PZC Minutes 10-04-2005 (3)�4, Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
AVON
Meeting
October 4, 2005
` ° ` U ` " 0 ° Meetings Held At: Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building 1400 Benchmark Road
5:00 pm - 5:30pm Commission Work Session
(Discussion of Items on Regular Meeting Agenda)
- REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -
I. Call to Order at 5:30 pm
it. Roll Call
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Consent Agenda: Approval of the September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes.
VI. PUD Amendment / Sheraton Mtn. Vista (6:30pm — 8:00pm) PUBLIC HEARING - Tabled
from September 20, 2005 Commission meeting
Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision/140 West Beaver Creek
Boulevard
Applicant/Owner Points of Colorado, Inc
Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing property rights and
zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application proposes to eliminate a 125 -room hotel
and restaurant, and increases the number of time-share units in the project's last phase of
development. The Commission tabled this application from their August 16, 2005 meeting.
VIL Sketch Design (8:00pm — 8:20pm) - Tabled from the September 20, 2005 Commission
meeting
Property Location. Lot 10, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/ Wildridge Road West
AppiicantlOwner.• Daniel Ritsch
Description: Stephen Richards is proposing a Sketch Design application for a 9,080 square foot
duplex residence in Wildridge. The subject property is relatively steep and would be accessed from
Wildridge Road East. Approximately 28% of the lot contains 40% or greater slopes.
Vill. Lighting Plan (8:20pm — 8:30pm)
Property Location: Lot 22AB, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/245 Chapel PI
Applicant: Greg Gastineau
Description: Greg Gastineau is proposing a Lighting Plan to fulfill a condition of Final Design approval
for the Wells Fargo drive through bank in Chapel Square. A Lighting Plan is required by the Outdoor
Lighting Ordinance to accompany all design and building permit applications. This plan proposes all
"full cutoff" light fixtures.
IX. Other Business (8:30pm — 8:40pm)
Posted on September 30, 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at htto://www.avon.ora I Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
UNELEEM3=
Posted on September 30, 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• City Market, main entrance bulletin board
• On the Internet at htto:ttwww.avon.oro. t Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
f
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
11 � 0 �i Minutes
IYoI� • . A o o September 20, 2005
5:00 pm — 5:30 pm Commission Work Session
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner D'Agostino.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There was an amendment to the to the Agenda for Item VI moved to end of the agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Buckner disclosed a conflict with Item IX, Sketch Design —10 Residential
Units, Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540
Beaver Creek Blvd, Applicant/Owner. Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch.
V. Consent Agenda:
• Approval of the September 6, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Page 4, first paragraph, third line, removal of the word 'abet'.
• Approval of the September 14, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Special
Comprehensive Plan Meeting.
• Item VI, Comprehensive Plan Update — PUBLIC HEARING, Description: Discussion
on the proposed Implementation Matrix, moved to last item on the agenda.
Commissioner Green motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Smith
seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Buckner abstaining due to
absence at the meeting.
VI. Comprehensive Plan Update - PUBLIC HEARING
Description: Discussion on the proposed Implementation Matrix.
Rebecca Leonard began the discussion by stating that start and finish dates were removed from
the plan with the intention that larger time frames would be easier with budget restraints that
may arise. Ms. Leonard continued that a recommending body does not have the authority.
Commissioner Smith commented that the time line gave credibility to the facets of the plan.
Commissioner Green mentioned that priority items would move to the top.
Ms. Leonard took all the policies from the previous meeting, broke them out from the ongoing
policies, broke them down between short term and long term, she asked her staff what they
thought were long and short term issues, reviewed it with responses from the Commission and
loosely prioritized the issues. The commissioners then prioritized the Implementation Matrix
and discussed as follows: (1 = high priority.... 5 = lesser priority)
Short Term Priorities:
West Town Center —1
East Town Center — 2
Nottingham Park District — 4
Signage, Wayfinding and Streetscapes — 2
Community Gateways — 2
Housing Needs Assessment — 4
Three -Mile Plan - 5
Update Land Use Regulations — 1
Retail Analysis — 3
Energy and Environmental Resources Plan — 5
Pedestrian Circulation and Connection —1
Parking and Vehicular Connections between West Town Center District .... etc — 3
Long Term Priorities:
Public Art Plan — 3
Master Plans for Each District — 2
US Highway 6 Streetscapes — 3
Buffers from 1-70 — 4
Venue for Cultural Events — 2
Joint Visitor Center with BC — 4
Connection from Metcalf Road to Beaver Creek Blvd —1
Transit Service Plan — removed from priorities
Traffic Calming Measures — removed from priorities
Transit from Village at Avon to Town Center Districts — 4
Railroad Right of Way Preservation —1
Alternative Road Development -5
Educational Campaign Regarding Noise — 5
Riverfront Park —1
Cost of Growth Analysis — 3
Vision statement and history will be discussed at the 9/28 meeting. Ms Leonard will attempt to
get the maps and the vision statement to the commissioners and staff prior to the next meeting.
VII. PUD Amendment 1 Sheraton Mtn. Vista - PUBLIC HEARING - Tabled from August
16, 2005 Meeting — Requesting tabling to the October 4, 2005 Meeting.
Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision/140 West Beaver
Creek Boulevard
Applicant/Owner. Points of Colorado, Inc
Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing property rights
and zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application proposes to eliminate a 125 -
room hotel and restaurant, and increases the number of time-share units in the project's last
phase of development. The Commission tabled this application from their August 16, 2005
meeting.
No public input was provided.
OPEN PUBLIC MEETING
CLOSED PUBLIC MEETING
t
1
Given the current projection of work load, Commissioner Smith moved to table Item VII, PUD
Amendment / Sheraton Mtn. Vista - PUBLIC NEARING - Tabled from August 16, 2005 Meeting
— Requesting tabling to the October 4, 2005 Meeting. Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at
Beaver Creek Subdivision/140 West Beaver Creek Boulevard, to either October 4, or the first
meeting in November 2005, should they request another tabling, with Commissioner Green
seconding the motion. All commissioners approved the motion to table.
VIII. Fence Application
Property Location: Lot 9, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/998 West
Beaver Creek Boulevard
Applicant: Jeff Lineback
Description: Jeff Lineback is proposing a split rail fence on the property of Sunridge Phase I
(also known as 'Lift View Condominiums'). This application follows a meeting on site with the
Town's Code Enforcement Officer. Because this application fails to meet the criteria for
residential fences as outlined in the Design Guidelines, speck approval from the Commission
is required.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Jeff Lineback, property manager for the Liftview Condominiums and homeowner, approached
the podium to comment on the purpose and need for a split rail fence. The main reason was to
define the property lines of the complex; keep dogs outside of the property and it would parallel
the property line. Mr. Lineback said the Board and Property Owners wanted a ranch style look.
Commissioner Savage questioned the number of rails and stated that no chicken wire could be
used. Commissioner Struve asked if the fence would be continuous and Mr. Lineback
responded that some natural boulders would break the fences' continuous look and it would be
four or five feet from the property line.
Commissioner Green agreed with Staff regarding not delineating the property line and
suggested sections of fence with landscaping breaks the continuous look and provides a more
creative boundary option. Commissioner Savage voiced his support of this project with two rails
split rail, and scissoring or following the property line. Commissioner Smith agreed with
breaking it up. Commissioner Struve questioned the painting of the fence and the response
was no, questioned its length of 750 feet, appearance should be irregular, and the fence should
not inhibit the bike path. Commissioner Buckner agreed with his peers to use interruptions
along with the fence and voiced his support.
Commissioner Evans did not agree with fencing off the bike path, agreed with breaking up the
fence line with pods of landscaping and was not in favor of the project as presented to the
Commission.
Commissioner Smith motioned to table Item VIII, Fence Application, Property Location: Lot 9,
Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/998 West Beaver Creek Boulevard, Applicant:
Jeff Lineback., in order for Mr. Lineback to return to the Commission with a new set of plans for
the fencing that reflect the Commission's directives. Commissioner Green seconded the motion
and all Commissioners were in favor.
IX. Sketch Design —10 Residential Units
Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision/540 Bea ver
Creek Blvd.
Applicant/Owner. Davis Partnership Architects/Daniel Ritsch
Description: The applicant, Davis Partnership Architects, is proposing a 10 unit residential
project on this lot. The proposed materials include a combination of stone veneer and wood
siding with a maximum building height of 58' and maximum lot coverage of approximately 3.5%.
The subject property measures approximately .69 acres and is currently undeveloped.
Eric Heidemann presented the Staff Report.
Scott Nevin, Davis Partnership Architects, approached the podium for commissioner review. He
began by commenting on the reduction of housing units, increase of landscaping and open
space, opening up a large view corridor, minimizing parking, enhancing the building separation
with a pool, use of stone on the base, and the need for the use of a non-combustible material.
Commissioner Evans questioned which scheme Mr. Nevin preferred when compared to his last
submittal. Mr. Nevin responded that this current presentation was better with its creative
pockets to the west, less massing, and its design. He continued that the parking was based on
density. Commissioner Savage thought that this design was more intrusive on the Alpentlora
complex than their previous application. Commissioner Struve questioned the height of the
lower units, with 35 feet and 48 feet.
Commissioner Green voiced that architecturally Mr. Nevin was using too many curves, he
favored the angles and massing, expressed that the hedges could be better used but he was
going in the right direction. Commissioner Smith voiced concerns with the roofline curves and
commented that the massing was better but service parking would be an issue for guests.' Mr.
Nevin responded that It was an issue. Commissioner Smith questioned the pool by the lake and
the response was it would be enclosed. Commissioner Struve commented that this project
really changes the neighborhood. He continued that there were workforce -housing units on ;site,
too many eyebrows, and good use of windows. Commissioner Evans suggested firewalling the
lowest level, expressed the impact on Alpenflora was not as bad as it was perceived.
Commissioner Savage voiced the concern for the curves going in opposite directions as
something to consider for their final design presentation.
X. Sketch Design - Duplex
Property Location: Lot 10, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/ Wildridge Road West
Applicant/Owner. Daniel Ritsch
Description: The applicant is proposing a duplex on this Wildridge property.
Daniel Ritsch, applicantlowner, requested tabling this application, as his architect was not ;able
to be present.
Commissioner Struve moved to table Item X, Sketch Design — Duplex, Property Location: Lot
10, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/ Wildridge Road West, with Commissioner Smith seconc ing.
All commissioners were in favor.
XI. Sketch Design - Duplex
Property Location: Lot 78, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision/5691 Wildridge Road East
Applicant: John G. Martin, Architect/ Owner Dan Dirksen
ri
U
Description: John Martin is proposing a duplex on this '/: acre property. This application
proposes two units; the western 4 -bedroom unit measures 4,078 square feet, and the eastern 3 -
bedroom unit measures 3,079 square feet. The structure is three levels with a south facing
walkout basement level.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report.
John Martin approached the podium. He began that this project was approved back in 1999 but
not acted upon and he was using the original design for the most part. Commissioner Struve
asked if the second floor would look over the house and the response was affirmative.
Commissioner Buckner began with commending the applicant for his readable set of plans and
noted the north elevation and the area of roof sloping down on the garage area. Mr. Martin
responded that a roof plan would be done to accommodate the issue. Commissioner Struve
voiced the project would be a great addition to Wildridge.
XII. MinorProject- Addition
Property Location: Lot 56, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2245A Old Trail Road
ApplicantsrOwners: Mark & Alicia Pribramsky
Description: The owners are proposing an addition to an existing duplex unit in Wildridge. Two
bedrooms and two bathrooms would be added above a space that will be converted into a
family room. The exterior of the home will be modified with the addition of new windows and
wood siding.
Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission.
Sarah Brown, architect, approached the podium to discuss the project. She began by
commenting the addition was to accommodate the owner's increasing family and make positive
enhancements to the existing structure.
Commissioner Green voiced a need for a three dimensional sketch or model to understand what
was being proposed. Commissioner Struve voiced that a second floor was being put in with 500
sq ft. Commissioner Evans was willing to approve the project as presented. Commissioner
Buckner questioned if there was an opposition to leave the white window trim.
Commissioner Struve motioned for approval with the following conditions: windows must match
with the same color on both sides of the duplex, either white or dark bronze. Commissioner
Savage seconded and all commissioners were in favor.
XI. Other Business
A. Todd Grzyinski, 4040 Eaglebend Drive, approached the podium to discuss the
home's new proposed paint color. Commissioner Savage motioned to approve Lot
16 Block 2 Filing 1's colors as shown on the sample presented to the commission on
this day. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and all were in favor.
XII. Adjourn
Commissioner Struve motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was
adjourned at 8:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth Weiss
Recording Secretary
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
M Aemo
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission AVON
From. Eric Heidemann, Senior Planner C 0 L 0 R A D O
Data September 29th, 2005
Re. Lot C PUD Amendment — Update Memo
Summary:
On August Ie, 2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this PUD amendment request
and directed the applicant to address the Commission's concerns prior to the next public hearing.
Those concerns included: (1) the removal of retail space on the ground level; (2) the deficiency in
parking; (3) the height and massing of the project (Phase 1-C and 1-D); (4) the loss of pedestrian
spaces at ground level; and (5) the water rights needed to serve the project. The applicant has since
revised to the PUD amendment application, which is summarized in the table provided by the
applicant (exhibit A). Also included in the Commission's packet are the revised plan sets, which
include the proposed elevations and site plan.
After reviewing the recent modifications to the amendment application, it appears that minimal
consideration was given to the guidance provide by the Commission, particularly with respect to the
height and massing of the project. Although the applicant has reduced the number of proposed
timeshare units by 12, the reduction in units has- not resulted in a significant reduction in height or
mass. There appears to be little or no change in the height or mass to Phase 1—C and Phase 1-D
was modified slightly by dropping a portion of the top level along both the southern and northern end
of the building. It is also important to note that the additional commercial square footage that was
added since the Commission last review still represents a net reduction of 4,450 square feet when
compared with the approved PUD and continues to propose office use as a use by right at the plaza
level. The massing of the project and commercial square footage were items the Commission had
unanimously expressed concern with.
The proposed parking was also a concern that was raised by both staff and the Commission. As
submitted, the project continues to be deficient in the number of parking spaces provided (see table
below).
Use
Required
I
Calculation
Spaces
Residential
414
1 X414
Commercial
109
27,240 sq, ft. Pa, 411000
Employee Housing
20
j
1'X 20
MU Reduction
(81)
I
15"x,
Total Required
462
Total Provided
353
Deficient
(109)
Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission, October e, 2005 Page 1 0l
Lot C PUD Amendment
Background:
The applicant, Points of Colorado Inc., has requested an amendment to the Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") for Sheraton Mountain Vista — Lot C. The Sheraton Mountain Vista is a
partially built project that borders "Main -Street" to the south, and West Beaver Creek Boulevard to
the north. The Lot C PUD is a mixed-use project that includes residential, office and commercial land
uses. The developed portion of the project includes 20 employee -housing units, 85 two-bedroom
time-share units, and approximately 17,450 square feet of office/retail space. The undeveloped uses
include additional timeshare units, general office and retail, restaurant, and the inclusion of a 125 -
room hotel.
The build -out of the project occurs in three phases: Phases 1A, 1B and 1C. The portion of the
timeshare and commercial space along with the employee housing has been built in accordance with
Phase 1A and 1B with the majority of ground -level retail and hotel/restaurant occurring in the last
phase (Phase 1C). The amendment request applies to Phase 1C and the inclusion of an additional
Phase 1D, these being the final phases of the project. Phase 1C has a proposed occupancy date of
December 1, 2007 and Phase 1D has an occupancy date of December 1, 2011. Phase 1C is
currently entitled 48 timeshare units, 5,500 square feet of commercial/retail, 4,800 square feet of
restaurant, and a 125 -room hotel. The amendment request would eliminate the restaurant and hotel,
reduce the amount of commercial square footage, and increase the number of time-share units.
Phase 1 D would further increase the number of time share units and increase the commercial1retail
space.
Staff Recommendation
The applicant appears to have satisfactorily addressed the water availability concern by
expressing a verbal commitment to provide the necessary water rights. However, staff
maintains the original recommendation of DENIAL because there are several significant issues
the application poses that cannot be reconciled or otherwise mitigated through the
recommendation of a conditional approval. Please refer to the previous staff report for specific
information and the approval criteria. Staff recommends that the Commission deliberate on the
proposed amendment and if the applicant is unwilling to significantly alter the proposal, the
Commission should forward this application to Town Council with a recommendation of denial.
Attachments:
A. Revised plan sets and table dated September 23rd, 2005
B. Meeting minutes fonn the August 16'h,2005 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
C. PUD Amendment Report to the Planning & Zoning Commission - dated August 2nd , 2005.
Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission, October 401, 2005 Page 2 of
Lot C PUD Amendment
i
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
AVON Minutes
a � o o August 16, 2005
5:00 pm — 5:30 pm Commission Work Session
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:37pm.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Savage.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts to report.
V. Consent Agenda:
• Approval of the August 2, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Commissioner Smith motioned for approval of the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Struve
seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner Buckner abstaining due to his
absence at the last meeting.
VI. PUD Amendment I Sheraton Mtn. Vista - PUBLIC HEARING - Tabled from August
Z 2005 Meeting
Eric Heidemann made a presentation. Packet contents were presented, including a massing
model with existing and -proposed buildings. The history of the project, phasing, and the
surrounding land uses were outlined by staff. Elimination of restaurant, hotel space, and
commercial space was highlighted as it relates to staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Green questioned the water rights. Norman Wood explained how the original
development rights from the Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision relate to the current
PUD plan. Commissioner Evans questioned if there is enough water for this development.
The response in short was that yes, there is Town water to negotiate for what is proposed.
Commissioner D'Agostino asked staff about the use by right for office and/or retail space.
The existing PUD permits retail space on the ground floor. The applicant would like to add
'office' as a use by right to the definition of retail. Commissioner D'Agostino questioned why
the applicant did not want to take part in a joint work session with Council.
The applicant, Ruth Borne, made a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission
showing other timeshare properties operated by Starwood. Alexander Sheykhet (architect)
and Jim McKnight (Starwood Vacations) were introduced. Mr. Sheykhet made a detailed
presentation of the project.
Ruth Some outlined the existing and proposed entitlements including number of units, uses,
and parking requirements. There was discussion of hotel versus timeshare use. The
applicant stated that the current Sheraton averages almost 78% occupancy, with 20% being
hotel.
Commissioner Green questioned whether the "hotel" occupancy would be higher in the
proposed situation opposed to the mixed hotel/timeshare mix. Commissioner Evans spoke to
the parking in Section 5 of the proposal — Parking Standards. The definition of dwelling unit
versus timeshare unit and how parking is and has been applied to the project was discussed
at length. The Commission was in general agreement that the parking standards needed to
be clarified by the next meeting.
Commissioner Green asked about how the subdivision for the current project took place, and
if it was contemplated with the original approval whether the 2 bedroom units could be
subdivided into two separate units. The applicant explained the rational for the phasing.
Commissioner Evans asked about Phase 1D and 1E and how they relate to the Main Street
plan. Alexander pointed out the building architecture and how the buildings step down from 7
to 6 to 5 stories as it approaches Main Street. Additionally, the architectural features the
building would contain. Commissioner Green questioned how this project is pedestrian
friendly. Alexander explained how ground level features such as well-proportioned canopies,
retail space, and natural materials would benefit the pedestrian experience.
Commissioner Struve asked if the other Starwood properties have a standard for the ratio of
Commercial space for these projects. Mr. McKnight responded that the geographic area is
assessed and there are no set standards.
Commissioner Evans asked if Alexander could point out with the massing model what the
existing entitlements would look like opposed to the proposed massing. Alexander showed
the Commission how the project would took in both scenarios. Commissioner Buckner
questioned the proposed massing and if it was the economics that were driving the
appearance. He asked if there was consideration in keeping with the existing building
massing.
The relationship of the project's massing and Main Street was discussed. Alexander
described how pedestrian vitality could be strengthened with density, and not just the amount
of retail/commercial space provided. The Commission wanted to focus on the pedestrian
experience and how the proposed buildings may affect this experience.
