TC Council Packet 02-10-2004STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF EAGLE ) SS
TOWN OF AVON ?
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A WORK SESSION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, WILL BE HELD FEBRUARY 10, 2004, AT 2:30 PM TO BE
HELD AT THE AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 400 BENCHMARK ROAD,
AVON, COLORADO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING THE
FOLLOWING:
2:30 PM - 3:00 PM 1) Council Committee Updates - Council members are assigned to several
committees and update their progress.
Eagle County Open Space Advisory Committee (Councilor Wolfe)
Village at Avon / Traer Creek Metro District Update (Councilors D.
Buckley & Brown)
3:00 PM - 3:45 PM 2) Lot 61 PUD Development Plan & Agreement & Relationship of
Proposed Transportation center & Anticipated Bus Routes
located at 75 Benchmark Road (Norm Wood, Tambi Katieb) - Staff
will discuss revisions to Development Plan and Agreement proposed
in response to Council comments and relationship of the proposed
Transit Center and anticipated bus routes.
3:45 PM - 3:55 PM 3) Comprehensive Plan Schedule (Tambi Katieb) - Comprehensive
Plan Anticipated Schedule and Project Timeline
3:55 PM - 4:15 PM 4) Benchmark Road / Avon Road Intersection (Norm Wood)
Concept for full movement intersection potential fly-over layout
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 5) Open Space Tracts & Trails Along the Eagle River (Norm Wood) -
Review map & discuss existing & potential open space / park / trail
development.
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 6) Traffic Counts - 2004 (Norm Wood) - Review proposed traffic count
procedures & locations
4:45 PM - 5:15 PM 7) PUD Amendment, Lot 31 & Lot 21, 2631 Bear Trap & 2967 June
Creek Trail, Formations LLC & George Plavec (Ruth Borne) -
Applicants seeking PUD amendment to the Wildridge PUD for
creating 10-single family lots in Wildridge.
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 8) Staff Updates -
a. Community Development Updates
Consent Agenda Questions
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THIS MEETING IS
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
BY: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Estimated times are shown for informational purposes only, sub'ect to change without notice
POSTED AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON ON
FEBRUARY 6, 2004:
? Avon Municipal Building, Main Lobby
? Alpine Bank, Main Lobby
? Avon Recreation Center, Main Lobby
? City Market, Main Lobby
Avon Council Meeting.04.02.10
VON
C O L O R A D O
Town of Avon
P.O. Bcxc975
900 Bai t n ak Rind
Awn, GJaacb 81QD
97(P4&I005
Office of the Town Manager
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Fr: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Dt:: February 6, 2004
Re: Village meeting
Yesterday we attended the meeting offered by the Village at Avon to educate interested
citizens on the background and organizational structure of this development. Darlene
Sisneros and Munsey Ayers provided the attached outline for discussion purposes and
fielded other questions from the participants. We will provide an update on these
proceedings under council updates.
OVERVIEW OF DISTRICT STRUCTURE
TRAER CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
THE VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
1. ORGANIZATION OF DISTRICTS
a. Date of Organization. The Traer Creek Metropolitan District (the "Traer District")
and The Village Metropolitan District (the "Village District") were formed on November 30,
1998 pursuant to the Special District Act.
b. Nature of Entities. The Districts are quasi-municipal corporations and political
subdivisions of the State of Colorado.
C. Purpose of Districts. The Districts were organized to provide water
improvements, sanitary and storm sewer improvements, street improvements (including
parking), park and recreation facilities, safety protection improvements, transportation, mosquito
control and any other services that may be provided by a metropolitan district within and without
the Districts' boundaries, which includes all property in the Village (at Avon) development (the
"Development").
d. Process of Organization. The process of organization of the Districts included the
review and approval of Service Plans , which were approved by the Town Council of the Town
of Avon. This process included public hearings before Town Council. The process of
organization also included court hearings and an election of the electors within the boundaries of
the Districts.
e. Enabling Documents. The Service Plans and the applicable provisions of the
Colorado Revised Statutes provide the framework under which the Districts are authorized to
function.
2. STRUCTURE OF DISTRICTS
a. Two District Structure. The two districts coordinate their efforts in order to
provide public services to the Development. This is a common structure utilized in other
mountain projects (e.g. Cordillera, Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch) and in the Denver
Metropolitan area. The Traer District is called the "Service District" because it was organized to
finance, construct, own, manage and operate the public improvements for the Development. The
Village District is called the "Financing District" because it is organized in order to generate
revenue to pay costs of the public infrastructure and services. The Districts operate under the
provisions of the Facilities Funding, Construction and Operations Agreement ("FFCO
Agreement").
b. Infrastructure Development Plan. The Service Plans include an Infrastructure
Development Plan which describes the public improvement plan for the Districts. The
Infrastructure Development Plan anticipates construction costs for public improvements which
were estimated to be $134,447,849.
100002960.DOC v:I J
C. Financial Arrangements. Pursuant to the FFCO Agreement, the Village District
imposes a mill levy not to exceed 10 mills, as adjusted (currently 15 mills) and transfers the
revenue from such imposition to the Traer District. Pursuant to the Annexation Agreement for
the Development, two Public Improvement Companies ("PICs") were formed for the
Development. The PICs impose Sales Fees, Real Estate Transfer Fees and Accommodations
Fees (collectively, the "Fees"). Pursuant to the Fee Assignment Agreements between each PIC
and the Traer District, the revenue from the Fees is assigned to the Traer District.
d. Authority to Issue Bonds. The Service Plans include a Financial Plan which
shows how the Districts anticipate funding the costs in the Infrastructure Development Plan. The
Financial Plan assumes the following revenue streams: (1) property tax revenue from the Village
District; (2) Fee Revenue from the PICs; (3) Tap Fees pursuant to arrangements with Eagle-Vail
Metropolitan District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority; and (4) interest income.
The Financial Plan anticipates the Traer District issuing $74,350,000 of revenue bonds and
$66,325,000 of subordinate bonds. It also anticipates the Village District issuing $11,400,000 of
general obligation bonds. The Service Plans indicate that the combined debt of both the Village
District and the Traer District, consisting of all general obligation bonds, limited obligation
bonds, revenue bonds, subordinated bonds, notes, contracts, or other obligations evidencing a
borrowing shall not exceed $158,000,000. The Service Plans also acknowledge that the District
will fund ongoing operations and maintenance expenses with the aforementioned revenue
sources.
e. Current Bond Issue. On May 28, 2002, the District issued $35,300,000 in
Variable Rate Revenue Bonds. The Traer District entered into Sales Guaranty Agreements with
Home Depot and Wal-Mart, whereby these entities guaranteed a minimum annual generation of
retail sales fees. In order to enhance the marketability of the Bonds and as an inducement for
BNP Paribas (`BNP") to issue a letter of credit, Catellus Development Corporation entered into
an Unsecured Guaranty Agreement with BNP. This guaranty was in place until full rent
commencement of Home Depot and Wal-Mart (which occurred in the fall of 2003). The Bonds
are secured by an irrevocable direct pay letter of credit issued by BNP in the amount of
$35,628,822.
3. RELATIONSHIP AMONG DISTRICTS AND TOWN The relationship among the
Districts and the Town is primarily established in the Annexation Agreements affecting the
Development. The Annexation Agreements contain many provisions. A few of the pertinent
provisions are as follows:
a. Districts assumed obligation to finance and construct the public improvements for
the Development. Only the property in the Development is subject to the Districts' taxes and
fees.
b. Districts to pay for Municipal Services pursuant to formulas set forth in the
Agreements.
C. Districts to pay exactions or construct improvements for: East Avon Exaction,
Chapel Place Exaction, Construction of East Beaver Creek Boulevard improvements,
{00002960.Doc v:1) 2
construction of Swift Gulch Road improvements, the Highway 6 exaction and construction of
Interstate 70 interchange improvements.
4. RELATIONSHIP AMONG DISTRICTS AND TRAER CREEK LLC. The Traer Creek
LLC (the "LLC") has entered into Operation Funding Agreements with the Districts whereby the
LLC is obligated to advance funds to the District to cover shortfalls related to the costs of
operating and maintaining the District. The LLC and the Districts have also entered into an
Amended and Restated Funding and Reimbursement Agreement whereby the LLC has agreed to
advance funds to the Districts for capital expenditure not payable from the proceeds of the
Bonds. The total amount the LLC has advanced or agreed to advance for capital expenditures is
approximately $10,500,000.
5. DISSOLUTION OF DISTRICTS In the Annexation Agreement, the Town agreed not to
initiate or pursue any proceeding to dissolve the Districts until after the earlier to occur of either
(a) the 25t anniversary of the first issuance of bonds by either District or (b) such time as all
infrastructure improvements and public amenities contemplated in the Districts Service Plans
have been constructed and no issued general obligations or revenue obligations of the Districts
remain outstanding. Any dissolution of the Districts is required to be conducted in accordance
with the provisions and procedures set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes in effect on the
date of the Annexation Agreement.
6. GOVERNING BODIES OF DISTRICTS Pursuant to state statue, the Districts are
governed by a five-member board of directors. The directors currently are individuals related to
the Developer of the Development. There are monthly meetings of the Board where the business
of the Districts are handled. In accordance with the statutory requirements governing districts,
the meetings of the Board are open to the public. Written minutes of the meetings are prepared
and kept as public records by the Districts' Manager.
7. MANAGEMENT TEAM FOR DISTRICT The Districts Boards of Directors have
engaged various consultants to assist in handling the affairs of the Districts. The Districts are
managed by Special District Management Services, Inc., ("SDMS") which is a company which
specializes in managing special districts. SDMS has over 60 special district clients. The
financial affairs of the District are handled by Clifton Gunderson, LLP, which is an accounting
firm with a long history of representing special districts and other governments. The law firm of
McGeady Sisneros, P.C. serves as general counsel to the Districts. McGeady Sisneros is a law
firm which specializes in special districts and has a client base of over 70 special districts.
8. DISTRICT CONTACTS
a. District Manager.
Special District Management Services
141 Union Boulevard
Suite 150
Lakewood, CO 80228
303-987-0835
Attention: Deborah D. McCoy
too002960.DOC vA } 3
b. District Accountant.
Clifton Gunderson, LLP
6399 S. Fiddler's Green Circle
Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO
303-779-5710
Attention: Jason Carroll
C. District General Counsel.
McGeady Sisneros, P.C.
1675 Broadway, Suite 2100
Denver, CO 80203
303-592-4380
Attention: Darlene Sisneros
joo002960.DOC v:l ) 4
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Enginee
Tambi Katieb, Community Development
Date: February 5, 2004
Re: Lot 61 PUD Development Plan and Agreement and Relationship of Proposed
Transportation Center and Anticipated Bus Routes
Summary: At the last meeting on January 27, 2004, the Lot 61 PUD
application was approved on first reading. Council noted several concerns at this
approval specifically relating to the following:
Design criteria for the mall (north elevation) roof elevation; and
• Design criteria for the entire structure, focusing on the roofs and in particular on
the east end of the project.
Staff has received specific design guideline language from the applicant, which has been
placed on the PUD development plan and in the development agreement to address these
concerns. The language will require a higher standard of design review for this project, in
addition to the Town Design Review Guidelines and the general design guidelines
outlined in the Town Center Implementation Plan. The applicant will be available to
discuss the intent of the new design criteria with Council at the work session.
We will also be prepared to discuss the proposed Transportation Center and it s
relationship to the Town Center Implementation Plan and anticipated bus routes.
Town Manager Comments:
l:AEngineenng\Development Rev ewBenchmark At BC\Lot 61 Block 2\Work Session MerooDoc
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Tambi Katieb, AICP - Community Developme
Ruth Borne, Director - Community Development -,
Date February 4, 2004
Re: Comprehensive Plan Anticipated Meeting Schedule and Project
Timeline
Summary:
The project timeline for the Comprehensive Plan Update has been revised based on your
input since the approval of the contract for services.
Staff would like to briefly review the project timeline and anticipated meeting schedule with
you as we move forward.
Town Manager Comments:
?? f t, %?x' ^4 a L L,? 7, Le , G - t o C t 7U c.yatic- G l ?' :. 7 LG r, c G 2 tcZ
.r
Attachments:
¦ Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan: Project Timeline
¦ 2004 Avon Comprehensive Plan: Anticipated Meeting Schedule
wmprenensive Fian Froject I imeline and Anticipated Meeting Schedule Page 1 of 1
February 10, 2004
2004 Avon Comprehensive Plan: Anticipated Meeting Schedule
Meeting Date
Town Council
Planning & Zoning Commission Project Kick Off February 24, 2004
Steering Committee Meeting #1 March 23, 2004
Steering Committee Meeting #2 April 6, 2004
Steering Committee Meeting #3 May 18, 2004
Steering Committee Meeting #4 June 1, 2004
Public Open House Meeting #1 June 29, 2004
Steering Committee Meeting #5 August 17, 2004
Steering Committee Meeting #6 August 24, 2004
Public Open House Meeting #2 September 7, 2004
Adoption Hearing #1 (Planning & Zoning Commission) October 5, 2004
Adoption Hearing #2 (Town Council) October 12, 2004
Notes:
Steering Committee Meetings scheduled on Tuesdays.
No special meetings anticipated with this schedule
F:ARegulations & Procedures\Comp Plan\2003 Comp Plan UpdateASchedule & Meetings\2004 Avon Comprehensive Plan
Schedule.doc
N
1
U
N
O
cz
cn
C
L+
i
Q
O
C
O
O
C
O
Y
Y H ill
m - FF T
T! N
Y
N
Y
t N
a
Ir
N
Y
? N
Y
N
m
N
M
N
N
r
j
p
F
ya y
F ?Y
333333LLLLLL q
s? ?
yg ?1
T
ct
'i ?g yf? F?'9
? T M U J U m
??? tree
Sgt o
a
T W
s ?
W k
?
js?q
U [[?? 4'
a?????€ :
? drat I??• 1y?t
3
e
U V
8??????? _
a
31
9
r f - N iS en n b f? 00 P .
CY)
.C
mmS
W
G
N
E
m O
Cm U
C C
O
7 m
a cn
* ,
c g
N
y U
? c
s •a
7
0 *
v
N
N
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Lang Brooks, Town Manager.
From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer
Date: February 4, 2004
Re: Benchmark Road/ Avon Road - Concept for Full Movement Intersection
Potential Fly-Over Layout
Summary: The Avon Road Roundabout Project resulted in limited
movements at the intersection of Avon Road and Benchmark Road. The desire to make this a
full movement intersection along creating an improved pedestrian connection from east to
west across Avon Road has expressed quite frequently by various members of the Council and
the general public. This desire for improvements at this intersection culminated in a study by
Colorado School of Mines students through the EPICS Program. Recommendations from this
study proposed regrading of Avon Road from Beaver Creek Boulevard through Roundabout 4
(Benchmark Road) and then realigning Avon Road from Roundabout 4 to the Railroad
Bridge. In theory this would allow flattening of the grades by lowering the north side and
raising the south side through Roundabout 4 and then lengthening Avon Road by a series of
curves to between Roundabout 4 and the Railroad. While this was a unique idea, the
application seems to be impractical and with an expected significant reduction in traffic
capacity.
Somewhere through this process another concept has been developed for consideration. This
concept not only creates a form of full motion intersection but can also be developed to
include an overhead pedestrian crossing of Avon Road. We will be prepared to present the
conceptual layout and discuss some related options available with this concept at the Council
work session.
Town Manager Comments:
1:AEngineeiingCrrafficARoundabout 4 Concept Menro.Doc
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer
Date: February 5, 2004
Re: Open Space Tracts & Trails Along the Eagle River
Summary: Open Space Tracts and Trails along the Eagle River through
Avon have been depicted on an aerial photo as requested in a previous council meeting. We
will be prepared to present the photo and discuss ownership and development possibilities for
these Tracts at the Council work session.
Town Manager Comments: `
I:TngineennglAdministrabon?Miscellaneous',Open Space Tracts Memo.Doc
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer`5Gv
Date: February 3, 2004
Re: Traffic Counts - 2004
Summary: Over the past several years we have performed Friday/Saturday traffic
counts at various locations throughout the Town once during peak ski seas on and again during
peak summer season. Typically these counts have been relatively consistent between ski
season and summer season. The major difference has been between the Friday and Saturday
Counts with Fridays being consistently higher at virtually all locations.
With the addition of the new I-70 Interchange and Wal-Mart/Home Depot, we believe we
should expand the traffic count locations to obtain a better picture of current traffic patterns
and to establish a basis for future traffic projections. We also recommend that we eliminate
the ski season counts and extend the summer count to a full week if our budget will allow.
We expect the cost to be essentially the same and believe a full week of summer counts will
provide much better and more reliable data than two-day winter counts.
The attached drawings show the location of previous counts plus the proposed count locations
for the new development at The Village. We believe these locations will provide a good basis
for analysis of traffic impacts of The Village development and for traffic projections as the
area develops.
We are requesting council concur with a revised traffic count program with the additional
locations and a weeklong summer count replacing the previous two-day winter and summer
counts.
Town Manager Comments:
L\Engineeiing\TrafficATraffc Count Mew 2004.Doc
' Town of Avon - 2004 Proposed Traffic Count Locations
O
:+r
e?
u
O
4+
O
V
td v
? O
O ?
O ?
i.r ?-
da ?
O
O
o?
j
,P ue
(RA
i
i
i
i
V
9b` y
f
;
i
,C
CL
i
IX2
w
SO'd 8961 2VL OL6 UOAV 40 uMO1 d90:£O VO-£O-qad
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
VON
C O L O R A D O
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development o(*f*.
Date: February 5, 2004
Re: First Reading of Ordinance 04-02 an Ordinance for a PUD Amendment for Lot
30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Summary
The applicants, Formations LLC (Lot 30) and George Plavec (Lot 21) applied for a PUD Amendment to
the Wildridge PUD for creating 10-single family lots in Wildridge. Lot 30 is a 5.76-acre lot currently zoned
duplex and has a single-family residence constructed on it. Lot 21 is a 3.84 acre lot currently zoned
duplex. Both properties are located at the end of June Creek Trail on a 50'0" access easement which
provides access to the US Forest Service ("USFS") and access to Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District's ("ERWSD") lift station.
The applicants provided a detailed application supporting the merits of their application based upon
the PUD criteria and other related documentation. A copy of the application is enclosed for your
review. The application includes among other things, traffic study based upon the impact of this
proposed development, evidence of available utilities, recommendation from the USFS, detailed
development data analysis, and revenue projections.
On February 3, 2004 the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial of this
application based upon the failure of the PUD application to comply with the PUD criteria set forth in
Section 17.20.110 in Resolution 04-08 (Exhibit "B"). Also attached you will find numerous letters of
support/opposition for this PUD, including a petition (Exhibit "D").
This PUD Amendment application presents a significant policy issue for Council, which is outlined in
the Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report dated February 3, 2004 and attached hereto as
Exhibit "C". As part of the basis for recommending denial was the issue of the precedent being
established by this proposal. Historically, the Town has consistently denied any type of upzoning in
Wildridge since 1991 and required developers/applicant to forfeit development rights when creating
single-family projects from duplex subdivisions.
Another issue presented in the PUD application, which requires Council attention is that the
applicants contend that there is financial benefit to the Town in approving this project. Staff
addressed this contention in the staff report on the sketch plan subdivision prepared by Norm
Wood, Town Engineer (attached hereto as Exhibit "E"). There is no long-term financial benefit with
this application. In fact, the proposed subdivision provides an additional drain on the Town's
General Fund with projected annual Property Tax Revenues of $4,640.63 and annual increased
Municipal Services cost of $9,385.20.
Memo to Town Council, February 5, 2004 Page 1 of 2
PUD Amendment for Lots 30 and 21, Block 2, Wildridge
At t he P lanning & Z oning p ublic h earing h eld o n F ebruary 3, 2 004 the applicant also submitted
additional information from Marcin Engineering (Exhibit "F"), a letter from M. Ayers of Often,
Johnson, Robinson, Neff & Ragonetti dated February 3, 2004 (Exhibit "G"), and a letter from LSC
Transportation Consultants dated January 29, 2004 (Exhibit "H"). As this information was submitted
at the public hearing, this information is not considered part of this application.
Alternative motions:
• Approve Ordinance 04-02
• Table Ordinance 04-02 until the public hearing
• Deny Ordinance 04-02
Recommended Motion:
Recommend tabling of Ordinance 04-02 until the public hearing can be held, which is scheduled for
February 24, 2004. \
Manager Comments: i `
Attachments:
A - Ordinance 04-02
B- Planning & Zoning Resolution 04-08
C- P&Z Staff Report dated February 3, 2004
D- Spreadsheet outlining letters of support/opposition for this PUD Amendment
E- Sketch Plan Subdivision Report prepared by Norm Wood
F- Memo from Marcin Engineering
G- Letter from M. Ayers
H- LCS Transportation Consultants letter dated January 29, 2004
Memo to Town Council, February 5, 2004 Page 2 of 2
PUD Amendment for Lots 30 and 21, Block 2, Wildridge
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 04-02
SERIES OF 2004
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
WILDRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR
LOTS 21 & 30, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Owners, Formations LLC and George Plavec, have applied for approval
of a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment to the Wildridge PUD for Lots 21, and 30,
Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the application proposes to amend the Wildridge PUD to rezone Lots 30
and 21, Block 2 from duplex zoning to ten (10) single-family lots (Lots 30A, 30B, 30C, 3OD,
30E, 30F, 21A, 20B, 20C, 20D); and
WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
hearing on February 3, 2004, at which time the applicant and the public were given an
opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the
proposed PUD Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendation for denial on the PUD application to the Town Council of the
Town of Avon through Resolution 04-08; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
day of , 2004, at which time the public was given an opportunity to
express their opinions regarding the proposed PUD Development Plan; and
F:ACouncil\0rdinances\2004\0rd 04-02 L20 30 132 WR PUD Amendment.doc
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Avon, Town Council of the Town of Avon finds as follows:
1. The hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council
were both extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues
were submitted at those hearings.
2. That the PUD Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town's
Comprehensive Plan, and is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and the
public interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
The Lot 21 & Lot 30 PUD Amendment to the Wildridge PUD to rezone Lots 21 and 30
from duplex zoning to ten (10) single-family lots (Lots 21A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 30A, 30B, 30C,
30D, 30E, 30F) is hereby approved, subject to concurrent approval of corresponding subdivision.
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED, this day of , 2004, and a public hearing shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, on the day of,
2004, at 5:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon, Colorado.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED the day of , 2004.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
FXoun61\0rdinances\2004\0rd 04-02 L20 30 B2 WR PUD Amendment.doc
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
F:ACouncihOrdinances0004\Ord 04-02 1-20 30 B2 WR PUD Amendment.doc
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 04-08
SERIES OF 2004
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT TO THE
WILDRIDGE PUD FOR LOTS 30 AND 21, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE, TOWN Oh AVON,
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Formations LLC (Lot 30) and George Plavec (Lot 21) have applied for an
amendment to the Wildridge PUD to create ten (10) single-family lots on Lots 30 anal 21,
Block 2; and
WHEREAS, after notices required by law, a public hearing on said application was held Fy
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, said application fails to comply with the PUD criteria set forth in Section
17.20.110, which include the following:
a. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives
have not been met as required by 17.20.11 OH(1)
b. The overall design concept of this PUD Amendment fails to incorporate the existing
topography with the proposed building locations. Extensive grading and retaining
walls will be required to obtain 10 adequate building sites. 17.20.110H(2)
c. The existing development rights on Lot 30 and 21 are compatible with the immediate
scale and character of existing properties, and the proximity to public forest service
and open space tracts, while the proposed increased density of 10 single-family
residences are not compatible. 17.20.1 l OH(3)
d. This PUD Amendment application is not responsive to the existing topography and
natural features of Wildridge_ 17.20.11OH(4)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends denial of the application for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to rezone
Lots 30 and 21, Block 2 from duplex zoning for a total of four (4) units to ten (10) single-
family lots (Lots 30A, 30B, 30C, 30D, 30E, 30F, 21A, 20B, 20C, 20D), adding six (6)
development rights.
ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF February, 2004
Signed:
Chris Evans, Chairman
Date: ?- 3 ( D 1
Attest:
Date: .? OD
Terry Smi , Secretary
Staff Report
PUD AVON
C 0 L 0 R A D 0
February 3, 2004 Planning:. & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date January 28, 2004
Project type PUD Amendment
Legal description Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Current zoning Two-duplex lots
Address 2631 Bear Trap (Lot 30) & 2967 June Creek Trail
(Lot 21)
Introduction
The applicants, Formations LLC (Lot 30) and George Plavec (Lot 21) are seeking at PUD
Amendment to the Wildridge PUD for creating 10-single family lots in Wildridge_ Lot X is a
5.76-acre lot currently zoned duplex and has a single-family residence constructed cm it. ]Lot 21
is a 3.84 acre lot currently zoned duplex. Both properties are located at the end of June Creek
Trail on a 50'0" access easement which provides access to the US Forest Service ("USFS' ') and
access to Eagle River Water and Sanitation District's ("ERWSD") lift station-
The applicants have provided a detailed application supporting the merits of their Application
based upon the PUD criteria and other related documentation. A copy of the application is
enclosed for your review. The application includes among other things, traffic study based upon
the impact of this proposed development, evidence of available utilities, recommendlatiorr from
the USFS, detailed development data analysis, and revenue projections. Also attac d yDu will
find letters of support for this PUD application.
Background
Benchmark Properties created Wildridge Subdivision in 1979 shortly after the inernorataon of
the Town of Avon on February 28, 1978. According to the Wildridge Final Plat application for
Wildridge and Wildwood Subdivisions, the overall development concept was for "abundant open
space recreation areas around lots" with a density of "barely one dwelling unit per acre". The
land was identified with no particular hazards for development except in areas with slopes of
40%. The development plan recognized that lot sizes are a function of land slope, buildable area
and road access; smaller lots are concentrated on lesser slopes with easy access and largeff lots
are on steeper slopes where buildable area and access are more restricted.
In 1981, the Wildridge Subdivision was completely replatted with a total of 849 planned
development units and is the foundation of the current zoning in Wildridge. Over the yemrs,
there have been several PUD Amendments and transferring of development rights.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970),949-574 9
Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, PUD Amendment
February 3, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 7
In evaluating the merits of this application, it is important to recognize the applicant's premise of
creating new platted lots in Wildridge. Recently, there have been several PUD Amendments
wherein development rights have been legally terminated-the most recent of those include Lot
47/48, Block 1, WR (Ordinance 02-13); Lot 10/11, Block 2, WR (Ordinance 02-12); and Lot
42/43, Block 4, WR (Ordinance 02-11). There are even examples where the Town has
entertained splitting duplex lots into single-family residences. Althinugh in 1991, the Town
formally passed Resolution 91-17, which eliminated this concept.
The applicants contend that there are a significant number of single=family residences
constructed on duplex lots and as a result justify development opportunities for Lot 30 and 21.
This premise is flawed, because there is nothing to preclude any of the existing single-family
residences from availing themselves to the current zoning and developing the additional
development unit. In the event, the applicant were to actually obtain the development rights
from some of these existing single-family residence by a formal PUD process, the Town still
does not have a system for transferring the development rights.
Although the application is well thought out and addresses the PUD Criteria, the most overriding
concern by staff in evaluating this application is what is the impact' of theprecedent being
established with this application? It is staffs belief that we are opening `Pandora's Box' by
' approving more development rights than originally contemplated. `There is nothing to preclude
more developers from requesting the same privilege being sought with this application. Is the
^Town prepared to address the development impacts for'Wildridge. These; questions are
delegated to the Town Council as both a policy and legislative decision. Currently, we have
limited guidance on this matter other than the 1991 Resolution abolishing the creation of single-
family lots from duplex residences and multi-family projects.
PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following shall be used as
the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate
that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply wit1h each of the following
design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular
development solution is consistent with the public interest.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Coals and Objectives.
The fundamental reason for having a comprehensive plan is to Clearly communicate
generally where and how land uses may occur in the Town. The land use plan is based upon
these goals and polices. Implementation is through annexation, subdievision and zoning
regulations. This proposed PUD Amendment does not comply with the following goals and
polices of the Town Comprehensive Plan based upon the following:
Policy Al. I Development and redevelopment will be of a scab and intensety
appropriate for the neighborhood in which it is located.
