TC Council Packet 10-14-2008TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL, DAVE DANTAS, KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS, TAMRA NOTTINGHAM UNDERWOOD
TOWN ATTORNEY: JOHN DUNN
TOWN STAFF
TOWN MANAGER: LARRY BROOKS TOWN CLERK: PATTY MCKENNY
ALL REGULAR MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME DURING CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY INPUT AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLEASE VIEW AVON'S WEBSITE, HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG, FOR MEETING AGENDAS AND MEETING MATERIALS
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND RECREATION CENTER, ALPINE BANK, AND AVON LIBRARY
THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. INQUIRY OF THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4. COMMUNITY INPUT
5. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Minutes from September 23, 2008
b. Contract Parking Agreement with ECO Transit (Jenny Strehler, Public Works & Transportation Director)
c. Change Order 006, 2007 Street Improvements (Shane Pegram, Engineer II) Reconcile as built quantities
for the 2008 Wildridge Loop Pedestrian Improvements
d. Ground Engineering Proposal for Testing at the Recreation Center Remodel (Shane Pegram, Engineer II)
Contract for special testing and inspection requirements for the Recreation Center Remodel
6. UNFINISHED / OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. ORDINANCES
9. RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 08-35. Series of 2008, Resolution Vacating A Final Plat, a Resubdivision of a
Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
(Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer) Review of Lot 61 PUD Final Plat and proposal to vacate the plat
10. APPEALS FROM OR RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
a. Public Hearing on Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 08-06, Series of 2008, Resolution
Recommending Denial To The Avon Town Council Of A Rezoning Application To Rezone From
The Town Center (TC) Zoning Designation To A New Planned Unit Development (PUD) For
Lots 21, 65a, 65b, Tract Q, And Parcel Tk-3, Block 2, Benchmark At Beaver Creek Subdivision,
which is described as follows:
Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road
Applicant/ Owner: E.A.H., LLC
Avon Council Meeting. 08.10.14
Page 4 of 5
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD
VON
C a 1. a R 4 a a
10. Continued: APPEALS FROM OR RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
a. Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 08-06, Series of 2008, Resolution Recommending
Denial To The Avon Town Council Of A Rezoning Application To Rezone From The Town
Center (TC) Zoning Designation To A New Planned Unit Development (PUD) For Lots 21,
65a, 65b, Tract Q, And Parcel Tk-3, Block 2, Benchmark At Beaver Creek Subdivision
Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the owner of the
property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a concurrent Preliminary
Plan for Subdivision on a new redevelopment site comprised of a reconfiguration of the properties listed
above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC), and wherefrom the existing buildings would be
scraped. The proposed PUD is envisioned to be a contemporary mixed -use development including retail
space, office space, residential and lodging uses vertically integrated within three new buildings to be
located on the site.
11. OTHER BUSINESS
12. TOWN MANAGER REPORT
13. TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT
14. MAYOR REPORT
15. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
October 28 2008: Public Hearing on Budget, Lake Street Opening Ribbon Cutting, Main Street Design
Update, Noise Berm Civil Engineering Contract Award, Beaver Creek Metro District
Parking Services Agreement, Beaver Creek Metro District Fleet Maintenance Agreement,
Parking ordinance revision to designate a commercial core with enhanced penalties
November 11, 2008: Avon Retirement Plan Amendments
16. ADJOURNMENT
Avon Council Meeting. 08.10.14
Page 5 of 5
Town of Avon
Department of Transportation
Memo
To:
Through:
From:
Date:
Re:
The Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Jennifer Strehler, Director of Public Works and Transportation
October 14, 2008
Contract Parking Agreement with ECO Transit
Summary:
ECO Transit has been parking transit buses, using the bus wash, and re -fueling
buses at the Town's Swift Gulch site, for many years. The IGA for these services to
be billed on a time and material basis during the period 1/1/2009 through
12/31/2009 is attached. The Town Council is requested to authorize the Town
Manager to sign the revenue generating agreement for 2009.
Background:
Parking arrangement has been annually renewed for many previous years.
Discussion:
The proposed agreement is attached and has been reviewed by the Town Attorney.
Financial Implications:
As is customary, funds derived from the town's execution of services under this
agreement will be included as revenue in the Fleet Maintenance Enterprise Fund
#61. Approximately $28,200 is projected as revenue and has been included in the
2009 budget.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Town Council approve that attached contract and authorize
the Town Manager to sign same.
Town Manager Comments:
Attachments:
Agreement for Services between the Town of Avon and ECO Transit
eagle county regional transportation authority
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jennifer Strehler
Public Works and Transportation Director
Town of Avon
FROM: Janet Field
ECO Administrative Coordinator
DATE: September 19, 2008
RE: 2009 Service Agreement
Attached is a signed copy of the 2009 Service Agreement which was
approved by the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Board
at their September 17 meeting and signed by Harry N. Taylor, Director.
Please send me a copy of the Service Agreement after it has been signed
by the Town of Avon.
3289 Cooley Mesa Road, PO Box 1070, Gypsum, CO 81637 tel: 970/328-3520 fax: 970/328-3539 eco@eaglecounty.us
2009 Parking Agreement
ECO-Avon
SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the day of , 2008, between Board of County
Commissioners of Eagle County acting through the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority doing
business as ECO Transit ("ECO") and Town of Avon ("Avon");
IT IS AGREED as follows:
1. Services. During the term of this Agreement, Avon will provide the following services:
(a) Outdoor paved parking stalls at the Swift Gulch Public Works Complex (the "Premises")
to be used for a maximum of ten (10) transit vehicles during November -April that are
provided with 120v/l0amp electrical power to support the engine block heater at a charge
of $350.00 per month per vehicle (includes power for winter months of November through
March).
(b) Outdoor paved parking stalls at the Premises to be used for a maximum of four (4) transit
vehicles during May -October without power at a charge of $300.00 per month per vehicle.
(c) Bus wash bay access and usage at a rate of $45.00 per bus.
(d) Diesel fuel to be billed at Avon's cost plus 10%.
2. Limits on Use. No other services by Avon are included other than those explicitly listed herein.
Other uses of the Premises are not permitted without Avon's written consent and will be considered
a breach of this Agreement. The following additional limitations on use apply:
(a) The Premises are not secure; the ECO is advised that use of the Premises is "at your own
risk".
(b) Parking stalls shall be those designated by Avon.
(c) Avon staff reserves the right to physically drive and relocate any of the ECO's vehicles,
provided that the vehicle remains within the physical site, at any time for any reason. ECO
agrees to provide Avon with functioning keys and/or key -codes capable of unlocking and
starting all ECO-serviced vehicles parked on the Premises.
(d) All vehicles parked on the Premises included under this Agreement must be in full running
order. Avon reserves the right to remove from the Premises at ECO's cost any vehicle that
will not start, is dilapidated, or has not been restored to full running order by ECO or their
assigned for a period of thirty (30) days or more.
(e) ECO agrees to keep the Premises clean, sanitary, and in good condition and, upon
termination of the Agreement, vacate the Premises to Avon in a condition identical to that
which existed when the ECO initiated site use, except for ordinary wear and tear.
(f) ECO agrees to immediately notify Avon of any defects or dangerous conditions in and
about the Premises of which ECO becomes aware.
(g)
ECO agrees to reimburse Avon, on demand by Avon, for the cost of any repairs to the
Premises damaged by the ECO through misuse, neglect or recklessness.
(h) ECO herein acknowledges that the ECO has examined the Premises, including electrical
outlets, and has found them to be in good, safe, and clean condition at commencement of
this Agreement.
In support of the continued governmental partnership between Avon and ECO and in light
of on -going efforts to plan, design, and construct a Joint Regional Operations Facility at
the site, access and use of Avon's transit operations building (including restrooms,
showers, internet, coffee/cocoa station, and break room) is included at no additional
(i)
Page 1 of 2
2009 Parking Agreement
EC0-Avon
charge.
3. Facilities. Avon represents that its facilities are adequately equipped to offer said services.
4. Billing for Services. An invoice will be issued by the tenth day of each month for services
performed during the previous month. Payment is due in full within thirty days of receipt of the
invoice. The Town reserves the right to adjust the rates charged for services.
