TC Council Packet 09-09-2003STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF EAGLE ) SS
TOWN OF AVON 1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A WORK SESSION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, WILL BE HELD SEPTEMBER 9, 2003, BEGINNING BOTH
AT 9:30 AM FOR A SITE TOUR AND AGAIN AT 3:00 P.M. TO BE HELD AT THE AVON
MUNICIPAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 400 BENCHMARK ROAD, AVON, COLORADO FOR
THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING:
9:30 AM - 12:00 PM 1) Village at Avon Site Tour
Please meet promptly at the southwest corner
of the Wal-Mart Supercenter parking lot for
transportation by Avon bus to the site.
Break
3:00 PM - 3:30 PM 2) Council Committee Updates
Water Update (Councilor D. Buckley)
Fly Vail Summer Program (Councilor Brown)
Planning & Zoning Direction (Councilor P. Buckley)
Truck Limitations & Lighting (Mayor Reynolds)
Lot 61 Update
3:30 PM- 4:00 PM 3) Capital Improvements Fund - 5 Year Plan
& 2004 CIP Budget (Norm Wood)
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 4) Village at Avon Discussion (Shane Bohart)
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 5) Staff Updates -
a. Referendum A (Larry Brooks)
b. Salute to U.S.A. (Meryl Jacobs)
Council Questions
Consent Agenda Questions
AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THIS MEETING IS
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
TOWN M AVQN COLORADO
BY:
Patty c enny
Town erk
Estimated times for each agenda item are shown for informational purposes only,
And subject to change without notice.
POSTED AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON ON
SEPTEMBER 5, 2003:
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN LOBBY
ALPINE BANK, MAIN LOBBY
AVON RECREATION CENTER, MAIN LOBBY
CITY MARKET, MAIN LOBBY
Town Clerk\Council\Agendas\2003\Avon Council Meetina.03.09.09
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
From: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
Date: May 5, 2003
Re: Fly Vail Summer Overview
Summary:
Mike Brown asked that the attached information be included in the packet.
Fly Vail Summer Over view
Traffic and Financials
• 14,080 Inbound seats were available on the service
• 162 One way segments flown from June 14 to September 3, 2003
• There was approximately an 80% load factor or 11,264 passengers
• Worst case financially, there will be a $75,000 loss on the program
o Yields on the tickets were not as high as expected in July and August
o The FAA mandated the policy of higher average weight per passenger and
AA needed to restrict the number of outbound seats to 154
• Eagle County will pick up the short fall
• No other business, organization or government will pay on the pledges
• 40% of the passengers originated from DFW with 12% more from TX
• 6.1 % of the passengers originated from New York
Research
The research was conducted in the last two weeks of the season. These results are from
350 surveys and therefore only represent a small portion of the passengers.
• The passengers overview -
o Total passengers- 11,264
0 10% Permanent residents -1,126
0 18% Second homeowners - 2,028
0 72% Visitors- 8,110
• The visitor group averaged 5.7 days per stay -
0 38% stayed with friends or relatives
o The passengers who stayed in accommodations generated 28,200 room
nights
• Aspen/Glenwood influence -
0 17% of the passengers who had accommodation stayed in Aspen/
Glenwood or 6.1 % of the total passengers
0 30% of the permanent and second homeowners were from Aspen/
Glenwood or 8% of the total passengers
• Passengers heard about the air service -
0 29% American Airlines
0 29% Word of mouth
0 15% Internet
0 12% Travel Agent
• Passengers primarily came here for -
0 29% Relaxation
0 20% Visitor a friend
0 17% Business
o 15% Golf
Conclusions/Discussion points
• There is room to grow the program.
• Aspen has a deal in the works to have non-stop (32 seat jet) DFW service this
winter and maybe next summer.
• Texas must remain the target market.
• Permanent residents and second homeowners are a great influencers and network
for selling the program.
• Visitors staying with friends or relatives were a major supporter of the flights.
• American will reduce the cap if we fly the same schedule as this year.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Enginee
Date: September 4, 2003
Re: Capital Projects Fund 5-YearPlan
Summary: The attached Potential Capital Projects / Wish List shows a
summary of Council ratings from the August 12 Council work session. These ratings were
used in development of the attached draft Capital Projects Fund 5-Year Plan. New projects
included in this Draft are Swift Gulch Road Bikepath (Roundabout 1 to Public works
Maintenance Facility, Swift Gulch Road Bikepath Paving from Buffalo Ridge to Village
Interchange, Comprehensive Plan Development and East Avon Redevelopment (Main Street
Extension). Other revisions included in this Draft are:
1) Town Center Plan Implementation - $1,200,000 is included in 2004 to reserve funds for
minimum implementation of the Town Center Plan required for possible development of Lot
61.
2) Wildridge Pavilion - Design proposed in 2005 with construction in 2006 based on
relatively high priority by Council
3) Wildridge Park Improvements and Playground - Proposed Construction in 2005 based on
relatively high priority by Council
4) East Beaver Creek Boulevard Improvements - Timing moved from 2003 / 2004 to 2004 /
2005 in accordance with time frames in Village Annexation and Development Agreement
5) Swift Gulch Road Relocation - Design proposed in 2004 with construction in 2005 to
coincide with Proposed Phase I of the Nottingham Road Construction
6) Swift Gulch Road Bikepath Paving Extension to 1-70 Interchange - Anticipated 2004 with
completion of Swift Gulch Road Extension per Village Annexation and Development
Agreement
L\AdministrationUP Budget\2004\Budget Memo-I.Doc
7) Comprehensive Plan Development - Proposed for 2004
8) East Avon Redevelopment (Main Street Extension) - New project added 2009 and
beyond. Expenses of $2,000,000 have been designated even though project is not fully
defined and no cost estimates have been made. These will be refined as the project moves
closer to implementation.
9) Swift Gulch Road Bikepath / Roundabout 1 to Maintenance Facility - New project 2009
and beyond
10) Transfer to General Fund - $50,000 per year is proposed for transfer from the CIP Fund to
the general fund to offset Engineering Department costs for administration of Capital
Improvement Projects
In addition to the above, w e h ave also revised v arious p roj ect b udgets t o reflect what w e
expect to be current project costs.
Recommended action at this meeting is to provide input with regard to this Draft of the
Capital Projects Fund 5-Year Plan for incorporation into a future draft.
Recommendation: Provide comments with respect to the priorities and
timing of the projects as proposed in this draft.
Town Mana er Comments:
0 Page 2
POTENTIAL CAPITAL PROJECTS / WISH LIST
2004 CIP BUDGET
August 7, 2003
Importance Urgency
Project Rating (1- 5) Rating (1 - 5)
Wildridge Traffic Calming / Pedestrian Circulation 20 15
Wildridge - Emergency / Bike Access 20 14
Wildridge Park Improvements & Playground 20 14
Nottingham Road - Buck Creek Road to Metcalf Road 20 13
Wildridge Pavilion 17.5 15
Nottingham Road - I-70 to Buck Creek Road 19 13
Fireplace Conversions 18 14
I-70 Information Center 19 12
Metcalf Road Improvements 21 10
Eaglebend Entry Sign 17 14
Swift Gulch Road Bikepath (RA I to Maintenance Shop) 17 13
Eaglebend Drive Streetscape Improvements 15.5 14
Municipal Government - Space Needs Analysis 14 15
Swift Gulch Road Relocation 16 12
Wildridge Pocket Park - New in Block 5 15 13
Wildridge Pocket Park - Upper Area (New in Block 3 or 4) 15 13
Swift Gulch Road Bikepath (Paving to Villay-e I-70Interchange) 16 10
Comprehensive Plan Development 15 10
East Beaver Creek Boulevard Improvements 14 10
East Avon Redevelopment (Main Street Extension) 14 10
Municipal Parking Facilities 12 11
Transportation Center 15 8
Drainage - Metcalf (Nottingham Rd. to I-70) 12 10.5
Drainage - Metcalf Road 12 10.5
Recreation Center Phase II 11 10
Paving / Road Improvements 12 8
Public Works Administration Building 12 8
Drainage - W. Beaver Creek Blvd. (I-70 to Railroad) 9 10.5
Avon Road Pedestrian Bridge 8 11
Public Works Equipment Storage & Work Area Buildings 9.5 8
Town Center Mall / Town Center Plan Implementation 9.5 7.5
Planning & Consulting 8 4
Other
Refinement of Town Review Process Criteria 1 1
Note: Rate all Projects from 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest priority and 5 being highest priority.
I:\Administration\CIP Budget\2004\Priority List 2004 Rev-2.Doc
Z
a
J
a
a
w
z
O °z
a?
LL LL
O?
Z
w
O
a.
J
a
a
U
CD i p i , O O O , O
O O O O O O
°6 O O
O O
O O O
N O O
! O
c
cy)
O O O
CD V V 00 07
CD (1)
N
Cl)
co
N m
6S '.. V3
p i p p p
O CO O O O o0 00
O O O O
00. O V O N 0) (O "l)
O (D V O (O
O
N V N (D
64 v?
O O
O co . . . . . i . i . p i
O . 0 0
O O . . 0)
co , m
co
O P- O OO r r
n.. O O N O N N
O O V O (O L7
O
N I?
r N O G
a
U
a) U3, ?
2
O.. O V
O m p
O co
O O V
0) 0
C. ' V
0)
0 C O O O O C i O
(D O r O N 0) N r 0)
O M
(D N 47
N r r Cl)
EH 64
O (D • • O C> ' O O O ' O'.O O (D O
' co
C) C) OSO OO O OOO O '.CD O
O M OC (OO O C O O W O^. W
(O O M O 0' 00 (O O u?IN O N I0-'. N
O O V (D cD 00 N O r'. (D to'.
O V 0) ?- M N Cl
i (D
O
04
6F1
O M O' O' ' O d O O ' M O 00
,O O N
prn O
O O
C O
p 0 0 0
OOP 00
Il (D
p 00
ll-
a)
O
O V
O
(n
O i
) ?
l
y
0V
O O
O V
V
N
O N N O N
CD C
(p I
-
N
CL O co N )f')
2 m N N N
a
V} H3
O 0) O ' 00 0) O
O V O ! 00 '.M'.
O 00
C :co
M
C5 (6
O
O
O O
'.Nm
?
D
O
V
C:)
E T0 CD 1-
N N m co 04
11 N M
W
69.
O 0) O ' O O O ' ' m O
' 0)
O V O O O O V O v
O C
C) (D C
O O O O
O
m -
- O
{
C
CO
m 0 O N O N
0) 1
N V
0)
O O N M f-
N '-
0m • N
6a 64
co I- M O ' ' ' ' ' O ' O' ' O O ' r V O
' V
V O CD V O LO O Cl) I? N O N
m n O O V )f) O O N O N
(4 N V rh r-- (D O N Cl) (n W
O O c) 0) M O N N Cl) (O
V O t? co M N M (D V'
Q (N - N M
69)
64
T
_ Za7
N O
O
o _ C O
C E (a u E L
a) 0 a)
:
U N
a) W 7
N E ate) ca L O
OC7 °U o ?.??m u.
.e 0
(if -0 a)
3 L C C 4 y O
L) U O O U T m O j O U C y
O. VHS. os tea) y m
m C7 as C7 o y .? > cu E N a)
E (D
X a) +-I O 'C ' 2 O Es co (n E Q)
L` O W L O
cu m C O_ a) a)
E nnN.NAQH? o.cmW c a) (n
oY ?Q°6Q?UW w m E m cu O C
y> y m O O 2 `:V Q' O R
'm >> N
?Nm N? L G a=?> O O OLL u)_ d' y C I/1 om 7
~ E E -E (n = o o c Q¢ Q o :. o o m ` w y c
Cl) mE'oW cco?o? nW>U) a`) 3?a`)) >
0 '-
D z o a) a) 3 -,L U R m R R a) a) 0
_ n a m
y > R 7 O a) m a) U a) O p)
ZW woE --oa)a a a O wm
y
> E o O c c r- o) a) m a a) m w n ns > N -ra
W ?UUUUUU W W w»> - ?wC?w? o w m o
E m S 0 F- O H U F
L
m
m
a-
O
U
CO
000 " " 00 C) C) O o rn
OOO C) C) CD Q' O C)
ao
OOO o(= C C C C m r
m O U') O LO M (D
r OU?- N
O C)
'.40'.
r O
O f-
M N
M
O 00 V' 00 N V (D r
CD 0?
64 (l
O ' ' ' ' O O'O O 0 ' C) O) O
O O O '.O O 'O O M
O C O '.O O Q O N co 00
03' O LJO Co C) tf) M r-
O N N '.O LO (O'. Cl s} 00 co
N
EA
00 0 0 O O' O O
O O O O C) '.C) C)
V
M
O O O O O O O N W O
N N M (D O M '.O M O co M
O (D N C. O W) t Q) r` 00
O (n It O O r co
N N
a)
U EH 69
a)
2 '
O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O
'.O! C)
O
V
rn
t`
't
O O O C C C O !O O O r CD
to O 00 LO O O (O 0! (D CO O Cl)
O (O r N O r? '.(n'. N M V P-
C, V CO r V O) '.. C (A N r
N r N Cl)
64 '.. fR
O O O ' C) 0 0 0 O '. SD
r (D N r -
Z CD O O O C) 0 0
O O O O 00C O
O '.
ICi
M O
(D (f 7
N V
r
a 43 O O (n O l0 (D O (D 'C:, (D M d' O
O ((7 Lo Lo N O Cl) --:U) O OD N
J O C (D co N C \L (D N
a N, co
h
N
N
LU O' O' O' ' C) 0 0 O O M (O N
O O O O O O O O CA O O LO LD
O O O C O O O O N N (n r N
Z
LO y O a
0 0 C) O O) L O (D O
O (O (D
O O
<r• 07
(O r
O M
r r
O) V
N
CL O r
N (D M M W M (O
o Q 0 m N r r M M M N
> Z a
a :) U19 61)
LL LL
O O0 0 C)
O V O O O O
V O
O
r- N 00
O r-
0 0 (O
( f')
O U) 'O O D7 O O C O Cl) O N N 00 00 r-
? C
Z M
R O O co a) to (D O
C. N 'd• N O M
O O N
(D ?-- O ?
(D D)
00 t-
O)
U E
0 CO CO N O N N O) V M
W m
U) N N
•
r
N
N
N
M
w }
O /
? U9, fR
1
a " O ' o " 0(D C) O O
? 00 C. co
O CD O O O o C) r r- r- It
J
R O q O O O O
C) U') (D C) O
)O O N
O N N
r- 00
M 00
(D rl
O
M
C O O) D) N O r -
r- V V O)
a O N t- N M r O M
I- omN r r N
a
a
U '
D) M' r 00
O O N O
N M O r l0 (O r- V
r-
(O 0
N
O W
co r
co
r0 m C N N M O V N rl «7 M 00
R N N? (O (O V O M M M O)
7 C)
V O W V r- r o0 d'
(O (O V r It
oz (D
O0 O D)
W 00
Vi
Q N M ?} r co N
(y 69
L)
C
Ll.
N
C
(1)
E
En U)
C
7
N =
N
Q
LL
L
(6 (9
_ O R
a)
Y C U
o U)
N
c
o
d a w
E ° C7 <n 3 0)
aRi
0 0) n o 0 0 ? ° >
O C N (D 7 (cc ° C O
r, 1 v N E 00 y
0)
V
a) E Z 0) (D
In I
a)
a)
a)
i
N
O
C
W E
c
E
' a 0 N y 0 ? m w
C
C
R
R
>
•
'
C
N
O R
7 J 'O C
a) U d U R 6
C (L E B
1 V V
c u
c
y)
D
'? R
~
O Q J
N C
C (D
G N H 0
Q 0
O R R
(D
O.
E
•
3 U) Q) m
EE y
z =0
°0)?
oEa) -U
'
W
W
00
00
-0
D
CL Z3CM()c)>E?r>n
o a) ° a) o (D a a)
a
:°
y??
a) o
;o
m
z
v
c
•o
c
(a as
cgoU cn O0
U 0
? J . s
CL CL 0
0
w U 4 000 F LL LL
O
Q)
O
R
IL
O
U
O
z C
a?
LL
o;
z -
/L
O
r L
O 6 C
co O
m O N
C m
a) N n w a)
E N U co
n 7 Y +U' W
c L c O) ° N
E Q n .0
U) OJ T LO co
O N
U c'.1 m a.. U o YY N c -5 S; uj m O a) - m U O c a)
C d a)? d 0 0 7
O Z (6m W N Nmm m ` a)Sc a) >
° E= O ) c- 3 3 o U a 4 E o c Y
n' U y Q) m (n - m O O O o U '? G c a) Q •$ c c
F c :n U n 2 c y E C Z? m ro v ° E E
Z r- O «7- c_ a) N L a) > i i "6 c - c ?F= E =3 I= . N L -O O Q)
F° o g .S CL L ° m m - °c - a a c o y> E> °) > E
LU '5 F a- a- U) N ? c c W -° o c a) m E E m co
E
` Y a) a) "O a) 'D E N O
Q c 45 Q .0 0 Y
°°°> m> U m o o d U 0 W'If(If d (D a) a m- if -a a)
Y Y d d a N ai n a E E o o o ?U o 0
0 0 ° c
m o° U m J m rn cm m m cm) > aa)i 0 L me o >° a U) >
a a a c a s - o
J -5 co y is m M U d Q '? H o a s m 'n y ID °° c Y Q m C7 o
FQ- = E E a c 'c5 = .U a) m 'v; -o - 5 -a cO 0 a) '> c6 M L ?
° 3 c E a a v 45 o m v m m° o> m E m .c 3 a) 7
EL ° 0 7 7 7 7 m- c m???? Om wwZZaw.-aULLU)2cc
Uri cS?i--22aa?? ?a Ito cn
co
.LD
U
O
Cf)
Z[
O (
a?
LL
O
Z
C
Ot
F- L
0 0 0 0 0
0) o o O O C
00 O
0
00
00 N
N to
O
r
0 O
N m m
V3
O O O
O O O
co
O LO
N (D
(O
O
N N
64
. . . . . . O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
LD
N
ED
co
6)
(O
'
N
N
U ?
N
O i O. . . OJ. i O O O
O O O
N N
O' i0
!. (n
N
69
' ' • • ' O O
CD
O O ' • O O'
CD 0 C. • ' ' • O
O O
O O
CD
O C O O' O
(O
O u) O
O U? U") CD
co N' (f') co (D
M
O N ItVI M CA
N co
" O O
O
'O
0 0
O
O 59
O
O
O O
O O C .
O O O O O
O
(n a)
O O )o O O
N C) (n
V• LO
CD (n (n
00 N (D O
V
n-o O co O
O m N Cl)
0-
C) 0 ' . . . . o ' . . ' . . O O
'O O O O O O m
c co
O 00 C4 m
V (n
N (D Cl)
O
E m 0 N rn
N r
W >-
(n
i . . . . . O . . .
O O
O O
O O
O
C (D M
O O
V
m O
(D
N O
O O
(17
O
m j O n
O m N
64
(D ' (D M ' ' ' ' co 00
00 O (O m Cl)
G (O ' O (0
O
O «j Gi W 00 N N
m N
3 0 (f) O Il-
(O O) r LO ?
r L7 N (D r-
r O (O 1) co
N
U O N In co (D
Q N N
C
O O
U m N' -o
O
H i 0)
m m
o
co
m m
k
' O O
Y ul N
C c
O
m E O
i
) u
?
p C-) :F L) '0
m Q o E r
(1) >
L O 3a
T C o
a
co Y Y L
O p M M C) L E N O .E C
a) Y d
E
Co
CL
m >. E m
CL
d W Z
0 0 0 C 4)
co U CD
d
C L w- C (9 Y
O
'
?
