapel Place to the roundabout at Post Boulevard
(constructed). Curb. gutter. and sidewalk shall be provided along the
roadway. within a 50' (min.) R.O.W. for the eastern and western segments,
and 80' (min.) R.O.W. for the central segment as generally depicted on the
conceptual illustration attached as a part of this Exhibit F (for the central
segment: illustration 1, 3, or 4; for the western segment illustration 5 or 6; for
the eastern segment illustration 7 or 8).
Attachment B
Street Standards
EXHIBIT F –Street Standards
A.Street Standards
2. The engineering. installation and construction of any road within The Village (at Avon) may, at the
discretion of the Applicant, be phased. Only the portion of a road that is necessary to serve the
property that is the subject of the applicable Application shall be required to be engineered, installed
and constructed in connection with the development of such property: provided, however, if any such
road is depicted on the PUD Master Plan to extend and continue further than such phase, the
Applicant shall submit Preliminary Engineering for the extended road as a part of its Application in
accordance with Section A.4(g) of the PUD Guide.
Attachment B
Street Standards
PA -F
Alternate Road Profile
with Multi-purpose trail
Attachment B
Parks, Trails, & Sidewalks -Conceptual
PA -F
Attachment B
Street Standards
PA -F
EXHIBIT F –Street Standards
Amended and Restated PUD Guide November 7, 2012
A.Street Design and Improvement Standards. Development within The Village (at Avon) shall comply
with the street design and improvement standards contained within Sections 7.28 and 7.32 of the
Development Code, as modified by the standards set forth in this Exhibit F.
Chapter 7.28 Development Standards
Avon Development Code
7.28.040 -Mobility and connectivity.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to:
(1) Reduce dependency on the automobile;
(8) Pedestrian and bicycle environments shall be designed in a comfortable and safe
manner to encourage these modes of transportation.
(b) Applicability. All buildings and structures erected and all uses of land established after the effective date
of this Development Code shall conform to the provisions of this Section, subject to any restrictions for the
district in which the facilities are located. Changes or additions to existing structures may also require
compliance with this Section pursuant to Subsection 7.28.010(b), Purpose and Applicability.
(c) Alternative Transportation Modes. Consideration must be given to alternative transportation modes,
bicycle and pedestrian ways and paths and shall be included in site master planning. The standards and
criteria in the current Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan, October 2009, are adopted herein
by reference.
Attachment B
Street Standards
PA -F
Chapter 7.28 Development Standards, Avon Development Code
7.28.040 -Mobility and connectivity.
(d) Facilities. Provision of bus turn-outs and shelters is required where deemed necessary by the Director of
Transportation and/or Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Where shelters are provided, they
shall be installed outside of the sidewalk area. Required turnouts may encroach into the perimeter landscape
area. Bus stop and transit shelter standards are found in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation
Plan.
(e) Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Connectivity.
(1) Provisions shall be made in all developments to encourage the use of bicycle and pedestrian
travel through the integration of bicycle and pedestrian paths, trails and/or bicycle lanes that connect to
parks, open spaces, schools, public transit and shopping areas. Subdivisions shall connect bicycle and
pedestrian paths, trails and/or bicycle lanes to collector and minor arterial streets. Where available, trail
linkages areas shall be incorporated into the design of all new subdivisions, multifamily and nonresidential
developments.
(2) Bicycle/pedestrian paths shall be provided between and within developments as necessary to
provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages between developments, unless the applicant can demonstrate that to
do so would be infeasible. The bicycle/pedestrian paths shall be located within a ROW or an easement.
(3) Sidewalk systems shall be along the perimeter streets adjacent to the development.
Attachment B
Street Standards
PA -F
Chapter 7.28 Development Standards, Avon Development Code
7.28.040 -Mobility and connectivity.
(4) A continuous internal pedestrian walkway shall be provided from the perimeter public
sidewalk to the principal building entrance. Pedestrian walkways or sidewalks shall connect all primary
building entrances and must be provided along any facade featuring an entrance that exits into a parking
area or travel lane. Pedestrian walkways shall also connect all on-site common areas, parking areas, storage
areas, open space and recreational facilities. The walkway must be distinguished from driving surfaces
through the use of special pavers, bricks, patterned concrete or other methods approved by the Town to
enhance pedestrian safety and the attractiveness of the walkway.
