PZC Packet 0806191 Agenda posted on Friday, August 2, 2019 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, August 6, 2019
100 Mikaela Way – Avon Municipal Building
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. Conflicts of Interest
IV. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
V. Alternative Equivalent Compliance and Minor Development Plan – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – 5024
Wildridge Road East Unit B
File: AEC19004 and MNR19012
Applicant: Kirby and Sonny Koch
Property: Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
Summary: Application to allow a non-conforming privacy fence to be approved by PZC. The
fence is already built and does not conform to height or built characteristics required.
VI. Special Review Use – PUBLIC HEARING – 281 Metcalf Road
File: SRU19001
Applicant: Vladimir Goregliad
Property: Lot 18/19 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Summary: Special Review Use to continue the Motion Rent A Car Business on the property.
VII. Rezone – PUBLIC HEARING – 420 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
File: REZ19001
Applicant: Town of Avon
Property: Lot 16 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Summary: Proposal to change the zoning from Residential – High Density to Park.
VIII. Consent Agenda
A – PZC Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2019
B – PZC Decision – Code Text Amendment CTA19002
IX. Adjourn
PZC Recommendations: #CTA19002 Page 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL
DATE OF DECISION: July 16, 2019
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Code Text Amendments
PROPERTY LOCATION: Town of Avon
FILE NUMBER: #CTA19002
APPLICANT: Town of Avon
These recommendations are made in accordance with the Avon Development Code
(“Development Code”) §7.16.040:
DECISION: Recommend denial and no changes to Title 7: Development Code Text Amendments.
FINDINGS:
1. The application is complete;
2. The application provides sufficient information to allow the reviewing authority to
determine that the application does not comply with the relevant review criteria;
3. The text amendments were reviewed with the criteria listed in Avon Municipal Code
Section 7.16.040(c), Review Criteria, and are found to be out of compliance;
4. The amendment does not promote the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan;
5. A Rezoning to residential zone districts is the appropriate mechanism to implement
housing projects in the IC zone district;
6. The change is not necessary or desirable to respond to changed conditions;
7. All residential development in the IC zone district through an SRU process is an
inappropriate process and weakening of zoning regulations processes;
8. No evidence exists for PZC for properties to develop as all residential in the IC zone
district outside of a select property and thus does not justify the proposed code text
amendment; and
9. Alternative methods exist such as overlay district or public private partnerships which
are more appropriate to achieve community housing.
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED:
BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________
PZC Chairperson
PZC Minutes – July 16, 2019 1
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:01 pm.
II. Roll Call – All commissioners were present except for Commissioner Dammeyer.
III. Conflicts of Interest – No conflicts of interest were disclosed.
IV. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda – An update of the Village at Avon Apartment project was added to
Staff Updates. Item VI and VII were switched in order due to public interest.
V. Alternative Equivalent Compliance and Minor Development Plan – PUBLIC HEARING – 5024 Wildridge Road
East
File: AEC19004 and MNR19004
Applicant: Kirby and Sonny Koch
Property: Lot 37 Block 4 Wildridge
Summary: Application to allow a non-conforming privacy fence to be approved by PZC. The
fence is already built and does not conform to height or built characteristics required.
Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to continue the public hearing to August 6, 2019
pending a revised fence that complies with split rail characteristics and to investigate
additional landscape improvements that accomplish the applicant’s objectives.
Commissioner Golembiewski seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
VI. Code Text Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING
File: CTA19002
Applicant: Town of Avon
Properties: Light Industrial and Commercial Employment (IC) District
Lots 10 – 39 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek; and Tract Y Filing 3 Mountain Star
Subdivision
80-451 Metcalf Road; and 710-850 Nottingham Road
Summary: Code Modification allow for residential development at 10 units per acre in the IC
district under the Special Review Use process.
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to deny the application with the following findings:
1. The application is complete;
2. The application provides sufficient information to allow the reviewing authority to
determine that the application does not comply with the relevant review criteria;
3. The text amendments were reviewed with the criteria listed in Avon Municipal Code
Section 7.16.040(c), Review Criteria, and are found to be out of compliance;
4. The amendment does not promote the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan;
5. A Rezoning to residential zone districts is the appropriate mechanism to implement
housing projects in the IC zone district;
6. The change is not necessary or desirable to respond to changed conditions;
7. All residential development in the IC zone district through an SRU process is an
inappropriate process and weakening of zoning regulation processes;
8. No evidence exists of properties to develop as all residential in the IC zone district
outside of a select property, and thus does not justify the proposed code text
amendment; and
PZC Minutes – July 16, 2019 2
9. Alternative methods exist such as overlay district or public private partnerships which
are more appropriate to achieve community housing.
Commissioner Howell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
VII. Work Session - Nottingham Park Master Planning
Summary: PZC is instructed to review the Nottingham Park Plans and discuss direction for staff
going forward.
Action: After deliberation on the plans in general, PZC accepted public comment on the item.
VIII. Consent Agenda
A – PZC Meeting Minutes – July 2, 2019
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner
Smith seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
IX. Staff Updates
Action: Staff and Commissioner Hardy updated the PZC regarding the progress of the Village
at Avon apartment buildings.