Commissioner Green voiced the uninviting pedestrian environment as it relates to the 1996
Comprehensive Plan. Ruth Some discussed the westerly elevation and how its architecture
was driven by the need to accommodate delivery vehicles and trash services during original
approval. Way finding from the Avon Recreation Center to the project and visa versa was
commented on, and the feeling of closing in the Courtyard with the buildings.
Commissioner Evans opened the Public Hearing to any interested members of the public
There were no public comments.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Evans summarized his issues with the application as it stands. Ruth Borne
explained their feelings on other projects in Town and the need for flexibility in the Lot C PUD
application. Commissioner Buckner was concerned with water. He felt that the mixed-use
aspect and project massing could benefit from discussions through a work session. The
underground access for Lot B was questioned. Ruth Borne responded that water would be
brought to the Town instead of buying from the Town. Commissioner Buckner was
uncomfortable with the massing of Phase 1 D specifically and the resulting phasing proposed
with this application. A work session possibility was discussed and whether a
Council/Commission session could happen. Tambi Katieb responded that this type of work
session could no longer happen with a live application.
Commissioner Struve wants to see water worked out, parking fixed, smaller retail spaces,
additional landscaping, and is concerned with the massing of the project as a whole.
He felt that the project would benefit with some sort of attraction in the courtyard to help draw
people in, instead of turning its back.
Commissioner D'Agostino was not in support of application as it stands. Specific points to
highlight included: the hotel to timeshare was o.k., disappointed with the loss of pedestrian
spaces at ground level, the parking definition and loss of spaces needs to be worked out, the
water issues must be resolved, massing of the project as it is a barrier and not a gateway
which is against the goal of creating a place. Two main issues; height and massing. The
building's new proposed phases do not appear to step down to Main Street. Scale could be
perceived better from all angles if the project were built with the current phases. More detail
fenestration needs to be added.
Commissioner Smith has no problem with timeshare opposed to hotel land-use. She had a
problem with the perceived massing of Phase 1 D and it is not an inviting element to enter the
property. The Benchmark side is an issue and retail needs to be incorporated into the new
phases. Parking is a big issue even with existing phases. Underground parking is not
pleasant for guests who arrive by car and is not in support as presented. Commissioner
Green discussed issues relating to pedestrian orientated spaces. Massing does not step
down.in a graceful matter. Commissioner Green referenced page 32 in the Comprehensive
Plan as it relates to public spaces. Parking was a concern to Commissioner Green and he
felt that the restaurant use may not be removed with the new phases.
Commissioner Evans stated that he is willing to accommodate a timed approach to
retail/office uses as part of a resolution with. He would like to retain the ability to have those
spaces there with carefully crafted language while still maintaining flexibility. Parking and
massing were also an issue to Mr. Evans.
Alexander stated that there seemed to be three general areas that the Planning Commission
had issues with that included: the retail space, massing, and parking. Ruth Borne followed
by requesting for a tabling to see if they can balance their needs and Commission's with
more time. Eric Heidemann asked for a two meeting tabling to allow staff for time to review
and evaluate any revised information that staff would receive.
Tambi Katieb requested a strikethrough draft Development Agreement to assist with the
review of this application. Ruth Borne stated that this is not the appropriate time since there
may be some major revisions between now and Council review. The Commission discussed
phasing and the desire was for one more phase instead of two. Mr. McKnight's response
was that only one more phase would not be economically feasible. Commissioner Evans
stated that if the remainder of the project did not happen all at once than what is the
compromise. The timing of the development agreement before going to council was
reiterated.
Commissioner Green motioned to table the application until the regular meeting on
September 20'" meeting. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and all Commissioners
were in favor. The motion passed 6-0.
XII. Other Business
Commissioner Green questioned the parking and widening of Old Trail Road. It was
commented that there is no shoulder now. The next council meeting on the 23rd will include a
presentation by Design Workshop to follow up with the design charret and open house.
Discussion may include what the first phase of project will be.
Tambi Katieb gave update on the Gates project and stated that all approvals are now void and
expired. The Commission's decision on Lot 12 was upheld by Council.
XIII. Adjourn
Commissioner motioned to adjourn; Commissioner seconded the motion. All Commissioners
were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Matt Pielsticker
Community Development
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairman
Phil Struve
Secretary
qU
G
N
m
m
my
m
m
m
�p
bC
W{p
b
AU{Cp
b
�c{p
bC
da{pp
bC
ryary
bC
�a�p
SC
�a{p ���pp
.C`�
SCal
bC
b
ynj
La
$
d
80
20
Is 0a
20
0
0
0
0
E
E29
g N
g N
29
g N
29
a N
29
N
29
N
29
N
�g
g N
'_
g N
'_
g N
'_
C
'
o
'g
MI
d 'k
MI
W 'K
MI
d 'n
d 'k
N 'a
N 'F
ii 'aco
�
•o
-
g
�
�
53
�
v
L12
m
U.
m
U
m
U
1�
m
U,2�'
h
0
V
h
M
U
12f20.
m
0
d
0.
f2
m
0
f2
U._
E
M
U
v
Q
m
Nf0
NRI_N
R)
NRI_Nm
Nm
w
0
ay 93t
ae Ole,
_N_M _N_M _Mm
2e'X' T'2e 3{�e X2e 2e 3e 3e'2e Xp'3e doe
K
SE dE X
—moo
rNww
OMirmOMlm�cO'b
Y 2O
;SO)Mmma�R
W AfN0f7`0`�°awnn
W w
M
IL
��tO
t+INMN'YNmtN�1
� MNIN0
—Mv, w
IMM
�0
U
co
d
CL
E
CD
w
N
cc
aaS)i
@
Qs
Lu ,,
a5
W
�5
95
sWJsW
a3
a
sW••,gW
�5
�3
sW
�o
sw
�o
w
0g
sW,•s
LU
o5
3p
3�
,gW
3�
3�
3�
3�
3�
3�
3�
3�
�.)
Q. (L
00
00
IL J�dJ
00
Fd
00
JFd
00
JFd
00
JFO.JHR.
00
00
JFR.JFa
00
00
JFO.JFa
0
00
00
JF
p_ CO
U) MM
a
i
¢
2
¢
i
n.
i
a
M
¢
E
a
E
o.
a
U) n
p)
w�r
0
08
E
a
o
S
66
S
8
S
S
S
S
8
S
m
m
&i
Eo
66
i7
LL
NN
OQ`N
qQ`N
N
�
NO
N
N
N
N CC�y
WN>
AoV
�O`1
`QQ�N`
d'QO
r8
,g
`nom
I:�
is
nv
Q a
J H
o
LL
N
w
3
LL
N
N
3
U.
1
0
d
w� w� w� wQ wQ wQ wQ wQ wQ w w� w� w� w� w� w�
as 00a 00a00a00a00a00a00a00a00a00 OOa00a00a00a00a00
a $d a $d a d a�¢ a a CL d a $d a
d 8 8 S o 8 8 S 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 S 8
E m iii ci m ri id vi m dd
F
N N N ifI NQ T C N N N N N>
o n g n g n n n$ n a r n g n
t9 w i F 3 LL N N
=A - .
d
d�
�c
d
G
6
6$
G.�
6
G
6
pqy
a6
�
�
`ygvy.
c y�y �$
y°_y''
.yqN��.�
y3y�•
v3yJ,
ygy
ygyJJ
E
o m S.
m"
m W
m
m
m
io
m
Lh
T
i?
�U.
U UB
U8
U
U
U
U
Q o m
M
m N0
0
w
ae m b ZR rg ma�pp
yC
ap W O1VNea�pp pgp it
aR
a bA O
g{eO tatyt ae zx O�2p ybEN O g N N[�� x ae N Ogg Ogg{ Nm g s Nt��f yx
7
LL
� RNNMQO�Nt�f1
C�Y�mN �m
N�t�ON��NNCO
V �N�N W YN bNNn YEN CfO't��l�Q�� W
U
N
CL
T
CL
E
W
0
d
w� w� w� wQ wQ wQ wQ wQ wQ w w� w� w� w� w� w�
as 00a 00a00a00a00a00a00a00a00a00 OOa00a00a00a00a00
a $d a $d a d a�¢ a a CL d a $d a
d 8 8 S o 8 8 S 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 S 8
E m iii ci m ri id vi m dd
F
N N N ifI NQ T C N N N N N>
o n g n g n n n$ n a r n g n
t9 w i F 3 LL N N
=A - .
m
111
W W W W,� W W,a W Q W� W� W W W� W� W W w<
t-^3}-� 3t' 3� :u:i64 rE "�-W;t �"�3r-^�3r`�3r ^�?:P -:: �3r'�3E "�3:P
M oa o0 00 00 0a oa o0 00 00 00 00 o0 oa oo ao 00 00
CL a��a��a�r ami a_��,a�ra �,a��,a_.r_�_a�hn.,,Hn I-a.�,�-air-,a��a�r,IL
aa a �aT a a a $d a
o $ $ $ o 8 S
E r m ri of .- r rb i+s m r id i i m
Fr r r
tlpQo�8 YQ?} SSS}}}} `1t� !n �-- N — T U� � - ��-•� �} � - � - � 8� -•- N-�-� � �•� N ro m} } U} m} i' } T T T
rnm rn_v� `w� m4 rn$ m� rn or"i� o, rna w�i 4 m pr`s
_ y _
C
tp
ry
{p
�p
{�
1p
C
a
W
D'O•
a
a
4f
41
9
N
_N
a
EI
N
O
O
M
�Np
g
Jq
�v
rma
ci
ci�m�
tip
c�
ci
U
�
ci
v
ci
ia�a� aei�ppa�a�a�ayy�acqq�2�a�a�
N�s�DM �liiY hW MipNYCgnO
V
a�073�3eX2t
4Cir
2�d��E
a aeaE3ta�ae�paeaexa�a�i�3ey��j
M, ae
mows
�_
tp
oNfp
Yp'l04f�
V �YivY�bmeNCNI
QlNQ W A�aOrD
n a Yi
G`LQ
<N1�1liNAY+Nr IN07 Q
W
'vV'toll
µ
va NV,
p
10 v u��
y
V W wsD
pp
iOm
W �V °'u�{NNNp�
W oNr
G
f0
GL
f1
E
W
m
111
W W W W,� W W,a W Q W� W� W W W� W� W W w<
t-^3}-� 3t' 3� :u:i64 rE "�-W;t �"�3r-^�3r`�3r ^�?:P -:: �3r'�3E "�3:P
M oa o0 00 00 0a oa o0 00 00 00 00 o0 oa oo ao 00 00
CL a��a��a�r ami a_��,a�ra �,a��,a_.r_�_a�hn.,,Hn I-a.�,�-air-,a��a�r,IL
aa a �aT a a a $d a
o $ $ $ o 8 S
E r m ri of .- r rb i+s m r id i i m
Fr r r
tlpQo�8 YQ?} SSS}}}} `1t� !n �-- N — T U� � - ��-•� �} � - � - � 8� -•- N-�-� � �•� N ro m} } U} m} i' } T T T
rnm rn_v� `w� m4 rn$ m� rn or"i� o, rna w�i 4 m pr`s
_ y _
0
�I79111111111111/p14
Staff Report AVO
N
Sketch Design C 0 L 0R A D0
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date September 15, 2005
Project type Duplex
Legal description Lot 10, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision
Zoning 2 Units — Residential Duplex
Address 4010 Wildridge Road West
Introduction
The applicant, Stephen Richards, Is proposing a Sketch Design application for a 9,080
square foot duplex residence. The subject property is a relatively steep uphill lot that
would be accessed from Wildridge Road East. The property will be a challenging lot to
develop primarily because of the nature of the topography and therefore careful
consideration should be given to all grading and treatment of exposed slopes.
Approximately 28% of the lot contains 40% or greater slopes, which is depicted on the
survey provided.
Staff Comments
The design of the proposed duplex residence appears to be inconsistent with the Town
of Avon Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Degion Rgvigw Guidelines. Although
the level of details required for Sketch Design submittal is limited, the amount of detail
provided particularly with regards to the proposed grading, the use and extent of
retaining walls, and proposed building materials makes it difficult for staff to support the
proposed application.
The proposed grading in the area located on the north side of the driveway entrance
appears to exceed our maximum 2:1 slope requirement. It is debatable whether
proposed grades in this area would function as drawn. The same could be said about
the functionality of the boulder retaining walls located below the driveway.. _These walls
will most likely be engineered walls and depending on the height may require an
additional tier. The applicant should be prepared to address the use and extent of both
the proposed grading and retaining walls and how they relate to drainage.
The application requires a description of the proposed building materials, however it is
unclear to staff what the proposed materials for the building would be. What is also
unclear is how the site plan is to accommodate the 7 proposed parking spaces.
According to the site plan, a total of 2 garage spaces per unit are provided which leaves
a total of 3 outdoor spaces. However, the on-site maneuvering may be difficult with the
provision of these outdoor spaces.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-3749
Lot 10, Block 3, Wildridb ,uplex Sketch Design
September 20, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2
The Residential Guidelines also state that duplex developments must be designed in a
manner that creates an integrated structure and while 'mirror image' duplexes are not
supported, the design intent should be one that creates a unified structure with enough
variation in style. The proposed building structure appears to be inconsistent with this
design guideline. With the exception of several small architectural features, the overall
form and mass of each unit appear to resemble one another. More variation and
architectural interest would be helpful to distinguish the two halves of the duplex.
As presented, staff does not support the sketch plan application because of the
concerns noted above. Staff has identified several issues that need further clarification
prior to submittal of the final design plan. These issues include: 1) proposed building
materials; 2) clarification of grading and the use of retaining walls with all structural
retaining walls designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer; and 3) more
variation in architecture that address the similarity of the two units.
Please keep in mind that staff may have additional comments regarding the design
application once the information and clarification of the issues raised have been
satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.
Design Review Considerations
The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the
specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria:
A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other
provisions of the Zoning Code.
B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of
the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Desion Review
Guidelines.
The Commission will take no formal action on the sketch plan application. Rather,
direction on the design will be given to the applicant from Staff and the Commission to
Incorporate in the final design application.
Staff will provide full plan sets for you to provide written comments and guidance to the
applicant at your January 18, 2005 meeting.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at
748-40009, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Heidemann
Senior Planner
Attachments: Application dates September 13, 2005
Town or Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Staff Report
PUD
August 2n°
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Current zoning
Address
7vi
C O L O R A 0 0
2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
July 25, 2005
Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Lot C, Block 2, Avon Center at Beaver Creek
Subdivision .
PUD
160 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
The applicant, Points of Colorado Inc., has requested an amendment to the Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") for Sheraton Mountain Vista — Lot C. The Sheraton Mountain Vista is a
partially built project that borders "Main -Street" to the south, and West Beaver Creek Boulevard
to the north. The Lot C PUD is a mixed-use project that includes residential, office and
commercial land uses. The developed portion of the project includes 20 employee -housing
units, 85 two-bedroom time-share units, and approximately 17,450 square feet of officetretail
space. The undeveloped uses include additional timeshare units, general office and retail,
restaurant, and the inclusion of a 125 -room hotel.
The build -out of the project occurs in three phases: Phases 1A, 1B and 1C. The portion of the
timeshare and commercial space along with the employee housing has been built in accordance
with Phase 1A and I with the majority of ground -level retail and hotel/restaurant occurring in
the last phase (Phase 1 C). The amendment request applies to Phase 1 C and the inclusion of an
additional Phase 1D, these being the final phases of the project Phase 1C has a proposed
occupancy date of December 1, 2007 and Phase 1D has an occupancy date of December 1,
2011. Phase 1C is currently entitled 48 timeshare units, 5,500 square feet of commercial/retail,
4,800 square feet of restaurant, and a 125 -roam hotel. The amendment request would
eliminate the restaurant and hotel, reduce the amount of commercial square footage, and
Increase the number of time-share units to 64. Phase 1 D would further Increase the number of
time share units by 70 and Increase the commercial/retail by 2,200 square feet. The merits of
the mixed-use project were previously evaluated based on the advantages it offered given the
close proximity to "Main Street".
Those same considerations will also be of importance with the evaluation of the proposed
amendment. The design and nature of land uses for this project is critical to the tong -term
economic health of downtown and "Main Street". The scale and arrangement of proposed
buildings and their orientation with the surrounding development, together with the associated
type and mix of uses, will Influence where people go to shop, dine out, find lodging, or work.
These are all policy consideration outlined In the 1996 Comprehensive Pian and Town Center
Implementation Pian (TCP).
The Comprehensive Plan describes the Town Center as being the "most intensely developed
part of town, as a true urban environment with attractive public gathering places. New
development on vacant parcels, as well as redevelopment of existing uses in the Town Center
will include mixed-use buildings containing retail and services on the ground floor, offices and/or
Town of Avon CommLWty Development (870) 74&4030 Fax (870) 049-5748
a
Staff Report
PUD
August 2n°
Report date
Project type
Legal description
Current zoning
Address
7vi
C O L O R A 0 0
2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
July 25, 2005
Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Lot C, Block 2, Avon Center at Beaver Creek
Subdivision .
PUD
160 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Introduction
The applicant, Points of Colorado Inc., has requested an amendment to the Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") for Sheraton Mountain Vista — Lot C. The Sheraton Mountain Vista is a
partially built project that borders "Main -Street" to the south, and West Beaver Creek Boulevard
to the north. The Lot C PUD is a mixed-use project that includes residential, office and
commercial land uses. The developed portion of the project includes 20 employee -housing
units, 85 two-bedroom time-share units, and approximately 17,450 square feet of officetretail
space. The undeveloped uses include additional timeshare units, general office and retail,
restaurant, and the inclusion of a 125 -room hotel.
The build -out of the project occurs in three phases: Phases 1A, 1B and 1C. The portion of the
timeshare and commercial space along with the employee housing has been built in accordance
with Phase 1A and I with the majority of ground -level retail and hotel/restaurant occurring in
the last phase (Phase 1 C). The amendment request applies to Phase 1 C and the inclusion of an
additional Phase 1D, these being the final phases of the project Phase 1C has a proposed
occupancy date of December 1, 2007 and Phase 1D has an occupancy date of December 1,
2011. Phase 1C is currently entitled 48 timeshare units, 5,500 square feet of commercial/retail,
4,800 square feet of restaurant, and a 125 -roam hotel. The amendment request would
eliminate the restaurant and hotel, reduce the amount of commercial square footage, and
Increase the number of time-share units to 64. Phase 1 D would further Increase the number of
time share units by 70 and Increase the commercial/retail by 2,200 square feet. The merits of
the mixed-use project were previously evaluated based on the advantages it offered given the
close proximity to "Main Street".
Those same considerations will also be of importance with the evaluation of the proposed
amendment. The design and nature of land uses for this project is critical to the tong -term
economic health of downtown and "Main Street". The scale and arrangement of proposed
buildings and their orientation with the surrounding development, together with the associated
type and mix of uses, will Influence where people go to shop, dine out, find lodging, or work.
These are all policy consideration outlined In the 1996 Comprehensive Pian and Town Center
Implementation Pian (TCP).
The Comprehensive Plan describes the Town Center as being the "most intensely developed
part of town, as a true urban environment with attractive public gathering places. New
development on vacant parcels, as well as redevelopment of existing uses in the Town Center
will include mixed-use buildings containing retail and services on the ground floor, offices and/or
Town of Avon CommLWty Development (870) 74&4030 Fax (870) 049-5748
Jul 27 2005 4:10PM
July 26, 2005
HP L66
ERJET FRX
RUTH O. BORNE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 7833 AVON, CO 81620
(970) 748-1187 FAX (870)748.1 188
Mr. Tambi Katieb
Director of Community Development
Y.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: PUT! Application for Sheraton Mountain Vista
Dear Tambi:
AdmrtMd to pr xuce In Ror►ds end
caia"do
On behalf of Points of Colorado, Inc. we are formally requesting a tabling of the PUD
Amendment application until the following meeting scheduled for August 16, 2005.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
/� W% 1%
.*Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August god. 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 2 of 13
residential above, and structured parking and urban amenities such as plazas and walkways.
An overall pedestrian network will be developed for the Town Center, to create a truly walkable
environment." These policies are also re -affirmed in the TCP.
Public Hearing Process:
Due to the complexity of the proposed amendment and the nature of the history behind prior
amendments and approvals, staff recommends that the public hearing process be separated
into a minimum of two consecutive hearing dates at the Planning and Zoning Commission level.
