TC Ord. No. 2000-05 Re-zoning from Residential Duplex to PUD and Approving a 24-member private residence club at Lot 38A Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek�l(90
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 00-05
SERIES OF 2000
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A RE- ZONING FROM RD
(RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX) TO PUD AND APPROVING A 24-
MEMBER PRIVATE RESIDENCE CLUB AT LOT 38A, BLOCK 2,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF
AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, Robert Borg has applied for re- zoning from RD (Residential Duplex) to
fp PUD and for approval of a PUD Development Plan and Development Standards for the a 24-
member Private Residence Club for Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision;
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 March 21, 2000 and on April 4, 2000, at which time the applicant and the public
were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports
regarding the Re- zoning and proposed PUD Development Plan and Development Standards; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendations on the proposed Re- zoning and PUD Development Plan and
Development Standards to the Town Council of the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
9 day of May , 2000, at which time the public was given an opportunity to express
their opinions regarding the proposed Development Plan; and
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:
/I IIIIII IIIII Illllll III Illlll lllll IIIIII III Ilill llll I'll
730706 05/23/2000 02:24P 289 Sara Fisher
1 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO
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 Re- zoning to PUD and 24- member Private Residence Club PUD
Development Plan and Development Standards (PUD) is consistent with goals
and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with
surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the public interest.
3. That the Re- zoning to PUD and 24- member Private Residence Club PUD
Development Plan and Development Standards complies with each of the Town
of Avon's PUD design criteria and that this proposed development is consistent
with the public interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
1. The Re- zoning of Lot 38A from RD (Residential Duplex) to PUD and establishing a PUD
Development Plan and Development Standards for a 24- member Private Residence Club are
hereby approved.
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED, this 25 day of April , 2000, and a public hearing shall be held at the regular
meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, on the Q day of may ,
2000, at 5:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon, Colorado.
, Town Clerk
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
MEMO
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
730706 05/29/2000 02:24P 289 Sara Fisher
2 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED.
-Kn s- Nastr, ff'bwn -iErk-
Cait Hilmer, Deputy Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Burt Levin, Town Attorney
{ IIIIII IIIII IIIIIII III IIIIII IIIII IIIIII III "III IIII IIII
730706 05/25/2000 02:24P 289 Sara Fisher
3 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF EAGLE ) SS
TOWN OF AVON )
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AT 5:30 P.M. ON THE 9th DAY OF MAY, 2000,
AT THE TOWN OF AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 00 -05, SERIES OF 2000:
An Ordinance Approving a Re- Zoning From RD (Residential Duplex) to PUD and Approving a
24- Member Private Residence Club at Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
A copy of said Ordinance is attached hereto, and is also on file at the office of the Town Clerk,
and may be inspected during regular business hours.
Following this hearing, the Council may consider final passage of this Ordinance.
This notice is given and posted by order of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado
Dated this 26th day of April, 2000.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
K,EK Nash
Town Clerk
POSTED AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON ON
APRIL 28, 2000:
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING IN THE MAIN LOBBY
AVON BEAVER CREEK TRANSIT BUS STOP AT AVON CENTER
AVON RECREATION CENTER
CITY MARKET IN THE MAIN LOBBY
I I"III'llll "I�II� III IIIIII II�II'lll'I III "III III I"I
730706 03/25/2000 02:24P 289 Sara Fisher
4 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO
lk G 4-�-L v 1rl
a(e-vL
10�V,
q7,>
/�Vov-� c'lo
a('� 2 0
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Bill Efting, Town Manager
From: Karen Griffith, Town Planner /V
Date: May 3, 2000
Re: Second Reading of Ordinance 00 -05, An Ordinance Approving the Re-
Zoning from RD to PUD and a Planned Unit Development and
Development Standards for a Private Residence Club, Lot 38A, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town Of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado.
Summary:
Robert Borg has submitted a re- zoning and PUD application for Lot 38A, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. He proposes the re- zoning and PUD to
establish a 24- member private residence club on one side of the existing duplex. The
other side is a bed and breakfast. The property is located at 220 West Beaver Creek
Boulevard.
Background:
On April 25, 2000 Town Council passed Ordinance 00 -05 unanimously on first
reading.
On March 21, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
application and held a public hearing. Staff presented the application and
recommended denial, staff did not believe the use conformed to the Comprehensive
Plan's residential land use designation for the site.
No members of the public were present to express opinions at the public hearing.
The Planning and Zoning Commission members discussed two divergent opinions
on the proposed residence club. They first voted 2 -4 to adopt resolution 00 -3
denying the application. After that motion failed, they tied in a vote of 3 -3 to adopt
resolution 00 -3A (an amended resolution), which recommended approval of the
residence club. Thus, they were not able to agree on a formal recommendation on
the application.
Memorandum to Council from K. Griffith, Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Re- zoning
and PUD for 24- member Private Residence Club
May 2, 2000
Page 1 of 5
• Three commission members supported the private residence club, citing that it
was compatible with the neighborhood and that it was more residential in
character than the existing short-term rentals. The members expressing this
view felt that the private residence club is a low- density use in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. They considered the residence club as a
residential use since the property would serve as a second home for the club
members. These Commissioners expressed the opinion that the property is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation for
the property.
• The opposing three Commissioners voiced opinions that the property falls under
the Zoning Code definition of a time - share, and is therefore a commercial use
that is not consistent with the residential land use designation of the property by
the Comprehensive Plan. They also expressed opinions that since the property
falls under the definition of a time - share, it does not meet the Town Standards for
parking, which would require six parking spaces for the use.
• The Commission members were in consensus that the Town should evaluate the
private residence club as a land use and consider amending the regulations to
accommodate the use in appropriate zone districts.
Mr. Borg presented his comments on the application.
• He strongly objected to staff's characterization of the application as a resort club.
• He also does not consider the use to be a time - share, primarily since the
members reserve time through a reservation system, the level of service
provided is much higher than a typical timeshare, and no exchange privileges
with other resorts are proposed.
• He expressed the opinion that the property is a residence club, and therefore in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He felt the residence club
would have less impact on the neighborhood than the existing short -term
rentals.
• Ms. Borg also presented her views that the proposed use is residential and
would serve as a second home to the members.