)
Y
?
d
a) p) W O O
C
(
r N
N CA O)
U C C
N •'
> N
N
>
O
i0 c
n d d -? O) (
,) N
i a) (D Y m 0) tr: U m '
m O
; m
Y
i E O
LL LL >,
W
G m FL c O
i CL
E
Q) L)
E2 0
CO m toz E
O
W
F-
c)
d' p p
00 r,? 0) CD - m m N
) C C C O
C Q > U (n
G N
C
?
._
Q
Q
W E L
v
L
v
C C
°d " Y. j
O O a)
>> m
>
>
C
m e a)
m
o +
+
c
N >> m p p
?oo > E I- o o =
O y 0 a) 12 12
D>
i d
<
E m m CL O a) m
E o'c t
j U
o (a
U
n
a? CJ
!q O) Q1 w 'D C7,
` o
U
U U
O
O O O) n?,?
.2
d n?
O
E
m
-a
C
co co m 12 3
wwwzo r<n `
3
v? YU
C
D
L
o m o m > o E
a
`
U
o y
?m m p
Cj w?
in D in V O
N
ca
w
0
U
O
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development
Date September 9, 2003
Re: First Reading of Ordinance 03-10, An Ordinance Approving Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1 for the Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD
Guide, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
Summary
On August 26, 2003 a public hearing was held on the Formal PUD Amendment application
for the Village (at Avon) and Ordinance 03-10 was tabled on first reading.
As part of the regularly scheduled Avon Town Council meeting, the applicant, Traer Creek
LLC has requested a site tour of the respective areas affected by this proposed Formal
PUD Amendment to illustrate proposed and existing site conditions.
Additionally, Traer Creek LLC submitted a revised development plan and PUD Guide on
Thursday afternoon. To date, staff has not fully evaluated the proposed changes in the
development standards, land use, or density to adequately make any new
recommendations.
Recommendations
Therefore, Staff recommends tabling Ordinance 03-10 on first reading.
Proposed Motion
"I move to table the first reading of Ordinance 03-10, Approving Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1 for the Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD Guide, Town of
Avon, Eagle County, Colorado."
Town Ma naComme?
lsr .
Memo to Town Council, September 9, 2003 "?
Ordinance 03-10, VAA Formal PUD Amendment No.
U
Page 1 of 1
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 03-10
SERIES OF 2003
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO THE VILLAGE (at Avon) PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND PUD GUIDE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, Traer Creek LLC has applied for a Formal PUD Amendment to The
Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD Guide to Planning Areas G, M, N, Q, RMF-1,
RMF-4, and Open Space 5 and Open Space 13 (hereinafter referred to as Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1) as more specifically described in the application dated May 30, 2003 and
subsequent revision dated July 24, 2003;
WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
hearing on June 17, 2003, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity
to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed
Formal PUD Amendment No. 1; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendations on the proposed Formal PUD Amendment No.1 to the Town
Council of the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
26th day of August, 2003, at which time the public was given an opportunity to express their
opinions regarding the proposed Formal PUD Amendment No. 1; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Avon, Town Council of the Town of Avon finds as follows:
F:\Council\Ordinances\2003\0rd 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
1. The hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council
were both extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues
were submitted at those hearings.
2. That the amendment is compatible with the Village (at Avon) PUD Guide and
original application premise and the policies as specified by the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan.
3. That the development standards for The Village (at Avon) PUD comply with each
of the Town of Avon's PUD design criteria and this proposed development is
consistent with the public interest.
4. That adequate facilities will be available to serve development for the type and
scope proposed for each respective planning area upon completion of the
subdivision process for the area encompassing Formal PUD Amendment No. 1.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
The Formal PUD Amendment No. 1 for The Village (at Avon) PUD is approved for Planning
Areas RMF-1, RMF-4, G (school site), N (Community Park), M (Regional/Commercial), Q
(Regional/Commercial) and Open Space 5 and 13, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado with
the following conditions:
1. The additional density on RMF-4 formerly known as a part of Planning Area M consists
of a maximum of 310 dwelling units limited to RMF-4 only and is in addition to the
2,400 dwelling units currently approved in The Village (at Avon) PUD Guide, Section D
and the Annexation and Development Agreement recorded November 25, 1998.
2. As part of the final subdivision process, an approved subdivision improvements
agreement and provisions for adequate collateral for public improvements consisting of,
but not limited to roads, bike paths, sidewalks, and utilities shall be completed prior to
any development for each respective planning area: Planning Area Q, Planning Area G
(school site), RMF-1 and/or RMF-4.
3. A final court decree of adjudicated water rights for the adequate quantity and use along
with all related agreements, leases and contracts shall be approved and fully executed for
the provision of water to RMF-4 as a prerequisite of final plat approval.
F:\Counci1\0rdinances\2003\0rd 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
4. The Annexation and Development Agreement, Section 2(o), requires the Swift Gulch
Road extension be completed at the time of the Interstate-70 Improvements. The Swift
Gulch Road extension shall be collateralized as part of a final subdivision plat prior to
commencment of any development or grading north of I-70.
5. Submit a detailed plan for the Community Park (Planning Area N) for review in
conjunction with subdivision plans for Planning Area RMF-1. Submit a detailed Park
Plan for RMF-1 and RMF-4 in conjunction with a final subdivision plat that accounts for
the 3.4 acres of useable park space removed by this amendment. The park improvements
will be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvement Agreements.
6. Submit a road and pedestrian alignment that is designed to accommodate the potential for
a continuous connection between RMF-1 and RMF-4 across the United States Forest
Service parcel at such time as subdivision plans are submitted for RMF-1. In the event
approval for the proposed alignment is obtained from the Forest Service, then a public
road as depicted on The Village (at Avon) PUD Development Plan Formal Amendment
No.l will be required to be collateralized and constructed in accordance with a
Subdivision Improvements Agreement prior to the construction of any development on
Planning Area G (school site) and/or RMF-4.
7. A continuous ECO trails bike path connection from Swift Gulch Road to RMF-1, RMF-
4, Q, N and G must be provided. This path will be secured through the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement, and will meet minimum trail standards as specified by the
Town of Avon.
8. Public Transit services will be required to serve RMF-4 as a result of the impact of the
additional density and relocation of the school site to a more remote location. Prior to
issuance of any building permit for either RMF-4 or Planning Area G (school site), an
agreement establishing the level of service and funding must be executed between the
Town and Traer Creek LLC.
9. In the interest of preserving development opportunities and ensuring the location of the
school site, Planning Area G (school site) shall not again be relocated without compliance
with the procedures for a formal amendment as set forth in the Village (at Avon) PUD
Guide, Section H.2 and the Avon Municipal Code, Section 17.20.110K.
F:\Council\Ordinances\2003\Ord 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
10. The School Site (Planning Area G) must be dedicated by Traer Creek LLC in accordance
with the terms and conditions as provided by the Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") dated , 2003 by and between the Town of Avon, Traer Creek LLC,
and Eagle County School District RE-50J. A copy of the fully executed MOA is attached
and incorporated herein.
11. The development standards for Planning Area Q shall require a Special Review Use for
the the inclusion of autmobile fueling stations and carwashes.
12. Establish the VAA Wildlife Trust Fund prior to the issuance of the first building permit
associated with residential development north of I-70 as required in the Wildfire
Mitigation Plan, Exhibit D, of the Village at Avon PUD Guide.
13. This PUD Amendment approval is contingent upon concurrent approval of the
Subdivision Sketch Plan for all affected planning areas (Planning Areas RMF-1, RMF-4,
Q, N, and G).
14. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s)
shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED, this _ day of , 2003, and a public hearing shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, on the day of,
, 2003, at 5:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon,
Colorado.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
Mayor
ATTEST:
F:\Counci1\0rdinances\2003\0rd 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED the day of , 2003.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
F:\Counci1\0rdinances\2003\0rd 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
A. DEFINITIONS
(note: final document to have the following definitions inserted in alphabetical
order into PUD guide)
Alley:
Alley" means a public right-of-way providing only secondary access to the
rear of a property and not intended for general travel.
2. Accessory Apartment:
"Accessory apartment" means an additional dwelling unit(s) either in or
added to the existing principle building on the lot, for use as a complete,
independent living facility with provision within the accessory apartment
for cooking, eating, sanitation, and sleeping. Such a dwelling is an
accessory use to the main dwelling or use of the lot and shall not be sold
separately.
3. Interval Ownership:
"Interval Ownership" means any parcel or lot of land or condominium
unit, whether fee interest, leasehold or contractual right, whereby more
than four persons (ownership of an interest in joint tenancy by two persons
being considered one person for the purpose of this section) are entitled to
the use, occupancy or possession of such lot, parcel or unit according to a
fixed or floating time schedule occurring periodically over any period of
time (the use, occupancy or possession by each person being exclusive of
that by the others).
Revised 4 September 2003 Definitions Page 1 of 1
Planning Area Q - Regional Commercial
(a) Purpose:
To provide sites for a variety of regionally oriented and commercial and
service oriented uses and activities in order to serve the needs and uses of
residents and guests of the Upper Eagle River Valley.
(b) Uses by Right:
(i) Commercial Uses including but not limited to any activity for the
purpose of generating retail business or consumer services with the
intent of producing a financial profit including but not limited to; retail
stores, professional offices and businesses banks and financial
institutions, personal services, and food and beverage establishments.
(ii) Lodging facilities including but not limited to hotel, motel, and bed
and breakfast.
(iii) Service commercial uses including but not limited to auto fueling and
service stations, auto repair, auto repair, and car washes.
(iv) Public or private transportation, transit or parking facilities including
but not limited to bus and rail stations.
(v) Public or private community service facilities including ambulance
and fire stations, storage and repair facilities, buildings including but
not limited to residential uses that directly serve those specified uses.
(vi) Temporary real estate and construction offices.
(vii) Public or private roads and utilities including but not limited to utility
improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services, and buildings.
(viii) Additional uses, which the Director of Community Development
determines to be a use by right.
(ix) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to uses by
right.
(c) Special Review Uses
(i) Churches, museums, libraries, and public buildings.
(ii) Day care facilities.
(iii) Parks and open space.
(iv) Recreational facilities.
(v) Residential Uses not directly associated with community service
facilities.
Revised 4 September 2003 Area Q Page 1 of 2
(d) Building Setback Requirements:
Front: 10,
Side: 10,
Rear: 10,
(e) Maximum Building Height:
45 feet.
(f) Density Allowance:
15 Dwelling Units per acre. Total permitted density shall be consistent with
minimum and maximum residential and commercial ratios as stated for the
Regional Commercial Designation (Areas J, K, L,Q) in the PUD
Development Guide.
(g) Parking Requirements:
As defined by the Village (at Avon) Parking Requirements.
(h) Minimum Landscape Area:
5%.
(i) Auto Fueling and Service Station regulations:
(i) All fuel storage tanks shall be completely buried beneath the surface of
the ground except where such burial conflicts with applicable laws and
regulations.
(ii) All fuel pumps, or similar devices shall be located at least twenty feet
from the right of way.
(iii) All servicing of vehicles, except the sale of fuel and oil services
customarily provided in connection therewith, shall be completely
within a structure.
(iv) All storage of goods shall be completely within a structure.
Revised 4 September 2003 Area Q Page 2 of 2
Planning Area RMF - 1 - Residential Multi-Family
(a) Purpose:
To provide sites for a variety of residential uses.
(b) Uses by Right:
(i) Residential uses including but not limited to single-family, duplex, and
multi-family dwellings.
(ii) Temporary real estate and construction offices.
(iii) Public or private roads and utilities including but not limited to utility
improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services, and buildings.
(iv) Recreational Facilities.
(v) Parks and Open Space.
(vi) Additional uses, which the Director of Community Development
determines to be a use by right.
(vii) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to uses by
right.
(viii) Accessory Apartments.
(c) Special Review Uses
(i) Churches, museums, libraries, and public buildings.
(ii) Day care facilities.
(d) Building Setback Requirements:
Front lot line - 10 feet
Side lot line - 3 feet
Rear lot line - 3 feet
The roof overhangs of single family homes shall be allowed to encroach into
setbacks.
(e) Maximum Building Height:
35 feet. Non-habitable architectural features such as chimneys, towers,
steeples, and similar features shall be excluded from the calculation of
building height.
Revised 4 September 2003 RMF-1 Page 1 of 2
(0 Density Allowance:
Residential density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre including a total of
25 accessory apartments.
(g) Parking Requirements:
As defined by the Village (at Avon) Parking Requirements.
(h) Minimum Landscape Area:
15%.
(i) Accessory dwelling unit regulations:
(i) Accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 700 square feet total.
(ii) Accessory dwelling units shall be located within detached, accessory
structures served by a separate identifiable ground level entry.
(iii) Accessory dwelling units are accessory to the primary dwelling or use
of the lot and may not be sold or conveyed in any way to separate
ownership.
Revised 4 September 2003 RMF-1 Page 2 of 2
Planning Area RMF - 4 - Residential Multi-Family
(a) Purpose:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
To provide sites for a variety of residential uses.
Uses by Right:
(i) Residential uses including but not limited to single-family, duplex, and
multi-family dwellings.
(ii) Residential Management Offices.
(iii) Temporary real estate and construction offices.
(iv) Public or private roads and utilities including but not limited to utility
improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services, and buildings.
(v) Recreational facilities.
(vi) Parks and open space.
(vii) Additional uses, which the Director of Community Development
determines to be a use by right.
(viii) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to uses by
right.
Special Review Uses
(i) Churches, museums, libraries, and public buildings.
(ii) Child and Day Care facilities.
(iii) Commercial uses intended to serve surrounding residential areas
including any activity for the purpose of generating retail business or
consumer services with the intent of producing financial profit
including, but not limited to retail stores, professional and business
offices, personal service shops, food and beverage establishments, and
club and recreational facilities to support and provide service to the
residential development.
Building Setback Requirements:
To be determined by sub-division and design review criteria except as
necessary to accommodate utility improvements, lines and mains, facilities,
services and buildings.
Maximum Building Height:
48 feet. Single family or Duplex residential structures shall not exceed 35 feet.
Non-habitable architectural features such as chimneys, towers, steeples, or
similar features shall be excluded from the calculation of building height.
Revised 4 September 2003 RMF-4 Page 1 of 2
(f) Density Allowance:
8 Dwelling Units per acre.
(g) Parking Requirements:
As defined by the Village (at Avon) Parking Requirements.
(h) Minimum Landscape Area:
20%.
Revised 4 September 2003 RMF-4 Page 2 of 2
The Village (at Avon) PUD Development Plan
Formal PUD Amendment Number One
Ordinance 03-10 Town of Avon, Colorado
I OS-4
I 101.9 ac
J RMF-2
43.6 ac
s A ?aaW edestnen
endgame.
A 8
i A D
NOTES.
I. Lot I is intended for use as limucow tier
facilities and residential caretaker nit. No
additional residential use shall be allowed on
Lot 1.
2. There arc no lots numbered 2, 3.4 and 5 on
this plan.
3. , Total residential density permitted within die
enure PU.D_ shall be 2.400 units (excluding
those allowed in Area RMF-t). Total
Commercial density pemhincd within die entire
P U.D shall be 650.000 square feet
4. Pursuant to Section 17.14 050 of the Aron
Municipal Code.
.Approval of this Plan -brutes u wesied
pmpatly right, pursuant to Article 68 ofTitle
24, C. R. S. as amended.
5. Tliissymbol 53
indicates a Building Envelope Location
I
RMF-3
16.3 ac S-8
LDt 1 CS-5 ac
184,5
1
t _
l:
tc I \ \ `` 0.5 c
N
2O4c OS-8
145.2 ac
i
?
Prepared for
0$.2 Q
?.
0.
R7 ac I LSPti [ tn)
II EMD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
and TRAER CREEK LLC
Prepared by.
2.7 a6 795
L
arrf? C ac
ac ?\
?? w t r'•r
OS-12 ` i Proposed Access ROW
`?
08
` ` _ .5 tc
?,?IN \\
MF-4
V
RMF•4 ZEHREN AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
?2EHREN ^..
? ?
NTH
NORi
CERTIFICATE OF LANDOWNER REQUEST
0,25
iftb
r¦ 0 -10 Know all men by these presents that TRAER CREEK, LLCatd EMD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Colorado
limited liability companies, de hereby request approval ofPUD Development Plan Anotdnom Number 3.
a 1 5.4 to
OWNER.
EMD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
a Colorado Ihnited IiabiliN company
by:. LAVA CORPORATION
a Colorado corporation, as Manager
I,
LAND USE
Residential MAX ALLOWED Residential MAX. ALLOWED
ACRES %OPSITE DENSITY-DUTACRE ACRES %OFSITE DENSITY-DU/ACRE
20 Residential Single Family
Lnirl - any 910,1 50.8% 1primary/I secondary
residence per lot . Village Center 33.0 1,8% 25 divacre
RMF-1 Residential/Multi-Family 307 17% a'8 du/acre ® Cultural /Recreational 24 0.1% 10 dulacre
RMF•2 Residential/Multi-Family 43.6 14% 12 dulacre A,.aC Ice Skating/Events Center 1.7 QI% 4 du/acre
RMF•3 Residential/Multi•Family 16.3 0.9% 6 du/acre ArB.D l'illageRzsidential 20.5 1,1% IS du/acre
RMF•4 Residential/Mdlti-Family
38.7
2.2%
8 dulacre [A,.. 7E Village Residential 5.5 0.3% 18 dufacre
Area f Tillage Resider a 9.5 0.5% 18 du/acre
Subtotal 1039.4 58.1%
AreaG School
9.0
0.5%
Parks and Open Space
AreaN - Community Park
204
1,1% Ar.fl H \:ighborhood Center 31 0.2% 15 du/acre
Af.B Neighborhood Center 5.7 03% 15 du/acre
® Natural Open Space
O
4 hraugh OS-12
474.5
26.5
Arefl J ?i, Regional Commercial
8.4
0.5%
15 du/acre
. Parkland
I1'1 mmagn P'b 15,7 0.90/,
ArBfl K Rzuional Commercial
29.9
13°/
IS du/acre
Subtotal 510.6 28.6%
Area L Regional Commercial 4.0 02% 15 du/acre
Road R.0 W 91.5 5.1% Regional Commercial 15.6 0.9% 15 du/acre
Subtotal 91.5 5.1% Subtotal 148.4 83 %
,,Density for Ama RW-I includes a total of25 Accessory Apartments allowed only on lots PROJECT TOTALS: 1789.9 100.0% 2,400 Maximum Units"
containing detached garages. Densin without these Accessory Apartments is 7 dulacrt.
ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS:
No.I PUD Development Plan Administrative Amendment No.Ito The Village (atAvon) P.U.D.Development Plan/
Sketch Plan dated October 9, 1998 as shown on document recorded July 31, 2001 as Reception No. 763439
No.2 PUD Guide Administrative Amendment No. 2 to recorded January 19, 2002 as Reception No. 786254
No. 3 PUD Guide Administrative Amendment No. 3 to recorded May 15, 2002 as Reception No. 795806
No.4 PUD Guide Administrative Amendment No. 4 to recorded May 15, 2002 as Reception No. 795805
Nance Magnus Lindholm
Tidy President
OWNER:
TRAER CREEK LLC,
a Colorado limited liability company
by:
Name. Magnus Lindholm
Tale Manager
STATE OF COLORADO)
)SS
COUNTYOFEAGLE 1
The foregoing imtmmentswissackioxiedgadbefore tie tlus day of April 2003, by Magnus Lmdlohn
as Manager ofTmer Creek LLC. a Colorado limited liability company, and by Magnus Lindholm as President of
LAVA Corpomdon. a Colomdo coromtion as Mam9cr of EMD Limitcd LiabilityCompem., o Colomdo limidd
liability company
Witness tin hod and of6cml-1 MS commission cxpims:
Noon Public
APPROVAL.