5. Term and Termination. This is a month -to -month service agreement which commences on
January 1, 2009 and terminates December 31, 2009 unless otherwise terminated earlier in
accordance with this Agreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause on
fifteen days written notice. In the event of breach of this Agreement by either party, the other party
may terminate this Agreement upon seven days written notice unless the breach is cured within the
seven day period. The parties desire to implement this Agreement as soon as possible. The
signatory for ECO has the authority to bind ECO to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
However, continuation of this Agreement is contingent upon the subsequent ratification of the same
by board action of the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County at their next regularly
scheduled meeting.
6. Indemnification. ECO agrees to the extent permitted by law to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless TOA, its respective agents, officers and employees of and from any and all loss, cost,
damage, injury, liability, claims, liens, demands, action and causes of action whatsoever, including
reasonable attorneys fees arising out of the indemnifying Party's intentional or negligent acts, errors,
omissions, or those of its agents, officers, servants and employees.
7. Insurance. ECO must carry valid insurance for any individuals and property that are involved in
use of the Premises. Avon is not liable for damage to ECO-owned property, or any property owned
by others and included in a service agreement operated by ECO, while located on the Premises,
including acts of vandalism, theft, or comprehensive damage of same vehicles.
8. Relationship of the Parties. The relationship between the parties is that of independent
contractor, and nothing herein shall be deemed or construed as creating a relationship of principal
and agent, partnership, joint venture, or ownership interest in the real property. Avon shall be solely
responsible for payroll withholding and payment of taxes as well as payment of unemployment
compensation and other employment related benefits.
TOWN OF AVON
By:
Print name
Signature Date
EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
By: j Q�j N. Itloil t.)theJos,
•J Print name -Signature
9/F-aI
Date
Page 2 of 2
Memo
To:
Thru:
From:
Date:
Re:
Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Justin Hildreth, Town Engineert7 ft
Shane Pegram, Engineer II
October 7, 2008
Change Order 006 — 2007 Street Improvements
Summary: B&B Excavating is nearing completion of the 2008 Annual Street Improvements.
Change Order 006 (Exhibit A) is proposed to account for final adjustments to bid quantities and
additional work that Town of Avon engineering staff directed the contractor to complete on Wildridge
Road East, Wildridge Road West, and Longsun Lane. The additional work is for items that were not
included in the construction plans.
Previous Council Action:
November 14, 2006
March 27, 2007
May 8, 2007
May 22, 2007
November 11, 2007
January 8, 2008
April 22, 2008
May 13, 2008
August 26, 2008
Design contract for the 2007 Annual Street Improvements Project (Wildridge
Road West, Wildridge Road East, Saddleridge loop, and West Beaver
Creek) awarded to Intermountain Enginering (IME).
Construction contract for the 2007 Annual Street Improvements Project
awarded to B&B Excavating. Wildridge East removed from contract due to
budget constraints.
Wildridge Road West removed from contract to allow further investigation
into including a pedestrian lane along its full length. Staff directed to replace
work with alternate overlay projects.
Approved Change Order 001 — Removal of Wildridge Road West, addition of
overlays for Long Spur and Fox Lane, and Beartrap Road travel lane
narrowing and pedestrian lane addition.
Approved Change Order 002 — Adjustment of 2007 final quantities.
IME's contract for redesign of Wildridge Road West approved.
Approved Change Order 003 - 2008 Annual Street Improvements, including
Wildridge Road East, Wildridge Road West, Longsun Lane and Sun Road.
West Beaver Creek Blvd overlay was removed from the change order.
Approved Change Order 004 — West Beaver Creek Boulevard sidewalk, curb
and gutter, and striping improvements.
Approved Change Order 005 — Final quantities adjustment and additional
work for Sun Road and West Beaver Creek Blvd.
Discussion:
The 2008 Annual Street Improvements Project is comprised of the Wildridge Road East and West
(Wildridge Loop) asphalt overlay, lane narrowing, pedestrian lane addition, Longsun Lane asphalt
overlay, Sun Road asphalt overlay, and West Beaver Creek Boulevard sidewalk, curb and gutter,
and striping improvements.
Change Order 006, items 1 thru 22, reconciles the as -built quantities with bid quantities.
Delivery/Batch tickets and field measured as -built conditions were used to calculate final
adjustments to original bid quantities. As -Built quantities were verified by Town of Avon engineering
staff.
Change Order 006, items 23 thru 31, lists additional work that was not included in the original
contract. This work included a return trip of the asphalt milling crew to mill additional areas, removal
of adjacent concrete driveways, removal of damaged asphalt edges, repair of transverse cracks and
soft spots, sink hole repair on Buck Creek Rd, and complete replacement of guardrail in locations
throughout Wildridge.
Financial Implications:
Project Budget is summarized as:
Construction
Project Administration
Geotechnical Investigation
Contingencies
Total Project Budget
Current
$1,402,124.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 6,700.00
$ 59.276.00
$1,476,100.00
Proposed
$1,421,004.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 6,700.00
$ 40.396.00
$1,476,100.00
Recommendation: Approve Change Order 006 to the contract with B&B Excavating in the amount
of $18,876.06.
Proposed Motion: I move to approve Change Order 006 to the original contract with B&B
Excavating in the amount of $18,876.06.
Town Manager Comme s:
NOTES:
Exhibit A — Change Order 006
• Page 2
EXHIBIT A
CHANGE ORDER
Order No.: 006
Date: October 7.2008
Agreement Date: April 4. 2007
NAME OF PROJECT: 2007 Street Improvements
OWNER: Town of Avon. Colorado
CONTRACTOR: Oldcastle SW Group. Inc. dba B&B Excavating
The following changes are hereby made to the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS:
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19..
20..
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Item Descrivtion
Bid Quantity Adjustment
Wildridge Road East
2.1 Remove and Replace Guardrail
2.2 Raise Existing Guardrail
2.4 Relocate Existing Signs
3.2 2" Asphalt Concrete Overlay
3.3 9" Class 6 Road B -e
3.8 Preformed Plastic osswalk
3.11 Ditch Regrading id Reseeding
Wildridge Road West
2.1 •Raise Existing Guardrail
2.3 Remove Existing Shoulder
3.2 2" Asphalt Concrete Overlay
3.3 9" Class 6 Road Base
3.4 6" Class 6 Road Base for shoulder
3.7 Pedestrian Lane Symbols
3.8 Preformed Plastic Crosswalk
3.11 Ditch Regrading and Reseeding
4.1 Adjust Manhole Rim Elevation
4.2 Adjust Valve Elevation
Longsun Lane
3.1 Adjust Manhole Rim Elevation
3.2 Adjust Valve Elevation
Alternates
1.0 Ditch Regrading Various Roads
1.1 Wildridge Road West Curb and Gutter
Additional Work
Additional Milling (2°° trip)
Concrete & Asphalt Edge Removal
Transverse Crack Repair
Repair Soft Spots in Aspahlt
BIB Change iJ U CO
Ouantitv Order Price Amount
301 (301) LF 21.18 (6,375.18)
1350 (1350) LF 3.58 (4,833.00)
2 (2) EA 273.83 (547.66)
2,767 157.14 TON 77.69 12,208.21
1375 (1375) CY 54.86 (75,432.50)
3 1 EA 659.85 659.85
9078 (9078) LF 4.23 (38,399.94)
747 (747) LF 3.58 (2,674.26)
156 320 CY 118.46 37,907.20
1201 157.14 TON 79.20 12,445.49
824 (824) CY 70.02 (57,696.48)
157 25.25 CY 108.70 2,744.68
11 2 EA 329.92 659.84
0 2 EA 659.85 1,319.70
4153 (4153) LF 4.31 (17,899.43)
25 (2) EA 80.00 (160.00)
6 (2) EA 60.00 (120.00)
10 (8) EA 80.00 (640.00)
2 (1) EA 60.00 (60.00)
5,280 2220 LF 4.43 9,834.60
200 (200) LF 47.52 (9,504.00)
1 LS 3,047.00 3,047.00
1 LS 20,693.50 20,693.50
462 LF 17.05 7,877.10
1 LS 5,536.34 5,536.34
CO -1
Item
Item Descri ' tion
Bid Change
UnitUnit
CO
Quantity Order
Price
Amount
006
27.
Buck Creek Rd Sink Hole Repair
1
LS
2,535.00
2,535.00
28.
Clean Up Swale
1
LS
2,928.00
2,928.00
29.
Credit for use of TOA Sweeper
1
LS
(500.00)
(500.00)
30.
Remove and Replace Existing Guardrail
and Posts
4200
LF
26.16
109,872.00
31.