The current Wildridge subdivision did not contemplate development of
additional 10 dwelling units on Lots 30 and 21. Iri fact, the original
Wildridge subdivision specifically created larger lots on steeper slopes,
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 94'9-5749
Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, PUD Amendment
February 3, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 7
because the buildable area and access was identified as being more
restrictive. The applicant has conclusively demonstrated that both Lots 30
and 21 are significantly larger lots. The proposed site plans and access
drive further demonstrate that the proposed lots are primarily on slopes of
40% or greater and is not an intensity contemplated originally otr
authorized under our current regulations.
Policy Al.3 Flexible zoning such as PUD should be encouraged where it results in
more effective use of land. However, such flexible zoning will only be
allowed where it provides a benefit to the community and is compatible
with surrounding development. Variations from standard zoning must be
clearly demonstrated, and will be permitted only as needed to aciieve
effective development.
The applicants are proposing to improve the Town parkland in
conjunction with approval of this project. In addition, they are proposing
to extend the June Creek access to the USFS property along witA new and
improved signage. These proposed improvements area benefit tto the
Town of Avon; however, compatibility with the surrounding devirlopment
outweighs the public benefit. The development standards being proposed
are much more flexible to accommodate the single-family residences on
the new lots, which includes a 10'0 "front-yard setback rather than the
standard 25'0 " front yard setback. The purpose of this front settback is to
accommodate drainage, snow removal, adequate maneuvering and site
distance for vehicles and maintenance for the Town. To vary fr6om the
existing development standards to create new single-family properties has
not been demonstrated.
Policy A1.6 Land for open space should be preserved throughout the commtunity,
particularly on steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive, areas.
As aforementioned, the purpose of creating the Wildridge PUD was to
preserve open space, limit density and avoid development on steep slopes.
A significant portion of the property under review exceeds 40% _slope. A
more detailed analysis of the issues presented by development om such
steep slopes and access is set forth in the accompanying sketch plan
subdivision memo prepared by the Town Engineer, Norm Wood
Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated and
preserved as open space wherever possible.
Again, a majority of this project is proposed on 40•, slopes and
demonstrates that in order to improve the access and create they new lots
development and subdivision standards must be modified to accomplish
which is not outweighed by the public benefit to preserve open space on
steep slopes.
Goal FI Make Avon's unique natural setting and its open space central elements to
its identity and structure.
rown of Avon Community Development (970) 7413-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, PUD Amendment
February 3, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 7
Policy F1.2 Development shall not be allowed on steep hillside areas vulnerable to
environmental and visual degradation.
The open space currently available, specifically on Lot 30 is unique and
complements the current access to the USFS, The proposed development
on the steep slopes may support a total a four new dwelling units on the
steep slopes, but 10 development units impairs the overall quality and
quantity of open space in Wildridge.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub-area
design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
The overall design concept of this PUD Amendment struggles to incorporate the existing
topography with the building orientation as a result of existing conditions. Parking,
maneuvering, drainage, maintenance and site distance may be impaired as a result of the
10'0" front-yard setbacks. Extensive grading and retaining walls will be required to obtain
10 adequate building sites.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
The current open space on Lot 30 and 21 and the immediate proximity to USFS property is
not compatible with the scale and character of creating 10 additional dwelling units- A more
modest proposal for new dwelling units may be warranted upon support and evaluation by
the Town's policymakers.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable rellaticroship
with surrounding uses and activity.
Improving the pocket park is an asset contained in this application. Although thw amount of
density being proposed is not compatible with the existing neighborhood, open space, or
natural topography.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
There are no known geologic or natural hazards among these properties. As previously
noted, there are concerns with the amount of development proposed on such stezep sk)pes.
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.
This PUD Amendment application is not responsive to the existing topography and natural
features of Wildridge. With the exception of the duplex development right on L,ot 21, this
area was never contemplated for this type of development, because of the natural features,
steep slopes, access to USFS, and overall aesthetics of the area.
own o von community Development (970) 748-4030 FFax (SR70) 949-5749
Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, PUD Amendment
February 3, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 7
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and ofd
site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
The new extension of June Creek Trail addresses improved circulation and improvements to
USFS property and the proposed development. The conflict arises with accommodating the
new 50'0" right-of way and necessary area to access the new dwelling units.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views and function.
The amount of available open space will be diminished with this application; although the
building sites have been located to take advantage of the available view corridors and access
to public lands.
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.
There is no phasing plan proposed in this PUD Amendment application-
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
The application addressed the adequacy of public services and utilities and goes further by
offering improvements to the sign program for accessing USFS property and improving t1w
public park.
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.
The traffic projections submitted by the applicant adequately demonstrate that the existing
streets and roads within the Town and Wildridge are suitable for the traffic proposed with
this development.
12. Development Standards
Current Zoning: 2 Duplex Lots
Current Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 4 Units
Proposed Zoning: 10 Single Family
Proposed Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 10 Single Family
Maximum Building Height Allowed (ft): 35'
Potential Land Used Parking
Lot 30A, 21 A 3 Spaces
Lot 30A, 21A 3 Spaces
Lot 30B, 21 B 3 Spaces
Lot 30C, 21C 3 Spaces
Lot 30D, 21 D 3 Spaces
Lot 30E, 3 Spaces
Lot 30F 3 Spaces
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949? 5749
Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, PUFF Amendment
February 3, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 7
Minimum Setbacks
Lot 30A, 21A 10' Front, 10' Rear, 10' Side
Lot 30A, 21A 10' Front, 10' Rear, 10' Side
Lot 30B, 21B 10' Front, 10' Rear, 10' Side
Lot 30C, 21C 10' Front, 10' Rear, 10' Side
Lot 30D, 21D 10' Front, 10' Rear, 10' Side
Lot 30E, 10' Front, 10' Rear, 10' Side
Lot 30F 10' Front, 10' Rear, 10' Side
Total Site Area (TSA), sq. ft.
(Lots 30, 21 and R.O.W.) 424,200 S.F.
Existing Site > 40% Slope (Lot 30 & 21, excluding R.O.W.)
Area (sq. ft.) 200,569 S.F.
% TSA 47.3%
Site Coverage
% TSA 50% Maximum Per Lot
Landscaping
% TSA 25% Minimum Per Lot
Paved Surface (R.O.W. Improvements Only)
Area (s.£, Lot 30, 21, & R.O.V.) 7875 S.F.
% TSA 1-9%
Snow Storage
% of Paved Area 20% Minimum Per Lot
All of the development standards are consistent with the current town of Avon and Wildirdge
standards with the exception of the 10'0" front yard setback.
Staff Comments & Recommendation
This PUD Amendment application presents significant stumbling blocks for the staff to
recommend approval, which have been outlined in this report. The issue of utmost importance is
the precedent being established by this proposal without any guidelines or policies for doing so.
In fact, the existing Town policy is adverse to any type of upzoning and splitting of development
rights without legislation being created to do otherwise. The issues associated with steep slopes,
access, circulation, and open space are secondary to the overriding issues of approving this type
of development in the Town.
The Town policy and legislators may want to consider creating opportunities for this type of
development by allowing for transferring of development rights or other vehicles for increasing
density within the Town.
Recommended Motion
I hereby approve Resolution 04-06 recommended denial of the Lot 31 and 21, Block 2,
Wildridge subdivision PUD application.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 74£?-4430 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, PUD Amendment
February 3, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 7
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-
4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth O. tB, Director
Community Development
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 t=ax (970) 919-5749
Mark and Jodi Andrews
Sa_m Ecker _
Gary Felder _
Jeff and Denise Jacobs
Daniel Niederhassen
Erik Peterson
George Plavec _
Larry Wolfe
total = 8
Mark Ball
Gregg and Heather Barrie
Kathleen and Michael Barron
Susan Beetch
Charles and Lorrayne Bell
Heidi Bennett
Brnt and Karen Biggs
Greta and GaryB_lamire
Prisca Boris
Debbie Brill_ _
Gerald Brooks
Susan Hildreth Bruno
Bruce Callender ?
Bruce and Mary Canton
Linda Cathy
Jeanne Cunningham_
Victoria and Nigel Dagi
Glenn Davis
Stacey and Joan Deck
Tim Dee
Gail Duckett
John Eschenlohr
Michelle Evans
Jaime Flaagam
Terence Fox
Tiffany Gaetke
Cynthia Lee Garcia
Greta Gardner
Gay Gardner
Christopher Green
Margaret Hart
TW Hebert
Jill Henry
Lisa Hoffman
James Horan
2355 Old Trail _
5129 Longsun Lane _
2171 Long Spur
2960 A June Creek
PO Box 18608 Avon
3063B Wildridge
2960 June Crk, 5670 A & B
2941 June Creek
PO Box 1173 Avon
2802 Shepherd Rid
5580 Coyote Ridge
2804 Sheoerd Rida
J5580 Coyote Ridge
2935 June Creek
4 Wildridge R_ d
L5134B Longsun Lane
5491 Wildridge Rd E
'5692 Wildridge E
12670 Bear Trap #2
2800 Shepherd Ridge
2637 Bear Trap
- -- - --
2810O'Neal Spur
12637 B Bear Trap
14211 S Wildridge Road West
X2841 O'Neal Spur
1.2433 Draw Spur #B-3
12920 B June Creek T_ rail
PO Box 674, Eagle
14550 Flat Point
;2365 Fox Lane _
rPO Box 4900, Eagle
fi4280 Wildridge Road W
Box 6517, Avon
,PO--Box-253-6, Avon
5723 Wildridge
2909 June Creek #1
2909 June Creek #1
438 June Point_
5501 Coyote Ridge
PO Box 757, Gypsum_
PO Box 6535 Avon _
21656 Saddle Ridge Loon
Rd, L3 B4, L21 B4,1-18 B4, L20 B2
Walt Hottner
-- - 2605 Bear Trap
Beth Hufnagel PO Box 4199, Eagle
Paul Huntoon _ ,2825 Ked Spur
Mary Isom no physical address provided
Mattand Jane Ivy X4274 Wildridge Road
Esther and Bill Jones
- '4400 Wildridge Rd
-
Steve and Susan K-aloz
2900 June Creek Trail
Jill and Matthew Kelsall 14201 Wildridge Rd W
Ehsse Kelley
__- 2445 Saddleridge Loop
Fred Kirr X2648 Bear Trap
-
-
Kathy Kunio 5301 Ferret Lane
Toni Marto 1 5134 Longsun Lane
Nancy Mast and Stuart Se1ler _
4211 Wildridge Rd W North Unit
Faye McKenny 2643 Bear Trap West
Alexander Macleod 3016 Wildridge Rd #2
Virginia Mallon Chapel Square -
Lori Martin P.O. Box 2196, Eagle
Nancy Martinez APO Box 6, Red Cliff
Scott May - PO Box 3503 Eagle
Gerald and Marge Meremonte :4081 Wildridge Road W
Ruth Miller
_ 5588 Coyote Ridge
JMatthew Mire _
2920 A June Creek
Kelly and Roger Mitchell 2490 Old Trail
Joanne Morgan '5735 Wildridge Rd
Todd Moyer X290 Old Trail
Wendy Nagel _
12929 A June Creek Trail
Mark and Lisa Mutz-Nelson 12823 Ked Spur
Judy Olson 4420 Wildridge Rd W
John and Karen Pellenti L55 B3 WR
John Pinkhorn 12800 Shepherd Ridge
Mike and Lisa Post
- 2935 June Creek
-
Heidi and Lane Kerc?=Pratt _ _ _ __ _
Saddle Ridge Loop
Beut and Susan Remold '2803 Shepherd Ridge.
Russell Rice 2680 Bear Trap
Carmany Rulofson 14340 June Point
Todd Saeger 2 1 Old Trail
Gre Samson 42 90 Old Trail
Larry Scarbrough PO Box 1340, Avon
Susan Schnesl -12440 Saddleridge Loop
Dave Schramm ' PO Box 1505, Avon
Janice Seafield 2852 O'Neal Spur
Kathy Sligh _
2448 Draw Spur
Frederick Smith 5796 Wildridge Rd
Sarah Smith and David Hymes
- 5100 Longsun Lane
--
St
even _
0575 S??? Rd, Gypsum
Donna Sullivan i L99 B1 WR
huck and Pearl Taylor------ 2613 Bear Trap
Steve Thompson 2345 Saddleridge-Loop
Sandy Threinen -PO Box 1213, Eagle -
Charlotte Triebnig 2640 A B -
ear Trap
Rudolph Vulpe -- 4391 June Point
Kim Walter ;2375 Saddleridae Loon
Michael Warmenhoven
Pamela Warren
Jim Wiley
Mark Wrast
Lynne Young _
Kathrine V. M????
=113 Names
Rick Petrillo
Ronald and Lynn Brethauer
received after 2/3104 P8 I
2940 June Creek
216 ddle Ridge L?
5591 Coyote Ridge
PO Box 2733, Edwards
5161 Longsun Lane E
2427 Saddleridoe Loon
no address given
4221 W Wildridae Rd
total =116 Names
untitled
WE support the PUC change perposed by formation LLC. and terramont contractors.
Mark and Jodi Andrews
2355 old trail RD.
Avon Co. 81620
,-7 A !
lU Ll
f ,
V '
?3o??y
Page 1
Sam Ecker
P O Box 15
5129 Longsun Lane
Avon CO 81620
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon CO 81620
As the owner of the single family home at 5129 Longsun Lane, AKA Lot 45,
Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, I hereby give my support of the PUD application by
Formations LLC and George Plavec for Lots 21 & 30, Block 2, Wildridge. I feel that any
possible negative impacts of this project are far outweighed by the positive additions to
the community the applicants are providing. They would be creating beneficial attributes
for all to enjoy, while the development of residences is situated on portions of the
properties already reserved for construction.
Si,
Sam Ecker _?
Date / ? ?O
Town of Avon
Community Development Office
PO Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Lot 30 and 21, Block 2, Wildridge PUD Amendment
Dear Town of Avon.
I have had the opportunity to review the application and related information currently
proposed for lot 30 and 21, Block 2 properties located in Wildridge Subdivision, Avon,
Colorado.
Following this review and consideration of the aforementioned application, I offer my
SUPPORT and recommendation for approval.
In particular, I recommend approval of this application because:
Thank you for your consideration of my opinions in this
Name(s): /? ,off
Address: l 7 j Lon 5 ?.O 4 ?` ??X
January 28, 2004
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
P O Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Letter of support for the PUD Amendment Application - Lot30, 21 Block 2
Wiildridge.
Dear Avon P & Z Commission and Avon Town Council,
As owners of Lot 22 in Wildridge we would like to submit this letter in support of the
proposed rezoning of Lots 30 and 21. We have met with the owners of the proposed
redevelopment and reviewed the conceptual plans.
We feel that the benefits to the community and our property out weigh any negative
effects that may be perceived. We plan to attend the public hearing on February P to
lend support and listen to the other views of the community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
tacobs
Jeff and Denise 2960A June Creek Trail
P O Box 19000
PMB 101
Avon, Colorado 81620
RECEIVED
,lA N* 3 0 2004
C ffnUnfty Development
Date I M-
I
Town of Avon
Community Development Office
400 Benchmark Drive
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Lot 30 and 21, Block 2, Wildridge, PUD Amendment
Dear Town of Avon,
I have had the opportunity to preview the application and related information currently
proposed for lot 30 and 21, Block 2 properties located in Wildridge Subdivision, Avon,
Colorado.
Following this review and consideration of the aforementioned application, I offer my
SUPPORT and recommendation for approval.
In particular, I recommend approval of this application because:
Thank you for consideration of my opinions in this matter.
Name(s)
Address I O-6? S3 0 GVQ?
7 1 7A7 'nki
1/27/04
Town of Avon
Community Development Office
400 Benchmark Drive
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Lot 30 and 21, Block 2, Wildridge, PUD Amendment
Dear Town of Avon:
I have had the opportunity to review the application and related information proposed for
lot 30 and 21, Block 2 properties located in Wildridge Subdivision and have determined
this to be a unique opportunity for both the applicant and the Town of Avon.
As you have had time to review the applicants submittal, I too have thoroughly reviewed
the package and accompanying information and personally view this as one of the most
thorough and responsible development proposals I have ever seen. Seldom have
applicants gone to such great lengths, as this applicant has, to ensure that both community
and personal gain are so carefully considered.
Without reservation I give my full support to this applicant for these reasons:
1 - It provides an ongoing revenue source for the Town of Avon
2 - This development is sequestered in such a way as to have little to no impact
on surrounding neighborhoods
3 - It provides a much safer access to June Creek and adjacent trails (which my
family and I enjoy frequently)
4 - It provides additional park facilities for current residences to enjoy with their
families
5 - It costs the tax payers nothing with little to no impact on the community
Thank you for your consideration of my opinions on this matter and would request this be
distributed to both Planning & Zoning and Town Council.
Sincerely,
E ' . Peterson
3063B Wildridge Road
Avon, Co
RECEIVED
JAN b 8 2004
Community Development
Terramont Building Contractors, Inc.
P O Bog 3415 Avon CO 81620
George Plavec Ph and Fax 970-845-7797
Cell 970-390-5382
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon Colorado 81620
As the owner to Lot 17A and Lot 17B, Block 4 of the Wildridge
Subdivision AKA 5670A and 5670B Wildridge Road East, I hereby give my support of
the PUD application by Formations LLC and George Plavec_
Thank You
Ge° ofe "Tripp "Plavec
RECEIVED
,1AN
Community Development
Terramont Building Contractors, Inc.
P O Box 3415 Avon CO 81620
George Plavec Ph and Fax 970-845-7797
Cell 970-390-5382
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon Colorado 81620
As the owner of the half duplex at 2960 June Creek Trail Unit B AKA Lot
22B, Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision, I hereby give my support of the PUD
application by Formations LLC and George Plavec.
Thank You
George"'Tripp " PRECEIVE,)
J'4 f4 200 'd d.
COMM Oity Development
Terramont Building Contractors, Inc.
P O Box 3415 Avon CO 81620
George Plavec Ph and Fax 970-845-7797
Cell 970-390-5332
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon Colorado 81620
As the owner to Lot 21, Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision, I hereby
give my support of the PUD application by Formations LLC and George Plavec.
Thank You
1-1/z ._
GeErge "Tripp " Plavec
ECEIV
a-LIV
JAN, 2 S 2004,
Community Devetpment
Terramont Building Contractors, Inc.
P O Box 3415 Avon CO 81620
George Plavec Ph and Fax 970-845-7797
Cell 970-390-5382
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PD Box 975
Avon Colorado 81620
As the owner to Lot 3, Block 4 of the Wildridge Subdivision, I hereby
give my support of the PUD application by Formations LLC and George Plavec.
Thank You
Geor " e "TriPP `` Plav
EC rIVE
JANE 4 U ? rJl.
C-OmmunOv Deveiopment
Terramont Building Contractors, Inc.
P O Box 3415 Avon CO 81620
George Plavec Ph and Fax 970-845-7797
Cell 970-390-5382
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon Colorado 81620
As the owner to Lot 18, Block 4 of the Wildridge Subdivision, I hereby
give my support of the PUD application by Formations LLC and George Plavec.
Thank You
Ger6 e "Tripp " Plavec
RECEIVED
JAN 4j 8 ?004-
Community Development
Terramout Building Contractors, Inc.
P O Box 3415 Avon CO 81620
George Plavec Ph and Fax 970-845-7797
Cell 970-390-5382
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon Colorado 81620
As the owner to Lot 20, Block 2 of the Wildridge Subdivision, I hereby
give my support of the PUD application by Formations LLC and George Plavec.
Thank You
Geor?rip' p "" Plav? ec
RECEIVED
Community Development
January 27, 2004
Ruth Borne
Community Development Department
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon Colorado 81620
Dear Ms. Borne,
As the owner of the half duplex at 2901 June Creek Trail Unit B (Lot 16B, Block 2,
Wildridge Subdivision) I hereby give my support of the PUD application by Formations
LLC and George Plavec.
Thank You
Larry W 7fe
RECEIVED
JAN 2 l 2004
Community Development
r
Date: Z
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of 3 c m ?r I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 2 d 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lots in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative effect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking, snow shoeing and a variety of other recreational
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners in this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
IGwu?`
Date: 1 -?) ))b
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of S'?'iO eL) n O k F (dfS!--- I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Date: /,3 1 1 Of
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
Asa property owner of 5-06 Co -yo c trA-le- I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 3 , lock 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
{'5-rw t"(f (<'Y-
Date: 1 - ?)i - c) 4
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
i
As a property owner of kl , Y 1 ?t (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
U4A"'
Date'--t'6 J??
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of Jr 1,9(? r lam,- (wey must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Bl k 9 'in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
The density of about one unit per acre
Now, ,with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners 1 this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety! --
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
i
Date:
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planting and Zoning Commission
Asa property owner of'-2L/3 3 I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use :June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
t
Date: Cc ! 2 t -zoD 4
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of 0 +?U4 ; I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lots in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative effect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking, snow shoeing and a variety of other recreational
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners in this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
't
Date:
j L
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Co ion
Asa rroPeTh' ? 1 1 owner of t I (we) must voice concern of opposition
I? ?f
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 d?30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
,purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More. importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
=`4
?r G 7
I
Date:
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 ay'd 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lots in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative effect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking, snow shoeing and a variety of other recreational
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners in this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
February 3, 2004
Town of Avon
Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Staff
Town Engineer
RE: Application PUD Amendment Lots 21 & 30, Block 2 Wildridge
Dear P&Z Commission, Staff and Town Engineer,
We are the current owners of the home located at 2935A June Creek Trail, (Lot 19, Blk.2
Wildridge). Upon careful lengthy review of this PUD Amendment application, we are
STRONGLY OPPOSED to this application or any future variations to it. The mere
suggestion that developers\individuals would consider raising density to a quiet cul-de-
sac for their financial gain at the expense of us and our neighbors is appalling and
arrogant.
Karen Biggs is currently the manager of a title company in the valley and employed with
them for over twenty years. I am the owner of a civil engineering and surveying
consulting firm in the valley. We are in no way opposed to thoughtful well planned
development in our community as it is our livelihoods. In spending over twenty years
consulting our clients, Karen and I have helped developers and individuals understand the
guide lines set forth by PUDs, subdivision covenants, and platting regulations established
by municipalities and communities. With this said, we can assure you that we did our due
diligence in selecting our home location.
During our careful search of numerous properties and communities we concluded that our
current home on June Creek Trail was the best fit for our life styles and the safety of our
family. The Final Subdivision Plat of Wildridge and the covenants recorded with this plat
clearly stated the maximum Dwelling Units that would be allowed on June Creek Trail.
The damages to our property and the safety to our family by increasing density, traffic
and moving the cul-de-sac some 900' north of our home would not be taken lightly.
The suggestion by the applicants that some of our neighbors have somehow "abandoned
forever" their Dwelling Unit rights is frightening to say the least. We are all aware that as
property values increase over the years, Wildridge could very well reach 100% of its
planned density. The precedence that would be set by approving this type of application
would forever destroy the enjoyment of property for all Wildridge residents.
The Staff and Engineering report that came out 1/30/04 was much appreciated and seems
to be moving this project towards denial. I thank you all on P&Z for you careful
consideration of this application and respectfully request this application be denied.
Sincerely,
Brent Biggs & Karen Biggs
Ruth Weiss
From: AndrewKarow@alpinebank.com
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:13 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: PUD amendment
Hi Ruth,
I received this ex parte communication today. Please include this email
with the P and Z meeting packets for Tuesday.
Thank you, -
Andrew A. Karow, Senior Vice President / Manager
Alpine Sank
141 East Meadow Drive, Suite B178
Vail, Colorado 81657,
970-748-5740 970-476-2366 fax
-----'Forwarded by Andrew Karow/ALPINE CO on 02/02/2004 10:11 AM -----
Greta Blamire
<gretabl@yahoo To:
.com> cc:
Subject
02/02/2004
b8:25 AM
andrewkarow@alpinebank.com
PUD amendment
Dear Mr,. Karow,
We are writing to express our outrage at the proposed
zoning changes in our neighborhood. Specifically, the
changes proposed to lot 30 and lot 21, in Wildridge. A
250% increase in density is completely against the
nature of the neighborhood.
When we bought our house the zoning was clearly
explained to us, and we very carefully researched the
zoning in our view area. Those were the rules we
agreed to when we bought our property. The owners of
Lot 30 and Lot 21 agreed to the present zoning also
when they bought their property. To attempt to change
the zoning now for their gain and the other property
owner's losses is wrong.
Our view of the undeveloped area behind our house was
considered the most important aspect of our house by
the realtor posting the pictures on the internet.
This development would devastate our view and our
property value.
Besides our personal concerns, there are the safety
concerns of extending June Creek into an area of
greater than 8% grade. How would that affect
ambulance and fire services?
Also, we're concerned about the environmental effect
of building homes on a greater than 40% grade.
1
We are opposed to this and to any variance in the
original zoning completed in 1981. At that time there
was a comprehensive look at the area, and the platting
done then should be respected. The factors involved
in these two lots being zoned for 1 duplex have not
changed. If the area had been considered build able,
it would have been platted that way.
Gary and Greta Blamire
4071 Wildridge Road
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
qq FEB. J3 ?00-41 . / C• M'J70 VH li`I I tK1YHL HIJLl I 7t e??••e,J??v..
February 3, 2004
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear planning and zoning Commission
As a property owner of Wildridge, residing at 5134B Longsun Lane. 1 must voice cones of
opposition to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, B1ock 2 in Wildridge.
When 1 first sought out a lot in Wildridge, I looked at all available lots in the subdivision. When Y
decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
ant o for recreation areas around the lots and
fo
„P??J; Tt?e abundpen space
- . y I?H Fa glli l l (11
In,
ity
„ there would be an Increase in density which was not approved at the time i
proposal,
-zoning would have a significant negative effect my enjoyment of our
y lot. This re. ntl it will adversely affect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
M'dre'itnporta y,
Creek trail for walking, mountain biking, snow shoeing and a variety of other recreational
-ruse,;
"I;??il Yr'I
Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridgec subdivision. o rIt is oads and already the difficult
speed ienough which thiStlk
around Wildridge due to the amount of tmf i
flows.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for furore re-zoning of otber duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners in this great neighborhood, 1 Implore you to reject
this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Slnc ,
prisca J. Boris 70) 748-8833
RECEIVED
91 pl NI f!'la1 •'fy r.?.. IY yylr"" :y •F., ,, "tb:1, .?7'GTI.",t _.. !i fl 2004
C
L'li s??li?1?,??C?'I??Nµ?',,I?'I,'; l!y?lll,111111i,1!??.?y?` ry' Y?R>?i _"'''wa,' niTryaia',?,,gli?ji:t:""y'/'S`,µ ?''•"'•4???rtr ?,/amrllllnily Development
=,"1', :';?'••,.1, " rv ,,, I,? ,I,? "! i; y.?. k,'"'w?h? ? i'r?y.#° `t?.iyy ''II.m???l ?I, Irr t'?'.7 rr:'li?l1 ,"}, pC'?
''i '; t4 ;'f ,$•?+, ;6 i I; rnl 1, w?.l.?f?a?!'.in?I?hi. y. ?r..l;??j411'ALNrn uG
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
As a property owner of 2637 Bear Trap Road, Lot 31, Block 2, I
must voice my concern and opposition to the proposed re-
development of lots 21 and 30, Block 2.
When I first sought out a lot in Wildridge I looked at all available
lots in the subdivision. When I decided upon lot 31, the major
considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The fact that only two lots lay to the west of my lot
B) They were large but zoned for only duplex development
As I thought of the future of my surrounding neighborhood, it
played a large part in my decision to build my retirement home on
lot 31 as only two more duplex dwellings could be built to the west
and that any impact on my view and quality of life would be
minimal.
Now, with this proposal, there would be 1 l units adjacent to the
west of my lot, instead of the four which were approved at the time
of my purchase of lot 31. This re-zoning will have a significant
negative impact on my family's enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the
many residents of Wildridge that use June Creek Trail for walking,
mountain biking, snow shoeing and a variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mentioned the increase of traffic on June Creek
Trail which will result in a hardship for all my neighbors in Block
2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other
duplex parcels that will negatively impact the quality of life for all
property owners in this great neighborhood. I implore you to reject
this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter,
Bruce and Ma Canton
CO.