This.Annendmentto The Village (m Avon) P. U D. Development Plan/Sketch Plan dated October 9. 1998
(the Original Plan) (it is approved as a Formal Amendment in accordance with The Village (m Avon) PUD
Guide. Section H.2 and the Town ofAvon Municipal Code, Title 17 Chapter 17.20.110-K, this
day of September 2003 for filing with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Eagle, and (it) amends and
roplzces the Original Plan in its cnumty as shown hereon.
TOWN OF AVON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMIINLTY DEVELOPMENT
By: Designated Representative
Ruth 0. Bame, Director
Community Dceelopment Department
STATE OF COLORADO)
) SS:.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The foregoing instrument was ackno hedged before me this day of June 2003, by Ruth 0.
Boma Director of Community Development, Torn of Aron. Eagle County, Colomdo.
Wimess my hand and official seal. My commission expires
Noma Public
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development
Date August 21, 2003
Re: First Reading of Ordinance 03-10, An Ordinance Approving Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1 for the Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD
Guide, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
Public Hearing
Summary
Traer Creek LLC submitted this formal PUD Amendment for the Village (at Avon) on May
30, 2003. Several hearings were held by the Planning & Zoning Commission defining and
understanding the proposed changes to the development standards and densities for the
affected areas, which is limited to modifications to the planning areas located north of the
new 1-70 Interstate exchange.
On August 5, 2003 (the 4t' public hearing) the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the Village at Avon PUD Amendment as set forth in Resolution
03-14. The major highlights of this application include:
• Creating an additional 19.2 acres of Regional Commercial (Planning Area Q)
immediately adjacent to the new interstate exchange. This commercial area is
divided by Post Blvd. into separate parcels. The east parcel is approximately 7.8
acres and the west side consists of two parcels: 7.8 acres and an additional 3.6
acres. As a frame of reference: Christy Sports is 6.35 acres and Original Wal-Mart
6.33 acres.
Planning Area Q also includes 1.0 acre for the Fire District Regional Facility as
required by the Annexation and Development Agreement.
• Relocating the school site to Planning Area M and increasing the planning area for
the school site by almost 2.0 acres.
Reducing the Community Park from 29.0 acres to 17.4 acres. The loss of useable
acreage for the community park is limited to 3.4 acres. The existing topography and
steep slopes were not considered in the original planning area designation for the
Community Park. Traer Creek LLC has agreed to replace the park area when
Memo to Town Council, August 26, 2003 Page 1 of 2
Ordinance 03-10, VAA Formal PUD Amendment No. 1
RMF-1 and RMF-4 are developed. The Village (at Avon) still retains approximately
500 acres of open space.
• Increasing Planning Area RMF-1 from 146 residential dwelling units (24.2 acres -
6.Odu/acre) to 307 residential dwelling units (30.7acres - 10.Odu/acre).
Providing a mix of 310 dwelling units on RMF-4, which surrounds the new school site.
Planning Area M is specifically excluded in the Village at Avon PUD Guide from the total
development rights currently approved. Therefore, this amendment includes the
addition of 310 dwelling units (8.Odu/acre) to the previously approved 2,400 dwelling
units for the Village (at Avon). Since the additional density is above what has been
previously approved, Staff has recommended transit services be required for this
development area combined with the school to mitigate the impacts and isolation from
the rest of the Town of Avon.
A more detailed analysis of the application and compliance with the Town's zoning code
and related regulations of the Village (at Avon) are contained in the Staff Report, dated
August 5, 2003.
On first reading held at Avon Elementary School on August 12, 2003, Council scheduled
this F ormal P UD A mendment N o. 1 f or p ublic h earing. T his w ill b e t he f irst r eading o f
Ordinance 03-10. Please note: Ordinance 03-10 has been revised to address some of the
concerns addressed by Council at the August 12, 2003 meeting.
Recommendations
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 03-10 on first reading with the conditions as
proposed.
Alternatives
1. Approve on First Reading
2. Modify the terms of the Ordinance for approval
3. Deny
Proposed Motion
"I move to approve on first reading Ordinance 03-07, Approving Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1 for the Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD Guide, Town of
Avon, Eagle County, Colorado."
Town Manager Comments
Attachments:
A. Ordinance 03-10
B. Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report dated August 5, 2003
C. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 03-14
Memo to Town Council, August 26, 2003 Page 2 of 2
Ordinance 03-10, VAA Formal PUD Amendment No. 1
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 03-10
SERIES OF 2003
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO THE VILLAGE (at Avon) PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND PUD GUIDE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, Traer Creek LLC has applied for a formal PUD Amendment to The Village
(at Avon) Development Plan and PUD Guide to Planning Areas G, M , N, Q , RMF-1, RMF-4,
and Open Space 5 and Open Space 13 (hereinafter referred to as Formal PUD Amendment No.
1) as more specifically described in the application dated May 30, 2003 and subsequent revision
dated July 24, 2003;
WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
hearing on June 17, 2003, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity
to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed
Formal PUD Amendment No. 1; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendations on the proposed Formal PUD Amendment No.l to the Town
Council of the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
26th day of August, 2003, at which time the public was given an opportunity to express their
opinions regarding the proposed Formal PUD Amendment No. 1; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Avon, Town Council of the Town of Avon finds as follows:
F:\Council\Ordinances\2003\Ord 03-10 Village PUD Amen dment.rev.doc
1. The hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council
were both extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues
were submitted at those hearings.
2. That the amendment is compatible with the Village (at Avon) PUD Guide and
original application premise and the policies as specified by the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan.
3. That the development standards for The Village (at Avon) PUD comply with each
of the Town of Avon's PUD design criteria and this proposed development is
consistent with the public interest.
4. That adequate facilities will be available to serve development for the type and
scope proposed for each respective planning area upon completion of the
subdivision process for the area encompassing Formal PUD Amendment No. 1.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
The Formal PUD Amendment No. 1 for The Village (at Avon) PUD is approved for RMF-1,
RMF-4, Planning Area G (school site), N (Community Park), M (Regional/Commercial), Q
(Regional/Commercial) and Open Space 5 and 13, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado with
the following conditions:
The additional density on RMF-4, which consists of a maximum of 310 dwelling units, is
in addition to the 2,400 dwelling units currently approved in The Village (at Avon) PUD
Guide, Section D and the Annexation and Development Agreement recorded November
25, 1998.
2. As part of the final subdivision process, an approved subdivision improvements
agreement and provisions for adequate collateral for public improvements consisting of,
but not limited to roads, bike paths, sidewalks, and utilities shall be completed prior to
any development on Planning Area Q, Planning Area G (school site), RMF-1 and/or
RMF-4.
3. A final court decree of adjudicated water rights for the adequate quantity and use along
with all related agreements, leases and contracts shall be approved and fully executed for
F:\Council\Ordinances\2003\Ord 03-10 Village PUD Amendment.rev.doc
the provision of water to Planning Areas G and RMF-4 as a prerequisite of final plat
approval.
4. The Annexation and Development Agreement, Section 2(o), requires the Swift Gulch
Road extension be completed at the time of the Interstate-70 Improvements. The Swift
Gulch Road extension shall be collateralized as part of the final subdivision plat prior to
any development or grading is commenced north of I-70.
5. Submit a detailed plan for the Community Park (Planning Area N) for review in
conjunction with subdivision plans for Planning Area RMF-1. Submit a detailed Park
Plan for RMF-1 and RMF-4, in conjunction with subdivision plan submittal that accounts
for the 3.4 acres of useable park space removed by this amendment. The park
improvements will be incorporated into the Subdivision Improvement Agreements.
6. Submit a road and pedestrian alignment that is designed to accoinmodate the potential for
a continuous connection between RMF-1 and RMF-4 across the United States Forest
Service parcel at such time as subdivision plans are submitted for RMF-1. In the event
approval for the proposed alignment is obtained from the Forest Service, then a public
road will be required to be collateralized and constructed in accordance with a
Subdivision Improvements Agreement prior to the construction of any development on
Planning Area G (school site) and/or RMF-4.
7. A continuous ECO trails bike path connection from Swift Gulch Road to RMF-1, RMF-
4, Q, N and G must be provided. This path will be secured through the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement, and will meet minimum trail standards as specified by the
Town of Avon.
8. Public Transit services will be required to serve RMF-4 as a result of the impact of the
additional density and relocation of the school site to a more remote location. Prior to
issuance of any building permit for either RMF-4 or Planning Area G (school site), an
agreement establishing the level of service and funding must be executed between the
Town and Traer Creek LLC.
9. In the interest of preserving development opportunities and ensuring the location of the
school site, Plam-iing Area G (school site) shall not again be relocated without compliance
F:\Council\Ordinances\2003\Ord 03-10 Villaee PUD Amendment.rev.doc
with the procedures for a formal amendment as set forth in the Village (at Avon) PUD
Guide, Section H.2 and the Avon Municipal Code, Section 17.20.110K.
10. Establish the VAA Wildlife Trust Fund prior to the issuance of the first building permit
associated with residential development north of I-70 as required in the Wildfire
Mitigation Plan, Exhibit D, of the Village at Avon PUD Guide.
11. This PUD Amendment approval is contingent upon concurrent approval of the
Subdivision Sketch Plan for all affected planning areas (RMF-1, RMF-4, Planning Area
Q, N, and G).
12. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s)
shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED, this _ day of , 2003, and a public hearing shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, on the day of,
2003, at 5:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon,
Colorado.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
F:\Council\0rdinances\2003\0rd 03-10 Village PUD Amendment.reV.doc
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED the day of 92003.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
FACouncil\Ordinances\2003\Ord 03-10 Village PUD Amendment.rev.doc
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 03-14
SERIES OF 2003
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
AVON APPROVAL OF A PUD AMENDMENT FOR PLANNING AREAS M (RMF-4),
RMF-1, G, N, OPEN SPACE 5, AND OPEN SPACE 13, THE VILLAGE AT AVON
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, Traer Creek LLC, has applied for an amendment to The Village at Avon PUD,
to amend The Village at Avon PUD Planning Areas M (RMF-4), RMF-1, G, N
(Community Park), Open Space 5, and Open Space 13 as more specifically described in
the original application dated May 30, 2003 and subsequent revision dated July 24, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, after notices required by law, a public hearing on said application was held by
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, said application is consistent with all legal requirements pursuant to Section
17.20.110 (H) of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission has
considered the following design criteria:
1. Conformity with the Avon comprehensive plan goals and objectives;
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the sub-area design
recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town;
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer, zones, character, and
orientation;
4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity;
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property upon which the PUD is proposed;
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;
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;
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views and function;
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient
relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly
demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon
completion of future project phases;
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads,
parks, and police and fire protection;
11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within
the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the Town Council of the Town of Avon approval of the application for
PUD Amendment for The Village at Avon PUD, Planning Areas M (RMF-4), RMF-1, G,
N (Community Park), Open Space 5, and Open Space 13 Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Submit a revised Village at Avon PUD Guide, which addresses the development standards for
Planning Area Q, and RMF-4 prior to the approval of PUD Ordinance.
2. At such time as development is proposed for Planning Area Q, RMF-1 and/or RMF-4, the
subdivision process will require adequate funds with the Town to secure public improvements,
including but not limited to roads, bike paths, sidewalks, and utilities.
3. Prior to the issuance of any more development approvals north of 1-70, the Swift Gulch Road
extension as set forth in the First Amendment to the Annexation and Development Agreement,
Section 2(0), which requires the Swift Gulch Road improvements be completed at the time of the
Interstate-70 Improvements. This includes the extension of Swift Gulch Road from Buffalo
Ridge (Filing 2) to pass through Post Boulevard, terminating at Planning Area RMF-1 prior to
any development set forth in this PUD.
4. Submit a revised Planned Unit Development Plan prior to the approval of the PUD Ordinance
that revises the proposed Planning Areas as follows:
Clarify development standards for RMF-4, which limits the amount of deed-restricted
for-rent employee housing provided on this site.
Revise development standards for Planning Area Q to require a Special Review use for
the inclusion of automobile fueling stations and carwashes.
5. Submit a detailed plan for the Community Park (Planning Area N) for review in conjunction
with subdivision plans for Area RMF-1. Submit a detailed Park Plan for RMF-1 and RMF-4, in.
conjunction with subdivision plan submittal that accounts for the useable park space removed by
this amendment. The park improvements will be a part of the Subdivision Improvement
Agreements.
6. Submit a road and pedestrian alignment that is designed to accommodate the potential for a
continuous connection between RMF-1 and RMF-4 though the United States Forest Service
parcel at such time as subdivision plans are submitted for RMF-l. The proposed alignment will
provide sufficient detail for review to meet public road standards as required by the Town, be
secured by the Town through the Subdivision Improvements agreement for RMF-1, and be in
place prior to the construction of Planning Area G (school site dedication).
7. A continuous ECO trails bike path connection from Swift Gulch Road to RMF-1, RMF-4, Q,
N and G must be provided. This path will be secured through the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, and will meet minimum trail standards as specified by the Town of Avon.
8. Public Transit services will be required to serve RMF-4 as a result of the density and school
site proposed and determined by the Town during the subdivision process.
9. Establish the VAA Wildlife Trust Fund prior to the issuance of the first building pgrnit
associated with residential development north of I-70 as required in the Wi1$91
re Mitigation Plan,
Exhibit D, of the Village at Avon PUD Guide. 10. This PUD Amendment approval is contingent upon concurrent approval of the Subdivision
Sketch Plan for all affected planning areas (RMF-1, RMF-4, Q, N, G).
11. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all matefial representations. made by
the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be
adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
ADOPTED THIS 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2003
Signed:
Date:
Chris. Evans, Chairman
Attest:
Date: $` Q
Terry Smi , Secretary
FAPlanning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2003\Res 03-14 VAA PUD Major Amdnt.doc
Staff Report
PUD Amendment AVO N
C O L O R A D O
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report date July 29, 2003
Project type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment -
new planning areas Q, RMF-4 and modifying
RMF-1, OS-5, Planning Area G, and Area N-
Community Park
Legal description The Village at Avon PUD
Current zoning Planned Unit Development
Address No addresses assigned
Introduction
Traer Creek LLC has submitted an application for a PUD amendment to the Village at Avon
PUD. The amendment proposes modifications to land uses on the north side of the new I-70
interchange.
The Planning & Zoning Commission has reviewed this application at several. meetings, and the
applicant has revised certain elements of the application in response to both staff and Planning &
Zoning Commission comments.
The following amendments, with the most recent revisions listed in italics, are being proposed:
Create a new Planning Area Q for Regional Commercial development immediately
adjacent to the interchange, which is currently zoned for a community park, school site,
and residential development. The application has been updated since last review to
increase this Planning Area from 6.3 acres to 19.1 acres, increase allowable building
height to 45 feet, and allow residential uses associated with community service
facilities (i.e. Fire and Ambulance District site) as a use by right.
Included in the Planning Area Q, Regional Commercial zoning is 1.5 acres for a fire and
ambulance district regional facility as a use by right. The dedication site has been
reduced to 1.0 acre, however, still complies with the development agreement
exaction.
Increase the residential development rights immediately north of the I-70 interchange
known as Residential Multi-Family (RMF-1) from 145 dwelling units to a potential of
242 dwelling units. The size of this parcel is also increased from the existing 24.2 acres
to 33.1 acres. Planning Area RMF-1 has been decreased in size to 30.7 acres, with a
proposed density of 307 dwelling units.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 10
• Redefine the borders and the size of Planning Area N (Community Park), decreasing the
overall parks and open space. The Community Park has been reduced from the
existing 29 acres to 17.4 acres in size. The original useable area of 19.1 acres has
been reduced to 11.8 acres.
• Planning Area M is being revised to include new residential densities in addition to the
densities (2,400 dwelling units/ 650,000 square feet of commercial space) approved in the
existing PUD Development Plan, Section (D) 2.
The density proposed for this new area is reduced from 15 to 8 dwelling units per acre
and is titled RMF-4. RMF-4 includes a proposed mix of 310 dwelling units. The types of
units are unspecified. This proposal remains unchanged.
Relocate Planning Area G (School site dedication) to Planning Area M. Area G is
currently approved as 7.3 acres in size, and is proposed at 9.0 acres. This proposal
remains unchanged.
A revised PUD Development Plan (Amendment No. 3), and Planned Unit Development Guide
will reflect any changes approved in this amendment.
PUD Design Criteria
According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following shall be used. as
the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate
that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following
design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular
development solution is consistent with the public interest.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
The Comprehensive Plan did not contemplate the development pattern of the Village, but
instead recognized the property as a potential annexation with opportunities for future
development. However, the plan does identify several policy goals related to land use and
development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to the proposed Village PUD
amendment.
The goals and policies that pertain are as follows, each with a review comment regarding this
application's compliance:
Goal Al: Ensure a balanced system of land uses that maintains and enhances Avon's
identity as a residential community, and as a regional commercial, tourism and
entertainment center.
Review Comments: The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the land use
pattern contemplated and approved in the original Village at Avon PUD application.
However, that application did make several assumptions related to the type of development
contemplated for areas north of I-70:
"Very low density development on portions of The Village located north of I-70" (Original VAA
PUD application, Section 2.2 Key Features of the Plan)
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 10
"Proposed land use pattern for portions ... located north of I-70 provides for a gradual transition from
higher density residential development along... I-70 ... very low density on the upper portions of the
Village" (Original VAA PUD application, Section 3.4 The Village (at Avon) Development Plan)
"Planning Areas include the mixed-use development sites located south of I-70 and one area north of
1-70 (Area M)"(Original VAA PUD application, Section 3.4 Land Use Designations)
The proposed amendment is consistent with the representations made in the original
application in terms of density. The largest changes are shifts of the location and type of
proposed development, including the relocation of Planning Area G, the school site,
minimizing commercial development on Planning Area M (now RMF-4) and creating a new
small commercial site on Planning Area Q (immediately north of the I-70 interchange).
Village at Avon - Proposed Densities and Planning Areas north of I-70
RMF- 4 (formerly referred to as Planning Area Tract M) has densities which are not
included in the total Village at Avon density approval (2,400 DU's), however, as originally
contemplated was zoned Regional Commercial with 15 dwelling units per acre (and no
minimum/maximum residential to commercial ratio). The maximum allowable density per
the current plan is 1,496 dwelling units. RMF-4 is now proposed as a residential
development of 310 residential dwelling units.
RMF-1 is being proposed in the same general. location as currently approved, however, is
requested for higher density residential development at 307 dwelling units (currently
approved for 145 dwelling units). This includes secondary units and/or lock-offs with single-
family residences.
Planning Area Q is a new regional commercial designation for both sides of the I-70
interchange ramps that is being proposed as 19.1 acres. This planning area also is proposed
with a density of 15 residential dwelling units per acre; however, residential density is
allowable only as a special review use unless associated with community service facilities.
Planning Area G: The school land dedication site is being proposed at 9 acres in size and at
the center of the RMF-4 parcel. It is currently approved on the PUD Development Plan as
occurring immediately adjacent to the new I-70 interchange.
