PZC Packet 02-17-2009 (2)Q
Staff Report
PUD AmendmentAV
Februa 17 2009 Plannin & Zonin Commission Meetin 0 N
February 9 9 9
C O L O R A D O
Report date February 13, 2009
Project type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment,
Preliminary Plan for Subdivision
Legal description Wildwood Resort Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, 3;
Tracts AA and BB
Current zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Address NA (No addresses assigned)
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission hold a public
hearing in accordance with Section 17.12.100 of the Avon Municipal Code, and TABLE the
subject application to the March 3b, 2009 hearing. The basis for Staffs recommendation is to
allow the applicant time to respond to the referral comments received to date by the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, Eagle County and the Town of Avon Engineering Department. Staff and the
Planning and Zoning Commission can then formulate a fully -developed recommendation to the
Town Council at a future meeting.
Staff would like to take this first meeting opportunity with the Planning and Zoning Commission
to become familiar with the proposed mix of land uses, development standards, general site
layout, and to fully understand the comparison of the proposed development standards with the
existing entitlements.
II Introduction
The applicant, Zehren and Associates, along with Jay Peterson, representing the owner of the
property, Tanavon Corp, are proposing to amend the existing Wildwood Resort PUD Plan and
Guide documents; and to further subdivide the existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3,
into a total of six (6) lots and two tracts.
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads,
is presently zoned as the "Wildwood Resort SPA" (Specially Planned Area), and is platted as
the Wildwood Resorts Subdivision. The proposed amendments would modify the existing
approved land uses, and would modify the existing platted lot configurations.
The southern most lot, currently platted as Lot 1, would be split into two lots: Lot 1A and Lot 1B.
A new Fire Station and separate administration building are proposed for Lot 1A with the
administration building located at the comer of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads. Lot 1B
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Buck Creek, PUD Amendment
February 17, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 9 Affix
would include eleven (11) residential units in a town home/duplex configuration. Further to the
north, Lot 2 is proposed for the remaining thirty-one (31) whole ownership residential units, also
in a town home/duplex configuration. All of the residential units are proposed to be a maximum
of 2,700 square feet of gross floor area.
The applicant is proposing to construct a campus for the Gore Range Natural Science School
on Lot 3, the northern most property in the subdivision. The uses proposed for this lot are
consistent with the uses allowed in the Government, Park, and Employee Housing (GPEH) zone
district. Lot 4 is to remain open space. Lot 5 is proposed to be used for a Montessori school
and associated office use.
The current allowed uses for the development site are detailed in the governing zone document,
Ordinance No. 854, Series of 1985 and are referenced below in Section III - Background of this
report. In addition to what is outlined above, the applicant is proposing to further define and
modify the allowed uses that are detailed in the governing ordinance and the accompanying
plat.
III Background
In 1985, Section 36, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and Wildridge Development Company, a
Colorado partnership, applied to the Town of Avon for certain amendments to the Zoning District
Map and Zoning Code, and these amendments were eventually approved by Ordinance No 85-
4, which is attached to this report as Exhibit A. Pursuant to Ordinance No 85-4, the Town of
Avon Zoning District Map was amended to permit the "following uses" on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
the Wildwood Resort Subdivision, respectively, in addition to specifying restrictions for Tracts
"AA" and "BB":
150 hotel, motel and/or lodge (accommodation) units, together with accessory uses and
related commercial uses as allowed in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) zone district,
to be located on Lot 1, Wildwood Resort.
Private park and recreation and related commercial uses including clubhouse building
for indoor and outdoor sports activities and customary support facilities: _swimming
pools, tennis courts, archery range, restaurantAounge, pro shop and other similar
activities or services to be located on Lot 2, Wildwood Resort.
50 residential multiple family dwelling units, together with accessory uses, located on Lot
3, Wildwood Resort.
The only uses permitted on Lot 4, Wildwood Resort, shall be open space, drainage,
landscaping and signage.
The only allowed uses permitted on Tract AA, Wildwood Resort shall be snow storage,
landscaping, drainage, signage and open space.
The only allowed uses permitted on Tract BB, Wildwood Resort shall be snow storage,
landscaping, parking, drainage, signage and open space.
These permitted uses are also listed "for information purposes only" on the final plat. The final
plat was approved by the Avon Town Council on April 9, 1985, establishing the Wildwood
Resort as an SPA (Specially Planned Area). Accordingly, the Wildwood Resort's current
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 1Fax (970) 949-5749
Buck Creek, PUD Amendment M
February 17, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 9 AEON
development rights exist as explicitly listed within Ordinance No. 85-4 and detailed upon the
corresponding plat. Any proposed amendments involving additions or changes to the uses
listed in Ordinance No. 85-4, and the reconfiguration of the subdivided lots depicted on the
corresponding plat, constitute a fundamental rezoning of the subject property.
Section 17.20.1100)(1) of the Town of Avon Municipal Code specifically states, with regard to
"precise or specific" development plans, " ... terms, conditions, and agreements contained within
those PVDs shall continue to be binding upon the applicants thereof and the Town". It is
evident that the precise or specific terms of the Wildwood Resort development plan as a whole
remain binding on both the Town and the developer as approved by the Town in the form of
Ordinance No. 85-4 and the corresponding Wildwood Resort final plat.
IV Surrounding Land Uses
The existing land use and zoning for the surrounding properties are as follows:
• North: Trails/ Opens Space
• South: Vacant Building, Coastal Mart / Neighborhood Commercial
• West: Low Density Residential / Open Space
• East: Open Space, Commercial / Open Space
V Referral Comments
The subject application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to property
owners within 300' of the subject property. To date, staff has received no public comments
regarding the applicant's request. In addition to the required public notice, Staff has transmitted
the application material to the following agencies, with their comments summarized below:
Eagle River Fire Protection District
Comments were received from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief of the District. According to her
comments, revisions have been made to better accommodate ladder trucks in the residential
areas. Additionally, hydrant locations have been discussed in a preliminary manner.
Colorado Department of Wildlife
While the DOW acknowledges the lesser impact of this amendment proposal, they cited impacts
to winter range habitat for mule deer migration. They recommend enhancement projects to
replace the loss of winter range, and closing access to the power line road that is accessed from
the east side of the property.
The DOW takes exception to the stream setback requests due to the negative impacts that
these encroachments present. There is no clear rationale for the requested setback variances,
and their letter states that the PUD does not provide any mitigation for the impacts to wildlife.
Eaole Countv School District Comments
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Colorado Deoartment of Transoortation
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Buck Creek, PUD Amendment 'v'
February 17, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 9 Mix
Eagle Countv Planning Department
Staff has received comments from the Planning and Engineering Departments of Eagle County
and they are attached hereto.
Eagle County Health Services District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
ECO Trails
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
United States Forest Service
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
In addition to the agency referral comments summarized above, and attached hereto, the Public
Works and Transportation Department and Engineering Department comments are attached to
this report for your review and consideration. Please refer to Exhibit C.
As stated above, no public comments have been received in response to the Public Notice
mailed to all property owners (or associations) within 300' of the subject property.
VI PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zonina Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be
used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to
demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of
the following design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a
particular development solution is consistent with the public interest.
Included in the applicant's binder is a detailed response to the following criteria:
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
The areas within the Comprehensive Plan that offer policy direction relative to the proposed
land uses are the Future Land Use Plan, the District special area policies, and the General
Goals and Policies of the Plan.
The Future Land Use Plan designates the proposed site by the delineation of each existing,
platted lot as follows: Lot 1 is Neighborhood Commercial, Lot 2 is Residential - low density,
and Lot 3 is designated for Civic/Publlc land uses.
The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation is described as follows: These areas
are intended to provide neighborhood -focused retail and service uses (such as markets,
childcare, restaurants, and cafes) that are conveniently located near and connected with
surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff will recommend that both the Future and
Existing Land Use maps be amended if this application is approved, to better reflect the
proposed mix of land -uses on this lot.
Residential low-density calls for a maximum density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre. Given
the fact that this proposal contemplates a density more in line with the Residential medium -
density standard, this area of the map should also be amended.
The Civic/Pubfic land use designation, which Lot 3 currently falls into under the Town of
Avon Comprehensive Plan, does contemplate school uses within these areas, but also
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Buck Creek, PUD Amendment
February 17, 2009, Planning 8 Zoning Commission Meeting
Page 5 of 9
includes the following language: "Each proposed public use should be evaluated separately
in terms of its land area and topographical constraints, as well as its compatibility with
adjacent uses"
The subject property is also located within District 13. Nottingham Road Commercial District
under the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area as a secondary
commercial district and contains specific planning principles to be applied for this area. This
application adheres to the following District 13: Nottingham Road Commercial District
planning principles:
• Limit Access points on Nottingham Road to simplify traffic movements
• Limit building heights to that which is compatible with the existing surrounding
development.
• Development intensity and activity should diminish when traveling north on Buck
Creek Road.
There are several Goals and Policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan which can be
applied to this property. Staff is in agreement with the majority of the Goals and Policies
highlighted in the applicant's binder, with a particular emphasis on the following:
Goal C.1.6 — Include sufficient land for public uses such as schools, recreation,
community facilities (such as childcare), and government services near the people
who use them.
Goad D.1 — Ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with
existing and planned adjacent development and contributes to Avon's community
image and character.
Goal H.4.3 — Require use of innovative and environmentally friendly appliances
and building techniques including water conservation approaches for new and
existing development.
Goal J.2.5 — Develop neighborhood and community-based childcare facilities and
include youth in the programming of community or public facilities.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area
design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
With respect to establishing and maintaining a design theme, this submittal is clearly in
conformance with the 'theme' and level of quality established with recent Town of Avon
projects, and is consistent with the overall design theme of the Town.
While the level of detail varies depending on which portion of the project you are reviewing,
the conceptual architectural studies generally comply with the Design Guidelines of the
Town. A more detailed review will follow with the standardized Sketch and Final Design
review processes.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
There has been a deliberate attempt to not only respond to the topography and constraints
of the site, but to the greater design of the immediate environment and adjacent properties.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Suck Creek, PUD Amendment
February 17, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
pil
Page 6 of 9 AVI
The 6,726 square foot "Mountain Discovery Center", part of the GRNSS campus, is
requesting the permittance of an encroachment into the Town's standard 30' setback from
the mean annual high water mark of Buck Creek.
The east end of the building would encroach between 20'— 25' lineal feet into said setback.
An at grade porch would also encroach into this setback. Please refer to either Sheet C2.1
or Sheet C2.5 of the J&K Plan Set for a detailed view.