February 2, 2004
Town of Avon
Community Development Department
400 Benchmark Road
Avon, Co 81620
RE: PUD Amendment, Lot 30 & Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Dear Ruth Borne:
We write this letter in general support of the staff report dated 1/28/04.. We concur
that the environment of the Wildridge Subdivision in this area would be adversely affected
with the proposed ten single-family lots. This type of development would destroy the theme
set out with the original philosophy of "abundant open space recreation areas around lots". .
However, we are very concerned with the two points made in this report suggesting that
"a more modest proposal for new dwelling units may be warranted upon support and
evaluation by the Town's policyrnakers", page 4 section 3. The second point being that "the
Town policy and legislators may want to consider creatirig opportunities for this type of
development by allowing for transferring of development rights or other vehicles for
increasing density within the Town", page 6 second paragraph under Staff Comments &
Recommendation. We take serious exception to this and ?idamantly stress that the original
zoning must stand. If concessions are allowed here, who knows where future concessions
will be permitted. Thus, condemning the original proclamation of the subdivision, forever
eroding the environmental and natural beauty of the area while destroying the original
planners' foresight for a balanced and harmonious coexistence of population and
nature. We therefore, strongly urge that the planners for the Wildridge Subdivision will
work within the agreed constraints of the original planning and zoning recommendations.
We thank you for the opportunity to voice our opinion and trust you find compassion
for our concerns.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
Victoria and Nigel Dagnall
4211 S. Wildridge Road West
F E S 0 2 2004
l flmmt1174 Developmen
January 31,2004
To: The Town of Avon, per hand delivery : 2 / 2 ? v Y- &? `-,
Att: Town Council, c/o Mr. Buzz Reynolds, Mayor ;
Copy to: The Planning and Zoning Commission
Ref: Lot 30 & Lot 21 - Block 2 - PUD Amendment, Wildridge.
Dear Buzz:
I am writing to express my opposition to the above proposal. My principal reasons are as
follows:
1. I am not prepared to abandon my rights as to development of my property at 4550
Flat Point without compensation. As you know I built a single family home there
and may well want to expand it to a Duplex at some future date.
2. I question the Developers' assertion that "there exists a level of public support for
this PUD Amendment of Wildridge homeowners that far outweighs public
opposition to it". Who are these supporters and what are their interests.
3. I question the Developers' assertion that this proposal has "Town of Avon - Staff
Support". All I have seen is a hand drawn sketch of some 10 sliver lots on
extremely steep topography with difficult access.
I believe point one above is selfexplanatory. If the Town wants to amend the original
Wildridge Development plan and is prepared to legally protect all my rights, that is
another matter. It is unreasonable to claim that the "Migration of Duplex Units to Single
Family Units" is justification for an increase in density which was not part of the original
intent of the Development. Furthermore, a PUD Amendment as requested may infringe
upon my present and future rights and at the very least may be legally questionable.
The second point raises questions as to the veracity and quality of this proposal.
The last point raises questions about the integrity and quality of Town Staff. I remember
well the trouble I had in building my own home. There was the need to move the
dwelling in order to meet the 35' height limitation, a $15000 escrow requirement for
landscaping to obtain a TCO, setback and snow storage requirements etc. etc., all good
ideas which I complied with willingly. As it subsequently turned out I observed and
began to suspect there was one set of rules for a private builder and another for
Developers. I cannot conceive that Town Staff has any idea how these two lots can
successfully be developed with 10 single dwellings on them while at the same time
meeting all the requirements which were placed upon me and presumably are enshrined
in Town building codes.
RECEIVED
F E S 0 2 2004,
Community Development
This leads me to the conclusion that if this project were approved these particular
applicants will be back to the Town time and time again with requests for variances
which will be granted because, after all, Town Staff supported this proposal.
In Summary:
This proposal's main premise of claiming other owners' development rights to
circumvent traffic and density concerns is legally questionable.
At least some of the justifications are factually unsupported and throw the veracity of the
entire proposal into question.
The submitted material as to layout, feasibility of construction, elevations, setbacks etc. is
so sketchy that Town Staff could not possibly have rendered a reasoned judgement
supporting this proposal. The question can reasonably be raised, why would they lend
their support if in fact they did.
Lastly, approval of this project would set a precedent which could lead to development; of
a number of similar properties within the Development and which would damage its
nature and character irreparably.
Accordingly I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission not
recommend favorably on this application. I also ask Council to deny this application.
Sincerely,
7
ohn W. Eschenlohr, ( P.Eng.)
Date: ! ?. f yaa+?
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of t8 ?IJa L-5--l-z40; Ps I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 1 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B The density of about one unit per acre
.??t.tt?.sHSa."? 4"A' ' ."•a.Y ,rj,.¢,A Ira P.M. :.Y?o.¢ +?a,+t ?l-c Ir mss ; a? lr td:?,?.v,? ;
,J.1?11ri-?? a3 d
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact-the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety! -
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
i
RECEIVED
' % 2 2004
Community Development
Date:
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of ?r ?I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety! --
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
ECEiv;:D
2 0 3 2004
Community Development
02/02/04 MON 08:59 FAX 9708457997 Jim Horan
Date:' 241 D7 •
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Conn fission
Asa property owner of 2/46'6 SNPA r k7eOSf 16WI (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
1
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
4't"'Zhe abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
i of about one unit per aore
ua;tpw: vlntb"this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
zoning Y (Y )
4;rir'a y (our) lot. This re
dniQvidiht of our investment
lyYci;!e:-importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
e Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
" an my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-Zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact tho quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood- I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entiratyl
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
7QZZ
(DECEIVED
E8 0 2 2004.
'
37,1 9
-
`,rr
.;
.I i wi e1 • uam'' ny-?µl?
w' w y.1r,.
YNN?p
nlnx.Y
} x?kA ??
.
rA.i ???ri" ??.:• ?.i
?i
x
?r - .^'
i?4
•I.JhM1
?
M
Y
?
'•.
.
.
?
I
r xl:w-'Lx»'HL!.".
*';
?'
3'
'??
?L
?C
?
?
^ ?- -
?
4 .:it.? .
i'
F"
J
I
-.i
L.
?.La.
,, 4a.n
?l?4y
?u?imr«iJi
J
ry?fu/.
••???
-74
.x'.'nrir?xW?Nnv r-i?:i"r:i ??... ,:!'hx.?W: •?.rkµ :•?:'..:I.Gii.wu???i•::'P'.6?w?dd???:?. ?:?i:. ?: ?)??'«.. M
Community Development
rb 001
Ruth Weiss
From: Tambi Katieb
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:31 PM
To: Ruth Borne; Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: PUD Amendment
For the meeting.. must have out and read into the record'!
Tambi Katieb, AICP
Town of Avon Community Development
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: 970.748.4002
Fax: 970.949.5749
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Isom [mailto:isom@vaillaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 12:24 PM
To: Tambi Katieb
Subject: PUD Amendment
Tambi, can you please forward this on to the P& Z members. I called the town
and was told to send this to you and you could distribute it.
Avon Town Planner & Planning and Zoning Commission Members:
I am writing in opposition to the PUD Amendment submitted to the town by
Formations LLC and George Plavec. I urge you not to approve this amendment.
Following are some of the reasons why I am opposed:
1. As a Wildridge resident I use the June Creek access road several times a
week in the spring, summer and fall. I do not want to see the density of the
two lots changed from duplex to 10 single family homes. I think this will
have an extremely negative impact on this open space area of Wildridge. The
application contemplates homes being built where no development was even
contemplated. I refer to the map which shows 5 homes west of the Bohart
residence, where none are considered under the current zoning. I think
preserving the open quality of this section of Wildridge far outweighs the
need for increased development and any possible revenue. Additionally, I
question the revenue calculation since costs of this addition in terms of
snow plow and fire service need to be considered and aren't by the
applicant.
2. The applicant's argument that Wildridge is "underdeveloped" because
duplex lot owners have built single family homes on their lots and the
applicant should now somehow be entitled to these development rights is
absurd. First, I disagree that Wildridge is "underdeveloped" and secondly,
I doubt there is any legal precedence for the argument that because a duplex
lot owner has built a single family residence that somehow entitles a
completely unrelated party from increasing density on lots where no such
density was contemplated in the original zoning. I doubt any duplex lot
owner on which a single family home is built is willing to transfer over its
development right to the applicant, for free, in order to increase our
neighborhood density and take away from open areas.
3. I question the applicant's statement in its PUD Amendment - "20 Key
Issues and Justification: 13. Public Support. There exists a level of public
support for this PUD Amendment of Wildridge homeowners that far outweights
public oppsition to it." I'd like to know what this statement is based on as
I have never seen a survey done of Wildridge homeowners by the applicant. In
1
fact, everyone I've spoken with is against this amendment, except for one
person who had no opinion at this point. I have not spoken with one person
in favor of the amendment. I believe that this statement is erroneous at
best and a possibly an outright lie.
4. Using the condition of the access road as an argument to build 10 homes
instead of 2 is also absurd. There is nothing wrong with the conditon of
this road for its current use which is access to open space. The road is
rarely used by vehicles and when it is they are generally four wheel drive
vehicles. It is primarily used by pedestrains, bicyclists and dirt bikes and
is certainly adequate as is and does not need to be paved.
5. As for the argument of the pocket park, I don't know what this is
referring to but I'm assuming it is referencing the park at the end of Old
Trail Road. I rarely see people using this park and it certainly appears
adequate for the use it gets. I see far more people using and enjoying the
dirt road at the end of June Creek Trail to access June Creek, and I for
one, do not want to see a paved road and 10 houses here.
6. I do understand and know there have been zoning changes which have been
approved by the town but nothing that I know of with the kind of impact that
this amendment would have on the character of the neighborhood. For
instance, on Saddleridge Loop where I live, the three single family homes
across the street have been built on what were two duplex lots that were
rezoned to three single family lots. This change did not increase the
density and did not negatively impact the neighborhood. I do think
exceptions to the current zoning are possible but must be carefully
reviewed, and in this case I see no benefit to the neighborhood and many
negative impacts to Wildridge.
Contrary to the Applicant's final statement, I do not think this is "Good
for Avon Govemnment, its citizens, socially and economically in the near and
long term." I urge you to vote no on this amendment. Thank you for your
hard work and for your efforts to keep Avon and Wildridge a quality
community.
Mary Isom, Wildridge Resident
2
Date:
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of /?
VJ, 0) I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 an30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A)' The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
RECEIVED
" E L' C !004
COmmunity Development
Date:
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Comnission
Asa property owner of -?Zo 1 \Iy d8 n d Ge Kd VU /14S). must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 3 , Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which uas not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
- ife
RECEIVED
F E B Q 2 2004
Community Development
Ruth Weiss
From: Ruth Borne
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 8:24 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 2/3 - RE Lots 30 & 21, Block 2 in Wildridge
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Elizabeth Mast [mailto:vailskitips@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:49 PM
To: Ruth Borne
Subject: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 2/3 - RE Lots 30 & 21,
Block 2 in Wildridge
Nancy Mast
Stuart Seller
4211 Wildridge Road West North Unit
Avon, CO 81620
vailskitips@hotmail.com
February 2, 2004
Ruth Borne
Community Development Director
Town of Avon
Dear Ms. Borne:
I apologize that I am emailing this letter at the last moment, but I hope
that you will have a chance to read it before the scheduled meeting on
February 3, 2004.It is truly not my nature to get involved with matters such
as those you deal with; however, I am spurred to get involved in the matter
of the development proposal regarding Lot 30 and Lot 21, Block 2 in the
Wildridge Subdivision. I must state that I am opposed to the aforementioned
development. My husband and I choose to live in Wildridge due to its
closeness to open space and the wonderful views. We fear that the proposed
development will increase the density of Wildridge to the detriment of the
community. In addition, acceptance of this project will set an unsavory
precedent with regards to future development in Wildridge and the town of
Avon.
The original development concept for the Wildridge Subdivision was for
"abundant open space recreation areas around lots" with a density of "barely
one dwelling unit per acre." This plan has been upheld for the most part and
this contributes to the wonderful nature of the neighborhood. When looking
at the plans for Wildridge it is evident, even to the ignorant such as
myself, that the original planners did their best to optimize development on
the available, build able land. It is interesting to note that the original
plans did not find it feasible to have such a large density of dwellings on
those lots.
Despite the fact that this development proposal includes provisions to
improve the area for construction, i.e. paving the access road, constructing
a playground, such improvements would not compensate for the overall
negatives associated with this project.
Rather than restating the findings of the PUD Staff Report, I just want to
reiterate our family's disapproval of this proposal. We also want to state
our reservations about the possibility of this project being resubmitted
with fewer new dwelling units that still remain out of synch with the
original plans for those lots. In addition, I hope that should this
commission ever address the issues of transferring development rights and/or
developing processes to increase the density within the town they do so with
caution and all due considerations for preserving the wonderful qualities of
our town.
Thank you for your time,
Nancy E. Mast
Stuart L. Seller
High-speed users-be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet
Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=l
2
Date:,
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of r ?!
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, B1 &ol k m wiidndge st voice concern of opposition
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
Aj The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this Proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not
Purchased MY (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant ne approved at the time I
enjoyment of our investment gative affect my (family s)
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking, Snow shoeing and variety
Pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that wies other recreation
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision. result in a hard ship for
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration m this matter.
RECEIVED
0 3" 2004
Community Development
Date: i-31-04
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Z.onmg Commission
As a property owner of _ LO j S 130C< 3
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridgeust voice concern of opposition
I first sow out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) ` The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this Proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not
Purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant ne approved at the time I affect enjoyment of our investment. gahve my (family's)
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking Snow shoeing and variety of other
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that win i result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration m this matter.
RECEIVED
FE R 0 3 2004
Community Development
Date:
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon,, CO R 1 620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
t
As a property owner of k?C i 1 o ? C-" , Ct I CJSC>iI7(we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
?7 L t `?GJ l 1?
RJECEI E
2pp
Community Development
02/02/2024 03:38 9704764427 VAIL INTERNATIONAL PAGE 01
2 February 2004
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Avon Town Council
REGARDING: PUD Amendment, Block 2 Lots 30 and 21
Dear Commissioners and Town Council Members:
We urge you to deny the request by Formations LLC and George Plavec to increase the
density on Lots 30 & 21 Block 4_ In fact, we hope that the Avon Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Town Council will deny all requests for zoning variances to increase
density in our subdivision and our town.
We built the single family home where we live on Lot 65 Block 4 (5100 Longsun Lane).
This is a duplex lot. We chose to forego the significant financial benefit of building a
duplex because we want less density in our neighborhood.
We did not intend that the building rights that we chose not to exercise would ever be
construed as available to any developer who wanted to claim them.
Best Regards. y
?
Sarah Smith
David Hymes
RECEivED
t 8 0 2 2004
Community Development
1/28/04
RE: Public Hearing 2/3/04 for Variance from Section 17.50.040 of the Avon Municipal
Code to allow a structure to encroach into the side-yard setback
I, Donna H Sullivan am the owner of Lot 99, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision and strongly
oppose the above' referenced variance requested by Snow Now 11, LLC. I will not attend
the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 3, 2004, please be
sure my opinion is heard. Do not permit this variance.
I may be reached at 650 274-7015.
Sinc rely,, /
Donna H Sullivan
RECEIVED
FEB 0 2 2804
Community Development
Ruth Weiss
From: Ruth Borne
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:37 PM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: Bear Trap Road
Please copy for meeting !
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Taylor [mailto:catavoco@vail.net]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:09 PM
To: Ruth Borne
Subject: Bear Trap Road
To: Ruth 0. Borne
Re: Lot 30 and adjoining lots off Bear Trap Road
We will not be able to attend the Tuesday night meeting but we want to
enter our objections to this planned development. The increase in the
number of homes is;not suitable for our area especially in regard to
traffic and the noise factor.
Please make this part of the record.
Charles A and.I Pearl Taylor
2613 Bear Trap Roan
1
Date: ?M ZO (J Y
kJ
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission L
As a property owner of I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
;pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
/y
w
RECEIVED
2004
Community Deveiopment
February 1, 2004
To: The Town of Avon, hand delivery
Att: Town Council, c/o Mr. Buzz Reynolds, Mayor
Copy to: The Planning and Zoning Commission
Ref Lot 21 & Lot 30 - Block 2 -- PUD Amendment, Wildridge
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my concern, and opposition, to the Proposed PUD amendment.
Having carefully reviewed the "20" key issues and justifications, I find them slanted,
biased and lacking substance.
Item 2 states compliance with town Subdivision, Planning and Zoning regWations. If this
were so, then why the need for a PUD amendment?
Item 13 states a level of public support, whereas 4 residents of Wildridgc brought this
application to the attention of their neighbors and collected, at last count, 50 signatures
stating opposition.
Item 18 references traffic implications stating either a 1.4% or a 1.03% increase in traffic
based on a survey conducted on Metcalf and Nottingham roads. It would seem to me the
survey should have been conducted on June Creek trail. To use the ratio provided by the
applicants, currently 15 DU's X 6 trips a day for a total of 90. To add the proposed 42
trips a day, that would equal an increase of 47%. That is a traffic increase no
neighborhood should have to bear.
In closing, I will tie in attendance at the public hearing relative to this issue. If at any
time you should request my attendance for further review of this amendment application,
please call and I will make every effort to meet your schedule.
Sincerely,>
l ?
Michael Warmenhoven
2940 June Creek Trail
845-8101
390-0411
RECEIVED
0 ( 20R
Community Development
Date:
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
Asa property owner of 010,)uac' 64 71P191/ 1(we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivisiou.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
13) ' The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the tine: I
purchased my (our) lot. This re -zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More, importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety! - - - - -
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
r
RECEIVED
S 0 2 2004
Community Development
January 29, 2004
Wildridge property owners
Dear Neighbors:
A PUD Amendeeient Application has been submitmd to the Town ofAvon which suggests that all
homes built on duplex lots have "(abandoned) fomvea" the secoaad Devclo single fly
pment
that the developer (Shane Bobart and George per) show are entitled y Ueeit (DIJ). aad may sagg=
Your second unit). de?ent rigft r,ey
The application is requesting that 2 dupx lots be subdivided into ten: new precedence for others to begin taking lots near ? vi singe ?Y keoene lots. This refs a
and aU intended. Would you him your neighbor to Fret 2 or 3 new er t for morn ua;ts than
an right to you and your neiglebes development riglb2 sn4?fkmily homes neat to your ptopeaty
If You concerned about this appupdon, the - -
?? it will ?'M and the precedence that it wdj ? we ?c.m?
YOU to write to the Avviioa Platnnmg and Zoning
Zoning Commission hearing this Tb Commission and Town CouacO or attend $o p8 and
building. sd? Februa3' 3, 2004 at 530PM in he Town ofAvom municipal
Attached for your review is a portion of V= application and the Testing of the 81 homwwmm affected by dd,
PPPrOPosaL Take dm to review the entire applicown any of &e uwgbbors lined lm to at the Town of Avon, Comfy, ? t office. -
this roposed P amendment in the to deswss this issue or to lend suppott in PmVenting approval of
can not attend Feb. 3, 2004. zvniog rules. We have petiQoaed to stop this KM meat available kff yM
sincerely, ?-
0
Mike and Tanya W (845.8101) and Read= U
I3ame (748-I308)
Brent and Karen Beggs (949-9735
?C..
Mike and Lisa From (845-$ 60)
X93 r Est q3a'
Feb 02 04 03:35p Peter Warren 970-845-0796 p,l
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner ofo<??.???II?/tom 4I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Bock 2 m Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot, This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More. importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of W ildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek TYail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
?? /? ---- RECEIVED
E B 0 2 2004
Community Development
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: Jim Wiley [JWiley@CSAi.us]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 6:43 PM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: Lot 21 and Lot 30 Wildridge, Avon - Rezoning
Please submit this written statement to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank You!
Jim Wiley
jwiley@csai.us
Charles Steckly Architecture
10789 Bradford Road Suite 120
Littleton, CO 80127
O: 303.932.9974
F: 303.932.6561
2/3/2004
2 February 2004
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
To: Planning and Zoning Commission:
As a property owner of 5591 Coyote Ridge in Wildridge, I am writing to express my
concern and voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of lots 21 and 30.
I am concerned that if the Town of Avon allows this rezoning, this will open the door for
many other rezoning opportunities in Wildridge. I am aware of many duplex lots within
the Wildridge subdivision with presently only a single-family dwelling. These lots also
have potential of subdividing and adding another single-family dwelling.
Looking at the duplexes and larger four-plexes in Wildridge I feel that most have been
built within the original zoning concept for the subdivision. I am questioning why this
development is intent on deviating from this zoning concept. I'm sure the property
owners/developers of lots 21 and 30 have many reasons for subdividing and building at a
higher density than the majority of other complex within the Wildridge subdivision. The
foremost reason that comes to mind is to make additional profit from subdividing the lots
and building additional single-family homes.
As and Architect and builder I am aware that to survive as a developer one must look at
creative ways to make a dollar in this down market. With this in mind I am questioning
if the Town of Avon will allow a property owner/developer to enter into this project with
profit as their major goal? If this project proceeds forward it will benefit the property
owners/developers of lots 21 and 30, but at what cost to the remainder of the Wildridge
residents.
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon please consider
all aspects of this very important decision and cast your vote to reject this application.
Sincerely;
James Wiley Architect
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,000 towards
the installation of a play area at the corner of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
Name
Yc?,. PA- , -ccr? H ?-
(/J, zk"Z"
t
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12.
olf rr-A
Address
2-I66-03 S(+nAIt,2cdGt "010,41)0")
572.3 .J-,W
RECEI D
C 2 2004
Ezu
€F4.nmrriiinihi r1mia(nnmant
DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
UG/UrLD. J.GrJVJ`fi7: G•4tJt-i_m1 U vn yn.uva ,..
As a resident of the Wildridge subdivision, in the town of Avon, Colo
21rado 30,
hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the subdivision of Lots
Block 2, Wiildridge.
?J
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently
zoned for one duplex each (4 total units) into 10 single family lots (10
total units).
In addition, I understand that June Creek Trail would be extended by
approximately 900 linear feet. 000 to the
I also understand that the developers propose to provide $25,
Town of Avon towards the installation of a play area at the corner of
June Creek Trail and Old Trail Road.
Na a Signature
r-7) I
2.
Address
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
9.
10,
11.
12. tV??
E 0 S ?004
13. --
Community Development ?-'
14, ,-
Q2/0? ?-r'. ?'. Ge?e?w?: G• 4orr'870 vn li i i u?i ,n` nVUi ?..._?. ?.? ? ?. - -
February 3, 2004
Dear planning and Zonvlg Commissioners:
Attached is a response to the 20 Key Issues and justification for the proposed PUD
amendment submitted by Formations, LLC/George Plavec. We - as a group of concerned
landowners living directly adjacent to this proposed subdivision - submit this for your
review and consideration prior to the February 3rd meeting - agenda item 7. Our primarY
concerns are listed below:
1. Development and density increases without regulatory guidelines
2. Increased density not brought about by developmental hardship
3. Due diligence: when we bought property in this neighborhood it was because the
density was a low level as originl plat indicates.
4. Abandonment of Development Units (DU's); None of us have `abandoned'
development rights by not building to the total density allowed. If approved this
concept is a very disturbing precedent for all citizens within the Town of Avon.
While we a.knowledge that the Developers have the right to build a duplex on their
respective lots, we don't feel that they have proven significant economic hardship
requiring consideration of The proposal, nor have they clearly shown a signif cant
economic and social benefit to the community.
_.f
In fact, when they purchased their property they accepted the density in that Town purchase.
We feel that they should abide by the rules and regulations as stated by the
Avon in the same fashion that we did when we built, purchased or made improvements to
our homes.
Respectfully,
June Creek Frail Neighbors Opposed to Block 2, Lot 30 & 21 PUD Amendment Proposal
Lot 19 2935 A June Creek Trail Brent & Karen Biggs
Lot 19 2935 B June Creek Trail Mike & Lisa Post
Lot 23 2940 June Creek Trail Mike & Tonya Warmenhoven
Lot 18 2929A June Creek Trail Wendy
Lot 17 2909 #4 June Creek Trail Gregg & Heather Barrie
Lot 17 2909 41 June Creek Trail Chris Green
Lot 71 4201 Wildridge Road W Matt & Jill Kelsall
Lot 24 4274 Wildridge Road. Matt & Jane Ivy
Lot 37B 4071B Wildridge Road W Gary & Greta Blamire
Lot 36 4081 Wildridge Road W Gerald Meremonte
Lot 25 2900 June Creek Trail Steven & Susan Kaloz
513413 Longsun Lane Richard Petrillo & Prisca Boris
And other Wildridge residents listed on the petitions and letters attached-
RECEIVED
€ r -2 004
Community Development ?"
p4SA-C, U?eA bL(
MIRAMONTI ARCHITECT PC
ICI
POST OFFICE BOX 5820
AVON COLORADO 8.1 620
T970 949 1 138 F970 949 01 17
Feburary 3, 2004
TO: TOA Panning Department
TOA P & Z Commission
TOA Town Council
RE: PUD Amendment
Lot 30 & 21 Block 2
Wildridge Subdivision
To whom it may concern;
My name is Gerald Meremonte. My wife, Marge, & 1 own the single
family residence at 4081 West Wildridge, lot 36, block 2. We share our
western property line with lot 30 of this propose PUD application.
1 have lived in the Eagle Valley for 24 years & for the past 19 years,)
have been a practicing architect focusing mainly on private residences.
1 purchased my property in 1988. And at that time, like everyone else
who looks to purchase real estate, l did my homework.) reviewed the zoning
& design regs. I familiarized myself with the building setbacks. Studied the
lay of the land & created a mental picture in my mind on where my future
neighbors' homes would be located. This in turn led to the final design of my
own home, which was built in 1996.
Little did 1 realize then, that eventually 1 would find myself here today
at this public forum, defending these basic zoning regs for the Wildridge
Subdivision, which are now in jeopardy by this PUD Amendment application
before us tonight.
When 1 first started to read this PUD application,) immediately began
to see its' weaknesses; upzoning, 40% building slopes, difficult access & in
general, the applicant's lack of awareness to realize why the existing
property owners bought here in the first place.
You can only imagine my relief upon reviewing Ruth Borne's staff
report. My compliments to her do her staff on seeing through the applicant's
20 key issues. Her report brought attention to many of the same
observations 1 had made on my own review.
While many of the issues being discussed in her report affect me
personally, the real issue here is the precedent being set tonight with the
outcome of your decision. As Ruth points out, there does not exist, a process
within the TOA to consider this type of application properly.
And it is here i must adamantly state, that the property owners of
Wildridge do not wish to add density to their neighborhoods! In fact, this is
why we bought here in the first place.
0
Whether some of us chose to build single family residences on our
duplex zoned lots is not the issue. What we do with that extra dwelling unit
is our own personal choice. For me, it was my way to minimize the effect of
density on my neighborhood 6 maintaining my privacy. And for those
residents who own property on the western edge of Wildridge, we share the
common fear of some future developer wanting to do a land swap with the
USFS.
And that is why the "precedence issue" is so importantilH
Wildridge is a self contained residential neighborhood, totally
separated from the rest of the TOA by large tracts of land. There are no
fringe areas where you have commercial zones backing into residential
zones. This "isolation" is what attracts us to Wildridge. Wildridge is alf about
open space, sense of privacy, huge vistas & access to the National Forests!
By allowing upzoning to one, you must allow this opportunity to all
property owners of Wildridge.
If you consider this applicant's PUD Amendment, why not consh*er
running a street along the entire length of Wildridge's western boundary so
all of those property owners can sub-divide their lots as well.... so on...
Where does it stop?
It stops here!
It stops here tonight!!!
With your decision.
DENIAL on this PUD Amendment application
Thank you for your time & consideration;
Marge Meremonte
Gerald K Meremonte AIA
Miramonti Architect PC
#0 rLb. 4-r-004 11:10AM VA INTERNAL AUDIT 9708456685
N0.803 P.1
I hereby declare that 1 DO NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposz
for one duplex each (4 total L
• I understand the proposal ca
approximately 900 linear fee
• I understand that the develol
the installation of a play arer
Road.
wo lots, currently zoned
lots (10 total units).