After the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to make an official
recommendation at the March 21St P and Z meeting because of the tie vote, Burt
Levin ruled that the application had to be sent back to the P and Z for a specific
recommendation to Council.
Memorandum to Council from K. Griffith, Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Re- zoning
and PUD for 24- member Private Residence Club
May 2, 2000
Page 2 of 5
._J
Recommendation:
At the April 4th P and Z meeting, P and Z voted 4 -2 to recommend approval of the
re- zoning and private residence club. The vote included findings that:
1. The proposed re- zoning is justified by changed or changing conditions of the
area;
2. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
3. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which
includes time -share and short -term rentals;
4. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the Town transportation
system and facilities.
Attachments:
Ordinance 00 -05
Memorandum to Council from K. Griffith, Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Re- zoning
and PUD for 24- member Private Residence Club
May 2, 2000
Page 3 of 5
T
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Bill Efting, Town Manager
From: Karen Griffith, Town Planner
Date: Apra 20, 2000
Re: First Reading of Ordinance 00 -05, An Ordinance Approving the Re-
Zoning from RD to PUD and a Planned Unit Development and
Development Standards for a Private Residence Club, Lot 38A, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town Of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado.
Summary:
Robert Borg has submitted a re- zoning and PUD application for Lot 38A, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. He proposes the re- zoning and PUD to
establish a 24- member private residence club on one side of the existing duplex. The
other side is a bed and breakfast. The property is located at 220 West Beaver Creek
Boulevard.
Background:
On March 21, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
application and held a public hearing. Staff presented the application and
recommended denial, staff did not believe the use conformed to the Comprehensive
Plan's residential land use designation for the site.
No members of the public were present to express opinions at the public hearing.
The Planning and Zoning Commission members discussed two divergent opinions
on the proposed residence club. They first voted 2 -4 to adopt resolution 00 -3
denying the application. After that motion failed, they tied in a vote of 3 -3 to adopt
resolution 00 -3A (an amended resolution), which recommended approval of the
residence club. Thus, they were not able to agree on a formal recommendation on
the application.
Memorandum to Council from K. Griffith, Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Re- zoning
and PUD for 24- member Private Residence Club
April 6, 2000
Page 1 of 5
• Three commission members supported the private residence club, citing that it
was compatible with the neighborhood and that it was more residential in
character than the existing short-term rentals. The members expressing this
view felt. that the private residence club is a low- density use in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood. They considered the residence club as a
residential use since the property would serve as a second home for the club
members. These Commissioners expressed the opinion that the property is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation for
the property.
• The opposing three Commissioners voiced opinions that the property falls under
the Zoning Code definition of a time - share, and is therefore a commercial use
that is not consistent with the residential land use designation of the property by
the Comprehensive Plan. They also expressed opinions that since the property
falls under the definition of a time - share, it does not meet the Town Standards for
parking, which would require six parking spaces for the use.
• The Commission members were in consensus that the Town should evaluate the
private residence club as a land use and consider amending the regulations to
accommodate the use in appropriate zone districts.
Mr. Borg presented his comments on the application.
• He strongly objected to staff's characterization of the application as a resort club.
• He also does not consider the use to be a time - share, primarily since the
members reserve time through a reservation system, the level of service
provided is much higher than a typical timeshare, and no exchange privileges
with other resorts are proposed.
• He expressed the opinion that the property is a residence club, and therefore in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He felt the residence club
would have less impact on the neighborhood than the existing short-term
rentals.
• Ms. Borg also presented her views that the proposed use is residential and
would serve as a second home to the members.
After the Planning and Zoning Commission failed to make an official
recommendation at the March 21St P and Z meeting because of the tie vote, Burt
Levin ruled that the application had to be sent back to the P and Z for a specific
recommendation to Council.
Memorandum to Council from K. Griffith, Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Re- zoning
and PUD for 24- member Private Residence Club
April 6, 2000
Page 2 of 5
I
Recommendation:
At the April 4th P and Z meeting, P and Z voted 4 -2 to recommend approval of the
re- zoning and private residence club. The vote included findings that:
1. The proposed re- zoning is justified by changed or changing conditions of the
area;
2. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
3. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which
includes time -share and short-term rentals;
4. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the Town transportation
system and facilities.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 00 -05
2. Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report dated March 30, 2000 with
attachments
3. Planning & Zoning Commission Staff Report dated March 14, 2000 with
attachments
4. Lot 38A2, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek PUD Plan
Memorandum to Council from K. Griffith, Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Re- zoning
and PUD for 24- member Private Residence Club
April 6, 2000
Page 3 of 5
brackets are lacking. Blank walls need to be fixed. Split faced block won't get his vote.
The pedestrian level and roof line level need more attention.
Chairman Evans asked the applicant what happened to the Clock in the PUD
application? The richness of the detailing and massing is missing now. He went on to
clarify that some architectural elements, arches, and structural supports on balconies
must be revised and include wood consistent with the PUD. The level and richness of
detailing being submitted is not what the applicant was originally proposing. This is a
Concept review tonight, no formal action will be taken.
Jim McKnight of Vistana requested clarification on the model. Commissioner Sipes
cautioned the applicant to be as accurate with the outside of the building as possible.
VII. Public Hearing
Rehearing on Rezoninq and PUD Application
A. Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Project Type: Rezoning and PUD - Private Residence Club
Applicant: Robert Borg
Owner: Robert Borg
Address: 220 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Town Planner, Karen Griffith, gave the Staff presentation and basis for rehearing the
application. Karen stated at the last P &Z meeting March 21, 2000 the Commission first
voted 2 -4 to deny Resolution 00 -3, then a motion to approve tied 3 -3. The application is
for a private residence club with 24 members. Each membership can be sold to an
unlimited amount of people or entities. Staff does not believe the application meets
residential use outlined in the Town's Comprehensive Plan. It is not a seasonal use.
Staff believes the application fits within the Town's definition of a commercial use as set
forth in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Austria Haus in Vail is limited to
commercial areas and further restricted by the amount of memberships — in no event
may the memberships in Vail exceed 12. Staff is also concerned with the spot- zoning
aspect of this application. Therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the application.