X. Adjourn - The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 pm.
Approved this 6th Day of August 2019
SIGNED: ___________________________________________
Chairperson
Page I 1 August 6, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
Staff Report
Case #MNR19012 and AEC19004 Continued Public Hearing
August 6, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project type Alternative Equivalent Compliance and Minor Development Plan
Public Hearing Required
Legal Description Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning PUD
Address 5024 Wildridge Road East Unit B
Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner
Application Summary
During the July 16 PZC meeting, a joint AEC and MNR application was presented to the Commission and the
hearing was continued pending a revised fence that complies with split rail characteristics and an investigation
of additional landscape improvements that accomplish the applicant’s objectives. Now, the applicant is
proposing some landscaping improvements, a change in the gate color to a more neutral color and stepping the
fence down with the grade (attachment A).
Development Plan Review Criteria.
The following review criteria shall be considered as the basis for a decision on development plan
applications:
1. Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in
Section 7.04.030, Purposes;
2. Evidence of substantial compliance with Section 7.16.090, Design review;
3. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
4. Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development
or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable;
5. Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code,
including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map,
Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and
6. That the development can be adequately served by city services, including but not limited to roads,
water, wastewater, fire protection and emergency medical services.
Staff Response: This application is compliant with all the applicable Review Criteria, except as noted
in the previous staff report (A ttachment B). The gate is proposed to be modified to a more neutral
wood color.
7.16.090(f), Design Review
1. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where
redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole;
2. The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and
3. The design reflects the long- range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan
and other applicable, adopted plan documents.
Staff Response: The design has been evaluated for conformance with these plans and staff has
Page I 2 August 6, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
determined the proposed design meets the requirements, except where noted in attachment B.
7.16.120 Alternative Equivalent Compliance
Alternative equivalent compliance is a procedure that allows development to meet the intent of the
design-related provisions of the code through an alternative design. It is not a general waiver or
weakening of regulations; rather, this application procedure permits a site-specific plan that is equal to
or better than the strict application of a design standard specified in the Development Code. This
procedure is not intended as a substitute for a variance or administrative modification or a vehicle for
relief from standards in this Chapter. Alternative compliance shall apply only to the specific site for
which it is requested and does not establish a precedent for assured approval of other requests.
AEC Review Criteria.
The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an application for
alternative equivalent compliance:
1. The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the
same or better degree than the subject standard;
2. The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the
same or better degree than the subject standard;
3. The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better
than compliance with the subject standard; and
4. The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur
through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title.
Applicant Response: Since the prior meeting, the applicant has chosen to step the height down
incrementally, but the overall design is not dramatically different. The applicant contends that their
fence is attached to the deck and therefore should be treated like the screen wall on the neighbors deck.
Staff Response: The redesign that was suggested by the PZC in the motion to continue was not met, and
staff cannot support the deviation. Staff is sympathetic to the contention that the fence is similar to the
screen wall approved on the neighboring property, but the PZC’s distinction between the two cannot be
ignored. The fence attaches at a point to the deck but is not an integrated feature, and is substantially
larger in scale than neighboring improvements.
Staff Recommendation for AEC19004 Alternative Equivalent Compliance:
Staff recommends denial of the AEC application for Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision with the
following findings:
Findings:
1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.120, Alternative Equivalent
Compliance;
2. The proposed alternative does not achieve the intent of §7.28.080 Fences to the same or better
degree than the subject standard;
3. The proposed alternative does not achieve the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
4. The proposed alternative does not result in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or
better than compliance with the subject standard; and
6. The proposed alternative imposes greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur
Page I 3 August 6, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
through compliance with the specific requirements of the Code.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to deny Case #AEC19004, an Alternative Equivalent Compliance application for Lot 37B
Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings and condition as recommended by staff.”
Staff Recommendation for MNR19012 Minor Development Plan:
Staff recommends denial of the Minor Development application for Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge
Subdivision with the following findings and condition:
Findings:
1. The application is complete;
2. The modifications qualify as a Minor Development Plan pursuant to §7.16.080 of the
Development Code.
3. The application provides sufficient information to determine that the application does not comply
with the relevant review criteria;
4. The application is not in compliance complies with the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan;
5. There is no extra demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current capacity by the
application;
6. The design of the fence does not relate the development to the character of the surrounding
community; and
Condition:
1. All unapproved constructed material shall be removed by October 1, 2019.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to deny Case #MNR19012, a Minor Development application for Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge
Subdivision together with the findings and condition as recommended by staff.”
Attachments:
A. Revised Application
B. July 16, 2019 Staff Report
Attachment A
Good evening David,
The idea that we would like to go with is as follows:
We would like to keep the same design that we have, but stain it the same color as our deck,
since they are attached. We would like to create a gate that has the same color idea as the deck
so that it does not stand out as much as the black gate. We would lower the section that slopes
down with the driveway to match the 6 feet that it is on the upper level. We would like for it to be
considered a privacy screen in which our neighbor has on his front deck and that just got
approved last month. If the planning committee sees fit, we could build planter boxes on the
outside the same as we have on the inside to show the vertical garden that we are using it for
and for the purpose of aesthetics. We are in the process of painting the exterior of the house
and staining the decks along with this change we need to make in the next 6 weeks.
Please let us know if you think this is something that could be up for discussion or if you think a
split rail is the only way it will be approved. A split rail is not going to work in that spot being that
it is for purpose of privacy from our neighbor and his daily driveway use for business purposes
and for containing our pet.