June Creek Trail by
up to $25,000 towards
reek Trail and Old Frail
I DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
I DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
Name
2.
3.
4.
5. 1 Kj_ ?? ?09_ V -1 AL.LL?_
- 6.
7.
8
9.
10.
11.
12.
Address
RECEIVED
4 2004
al A o
x?
OPPOSE F
I
U`Sc--L) -K\T??.s rvEty Fo?
I\
t?j DE)JE-Lc:)PlM&j-F IS
b?b LE Co u ?T y Dry TCD P LE Tfly / j+t---RE Dr C-6rj?u Ai3ou T THE- FL)7-u)zc-
op
( ?s 'Tout C, R- Cc u Kj-T ? o0Ly -?4E At-MiLffT\
TRE
yo?S ? ?s (o Rj,--i THE FuTO?c
?,,z ? (Kic, ?:)P 'T Ws 76W? ?HL
GREE?) R ?j 11 ') c) W ? w ('T 0 T tl.E
VoU WtLL LIOE 0EK Uo?j
TH-f?-)
T??E ff-ST o XDui I-Juts M/9KT-
A- MJLLIO? htic) LEOuE-- wfto
NUT- bc)(6-?(5
1
RECEIVED )? Uco Es -0
LT- -B 0 3 2004 OOJL? ?o U/\(c- )n7 n
co munity Developmet
c?? J
Page 1 of 1
Ruth Weiss
From: Tambi Katieb
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:27 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: FW: PUD Amendment
Tambi Katieb, AICP
Town of Avon Community Development.
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Phone: 970.748.4002
Fax: 970.949.5749
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Vulpe [mailto:vailbum@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 6:05 PM
To: Tambi Katieb
Subject: PUD Amendment
We have lived in Wildridge for over seven years and are very satisfied with the plan is orginally stated.
Regarding the proposed PUD Amendment Applicaton we are STRONGLY opposed tc the approval.. This would
create a horrible precedent and would not be fair to all the present residents who relied on teh Master Plan.
Sincerely,
Kim and Rudy Vulpe
2/4/2004
Memo
To: Ruth Weiss
Ruth Bome
Norm Wood o
From Lisa Post (331-8566q-Y
CC: Planning & Zoning Commissioners
Date: 02/03/04
Re: Opposition to PUD Amendment Request for Wildridge Block 2, Lots 30 & 21
Attached please find the June Creek Trail Neighbors Opposed to Block 2, Lot 30 & 21 PUD
Amendment Proposal. The enclosed documents include:
A Cover Letter dated February 2, 2004
PUD AMENDMENT - "20" KEY ISSUES AND JUSTIFICATION FOR DENIAL
Exhibit A
Twelve (12) pages of signed petitions of by neighbors opposed to the proposal (80 signatures)
Fifteen (15) letters signed by neighbors opposed to the proposal
I am providing ten copies of this packet for your distribution convenience. Please call me if you have
any questions or need additional copies.
0 Page 1
Date: February 2, 2004
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Attached is a response to the 20 Key Issues and justification for the proposed PUD
amendment submitted by Formations, LLC/George Plavec. We - as a group of concerned
landowners living directly adjacent to this proposed subdivision - submit this for your review
and consideration prior to the February 3`d meeting - agenda item 7. Our primary concerns
are listed below:
I . Development and density increases without regulatory guidelines (Bad Precedent).
2. Due diligence: when we bought property in this neighborhood it was because the
density was a low level as original plat indicates.
3. Increased density not brought about by developmental hardship
4. Abandonment of Development Units (DU's): None of us have `abandoned'
development rights by not building to the total density allowed. If approved this
concept is a very disturbing precedent for all citizens within the Town of Avon.
While we acknowledge that the Developers have the right to build a duplex on their
respective lots, we don't feel that they have proven significant economic hardship requiring
consideration of the proposal, nor have they clearly shown a significant economic and social
benefit to the community.
In fact, when they purchased their property they accepted the density in that purchase. We
feel that they should abide by the rules and regulations as stated by the Town of Avon in the
same fashion that we did when we built, purchased or made improvements to our homes.
Respectfully,
June Creek Trail Neighbors Opposed to Block 2, Lot 30 & 21 PUD Amendment Proposal
Lot 19 2935 A June Creek Trail
Lot 19 2935 B June Creek Trail
Lot 23 2940 June Creek Trail
Lot 18 2929A June Creek Trail
Lot 17 2909 #4 June Creek Trail
Lot 17 2909 #1 June Creek Trail
Lot 71 4201 Wildridge Road W
Lot 24 4274 Wildridge Road
Lot 37B 4071B Wildridge Road W
Lot 36 4081 Wildridge Road W
Brent & Karen Biggs
Mike & Lisa Post
Mike & Tonya Warmenhoven
Wendy Nagel
Gregg & Heather Barrie
Chris Green & Gay Gardner
Matt & Jill Kelsall
Matt & Jane Ivy
Gary & Greta Blamire
Gerald & Marge Meremonte
Lot 25 2900 June Creek Trail Steven & Susan Kaloz
Lot 70A 4211 S Wildridge Rd W Nigel & Victoria Dagnall
And other Wildridge residents listed on the petitions and letters attached.
PUD AMENDMENT - "20" KEY ISSUES AND JUSTIFICATION
FOR DENIAL
Lot 30 & Lot 21 - Block 2 - PUD AMENDMENT
Wildridge - Avon, Colorado
1. Does not comply with Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan as indicated by the
TOA Staff memo.
2. Does not comply with Town Subdivision, Plate & Zoning Regulations
according to the TOA Staff memo and the Town Eftineer's comments.
• This is a project of variances. See Exhibit A for additional Title 16
sections that do not comply.
3. TOA Staff does not support the proposal based of the memo.
4. Not ideal real estate for such a proposal
• Changes the Character of the Neighborhood from a quiet, light traffic,
non-thorough-fare cull-de-sac.
• 42 additional trips indicated in Traffic Study submitted addresses Metcalf
and Nottingham and does take into account June Creek Trail (+65%).
• All lots (but one) listed as the directly impacted lots providing supports are
owned by Developers.
5. Precedence
Sets an undesirable precedence where other lot owner and developers
could create higher density (250% increase) in the absence of regulatory
guidelines.
Does not comply with Resolution 91-17, which eliminates the concept of
splitting duplex lots into single-family residences.
6. Revenue is not an item to be considered for the planning and zoning process.
It belongs at the Town Council.
7. Significant Shortfall in DU's at time of total build out in Wildridge
• Development rights are still in existence regardless of build out.
• Dwelling Units can be added at anytime by current or future property
owners.
• Increased density is not a goal of Wildridge.
• TOA does not and should not have a vehicle for transferring development
rights.
8. A down zoning approach has been taken for these vacated units. They are
not available for transfer, not should they be.
9. The majority of existing Wildridge Properties granted a modification from
their Original Plat Designation resulted in reduced or equal density, not
increased per the proposal.
10. The migration of Duplex Units to Single Family Units has occurred with a
tendency toward lower density. The assertion that dwelling units have been
"lost (abandoned) forever" is subjective.
11. The Access Easement is currently maintained by Eagle River and Water
Sanitation District and is as safe as a typical forest service access road.
12. Utilities and infrastructure are a standard requirement of the TOA code &
building guidelines and are normal expenses for developers.
13. The opinion of the neighborhood is that there is little support for this project.
14. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District & US Forest Service
• Eagle River Water and Sanitation District would support paving, with a
stipulation that no grade change or cuts be made to the road.
• US Forest Service property will be impacted by the addition of asphalt and
changing water flows and we question the need for an enviromnental
impact and drainage study.
15. A small playground that meets playground safety guidelines and provides
play equipment for children ages 2-12 would cost a minimum of $50K.
(Excludes benches, landscaping or ADA access.)
16. Construction revenues off set corresponding expenses which the Town
Engineer estimates a deficit of $4,744 per annum.
17. Property Owners Liability, Public Safety and Dust Nuisance
• Proposed steep shoulders with 2:1 drop-offs and steeply paved roads with
drastic drop offs (26') create safety risks
• The intent of the road on the plat is that they access public lands and
service utilities.
Most recreational users access US Forest Service roads prefer natural
terrain.
18. Traffic Implications are addressed under item 4.
19. "Support" is subjective and this suggests that who ever owns the most land
has the right to change the rules.
20. The site plan does not illustrate the private land designated to accommodate
"a few parking spots" and Town of Avon Parking Ordinance does not
support parking in town right of way.
Exhibit A
Lot 30 & Lot 21 - Block 2 - PUD Amendment
Wildridge, Town of Avon, Colorado
The following Town of Avon Title 16 criteria have not been met:
1) 16 40.030 Street Pattern - Desi o dead-end streets shall include areas or storage o lowed
snow.
Adequate snow storage is not provided for the cul-de-sac within the right-of-way or easements.
2) 16.4Q.050 NM Street Cl yc cations - The overaI length ofa cul-de-sac from the rntersectioar
wi
th another street or road to the radius point of the turd will not exceed one thousand
AOL.
Actual distance from the end of the proposed cul-de-sac to the intersection with Old Trail Road its
approximately 1,425 feet.
3) 16 40.050 No cul-de-sacs will service more than Lo "n residential units.
The existing June Creek Trail cul-de-sac serves twenty units. The proposed June Creek Trail cul-
de-sac would serve 27 or 26 units (depending if the proposed access point for Lot 30B utilizes
June Creek Trail or Bear Trap Road). If the proposed 9 secondary units were included, the
proposed June Creek Trail cul-de-sac would serve 36 or 34 units (depending if the proposed
access point for Lot 30B utilizes June Creek Trail or Bear Trap Road).
4) 16 40.050 Cu1-de sacs will be allowed only in those cases where it can be ode uatel assured _
that the roads will be ggable year around b virtue o minaarum odes and curvatur ade crate
parking and snow removal
Proposed grades exceed minimum 8.0% slope and snow removal requirements have not been
demonstrated.
5) 16 40.050 Each cul-de-sac shall have a minimum o a thir oot Paved radius road»v bualb
at the dead end.
Actual proposed paved radius of cul-de-sac is 32.5 feet. Prodding the required cude-sw radiuu
would increase the disturbance required for the road construction.
6) 16.40.060.A. Rights-of-way Widths -Rights-of shall be provided to the followingnimu
widths. Cul-de-sacs 50-foot radius bulb at dead end
Actual proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way radius is 45.5 feet.
7) 16.40.060. A Rights-of-wav widths - Right-of -of-way widths shall be increased or easemengs
provided as necessary to include all cut-and-fill slopes necessary for road construction sand
maintenance. In calculator this wrdt all slo es will be cakulated at the rate o three et
horizontal to one foot vertical except in those cases where adequate enginee_ ring repora are
submitted b the subdrvid r
19 p
assure the town council that the back do es will be stabbe at
steeper slopes In areas Qf unstable soils additional slope Protection shall be provided for as
indicated be a soils engLinECt
Right-of-way widths or easements have not been provided for all cut-and-fill slopes necessary for
road construction. Proposed cut and fill slopes are 2H:1 V. If adequate easements are provided
for road construction for Lots 21 A, 21 B, & 21 C at the proposed 2H:1 V cut and fill slopes, there
will be extremely limited developable area due to existing sewer and electric easements. Efthe
C:ATEMPi W ILDRME\ W i Idri dge PUD Amendment.doc
Lot 30 & Lot 21 - Block 2 - PUD Amendment
Wildridae, Town of Avon_ Colorado
(continued)
required 3H: I V cut and fill slopes are design the road can not be constructed without retaining
walls, as the existing slopes are steeper than 3H: IV.
8) 16 40.070 Roadway widths - Roadway widths will be designed and constructed in accordance
with the following table:
Street
Classification Driving Surface
Width Shoulder
Each Side
Parkin Drainage
Each Side
Local Street 22 feet 4 feet Not allowed 10 feet
The proposed road should have a total width of 30 feet including asphalt driving surface and
shoulders. The total width of the proposed road is 25 feet.
9) 16 40.080 Grades curves and sight distance
Minimum
Street Design Maximum Mwi imum Curve Stopping Sight
Classification Seed Grade Radius Distance
Local Street 30 mph 8% 100 feet 200 feet
0) Design in accordance with Design of Roadside Drainage Channels, US Bureau of Public
Roads.
(2) Maximum grades for distance equal to the stopping sight distance from intersection shall be
six percent. In addition, the maximum grade for fifty feet from the intersection shall Ire four
percent.
Actual proposed road grades are 8.5%. Proposed grade through cul-de-sac 8.0% does not provide
adequate stopping sight distance or proper grades at intersections. Providing adequate grades in
the cul-de-sac would dramatically increase the disturbance required for road construction.
10) 16.40.090.A Relationship to adjacent slopes - On all areas of land proposed for subdivision
whereon the general configuration of the undisturbed surface slopes twenty percent or more in
any direction (meaning that twentyfeet of elevation is gained or lost in each one hundred, feet
measured horizontally), a grading plan showing revised contours for street construction through
such areas shall be submitted. Such plan shall depict the extent and slope of cut-and-fill areas
created by street construction and insure provision for vehicular access to each lot created by the
proposed subdivision and served by the road to be constructed. Any proposed retaining
structures shall be designed in detail with cost estimates. All cut-and-fill slopes and retaining
structures shown as a result of street construction shall be located within the proposed dedication
of street right-of-way or provided easements.
Driveway access to each lot has not been demonstrated in compliance with Town of Avon Design
guidelines requiring that the grade of the first 20 feet of driveway adjacent and perpendicular to
the paved public way shall not exceed 4% grade.
Additional Items to Consider:
I) Verify water rights with the Eagle )=fiver Water & Sanitation District.
2) Verify traffic counts and impacts on adjacent June Creek Trait
3) Geologic assessment of debris flow should evaluate danger to future structures.
4) Emergency vehicle access in respell to length of dead end road, grade of road, size of cul-de-sac
should be verified with all appropriate emergency agencies.
5) There are other Wildridge lots as large or larger than the proposed lots to be subdivided. This
may open the possibility for similar PUD amendments in the future.
6) The access to Lot 22 proposes an ez?gineered structural retaining wall in the right-of-way.
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,000 towards
the installation of a play area at the corner of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
I DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
Name
Signature
Address
AIL ev\
'???? ova LN.^?
2. '? wi w t -I-Q
3. I G?? lip-- 2m5 5?Ml le; ? ` L-?3
/Ct
ate- l ? `?.
5. c /? J f ?3 / C
7.
Lo /
8 _6cad SCA n e (d e _ S -
V
10.'x` a ??{?? << l ?r?' la
11.
12.
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,000 towards
the installation of a play area at the corner of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
Name Signature Address
2. ?Il m
3. /?i,c L ?)a ??r s
? I
4."'??, v
5.
6. iti, wy K, ,u/(&&z
7. _?,reU /f
8.
9. ///, -/ /Z/ 4 / IV, /?
10. r?-
11
CM A
'12o I Wj kJn L)S-e lid. c f-
?J
yn i t llLar /.JI:5,
.\?VJ
vT
12.
./1
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the
proposing the subdivision of Lots :21 and 30, Block 2 edge PUU Amendment
Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single the family two lots (10 lots, total currently units).
zoned
• I understand the proposal calls for the extensi
approximately 900 linear feet on of June Creek 'f'rail by
• I understand that the developers propose to Provide
the installation of a play area at the corner of
up to $26, 000 towards
Road. June Creek Trail and Old Trail
I DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
1 DO NOT SUPPORT extending June
and platted cuI a-sac Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
2.
3.
4.
Name
6. t'lES 7? Jg/?
7. Z
9.
10. t1j?? /N"???o?11
11.
12.
Ad-- dress
-?> 7 rte'/ -*-,
? G shy
v ? r
P CL
????? V-
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,000 towards
the installation of a play area at the corner of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
I DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
I DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
Name
2. L l AfoA C?
3. n
address
a ? Y / rA " t: ?4' Fc= - ?1? ?
5. FeJ 1? any? ?)r i -
6.? _ 1 J r/L C°/. ?. , L•i%] 1 :_?-fit r l 4: / (?
7. ) ; ?, .? rlJ ?r
8.
9.
? i
101'
11.
12.
4?7 2
I hereby declare that I Dt,?NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Black 21I?fddrW@e.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,000 towards
the installation of a play area at the corner of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
Name Signature Address
2 r;
3.
_ S_? ? Cv ? of ? `?,P
fl?IE
6 54"i w/
7.
X-S
9 C / cyir^ih/ e,G??
81 ?V 41 5-11"1
9. ,C t s
S
10. f ?Ffti
11.
12
As a resident of the Wildridge subdivision, in the town of Avon, Colorado, I
hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30,
Block 2, Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently
zoned for one duplex each (4 Wal units) into 10 single family lots (10
total units).
• In addition, I understand that June Creek Trail would be extended by
approximately 900 linear feet.
• I also understand that the developers propose to provide $25,000 to the
Town of Avon towards the installation of a play area at the corner of
June Creek Trail and Old Trail Road.
Name Signature
2.1tf7k-)1 K Y-,Q1
3.
5.no
6.
Ae-="W-0?t
8Am W
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Address
j/3 q Uv,
Z? 35,4 Z-V V6- Gee-bP-'.
40 6141&51(. _
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the Wiidridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,000 towards
the installation of a play area at the corner of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
I DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
I DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
Name Signature Address
2. e M9 R Ti ?" 3 7G € ,• D. L ZL zi ! ?a ?tr IP v • Sjb 3l
3. bqu e q mM • .2
! lli8/SOS' ?Uon Co s/G?a
4. J ,? ?'IG
5. '92CM Mau
6.Cil /L ?t ?/ Lr f P ?? b ?y 7?/ rCJ/c'1 ??U ?L
J
7. j`-P_ Z?? Ir'k' d SAS ?z'?l?
G?
8. 6 'eT?k ?E?1 ? 1 lei CSC wig Cz co (!V6y
9. ?, FFA ?y (???-TK?- D'X C11 ?yo n , Co
10. o.?,?',d c-c
11.
i? ? fu ? Fo ,mac
12. S,,
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,0010 towards
the installation of a play area at the corner of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
I DO NOT SUPPORT
and platted cul-de-sac
Name
extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Signature
Address
?{-
Po 80x (0)
o?
Y ?Q
tea ?X 21,0
? aFerrst? Y 1
As a resident of the Wildridge subdivision, in the town of Avon, Colorado, I
hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30,
Block 2, Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently
zoned for one duplex each (4 total units) into 10 single family lots (10
total units).
• In addition, I understand that June Creek Trail would be extended by
approximately 900 linear feet.
• I also understand that the developers propose to provide $25,000 to the
Town of Avon towards the installation of a play area at the corner of
June Creek Trail and Old Trail Road.
Signature Address
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.-
9.-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Name
As a resident of the Wildddge subdivision, in the town of Avon, Colorado, I
hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30
Block 2, Wildridge.
1.
2.
M"^ 3k r
4.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently
zoned for one duplex each (4 total units) into 10 single family lots (10
total units).
• In addition, I understand that June Creek Trail would be extended by
approximately 900 linear feet.
• I also understand that the developers propose to provide $25,000 to the
Town of Avon towards the installation of a play area at the corner of
June Creek Trail and Old Trail Road.
--T--
6.
Signature
Address
oid le
-Z VP 14 - 7 Uq, t. /? .
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Name
As a resident of the Wildridge subdivision, in the town of Avon, Colorado, I
hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30,
Block 2, Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently
zoned for one duplex each (4 total units) into 10 single family lots (10
total units).
• In addition, I understand that June Creek Trail would be extended by
approximately 900 linear feet.
• I also understand that the developers propose to provide $25,000 to the
Town of Avon towards the installation of a play area at the corner of
June Creek Trail and Old Trail Road.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
0 16
Name Signature Address
I hereby declare that I DO NOT SUPPORT the Wildridge PUD Amendment
proposing the subdivision of Lots 21 and 30, Block 2 Wildridge.
• I understand that the proposal would subdivide the two lots, currently zoned
for one duplex each (4 total units) to 10 single family lots (10 total units).
• I understand the proposal calls for the extension of June Creek Trail by
approximately 900 linear feet
• I understand that the developers propose to provide up to $25,000 towards
the installation of a play area at the comer of June Creek Trail and Old Trail
Road.
I DO NOT SUPPORT increasing the density of said lots in any manner
I DO NOT SUPPORT extending June Creek Trail beyond its originally constructed
and platted cul-de-sac
Name
2.
3.?u`f GrL? r e
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Signature
Address
P 0 A?>X I (U ?
_S _34
V01 JUAI a, Tv-Itt/may
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
Post Office Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Gary and Greta Blamire
4071B Wildridge Rd.
Avon, CO 81620
February 2, 2004
We are writing to express our opposition at the proposed
zoning changes in our neighborhood. Specifically, the
changes proposed to lot 30 and lot 21 in Wildridge. A
250% increase in density is completely against the
nature of the neighborhood.
When we bought our house the zoning was clearly
explained to us, and we very carefully researched the
zoning in our view area. Those were the rules we
agreed to when we bought our property. The owners of
Lot 30 and Lot 21 agreed to the present zoning also
when they bought their property. To attempt to change
the zoning now for their gain and the other property
owner's losses is wrong.
Besides our personal concerns about the damage to our investment, there
are the safety concerns of extending June Creek into an area of
greater than 8% grade. How would that affect ambulance and fire
services?
Also, we're concerned about the environmental effect of building homes
on a greater than 40% grade.
We are opposed to this and to any variance in the
original zoning completed in 1981. At that time there
was a comprehensive look at the area, and the platting
done then should be respected. The factors involved
in these two lots being zoned for 1 duplex have not
changed. If the area had been considered build able,
it would have been platted that way.
01
Gary and Greta Blamire
4071 Wildridge Road
January 31,2004
To: The Town of Avon, per hand delivery
Att: Town Council, c/o Mr. Buzz Reynolds, Mayor
Copy to: The Planning and Zoning. Commission
?' tf
Ref Lot 30 & Lot 21 - Block 2 - PUD Amendment, Wildridge.
Dear Buzz:
I am writing to express my opposition to the above proposal. My principal reasons areas
follows:
I . I am not prepared to abandon my rights as to development of my property at 45.50
Flat Point without compensation. As you know I built a single family home there
and may well want to expand it to a Duplex at some future date.
2. I question the Developers' assertion that "there exists a level of public support for
this PUD Amendment of Wildridge homeowners that far outweighs public
opposition to it". Who are these supporters and what are their interests.
3. I question the Developers' assertion that this proposal has "Town of Avon - Staff
Support". All I have seen is a hand drawn sketch of some 10 sliver lots on
extremely steep topography with difficult access.
I believe point one above is selfexplanatory. If the Town wants to amend the original
Wildridge Development plan and is prepared to legally protect all my rights, that is
another matter. It is unreasonable to claim that the "Migration of Duplex Units to Single
Family Units" is justification for an increase in density which was not part of the original
intent of the Development. Furthermore, a PUD Amendment as requested may infringe
upon my present and future rights and at the very least may be legally questionable.
The second point raises questions as to the veracity and quality of this proposal.
The last point raises questions about the integrity and quality of Town Staff. I remember
well the trouble I had in building my own home. There was the need to move the
dwelling in order to meet the 35' height limitation, a $15000 escrow requirement for
landscaping to obtain a TCO, setback and snow storage requirements etc. etc., all good
ideas which I complied with willingly. As it subsequently turned out I observed and
began to suspect there was one set of rules for a private builder and another for
Developers. I cannot conceive that Town Staff has any idea how these two lots can
successfully be developed with 10 single dwellings on them while at the same time
meeting all the requirements which were placed upon me and presumably are enshrined
in Town building codes.
2
Z
GI_e-e t
This leads me to the conclusion that if this project were approved these particular
applicants will be back to the Town time and time again with requests for variances
which will be granted because, after all, Town Staff supported this proposal.
In Summary:
This proposal's main premise of claiming other owners' development rights to
circumvent traffic and density concerns is legally questionable.
At least some of the justifications are factually unsupported and throw the veracity of the
entire proposal into question.
The submitted material as to layout, feasibility of construction, elevations, setbacks etc. is
so sketchy that Town Staff could not possibly have rendered a reasoned judgement
supporting this proposal. The question can reasonably be raised, why would they lend
their support if in fact they did.
Lastly, approval of this project would set a precedent which could lead to development of
a number of similar properties within the Development and which would damage its
nature and character irreparably.
Accordingly I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission not
recommend favorably on this application. I also ask Council to deny this application.
Sincerely,
John W. Eschenlohr, ( P.Eng)
This leads me to tie conclusion that if this project were approved these particular
applicants will be tack to the Town time and time again with requests for variances
which will be granted because, after all, Town Staff supported this proposal.
In Summary:
This proposal's main premise of claiming other owners' development rights to
circumvent traffic and density concerns is legally questionable.
At least some of the justifications are factually unsupported and throw the veracity of the
entire proposal into question.
The submitted material as to layout, feasibility of construction, elevations, setbacks etc. is
so sketchy that Town Staff could not possibly have rendered a reasoned judgement
supporting this proposal. The question can reasonably be raised, why would they lend
their support if in fact they did.
Lastly, approval of this project would set a precedent which could lead to development of
a number of similar properties within the Development and which would damage its
nature and character irreparably.
Accordingly I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission not
recommend favorably on this application. I also ask Council to deny this application.,
Sincerely,
John W. Eschenlohr, (P.Eng)
Date: Z/T
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
As a property owner of 3? .a IIZWIZ-a?Ti24t/ I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lots in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative effect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking, snores shoeing and a variety of other recreational
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on Jurc Creek Trail that will result is a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners in this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
February 2, 2004
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Re-zoning lots 21 and 30, Block 2, Wildridge
Planning and Zoning Commission:
I am the owner of 2920A June Creek Trial and I have recently had the
opportunity to review the proposal to re-zone the duplex parcels of lots 21 and
30, Block 2 in Wildridge. Based upon what I have reviewed, I must hereby
formally object to the proposed redevelopment. Unfortunately, I will be
unavailable for the meeting scheduled for February 3, 2004, because I did not
receive notice of the same. However, I` would like my objection noted in the
record on this matter, as an aggrieved and/or affected property owner, so that I
may maintain standing throughout this process.
As a municipal government attorney and a resident of this very peaceful
community, I am extremely concerned about the Town altering the zoning in this
area to benefit a private developer. More specifically, the zoning in the area was
relied upon by many families when they decided to purchase homes on this quiet
street, and the proposed change would be an increase in density which was not
approved at the time we purchased our lots. Obviously, if this re-zoning gains
approval it will have a significant negative impact on my enjoyment of my very
significant investment and I will undoubtedly be damaged.
More importantly, it will adversely impact the quality of life for the many
residents of Wildridge that use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking,
snow shoeing and variety of other recreation pursuits. Not to mention the
increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hardship for all my
neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In consideration of the foregoing, I strongly encourage and implore you to
reject this application in its entirety. Thank you for your time and consideration in
this matter.
Very truly yours,
J. Matthew Mire
(970) 479-2107
Date: 2 2 d
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission n ?}
As a property owner. of fib t l?/Y ge t `? '?' ?Twe) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lots in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation. areas around the lots and
B) The density
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning woudi have a significant negative effect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect thw quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use,June Creek trail for walking, mountain king, snow shoeing and a variety of other recreational
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of trams on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property oars in this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this, matter.
i 6t
l
Date: ?-?
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Comnissioa
As a property owner of ' +? t+? ;C c.c I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of to tz 21 and>30, B ock 2 Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildri@dge, I looked at all available lots in the subdivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved at the time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative effect my (family's)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking, snow shoeing and a variety of other recreational
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a hard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all prorerty owners in this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entiret)e
Thank you for your time and consi&ration in this matter.
Date: j
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission/
Asa property owner of I (we) must voice concern of opposition
to the proposed redevelopment of lots 21 and 30, Block 2 in Wildridge.
When I first sought out a lot (home) in Wildridge, I looked at all available lot in the subdiivision.
When I decided upon my lot, the major considerations in that decision to purchase were:
A) The abundant open space for recreation areas around the lots and
B) The density of about one unit per acre
Now, with this proposal, there would be an increase in density which was not approved act tha time I
purchased my (our) lot. This re-zoning would have a significant negative affect my (fansily`s)
enjoyment of our investment.