The applicant has agreed to this approach in meetings with staff, also noting the amount of
material and historical narrative involved in review of this application.
The first hearing date should include the review of the existing entitlements and prior
amendment history including existing development agreements. This meeting should also
include a brief description of the proposed amendments with the opportunity for the Commission
to request that specific information is available or covered in detail at the second of the two
public hearings.
After hearing the background information and the chronology of events, the Commission would
then hold the second public hearing to discuss the proposed amendment and merits thereof.
Staff has completed analysis of this project and is providing you with a recommended motion
also for your review and consideration throughout the hearing process. Our recommendation is
based on significant policy and approval criteria considerations that the application is evaluated
against, and those considerations and the staff recommended motion should also be reviewed
and evaluated throughout the hearing process.
Recommended Action:
Based on a thorough evaluation of both policy and approval criteria, Staff is recommending that
this application for PUD amendment to the Lot C PUD be DENIED. This recommendation and
position is based on several significant issues the application poses that cannot be reconciled or
otherwise mitigated through the recommendation of a conditional approval. The most notable
issues have been extensively discussed with the applicant and the applicant was offered a joint
work -session to discuss these significant departures from the existing entitlements (that offer
was declined). The considerations (provided in more detail against the specific design approval
criteria and findings required) are comprised of:
1) Mixed Use goals of existing PUD: The elimination of approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of
commercial space, 4,800 sq.ft of restaurant space, and the 125 -roam hotel does not enhance
but undermines the quality of mixed uses as compared to what is currently approved.
2) Design and massing: As submitted, the application fails to comply with the newly adopted
design guidelines for the commercial core area in terms of scale, orientation, and interface with
Main Street.
3) Parking: By apply the standing parking requirement in the Avon Municipal Code, including
the provision for the mixed-use reduction, the proposed parking appears to be significantly
deficient without an explanation of how to address these deficiencies (pay -in -lieu, variance, etc).
4) Technical Issues: Our calculations indicate the proposed PUD will increase water rights
requirements by approximately 24.72 acre feet above the water rights required to supply the
development under the original zoning. In addition, the phasing of the development is delayed
Town of Avon Canmunity Development (970) 7484030 FaX (970) 949.5749
Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August TO, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 3 of 13
considerably. Additionally, the financial considerations as noted by the Town's consultant are
attached to this report and will ultimately require review and consideration by the Town Council
as part of their review of the proposal and potential negotiation of revised entitlements with the
applicant.
Background
The Lot C PUD background and context is important to understand when reviewing the
amendment proposed. Following is an abbreviated timeline of significant events associated with
the creation of this PUD (relevant documents are attached as exhibits to this report):
1998: PUD Development Agreement
On October 27, 1998, Town Council entered into a Development Agreement with Vail
Associates, Avon Commercial Center Ltd, and Shapiro Development Company for Lot C and
the Confluence Property. The agreement (attached) outlined the zoning entitlements for both
properties ahead of the review and execution of a final development plan. However, the recitals
of the agreement noted: "Owner desire to develop the Confluence and Tract C as mixed use
developments... which may include lodging, restaurant, retail, parking, public facilities, open
space, office, commercial conference center and other uses"
The agreement (which was joined with and annexation of the Confluence property) also
provided for both rebates and exactions between the Town and the development owner(s).
Attached to the agreement as "Section II" are the development standards for the Lot C property.
The stated Intent of the development standards and uses listed was:
`To complement the surrounding town center developments, future development and
expansions and to provide a variety of uses on Lot C such as lodges, commercial
establishments and expansions and offices In a predominantly pedestrian environment."
Further, the building height, parking standards and maximum density provisions were outlined in
the same agreement (provided by the applicant in the application for review).
1999: Pre -application to PUD Develooment Plan
On September 27, 1999, the Town Council discussed the merits of the concept for the Lot C
property and to chart the course of negotiations for the development agreement. The most
significant points of this review and discussion were noted in follow up correspondence from the
Community Development Department and include:
(1) The consensus -was that ground -level retail space needs to be significantly increased
and designed to attract pedestrians along the perimeter of the project;
(2) The courtyard is not inviting to pedestrians;
(3) The overall massing needs architectural Interest through the addition of elements and
articulation such as recesses, balconies, dormers, avoiding straight vertical walls, and
more variety in fenestration;
(4) The project is somewhat isolated from the rest of the Town Center. It should
encourage linkage to other buildings and avoid the appearance of an individual project."
1999: Plannina & Zonina Commission Conceot Review & Final PUD Recommendations
Town of Avon community Development (970) 749.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
_ ;,Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August 2v0, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 4 of 13
Following those comments and considerations identified by Town Council in the Executive
Session and by Staff in subsequent correspondence, the applicant submitted a "Concept
Review" PUD application. The application proposed the following:
- 140 two-bedroom timeshare units
- 136 Hotel Rooms
- 24 Employee Housing Units
- 17,000 square feet of retail
Significant issues and discussion centered on the following policy areas:
- Conformance with the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, Subarea 13 ('Town Center"); and
- "More retail development is needed to achieve the vertically mixed-use recommend by the
Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines"; and
- "The project and buildings appear to be massive... more architectural elements and
articulation must be incorporated"; and
- 'The roof overhangs are minimal and require better proportion to the walls
A copy of the Planning Commission Review and staff reports summarizing Planning and Zoning
Commission comments is attached for reference to this report.
After several meetings and a work -session, the Planning Commission finally recommended
approval of the Lot C Final Development Plan through Resolution 99-18 (attached for
reference). The motion forwarded to Town Council Included significant 'course corrections' to
policy considerations of the Town Comprehensive Plan, which included:
The hotel and retail phase being constructed in Phase IA.
The two-bedroom time-share units counted as one dwelling unit, not being able to be
further subdivided, sold, transferred, conveyed, leased or subleased separately.
Allowance for the PUD Development Plan (site plan) to be modified by reducing the
number of time-share units to accommodate the required parking, additional retail space,
employee housing units, or hotel units without requiring a formal PUD Amendment.
2000: Town Council review and approval
On February 22, 2000, Town Council unanimously approved the PUD site development plan
through Ordinance 2000-02. Several key considerations that were forwarded by the Planning
Commission as recommendations In Resolution 99-18 were deleted by Town Council, including:
Requiring the hotel and retail space to be constructed in Phase 1A. -
Disallowing the further subdivision of timeshare units into 2 separate units.
Requiring a common area with a fireplace on each floor of the employee housing project.
Concurrent with the approval of the PUD site development plan through Ordinance 00-02, the
development agreement was amended to codify the new development standards. The property
was sold to Vistana after the completion of the PUD process.
2000-2005: Final Desian Aoorovals and Phasina Constructed
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August god, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting r
Page 5 of 13
After purchase of the property, Vistana submitted Phase 1 A through the design review process
in the, spring of 2000. Phase 1A, as required by the approved development standards,
comprised:
50 timeshare units
20 employee -housing units
5,800 square feet of retail (Inc. lobby/check in)
The Planning and Zoning Commission held several work sessions to review the plans as well as
on-site mockups, and on May 11, 2000 the applicant received Phase 1A final design approval
and subsequently began construction. Likewise, in spring of 2002, the applicant submitted for
and received design approval for Phase 1 B, which included:
35 timeshare units
15,750 GLFA commercial building along the mall, with at least 5,250 of retail on the
ground floor
11 parking spaces
Though both phases were constructed in accordance with the design approvals, the
construction of the garage only included 164 spaces- 16 spaces less than the required 180. In
order to permit the construction of Phase 1-B, the owner agreed to correct the parking space
deficiency by build -out (using temporary surface parking space in Phase 1B). Should the total
required parking spaces not be physically possible, the owner committed to either seek the 'pay
in lieu' or other arrangements as agreeable to the Town (See the Oct. 31, 2001 letter attached
for reference).
Summary of proposed amendment:
Land Use
The approved PUD was represented and approved as a mixed-use project that included hotel
lodging, timeshares, restaurant, retail, office, commercial conference center, and other uses.
While the project currently contains 85 timeshare units, 20 employee housing units, and
approximately 17,000 square feet of retail/offices uses,,the proposed amendment is a departure
from the level or quality of mixed uses that was originally approved.
The elimination of approximately 3,000 square feet of commercial space, 4,800 square feet of
restaurant space, and the 125 -room hotel to be substituted for additional timeshare units runs
counter to the planning principles outlined in the 1996 Qommehensive Pian and the adopted
2001 Tgwn Cgnter Imolementation Pian. (See Policy A3.6, B2.3, and Subarea 1: West Town
Center District).
In addition, the proposal Includes a change in use for the proposed remaining ground level retail
portion of the PUD. The applicant proposes to add "professional office" uses to the PUD
whereby the applicant would be permitted to utilize uses such as professional offices in place of
the preferred and currently permitted retail uses on the ground level. To propose this change as
a use by right will significantly alter the character and function of the project.
The table below represents the quantity and type of land uses that are included in the approved
PUD compared to the proposed PUD.
Town of Avon Community Deveiopment (970) 74&4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
4-ot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August 2od, 2005 Planning
& Zoning Commission meeting
Page 6 of 13
Number of Units/Square'
Number of Units/Square
Footage
Footage
(Existing PUD)
(Proposed PUD)
r
Land Use
Units Square
Units Square
Feet
Feet
Timeshare
133/266'
219/438'
Dwellinq units
dwellinq units
Employee
20 units
20 units
Housinq
I Hotel rooms
125 rooms
0
Restaurant
4,800
0
square feet
Commercial 27,050 23,750
(Office square feet Square feet
Retail)
'The existing and proposed timeshare unite represent two subdividable unite. Therefore, the numoer of
timeshare units has been doubled for the purposes of calculating dwelling unit density.
Dens
The currently approved residential density of this PUD is 133 subdividable units, or 266 dwelling
units, and 20 employee housing units. The proposed density of 219 units, or 438 dwelling units,
represent an approximate 65% increase in dwelling units or 135 units per acre (3.24 acres / 438
units).
By comparison, the Town Center (TC) zone, the predominant zoning district in the Town Core,
permits only 30 units per acre. The existing PUD entitlements provide for 82units per acre.
Staff finds it difficult to support the drastic percentage increased In residential density given the
corresponding decrease in percentage of commerciaVretail use. While density is necessary to
create the vitality required to activate the Town Center District, and in the near future connect
with a pedestrian scale urban experience to the Confluence property and ultimately the resort
experience, increasing density alone will not contribute to the place -making opportunity that not
only exists on Lot C but properties in the district.
Further, while creating a wholly timeshare project may not necessarily be a detriment to the
district considering the 'hot beds' it will create, the elimination and complete minimization of both
retail and restaurant space that naturally occurs in hotels - an existing requirement in the Lot C
PUD- does nothing to keep the guests of those hot beds in the district.
Increases In density should be considered carefully and equally measured with not only
additional 'mixed use' elements such as commercial and retail space, but thoughtfully crafted
and articulated to create anchor tenant experiences- such as a prominent restaurant or regional
entertainment experience -that both supports the concept of this district and provides a rationale
for density above and beyond the underlying zoning and existing entitlements and the creation
of a single type of lodging (i.e. timeshares exclusively).
Scafe/Mass
Given the proximity of the site to Main Street, It is imperative that the street level architecture
enhances pedestrian activity and encourages a lively center of retail activity. The scale and
massing of the proposed buildings (Phase 1C and 1D) minimizes the appearance of stepping
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (070) 9495749
Lot C PUD. Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision r
August 2°d, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting ,+ •.
Page 7 of 13
the structure down in mass towards the mall area. The building appears to stand-alone and
creates a barrier to the. future "public spaces" located along the mall. Both the Design
Guidelines and the Comprehensive Plan require special attention to be given to the height,
width, and length of the proposed structures to maximize the comfort to users of both Lot C and
Main Street.
Staff believes this can be achieved by stepping -down the massing considerably and enhancing
the pedestrian areas by opening the site up for pedestrian circulation. Additionally, staff
believes that the architecture should visually incorporate an anchor retail or entertainment
tenant with prominent visibility to the pedestrian experience the Town is creating In the West
Town Center District. The massing proposed minimizes that exposure and removes the
potential for that type of experience by guests to the project.
Although the proposed building heights (Phase iC and Phase 1 D) are not attempting to exceed
100 foot maximum, staff's recommends that the building height be reduced or scaled down
considerably as the development approaches Main Street. By comparison, the existing PUD
does more to achieve this compared to the proposed PUD.
Relationship to surroundlna development and Main Stree{
Lot C is an Integral part of the Town Core and should complement the surrounding town center
developments and future development by providing a variety of uses. This site serves as an
anchor for Main Street and the originally approved ground -level retail space and restaurant
provides a greater opportunity to attract pedestrians along the perimeter of the project.
It Is important to the Town that this project interacts with the Town Center Mail. As proposed,
the amendment alters the function of the project with the elimination of the restaurant and hotel
component of the project. As previously noted, the allowed uses proposed add "professional
office" at ground level as a use by right and the applicant has not specifically noted this in the
narrative of the application.
Parkins
The required parking for the site, existing and proposed, has been a challenge for staff to
reconcile. The existing PUD was approved based on a parking standard (ratio) that was the
outcome of negotiation with the former Town Council.
Our approach to reconciling the parking is to apply the standing parking requirement in the Avon
Municipal Code, Including the provision for the mixed-use reduction. These are parking
standards that are applied uniformly throughout the Town. Based on our calculations, the
proposed parking appears to be deficient. Staff has requested the applicant to provide an
explanation of how they pian to address these deficiencies (pay -in -lieu, variance, etc.)
Use
Required
Calculation
spaces
Residential
438
1 X 438
Commercial
95 I
23,750 sq. ft. 0 411000
Employee Housing
20 1
1 X20
MU Reduction 1
(83) j
15%
Total Required
470
Total Provided
340
Deficient
(130)
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
„
4,.ot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August god, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 8 of 13
Water
With the adoption of the 2001 PUD, the Town approved the development of 133 timeshare
units. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to Council at that time was that
the units would not be subdividable. However, the Council permitted the subdivision of the units
making the existing augmentation plan deficient of water rights for this project. Staff is
recommending that any change to the PUD include the provision for additional water rights to
supplement the augmentation plan.
Based on staffs calculation of the proposed PUD amendment, the proposed PUD will increase
water rights requirements by approximately 24.72 acre feet above the water rights required to
supply the development under the original zoning. The application does not address this
deficiency. Therefore, we would ask the applicant to explain how these additional water rights
will be provided to the Town for this additional demand.
Financial Analysis
Stan Bernstein and Associates, a financial consultant contracted by the Town to evaluate the
fiscal Impacts of both the existing and proposed PUD, and prepared an internal memo dated
April 21, 2005 outlining concerns regarding the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by
Pricewaterhouse Cooper L.L.P (see attached). Staff shares these same concerns, and while
the fiscal analysis methodology appears supportable by the Town's financial consultant, there
remain the following concerns as noted below by Stan Bernstein:
Incremental General Fund Revenue. Exoenditure and Fund Balances
Original Development Planning Scenario — indicates at project stabilization annual General
Fund deficits of approximately $44,000. This compares to annual General Fund deficits at
project stabilization of approximately $33,000 assuming the Modified Development Planning
Scenario as presented in Appendix 2.
If the Modified Development Is approved, I think it would be appropriate and reasonable to
Increase the assumed $28.02/weekly interval Recreation Amenities Fee by approximately 13%
to $31.66/weekly interval. This modest increase would, on an annual basis, generate an
additional $33,500 and would show a break-even General Fund balance at project stabilization.
You should also be aware that the annual $44,000 General Fund deficit as presented on
Appendix 1 (Original Development Scenario) is partially caused by the Town only receiving 25%
of the Accommodation and Sales Taxes generated from the assumed 125 -roam hotel through
the year 2022. Beginning in 2023 the Town would begin receiving 100°/a of the Accommodation
and Sales Taxes generated from the assumed 125 -room hotel .and an additional $165,000
annually would be received by the Town's General Fund. Consequently, if the financial
planning horizon were to be extended beyond 2020 (as presented on Appendix 1), beginning in
2023 the Town's annual General Fund balances would indicate $121,000 (positive instead of
negative fund balances of $44,000 as shown on Appendix 1). So, from a long-term perspective
the Original Planning Scenario would show annual General Fund balances of approximately
$121,000 compared to the annual negative fund balances of $33,000 shown on Appendix 2 for
the Modified Planning Scenario.
Incremental Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues
Both financial planning scenarios assume that the Town shares Real Estate Transfer Tax
("RETT") revenues from Initial sales (not secondary sales) with SVO. Both scenarios assume
that the average price for each interval week is $31,643, which 'PWC believes to be a
reasonable assumption.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August 2od, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Y
Page 9 of 13
For the Original Development Scenario, initial sales of approximately 2,496 interval weeks (48
units multiplied by 52 weeks) would generate 2% RETE revenues of approximately $1,580,044
($79 million in gross sales) with approximately $790,000 retained by the Town and $790,000
shared with SVO. Secondary RETT revenues (entire 2% retained by the Town) are estimated
to be approximately $79,040 annually at project stabilization assuming a 5% annual resale rate.
incremental Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues
For the Modified Development Scenario, initial sales of approximately 6,188 Interval weeks (55
phase 1 units and 64 phase 2 units multiplied by 52 weeks) would generate 2% REiT
revenues of approximately $3,916,000 with $1,958,004 retained by the Town and $1,958,040
shared with SVO. Secondary RETT revenues (entire 20/6 retained by the Town) are estimated
to be approximately $196,000 annually at project stabilization based upon a 59/6 annual resale
rate.
It is my understanding that the Town has retained In a special escrow account, approximately
$1.5 million of RETT revenues collected from interval week sales from Phase i of the Sheraton
Mountain Vista Resort. it Is my understanding that In accordance with the Initial development
agreement with SVO, these $1.5 million of RETT revenue collections are only payable to SVO 9
a 125 room hotel is constructed (i.e., the Original Development Scenario). Consequently, if i
understand this agreement correctly, In the event that the Modified Development Scenario is
approved, the Town would retain these $1.5 million of RETT revenues.
A key policy decision that the Town Council needs to wrestle with Is what percentage, if any, of
RETT revenues should be shared with SVO? And, If RETT revenue is shared with SVO, how
will SVO use these revenues? Under the Modified Development Scenario approximately
$1,958,000 of RETT revenues would be shared with SVO or the Mountain Vista Metro District to
offset parking related construction costs. Considering that SVO is anticipating gross sales
revenues of approximately $196 million from the sale of Interval ownership weeks if the Modified
Development Scenario Is approved, compared to only $79 million from interval ownership sales
based upon the Original (currently approved) Development Scenario, perhaps approval of the
Modified Scenario is sufficiently generous and additional sharing of any of the RETT revenues is
overly generous. The developers of the Confluence are not proposing any sharing of RET
revenues with the Town.
Another factor that should be considered by the Town Council, Is that the SVO project will be
competing with the proposed Confluence project which also includes 132 interval ownership
units (6,864 weeks) in what could be perceived as being In a better location.
Impact Fees
The Original Development Scenario would generate approximately $582,000 of one-time Water
Tap Fees for the Town, compared to $952,004 assuming the Modified Development Scenario.
The Original Development Scenario would generate approximately $365,000 of one-time
Construction Permit Fees, compared to $455,000 assuming the Modified Development
Scenario.
Water rights that would have to be purchased by the developer for the modified scenario are not
Included In this report.
Mountain Vista Metropolitan District lmeacts
Assessed valuation generated from the Original Development Scenario Is estimated to
$3,443,605 at project stabilization compared to $2,590,653 for the Modified Development
Scenario. This loss of approximately $850,000 of assessed valuation represents a loss of
Town of Avon community Development (070) 748-4030 1 Fax (970) 94415740
Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August tad, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 10 of 13
approximately $382,500 annually of property tax revenues assuming a 45 mill levy for Mountain
Vista Metropolitan District. it is my understanding that these property tax revenues are
supposed to be transferred to Avon Station/Confluence Metropolitan Districts and used to help
finance regional improvements including a conference center and perhaps a gondola system.
Annual Guest NIhc�f
Annual incremental guest nights generated from the Modified Development Scenario are
estimated to be approximately 163,000 compared to 109,000 for the Original Development
Scenario.