Planning Area N: The Community Park is being proposed in generally the same location as
currently approved, shifting slightly in location as a result of the Swift Gulch Road extension
and the creation of the increased commercial area of Planning Area Q. Most significant is
the reduction of useable park space from 19.1 acres to 11.8 acres.
Open Space and R.O.W: Open Space is being reduced by approximately 25 acres as a result
of the increased Right-of-Way (R.O.W.) necessary to create the Swift Gulch Road extension
and the road access to RMF-4, the I-70 ramps, and the reconfiguration of RMF-1.
Goal A3: Maintain a compact urban form that respects and preserves the natural
beauty of the valley, river and surrounding mountains, and maintains distinct physical
and visual separations between Avon and surrounding communities.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Conunission meeting Page 4 of 10
Planning Area RMF-4 and Planning Area G: The proposed zoning for RMF-4 (formerly
Planning Area M) has been revised to allow commercial zoning as a Special Review Use.
The proposed school site is located in a valley, which should incorporate the natural
environment when planned and developed.
RMF-1 does propose a significant increase in allowable density - a 47% increase from
currently approved density. However, this application appears to further reinforce a more
compact urban form and balanced system of land use that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan goal as stated above.
Planning Area Q: Staff recommended increasing the potential commercial area, which was
proposed as 7.3 acres, and deleting the potential dwelling units from this parcel as the area is
not appropriate for residential uses in such close proximity to the I-70 interchange. The
applicant has responded by providing a more suitable commercial area (19.1 acres), however,
the dwelling units have not been deleted. As proposed, Area Q carries 15 residential
dwelling units per acre as a special review use.
Goal B1: Enhance the Town's role as a principal, year-round residential community
and regional commercial center.
As previously stated, the application does create a logical site for commercial development
immediately adjacent to the new I-70 interchange which would further enhance the year--
round role of the Town as a regional commercial center. The increased size of Planning Are,
Q has been designed in a more functional configuration than originally proposed in the
amendment. This requires a reconfiguration of Swift Gulch Road as well as a reduction of the
useable area of the Community Park. (Tract N).
Goal 133: Maintain a balanced, diverse economic base that provides employment
opportunities for residents and a sustainable tax base for the Town.
The provision of a reasonable commercial space to accommodate the potential for
entertainment/recreation/restaurant facility within close proximity to residential densities will
favorably provide economic opportunity for the Town.
Goal C1: Provide for diverse, quality housing to serve all economic segments and age
groups of the population.
RMF-1 proposes high to medium density residential development alongside community
amenities such as the Community Park (Planning Area N) and a bike path.
RMF-4 proposes a mix of high-density residential (potentially employee housing), medium
and low-density residential development adjacent to the school site.
Goal C2: Provide affordable housing for permanent and seasonal residents that is
attractive, safe, and integrated with the community.
RMF-4 originally proposed the development of approximately 163 high-density residential
dwelling units on parcel RMF-4 (formerly Tract M). If constructed as employee housing,
combined with the existing 244 units built on Filing 2 (Buffalo Ridge), approximately 407 of
the 500 total employee housing units required would be constructed on areas north of I-70-
Based upon our experience to date with deed restricted employee housing in the Town, Staff
recommends that free-market for sale affordable/attainable housing units be built rather than
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-3749
The Village at Avon, PLTD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 10
a project similar to Buffalo Ridge. Buffalo Ridge (Filing 2) is not physically integrated with
the community in terms of pedestrian or public transit. The project is further isolated from
the majority of services (retail, grocery, recreation, etc.) that most employee residents enjoy.
Though proximity to the proposed elementary school is a logical location for employee
housing, Staff believes that accessibility to employment, central shopping and Town
amenities for largely seasonal employees will be drastically reduced. Seasonal residents will
be made dependent upon the provision of public transit facilities as RMF-4 is proposed. This
may ultimately create a higher public service cost to the Town as a result.
Goal D1: Ensure cost effective development of public facilities and services such as
parks, community centers, youth activities, a community college campus, and public
safety services... that support the health, safety, and welfare of existing neighborhoods
and new development.
As previously stated, the potenti' to provide such a large amount of employee housing on
Planning Area RMF-4 is discouraged and does not appear to promote a cost-effective
solution to public services for the Town. However, in terms of total dwelling units, the,
proposal appears to comply with the Comprehensive Plan goal as stated.
Goal E1: Create an integrated transportation system that minimizes dependence on
automobile travel within the Town by making it easier to use transit, walk, or use
bicycles and other non-motorized transportation.
The proposal does not address the public transit demand that will be generated by Plannii g .
Area RMF-4. The public road has been significantly lengthened (approximately 2.155 mil--s)
as compared to the current PUD approval (which provides a school pad immediately adjacent
to the I-70 interchange).
Further information is required on the provision of the bike path through Planning Area
RMF-4, and the application should demonstrate that the proposed trail location complies with
the Eagle County Trails Master Plan. Additionally, staff would request the applicant provide
(through the subdivision process) sufficient information on the proposed grading and
drainage and phasing of this trail to ensure the alignment is physically possible and .
corresponds to the ECO Trails plan.
Goal E3: Promote the development of an enhanced transit system to the Town of Avon.
As stated above, the proposal does not address the public transit demand that will be
generated by RMF-4. As a result of the densities and school site being proposed, staff
recommends that the Traer Creek Metropolitan District provide transit services to Planning
Area RMF-4.
Goal Fl: Make Avon's unique natural setting and its open space system central
elements to identity and structure.
The community park is unplanned at this point, and a more detailed phasing plan for this
park should be submitted at such time that the Roadway and RMF-1 subdivision plans are
submitted. However, since the overall useable community park space is being significantly
reduced, it is recommended that this space be made up in acreage as active community park
space in RMF-1 and RMF-4.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 10
Goal GI: Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to
serve the year-round leisure-time needs of area residents and visitors.
The proposed community park and trail are not submitted in sufficient detail to review the
feasibility of each. The trail alignment and grading should be coordinated with ECO Trails.
The Community Park will require further clarification on recreation opportunities through the
subdivision process. The useable space lost in the Community Park should be made up in the
residential areas of RMF-1 and RMF-4.
Goal H1: Establish and maintain a high-quality visual image of the Town.
At a conceptual level, it appears that the parkway proposal for the extension of Post
Boulevard and subsequent residential collector streets would help create a high quality
development.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub-area
design recommend: fie_- -1 and =_=.=•s bn rgaiuciines of the Town.
The Village Design Review Board governs design review for the entire PUD.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
The Village Design Revi, ?V Boa, u gu v cros sig n l v r i\ r fof t e entire PUD
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
The densities proposed create a more compact development plan for the Village., The uses
appear workable provided that access, public transit, and trail alignments are feasible.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
Staff will evaluate all natural and geologic hazards as part of the subdivision review process
and further review of the Planning Area RMF-4. At a conceptual level, it appears the
planning areas are sited to avoid known 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 Village Design Review Board governs design review for the entire PUD.
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 Village Design Review Board governs design review for the entire PUD. The
circulation system and traffic will be reviewed as part of the subdivision process.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views and function.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 10
Landscaping and open space has not been planned beyond a conceptual level for the
proposed amendment. The Village Design Review Board governs design review for the
entire PUD.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient
relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly
demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying
upon completion of future project phases.
No phasing plan has been submitted, and phasing of public improvements will be
coordinated through the subdivision review process.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
The appropriate public service entities have submitted letters stating that they are willing to
service the areas subject to this amendment. The roadway alignments and public transit
demands have not yet been reviewed in sufficient detail to calculate the demands created by
this development. The Eagle County School District has submitted a letter supporting the
land area dedication provided the primary access is directly from RMF-1, and the access
currently proposed is utilized as a secondary access.
Completion of the subdivision review process will allow staff to review the adequacy and
costs associated with the provision of certain public services.
11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
The road and street improvements will be reviewed through the subdivision process.
12. Development Standards
Development Standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control,
site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined as part of the approved
development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
The applicant has submitted development standards that would affect the existing PUD
zoning classifications in three specific areas: Planning Area Q, RMF-4, and RMF-1 (the first
two being new area classifications).
Though no typical site-specific development plan has been generated with this application or
is required at this time, several new development standards and zone districts are being
submitted for review at this time.
Planning Area Q is proposed as `Regional Commercial' zoning, and in intent and
development standards, differs from the existing Regional Commercial parcels (i.e. Area K,
L, J) in the following respects:
Planning Area Q (19.1 acres / Two parcels immediately off of the exit and entrance ramps
of I-70)
• Proposes density allowance of 15 dwelling unit per acre; however, residential uses
require a special review use permit and are being proposed to have a maximum buildout
ratio of 20% as compared to aggregate commercial and residential square footage
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 10
constructed on the property. Residential uses associated with a community service
facility (i.e. the Fire District dedication site) are permitted as a use by right.
• Proposes `Gasoline Dispensing Service Station' regulations.
• Proposes building setback requirements of 10' on all sides (front, side, rear). Proposes
building height of 45 feet.
• Does not specify a minimum or maximum of commercial square footage for the zone
district, however, does require that 80% of the aggregate square footage of the tract be
commercial.
RMF-1 is proposed at 10 dwelling units per acre, and RMF-4 is proposed at 8 dwelling units
per acre. Both classifications differ from existing `Residential/Multi Family' zoning
standards in the following respects:
RMF-1 (30.7 acres / Immediately north of I-70 interchange)
• RMF-1 proposes neo-traditional building setbacks (from 3 to 10 feet).
• RMF-1 proposes no commercial activities as either use by right or special review uses.
• RMF-1 proposes accessory detached apartments not to exceed 700 square feet ip size.
This type of configuration is allowed as a `primary/secondary' dwelling unit.
Parcel RMF-4 is proposed as Family' zoning. There are curTently only
three other parcels with the same designation - RMF-1, RMF-2 and RMF-3. Density ranges
are fron_ 6 dv-011inq carats ppr acr CR_ 4F-3) to 12 dwelling, units per acre (RMF-2). RMF-4.is
proposed at 8 dwelling units per acre.
RMF-4 (38.7 acres / Formerly Planning Area M)
• Proposes commercial uses as a special review use, limits uses to those "intended to serve
surrounding residential areas". However, does not specify a minimum or rriaxintum
commercial square footage.
• Proposes no setbacks, but instead, proposes setbacks as a product of the Village Design
Review Board review of site-specific development plans.
• Proposes the relocation of Planning Area G (school site dedication) to this area rather
than as currently approved immediately adjacent to the new I-70 interchange.. This parcel
is also being proposed as 9 acres in size.
Planning Areas OS-5, G, and N are not proposed as changed in uses (other than location and
size) from the currently approved development standards. Most significant in the proposal is
the reduction of useable community park space (Planning Area N) from 19.1 acres to 11.8
acres.
Staff Comments & Recommendation
The application proposed generally complies to the standards and approval criteria applicable, if
approved with conditions as proposed by staff. We have the following specific
recommendations in response to the application as proposed:
Town of Avon Community Development ;(970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 9 of 10
l/ The school site dedication on Planning Area M should consider a minimum of two public
access points for circulation, whether provided from Highway 6 of other reasonable means to
accommodate both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
2/ The decrease of useable space in the Community Park (approximately 7.3 acres) will remain
in either RMF-1 or RMF-4 (or a combination of both), and represent active recreation and
cultural opportunities- not informal recreation or open space. A detailed park plan should be
submitted to the Town at such time the subdivision plans are submitted for RMF-1 and/or RMF-
4.
Recommended Motion
Approve Resolution 03-14, recommending to the Town Council approval of The Village at Avon
PUD Amendment No. 3; Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado with the following conditions:
1. Submit a revised Village at Avon PUD Guide, which addresses the development standards for
Planning Area Q, and RMF-4 prior to the approval of PUD Ordinance.
2. At such time as development is proposed for Planning Area Q, RMF-1 and/or RMF-4, the
subdivision process will require adequate funds with the Town to secure public improvements,
including but not limited to roads, bike paths, sidewalks, and utilities.
3. Prior to the issuance of any more development approvals north of I-70, the Swift Gulch Road
extension as set forth in the First Amendment to the Annexation and Development Agreement,
Section 2(0), which requires the Swift Gulch Road improvements be completed at the tir;-.e of the
Interstate-70 Improvements. This includes the extension of Swift Gulch Road front Bu1','do
Ridge (Filing 2) to pass through Post Boulevard and serve Planning Area RMF-1 prior tu any
development set forth in this PUD.
4. Submit a revised Planned Unit Development Plan prior to the approval of the PUD 0-i-dinance
that revises the proposed Planning Areas as follows:
• Clarify development standards for RMF-4, which limits the amount of deed-restricted
for-rent employee housing provided on this site.
• Revise development standards for Planning Area Q to require a Special Review u.se for
the inclusion of automobile fueling stations and carwashes.
5. Submit a detailed plan for the Community Park (Planning Area N) for review in conjunction
with subdivision plans for Area RMF-1. Submit a detailed Park Plan for RMF-1 and RN.iF-4, in
conjunction with subdivision plan submittal that accounts for the 7.3 acres of useable park space
removed by this amendment. The park improvements will be a part of the Subdivision
Improvement Agreements.
6. Submit a road and pedestrian alignment that is designed to accommodate the potential for a
continuous connection between RMF-1 and RMF-4 though the United States Forest Service
parcel at such time as subdivision plans are submitted for RMF-1. The proposed alignment will
provide sufficient detail for review to meet public road standards as required by the Town, be
secured by the Town through the Subdivision Improvements agreement for RMF-1, and be in
place prior to the constriction of Planning Area G (school site dedication).
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
The Village at Avon, PUD Amendment
August 5, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 10
7. A continuous ECO trails bike path connection from Swift Gulch Road to RMF-1, RMF-4, Q,
N and G must be provided. This path will be secured through the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, and will meet minimum trail standards as specified by the Town of Avon.
8. Public Transit services will be required to serve RMF-4 as a result of the density and school
site proposed and determined by the Town during the subdivision process.
9. Establish the VAA Wildlife Trust Fund prior to the issuance of the first building permit
associated with residential development north of I-70 as required in the Wildfire Mitigation Plan,
Exhibit D, of the Village at Avon PUD Guide.
10. This PUD Amendment approval is contingent upon concurrent approval of the Subdivision
Sketch Plan for all affected planning areas (RMF=I, RMF-4, Q, N, G).
If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-
4030, or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
a
uth Bo , irector
Tambi Katieb, AICP
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
•
7 ( N
R. E N'
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
July 23, 2003
Town of Avon Community Development
Attn: Ruth Borne
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Re: Village at Avon PUD Amendment
RECEIVED
JUL 2 4 2003
Community Dev?ment
This statement is to address items one through twelve as listed in the Planned Unit Development
Review Criteria as outlined in the application requirements. Nothing in the following statements
shall be construed to supercede any existing agreements between the developers of the Village at
Avon and the Town of Avon.
1. Conformity with the Avon Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives
The Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan did not specifically address the details of the ?and
now known as the Village at Avon at the time of the last revision. The plan did anticipate
development in this area, but it was not yet part of the town. Although the Comprehensive
Plan has not been amended to include this property, we believe that the annexation process
and subsequent PUD that was approved by the town constituted an interim development plan
and that this plan outlined what the Town agreed was the proper development. The proposed
amendment is consistent with both the previously approved development plan and the goals
and objectives stated in the Avon Comprehensive Plan. This proposed amendment further
clarifies the development in a few specific areas based upon further study of the topography
and unique site characteristics.
This amendment also revises the PUD to incorporate several new requests by the Town and
the School Board including the Swift Gulch Road extension and the relocation of the school
site away from the highway interchange. These opportunities will allow the applicant to
identify specific opportunities for clustered residential development, public facilities,
schools, and commercial activities. The overall residential densities, commercial
development, and dedicated land for open space and/or public facilities remain consistent
with those previously approved as part of the overall Planned Unit Development.
2. Conformity and Compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the sub-area design
recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town.
This statement is not applicable because The Village at Avon maintains its own design
review authority.
0
AF,- ", Fi- Uh 7E?Il
0 0
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties
relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and
orientation.
This statement is not applicable because The Village at Avon maintains its own design
review authority.
4. Uses, activity, and design, which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
The uses, activity and design modifications of the proposed amendment relate to adjacencies
of existing circulation systems and are intended to buffer less intensive residential and park
uses from those higher intensity uses directly adjacent transit systems.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affeact the
property upon which the PUD is proposed.
The identification and/or mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards.are addressed in the
appendix of the approved Village at Avon Development Plan and remain unchanged. Further,
more detailed study is currently being conducted. Development has been located out of
hazardous areas and/or will be mitigated by proposed infrastructure improvements.
It should be noted that the previously agreed upon location for the fire station facility om the
parcel of land between the Swift Gulch Road extension and the Westbound I-70 on ramp is
not feasible due to the nature of the debris-flow hazard in this area. The current designation
does not allow any use akin to a residential occupancy. Because fire personnel often live in
their building while on duty, this is not an allowable use.
6. Site plan, building design, and location and open space provisions designed to produce a
functional development responsive to natural features, vegetation, and over all aesthetic
quality of the community.
The site plan, location and open space provisions are responsive to natural features and avoid
natural hazards, are in locations convenient to residents of each respective neighborhood, and
are responsive to proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems.
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 location of higher density residential near the soon to be completed I-70 highway
interchange will place traffic impacts close to transportation nodes rather than within existing
communities. Higher density residential in these locations are also linked to the proposed
ECO regional trail alignment and an extensive network of internal pathways and trails
providing a convenient alternate means of transit and linkage between the neighborhoods and
the school site and community park.
Village at Avon PUD Amendment July 23, 2003 Page 2 of 5
0 0
The design of these new trails, including the currently planned and approved trail paralleling
Swift Gulch Road, will meet current ADA standards and provide uninterrupted access
without the need for road crossings. Tunnels and bridges will cross all arterial roads
providing a safe way for children to travel to school given the recent modifications to the
school bussing standards.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to maximize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views, and function.
The open space provisions of the approved PUD remain largely unchanged. The slight
reduction in Area-N is as a result of the Swift Gulch Road extension. The town requested the
extension of this road and its alignment at Area N is the result of CDOT standards and the
Federally mandated distance of intersections away from highway interchanges. The resulting
isolated parcel of land will now be many feet below the grade of the park and not well suited
for park-like activities due to its proximity to the highway and the road. To mitigate the loss
of parkland an additional 1.5 acres was gained due to a new alignment of the road accessing
lots 1-96.
We have recently been informed that CDOT has rejected the current alignment of Swift
Gulch Road because a portion of the curb radius is too close to the highway interchange.
They are requiring that the intersection be moved further to the northeast. This will cause a
larger impact.to Area N and Area Q and may have an impact on RMF-I as well. Because we
have only now become aware of this we are unsure of these impacts for this work session,
but wish for the town to be aware of the changing conditions. We will have this resolved
prior to the first approval by P&Z of the PUD amendment.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient
relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly
demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional, and efficient without relying upon
completion offuture phases.
Each of the proposed amendments or parcels can be phased as an individual subdivision
based upon the availability and completeness of utilities, roadways, and infrastructure. The
phasing and infrastructure requirements of the approved PUD will not change.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads,
parks, police, and fire protection.
Public utilities such as water, sewer, electric, and gas are adequate for the proposed
amendments to the PUD as identified in the attached letters. Public services including fire
protection and schools are being accommodated in accordance with guidelines and in
locations discussed with each specific district. Transit systems, parks, and open space are
more clearly defined, identified, and incorporated in this amendment.