Town Attorney, Burt Levin, outlined the basis for this recommendation. He does not
believe the application as submitted constitutes spot- zoning. You cannot single out a
piece of land for special use but can create an island in the zone if the conditions of
PUD are satisfied. Spot- zoning has become synonymous with illegal zoning,
specifically when you create zoning which is more intensive than the existing zone by
singling it out. It is a matter of discretion for the Commissioners to make a
recommendation to Council.
5of10
Minutes of P &Z Meeting
April 4, 2000
Chairman Evans disclosed an ex -parte meeting with Mr. Borg at Evan's office. Evans
stated it should not sway his opinion or vote. If anyone wished him to step down, he
would. No one asked Chairman Evans to step down.
Robert Borg approached the podium and confirmed that the Staff Report was consistent
with the one at the previous meeting. Terry Borg read the applicant's statement. The
applicant is trying to fulfill a need to provide an alternative to the high priced resorts and
expensive time -share projects. The concept is a private residence club, which is
service oriented designed to accommodate the mainstream visitor. This project for all
intensive purposes is within the town center. We live next door and will manage the
private residence club. There are private residence clubs permitted in Vail, Cordillera
and Arrowhead; time - shares are not permitted. Each community has decided for itself
how to accommodate this new feature. We are the first applicants to come along and
we want to make this a positive experience. She expressed thanks to Bill Efting, Town
Manager, for his assistance with this application.
Chairman Evans opened the hearing for public comment. A letter was submitted by an
adjacent neighbor recommending approval of the application.
Commissioner Karow does not believe the application meets the re- zoning criteria. He
stated that there is a real difference between short-term and seasonal people. Owners
who vacation and who live there.
Commissioner Sipes believes it is an existing residence and does not believe the use or
intensity will be changed by granting this approval. He was not comfortable with the
amount of memberships being proposed.
Commissioner Morrison believes the application meets both the re- zoning and PUD
criteria.
Commissioner Macik expressed concern with Staff's emphasis on the time -share
definition when the applicant is requesting a PUD. Karen Griffith noted that the
compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan is the cornerstone of this proposal, which
requires a determination of whether the application is a commercial or residential use.
Mr. Levin clarified that what is decisive is the PUD criteria. The issue is whether the
application meets the PUD criteria, not whether it is meets the criteria of a time - share.
Commissioner Macik is additionally concerned with the amount of memberships being
requested.
Commissioner Fehlner believes the seasonal aspect of the town is not specific and is
ever - changing. There are no restrictions being proposed with regard to season, the
member can use the unit at anytime. She believes the project is viable if the
memberships were limited.
6 of 10
Minutes of P &Z Meeting
April 4, 2000
Chairman Evans believes the property is not a residential low- density area. He does not
believe the parking is a concern. There is no existing definition for the private residence
club in the Avon Town Code. He is in favor of this in this location primarily because of
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Karow moved to adopt Resolution 00 -3 with the recommended findings.
The motion failed for no second was made.
Chairman Evans asked for additional public comment. None were made. Evans closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Levin suggested to the Commissioners all that is needed is a recommendation to
Council for this application.
Commissioner Fehlner made a motion to approve the re- zoning and PUD Development
plan with the findings that:
1. The proposed re- zoning is justified by changed or changing conditions of the
area;
2. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
3. The proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which includes
time -share and short-term rentals;
4. The proposal will not have a negative impact on the Town transportation system
and facilities.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Morrison. The motion passed 4 -2 with
Commissioners Karow and Macik objecting.
B. Lot 15, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision
Project Type: 4 -Plex
Applicant: Bob Mach
Owner: Claus Holm
Address: 2170 Saddleridge Loop
Ruth Borne outlined the concerns with the project, specifically with regard to the grading
plan.
Commissioner Sipes was concerned with the application of materials and how they fail
to wrap around the building thereby creating a base for the project. Clarification of the
horizontal siding is required.
Commissioner Morrison requested the applicant submit a complete application with
specification of colors and materials on the elevations and the color board. The
7of10
Minutes of P &Z Meeting
April 4, 2000
Commissioner Karow asked if there was. a time limit on the approval. Karen
Griffith stated it was acceptable as a permanent permit.
The floor was open for public comments. None were made. Chairman Evans
then closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Macik made a motion to approve the application for a Special
Review Use Resolution No. 00 -04 of Series 2000 subject to the following
conditions:
1. No materials, packages, or vehicles not normally associated with
residential use shall be stored outside;
2. No employees shall be allowed to work on the property on a regular
basis;
3. Approval is good for one year; any renewal must be approved by
the Planning & Zoning Commission.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sipes and unanimously approved.
Rezoning and PUD Application
B. Lot 38A, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision
Project Type: PUD and Rezoning - Resort Club
Applicant: Robert Borg
Owner: Robert Borg
Address: 220 W. Beaver Creek Blvd.
Lot 38B should read Lot 38A. Minutes, Staff Report and Resolution 00 -3 of
Series 2000 will be changed accordingly.
Karen Griffith, Town Planner, gave the staff presentation stating this was for a
24- member residence club. Staff recommended denial to Town Council with
eight findings as set forth in Resolution #00 -3.
Applicant, Robert Borg, approached the podium and made the following
statements: He has been an owner in Avon for 20 years. He is applying for one
unit to become a private residence club. He asserted that the comments made in
the Staff Report are flawed. It is a residence club, not a resort club. They are
very dissimilar. The play on words distort what is being proposed. Staff is
mistaken by making the residence club synonymous with a resort club. He is
looking to the Commissioners for a common sense approach despite the Staff
Report.
Page 3 of 11
Minutes of P&Z Meeting
March 21, 2000
Chairman Evans requested the applicant clarify how this private residence club
differs from the Town of Avon's definition of a time -share project. Mr. Borg stated
the definition is so broad, it leaves no room for a private residence club. What he
offers is very special. This is a residence. A time span of occupancy has not yet
been specified. With a time - share, you are assigned a specific week and time
limit. The proposal is similar to the Austria Haus in Vail. Guests can call up and
make a reservation, not contracted to a specific week.
Commissioner Sipes questioned what happens with the off - season time? Will
the units be vacant or rented out on a short-term basis? Mr. Borg stated the
property can be rented short-term to people that are not owners. The club will
probably be shut down four to six weeks annually.