The Avon Municipal Code defines "Stream Lot Setback" as:
"a thirty-foot strip of land measured horizontally from the mean annual flood high
water mark on each side of any live stream located within the boundaries of a
proposed subdivision and shall be protected in its natural state, with the exception
that footpaths, bridges, irrigation structures, flood control and erosion protection
devices may be constructed thereon... Underground utilities may be located in such
protected area, provided that there is no practical alternative location for such utilities,
that the plans are approved by the Town Council through its designated
representative and that all construction scars are revegetated."
On Sheets C2.1 and C2.5 you will also find a building encroachment, to a lesser extent than
the Discovery Center, for a portion of the 1,233 square foot Learning Studio building. It is
understood that these encroachments were intentional in the effort to bring students closer
to the living river environment, as stated by the applicant and property owner.
As mentioned above, the architectural designs are compatible with the neighborhood and
adjacent properties. The scale of development has been significantly decreased compared
to the existing entitlements, especially at the southern end of the PUD with the elimination of
the 150 unit hotel building.
The building heights proposed with this submittal are as follows:
Lot 1A (Fire House)
Lot 1 B (11 Townhomes)
Lot 2 (32 Townhomes)
Lot 3 (GRNSS Campus)
Lot 4 (Open Space)
Lot 5 (Montessori School)
50 feet; 60 feet for architectural projection
44 feet
44 feet
45 feet
N/A
35 feet
These building heights should be generally compatible with the surrounding properties and
are appropriate for buildout. While this site is surrounded by lower, the buffer space
between development and the orientation of the structures appears to be compatible with
the immediate environment and neighborhood.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
The uses and density with this master planned development provide a compatible, efficient,
and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. The density has been
reduced from current approvals, and the intensity of use has also been diminished with the
elimination of the hotel.
The surrounding uses and activities include Swift Gulch and Buck Creek Roads, Pizza Hut,
the Goodyear building, and two gas station/convenience stores. There are also two vacant
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Buck Creek. PUD Amendment tti
February 17. 2009. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 9
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoned parcels immediately south of the proposed Fire
Station lot on Nottingham Road.
The surrounding lands to the east, west, and north are primarily open space in nature
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
The Preliminary Geotechnical Study, as required by the Subdivision Code, is provided in the
Appendices section of the applicant's binder. The soils report provided prepared by HP
Geotech identifies sever soil stability issues and construction challenges, as well as
identifies the need for a geologic hazards report. A Geologic Hazard report has not been
submitted. Please refer to the Engineering Department comments for additional comments
related to the identification and mitigation of natural and geologic hazards.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The general site layout produces a functional development. The final building locations will
likely need°to be modified from what the current drawings due to several factors. First, the
future potential round -a -bout constructions at Nottingham/Buck Creek and Nottingham/Swift
Gulch Roads will require land from Lots 1A and 1B. This must be taken into account at this
stage of review in order to ensure a functional development that responds to changing
conditions in the immediate area.
Additionally, Staff would ask that the Planning and Zoning Commission consider the Division
of Wildlife's comments with respect to limiting disturbances and encroachments into the 30'
live stream setback. The GRNSS buildings that are currently depicted as encroaching this
setback should be reviewed in detail. Perhaps the discussion should be framed around the
acceptable level of encroachment that the Commission feels appropriate, if any.
The existing open space lot (Lot 4) remains as open space, and this appears to be
appropriate given the existence of the pond and associated wetlands in the area.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
The internal vehicular circulation system is functional. Of concern to staff is the lack of
pedestrian circulation both on and off site. Internal sidewalks are not provided, and
accessibility to existing surrounding circulation systems (i.e. sidewalk on north side of
Nottingham Road immediately to the east) is not demonstrated. The circulation system for
pedestrians must be more clearly defined and compatible with surrounding systems.
8. 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.
A construction phasing plan is included in the applicant's binder. Please refer to Sheets
CEA — CEA of the "Preliminary Construction Plans", prepared by J&K, Inc. The plan for
Phase I is to construct traffic control measures, retaining walls associated with Buck Creek
Lane, utilities necessary to serve the Gore Ranch Natural Science School (GRNSS), and
the GRNSS campus in its entirety.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Buck Creek, PUD Amendment '�'
February 17, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 9 7511
All forty-two (42) "townhome" units, and associated utility improvements, would be
constructed as part of Phase II of this development. The phasing demonstrates that each
phase can be workable, without relying upon completion of future project phases.
9. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Some of the appropriate public service entities have submitted letters stating that they are
willing and able to service the areas subject to this amendment. While the water demand of
this proposal appears to be less than that of the current entitlements (118.6 SFE), this must
be certified with further analysis. It is important to note that this submittal does not contain
evidence of approval by utilities for water and sewer services, as required by the Avon
Municipal Code.
10. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
The internal street, Buck Creek Lane, is designed to meet the Town of Avon Standards and
Specifications. Surrounding the property are three public Rights -of -Way: Buck Creek Road
(west), Nottingham Road (south), and Swift Gulch Road (east). According to the
Engineering comments, a right tum lane to enter the property off of Buck Creek Lane should
be provided.
A Revised Traffic Impact Study prepared for Tanavon Corporation by Kimley-Horn and
Associates can be found in the Appendices of the applicant's binder.
11. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial
compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section
17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code:
A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning entitlements
cannot achieve.
There is a public purpose inherent with educational facilities which are not currently
possible with the existing zoning. By relocating a regional fire station onto the property
from the Town Core, the Town's long-term Town Center West Implementation plans will
continue to evolve and be made possible.
B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social
community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result
of the changed zoning rights.
The approval of this zoning application should not cause any adverse impacts to the long
term economic, cultural or social well being. There are cultural and social community
benefits inherent with the construction of an improvedlexpanded Fire Station, GRNSS, and
Montessori (or early education) school.
C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of
the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing
the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents.
This zoning application will undoubtedly increase the amount of public benefit the property
can offer over current entitlements. While cultural resources are preserved and enhanced
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949.5749
Buck Creek, PUD Amendment
,. February 17, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Page 9 of 9 AAM
within educational land -uses, the impact on environmental resources must be reviewed
carefully.
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-
4413, or stop by the Community Development Department.
_Respectfully submitted
Matt Pielstic
Planner II
VIII Report Attachments
Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 85-4, Series of 1985
Exhibit B: Wildwood Resorts Subdivision Plat (1985)
Exhibit C: Referral Comments
Exhibit D: Applicant's Revised Proposal Binder
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 85-4
Series of 1985
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE N0. 83-21 AND ROVIDING'
A FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING', CODE OF THE,TOKN OF AVON
�+ BY THE AMENDMENT OF THE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING SPECIALLY
PLANNED AREAS IN THE BOCK CREEK AND SWIFT GULCH AREAS OF
THE TOWN OF AVON.
Exhibit A
f 318164'
� I
I ^OHNNET�LLIPS'
:AGLE CTY.RECORDER'i
Auc
WHEREAS, Section 35, Inc., a Colorado corporation, and Wildridga Development
Company, a Colorado partnership, have filed application with the Tovo'of Awn to
amend the zoning district map and the toning code of the Two of Avon by
effectively transferring certain development rights from the area described as
Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, Swift Gulch Addition to the Tow of Avon, (hereinafter
referred to as "Swift Gulch") to the area presently described as Lots 5, 52A and
52D of the Ruck Creek SPA which, upon approval of the new Final Plat shall be
hereinafter described as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Wildwwod Resort Subdivision _
(hereinafter referred to as "Wildwod Resort"), through the amendment of the
ordinances which previously established the development rights 'within each
tespactive specially planned area; and
WHEREAS, public bearings have been held by the Planning and Zoning
Co®iasios of the Tow of Avon, pursuant to notices required by lav, at which the
applicants and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions
regarding the proposed amendments; and ,
WHEREAS, following such public hearings, the Planning and Zoning Cogadssiou
forwarded reports and recommendations on the proposed hmendment to the Tow
Council; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by lav, a public hearing we held before
thisCouncil, on the 9th day of April, 1985, at which time the applicants and the
public were given an opportunity to express their opinions regarding the proposed.
amendment; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of
the Master Plan of the Tow of Avon and the recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the Tow of Avon, this Council finds as follows:
1. The proper posting, publication and public notice was provided as
required by lav for -the hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the Town Council of the Tow of Awn.
2. That the 6drings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and'the Tow
Council were both extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters
and issues were submitted at those hearings.
3. That the proposed amendments to the Zoning Did
triet Map and Zoning Code
of the Tow of Avon are consistent with the Master Plan of the Tow of Awn;
provided that certain limitations hereinafter set forth be established in
association with the respective specially planned areas.
4. That the requested amendment to the Zoning District and the Zoning Code
of the Tow of Awn will be in the beat interest of the health, safety, welfare
and morals of the citizens of the Tow of Awn.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON,
COLORADO, THAT: .
Section 1. Amendment to Swift Gulch SPA.
Section 1 of Ordinance No. 81-35 of the Tow of Avon as amended by Section
of ordinance 83-21 shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
The Zoning District Map of the Tovo of Avon shall be and hereby is amended
to reflect that the certain real property as more fully and legally described
hereinabove, shall.be and -hereby is included in a Specially Planned Area Zone
kistrietoas such tend is defined and subject to all the terms hnd conditions
thereof set forth in the Municipal Code of the Town of Avon, as may from tims to
time be in effect, provided the uses permitted on such lands shall be limited to
the following:
105 residential multiple family dwelling units and/or commercial
as allowed in the SC (Shopping Center) tone district.
Section 2. Amendment to Buck Creek SPA. (to be renamed Wildwaad
Resort SPA).
Section 1 of Ordinance No. 82-20 of the Town of Avon as amended by Section 2
of Ordinance 83-21 shall be and hereby is &waded to read as follows:
The Zoning District Nap of the Two of Avon shall be and hereby is amended
to reflect that the certain real property as mare fully and legally described
hereionbwe, shall be and hereby is included in a Specially Planned Area Zone
District as such term is defined and subject to all the terms and conditions
thereof set forth in the Municipal Code of the Two of Avoo, as may frun time to
time be in effect, provided the uses permitted oo such lands shall be limited to
the following uses:
A. 150 hotel, motel and/or lodge (accommodation) units, together with
accessary uses and related commercial uses as allowed in the NC
(Neighborhood Commercial) zone district, to be located on Lot 1,
Wildwood Resort.
B. Private park and recreation and related commercial uses including
clubhouse building for indoor and outdoor sports activities and
customary support facilities: swimming pools, tennis courts, archery
range, restaurant/lounge, pro shop and other similar activities or
services to be located on Lot 2, Wildwood Resort.
C. 50 residential multiple family dwelling units, together with
accessory uses, located no Lot 3, Wildwood Resort.