Thank you for your consideration and help with this matter,
Kirby and Sunny Koch
Attachment A
Page I 1 July 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
Attachment B
Staff Report
Case #MNR19004 and AEC19003 Public Hearing
July 16, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project type Alternative Equivalent Compliance and Minor Development Plan
Public Hearing Required
Legal Description Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning PUD
Address 5024 Wildridge Road East Unit B
Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner
Staff Report Overview
This staff report contains two applications for consideration by the PZC:
1. Minor Development Plan (MNR) for an existing fence.
2. Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) for the fence.
Summary of Request
Staff was recently made aware of unapproved improvements on the property. Upon contact with the
owners (Kirby and Sonny Koch), they applied for a Minor Development Plan and Alternative
Equivalent Compliance for the existing screening fence near the driveway-side deck on the north
side of the house. PZC is tasked with reviewing the fence using the application review criteria. The
neighboring duplex owner is aware of the fence and generally is in favor of maintaining property value
through compatible design. The neighbor is not comfortable with unstained wood or the color of the
fence gate.
Property Description
The property is a duplex on Wildridge Road
East that has two owners along a party wall,
and common space for the driveway and
yard. The fence is located entirely on the
applicants’ property. Apart from this
development application, staff had
conversations regarding general upkeep of
the property, specifically, of completing a
paint job that has been primed but not
completed.
Public Notice
Notice of the public hearing w as published
in the July 4, 2019 edition of the Vail Daily
in accordance with Sec. 7.16.020(d) of the Avon Development Code. Mailed notice is not required for
this application type , but the duplex neighbor is aware of the hearing date.
Planning Analysis
Fences in Wildridge
Section 7.28.080(b), of the Municipal Code offers the following intent and design requirements of fence
Page I 2 July 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
Attachment B
structures in Wildridge, with some text highlighted by staff:
Although discouraged in Wildridge and Wildwood, in all instances fences should complement the
property and landscape rather than contain the property. Fences that delineate property boundaries
are not permitted. Fences will be considered for approval by staff only when demonstrated by the
applicant that the design is consistent with the following criteria:
i. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four (4) feet in height;
ii. Fences shall be constructed using a split rail design with no more than two (2) horizontal
rails;
iii. Fences shall not delineate property lines;
iv. Fences shall not enclose an area of two thousand (2,000) square feet or more;
v. Fences shall ensure that wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed
fence design;
vi. If a fence is part of a multi-family project, approval shall be received from the association
and the fence design shall be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property;
and
vii. If a fence is located on a duplex property, written approval shall be received from the
adjoining property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape
design.
Staff Response: Staff did not ask for a square footage calculation, but the area is estimated at around
300 square feet. The application meets some of the fence requirements but certainly requires the
Alternative Equivalent Compliance process for approval. While not explicitly granting approval, the
neighbor has expressed general concern about property values and has negatively commented on the
gate color and the currently unstained wood.
Development Plan Review Criteria.
The following review criteria shall be considered as the basis for a decision on development plan
applications:
1. Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in
Section 7.04.030, Purposes;
2. Evidence of substantial compliance with Section 7.16.090, Design review;
3. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
4. Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned
development or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable;
5. Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code,
including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning
Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and
6. That the development can be adequately served by city services, including but not limited to
roads, water, wastewater, fire protection and emergency medical services.
Staff Response: This application is compliant with all the applicable Review Criteria, except as noted.
Staff suggests a condition of approval regarding the color of the black gate (pictured on the next page) to
become more compatible with the design and color of the rest of the duplex. Avon Municipal Code
(AMC) states, “Indigenous natural or earth tones, such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue or red, in muted,
flat colors with an LRV (Light Reflective Value) of sixty (60) or less are required.”
7.16.090(f), Design Review
Page I 3 July 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
Attachment B
1. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where
redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole;
2. The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code;
and
3. The design reflects the long- range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive
Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents.
Staff Response: The design has been
evaluated for conformance with these
plans and staff has determined the
proposed design meets the requirements,
except where noted.
7.16.120 Alternative Equivalent
Compliance
Alternative equivalent compliance is a
procedure that allows development to meet
the intent of the design-related provisions
of the code through an alternative design.
It is not a general waiver or weakening
of regulations; rather, this application
procedure permits a site-specific plan that is
equal to or better than the strict
application of a design standard specified in the Development Code. This procedure is not intended
as a substitute for a variance or administrative modification or a vehicle for relief from standards in
this Chapter. Alternative compliance shall apply only to the specific site for which it is requested and
does not establish a precedent for assured approval of other requests.
AEC Review Criteria.
The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an application for
alternative equivalent compliance:
1. The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to
the same or better degree than the subject standard;
2. The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to
the same or better degree than the subject standard;
3. The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better
than compliance with the subject standard; and
4. The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur
through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title.
Applicant Response: The fence was installed to maintain privacy on a busy driveway that serves as a
pickup location for the neighbor’s business, and as a method of keeping the dog confined. While not
compliant with the Wildridge requirements, the fence complies with the fence requirements for the rest
of town, and functions in its unique location along the busy driveway.
Staff Response: Staff is unaware of other screen fences of a similar makeup as this one in Wildridge.