Karen Griffith clarified that the Zoning Code's definition of time -share is
consistent with this proposal for a private residence club.
Mr. Borg said the Town should check the Internet to see what is happening with
private residence clubs. Other areas have taken the lead.
Chairman Evans stated by definition, this does fall into a time -share because it is
so broad. He questioned if we need another definition, another classification. It
needs to be addressed by Town Council as an amendment to the Municipal
Code. Chairman Evans stated in his personal opinion, he agreed with Mr. Borg.
Chairman Evans opened the floor for Commissioners' comments.
Commissioner Sipes said he was torn. He agreed the Town Code needs to be
updated. The Town needs time to study it. We are judging the definition against
Mr. Borg's application at this time. For the record, he stated he did not think it is
a high- intensity commercial use. It is a residential use. He is concerned with
spot- zoning, especially in light of the existing time -share definition.
Chairman Evans stated his key concern was spot- zoning this unit and setting a
poor precedent. Commissioner Sipes agreed this would be spot- zoning; and that
we need a better definition. Under the current code, Commissioner Sipes could
not vote in favor of this application in its current form. We need to get a new
definition to avoid future problems with the time -share definition.
Mr. Borg stated that his property next door is a B &B, and it is an allowable use.
Planner Griffith stated that the B &B is a permitted use within the RD zone district.
Commissioner Sipes commented that the concern is the number of owners and
the type of use in a low- density area. A residence club is appropriate in the town
center as permitted under the current zoning, but not in the low- density
residential area of a RD zone. The issue is not the residence club, but the
location of it.
Page 4 of I I
Minutes of P8Z Meeting
March 21, 2000
Chairman Evans encouraged the applicant to apply for the upcoming vacancies
on the P &Z Commission.
Closing comments_ Commissioner Morrison stated he would like to see
approval. This is a high - density area.
Commissioner Karow stated that he supports private residence clubs, but this
proposal is not within a commercial area. The Austria Haus in Vail is in a
commercial area. He further stated that the application before us tonight does
not meet the criteria based upon the current zoning code. There is also the
technical problem of insufficient parking.
Commissioner Morrison suggested giving the Town Council the opportunity to do
something about this by the Commission denying it.
Commissioner Macik agreed with the use where it is, but not under the current
code. He has concerns about parking. A blanket approval cannot be given
because of the next person who comes in.
Commissioner Klein agreed with Commissioner Karow that he is not against
private residence clubs, but four different owners would be permitted under the
Town's current definition of time - share. The proposal falls into time -share and is
commercial activity within a RD zone district according to our criteria. Under the
definition we have, it falls into commercial use and does not fit into a RD district
and cannot support this application right now.
Chairman Evans stated that unfortunately, the criteria is open to interpretation.
He believes there is a benefit to the community. He agrees that the proposal
does not change the anticipated use of what it was built for. The impact of the
project will bring in sales tax, a positive impact. It does not meet the strict
definition of time -share but it looks and smells like a time - share.
Chairman Evans opened the public hearing. There were no comments given.
Mr. Borg gave a recap. This is not commercial use. The parking meets the
requirements for the RD. There are three spaces. To apply time -share
standards to this does not make sense.
Teresa Borg, wife of Robert Borg, gave comments. They notified their neighbors
and no one made any objection. Karen Griffith confirmed that staff had not
received any public input on the application. No one came to the meeting to
object. The request falls under the category of a 2 "d home. Tourist are renters,
ours will be owners. We are keeping this project residential. We don't feel it is a
Page 5 of 11
Minutes of P &Z Meeting
March 21, 2000
commercial use or a time - share. The applicant's wife stated that they were
encouraged by the Commission to come forward with a PUD request. If there is
another forum and process, what do we need to do to comply?
Karen Griffith stated the Commission is not denying or approving the Rezoning
and PUD application, but only sending it on to Council with recommendations.
Chairman Evans closed the public hearing.
Chairman Evans stated there are reasons to call it a time -share and also reasons
not to call it a time -share under the current definition. It was his opinion to get
Council involved. Whatever we do, Council must be advised.
Commissioner Sipes said the stumbling block is the definition of time - share.
Once you take it out of time -share definition, it fits the area. He believes this is
not a high - intensity use. There are criteria to accept it as a PUD and for
Rezoning.
Commissioner Morrison stated it complies with the benefit and compatibility
clause. It is compatible with the area and would provide benefits to the
community.
Ruth Borne stated the applicant is purporting to sell 24 fee simple interests and
fits within the definition of time - share. The proposal is for 24 owners. This is the
intent of our code and why we had to draw the line.
Commissioner Sipes doesn't think we should be so saddled with definition
because it provides no flexibility. Commissioner Sipes agreed with
Commissioner Morrison, this should be brought up to Council, because they
could be setting a dangerous precedent.
If the motion deadlocks, Chairman Evans stated he would like it to be sent to
Council that way. If that is the vote, Council will know there is a discrepancy
Commissioner Karow moved to adopt Resolution 00 -3, Series 2000.
Commissioner Klein seconded the motion. The motion failed 2 -4.
Commissioners Karow and Klein voted in favor.
Commissioners Morrison, Macik, Evans and Sipes dissented.
Page 6 of 11
Minutes of P &Z Meeting
March 21, 2000
4r
PUD PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
WEST BEAVER CREEK LODGE,
220 W. BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD
LOT 38, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
AVON, CO 81620 -7626
The attached PUD proposal is comprised of two existing duplex units located at 220 -A
and 220 -B West Beaver Creek Boulevard on Lot 38, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver
Creek in a RD Zone district. The units front onto West Beaver Creek Boulevard, 50
yards west of the Comfort Inn and immediately north of Beaver Creek West Condo -Hotel
and Falcon Point Timeshare Communities. Since approval in November 1997, Unit B
has been operating as a Bed and Breakfast and Owner's residence, while Unit A has been
rented mostly short-term, year round to small family groups of 8 to 14 persons. The
Owners of both units intend to sell and operate Unit A as a Private Residence Club.