D. The only uses permitted on Lot b, Wildvcod Resort, shall be open
space, drainage, laodscaping sad signage.
E. The only allowed uses permitted on Tract AA, Wildwood Resort shall
be sow storage, landscaping, drainage, signage and open space.
P. The only allowed uses permitted on Tract BB, Wildwod Resort shall
be saw storage, laudscaping, parking, drainage, signage and open
space.
Section 3. Effective Date. The amendment to the Zoning District Map and
the Zooxxug Code of the Tow of Avon provided for herein shall take effect in
accordance with the charter and the ordinances of the Two of Avon, and the Mayor
Pro Tam and the Tow Clerk are hereby directed and authorized to execute such
documents as may be required to reflect the ameadment herein autborized, and to
file a certified copy of such documents with the County Clerk and Recorder of
Eagle County, Colorado. ,
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON PLRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED POSTED, THIS 26th day
of March, 1985 and a public hearing an this Ordinance shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Tow Council of the Two of Avon, Colorado, on the 9th day
of d8g3jq1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon.
Ca1P�P0W. AIR
AL
!: /.. 11 J\ HaWr Pro Tem
PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED POSTED this 9th day of
April, 1985.
STATE OF COLORADO
)
COUNTY OF EAGLE
) SS.
TOWN OF AVON
)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A PUBLIC NEARING (SECOND BEADING) BEFORE THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, AT 7:30 P.N. ON THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 1985
AT THE NUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 B9NCHNABE ROAD, AVON, COLORADO FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF OHDIMNCE NO. 85.0, SERIES OF 1985:
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE TOWN.OF AMR
BY THE AMENiM1?r OF THE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING SPECIALLY PLANNED AREAS IN THE
BOCK CR88K (WILDWOOD RESORT) AND SWIFT GULCH AREAS OF THE TOWN OF AVON.
A copy of said Ordinance is attached hereto and is also on file at the,office of
the tow .clerk and may be inspected during regular business hours.
Pollwiog this hearing, the Coundil may consider final passgge of this
Ordinance.
This notice given and passed by order of the Tow Council of the Tow of Avon,
Colorado. `--'•�
Dated this 28th day of March, 1985.
t
S 1:.1
J�
Q
00 9.
'r4•. = 0 0 9; .
9.00 9
2 L 0 0 R
2100 D i
000 6
7059 j
00000q_. f
08•/08i85
T MN, COLOR
7p0 (//D
Hy A /
atricia J. Doy, , Tow Cl
POSTED AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PIACES WITHIN THE TOWN -OF AVON ON MARCH 28th,
1985.
~1 THE MAIN ENTRANCE' OF THE POST OFFICE,
THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO CITY MARKET,
THE PESTER GAS STATION:. An
THE MAIN LOBBY IN THS MUNICIPAL BUILDING
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Thomas E. Remington, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1192
wildlife. state. co. us
Town of Avon
Community Development
Atm: Matt Pielsticker
Box 975
Avon, CO. 81620
Mr. Pielsticker,
Exhibit C
U40F'��
For Wildlife-
ForPeople
February 9, 2009
After reviewing the proposed PUD amendment for Buck Creek PUD, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CROW)
offers the following comments and recommendations regarding wildlife for your consideration.
Wildlife Imnacts:
The proposed PUD amendment would have much less impact on wildlife than the existing plan.
However the PUD amendment does not provide all of the associated wildlife impacts or any information on how
the PUD would comply with the town's goals.
Goal H.1.3 - Require development and redevelopment to accommodate wildlife habitat, including deer and elk
migration routes, or otherwise mitigate loss of habitat.
The site is within mule deer winter range and migration corridor and elk winter range. The development of the
site would impact winter range habitat and could impact the mule deer migration corridor due to both site
development and traffic levels. The greatest impact could be an indirect impact from recreation activities by the
school and residents that chose to travel the existing power line road cut and disturb deer and elk wintering in the
area.
Mitigation measures could include:
No recreation use of the power line road cut from January 1 to May 1.
Habitat enhancement projects every three years to replace the loss of winter range (generally these would include
fertilization projects instead of bums due to the proximity of the town).
Stream set backs:
Request for exception from stream setbacks:
The CDOW does not support the request for the exception. Riparian ecosystems constitute one of the most
limited and yet species rich ecosystem in Colorado. The general stream setback for the Town of Avon is 30 feet
from the mean high water mark. The plan as shown on the CD shows there are two different encroachments into
the stream setback. The largest one is shown as 20-25 feet; this would be a significant encroachment and impact
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Robert Bray, Chair • Brad Coors, dice Chair • Tim Glenn, Secretary
Members, Dennis Buechler • Jeffrey Crawford • Dorothea Farris • Roy MrAnalty • Richard Ray • Robert Streeter
Ex Offido Members, Hams Sherman and John Stulp
on the riparian habitat.
The rational listed in the PUD plan: "In both instances the building elements within the encroachment will serve
to provide a "window" into the riparian habitat. One of these "windows" will be from the public museum space
and the other is from the aquatic learning studio. Both will allow observation into these environments and will
reinforce educational programs designed to promote understanding and stewardship of riparian areas."
and
"The Gore Range Science Schools has as it's mission "to awaken a sense of wonder and inspire environmental
stewardship through natural science education" through a combination of innovative school programs, summer
youth science camps, adult seminars, and year-round interpretive programs."
Requesting exceptions and negatively impacting limited and highly sensitive habitats is generally not how a
learning institution tries to promote and reinforce educational programs and inspire stewardship for the
environment. The PUD plan, as submitted, does not contain any information that would be compelling for such
an exception to the stream setback requirements. Further, the PUD does not provide any mitigation for the
exception and its impacts on wildlife.
The Division of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to make recommendations and be involved with this project.
If you have any question or concerns with these comments please feel free to contact DWM Bill Andree at 328-
6563.
Sincerely,
Perry Will
Area Wildlife Manger, Glenwood Springs
Cc: Ron Velarde, Bill Andree, file
i
r
i
Memorandum
To: Matt Pielsticker, Planner, Town of Avon
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Date: 2/11/2009
Re: Buck Creek PUD Submittal, Case PUD9001
Ado
NNIP9
I reviewed the above referenced project for fire department concerns with the
following comments:
- Alpine Engineering has updated the site plan showing access and turning
movements for the ladder truck which is the most restrictive emergency vehicle. Per
a phone conversation this week, the updated version shows better access through
some of the residential areas. I will coordinate with them to get a copy for our files.
- Hydrants will be required within the PUD. I reviewed possible hydrant locations
with Alpine Engineering but based on the final project approval and flow demands,
those locations may be adjusted.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions at 970-748-4732.
EAGLE COUNTY
Matt Pielsticker
Town of Avon Community Development Lg
P.O. Box 975 6
Avon, CO 81620 ��� .„,V0
Email: mpielsticker@avon.org
RE: Inter Agency Referral for Buck Creek PUD
February 5, 2009
Mr. Pielsticker,
Eagle County would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the Buck Creek PUD proposal. We
appreciate the relationship that exists between the Town of Avon and Eagle County. The project has
significant merits, including providing a much improved location for the fire district with better access
to 1-70. Moving the ERFD from its current location could provide an opportunity for redevelopment
and further the town's goals of the new "Main Street" project. This arguably could fall into the
category of creating economic opportunity. The Gore Range Natural Science School (GRNSS)
portion of the project provides very high marks with regard to building "social capital" in the
community, not to mention that the GRNSS's mission is aligned with "protecting and restoring the
natural environment upon which people and economies depend."
To provide the most quantitative feedback to the Town, we have applied the county's regulatory land
use tools to evaluate the Buck Creek development project. Our comments are based on an analysis
of the application as if it were being proposed within unincorporated Eagle County under the county's
guidelines. We understand and respect that the Town of Avon has different rules and regulations and
our analysis and comments are meant to provide the Town of Avon with an additional perspective.
Following are the county's comments for your consideration and the county staff would be happy to
discuss them with your staff further.
Planning/Zoning:
1) We applied the new Eagle County Sustainable Community Index (SCI) to the Buck Creek
project and have the following comments based on the tool. The SCI is a required finding for
new development in unincorporated Eagle County. Please see the attached worksheet for
individual checklist item scores. Also, the regulation with additional language supporting the
checklist items is available on our community development page of our website
www.eaolecounty.us. Below are comments based on the SCI which would improve the score
of the project and we felt were applicable to the design and location.
Site/Location
• Wildlife/Ecological Communities: No evidence of DOW study or approval is
demonstrated.
• Riparian/Wetland Preservation: Large scale work proposed within stream setbacks
and riparian area. Eagle County requires a 75 -ft stream setback; further setback is
encouraged by the SCI to maintain wildlife migration corridors, water quality, and visual
aesthetics.
• Existing Vegetation Preservation: While the proposed site plan avoids existing
trees/shrubs for the most part, there are impacts could be further reduced.
• Stormwater Management: Bioswale or vegetative [pervious] systems being used in the
project could be expanded/improved. Currently there is a strong reliance on
underground piping for drainage and stormwater infrastructure.
Connections and Uses
• Public Access: Access for the public to the Buck Creek trailhead is unclear; this would
improve public benefit of the project.
• Clustering: Plan could reduce impacts and increase open space areas through
clustering uses and parking into more defined nodes.
• Open Space: No conservation easement proposed to preserve open space values on
the property.
• Reduced Parking Footprint: No evidence of reduced footprint for parking and only
surface parking is proposed.
• Reduced Parking: While the project doesn't provide parking in excess of what is
required, a truly pedestrian/transit-oriented design may demonstrate less onsite need
for parking. Parking studies which can demonstrate a lower parking demand are
encouraged.
• Diversity of Housing Types: Recommended in addition to the townhouse, multi -family,
and live -work housing proposed, would be a differentiation of housing product which
promotes a diversity of owner -households within the development. Inclusion of some
smaller townhomes/duplexes, single-family homes with accessory dwelling units, and
possibly another multi -family building (in addition to but fundamentally different than
the GRNSS housing) would improve housing diversity.
Transportation
• Walkable Streets: While connection to other uses within the Town of Avon is an
obvious strength of the project, pedestrian connection within the project could be
improved by connector trails between development/use nodes, and/or a connector trail
which integrates with the Buck Creek Trail.
• Access to active green space: it is recommended that a pocket park or some
reasonably scaled active recreation amenity be considered within the development.
Resource Efficiency
• Limited Turf, Xeriscaping, diverse native landscaping: not enough detail was provided
to determine if these items are included in the project, which is recommended.