Other Kev Assumptions include:
Hotel Guest Expenditures per Day Subject to Town 4% Sates Tax $26
Interval GuestlOwner Expenditures per Day Subject to Town Sales Tax $22
Interval Owners Annual Occupancy Rate of 80% with 4.5 Persons
Occupying Each Week
Interval Rentals Annual Occupancy Rate of 10% of Owner Weeks
with 4.0 Persons Occupying Each Week at an ADR of $260.
Hotel Annual Occupancy Rate of 55% with an ADR of $110 and 1.7 Persons
Occupying Each Hotel Room.
No Gondola is Assumed; Ski Season and Non -Ski Season Bus Operating Costs Based
Upon Incremental Guest Nights and Required Incremental New Buses and Hourly
Operating Rate of $47 per Hour.
Though the financial model provided by the applicant demonstrates that the amendment
proposed may provide a financial benefit to the Town over the original scenario, it is important to
consider that the analysis is a dynamic model subject to many assumptions, as noted by Stan
Bernstein.
Also critical to the Commission's review role is to provide Town Council with an informed review
of the land use and development plan design issues for consideration in light of the potential
financial benefits of the proposal. Please consider that the economic function of the project and
the projected benefit of one scenario versus another comprises only one aspect of a total review
of the land use proposed and should be so measured in your recommendation to the elected
policy body.
PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zonino Code, Section 17.20.110(h), it shalt 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 consistent with the public Interest has been
achieved.
Where the PUD is being requested In connection with the review of a development agreement
pursuant to Chapter 17.14, not all design criteria may be applicable, as determined by the
Community Development Department. The following design criteria shall be used as the
principal criteria in evaluating a PUD:
1. Conformance with the 1996 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives
Town of Awn Community Development (970) 745-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August 2'd, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page i I of t3
r
Policy A3.6: Encourage mixed-use development throughout the community, where
compatible with existing neighborhoods, to more efficiently use land.
Staff Response: The proposed amendment would reduce the quality or character of mix of
uses with the elimination of the hotel, restaurant, and a portion of the commercial space.
This request appears to be counter productive to this policy and others that promote
compact mixed-use development.
Policy B2.3: Encourage a range of uses in the Town Center, Including retail, offices, hotels,
recreation, tourism, and entertainment.
Staff Response: While there are an existing range of uses in the Town Core, this site
functions as an anchor to Main Street. Staff's preference would be to create an
entertainment or retail anchor to support the types of densities being proposed and to create
a mixed type of lodging project consistent with the existing approval and the Town master
plan documents for the Town Core. The physical format and nature of this space is equally
Important to the dimensional requirements.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area
design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
Staff Response: The massing of the proposed buildings (Phase IC and 1D), in staffs
opinion, minimizes the appearance of stepping the structure down in mass towards the mall
area, particularly considering that the original approval proposed a scaled model that
evidenced a hotel of significantly different (smaller) scale than the balance of the project.
The proposal appears to stand -atone and creates a barrier to the future "public spaces"
located along the malt- a concern noted several times during deliberations on the original
approvals. Special attention should be given to the height, width, and length of the
proposed structures to maximize the comfort to users of both Lot C and Main Street. We feet
this could be achieved by stepping -down the massing further and providing detail at the
ground level to enhance and activate the pedestrian areas.
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 Response: The Town plays a critical role by establishing a framework for
development, then evaluating individual development proposals against that pattern. This
framework, articulated through the Town Comorehensive PLan. Town Center ImDlgmentation
Pian, and the Town Do Ion Guidelings, gives current and potential property and business
owners a reasonable set of expectations upon which they can base investment decisions,
and some assurance that development approvals on adjacent properties will be made using
the same set of criteria.
Because development in a downtown is so interdependent with surrounding development,
having and adhering to this framework Is especially Important. Staff believes that
compatibility with surrounding uses, especially Main Street, is further limited rather than
enhanced as proposed in this application- providing material benefit to the applicant and not
compatibility to the immediate environment.
Tam of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
twt C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August 2°d, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 12 of 13
4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Staff Response: The currently approved uses (hotel and restaurant) and densities appear
to be more appropriate uses within the project and those uses the Town would expect to be
developed along Main Street. Further, the significant delay in phasing of the project may not
provide a workable and efficient build out pattern for this particular area.
S. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
Staff Response: There appear to be no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property.
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.
Staff Response: Both the site plan and model submitted illustrate the staff concerns noted
in the report regarding the barriers the proposed building designs present to pedestrian
circulation. Other than the pedestrian circulation generated form the Internal courtyard, the
proposed development functions independently from other development, particularly Main
Street. We would suggest that the original approval did not provide for the most functional
and responsive site plan, and the proposed site plan further exacerbates that condition.
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.
Staff Response: The proposed PUD includes primarily underground parking, with limited
above ground parking. As proposed, the circulation of vehicular traffic would be accessed
off of both Benchmark Road and West Beaver Creek BLVD.
The vehicular circulation functions relatively well, but staff has concerns relative to
pedestrian circulation for reasons stated above.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open .space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
Staff Response: A detailed landscape plan is required during the Final Design phase. At
that time, staff would be better prepared to discuss whether landscaping is optimized.
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.
Staff Response: As proposed, the phasing plan for this project Is projected to be extended
an additional 4 years until 2011. The proposed phasing plan does not specify or
demonstrate that the proposal can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon
completion of future project phases.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7464030 Fax (970) 0496740
Lot C PTSD, Sheraton Mountain Vista Subdivision
August 2a4, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 13 of 13
r � .
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Staff Response: With the exception of water, the proposed PUD would have adequate
public facilities. As mentioned previously, the subdivision of the existing 133 time-share
units made the existing. augmentation plan deficient of water rights for this project. Based
on staff's calculation of the proposed PUD amendment, the proposed PUD will increase
water rights requirements by approximately 24.72 acre feet above the water rights required
to supply the development under the original zoning. The application does not address this
deficiency. Therefore, we would ask the applicant to explain how these additional water
rights will be provided to the Town for this additional demand.
The plans generally conform to the street and streetscape improvement pians developed by
the Town, subject to more detailed reviews in conjunction with the Final Design Review
process and Building permit review.
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.
Staff Response: Both Benchmark Road and West Beaver Creek Boulevard are operational
and under capacity. These are the two primary roads that serve the site, and existing
streets and roads appear suitable to carry the amended proposal as they would the existing
approval.
12. Development Standards
Staff Response: Please reference the application dated May 10, 2005 for a complete listing
of standards submitted by the applicant:
Proposed Action: Staff is recommending DENIAL of the PUD Amendment Application for
Sheraton Mountain Vista, dated May 10, 2005. We will provide a resolution for that action at the
second of two hearings on this project.
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 s miffed,
Erlc Heldemann, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments:
A. PUD Application dated May 10th, 2005 (reduced pians
amendment)
B. Stan Bernstein and Associates letter dated April 21, 2005
C. Copy of existing Lot C PUD Development Standards (4 pages)
D. Summary of proceedings from prior PUD amendment.
E. Staff correspondence with applicant
F. Public comment letter(s)
G. Proposed massing model (available at the meeting)
and outline of proposed
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (070) 949-5748
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Financial Planners and Consultants
For Local Governments. Municipal Bond Underwriters, and Real Estate Developers
8400 East Prentice Ave., Penthouse
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
Telephone: 303-409-7611; Fax: 303-409-7612; Email: stanplan@earthlink.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Larry Brooks, Town Manager
FROM: Stan Bernstein, Amy Bernstein
DATE: April 21, 2005
SUBJECT: Comments re: Analysis of Fiscal Impacts of Two Future Development
Scenarios of Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort in Avon, Colorado (March 24, 2005) prepared
by PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. ("PWC")
Background
PWC prepared an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Town of Avon ("Town"), of two future
development scenarios proposed by Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. ("SVO') for the Sheraton
Mountain Vista Resort — the Original Scenario and the Modified Scenario. The PWC analysis
measures expected revenues from sales and accommodation taxes, property taxes, real estate transfer
taxes, and various fees, and expected incremental costs to the Town. The purpose of the analysis is
to compare the level of tax revenues less certain costs for each planning scenario.
The two financial planning scenarios analyzed are described as follows. In the Original Scenario, 48
vacation ownership units and a 125 -room hotel are completed for occupancy by June 1, 2007. The
Original Scenario also includes a 4,800 square foot restaurant and 5,500 square feet of retail space.
In the Modified Scenario, 55 interval ownership condominium units are completed for occupancy by
June 1, 2007, and 64 interval ownership condominium units are completed for occupancy by June 1,
2011. The Modified Scenario does not include any restaurant or retail space. The two financial
planning scenarios are presented as Appendix 1 (the Original Scenario) and Appendix 2 (the
Modified Scenario). Both financial planning scenarios are expressed in constant 2004 dollars (i.e.,
they do not include any inflation). PWC and SVO have developed the key financial planning
assumptions based upon experience gathered from the existing Phase I Sheraton Mountain Vista
interval ownership project. These key financial planning assumptions include annual occupancy
rates, average annual ADR (average daily rates) rates for the rental of interval ownership units, the
number of persons occupying interval ownership units, and guest expenditure patterns within the
Town that would be subject to the Town's 4% sales tax. These key financial planning assumptions
do not appear to be unreasonable to use for financial planning purposes.
Mr. Larry Brooks
April 21, 2005
Page ii
Incremental General Fund Revenue, Expenditure and Fund Balances
Appendix 1— Original Development Planning Scenario — indicates at project stabilization annual
General Fund deficits of approximately $44,000. This compares to annual General Fund deficits at
project stabilization of approximately $33,000 assuming the Modified Development Planning
Scenario as presented in Appendix 2.
If the Modified Development is approved, I think it would be appropriate and reasonable to increase
the assumed $28.02/weekly interval Recreation Amenities Fee by approximately 13% to
$31.66/weekly interval. This modest increase would, on an annual basis, generate an additional
$33,500 and would show a break-even General Fund balance at project stabilization.
You should also be aware that the annual $44,000 General Fund deficit as presented on Appendix 1
(Original Development Scenario) is partially caused by the Town only receiving 25% of the
Accommodation and Sales Taxes generated from the assumed 125 room hotel through the year 2022.
Beginning in 2023 the Town would begin receiving 100% of the Accommodation and Sales Taxes
generated from the assumed 125 room hotel and an additional $165,000 annually would be received
by the Town's General Fund. Consequently, if the financial planning horizon were to be extended
beyond 2020 (as presented on Appendix 1), beginning in 2023 the Town's annual General Fund
balances would indicate $121,000 (positive instead of negative fund balances of $44,000 as shown on
Appendix 1). So, from a long-term perspective the Original Planning Scenario would show annual
General Fund balances of approximately $121,000 compared to the annual negative fund balances of
$33,000 shown on Appendix 2 for the Modified Planning Scenario.
Incremental Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues
Both financial planning scenarios assume that the Town shares Real Estate Transfer Tax ("REIT")
revenues from initial'sales (not secondary sales) with SVO. Both scenarios assume that the average
price for each interval week is $31,643, which PWC believes to be a reasonable assumption.
For the Original Development Scenario, initial sales of approximately 2,496 interval weeks (48 units
multiplied by 52 weeks) would generate 2% RETT revenues of approximately $1,580,000 ($79
million in gross sales) with approximately $790,000 retained by the Town and $790,000 shared with
SVO. Secondary RETT revenues (entire 2% retained by the Town) are estimated to be
approximately $79,000 annually at project stabilization assuming a 5% annual resale rate.
Mr. Larry Brooks
April 21, 2005
Page iii
Incremental Real Estate Transfer Tax Revenues
For the Modified Development Scenario, initial sales of approximately 6,188 interval weeks (55
phase i units and 64 phase 2 units multiplied by 52 weeks) would generate 2% RETT revenues of
approximately $3,916,000 with $1,958,000 retained by the Town and $1,958,000 shared with SVO.
Secondary RETT revenues (entire 2% retained by the Town) are estimated to be approximately
$196,000 annually at project stabilization based upon a 5% annual resale rate.
It is my understanding that the Town has retained in a special escrow account, approximately $1.5
million of RETT revenues collected from interval week sales from Phase I of the Sheraton Mountain
Vista Resort. It is my understanding that in accordance with the initial development agreement with
SVO, these $1.5 million of RETT revenue collections are only payable to SVO if a 125 room hotel is
constructed (i.e., the Original Development Scenario). Consequently, if I understand this agreement
correctly, in the event that the Modified Development Scenario is approved, the Town would retain
these $1.5 million of RETT revenues.
A key policy decision that the Town Council needs to wrestle with is what percentage, if any, of
RETT revenues should be shared with SVO? And, if RETT revenue are shared with SVO, how will
SVO use these revenues? Under the Modified Development Scenario approximately $1,958,000 of
RETT revenues would be shared with SVO or the Mountain Vista Metro District to offset parking
related construction costs. Considering that SVO is anticipating gross sales revenues of
approximately $196 million from the sale of interval ownership weeks if the Modified Development
Scenario is approved, compared to only $79 million from interval ownership sales based upon the
Original (currently approved) -Development Scenario, perhaps approval of the Modified Scenario is
sufficiently generous and additional sharing of any of the RETT revenues is overly generous. The
developers of the Confluence are not proposing any sharing of RETT revenues with the Town.
Another factor that should be considered by the Town Council, is that the SVO project will be
competing with the proposed Confluence project which also includes 132 interval ownership units
(6,864 weeks) in what could be perceived as being in a better location.
Impact Fees
The Original Development Scenario would generate approximately $582,000 of one-time Water Tap
Fees for the Town, compared to $952,000 assuming the Modified Development Scenario.
The Original Development Scenario would generate approximately $365,000 of one-time
Construction Permit Fees, compared to 5455,000 assuming the Modified Development Scenario.
Water rights that would have to be purchased by the developer for the modified scenario are not
included in this report. .
Mr. Larry Brooks
April 21, 2005
Page iv
Mountain Vista Metropolitan District Impacts
Assessed valuation generated from the Original Development Scenario is estimated to $3,443,605 at
project stabilization compared to $2,590,653 for the Modified Development Scenario. This loss of
approximately $850,000 of assessed valuation represents a loss of approximately $382,500 annually
of property tax revenues assuming a 45 mill levy for Mountain Vista Metropolitan District. It is my
understanding that these property tax revenues are supposed to be transferred to Avon
Station/Confluence Metropolitan Districts and used to help finance regional improvements including
a conference center and perhaps a gondola system.
Annual Guest Nights
Annual incremental guest nights generated from the Modified Development Scenario are estimated to
be approximately 163,000 compared to 109,000 for the Original Development Scenario.
Other Key Assumptions
Other Key Assumptions include:
• Hotel Guest Expenditures per Day Subject to Town 41/o Sales Tax $26
• Interval Guest/Owner Expenditures per Day Subject to Town Sales Tax $22
• Interval Owners Annual Occupancy Rate of 80% with 4.5 Persons
Occupying Each Week
• Interval Rentals Annual Occupancy Rate of 10% of Owner Weeks
with 4.0 Persons Occupying Each Week at an ADR of $260.
• Hotel Annual Occupancy Rate of 55% with an ADR of $110 and 1.7 Persons
Occupying Each Hotel Room.
• No Gondola is Assumed; Ski Season and Non -Ski Season Bus Operating Costs Based
Upon Incremental Guest Nights and Required Incremental New Buses and Hourly
Operating Rate of $47 per Hour.
Please call with any thoughts, comments or questions. We will be glad to discuss this memorandum
with the Town Council at the April 26 Town Council Work Session.
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Financial Planners and Consultants
For Local Governments, Municipal Bond Underwriters, and Real Estate Developers
8400 East Prentice Avenue, Penthouse
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
Telephone: 303409-7611, Fax: 303409-7612, Email: stanplan(,,?uearthlinlcnet
July 5, 2005
Ms. Heather Smith McGill, Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc.
CC: Town of Avon (Mr. Larry Brooks, Mr. Scott Wright)
(SENT VIA EMAIL)
Re: Review of draft Sheraton Mountain Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis dated March
24, 2005 prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P
Dear Heather:
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. has reviewed the Sheraton Mountain Vista Fiscal
Impact Analysis dated March 24, 2005 that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers
L.L.P. We believe that all of our comments and suggestions stated in our February 10,
2005 letter to you have been addressed, and the assumptions and conclusions contained in
the March 24, 2005 report appear to be reasonable to us to use for financial planning
purposes.
Very truly yours,
Stan Bernstein, President
STAN BERNSTEIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ZONING
A. ALLOW—ED USES:
THE FOLLOWING USES SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THIS LOT C DEVELOPMENT
AND THOSE DESIGNATED WITH A LI SHALL ALSO BE ALLOWED AT
PLAZA/GROUND LEVEL, THOSE USES NOT DESIGNATED WITH ALs SHALL NOT
BE PERMITTED AT PLAZA/GROUND LEVEL:
L[l RETAIL STORES
21-1 SPECIALTY SHOPS
30 RESTAURANTS, EXCLUDING DRIVE—THROUGH WINDOWS
41-1 COCKTAIL LOUNGES
50 PERSONAL SERVICE SHOPS
GLI PROFESSIONAL OFFICES
71 0 HOTELS
SJ -1 LODGES
4. APARTMENTS
10. CONDOMINIUMS
I IL 1 INDOOR RECREATION AND/OR ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES
120 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
13. BED AND BREAKFAST LODGE
14. TIME—SHARE, INTERVAL OWNERSIIIP, AND FRACTIONAL FEE OWNERSHIP
PROJECTS
15.0 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITES
16.07 PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES
17.0 ABOVE GROUND PUBLIC UTILITY INSTALLATIONS
18. ADDITIONAL USES DETERMINED TO BE SIBlILAR TO ALLOWED USES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTENT OF THTS ZONE DISTRICT, TO BE APPROVED BY
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
s
B. SPECIAL REVIEVI' 1 .S:
l.) SIDEWALK CAFES AND OTHER OUTDOOR SEATING .AREAS
2.) MERCHANT TEMPORARY DISPLAYS
C. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
I.) LOT AREA 3.24 ACRES (141,040 SF)
MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE 2.27 ACRES (98,728 SF) = 70%
PROPOSED SITE COVERAGE: 1.78 ACRES (77,537 SF) = 55%
LANDSCAPED AREA: 20%
EXISTING ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING USES: VACANT
2.) BUILDING SETBACKS
NORTH (BENCHMARK ROAD) - TWENTY FEET (20')
EAST (WEST BEAVER CREEK ROAD) - TEN FEET (I Y)
SOUTH - TEN FEET (10'}
WEST (BENCHMARK ROAD) - FIVE FEET (5')
UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE - EIGHT FEET (8')
BALCONIES, PORTS-COCHERES, ROOF OVERHANGS, AWNINGS, Am LOW LEVEL
ROOF STRUCTURES COVERING OPEN AIR PEDESTRIAN WAYS MAY ENCROACH
INTO ALL SETBACKS NOT MORE THAN 10'.
3.) BUILDING HEIGHT
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: 100.0' ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT ROOFS SHALL
BE NO HIGHER THAN 103.0'.
USES
IAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY: 210 DWELLING UNITS
iAX. OF 133 TIMESHARE UNITS X i DU/ UNIT = 133.00 DWELLING UNITS
tot more than 133 two-bedroom time-share units, each of which may be subdivided
tto one one -bedroom dwelling unit and one one -bedroom accomodation unit for a total
f 266 condominium units. For zoning density purposes each two-bedroom time-share
nit will be one dwelling unit. However, each dwelling unit and accomodation unit shall
e considered a separate time-share unit which may be separately conveyed, occupied, rented
T exchanged. Subdivision of time-share units shall be accomplished by the condominium
.eclaration and map for the project)
k HOTEL OF NO LESS THAN 125 HOTEL
LOOMS X .33DU/ UNIT = 41.66 DWELLING UNITS
174.66 DWELLING UNITS
?0 EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS
'20 dwelling units of deed restricted employee housing (the "Employee Units") including
tight studios, eight one -bedroom, two two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units totaling
io less than 26 bedrooms).
MINIMUM 31,850 SF GLFA RETAIL OFFICE COMMERCIAL INCLUDING
21,350 SF GLFA GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND 10,500 SF GLFA
SECOND AND THIRD LEVEL COMMERCIAL OFFICE/ RETAIL.