11. That existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within
the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
Village at Avon PUD Amendment July 23, 2003 Page 3 of 5
0
The proposed roadways are designed to standards anticipated to accommodate proposed
traffic volumes, speeds, and parking requirements within each subdivision as well from
anticipated future development according to the approved PUD.
12. Describe the proposed development standards. Provide justifications for the proposed
standards and describe the benefits to the Town if they deviate from the proposed standards.
The proposed development standards for RMF-1, Area-Q, Area G and RMF-4 are outlined
separately below:
RMF-l;.designated as Residential Multi-Family, and is intended to be developed primarily
as single family homes on small lots with mostly detached garages on alleyways using
traditional neighborhood principles. Some larger corner lots may have duplex hones
designed to look like larger single-family homes. Higher density multifamily units will be
used to buffer the neighborhoods from the arterial streets and provide a mix of housing types.
Reduced setbacks are anticipated to allow the homes to reinforce the character of the street.
Small accessory apartments will be allowed above detached garages to promote a diversity of
residents within the community. The resulting increased densities are located nearest to
arterial roadways and the new 1-70 interchange. A network of internal neighborhood st-yets
forming a grid and two entrances into the neighborhood will diminish the traffic load on any
one individual street.
Area Q, designated as Regional Commercial, is also located nearest to the highway
interchange. This allows the greatest access: to major roadways without generating
unnecessary traffic through residential areas. Commercial uses located on these parcels will
be encouraged to build close to the northern property line and place automobile oriented
functions (such as parking and auto circulation) along the south portion of the property. This
building placement will help to reinforce the pedestrian nature of the neighborhood by
making the buildings approachable for pedestrians walking and biking from the regional trail
and the RMF-l neighborhood. Parking, signage and potential gas islands located south of the
buildings will then be located where they will be most visible to highway motorists and
buffered from the residents.
Area G; designated as the School Site, has been relocated away from the highway
interchange at the request of the school district. The new location will be central within the
RMF-4 residential community, which was also a request of the school district. The current
access shown is via the upper road, but negotiations have begun to secure an easement or a
land exchange of the forest service parcel of land between Area RMF-1 and RMF-4 allowing
for a more direct road alignment. This access issue will be resolved before any development
commences. The proposed ECO regional trail alignment also crosses this forest servicc
parcel and serves to connect the Area-G and the surrounding residential communities.
village at Avon PUD Amendment July 23, 2003
Page 4 of 5
Area RMF 4; designated as Residential Multi-Family, and is intended to surround the
school site (Area-G) with residential units in accordance with the wishes of the school
district. This area was previously designated as Regional Commercial with an allowable
density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The new designation results in a reduction in overall
density while still providing for a variety of residential housing types to suite regional
demand in an attractive setting.
Village at Avon PUD Amendment July 23, 2003 Page :5 of 5
4
RECEIVED
Planning Area Q - Regional Commercial JUL
2 4 2003
(a) Purpose: Community Development
To provide sites for a variety of regionally oriented and commercial and service
oriented uses and activities in order to serve the needs and uses of residents and
guests of the Upper Eagle River Valley.
(b) Uses by Right:
(1) Commercial Uses including but not limited to any activity for the purpose
of generating retail business or consumer services with the intent of
producing a financial profit including but not limited to; retail stores,
professional offices and businesses banks and financial institutions,
personal services, and food and beverage establishments.
(ii) Lodging facilities including but not limited to hotel, motel, and bed and
breakfast.
(iii) Service commercial uses including but not limited to auto fueling and
service stations, auto repair, auto repair, and car washes.
(ii) Public or private transportation, transit or parking facilities including but
not limited to bus and rail stations.
(iii) Public or private community service facilities including ambulance and
fire stations, storage and repair facilities, buildings including but not
limited to residential uses that directly serve those specified uses.
(iv) Temporary real estate and construction offices.
(v) Public or private roads and utilities including but not limited to utility
improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services, and buildings.
(vi) Additional uses, which the Director of Community Development
determines to be a use by right.
(vii) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to uses by right-
(c) Special Review Uses
(i) Churches, museums, libraries, and public buildings.
(ii) Day care facilities.
• •
(iii) Parks and open space.
(iv) Recreational facilities.
(v) Residential Uses not directly associates with community service facilities.
(d) Building Setback Requirements:
Front: 10'
Side: 10'
Rear: 10'
(e) Maximum Building Height:
45 feet.
(f) Density Allowance:
15 Dwelling Units per acre. Total permitted density shall be consistent with
minimum and maximum residential and commercial ratios as stated for the
Regional Commercial Designation (Areas J, K, L Q) in the PUD Development
Guide.
(g) Parking Requirements:
As defined by the Village (at Avon) Parking Requirements.
(e) Minimum Landscape Area:
5%.
(f) Gasoline dispensing and service station regulations.
(1) All fuel storage tanks shall be completely buried beneath the surface of the
ground except where such burial conflicts with applicable laws and
regulations.
(ii) All fuel pumps, or similar devices shall be located at least twenty feet
from the right of way.
All servicing of vehicles, except the sale of fuel and oil services
customarily provided in connection therewith, shall be completely within a
structure.
J • •
(iv) All storage of goods shall be completely within a structure.
•
Planning Area RMF - l - Residential Multi-Family
(a) Purpose:
To provide sites for a variety of residential uses.
0
RECEIVn)
JUL 2 4 2003
Community Development
(b) Uses by Right:
(i) Residential uses including but not limited to single-family, duplex, and
multi-family dwellings including interval ownership.
(ii) Temporary real estate and construction offices.
(iii) Public or private roads and utilities including but not limited to utility
improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services, and buildings.
(iv) Recreational facilities.
(v) Parks and open space.
(vi) Additional uses, which the Director of Community Development
determines to be a use by right.
(vii) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to uses by right.
(viii) Accessory (detached) apartments not to exceed 700 squarie feet.
(c) Special Review Uses
(i) Churches, museums, libraries, and public buildings.
(ii) Day care facilities.
(d) Building Setback Requirements:
(1) Front lot line - 10 feet
(ii) Side lot line (traditional neighborhood) - 3 feet
(iii) Side lot line - 7.5 feet
(iv) Rear lot line - 10 feet
(v) Rear lot line (traditional neighborhood at public right of way) - 3 feet
(e) Maximum Building Height:
35 feet.
(0 Density Allowance:
0 0
8 Dwelling Units per acre- primary dwelling units.
10 Dwelling Units per acre including accessory dwelling units.
(g) Parking Requirements:
As defined by the Village (at Avon) Parking Requirements.
(h) Minimum Landscape Area:
15%.
(i) Accessory dwelling unit regulations:
(i) Accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 700 square feet.
(ii) Accessory dwelling units shall be located within detached, accessory
structures served by a separate identifiable entry.
(iii) Accessory dwelling units are accessory to the primary dwelling or use of
the lot and may not be sold or conveyed in any way to separate ownership.
V
Planning Area RMF - 4 - Residential Multi-Family
(a) Pulp
To provide sites for a variety of residential uses.
(b) Uses by Right:
RECEIVED
J U L 2 4 2003
Community Development
(i) Residential uses including but not limited to single-family, duplex, and
multi-family dwellings.
(ii) Residential Management Offices.
(iii) Temporary real estate and construction offices.
(iv) Public or private roads and utilities including but not limited to utility
improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services, and buildings.
(v) Recreational facilities.
(vi) Parks and open space.
(vii) Additional uses, which the Director of Comrrjunity Development
determines to be a use by right.
(viii) Accessory Uses and Structures customarily appurtenant to uses by right.
(c) Special Review Uses
(i) Churches, museums, libraries, and public buildings.
(ii) Child and Day Care facilities.
(iii) Commercial uses intended to serve surrounding residential areas including
any activity for the purpose of generating retail business or consumer
services with the intent of producing financial profit including, but not
limited to retail stores, professional and business offices, personal service
shops, food and beverage establishments, and club and recreational
facilities to support and provide service to the residential development-
(d) Building Setback Requirements:
•
To be determined by sub-division and design review criteria except as necessary
to accommodate utility improvements, lines and mains, facilities, services and
buildings.
0 •
(e) Maximum Building Height:
48 feet. Single family or Duplex residential structures shall not exceed 35 feet.
Non-habitable architectural features such as chimneys, towers, steeples, or similar
features shall be excluded from the calculation of building height.
(f) Density Allowance:
8 Dwelling Units per acre.
(g) Parking Requirements:
As defined by the Village (at Avon) Parking Requirements.
(h) Minimum Landscape Area:
20%.
06/19/2003 22:01 970-328-3539 ECO TRANSIT & TRAILS PAGE 02
R
trai s
eagle county regional trails system
June 19, 2003
Town of Avon Community Development
Attn: Tambi Katieb
PO Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Dear Tambi,
I have reviewed the Village at Aeon PUD Amendment. Thank you for including ECO Trails in
the review process. I have the following comments on the submittal at this time.
Area N, RMF-1 and Q Development Concept, northside 1-70 interchange:
l . Design Details: I commend 1 he developer for inclusion of the regional trail in the proposed
development concepts. I do recommend that more study occur on the exact trail connections
and locations as the devel,j,raent plan evolves. For example: is the trail tunnel under the
main, road in the best location to keep the trails as direct as possible direct and encourage use;
is the regional trail best suited on the north or south side of the road parallel to I-70 heading
east; should this plan show the regional trail connecting to the USFS dirt road in the accurate
location or is it adequate as shown for this stage of the planning process?
2. Timing and Responsibility; H assume the Town will require the trail construction and will
require it as one of the first public improvements fully constructed through the RMF-1/Q area
Area G I RMF-4 Development Concept:
1. Design Details: Again, it appears that regional trail segment is very conceptual in that it does
not connect on this concept plan to the existing USFS road, but is shown in the general
location of the lower access road proposed by the developer. The exact location will need to
be determined through the entire site including the school Area G. If the existing dirt road on
the USFS land is the target: for connection, it will require a connecting alignment that
complies with ADA and AASHTO guidelines for grade.
The trail is shown, leaving the site in the southeast corner but if the developer is only required
to construct that portion that is on the subject property, than the location may need to be
revised to remain on the property until the eastern boundary.
2. Timing and Responsibility: As you know, the Eagle Valley Trails Committee is interested in
trying to bridge this trail system gap within the next year or two. It is my understanding that
the Avon Town Council supports that effort. Timing is a major issue and we hope the Town
• .. . • , • • • • • • • • ECO Trails: the comraunities of Gypsum, Eagle, Avon. Vail, Minturn, Red Cliff
and Eagle Counly working together to create a regional trail system • . • . • 0 0 • • 0 9 . .
06/19/2003 22:01 970-328-3539 ECO TRANSIT & TRAILS PAGE 03
will consider securing the fall. construction of this segment as well as a possible interim trail
as one of the first steps in the project implementation.
Re: a possible interim trail: As you know, the developer is preparing a land exchange
application for the adjacent U'SFS parcel for the purpose of constructing a more direct access
road, and the trail would be included in that construction at their cost. The interim trail across
the Village at Avon parcel would be needed if we wanted to move forward on the entire trail
connection from Highway 6 to the Avon interchange while waiting for the UFSFS exchange
process to be completed. Foi your information, the ECO Eagle Valley Trails Conmiittee has
asked that I write a letter of s-.1pport for the USFS land exchange on their behalf.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ellie Caryl
ECO Trails Program Manager
EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE 50J
P.O. BOX 740 • EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 • (970) 328-6321 EXT. 23 • FAX (970) 328-1024
June 16, 2003
Town of Avon Community Development Department
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: The Village at Avon PUD Amendment Z-PU2003-2
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission is hearing the PUD amendment for The
Village at Avon. The PUD amendment does not change the school land dedication requirement
and the developer-identified 9-acre parcel in Tract M meets the dedication requirements. The
site will most likely be developed as an elementary school and the developer has insured that our
current elementary footprint will fit on the site.
Additionally, with the identification of all school sites, the school district requests that utilities be
delivered to the school site property line and that the property have both a primary and secondary
access for emergencies. Utilities include water, sewer, natural gas, telephone/data, cable and
non-potable water if being used in the immediate development. The school district supports the
primary access that is directly north of the interstate/river as this is the most direct route to the
site. The proposed roadway that winds down the mountain from the north would be seen as the
secondary access-
Thank you for contacting the school district regarding this PUD amendment. I can be reached at
328-2747 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Karen Strakbein
Director of Finance
c catucy 5 ew Stude -;7oz Sccceeva
EAGLE RIVER
AWAW WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
846 Forest Road • Vail, Colorado 81657
(970) 476-7480 • FAX (970) 476-4089
June 11, 2003
Mr. Tambi Katieb
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Subject: Application Refer.-al - Village (at Av:;n) PUO Amendment
Dear Tambi:
I have received and reviewed your application referral for the above-referenced project.
This amendment appears to consist of reapportionment of density and allowable uses
within the existing PUD and does not appear to affect the total approved number of
dwelling units. The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (Authority) staff has been
working with the Village (at Avon) developer and it's engineers on individual
development phases. Subsequent development will require the construction of a regional
water storage tank and sewer trunk line. The Authority and the Eagle River Water &
Sanitation District have no further comments on this file.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Linn Schorr
Engineering Manager
Cc Fred Haslee
Dennis Gelvin
LS/mem
RECEIVED
JUN 1.- S 2003
Community Development
AVF:\] 5WSD\SREGS\Lctters\2003\V atAPUD.doc
WATER, WASTEWATER, OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT SERVICES ANN
40) United States Forest White River
Department of Service Holy Cross Ranger District
National 24747 US Highway 24
Agriculture Forest
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81645-0190
(970) 827-5717
FAX (970) 827-9343
File Code: 1560
Date:
Tambi Katieb
Community Development
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Tambi:
im IT -M
We have received the application referral package relating to a proposed amendment to the PUD
Development Plan for Traer Creek LLC. The National Forest System parcels located in Sections
8 and 9 are bordered on three sides by Traer Creek LLC lands and will be affected by the
proposed action.
It appears that the amount of open space on "Tract M" would be reduced and portions would be
intensively developed. This is anticipated to reduce the wildlife utilization of the eighty-acre
National Forest parcel located in Section 8. We will defer to the Town of Avon on the type and
density of use to be allowed on the private property known as Tract M. Should the proposed use
be approved, we request that provisions be made so that roads and utilities could, at some future
date, be extended across the National Forest System parcel in Section 8.
The suitability of this parcel for exchange out of federal ownership will increase as the parcel
loses its forest character and is surrounded by private development. If you have any questions on
this matter please contact Howard Kahlow at 827-5180.
Sincerely,
CALVIN G. WETTSTEIN
District Ranger
REC81VED
JUN 2 3 2003
Community Development
Caring for the Land and %-rvinu Pow i-
41 ? 3 1
UJ n a
l1.1 0 o b
-- w o z €, o
1 4 + g?
i ( G c b O 6
E- ?? °WE fill ? ?a
a o
1 mn o 66E?z5Y o?G ?`? o ° w? ns
i.1 NOr. C S9.a? 5a ?? ? t 5a fi
S ?Fiy`o 9` ?oa ? u Hm ?
z1 C
?` 3s&
? au
O a as
II1 Q tB w? <
P. ew. / W
. ?O? 8-A a5
U a "p
o° Ll
? b c
Lo?
0- _ 1..____-__ // ?IJ f
?? ?a ??, 6' 3 y 3? 3 a 5 9 g 5 li tj E
!2 n' n n
E?4d ? ??a i S? ?^? ?. ? °lY N?u1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ o _
81-4
6f- 9 a a? Vfa ?{ i ? I? ?'? u
33 1 1
_ ? ? Y b ? ?Q ?e B 6 5 1 +1 y -Y ; ? t? -+ .i : .a. ? tl gb G gC
k ? P a
?a xy / ?? (/ / e°„ Y= G t G G
05 LLY? ,-'tip 6 c8 e
LI.
zq
IILL 5 z .g ??
'4.
?`sS
W
L7
a
%
¢
F
%
W
D
W
h
/ A&
?lv
z
0
d U
C
U
Q a
o°
Q p
J
J?
a
W Q
F-
o` a °
?U
0.H Z
i Rio ??atXE
voq _°i?f
ag
eras€??
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
From: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Date: September 4, 2003
Re: Referendum "A"
Discussion: We've attached a plethora of information regarding Referendum A, which asks
Colorado voters to approve up to $2 billion for public and private water projects. Grand Junction
Mayor Jim Spehar has asked if our Council would be willing to endorse "No on Ref A." We thought
it was important to also include information from the proponents of Ref A as well.
Recommendation: We believe the Council members should first determine if they agree
on Referendum A and then decide if they want to take a group stance.
Town Manager Comments:
Fin D raft
Referendum A
Revenue Bonds for WaterProjects
The ballot question-
allows the Colorado Water Conservation Board to borrow up to $2 billion for
z public: and private water projects by issuing bonds;
4 • requires the bonds to be repaid from the water projects' revenue and limits the total
5 repayment cost, including interest, to $4 billion; and
6 exempts the bonds, interest, and project revenue from state revenue and spending
7 limits.
R Background
9
10 Why is this proposal on t/:e ballot? This year a state law was passed that allows the
1 1 Colorado Water Conservation Board, a state agency, to borrow money for water projects. The
1 Colorado Constitution, however, requires voter approval to allow the state to borrow the money and
13 to exempt the money from state spending limits. For this reason, the state legislature is submitting
14 to the voters the question of whether to borrow money for water projects and exempt the money
15 from state spending limits.
16 80rrowing limit's, The proposal allows the Colorado Water Conservation Board to borrow
17 up to $2 billion by issuing revenue bonds. The $2 billion may be borrowed for one or more water
is projects over a period of years. The total principal and interest payments cannot exceed $4 billion.
11 the borrowed moncymustbe repaid from revenue received from the projects. Of the $2 billion total,
20 at least $100 million must be set aside to improve existing water facilities or to pay for water
21 conservation measures.
22
23 Whattypesofprojectsqualifyforfunding? Projects cligiblefor funding mayacquire water
24 rights, build new storage, improve existing .facilities, or increase water conservation. Projects may
25 also provide envuonmeatalandrecreational benefits,protect agricultural water, orassist comrnunities
26 negatively impacted by water projects. Incligble projects include public waste water and drinking
27 water projects, and projects costing less than $5 million.
29 How h?orrld projects be approved? Under state law, public entities such as cities, water
29 districts, or state agencies; private entities; or combinations of the two may propose water projects
30 to the Colorado Water Conservations Board. The board must evaluate requests for funding and may
31 reeonnmend projects to the Governor for final approval. If the board makes recommendations, it must
32 recommend at least two projects from different river basins with a start date of 2005, one of which
- I{
91[/7I ' - - 919 LH OL6 'OIL XV iSn Yid iN.4 Ffl-GI -?M
Final Draft
1 nnust be approved by the Governor. Upon approval of a project by the Governor, the board may
2 borrow money by issuing bonds.
3 ifWat is the Colorado Water Conservation Board? Since 1937, the Colorado Water
4 Conservation Board has been the state's primary water policy and planning agency. The board and
5 its staffwork on water supplyplanning, flood and drought protection, and data collection. The board
h also regulates water levels in streams and lakes to preserve the natural environment. The ten voting
7 members of the 15-member board are appointed by the Governor and approved by the state Senate.