More importantly, it will adversely effect the quality of life for the many residents of Wildridge that
use June Creek trail for walking, mountain biking. Snow shoeing and variety of other recreation
pursuits. Not to mention the increase of traffic on June Creek Trail that will result in a heard ship for
all my neighbors in block 2 of the Wildridge subdivision.
In closing, it will set a bad precedent for future re-zoning of other duplex parcels that will negatively
impact the quality of life for all property owners I this great neighborhood. I (we) implore you to
reject this application in its entirety!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer
Date: January 29, 2004
Re: Formations LLC / Plavec PUD Amendment Sketch Plan
(2631 Bear Trap Road & 2967 June Creek Trail)
Summary: Formations LLC/Plavec has submitted application for Subdivision
Sketch Plan approval in conjunction with a PUD Amendment Application for Lots 30 and 21,
Block 2, Wildridge. The proposed PUD Amendment would convert two duplex lots to ten
single-family lots. The Subdivision Sketch Plan Application shows the proposed layout of the
lots, street extension to provide access, and water and sewer service extensions to service the
new lots.
The purpose of the Review is to determine suitability of the sketch plan and establish
guidelines and conditions for proceeding to preliminary plan, or provide reasons for not
proceeding to preliminary plan. Per Section 16.16.030 of the Avon Municipal Code, the
factors to be considered in the review of a subdivision sketch plan are:
A. Conformance with the master plan, policies, guidelines, zoning and other applicable
regulations;
B. Suitability of the land for subdivision;
C. Reports and studies of significant hazards, areas or activities of local interest.
The PUD Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission indicates that Staff does not
believe that the proposed PUD is in conformance with the master plan, policies and guidelines
of the Town as related to the application. Further a review of material submitted with Sketch
Plan / PUD Application indicates that a significant number of modifications or variances will
be required to conform to requirements of the subdivision code. The proposed layout appears
to create at least one lot that consists of slopes 40% and steeper over the entire area. Another
lot is located below the sanitary sewer line creating a sewer service problem for that particular
lot and in addition the only access to this lot appears to be over a 20-foot plus retaining wall.
F:Tlanning & Zoning Commission\.Sta3 Reporfs\2004\020304\L30-2I b2wrsketch-I I .Doe
In summary, we believe the subdivision as proposed is not suitable and should not proceed to
preliminary plan for the following reasons:
1. The proposed PUD Amendment and corresponding Sketch Plan may be incompatible
and inconsistent with the Town's Master Plan, Policies and Guidelines
2. The land is unsuitable for the subdivision as proposed
3. The proposed subdivision creates lots without reasonable access
4. The proposed subdivision creates at least one lot without gravity sewer service
5. The proposed subdivision creates at least one lot with no area having less than a 40%
slope.
6. The proposed subdivision must include Lot 22, Block 2, Wildridge as part of the
application to provide the June Creek Trail Road extension as indicated
7. The proposed subdivision provides an additional drain on the Town's General Fund
with projected annual Property Tax Revenues of $4,640.63 and annual increased
Municipal Services costs $9,385.20 as projected in documentation submitted with the
application.
Note: Other revenues projected in the documentation are one time revenues to off-set
corresponding expenses or are destined to other funds such as the Water or Capital
Improvement Funds which are not applicable to the Town's annual operating costs.
Recommendation: Deny Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed PUD Amendment and corresponding Sketch Plan may be incompatible
and inconsistent with the Town's Master Plan, Policies and Guidelines
2. The land is unsuitable for subdivision as proposed
3. The proposed subdivision creates lots without reasonable access
4. The proposed subdivision creates at least one lot without gravity sewer service
5. The proposed subdivision creates at least one lot with no area having less than a 40%
slope.
6. The proposed subdivision must include Lot 22, Block 2, Wildridge as part of the
application to provide the June Creek Trail Road extension as indicated
7. The proposed subdivision provides an additional drain on the Town's General Fund
with projected annual Property Tax Revenues of $4,640.63 and annual increased
Municipal Services costs $9,385.20 as projected in documentation submitted with the
application.
0 Page 2
Proposed Motion: I move to deny Proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan for
Lot 30 and 21, Block 2 Wildridge, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed PUD Amendment and corresponding Sketch Plan are incompatible and
inconsistent with the Town's Master Plan, Policies and Guidelines
2. The land is unsuitable for subdivision as proposed
3. The proposed subdivision creates lots without reasonable access
4. The proposed subdivision creates at least one lot without gravity sewer service
5. The proposed subdivision creates at least one lot with no area having less than a 40%
slope.
6. The proposed subdivision must include Lot 22, Block 2, Wildridge as part of the
application to provide the June Creek Trail Road extension as indicated
7. The proposed subdivision provides an additional drain on the Town's General Fund
with projected annual Property Tax Revenues of $4,640.63 and annual increased
Municipal Services costs $9,385.20 as projected in documentation submitted with the
application.
Town Manager Comments:
0 Page 3
MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC
MEMO
This memo is in response to the questions of engineering feasibility that are currently at
hand with the Lot 30 and 21 P.U.D. application.
• 10' Front building setbacks are being proposed for all proposed lots to minimize
site disturbance. This has been done on other lots in the Wildridge development
and in compliance to prior meetings with the Town, we believed to be acceptable.
• The two example site plans that have been prepared and are part of your P.U.D.
application are constructible and of adequate preliminary design. The proposed
contours for the individual lot, tie into the proposed contours for the road grading.
• Overall, the proposed road vertical alignment matches the existing road vertical
alignment. The proposed road is graded at 8.5% from the existing cul-de-sac to
match the existing grade at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. The existing
Forest Service has varying grades. The new road will be a constant 8.5 % with a
wider platform than that existing road platform. Marcin Engineering has value-
engineered a horizontal alignment that balances cut and fill.
The lots that are proposed can all be developed in a similar fashion to many other
lots that exist in Wildridge. As common in Wildridge, retaining walls will be
needed in order to match proposed grades around the house(s). Adequate
driveways with turnaround areas will be attainable within these individual site
designs.
• For the proposed lots, the site disturbance associated with each lot will be
approximately 30-35 percent. This is within Town of Avon regulations and are of
equal or less disturbance than existing home sites.
• A final sanitary sewer design has not been completed. However, using common
construction practices, each lot will be able to be serviced with sanitary sewer.
PO Box 1062, Avon Colorado 81620 (970) 748-0274
,32-03-04 16:48 From-OTTEN JOHNSON ROBINSON NEFF & RAGONETTI 303 825 6525
T-643 P.002/005 F-390
OTTEI,T, J03gUgS01,q, RO.SINSON, NEFF & P-ACr0NETT2, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
95005 VENTEENTH STREET
SUITE 1500
DENVER, COLORADO SOZ08
MUNSEY L. AYERS, JR.
DIRECT DIAL (303) 575-7555
MUNSEY@OJRNR.COM
TEI EPHONE 303.825-6400
FAx 303-825.6!S25
W W W.OTTE N JOH NSO N. CO M
February 3, 2004
Formations ;LLC
P.O. Box 2852
Avon, CO 81620
Attention: Shane Bohart
DENVER
ASPEN
STEAM90AT SPRINGS
BRUCE B. JOHNSON
(19aG-2000!
Re: PUD Amendment and Subdivision Sketch Plan Application for Lots 21
and 30, Block 2 Wildridee Subdivision
Dear Shane:
On February 2, 2004, I received copies of two staff reports prepared in connection with
today's Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z") meeting. The first staff report (the "PUD
Report"), prepared by Ruth Borne and hated January, 28, 2004, addresses your application for an
amendment to the Wildridge PUD (the "PUD Amendment Application"). The second staff
report (the "Sketch Plan Report"), prepared by Norm Wood and dated January 29, 2004,
addresses your application for sketch plan approval to subdivide Lot 21 into a total of 5 lots and
to subdivide Lot 30 into a total of 5 lets (the "Sketch Plan Application', Lots 21 and 30 are
referred to in this letter as the "Propert?,_"
This letter analyzes the positions set forth in the PUD Report and the Sketch Plan Report
in terms of the legal standards and requirements that apply to the Town's processing of the PUD
Amendment Application and the Sketch Plan Application, respectively, as described in the Avon
Municipal Code ("AMC"). Due to the limited time available to me for review of the PUD
Report, the Sketch Plan Report, the PUD Amendment Application, the Sketch Plan Application,
and other related materials, and because I have not been involved in the processing of the
applications, this letter will necessarily address issues oD a general rather than highly detailed
level.
As an initial matter, I note that the hearing set for this evening is the first in a series of
procedural steps that will occur before any development pursuant to the PUD Amendment
Application and Sketch Plan Application can occur on the Property. The PUD Amendment
process (a rezoning of the Property) and the subdivision process (creating legally conveyable
lots), while integrally related, are independent multiple-step processes. The subdivision process
in particular involves three steps that involve increasing levels of detail, thus affording both the
Town and the applicant with opportunities to refine and adjust the application in response to
whatever technical issues arise.
Q-03-04 16:48 From-OTTEN JOHNSON ROBINSON NEFF & RAGONETTI 303 825 6525
T-643 P.003/005 F-390
Formations LLC
February 3, 2004
Page 2-
L PUD REPORT.
With respect to the PUD Amendment Application, Town Council must conduct a public
hearing (AMC §§ 17.20.1100.3, 17.28.050, 17.28.060) after receiving a recommendation from
P&Z (AMC § 17.28.050). In reviewing, recommending and issuing a final decision on the PUD
Amendment Application, the same procedures apply as for the processing and approval of an
initial PUD (AMC § 17.20.11 OK I)_ Accordingly, staff, P&Z, and Council must apply the
design criteria set forth in AMC § 1720.110H. The applicant's submittal must meet the
requirements of AMC § 17.20.110D, and the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the
design criteria set forth in AMC § 17.20.11 OH.
The PUD Report acknowledges that the PUD Amendment Application submittal meets
the requirements of AMC § 17.20.110])_ With respect to the design criteria set forth in AMC
§ 17.20.11 OH, the PUD Report recognizes the public benefits of the PUD Amendment
Application and its general compliance with the applicable design criteria. However, it
concludes with a recommendation of denial that is primarily based on subjective statements
regarding the proposal's compatibility with surrounding development within Wildridge. Those
subjective statements are inconsistent with the fact that all of the lots in the immediate vicinity of
the Property are approximately 1 acre or less in land area. In fact, most of the adjacent lots have
a land area of between .5 and .75 acres. The general development pattern within Wildridge is
consistent with lot sizes of approximately 1 acre. Therefore, there is no basis upon which to
rationally conclude that the approximately 1 acre single-family residential lots proposed in the
PUD Amendment Application are incompatible with surrounding single-family residential lots
that aTe also approximately 1 acre in size.
Another underlying theme of the. PUD Report is that the proposed lots contain substantial
areas with slopes of 40% or greater. It is my understanding that there is sufficient land area
along the proposed June Creek Trail extension to provide more than adequate building envelopes
that have slopes of substantially less than 40%. In particular, I note that the "Development
Standards" criteria discussed on pages 5 and 6 of the PUD Report states that "Existing Site >
40% Slope" is 47.3% of the total site area of the Property. It goes on to state that "[a]ll of the
development standards are consistent with the current Town of Avon and Wildridge standards
with the exception of the 10'0" front-yard setback. Therefore, as the PUD Report expressly
acknowledges, the PUD Amendment Application is consistent with the surrounding development
patterns within Wildridge, which contains typical lots of approximately 1 acre in area and which
also have non-buildable areas where slopes exceed 40%.
As for the 10 foot front setback, it is my understanding that staff actually suggested that
you incorporate this reduced setback. In any event, that is a matter that could be adjusted through
the subdivision process and/or as a condition of approving the PUD Amendment Application. It
should not, in and of itself, be an adequate reason for recommending denial.
Based on my review of the PUD Report and other materials that you have provided to
me, it is apparent that the PUD Amendment Application is in material compliance with the
-11 JGI 4rJU4 1 r : Zb 30-33331107' LSC TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 02
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 333-1105
FAX (303) 333-1107
E-mail: (sc@lscdenver.com
Web Site: http://www.Iscdenvercom
I
IC.
Mr. Shane Bohart
Formations, LLC
P.O. Box 2852
Avon, CO 81620
Re: Wildridge PUD Amendment
Lot 30, Lot 21 - Block 2
Avon, Colorado
(LSC #040170)
Dear Shane:
At your request, we have prepared a brief review of the traffic impacts of the Wildridge PUD
Amendment for Lot 30, lot 21-Block 2 in Avon, Colorado. This proposal adds seven additional
single-family dwelling units in the Wildridge development. This report evaluates the trip
generation and average daily traffic impacts of this proposal.
Site Location
The Wildridge development is located in northwestern Avon, north of Notthingham Road, near
Metcalf Road and Wildwood Drive.' All traffic to and from the site must use Metcalf and
Nottingham Roads.
Trip Generation Estimates
The Wildridge PUD Amendment will add seven single-family dwelling units to the area. Trip
expected to be generated by the development have been estimated using data from 7`r-ip
Generation, 71 edition (2003), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),
which is the standard used by the Town of Avon for its planning activities. These estimates
are shown in Table 1, The site is expected to generate approximately 67 vehicle-trips on an
average weekday, with five trips occurring during the morning peak-hour and eight trips
during the evening peak-hour.
It should be noted that the ITE rates are based on studies performed in predominantly
suburban settings. The Town of Avon is located in a mountain resort area where there is a
high percentage (15 - 30 percent) of second homes. The above estimates, therefore, should be
considered conservativel.
January 29, 2004
R-03-04 16:48 From-OTTEN JOHNSON ROBINSON NEFF & RAGONETTI 303 826 6525
T-643 P.004/005 F-390
Formations LLC
February 3, 2004
Page 3
applicable design criteria as set forth in AMC § 17.20.1 1 QH. In fact, in the "Staff Comments &
Recommendation" section of the PUD Report, it is apparent that staff's real concern with the
PUD Amendment Application is that it does not perceive there to be a policy direction from
Council for "any type of upzoning and splitting of development rights without legislation being
created to do otherwise." For that reason, staff has expressed concern with setting precedent by
recommending approval of the PUD Amendment Application.
This concern disregards the fact that Council has, through its adoption of the existing
PUD amendment procedures set forth ill the AMC, legislatively implemented its policy decision
to allow amendments to existing PUDs that include, among other things, modifying
b previously
approved densities. Moreover, Council's action in approving the PUD Amendment Application,
should it ultimately choose to do so, will be a legislative decision in the form of an ordinance.
For example, in Ordinance No. 01-17, Series of 2001, Council approved an amendment to the
Wildridge PUD for Lot 12, Block 4, which had the effect of increasing the development rights
from single-family to duplex. This not only illustrates the point that there is a legislatively
enacted policy in effect, which is implemented by an additional legislative approval in a given
case, it also demonstrates that approval of the PUD Amendment Application would not establish
any precedent with respect to this issue. In fact, it would simply be the implementation of an
existing policy on PUD amendments, and would be consistent with similar actions that Council
has taken in years past.
2. SKETCH PLAN REPORT.
The subdivision process consists of three steps, of which the sketch plan process is the
first. It is followed by the preliminary flan and the final plat. (AMC Title 16). In reviewing the
Sketch Plan Application, Town Council trust review the application to "determine the suitability
of the sketch plan and establish guidelines and conditions for proceeding to preliminary plan, or
provide reasons for not proceeding to preliminary plan." (AMC § 16.16.040). The review
criteria are set forth in AMC § 16.16.030, and are discussed in the Sketch Plan Report, which
recommends denial. That recommendation is based entirely on two premises, neither of which
are valid.
First, the Sketch Plan Report incorporates the PUD Report's conclusion that the PUD
Amendment Application is not consistent with the 'master plan, policies and guidelines of the
Town_ It provides no additional analysis in support of that conclusion. As discussed above, that
conclusion as expressed in the PUD Report is erroneous and is not supported by the facts.
Without restating all of the foregoing section here, the assertion that the PUD Amendment
Application is not compatible with the surrounding development patterns is not supported by the
sizes and glades of other lots within the Wildridge subdivision, and there are existing Town
policies in place for amending PUI)s in the manner requested by the PUD Amendment
Application.
Second, the Sketcb Plan Report identifies a handful of technical issues that might require
modifications or variances in order to conform 10 requirements of the subdivision regulations.
02-03-04 16:49 From-OTTEN JOHNSON ROBINSON NEFF & RAGONETTI 303 825 6525
T-643 P.005/005 F-390
Formations LLC
February 3, 2004
Page 4
These include the possibility that one lot has no area of less than 40% slope (it is my
understanding that this is not an accurate statement), the provision of sanitary sewer (by non-
Gravity flow means) to one of the proposed lots, and access to the same lot. These are precisely
the kind of technical issues that can and should be addressed through the more detailed
engineering work that will accompany the preliminary plan and final plat applications.
Responding to these concerns in that process may result in a modification to the plan that
reconfigures or eliminates one or mores of the proposed lots, or it may result in a technical
solution that satisfies the Town's subdivision regulations. In any case, it is inappropriate to
recommend denial of the Sketch Plan Application rather than recommending approval with
appropriate conditions that will direct the applicant toward further refinements in the plan during
the review process for the preliminary plan and final plat, fn short, there is every reason to
expect that the technical issues raised in the Sketch Plan Report can and will be resolved in the
subsequent processes.
Finally, the Sketch Plan Report recommendation of denial is also based on the assertion
that the cost of Municipal Services will exceed the Property Tax Revenues. I note that such a
fiscal analysis is not part of the review criteria under the AMC, and is for that reason
inappropriate to consider in the context of this review process. However, it is also my
understanding that you are willing to voluntarily address this issue by imposing private
covenants on the Property that will ensure the Town that development in accordance with the
PUD Amendment Application and the Sketch Plan Application will not result in negative general
fund revenue to the Town.
3. CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, I see no basis in the PUD Amendment Report or in the Sketch Plan Report
for staff or P&Z to recorrunend denial of either application. While there are a handful of
technical issues to be resolved, there is no indication that those issues are of a nature that would
preclude their successful resolution through the preliminary plan and final plat processes- In
fact, they are precisely the kind of technical issues that are typically the subject of further
refinement during those processes as the level of engineering detail increases.
B - egar
Munsey L, yers, Jr.
for
OTrsN, JOHNSON,i BINSON,
NEFF & RAcoNErr>., P.C.
MLA/abm
609334,1
-ti JU; 4UU4 j(:15 J033331107 LSC TRANSPORTATION
i ? . PAGE 03
Mr. Shane Bohart Page 2 January* 29, 2004
Average Daily Traffic Impacts
Figure 1 illustrates comparative average daily traffic volumes for 1990 (taken from the Felsburg
Holt & Ullevig Avon Transportation Plan, 1991) and 2003 (based on counts taken in July, 2003
by TDA). Traffic on Metcalf Road has actually decreased (4,000 vpd in 1990 to 3,750 in 2003)
while traffic on Nottingham Road has increased by about 50 percent (4,000 in 1990 to 6,020
in 2003).
Figure 2 illustrates the impacts of the Wildridge PUD Amendment on existing traffic. The
addition of 67 vehicles per day will increase average weekday traffic by 1.79 percent on Metcalf
Road and 1. 1,1 percent on Notthingham Road.
Summary and Conclusions
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Wildridge PUD Amendment is expected to have negligible
impact on the surrounding roadway Wildridge network, including Metcalf Road and Notting-
ham Road.
We trust this information will assist you in planning for the Wildridge PUD Amendment.
Please call if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
LSC Transportation Consultants,
By: V, son
Alex J. ATo , P.E., P.T.O.E
AJA/ we
Enclosures: Table 1.
Figures 1 and 2
\\Server\d\LSC\Ftn*cs\2004\040170\F-Wi dridRexpd
01/30/2004 17:28 3033331107 LSC TRANSPORTATION PAGE 04
N
U
Q
m
2 r
p N .?
1- O
J Q
N
z w $ N
W o
r- (a --i m
G c
L
L m V O
E oO
Qa
ui a ?
.
a co
?- m
LU
- cq
Q
? ;
O ;I
cV
p N Lo
O ?
C
(D
O
Z ?
O 3
F- to
?
4J d r
V ? [
-
G Q
N
? In r
C?
Y
Q
W
X O
0
lid
b
O
i
c co
N (L O
a O a iD N
O
fia X
m O
c CL rn
w
4)
O 2
<t s o n
? RS N
` Y L
Q y LU
c
v '
m
o
_
a=
?o
Q o ro ?
w
Q ?
N LL
C ?
C C
_
V) O
O o
O
C N
0
,.
O O
C7 Z
U ro ai . C
a ?1
v ro -? n
c LL = Lu
C/)
c
V) O N
°r
bl!30/2004 17:28
303333110!
LSC TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 05
It%
m
a
it
`
m
cD ® L
or
m ? H
N\l
u z o _
Page 9
01/30;'2004 17:28 3033331107 LSC TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 06
Dec-10-03 01:24P Town oP Avon 970 748 1969 P.02
G
4
p
(D
O
tx
m
CL
01!30;''2004 1,7:28 3033331107 LSC TRANSPORTATION PAGE 07
K
^o
e
Il
N
P2l UOAV
0
k
iz?
a
N
0 a
t0 E m
?-1
u
a? ? f
3 ?
? O w
cn c
m u
E
?- E p
h
M
n L
Cn
m
n ?
W ?O
tD
p
U-1 O v
-I M &
x
s
01%30%2004 17:23 3033331107 LSC TRANSPORTATION PAGE 02
N U s
CV 8
?a
Q
?Q
b
v
PN «Ony
O
0
0
0
o
c: oc
3 ?
o`
00
N ?
O \
h
O
M
O d
o ?
? II
p O
in
-z
w m
a
w °
d
J P
4
K
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager j?
From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development
Dab-- February 5, 2004
Re: Community Development Update
We will provide an overview of upcoming projects and developments we are reviewing.
Some of the projects include the following:
VAA Wal-Mart storage area
• Chapel Square - Office Depot
• City Market remodel
0 Folsom property
If you have any additional discussion items, please let me know and I will provide an
update accordingly.
Comp Update February 10, 2004
TOWN OF AVON
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 10, 2004 - 5:30 PM
MEETING TO BE HELD AT AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD, AVON, CO
Call to Order/ Roll Call
2. Citizen Input
3. Ordinances
Second Reading & Public Hearing
a. Ordinance No. 04-01, Series of 2004, second reading, an Ordinance approving the
Lot 61 Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (Tambi Katieb/ Norm
Wood) - A new PUD plan that establishes a reconfigured development site at 75
Benchmark Road, a dedication of right-of-way to the Town, provisions for a
Transportation Hub and development standards specifying new densities & permitted
uses.
4. Resolutions
a. Resolution No. 04-05, Series of 2004, A Resolution approving the Final Plat, A
Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado, located at 75 Benchmark Road (Norm Wood)
Public Hearing
b. Resolution No. 04-06, Series of 2004, A Resolution approving the Preliminary Plan &
Final Plat for a Resubdivision of Lot 61, a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, located at 75 Benchmark
Road (Norm Wood)
Ordinances - continued
First Reading
a. Ordinance No. 04-02, Series of 2004, First Reading, An Ordinance approving an
Amendment to the Wildridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lots 21 and 30,
Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (Ruth Borne)
Located at 2631 Bear Trap Road & 2967 June Creek Trail, Applicants Formations
LLC & George Plavec are seeking PUD Amendment to the Wildridge PUD for
creating 10-single family lots in Wildridge.
Resolutions - continued
b. Resolution No. 04-07, Series of 2004, A Resolution to amend 2004 Budget
(Scott Wright) - Budget amendments are proposed to General Fund, Transit
Enterprise Fund, Fleet Maintenance Fund and Equipment Replacement Fund for
various changes since the 2004 budget was adopted in November 2003.
5. New Business
6. Other Business
7. Unfinished Business
8. Town Manager Report
9. Town Attorney Report
10. Mayor Report
Avon Council Meeting.04.02.10
TOWN OF AVON
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 10, 2004
Agenda Continued
11. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of the January 27, 2004 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
b. Great Race Pit Stop Car Race Contract (Fraidy Aber)
12. Adjournment
Avon Council Meeting.04.02.10
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
From: Tambi Katieb - Community Developme
Norman Wood- Town Engineer
Date February 4, 2004
Re: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04-01 approving the Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan and Development Agreement (PUBLIC HEARING)
Summary:
IDG3 LLC, the Owner of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision has
been working with staff over the last year on finalizing a new PUD Development Plan
for Lot 61 as part of an extension of the original PUD development rights. This new
PUD plan establishes a reconfigured development site, a dedication of right-of-way to
the Town (Benchmark Court), provisions for a Transportation Hub and development
standards specifying new densities and permitted uses.
At your last meeting on January 27, 2004, the Lot 61 PUD application was approved
on first reading. Accompanying this PUD application are two subdivision applications:
one which approves the new surface lot configuration and Right-of-Way dedication,
and the other which defines the below and above grade buildable areas.
Council approved the original Lot 61 PUD in 1999 through Ordinance 99-16. In 2001,
the Town adopted a sub-area plan entitled the Town Center Implementation Plan,
which established specific goals of development for this critical part of Town as it
relates to long-term public improvements.
The new PUD Development Plan and accompanying development agreement set
forth basic development objectives that Town staff and the applicant have concluded
as mutually beneficial. The proposed development standards reflect a thorough
analysis by the Town's financial consultant (Stan Bernstein and Associates), and set
both minimums and maximums of development consistent with these financial
projections.
On January 6, 2004 the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
Lot 61 PUD Development Plan with conditions as set forth in Resolution 04-03.
This process has been a groundbreaking endeavor between the Owner and the Town
to create a development plan and agreement, which include both private and public
benefits.
The Owner is receiving a greatly enhanced development package and the Town is
receiving an expanded transportation center location and improved road and
circulation system. The PUD Development Plan is consistent with the goals of
vitalizing Town Center, enhancing the Town transportation system and physically
achieving a logical and desired connectivity to the Confluence site.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 04-01 on second reading. This approval
should only be in conjunction with approval of the two accompanying subdivision
applications.
Recommend Motion:
" I move to approve Ordinance 04-01 on second reading, approving the Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan and Development Agreement for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision".
Town Manager Comments:.
1 a?^
Exhibits:
A. Staff Report to Planning & Zoning Commission (January 6, 2004 hearing)
B. Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 04-03
C. Town Council Ordinance 04-01 approving the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan
and Development Agreement.
D. Letter from Mark Donaldson dated January 13, 2004
E. Letter from Johnson & Repucci LLP dated January 12, 2004
F. Letter from IDG 3 LLC dated January 22, 2004
G. Letter from Mark Davis dated January 29, 2004 (new)
Lot 61 PUD, Lot 61, Block 2, BMBC Subdivision
Second Reading of Ordinance 04-01, February 10, 2004 (PUBLIC HEARING)
2
Staff Report
PUD VON
January 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Current zoning
Address
Introduction
E applicant to work through the development standards, development agreement and finalize the
December 28, 2003
Lot 61 PUD
Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Planned Unit Development
75 Benchmark Road
The purpose of the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan (herein referred to as "Lot 61 PUD") is to
formalize the new building area, including development standards for Lot 61 and.the
corresponding road alignments and transit center. The PUD for Lot 61 has been extended twice
to allow time to evaluate development opportunities for implementation of the Town Center Plan
between the Town and the developer. The current Lot 61 PUD is valid until February 3, 2004.
On December 16, 2003 this application was tabled to allow additional time for staff and
plans. There are a few remaining issues regarding the development standards and the revised
application received on January 31, 2004.
The most significant elements contained in the new development plan benefiting the Town are as
follows:
• 50'0" right-of-way dedication for the new Benchmark Road alignment to the Town of
Avon.
• Transit center to accommodate five (5) buses at a time with a 300 sq.ft.
administrative/visitor center.
• Enhanced pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
• Implementation of significant master plan concepts of the Town Center Plan.
In exchange, Lot 61 is receiving the following:
• Timeshare as a use-by-right.
• Increased building height, setbacks, site coverage, and. density.