• Solar Orientation: the site provides excellent potential for passive solar gain, building
orientation could be better oriented to take advantage of it. The SCI requires 75% or
more of buildings to have passive solar orientation, defined as the north -south aspect
at least 1.5 times the east -west aspect. Also, our eco -build code awards points for
south -facing windows which represent at least 7% or more of total floor area.
• Renewable Energy: we commend the inclusion of a solar system for the GRNSS
building. However, the system would be likely only able to offset the energy needs for
the GRNSS and provide no additional energy offsets for the remaining development.
Recommended is inclusion of additional renewable energy systems for the
development, including more solar and/or micro -hydro.
Summary:
Buck Creek's score falls within the category of "Does Not Meet Minimum Standards" for the
Eagle County Sustainable Communities Index. The SCI score is used as a tool to
comprehensively analyze how new developments contribute toward sustainable community
development. The intent of the SCI is to give staff, developers, and decision makers an
indication as to the level of sustainability a project includes within it, as well as its contribution
to the broader community. Eagle County defines Sustainable Community as;
a community which fosters economic opportunity and social capital
while protecting and restoring the natural environment upon which
people and economies depend.
Eagle County uses the SCI for PUDs, PUD amendments, Final Plats, Major Special Use
Permits and Zone Changes as a required finding to be met for approval.
In the case of Buck Creek the index would be used to further improve the project with
reference to the low point categories. SCI is a tool that helps the applicant and staff identify
opportunities to improve the project according to the SCI categories. For example, the
GRNSS has a large percentage of renewable energy incorporated into the design but the fire
station and housing units have not proposed any. Application of the SCI would suggest that
renewable energy should be considered for not just the school but all of the new construction
in the project. Another opportunity to increase Buck Creek's SCI score would be to diversify
the home types available with regard to size and type. Allowing public access to the GRNSS
property as well as the Buck Creek trailhead would also raise the Buck Creek score and
provide greater public benefit.
It is important to understand that the SCI works in conjunction with Eagle County's other goals,
plans, and policies. For example, the Town of Avon has a different strategy for affordable
housing than Eagle County. The SCI reflects a higher score if the proposal meets the county's
affordable housing guidelines.
Engineering: (comments provided directly from Engineering staff)
The Eagle County Engineering Department has received the above referenced file dated January 30,
2009, and has the following referral comments.
Due to a horizontal curve and trees along Buck Creek Road, it is recommended that the applicant for
development measure the site distance for the proposed Buck Creek Road access driveway. Site
distances for this proposed access must meet or exceed the applicable access code.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this development file. If you have any questions, I can be
reached at 328-3560.
Housing:
The applicant has proposed to build 42 units at 2,750 square feet each (115,500 sq. ft. total) and
approximately 32,880 of commercial square footage. The applicant does not specify the whether the
housing would be offered for rent or for sale, the rental or sales price points, or the relevant
restrictions applicable to these units. In addition to these units, the applicant has proposed to provide
housing on-site for both the Gore Range Natural Science School and for the Fire Station employees
to mitigate the housing impact of the associated jobs. Mitigation of jobs created is one of the
important outcomes of the county's guidelines.
The applicant's strategy is to limit the size of the units so that the individual units remain affordable to
the community. The applicant has proposed that their affordable housing strategy is in accordance
with the Town of Avon's plans, policies, and goals.
Under Eagle County's Local -Resident Housing Guidelines, the applicant would be required to build
affordable housing under one of the following options, based on the proposed Residential NSF and
Commercial NSF, as defined in the Housing Guidelines:
A.
35% AH or Commercial Mitigation'
1)
40,425 NSF of Affordable Housing ("AH")' affordable to households earning
100/110%51 of Area Median Income ("AMI") and
2)
23,509 AH @ 105/115% AMI
3)
No RO
4)
No transfer assessment;
B.
30% AH and 10% RO (or Commercial Mitigation)
1)
34,650 NSF of AH @ 100/110% AMI,
2)
19,235 AH @ 105/115% AMI, and
3)
11,550 NSF Resident -Occupied ("RO") units (market rate units sold only to locals)
4)
No transfer assessment;
C.
30% AH and 1.5% Transfer Assessment (or Commercial Mitigation)
1)
34,650 NSF of Affordable Housing @ 100/110% AMI,
2)
21,372 NSF @ 105/115% AMI
3)
No RO
4)
1.5% transfer assessment on all market rates units on the second and subsequent
sales (only for units not sold to locals);
D.
25% AH, 10% RO, and 1.5% Transfer Assessment (or Commercial Mitigation)
1)
28,875 sq. feet of Affordable Housing @100/110% AMI,
2)
13,152 sq. feet @ 105/115% AMI,
3)
11,550 RO Housing, and
4)
1.5% transfer assessment.
If you have any further questions or comments please feel free to contact me at
sean.hanaaan(@eaalecountv.us or 970-328-8748
Sean Hanagan
Eagle County Community Development
Environmental Planner
Commercial mitigation results in a smaller square footage AH requirement, but at a lower price point.
x Developer may increase prices by 10 AMI points if parking is placed below interior residential living space;
Affordable Housing may be Affordable Rentals affordable to households earring 80190% AMI.
11100% AMI reflects lower sales price for commercial mitigation requirements; rental rates do not change for
commercial mitigation, however.
I pts.
25 LOCATION INFILL/REDEVELOPMENT: Infill (4), adjacent (2), and/or previously developed (1)
5 TRANSIT: Over 50% of the development B within walking distance (1/4 mile) of transit stop (5).
I 2.4 PROXIMITY TO EXISTING WATERAVASTEWATER: ties into existing (4); public extension (2)
I 5 WILDLIFE/ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES: biological study with DONV compliance
13 RIPARIANAVETLAND PRESERVATION: 100' setback and water quality testing
3 AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION: Doesn't remove historiclpotential agricultural land
1-2 EXISTING VEGETATION PRESERVATION: <10% existing treelshrubs impacted
23 BROWNFIELD/BLIGHT REDEVELOPMENT: Improves blighted lot (2), contamination cleanup (3)
2 STEEP SLOPES/RIDGELINES: on slopes less than 20%
13 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: 100% of surface drainage through bioswale/vegetated system.
I 2 OPEN COMMUNITY: no gates, amenities are open to the public
I 4 PUBLIC ACCESS: provides appropriate public access to public lands/rivers (with agency approval) 4 pts.
4 COMPACT DEVELOPMENT: 7 or more units/acre; commercial>.50 FAR
1-2 REDUCED FOOTPRINT: on previously disturbed area (1); all structures and parking <.50 lot (1)
2 CLUSTERING: efficient infrastructure, development concentrated in node(s), allowing for open areas.
3.18 OPEN SPACE: conservation easement meets components of open space criteria. See regulations.
2-7 REDUCED PARKING FOOTPRINT: less surface parking (2-3), careool (1), covered bike storage (1-2)
I 2-4 PARKING LOCATION: surface parking to rear of structures only (4); to side and screened (2).
13 REDUCED PARKING: Does not exceed LURs: 1 pt. Study shows reduced on-site demand (2-3 pts.)
4 JOBS/HOUSING RATIO onsite housing for mixed-use non-residential (see regulations)
3 SCHOOL PROXIMITY: within a mile of a public school
1-20 DIVERSITY OF USES: 1 point each use category listed in regulations
1-8 DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES 1 point each housing type listed in regulations above 2.
1-20 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 point each affordable housing unit provided above housing guidelines.
2-4 AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Onsite rental housing, see regulations.
I�
tum Ito]
1-28 WALKABLE STREETS: see commentary
13 STREET NETWORK: grid small block pattern, 2 pts, pedestrian connection at cul de sacs (1)
23 TRANSIT FACILITIES: transit stop provided within 1/4 mile (2 pts.), covered bike storage (1 add'1 pt.)
I 1.4 WALKABLE VICINITY: www.walkscore com score 10-25=1pt, 26-50=2pts, 51-75=3pts, 76-100=4pts.
3 BICYCLE NETWORK: Connection to community center via bicycle paths/routes.
2 ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES: 90% of units within 1/4 mile of public green space
1-3 ACCESS TO ACTIVE SPACE: within 12 mile of ball field, 3 -mile recreation trail, and/or dogpark
1-3 LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION: private garden areas (1); community garden(s) (2); local market (1)
I � ,
1=2 LIMITED TURF/SPECIES: <25% landscaped areas turf (1). Turf uses 25% less water than KBG (1).
1 DIVERSE NATIVE LANDSCAPE: Landscape plan utilizes 10 or more local native low-water species.
2 XERISCAPE: Landscape plan incorporates seven xeric design principles (see regulations)
I 5 SOLAR ORIENTATION: 75% of all buildings have solar orientation (see regulations)
3-30 RENEWABLE ENERGY 3 points for every 5% total energy offset by onsite renewable system(s).
I 1 INFRASTRUCTURE RECYCLED CONTENT: Concrete/asphalt 75% or more recycled content.
REQUIRED RECYCLING: Design includes areas for recycling co -mingled, paper, and cardboard.
I REQUIRED LIGHT POLLUTION: Exterior lighting minimized, shielded, night sky compliant.
X INNOVATION IN DESIGN: Items meeting intent not listed, case by case review
0 1228 TOTAL
MEMORANDUM
AVON
C O L O R A D O
To: Matt Gennett
From: Justin Hildreth, Jeffrey Schneider, Shane Pegram
Date: February 13, 2009
Re: First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application, Dated January 2009
COMMENTS: The following comments are in response to our review of the above referenced
PUD application. The Engineering Department has not completed its review of this application;
additional comments will be submitted before February 20, 2009.
General Comments
1. The Town of Avon has been planning construction of a roundabout at the intersection of
Nottingham Road and Buck Creek Road since 2000. Upon internal discussions with
Town Staff and the Town's Traffic Engineer, it appears that a roundabout at Swift Gulch
Road would have similar favorable benefits to the road system, and require less
utilization of developable Buck Creek PUD property. Please provide an exhibit of a 120 -
foot inscribed circle one -lane roundabout, including adequate pedestrian and bicycle
facilities with turning movements for WB -67, vehicles in order to properly evaluate the
project with the future transportation needs of the Town.
2. It appears that the project lacks adequate pedestrian facilities, both internal and external.
An improved crosswalk with ADA ramps should be constructed across Swift Gulch Road
to the east of the project across Lot 4.
3. It appears that the project lacks adequate snow storage. Much of the snow storage areas
proposed are shown conflicting with other uses, i.e. fire hydrants, stormwater inlets,
wetlands, retaining walls, and stormwater retention ponds.