8 The voting members include the director of the Department ofNatural Resources and representatives
9 from the state's major river basins and the City and County of Denver. Four of the voting members
10 must live west of the continental divide. The five non-voting members of the board include the
11 director of the board, the directors of the state water, agriculture, and wildlife agencies, and the
12 Attorney General.
13 Why Colorado builds water projects Colorado is a semi-arid state that experiences
14 droughts. Most of the state's precipitation falls west of the continental divide as snow in the
15 mountains, Water projects, such as dams, capture snowmelt and rain for use throughout the year and
16 during droughts. Many miles of pipelines and d itches have also been built to move water from where
17 it is found naturally to where it is used.
18 Current funding mechanisms for water projects. Currently, water users pay for water
19 projects by borrowing money and imposing fees or taxes. In addition, two state entities provide
20 fuanding for water projects. The Colorado Water Resources and Power I)cvclopnnent Authority may
21 issue up to $500 million in bonds for each public entity participating in a project. The Colorado
22 Water Conservation Board provides approximately $25million annually forloans andgrants topublic
23 and private entities. Federal funding may also be available, although federal money for major new
24 water projects has declined in recent years.
25
26 Water supply alternatives: Water users, such as cities, water districts, businesses, and
27 farmers, may obtain new water from several sources. These sources include pumping water from
28 underground, purchasing or leasing water from farms and ranches, or drawing water frorn western
29 rivers, which hold most of the state's available river water. In addition, water users can extend
30 existing supplies through reuse, restrictions on water use, or by encouraging conservation through
31 drought-tolerant landscaping, water-efficient appliances and equipment, and increased water rates,
32 The availability of these water supply alternatives depends on the location of the water user and the
33 cost of obtaining the water.
34
35 Arguments For
36 1. A new option for fmancingwater projects-will help provide additional water for Colorado's
37 new residents, protect against fu tune droughts, and moct the increasing demand for recreational and
38 cnvirunincntal water uses. The recent drought emptied or depleted many reservoirs, resulting in
39 financial hardship for people who depend on water for their livelihood, restrictions on lawn watering,
40 and drought-related fee increases. Additional water storage might protect Coloradans from similar
T 9
9licl
11
5x9 H 0!6 'OIL? Xvd 1M NJ 9S:L Hd 60-5I-HV1
Fina, I Draft
1 drought impacts in the future. Moreover, in most years, Colorado does not have enough storage to
2 hold all the water it is allowed by interstate law to use. Storing water that is currently lost to
3 downstream states provides an alternative to pumping expensive and nonrenewable ground water or
4 buying water from farms or ranches.
5 2. Ibis program provides a process for water users to work together on projects that benefit
6 a number of users, but that may be too costly for individual users to build. For example, a single
7 project could provide water for a city, recreation, and farms, and generate money to compensate an
S area that loses water because of the project. This program also encourages public-private
9 partnerships, where the skills and money of each sector can be combined to solve shared water supply
10 problems. At the sane time, the program does not dietate specific water projects, require
1.1 participation, or elinuiate government permitting requirennents. It simply allows the board to obtain
12 financing for water projects using a method similar to that used by the Colorado Department of
13 Transportation for highway projects.
la 3. Having a single state agency -the Colorado Water Conservation Board -evaluate and
15 obtain fuiancing for water projects may accelerate the construction of projects. The board brings
16 expertise in water policy and experience from across the state on water issues. Its geographically
17 diverse membership allows it to consider the interests of small and large communities, the state's
18 different regions, and the state as a whole. In addition, the board is currently conducting a statewide
19 water supply study with the assistance of local communities to identify water needs and projects in
20 each river basin. Some of these projects may eventually qualify, for money borrowed under this
21 proposal.
22 Arguments Against
23 1. This program grants too much authority to the board and leaves questions unanswered.
24 Within the $4 billion repayment limit, there is no limit on interest rates, total interest paid,
25 administrative costs, or the length of time to repay or issue bonds. The program does not identify
26 specific projects to be funded or require public input on the selection of projects. Because it bas no
27 experience in issuing bonds, the board may not have the expertise to obtain the best financing. Also,
28 if the water projects do not produce enough money to repay the bonds, state policymakers nnay feel
29 obligated to repay the bondholders. In addition, the deadlines in the program may result in the board
30 reconinicnding projects that are neither desirable nor ready for funding. Having a single elected state
31 official select projects for funding may further politicize decisions that have historically been made
32 at the local level or by private entities.
33 2. Another financing tool is not necessary to address Colorado's water needs. Cities and
34 other water users can already borrow money for water projects. They also may obtain financing
35 xbrough the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority or loans and grants from
36 the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Financiallyviable private entities can borrow money on
37 their own, without state assistance. Environmental, recreational, and agricultural interests may
38 benefit less from this program than other water users because they typically canno t generate sufficient
39 revenue to pay the cost of water projects. In addition, this program does not change environmental
A3-
90/rI 'd 90 8 LG6 0L6 `OPT X' 1Sv? lhid 9?:Lv TK,4 U-GI-?1 wV
r"If 11
n Draft
or other permitting requirements, which have been some of the greatest obstacles to building major
water projects.
3 3. Water projects can negatively impact the environment and local communities. For
4 exan-ple, some water projects can flood scenic areas and damage wildlife habitat by changing water
5 Itempe atures and eliminating or greatly reducing stream flows. Othcrs can increase water treatment
6 costs and limit future economic development opportunities for communities that lose water because
7 of water projccts. The board is not required to repair or pay for any damage to an area`s environment
8 or economy, or to consider cheaper and.quicker water supply alternatives such as increasing
9 residential efficiency or obtaining temporary water transfers from farms during dry years.
10 Estimate of Fiscal Impact
11 This program will not affect state revenues. However, it is expected to increase state and
12 local goveninwnt spending. The Colorado Water Conservation Board will incur costs of $20,000
13 in budget year 2003 -04 to pay for writing rules to administer the water bonding program. Beginning
14 July 1, 2004, the board is expected to incur annual costs of up to $1 l 5,000 to evaluate projects ?utd
15 develop recommendations for the Governor, to issue bonds, and to oversee the design and
16 construction of projects. The board could incur additional costs depending -upon the number and
17 complexity of projects the board reviews.
18 Local governments may be required to spend significant amounts of money studying the
19 feasibility of a project if they apply for funding from the board. They may be required to pay for the
20 board's costs to review and evaluate a project, for the costs of issuing bonds, and for the board's
21 oversight costs. They also will be responsible for repaying the bonds plus interest.
22 if the board or other state agency proposes a water project, the board or agency will incur
23 costs similar to those of local governments.
Avgw.vlk 20W I4 - S, ILLSIPROACTSWALLQY00031Mvrlerdoc.07UQ-2004 ASH I.16 nl. ap,d
91!G i 'd 9919 LH 0L6 'OIL Yid ISV Yid G9 r.
, t 1H
E0-5I-O?l.
REFERENDUM A DISCUSSION
Questions/Answers from the Save Colorado's Water website.
Italicized response from Jim Spehar, Vote No on A Steering Committee Member
Why pass Referendum A - Do we need it?
This initiative will give Coloradans an essential tool to help combat droughts and water
shortages. Passing Referendum A is a big step in the right direction for the future of our state.
Local communities - water districts, municipalities and the private sector - will be able to access
new funding sources and complete water supply projects.
Referendum A will not provide any solution not already available to build Colorado water
projects. Any project that is economically viable can now be financed through a variety of state,
regional and local bonding mechanisms. Financing capability is not the issue, affordability is.
If the legislature truly wants to expand capabilities for development of water resources, it should
do so with grants and loans that would help increase affordability.
Some have called Referendum A a blank check - Is that really the case?
Referendum A provides for a comprehensive process by which to improve our State's water
infrastructure. Referendum A provides a financing mechanism that approves up to $2 billion in
bonds to improve existing facilities and develop new water storage projects. There is a defined
and accountable process for proposing and approving projects through the Colorado Water
Conservation Board and the governor.
Referendum A, which proposes up to $4B in new costs, has been compared to trying to obtain a
loan for a house with no structure, no building plans, not even a description of the property.
Proponents of Referendum A have been unable to identify any single economically viable water
project ever halted because of a lack of available funds to loan. And, while we may be able to
rely on the pledges of our current Governor and the wisdom of the present members of the
Colorado Water Conservation Board, we have no assurances future decision makers will bring
their same values to the decision making process when future water projects are considered.
Why aren't specific projects listed?
It is difficult to name specific projects as this legislation allows for both government and private
entities to "think out of the box" for new infrastructure ideas. However, the list of projects
developed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (Statewide Water Supply Initiative study)
is available as one example. This initiative will allow the same entrepreneurial spirit that has
served to meet the challenges of issues such as transportation and education to now meet the
challenge of water supply and infrastructure.
Referendum A requires a public, accountable process to choose water projects. In order for
specific projects to be listed in the referendum the legislature would have had to create a list
before referring the measure to the voters. Instead of a few legislators thinking up a list of
projects in the basement of the Capitol, Referendum A requires a statewide, citizen-driven
process to determine, community by community, which projects are most appropriate.
The list of projects that communities agree on as part of the Statewide Water Supply Initiative
will then be discussed in several public forums with the opportunity for public input, to ensure
that only publicly supported projects move forward in the process.
Although repeated requests for the "lists" have been made in various public forums, they have
not been provided. And the Statewide Water Supply Initiative is said to be focused on identifying
potential projects, not confirming any existing "list" which may or may not have been developed
with the desired level ofpublic involvement. There are many examples of "entrepreneurial"
solutions that have already been crafted without the uncertainty of Referendum A and with
appropriate consideration of the needs of all affected parties. One example is the Wolford
Mountain Reservoir near Kremmling, developed and financed jointly by the Denver Water Board
and the Colorado River Water Conservation District with appropriate safeguards for both east
and west slope interests. It provides a completed working prototype for future mutually
beneficial water development.
Is mitigation covered in Referendum A?
Referendum A and Save Colorado's Water is about protecting this valuable resource in all
corners of Colorado. New storage will benefit all Coloradans. Should a project benefit more than
one basin, the initiative provides funding for mitigation.
The Office of Legislative Legal Services, the office Colorado lawmakers rely on to draft and
interpret their bills, has said firmly that the language of Referendum A does not require
mitigation. Some proponents point to SB115 enacted in the last session as mitigation
reassurance, but it only provides for mitigation of lost property tax revenues. In other words, it
takes care of government but not Main Street in communities where jobs and retail sales are
decimated because water is moved elsewhere.
Is money really a problem in developing new storage?
Financing in and of itself is not always the problem, which is why Referendum A deals with a
panoply of nuances intrinsic to water supplies and planning on a statewide basis, including
conservation, out-of-basin mitigation, environmental protection, and non-structural alternatives.
Critics of Referendum A have said the initiative is "first and last a financing bill," but that it does
not improve the economics of building water projects. However, many fail to mention that this
new bonding authority would allow private entities to leverage state support. For such entities,
this most certainly does improve the economics of water storage.
Referendum A bonds could only finance projects that cost more than $5M and that have a
revenue stream to allow repayment. Projects that meet those requirements already have several
financing alternatives. Referendum A will not help build small projects and is unlikely to help
with others, including those involving conservation, out of basin mitigation or environmentally
necessary efforts. Iif the state really wants to provide financing for private entities, the Colorado
legislature could simply expand the existing authority of the Colorado Water and Power
Authority and allow that agency to lend up to $500Mper project to private companies. There is
no need to take a chance on a poorly conceived and poorly written referendum to resolve an
issue that can be solved quite simply in the early days of the 2004 legislative session.
Is this a Front Range vs. West Slope issue?
We all know first hand about the contentious nature and volatile history of the water issue in
Colorado. But, ignoring the issue and doing nothing is no longer an answer. The impacts of the
drought have been severe for all Coloradans. It's time that we come together as a state and realize
that this is not an East Slope vs. West Slope issues, rather this is a Colorado issue - an issue for
Colorado's future.
It is truly unfortunate that proponents of Referendum A have made this an East Slope vs. West
Slope issue and a Front Range vs. Eastern Plains issue by ignoring the need for adequate
protection in all areas of Colorado where water resources may be developed. Efforts to refine
the mitigation issue to offer needed additional protection were repeatedly beaten back during the
2003 legislative session. The Legislature's own legal office has ruled that mitigation is not
required in Referendum A. Those truly concerned about helping and protecting all of Colorado
should insist those shortcomings be corrected before any water development measure is
approved.
What is the timeline for action in Referendum A?
The time for action is now. Referendum A provides for an aggressive timeline to begin water
solutions. The Colorado Water Conservation Board must submit at least two projects from two
different basins to the governor for approval. At least one project must be underway by 2005.
(the Statewide Water Supply Initiative study list is scheduled for completion by 2004)
It is impossible to begin any water project in the timeline proposed in Referendum A. Even if
good, economically viable projects are identified by December 2004 when the Statewide Water
Supply Initiative is expected to be completed, permitting and engineering/design work will
assuredly push the start of any project past the required 2005 start date. Water issues in
Colorado are too important to be forced by an unachievable deadline in an ill-conceived
proposal.
Does Referendum A incorporate the "Colorado 64"
As per the water principles agreed to by many of the counties, environmental groups, and water
users in the state - also known as "Colorado 64," Referendum A seeks consensus from all of the
State's basins and is entirely consistent with these principles.
To reiterate the "Colorado 64" water principles, this Referendum is about planning for the needs
of future generations and ensuring that all of the basins in our State remain whole. Unavoidable
adverse impacts, consistent with the principles, are absolutely mitigated for in Referendum A.
Referendum A directly contradicts many of the Colorado 64 principles. It seeks no consensus.
The state legislature has no role, only the Governor picks projects and the Colorado Water
Conservation Board is the only recommending agency. It is deceptive to selectively list one of
the ten "Colorado 64" principles jointly developed with input and adoption by all areas of
Colorado and then imply that Referendum A is acceptable under all of those principles.
It is equally deceptive to say that adverse impacts will be "absolutely mitigated" in Referendum
A when the Legislature's legal office has firmly ruled that mitigation is not required in the
language of the referendum. Separate legislation (SB115) approved in the 2003 session offers
limited mitigation for property tax impacts only and does not compensate for lost jobs or other
negative economic impacts when agricultural lands are dried up.
Arn M. Menconi
Eagle County Commissioner
Phone: 970/390-4844
Mayor Jim Spehar
2688 Malibu. Dr.
Grand Junction, CO 81506
(970) 256-1.060
jimspehar@bresnan.net
August 14, 2003
Dear Colorado Leader (s):
We're writing to you urgently as local elected officials and as concerned Coloradans about Referenda "A" that will
appear on the November 2003 ballot. As you might recall, Senate Bill 236 passed in the final days of the 2003
legislative session and referred a question to the ballot asking voters to approve up to $2 billion for unspecified new
dams.
A number of interests - progressive water providers, West Slope lawmakers, civic groups, some local elected officials
and the environmental community - advocated for a better alternative during the previous session and continue to
push for drought solutions that look to the cheapest, fastest, and least environmentally damaging options first. These
solutions include improving water efficiency and restoring and expanding existing reservoirs, as well as "smart storage'
projects - smaller reservoirs that make full and efficient use of water supplies.
Unfortunately, Referendum A ignores these common-sense responses to living in a semi-arid state. Instead,
Referendum A creates $2 billion of debt while failing to point to any specific water supply solutions. Moreover,
Referendum A provides no protection for the Western Slope's future economic growth, growing recreation industry,
and natural treasures. Attached is a fact sheet outlining the many flaws of Referendum A.
The No on Referendum A campaign is putting together a powerful list of civic, business and community leaders who
oppose this measure. A diversity of interests have already declared their opposition to this measure, including: Club
20-Natural Resources Committee, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Congressman Mark Udall (D),
Congressman Scott McInnis (R), Attorney General Ken Salazar, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Grand
Junction Chamber of Commerce, Gunnison County rancher Ken Spann, League of Women Voters of Colorado,
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Park County rancher Bill Gordon, Representative Al White (R, Winter
Park), Representative Carl Miller (D, Leadville), Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Representative John Salazar (D,
Alamosa), Representative Mark Larson (R, Cortez), Representative Matt Smith (R, Grand Junction), Representative
Ray Rose (R, Montrose), Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald (D, Golden), Senator Ron Teck (R, Grand Junction), Senator Jim
Isgar (D, Durango), Representative Gayle Berry (R, Grand Junction), Representative Greg Rippy (R, Glenwood
Springs), Senator Jack Taylor (R, Steamboat Springs), Summit Board of County Commissioners, Colorado Trout
Unlimited, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District and many more.
We sincerely hope that you will join this growing group by taking a moment to sign the enclosed endorsement form and
add your name to the growing list of Colorado leaders who believe that Referendum A is the wrong answer to
Colorado's water problems. Many local government entities and business associations are also passing resolutions
expressing their opposition. For your convenience attached is a sample resolution that some entities are using.
Please sign and fax the endorsement form back to: Brandy, 970- 244-9122 who is tracking No on Ref A endorsements
for us out of Grand Junction.
Have a great rest of the summer, and please contact us with any questions, ideas, and or concerns. We hope to work
with you this coming fall in opposing Referenda A.
For Colorado,
Grand Junction Mayor Jim Spehar
'On behalf of:
Eagle County Commissioner Arn Menconi, 970-3904844
Summit County Commissioner (Chair) Tom Long, (970) 453-3412
Mesa County Commissioner Tille Bishop, 970-242-9230
Summit County Commissioner Gary Lindstrom, (970) 453-3411
' Titles listed for identification purposes only
No on Referendum A - the Wrong Choice for Colorado
This November, Coloradans will vote on Referendum A, a measure that would create $2
billion of debt for construction of new, unnamed dams.
Referendum A is the wrong choice for Colorado. Fixing and expanding our existing darns,
combined with using our water more efficiently, is a faster and less expensive way to secure
Colorado's water future.
That's why the League of Women Voters, the Colorado River Water Conservation
District, U.S. Representatives Scott McInnis and Mark Udall, Attorney General Ken
Salazar, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union and Colorado Trout Unlimited all oppose
Referendum A.
Referendum A ignores the smartest ways to solve Colorado's water problems. Referendum A ignores
common-sense solutions for increasing our water supply, such as using the water we already have more
efficiently. Instead, Referendum A only allows funding for new dams and reservoirs-the costliest, slowest
and most environmentally damaging option.
Referendum A is financially risky. Referendum A fails to include basic protections for the economy and
taxpayers. Taxpayers could be stuck paying up to $4 billion in debt.
Referendum A pits one part of the state against another. Although most of the water resources in Colorado
exist in the western part of the state, Referendum A provides no protection for the Western Slope's future
economic growth, booming recreation industry, and natural treasures. Damming more rivers in western
Colorado, may not leave enough water for that part of the state to grow. We need water solutions that work
for all of Colorado.
Referendum A won't help local governments deal with water supply needs. Local governments and water
districts have the authority today to issue bonds on their own to finance water projects. This is what they've
done historically and it has served Colorado well. The State already has 7.5 million acre feet of water in
storage every year - almost %s of the state's total annual runoff and enough to supply 15 million urban
residents for a year. In addition, the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority has the
power today to issue bonds to local governments and water districts up to $500 million per project per
proponent for new water projects. Since this authority has no floor, these bonds can be used for even the
small projects Referendum A bonds can't fund.