Mobilization of Guardrail Contractor
1
LS
3,450.00
3,450.00
Total
18,876.06
Justification:
Change Order 006, items 1 thru 22, reconciles the as -built quantities with bid quantities.
Delivery/Batch tickets and field measured as -built conditions were used to calculate final
adjustments to original bid quantities. As -Built quantities were verified by Town of Avon
engineering staff.
Change Order 006, items 23 thru 31, lists additional work that was not included in the original
contract. This work included a return trip of the asphalt milling crew to mill additional areas,
removal of adjacent concrete driveways, removal of damaged asphalt edges, repair of transverse
cracks and soft spots, sink hole repair on Buck Creek Rd, and complete replacement of guardrail in
locations throughout Wildridge.
Change to CONTRACT PRICE: $18,876.06
Original CONTRACT PRICE: $599,688.94
Current CONTRACT PRICE adjusted by previous CHANGE ORDER: $2,005,541.10
The CONTRACT PRICE due to this CHANGE ORDER will be increased by: $18,876.06
The new CONTRACT PRICE including this CHANGE ORDER will be $2,024,417.16
Change to CONTRACT TIME:
APPROVALS REQUIRED:
Approved by Engineer:
Completion date will be extended to October 31
Accepted by Contractor:
Accepted and Approved by Owner:
CO -2
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Justin Hildreth, Town Engineerr V
Shane Pegram, Engineer II
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Ground Engineering Proposal for Testing at the Avon Recreation Center Remodel
Summary: Ground Engineering's proposal, dated September 15, 2008, includes materials testing
and special inspections required for the Avon Recreation Center Remodel Project. Staff
recommends approval of Ground Engineering's proposal for the sum of $2,406.
Discussion: Ground Engineering's proposal includes materials testing and special inspections
required by the Town of Avon Building Department to construct the Avon Recreation Center
Remodel. Testing and special inspections include sub -grade testing, inspection of helical pier
installation, concrete testing, and structural steel inspections.
Staff recommends approval of Ground Engineering's proposal for the sum of $2,406.
Financial Implications: The proposed project budget is shown below:
Project Item
Current Budget
Proposed Budget
Design
$70,000
$70,000
Construction Cost Estimate
(including alternates)
$529,000
$529,000
IT Components
$15,000
$15,000
Special Inspections
$5,000
$2,500
Contingency
$41,000
$43,500
Total Budget
$660,000
$660,000
Recommendation: Approve the proposal, dated September 15, 2008, from Ground Engineering in
the amount of $2,406 for materials testing and special inspections of the Avon Recreation Center
Remodel.
Proposed Motion: I move to approve Ground Engineering's proposal, dated September 15, 2008,
for materials testing and special inspections of the Avon Recreation Center Remodel for a fee not to
exceed $2,406 without prior written approval.
Town Manager Comments:
NOTES:
Exhibit A — Ground Engineering's proposal, dated September 15, 2008
September ^ 6, 2408
Suo e.t Proposal far iyiatanais Testingand
eciai lr: rn; on $erv:ic es Avon Recreation
Center Remodel Aron; Colorado
Proposal No< 0808-2-0Xo
Mr. Shane Pegrarn
Town Of Avon
PO Box 97,
AvElri, CO 81620
Dear Mr. Pegram,
Ground ngineering Cbrisdltants, [r'io (GROUND) appreciates theopportunity to provide youwith a
proposal to provide materials testing and special inspection services for the Avon Recreation Center
Remodel, Avon, Cetorada, This proposal is based on plans provided dated 07102/2008.
Scope of Project
The proposed project will generally consist of the construction' of a new deck atttp Rl n9' Slab.and new
steel roof. Materials testing services will be completed according to project specifications and the Town of
Avon specifications.
Construction Materials Testing
The required amount of work for Materials testing depends greatly on the contractor's schedule, the
contras tot's. st heduhrig of our representatives, and Town .of Avon inspectors, Having no control over
these:. factors,. Our proposed scope of work is in general accordance- to the ,attached Fee Schedule,
Additionally, the proposed scope of.work is for periodic testing and observation. I-t:is therefore important
that the Client; Contractor,. or Subcontractors schedule our field technicians such that: (1) Sufficient tests
are conducted to :comply with project specifications, and, (2) That such .testing 90P -ire at tocations,:that are
randomly spread .throughout the materials being tested. The quantity of tests provided for the various
-elerfients in the attached sheets are estimates actual amounts of individual tests -and locations, are highly
dependant on the Contractor's schedule and the scheduling of our field teens by the °Tient, Contractor
and of Subtentr lcters.
Any exploration, testing, specific observations and analysis associated with the services will be performed
byConsultant 'solely to fulfill the purpose ofthis `Service Agreement and. Consultant is not responsible for
interpretation by others of the information developed, The services we have tiee€t retained to
provide consist of periodic material testing andfor observations to assist the owner; contractor,
construction manager andddesign team members With evaluating compliance with project specifications,
The proposal co.ipe of work does riot consist of canstrubtion management services relating to
acceptance of materials, materiel types, or placement methods logy, it is not the responsibility of the
testing agency to accept or reject material placement or material types. If required, these construction
management services can be provided under a separate scope of work: GROUND cannot he held
responsible for work performed qr materials, supplied by, others. Client recognizes that conditions on the
project site may vary from those encountered during testing and that information generated by Consultant
is based solelyon theinformation available to him at the time and location of such testlnrg,
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC
101AAirpark tar, Unit 9, PO Sox 464, Gypsum, CO 81637 Phone (970) 524.0720 Fax (970) 524-0721 www.grountfeng.coi
Office Locations: Englewood • Commerce City Loveland • Granby • Gypsun
Avon 4tet.r•00Yiijh;cglie Rerrfodel
kvon;tiaisriao::
Delays, Sehedule eactel sii t3s and bOn$tructior icrenCies eed by fuel- sh nags cetrent Shcilage
a-delay;or hrziitetiorl tn;;the detivery":of fi ,ateriais te'the toniWeri P4oject, due to some'unusuai-metcet
coflittbn bau3ed by industry-wtdtr strike, caster; .`area -wide shoitage., or other .reaeone',.-'419.774 our
control May'result u additiOnal feesfor- services and:associated penrrces needed to fulfill oust
scope t14 -".r ±c Please miss that travel ;ekpenses limited to trip otiarges and mileage rates May be
adjusted without rtatificat ort based on the current .volatility of fuel prices
To assist'li the ill geting if tl is project" we are prow ding the following detail Of the scope of work en
approximate costs for each service.: To :prepare this estimate, a. number of asscfmptions were made
regarding ttie project start :satfueneing; as indicated above, the actual number of trips and
associated tests r nay b rmiore ar less.
SiteWork--SSub ode Patiii ti:Foundation Sackfill
We anti ipate testing for these pha of work to. involve the services of a field technician to test the
existing t fitrdtled fillfaubgrade sported to the profit documents. A field technician will also be
required is make v€sits-to test compaction of earthwork for the foundation baokfiiiand building subgrade:,
Helical Piers/Screw Piles
An engineering." technician will be provided one full-time basis tO Observe -helical lical pier/screw {piles trilliftg
and tatog torque and depth of piers/piles. 'Our :estimate of scope and services for pier/pile drilling.. may be
modified based .on the general contractors drilling schedule, We. are baste our proposal of fees and
services one Vfour drlliirlg schedule with a°total of't helical piertiscrew.pife being placed.
Concrete Testing
.Art erigirteering: technician will be ..provided on a part-time basin: to perforM Slump, air content, and
compressive strength testteStingduringconcretepleoement for the _.building staff rs indludlrig but not limited
to concrete pier ,caps and- slabs :on decks 'The concrete will be tested in accordance With project
specifications and frequencies.
Air, .slump • and temperature testing will be performed for each nays placement Of atf Cy of each Clses.of
concrete: or fraction thereof Compressive strength samples will also be obtained at this frequei oy (,4
cyitnders per sample), one specimen will be tested at seven day% two will be tested at 28 days per tfre
job speitif is ations and one wIll beheld for later testing if required by project specifications.
An engineering #satiric an will l tYi a in -place reinforcing steel observa n. The field obsdr atlprta will
include :proper bar•sizingx spacing tolerance% lap splices and forty clearance,
Structural. Steel Weld and Belted Connection inspection and Testing
We propose. to- provide an experienced Cfertitied Weld inspector (CWI) for field visual observation and
testing as required during field ececttgn. Of the structural steel components including. -column , beams,
bracing; steel joists end :decking placement. Fieldoweided shear and moment connections will be
inspected and tested according to AWS Qf .f.