While the fence deviates from the design standards for Wildridge, the aesthetic inspiration came from a
Page I 4 July 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
Attachment B
deck screen built by the duplex neighbor (and recently approved with modifications after construction,
last picture, Attachment A). The unique location of the deck and the nature of the neighboring business
provide enough reason to entertain approval of an AEC. However, as built, the fence exceeds the fence
requirements of other districts in town. AMC states that a fence shall be, “No more than six (6) feet
high for opaque privacy fences that are located directly adjacent to and integrated with the architecture
of the house or connected to a courtyard.” It appears that the gate arch exceeds this height, and while it
is an architectural feature, PZC should weigh if it complies with the above requirement. Further to the
west (the right side of the picture on the page above) the sloping ground means the fence height exceeds
six (6) feet. Staff suggests a reduction in height as a condition of approval of the AEC.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, this property is in District 11: Northern Residential District,
which states in the introduction, “Due to the limited number of existing trees and shrubs and the open
character of the property, special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible
with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings.” With the proposed conditions, the
application achieves the intent of the development standards to the same degree without causing great
impacts on adjacent properties.
Staff Recommendation for AEC19004 Alternative Equivalent Compliance:
Staff recommends approval of the AEC application for Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision with
the following findings and condition:
Findings:
1. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.120, Alternative Equivalent
Compliance;
2. The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to
the same or better degree than the subject standard;
3. The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to
the same or better degree than the subject standard;
4. The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better
than compliance with the subject standard; and
5. The proposed fence area is well below the 2,000 square foot allowable area.
6. The proposed alternative does not impose greater impacts on adjacent properties than would
occur through compliance with the specific requirements of the Code.
Condition:
1. The fence height shall not exceed six (6) feet, and shall be lowered in height in sixty days or
the approval shall become void.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to approve Case #AEC19004, an Alternative Equivalent Compliance application for Lot
37B Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings and condition as recommended by
staff.”
Staff Recommendation for MNR19012 Minor Development Plan:
Staff recommends approval of the Minor Development application for Lot 37B Block 4 Wildridge
Subdivision with the following findings and condition:
Page I 5 July 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
5024 Wildridge Road Fence Application
Attachment B
Findings:
1. The application is complete;
2. The application provides sufficient information to allow staff to determine that the application
complies with the relevant review criteria;
3. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
4. There is no extra demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current capacity by
the application;
5. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; and
6. The modifications qualify as a Minor Development Plan pursuant to §7.16.080 of the
Development Code.
Condition:
1. The fence gate color shall be modified to comply with Code section 7.28.090(c)((3)(v),
subject to approval of town planning staff.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to approve Case #MNR19012, a Minor Development application for Lot 37B Block 4
Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings and condition as recommended by staff.”
Attachments:
A. Application
Kirby & Sunny Koch
5024 Wildridge rd east unit B
Avon, CO, 81620
July/1/2019
To whom it may concern,
We are writing this letter due to a privacy fence on our back deck. We are asking for approval to
help us create a bit of privacy from the car headlights that come right in our back sliding glass
door where we eat dinner. Our neighbor has property A, we have property B and all of the
outside space is property C that we share mutually. The driveway for both of us is on our side
and all vehicles pull in and park in the back. Our fence is 6 ft. x 25.5 ft. made of 1x4 treated
fence plank wood and 4x4 treated post that are attached to 6”x24” round concrete forms buried
in the ground. Our gate is constructed of treated cedar with a metal frame, painted with black
stain.
We have planted a 9’x5’ grass area that used to be dirt that connected the deck to the driveway.
We have a small dog, so this area lets him be outside with us, without the fear that he will run
into the driveway. Our neighbor runs his ice sculpting company out of his garage and has a lot
of cars up and down our driveway at all times of the day.
Our intent is to stain the fence the same color as the current deck color. This color will make it
consistent with all the decks on property A and B. Even though our fence does not meet the split
rail requirements our fence does meet the 6 ft opaque privacy fence that is connected to the
courtyard which is connected to our deck. We believe that the neighborhood would agree that
looking at a privacy fence is a lot better than looking right into our dining room. Our fence does
not impact any of the adjacent properties and follows the specific title requirements.
We apologize for doing this process backwards and realize as first time homeowners that we
should look to the town and our neighbor for guidance in all of our home processes.
We hope you agree that this is a nice project that benefits everyone around us.
Thank you for your consideration,
Attachment B
Inside view of gate and fence.
Inside view of fence.
Color of stain on all decks. Style of other landscaping on property.
Attachment B
View of fence from the back driveway.
Design inspiration from the neighbor.
Attachment B
Attachment B
David,
I hope the town makes the right decisions at this meeting. Im VERY concerned.
I know from years of living next door to Kirby with primer paint around every window for over a year
and brown paper covering the windows like a crack house that no matter what he promises at this
meeting, it won’t get done.
This is simply the truth.
#1- The gate is painted black. That can’t be stained since it's painted so it needs to be rebuilt and it
should match the fence he built.
#2- The house cant go another year looking like this with primer around the windows. Its not fair to me
living next door to a crack house in Wildridge where i have put over $250,000 into my home.
#3- They have been in foreclosure. They cant afford to live here. It's obvious.
FYI: Rohn Robbins my attorney and I will have a court date soon to get permanent protection order from
the court to protect us from Kirby's behavior.
This is in sync with who is is, how he behaves, and the condition of his home.