Memberships will be limited to 24 members. As a Private Residence Club, the effective
use of Unit A will remain the same, except that it will be occupied by club members as
opposed to short term renters. The Owners will manage and operate the Private
Residence Club from Unit B and provide a year -round reservation service for the
Membership. Members will purchase a fee simple, undivided, deeded interest in the
Club with year -round access. Member's use of the unit will be by reservation. The
following addresses the PUD Review Criteria as requested by the PUD Application.
1. This proposal conforms with the Avon Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives in:
A: It is compatible with the surrounding development which is comprised of
existing and planned hotels, condo - hotels, timeshare and fractional fee club units, High
Density town homes and adjacent duplex units which are mostly rented short term to
visitors year round.
B: fostering a stronger year -round tourism base and offering a diversity of
housing types for the visitor. The Private Residence Club being proposed would be
unique in Avon in offering ownership of spacious residence type accommodation (as
opposed to apartments) on a reservation basis with unlimited access and a full scope of
services. Additional accommodation can also be rented from the B &B on a space
available basis.
C: being proximate to all town amenities including Nottingham Park and Rec
Center together with access to available door -front public transportation.
2. The duplex building, which comprises the PUD proposal, has been in existence for
three years and complies with the Town's overall design guidelines.
4�F4 t
6
s
3. It is also compatible with adjacent properties in terms of architectural design, scale,
massing, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation.
4. Its existing and proposed uses, activities and density will remain the same and
provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and
activity.
5. There are no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property.
6. The site plan, building design and open space provision enhance the visual and
functional value of the location in the community.
7. The single driveway access to both units has functioned very well and off - street
parking has been more than adequate.
8. Clustered landscaping planted three years ago and seasonal plantings are contributing
positively to the street scape and is very complimentary to the goals set by the Town
to make Avon aesthetically pleasing to residents and visitors.
9. No phasing is involved, as this project has been completed and is functioning in
virtually the same way as a Private Residence Club and Bed & Breakfast for almost
three years.
10. All utilities and services, etc needed are already in place and are more than adequate.
11. The existing road is adequate and the proposed PUD will generate no extra traffic
impacts.
12. The two residences that comprise the PUD are spaciously planned and exceed
contemporary standards. Each residence includes a primary and secondary dwelling.
All bedrooms are provided with bathrooms. Construction and finish standards are
superior to those to be found in Avon and are more compatible with those in Beaver
Creek.
2/11/00
BORG PHIL 970- 949 -9073 9709499092 P.01
MOM PIAlD7JC2YK
PF04E NO. 44 +61 +9027633 Rpr. 03 2000 02:48PPI P01
226 West Rgever C Ik;3/J,
Rvorl :. .
Colorado
81020
T&Vfaz: 910 049 0115 .
R. Q Borne
Zoning & Planning Commission
Also: 6 Coppar 89$oh`
Town of Avon
Municipal Complex
Er p►Bnd.
440 Benchmark Road
aa.4. INP,
Avon
Colorado 61620
Tel/fax +44(D)161902003
PO Box 975
2n6 April 2000
Dear Ruth O. Borne
1 refer to the Requested zone change by Mr Robert Borg to be held bn tho 0 of April
2000.
Regrstrulty your letter did not arrive at my UK address until yesterday so can not
write to you In time, however I hope you will accept this faxed letter as b0ing ".
same.
My home is next door to got) Borg and I fully support his proposal. It will have .
minimum impact on our environment and altogether is a much more satisfactory
solution than the larger buildings that off"r similar accommodefions: •
Yours sincerely
Tom Nawojczyk
:f
�f
Town of Avon
Re- Zoning and PUD Staff Report
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date March 30, 2000
Legal description Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Current zoning RD- Residential Duplex
Address 220 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
Burt Levin, the Town Attorney has ruled that according to Section 17.28.050 of the Avon Code,
the Planning and Zoning Commission must make findings on a re- zoning application before it is
forwarded to Town Council. At the March 21, 2000 meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission first voted 2 -4 to deny Bob Borg's application for re- zoning and a PUD
Development Plan to establish a 24- member private residence club on Lot 38A, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision. When that vote failed the P and Z then tied with a vote 3 -3 to
approve the application. Since P and Z failed to formulate a specific recommendation, we are
scheduling the application for re- consideration and a recommendation. We have sent out new
public hearing notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the property boundary.
Project History
Following is a summary of the P and Z Commissioners' discussion of the application from the March
21, 2000 meeting.
• Three Commission members supported the private residence club, citing that it was
compatible with the neighborhood and that it was more residential in character than the
existing short-term rentals. The members expressing this view felt that the private residence
club is a low- density use in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. They considered
the residence club as a residential use since the property would serve as a second home for
the club members. These Commissioners expressed the opinion that the property is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation for the property.
• The opposing three Commissioners voiced opinions that the property falls under the Zoning
Code definition of a time - share, and is therefore a commercial use that is not consistent with
the residential land use designation of the property by the Comprehensive Plan. They also
expressed opinions that since the property falls under the definition of a time - share, it does
not meet the Town Standards for parking, which would require six parking spaces for the use.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm@bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 2
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
• The Commission members were in consensus that the Town should evaluate the private
residence club as a land use and consider amending the regulations to accommodate the use
in appropriate zone districts.
Summary of the Applicant's, Mr. Borg's Comments:
• Mr. Borg strongly objected to staff's characterization of the application as a resort club.
• He does not consider the use to be a time -share as the staff classifies it, primarily because the
members reserve time through a reservation system, the level of service provided is much
higher than a typical timeshare, and no exchange privileges with other resorts are proposed.
• He expressed the opinion that the property is a residence club, and is therefore in keeping
with the character of the neighborhood. He felt the residence club would have less impact
on the neighborhood than the existing short-term rentals.
• Robert Borg's wife, Mrs. Borg also presented her views that the proposed use is residential
and would serve as a second home to the members.
No members of the public were present to express opinions at the public hearing.
Project Description
As discussed in the last staff report and presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the
March 21, 2000 meeting, Robert Borg has submitted an application to re -zone Lot 38A,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision from RD- Residential duplex to PUD. Mr. Borg would
like to establish a private residence club, which would allow him to sell 24 memberships to his
duplex unit located at 220 -A West Beaver Creek Boulevard. "Members would purchase a fee
simple, undivided, deeded interest in the club with year -round access. Their interest in the unit
could be sold, willed, or placed in trust like any other piece of real estate." The members' use of
the unit would be through a reservation system. Mr. Borg's proposal is attached to this report.