5.) PARKING
PARKING SILALL INCLUDE 374 PARKING SPACES UPON COMPLETION OF THE
ENTIRE TRACT C PROTECT WITH A MAXIMUM OF 30% OF STRUCTURED PARKING
TO BE COMPACT.
PHASING
THE PHASING OF THE PROTECT SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
PHASE I -A: 50 TIME-SHARE UNITS AND 5,800 SF GLFA OF GROUND FLOOR
CONMIERCIALSPACE FRONTING WEST BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD AND THE
INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE AVON TOWN CENTER MALL AND
THE EMPLOYEE UNITS. 2,050 SF GLFA OF SUCH RETAIL SPACE MAY BE USED
FOR LOBBY, CHECK-IN AND SUPPPORT FUNCTIONS FOR THE TIME-SHARE UNITS
UNTIL PHASE I -B IS COMPLETED. PARKING W1LL'INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF
180 SPACES.
PI-IASE I -B: 35 TIME -SI AR' NITS. A BUILDING PERMIT' '_L BE ISSUED FOR
Vljl SI ,1-.B (the second phase of the Timeshare portion of the proj&t) AT SUCH TIME AS
A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR THE 15,550 SF GLFA THREE STORY
'LL-STA3\DING COMMERCIAL BUILDING CLOSESTTO THE SEASONS BUILDING
tart least 5,250 sf GLFA on the ground level will be retail use and iO,500 sf GLFA the Second
and third floors will he office retail). PARKING WILL INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF I I
SPACES.
PHASE I -C:48 TIMESHARE UNITS. A BUILDING PERMIT NVILL BE ISSUED FOR
PHASE I -C (the third phase of the Timeshare portion of the project) AT SUCH TIME AS THE
.BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR THE HOTEL (which shall include a minimum of 5,500
sf GLFA ground -level commercial area suitable for retail use) AND 4,300 SF GLFA OF
RESTAURANT SPACE IN THE HOTEL. PARKING V4riLL INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION
OF 183 SPACES.
6.) r�ENERAL NOTES
1. THIS SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHALL DEFINE THE USES,
LOCATIONS, SCALE, AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR TI -JE DEVELOPMENT
OF LOT C.
?. SNOW REMOVAL TO AN OFF SITE LOCATION WILL BE REQUIRED.
3. TIME AM.ENDh�NT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONFLUENCE
AND TRACT C AND/OR THE TO'%NN OF AVON CODES SHALL BE USED FOR ANY
PROVISION NOT ADDRESSED IN THE APPROVED SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
PLAN.
4. THE ARCHITECTURAL AND CIVIL DESIGNS DEPICTED LN THIS SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY, FINAL ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, BUILDING COLOR, MATERIALS,
FENESTRATION, TRIM, AND THEME WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED
THROUGH THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS.
Approval of this plan constitutes a vest property right pursuant to
Article 63 of Title 24, C.R.S.. as amended.
,AN t
SHEET
i i
I
\t t l
Town of Avon
PUD Staff Report
December 21,1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date December 16, 1999
Project type Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Legal description Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Address 160 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard
Current Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Introduction
Vistana, Inc. is applying for Final PUD Development Plan approval (and modification of the
PUD Development Standards) for a mixed-use development on Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver
Creek Subdivision. The proposed Development plan includes 140 timeshare condominium units,
130 hotel rooms, a restaurant, retail space and 20 employee housing units. Four phases of
development are proposed, the first three of which are almost entirely timeshare condominiums.
Background .
Vistana is under contract to purchase Lot C from the current owner, Vail Resorts, Inc. In October
1998, Town Council approved a zone change, from Town Center (TC) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD), and approved the PUD Development Standards for Lot C via Ordinance
98-21. At the applicant's request (then Vail Resorts, Inc.), that approval did not include a Final
Development Plan.
The application currently before the Town is for Final PUD Development Plan approval, which
is governed by Section 17.20.110 of the Avon Municipal Code.
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this application on November 2, November 7 and
November 16.
Discussion
The Development Plan attached to this report is the latest revision, and addresses comments by
P&Z and staff from the December 7'h and November 161i meetings. Also attached for your
reference is Staffs letter to the applicant dated December 101i summarizing the Commission and
staffs comments.
Modifications in the attached plan include:
• The angled parking spaces at the West Beaver Creek Boulevard timeshare building entrance
are now 90 -degree spaces.
• The angle of the driveway and loading area entrance to the parking garage next to
Benchmark Road.
• The elevator for the employee housing building has is now within the employee lounge area
and the fireplaces are deleted. The stairwells are also relocated.
• Addition of a tum around area in the surface parking lot next to Benchmark Road.
• The footprint of the hotel has been clarified.
• The measurement of retail space is now Gross Leaseable Floor Area (GLFA) rather than
Gross Floor Area (GFA), for consistency with Town of Avon parking requirements.
• Notes on the plan clarify that the architectural design is conceptual and that final architectural
design will be approved through the Final Design Review process.
r
Tam of Avon Cammurdty Development Wlnancelcd•pub4c\phz\staH repots\1999\122199Votc2ndpudrevised1215.doc
(970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
1
Lot C; Avon Center at Bear .:reek Subdivision; PUD Development Plan
December 21, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 8
• The traffic study is updated to reflect the revised circulation and access for the site. Please
note that the reference to a traffic signal at Sun Road is a typographical error; the data and
conclusions in the report do not reflect the presence of a traffic signal.
PUD Review Criteria
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and
Objectives.
The Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Avon Town Council in 1996, includes a number of
goals and policies, listed below, which deal directly and indirectly with development in the Town
Center. They are based on principles of economically sustainable development that reflect the
practical experience of communities throughout the country. -
Urban design is critical to the long-term economic health of a downtown. The design and
arrangement of buildings and their surroundings, together with the associated type and mix of
activities (so-called "uses"), has much to do with where people go to shop, dine out, find
lodging, or work. Over time, people choose places that are convenient, interesting, safe and
comfortable.
Successful businesses both help create and are attracted to such places. The Town plays a critical
role by establishing a framework for development, then evaluating individual development
proposals against that pattern. This framework, articulated through the Comprehensive Plan and
Design Guidelines, gives current and potential property and business owners a reasonable set of
expectations upon which they can base investment decisions, and some assurance that
development approvals on adjacent properties will be made using the same set of criteria.
Because development in a downtown is so interdependent with surrounding development, having
and adhering to this framework is especially important.
The Comprehensive Plan describes the Town Center as being the "most intensely developed part
of town, as a true urban environment with attractive public gathering places. New development
on vacant parcels, as well as redevelopment of existing uses in the Town Center will include
mixed-use buildings containing retail and services on the ground floor, offices and/or residential
above, and structured parking and urban amenities such as plazas and walkways. An overall
pedestrian network will be developed for the Town Center, to create a truly walkable
environment." (Page 42)
Relevant Goals and Policies include:
Goal A1: 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 A3.5: Since undeveloped land in the Town Center is scarce, it will be developed at
higher density, include a vertically integrated mix of commercial and
residential uses, and rely primarily on underground and/or structured parking.
Goal B 2: Establish the Town Center Area as an inviting, vibrant and safe pedestrian -
oriented cultural, retail and entertainment hub
Policy B 2.2: Development and redevelopment in the Town Center should effectively
separate vehicles from pedestrian access and circulation.
Town of Avon Community Development Wnancalcd-publicWz\stafl reports%1999112219fttc2ndpudrevIsed1215.doo
970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot C, Avon Center at Beav6. —reek Subdivision; PUD Development Plan
December 21, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Pagd 3 of 8
Policy B 2.3: Encourage a range of uses in the Town Center, including retail, offices, hotels,
recreation, tourism, and entertainment.
Policy E 1.4: Commercial areas should be designed to minimize in -town vehicle travel by
making it easier for people arriving by car to park and conveniently walk to
multiple stores and businesses.
Policy E 2.2: Structured parking will be incorporated in all development and major
redevelopment in the Town Center.
The hotel, freestanding office/retail building and minor portions of the timeshare buildings
constitute vertically mixed use as described in the Comprehensive Plan (see above). At buildout,
the project incorporates structured parking, pedestrian access and a functional connection with
the Town Center Mall. Apart from the vronosed ohasine and some minor modifications, the
development as a whole generally conforms to the language and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Design Guidelines.
However, the project is proposed to occur in four phases: Phases 1A, 1B and 1C, and Phase 2.
Under this scenario, the development will begin with timeshare and employee housing at the
corner of Benchmark Road and Beaver Creek Boulevard, and proceed toward the Town Center
Mall. The first three phases are almost entirely timeshare condominiums and employee housing.
The majority of ground -level retail and the hotel would occur in the last phase (Phase 2).
One likely outcome of this phasing plan is a freestanding timeshare building separated from the
Town Center Mall. The small amount of retail included with the timeshare building is focused
mainly on Beaver Creek Boulevard, and does not interact with storefronts adjacent to the Town
Center Mall. Functioning more as a standalone project, the timeshare seems likely to generate
more automobile traffic and transit usage than would the more dense, integrated development
shown at the end of Phase 2. Without the proximity and density of additional retail space along
the Mall in conjunction with the timeshare and hotel, retail business development on the Mall
seems less likely.
In short, this phasing plan represents a significant departure from the framework expressed by
the Comprehensive Plan. Rather than complementing existing and proposed development in the
Town Center, the phasing plan could fragment the Town Center and the Town Center Mall. With
the continuing business growth of Edwards and the impending start of development in the
Village at Avon, this seems to be a step backwards in the overall development of the Town
Center.
The phasing plan therefore does not conform to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan. A recommended condition of approval is that the project starts with the hotel and retail, or
is constructed as a single phase.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the
sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
The Town Center lies within Subarea 13 of the Urban Design Plan (p. 65, 1996
Comprehensive Plan).
At buildout, the proposed development generally conforms to the overall design theme and
sub -area design recommendations. The phasing as proposed; however, does not. The
following comments are based upon the buildout.
Town of Avon CommuNty Development \Vlnance\cd-publlc\p&zNstaff reports\1899112210Mtc2ndpudrevtsedl215.doc
970) 748.4030 Fax (070) 94M748
r •• i
Lot C, Avon Center at Beay. _reek Subdivision; PUD Development Plan
tDecember 21, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 8
• The two story retail building steps back from the Town Center Mall as recommended.
• The plaza design ties the project to the mall. A pedestrian connection has been provided
from the Mall back to the fountain area.
• The Guidelines call for pedestrian connections through the property. Pedestrian
connections have been provided both through the interior of the project and on the
perimeter.
• The design of the sidewalks, pedestrian ways and streetscape will be refined through the
design review process.
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's understanding of the architectural design is that it is presented to illustrate a
variety of concepts. Consequently, the architectural theme is not consistent throughout
the project. A note has been placed on the plans that states that the architectural plans are
conceptual only and that the final architectural design, including the architectural theme,
will be approved separately through the design review process.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
• At buildout, the uses, density and activity level will achieve conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines when Phase 2, the final phase of
the development, has been completed with the attendant retail space and pedestrian
facilities.
• The circulation system now works in conjunction with the Lot B project, with some
refinement at the Design Review stage.
• As proposed, Phases 1A, 1B and 1C do not meet this criterion.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
No significant hazards have been identified.
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.
• As discussed above, the building design will be refined at the Design Review process.
This will include that building elevations are consistent with the floor plans.
• The provision of the interior pedestrian ways and adjacent retail, and the connection to
the mall will contribute to the functionality of Avon's Town Center. The interior corridor
may help to preserve mountain views from Beaver Creek Boulevard.
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.
Town or Avon Community Development 1%inance\cd-publk\p&X\staff reports119MI22199Uowj*udrevised1215.doo
970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot C. Avon Center at Bea. _. Creek Subdivision; PUD Development Plan
December 21, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 8.;
A functional circulation system can be created with further refinement of the access to the
project and the design of the loading and trash areas. We have included recommended
conditions of approval to address these concerns.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
The landscaping appears functional for an urban development. Any phasing will be approved
in conjunction with the final design review process.
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.
Please see comments regarding phasing under criteria number 1, 2,4 and 7. The phasing plan
as proposed is not, in staff's opinion, acceptable under this criterion.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
• Proposed storm water detention and pollution control facilities are located on Town of
Avon property, Tract G. This will require execution of an agreement with the Town prior
to final approval to address issues related to this use of the property, construction and
maintenance of the facilities and their relocation if required for future development of the
area.
• The plans generally conform to the street and streetscape improvement plans developed
by the Town, subject to more detailed reviews in conjunction with the Final Design
Review process and Building permit review.
• Proposed grades at south end of site appear to be significantly lower than existing grades
of adjacent Town Center Mall. The grading plan will require refinement at the Final
Design review and building permit stages.
• No concerns regarding sewer, water, or school capacity have been expressed.
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 provision of the left turn lane for traffic exiting Sun Road helps to reduce the impacts
from traffic turning onto West Beaver Creek Boulevard. The updated traffic report is
included in your packet.
12. Development Standards
The PUD approved in October of 1998 by Town Council established the development
standards.
Setbacks: This PUD proposes reduced setbacks from the original PUD as follows:
• North (Benchmark Road): unchanged
• East (West Beaver Creek Road: 20 feet original, 10 feet proposed
• South (Sun Road): 10 feet -unchanged
Tam of Avon Community Development \Uinancatcd•publb\p&z\stafl reports\1999\122199Vbtc2ndpudrevtsed1215.doc
970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Lot C, Avon Center at Beavt eek Subdivision; PUD Development Plan
]December 21, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 8
• West (Benchmark Road)10 feet original, 5 feet proposed
• Underground parking garage- requesting 8 feet setback.
• Other encroachments: The original PUD approved the encroachment of non -habitable
structures including Porte cocheres, low level roof structures covering open air
pedestrian ways and awnings relating to commercial uses could encroach up to a 10
foot setback. The current PUD has expanded this to include roof overhangs and
balconies. Staff does not object to the additional items encroaching. The PUD must
specify that these elements are limited to non -habitable encroachments.
Height: The plans conform to the 100 -foot height limit imposed by the original PUD. This
will be verified with the final design review and building permit plans.
Density: The project conforms to the 210 dwelling density established by the original PUD.
It must be noted that the two-bedroom timeshare units are configured as one bedroom lock -
offs including a living room and a bedroom for each Sidi. We have enclosed a letter from
Brett Miller of OZ Architecture dated November Std stating that these units meet the Town's
definition of a dwelling unit, which allows up to two lock -offs. The cooking facilities have
been removed from the lock -off side to meet this definition.
In staff's opinion, the subdivision of the timeshares into one -bedroom units must be
prohibited; otherwise the lock -off units function as separate units and must be classified as
such. The applicants should further clarify how these units will function, including whether
they will allow separate: rentals and "space banking" of the lock -offs.
Site Coverage: 70 percent -unchanged
Landscaping 20 percent -conforms to Town Center standards.
Parking:
• Hotel: 1 parking space per roam
• Timeshare interval ownership: .6 spaces per bedroom, proposed 1.2 spaces per unit
(assumes 2 bedrooms per timeshare unit and two living areas)
• Emplovee housing: .5 spaces per unit -unchanged.
• Compact spaces: proposed 20 percent of structured parking, which is more restrictive
than the Town Zoning Code requirements
Staff was able to verify 384 of 388 proposed parking spaces. The plans will be required to
provide 388 spaces.
Snow shedding and storage: A temporary collection area has been provided. The plans
indicate that snow will be hauled off- site. The plans need to be refined at the Final Design
Review stage to address snow- shedding concerns.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the PUD Final Development Plan, subject to the following
conditions:
General requirements and limitations:
1. The phasing plan as proposed does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The hotel
and retail phase should be constructed with the first phase of development.
2. The two-bedroom time-share units constitute one dwelling unit and may not be further
subdivided, sold,transferred, conveyed, leased, or sub -leased separately.
Town of Avon CWInunity Development 1Ulnancekd.publW0& tstaa reportskiPM122199doWr4pudrs'Ased/2t5.doc
970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 049.5749
Lot C, Avon Center at Be 'reek Subdivision; PUD Development Plan
December 21, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of, 8
3. A complete landscaping plan and construction laydown plan will be required prior to
issuance of a building permit for each phase of the project.
4. A common area with a fireplace is required on each floor of the employee Housing
Project.
5. The parking structure will be designed for future access to the Sunroad ramp and Lot B.
6. All parking aisles are required to comply with the 24'0" width.
7. All of the encroachments proposed in the setbacks are non -habitable. The non -habitable
encroachments are limited to balconies, porte-cochere, roof overhangs, awnings, and
lower level roof structures.
Streets and Streetscape:
8. All perimeter sidewalks throughout the project shall be a minimum of 8'0" width.
9. No columns or structural supports may either impede the 8'0" wide sidewalk clearance
requirements or encroach into driveways or entrances.
10. All curbs along streets and entrances must include 2'0' gutter pans in addition to the
driving lanes.
11. All streetscape improvements will include furniture, fixtures and lights per town
standards.
12. All street and streetscape improvements along West Beaver Creek Boulevard and
Benchmark Road must be completed at the time of issuance of the first TCO for the
project.
13. The final design and specifications for the bus stop will be required at design review.
14. All surface entries and loading entrances shall have a minimum vertical clearance of
13'6'.
15. All parking entrances from public roads shall have a 28'0" access width, which will
include a 2'0" gutter pan on each side.
16. The fountain/seating area adjacent to the Town Center Mall must be complete at the time
of issuance of the first TCO for the project.
17. The grading plan adjacent to the Town Center Mall is not approved and must be resolved
at design review contemporaneous with the streetscape improvement plan with the first
phase of development.
Required Agreements:
18. A Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement between Lot B and Lot C shall be executed
prior to issuance of a building permit and approved by the Town of Avon. The
Agreement must contain the following terms and conditions:
• A 39'0 access easement at Sunroad i.e, 19'5" on each property.
• Reciprocity for access and storage during construction.
• This Agreement will also set forth authorization for construction and management of
the storm drainage facilities from Lot B.
19. An Agreement will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for the
management, design and construction of the storm water detention and pollution control
facilities proposed on Town property known as "Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision". The PUD Development Plan in not an approval for the proposed use of
Tract G for storm water and pollution control facilities.
Amendments to the PUD Development Plan
20. The PUD Development Plan may be modified by reducing the number of time-share
units to accommodate the required parking, additional retail space, employee housing, or
hotel units without requiring a PUD Amendment.
Town of Avon Community Development \Vlnanca\od-publlcWz\stan reports\1099112210fttc2ndpudrevtsad1215.doe
970) 748.4030 Fax (870) 940-5748
Lot C, Avon Center at Heave ek Subdivision; PUD Development Plan
December 21, 1999 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 8
Final Design Review:
21. The accessibility and function of the trash and delivery areas is not approved. All aspects
of the trash and delivery areas will be resolved and clarified at Design Review.
22. The architecture, construction details, final grading and drainage plans depicted in the
PUD Development Plan are conceptual only. A separate process is required for refining
and resolving the details for the project.
Recommended Motion
"I move to adopt Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 99-18 recommending approval of
the Lot C PUD Development plan with conditions."
If you have any questions regarding this project or anything in this report, please call me at 748-
4002, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Griffith, AICP
Town Planner
Attachments:
• P&cZ Resolution 99-18
• Revised Development Plan received December 15.
