PZC Packet 101910Staff Report — Planned Unit Development Amendment
October 19, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting � tin N
Report Date October 14, 2010 It I u 11
C O L u l( , 1) 1
Legal Description Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision
Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address 38390 Highways 6 & 24
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, Planner II
Summary of Request
The applicant, Brian Wilson, on behalf of CCS -Land LLC, has applied for a Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") Amendment to the Gates at Beaver Creek PUD. The Applicant is
requesting that the PUD requirement prohibiting dogs on the property be removed. The
prohibition was a condition of approval related to the 1998 PUD Amendment.
Process
As required by the Avon Municipal Code, this report serves as the official findings and
recommendations of the Community Development Department. After holding a public hearing
before the Planning Commission, a report of the Planning Commission stating its findings and
recommendations will be transmitted to the Town Council along with this report for their
consideration.
Background
The Applicant is in the process of acquiring the Property through a foreclosure process. Since
the Applicant began the foreclosure process earlier this year, the Community Development
Department has approved three (3) minor modifications to the property, including: complete
exterior re -paint, landscaping modifications and improvements throughout the Property, and
all new exterior light fixtures. Most of the work related to these improvements has been
completed, and the foreclosure will take place in November.
In 1998, the Council approved a PUD Amendment to change the permitted land uses on the
Propety, and as a condition of approval prohibited dogs on the Property. At that time, the
Town Staff recommended that the recommendations from the original Wildlife Study for the
project, prepared by Western Ecosystems, (1996) be complied with. Specifically that "strict dog
control measures" be implemented on the property. To that end, the Council approved the
PUD amendment with the condition that dogs be prohibited on the Property.
Property Description
The Property is 2.46 acres (or 105,669 square feet), with street frontage on Highway 6 & 24.
Also part of the PUD is Lot 2, located immediately to the south of the Property. Lot 2 is 3.38
acres (or 147,401 square feet) and is zoned for Open Space. The western property line is
bordered by Beaver Creek, open space and to the east is the undeveloped 21.52 acre Folson
Property.
The Property is developed with forty-nine (49) condominium units and related parking. The
developed portion of the Property is largely covered with impervious surfaces including the
building footprint and surface parking. Development on the west side of the Property borders
the 30' stream setback.
Policy Analysis
The dog prohibition was based on the 1996 Wildlife Study which was prepared as part of the
entitlement process. The Colorado Department of Wildlife concurred with the
recommendations of the Wildlife Study, which recommended "strict dog control measures" be
implemented on the Property. Attached to this report as Exhibit C are the pertinent Wildlife
letters.
In order to clarify the conclusions and corresponding recommendations from the Wildlife
Biologist, Richard W. Thompson of Western Ecosystems, Inc., Mr. Thompson provided an
updated letter (dated August 19, 2010) to staff. The updated letter clarified that a "dog
prohibition" was not the intention of his 1996 assessment. The letter goes on to state that with
the implementation of dog control measures to prevent stray dogs, owners of the property
could have dogs without threatening wildlife in the surrounding area.
The Town's policies with regard to dog control are governed by Title 8 of the Avon Muncipal
Code: Animals. Pursuant to these regulations, it is the responsibility of dog owners to keep
their pet under 'control', and to prevent their animal from:
1) Running at large;
2) Becoming a danger to persons or property;
3) Trespassing on the property of another; or
4) Becoming a public nuisance.
It is declared to be a public nuisance when a dog owner fails to pick up after their dog, or fail to
prevent their dog from disturbing the peace by barking, yelping, etc. A dog is considered
running at large when it enters the property of another person or when it enters public
property and is not under the control of the owner, either by leash, cable or chain not more
than ten (10) feet in length.