4. The submitted plan drawings do not appear to comply with the Town's requirements for
drainage and snow storage easements along the public right of way. The Town requires a
minimum 10 -foot easement, measured from the front edge of the parcel boundary inward,
for Town maintenance uses (snow storage, road drainage) along all public road frontages
including Buck Creek Rd., Swift Gulch Rd, and Nottingham Rd. These easements shall
be of minimal slope (e.g. <= 4:1) such that a 12 -foot high by 10 -foot wide berm of snow
and ice will stand in the area and not fall on to a road, buildings, or other developed areas
of the PUD. No hardened structures of any kind should be allowed in this easement area
(i.e., no retaining walls, roads, buildings, landscaping, gates, etc.). Landscaping placed in
this area is subject to damage from plowing activities and would he "at -your -own -risk."
Because the easement area provides storage for snow plowed from the public road, it
shall not be counted as the applicant's on-site snow storage area (see comment 5).
5. The property appears over -programmed for development in terms of the total impervious
surface. The Applicant shall quantify the impervious surfaces in square feet. A
minimum of 20% of the total square footage shall be set aside and labeled for storage of
snow generated from within this development. If the Applicant agrees to conduct off-site
hauling of snow in perpetuity, a plat note should be made to this effect and the plat
should designate sufficiently sized snow/ice stockpile area located within the parcel
boundaries and outside of the Town's snow storage easements.
Engineering Review of First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application dated January 2009
February 13, 2009
Page 2 of 6
6. The driveway shown for the fire station is over 60 feet wide and conflicts with the
Town's required snow storage easement area (ref. to Comment 4). Please explain how
the snow build-up for Nottingham Road will be managed in front of the fire station exit.
7. If gates are proposed for the fire station entrance, they must be located at least 10 -feet
back from the front property line so it does not conflict with the snow storage easement
- requirements.
8. It appears that Buck Creek Lane is intended to be a private street. Per AMC 16.40.040,
"the creation of private streets is discouraged." The chapter also states that the street
must meet all requirements of Title 16. The following issues are noted:
a. Buck Creek Lane violates AMC 16.40.050 (4) in that it is longer than
1,000 feet and serves more than twenty residential units. Commercial uses
such as the two school parcels are not permitted to be served via a cul-de-
sac.
b. The proposed 50 -foot right of way width does not contain all required cut
and fill slopes as stipulated in AMC 16.40.060.
C. A portion of Buck Creek Lane exceeds the maximum grade design criteria
of 8 percent as stipulated in 16.40.180(a).
d. A maintenance plan or agreement must be submitted stipulating the
maintenance responsibilities for all roadway, utility, and drainage
infrastructure. Easements must be granted allowing the Town to maintain
said infrastructure if the private maintenance is found to be inadequate; a
cost recovery agreement for Town maintenance should be submitted along
with the required easements.
e. Please include the specific modifications to the development standards that are
being requested in the PUD.
9. The Preliminary Plan submittal does not contain property lines and owners of record of
all parcels adjoining the proposed subdivision, including parcels separated there from by
only a public right of way as required in AMC 16.20.150 (4).
10. The preliminary plan submittal does not contain a brief description of proposed covenants
or a statement demonstrating the needs for the proposed subdivision, as required in AMC
16.20.150(12) g and h, respectively.
11. The level of detail in the submittal far exceeds the Preliminary Plan requirements.
Approval of the preliminary plan does not constitute approval of the items submitted
exceeding preliminary plan requirements such as detailed stormwater, roadway, and
utility infrastructure.
12. Please submit an exhibit showing turning movements for the largest vehicles realistically
expected entering the various townhome access drives, school sites, and cul-de-sac.
13. The area is known to contain geologic hazards. Town Staff is concerned about
excavating and potentially compromising the Buck Creek Road fill slope for construction
of Buck Creek Lane. Additional detail of proposed retaining walls, including all loading
calculations, should be provided in order to ensure slope stability must be submitted with
the construction drawings submitted with the Final Plat.
14. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to transit is needed in association with development
of this parcel for consistency with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the
Comprehensive (Land) Plan. The Applicant should provide a sidewalk or public paved
trail along Buck Creek Lane (which will ultimately connect to the Buck Creek Trailhead).
15. The applicant should also provide right-of-way dedication on Nottingham Road for a
future bus stop.
CMocuments and Settings\mpielstickerlLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK360\2009 02 11 Engineering
Comments First Submittal.doc
Engineering Review of First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application dated January 2009
February 13, 2009
Page 3 of 6
16. The proposed configuration of the entrance from Buck Creek Road will create stacking
problems for traffic including school buses and cars that must immediately turn left onto
Buck Creek Lane during rush hours. The Applicant shall either provide a right tum
pocket on Buck Creek Road or reconfigure this driveway intersection such that traffic can
flow freely without needing to execute a "hard left."
17. Lane widths for all roads should be at least 10' wide.
18. All parking spaces must have back -out areas.
Water rights
1. The project is allocated 118.6 Single Family Equivalents (SFE) in the Town of Avon's
existing water rights allocation, based on existing zoning.
2. Staff has not completed the review of the water rights information submitted with this
application.
Preliminary Plat
1. The Certification of Dedication and Ownership reads as if the GRNSS is part owner
of the entire 22.9 acre parcel.
2. The plat title needs to be revised to include the previous lot and subdivision names for the
property as shown on the topographic survey.
Buck Creek PUD Plans by Alpine Engineering
Sheet C 1
1. Label all of the storm infrastructure and utilities adjacent to the box culvert.
2. The correct ditch name is "Nottingham Puder" and no structures are permitted within the
ditch easement for access and repairs.
3.. Snow storage appears to conflict with numerous fire hydrant locations
4. It appears that a transformer is placed in a parking space in the lot to the west of the Fire
Station.
5. Label the item shown behind the curb just north of the transformer identified in
Comment 4. If it is a trash enclosure, it appears to have inadequate access for large trash
vehicles.
6. Verify culvert across Swift Gulch Road prior to final design.
7. Numerous driveway grades do not comply with Town of Avon Design guidelines,
including the exit from the Fire Station and all of the townhomes on the northern portion
of the loop on Lot I B.
Public Improvement Drawings Prepared by JKA
Sheet C2.0
1. The drainage from the culvert originating in Tract BB appears to conflict between the JK
plans and the Alpine plans.
2. It appears that the southernmost Road A townhome does not have a hammerhead for
vehicular circulation/emergency access.
Sheet C2.1
1. It appears that a portion of the proposed Montessori School encroaches into the proposed
Buck Creek Lane right-of-way. Further, the PUD Development Standards propose a 25 -
foot front lot setback.
2. The Buck Creek Lane ROW line appears broken crossing Lot 5.
C:1Documents and Settingslmpielstirkeftocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files10LK360t2009 0211 Engineering
Comments First Submittal.doc
Engineering Review of First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application dated January 2009
February 13, 2009
Page 4 of 6
Sheet 2.2
1. The drawing scale is incorrect; it appears to be 1" = 20'.
Sheet C2.3
1. The drawing scale is incorrect; it appears to he 1" = 20'.
2. It appears that the southernmost Road A townhome does not have a hammerhead for
vehicular circulation/emergency access.
3. It appears that a boulder retaining wall is proposed for the fill slope beneath Buck Creek
Road. Provide all structural wall calculations with the construction drawings submitted
with the Final Plat.
4. Utilities are shown to encroach outside of the Buck Creek Lane right-of-way at approx
3+15R. Locate utilities within right of way or dedicate additional utility easements as
required.
5. The note and leader regarding a trench drain on Road B do not make sense.
Sheet C2.4
1. The drawing scale is incorrect; it appears to be I"= 20'.
2. Shallow utilities are shown to encroach beyond the Buck Creek Lane right-of-way at the
following locations: 7+80R, 8+90R, and 10+70R. Locate utilities within right of way or
dedicate additional utility easements as required.
3. It appears that a portion of the proposed Montessori School encroaches into the proposed
Buck Creek Lane right-of-way. Further, the PUD Development Standards propose a 25 -
foot front lot setback.
4. A portion of the retention pond southeast of the Road C townhome with a FFL = 7563.20
appears to be located within the high water setback.
5. In the same area as Comment 4, silt fence is shown encroaching into the wetlands.
6. Utility installations such as transformers and phone pedestals appear to conflict with
proposed snow storage at approx 8+80R.
Sheet C2.5
1. The drawing scale is incorrect; it appears to be 1" = 20'.
2. The proposed GRNSS graduate resident quarters do not appear to be confined within site
setbacks stipulated in the PUD Development Standards.
3. Proposed snow storage appears to conflict with the wetlands from approx. 13+40R to
approx. 14+90R.
4. Detailed retaining wall design information and calculations will need to be submitted in
order to obtain approval to install a soil nail retaining wall at the toe of the Buck Creek
Road fill slope in an area of known slope instability with the construction drawings at
Final Plat.
5. The existing 30" culvert at 17+40L is CMP, not HDPE, according to the existing
conditions survey.
Sheet C3.1
1. The K value for the vertical curve at PVI Sta 9+75.0 should be 26; Staff would prefer 37.
C:1Documents and SettingsVnpielstickerUcal SettingsWemporary Internet Files%OLK36012009 0211 Engineering
Comments First Submittal.doc 4
Engineering Review of First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application dated January 2009
February 13, 2009
Page 5 of 6
Sheet C3.3
1. The low point at Road C 1+12 requires measures to prevent drainage from being directed
towards the adjacent proposed retaining wall.
Sheet C4.0
1. It appears that numerous proposed cut and/or fill slopes are shown as 1:1. The HP
Geotech Soils report states that "Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should' be
graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter..."
2. Per the above comment 1 and General Comment 4b, the right of way will not adequately
contain all cut and fill slopes.
Sheet C5.0
1. Construction plan approval from ERWSD must be submitted prior to issuance of permits.
2. It appears that the plans propose an inadequate amount of in-line valves on the water
main.
Sheet C5.1
1. It appears that an air -vac vault may need to be installed at the northern terminus of the
water main.
Sheet C6.2
1. The sanitary sewer profile for Road B is incomplete.
Sheet C7.4
1. Provide rationale and maintenance information for proposed retention pond detail
configuration.
2. The Typical Section should refer to the 2005 CDOT Standard Specifications.
JK Floodplain Report
1. The Manning's roughness coefficient for the channel appears to be too low at 0.05. It
appears that 0.075 would be a more accurate representation.
2. The pre -development floodplain map uses the term "Base Flood Elevation." This is not a
correct tern as it is not a FEMA -regulated floodplain; please use different terminology.
3. The determination of 100 -year flows using statistical analysis of other basins in Eagle
County is not a recognized method of determining flows and should be removed from the
report.