Welded, connections' will be visually. observed. Magnetic particle and ultrasonic testing are available and
may be utilized to meet the testing frequencies outlined in the specifications- Bolt tensioning for Slip
critical bolts shall be verified with a Skidttore4Arritieirri Tensioning devil* at a random number of
connections.
Engineering and Supervision
The project will be Cimpleted under the direct supervisi in of a ptofessiDral engineer registered _in the
state of 4olorecto. Daily field tO.petts arid laboratory test -reptirtik4ill be mowedand. summaries will
be provided as requested by the orient:
9/1512008
Pr pbsai No. 0809.2070 Page`2 of s
AVOn Rapreatiore Center Remodel
Cotereido
The cost preposai 'spreadsheet. tontaxned in Attachment A represents an .es`rihate tree. st ifdr the
required testirtcg. Th.e estimate detaslPO. 3s not :ipplusive of costs associated .With retesting The tvta[
pircposat estimate for thy:"prolact iv. $,406 00. You will be invoiced for the arriouht :of work actually
.peiforrne i. sr actttaI totalcost may be. more or less. than,.the amount esurnatect above. The tenns-under
which our work Will' be 'performed are, outtrr:ed rn the General Conn, iprs that contain a ismitatidri df
GROOM:es liability_.
The referenced proposal spreadsheet, -`Fee Schedif.e' end 'General Coriditibre ate iriciudet and are
pad of this proposal. We propose that Q::ir-fees for any .additional services be based on our hourly and unit
costs in accordance with the °Fee.$che duleu.:Alsp rote that GR UNl3` reserves the right to withhold Beta
and reports until we- tiave-:m aued.a-s :ned propgssaf.
The ebserVatfetl and` testing.ressrlts Oct. nptregeve the contractor:of his or her responsibilities 4.ob site:
safety and the Meant and methods ef conttrimVon are solely the respcnsibrlrty ofine contractor:
We request you oal1 GROUND'S :office: and schedule all observation and testing at least 24 ions in
advance of eabh required r bserveticn: or test. Verbal test results will be provided to the Contractor and
your field representatives as: tests are completed, and Marinat typed reports will be forwarded once they
have been processed and reviewed.
We reserve the .right to retain all reports end work not yet delivered until a signed proposal is received,
and any :past due invoices .are >paid in full
if tits;proposal meets with yo approval, please sign one dopy end return it: to this office. Thank you for
oonsidertrig us for the materials testing and special inspection services on this prated.
Sincerely,
GROUND Engineering c nsultaete, Inc.
Evan Kuhn Yc eel Wanner; PE
Agreed to this
Town of Avon. Iy
Print: -
day ef.
, 2008
91151 008
Proposal No. 0809-24170 Page 3 of
Avon Recreation nter.Reh Qtfei
Avon, C.olora.do
GROUND ENGINEER NG CONSULTANTS., 1NP.
FEE SCHEIAILE - CONSTRUCTION QRSERVATtON (2008)
CONSTRUCTION •OBSERVATi:ON
frns is tonnddp frnrtt atxi. sii rr1e6`t. s+'tv 8ctt+othero
Ffiarr-e:1 nervation —Construction tt tenatsTes ant SSap a: insoactiCna
4. Egg`n ,frig Te:ctlr it tap.. : ,
t SE 1.i:.'3getefar,s i'ectsu?ie;an.
a- Dairy Ratail titrCtUdes p'arsont e1. vehicle: And ib #asprot rl;)...... .....
.$4:0:7) - yoH,001.f::tti. r
S45.00 ' $e.5.:(l,L'itiOur
1#chnrcar t#QrJ;iy R. t_e 'f4 £t0 a ojr
3p 61`r the
Vayible :BaeCi F*o)est
r. ltireistTesting,(MT`.PT:61T), ASNT ua'Flf , Vriaua4 Weld"trisg.. (AWS,.GV1tl trali'tied)..f3cltTen io i•& SpeciaPinsp $55;00.-.ST-0.00/hr
Pait"'€Tme Ctbseryations;/nctudes-vehicle and equipment) . ....,.... ,:,...:...:.._. Teehnacran t ipur rl ate515:08 Trip .charge
LS
ABtat�r►TCiRYTESTING
Standard t'roctor Coropaatlbn- (ASTM)98).:..... S80:00 •
Mod4ed #Pruc toe.Compact on (ASTM 0 451) 90,0 0
Check ...:........._.... $410,00
Natural Density tfrtd<MoIsture Content »............._ .. Si10.10
Specxf'i ravity:{ASTiill P 854 . : $45.110
AggregaieSpeoifeQtavity.....,::...............................:......:.: ;45.00
'GradationAnalysis (ASTM D 432) • :,:........:..::._
a, Alt Standard -Sieieto.#Zti0'Sievee. -- $50:ti0
b. Percent Less Than *200 Sieve.:... S30 00
rk,iyIlyrst, add::.,,.......... 55000
R"Nato. (ASTM 2844)... S251,1.0
Attetberg L rn€t {015TH D 431-13 z, .,: $40>QQ
Sand Equivalent (ASIN€ Q 2410).. ... 5$5.OA
Relative iensftt (ASTM 0.20401,- . . ... .. - .....
Clay Lumps and Friable PartiiileS'(C ..........:.....:-...... S30:00
ectiorete Com{iression Test,:Cylinders. - .1312:00/ett
Flat or Elongated -Particles (D-4.791) $310`.00•
Soil. Stabilization Mixture Analysis Quote•
Concrete Flexural Test, Beards S50..00
li/tOrtar Cubes. S1•S oolea
Mai#otary Prix.ins.._...:..,-....;_.....,.......000.00/ea +.1..*:preparation titr*
Qrout S1 edameris..., »......,.,..... .•.. ... ..:$25:O.t3Je
Pinhole aspersion . ......>.. . ....................... ....., S3otti
07-
Floor flatness ono Levelness IF/1L: Los?trig.:_....:....:.:...:...,.. Quote
Maturity Me ......,.............. ..........._......,. ,• QUote
Laboratory Technician .. .• • -40:OO:+6D:00Ftiour
Moisture Coupons„.... .................. . Tech Time* SLS.(10 per coupon -
E NCII EERRNG.
erssp anning.40-: nerat sup? vIs qn, l el I;tnps anaryst4 p1Sc fttltatlar?. prepsratibn Of•••1apoi1s alti #la i I7rtre)
Pandas!. Eng€near
Project Manager....... .............::... • -
P ctject i ngineer or Geolo0 t :.......:::...:....:.. , S88.flQ;$85•00Ifiour
....•..............•..... ...._._ , ..... _...,.•.,;S :00-$65.00lhoi c
=.001hour
.: • Negotiable Dairy Rate
•Aaphalt Pxtl'aWob sired G£adatintfleats'..........• . :S4 0,00
Special Testsl$aniplo Preparation:...:.:,....$4tT.'DO$60>Q0/hour
Marshall Properties_
Fieidproduttton.sample•. .....................:...» ..:..$150:00
Laboratory grampte_(.. slredirrrensipoinb..,.,...S17.51point
SliRF Mix.AnalysIs:SHRP Gyratory+ ParnoacliOrl, 3 pointy
Flald'•PrOaudtior Ssiriple:. , . ..:, Sf5,Q0
:l abotatoly Sample..:..;
TheoretrcalNiigata/hi Speafi" Gravity (D.2041),.......,S65:.00
.Effect -of Water on Cohesion of Compacted
Bltuarinous Mixtures'(t7 167$) Eleid Prodtcction $175.0GG
Laboratory Specimens,...:...... $241100
Lotttttari Tests ., ,.... ,....., . • . . • $4,15,04
Nap-boil-Cl/en Calibration- (4.point) :,,,-.. i1400.0
Neution Oven'i'e t (AP) ........,.,.., .S*04
Coricrete.M10c..,Aaai sISSpac1nieiis
CylirideirrBeatr : Oiubte
Soundhese=(A iUf 8.....................:.;........:.5129:04
Fractures# -Faces Test .,.............:..r:.......... :.......:535.000
Los PsoOlOsAbr4sion lest w....,,.,.•.. .:,$$1 5.06
pH Test....._.._.., ........... S34.4tt
Water Soft ble sulfates Test.,..:......._ $40.60
t nOompatted Voids Test S?5.fla
9U lic.$petiiflt Cavity - Asphalt ........,.....:„ .. 535 lyt7
Pem7ea'bil4
2. Felling:at Gol1stant Had; 2-4" Diar Teter . ' $17,*.O0
b. 'lilaxtal.ftietmeabiifty::. S300:0tt
c, Remohfed: (W B t?R E -13k.:.,...:. 4200.00
Starri ield:frngineer
CAD.Tertimc ian........,...............,.................................._ _...