If this PUD Amendment is approved and the current dog restriction is removed, all future
owners of condominiums on the Property must obey these uniform dog control policies of the
Town. It must be determined if the Town's animal control measures are adequate to address
the recommendations of the wildlife specialists. In addition to the 'control' responsibilities
listed above, the threatening of wildlife is addressed specifically in Section 6.04.140 of the
Municipal Code. This section states that "it is unlawful to allow a dog to run after, chase,
pursue, bite, snap at, worry, attack or other wise threaten wildlife or livestock, or both. In the
event any dog is found to be threatening wildlife, said dog may immediately be destroyed at the
discretion of any police officer or the Community Services Officer." The provision goes on to
state that the pet may alternatively be impounded, and the owner will be convicted of a
violation and required to pay restitution after a mandatory court appearance.
PUD Amendment Review Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be
used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD:
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area
design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan
shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient
without relying upon completion of future project phases.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
12. That the PUD oramendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial
compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section
17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code.
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of this PUD Amendment to permit Dogs on Lot 1, Chateau St.
Claire Subdivision; subject to the criteria and corresponding findings listed in the
Recommended Motion below.
Recommended Motion
"1 move to approve the PUD Amendment application to permit Dogs on Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire
Subdivision, with the following findings of fact:
1. The property is not located in important wildlife habitat.
2. The complete prohibition of dogs on the property was not the intended outcome of the
Wildlife Biologist's April 1, 1995 wildlife assessment letter.
3. Enforcement of Title 8: Animals, Avon Municipal Code, will adequately address "strict
dog control" measures.
4. The PUD Review Criteria (Section 17.20.110 AMC) have been considered with this
amendment."
Exhibits
A: Vicinity Map
B: Amendment Request
C: Wildlife Assessment Letters (4/1/96 Western Ecosystems, 6/19/96 CDOW, 8/19/10
Western Ecosystems)
r
Ad%�j .1.
. .0, 1
:6 1 OF ML
t�_Jlq rham
lir r
'44
Exhibit B
Statement Describing Amendment Requested to Existing PUD
"The purpose of this application is to amend PUD Ordinance 1998-06, which currently prohibits
dogs on the property, in order to legally permit residents of the building to have dogs in
accordance with standard leash laws of the Town of Avon. This amendment is necessary
because there was a misunderstanding in the original wildlife report from Richard Thompson
dated April 1, 1996. At the time, the Town Council interpreted the report as recommending
that dogs be prohibited from the property. Instead, as evidenced in his recent letter dated
August 19, 2010 (attached), Mr. Thompson intended for the HOA and town to implement and
enforce appropriate dog control measures in order to a) prevent stray dogs and the property,
and b) to allow residents to have dogs on-site without threatening the wildlife. In conclusion,
this PUD application requests that the Town Council adopt an amendment to PUD Ordinance
1998-06 that permits residents of the property to have dogs in accordance with appropriate
leash laws and HOA covenants."
Additionally, it is important to note that we have contacted Bill Andree with CDOW for their
comments on allowing dogs and they have stated that they no longer comment on dog issues.
Bill stated that he would write a letter stating so and provide to the Town of Avon.
Isom & ASSOC. EMCC 3033256266 Exhibit C
04-01-96 06:34FM FROM WESTRRN E005YETEMO
Western Scdsysterns, £Inc.
Ecological Consultants
905 I'Vest CoOch ,Road, .Boulder, CO 80302 303) 442— 6144
April 1, 1996
Mr. Steve Isom
Isom & Associates
P.O. Box 9
Bagle, CO 81631
Re: Wildlife assessment of the Chateau St. Claire development.
Dear Steve!
A proposal has been submitted to the Town of Avon (Town) to redevelop the Avon School
Tract and an adjacent tract to the west. The former tract contains a home converted into
an office used by approximately six people. The adjacent tract contains two single family
residences and several non -inhabited wooden structures. The proposed Chateau St. Claire
development would consist of a restaurant and commercial space, Such a proposal requires
approval from the Town. Wildlife axe a resource of high public concern and redevelopment,
such as that proposed, must consider potential impacts to wildlife and their habitats.
Addressed below, at you request, is a wildlife assessment for the proposed redevelopment
site.