The history of the zoning approval for Lot 61, Block 2, BMBC submitted by the developer,
IDG3 LLC is as follows:
1978 Lot 61 zoned Town Center.
1991 Town Center zoning modified.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030
Fax (970) 949-5749
'}-,
y 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 2 of 8
1999 Lot 61 applied for PUD zoning as set forth in Ordinance 99-16 (July 27, 1999)
which had a 3-year approval.
2002 Town Center Implementation Plan was adopted on January 8, 2001 (Resolution
02-01).
2002 PUD extension for a 6-month time period was granted to explore planning and
development of the Town Center Plan on July 23, 2002 (Ordinance 02-17).
2003 In January, a PUD extension for one year was granted to allow the developer time
to pursue implementation of the Town Center Plan on January 28, 2003
(Ordinance 03-01).
2003 In July, Council authorized funds be allocated to begin initial studies for the new
property boundaries and road alignment.
Over the past few months, staff has met with the developer and its representatives, including the
Community Development Committee to arrive at a development plan that includes the
im
plementation of the Town Center Plan in accordance with the existing PUD approval. The
development plan that accommodates W,4???
preserving pedestrian connections with the Confluence, and a new 50'0" right of way for
Benchmark Road.
On December 9, 2003 Town Council reviewed the initial fiscal analysis of the Lot 61
development agreement prepared by Stan Bernstein, the Town's financial consultant. Of utmost
importance was the implication of timeshare as a use-by-right, including the imposition of a
recreational amenity fee to offset the impact of timeshare units. Council endorsed moving
forward with the process, including the refinement of the financial model to reflect the
contemplated land entitlements.
PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zonin Code, Section 17.20.110, the following shall be used as
the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate
that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following
design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular
development solution is consistent with the public interest.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
The proposed PUD now complies with the Town Center Plan and conforms to the following
goals and polices of the Town Comprehensive Dian:
Policy A1.3 Flexible zoning such as PUD should be encouraged where it results in
more effective use of land
The planning process with staff and the developer for Lot 61 is a new
process for the Town and incorporates flexible zoning to benefit both
public and private sectors.
Policy A3.5 Since undeveloped land in the Town Center is scarce, it will be developed
at higher density, included vertically integrated mix of commercial and
residential uses, and rely primarily on underground and/or structured
parking
Town of Avon Community Development 0
(970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 01, block 1, BMBC Subdivision, Lot 61 PUD 2004
January 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 3 of 8
The underground parking structure for this project extends under the
Town right of way to allow for more parking and does not preclude the
• opportunityfor a private/public partnership for parking improvements and
includes a higher density mixed -use development.
Goal B I Enhance the Town's role as a principal, year-round residential community
and regional commercial center
This development plan will help vitalize Town Center with a more efficient
transit hub to encourage year-round use of mass transit and pedestrian
circulation for its citizens, which is further reinforced by the following
policy B1.2.
Policy B 1.2 Commercial areas will be supported through creation and maintenance of
effective vehicle access and parking, transit services, all-season pedestrian
and non-motorized vehicle access, and consistent application of design
- eta,,.jarrlc
Goal B2 Establish the Town Center Area as an inviting, vibrant and safe-pedestrian
oriented cultural, retail and entertainment hub
The purpose of the Town Center Plan is to further enhance a vibrant hub
in Town Center, which has been implemented in the Lot 61 development
plan.
Policy B2.2 Encourage a range of uses in the Town Center, including retail, offices,
hotels, recreation, tourism, and entertainment
• The Lot 61 development plan will include a range of uses and special
review uses.
Policy B2.4 Encourage joint development of structured parking, pedestrian and
landscape improvements, and promotion of activities and events in the
Town Center
This is a joint development, which benefits both the developer and the
Town to help synergize Town Center.
Policy B3.2 Promote effective transit and access with Beaver Creek and Arrowhead
Resorts, including gondola connections, trails, and pedestrian connections
The revised property lines and pedestrian connections will promote transit
and access to include potential opportunities for accessing the Confluence
site and gondola.
Policy EL6 All new development and redevelopment should include or otherwise
provide for effective transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
This new development plan includes plans for effective transit, and
enhances pedestrian circulation.
Policy E2.1 Joint development of a structured parking facility in Town Center to
support private and public uses should be pursued to the extent possible
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030
Fax (970) 949-5749
1T
January 6, 2004
& Zoning Commission meetir
4 of 8
The joint planning for Lot 61 includes structured parking on the Town
right-of-way and does not preclude the potential for a shared parking
facility. At a minimum, the Town and developer are moving forward in a
joint effort to support Town Center development. ,
Goal E3 Promote the development of an enhanced transit system for the Town
The revised transit plan accommodates more buses and will improve' the
effectiveness of mass transit in the Town
Policy E3.2 Maintain the existing regional and Town-wide bus system, and enhance as
necessary to provide services to the community as it grows
The new transit hub contained on the Lot 61 development plan
accommodates the existing service demands for the ECO bus system as
well as the Town-wide system.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town the sub-area
design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
The development plan for Lot 61 is limited in scope and defines building setback, density,
heights and new property boundaries. Previously, management indicated concerns that the
development standards provided too much flexibility to recommend the proposal to
constitute a site-specific development plan without complying with the financial model. As a
result, staff has refined the development standards to ensure the proposed uses are specific
enough to constitute a site-specific development plan consistent with the financial model.
In addition, design guidelines are set forth in the Town Center Plan, which must be fulfilled
as the project moves through the design review process. These additional considerations
include: active street frontages, suggested access points, required pedestrian walkways
(which have been provided for), and other site planning and architectural considerations.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
The new property boundaries for Lot 61 include criteria established in the Town Center Plan,
such as 10'0" minimum sidewalks, new Benchmark Road alignment, requirements for
stepping the building as it increases in height, clearances to accommodate a transit center
while maintaining effective pedestrian movement in exchange for increased height, new
development standards, and effective orientation on the site.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
The new development standards for this mixed-use project combined with the new transit
center will enhance the vitality and efficiency of Town Center.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
There are no known natural and/or geologic hazards on Lot 61 at this time. A Subdivision
Improvement Agreement may be required to ensure there are no unforeseen natural or
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030
Fax (970) 949-5749
•
•
L -. -, L,vL.n .4, ,j1Y1Dt- Ouoarvision, Lot 61 PUD 2004
January 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 5 of 8
geologic hazards, specifically at it relates to infrastructure improvements such as water,
sewer, and/or drainage associated with this development.
• 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.
The proposed development plan for Lot 61 is more responsive to improving the aesthetic
quality of Town Center. The Planning & Zoning Commission will further clarify the
building design through implementation of the Town Center design guidelines, and design
review.
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.
The Town Center Plan and the Town Transportation Plan have been considered and
implemented in this development plan and improves the circulation for pedestrians, mass
S. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views and function.
Specific provisions for allowing the building to encroach onto Town right-of-way and in
other areas to step back from pedestrian ways have been carefully considered and
implemented with this development plan to optimize and preserve views and overall
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.
There is no phasing plan proposed by this PUD. There will be timing requirements set forth
in the development agreement to allow the developer and/or the Town time to exercise their
rights for construction.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
IDG3 LLC will be responsible for the acquisition of additional water rights and their
subsequent dedication to the Town if needed to amend the Town's Augmentation Plan.
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.
The new 50'0" road right-of-way alignment and transit center provisions improve the overall
adequacy, carrying capacity, and mobility patterns of Town Center.
12. Development Standards
The Development Standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density
control, site coverage, landscaping and parking are being modified with this proposal and are
proposed as follows:
0
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030
Fax (970) 949-5749
_? - 4?.+¦.,a,vu, i vi oI rUU LVU4
January 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 6 of 8
a. Uses bv-ri?ht.
• Retail stores
• Specialty shops ,
Restaurants, excluding drive-thru windows
Cocktail lounges
Personal service shops
• Timeshare, interval ownership, and fractional fee ownership above grade
with the condition that recreational amenity fees are paid - the terms and
conditions of which will be negotiated with the development agreement.
Staff recommends a minimum of 150-timeshare, interval ownership, or
fractional fees units with a minimum of 900 net sq. ft each to comply with
the premise of the financial analysis. The applicant is seeking a minimum
0 125-units.
• Hotel/accommodation units on floors above grade. Staff is recommending
a minimum of 200 accommodation units and the applicant is seeking to
limit the minimum to 180 units.
¦ Condominiums on floors above grade. Staff is recommending a minimum
of 125 units @ 1, 250 net sq. ft. to comply with the financial model and the
applicant is seeking a minimum of 90-condominium units 1, 250 net sgft.
¦ Indoor recreation and/or entertainment facilities
¦ Theaters
• Public transportation facilities including 300 S.F. transit/administrative .
office at grade, immediately adjacent to transit center. Staff is
recommending that these transportation facilities include public restroom
facilities.
¦ A minimum of 17,000 square feet of commercial/retail space. Staffis
recommending an additional requirement that this minimum not include
personal service shops to ensure tax revenues on the minimum
requirement on the commercial/retail space. The revised application
dated 12131103 does not comply with this recommendation.
b. Special Review Uses:
Conference/convention facilities
Above ground public utility installations
Professional offices on grade.
Public parking facilities
Medical Facilities
Financial Institutions
Additional uses to be determined similar to the allowed uses in accordance
with the same zone district. As this is a PUD with no specific uses, staff
would prefer to restrict the development standards to the enumerated uses.
Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030
Fax (970) 949-5749
0
Lot 61, Block 2, BMBC Subdivision, Lot 61 PUD 2004
January 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 8
c. Development Standards
Lot Area 1.07 Acres
Projections such as columns, roofs, unendosed floors and decks may
encroach into setbacks and/or right of ways with specific Town of
Avon design review approval
Building Height A height, as defined by The Town of Avon Title 17,
Chapter 17.08, Section 160, of 108.5'. This height
shall be to the top of roof structures over enclosed,
habitable space. Elevator penthouses, chimneys,
parapets and similar appurtenances shall be allowed
to exceed this datum
Maximum Density:
Commercial /retail 40,000 sq.ft.
Condominium 330,000 sq.ft.
Timeshare/Interval 330,000 sq.ft.
Accommodation Units 375 units
Landscape/Hardscape Coverage: Shall be determined during the design
review process.
d. ParkiDg: All parking shall comply with the Lot 61 PUD Development Agreement.
Staff has consistently requested the Avon Municipal Code parking standards be
• implemented. The applicant is still seeking rebates and a reduction in parking
under the Development Agreement.
e. Provisions for stepping back the building as it increases in height on the Town
Center (north elevation). There are also encroachments authorizing the building
over the transit center (south elevation) and over the new Benchmark Road right-
of-way alignment enhancing the density and architectural interest for IDG3 LLC as
set forth in the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan.
Staff Comments & Recommendation
Although some outstanding issues remain with the revised application associated with the
development standards and corresponding development agreement for the Lot 61 PUD
Development, it is staff's position these are policy and legislative decisions, which rests with the
Avon Town Council. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Resolution 04-03 for the Lot 61
PUD Development Plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. The new Benchmark Road alignment (50'0" Benchmark Court Right-of Way) must
be conveyed by subdivision plat prior to approval of the Lot 61 PUD Development
Plan.
2. Development Standards shall be as follows:
• A minimum of 150-timeshare, interval ownership, and fractional fee
ownerships units @ 900 net sq.ft. above grade including a recreational
amenity fees.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
January 6, 2004 Plann
& Zoning Commission meeth
8 of 8
• A minimum of 125 condominium units above grade @ 1,250 net sq.ft.
• A minimum of 200 hotel/accommodation units above grade
• Public transportation facilities including 300 S.F. transit/administrative
offices and public restroom facilities at grade, immediately adjacent to
transit center.
• A minimum of 17,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, which does
not include personal service shops.
• All parking shall comply with the Avon Municipal Code parking
standards.
3. A requirement that the developer will be responsible for the acquisition of additional
water rights and their subsequent dedication to the Town if necessary to amend the
Town's Augmentation Plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
Town Center design guidelines of the site-specific development plan by January 31,
2012 shall automatically terminate these development standards and conditions.
5. This PUD is contingent upon a valid Development Agreement between IDG3 LLC
and the Town of Avon being approved.
6. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made by
the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s)
shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
Recommended Motion •
"I hereby approve Resolution 04-03 recommend approval of the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan
subject to the conditions contained therein."
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-
4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
uth O. borne, Director
Community Development
Town of Avon Community Development
(970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
E
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 04-03
SERIES OF 2004
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
AVON APPROVAL OF A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 61, BLOCK 2,
COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Applicant, IDG3 LLC has applied for approval of the Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, after notices required by law, a public hearing on said application was held by
the Planning. & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, said application is consistent with all legal requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereb
recommends approval to the Town Council of the Town of Avon for the Lot 61 PUD y
Development Plan dated January 2, 2003 with the following conditions:
1. The new Benchmark Road alignment (50'0" Benchmark Court Right-of Way) must be
conveyed by subdivision plat prior to approval of the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan.
2. Development Standards shall be as follows:
• A minimum of 150-timeshare, interval ownership, and fractional fee ownerships
units @ 900 net sq.ft. above grade including a recreational amenity fees.
• A minimum of 125 condominium units above grade @ 1,250 net sq.ft.
• A minimum of 200 hotel/accommodation units above grade.
• Public transportation facilities including 300 S.F. transit/administrative offices
and public restroom facilities at grade, immediately adjacent to transit center.
• A minimum of 17,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, which does not
include personal service shops.
All parking shall comply with the Avon Municipal Code parking standards.
3. This PUD Amendment is contingent upon a valid Development A eemen ,
IDG3 LLC and the Town of Avon being approved. t between
4. If necessary, IDG3 LLC will be responsible for the acquisition of additional water rights
and their subsequent dedication to the Town prior to issuance of a building pen-nit to
amend the Town's Augmentation Plan.
5. Failure to develop and obtain final design approval, including compliance with the Town
Center design guidelines of the site-specific development plan by January 31, 2012 shall
automatically terminate these development standards and conditions.
6.: Except as otherwise modified by this approval; all material representations made by the
be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. P e s . s
Adopted this 6th day of January, 2003
Signed.-
Date:
Chris.Evans, Chairman
Attest:
Date:
Terry Smith, ecretary
•
E
\v
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 04-O1
SERIES OF 2004
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE LOT 61 PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR LOT 61, BLOCK 23,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN
OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Owner, IDG3 LLC, has applied for approval of a Planned Unit
Development ("PUD') Plan for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Town and the Owner have negotiated the terms and conditions of the
Development Agreement for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
("Agreement'), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
hearing on January 6, 2004, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity
to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed
PUD Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendations on the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan to the Town Council of
the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
day of , 2004, at which time the public was given an opportunity to
express their opinions regarding the proposed PUD Development Plan; and
i
FACounci1\0rdinances\2004\0rd 04-01 L61 B2 BMBC PUD.doc
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Avon, Town Council of the Town of Avon finds as follows:
1. The hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council
were both extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues
were submitted at those hearings.
2. That the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan is consistent with the recently adopted
Town Center Plan, the goals and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive Plan,
and is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and the public interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
The Lot 61 PUD Development Plan and Development Agreement is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. If necessary, IDG3 LLC will be responsible for the acquisition of additional water rights
and their subsequent dedication to the Town, as required by Section 17.14. 100 of the
Avon Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building permit to amend the Town's
Augmentation Plan.
2. The Lot 61 PUD Development Plan constitutes a site-specific development plan and is
required to complete subsequent design review approval, which consists of compliance
with the Town Center Design Guidelines and the Town of Avon Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines.
3. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made by the
applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall
be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED, this day of , 2004, and a public hearing shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, on the
day of,
, 2004, at 5:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon, Colorado.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
FACounciAOrdinances\20041Ord 04-01 L61 B2 BMBC PUD.doc
11
.7
•
\A
ATTEST: Mayor
Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED the day of 92004.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
ATTEST:
•
Town Clerk
•
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
FACounci1\0rdinances\2004\0rd 04-01 L61 B2 BMBC PUD.doc
G,
Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 04-01
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as
of January , 2004 by and between IDG3, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, its
successors and/or assigns (hereinafter "Owner") and the Town of Avon, a municipal
corporation of the State of Colorado (the "Town").
RECITALS:
A. Owner is a limited liability company, duly organized and in good standing
under the laws of the State of Colorado.
B. Owner owns a parcel of real property generally referred to as "Lot 61" as
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached to this agreement ("Lot
61 ").
C. The Town and the Owner desire to develop Lot 61 as a mixed-use
development consistent with the Avon Town Center Implementation Plan
thereby creating new property lines for Lot 61, development standards, rights-
of-way and a transportation center. This new parcel is referred to as the
"Property"
D. The Property contains specific development standards attached and
incorporated herein as a site-specific development plan entitled "Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan" (Exhibit "B") and as set forth in Article III of this
Agreement.
E. The Town has authority to zone and govern development of the Property in
accordance with this Agreement, the Avon Comprehensive Plan, The Avon
Town Center Implementation Plan, The Avon Municipal Code, and the Lot 61
PUD (as defined herein), and other applicable Town requirements and polices.
F. In order to ensure orderly controlled development by establishing minimum
design standards, including streets and other forms of vehicular and pedestrian
access, drainage, water supply and sanitation improvements to support human
occupation, it is necessary to require subdivision consistent with Title 16,
Avon Municipal Code.
G. The Property includes specific design requirements as set forth by the Town
Center Implementation Plan, which is further defined and supported by the
Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desivrn Review
Guidelines. Specifically, the project will comply to the following general
design intentions:
¦ Building facades will be stepped to avoid long straight walls. All sides of
the building must receive equal architectural treatment.
¦ The building will be designed as a composition of architectural elements
rather than larger single blocks that appear unrelated in form and context.
¦ The street-level architecture will activate and enhance pedestrian activity
on Main Street (the mall level), encouraging a lively center of retail
activity year round.
Additionally, the project will comply with the following site-specific
guidelines:
Articulation of building facades:
Building facades should be articulated with variations in materials and
punctuated with intermediate roof forms and building projections. Varying
expressions of decks, windows and surface treatments should be combined
to create a rich texture that will enhance the interest of the facades. The
three primary components of the building's base, body and top should be
clearly and deliberately expressed. The building's base should express
mass and support with the use of such materials as stone and architectural
concrete.
The "body" of the building should begin to erode materials that express
mass to lighter materials and more openings and surface variations such as
decks and changes in wall plane. Roofs should be proportional to the
height and scale of the various building elevations.
The east end of the primary roof(s) and upper portion of the walls shall be
articulated so as to minimize their visual impact to surrounding properties
which may include the use of decks and the lowering of roof lines.
Roofs at north property line:
In addition to the suggested wall treatments noted above, these roofs
should be adequately varied to avoid uninterrupted flat roofs.
Approximately 50% of the elevation above 28' above grade shall be
articulated through the introduction of discontinuous roof forms such as
gables perpendicular to the wall plane and variations in roof edges,
relative to the setback line.
H. The legislature of the State of Colorado adopted Sections 24-68-101, et seq. of
the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Vested Property Rights Statute") to
provide for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure
reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process
and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment
backed expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public
2
and private sectors in the area of land use planning; said Vested Property
Rights Statute authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with
landowners providing for vesting of property development rights.
L Consistent with the Vested Property Rights Statute, Chapter 17.14 of the
Municipal Code authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements
with landowners and other qualified applicants providing for the vesting of
property development rights.
J. Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide
for o rderly growth i n accordance w ith t he p olicy and goals se t f orth i n t he
Comprehensive Plan, the Avon Town Center Implementation Plan, ensure
reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process,
stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment-backed
expectations of Owner, foster cooperation between the public and private
sectors in the area of land use planning, and otherwise achieve the goals and
purposes for which the Vested Property Rights Statute and Chapter 17.14 of
the Municipal Code were enacted. In exchange for these benefits and the other
benefits to the Town contemplated by this Agreement, together with the
public benefits served by the orderly development of the Property, Owner
desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the
Property pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the terms,
conditions and covenants set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner and
the Town agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.0 Definitions. The following terms and references shall have the meaning set forth
below unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates otherwise:
1.1 Comprehensive Plan. The Avon Comprehensive Plan adopted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town on November 5, 1996, or any
subsequent duly adopted plans or amendments thereto.
1.2 Development Standards. As set forth in Exhibit "B" entitled "Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan" incorporated herein and further defined in Sections 3.2 of
this Agreement.
3
IR
1.3 Effective Date. The effective date of the Town Council Ordinance approving
this Agreement and the recording of the relevant subdivisions referenced
herein with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado.
1.4 Exhibits. The following are Exhibits to this Agreement, all of which are
incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement:
Exhibit A Legal Description of Lot 61
Exhibit B Lot 61 PUD Development Plan, including Benchmark
Court Right of Way and Transportation Center location
1.5 Lodging Tax. For purposes of this Agreement, Lodging Tax shall mean any
municipal lodging or accommodations tax imposed by the Town pursuant to
Ch. 3.28, Avon Municipal Code or any similar code provision enacted during
the T erm o f t his A greement u pon a ny s ales o r rental o f t odging w ithin t he
Property.
1.6 Municipal Code. The Town's Municipal Code, as in effect from time to time.
1.7 Parking Requirements. As defined in Title 17, Avon Municipal Code.
1.8 Propert y. The newly created Lot 61 more specifically described as the Lot 61
PUD Development Plan as set forth in Exhibit "B".
1.9 PUD. Planned unit development or PUD, as such terms are defined and used
in Section 17.20.110 of the Municipal Code.
1.10 Sanitation District. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District.
1.11 Subdivision. Means to make a disposition of land or airspace which is
defined as a subdivision, subdivided land, condominium subdivision, estate in
airspace, specially planned area and/or planned unit development subdivision,
minor subdivision, duplex subdivision or time-sharing subdivision consistent
with Title 16, Avon Municipal Code.
1.12 Time-share owner. Means a person vested with legal title to a timeshare
estate in accordance with Section 38-33-110, Colorado Revised Statutes
(2003).
1.13 Time-share unit. Means a unit the title to which is or is to be divided into
interval estates or time-span estates in accordance with Section 38-33-110,
Colorado Revised Statutes (2003).
4
1n
1.14 Town. The Town of Avon, a municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado.
1.15 Town Council. The Town Council of the Town.
1.16 Lot 6l . The real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
1.17 Vested Property Rights Statute. As defined in Recital H.
1.18 Zoning. The passing of land use ordinances and regulations authorized
by the Statutes of the State of Colorado and by Article XX of the Colorado
Constitution, and more specifically through the Avon Municipal Code, Title
17, intended to ensure that zoning promotes stated benefits to the citizens of
the Town.
1.19 Zoning Application. The zoning application for the parcel comprising the
Property submitted to the Town on ; 2004.
1.20 Avon Town Center Implementation Plan. The plan adopted by the Town
on November 6, 2001 regarding development in the area commonly known as
the Town Center.
ARTICLE H
COVENANTS; THIS AGREEMENT
2.1 Term. In recognition of the size of the development contemplated under this
Agreement, the substantial investment and time required to complete the
development of the Property, and the possible impact of economic cycles and
varying market conditions during the course of development, Owner and the Town
agree that the term of this Agreement and the vested property rights established
under this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until
the 5th anniversary of the Effective Date. After the expiration of the Term, this
Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect, provided,
however that such termination shall not effect (a) any rights-of-way and uses of
property granted to the Town related to the transportation center, or (b) any right
arising from Town permits, approvals or other entitlements for the Property which
were granted or approved prior to the 5th anniversary of the Effective Date.
2.2 Amendment of Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this
Agreement may be amended or terminated only by mutual consent of the Town and
Owner in writing following the public notice, public hearing and revised ordinance
procedures required for approval of this Agreement stated in Section 17.20.110
(Planned Unit Development) et al of the Avon Municipal Code. For the purpose of
any amendment to this Agreement, "Owner" shall mean only the Owner as defined
5
n\1
herein and those parties, if any, to whom such signatories have specifically been
granted, in writing by Owner, the power to enter into such amendments.
2.3 Cooperation in Defending Legal Challenges. If any legal or equitable action or other
proceeding is commenced by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of
this Agreement or the Development Standards, Owner and the Town agree to
cooperate in defending such action or proceeding and to bear their own expenses in
connection therewith. Unless the Town and Owner otherwise agree, each party shall
select and pay its own legal counsel to represent it in connection with such action or
proceeding.
ARTICLE III
ZONING, VESTED RIGHTS AND EXACTIONS
3.1 PUD Zoning. The property shall be zoned as PUD as provided in this Agreement
and in the respective Development Standards. Complete zoning and site plans are
attached in Exhibit B, the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan.
3.2 Development Standards. The "Development Standards" set forth the zoning for the
Property, and indicate, among other things, setback distances, building height
limitations, site coverage levels, development densities, allowed uses (both
permitted uses by right and those permitted upon special review), parking
requirements and other guidelines and limitations for the development of the
Property and are specifically set forth in Exhibit "B".
(a) Subsequent Final Plan Approval. Pursuant to this Agreement the
Property is now PUD Zoning pursuant to Section 3.4(a). This constitutes a
Site-Specific Development Plan for the purposes of establishing vested
rights. Owner and the Town shall, in a manner which is uniform of the
Town and consistent with the provisions of Section 2.1 and Section 3.4 (d)
further refine the design of the improvements and other details, all
consistent with the Development Standards and this Agreement
collectively, "Subsequent Final Design Review Plan Approval." The
subsequent Final Design Review Plan Approval will consist of compliance
with the Town Center Implementation Plan, Town of Avon Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, and relevant
portions of the Avon Municipal Code.
(b) Development Approval. Simultaneously with the granting of PUD
Zoning of the Property pursuant to Section 3.4 (a), the Town hereby
approves the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan (Exhibit "B").
3.3 Vesting of Property Rights. Owner and Town agree that (a) this Agreement and the
Development Standards and the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan constitute an
approved "site-specific development plan" as defined in the Vested Property Rights
6
Statute and Section 17.14.100 of the Avon Municipal Code and subsequent
compliance with Section 17.12.020 of the Avon Municipal Code which the Town
acknowledges and (b) that Owner as the legal owner of the Property shall have
vested property rights to undertake and complete development and use of the
Property as provided in this agreement and the Development Standards. Pursuant to
Section 17.14.050 of the Municipal Code, approval of this Agreement and the
Development Standards constitutes a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of
Title 24, C.R.S., as amended.
3.4 Property Rights Vested. The rights identified below shall constitute the vested
property rights under this Agreement:
(a) The right to develop plan and engage in land uses with the Property in the
manner and to the extent set forth in and pursuant to this Agreement, the
Development Standards and the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan.
(b) The right to develop, plan and engage in land uses with the Property in
accordance with the densities, physical development standards and other
physical parameters set forth in the Development Standards.
(c) The right to develop the Property in the order, at the rate, and at the time
as in arket c onditions d ictate, s ubj ect t o t he t erms a nd c onditions o f t his
Agreement and the Development Standards.
(d) The right to develop and complete the development of the Property
(including, without limitation, the right to receive all properly applied for
and complete application approvals necessary for the development of the
Property) with conditions and standards determined pursuant to Section
3.2(b) which conform to the regulations and guidelines imposed by the
Town set forth in this Agreement and the Development Standards,
provided that such conditions, standards and dedications shall not directly
or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing,
diminishing, delaying or otherwise materially adversely affecting any of
Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards.
(e) The Town shall not initiate any zoning, land use or other legal or
administrative action that would directly or indirectly have the effect of
materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, delaying or
otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights that do not apply to
other properties in the Town, as set forth in this Agreement or the
Development Standards.
7
-P
3.5 Exactions. The following exactions are intended to provide adequate facilities,
pedestrian and vehicular access, and other related improvements for the public
benefit of the Town:
(a) Right-of-Way Dedication. The newly created right-of-way referred to as
"Benchmark Court" will be dedicated to the Town by the approved Final
Plat, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek ("Final
Plat") in accordance with Title 16, Avon Municipal Code
contemporaneously with the approval of this Agreement and the Lot 61
PUD Development Plan.
(b) Drainage. On site drainage facilities for the Property shall be provided by
Owner to handle drainage resulting from the development of the Property.
(c) Building Setbacks and Encroachments. It is the intention of the Town to
provide for necessary at grade and above grade setbacks to allow for the
building and/or structure to encroach as depicted on plans shown in
Exhibit B.