JK Drainage Report
1. Provide a map outlining the delineation of the off-site basins.
2. Neither the drainage report nor the soils report contains information on soil permeability
and percolation rates for the proposed stormwater retention basins.
3. The final drainage report should have an analysis of retention pond performance in winter
months.
4. There can not be significant landscaping in the retention ponds.
5. Need 100 -year flood elevations on sheets 4 and 5 of the drainage report.
6. The tables need to have titles.
7. The design storm needs to be identified in Sections 4 and 5 of the drainage report.
8. Several of the proposed retention ponds are located immediately adjacent to buildings.
The building foundations must be designed to account of the additional soil moisture.
C:1Documents and Settings4nplelstidrerlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLK360t2009 02 11 Engineering
Comments First Submittal.doc
Engineering Review of First Submittal of Buck Creek PUD Application dated January 2009
February 13, 2009
Page 6 of 6
Alpine Drainage Report
1. Section 5, 1" paragraph, should read 100 -year rather than 25 -year.
2. Page 4: Manning's roughness coefficients are believed to he 0.075 for the channel.
3. Page 4: Provide information and specifications on the proposed Tideflex check valve.
4. There is a difference in the existing and proposed floodplain near the fire station but there
does not appear to be any differences in the grading plan. Please provide an explanation
for the differences in the floodplain.
Kimley-Horn Traffic Impact Study
1. See attached FHU analysis of the Kimley-Horn Traffic Impact Study.
Wetland Delineation Report
1. The Wetland Delineation Report states that the delineation was conducted on May 4,
2007, yet the map exhibits included in the wetland delineation report are last revised on
March 15, 2007. Please provide a statement verifying the accuracy of the map exhibit,
else update the map exhibit.
2. The submittal is missing the wetland determination letter from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
3. A copy of the USACE permit must be furnished to the Town prior to issuance of any
Town permits.
Soils & Geologic Hazard Report
1. A geologic hazard report has not been submitted.
2. The soils report prepared by HP Geotech identifies severe soil stability issues and
construction challenges, as well as identifies the need for a geologic hazards report.
3. Based on the recommendations for spread footings, demonstrate the effect on footings
projecting outside of the building footprints shown on the plans.
Utilities
1. The submittal does not contain evidence of approval by utilities for water and sewer
services as required in AMC 16.20.130.
C:Omments and SettingslmpietslickerlLocal SettingsWempomry Intemel FilestOLK36012009 02 11 Engineering
Comments First Submittal.doc 6
FELSBURG
P�
(1 HOLT &
ULLEVIG
engineering paths to transportation solutions
January 28, 2009
Mr. Justin Hildreth, P.E.
Town Engineer
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Re: Traffic Review and Intersection Evaluation
Buck Creek Road/Nottingham Road and Swift Gulch Road/Nottingham Road
FHU Reference No. 09-007
Dear Mr. Hildreth:
This letter summarizes our findings regarding required traffic control at the intersections of Buck
Creek Road/ Nottingham Road and Swift Gulch Road/ Nottingham Road. As part of our analysis,
the recently completed traffic impact study for the Buck Creek PUD (Kimley-Hom, 2009) was
reviewed to verify trip generation, trip distribution and background traffic assumptions. Operations
at the Buck Creek Road/Nottingham Road intersection were evaluated. In a separate analysis,
existing traffic volumes for the Swift Gulch Road/Nottingham Road intersection were estimated
from recent counts and traffic operations were evaluated.
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW
The following assumptions used in the Buck Creek PUD traffic impact study were reviewed:
• Backaround Traffic: Background traffic calculations included the undeveloped portions of
the Wildridge and Wildwood developments. It was assumed that 53% of the Wildwood lots
are currently developed while 84% of the Wildridge lots are developed and long range
future volumes were estimated accordingly. All background traffic assumptions and
calculations documented in the report seem reasonable and valid.
• Trio Generation: The report used standard rates and equations from the ITE Trip
Generation manual in estimating peak hour trip generation for the residential, office, and
day-care portions of the site. Logical explanations for the Gore Range Natural Science
School and Fire Station trip generation estimates were presented (neither of these uses is
represented in the ITE rates). The trip generation assumptions and calculations seem
reasonable and valid.
Trip Distribution: It was assumed that the majority of site -generated traffic would have a
directional split of 80/20, with 80% oriented to/from the east and 20% oriented to/from the
west on Nottingham Road. This assumption is fairly consistent with the directional
distribution calculated from existing traffic counts. The day-care facility, however, was
assumed to have an opposite trip distribution, with 80% oriented to/from the west and 20%
oriented to/from the east. It is likely that the day care traffic would act more like pass -by
traffic, with traffic entering from the west and continuing east after dropping kids off at the
day care center. While the distribution for the day care center may be somewhat
questionable, the minimal effect on traffic volumes would not be significant enough to alter
the analysis results.
6300 South Syracuse Way, Su ire 600 Centenninl, CO 80111 tel 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832
tv%%,%v.fliueng.cnm inh)@I`hueng.com
January 28, 2009
Mr. Justin Hildreth, P.E.
Page 2
LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
We conducted independent Level of Service (LOS) analyses for both the Buck Creek
Road/Nottingham Road and Swift Gulch Road/Nottingham Road intersections using Synchro
Version 7. Long-range future traffic volumes presented in the Buck Creek PUD traffic study were
used for the Buck Creek Road intersection, while existing volumes at Swift Gulch Road were
estimated from recent count data. Our findings are summarized as follows:
Buck Creek Road/Nottinaham Road: This intersection was analyzed with existing lane
geometry and traffic control (STOP control on Buck Creek Road). Based on our analyses,
the free movements on Nottingham Road would operate at LOS A during both peak hours.
The stop -controlled Buck Creek Road approach would operate acceptably, at LOS B for
right -turns and LOS D for left -turns during both peak hours. The LOS D projected for the
left -turn movement is mainly due to the relatively high through -volumes on Nottingham
Road.
Swift Gulch Road / Nottinaham Road: This intersection was analyzed with existing lane
geometry and traffic control (Swift Gulch Road stop -controlled). The free movements on
Nottingham Road currently operate at LOS A during both peak hours. However, the stop -
controlled left turn from Swift Gulch Road operates at LOS E during both peak hours. This
unacceptable level of service is due primarily to the high volume through -movements on
Nottingham Road conflicting with the relatively heavy left -turn volume from Swift Gulch
Road.
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
As an indicator for increased traffic control requirements, signal warrant analyses were completed
for both intersections based on the methodologies presented in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (FHWA, 2003).
• Buck Creek Road / Nottinaham Road: Warrants for signalization are not satisfied at this
intersection based on the projected long-range future conditions.
Swift Gulch Road / Nottinaham Road: This intersection currently meets signal warrants
using estimated four-hour (Warrant 2) and peak -hour (warrant 3) traffic volumes.
ROUNDABOUT ANALYSIS
Since the analyses showed that the intersection of Swift Gulch Road/Nottingham Road is a
candidate for additional traffic control, a single -lane roundabout was analyzed as an alternative to
signalization. A single -lane roundabout at this location is expected to operate at LOS A during
both peak hours with all movements operating at LOS A or B.
SUMMARY
We reviewed the recently completed traffic impact study for the Buck Creek PUD and determined
that, in general, all assumptions, calculations, and resultant findings are reasonable and valid.
Based on our analysis, the intersection of Buck Creek Road/Nottingham Road is expected to have
side -street movements at LOS D (still considered acceptable) during both peak hours, but would
not meet warrants for signalization.
January 28, 2009
Mr. Justin Hildreth, P.E.
Page 3
The intersection of Swift Gulch Road / Nottingham Road currently has side -street movements at
LOS E during both peak hours, indicating long motorist delays. Warrants for signalization are met
at this location based on the estimated peak -hour traffic volumes. As an alternative to
signalization, a single -lane roundabout would provide acceptable operational levels at this
intersection.
We trust this information will assist your transportation planning efforts in Avon. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG
Charles M. Buck, PE, PTOE
Senior Transportation Engineer
Lacy S. Brown, EIT
Transportation Engineer
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Avon
3: Nottingham Road & Buck
Creek Road
AM Peak Hour
-.*
--►
--*_
'e-
t
4N
t
`►
1
-'
Movement----------
EBL--
EBTEBR "
WBL "-"
WBT' -
WBR ' "
NBL -'NBT
-'NSR "
' SBL
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
44
}
4 1r
4*
4j
If
Volume (ven)
24
514
1
1
359
64
1
0
5
67
0
22
Sign Control
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
26
559
1
1
390
70
1
0
5
73
0
24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (flls)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
4
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
460
560
1051
1073
559
1044
1039
425
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 coni vol
vCu, unblocked vol
460
560
1051
1073
559
1044
1039
425
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
100
99
100
99
64
100
96
cM capacity (vehlh)
1101
1011
193
215
528
201
225
629
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
4
Volume Total
586
461
7
97
Volume Left
26
1
1
73
Volume Right
1
70
5
24
cSH
1101
1011
410
267
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.36
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
1
40
Control Delay (s)
0.7
0.0
13.9
27.3
Lane LOS
A
A
B
D
Approach Delay (s)
0.7
0.0
13.9
27.3
Approach LOS
B
D
Intersection Summary
a
Average Delay
2.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization
62.4%
ICU Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
LSB 112812009
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Avon
7: Nottingham Road & Swift
Gulch Road
AM Peak Hour
Movement " "''
SEL
-- SET
NWT
NWR
SWL"
"SWR
Lane Configurations
4
T►
►�
�►
Volume(vehm)
210
300
235
95
90
145
Sign Control
Free
Free
stop
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
228
326
255
103
98
158
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (flls)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
359
1090
307
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol
359
1090
307
IC, single (s)
4.1
6.4
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
3.5
3.3
p0 queue free %
81
49
78
cM capacity (vehm)
1200
193
733
Direction, Lane#
SE 1
NW 1
SW 1
SW 2
Volume Total
554
359
98
158
Volume Left
228
0
98
0
Volume Right
0
103
0
158
cSH .