Thanks
Scott
Cheers
Scott
Attachment B
1 August 6, 2019 PZC Meeting – Case #SRU19001
Staff Report – Special Review Use
August 6, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Case #SRU19001
Project type Special Review Use
Legal description Lots 18/19, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Owner
Zoning
Dennison Capital, LLC
Light Industrial Commercial (IC)
Address 281 Metcalf Rd. Unit 107, Avon, CO 81620
Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner
Summary of Request
Vladimir Goregliad representing Motion Autohaus, LLC (Applicant) is requesting a Special Review Use
(SRU) permit to allow the continued use of automobile sales and rentals in unit 107 of the Metcalf
Commercial Park (The Property), zoned Light Industrial Commercial (IC). A SRU was approved for the
property and applicant in 2015, subject to a 3 year approval. Staff’s routine SRU checks found the property’s
compliance had expired. Subsequent correspondence led to the application in front of PZC, which requires
review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to maintain the SRU permit.
Site Analysis
Lot 18/19 is a commercial facility consisting of a south bay and a north bay,
each consisting of two levels. Unit 107 is a garage/office space located on
the front (southeast) side of the building. The Metcalf Commercial Park site
contains concrete and asphalt pavement, and landscaping along the front and
rear property lines.
Parking and Traffic
The Metcalf Commercial Park has 66 parking stalls, according to approved
plans on file with the Town. Lot 18/19 is accessed by a single driveway with
full movement ingress/egress onto Metcalf Road, located at the north end of
the property frontage. According to the Applicant, six vehicles will be
stored inside the garage and two parking spaces are assigned to unit #107,
signed directly in front of the unit.
Zoning
The Application is eligible for approval through the Special Review Use permit process. The Property is
zoned Light Industrial Commercial (IC) and the use is allowed with approval of a SRU permit as contained
in Table 7.24-1 of the Avon Municipal Code (AMC). According to the AMC, the IC zone district:
is intended to provide for a variety of businesses, including warehouses, research and
development firms, repair shops, wholesale distributors and light manufacturing. This district may
include supporting office and commercial uses where appropriate. Uses permitted in this district are
intended to serve community and regional needs. This district is intended to be located away from
low and medium density residential development. The IC district implements the light industrial
commercial and employment classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located
along an arterial roadway.
The adjacent properties in the Metcalf Road corridor are zoned Light Industrial Commercial and contain a
wide range of uses consistent with the intent of the zone district and Comprehensive Plan.
2 August 6, 2019 PZC Meeting – Case #SRU19001
Planning Analysis
A Special Review Use is regulated by Sec. 7.16.100 of the AMC. According to the purpose statement:
This Section provides a discretionary approval process for special review uses that have unique or
widely varying operating characteristics or unusual site development features. The procedure
encourages public review and evaluation of a use’s operating characteristics and site development
features and is intended to ensure that proposed use will not have a significant adverse impact on
surrounding uses or on the community at large. Special review uses that may be allowed in each zone
district are listed in Table 7.24-1, Allowed Uses.
Review Criteria
A Special Review Use application is judged by the criteria
set forth in Sec. 7.16.100 of the AMC as follows:
(1) The proposed use is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and all applicable provisions of this
Development Code and applicable state and federal
regulations;
Staff Response: This property is in the Gulch Area District
(District 6) of the Comprehensive Plan, and considerations
are more aesthetic and built-form than use-based. The use
does not change those characteristics, and the is
consistent with plan. Limited vehicle sales and a rental business that delivers to customers is compatible
with adjacent and surrounding uses, and no issues have been brought to staff’s attention. The Applicant is
required to maintain applicable State approvals for the operation in addition to a Town of Avon
business license, which is in good standing.
(2) The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it is
located and any applicable use-specific standards in the Development Code;
Staff Response: Automobile sales and rental may be permitted as a special review use in the IC zone
district, if approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission, as this use is specifically referenced in Table
7.24- 1 Table of Allowed Uses. The IC zone district “…is intended to provide for a variety of businesses,
including warehouses, research and development firms, repair shops, wholesale distributors and light
manufacturing.” The Code does not contain use-specific standards for automobile sales and rental, and
there are no physical improvements to the property as the use is fully contained within the unit’s garage.
(3) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating
characteristics;
Staff Response: The Metcalf Commercial Park contains a wide range of light industrial and commercial uses
of varying intensity. The use is generally conducted inside the garage with little impact to other tenants of
the Metcalf Commercial Park and does not negatively impact other adjacent uses. Parking is managed with
signed spaces for each tenant. The initial approval included the condition that at least one (1) customer
parking space be available at all times, however, staff does not feel it is required due to the limited sales
taking place at this time.
(4) Any significant adverse impacts (including, but not limited to, hours of operation, traffic generation,
lighting, noise, odor, dust, and other external impacts) anticipated to result from the use will be
mitigated or offset to the maximum extent practicable;
Staff Response: The proposed use does not produce odor, noise or vibration. B usiness is conducted
indoors and maintenance is performed off-site. As a result, minimal adverse impacts are experienced from
the use. While the Applicant has extended hours of operation (9am to 10pm) the impact is minimal.
View from the interior.
3 August 6, 2019 PZC Meeting – Case #SRU19001
(5) Facilities and services (including
sewage and waste disposal, water, gas,
electricity, police and fire protection, and
roads and transportation, as applicable) will
be available to serve the subject property
while maintaining adequate levels of service
for existing development; and
Staff Response: The use is within an existing
property that has utilities and police and fire
protection and has a negligible impact on
these utilities and services.