• December 10, 1999 letter from Mike Matzko to Oz Architecture
Town of Avon Canmunity Development \U1nam9\cd-pub11a\p&fttall reports\1999\122199V Wndpudravlsedl2l5.doe
970) 745.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 99-18
SERIES OF 1999
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF AVON APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 48-21, LOT C, AVON CENTER AT
BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
WHEREAS, Vail Associates Investments Inc., owner of the Lot C, has applied for
approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD) and Amended PUD
Development Standards, as stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission
of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, 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 Zoning and
Development Plan application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission has reviewed and evaluated the
Development Plan according to the criteria Section 17.20.110, subsections H and
L of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, upon satisfaction of the Planned Development Plan the Conditions
herein including execution of an acceptable Development Agreement by the Town
%TNANCE CILPUBt.IOP&Mcsotudow\Ra_49\99.1BtatcR,doe
l
Council of the Town of Avon, the Planning & Zoning Commission finds that:
1. The density, land uses and overall pattern of development conform to the Avon
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
2. The PUD Development Plan and Development Standards conform to the overall
design theme of the town, the Subarea design recommendations and design
guidelines;
3. The PUD Development Plan and Development Standards are compatible with the
immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to
architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and
orientation;
4. The PUD Development Plan and Development Standards propose a mix of uses,
activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity;
5. The PUD Development Plan will identify and propose any necessary mitigation
and/or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property;
6. The development as represented by the PUD Development Plan and Development
Standards appear to be designed to produce a functional development responsive
and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community;
7. The project will incorporate a circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the
town transportation plan and proposed downtown plan;
8. The PUD Development Plan and development standards propose functional and
aesthetic landscaping and open space, and the PUD Development Plan will optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function;
9. Phasing plans maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout
the development of the PUD. The phasing plans clearly demonstrate that each
phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of
%TNANCEICD-PUBLICIP&Z R=IudoaaUte3�_99199-I81oteR.doe
r'
future project phases based on the execution of an acceptable development
agreement and ordinance conditions;
10. There are, or will be as needed, adequate public services including sewer, water,
schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning
Commission hereby recommends to the Town Council of the Town of Avon,
Colorado to approve the PUD Development Plan and amended development
standards as depicted in Exhibit A, entitled Lot C Avon, Colorado PUD
Development Plan dated December 14, 1499 as follows:
a. Reducing the West Beaver Creek building Setback from 20 feet to 10 feet,
reducing Benchmark Road building setback from 10 feet to 5 five feet, the
establishment of an 8 foot underground parking setback.
b. Allowance of non -habitable encroachments into the 10 -foot setbacks.
c. An exemption for 20 employee housing units from the maximum allowed
density of 210 dwelling units, subject to the following conditions:
I. General requirements and limitations:
1. The phasing plan as proposed does not comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. The hotel and retail phase should be constructed with the first phase
of development.
2. The two-bedroom time-share units constitute one dwelling unit and may
not be further subdivided, sold, transferred, conveyed, leased, or sub-
leased separately.
3. A complete landscaping plan and construction laydown plan will be
required prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase of the
project.
4. A common area with a fireplace is required on each floor of the employee
Housing Project.
XXMANCEICD-PUBI.ICP&Z\RcsoludmXRn_99\99-1 Blotc&dw
ff
i
5. The parking structure will be designed for future access to the Sunroad
ramp and Lot B.
6. All parking aisles are required to comply with the 24'0" width.
7. All of the encroachments proposed in the setbacks are non -habitable. The
non -habitable encroachments are limited to balconies, porte-cochere, roof
overhangs, awnings, and lower level roof structures.
II. Streets and Streetscape:
8. All perimeter sidewalks throughout the project shall be a minimum of 8'0"
width.
9. No columns or structural supports may either impede the 8'0" wide
sidewalk clearance requirements or encroach into driveways or entrances.
10. All streetscape improvements will include furniture, fixtures and lights per
town standards.
11. All street and streetscape improvements along West Beaver Creek
Boulevard and Benchmark Road must be completed at the time of
issuance of the first TCO for the project.
12. The final design and specifications for the bus stop will be required at
design review.
13. All surface entries and loading entrances shall have a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6'.
14. All parking entrances from public roads shall have a 28'0" access width,
which will include a 2'0" gutter pan on each side.
15. The fountain/seating area adjacent to the Town Center Mall must be
complete at the time of issuance of the first TCO for the project.
16. The grading plan adjacent to the Town Center Mall is not approved and
must be resolved at design review contemporaneous with the streetscape
improvement plan with the first phase of development.
%TNANCEICD-PUBLIC\P&ZReolufionsTes_M9.18IacR.doc
t
III. Required Agreements:
17. A Reciprocal Access Easement Agreement between Lot B and Lot C shall
be executed prior to issuance of a building permit and approved by the
Town of Avon. The Agreement must contain the following terms and
conditions:
A 39'0 access easement at Sunroad Le, 19'5" on each property.
ii. Reciprocity for access and storage during construction.
iii. This Agreement will also set forth authorization for construction
and management of the storm drainage facilities from Lot B.
18. An Agreement will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for
the management, design and construction of the storm water detention and
pollution control facilities proposed on Town property known as "Tract G,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision". The PUD Development Plan in
not an approval for the proposed use of Tract G for storm water and
pollution control facilities.
IV. Amendments to the PUD Development Plan:
19. The PUD Development Plan may be modified by reducing the number of
time-share units to accommodate the required parking, additional retail
space, employee housing, or hotel units without requiring a PUD
Amendment.
V. Final Design Review:
20. The accessibility and function of the trash and delivery areas is not
approved. All aspects of the trash and delivery areas will be resolved and
clarified at Design Review.
21. The architecture, construction details, final grading and drainage plans
depicted in the PUD Development Plan are conceptual only. A separate
process is required for refining and resolving the details for the project.
IVWANCE%MPUBL ILV&Ztaaatutio=Vtcs_ ".1810ttR.dw
!I
ADOPTED THIS 2Ih DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999
Signed:
Chris Evans, Chair
Attest.
Greg Macik, Secretary
Date:
Date:
%\FINANCBCD-PU13IACSP&ZUtrsoludms\Rcs_9%99.18buR.doc
Ay 0 K
C O L O R A D O
December 10, 1999
Past Office Box 975
400 Benchmark Road
Avan, Colorado 81620
970-748-4000
970-949-9139 Far
970.845-770817Y
W. Tom Obermeier
OZ Architeahas
1580 Lincoln Street
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Staff comments on December 6• Revised Plans for the Vistana Prgject— Lot C, Avon Center
at Beaver Creek Subdivision,
Dear Tam:
This letter is a summary of our comments on the revised PUD Development Plan for Lot C that you
provided to us during our meeting at your office oa Monday. December 6. Thee comments reflect a
joint review by the Town of Avon Community Development, Eagi =ing,'and Administration
For your reference, we've attached out previous.comments dated September 27, October 20, October
28, November 5, November 8, November 12, November 17 ard December 7. If you have, any
questions or would like clarification of'any of these, please don't hesitate to call me.
CWWm*m of plan sheets
1. Sleets 3.4, 5. and 9 do not .agree on the hotel building location with respect to the "Sunr64.
entrance along the southeast -M -erty line:
• Sheet 3 seems to indicate that the exterior' walls are offset approximately 8 feet onto the
padang struchne deck;
• Shed 5 seems to show walls overlapping approximately 6 fed on to the sidewalk shown on
Sheet 3;
• Sheet 9 seems to show columns and building extending over the sidewalk and approoximately 8
feet imo "Sunroad"entrance as shown an Sheet 3.
Vehicle Access and.grcubdion
1. The shared access easement between Lot B and Lot C (the "Sxurroad" access) should be at least 39
fed wide, back of curb to back of curb, to fully encompass access improvements from Beaver
Creek Boulevard to site access locations.
2. The proposed entrance to Lot B shown on Sheet C4 should be located at least as far back into the
site as the hotel lobby entrance.
3. The hotel surface parlang area shown on earlier versions has been eliminated, but the Phase IA
plan does not appear to accommodate the coining around and exiting movements of larger vehicles.
A temporary turn around or drive through must be provided in phase IA
Letter to Tom Obermeler
December 10,19%
Page 2 of 4
4. The revised Development Plan includes a new entrance to the parting structure via Benchmark
Road as we requested, but no longer includes an entrance from "Sinai."
• A' break through" wall should be provided in the underground parking for future access to the
Su aroad ramp and Lot B.
• The main Benchmark Road garage entry should be revised to maintain ninety-clegree access to
and ftm Benchmark Road, and to eliminate the angle entrance Sam the south. It should also
include a 24cot gutter pan on each side for a minirmtm width of 28 fed from face of curb to
face of curb.
• Accessibility and function of the Benchmark Road delivery entry and loading dock design
must be verified. Access and maneuvering should not encroach m Mont gutter pans, and
should allow adequate space for clearance around durapsters and truck mirrors. Maneuvering
and backing in the sttxt will not be acceptable.
• The Traffic Study am be updated to reflect the impacts of the timeshare entrance on West
Beaver Creek Boulevard becoming a major entrance and the "Summed" entrance being
reduced to secondary status.
5. The heated driveway entrance from Benchmark Road to the surface parking area does not appear
to meet minimi width requirements including curb and gutta. The width should be 28 feat fro
face of curb to face of curb.
6. A minimum vertical clearance of 13' 6' is requited fa fire truck access at the hotel and timeshare
vehicle entrances.
7. The circulation in the surface lot accessed via Benchmark Road is awkward; can may have to back
out if they do ant find a space. We recommend deleting 2 or more parking spaces to create an exit
lace.
8. The parking aisles an shed 4 are dimmsio>rd at 24 feet, but scale to 22 feel
9. As proposed on Sheet 3, the service area adjacent to the timeshare building may be inadequate to
accommodate standard loading space requirements and trash service vehicles.
10. Access trot the elevator neatest the Benchmark Road loading area appears to access a lawn amen at
the lobby level, and to be blocked by the "seating wall '
Sidewalkatnd Sheebcepe krpvvedttettts
1. Stteetscape improvements should include sidewalk, furniture, fior es and lights per Town
standards.
2. Sttectscape unprovements along Beaver (reek Boulevard and Benchmark Road should include
sidewalk of a minimum width of 8 feet. Tea fat is recommended where the sidewalk is adjacent to
buildings.
3. Phase IA improvements should include all stteetscape improvements including sidewalk along
Beaver Creek Boulevard and Benchmark Road for the entire length of the project, plus a
connection to the proposed fountain area adjacent to the Town Center Mall.
Letter to Tom Oberm6lar
December 10, 1999
Page 3 of 4
4. The proposed location of the employee housing building does not appear to leave adequate space
for an acceptable sidewalk width along Benchmark Road Reversing the location of the stairs and
elevator at the south end of the building might reduce this problem.
5. All curbs along streets and entrances must include 2 foot gutta pan in addition to driving lanes.
PhAdv
1. As we have discussed, and as pointed out by the Planning & Zoning Commission at their
December 7 meeting, Phases IA, IB and 1C do not appear to conform to the Comprehensive Plan,
which prescribes a vertical mix of uses and pedestrian facilities. Most of the retail development and
pedestrian facilities would not occur until the Phase 2 of the project We anticipate that phasing will
be a significant issue in Council's review of the proposed Development Pl m.
2. Ratter than require detailed landscape plans for each phase as part of this application, we agree that
landscaping and construction staging may be reviewed through Final Design Review for each
pham
3. Consider relocating the temporary path between Beaver Creek Boulevard and the Town Center
Mall to better conform to existing topography.
Graft and Drainage
The revised Development Plan generally addresses drainage issues raised in previous reviews.
However, an updated drainage report and construction details will be required at time of application for
building Int.
I. Grading Drainage Plans have been revised to work with existing conditions on Ld B. However,
the proposed constnrcdo n does extend onto Lot B and will require written approval firom the
property owner prior to issuance of any construction permiL
2. Stam drainage facilities are redesigned to elimiaafe all facilities on Lot B except for inlets and
connecting piping to provide drainage for clue existing Lot B parking areas. Construction of these
facilrues will also require wrrttea approval from the property owner pna to issuance of
construction permit.
3. The proposed grades at the south end of the site appear to be significantly lower than the existing
grades of the adjacent Town Center Mall.
4. Proposed atom[ water Mention and pollution control facilities are located on Town of Avon
Property (the small parking lot on Tract G), This will require execution of a separate agreement
with the Town, as a condition of Final PUD Development Plan approval, to address issues related
to this use of the property, construction and maintenance of the facilities, and their relocation if
required fa future development of the property.
Archllncb" Design
1. As we have discussed, PUD Development Plan approval does not include Final Design approval.
The architecture will be refined and approved through a separate Design Review process.
2. Our understanding is that the architecture presented in the plan set is to illustrate a variety of
concepts. Consequently, the architectural theme is not consistent throughout the project To avoid
confusion, please add the following note to all sheets with building elevations, plus the cover sheet:
letter to Tom Obenneler
December 10, IM
Page 4 of 4
:: • �• .•.
r
C{' ' . . : -•.. .....� a . . ., • � C..a: r. a . ' .. Ci '
i . •a�• .:.� _� . � . i ..; i'n a �. �•i. c e :�.
.s.
3. Our count shown 386 perking spaces. We were not able to find 388 spaces as noted on the plan.
MlaceftrOMM COM"Wsts
The bdHing height Is now within the 100•foot maximum To avoid confusion, please remove the
roaximnm topographical elevation fiat the plan sheet and insert the statement that the maxi>srm
building heietallowed is 100 feet.
Conditalon
We hope you find these comments helpful, and appreciate your efforts to address our comments thus
far. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of these comments farther, please call me at
7484014.
We look forward to receiving the revised plana by 8 AM Wednesday, December 15, so that your
projerd can remain on the agenda for the December 21 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Sincerely.
M
Cc: Mayor and Town Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
Bili Elting. Town Manager
Larry Brooks, Assistant Town Manager
Norm Wood, Town Engineer
Ruth Bome, Assistant Director of Commtmity Development
Karo Gdffith, Town Planner
Burt Levin, Town Attorney
0 Z A A H I T E C T U B E'
December 15, 1999
Mite Matzko
Director of Community Development
P. O. Boz 975
Avon, CO 81620
Re: Vistana — Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Staff Comments on December 10, 1999
Dear Mike:
Thank you for forwarding your staff comments on the revised PUD Development Plan for Lot C
that we provided to you at the December 6,1999 meeting at our Denver office. We have addressed
these issues and the following changes have been made to the plans.
Clarification of Plan Sheets
1. Sheets 3, 4, 5 and 9 consistently locate the hotel building relative to the southeast
property line.
Vehicle Access and Circulation
1. The back of curb to back of curb dimension for access across from Sun Road has been
established as 39. The shared access easement has remained at 25' to be consistent with
the previously approved PUD for Lot B.
2. Sheet C4 has been revised to locate the entrance to Lot B to reflect the location
approved in Lot B's PUD.
3. The Phase IA tum around has been revised to allow for turning and eriting movements
of large vehicles.
4. It has been noted that a break through wall should be constructed to allow for potential
garage access to the "Sun Road" rump. In addition, the garage entry from Benchmark
Road has been revised to maintain ninety degree access and a 28' width from face of
curb to face of curb. Out traffic engineer has provided an updated traffic report which
includes a turning radius diagram for the service area off of Benchmark Road.
5. The driveway entrance from Benchmark Road has been dimensioned at the required
width of 28'.
6. The circulation in the surface parking lot has been revised to facilitate the turning
around of can.
7: The access from the elevator nearest Benchmark Road has been revised.
Sidewalk and Streetecape Improvements
1. A note has been added to Sheet 3 indicating that streetscape improvements will conform
to Town of Avon standards.
0 1 1 V t 1 . 1 0 9 t 0 E 1 . S U M Y I i C 0 U I t t . C 0 t 0 A A 1 0 S r 1 1 1 6 3
t
0 Z A R u R I T E C T O R V
Grading and Drainage
1. The proposed grades at the South end of the site have been revised to better meet the
existing grades of the adjacent Town Center Marl Specifically, the finished floor of the
office/retail building has been raised to an elevation within 18" of the adjacent Town
Center Mall. This elevation difference will be accommodated in the final grading plan.
Architectural Design
1. A note has been added to Sheet 1 and to ail sheets containing elevations. The note
indicates that the elevations are conceptual and will be reviewed during the Design
Review Process.
2 The southern elevation of Phase IC has been included per the suggestion of the
Planning and Zoning Commission,
Parking
1. Sheet 1 has been revised relative to the parking requirements. The parking requirements
are now based on Gross Leaseable Floor Area (GLFA) instead of Net Square Footage
(NSF). Since the GLFA can only be accurately established from construction drawings,
it is estimated that the GLFA will be 80% of the Gross Square Footage.
2 A note has been added to Sheet I to clarify the parking requirements of the restaurant.
It has been noted that the 1 space per hotel room requirement includes any uses
incidental to the hotel It is our intention that the restaurant be treated as an incidental
use to the hotel The parking requirement for the hotel restaurant described above
reflects the language of the previously approved PUD for Lot C.
3. If there is a discrepancy between the parking count established on Sheet 1 and the
parking count as described in the drawings, it is.understood that the information on
Sheet 1 establishes the Development Standards for the project.
Building Height
1. To clarify the building height, the topographical maximum has been removed from
Sheet I and replaced by a 100' maximum building height designation.
The revised plans have been delivered by the time requested on December 15. We kook forward to
receiving your staff comments for the December 21 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Sincerely,
Brett Miller tA4.r'
OZ Architecture
O E 1 V E s. 8 0 9 1 O E l. s 9 EE Y I T C 1 0 1 T T. C 0 t 0 A A 0 3 5 0 1 1 1 0 s
NOV. 4.1499 6140PM \ 1MC. DWYM \t N0.130 P.22
1
November 3. 1999
ti UM crlfith
Town of Avon Planing i
P.O. Box 973
Avert, CO 81620
Thanks spin for your pittance wide our FM Development Plan for Lot C. We here
PWY appreciated yaw timely response to our submittal
I had an oppoomaity aftertho meeting to talk with both Larry Doll and Jim McKnight of
Vistaus about the prvpoaad use of the tlmeshata Unit. It is Visnas s intentlen that dee
amailer "lock-oW unit will be used a an "Accomodation unit" as defimd in Section
17.08.50 of the75cting Code tithe Town of Avon. It is wcogniud due the presence oft
beehem, and in particular "a mew of cooling" (Section 17.08.400) d'utln fdsites an
=Mnwdxdw unit from a dwelling unit.: The snoaiier "look -off" tacks a tpeaas of
coolin=, and should therdm be considered an eccommodAdan unit. I
Relative to the csiculation of density, the two-bedroom lock -off unit fstt�tjjgg coneWare
u am dwelling omit. Itis is based in Section 17.08.270 subsection 2 *bA defines a
dwelting unit eta up to "two aocammodttion mita in association with a dwelling tuft"
Reladve to the calculadea of the parking requitement for a two-bedroom lock -off, the
approved PUD for Lot C eatabHshas the psrkiog roquhtment as 0.6 padd" spaces par
bedroom. Tho two.6edroom lock -off would thea require is puling spaUx+a.
The slava analysis clarifies the issues regmft density and pealing for the two-bedroom
lock off unit I wlll call tontmmw to see if thane arc any other quasdons mSaft the
standard timeshare nnft I
1
Sineetelyr ��� ,
HretiMiria jlj')V J,tj
OZ Architecture
Planning and Zoning Commission
Record of Proceedings
December 21,1999 .
The Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission regularly meets at 6:00 p.m. on
the first and third Tuesday of each month, in the Avon Council Chambers, Avon
Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, CO 131620. Meeting agendas are
posted at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting in the following Ipcations:
Avon Municipal Building lobby;
Avon City Market lobby;
Avon Recreation Center lobby;
Avon/Beaver Creek Transit Center
Commission Members
Ward Morrison
Chris Evans, Chair
Anne Fehiner, Vice Chair
Paul Klein
Greg Macik, Secretary
Andrew Karow
Brian Sipes
Staff Members
Karen Griffith, Town, Planner
Beth Salter, Recording Secretary
Stephen Hodges, Community Service Officer
Mike Matzko, Com. Dev. Director
Ruth Boma, Assistant Com. Dev. Director
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Fehlner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
it. Roll Cali
All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Evans.
Ill. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
Item A and D of the Final Design items will be added to the Consent Agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Morrison has a conflict of interest with Item C - Final Design.
V. Consent Agenda
Commissioner Sipes made a motion to approve the December 7, 1999 Planning
& Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes and Item A, Avon Town Square Phase I
and It — Master Sign Program, 70 &'90 Benchmark Road and Item D, Lot 73074,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Charter Sports — Sign Application.
Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Avon Planning 6 Zoning Commission
Oeeember2l, 1999
Record of Proceedings, Page 2 of 3
VI. Final Design Review
Lot 40, Block 2, Wlldridge Subdivision — 2685 Bear Trap Road
Project Type: Exterior Modification
Property Owner: Tim Savage
Applicant: Tim Savage
Commissioner Klein made a motion to approve the exterior siding color
modification for Lot 40, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Macik. Commissioner Sipes and Commissioner Karow opposed the
motion. The motion passed by a 4 to 2 vote.