Current Colorado Division of Wildlife (CROW) Wildlife Resource Information .System
(WRIS) maps were used to identify major wildlife issues on and surrounding the subject
property, A site survey was conducted on March 29, 1994 to evaluate habitats on and
surrounding the Avon School site, which was being rezoned, The survey also inclutled the
entire portion of subject parcel that would be disturbed by redevelopment. Mr. Bill Andree
(CROW District Wildlife Manager) was contacted during the school site rezoning process
to obtain the State's concerns associated with the rezoning proposal. This assessment was
based on the above and systematic photographs of the development area taken during the
1994 survey.
Isom & ASSUG. EMCC 3033286266 P.03
04-01-96 06:46PM FROM JES(MN ECOSYSTEMS i Pot
Mr. Steve Tsom
April 1, 1996
Page 2
STUDY AREA
The :t 6 acre subject parcel is located along the south side of U.S. Highway 6, approximately
50 yards east of the highway's interseotiort with the Avon and Village Roads. The site occurs
at 7,520 feet, along a north -facing toe slope at the distal terminus of a steep ridge separating
the east side of the Beaver Creek Valley from the Eagle River, The Eagle River flows north
of Highway 6 and the channel of Beaver Creek occurs along the northwest flank of the
property.
The development site is relatively flat as a result of its prior development and use as a gravel
extraction site, school, residential and office site. Most native habitats in the vicinity of
existing structures were disturbed during initial excavation and there has been little
recolonization. The exception is a narrow riparian corridor flanking Beaver Creek,
dominated by medium -aged to mature narrowleaf cottonwoods and a few conifers.
Otherwise, the site is dominated by introduced cultivars (primarily smooth brome and
crested wheatgrass) and weedy vegetation (including mullein, sweet clover, thistle, and
mustards),
Native vegetation south and east of the redevelopment area is a mountain shrub community,
dominated by serviceberry, with rubber rabbitbrush, some snowberry, bitterbrush, and small
aspen clumps, and a relatively vigorous herbaceous understory containing carices, bluegrass,
timothy, smooth brome, yarrow, and penstemon. Vallonla sp. (snail) shells are abundant on
the hillside and additionally characterize this community. This shrub coraruunity transitions
Into a Douglas -fir/ Englemann spruce forest with increasing elevation on the ridge, These
native habitats would not be disturbed by the proposal.
WILDLIFE USE
Wildlife use of the property is limited by non-native vegetation, on-site human activity and
habitation, and the chronic activity associated with Highway 6 and its intersection with
Village and Avon Roads. Wildlife use of the development site is generally confuted to a low
diversity of nongame species. A greater amount of wildlife use occurs along the Beaver
Creek riparian corridor (eq,, nesting magpies), along the creek per se, (e,g., fish, beaver),
and in the mountain shrub habitat to the south (critical elk habitat). However, the portion
of the site proposed for development is not particularly important habitat for any wildlife
species or group.
The development area does not overlap any wildlife habitats delineated on CROW WRIS
maps (Sept.,and Oct, 1995). However, the mountain shrub and other habitats above (south
and southeast) of the development area are mapped as elk winter range, winter
Isom & RssfaC. EMCC 3033286266
04-01-96 06:45PM FROM WES"''N ECOSYSTEMS
Mr. Steve Isom
April 1, 1996
Page 3
P. e4
P02
concentration area, severe winter range, and critical elk habitat. Mr. Bill Andree indicated
that these north -facing slopes, immediately south of the parcel, are used by elk primarily
during milder winters. March 29 surveys of this area located elk pellets deposited as low as
the shoulder of Highway 6 over the relatively mild 1993/94 winter. A low number of deer
pellets, deposited in summer or fall 1993, were also located in this area. Growth forms of
serviceberry and bitMrbrush shrubs (two key winter browse species) on this hillside suggest
only a light level of big game browsing. However, while elk pellets were fairly common in
this native community, no elk or deer pellets'were located on the proposed development
area, probably because of a lack of forage. Big game use on the adjacent hillside is
nocturnal, infrequent, and would be unaffected by the largely diurnal and indoor lase that
is proposed.