(6) Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided.
Staff Response: The use will take place within a condominiumized commercial unit and all assurances of
ongoing maintenance will continue to be the responsibility of the property owner and managing board.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of case #SRU19001 with following findings of fact and conditions that the use is
approved for 10 years with the applicant as the holder of the approval.
Findings
1. The modifications qualify as a Special Review Use pursuant to §7.16.1000 of the Development Code;
2. The application is complete;
3. The application provides sufficient information to allow PZC to determine that the application
complies with the relevant review criteria;
4. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
5. There is no extra demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current capacity by the
Application;
6. The proposed use has a negligible impact to adjacent or on-site uses; and
7. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, size and scope.
Condition
1. The Special Review Use permit is granted to Motion Autohaus, LLC under ownership of Vladimir
Goregliad. Any change in ownership requires reapplication of the Special Review Use.
2. The Special Review Use expires on August 6, 2029.
Recommended Motion
“I move to approve case #SRU19001, a Special Review Use application for auto rental and sales, at lot 18/19
block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, unit 107 with the findings of fact and conditions as presented in the
staff report.”
Attachments
A. Application Materials
View from exterior.
Attachment A
Hello David,
Please see the attached application.
This garage is used to store the vehicles for car rentals, that are delivered to the
hotels/residences and to do very few sales of those vehicles per year, not for Black Diamond
(I don't own Black Diamond anymore).
I have 2 assigned parking spaces outside as well as 6 cars parked inside of the garage.
There is approximately 66 parking spots total belonging to this building.
I have one employee besides myself. The vehicles are getting detailed inside of the garage
and maintained at the dealerships. We are open from Monday through Sunday from 9 AM till
10 PM.
Thank you,
Vlad
L16 B2 BMBC Rezone - August 6, 2019
Staff Report – Rezoning
August 6, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project File REZ19001
Property Lot 16 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Owner
Current Zoning
Town of Avon
Residential High Density
Proposed
Park
Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner
Introduction
For PZC consideration is a rezoning application for Lot 16 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek
(420 West Beaver Creek Boulevard), from Residential High Density to Park. The property is
owned by the Town of Avon and attached to this staff report is an application from the Town.
This Rezoning was formally initiated by the Avon Town Council on July, 9, 2019. At that
meeting, the Council directed the Rezoning to Parks (P), Public Facilities (PF), or any district the
Planning and Zoning Commission deemed appropriate. Planning staff has elected to present
the Rezoning as Parks (P). Town Council instructed staff to initiate the application, and the
review criteria is discussed from a pro-rezoning view in the application.
Process
The review process first requires a noticed public hearing with PZC. Final action is taken on the
Application by Town Council after conducting public hearings and either approval by Ordinance
or denial by motion.
Additional Considerations
Public Facilities Zoning: Staff analyzed the different allowed uses between the P and PF
zone district and concluded that the desired look and feel of the property – a drop-off entry to
the park – is best achieved with the P designation. PF would create the opportunity for a litany
of additional uses that seem incongruent with that direction.
Parking: Although Lot 16 is not the cause of the perceived parking issues along West Beaver
Creek Boulevard its current use plays a role in it today. Had this property been developed like
the neighboring properties in the early 1990s with housing and no public park entry, the overall
look and feel of the area would be much different. Interest in visiting the park and specifically
the beach means that this area will experience parking pressure. The original design with a few
spaces originated as a solution to a 1990s problem, and staff feels that the current pressure
merits a more comprehensive solution. Various improvements along West Beaver Creek
Boulevard could reduce the perceived safety hazard.
As autonomous car technology improves, it is likely that in the future, cars will be able (or
required) to drop people off at their desired destination and retire to a nearby empty space.
Anticipating that potential and creating the appropriate infrastructure to achieve that might be a
more appropriate long-term outcome in this location. Staff is not explicitly proposing any
Staff Review &
Report
PUBLIC HEARING:
PZC
Council & 1st
Reading of
Ordinance
PUBLIC HEARING:
Council & 2nd
Reading of
Ordinance
L16 B2 BMBC Rezone - August 6, 2019
physical changes to the property today, but a rezoning that precludes housing to achieve the
current entry use seems short-sighted.
Park Access: All of properties surrounding the
park are completely built-out in terms of density
(but form may change over the years) and have a
more urban feel. The western entrances are either
a large parking lot and unflattering ball courts or a
small sliver between dense housing and the back
of the elementary school. The eastern entrance is
wide but interacts with some of the densest
development in the town (Lakeside Terrace, Falcon
Point, Riverfront, Sheridan, etc.). The park’s
defining eastern edge is Lake Street, and
besides the Old Town Hall site (zoned PF),
all parking and access is from the street out.
Certainly Lot 16 is small but could potentially
be built with some units to maintain a similar
access experience.
Viewshed Impacts: Views of the mountains
and park setting are important to preserve.
They create a sense of arrival and allow
people to begin their experience of the park
before they even step into it. While the
current view is adequately promoted, the experience today could probably be elevated. Many
people’s first view upon entry to Lot 16 is a parking lot. Staff does not feel that the rezoning
explicitly protects views or that housing is incongruent with protecting views.
