Council tables Gray Fox rezoning after residents and members press for larger buffers and lower density

Beaver Creek — The city council on the first hearing of PUD26-2 declined to advance a rezoning request from Gray Fox and developer Jake Shields, sending the matter back to staff and the applicant for revisions after residents and multiple council members raised concerns about density and the proximity of new buildings to existing homes.

Jake Shields, the applicant, told the council the 22.3-acre site at 3870 Indian Ripple Road is designated “neighborhood mixed use” in the recently adopted future land use plan and that Gray Fox’s intention is to provide a mix of attached housing and limited commercial services. “We are not trying to push a square peg in a round hole,” Shields said, describing voluntary commitments to reduce density from the plan’s maximum and to limit certain commercial uses.

But members of the adjacent Eagle Point neighborhood said they fear loss of tree cover and wildlife, increased traffic and noise, and the effect of multifamily buildings directly behind single-family yards. “Once this is built, how is that going to be maintained?” said Amy Iikner, president of the Eagle Point Homeowners Association. “Please keep the parcels in question zoned as R1A.”

Council members raised similar concerns. Councilman Curran said the northern edge of the parcel, where R1A lots abut the proposed PUD, merits a larger buffer and called the proposed 25-foot buffer “insufficient.” Councilwoman Bills said she favors housing diversity but agreed she could not support a 25-foot buffer and said she wants stronger protections for adjacent homeowners.

City planning staff outlined the two-phase MXPUD process and the conditions included in the draft ordinance — including caps on units (an overall limit of no more than 116 units under the present draft), two-story limits, and a 25-foot buffer with provisions for a 50-foot building setback in places. Staff also noted planning commission’s recommendation to approve subject to the listed conditions.

Shields told council he is open to negotiating a larger buffer, additional landscaping, mounding and other mitigation measures and said the developer can consider whether portions might be limited to for-sale housing instead of rentals. He warned, however, that some trade-offs could affect the feasibility and layout of the project.

After extended public comment and council discussion, a motion to table PUD26-2 carried. Council instructed the applicant to work with staff on revisions to address the buffer, density and site-layout concerns before returning for further readings and another public hearing.

Next steps: the applicant will revise the proposal and present updated buffer and density commitments for council consideration at a future meeting.