Speaiai Ccrcauitation. Expart:Testirnonyand:Court Appearance
M€:L:.LANEoUS
Auld' orPickup: Mileage (Qutakle Service Area)
)ut if4Ovai iiri rg:eXpenses, CatinerCialitavel costs: eMtipitient.renta. etc.
Interestottarged:a03et3:0.dayS hornlhvo1cedate,.,.:..:,:,,:.u...:.......:..:.. .......
Non -t restructrve Steel Testing Equipment
Ou tside i.aboratory Seiv€ces, .. ... ... ......... ....................... ......... .. ....................... ....... ......
._
Fug .{ ynar;tic Analy sis ('PA) (loots
CoringSt 5011neh0lerneterxDepth Inches + Technician 'rime
ihifob to l aborataf3c....... ....... r, Ovate (Project Specific)
$100-00-8160,00/bcur
$85 09-$'105.00/hour
_......._;....,:.,........,...;....................::.............._. $O.6.O1mile
Cori: +20%
1.5%/fr1Ontti
= S25 00/day
Cbst+28%
9/15120178
Propti al No: 08004070
Page -4 OS
Avon Recreation Center- Remodel
Avon, Colorado
GENERAL CONDITIONS.
fats . CeY"'bsaitartwll-lsurr ="p restrtivdaeea-1-0.09ntInOrd-Pivi3$4 0,14 :Actin Aco rrpietion .of -tro.,wvoet: [names > show crtargeeler
different personnel $flit expense cl$ssi'!"ica iOrla. 3 irwo itdye u1i. frr to iolt end le past -due tom; aprOyA r, ., scvo ce date: Cleft
a reo 1a pay l trance ?sge'oo.or a :and percentrci,V24 per.Montrt, or thhe Maximum -fale ,wideY law. do pant-c₹/e necouft. tT 7�3fd
Coneultaent bring due tee! lreCo ref ' t ti3se piayrre-t: r'seswil?es veneered toClyerit, Correia NFIlt shall be entdad mover. -ati: costs of callectietrt
including reasonable-atto* rs` foes,
fliefFile. Of SE0M M= ft'slt'fruid be bald i t:our sehr4eceriale•testing and ispeOttic.dfitairsetiorelyare intended to .assist.the contractor;
owner; •andoovereing.authenties[li eval aatit g r ympilsraee with proleCt specilncatrccns !t must -be undierstotu that Our tests and speCifib-ebtlentallons
offs riot oloOttKOO00.uffitOtia. aPprcvii1 the pi ernfolt ter uao' of Ce atti4ti ten materials, 'rrerrIt actctaowledgea tttaat Consultant ist. responsible for
the etiarstfarttOes material‘ meant, :metes; techniques teqdences, procedures of conatructon,. nor fer Contracrws failure tcr. foto/
Moor# endatoris at SCforkt 40flatrtlotital Seetkeisi and that the€.serdices pncvide4 bythe Consultanteneit hot relieve the contractor Of Its obltga t en to
perforrmt tne Woilc and use na Orials thitrare ka. at 9 danrse: W$h:the plans and specifications..
RIGHT,0E- NTffiYY Unite oth she agreed, Client will #Wtrsiet4: rtgt 4en1ry for Consultant tta take qaa. scheduled testate OSerVatiOrte. Comes#
well take reasonable {arec aiutiors tv reduoedernage to property However. heath! retadvation rrr damage that may resurt front field oper*tatls.are no.
Inc .ided in the fee aft€es' ate stated, arid Consultant cannot be held "rasp0n&ible. Any construction debris or waste generated as a result of
tire. required testing la.the .tat$m bt'lify o€t,* Client and their reepestlueCorot ictar air uhtixtnitl ors.
REPORTS: • Reporbt plank entlrt wa_oft.prepaarad by Cent retrain.'the p sal rrty ofOonstikent obi au fees for Consultants serulces have
been pal'rf. Tlfent sag eea that.alt reportsanl a c wodc•ftertlshed !fie the .tom iritrtd.his agents rtot.paid Ott will etc•r#tuMed upon`fi mend„ and wilt
not be rlSetd for tioensirtg, :.per Its des endier Oenstruction. ilpon payment, vomit will be retained by consueanl for 3 ors: after why
awaila7aility canfOt be guaranteed.
FINAL. LETTER many r ovemlrtff agencies 'rewire that this Consultant pretrtisome fe are of Biel heater oat the completion raf a project. Such.lettere
are =witty reviled to state. that the preleatiWee oeneiructed in cmpllance or general comp1t_aticp ta. celtairi.- plans or codes. As
Prefeffikanal copsutbng engineer tis not. pos or redo ntable to state 4th certainty thous Work completed' by others: cpinpletalyr•eamplled with
any vepliklagon, plan or Code affil any irfterpr€s+ t on as sash *incorrect. The Conauitiant can gniysnace such statements based on the best of
their ktlowledgee, their experience: as +,Veil se en the s :enodid testing aridire observations that were inade.ai d far the tintethey were mow.
Any use of the word "itlspec t1an' shall •be assumed to mvean Fuliserinifirsir litany tto utPent provided by hie Otte that is in arty way conf act with'
tt*s pieled, Such letters•eo nut e.aat i €ortil of eretanty. guarantee:, Ot Win. qiittilitts0d lmpliesd, regardleies_of theVionding used.
it Must also be und t died drat such tenting and bon r5cour w .properlyscheduted by ttte owner, owner's -representatives; contractor,er, 5ial radtilia, nand ther$frrre it i& C : .:» ll and u►': B fteefi rconsistent with tbe pta sPeci 8 f5 and the
s#dfs•bf wor4t provi n ln.
t7SE OF Et..ECTONFC OR QTH.f t. SLJ :DATA: Efectirmieclocumerts. site plen9 Orother.tiformationronfillied :to Conetrialatfor ire SW**
00.0 be used geqteebil.41, envithornenfal, or corSstruuatlo€t•reIated reports far•the subject project. it i$ the responsibility. cif the
Crlerier or.Suppler of such adoatirtients it, ensltr4 that"laurtate does not violate:rtny **right: Or confidentialey=tart May be pertinent to the supplied
information,
t fllAlT txif 3si F L1ABILUTY:: aaristaltent iMees in coltrioctibi With saes aces i rf rr}ell tisrldel t?ria Ayr -tented that such services are performed with
the owe a sk&i o drna arsised by mortbe fi tft the"pmfesslon preaelcrng under sim ar oo didone at.t a Sammie tiff anti in the same era similar
locally-. No warranty,.. expressed crr 10104 lS made or intended by reitriitiOn ol iaoisuitir .sa rtrlfee• or by furnlghtng oral or written tep:prts of the.
&radings. made_ t leb$ity of Consultant or Sabconsuhant(s} for darrlasas due to or arising frtun'procesiional rlegrigenr e: breaCti rf corona, or a any
cause Of adt tt.be omittedt4 #tie Cor tilterts-ftSe,
Ariy.:Ipplaratien, testing. 'specific observations -and analysis easo€rated with the services wrriit be'perf'orttted by Consultant en ley to fitrfili the purpose
of ibis Semite Atireehtert :and On aside not 450divaitilefOr intertnteSon by others of tlye tnform n developed The ceolces we: have been
retained to .provide benslst of periodic Material testing arkiribr observations. to assist the owner, coritractor, construction manager ark design team
rn*friberewtt evaluatlh corrsplian e.withFrole Lspe'officzRions
tiCOPE OF WORK: nal OfdPOetel scrape: pf wtosic zilm. net consist of ; str'uction _management services- relating to acceptance of materials.
maferlat type orplaoemerit methbdotogy; St not then btlityof the testing agendyto a. apt or Ieject material placement Or material . If
required these con loss rltanafgerner t seavlcescan be:provided. unders separate scope Of work GROUND cannot be held fesp nsfbie rworid
pttifointed or Arta its by Others. Curd repogntea that U mdltions on the vary from those encountered during testing and
projectsite � �
that information generated by .C artsvlt t is ba3sed sxtiely otr tip. infitrrnatlaan available to hhrs et the tin* and 10c4v4lon of iirdx :testing.