While low numbers of big game may seasonally contour across the hillside south of the
property during local movements, the property and the adjacent hillside are outsido of any
migratory corridors and production areas.
There are no habitats of threatened, endangered, or candidate species on-site or in adjacent
areas that the proposed rezoning and use of the school site would jeopardize.
Proposed use of the school site would not result in any water depletions or other enfects to
the Eagle River, Beaver Creek, or their riparian communities.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Chateau St. Clair redevelopment site contains no particularly important wildlife liabltat.
However, some sensitive wildlife habitats occur adjacent to the development. I': is my
understanding that a minimum 30 foot setback botweon Beaver Creek and the development
area would be maintained. It is also recommended that all development avoid the
continuous riparian corridor flanking Beaver Creek, composed of cottonwoods, spruce, and
lodgepole pine trees. To avoid impacts to big game winter range, development shi uld be
kept below the historic jeep trail at the toe o the hillside. Strict dog control measures
should be implemented and enforced to avoid wildlife harassment and mortality. Property
owners should prohibit the development of ariy trails in the Beaver Creek riparlan corridor
or extending into the mountain shrub habitat south of the development area.
With the above conditions, the proposed development and subsequent use of the site,should
not result in any substantive change in the present type or level of wildlife use, As such,
there should be no adverse effects to wildlife or their habitats, on or adjacent to the site,
resulting from the proposal.
Isom & RSSOC.
04-01-96 06:45PM FROM WES;A ECOSYSTEb1S
Mr. Steve Isom
April 4 1996
Page 4
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�zk
Richard W. Thompson
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT/s
EMCC
3033286266
�j
P.05
P03
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION ISION ®F WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D. Olson, Director
606 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
June 19, 1996
JUN 18 1996
COMMUNITY OEVELOPMEN3
Town of Avon
Community Development Department
ATTN: Karen Griffith
Box 975
Avon, CO. 81620
Dear Karen,
REFER TO
For Wildlife -
For People
The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has reviewed the
annexation and PUD application for Chateau St. Claire and has the
following comments.
On 6/14/96 I spoke with Danny Brose at the site and asked him
about protecting the riparian area, especially the cottonwood
trees. Mr. Brose advised the trees would remain, but pruning was
needed to remove dead branches over the deck area for safety
reasons. Mr. Brose also stated he would like to sit down with the
CDOW to review the tree pruning so as to protect wildlife. No date
was set for this meeting at this time.
Since there are several differences between the submitted
application and recent discussions, the CDOW will comment on the
submitted application. I£ the application is revised the CDOW
comments and recommendations that no longer apply can be removed.
The CDOW is in agreement with the wildlife report prepared by
Ric), Thompson. The CDOW also concurs with the conclusion and
recommendations in the wildlife report. It is the CDOW
understanding that the conclusions and recommendations contained in
the wildlife report will become conditions of the annexation and/or
PUD permit. If this is not the case please advise as this would
change the CDOW's recommendations.
There is a conflict in the protection of the 30 foot setback
in the wildlife report, the environmental impact report (EIR)
hydrologic conditions and the report by Precision Tree Works. The
wildlife report states there is an understanding that a minimum 30
foot setback between Beaver Creek and the development area would be
maintained. The EIR states the 30 foot setback area from the creek
will remain in its natural state.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Thomas M. Eve, Chairman • Louis F. Swift, Vice -Chairman • Arnold Salazar, Secretary
Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • Eldon W. Cooper, Member • Rebecca L. Frank, Member
William R. Hegbarg, Member • Mark LeValley, Member
Chateau St. Claire Page 2
CDOW Andree June 19, 1996
These directly conflict with the report by Precision Tree
Works which recommends removing 19 Cottonwood trees and removal of
native vegetation to be replaced with sod to the stream edge.