The PUD zoning has been requested to allow this use in the RD zone district, which would
otherwise not be permitted. According to Section 17. 20.060 of the Zoning Code, single - family
homes, duplex homes and accessory caretaker's apartments are the only allowed uses in the RD
zone. The Special Review Uses specified under this zone district include home occupations,
residential bed and breakfasts, above ground public utility installations, and churches.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm @bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 3
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Key Issues
Staff has identified four key issues for this proposal for Planning and Zoning Commission to
determine:
1. Whether the property meets the re- zoning criteria, including whether the use is justified based
on changed or changing conditions in the neighborhood.
2. Whether the proposed use complies with the residential land use designation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Whether the proposed private residence club meets the PUD review criteria, including
whether the residence club is compatible with the neighborhood.
4. Whether the proposed PUD development standards for parking have been satisfied. If the
proposed use is classified as a timeshare, a minimum of 6 parking spaces are required
Staff Discussion
Staff's recommendation is summarized as follows:
• Staff does not believe the private residence club meets the Comprehensive Plan's description of a
residential use. The Plan clearly defines residential land uses as permanent and seasonal
residential uses. In staff's opinion, 24 members coming to visit their property for approximately 2
and' /2 weeks a year is clearly not a permanent or seasonal residential use.
• Staff classified the project as commercial use. The proposal meets the definition of a time -share
unit (definition attached), which is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan designation of
the property for residential use. The Comprehensive Plan specifically lists accommodation units
and time - shares as commercial uses. Since a fee simple, deeded interest in the property would be
sold to more than 4 members, and their use would be periodic (approximately 2 and th weeks each
year, via a reservation system), staff believes the use clearly falls under the definition of a
timeshare.
Regardless of whether the property is classified as a timeshare use, staff believes the use of the
property by 24 separate parties, is not a low- intensity residential land use. We believe there is a
completely different character and level of use from someone who resides at a property on a
permanent or seasonal basis, as opposed to 24 different people or their guests, occupying the
property on a weekly or bimonthly basis. This is why staff believes the activity level of the private
residence club is higher than a permanent or seasonal residence and is not compatible with the
low - density neighborhood.
Mr. Borg presented the Austria House in Vail as the model he used in developing his residence
club proposal. He has discussed how private residence clubs are encouraged in Vail and should be
encouraged in the Town of Avon. Staff confirmed with the Town of Vail, that private residence
clubs are only allowed as conditional uses in the public accommodation and the high density
residential zone districts. Private residence clubs in Vail may sell a maximum of 12
memberships. Mr. Borg's application proposes two times the number of members that are
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm @bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 4
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
allowed in private residence clubs in Vail. Vail would not allow the proposed use in a low- density
residential district either! Staff believes the use should be encouraged in the Town of Avon -we
just do not believe it is an appropriate use in a low- density residential district, particularly with
such a large number of members.
Staff does not believe there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood from
residential to commercial to justify the re- zoning.
The development does not meet the timeshare parking requirement to provide a minimum of 6
parking spaces for the use.
Staff does not believe the proposed 24- member residence club provides a benefit to the
community as is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for PUD zoning. While the
residence club would generate more transfer taxes for the Town, studies on timeshares uses
prepared by the Town's financial consultants have shown that these uses provide more impacts on
the Town's transportation system and recreational facilities without generating sufficient revenue
to compensate for the impact. Rather, the introduction of a commercial use would be detrimental
to the neighborhood. In other time -share projects, the impact has been mitigated by payment
of an impact fee to the Town. Staff does not believe the impacts of this commercial use in a
low- density residential zone can be effectively mitigated.
The use of the PUD to re -zone the property allowing one side of the duplex to be used as a
private residence club constitutes spot zoning, which allows a use of the property not
afforded to the other property owners in the zone district.
Re- Zoning Criteria
1. Is the proposed re- zoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the
area proposed to be rezoned?
In staff's opinion the character of the residential neighborhood has not changed and does not
justify the re- zoning. Mr. Borg contends that the residence club will have no more impact than
the short-term rentals, which already exist, in the neighborhood. While rentals are not prohibited
by the Zoning Code, the RD zone district is not intended as an area to promote commercial short-
term rentals. Staff is concerned that the introduction of the residence club would encourage
commercial uses in the neighborhood that would be detrimental.
2. Is the proposed re- zoning consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan?
Please see discussion under PUD criteria below.
3. Are the proposed uses compatible with the surrounding area or uses?
Staff does not believe a residence club, which we consider to be commercial in nature, is a
compatible use in a low- density residential neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan designates
the area for permanent residential or seasonal use. Staff does not believe the 24- member
residence club meets the description of a residential use. The impact of 24 different members
and their families and guests on a weekly or bimonthly basis is a higher activity level than a
permanent or seasonal residence, where the same people occupy a property on a long term basis.
We do not believe the residence club is either compatible with the RD zoning, or appropriate
with duplexes located on either side of Lot 38.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm@bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 5
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
4. Are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the
proposed zone change?
The Town has received reports from our financial consultants that this type of use requires a
higher level of Town services such as bus transportation and recreational facilities than the
permitted low- density residential uses would require. The increased impact of this project
warrants further scrutiny and reinforces staff's recommendation that the use is not compatible
with the neighborhood. The applicant is not offering any concessions to offset this additional
impact.
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.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
• The property is designated for residential use on the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive
Plan. The residence club does not meet the description of a residential land use as described
by the Comprehensive Plan as a permanent or seasonal residential use. Alternatively, the
Comprehensive Plan describes accommodation uses and timeshares as commercial uses. The
proposal is in direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy A1.3 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of PUDs where it will provide a
benefit to the community and be compatible with surrounding development. According to
this policy, "flexible zoning (PUDs) will only be allowed where it provides a benefit to the
community and is compatible with the surrounding development. Variations from standard
zoning must be clearly demonstrated, and will be permitted only to achieve effective
development ". In staff's opinion the resort club is a high intensity use that is not in keeping
with the intent of the RD Zone District. We do not believe establishment of a residence club
in a low- density residential neighborhood would be a benefit to the community. The use of
the PUD to establish such a use that is not otherwise allowed in the zone district essentially
constitutes spot zoning. Further, the residence club is not necessary to achieve effective
development; the property is already effectively developed as a duplex.