Housing: Housing pressure in the valley is
real and growing. According to the 2018
Town of Avon Community Housing Plan (part
of the Avon Comprehensive Plan), “To meet
the needs of local employees in the Eagle
River Valley, over 4,000 additional dwelling
units will be required by 2020. In mid-valley,
which includes Eagle-Vail, Avon, and
Edwards, 1,500 dwelling units will be
needed.” Staff cannot speak to the
surrounding communities but does not
anticipate that number to be met. A property
zoned for housing and owned by the Town is
a tremendous asset, but this application
proposes that removing approved housing density from the valley floor is the best use of the
land. Staff does not support this logic. Due to the site’s current use, perhaps the full 14 units
allotted are not an option, but an architect could design housing that is sensitive to the site
needs.
Environmental Considerations: The impacts caused by pushing housing farther away from
the up-valley job base, such as increased commute distances relating to greenhouse gasses
and sprawl impacting other undeveloped tracts of land, are concerning.
Western access experiences.
Best View from Lot 16.
L16 B2 BMBC Rezone - August 6, 2019
Available Options
Upon conducting a public hearing, PZC has the following options:
1. Recommend approval of P zoning to Town Council.
2. Recommend denial of the rezoning to the P zone district to Town Council.
3. Continue the Application to August 20, 2019.
Staff recommends denial of the application with the findings below. Alternatively, staff has
formulated a recommendation of approval. The mandatory rezoning review criteria are included
in the application narrative (Attachment A).
Recommended Motion:
“I move to recommend that the Avon Town Council deny Case #REZ19001, an application for
Rezoning of Lot 16 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek, with the findings of fact as listed in the
staff report.”
Findings for Denial Recommendation:
1. The application is complete;
2. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in
Code Section 7.16.050;
3. The PZC held a public hearing on August 6, 2019, after providing necessary public
notification in accordance with the Code;
4. The application provides enough information to determine that the application does not
comply with the relevant review criteria;
5. The review criteria in Code Section 7.16.050(c) were reviewed and substantial
compliance with the criteria was not found specifically 1, 5, 8, and 11;
6. The application does not comply with the stated purposes of the Development Code,
specifically (e), (g), and (m); and
7. Proper mitigation is not provided as required by Code Section 7.16.050(d) because Park
designation, and associated parking uses, put more demand on public services including
transportation and right-of-way than the current residential land use designation.
Findings for Approval:
1. The application is complete;
2. The application provides enough information to determine that the application complies
with the relevant review criteria;
3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in
Code Section 7.16.050;
4. The PZC held a public hearing on August 6, 2019, after providing necessary public
notification in accordance with the Code;
5. The review criteria in Code Sections 7.16.050(c) and were reviewed and substantial
compliance with the criteria was found; and
6. The application complies with the stated purposes of the Development Code.
Attachment
A: Application Narrative
Attachment A
Application Narrative 1
APPLICATION NARRATIVE
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Date: August 6, 2019
Prepared By:
Agenda Topic:
David McWilliams, AICP, Town Planner
Lot 16 Rezoning
Introduction
The Town of Avon is applying for a Rezoning of Lot 16 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek from
Residential High Density (RH) to the Parks (P) zone district. Lot 16 is 0.646 acres located on West Beaver
Creek Boulevard and abuts Nottingham Park and Residential High-Density zoned developments. The
property is currently permitted up to 14 dwelling units. This change would codify the parcel’s current
use of short-term drop-off and access to Nottingham Park in perpetuity and eliminate the possibility of
housing on the site.
History
Before Avon was incorporated, in
1974, Lot 16 was included (along
with most of the RH properties
along West Beaver Creek
Boulevard) as part of Tract G
(currently Nottingham Park) in the
final plat of the Benchmark at
Beaver Creek (BMBC) subdivision.
In 1976, an amendment created
most of the residential lots north
of the park, and the site usage was
designated for up to 12
condominiums or multi-family
dwelling units. In 1991 the plat
designation was converted into RH
zoning (with a 14 dwelling units
allotment formed by previous zoning commitments). Subsequently, the property was sold from Buck
Creek Associates to the Town of Avon for $260,001 (roughly $460,000 in 2019 dollars). In 1996, the
current drop-off lot was installed. Since then, additional visitation to the park has resulted in more use
of the property. Many of the park’s amenities draw people to the most intuitive access point, and the
town has permitted on-street parking since 2015.
Response to Mandatory Criteria
1. Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code;
Selections from the Purposes section (AMC 7.04.030) have responses below:
a: “Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection, construction,
reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence and
other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot areas; regulate and determine the area of
open spaces surrounding such buildings; establish building lines and locations of buildings designed for
specified industrial, commercial, residential and other uses within such areas; establish standards to
which buildings or structures shall conform; establish standards for use of areas adjoining such
buildings or structures”.
Attachment A
Application Narrative 2
Response: Changing the use from the RH to P would regulate the intensity of the property’s use to what
is currently present. The use on and around the property are not proposed to change.
b: “Implement the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable planning
documents of the Town”.
Response: The Avon Comprehensive Plan is discussed in Criteria 2. The 2009 Nottingham Park Plan
mentions protecting viewsheds from the area, enhanced parking, and entry monuments. It is unclear if
these recommendations are directly related to Lot 16 or are more general recommendations for the
north of the park near the property.
e: “Promote adequate light, air, landscaping and open space and avoid undue concentration or sprawl
of population”.