These provisions for allowing the building and/or structure elements over
and on the Town property will be set forth in the Resubdivision of Lot 61,
A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
("Resubdivision") and must be approved contemporaneously with this
Agreement. The Resubdivision contains specific plat restrictions, which
require as-built drawings upon the construction of the Property or the
Resubdivision will be vacated subject to the terms and conditions of
Section 2.1.
(d) Transportation Center. The Final Plat shall also include an easement for a
Transportation Center, including necessary at grade and above grade
setbacks as depicted on Exhibit B.
In the event the Town elects to proceed with construction of the
Transportation Center prior to the commencement of construction of the
Lot 61 PUD Development Plan, then written notice must be provided to
the Owner prior to 180 days of commencement of construction.
The Town agrees to provide mechanical ventilation consistent with the
current building code at the time of building permit application for the
Transportation Center as part of the construction of the Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan. Positive chase and ductwork for the Transportation
Center will be provided by the Owner.
8
Noise generated by public transportation vehicles at the proposed
Transportation Center shall be reduced to the maximum extent reasonably
possible and in no case shall it raise the ambient sound level above the
median between the No Impact and the Impact Levels for Category 1 or 2
Sites as shown in the following Table 3-1 from Transit Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report April 1995, prepared by Harris
Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. for the Office of Planning, Federal Transit
Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation. The existing level of
ambient noise, project noise and allowable noise levels shall be
established in accordance with applicable procedures, methods and criteria
conforming to the above referenced Impact Assessment, Final Report.
3-4 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Table 3-1 Noise Levels Defining Impact for Transit Projects
Existing Project Noise Impact Exp osure,' L,a(h) or L. (dBA)
Noise
Exposure Category I or 2 Sites Category 3 Sites
O ,
L?
L
I
Severe
(dBA) No Impact Impact Severe Impact No Impact Impact
Impact
Ambient+ Ambient ? i
<43 <Ambient+10 >Ambient+15
' <Ambient+15 >Ambient+20
10to15 15t0N
43 <52 52-58 >59 <57 57-63 >63
44 <52 52-58 >58 <57 57-63 >63
45 <52 52-58 j >58 <57 57-63 >63
46 <53 53-59 - >59 <58 58-64 `r64
47 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64
48 <53 53-59 >59 <58 58-64 >64
49 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64
50 <54 54-59 >59 <59 59-64 >64
51 <54
1 54-60 >60 <59 59-65 >65
52 <55 55-60 ! >60 160 60-65 >65
53 <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65
54 <55 55-61 >61 <60 60-66 >6,6
55 ' <56 56-61 -61 <61 61-66
i >66
56 <=56 ? 56-62 ? >62 <61 61-67 ( _>67
57 <57 57-62 >62 <62 62-67
l >67
58 <57 57-62 >62 <62 1 62-67 >67
59 <58 58-63 >63 <63 i 63-68 >68
60 <58 58-63 >63 <63 63-68 >68
61 <59 59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69
62 <59 1 59-64 >64 <64 j 64-69 >69
63 <60 60-65 >65 <65 1 65-70 >70
64 <61 i 61-65 >65
<66
66-70
>70
65 <61 61-66 >66 <66 66-71 >71
66 <62 62-67 >67 j <67 67_72 ' >72
67 <63 63-67 >67 <68 68-72 172
68 <63 63-68 >68 <68 68-73 >73
69 x=64 64-69 ? >69 <69 69-74 >74
70 j <65 65-69 >69 <70 70-74 >74
71 j <66 66-70 >70 <71 71-75 t >75
72
i <66
66-71
>71
<71 r
71-76
>76
73 <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76
74 <66 66-72 >72 <71 71-77 >77
75 <66 66-73 ? >73 <71 71-78 j 17S
76 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 >79
77 <66 66-74 >74 <71 71-79 > 719
>77 <66 66-71 >75 <71 j 71-80 >W
L, is used for land use where nighttime sensitivit y is a factor; L,., dur ing the hour of rnaaximum transit nois e exposure
is used for lan d use involving only daytime activities.
9
(e) Transit Administrative Office: A minimum of 400 square feet of floor area
on the ground level adjacent to the Town Transportation Center for typical
administrative purposes including rough-in plumbing for public restroom
facilities associated with transportation must be dedicated upon
construction of the Transportation Center by the Town and/or with design
review approval for Lot 61.
(f) Water Rights: The developer will be responsible for the acquisition of
additional water rights and their subsequent dedication to the Town if
necessary to amend the Town's Augmentation Plan based upon the
specific proposal applied for.
(g) Timeshare Amenities Fee: Commencing as of the effective date of this
Agreement, and continuing in perpetuity, the timeshare ownership
association formed to manage the timeshare ownership project located on
Lot 61 is obligated to collect from each timeshare owner and remit to the
Town a Timeshare Amenities Fee. The Owner is exempt from the
obligation for the timeshare amenities fee until the first-time sale of a
timeshare interval. The provisions for the obligation for each timeshare
owner to pay shall be a covenant running with the land and reflected
accordingly on the Resubdivision Plat and association covenants. Prior to
the formation of any timeshare ownership association, the Owner shall be
obligated to collect and remit any and all Timeshare Amenities Fee.
The number of units shall be calculated at the time of time-share
subdivision. The fee shall be paid to the Town semi-annually and will be
based upon the following schedule:
Number of Units Constructed
125 - 149 Timeshare Units
150 -174 Timeshare Units
175 - over Timeshare Units
Per Timeshare Week*
$ 58.35
$ 48.52
$ 41.51
* Timeshare Week is defined as seven (7) consecutive days constituting a
maximum of fifty-two (52) intervals per calendar year.
The amount of the semi-annual payments will be calculated according to
the following formula:
Number of existing or newly deeded timeshare interests per semiannual
period (January- June, calculated as of June 1, and July-December
calculated as of December 1), multiplied by the appropriate fee based
upon the Deeded Timeshare Units schedule (or as adjusted by CPI-U, as
defined below), divided by 2.
10
aR
The due dates for the semiannual payment are August 20 and February 20
for the previous semiannual calculation period.
On January 1, 2005, and on the first day of each year thereafter, the
amount of the fee shall be increased by the prior years average consumer
price index for All Urban Consumers for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley
metropolitan area as published semiannually and appearing in the January
and July issues of the CPI Detailed Report published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (the "CPI-U").
It shall be the duty of the timeshare association to keep and preserve such
records as are necessary to determine the amount of fees due hereunder.
Such records shall be preserved for a period of three years and shall be
open for inspection by representatives of the Town during regular business
hours. Prior to the formation of the timeshare association, the Owner shall
have the above-referenced obligation to keep and preserve such records.
If a remittance to the Town is delinquent, or the remittance is less than the
full amount due, the Town shall make a written determination of the
amount due and deliver or mail the same to the office of the condominium
timeshare association. The amount properly determined to be owing shall
be from the due date of the remittance at the rate of one and one-half
percent per month until paid. Prior to formation of the timeshare
association such written determination will be delivered to the Owner.
3.6 Timing on Development. In the event the Owner obtains a building permit and
complies with all other relevant rules and regulations governing development on the
Property consistent with the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan, then the Owner must
provide written notice 1S0-days prior to commencement of construction to the Town
of the development schedule.
There is no phasing proposed or contemplated for the development of this Property.
The Owner and the Town agree to cooperate in construction staging and
development to allow for orderly and safe construction of the Property.
3.7 No Obligation to Develop. Owner shall have no obligation to develop the Property
and shall have no liability to the Town for its failure to develop the Property. The
Town shall have no obligation to permit the Owner to construct under the dedicated
road right-of-way or transportation center after 5 years from the Effective Date of
the Agreement, and shall have no liability to the Owner or any other party for its
failure to develop all or any part of the Property. In the event an amended
Resubdivision of Lot 61, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
based upon as-built drawings is not recorded, then the Resubdivision will be vacated
subject to the terms and conditions of Section 2.1.
11
3.7 Compliance with General Regulation. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement or the Development Standards, the establishment of vested property
rights under this Agreement shall not preclude the application, on a uniform and
non-discriminatory basis, of Town regulations of general applicability (including,
but not limited to design review, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, the Municipal Code, and other Town rules and regulations) or the application
of s tate o r f ederal regulations, a s a 11 o f s uch r egulations e xist o n t he d ate o f t his
Agreement or may be enacted or amended after the date of this Agreement, provided
that such newly enacted or amended Town regulation shall not directly or indirectly
have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, delaying
or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or
the Development Standards. Owner does not waive its rights to oppose the
enactment or amendment of any such regulations inconsistent with other properties
in Town.
ARTICLE IV
DEFAULTS, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION
4.0 Default by Town. A "breach" or "default" by the Town under this Agreement shall
be defined as: (a) any zoning, land use or other action or inaction, direct, indirect or
pursuant to an initiated measure, taken without Owner's consent, that materially
alters, impairs, prevents, diminishes, delays or otherwise materially and adversely
affects any development, use or other rights of Owner under this Agreement or the
Development Standards or PUDs; or (b) the Town's failure to fulfill or perform any
material obligation of the Town contained in this Agreement.
4.1 Default by Owner. A "breach" or "default" by Owner shall be defined as Owner's
failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of Owner contained in this
Agreement.
4.2 Notices of Default. In the event of a default by either party under this Agreement,
the non-defaulting party shall deliver written notice to the defaulting party of such
default, at the address specified in Section 5.7, and the defaulting party shall have
thirty (30) days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. If such
default is not of a type which can be cured within such thirty (30) day period and
the defaulting party gives written notice to the non-defaulting party within such
thirty (30) day period that it is actively and diligently pursuing such cure, the
defaulting party shall have a reasonable period of time given the nature of the
default following the end of such thirty (30) day period to cure such default,
provided that such defaulting party is at all times within. such additional time period
actively and diligently pursuing such cure.
12
14
4.3 Remedies.
(a) If any default under this Agreement is not cured as described above, the
non-defaulting party shall have the right to enforce the defaulting party's
obligation hereunder by an action for any equitable remedy, including
injunction and/or specific performance, and/or an action to recover
damages. Each remedy provided for in this Agreement is cumulative and
is in addition to every other remedy provided for in this Agreement or
otherwise existing at law, in equity or by stature.
(b) In the event of default by the Owner, notwithstanding other available
remedies s et forth h erein, t he T own i s u nder n o o bligation t o i ssue a ny
land use approvals, including but not limited to design review and building
permits for the Property.
(c) The Town acknowledges that since this Agreement and the Development
Standards constitute a development agreement which confers rights
beyond those provided by the three (3) year statutory vesting approach
described in the Vested Property Rights Statute, in the event of a breach or
default by the Town, in addition to any of the foregoing remedies, Owner
shall be entitled to:
(i) recover from the Town any damages that should have been
specifically available to Owner as contemplated in
Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-68-105(1)(c) as in
effect on the Effective Date, plus any other and additional
damages provable at law.
ARTICLE V
MISCELLANEOUS
5.0 Applicable Law. Agreement shall be constructed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the State of Colorado and the relevant portions of the Avon Municipal
Code..
5.1 No Joint Venture or Partnership. No form of joint venture or partnership exists
between the Town and Owner, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
constructed as making Town and Owner joint venturers or partners.
5.2 Expenses. Except as otherwise provided in a separate written agreement, Owner
and the Town shall each bear their respective costs and expenses associated with
implementing and enforcing the terms of this Agreement.
13
5.3 Waiver. No waiver of one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall constitute a
waiver of other terms. Nor waiver of any provision of this Agreement in any
instance shall constitute a waiver of such provision in other instances.
5.4 Town Findings. The Town hereby finds and determines that execution of this
Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
and the provisions of this Agreement, the PUD, Development Standards, and
vesting agreements contained herein are consistent with the Avon Comprehensive
Plan, A von M unicipal Code, T own C enter P Ian, a nd o ther applicable r egulations
and policies of the Town.
5.5 Sever ability. If a ny t erm, p rovision, c ovenant or c ondition o f t his A greement i s
held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect so
long as enforcement of the remaining provisions would not be inequitable to the
party against whom they are being enforced under the facts and circumstances then
pertaining.
5.6 Further Assurances. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other
further instructions and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this
Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete
enjoyment of its rights and privileges under this Agreement.
5.7 Notices. Any notice or communication required under this Agreement between the
Town and Owner must be in writing, and may be given either personally or by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. If given by registered or
certified mail, the same shall be deemed to have been given and received on the
first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the
party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five days a registered or certified letter
containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the
United States mail, if personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been
given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. Any party hereto may at
any time, by giving written notice to the other party hereto as provided in this
Section designate additional persons to whom notices or communications shall be
given, and designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such
notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be
given to that parties at their addresses set forth below:
If to Town: Town of Avon Attn: Town Manager
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
If to Owner: IDG 3 LLC
c/o C. Philip Smiley
P.O. Box 5000
Avon, CO 81620
14
3?
5.8 Assignments. This Agreement shall be binding upon and except as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest or
the legal representatives of the parties hereto. Except as specifically set forth herein,
Owner shall have the right to assign, delegate or transfer all or any portion of its
interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement to third parties acquiring an
interest or estate in the Property, including, but not limited to, purchasers or long
term ground lessees of individual lots, parcels, or of any improvements now or
hereafter located within the Property. Provided that the Town's approval of the
assignee or transferee is first obtained, an assumption or transfers providing for
express assumption of any of Owner's obligations under this Agreement by its
assignee or transferee shall be relieved of any further obligations under this
Agreement with respect to the matter so assumed. The Town's obligations
hereunder may not be assigned or delegated without Owner's written consent, and
any attempted assignment or delegation by the Town not in compliance herewith
shall be null and void. The Town's approval of any such assignee or transferee shall
not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
5.10 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall
constitute one and the same agreement.
5.11 Amendments and Waivers. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this
Agreement, nor consent to any departure here from, shall in any event be elective
unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then such
waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific
purpose for which given.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and the Town have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.
TOWN:
TOWN OF AVON, a municipal corporation
of the State of Colorado
BY:
Mayor
ATTEST
15
3\
Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
Subscribed before me this
municipal corporation of the State of Colorado.
day of 52004, by
as Mayor of Town of Avon, a
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
Subscribed before me this
Notary Public
day of
12004, by
as Town Clerk of Avon, a municipal
corporation of the State of Colorado.
My Commission Expires:
ATTEST
Notary Public
OWNER:
By:
16
3-21 1
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
Subscribed before me this
day of
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EALGE
TOWN OF AVON
SS
as
2004, by
Notary Public
17
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AT
ON
THE DAY OF , AT THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO.
F:ACounciAAgreements\L61 B2 BMBC DevAgrmntv.2.doc
18
10
Exhibit "A" To Lot 61 PUD Development Agreement
Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, according to the Final
Subdivision Plat - Amendment Number 4, recorded September 5, 1978, in
Book 274 at Page 701 as Reception No. 171107, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado.
•
•
.
N
v
9709495205
0048 E SERVER CREEK 81
SOITE
Box 5:
AVM1, C O-81
9700 949.5.
vmda@vmda.c
FAX-90.$:
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
T-588 P.01/03 F-331
7)
Jan-13-04 11:57am From-VICTOR MARK DONALDSON
TO"f" ov p+dot"
,?°
vvvi ty Ae?lopw+`?1
qql,- :574,f
WE ARE SENDING YOU VIA FAX
? DELIVERED BY
? SHOP DRAWINGS
0 SPECIFICATIONS
N COPIES DATE
/Blow
DATE I ` ltr-b t VMDA JOB NO. 0 ??, C b
ATTENTION fZ1Jt3A w
RE 5erGpW ,, ?. vz 6 l
? ATTACHED ? EMAIL
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
C7 PRINTS ? PRODUCT INFORMATION p CHANGE ORDER
? COPY OF LETTER ?ADDENDA ? OTHER
DESCRIPTION
A&V1 &V-0 -S?GTlOK?S
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
? FOR YOUR APPROVAL ? REVIEWED BY VMDA VAS REQUESTED
? FOR YOUR USE ? FURNISH AS CORRECTED ? REJECTED
? REVISE AND SUBMIT ? COPIES ? FOR REVIEW AND COMNIEN'T
(3 PRNTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
1 Ar-W A44U .s k)r-- bMwV;6 - o 1?
A(-ok)c_ ? VZ?#.a . pLVAC
? 11?tLt, Vs ?' ?9. t ?' C?VJ?J CA l.? ?/1AD4R!JC ??l 0? 'fi ? ??
av0. ow t?+?S ?•e?1 t?? W?? ?lL? SP.TI?C,•?S ,A?C.?O? ?
COPY TO SIGNED Qittks
Jan-13-04 11:57am From-VICTOR MARK DONALDSON
s
9709495205 T-588 P.02/03 F-331
alq
1
Jan-13-04 11:57am From-VICTOR MARK DONALDSON
N
Q
N?
0
y
,cp
M
r 0
m -4
®I?
n
A
r
M
1
d'
N
1
M?
N._.,
9709495205 T-588 F.0VU F-331
p
I 1111 11V. NVJTT6V I V 1
Johnson & Repucci LAP
Attorneys and Counselors at Law
p 2521 Broadway
RECEIVED Suite A
Boulder, Colorado 60304
JAN 1 2 2004 (303) 442-1900
Fax: (303) 442-0191
FACSUUME COVER SHEET Community Development Bou1.nFR
FACSIMILE NCTMBER: (303) 442-0191 WINTER PARK
DATE: January 12, 2004 FROM: Michael J. Repucci
TIME:
CLIENT NO.:
To: Name Company/Firm Facsimile No.
Town Council Town of Avon (970) 949-9139
Geor e Pakozdi (905 522-0100
Pete Lan dorf 303) 796-9176
Ski Dornseif (970 949-7757
Keith Elliott 314) 962-9255
MESSAGE: Please see the attached letter dated January 12, 2004 regarding Lot 61.
PUD Development Plan Amendment.
NUMBER OF PAGES FOLLOWING THIS COVER SHEET: 10
IF YOU NEED A CONFIRMATTON OR ANY OF THE PAGES RE-SENT,
PLEASE CALL OUR OFFICE AT THE FOLLOWING NUMBER: (303) 442-1900
TF YOU DO NOT CALL WITHIN 15 MINUTES, WE WILL ASSUME YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE
PAGES SATISFACTORILY. SENT BY: Tami
OUR FACSIMILE NUMBER: (303) 442-0191
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this facsimile transmittal sheet and
document(s) that follow are for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged
and nondisclosable information. If the recipient of this facsimile is not the addressee, or a person
responsible for delivering this facsimile to the addressee, such recipient is strictly prohibited from reading,
photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this facsimile transmission, or its contents, in any way. If the
recipient has received this facsimile transmission in error, please call us immediately and return the
facsimile transmission to us via the United States Postal Service. Thank you.
1. VI/ 1 1
JHII- l c-cuu4 nun uc - cu m UOIK LLr r MA ?ru, 3w44cu i e i r. uZ)i 1 1
Town of Avon Town Council
January 12, 2004
Page 2
Design Criteria of Section 17.20.110(H) of the Zoning Code and the referenced Staff
Reports, as follows:
1. Conformity with the Avon Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
The Association has reviewed the careful analysis of the goals and policies of
the Avon Comprehensive Plan employed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, and the Association agrees that certain aspects of the
development proposed by the applicant's Lot 61 PUD Amendment fulfill the
goals and policies described in the January 6, 2004 Staff Report. However,
various goals and policies of equal importance to the Town are not satisfied
by the current proposal.
Goal Al Ensure a balanced system of land uses that maintains and
enhances Avon's identity as a residential community, and as
a regional commercial, tourism and entertainment center.
Policy A 1.1 Development and redevelopment will be of a scale and intensity
appropriate for the neighborhood in which it is located.
The scale and intensity of the new development contemplated by
the Lot 61 PUD Amendment is inappropriate for the Avon Town
?(SU Center. The scale and intensity of the proposed development
5 l 2 recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning
Commission far exceed those that currently characterize the
Avon Town Center neighborhood or that are contemplated by the
'til S Town's Comprehensive Plan, Implementation Plan and Design
Review Guidelines.
Policy X11.3 Flexible zoning such as Planned Unit Developments (P. U. D.)
should be encouraged where it results in more effective use of the
911 land. However, such flexible zoning will only be allowed where
it provides a benefit to the community and is compatible with
surrounding development. Variations from standard zoning must
be clearly demonstrated, and will be permitted only as needed to
achieve effective development.
The Association concurs with the Planning and Zoning
Commission's assessment that the development of Lot 61 can
and should benefit from flexible zoning entitlements. However,
as more particularly discussed below, the Lot 61 PUD
Amendment is not compatible with the surrounding development
14667/avon
A-0-
JHN-1Z-ZUU4 11UN UC ; LO r1l J&K LLr MA IYU, 3U344cU 1 e 1 r, UUi 1 1
4,
Town of Avon Town Council
January 12, 2004
Page 4
Square as a single unified parcel, including maximizing the view corridor
through the development parcel. As shown on the conceptual drawing of Lot
61 and the Avon Town Square, the Implementation Plan come plates
multiple buildings on Lot 61, allowing f o r a view corridor to th mountains
and a pedestrian connection from the center of Lot 61 to the Av n Town
Square Parcel. In contrast, the proposed Lot 61 PUD Amendm t
contemplates development of only one building on the site with little or no
setbacks from adjacent property and rights-of-way. Furthermo , the
proposed Lot 61 PUD Amendment contemplates that multiple building
projections, such as columns, roofs, unenclosed floors and decks, be permitted
to encroach into setbacks and/or rights-of-way. Contrary to the design intent
expressed in the Implementation Plan, the view corridor through Lot 61 will
be entirely eliminated, and pedestrian traffic impeded, if the proposed Lot 61
PUD Amendment is approved in its current form.
As part of the Design Philosophy of the Town, the Design Review Guidelines
provide:
The Town should continue to be perceived as a contemporary mountain
town, complementary to the natural landscape and unbuilt environs. The
Town should appear as a cohesive unit comprised of simple building
forms, subdued colors, and predominantly pitched roofs .... Form, scale,
proportion, and materials should support the natural environs and reinforce
those characteristics that uniquely identify a neighborhood's built environ
as it relates to the Town.
To that end, Section 5A of the Design Review Guidelines recommends: "The
site and its relationship to other structures, scenic values, views, and climatic
orientation should be the dominant factors in the design and sighting of
buildings." To satisfy this objective, Section 5A requires that "(s)ite layout
and proposed improvements shall consider the use of passive and active soar
use, and the retention of neighboring properties `view corridors'."
The proposed Lot 61 PUD Amendment fails to comply with any of the
referenced recommendations and requirements of the Design Review
Guidelines. Specifically, the height and bulk of the proposed building are not
characteristic of a contemporary mountain town and do not complement the
natural landscape and environment. In addition, the proposed building will
stand out conspicuously from existing structures rather than become part of a
cohesive unit of development in the Avon Town Center. Finally, the proposed
Lot 61 development plan seemingly ignores the unambiguous direction
expressed in the Design Review Guidelines that the use of passive and active
14667/aeon
V1/17 1L L_-Vl 11-11 -"- -- 111 Vu11 LLI I IIII IIV1 JUJ't"ILU1 V1 11 UI/ 11
Town of Avon Town Council
January 12, 2004
Page 6
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property. upon which the PUD is proposed.
The Association concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendation that a Subdivision Improvements Agreement be required to
ensure no unforeseen natural or geologic hazards impact the Lot 61
development or adjacent properties.
6. Site plan, building desigai and location and open space provisions desi Lied to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The Association understands that the building design will. be further clarified
/1 during the design review process. Nevertheless, as described above, the
features of the development contemplated by the proposed Lot 61 PUD
Amendment are not responsive and sensitive to the natural features and
overall aesthetic quality of the community.
AN 4
Section 5B of the Design Review Guidelines identifies solar access as primary
importance within the Town core. Specifically, the Design Review
Guidelines recognize the importance of solar access studies showing the effect
i on adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces. The Association is concerned that
the height of the proposed building will shade the Avon Mall and future Main
Street, producing a cold, dark, windy and inhospitable pedestrian corridor.
Therefore, the Association urges the Town Council to require the developer to
provide solar studies prior to approving any amendment of the existing Lot 61
PUD Amendment to ensure that solar exposure is maximized in the Town
Center Area.
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.
The Association has serious concerns about the revised traffic circulation
design contemplated by the Implementation Plan. The Town's outdated diesel
buses traveling on the new Main Street will pass within ten (10) yards of the
Condominiums, emitting nauseating, noxious exhaust fumes that will
permeate the Condominiums, creating an unsafe and unhealthy living
environment. Moreover, the proximity of the bus traffic to the Condominiums
will greatly increase traffic noise audible within the Condominiums. Since the
Condominiums do not have central air conditioning, owners are required to
open their windows during the warm weather months, thereby further
14667/avon
- - - - - - - ---- --- . .... ..v. --- . .w 1-1 1 . UVJ 1 1
Town of Avon Town Council
January 12, 2004
Page 8
11.
The Association is familiar with the long-term plans for the Benchmark Road
extension and the construction of Main Street. However, the Association is
unaware of the schedule of completion of these projects vis-a-vis occupation
of the proposed development of Lot 61. The existing streets and roads are
clearly inadequate for the substantial increase in traffic that will be generated
by the Lot 61 PUD Amendment, and the Association is concerned that even
the proposed road expansion may be insufficient to handle increased traffic
flows.
Section 17.20.1 10(l) of the Zoning Code directs the Town Council to determine
the development standards of a PUD including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height,
density controls, site coverages, landscaping and parking based upon compliance with the
above design criteria. The Association has reviewed the development standards
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission listed in the January 6, 2004
Staff Report, and has the following comments thereto:
a. Uses By-Right: The Association notes that the uses by-right recommended by
Town Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission are even more intense
than those requested by the Lot 61 developer. The Association believes that
many of these uses are much too intense for the site and incompatible with the
character of the Avon Town Center.
h. Special Review Uses: The Association has no further comments on these
uses.
Development Standards. As previously explained, the proposed height and
density contemplated by the proposed Lot 61 PUD Amendment greatly
exceeds the height and density that characterizes the Avon Town Center. This
increased height and density will result in numerous negative effects as
described above.
d. Parkin . The January 6, 2004 Staff Report recommends that the Avon
Municipal Code parking standards be implemented. The off-street parking
14667/avon
A
Lot 61 PUD Amendment. Furthermore, the Association is concerned that the
reported $3 million plus cost to construct the new Main Street in order to
implement the Lot 61 PUD Amendment, is not a fiscally responsible use of
limited Town funds. t
Jllll" 1C GUV`t Ilvii uL - Lu 1 i1 van L.L.I I lin nv, VVJ?LZLV1V1 A11 al
Town of Avon Town Council
January 12, 2004
Page 10
Association requests that the Lot 61 PUD Amendment be tabled pending completion of
further evaluation and studies including, without limitation, traffic impact studies, solar
access and view studies, and evaluations of the impacts of the recommended densities on
the character of the Avon Town Center area.
On behalf of the Association, we thank you for the opportunity to comment and
be heard on this matter.
Very truly yours,
y
s
Michael J. ucci
cc: George Pakozdi (by facsimile)
Pete Langdorf (by facsimile)
Skip Dornseif (by facsimile)
Keith Elliott (by facsimile)
Jon Grantham (by email)
Michael Smith (by email)
Tom Crosbie (by email)
Bob Roman (by email)
Stuart Borne (by email)
Steve MacDonald (by email)
14667/avon
&1-X0Q k-t :?:- %I
IDG 31LLC
0. Box 1068
ail, Colorado
81658
970.949.4958
F. 970
949.4838
mha@vafl.net
January 21, 2004
The Avon Town Council
P.O. Box .975
Avon, CO 81620
Re.: Lot 61 proposed PUD Ordinance 01-04
Block 2
Benchmark @ Beaver Creek
Amendment 4
Avon, Colorado
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
In preparing for our return to Council on the 27th of January, we wanted to address the
• issues you listed, for which we are responsible:
Building Setbacks
In reviewing the concerns for setback, we have decided to revise our setbacks on
both the southeast and southwest property lines. We are no longer proposing
building limits over the Benchmark Road right of way but instead will be
bounded by either property line. We are asking to be able to build to our
permitted height along this elevation so that we may be able to relegate the
majority of the highest portions of our structure to the south of the property thus
permitting more substantial reductions in height along the north property line
where adverse shading to the Mall and adjacent properties would be
objectionable. We would also suggest that any concerns for the severity of the
perceived height and treatment of facades, along this elevation, be addressed in
the Design Review stage. As a further consideration to our neighbors we have
increased the horizontal step, along our north property line to 70' (versus 25') as
illustrated in our revised PUD drawings.