C4 ORA E • BOArdi ? i t fvellittleelgeed to {by all pants ilfritated walitfa lass agme.nPorathat the. services provided by the Consultant that are
in any way Connected to this project shalt not connect Consultants employees, owners, direetom, or Officers teeny personal exposure for risks
Sated -Web AIN0.y gertiOn. cif ₹His protect: Tfieref a , and not witganding..anything to the contrary that may bacantpiried herein or in any outer
document related' to Ws: project, the orient; future owners:Arta*. haters, ends any.otherix a orp s a. agr@es that aithisSi40 a and exctuslva
retrrsdy. flsr any metre defend, yr east 4t it boa directed and/or assertedagainst..the Consultant, a Colorado Corporation, and not against any of
GROUNtes employees, Ceeriers, offleeire; a ctlrectdrs,
9/'tsl2ooa Proposal N0.08O94070 Page sof.5
GROUND
ENG1NEE11INE tONSULTPINTE3
41 .Inver sesstlAreV
E Iew0 ,•Co 8011254-12
Project _Name:
cv rsa# . Comer: An mod+
Ptbpcsai No.: Date.
0809.2070 September 15, 2008
Ple d,Obeersitidn.and Tenting
Building_ Subgrade
's ehi a charges
Cabpratory Testing
Standard Proctor
Atterber4 L.Linitte
200 WasWGratlation
Moisture Content
itltn9 Rats
Eraarr€eCr; ng & Supervision. T ;$ i6.66
`.._
Te. hntoiari Rates
'Sleet . O:Wl::S
$,OO
t W t, T, $ r5.
Soils
S 000
A +at't
$ 50 ≥ 0
Cipncrete
S 50.40
Plm.
5 50 CO,
CMU
S Sit 0
SP_ In pc h
. :S _ 50 00 -
Te�M., cal O e 7 AO.
S 1 .M'
per CST hour
Travel Rates
Drip Charges
80:000k
112 Day r 1750
_Weep
Pier €dent
r. -
Full i ay 35'.00
A,dditir;5nal, Exlenses7
., .. .
EARTHWORK,) SITE GRADING
SO tiOo trips @ $ S 150.00
Total `Trips S: 17,513
4 tests @ $ 8040 periest .8 80.:00
f tests @ $ 40.00 per test $ 46.00
1 tests 0 $ 30.0.0 per teat. $ .30.003
I tests a~, $ 10.00 per test 5 10,00
50.00 per hour
Earthwork Total: $ 327.80
CONCRETE & REINFORCING STEEL
Field Observation and Testing
Conte Testing
Vehicle Cher&
t;abOratory Testing:
Coot ressi► is.:Strength
2 I0 bourtriptte $ 50.00 per hour
2 Total Trios
300.00
3500
tests (#2 S 1200 per test. S 96,00.
Concrete Tot* S 431,00
HEUCAL PIERS
Field fervaon and Testing
Peer. raider' 1 s (T. bock #rips @ S 50.00 ¢eC hour
Vehicle Cages 1- Total Trips
200.00.
17.50
Du lled Piers Total: $ 217.50
VISUAL WELD INSPECTION ION. i NOE l DOLT OBSERVATIONS
Field Obeeniatton and Testing
Reid"Inspection 4 4:0 hour tot $ e0:00 per hart -$' 960,00
Vkihicle atiarsea 4 Thtai Ttlps- S moo
Visual Weld lnepeot#onINDEIBolRObeervafions:Total,: S' 1,030.00
ENGINEERING •& SUPERVISION
Engineering and Supervision 6 hours : S 75.00 per Doti' 5 450:00
Engineering and S releion Total: $ 450.00
Estimate TOtat $ • 2,4%00
This ealirnato has been compiled based on intimation providedto G.Eti iLIPIOEngineering C+dres€,itants,
Inc. as: of the date of fxR P0Sal. General Conditions -and Lintifetiorreef Liability have been submitted
herewith, arid are incorporated herein by reference, This estimate is not inclusive of any retests, nor of
any ha :#b erathedtile of wart,,
9/15lzOO8
ATTACHMENT A Page 1 el` 1
Memo
To: Avon Town Council
Through: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Justin Hildreth, P.E., Town Engi e.9 (j
Date: October 9, 2008
Re: Resolution 08-35: A Resolution Vacating the Final Plat, A Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot 61,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
Summary: In 2004, the Avon Town Council approved a PUD and two accompanying final plats for Lot 61,
Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, located at 0075 Benchmark Road (Lot 61). The PUD was for a large
condominium building along Benchmark Road, just east of the Seasons. The owner, IDG 3, LLC, dedicated a
50 -foot wide right-of-way on the west side of the property from Benchmark Road to the mall. The 50 -foot
right-of-way is the proposed location of Lettuce Shed Lane. The site -specific development plan allowed the
building to encroach over and under the 50 foot right-of-way.
Two final plats were approved and recorded; the first one dedicated the 50 -foot right-of-way along with a 20 -
foot wide transportation hub easement on the south side of the property. The second final plat created a
three dimensional subdivision that outlined how the building could encroach over and under the 50 -foot
right-of-way. Note 9 was added to the second final plat stating that the final plat could be vacated and revert
to the first final plat if the development did not proceed.
The PUD was contested in court and the PUD approval was declared invalid. Therefore, the development can
not proceed as proposed. Staff is requesting Town Council to approve Resolution 08-35 (Exhibit A), which will
vacate the second final plat, and revert to the first final plat to protect the Town's investment in Lettuce Shed
Lane planned for construction in 2009.
Chronology
• February 10, 2004: Town Council adopted ORDINANCE 04-01, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE LOT
61 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO (Exhibit B)
• February 10, 2004: Town Council adopted RESOLUTION NO 04-06, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAN AND FINAL PLAT FOR A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT
BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO (Exhibit C)
• February 10, 2004: Town Council adopted RESOLUTION 04-05, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
FINAL PLAT, A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE
COUNTY, COLORADO (Exhibit D)
• April 26, 2006: Case Number 04 CV 151, District Court, Eagle County, Colorado order Declaring
Ordinance No. 04-01 Invalid and Denying Plaintiffs claim for Declaratory Relief (Exhibit E)
Background: The Avon Urban Renewal Authority (AURA) of the Town of Avon will be constructing Main
Street in 2009. The Main Street project consists of a new road from Avon Road to the east portal of Harry A.
Nottingham Park in the current location of the pedestrian mall as well as improvements to Lettuce Shed Lane,
shown as Benchmark Court on the final plat entitled A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER
CREEK (reception # 868662. The project will consist of a shared vehicular/pedestrian roadway that prioritizes
public gathering spaces, plazas, and unimpeded pedestrian movements. The streetscape design follows
guidelines and concepts set forth in the Avon West Town Center Investment Plan.
Vacate Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
October 9, 2008
Page 2 of 3
The Main Street and Lettuce Shed Lane sites will be transformed from an asphalt bike path to a vibrant
interesting streetscape. In order to protect the Town's investment in Lettuce Shed Lane, Staff is proposing to
vacate the three-dimensional plat that allows encroachments into Lettuce Shed Lane. A two-dimensional plat
will then become effective for Lettuce Shed Lane.
Discussion: Two final plats were recorded when the PUD for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek was
approved in 2004. The first final plat entitled A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
(reception # 868662) dedicated the 50 -foot wide Lettuce Shed Lane right-of-way to the Town of Avon in its
entirety as well as a 20 -foot transportation hub easement. A second final plat, entitled A RESUBDIVISION OF
A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK (reception # 868663) created a three-
dimensional property boundary that corresponded to the PUD and provided for sub -surface and aerial
development rights below and above the Lettuce Shed Lane right-of-way and the transportation easement.
Note 9 of the Resubdivision plat states, "The plat shall be subject to vacation proceedings if the development
which is contemplated with this subdivision is not completed in accordance with the Development
Agreement." Since the PUD approval and Development Agreement were voided as a result of litigation, the
development cannot be completed in accordance with the Development Agreement. In Addition, Section
16.24.030 of the Avon Municipal Code stipulates that "Town Council approval of any final plat shall terminate
in the event that within two (2) years from the date of said approval, no substantial effort has been made to
realize the development as shown on the Plat.". This resolution is therefore initiating proceedings to vacate
the final plat entitled A RESUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
(reception # 868663) in accordance with section 16.24.070 of the Avon Municipal Code.