During a site visit on 6/14/96 I was only able to located 10
of the trees scheduled for removal, other trees had tags but the
writing was washed off. Of these 10, 5 were located directly on
the bank of Beaver Creek, 3 were located within 25 feet of the
bank, and 2 were located within 30 feet of the bank. Removal of
these trees would have a negative impact on wildlife use of the
riparian area and would negatively impact the aquatic life in
Beaver Creek. Further removal of these trees would be in conflict
with the submitted EIR and wildlife report.
The wildlife report and EIR state there will be a 30 foot
setback between Beaver Creek and the development. While a 30 foot
setback provides some protection, protection of the riparian and
watershed values need additional measures. The current application
shows removal of native riparian vegetation to be replaced with sod
right up to the stream edge.
In order to protect riparian and watershed values there should
be a native riparian buffer between riparian/watershed habitats and
development. Best Management Practices (BMP) in riparian buffer
areas should include: no soil disturbance; no vegetative
disturbance (other than minimal pruning of shrubs and weed
control); no lawn mowing or fertilization; no snow storage areas;
require storm water detention facilities on site before discharging
into waterways.
The application shows rip rap along Beaver Creek south of the
development but does not provide any discussion on the need or if
some is existing and repair is needed.
The CDOW has the following recommendations for the Chateau St.
Claire application.
1) Maintain a minimum of a 30 foot native riparian buffer
zone (stream setback) between development and Beaver
Creek that uses best management practices (see above).
2) Recommendations listed in Rick Thompson's wildlife report
become a part of the mitigation plan.
3) Do not remove the cottonwood trees within the riparian
buffer zone (30 foot stream setback).
Chateau St. Claire
CDOW Andree
Page 3
June 19, 1996
4) Pruning trees within the riparian buffer zone (30 foot
stream setback) is limited to dead limbs for safety
concerns or diseased limbs. Dead limbs that are not a
safety concern provide valuable wildlife habitat.
5) All trash cans and/or dumpsters be a proven bear proof
design.
6) Silt and sediment fences will be installed at the
boundary of development and the 30 foot stream setback.
Karen, the CDOW appreciates the opportunity to comments on
this project. Please contact me at 926-4424 if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Bill Andree
District Wildlife Manager -Vail
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
Ecological Consultants
905 West Coach Road, Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 442-
6144
August 19, 2010
Sally Vecchio, Asst. Town Mgr./ Community Development Dir. Email transmittal
Town of Avon
One Lake Street
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
(970) 748-4009,svecchio@avon.org
RE: Dog Prohibition at The Gates Residences (formerly Chateau St. Claire) in Avon, CO
Dear Sally,
I write concerning my report entitled "Wildlife Assessment of the Chateau St. Claire Development"
dated April 1, 1996. It has come to my attention that my report may have been used to prohibit dogs
entirely from the property (PUD Ordinance 1998-06). I offer this clarification because a dog
prohibition was not my intention.
The subject development is not located in important wildlife habitat, although the native habitat to the
south is important elk winter range. I mentioned dogs in only one sentence of my report: "Strict dog
control measures should be implemented and enforced to avoid wildlife harassment and mortality."
This is standard dog control language that I have used for dozens of similar development proposal
assessments in Eagle County. I never intended these "strict controls" to include the prohibition of
dogs from the property. Indeed, dating back to 1986, I don't ever recall the Colorado Division of
Wildlife (CDOW) recommending that dogs be prohibited from residential developments in Eagle
County, including those located in important wildlife habitats where stray dogs would create conflicts
with wildlife. Instead, the planning jurisdiction, its representatives, the property owner, and the HOA
typically develop enforceable covenants so there are no stray dogs originating on the property.
Properly controlled dogs are not a threat to wildlife.
I believe that with the implementation and enforcement of dog control measures, owners of The Gates
Residences could have dogs without threatening wildlife in the surrounding area.
Thank you for your time.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rick Thompson
Richard W. Thompson
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Western Ecosystems, Inc.
RWT/s
Cc: J. Schroder, Real Capital Solutions