Lot 4, Wlldridge Acres
Address: 2807 Shepherd Ridge
Project Type: Remodel to Existing Home
Applicant: Bob Matarese
All of the Commissioners were concerned with the proposal as submitted and
requested additional information to clarify the proposal. The clarifications are to include
a site plan and all elevations for the project. The Commissioners further urged the
applicant to revise the South elevation,
Commissioner Karow made a motion to table the application, Commissioner
Sipes seconded the motion. Commissioner Morrison abstained based upon a conflict of
interest. The motion passed unanimously.
VII. PUD Application — Public Hearing
Lot C — Amended PUD Development Plan
Project Type: Mixed -Use Development
Property Owner: Vistana, Inc
Applicant: OZ Architecture
Address: 160 W. Beaver Creek Blvd.
There are two corrections for the staff report. The applicant is proposing 136
hotel rooms, not 130. There Is 29% of structured parking proposed for the compact
spaces, not 20%. All of the Commissioners expressed concern with the proposed
phasing plan. All of the modifications and revisions, including staffs conditions, were
endorsed by the Commissioners.
Michelle Paige, manager of Beaver Creek West, requested additional time to
review the application. Commissioner Karow reminded her that there is additional time
to provide public comment with Avon Town Council. The Planning Commission has
posted public notice since November on the Lot C proposal as required by the Avon
Municipal Code.
i
von Planning 3 Zoning Commission
decemberll, 1999
Record or Proceedings, P$ge 3 or3
James McKnight of Vistana, Inc. thanked the Commissioners for their input and
support with this project and requested changes to two of staffs conditions. Item I to
allow the discretion of council to determine the Phasing plan's compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Item 18 should be revised to an easement from Lot C for the
benefit of Lot B and approved by the Town. The applicant also addressed the condition
on the restriction of transferring or selling the timeshare units as one -bedroom units.
Commissioner Morrison recommended that Condition 1 in Staff's Report requires
the hotel and retail at Phase I. The Commissioners were in favor of amending
Condition 18.
Commissioner Karow made a motion to approve the conditions for Resolution
99-18 as follows:
Amended Development Standards:
a. Reducing the West Beaver Creek building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet,
reducing Benchmark Road building setback from 10 feet to 5 five feet, the
establishment of an 8 foot underground parking setback.
b. Allowance of non -habitable encroachments Into the 10 -foot setbacks.
c. An exemption for 20 employee housing units from the maximum allowed
density of 210 dwelling units, subject to the following conditions:
General requirements and limitations:
1. The phasing plan as proposed does not comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. The hotel and retail phase should be constructed with Phase 1A.
2. The two-bedroom time-share units constitute one dwelling unit and may
not be further subdivided, sold, transferred, conveyed, leased, or sub-
leased separately.
3. • A complete landscaping plan and construction laydown plan will be
required prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase of the
project.
4. A common area with a fireplace is required on each floor of the employee
Housing Project.
5. The parking structure will be designed for future access to the Sunroad
ramp and Lot B.
6. All parking aisles are required to comply with the 24'0" width.
7. All of the encroachments proposed in the setbacks are non -habitable.
The non -habitable encroachments are limited to balconies, porte-cochere,
roof overhangs, awnings, and lower level roof structures.
II. Streets and Streetscape:
8. All perimeter sidewalks throughout the project shall be a minimum of 8'0"
width.
9. No columns or structural supports may either impede the 8'0" wide
sidewalk clearance requirements or encroach into driveways or entrances.
Avon Planning 8 Zoning Commission
December 21, 1999
Record ofProceedings, Page 4 ora
10. All curbs along street and entrances must include 2'0" gutter pans in
addition to the driving lanes.
11. All streetscape improvements will include furniture, fixtures, and lights per
Town standards.
12. All street and streetscape improvements along West Beaver Creek
Boulevard and Benchmark Road must be completed at the time.of
issuance of the first TCO for the project.
13. The final design and specifications for the bus stop will be required at
design review.
14. All surface entries and loading entrances shall have a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6'.
15. All parking entrances from public roads shall have a 28'0" access width,
which will Include a 2'0" gutter pan on each side.
16. The fountain/seating area adjacent to the Town Center Mall must be
complete at the time of issuance of the first TCO for the project.
17. The grading plan adjacent to the Town Center Mall Is not approved and
must be resolved at design review contemporaneous with the streetscape
improvement plan with the first phase of development.
III. Required Agreements:
18. An Access Easement Agreement by Lot C for the benefit of Lot B
executed prior to issuance of a building permit and approved by the Town
of Avon. The Agreement must contain the following terms and conditions:
I. A 39'0 access easement at Sunroad Le, 19'5" on each property.
ii. Reciprocity for access and storage during construction.
iii. This Agreement will also set forth authorization for construction and
management of the storm drainage facilities from Lot B.
19. An Agreement will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for
the management, design and construction of the storm water detention
and pollution control facilities proposed on Town property known as 7radt
G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision". The PUD Development Plan
in not an approval for the proposed use of Tract G for storm water and
pollution control facilities.
IV. Amendments to the PUD Development Plan:
20. The PUD Development Plan may be modified by reducing the number of
time-share units to accommodate the required. parking, additional retail
space, employee housing, or hotel units without requiring a PUD
Amendment.
V. Final Design Review:
21. The accessibility and function of the trash and delivery areas is not
approved. All aspects of the trash and delivery areas will be resolved and
clarified at Design Review.
t'
,on Planning a Zoning Commission
ABcember2l, 7999
Record of Proceedfngs, Page 5 03
22. The architecture, construction details, final grading and drainage plans
depicted in the PUD Development Plan are conceptual only. A separate
process is required for refining and resolving the details for the project.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sipes and unanimously approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
ke4* 0. ZA���
Ruth O. Boma, Acting Recording Secretary
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 99-18
SERIES OF 1999
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF AVON APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE 98-21, LOT C. AVON CENTER AT
BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
• til 1M
WHEREAS, Vail Associates Investments Inc., owner of the Lot C, has applied for
approval of a Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD) and Amended PUD
Development Standards, as stipulated in Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission
of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, 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 Zoning and
Development Plan application; and
WBEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission has reviewed and evaluated the
Development Plan according to the criteria Section 17.20.110, subsections H and
I, of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, upon satisfaction of the Planned Development Plan the Conditions
herein including execution of an acceptable Development Agreement by the Town
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111 IN
73tN4N Eg/30/2000 11t20R 2N Sara Fisher F.T&Z\Rao1ud=%1999Rooludm%99.1910tckdoc
13 of 18 R 00.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 Bade CO
Council of the Town of Avon, the Planning & Zoning Commission finds that:
1. The density, land uses and overall pattern of development conform to the Avon
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
2. The PUD Development Plan and Development Standards conform to the overall
design theme of the town, the Subarea design recommendations and design
guidelines;
3. The PUD Development Plan and Development Standards are compatible with the
immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to
architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and
orientation;
4. The PUD Development Plan and Development Standards propose a mix of uses,
activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity;
5. The PUD Development Plan will identify and propose any necessary mitigation
and/or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property;
6. The development as represented by the PUD Development Plan and Development
Standards appear to be designed to produce a functional development responsive
and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community;
7. The project will incorporate a circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the
town transportation plan and proposed downtown plan;
8. The PUD Development Plan and development standards propose functional and
aesthetic landscaping and open space, and the PUD Development Plan will optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function;
9. Phasing plans maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout
the development of the PUD. The phasing plans clearly demonstrate that each
phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN
730044 09/30/2000 11:25A 200 Sara FlMhW F.T&MR=1udaw%1999 Reso1udcnsM.181oteR.doe
14 of 16 R 00.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 gall@ CO
future project phases based on the execution of an acceptable development
agreement and ordinance conditions;
10. There are, or will be as needed, adequate public services including sewer, water,
schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning
Commission hereby recommends to the Town Council of the Town of Avon,
Colorado to approve the PUD Development Plan and amended development
standards as depicted in Exhibit A, entitled Lot C Avon, Colorado PUD
Development Plan dated December 14, 1949 as follows:
a. Reducing the West Beaver Creek building Setback from 20 feet to 10 feet,
reducing Benchmark Road building setback from 10 feet to 5 five feet, the
establishment of an 8 foot underground parking setback.
b. Allowance of non -habitable encroachments into the 10 -foot setbacks.
c. An exemption for 20 employee housing units from the maximum allowed
density of 210 dwelling units, subject to the following conditions:
I. General requirements and limitations:
1. The phasing plan as proposed does not comply with the Comprehensive
Plan. The hotel and retail phase should be constructed with Phase IA.
2. The two-bedroom time-share units constitute one dwelling unit and may
not be further subdivided, sold, transferred, conveyed, leased, or sub-
leased separately.
3. A complete landscaping plan and construction laydown plan will be
required prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase of the
project.
4. A common area with a fireplace is required on each floor of the employee
Housing Project.
5. The parking structure will be designed for future access to the Sunroad
ramp and Lot B.
I3a8405/30/2M
530/2 1454 II'II sar IIriamI III I'II FIMZPU olutions11999Raoludom19 RIctckdoc
15 of la It"Moa."xSMEagle CO
6. All parking aisles are required to comply with the 24'0" width.
7. All of the encroachments proposed in the setbacks are non -habitable. The
non -habitable encroachments are limited to balconies, potte-cochere, roof
overhangs,, awnings, and lower level roof structures.
11. Streets and Streetseape:
S. All perimeter sidewalks throughout the project shall be a minimum of 8'0"
width.
9. No columns or structural supports may either impede the 8'0" wide
sidewalk clearance requirements or encroach into driveways or entrances.
10. All curbs along street and entrances must include 2'0" gutter pans in
addition to the driving lanes.
11. All streetscape improvements will include furniture, fixtures, and lights
per Town standards.
12. All street and streetscape improvements along West Beaver Creek
Boulevard and Benchmark Road must be completed at the time of
issuance of the first TCO for the project.
13. • The final design and specifications for the bus stop will be required at
design review.
14. All surface entries and loading entrances shall have a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6'.
15. All parking entrances from public roads shall have a 28'0" access width,
which will include a 2'0" gutter pan on each side.
16. The fountain/seating area adjacent to the Town Center Mali must be
complete at the time of issuance of the first TCO for the project.
17. The grading plan adjacent to the Town Center Mall is not approved and
must be resolved at design review contemporaneous with the streetscape
improvement plan with the fust phase of development.
111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II11111111111111
730944 03/30/2M 1145A 289 Sara Flahar
16 of 19 R 90.eO 0 0.00 N O.e0 Eagle CO,
r-\P&bRaoludou 1999 RaolutiovA99-181oickdoc
11I. Required Agreements:
18. An Access Easement Agreement by Lot C for the benefit of Lot B
executed prior to issuance of a building permit and approved by the Town
of Avon. The Agreement must contain the following terns and
conditions:
i. A 39'0 access easement at Sunroad Le, 19'5" on each property.
ii. Reciprocity for access and storage during construction.
iii. This Agreement will also set forth authorization for construction
and management of the storm drainage facilities from Lot B.
19. An Agreement will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for
the management, design and construction of the storm water detention and
pollution control facilities proposed on Town property known as 'Tract G,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision". The PUD Development Plan in
not an approval for the proposed use of Tract G for storm water and
pollution control facilities.
IV. Amendments to the PUD Development Plan:
20. The PUD Development Plan may be modified by reducing the number of
time-share units to accommodate the required parking, additional retail
space, employee housing, or hotel units without requiring a PUD
Amendment.
V. Final Design Review:
21. The accessibility and function of the trash and delivery areas is not
approved. All aspects of the trash and delivery areas will be resolved and
clarified at Design Review.
22. The architecture, construction details, final grading and drainage plans
depicted in the PUD Development Plan are conceptual only. A separate
process is required for refining and resolving the details for the project.
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN
73e04+{ eElaasEEE 11:25A 289 Sara Fisher
17 of 18 R 00.0E 0 0.00 N 0.0E Eagle 00 F.T&ZlRcso1udow\1999Reso1udoos199-18WcR.doc
ADOPTED THIS 21h DAY OF DECEMBER, 1999
Signed.
Date: tel- 0
Anne Fehtner, Chai/
Attest:
Date' �
ar7�
Greg Macik, Secretary
I IIIIII IIIII IIIIIII III IIIIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIIII III IN
?3U" OS130I2090 11:25A 232 Sara Fisher
It of 16 R 90.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO
p.\p& mdudou!\1999 Resolutlom\99-181otcRAoc
November 5,1999
Mr. Tom Obermeier
OZ Architecture
1580 Lincoln Street
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80203
RE: Vistana Project — PUD Concept Review
Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Dear Tom:
I am sending this letter to summarize the issues and comments from the Planning and Zoning
Commission on the Lot C Concept Review on November 2, 1999. We hope these comments will
assist you in preparing the revised application for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
on November 16, 1999.
• The Commissioners concurred with the staff comments on zoning issues. All zoning
encroachments and uses must be listed on the site plan. Commissioner Evans commented
that the applicants need to take construction activity into account with the zero setback for
the underground garage. There must also be adequate space for landscaping within the
project boundaries, especially along the perimeter of the parking garage.
• The overall massing is a concern, including how it relates to setbacks.
• The Commission also discussed that the Town Code limits compact parking spaces to 30
percent of structured parking, but expressed that this standard may be unrealistic for
mountain communities where there seem to be more large vehicles.
• They also indicated that having reserved parking spaces for the employees was important.
• Most Commissioners expressed the opinion that the design of the pedestrian ways through
the project has been significantly improved.
• Several Commissioners expressed the need to have retail space and pedestrian amenities
central to the site. The plans should provide flexibility for more retail on pedestrian levels.
They also want to see a commitment to include the retail in earlier project phases.
11/11/99
Letter taTom Obermeier
• The Commissioners requested detailed phasing plans indicating how each phase will meet
Town requirements, including parking.
• The Commissioners would like to see detached sidewalks. This would require location
within the project boundaries.
There was a significant amount of discussion on the project's architectural design.
• There appeared to be a consensus that the proportion of the roof to the building needs to be
addressed.
• Several Commissioners suggested the roof plate be lowered and dormers be incorporated into
the design to visually reduce the mass of the buildings.
• There was a consensus on the need to have more architectural projections to break up wall
planes and that more variety with the fenestration and balconies needs to be provided.
• The Commissioners strongly encouraged the design to include more detailing utilizing a rich
palette of materials and colors to provide architectural interest, and to create a human scale
for the project. The Commission appeared favorable toward the detailed sketches for the first
building level to create a pedestrian friendly environment.
• The Commissioners also talked about the need to have a cohesive design for all of the
buildings.
• Several Commissioners expressed concerns about the height of the buildings. The 100 -foot
height limit needs to be verified with the actual topographic elevations.
• The Commissioners also discussed the shadow studies. The pedestrian spaces and employee
housing units need to be designed to take advantage of solar access. The building design
may need to be modified to provide better solar access such as lowering a section of the
building or taking a notch out of it for better solar access. The applicants also need to ensure
they have addressed areas where ice and snow build up can be anticipated.
• The Commission questioned how the lock off component of the two bedroom timeshare units
will function, including whether one bedroom units will be sold, traded or rented separately.
The applicants should clarify on the floor plans whether any cooking facilities will be
included in the accommodation units. Brett Miller's letter of November 3" will be included in
the packet for the November le Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
• There was discussion on the access and circulation design; including loading areas and bus
"tum -around."
• Service areas should be screened and present a finished appearance.
• The Commission liked the changes in the employee units that introduced a variety of unit
sizes, clarified that a lounge will be provided on each floor and that lockers will be provided.
• The Commission commented that traffic flow must be carefully evaluated.
This is our summary of the Commission comments. The revised plans must address these
comments, in addition to those outlined in the submittal letter and staff concept review report.
Engineering's comments are not provided in this letter and will be forwarded when they become
available. Please be prepared to respond to their concerns.
Please call us if you need clarification on any issues outlined in these documents.
11/11/"
Letter to Tom Obermeier
We will need to receive the revised drawings and any supplemental written material by noon
Wednesday to remain on the schedule for a public hearing on November Ie.
We will be happy to meet with you again prior to the meeting if this would be helpful to you.
Please do not hesitate to call me at 970-748-4002.
Sincerely,
Karen Griffith, AICP
Town Planner
Cc: Mayor and Town Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
Bill Efting, Town Manager
Mike Matzko, Community Development Director
Norm Wood, Town Engineer
Carol Gil-Mulson, Fire Marshall
co i.a R A D 0
October 20,1999
W. Tom Obermeier
OZ Architecture
1580 Lincoln Street
Suite 1200
Deaver, CO 80203
RE: Vistana Project — PUD Submittal Review
Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Dear Tom:
We received the PUD application for Lot C on October 18, and performed an initial review
based on the PUD Review .criteria listed in the, Zoning Code and the Downtown Design
Guidelines. This letter summarizes staff's initial comments on the application.
The two most important concerns are the overall architectural expression for the project and the
vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Following is a summary of our issues that we have
identified at this time.
Zoning and Uses
• Encroachments into building setbacks must be defined and delineated on the plans, including
projecting elements such as roof overhangs.
• A maximum density for the employee units must be established.
• The permitted and conditional uses must be listed on this plan document.
• A note must be provided on the plans stating that The Town of Avon Zoning Code shall be
used for any provisions not addressed in thisPUD.
Vehicular Circulation
• Sun Road will serve as the primary access to the site. Staff does not support the direct access
from West Beaver Creek Boulevard. Check-in areas should' be consolidated between the
hotel and time-share to reduce traffic impacts on Town Streets.
• . The shared entry to Lot C and Lot B should be directly across from Sun Road. A roundabout
Poor once sox m' be a viable alternative to a conventional intersection.
400 Benchmark Road
Awm Colorado 81620
970-748-4000
970-949-9139 Fax
970.845-7708 l7T
a
10120/99
Letter to Tom Obermeier
• The hotel drop off area on Sun Road may not provide adequate stacking and could result in
congestion on Beaver Creek Boulevard. It does not appear to have an adequate turning radius
for vehicles exiting the site, especially larger vehicles such as buses.
• Curb cuts on Sun Road must be located so that an efficient circulation system can be
developed, including adequate access for emergency vehicles and equipment. Staff strongly
recommends that the drop off areas for Lot B and C have a more unified design and function.
• Loading and service delivery areas are required and must be delineated on the site plans. The
plans must show trash enclosure locations on East Side of site.
• The parking lots must be designed for more efficient circulation with aisles to circulate traffic
throughout the lots.
• All parking spaces must be served by a 24 -foot aisle. '
• Plans need to incorporate all streetscape elements matching construction east of the property.
There will not be sufficient right-of-way in West Beaver Creek Boulevard to accommodate
the landscaping proposed.
Pedestrian Circulation
• A clear pedestrian connection between Beaver Creek Boulevard and the pedestrian mall
should be provided. It is not clear how the proposed pedestrian connection adjacent to the
pool functions. Based on the plan set, the path does not appear to be designed to provide a
clear pedestrian walkway through the site. Please clarify this withbuilding elevations at this
location.
• The sidewalk design along Sun Road does not appear to be very pedestrian friendly and
needs to be improved.
Pedestrian Mall
• The Lot C development must have a strong relationship to the pedestrian mall. Please clarify
how the proposed circular feature adjacent to the Mall will contribute to that strong
relationship.
• The plaza and fountain could be a significant amenity to the pedestrian mall with a more
visible access.
Staff is recommending that the development contribute funding for the mall to be used
toward landscaping, paving materials, sculpture and fountains, signage etc.
Employee/Affordable Housing
• The standard has been for a minimum size of one -bedroom units, rather than efficiency units.
• A common lounge area should be provided.
• More storage area needs to be provided.
m 10126199
Letter to Tom Obermeier'
Architectural Expression Massing
• The overall massing needs architectural interest through the addition of elements and
articulation such as recesses, balconies, dormers, avoiding straight vertical walls, and more
variety in fenestration.
• This project lacks interesting projections and hierarchy of architectural elements, specifically
the time-share building.
• The roof overhangs are minimal and require better proportions to the vertical walls.