Response: Lot 16, as the park entrance, is seen as
incompatible with housing in this application.
There are extremely limited future opportunities
to convert other parcels into park space.
g: “Prevent the inefficient use of land; avoid
increased demands on public services and facilities
which exceed capacity or degrade the level of
service for existing residents; provide for phased
development of government services and facilities
which maximizes efficiency and optimizes costs to
taxpayers and users; and promote sufficient,
economical and high-quality provision of all public
services and public facilities, including but not limited to water, sewage, schools, libraries, police, parks,
recreation, open space and medical facilities”.
Response: This application argues that the rezoning is neither an achievement nor failure in efficient
use of land.
k: Maintain the natural scenic beauty of the Eagle River Valley in order to preserve areas of historical
and archaeological importance, provide for adequate open spaces, preserve scenic views, provide
recreational opportunities, sustain the tourist-based economy and preserve property values”.
Response: The natural scenic beauty of the area is preserved in this application.
m: “Achieve innovation and advancement in design of the built environment to improve efficiency,
reduce energy consumption, reduce emission of pollutants, reduce consumption of non-renewable
natural resources and attain sustainability”.
Response: This application argues that the rezoning is neither an achievement nor failure in innovative
use of space.
2. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
Response: The Avon Comprehensive Plan does not explicitly mention Lot 16, but the Future Land Use
map, as part of the Comprehensive Plan, shows Lot 16 as Park. The property is located within the
Nottingham Park District, which generally speaks of preserving views, supporting the 2017 Tract G
planning effort, and connectivity. The parcel is bordered on two sides by the Valley Residential District,
which mentions redevelopment of residential uses for higher density and attainable local housing and
landscaping that softens the visual impact of structures.
Figure from the 2009 Nottingham Park Plan
Attachment A
Application Narrative 3
According to the Comprehensive Plan, “Avon’s vision is to provide a high quality of life, today and in the
future, for a diverse population; and to promote their ability to live, work, visit, and recreate in the
community.”
The goals and policies section of the Comprehensive Plan states:
E.1: Achieve a diverse range of housing densities, styles, and types, including rental and for sale, to
serve all segments of the population.
Policy E.1.2: Encourage private development and partnerships that provide a diversity of housing for
local working families.
Policy E.1.3: Provide attainable housing through alternative means, including but not limited to:
payment-in-lieu, land dedication, regulatory requirements, deed restrictions, waiver of development
and building fees, and public-private partnerships that reduce the price of units.
Policy E.1.4: Integrate attainable housing within large developments and throughout Town.
Policy E.1.5: Encourage “no net loss” of attainable housing in redevelopment.
Policy E.2.4: Site attainable housing with multi-modal transportation options and facilities, including
bike and pedestrian paths.
Goal H.1: Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the year-
round needs of area residents and visitors.
Policy H.1.1: Evaluate and seek parcels or easements for open space, trails, and recreation.
Policy H.1.2: Manage, protect, and plan for public open space. Analyze trail maintenance and rule
enforcement in open space.
The parcel is not directly designated for Community Housing, but the Town’s flat, well served parcel in
the center of Town should not be taken lightly as an asset for potential development. The Community
Housing Plan (part of the Comprehensive Plan) states, “The current Comprehensive Plan sets the vision
for diverse and exciting opportunities for residents, businesses, and visitors. The current housing
market, which offers very few affordable opportunities for year-round residents to put down roots in
Avon, poses a challenge to this vision.”
3. Physical suitability of the land for the proposed development or subdivision;
Response: Lot 16 has proved suitable as a park entrance and its formal adoption as P would continue to
suit the site.
4. Compatibility with surrounding land uses;
Response: Lot 16 is bordered by two existing high-density residential developments and the park.
Rezoning to P would be compatible with the park use.
5. Whether the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of
the area proposed to be rezoned;
Response: Due to its unique amenities, the park will experience increased pressure in coming years as
the valley continues to develop. The current drop-off and entrance use of the park may experience
more pressure, and codifying an increase in the park space may be beneficial.
6. Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope
suggested by the proposed zone compared to the existing zoning, while maintaining adequate
levels of service to existing development;
Attachment A
Application Narrative 4
Response: There are adequate facilities to serve the proposed use. Additional restrooms may be
required.
7. Whether the rezoning is consistent with the stated purpose of the proposed zoning district;
Response: “The purpose of the P district is to promote and encourage a suitable environment devoted
to parks, recreation improvements, trails and organized recreation uses for the enjoyment of all
members of the community. There are no dimensional requirements for this district. Active recreation
facilities and structures will be developed according to the Comprehensive Plan.” The rezoning would
codify the extension of the park into Lot 16.
8. That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in adverse impacts upon
the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and
vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Response: The rezoning may result in reduced localized residential-driven impacts.
9. That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
Response: Rezoning may not result in adverse impacts on other property in the vicinity of Lot 16. The
pressure on West Beaver Creek Boulevard is not anticipated to change due to the application.
10. For rezoning within an existing PUD, consistency with the relevant PUD Master Plan as reflected
in the approval of the applicable PUD; and
Response: Not Applicable.
11. Adequate mitigation is required for rezoning applications which result in greater intensity of land
use or increased demands on public facilities and infrastructure.
Response: The rezoning codifies the existing use of the land which in some respects is more intense
than the currently allowed use. No mitigation is proposed at this time.
Current Zoning