Loading...
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