• More detail should be added at ground level to provide an aesthetic, human scale throughout
the pedestrian areas.
• Many of the design features appear to suggest a 'nautical' look that seems out of context in
Avon.
Self -Containment /Enclosure of the Project
• Providing an open and welcoming quality for the public around and within the project is
essential. However, the project appears somewhat isolated from the rest of the Town Center.
It should encourage linkage to other buildings and avoid the appearance of a standalone
project. The decision to maintain separate yet prominent entries for the timeshare and hotel
elements results in more of the site being devoted to internal vehicle circulation.
Submittal Requirements
Please see attached submittal -checklist. More information needs to be provided on all of the
items that are circled. Also please provide the following items:
• Clarify the roof color -it is brown on elevations and green on the site plan. We encourage the
use of more natural colors.
• Provide elevations to clarify the pedestrian pathway near the parking garage.
• Clarify the entry overhang to the time-share building.
These are our comments based on our initial review. We anticipate discussing the application in
more detail during our meeting with you on Monday. We look forward to working with you to
achieve a successful project on Lot C. Please feel free to contact us with any questions or
concerns you have. Please do not hesitate to call me at 974-748-4002.
Sincerely,
Karen Griffith, AICP
Town Planner
Cc: Mayor and Town Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
Bill Elting, Town Manager
Mike Matzko, Community Development Director
Norm Wood, Town Engineer
Carol Gil-Mulson, Fire Marshall
V
STARWOOD
V ACA rioN () 11J to P SNI P
October 31, 2001
Ms. Ruth Bome
Development Director
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Re: Town of Avon, Ordinance No. 02, Series Of 2000, Exhibit B,
Amendment To Development Agreement For Confluence and Tract C
Dear Ruth:
This letter will confirm our telephone conversation on October 27, 2001, regarding parking
required by the PUD Development Plan for Tract C, Phase 1-A and Phase 1-B. Required parking
for Phase I -A is 180 spaces and Phase 1-B is 11 spaces for a total of 191 spaces. Phase 1-C
required parking is 183 spaces.
Currently there are 164 spaces constructed in Phase 1-A which is 16 spaces less than the required
180 spaces. Points of Colorado, Inc., (Owner) agrees to either increase -the parking spaces in
Phase I -B by the number necessary so the total parking spaces in Phase 1-A and Phase 1-B will
equal the required 191 spaces or seek a mitigation of the parking requirements with a payment in
lieu under the Town of Avon Ordinance No. 99-05, Series of 1999, or seek such other
arrangements as are agreeable to the Town. Owner further agrees there will be no reduction in
Phase I -C Hotel Units, overall commercial square footage, 4,800 SQ.FT. OLFA of Restaurant
Space in the Hotel and the 183 required parking spaces in Phase 1-C.
Sincerely yours,
POINTS OF COjLLOORADO, NC.
Jam A McKnight
Senior Vice -President
JAM/lis
.'ll 'J I'
I/\^I/\
1'I lltl I I+r/„
AI•I ...... i /r,•I to t ..+I
AV0 N
L D R A D D
July 1, 2005
Points of Colorado, inc.
8801 Vistana Centre Drive
Orlando, FL 32821
CV1^ �b�'� IL -t
Mrs. Ruth Bome VIA FAX (970) 748-1189
PO Box 7833
Avon, CO 81620
Posr Ofice 8or 975
400 Qe„ctn4afk Rmi'd
Aron. Cotorodo 8/620
970.748.4000
970.949.9139 Far
970.845-7708 77T
RE: lot(s) 2C, 3, 4, and 5, Mountain Vista Subdivision — Lot C PUD Amendment
Dear Ruth:
We have completed our initial review of the proposed PUD amendment for Lot C, and
would like to offer the following comments or observations regarding the merits of your
proposal. The purpose of these comments is to outline our concerns regarding your
application in an effort initiate a discussion prior to the upcoming public hearings.
Land Use
The approved PUD was represented and approved as a mixed-use project that included
lodging, restaurant, retail, office, commercial conference center, and other uses. While
the project currently contains timeshare units, employee housing, and retall/offices uses,
we feet that the proposed amendment is a departure from the level or quality of mixed
uses that was originally approved. The elimination of approximately 3,000 sq. ff. of
commercial space, 4,800 sq.ft of restaurant space, and the 125 -room hotel to be
substituted for additional timeshare units runs counter to the planning principles outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan and the Main Street Implementation Plan. (Policy A3.6,
82.3, and Subarea 1: West Town Center District)
Density
The currently approved residential density of this PUD Is 133 subdividable units, or 266
dwelling units and 20 employee housing units. The proposed density 219 units, or 438
dwelling units represent an approximate 65% Increase in dwelling units or 135 units per
acre (3.24 acres 1 438 units). By comparison, the Town Center (TC) zone, the
predominant zoning district in the Town Core, permits only 30 units per acre. Staff finds
it difficult to support the drastic percentage increase in residential density given the
corresponding decrease in percentage of commerciallretail use.
ScalelMass
Given the proximity of the site to Main Street, It is imperative that the street level
architecture enhances pedestrian activity and encourages a lively center of retail activity.
The scale and massing of the proposed buildings (Phase 1C and 1D) minimizes the
appearance of stepping the structure down in mass towards the mall area. The building
r
appears to stand-alone and create a barrier to the future "public spaces" located along
the mall. Special attention should be given to the height, width, and length of the
proposed structures to maximize the comfort to users of both Lot C and Main Street. We
feel this could be achieved by stepping -down the massing furtherer and providing detail
at the ground level to enhance the pedestrian areas.
Relationship to surrounding development and Main Street
Lot C is an integral part of the Town Core and should complement the surrounding town
center developments and future development by providing a variety of uses. This site
serves as an anchor for Main Street and the originally approved ground -level retail
space and restaurant provides a greater opportunityto attract pedestrians along the
perimeter of the project.
Parking
As you are aware the required parking for the site, existing and proposed, will be a
challenge to reconcile. Our approach to reconciling the parking is to apply the standing
parking requirement in the Avon Municipal Code, including the provision for the mixed-
use reduction. Based on our calculations, the proposed parking appears to be deficient.
Please provide an explanation of how you Intend to address these deficiencies (pay -in -
lieu, variance, etc.)
Water
Our calculations indicate the proposed PUD will Increase water rights requirements by
approximately 24.72 acre feet above the water rights required to supply the development
under the original zoning. Please indicate how these additional water rights will be
provided to the Town for this additional demand.
Financial Analysis
Stan Bernstein and Associates have prepared a letter dated February 10, 2005 outlining
concerns regarding the Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCooper
L.L.P. Staff shares these same concerns, please see attached letter.
We are available to meet and discless this letter in detail at your convenience and
suggest that we do so prior to the July 19'", 2005 public hearing before the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Sincerely„
Enc Heidemann, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Tambi Katieb, Director of Community Development
Norman Wood, Town Engineer
File
kYON
C O D o
June 20, 2005
Points of Colorado, Inc.
8801 Vistana Centre Drive
Orlando, FL 32821
Mrs. Ruth Borne VIA FAX (970) 748-1189
PO Box 7833
Avon, CO 81620
F Post Offre B0.175
400 $rnchhutr(t Rtfhd
Aron. Colorado 81620
970-748.4000
970-949.9/39 FILV
970-845.7708 TTY
RE: Lot(s) 2C, 3, 4, and 5, Mountain Vista Subdivision— Lot C PUD Amendment
Dear Ruth:
Thank you for your response to our completeness review letter dated May 2401, 2005.We
received the last of the outstanding items (massing model) on June 13t1, 2005 and
therefore find your application complete.
Please contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification at 748-4009.
Kind Regards,
Eric Heidemann, AICP
Senior Planner
co: File Z-PU2005-3
Tambi Katieb, Community Development Director
Norm Wood, Town Engineer
Larry Brooks, Town Manager
John Dunn, Town Attorney
C O L O R A D O
May 24, 2005
Mrs. Ruth Borne
PO Box 7833
Avon, CO 81620
VIA FAX (970) 748-1189
Post Office Box 975
400 Benchmark Road
Avon. Colorado 81620
970.748.4000
970.949.9139 Far
970.845-7708 77T
RE: Lot(s) 2C, 3, 4, and 5, Mountain Vista Subdivision —Lot C PUD Amendment
Dear Ruth:
We have received your response to our completeness review letter dated May 17'', 2005 and are
requiring the following items be submitted in order to deem this application complete:
1. We understand your concern regarding the need for a detailed massing model at this time and
the potential for refinement and alterations as we proceed through subsequent hearings.
However, the massing model is required prior to finding the application complete. We have the
dimensions of the model that was provided in the original application to aid you in the
development of the massing model to `replace' the buildings on this site to scale.
2. The preparation of a revised development agreement(s), while ultimately being the decision of
Council to negotiate terms, will be the result of an application that proposes certain changes from
the existing PUD and Development Agreement. While we will not require a strikethrough
version of the agreement, you are being required to submit a summary of proposed changes from
the existing PUD that outlines what entitlements are current, what is proposed in the application,
and what potential benefits are associated (in your view) for each aspect of the proposal. Staff
will not negotiate points with you in this regard as you propose, and you have declined a joint
work session to discuss the proposed changes. Therefore, a complete summary of proposed
changes will be required to find the application complete. We have attached a sample document
from another applicant that meets our requirements in this regard.
Please note that in addition to changes in the existing business points set forth in the
development agreement, your proposal may generate additional discussion points for our mutual
consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further clarification at 748-
4009.
Kind Regards,
Eric Heidemann, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: File Z-PU2005-3
Tambi Katieb, Community Development Director
Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Points of Colorado, Inc. (8801 Vistana Centre Drive, Orlando, FL 32821)
r�
RECEIVED
RUTH O. BORNE k1'A'2
y3I2005
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Community Deve... .ant
P.O. BOX 7833 AVON, 00 81 620
(970) 748-1 1 B7 FAX (970) 748-1 1 B9
RUTH MARDINENOINEERINO.COM ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN
FLORIDA AND COLORADO
May 18, 2005
Eric Hektemann
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Sheraton Mountain Vista — Lot C PUD Amendment
Response to Completeness Letter dated 6/17/06
Dear Eric:
Thanks for taking the time to speak with me yesterday regarding your completeness
review. Accordingly, I am providing my response in writing to the completeness comments
dated May 17, 2005.
We will be remitting the additional $500 for the application fee.
2. We are more than willing to provide a model and/or visual analysis as we
discussed in our pre -application meeting on April 13, 2005. The concern we
have with submitting a model prior to a scheduled meeting with the Planning &
Zoning Commission is that we expect several meetings with staff regarding the
substantive review of the plans, which will result in modifications to the
architectural and civil plans. It is costly and time consuming to submit this
amount of detail prior to a better understanding of what we need to bring to the
Planning & Zoning Commission. As you know, it is an evolving product'from
original submittal to final approval of the ordinance. At each step of the
process, we will be refining the model and/or visual analysis. Therefore, we
request that a model and/or visual analysis be submitted on or before the date
the public notices are mailed and are scheduled for Planning & Zoning
Commission.
3. As we discussed in our meeting on April 13, 2005, we anticipate creating one
document outlining all of the relevant terms and conditions from the two
development agreements that apply to this project. The outline submitted
highlights the issue to be discussed. Our previous experience with staff on this
project is that we work together to address the items necessary to prepare a
draft development agreement and proceed accordingly. In fact, the
development agreement is an issue limited to the legislative body and not the
r Planning & Zoning Commission. The most time consuming element of the
process will be negotiating the terms and conditions of the new development
agreement. Our recommond5tion is to sit down with staff as soon as possible
and begin outlining the essential elements of the agreements. In response, we
can begin drafting an agreement as timely as possible.
4. The public notification may be amended by staff. Our only request is that we
review the contents prior to the dispatch of the public notice. With regard to the
public notice requirements, it our understanding of the Avon Municipal Code,
Section 17.12.100 that owners of a multi -family condominium may be served
by mailing a copy of any such notice to the manager, registered agent or any
member of the board of directors of the homeowner's association. The
employee housing units are part of a homeowner's association. if there are
additional provisions of the public notice requirements which specify that notice
to'each individual property owner is required, please let me know.
We took forward to your timely response and will make ourselves available to begin
working through some of these items necessary to create an effective approval
process,
tKind regards,
Ruth O. Boma
cc, Jim McKnight
A.Sheykhet
RECEIVED
MAY 2 3 2005
Climmunity Developme
C D L 0 R A D o
May 17, 2005
r^
Points of Colorado, Inc.
8801 Vistana Centre Drive
Orlando, FL 32821
Mrs. Ruth Borne
PO Box 7833
Avon, CO 81620
VIA FAX (970) 748-1189
Port Qgi�e &;r 075
406 Beirrh;aa) k R'twd
Avon, Colorado R"F20
970-748.4000
970.949.9139 Fax
970-845-7708 TTY
RE: Lot(s) 2C, 3, 4, and 5, Mountain Vista Subdivision — Lot C PUD Amendment
Dear Ruth:
We have completed a preliminary review of your PUD amendment application for the
Lot C PUD. The following is a list of comments that should be addressed prior to finding
the application complete:
1. According to our fee schedule, the fee for a PUD amendment is $1,500 for all
projects over 50 dwelling units. Please remit payment of the outstanding balance
($500.00).
2. Per our conversation on April 130s, 2005 and. the PUD requirements
(17.20.110d.2.c) a model (massing, photographic, or other) that adequately
demonstrates a visual analysis of the proposed development in relationship to
development on adjacent .parcels was. to accompany the PUD amendment
application. Please provide the model, preferably at a scale to that of the prior
application, as required.
3. The "Outline of Terms and Conditions for Modification to the Lot C
Development Agreement" located in Tab "C" of the application does not
adequately describe the requested amendments to the existing development
agreement(s). Please provide a strikethrough version of the proposed development
agreement(s). Addressing provisions of the agreement as "requiring discussion" is
insufficient.
4. Please be aware that staff may augment the public notification to accurately
describe the nature of the proposed amendment. In addition, please revise the
notification list to capture those property owners (i.e. employee housing units)
that would not otherwise receive the public notice.
1
t
Once staff has found your application to be complete, we will notify you of the number
of copies required to be submitted for referral purposes. I look forward to meeting with
you to discuss these comments. Please contact me if you have any questions or need'
further clarification at 74$4049.
Kind Regards
Enc Herdemann,
Senior Planner
cc: File Z-PU2005-3
Tambi Katieb, Community Development Director
Norm Wood; Town Engineer
Larry Brooks, Town Manager
John Dunn, Town Attorney
Message ��"% &W 4 � '' Page 1 of d
Ruth Weiss
r ..
From: Andre DeLucingestadelucinges@eastwestresorts.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 8:51 AM
To: Ruth Weiss
Subject: LOT C PUD amendment
July 15, 2005
Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO BOX 975
Avon Colorado 81620
Dear Avon Planning and Zoning Commission,
This letter is in response to Points of Colorado's request for a Lot C PUD amendment to modify the existing
property rights and zoning. We at Falcon Point Resort support adding more time-share units to Sheraton
Mountain Vista instead of hotel rooms. However, we are surprised that you have removed the restaurant
from your plan. We ask the developer to reconsider this decision.
With the anticipated growth of adding more time-share units to the community, we see it prudent that more
amenities, such as a restaurant be developed to support the growth. We frequently receive comments from
our owners and guests that there are not enough restaurants in the area. Adding time-share or hotel units
without adding a restaurant will only continue to exacerbate this problem.
Sincerely,
Andre de Lucinges
Falcon Point Resort General Manager
Associate Broker
East West Interval Sales, LLC
P.O. Box 3069
Avon, CO 81620
Ph 970-9494416 ext 1115
Fax 970-949-4668
7/19/2005
James G. Minar
0211 W. Beaver Creek Blvd., Unit 26
P.O. Box 2318
Avon, CO 81620-2318
970-748-1593
October 03, 2005
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
RE: PUD Amendment / Sheraton Mountain Vista
To the Commissioners:
When this project was originally brought to the town the MAJOR selling point was the
hotel part of the project. By having the hotel as part of this project the town will reap
rewards from day trip visitors from the Front Range as well as visitors traveling the
interstate. By having another hotel in the heart of our town it will establish us as a resort
base village.
As for the restaurant, failure to build this is also detrimental to our tax base. Time shares
although they do purchase food to cook in their condos may very well be going to the
Wal-Mart and not City Market. By having the restaurant, visitors staying in the condos
as well as the hotel may add to our tax base.
In the past it seems that we have made decisions only to bend to the developers wishes
regardless if it is good for the town or not. This developer has already turned in their
trump card when the town allowed them to build higher than originally agreed. (The
original agreement allowed a building on an equal laser plain from the top of the Avon
Center.)
Please hold this developer to their original agreement!
Sincerely,
James Minar
President
Greenbrier Home Owners Association
RECEIVED
OCT 0 3 2005
Community Development
J1tato-acciatfd•�couoaann,vpo3.+�wl�atwwr�rui�9o�
Sid'9i147� 'IYliszi MUi maim
U.
0
'elp Ocli
k
r
'• V1 W' k
�' �.•.• do L .
5
W
p( y
o
■war UJ
••OQ�C''
LL N LQQy�
N "t(ddj tpeL
t<
C
b
41�
W
K� K�`
NX��O
�
O
1
Oz Q.
X49:* Zoil
W�Ow<30UpN
ya�yy,, n y,2
OJWJ.
+<F
waAw
tiL'l
g
U.
0
'elp Ocli
k
r
'• V1 W' k
�' �.•.• do L .
5
olll:r=;. ,P.2 0421
�y , I
oio
1 40
0
VI
I
LL
or, � ,�
m
,V, , 'to — \- -
u
!I
-Lo
j
,�
-Lo
A"
CL
3
v Q"ISMG wHmy=H3mv loin
La
MAIM T— V
.0-L. °"11
r
mond 3- -11 t 719 'C?/ -IC)j
1NI Wd MIAIO �a S�I� ��
K"afts) - sollopommWA09 - A&APO04ow4w - ftstme,04 SHIFJIsm
wwm=wuv minfl
v
M04UVOGIS
C=D,C=' �1.
oan
J
I
-mll AJA)ld ";4vlw
-,Voq� C)l ac -7
.7.
LO
jKq�=(OW.
Isma wwo3mmrlw U31H
$PJD'4ZU'w4CI84S
-01 -LOT'
I NI kld.O]]A3G .51
M
ntv ICctalf3 • tcVtt � ! • AD -POMP W • "Stq'o1 —
._:t.S3 M -J �� . 9 IM
2K11
SP 04018 uo4a•is — 1 `I U - t __ , ._. �=-1 4 � J � � ✓ :_
i
r
tKf
N�
SS h
�all
OP
� rn;
GX 11
mow'
4'
h
•� �
,.0 x �h�
f
sik S
E.2
D
Iti
O M
a U m
•
Vl
C
Gl
C x
_a E
$N
6O O
U
a
C�y•�CCO•
It
a
o w
_ C€o
C_ sasQ
V4�wp
jj g
SU
O�
< �
lO�i
• OTa
���`O�p
0O up S++
6�0�
O�O
t
jOaO
T
vp•
' S'E
fi o ::
estefi
S a
g�
'_ •
y
$N
U O•«Na
a
L�{��FC
o
1IJ--�C
,.O1N
G3�
.°u"
�'�iO.i iS
Ziva
Cr
2€OU
a
tKf
N�
SS h
�all
OP
"ON •�
I
m ..
GX 11
0 _
4'
S Y
0Q� 8
D
Iti
O M
a U m
"ON •�
GX 11
4'
W
i�:m
t�cvytrtaW • �tv��axicios+�Am • Aorso�tanWr • nu�woti
=tea U94dels .e
vo
-IS3N Q 7OZ 3�oi'i iJrJ orc�
1N]Wd 3/� "l HCl1Al
d+T
N �
u �
M V
N tl Y 1
+
y
Z_U'u
m
O
2L
jig 5bgsgag
019 �y���yp�{,�N �
a l"A
v' WOgF LARD:
G AW VJ 41
>
S s f/1
Ld
b � b
(iAj W
O =
N
z ---_
' w :
U
I V)
\ \? a
wnnnc scnaoc ♦ • � '
N01.46'26"" / 162.15`\ t
In
\ HOU
L \ �
0