Height
As you know, we have worked with you, staff and the Planning Commission to
adopt the principles of the Town Center Plan as they affect Lot 61. In this process
we have relinquished a 50' right of way plus a 10' setback along our west
property line. In return we have requested the ability to build above this right of
• way and in doing so must maintain an 18.5' clearance for vehicles. With the need
for approximately 3.5' of structure, mechanical space and finishes this places our
first finished floor elevation at approximately 22' above the proposed finished
\?-i
grade of the road below. With the projected grade at the north edge of our 80'
wide building limit of 7445.5 This would place our first finished floor level, above grade at
7467.5. or 7.5' higher than our current first finished floor elevation of 7460.0' Please see the
attached exhibit A to this letter.
We are simply requesting that we maintain our net, usable residential height of
81.5'. We were asked to state our height, according to the definition of height
prescribed by the Town Code, namely as a fixed distance above the grade, below.
Given that we foresee the highest portion of the structure above the sites lowest
grade of 7443 we had to state the height as 108'
We would be willing to revise the height to 105' with an absolute cap to be set at
a datum of 7548.0' that is 98' above the finished pavement elevation of 7450.0' at
the Mall. As you will see we are not gaining any effective height and any further
reduction in height would cause us to loose a floor which could likely amount to a
loss of 18,200 S.F. (325' x 70' x 80% (efficiency factor of gross to net area)) of
net residential area which at $275/S. F. could amount to over $5,000,000 in sales
or $100,000 in transfer taxes.
Massing
We are preparing some computer base massing analyses to address two concerns.
It will illustrate the massing, currently approved and show the minor increase in
height that we are seeking. It will also serve to illustrate the maximum proposed .
density relative to the constraints of the building envelope.
Transit Center
We would like the Town to understand that we and our prospective developers
have acknowledged the potential benefits of a transit center designed within the
established criteria.
Parking
As stated, our PUD is bound to provide parking according to the current Town
code. The minimum allowable density would render a requirement the following
parking:
125 Timeshare @ 1.5/Unit x 85% 160 Spaces
17,000 Retail @ 5.511,000 S.F. x 85% 80 Spaces
240 Spaces
Our current development plan illustrated that 158 spaces could be parked per full
level. With the required additional required guest parking we can attain our
requirements on 2 levels of parking. Thanks to the slope of our side the first level
would be at grade with Benchmark Road and thus our lower level of parking
would be only 10' below the elevation of The Mall, to the north.
•
,,q
After nearly eight months of working cooperatively with staff, the Council and The
Planning Commission on this most recent proposal, we are intent in bringing this
process to a successful conclusion for all... the proverbial "win-win". We trust that
you will agree that in all our work on this parcel over the last five years, our
partnership has always worked fairly and openly to achieve positive, working
entitlements that will play a major role for the future of Avon.
We look forward to moving this project to its next phase and set the nucleus for The
Town Center and Avon.
Sincerely,
E
•
?A'?'\
E
0
Z
0
a
a
0
a
at
8
.ra
v
p
a?
U
N
oc
.r?
a
4.4
0
0
ao
z
a
M
80' Air Rights over
Benchmark Court
Exhibit A
I
T/Flr. = 7445.5'
194.45'
E0- ?
r
? E-
7550.0'
7442.4' ,?
Site Section 1" = 40'-0"
0
Calculations: Slope of Road= 7.4' Rise/ 194.45 Run= 3.8% slope (.038)
Rise to N. Edge of Air Rights =.038 x 80' Run = 3.04' Rise
(1 0
Mark W. Davis
1267 Pilgrim Ave
Birmingham, MI 48009
(248) 642-8878
January 29, 2004
Town of Avon
400 Benchmark Road
PO Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
To whom it may concern:
I have learned that you are planning on developing Lot 61 as well as developing
a bus turnaround very close to the building where my condominium is. At my
time of purchase years ago, I never anticipated writing such a letter that I would
have to be a part of a team trying to keep our building a top notch complex. I am
concerned that what you are attempting to do will drop my property value by
hampering the view and adding pollution to a beautiful setting. This area of Avon
is known for being out of the way and a great place to come and relax. Added
bus traffic is against what this part of Avon is all about.
Please do not go forward with this proposal.
Than u.
ark W. Davis
Avon Center, Unit 806 Owner
RECEIVED
= B 0 2 2004
Community Development
C"\
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer
Anne Martens, Assistant Town Engineer
Date: February 3, 2004
Re: Resolution No. 04 - 05, Approving the Final Plat, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
(0075 Benchmark Road)
Summary: IDG 3, LLC, owner of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, has
submitted a Final Plat for A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of
Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. This subdivision is in conjunction with a proposed PUD
Development Plan and Development Agreement for Lot 61. The proposed Subdivision, PUD
Development Plan and Development Agreement provides for the dedication of a new road
right-of-way connecting the Town Center Mall with Benchmark Road and a Transportation
Hub Easement adjacent to Benchmark Road to allow construction of a Transportation
Center. The Final Plat is in general conformance with the Preliminary Plan as approved by
Resolution No. 04-01 and with Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code, Subdivisions.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 04 - 05, Series
of 2004, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, subject to completion of technical
corrections to be approved by staff.
Recommended Motion: I move to approve
2004, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat, A Replat of
Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.
Town Manager Comments: 7
Resolution No. 04-05, Series of
Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at
I:\Engineering\Subdivision\Benchmark at BC\L61 B2BMBC FP Memo.doc
TOWN OF AVON
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 05
Series of 2004
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, IDG 3, LLC has submitted a Final Plat for a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark
at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Final Plat has been reviewed by the Town Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Final Plat was found to be substantially in conformance with Title 16 of the
Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is in general conformance with the Preliminary Plan as
approved by Resolution No. 04-01 and complies with the requirements for consideration as a
Final Plat.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, that the Final Plat for A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek,
Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, is hereby approved by the Town of Avon subject to:
The completion of technical corrections as identified by Town Staff.
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
, 2004.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny
Town Clerk
I:AEngineering\Subdivision\Benchmark at BC\L61B2BMBCRes0405.doc
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Lary Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer-Ad
Anne Martens, Assistant Town Engineer
Date: February 3, 2004
Re: Resolution No. 04 - 06, Approving the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for A
Resubdivision of Lot 61, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek,
Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
(0075 Benchmark Road) PUBLIC HEARING
Summary: IDG 3, LLC, owner of Lot 61, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek, has submitted a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for A Resubdivision of Lot 61, A
Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado. This is a three dimensional subdivision in conjunction with a proposed PUD
Development Plan and Development Agreement for Lot 61. The proposed Subdivision
defines ownership and development areas below grade, at grade and above grade in
accordance with the proposed PUD Development Plan and Development Agreement for Lot
61. This includes development rights above and below the newly created road right-of-way
and surface development for a Transportation Center on a dedicated easement on Lot 61. A
public hearing is required prior to action on the Preliminary Plan. Notices for this hearing
have been mailed and posted as required by the Avon Municipal Code.
The Subdivision is in conformance with the Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code, Subdivisions
and is recommended for approval in conjunction with the proposed PUD for Lot 61.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 04 - 06, Series
of 2004, A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for a, Resubdivision of
Lot 61, A R eplat of L of 61, B lock 2, B enchmark at B eaver C reek, Town of Avon, E agle
County, Colorado, subject to completion of technical corrections to be approved by staff.
Town Manager Comments: ?
L\Engineering\Subdivision\Benchmark at BC161 B2BMBCRes0406-Memo.doc
TOWN OF AVON
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 06
Series of 2004
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN AND FINAL PLAT FOR A
RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 61, A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT
BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, IDG 3, LLC has submitted a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for a Resubdivision of
Lot 61, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat have been reviewed by the Town Staff, and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat were found to be substantially in conformance
with Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements for consideration as
Preliminary Plan and Final Plat.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, that the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark
at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, is hereby approved by the Town of
Avon subject to:
The completion of technical corrections as identified by Town Staff.
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
, 2004.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny
Town Clerk
I:AEngineering\Subdivision\Benchmark at BC\L6I B2BMBCResO406.doc
IF
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
C O L O R A D O
Thai: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development
Date: February 5, 2004
Re: First Reading of Ordinance 04-02 an Ordinance for a PUD Amendment for Lot
30 and Lot 21, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision
Summary
The applicants, Formations LLC (Lot 30) and George Plavec (Lot 21) applied for a PUD Amendment to
the Wildridge PUD for creating 10-single family lots in Wildridge. Lot 30 is a 5.76-acre lot currently zoned
duplex and has a single-family residence constructed on it. Lot 21 is a 3.84 acre lot currently zoned
duplex. Both properties are located at the end of June Creek Trail on a 50'0" access easement which
provides access to the US Forest Service ("USFS") and access to Eagle River Water and Sanitation
District's ("ERWSD") lift station.
The applicants provided a detailed application supporting the merits of their application based upon
the PUD criteria and other related documentation. A copy of the application is enclosed for your
review. The application includes among other things, traffic study based upon the impact of this
proposed development, evidence of available utilities, recommendation from the USFS, detailed
development data analysis, and revenue projections.
On February 3, 2004 the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial of this
application based upon the failure of the PUD application to comply with the PUD criteria set forth in
Section 17.20.110 in Resolution 04-08 (Exhibit "B"). Also attached you will find numerous letters of
support/opposition for this PUD, including a petition (Exhibit "D").
This PUD Amendment application presents a significant policy issue for Council, which is outlined in
the Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report dated February 3, 2004 and attached hereto as
Exhibit "C". As part of the basis for recommending denial was the issue of the precedent being
established by this proposal. Historically, the Town has consistently denied any type of upzoning in
Wildridge since 1991 and required developers/applicant to forfeit development rights when creating
single-family projects from duplex subdivisions.
Another issue presented in the PUD application, which requires Council attention is that the
applicants contend that there is financial benefit to the Town in approving this project. Staff
addressed this contention in the staff report on the sketch plan subdivision prepared by Norm
Wood, Town Engineer (attached hereto as Exhibit "E"). There is no long-term financial benefit with
this application. In fact, the proposed subdivision provides an additional drain on the Town's
General Fund with projected annual Property Tax Revenues of $4,640.63 and annual increased
Municipal Services cost of $9,385.20.
Memo to Town Council, February 5, 2004 Page 1 of 2
PUD Amendment for Lots 30 and 21, Block 2, Wildridge
I
TOWN OF AVON
C
ORDINANCE NO. 04-02
SERIES OF 2004
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
WILDRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR
LOTS 21 & 30, BLOCK 2, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Owners, Formations LLC and George Plavec, have applied for approval
of a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") Amendment to the Wildridge PUD for Lots 21, and 30,
Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the application proposes to amend the Wildridge PUD to rezone Lots 30
and 21, Block 2 from duplex zoning to ten (10) single-family lots (Lots 30A, 30B, 30C, 3OD,
30E, 30F, 21A, 20B, 20C, 20D); and
WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
hearing on February 3, 2004, at which time the applicant and the public were given an
opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the
proposed PUD Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendation for denial on the PUD application to the Town Council of the
Town of Avon through Resolution 04-08; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
C
day of , 2004, at which time the public was given an opportunity to
express their opinions regarding the proposed PUD Development Plan; and
F:ACouncd\0rdinances\2004\0rd 04-02 L20 30 82 WR PUD Amendment.doc
I
C
E
C7
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
F:ACouncil\0rdinances\2004\0rd 04-02 L20 30 B2 WR PUD Amendment.doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL
HELD JANUARY 27, 2004
A regular meeting of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held at 400 Benchmark Road, Avon,
Colorado in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Pro Tem Mac McDevitt called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. A roll call was taken with
Councilors Michael Brown, Debbie Buckley, Peter Buckley, Brian Sipes and Ron Wolfe present.
Mayor Buz Reynolds was absent. Also present were Town Manager Larry Brooks, Town
Attorney John Dunn, Assistant Town Manager Jacquie Halburnt, Town Clerk Patty McKenny,
Town Engineer Norm Wood, Finance Director Scott Wright, Community Development Director
Ruth Borne, Police Chief Jeff Layman, Public Works / Transit Director Bob Reed, Recreation
Director Meryl Jacobs as well as members of the press and public.
Ordinances
Town Planner Tambi Katieb presented on first reading Ordinance No. 04-01, Series of 2004, an
Ordinance approving Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. He explained that IDG3
LLC, the owner of Lot 61, has been working with staff over the last year finalizing a new PUD
Development Plan for Lot 61 as part of an extension of the original PUD development rights.
The proposed project had been discussed at the prior meeting on January 13th, and the
Ordinance was tabled in order that the following additional topics be addressed:
? Clarification of Financial Impacts of the various potential development scenarios allowed
by the proposed PUD.
? Proposed building envelope along southerly side of project.
? Building Height.
? Impacts of Proposed PUD on traffic.
? Ability to provide parking for proposed development.
? Massing Model to evaluate relationship of proposed PUD to adjacent properties.
? Impact of current gondola proposal on transit center.
? Proposed PUD & conformance to process.
? Modification in development agreement.
A number or public comments expressed through letters to the Town were entered into the
record at this time. Town Planner Katieb then presented some of the historical aspects of the
projects development to date. He noted that the new PUD Plan and accompanying
development agreement set forth basic development objectives that Town staff and the
applicant have concluded as mutually beneficial. The proposed development standards reflect
a thorough analysis by the Town's financial consultant (Stan Bernstein & Associates), and set
both minimums and maximums of development consistent with these financial projections.
Michael Hazard, with IDG3 LLC, addressed the Council and related topics above. He referred
to a model he prepared on a laptop that reflected the building envelope & height of the project.
After some detail was presented on the project and the Town Council asked some questions,
the public hearing was opened by Acting Mayor McDevitt. Michael Repucci, with Johnson &
Repucci Attorneys at Law and representing Avon Center at Beaver Creek-1 Homeowners
Association, was present to comment on behalf of the members of the Association. Some of
the concerns he raised are as follows: the notice to the public on the application, acoustic
impacts of the project, details on elevation, and view corridor impacts. The hearing was closed
and Council made comments on some of the following issues, parking, acoustic levels, bus stop
design and timing of buses through the center, concerns from Avon Center residents, the idea
of improved language for design guidelines, roof articulation. Town Attorney John Dunn also
addressed some of the concerns expressed by Repucci about the manner in which the Council
is considering the pending application for approval of PUD zoning for Lot 61
Councilor Sipes moved to approve Ordinance No. 04-01, Series of 2004, Ordinance approving
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, with the recommended conditions from
staff, 1, 2, 3 and with the addition that we direct staff to propose additional conditions between
first & second reading 1) one of which will articulate a requirement along the north side of the
property immediately adjacent to the Town Center Mall requiring additional articulation from
essentially the 2-story to 3-story height requiring it to be articulated along the length, 2)
language reinforcing the Town Center Design Guidelines such that it is very clear to P&Z for
their final design review, that those Design Guidelines are to be adhered to and that in any way
shape or form enhanced, 3) address the roof articulation, roof pitch over the entire height so that
we understand, work with staff to look at east end of building.
Councilor Wolfe seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued about the east end of the
building / roof line. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote (Brown,
Sipes, Wolfe - yea; D. Buckley, P. Buckley - nay; Reynolds - absent). The motion carried and
Resolution 04-01, Series of 2004 was adopted. It was noted that another public hearing would
be held on February 10, 2004.
Resolutions
Town Planner Tambi Katieb presented Resolution No. 04-04, Series of 2004, A Resolution
relating to the extension of the Lot 61 Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 61, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. He noted
that at the last meeting, Town Council asked staff to address the potential lapsing of the
development rights for Lot 61 PUD while the review process of the pending Ordinance occurs.
Councilor Brown expressed some concerns regarding this resolution. The Resolution before
the Council recommends Planning & Zoning review the extension of Lot 61 PUD while the
public review process of the pending application is evaluated. Further discussion ensued about
the need to adopt the resolution.
Councilor Wolfe moved to approve Resolution No. 04-04, Series of 2004, A Resolution relating
to the extension of the Lot 61 Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark
at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado for the duration of the
deliberation. Councilor Sipes seconded the motion and it passed with a 4 to 1 vote (Brown,
Sipes, P. Buckley, Wolfe - aye; D. Buckley - nay; Reynolds - absent). The motion carried and
Resolution 04-04, Series of 2004 was adopted.
New Business
Community Development Director Ruth Borne presented Appeal of Planning & Zoning Decision
on 12/16/03 to deny fence application and noted that the applicant requested that this item be
tabled until the next meeting because she was unable to attend the meeting. The applicants is
Marjorie Marks, the Legal address is Lot 28, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, the street address
is 4491 Wildridge Road West. Applicant Marjorie Marks addressed the Council explaining the
need for her fence and made her request to ask for additional time in removing the fence.
Councilor Sipes moved to uphold the decision made by the Planning & Zoning Commission to
deny the fence application with the exception that the Town would allow her to remove the fence
in a couple of weeks and the posts at a later date. She was asked to work with Community
Development staff to identify the timeframe for removal. Councilor Wolfe seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously by those members present (Reynolds absent).
Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 4
January 27, 2004
Community Development Director Ruth Born presented a request from the Geneva Crown Club
(formerly known as L'Auberge & Chateau St. Claire), for an extension on their building permit
application. She noted that the project expires on February 18, 2004 due to the lack of
construction activity, and with this permit expiration the existing zoning approvals including the
vested rights expire. She provided some history on the site development over the years. Staff
recommended that an extension be given for one year with the condition that there can be no
more extensions. Chris Kontogiannis with Geneva Crown Club addressed the Council noting
that their financing should be in place in the next 6 months and that some of the problems have
been due to closing & insurance problems. He informed the Council that they are still very
interested in completing the project. Discussion ensued about the need to restore the site back
to its pre-construction appearance if the applicant fails to secure financing and related costs.
Town Engineer Norm Wood indicated that he could provide an estimate for the next meeting. It
was also noted that Colorado First Construction could choose to proceed with construction
activity.
Councilor Wolfe moved to approve the building permit extension for Chateau St. Claire (Building
Permit # C-BP2002-17) be extended from 6 months from today with the following recommended
conditions, 1) Staff determine the appropriate amount that will cover the restoration of the site,
2) Applicant provide letter of creditor or appropriate instrument in the amount that will cover the
cost of restoration of the site; and if in the event that at the end of the 6 months there is not
complete & final demonstrable funding for the project, the building permit & development rights
lapse and the Town will exercise the credit instrument to restore the site, and there will be no
possible extensions at that point, i.e. no pouring of footers one week before the permit expires,
and that the normal provisions of resumption of activity which would automatically extend the
building permit will not apply in this case. Councilor Sipes seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously by those present (Reynolds absent).
Other Business
Town Planner Tambi Katieb distributed an updated contract with the consultants RNL hired to
complete the Town's Comprehensive Plan, including the scope of work to complete the fiscal
analysis (which was not a piece of the original Request for Proposal). He noted that the
deliverable date is slated for October 2004. Based on work session input, the schedule
continues to be fine-tuned. He requested Council action to approve the engagement of services
with RNL. Councilor Wolfe moved to approve the signing of the revised contract with RNL.
Councilor D. Buckley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those present
(Reynolds absent).
Town Attorney Report
Town Attorney John Dunn reminded the Council not to have any "ex parte communication"
regarding Lot 61, meaning no outside discussion regarding the topic. He informed the Council
that he would be meeting with Traer Creek LLC & Traer Creek Metro District to discuss the
Town's Municipal Service invoice.
Consent Agenda
Acting Mayor McDevitt asked for a motion. Councilor D. Buckley moved to approve the consent
agenda. Councilor Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by those members
present (Reynolds absent).
a. Approval of the January 13, 2004 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
b. Agreement for Lease of Claims between Town of Avon, Grand Eagle Investment Corporation (Grand
Eagle) & Marvin B. Simon (John Dunn)
c. Agreement between Colorado Association of Transit Agencies and Colorado Transit Coalition (Bob
Reed)
Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 4
January 27, 2004
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
APPROVED:
Michael Brown
Debbie Buckley
Peter Buckley
Mac McDevitt
Buz Reynolds
Brian Sipes
Ron Wolfe
Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004
Page 4 of 4
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Tbru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager c
From: Fraidy Aber, Meryl Jacobs 01
Date: 2-4-03
Re: Great Race Contract
Summary: The Great Race is America's oldest, longest running vintage automobile event.
The race changes its route each year. In 2004, it is slated to run from Florida to Monterrey,
California, from June 19 - July 3rd. On Monday, June 28th the Race will travel from
Breckenridge to Steamboat Springs, stopping for a pit stop in Avon.
The attached contract has been reviewed by Town Attorney John Dunn - and necessary
modifications were made. It outlines the agreement for the town to host this visiting event.
Financial Implications:
The Great Race requires a $1000 fee for Pit Stops. This fee includes ad space in their
promotional magazine.
Town Manger Comments: JA
Attachments:
Contract
Requested Action:
Great Race contract is attached for council/town manager approval and signature.
THE GREAT RACE 2004
PIT STOP CITY HOST AGREEMENT
This agreement is between RALLY PARTNERS, INC., a Nevada Corporation (hereinafter
"RPI GREAT RACE"), and Town OF Avon (hereinafter "TOA") in regard to "TOA"
sponsoring a Pit Stop promotion of The Great Race 2004 (hereinafter "TGR") and
related festivities in Avon, Colorado on June 28, 2004.
A. "RPI GREAT RACE" and "TOA" Agree to the Following:
1. the name of the event is The Great Race 2004. The official start City is
Jacksonville, Florida, and the official finish city is Monterey, California. "TOA"
further agrees this wording and corresponding logos as provided and/or
approved by "RPI GREAT RACE" will be used by "TOA" in promoting and
advertising the event. "RPI GREAT RACE" reserves the right to incorporate the
name of a title sponsor into the event name. "'TOA" agrees to use the revised
event name at the request of "RPI GREAT RACE".
2. any duplication of the event logo and the name of the event must be approved
by "RPI GREAT RACE" in writing prior to use.
3. this Agreement is not assignable by either of the parties hereto without the prior
written consent of the other party.
B. "TOA" AGREES TO:
1. provide a Pit Stop promotion for all "RPI GREAT RACE" staff and participants on
June 28, 2004. Number of "RPI GREAT RACE" attendees will not exceed 275.
"RPI GREAT RACE" retains the right of final approval for the location and
activities of the promotion.
2. submit all media and promotional materials to "RPI GREAT RACE" pertaining to
"TGR" for approval in writing prior to use.
3. local event sponsorship and signage will not include alcohol, tobacco and/or
sponsors which conflict with "TGR" sponsors. 70A" will secure approval in
writing from "RPI GREAT RACE" for host event sponsorship and signage.
Pouring rights which are not advertised or recognized as a sponsor are allowed
and do not violate this provision.
4. secure approval of local sponsors in writing by "RPI GREAT RACE" prior to their
signing.
Pit Stop City Host Agreement
Avon, Colorado
Page 2 of 4
5. event venue must be approved by "RPI GREAT RACE."
6. pay "RPI GREAT RACE" a partnership fee of $1,000. The partnership fee will be
paid in two installments:
• First payment of $500 due February 15, 2004;
• Second payment of $500 due May 1, 2004.
7. obtain written approval from "RPI GREAT RACE" for all planned festivities which
relate to "TGR" and its participants. Said approval will not be withheld in an
unreasonable or untimely manner.
8. promote "TGR" as the major attraction of any and all scheduled festivities on
June 28, 2004.
9. provide the'eventvernue;-the-eWvafent-of-two-c-ftblocks on a secured hard
surface-afea preferably ' a. .-n€xRssar* street
closures;__proce -yaay-any- rele ffic
c a ion an event venue e
28,- e
3-hoar ??
10. "RPI GREAT RACE" will make available to "TOA" videotape and photographic
material for use in promotional and marketing tools by "TOA". "RPI GREAT
RACE" retains the right of approval of any materials containing "RPI GREAT
RACE" images. Said approval will not be withheld in an unreasonable or
untimely manner. "TOA" may use its own photographer for "TGR".
11. provide contact names, addresses, phone and e-mail and arrange meetings for
"RPI GREAT RACE" promotional solicitation of local media, which includes primary
newspapers, local radio stations, and television affiliates.
12. distribute "RPI GREAT RACE" supplied event posters at appropriate local
businesses and locations.
13. distribute media releases to local media and provide assistance in developing
media coverage using local interest angles. "TOA" will perform this function at
the direction of "RPI GREAT RACE".
14. provide color separations for one-quarter-page 4-color ad in the 2004 edition of
The Great Race Souvenir Program no later than April 1, 2004. If separations are
not received by that date, "RPI GREAT RACE" will not guarantee publication of
"TOA's" ad.
15. provide refreshments (beverages and snacks) for a maximum of 275 "RPI GREAT
RACE" staff and event participants. All "RPI GREAT RACE" staff and event
participants are identified by event badges.
Pit Stop City Host Agreement
Avon, Colorado
Page 3 of 4
16. provide public address system for use by local announcers.
17. indemnify, hold harmiess and-defend "RPI GREAT RACE"- and-its-or-their
directors, officers, employees, agents, a i is es, pn s, rs,
sponsors and shareholders -frena-any and alt s, enses,
fission or
n „•
in
nce f
C. INCONSIDERATION FOR THE ABOVE, "'RPI GREAT RACE" WILL:
1. organize and conduct The Great Race 2004 which will start in Jacksonville,
Florida on Saturday, June 19, 2004 and finish in Monterey, California on
Saturday, July 3, 2004.
2. conduct activities for the June 28, 2004 Pit Stop in Avon, Colorado.
3. identify Avon, Colorado as a Pit Stop in the "TGR" venue list and
www.greatrace.com website, and include Avon, Colorado in the 2004 "RPI
GREAT RACE" in-house publicity campaign.
4. provide VIP recognition and photo/speaking opportunities for up to 7 local
sponsors and officials during ceremonial medallion presentation in the Event
Venue prior to the arrival of the cars.
5. provide a static display of event vehicles accessible to the public in the event
venue on June 28, 2004.
6. identify Avon, Colorado as a Pit Stop location on 2004 Great Race printed
materials including but not limited to: selected event merchandise, national
press releases and media materials, the quarterly Greatracer newsletter, and
mentions from Great Race radio promotion partners.
7. allow 70A" non-conflicting signage rights in the event venue; allow "TOA"
sampling and/or sales rights in the pit area. The space required for this must be
in addition to the required space of the event venue. "RPI GREAT RACE" will
conduct sales of Great Race Souvenir Programs and event merchandise in the
venue.
8. name "TOA" and its major sponsors as an "additional insured" on a $5,000,000
event liability insurance policy carried by "RPI GREAT RACE". Additional insured
wording to be furnished to "RPI GREAT RACE" by May 1, 2004.
Pit Stop City Host Agreement
Avon, Colorado
Page 4 of 4
9. indemnify, hold harmless and defend "TOA" and its or their directors, officers,
employees, agents, affiliates, principals, partners, members, sponsors and
shareholders from any and all losses, damages, claims, expenses, and liabilities
of any kind arising out of or resulting from any act, omission or negligence of
"RPI GREAT RACE", its agents and employees, relating an event conducted in
whole or in part by "RPI GREAT RACE" and not caused by the act, omission or
negligence of any person seeking indemnification from "RPI GREAT RACE" under
the terms of this paragraph.
10. cooperate fully with "TOA" and use its best efforts in promoting and publicizing
the Pit Stop promotion and related festivities of "TGR" in Avon, Colorado.
11. provide one quarter-page 4-color ad in the 2004 edition of The Great Race
Souvenir Program. If color separations for the ad are not received by April 1,
2004, "RPI GREAT RACE" will not guarantee publication of''TOA's" ad.
12. Avon, Colorado will be eligible to compete for the Great American City Award, a
$2,500 monetary gift to the Avon, Colorado city library.
For City of Avon, Colorado:
Name
Title
For RALLY PARTNERS, INC.:
Wayne Stanfield
Chief Operating Officer
Date
Date