Staff notified Wayne Helm, the owner's representative, by phone and in writing that the Town intends to
vacate the final plat entitled A RESUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER
CREEK. Mr. Helm has no comments regarding this matter.
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications by approving this resolution.
Recommendation: Approve Resolution 08-35, A Resolution Vacating the Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a
Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.
Proposed Motion: Move to approve Resolution 08-35, A Resolution Vacating the Final Plat for a
Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado.
Attachments:
• Exhibit A: RESOLUTION 08-35, A RESOLUTION VACATING THE FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF A
REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
• Exhibit B: Town Council adopted ORDINANCE 04-01, AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE LOT 61
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Vacate Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
October 9, 2008
Page 3 of 3
• Exhibit C: Town Council adopted RESOLUTION NO 04-06, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAN AND FINAL PLAT FOR A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT
BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
• Exhibit D: Town Council ADOPTED RESOLUTION 04-05, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT,
A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
• Exhibit E: Case No 04 CV 151, District Court, Eagle County, Colorado order Declaring Ordinance No.
04-01 Invalid and Denying Plaintiffs claim for Declaratory Relief
EXHIBIT A
TOWN OF AVON
RESOLUTION NO. 08 — 35
Series of 2008
A RESOLUTION VACATING A FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF
LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE
COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, On February 10, 2004, Avon Town Council adopted Ordinance 04-01, Series 2004
approving the Lot 61 Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, On February 10, 2004, Town Council approved Resolution 04-05, Series 2004
adopting the Final Plat for a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of
Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, On February 10, 2004, Town Council approved Resolution 04-06, Series 2004
adopting A Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a
Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, On April 26, 2006, Ordinance 04-01 was declared invalid by District Court, Eagle
County, Colorado, Case Number 04 CV 151; and
WHEREAS, On Note 9 of Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado states that "The plat shall
be subject to vacation proceedings if the development which is contemplated with this
subdivision is not completed in accordance with the Development Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the development approval for the Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot
61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado is no longer
valid and the development will therefore not be completed within the time set by the Town
Council and thus Town Council desires to vacate the Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a Replat
of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, in
accordance with Section 24.24.070 of the Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, upon the vacation of Final Plat for a Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2,
Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, the Final Plat for a Replat
of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado shall
become effective.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, that the Final Plat for A Resubdivision of a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, is hereby vacated by the Town of Avon
and the Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado, recorded in the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office at Reception No. 868662
shall become effective.
ADOPTED THIS
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny
Town Clerk
DAY OF , 2008.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Ron Wolff, Mayor
IT 1111111111n
1111 Page868660: 1 of
02/23/2004 0428:54P
289 R 126.00 D 0.00
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 04-01
SERIES OF 2004
EXHIBIT B
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE LOT 61 PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR LOT 61, BLOCK 2,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN
OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Owner, IDG3 LLC, has applied for approval of a Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") Plan for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Town and the Owner have negotiated the terms and conditions of the
Development Agreement for Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
("Agreement"), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS,the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
hearing on January 6, 2004, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity
to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed
PUD Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
forwarded its recommendations on the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan to the Town Council of
the Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
101(^- day of , 2004, at which time the public was given an opportunity to
express their opinions r ing the proposed PUD Development Plan; and
C:1Documents and Settings\pmckenny\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\Ord 04-01 1.6I B2 BMBC PUD.doc
4116 rm.
N
68660
II!;?/!0;4(141::
age: 2 of 2S
02/23/2004 04:54P
oak J Simonton Eagle, CO 289 R 126.00 D 0.0'0
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:
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 Lot 61 PUD Development Plan is consistent with the recently adopted
Town Center Plan, the goals and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive Plan,
and is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and the public interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
{
OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
The Lot 61 PUD Development Plan and Development Agreement is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. If necessary, IDG3 LLC will be responsible for the acquisition of additional water rights
and their subsequent dedication to the Town, as required by Section 17.14.100 of the
Avon Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building permit to amend the Town's
Augmentation Plan.
2. The Lot 61 PUD Development Plan constitutes a site -specific development plan and is
required to complete subsequent design review approval, which consists of compliance
with the Town Center Design Guidelines and the Town of Avon Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines.
3. Except as otherwise modified by this 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 o1'(�` day of , 2004, and a public hearing shall be held at the
regular meeting of the Town Council o Town of Avon, Colorado, on the 1C-4'- day of,
, 2004, at 5:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon, Colorado.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
C:tDocuments and SettingstpmckennylLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files1OLKBlOrd 04-01 L6 t B2 BMBC PUD.doc
.F
Mayor
ATTEST:
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
tii
POSTED the 10 - day of
Ati17f 4.po
1
j• ;
:. i S "�
E'.
Y
1, Y,
2.
A 11 _ EST: $` r
:', :.vim i
C r •_
i
ui
iw
It
Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
III II
289
i
868660
Page: 3 of 25
02/23/2004 04:54P
R 126.00 D 0.00
C:\Documents and SettingslpmckennylLocal Settings\Tcmporary Internet Files',OLKB\Ord 04-01 L61 B2 BMBC PUD.doc
IP ,,
Exhibit "A" to Ordinance 04-01
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
FOR
LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as
of February / (' , 2004 by and between IDG3, LLC, a Limited Liability Company,
its successors and/or assigns (hereinafter "Owner") and the Town of Avon, a municipal
corporation of the State of Colorado (the "Town").
RECITALS:
A. Owner is a limited liability company, duly organized and in good standing
under the laws of the State of Colorado.
B. Owner owns a parcel of real property generally referred to as "Lot 61" as
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached to this agreement ("Lot
61").
C. The Town and the Owner desire to develop Lot 61 as a mixed -use
development consistent with the Avon Town Center Implementation Plan
thereby creating new property lines for Lot 61, development standards, rights -
of -way and a transportation center. This new parcel is referred to as the
"Property".
D. The Property contains specific development standards attached and
incorporated herein as a site -specific development plan entitled "Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan" (Exhibit "B") and as set forth in Article HI of this
Agreement.
E. The Town has authority to zone and govern development of the Property in
accordance with this Agreement, the A von Comprehensive P Ian, The A von
Town Center Implementation Plan, The Avon Municipal Code, and the Lot 61
PUD (as defined herein), and other applicable Town requirements and polices.
F. In order to ensure orderly controlled development by establishing minimum
design standards, including streets and other forms of vehicular and pedestrian
access, drainage, water supply and sanitation improvements to support human
occupation, it is necessary to require subdivision consistent with Title 16,
Avon Municipal Code.
G. The Property includes specific design requirements as set forth by the Town
Center Implementation P lan, w hich i s further d efined and s upported b y the
Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review
1
1111,1111E11.1111. ljj11111111.1111
868660
Page: 4 of 25
02/23/2004 04:5
R 128.00 0 AAA
1 -
Guidelines. Specifically, the project will comply to the following general
design intentions:
• Building facades will be stepped to avoid long straight walls. All sides of
the building must receive equal architectural treatment.
• The building will be designed as a composition of architectural elements
rather than larger single blocks that appear unrelated in form and context.
• The street -level architecture will activate and enhance pedestrian activity
on Main Street (the mall level), encouraging a lively center of retail
activity year round.
Additionally, the project will comply with the following site -specific
guidelines:
Articulation of building facades:
Building facades shall be articulated with variations in materials and
punctuated with intermediate roof forms and building projections. Varying
expressions of decks, windows and surface treatments shall be combined
to create a rich texture that will enhance the interest of the facades. The
three primary components of the building's base, body and top shall be
clearly and deliberately expressed. The building's base shall express mass
and support with the use of such materials as stone and architectural
concrete.
The "body" of the building shall begin to erode materials that express
mass to lighter materials and more openings and surface variations such as
decks and changes in wall plane. Roofs shall be proportional to the height
and scale of the various building elevations.
The east end of the primary roof(s) and upper portion of the walls shall be
articulated so as to minimize their visual impact to surrounding properties
which may include the use of decks and the lowering of roof lines.