The Residence Club proposal is in conflict with Comprehensive Plan Policy A1.1 which
states that "Development and re- development will be of a scale and intensity appropriate for
the neighborhood in which it is located ". The intensity of use for a resort club with 24
memberships is in conflict with the low density /intensity nature of the residential duplex zone
district and the residential character of the neighborhood. The use of the property for 24
different owners and their families and guests, is higher level of activity than a permanent or
seasonal residential use. The applicant has represented that 10 -12 people will be occupying
the club at one time. This is a much higher number of people than typically occupy a
residence. According to the State Demographer's office, the average household size in Avon
in 1999 was 2.08 persons per household.
The proposal for a private residence club is in conflict with Policy C 1.1 "to maintain and
enhance the character of the residential neighborhoods ". Introducing a commercial use such
as a residence club may contribute to the deterioration of the residential neighborhood by
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm @bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 6
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
establishing a precedent for other commercial uses to locate in this residential area. It could
also result in deterioration of other low- density residential neighborhoods, by establishing a
precedent to locate residence clubs /timeshares in residential neighborhoods. Currently,
timeshares are only allowed as a special review use in the Town Center Zone, the most dense
and diversified zone district in the Town.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design
recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
The property is located in Sub Area 7 -the Nottingham Park Residential District. This area is
described by the Comprehensive Plan as a high quality residential development. The
recommendations for this area require that new development should be of the same quality
and character as the existing development. The proposal is not of the same character as the
existing development. The residence club is not a residential use and would introduce more
commercial uses in the neighborhood.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and
orientation.
Staff considers the proposed residence club to be a higher intensity use than is appropriate for
this low - density residential neighborhood. As discussed above, the approval of this use could
change the character of the Nottingham Park neighborhood and possibly other neighborhoods
within the Town by introducing other residential clubs with potential adverse impacts. Staff
does not believe the impacts of residential clubs in iow- density residential neighborhoods can
be effectively mitigated.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with
surrounding uses and activity.
The proposed residence club will introduce a higher level of activity than is appropriate in a
low- density residential neighborhood as has already been discussed.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property upon which the PUD is proposed.
No change.
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.
Since the property is already developed there will be no changes with respect to this criterion.
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 parking and back up areas are minimal. The parking as proposed does not comply with
the development standards outlined below. The applicant represents that 10 -12 people will
be occupying the unit at a time. The four proposed parking spaces are not sufficient for this
number of people.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, views and function.
No change.
9. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads,
parks, and police and fire protection.
No change.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm ®bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 7
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
10. 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.
No change.
Development Standards
Development Standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site
coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the
approved development plan with consideration of the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Timeshares require 1 parking space per 600 square feet of area. Based on the size of the
proposed residence club, 6 parking spaces would be required. Mr. Borg proposes 4 parking
spaces, resulting in a reduction in 2 spaces from the standard requirement.
• No other changes to the standard requirements are proposed.
Staff Recommendation
Staff maintains our recommendation of denial of the application. In summary, staff does not
believe the application for the private residence club meets the re- zoning and the PUD review
criteria, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed re- zoning is not justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of
the area proposed to be re- zoned.
2. The proposed re- zoning is not consistent with the residential land use designation of the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed use is not compatible with the neighborhood.
4. The proposed re- zoning for a private residence club will have a negative impact on Town
transportation systems and recreational facilities.
5. The Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for Lot 38A, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek do not comply with each of the Town of Avon's PUD design
criteria because the commercial nature of the use is in conflict with the residential character
of the neighborhood and that this proposed commercial use would be detrimental to the
public interest.
6. The private residence club is not compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood,
and adjacent properties relative to the character of the neighborhood;
7. The PUD Zoning and Development Standards propose a mix of uses, activity, and density
which are not compatible with the surrounding low density residential uses and activity;
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm@bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 8
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
8. The project does not have sufficient on -site circulation design to accommodate the proposed
private residence club use and fails to meet the Town Standards for parking.
Recommended Motion
"I move to adopt Resolution 00 -3 recommending that Town Council deny the re- zoning and
PUD application with the findings:
1. The proposed re- zoning is not justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of
the area proposed to be re- zoned.
2. The proposed re- zoning is not consistent with the residential land use designation of the
Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed use is not compatible with the neighborhood.
4. The proposed re- zoning for a residence club will have a negative impact on Town
Transportation systems and recreational facilities.
5. The Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for Lot 38A, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek do not comply with each of the Town of Avon's PUD design
criteria because the commercial nature of the use is in conflict with the residential character
of the neighborhood and that this proposed commercial use would be detrimental to the
public interest.
6. The residence club is not compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to the character of the neighborhood;
7. The PUD Zoning and Development Standards propose a mix of uses, activity, and density
which are not compatible with the surrounding low density residential uses and activity;
8. The project does not have sufficient on -site circulation design to accommodate the proposed
resort club use and fails to meet the Town Standards for parking.
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.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm @bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Residence Club, Lot 38A, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 9
April 4, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Respectfully submitted,
Karen S. GriffithVAI
Town Planner
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\ 2000\ 38bbm@bczonechange2ndpzmtgl.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Town of Avon
Re- Zoning and PUD Staff Report
March 2L 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date March 14, 2000
Legal description Lot 38B, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Current zoning RD- Residential Duplex
Address 220 West Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
Robert Borg has submitted an application to re -zone Lot 38 B, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision from RD- Residential duplex to PUD. Mr. Borg would like to establish a private
residence club, which would allow him to sell 24 memberships to his duplex unit located at 220 -
A West Beaver Creek Boulevard. "Members would purchase a fee simple, undivided, deeded
interest in the club with year -round access. Their interest in the unit could be sold, willed, or
placed in trust like any other piece of real estate." The members' use of the unit would be
through a reservation system. Mr. Borg's proposal is attached to this report.