Just some of the Coloradans Opposing Referendum A: ... Club 20-Natural Resources
Committee, Colorado River Water Conservation District, Congressman Mark Udall (D), Congressman Scott
McInnis (R), Congresswoman Dianna DeGette (D), Attorney General Ken Salazar, Eagle County
Commissioner Am Menconi, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Grand Junction Chamber of
Commerce, Grand Junction Mayor Jim Spehar, Gunnison County rancher Ken Spann, League of Women
Voters, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Park County rancher Bill Gordon, Representative Al
White (R, Winter Park), Representative Carl Miller (D, Leadville), Representative Matt Smith (R, Grand
Junction), Senator Ron Teck (R, Grand Junction), Senator Jack Taylor (R, Steamboat Springs),
Representative John Salazar (D, Alamosa), Representative Mark Larson (R, Cortez), Representative Ray
Rose (R, Montrose), Senator Dan Grossman (D, Denver), Senator Jim Isgar (D, Durango), Senator Joan Fitz-
Gerald (D, Golden), Representative Gayle Berry (R. Grand Junction), Representative Greg Rippy (R,
Glenwood Springs), Summit Board of County Commissioners, Colorado Trout Unlimited, Upper Eagle
Regional Water Authority, Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District ...
Join the Growing List of Coloradans Who
Oppose Referendum A
This November, Coloradans will vote on Referendum A - a measure that would create
$2 billion of debt for construction of unnamed dams. Referendum A is the wrong way to
solve Colorado's water problems. The Colorado River and Water Conservation District,
Congressmen Scott McInnis (R) and Mark Udall (D), West Slope Legislators, the Grand
Junction Chamber of Commerce, and Colorado Trout Unlimited. all agree that
Referendum A is the wrong choice for Colorado.
? YES! Please add my name/ business/ organization / local entity to the list of
Coloradans opposing Referenda A on the 2003 Colorado Election Ballot.
I / We can support the No on Referendum A campaign by:
? Making a financial contribution for the NO on Referendum A Campaign efforts;
? Being a guest speaker at public events etc... (speaker training provided);
? Scheduling a presentation to my/our organization or entity;
? Being a spokesperson representing my interests to the public and media;
? Submitting letters to the editor or opinion editorials to the media;
? Including an article about the referendum in our newsletter/ publications;
? Help distribute campaign materials and notify people of campaign activities;
? Provide in-kind services or other support (please
describe):
Name:
Signature:
Business/ Organization/ Local Entity:
Title (For identification purposes only):
Address:
Phone: Fax:
Email:
Today's Date:
Just some of the. Coloradans Opposing Referendum A: ... Club 20-Natural Resources Committee,
Colorado River Water Conservation District, Congressman Mark Udall (D), Congressman Scott McInnis
(R), Congresswoman Dianna DeGette (D), Attorney General Ken Salazar, Eagle County Commissioner
Arn Menconi, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce, Grand
Junction Mayor Jim Spehar, Gunnison County rancher Ken Spann, League of Women Voters, Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments, Park County rancher Bill Gordon, Representative Al White (R, Winter
Park), Representative Carl Miller (D, Leadville), Representative Matt Smith (R, Grand Junction), Senator
Ron Teck (R, Grand Junction), Senator Jack Taylor (R, Steamboat Springs), Representative John
Salazar (D, Alamosa), Representative Mark Larson (R, Cortez), Representative Ray Rose (R, Montrose),
Senator Dan Grossman (D, Denver), Senator Jim Isgar (D, Durango), Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald (D,
Golden), Representative Gayle Berry (R. Grand Junction), Representative Greg Rippy (R, Glenwood
Springs), Summit Board of County Commissioners, Summit County Commissioner Tom Long, Colorado
Trout Unlimited, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District ...
Fax back this form and any supporting resolutions/ letters to Brandy, 970-244-9122 in Grand
Junction. Thank you!
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE (TOWN or COUNTY) OF
OPPOSING REFERENDUM "A" ON THE 2003 COLORADO ELECTION BALLOT
WHEREAS: Colorado's drought, water and economic future are uncertain;
WHEREAS: A variety of drought solutions are available to produce results more quickly and at less
financial risk than incurring Referenda A's $2 billion dollar debt, including;
? Balanced agreements between urban water users and agricultural water users to share water in
times of severe drought;
? Make full and efficient use and re-use of existing water supplies;
? Clear dams of sediment which has reduced the storage capacity of many dams;
Invest in and create incentives for water conservation and efficiency for all categories of water
users;
? Expansion of existing reservoirs plus encourages responsible new reservoir construction where
needed, financed by the project beneficiaries through existing programs.
WHEREAS: Local governments across Colorado currently have access to funding to build water storage
projects and fund many of the above solutions. Referendum A would create additional state debt (up to 4
billion w/ interest) for large new storage projects but prohibits these funds from being used for smaller
projects and conservation efforts;
WHEREAS Referendum A also provides no assurance that projects will provide adequate mitigation for
adverse effects on communities and the environment, and in fact, language to assure such mitigation was
specifically rejected by the measure's proponents at the General Assembly.
WHEREAS Referendum A seeks a blank check for unspecified projects, providing no list of projects that
actually will be conducted under its authority nor any indication of who the project beneficiaries will be;
WHEREAS Local governments and water utilities such as (town/
county) have traditionally had responsibility for providing water to their citizens, have a strong track record
in fulfilling that duty, and will not benefit from a new state-driven program to usurp those responsibilities;
WHEREAS: Colorado residents, including many in (town/ county), place a
high value on sound economic policy, healthy communities, and inventive and smart strategies to protect
our water supply as an important aspect to our way of life;
WHEREAS: Many citizens of Colorado, including (town/ county res),
oppose Colorado incurring excessive debt outlined in Referenda "A" at this time;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That (Board of County Commissioners /
town/ city council/ Board of Trustees) oppose Referendum "A" on the 2003 Colorado election ballot and
recommend a NO vote to the people of Colorado.
Signed by : date
Official seal
Owens urges support for water bill august 22, 2003
By Dale Rodebaugh
Herald Staff Writer
Colorado can pull through tough periods of drought if residents pull together to keep more water
in the state, and passing Referendum A would be a good start, Gov. Bill Owens said Thursday.
Referendum A, which proposes $2 billion for bonds to build water-storage projects, is not a
Front Range conspiracy, Owens told members the The Durango Herald editorial board. The
issue will be on the November ballot.
"I know there have been many years of angst and anger on the Western Slope," Owens said. "But
it's not the intention to swipe your water."
The estrangement isn't difficult to comprehend since an estimated 85 percent of Colorado's 4.5
million residents live within an easy drive of Interstate 25, the major north-south route along the
Front Range.
Owens is urging voters to look beyond regional rivalry and support common efforts.
"The drought is showing us there are better ways to do things," he said.
Owens said Referendum A could pay for lining a ditch or raising the height of a dam - projects
that small water agencies could accomplish.
Overall, such projects could increase storage capacity statewide from 6 million acre-feet to
perhaps 6.75 million acre-feet, Owens said.
He noted that the state receives 16 million acre-feet annually of rain and snow melt. A lot of
water goes downstream to lower basin states because there is no place to store it.
"I'd like to get a use or two out of it before it heads out," Owens said.
With Colorado in its worst drought in 300 years, Owens said, three or four additional months of
stored water would be a big help.
The governor knows it will be hard to sell Referendum A to Western Slope voters. In addition to
old east-west animosities that don't heal easily, water experts say there are no potential projects
in Southwest Colorado.
Opponents add that besides construction money, funding is needed for early stage work.
Exploring potential water-storage sites, conducting environmental studies and feasibility
planning require money.
Owens sees partnerships as a possibility. He suggested that Budweiser Corp., which owns water
but has no way to store it, could strike a deal with Fort Collins.
Another way to look at the situation is from the perspective of overall good, Owens said. If a
region isn't chosen for a storage project, it benefits nevertheless because any storage facility
frees water that otherwise would be used elsewhere.
Projects proposed for funding wouldn't be sure bets, either. They'd undergo rigorous scrutiny
from three angles, Owens said.
Wall Street financiers would take a hard look before authorizing bond money, Owens said. Then
the proposals would have to pass muster with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the
governor.
It's time Colorado was able to issue bonds for capital projects such as water storage, Owens said.
"Until I came along, we couldn't bond for highways," Owens said. "We had to do cash projects."
Referendum A shouldn't be confused with the Big Straw project, a proposal to pump Western
Colorado water to the Front Range, Owens said. The Big Straw should be studied, however, even
if it's found to be unfeasible.
Owens said agricultural interests, including the Colorado Farm Bureau, wheat ranchers and
dairymen support the referendum.
Collegiality, not Balkanization, is the key to easing the hardships of drought, Owens said.
"I LtfIdcrstailct tliere is a level of {irstRISr _3
do aE1y (-100d, I)LIt I doit'f sec aiiy dowiisld,. (what kind of endorsement is that? - BPS)
08.02.03 Plug pulled on meeting with Owens to discuss water vote
ERIN McINTYRE, The Daily Sentinel
A rendezvous between Western Slope leaders and Gov. Bill Owens, meant to hash out concerns on a
proposed water-projects referendum, was scheduled and canceled in less than 24 hours Saturday.
The 11th-hour gathering was scrambled together Friday at the request of the governor, said Club 20
President Reeves Brown. Invitations to meet at 2 p.m. Saturday at Adam's Mark Hotel went out to all of
the group's committee members and to Western Slope legislators Friday after- noon.
But the governor's office pulled out of the arrangement around noon Saturday, and no reason for the
cancelation was given.
"Somebody pulled the trigger before the target was in sight, and it's just going to be harder to get through
this now," said state Sen. Ken Chlouber, R-Leadville, who drove from Leadville with Democratic Rep. Carl
Miller, and didn't find out the meeting was canceled until they reached Glenwood Springs.
"There's not enough red-eye whiskey in this state to make me happy," Chlouber said from his home in
Leadville. "You could fry an egg on my little cowboy butt right now."
Brown said the meeting, arranged through T. Wright Dickinson, Club 20's executive committee chairman,
and Greg Walcher, Colorado Department of Natural Resources director and former Club 20 president,
simply fell through.
Walcher could not be reached Saturday.
Some speculated whether the cancelation had anything to do with the fact that members of the press
had been invited to the meeting shortly before noon. The meeting was not advertised previously.
"It's interesting that the timing was like that," said state Rep. Gayle Berry, R-Grand Junction. "We as
legislators wanted to ensure that the Sunshine Law was complied with, since so many legislators were
going to be present.
"I don't know why the media hadn't been advised of it before," she said.
"We didn't tip off the media and invite the media," Brown said. "That wasn't the governor's request."
Referendum A, written by two eastern Colorado lawmakers, would allow the Colorado Water
Conservation Board to issue up to $2 billion in revenue bonds to private companies interested in building
water projects. The ballot question would give the governor final approval of the projects and require
Owens to approve one project by 2005. The referendum will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Brown and others speculated that the cancelation Saturday came from a lack of consensus or progress.
Leaders were planning on discussing basin-of-origin protections for water transfers and legislation that
might provide for mitigation if a special session was called.
"If we are only 30 percent there, maybe we should massage this over the phone," Brown said.
"The total agreement that you would typically have to justify having the governor make a special trip over
to meet with you wasn't coming together," Berry admitted.
"I think that's ridiculous and if that was a possibility, no matter how remote, that should have been
explored by Club 20," Chlouber said.
"I don't think it was the governor's fault," Chlouber said. "I'll lay the entire blame at the foot of Club 20 -
they're the ones who put this together and they were sure it was going to take place."
"It would have been nice had things been handled a little bit differently," said state Sen. Ron Teck, R-
Grand Junction.
Owens' spokeswoman Kristin Hubbell said the governor was at his home in Aurora on Saturday.
Rep. Matt Smith, R-Grand Junction, said the offer to meet and discuss mitigation is promising, but he
thinks the best way to resolve the issue is through a special session of the Legislature, which can only be
called by the governor. That session could result in basin-of-origin protections through legislation, which
could preempt the results of Referendum A if voters approve it in November.
"I hope that that dialogue takes place in a special session, which would definitely be open to the public,"
Smith said.
Teck and Berry agreed.
"I think it's going to be special session which lets us put into law the protection we need," Teck said. "We
can't operate from a promise ... I don't feel that we have any protection and until we do, I am not going to
be willing to back off on Referendum A."
Smith said if Owens is willing, and his schedule allows, he would like to try to have a meeting again.
Chlouber said he's reluctant to commit to come to hastily made arrangements anymore.
"They better set that blankety-blank meeting up in Leadville if they want me to come," he said. "Them
Grand Junction cowboys better saddle up and get up here
Vote NO on A
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Matt Smith 970 216-6492
John Stencel 303 752-5800
Scott Ingvoldstad 303 601-8308
Am Menconi 970/390-4844
THE $4,000,000,000 BLANK CHECK - VOTERS URGED TO REJECT REFERENDUM A
Diverse Coalition Comes Together for Campaign to Defeat Referendum A
(August 27, 2003 - Denver, CO) Today a coalition of diverse interests filed an issue committee named Vote
NO on A and announced its opposition to Referendum A. Referendum A asks voters to accept or reject a
measure on this November's ballot to increase Colorado's debt by $2 billion, with a maximum payback cost of
$4 billion to finance unspecified water projects in the state.
"It's really just a big blank check and a big riddle. We know it will cost $4 billion but it does not show any
specific projects or solutions," said State Representative Matt Smith.
"The $4 billion cost of Referendum A is too high. The measure is also misleading because it will not do
anything to protect Colorado from drought. Projects that make sense can already obtain funding," said
Jeanette Hillary of the League of Women Voters of Colorado.
The Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority can already issue revenue bonds for
projects in chunks of up to $500 million per project.
Referendum A requires a minimum project cost of $5 million or more. This limits the measure's ability to fund
agricultural water improvements and water projects, which usually cost less.
"Referendum A will not help agriculture, and it could price agricultural producers right out of their existing
water," said John Stencel, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU) president.
"Referendum A amounts to nothing more than a blank check. It is a money grab by special interests. I find no
reason to support Referendum A, but I find four billion reasons to oppose it," said Eagle County Commissioner
Am Menconi.
Vote NO on A is directed by an Executive Committee which includes State Representative Matt Smith; Jim
Spehar, Mayor of Grand Junction; Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner; Tom Long, Summit County
Commissioner; Jeanette Hillary, of the League of Women Voters; Jo Evans, Board Member of the Denver
Audubon Society; David Nickum, Director of Colorado Trout Unlimited; John Stencel, President of RMFU, and
Wally Stealey.
The Governor has raised over $1 million dollars for his campaign, we need you financial assistance
fast. Any contribution would be appreciated. Please make your check out to Vote No On A and mail
it to: Vote No On A, 5655 S. Yosemite St., Ste. 400, Greenwood Village, CO 80111. We look forward
to your support, please feel free to call me with any questions.
Arn M. Menconi
Eagle County Commissioner
Phone: 970/390-4844
Speakout: A fair, unifying water compromise
By Rep. Scott McInnis, Rocky Mountain News
August 25, 2003
The debate over water embodied by Referendum A is crying out for a West Slope-East Slope compromise that benefits
all the regions of Colorado. And strange as it might sound to those who have followed this debate, I don't believe that
a balanced and equitable agreement is as distant as the headlines might suggest, if the opposing sides are willing to
work toward a common ground that provides benefits to all. After all, we are one state.
An overwhelming majority of the individuals involved in this debate agree that substantial new water storage is
critically important to our state's future. Colorado is legally entitled to quantities of water that it currently lacks the
capacity to store, water that would provide an enormous cushion the next time (and there will be a next time!)
drought rears its ugly head. Unless and until we ramp up our water storage capacity, the state's water entitlement will
continue to run through our collective fingers, to the benefit of golf courses and lawns in places like Las Vegas and Los
Angeles. Meanwhile, Colorado remains susceptible to the pernicious effects of drought. For everyone, except the most
extreme voices, the status quo is totally unacceptable.
New water storage is an imperative.
Where there is disagreement among water storage proponents, of course, is on the question of whether or not
Referendum A is an equitable means of Colorado realizing its full water entitlement. In my opinion, it is not. As
currently structured, the referendum provides no guarantee that the interests of rural Colorado will be fairly balanced
with those of our urban population centers. In so doing, it pits region against region, and community against
community. The ballot item is a blank check accompanied only by nonbinding promises that rural Colorado won't be
left high and dry. Colorado deserves better.
And still, I believe very strongly that these areas of disagreement pale in the presence of our common interest in
more fully utilizing the water resources that are legally ours.
When you strip away all of the rhetoric and boil this debate down to its base elements, I believe there are two fair-
minded modifications to Colorado water law that, if enacted prior to November's balloting, would unify support for
Referendum A, clearing the way for an evenhanded agreement that is equitable to all corners of the state.
First, the Colorado General Assembly should come together in special session to enact legislation applicable to
projects implemented under Referendum A requiring one-to- one "compensatory storage" for projects that involve the
diversion of water from one basin to another. In laymen's terms, this simply means that when water is diverted from
one Colorado basin to another (for example, from the Western Slope to the Front Range), the basin of origin (in this
example, the Western Slope) must be compensated with one acre-foot of new storage for every acre-foot of water
diverted from that basin of origin.
The idea of compensatory storage is far from new. The Colorado Big Thompson Project, for example, which facilitates
the diversion of 260,000 acre-feet of western Colorado water to northern Colorado, required compensatory storage for
the Western Slope in the form of the Green Mountain Reservoir. Similarly, the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, long
delayed in the Congress by regional disputes not unlike those surrounding Referendum A, was ultimately enacted
when western Colorado was guaranteed compensatory storage in the form of Ruedi Reservoir, in exchange for the
diversion of water from the West Slope's Fryingpan River to communities and farmers in southeastern Colorado.
Second, and equally important, the General Assembly must memorialize safeguards clarifying that none of the bonded
monies under Referendum A will be used by public or private entities to gobble up agricultural water rights, or to
underwrite the legal expenses of thirsty cities and developers. As written, there is nothing in Referendum A that
prevents public or private entities from receiving funds carrying a state imprimatur to buy up the very water rights
that keep many agricultural communities alive. I think that most would agree that this water storage referendum
should be about "bricks and mortar," about expanding physical storage capacity and promoting conservation through
greater storage efficiency, not about underwriting legal fees and acquisition of agricultural water rights. Accordingly,
the legislature should construct a firewall that prevents the expenditure of bonded monies for these nonstorage
purposes.
In my opinion, these are the answers to the divisive questions that lie in the shadows of Referendum A's otherwise
vague language.
Colorado deserves a comprehensive water policy that bridges regional divides. Now is our chance to build that bridge.
Rep. Scott McInnis represents Colorado's 3rd Congressional District.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor & Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks/Town Manager NN
From: Meryl Jacobs/Director of Recreation
Date: September 4, 2003
Re: Salute to USA 2004
Summary: Through the budget process, staff has begun to identify a new direction for
Avon's Salute to the USA, 2004. Per council's request, staff is looking at ways to
enhance and expand this event. Several meetings have been held with Beaver Creek
Resort Company in which the idea of a valley wide collaborated effort has been
discussed. The concept would be to market an entire weekend of fireworks, beginning in
Minturn on Friday, Avon on Saturday and Vail on Sunday. Beaver Creek Resort
Company has agreed to partner with the Town as a presenting sponsor and to help with
the coordination of a VIP area, as well as sponsorship solicitation. Our goal will be to
recover at least 50% of the direct costs of Salute through cash sponsorships. We have
also begun to discuss ways in which we can reduce costs by sharing resources. (i.e. stage,
entertainment, fencing etc.)
The 2004 budget includes an additional $5,000 for the fireworks production, which will
allow Jim Funk and Western Enterprise to take the show to a higher level. Western
Enterprise has also committed a new piece of computerized firing technology that will
enhance the visual effects of the fireworks.