(6) Bicycle paths and lanes constructed within the right-of-way must be in accordance with the
standards of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
(7) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities located within gated private communities shall be
maintained by the private community through a homeowners' association or other method as approved by
the Town.
(8) Bicycle facilities must connect any adjacent or on-site public park, trail system, open space
area, greenway or other public or civic use, including but not limited to schools, places of worship, public
recreational facilities or government offices.
Attachment B
Affordable Housing
The Village (at Avon) PUD
I.Supplemental Regulations
15. Affordable Housing Plan. Master Developer will provide for affordable housing
within the Property at locations determined by Master Developer in its sole discretion and in
accordance with the following terms, conditions and requirements set forth in this Section I.15.
The obligations set forth in this Section 1.15 shall constitute the sole and exclusive affordable housing
requirements for The Village (at Avon) PUD and expressly supersede any affordable housing regulations set
forth in the Municipal Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, subsequent to the Effective Date, the Town
amends from time to time Section 7.20.100 of the Development Code, the Master Developer, in its sole
discretion, may consider amendment of this PUD Guide to incorporate such amended provisions herein,
which amendment(s), if any, shall be processed in accordance with the administrative amendment
procedure set forth in Section H.3.
The Developer has provided 244 affordable housing units at Buffalo Ridge.
Staff recommends no additional worker housing is required.
Attachment B
Putter Nottingham Ditch
The Developer intends to pipe the existing ditch to the western edge of Planning Area F
Attachment B
Heil Law & Planning, LLC E-Mail: ericheillaw@gmail.com
H EIL L AW
TO: Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Eric J. Heil, Town Attorney
RE: Village (at Avon) – Planning Area F – Preliminary PUD Amendment Application
DATE: December 29, 2017
SUMMARY: This memorandum describes the legal considerations and the past and current policy
regarding the requirement of “Public Benefits” for planned unit development (“PUD”) amendment
applications.
AVON DEVELOPMENT CODE: Avon Development Code 7.16.060(b) states the eligibility criteria for
establishing a PUD, including sub-section (5) which states,
“Public Benefit. A recognizable and material benefit will be realized by both the future
residents and the Town as a whole through the establishment of a PUD, where such
benefit would otherwise be infeasible or unlikely.”
This is the provision that establishes “Public Benefit” as a review criteria for approval of new PUDs.
PUD approvals are legislative acts, similar to zoning changes; therefore, the Planning Commission and
Town Council have very broad discretion when reviewing PUD amendment applications. In practice,
7.16.060(1)(e) is the provision that is also applicable when PUDs are amended and the amendment
creates new, different or additional impacts on the community. Staff has correctly cited §7.16.060(e)(4)
as the applicable review criteria for a PUD amendment application.
Due to the legislative nature of approving PUDs and PUD amendments, there is no fixed criteria for
considering “Public Benefits”. General practice within the planning profession would be to consider the
adopted Comprehensive Plan for the community (and other relevant adopted community policy
documents) and to have some rational connection or relationship between the impacts of the proposed
development application and the Public Benefit sought.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: Due to the legislative nature of PUD and PUD amendment approvals, the
Town Council has very broad discretion when reviewing and acting upon such applications. There is no
legal obligation for the Town to approve PUD or PUD amendment applications. That said, the Town
consciously sought to move away from PUDs when adopting the current Avon Development Code so
that the development community would have greater guidance and predictability with development
review criteria. The practice in the Town of Avon since adopting the Avon Development Code in 2010 is
to provide greater consideration to the specific incremental impact of a proposed PUD amendment and
consider the appropriate Public Benefit based on the incremental impact and the nature of the impact.
VILLAGE (AT AVON): The PUD Guide and the Development Agreement for the Village (at Avon) set
the maximum residential density for the entire property, the maximum commercial square footage, and
the maximum water rights consumptive use. Therefore, the proposed maximum density per acre
increase for Planning Area F does not increase the overall density of the project. The existing PUD
Guide and Development Agreement addressed public benefits and exactions for the overall density of
the Village (at Avon).