The PUD zoning has been requested to allow this use in the RD zone district, which would
otherwise not be permitted. According to Section 17. 20.060 of the Zoning Code, single - family
homes, duplex homes and accessory caretaker's apartments are the only allowed uses in the RD
zone. The Special Review Uses specified under this zone district include home occupations,
residential bed and breakfasts, above ground public utility installations, and churches.
Re- Zoning Criteria
1. Is the proposed re- zoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the
area proposed to be rezoned?
In staff's opinion the character of the residential neighborhood has not changed and does not
justify the re- zoning. Mr. Borg makes the argument that that the resort club will have no more
impact than the short-term rentals, which already exist, in the neighborhood. While rentals are
not prohibited by the Zoning Code, the RD zone district is not intended as an area to promote
commercial short-term rentals. Staff is concerned that the introduction of the resort club would
encourage commercial uses in the neighborhood that would be detrimental.
2. Is the proposed re- zoning consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan?
Please see discussion under PUD criteria below.
3. Are the proposed uses compatible with the surrounding area or uses?
Staff does not believe a resort club, which we consider to be commercial in nature, is a
compatible use in a low - density residential neighborhood. Staff recognizes that the property is
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\2000\ 32100 \38bbm@bczonechangepudfinal.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Resort Club, Lot 38B, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 2
March 21, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
adjacent to high- density residential uses. However, the applicant's property is in the middle of a
row of property zoned RD. We do not believe the resort club is compatible with the RD zoning
with duplexes located on either side of lot 38.
4. Are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the
proposed zone change?
The Town has received reports from our financial consultants that this type of use requires a
higher level of Town services such as bus transportation and recreational facilities than the
permitted low- density residential uses would require. The increased impact of this project
warrants further scrutiny and reinforces staff's recommendation that the use is not compatible
with the neighborhood.
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.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
• The property is designated for residential use on the Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive
Plan. The resort club is a commercial use and is therefore in conflict with the land use
designation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy A1.3 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of PUDs where it will provide a
benefit to the community and be compatible with surrounding development. According to
this policy, "flexible zoning (PUDs) will only be allowed where it provides a benefit to the
community and is compatible with the surrounding development. Variations from standard
zoning must be clearly demonstrated, and will be permitted only to achieve effective
development ". In staff's opinion the resort club is a high intensity use that is not in keeping
with the intent of the RD Zone District. We do not believe establishment of a resort club in a
low- density residential neighborhood would be a benefit to the community. The use of the
PUD to establish such a use that is not otherwise allowed in the zone district essentially
constitutes spot zoning.
• The Resort Club proposal is in conflict with Comprehensive Plan Policy Al.1 which states
that "Development and re- development will be of a scale and intensity appropriate for the
neighborhood in which it is located ". The intensity of use for a resort club with 24
memberships is in conflict with the low density /intensity nature of the residential duplex zone
district and the residential character of the neighborhood.
• The proposal for a private resort club is in conflict with Policy C 1.1 "to maintain and
enhance the character of the residential neighborhoods ". Introducing a commercial use such
as a resort club may contribute to the deterioration of the residential neighborhood by
establishing a precedent for other commercial uses to locate in this residential area.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design
recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
The property is located in Sub Area 7 -the Nottingham Park Residential District. This area is
described by the Comprehensive Plan as a high quality residential development. The
recommendations for this area include that new development should be at least of the same
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\2000\ 32100 \38bbm@bczonechangepudfinal.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Resort Club, Lot 38B, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 3
March 21, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
quality and character as existing development. The new development could reduce the
quality of this residential area.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and
orientation.
Staff considers the proposed resort club to be a higher intensity use than is appropriate for
this low- density residential neighborhood. As discussed above, the approval of this use could
change the character of the entire Nottingham Park neighborhood by introducing commercial
uses with adverse impacts.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with
surrounding uses and activity.
The proposed resort club will introduce a higher level of activity than is appropriate in a low -
density residential neighborhood.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property upon which the PUD is proposed.
No change.
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.
Since the property is already developed there will be no changes with respect to this criterion.
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 parking and back up areas are minimal. The parking as proposed does not comply with
the development standards outlined below.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, views and function.
No change.
9. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads,
parks, and police and fire protection.
No change.
10. 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.
No change.
Development Standards
Development Standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site
coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the
approved development plan with consideration of the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
• The parking requirement for the use most similar to a resort club is timeshare. This requires
1 parking space per 600 square feet of area. Based on the size of the proposed resort club, 6
parking spaces would be required. Mr. Borg proposes 4 parking spaces, resulting in a
reduction in 2 spaces from the standard requirement.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff repo rts\ 2000\ 32100 \38bbm @bczonechangepudfinal.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Resort Club, Lot 38B, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, page 4
March 21, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
• No other changes to the standard requirements are proposed.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 00 -3, denying the Re- zoning PUD application for the
resort club.
Recommended Motion
"I move to adopt Resolution 00 -3 recommending that Town Council deny the re- zoning and
PUD application with the findings:
1. The proposed re- zoning is not justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of
the area proposed to be rezoned.
2. The proposed re- zoning is not consistent with the land use designation of the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed use is not compatible with the neighborhood.
4. The proposed re- zoning for a resort club will have a negative impact on Town Transportation
systems and recreational facilities.
5. The Planned Unit Development Plan and Development Standards for Lot 38B, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek do not comply with each of the Town of Avon's PUD design
criteria because the commercial nature of the use is in conflict with the residential character
of the neighborhood and that this proposed commercial use would be detrimental to the
public interest.
6. The resort club is not compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and
adjacent properties relative to the character of the neighborhood;
7. The PUD Zoning and Development Standards propose a mix of uses, activity, and density
which are not compatible with the surrounding low density residential uses and activity;
8. The project does not have sufficient on -site circulation design to accommodate the proposed
resort club use and fails to meet the Town Standards for parking.
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.
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\2000\ 32100 \38bbm ®bczonechangepudfinal.doc
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749
Rezoning and PUD for Resort Club, Lot 38B, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivisicu, page 5
March 21, 2000 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Respectfully submitted, �-
r" 1
i
Karen S. Griffith, AICW
Town Planner
Town of Avon Community Development f: \p &z \staff reports\2000\321 00\38bbm @ bczonechan gep udf inal. doe
(970) 748- 4030Fax modem (970) 949 -5749