Staff hopes to have the majority of the sponsorship solicitation completed by the budget
work session in October. We look forward to updating the council on our progress at that
time.
Town Manager Comments:
TOWN OF AVON
LOCAL LIQUOR LICENSE AUTHORITY AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 - 5:15 PM
1. Call to Order/ Roll Call
2. Application for New Hotel & Restaurant Liquor License - PUBLIC HEARING
a. Applicant: Clifden Restaurants, LLC d/b/a On the Fly
Address: 137 Benchmark Road, Suite 4W, Avon, CO 81620
Manager: Brian W. Nolan
3. Application for Renewal Licenses
a. Applicant: City Market #26
Address: 0260 Beaver Creek Place, Avon, CO 81620
Manager: Dave Betts
4. Other Business
5. Approval of the Local Liquor License Authority Minutes
a. Approval of the August 12, 2003 Meeting Minutes
6. Adjournment
"ToAA'n Clerk\Council\.A2endas\2003Wvon Council Meetine.03.09.09
TOWN OF AVON
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 - 5:30 PM
1. Call to Order/ Roll Call
2. Citizen Input
3. Ordinances
First Reading
a. Ordinance No. 03-10, Series of 2003, An Ordinance Approving Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1 to the Village (at Avon) PUD Development Plan and PUD Guide,
Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (Ruth Borne)
4. Resolutions
5. New Business
6. Other Business
7. Unfinished Business
8. Town Manager Report
9. Town Attorney Report
10. Mayor Report
11. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of the August 26, 2003 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
b. Resolution No. 03-34, Series of 2003, A Resolution Certifying Delinquent
Assessment Payments for Local Improvement District No. 1990-1 (Wildridge Special
Improvement District) for Collection by Eagle County Treasurer
c. Resolution No. 03-37, Series of 2003, A Resolution approving the Amended Final
Plat, A Replat of Lot 4 and Lot 5 Mountain Vista Resorts Subdivision, Town of Avon,
Eagle County, Colorado
12. Adjournment
Town Clerk\Council\Agendas\2003Wvon Council Meeting.03.09.09
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development
Date September 9, 2003
Re: First Reading of Ordinance 03-10, An Ordinance Approving Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1 for the Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD
Guide, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
Summary
On August 26, 2003 a public hearing was held on the Formal PUD Amendment application
for the Village (at Avon) and Ordinance 03-10 was tabled on first reading.
As part of the regularly scheduled Avon Town Council meeting, the applicant, Traer Creek
LLC has requested a site tour of the respective areas affected by this proposed Formal
PUD Amendment to illustrate proposed and existing site conditions.
Additionally, Traer Creek LLC submitted a revised development plan and PUD Guide on
Thursday afternoon. To date, staff has not fully evaluated the proposed changes in the
development standards, land use, or density to adequately make any new
recommendations.
Recommendations
Therefore, Staff recommends tabling Ordinance 03-10 on first reading.
Proposed Motion
"I move to table the first reading of Ordinance 03-10, Approving Formal PUD
Amendment No. 1 for the Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD Guide, Town of
Avon, Eagle County, Colorado."
Town ManaAer Comments
l sT?u?
Memo to Town Council, eptember 9, 2003
Ordinance 03-10, VAA Formal PUD Amendment No. 1
.?ck''cd inu+af
Page 1 of 1
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 03-10
SERIES OF 2003
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING FORMAL PUD AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO THE VILLAGE (at Avon) PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND PUD GUIDE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
WHEREAS, Traer Creek LLC has applied for a Formal PUD Amendment to The
Village (at Avon) Development Plan and PUD Guide to Plarming Areas G, M, N, Q, RMF-1,
RMF-4, and Open Space 5 and Open Space 13 (hereinafter referred to as Fonnal PUD
Amendment No. 1) as more specifically described in the application dated May 30, 2003 and
subsequent revision dated July 24, 2003;
WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
the Planning & Zoning Conunission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Plamaing & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
hearing on June 17, 2003, at w]lich time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity
to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed
Formal PUD Amendment No. 1, and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendations on the proposed Formal PUD Amendment No.l to the Town
Council of the Town of Avon, and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
26th day of August, 2003, at which time the public was given an opportunity to express their
opinions regarding the proposed Formal PUD Amendment No. 1; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Avon, Town Council of the Town of Avon finds as follows:
F:\Council\Ordinarnces\2003\Ord 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
1. The hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council
were both extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues
were submitted at those hearings.
2. That the amendment is compatible with the Village (at Avon) PUD Guide and
original application premise and the policies as specified by the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan.
That the development standards for The Village (at Avon) PUD comply with each
of the Town of Avon's PUD design criteria and this proposed development is
consistent with the public interest.
4. That adequate facilities will be available to serve development for the type and
scope proposed for each respective planning area upon completion of the
subdivision process for the area encompassing Formal PUD Amendment No. 1.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
The Formal PUD Amendment No. 1 for The Village (at Avon) PUD is approved for Planning
Areas RMF-l, RMF-4, G (school site), N (Community Park). M (Regional/Commercial), Q
(Regional/Commercial) and Open Space 5 and 13, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado with
the following conditions:
1. The additional density on RMF-4 formerly known as a part of Planning Area M consists
of a maximum of 310 dwelling units limited to RMF-4 only and is in addition to the
2,400 dwelling units currently approved in The Village (at Avon) PUD Guide, Section D
and the Annexation and Development Agreement recorded November 25, 1998.
2. As part of the final subdivision process, an approved subdivision improvements
agreement and provisions for adequate collateral for public improvements consisting of,
but not limited to roads, bike paths, sidewalks, and utilities shall be completed prior to
any development for each respective planning area: Planning Area Q, Planning Area G
(school site), RMF-1 and/or RMF-4.
3. A final court decree of adjudicated water rights for the adequate quantity and use along
with all related agreements, leases and contracts shall be approved and fully executed for
the provision of water to RMF-4 as a prerequisite of final plat approval.
F!\COLInci1\Ordinances\2003\Ord 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
4. The Annexation and Development Agreement, Section 2(o), requires the Swift Gulch
Road extension be completed at the time of the Interstate-70 hnprovements. The Swift
Gulch Road extension shall be collateralized as part of a final subdivision plat prior to
commencment of any development or grading north of 1-70.
5. Submit a detailed plan for the Community Park (Planning Area N) for review in
conjunction with subdivision plans for Planning Area RMF-1. Submit a detailed Park
Plan for RMF-1 and RMF-4 in conjunction with a final subdivision plat that accounts for
the 3.4 acres of useable park space removed by this amendment. The park improvements
will be incorporated into the Subdivision hnprovement Agreements.
6. Submit a road and pedestrian alignment that is designed to accommodate the potential for
a continuous connection between RMF-1 and RMF-4 across the United States Forest
Service parcel at such time as subdivision plans are submitted for RMF-1. In the event
approval for the proposed aligmnent is obtained from the Forest Service, then a public
road as depicted on The Village (at Avon) PUD Development Plan Formal Amendment
No.1 will be required to be collateralized and constructed in accordance with a
Subdivision Improvements Agreement prior to the construction of any development on
Planning Area G (school site) and/or RMF-4.
7. A continuous ECO trails bike path connection from Swift Gulch Road to RMF-1, RMF-
4, Q, N and G must be provided. This path will be secured through the Subdivision
Improvements Agreement, and will meet minimum trail standards as specified by the
Town of Avon.
8. Public Transit services will be required to serve RMF-4 as a result of the impact of the
additional density and relocation of the school site to a more remote location. Prior to
issuance of any building permit for either RMF-4 or Planning Area G (school site), an
agreement establishing the level of service and funding must be executed between the
Town and Traer Creek LLC.
9. In the interest of preserving development opportunities and ensuring the location of the
school site, Planning Area G (school site) shall not again be relocated without compliance
with the procedures for a formal amendment as set forth in the Village (at Avon) PUD
Guide, Section H.2 and the Avon Municipal Code, Section 17.20.11 OK.
F:\Council\Oidinances\2003\0rd 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
10. The School Site (Plamling Area G) must be dedicated by Traer Creek LLC in accordance
with the terms and conditions as provided by the Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") dated , 2003 by and between the Town of Avon, Traer Creek LLC,
and Eagle County School District RE-50J. A copy of the fully executed MOA is attached
and incorporated herein.
11. The development standards for Plamling Area Q shall require a Special Review Use for
the the inclusion of autmobile fueling stations and carwashes.
12. Establish the VAA Wildlife Trust Fund prior to the issuance of the first building permit
associated with residential development north of I-70 as required in the Wildfire
Mitigation Plan, Exhibit D, of the Village at Avon PUD Guide.
13. This PUD Amendment approval is contingent upon concurrent approval of the
Subdivision Sketch Plan for all affected plaivaing areas (Plamling Areas RMF-1, RMF-4,
Q, N, and G).
14. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made
by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s)
shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval.
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED, this _ day of
2003, and a public hearing shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, on the day of,,
2003, at 5:30 P.M. In the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon,
Colorado.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town of Avon. Colorado
Town Council
F:\Counci]\Ordinances\2003\Ord 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED the day of , 2003.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
F:\Council\Ordirnances\2003\Ord 03-10 VAA PUD Amend -Sept.9.doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL
HELD AUGUST 26, 2003
A regular meeting of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held at 400 Benchmark Road, Avon,
Colorado in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Buz Reynolds called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. A roll call was taken with
Councilors Michael Brown, Debbie Buckley, Peter Buckley, Brian Sipes, Ron Wolfe and Mayor
Pro Tern Mac McDevitt present. Also present were Town Manager Larry Brooks, Town Attorney
John Dunn, Town Clerk Patty McKenny, Asst. Town Engineer Anne Martens, Recreation
Director Meryl Jacobs, Public Works Gary Padilla, Finance Director Scott Wright, Police Chief
Jeff Layman, Community Development Director Ruth Borne, as well as members of the press
and public.
Citizen Input
Mary Jacobs presented an update to the triathlon special events taking place in Avon on
September 7tn
Ordinances
The Town Council considered on first reading Ordinance No. 03-10, An Ordinance approving
the Formal PUD Amendment No. 1 to the Village (at Avon) PUD Development Plan and PUD
Guide, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. Councilor Sipes stepped down at this time
noting a conflict of interest on the project. Community Development Director Ruth Borne
presented the Ordinance noting that Traer Creek LLC submitted the PUD Amendment for the
Village at Avon on May 30, 2003. She explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission held
several hearings. There were many opportunities whereby the information was presented
outlining the proposed changes to the development standards and densities for the affected
areas. The limited modifications are to the planning areas located north of the new 1-70
interstate exchange. She noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the Village at Avon PUD Amendment as set forth in Resolution 03-14
(attached in packet). She noted the major highlights of the application as follows (also included
in the council packet):
¦ Creating an additional 19.2 acres of Regional Commercial (Tract Q) immediately adjacent to
the new interstate exchange. Post Blvd. divides this commercial area into separate parcels.
The east parcel is approximately 7.8 acres and the west side consists of two parcels: 7.8
acres and additional 3.6 acres. As a frame of reference: Christy Sports is 6.35 acres and
original Wal-Mart 6.33 acres.
¦ Tract Q also includes 1.0 acres for the Fire District Regional Facility as required by the
Annexation and Development Agreement.
¦ Relocating the school site to Tract M and increasing the planning area for the school site by
almost 2.0 acres.
¦ Reducing the Community Park from 29.0 acres to 17.4 acres. The loss of usable acreage
for the community park is limited to 3.4 acres. The existing topography and steep slopes
were not considered in the original planning area designation for the Community Park.
Traer Creek LLC has agreed to replace the park area when RMF-1 and RMF-4 are
developed.
Increasing Planning Area RMF-1 from 146 residential dwelling units (24.2 acres - 6.0
du/acre) to 307 residential dwelling units (30.7 acres - 10 du/acre).
Providing a mix of 310 dwelling units on Tract M, shich surrounds the new school site. Tract
M is specifically excluded in the Village at Avon PUD Guide from the total development
rights currently approved. Therefore, this amendment includes the addition of 310 dwelling
units (8.Odu/acre) to the previously approved 2,400 dwelling units for the Village at Avon.
Since the additional density is above what has been previously approved, staff has
recommended transit services be required for this development area combined with the
school to mitigate the impacts and isolation from the rest of the Town of Avon.
She noted that a more detailed analysis of the amendment was included in the staff report dated
August 5, 2003. She then reviewed the twelve conditions that were set forth in proposed
Ordinance No. 03-10. Shane Bohart introduced himself as the Vice President for Development
for Traer Creek LLC. Bohart spent some timing addressing the overall project, the numerous
agreements in place and the history of the project's development thus far. He highlighted a
number of positive aspects of what has already been developed, i.e. the high standards of
construction of the 2 big box stores, the new 1-70 interchange & round-a-bouts, the cul-de-sac in
EagleBend. He then addressed the proposed changes in detail including the school site,
density changes, the park, and issues with Tract M and Tract Q and addressed the questions
asked by Council at the August 12th meeting. Council and the developer commented on some
additional topics, i.e. hotel development, process with regards to PUD requirements vs.
subdivision requirements, whether or not there is a need for more "affordable housing", and
school site issues.
Mayor Buz Reynolds opened the public hearing. Public input was received from the following
people: Mike Cacioppo, Bobby Banks, Kathleen Walsh, Justin Haimes, Tamera Underwood,
John Lender, Dan Smith, and Michelle Courtney. In general, the comments were not supportive
of increasing density and there was some concern about not having a secured site location for
the school because of the access problem.
Again, the Council provided feedback about their concerns about the project summarized as
follows (to name a few):
? Water rights confirmed by the Water Authority that they are adequate.
? Transportation to the project.
? Generally not supportive of the density increase or the accessory apartments.
? Keep school site on the north side of the highway, not on the valley floor.
The majority of the Council supported the idea that more time was needed to look at all the
information that was presented. Some discussion was had regarding the action to table the
ordinance again or vote on it. Councilor D. Buckley moved to table the first reading of
Ordinance No. 03-10, Series of 2003 to the September 9, 2003 meeting in order to take more
time to try to resolve some of the issues outlined. Councilor Brown seconded the motion. A roll
call vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. (Councilor Sipes was not present &
did not vote due to conflict of interest). Town Attorney John Dunn noted that the "first reading"
of the ordinance on 9/9/03 did not require a public hearing & that the ordinance would likely
change in content. Further questions were asked regarding the interchange opening date & the
tenants for the old Wal-Mart building. Bohart answered by saying that the interchange would
likely open mid October & that 2 tenants have leases, Pier One & Gart Brothers. The third party
has not yet signed. The opening dates of the stores are slated for December. Avon citizen
Chris Eckrum requested the developer provide a 3-dimensional model of what the project would
look like; she noted that such a model was presented with the big box stores & it was very
helpful for the community to then visualize the project.
Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 3
August 26, 2003
Resolutions
Assistant Town Engineer Anne Martens presented Resolution No. 03-36, Series of 2003, a
Resolution to amend the Town of Avon 2003 Budget. She noted that this was a budget
amendment to the Capital Improvements Fund to increase the 2003 Street & Road
Improvement Budget from $200K to $235K in order to install permanent delineators at Hurd
Lane. She highlighted some of the road improvements to be completed yet this fall. Mayor Pro
Tern McDevitt moved to approve Resolution No. 03-36, a Resolution to amend the Town of
Avon 2003 Budget. Councilor D. Buckley seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Consent Agenda
Mayor Pro Tern McDevitt asked for a motion on the Consent Agenda items. Councilor D.
Buckley moved to approve the consent agenda. Councilor Wolfe seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
a. Approval of the August 12, 2003 Regular Council Meeting Minutes
b. Award Contract for 2003 Street Repair & Improvements to B&B Excavating, Inc.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
APPROVED:
Michael Brown
Debbie Buckley
Peter Buckley
Mac McDevitt
Buz Reynolds
Brian Sipes
Ron Wolfe
Regular Council Meeting
August 26, 2003
Page 3 of 3
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Scott Wright, Finance Direct<)>-
Date: September 3, 2003
Re: Certification of WRSA
Summary:
Staff has completed their review of the WRSA and has one property that needs to be certified
to Eagle County for collection.
Please find attached the resolution that provides the detail on this past due account.
Town Manager Comments:
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 03-34
SERIES OF 2003
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS FOR LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1990-1 (WILDRIDGE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT) FOR COLLECTION BY EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado has created Local
Improvement District No. 1990-1 (Wildridge Special Improvement District) for the purpose of
making certain local improvements; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 90-14 assessed the cost of said improvements to and upon
lots or tracts of land within the District; and
WHEREAS, failure to pay when due any installment of principal and interest shall cause
the whole of the unpaid principal and accrued interest to become due and collectable
immediately; and
WHEREAS, assessments of principal and interest due and payable March 1,
2003, have not been paid for certain properties in the District.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Town Council of the Town of Avon,
Colorado that the following properties are hereby declared to be in default for failure to pay
assessments due March 1, 2003, and are hereby certified to the County Treasurer for collection.
ASSESSMENT UNIT III
Block 3 Lot 64 Schedule #023189 Wildridge $802.10
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $802.10
ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 2003
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
N
W
w
CD
W
O
n
w
r
O
rn
0)
W
CA
v
O
O
W
CD
v
O
W
CD
O
CO
CU
O
W
O
N
O
CA
n
CD
a
C
CD
z
c
3
0-
CD
W
0
r
O
n
N
al
7
n
CD
(D
Cn
N
O
O
W
-i
O
w
N
? o
n @
S
Cn
CD 3
O
o CA
n
CD
O
n
O
C
7
0
D
m
O
rn
n
m
n
D
O
z
cn
m
m
m
K
co
m
N
O
O
W
z
D
m
O
m
O
n
r
O
C7
D
r
m
O
m
rn
z
Z7
C7
Z
O
1
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer
Anne Martens, Assistant Town r
Date: September 3, 2003
Re: Resolution No. 03 -37, Approving the Amended Final Plat, A Replat of Lot 4 and Lot 5
Mountain Vista Resorts Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
(0100 Beaver Creek Blvd)
Summary: Points of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation, owner of Lot 4 and Lot 5,
Mountain Vista Resort Subdivision, has submitted an amended Final Plat to resubdivide Lots
4 and 5. This is a Subdivision of a lot under development, providing minor lot line revisions to
insure the office building is within the building envelope. Lot 4 is for the office building and Lot
5 is parking and common space. There are no revisions to easements or setbacks. The
Subdivision is in conformance with the Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code, Subdivisions.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 03 -37, Series
of 2003, A Resolution Approving the Amended Final Plat, A Replat of Lot 4 and Lot 5 for
Mountain Vista Resort Subdivision; Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, subject to
completion of technical corrections to be approved by staff.
Town Manager Comments:
4?
TOWN OF AVON
RESOLUTION NO. 03 -37
Series of 2003
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT, A REPLAT OF LOT 4
AND LOT 5, MOUNTIAN VISTA RESORT SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE
COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, Points of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation has submitted an amended Final
Plat for Lot 4 and Lot 5 Mountain Vista Resorts Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Amended Final Plat has been reviewed by the Town Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Amended Final Plat was found to be substantially in conformance with Title 16
of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements for consideration as an
Amended Final Plat.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, that the Amended Final Plat, A Replat of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Mountain Vista Resort
Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, is hereby approved by the Town of Avon
subject to:
1. The completion of technical corrections as identified by Town Staff.
ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 2003.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
I:\Engineering\.Subdivision\Benchmark at BC\Lot C, Avon Center\L4&5MVRSresO337.doc