1200
1700
193
733
Volume to Capacity
0.19
0.21
0.51
0.22
Queue Length 95th (ft)
18
0
64
20
Control Delay (s)
4.8
0.0
41.4
11.3
Lane LOS
A
E
B
Approach Delay (s)
4.8
0.0
22.8
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
7.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
60.5%
ICU Level of Service
B
Analysis Period (min)
15
LSB 112812009
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
Avon
3: Nottingham Road & Buck Creek Road
4
Median type
PM Peak Hour
--.* -►--* ,,-~
None
t�N
f
`►
1
Movement EBL'-' EBT "" EBR "WBC'
WBT -'
WBR-"' NBC'
NBT
NBR ---
SBC"SBT
' SBR
Lane Configurations *Ts
+
4�
e'{
if
Volume (vehfh) 20 438 3 5
498
78 1
0
5
56
0
25
Sign Control Free
Free
Stop
Slop
Grade 0%
0%
626
0%
479
0%
1158
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph) 22 476 3 5
541
85 1
0
5
61
0
27
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
4
Median type
None
None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
p) , platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
626
479
1129
1158
478
1121
1117
584
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 coni vol
vCu, unblocked vol
626
479
1129
1158
478
1121
1117
584
tC, single (s)
4.1
4.1
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.5
6.2
tC, 2 stage (s)
IF (s)
2.2
2.2
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
p0 queue free %
98
99
99
100
99
66
100
95
cM capacity (veh1h)
956
1083
168
191
588
178
201
512
Direction, Lane;{
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
SB 1
i
Volume Total
501
632
7
88
Volume Left
22
5
1
61
Volume Right
3
85
5
27
cSH
956
1083
415
257
Volume to Capacity
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.34
Queue Length 95th (ft)
2
0
1
37
Control Delay (s)
0.7
0.1
13.8
28.3
Lane LOS
A
A
B
D
Approach Delay (s)
0.7
0.1
13.8
28.3
Approach LOS
B
D
intersection Summary
Average Delay
2.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization
52.7%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
LSB 1128/2009
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
7: Nottingham Road & Swift Gulch Road
%—* i f lc.
Movement'
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh1h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (f 1s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 cont vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (vehlh)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (R)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
SEL
"SET'
NWT"
NWR
SWL
SWR
2.2
175
260
310
90
120
200
Free
Free
NW 1
Stop
SW 2
473
0%
0%
217
0%
0
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
190
283
337
98
130
217
None None
435
435
4.1
2.2
83
1125
SE 1
NW 1
SW 1
SW 2
473
435
130
217
190
0
130
0
0
98
0
217
1125
1700
209
662
0.17
0.26
0.62
0.33
15
0
91
36
4.6
0.0
47.0
13.1
A
E
B
4.6
0.0
25.8
D
1049 386
1049 386
6.4 6.2
3.5 3.3
38 67
209 662
8.9
61.8% ICU Level of Service
15
7
Avon
PM Peak Hour
17
i
LSB 112812009
ni
x x l l
y y V
tl d ~
1170y��a
o
0
eY >
V
O R N C N
c �a
7 C. x
$Eg
ms ¢¢ < m
e
> EW y m g m Z 2
O y
C
fz° 22 0 3 3
l seyQHyl
l%1149
0
0 om
$
�
00
lse
<
m
zz
e
0
!sg
z
N m I
Hag
N
m
Hyp
N
0 0
w
zz
r
—
lS9
v
n
v
y09
Y r
N
N N
ley
aR
N
m
m
lsyy
yA
f
n
a
fO
N
o
x x l l
y y V
tl d ~
1170y��a
o
0
eY >
V
O R N C N
c �a
7 C. x
$Eg
ms ¢¢ < m
e
> EW y m g m Z 2
O y
C
fz° 22 0 3 3
l%1149
0 om
lse
<
m
y�y,2 f
e
0
z
ilse4ft
$
Hyp
N
0 0
w
zz
r
—
lS9
v
n
w w
y09
Y r
N
x x l l
y y V
tl d ~
1170y��a
o
0
eY >
V
O R N C N
c �a
7 C. x
$Eg
ms ¢¢ < m
e
> EW y m g m Z 2
O y
C
fz° 22 0 3 3
0 om
lse
y�y,2 f
e
x x l l
y y V
tl d ~
1170y��a
o
0
eY >
V
O R N C N
c �a
7 C. x
$Eg
ms ¢¢ < m
e
> EW y m g m Z 2
O y
C
fz° 22 0 3 3
Output Tables
SIDRA -
INTERSECTION
Output Tables
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PM Peak
Run Information
• Basic Parameters:
Intersection Type: Roundabout
Driving on the right-hand side of the road
Input data specified in US units
Model Defaults: US NCM (US)
Peak Flow Period (for performance): 15 minutes
Unit time (for volumes): 60 minutes.
Delay definition: Control delay
Geometric delay included
HCM Delay Model option selected
HCM Queue Model option selected
Level of Service based on: Delay (HCM method)
Queue definition: Back of queue, 95th Percentile
Table S.5 - Movement Performance
Mov Total Total Aver. Prop. Eff. Longest Queue Perf. Aver.
ID Delay Delay Delay Queued Stop 956 Back Index Speed
(veh-h/h)(pers-h/h)(sec) Rate (vehs) (ft) (mph)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
South: Nottingham
BT T 0.49 0.59 6.9 0.49 0.58 2.8 72 4.39 32.2
SR R 0.23 0.27 7.9 0.49 0.63 2.8 72 1.82 31.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
East: Swift Gulch
1L L 0.38 0.46 14.1 0.48 0.74 2.0 50 2.03 28.7
6R R 0.35 0.42 8.0 0.48 0.63 2.0 50 2.77 31.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
7L L 0.83 0.99 13.0 0.37 0.65 4.3 109 4.58 29.0
4T T 0.54 0.65 5.9 0.37 0.48 4.3 109 5.34 32.8
Table S.6 - Intersection Performance
Pagel of 4
about:blank 1/28/2009
Output Tables Page 2 of 4
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PM Peak
Intersection ID: 1
Roundabout
Total Deg. Total Total Aver. Prop. Eff. Longest Perf. Aver.
Flow Earn Delay Delay Delay Queued Stop Queue Index Speed
(veh/h) x (veh-h/h)(pers-h/h)(sec) Rate (ft) (mph)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
South: Nottingham
358 0.399 0.72 0.86 7.2 0.49 0.60 72 6.21 32.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
East: Swift Gulch
255 0.301 0.73 0.88 10.3 0.48 0.67 50 4.80 30.4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
556 0.495 1.37 1.64 8.8 0.37 0.55 109 9.92 31.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL VEHICLES:
1169 0.495 2.81 3.38 8.7 0.43 0.59 109 20.94 31.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION (persons):
1403 0.495 3.38 8.7 0.43 0.59 20.94 31.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queue values in this table are 958 back of queue (feet).
Table S.7 - Lane Performance
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PH Peak
Intersection ID: 1
Roundabout
Dem Qu a u
Flow Cap Deg. Aver. Eff. 956 Back Lane
Lane (veh (veh Satn Delay Stop ------------ Length
No. /h) /h) x (sec) Rate (vehs) (ft) (ft)
-------------------------------------------------------------
South: Nottingham
1 TR 358 897 0.399 7.2 0.60 2.8 71.9 1600.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
East: Swift Gulch
1 LR 255 848 0.301 10.3 0.67 2.0 50.2 1600.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
1 LT 556 1125 0.494 8.8 0.55 4.3 109.0 1600.0
Table S.8 - Lane Flow and Capacity Information
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PH Peak
Intersection ID: 1
Roundabout
Min Tot
about:blank 1/28/2009
Output Tables
Lane Dem Flow (veh/h)
No. -------------------
Lef Thru Rig Tot
--------------------------
South: Nottingham
1 TR 0 255 103 358
East: Swift Gulch
1 LR 98 0 157 255
--------------------------
North: Nottingham
1 IT 229 327 0 556
Cap Cap Deg. Lane
(veh (veh Satn Otil
A) A) x e
150 897 0.399 100
150 848 0.301 100
150 1125 0.494 100
The capacity value for priority and continuous movements is obtained by
adjusting the basic saturation flow for heavy vehicle and turning vehicle
effects. Saturation flow scale applies if specified.
Table SAS - Capacity and Level of Service
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PH Peak
Intersection ID: 1
Roundabout
Mov Mov Total Total Deg. Aver. LOS Longest Queue
ID Typ Flow Cap. of Delay 95• Beck
(veh (veh Satn (vehs) (ft)
A) A) (v/c) (sec)
South: Nottingham
8T
T 255
639 0.399
6.9 A
2.8
72
BR
R 103
258 0.399
7.9 A
2.8
72
-----------------------------------------------------------------
East:
Swift Gulch
1L
L 98
326 0.301
14.1 B
2.0
50
6R
R 157
522 0.301
8.0 A
2.0
50
-----------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
7L
L 229
463 0.495'
13.0 B
4.3
109
4T
T 327
662 0.494
5.9 A
4.3
109
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALL
VEHICLES: 1169
0.495
8.7 A
4.3
109
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Service calculations are based on
average control delay
including geometric delay
(HCM criteria),
independent of the
current delay
definition used.
For the criteria,
refer to the "Level of Service" topic
in the
SIDRA output Guide
or the Output
section of the
on-line
help.
•
Maximum v/c ratio,
or critical green periods
�r
SIDRA SOLUTIONS
Site: AM Peak
I:\09007\Sw1RGu1ch PM.aap
Processed Jan 28, 2009 02:27:36PM
Page 3 of 4
about:blank 1/28/2009
Output Tables
A0129, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, Large Office
Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.0.1455
Copyright 2000-2007 Akcellk and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sld rasolutl o ns.co m
Page 4 of 4
about:blank 1/28/2009
Output Tables Pagel of4
SIDRA -
INTERSECTION
Output Tables
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PM Peak
Run Information
' Basic Parameters:
intersection Type: Roundabout
Driving on the right-hand side of the road
input data specified in US units
Model Defaults: US NCM (US)
Peak Flow Period (for performance): 15 minutes
Unit time (for volumes): 60 minutes.
Delay definition: Control delay
Geometric delay included
HCM Delay Model option selected
HCM Queue Model option selected
Level of Service based on: Delay (HCM method)
Queue definition: Back of queue, 95th Percentile
Table S.5 - Movement Performance
Nov Total Total Aver. Prop. Off. Longest Queue Perf. Aver.
ID Delay Delay Delay Queued Stop 958 Back Index Speed
(veh-h/h)(pera-h/h)(sec) Rate (vehs) (ft) (mph)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
South: Nottingham
ST T 0.63 0.75 6.7 0.48 0.56 3.5 89 5.76 32.2
8R R 0.21 0.25 7.7 0.48 0.60 3.5 89 1.72 31.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
East: Swift Gulch
1L L 0.55 0.65 15.0 0.60 0.80 3.2 82 2.86 28.4
6R R 0.54 0.65 8.9 0.60 0.72 3.2 82 4.11 31.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
7L L 0.70 0.84 13.4 0.41 0.67 3.7 95 3.84 28.9
4T T 0.48 0.58 6.2 0.41 0.51 3.7 95 4.70 32.5
Table S.6 - Intersection Performance
about:blank 1/28/2009
Output Tables Page 2 of 4
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PM Peak
Intersection ID: 1
Roundabout
Total Deg. Total Total Aver. Prop. Eff. Longest Perf. Aver.