Thank you, Eric
M EMORANDUM & PLANNING, LLC
Attachment C
PZC Record of Decision: #PUD17003 Page 1 of 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: January 2, 2018
FINDINGS APPROVED: January 16, 2018
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Minor PUD Amendment
PROPERTY LOCATION: Lot 2A, 2B, 3, and 5 Buck Creek Subdivision
FILE NUMBER: #PUD17003
APPLICANT: Stephanie Lord-Johnson, Berglund Architects
This decision is made in accordance with the Avon Development Code §7.16.060:
DECISION: Approved with the following Findings and Conditions:
FINDINGS:
1. The Application meets the eligibility requirements for a Minor PUD Amendment by not
increasing density, increasing the amount of nonresidential land use, or significantly
altering any approved building scale and mass of the development.
2. The PUD Amendment does not change the character of the development and maintains
the intent and integrity of the Riverfront PUD.
3. The Application complies with the Avon Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as
outlined in staff’s report dated January 2, 2018.
4. The Application is in conformance with §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, and
compared to the underlying zoning, the Minor PUD Amendment is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment.
CONDITIONS:
1. Any units designated as Employee Residential Units will be permanently deed restricted
to Eagle County employees by form approved by Town of Avon.
2. The cumulative maximum density for lots 2A, 3, and 5 shall be not more than 31 dwelling
units.
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED:
BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________
PZC Chairperson
1
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:00pm.
II. Roll Call – All members were present. Commissioner Minervini’s seat was vacated.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda – There were no additions or amendments.
IV. Conflicts of Interest – There were no reported conflicts of interest.
V. Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment) Village at Avon PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17001
Legal Description: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon
Applicant: Harvey Robertson
Summary: PUD Guide amendment for changes to Planning Area F, a 13-acre property located at
the intersection of Post Blvd and East Beaver Creek Boulevard, including: 1) increase
density allowance from 18 dwelling unit/ acre to 25 dwelling units per acre; 2) increase
maximum allowable residential development from 50% to 100; and 3) increase
allowable building height from 48’ to 66’ for multi-family buildings.
Public Comments: Buz Didier and Bette Todd both commented on the project.
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to continue the public hearing to the January 16,
2018 Planning and Zoning meeting, pending more information.
Commissioner Glaner seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
VI. Minor PUD Amendment – Buck Creek PUD - PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17003
Legal Description: Filing 3 Lots 2A, 2B, 3 and 5, Buck Creek PUD
Applicant: Berglund Architects, Stephanie Lord-Johnson
Summary: Application to amend the Buck Creek PUD for greater flexibility for future
development on Filing 3 Lots 2A, 2B, 3, and 5 to allow parking to be shared between
Lot 2A and Lot 3 and to allow the same uses on Lot 2A and Lot 3 (schools, employee
housing units, residential housing units, pedestrian paths and trails, Public assembly
facilities, and Museums and public education facilities).
Public Comments: None
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to approve the application with the following
findings and conditions:
Findings:
1. The Application meets the eligibility requirements for a Minor PUD Amendment by
not increasing density, increasing the amount of nonresidential land use, or
significantly altering any approved building scale and mass of the development.
2. The PUD Amendment does not change the character of the development and
maintains the intent and integrity of the Riverfront PUD.
3. The Application complies with the Avon Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as
outlined in staff’s report dated January 2, 2018.
2
4. The Application is in conformance with §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria, AMC, and
compared to the underlying zoning, the Minor PUD Amendment is not likely to result
in significant adverse impacts upon the natural environment.
Conditions:
1. Any units designated as Employee Residential Units will be permanently deed
restricted to Eagle County employees by form approved by Town of Avon.
2. The cumulative maximum density for lots 2A, 3, and 5 shall be not more than 31
dwelling units.
Commissioner Golembiewski seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously
6-0.
VII. Meeting Minutes
• December 5, 2017 Meeting
Action: Commissioner Howell motioned to
VIII. Work Session
Description: Discuss and formulate agenda for upcoming joint work session meeting with Avon Town
Council. The session is tentatively scheduled for February 13th, and possible items include:
o Short Term Rentals
o AEC Process and Natural Resource Protection Standards
o Noticing Requirements
IX. Adjourn – The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 pm.
Approved this 16th Day of January 2018
SIGNED: ___________________________________________
Lindsay Hardy, Chairperson