Flow Barn Delay Delay Delay Queued Stop Queue Index Speed
(veh/h) x (veh-h/h)(pers-h/h)(sec) Rate (ft) (mph)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
South: Nottingham
435 0.454 0.83 1.00 6.9 0.48 0.57 89 7.4B 32.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
East: Swift Gulch
348 0.441 1.08 1.30 11.2 0.60 0.75 82 6.97 30.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
473 0.453 1.18 1.42 9.0 0.41 0.58 95 8.54 30.9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL VEHICLES:
1256 0.454 3.10 3.72 8.9 0.49 0.62 95 22.99 31.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSECTION (persons):
1507 0.454 3.72 8.9 0.49 0.62 22.99 31.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queue values in this table are 95% back of queue (feet).
Table S.7 - Lane Performance
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PM Peak
Intersection ID: i
Roundabout
Dem Q u e u e
Flow Cap Deg. Aver. Eff. 958 Back Lane
Lane (veh (veh Satn Delay Stop ------------ Length
No. /h) /h) x (sec) Rate (vehs) (£t) (ft)
-------------------------------------------------------------
South: Nottingham
1 TR 435 958 0.454 6.9 0.51 3.5 88.8 1600.0
.-------------------------------------------------------------
East: Swift Gulch
1 LR 348 789 0.441 11.2 0.75 3.2 81.8 1600.0
.-------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
1 LT 473 1045 0.452 9.0 0.58 3.7 94.6 1600.0
Table S.8 - Lane Flow and Capacity Information
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PM Peak
Intersection ID: 1
Roundabout
Min Tot
about:blank 1/28/2009
Output Tables
Lane Dem Flow (veh/h)
No. -------------------
Lef Thru Rig Tot
--------------------------
South: Nottingham
1 TR 0 337 98 435
East: Swift Gulch
1 LR 131 0 217 348
--------------------------
North: Nottingham
1 LT 190 283 0 473
Cap Cap Deg. Lane
(veh (veh Satn Otil
A) /h) x 6
150 958 0.454 100
150 789 0.441 100
150 1045 0.452 100
The capacity value for priority and continuous movements is obtained by
adjusting the basic saturation flow for heavy vehicle and turning vehicle
effects. Saturation flow scale applies if specified.
Table S.15 - Capacity and Level of Service
Swift Gulch / Nottingham
PM Peak
Intersection ID: 1
Roundabout
Mov Mov Total Total Deg. Aver. LOS Longest Queue
ID Typ Flow Cap. of Delay 95% Back
(veh (veh Earn (vehs) (ft)
A) /h) (v/c) (sec)
South: Nottingham
8T
T 337
742 0.454`
6.7 A
3.5
89
8R
R 98
216 0.454•
7.7 A
3.5
89
-----------------------------------------------------------------
East:
Swift Gulch
1L
L 131
297 0.441
15.0 B
3.2
82
6R
R 217
492 0.441
8.9 A
3.2
82
-----------------------------------------------------------------
North: Nottingham
7L
L 190
420 0.452
13.2 B
3.7
95
4T
T 283
625 0.453
6.2 A
3.7
95
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALL VEHICLES: 1256
0.454
8.9 A
3.7
95
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Service calculations are
based on
average control delay including geometric
delay
(NCM criteria),
independent of the
current delay
definition used.
For the criteria,
refer to the "Level
of Service" topic
in the
SIDRA Output Guide
or the Output
section of the
on-line
help.
•
Maximum v/c ratio,
or critical green
periods
SIDRA SOLUTIONS
Site: New Site - 1
1:\09007\SwiRGulch PM.aap
Processed Jan 27, 2009 02:45:08PM
Page 3 of 4
about:blank 1/28/2009
Output Tables
A0129, Felsburg Holt & Ullevig, Large Office
Produced by SIDRA Intersection 3.2.0.1455
Copyright 2000-2007 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd
www.sidrasolutions.com
Page 4 of 4
about:blank 1/28/2009
i
Sv
=1r 5111
ii -I1 9
c pp pGp !r � iS [ a�=r�IRr�4its
l����l
t S 9 9 49 a'r•'t;sl�`�6a gr ��l`.trF�p�`r's! Ir !a O
tl
v - H 61Yr's-m!
Iia�gt-=�d1a3�rr_� �g..x 6r •,'i r E i;
>�b!is,lY-a'a It
. gg �� ! - - _ - i YY-;- E >!�`�.=^r-� m'S� ►�yt K�iil.' �s (�var�l v6 = r# y V ]d
3 iY r�_ a � '��#I<^ r�cl�r�r_iv •'� #s;�ss4E"c�6"= C��.i. -��Ir�� !I r �� " y �� ° " � i�
a Z"''
s vv ■� B Y � v a !��aN`9Cr:'e�r-a':Y�a:�►`-'�'eY";��e°' r 1�1=�� - d - •" ��
$all _ _ # 4 d £ s Im o
r -
jig ^ € n i�Yr aE„risil�s=�sy Yrs. # ==�e Axlg 'e iS v y' 3 .
a 8 e hi
- ice,
o< s
i - Iei h � ��
6 CI ' III �� 5� rbc rYdW :-t3°fir r -- Tiff
�3y•#
G t �� � i y� a a g -#t l��•cr-Eir.,':. IyE -'arc 3 I�isA-=�is��� ! s:g •aaf &” � :�� � � � J !.
g!Y-gg g tii Y #:Y iOWN
> r 1 4 d ; R
i ��i r -• � «�yl��:�4-l9y �C �c�1: s ga •�� (v �"
1 E-. I a _O -c N a a
e ii 'jc x;�"?Pa ! iJ-a:kY# sl . d d" �-^t ! � A 31 a �� " �
�grglr !_. #asSgA-rs:r _r_ -_,.i �`riln�. 1 !- :< !:
r s. C
S
o / r3 F C�•� 1.7
�„- _ ice': r• ._ : o
a E Gast `°Is vil '`N,,r?Y3S'••
Y��"( •�-�YY�12A
ry
�� yb- y �y C¢ •
ty�«s63'aP�Y a u« � •�'
9� vj X
-^n
,Lip'Gee 3,££;611 sWS
-,oG iBl- ,0L rt- — ,zavri- -'d - oo ov-c: cca- -4
opo.
en
s
rwz>a 1 a \
R , •F•r.
e _ FEY ytwimligsv lad
- a y ,e:Mar6Qa� alit a S 6 6@ a u
r7=I�r 9y- b 1f i r a
r A � • "r` -z � 1E�
fir
ia
fit Ion tZ
r �3Yi r �S•grnr5=lY. y a- �i Y�a�a! � a
! r� my it a rI �C����
mlis fill Pr
; ( o
• ire == €Ey 2(w" -Ida Big.
iSi
i 9 9 rt
.160 i t
\g . VZb�tif'J,p\
�°adJ Z�b�'/bbd
'►oe
Q
2WF � � •Isw ,Bca %
5w •.M
oai A i ,Ir,,4 OU-3A1rlLLfrl
_--
—7
:i
sfz,
�
4z"
•\. .. � j� r y� •/ J'a'i .. tea+ J`',� ��
tM
ME
1,4
lir %�% r� / weo: a•:�: enx� jt;ICS \ i5,
• i ;,'.'�• ��, # '�i/ � /'• � zeS��i:�ix-r='x�t.•r�r�x�R: r�� a, i
a_s..s•$pi•
I I •
NNW
\\` �; `VVV7S7S iRL _.-..-,..,,�/I����%� /~',=es�::��x:k�.e�A�•s=�a �8iifu�
:x_xen R:xc-^ C xW Qoey N t
LL
' i '� rt•._ , �: $8§$is8:"8i$63ine3i5i: W iI
� Owa g
ZHU._s!i J r l r Ng�n
e°• 0
O HY
\
jA I
~ W O
< W
C
c�15
Cc ~ •
< cc
� W W
/ ♦
M
=F-¢ b
—
a
I,Z=.0 <
�
WWm
U% O f
<
^
M
W Q
UEIL
I
Q
_r J
YC7a n
w
Q
U2 ey
OW<p
LU
co Z — 0
Z
c>o
Z
�amZ
OOH
J
N
z o
NP LL p
O
J
�+ z s
V
J
u'pQic
."20
U
Y m
-oc¢iz
W
LL m N O
o W >
z
C N O Z
Q
H W Q O —
u—
a
uj
mccCJQ
-1
m 6 J
w
V
R < W W
< m O ? N
rwz>a 1 a \
R , •F•r.
e _ FEY ytwimligsv lad
- a y ,e:Mar6Qa� alit a S 6 6@ a u
r7=I�r 9y- b 1f i r a
r A � • "r` -z � 1E�
fir
ia
fit Ion tZ
r �3Yi r �S•grnr5=lY. y a- �i Y�a�a! � a
! r� my it a rI �C����
mlis fill Pr
; ( o
• ire == €Ey 2(w" -Ida Big.
iSi
i 9 9 rt
.160 i t
\g . VZb�tif'J,p\
�°adJ Z�b�'/bbd
'►oe
Q
2WF � � •Isw ,Bca %
5w •.M
oai A i ,Ir,,4 OU-3A1rlLLfrl
_--
—7
:i
sfz,
�
4z"
•\. .. � j� r y� •/ J'a'i .. tea+ J`',� ��
tM
ME
1,4
lir %�% r� / weo: a•:�: enx� jt;ICS \ i5,
• i ;,'.'�• ��, # '�i/ � /'• � zeS��i:�ix-r='x�t.•r�r�x�R: r�� a, i
a_s..s•$pi•
I I •
NNW
\\` �; `VVV7S7S iRL _.-..-,..,,�/I����%� /~',=es�::��x:k�.e�A�•s=�a �8iifu�
:x_xen R:xc-^ C xW Qoey N t
LL
' i '� rt•._ , �: $8§$is8:"8i$63ine3i5i: W iI
� Owa g
ZHU._s!i J r l r Ng�n
e°• 0
O HY
\
jA I
XA
�S J
c�15
/ ♦
M
D/
\
M3 V.
.
cv)
SIDE VIEW
7 I���I' it �� � ..... •• .. •'� ... ..:..
Omit sign at left of
entry.
zo
2'-6"
WESTIN RIVER FRONT RESORT FRONT VIEW'
AT AVON, COLORADO
PROJ. NO. 90606.01 SCALE :1/4"=1'-0"
01/09/2009
RE:A4WO5
AREHITHT11111 SKA-668.dwg DWG. NO. S <A=668'li