Roofs at north property line:
In addition to the suggested wall treatments noted above, these roofs shall
be adequately varied to avoid uninterrupted flat roofs. Approximately 50%
of the elevation above 28' above grade shall be articulated through the
introduction of discontinuous roof forms such as gables perpendicular to
the wall plane and variations in roof edges, relative to the setback line.
H. The legislature of the State of Colorado adopted Sections 24-68-101, et seq. of
the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Vested Property Rights Statute") to
provide for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure
reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process
and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment
backed expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public
and private sectors in the area of land use planning; said Vested Property
2
11111111111111111
eak J Simonton Ea®le, CO
i
AWN
i
868660
Page: s of 2S
02/23/2004 04::
R 126.00 D 0.00
Rights Statute authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with
landowners providing for vesting of property development rights.
Consistent with the Vested Property Rights Statute, Chapter 17.14 of the
Municipal C ode a uthorizes t he T own t o enter i nto d evelopment a greements
with 1 andowners and o ther qualified applicants providing for t he v esting o f
property development rights.
J. Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide
for orderly growth i n accordance w ith the policy and goals set forth i n the
Comprehensive Plan, the Avon Town Center Implementation Plan, ensure
reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process,
stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment -backed
expectations of Owner, foster cooperation between the public and private
sectors in the area of land use planning, and otherwise achieve the goals and
purposes for which the Vested Property Rights Statute and Chapter 17.14 of
the Municipal Code were enacted. In exchange for these benefits and the other
benefits to the Town contemplated by this Agreement, together with the
public benefits served by the orderly development of the Property, Owner
desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the
Property pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the terms,
conditions and covenantsset forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner and
the Town agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.0 Definitions. The following terms and references shall have the meaning set forth
below unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates otherwise:
1.1 Comprehensive Plan. The Avon Comprehensive Plan adopted by the
Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town on November 5, 1996, or any
subsequent duly adopted plans or amendments thereto.
1.2 Development Standards. As set forth in Exhibit "B" entitled "Lot 61 HID
Development Plan" incorporated herein and further defined in Sections 3.2 of
this Agreement.
3
i
i
I El 0
Page: 6 o86866f
02/23/2004 042S:8
Teak J Simonton Emole, CO 289 R 126.00 0 0.00
1.3 Effective Date. The effective date of the Town Council Ordinance approving
this Agreement and the recording of the relevant subdivisions referenced
herein with the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado.
1.4 Exhibits. The following are Exhibits to this Agreement, all of which are
incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement:
Exhibit A Legal Description of Lot 61
Exhibit B Lot 61 PUD Development Plan, including Benchmark
Court Right of Way and Transportation Center location
1.5 Lodging Tax. For purposes of this Agreement, Lodging Tax shall mean any
municipal lodging or accommodations tax imposed by the Town pursuant to
Ch. 3.28, Avon Municipal Code or any similar code provision enacted during
the Term oft his A greement u pon any sales or rental o f 1 odging within the
Property.
1.6 Municipal Code. The Town's Municipal Code, as in effect from time to time.
1.7 Parking Requirements. As defined in Title 17, Avon Municipal Code.
1.8 Property. The newly created Lot 61 more specifically described as the Lot 61
PUD Development Plan as set forth in Exhibit "B".
1.9 PUD. Planned unit development or PUD, as such terms are defined and used
in Section 17.20.110 of the Municipal Code.
1.10 Sanitation District. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District.
1.11 Subdivision. Means to make a disposition of land or airspace which is
defined as a subdivision, subdivided land, condominium subdivision, estate in
airspace, specially planned area and/or planned unit development subdivision,
minor subdivision, duplex subdivision or time-sharing subdivision consistent
with Title 16, Avon Municipal Code.
1.12 Time-share owner. Means a person vested with legal title to a timeshare
estate in accordance with Section 38-33-110, Colorado Revised Statutes
(2003).
1.13 Time-share unit. Means a unit the title to which is or is to be divided into
interval estates or time -span estates in accordance with Section 38-33-110,
Colorado Revised Statutes (2003).
4
11111 ����uI�1NM�1111 ryry av8v.°G`0
1.14 Town. The Town of Avon, a municipal corporation of the State of
Colorado.
1.15 Town Council. The Town Council of the Town.
1.16 Lot 61. The real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto.
1.17 Vested Property Rights Statute. As defined in Recital H.
1.18 Zoning. The passing of land use ordinances and regulations authorized
by the Statutes of the State of Colorado and by Article XX of the Colorado
Constitution, and more specifically through the Avon Municipal Code, Title
17, intended to ensure that zoning promotes stated benefits to the citizens of
the Town.
1.19 Zoning Application. The zoning application for the parcel comprising the
Property submitted to the Town on ' , 2004.
1.20 Avon Town Center Implementation Plan. The plan adopted by the Town
on November 6, 2001 regarding development in the area commonly known as
the Town Center.
ARTICLE U
COVENANTS; THIS AGREEMENT
2.1 Term. In recognition of the size of the development contemplated under this
Agreement, the substantial investment and time required to complete the
development of the Property, and the possible impact of economic cycles and
varying market conditions during the course of development, Owner and the Town
agree that the term of this Agreement and the vested property rights established
under this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until
the 5th anniversary of the Effective Date. After the expiration of the Term, this
Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect, provided,
however that such termination shall not effect (a) any rights -of -way and uses of
property granted to the Town related to the transportation center, or (b) any right
arising from Town permits, approvals or other entitlements for the Property which
were granted or approved prior to the 5th anniversary of the Effective Date.
2.2 Amendment of A greement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this
Agreement may be amended or terminated only by mutual consent of the Town and
Owner in writing following the public notice, public hearing and revised ordinance
procedures required for approval of this Agreement stated in Section 17.20.110
(Planned Unit Development) et al of the Avon Municipal Code. For the purpose of
any amendment to this Agreement, "Owner" shall mean only the Owner as defined
Ili 1111
868660
page: 8 of 25
Sao 02/23/2004 04:54
D »a Dm m a mm
herein and those parties, if any, to whom such signatories have specifically been
granted, in writing by Owner, the power to enter into such amendments.
2.3 Cooperation in Defending Legal Challenges. If any legal or equitable action or other
proceeding is commenced by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of
this Agreement or the Development Standards, Owner and the Town agree to
cooperate in defending such action or proceeding and to bear their own expenses in
connection therewith. Unless the Town and Owner otherwise agree, each party shall
select and pay its own legal counsel to represent it in connection with such action or
proceeding.
ARTICLE III
ZONING, VESTED RIGHTS AND EXACTIONS
3.1 PUD Zoning. The property shall be zoned as PUD as provided in this Agreement
and in the respective Development Standards. Complete zoning and site plans are
attached in Exhibit B, the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan.
3.2 Development Standards. The "Development Standards" set forth the zoning for the
Property, and indicate, among other things, setback distances, building height
limitations, site coverage levels, development densities, allowed uses (both
permitted uses by right and those permitted upon special review), parking
requirements and other guidelines and limitations for the development of the
Property and are specifically set forth in Exhibit "B".
(a) Subsequent. Final Plan Approval. Pursuant to this Agreement the
Property is now PUD Zoning pursuant to Section 3.4(a). This constitutes a
Site -Specific Development Plan for the purposes of establishing vested
rights. Owner and the Town shall, in a manner which is uniform of the
Town and consistent with the provisions of Section 2.1 and Section 3.4 (d)
further refine the design of the improvements and other details, all
consistent with the Development Standards and this Agreement
collectively, "Subsequent Final Design Review Plan Approval." The
subsequent Final Design Review Plan Approval will consist of compliance
with the Town Center Implementation Plan, Town of Avon Residential,
Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, and relevant
portions of the Avon Municipal Code.
(b) Development Approval. Simultaneously with the granting of PUD
Zoning of the Property pursuant to Section 3.4 (a), the Town hereby
approves the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan (Exhibit "B").
3.3 Vesting of Property Rights. Owner and Town agree that (a) this Agreement and the
Development Standards and the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan constitute an
approved "site -specific development plan" as defined in the Vested Property Rights
6 I In 1111111 Ell 11111 11111 1111 1111 g;!!!:(44t5s 54
Teak J Simonton Emile, CO 289 R 128.00 D 0.00
Statute and Section 17.14.100 of the Avon Municipal Code and subsequent
compliance with Section 17.12.020 of the Avon Municipal Code which the Town
acknowledges and (b) that Owner as the legal owner of the Property shall have
vested property rights to undertake and complete development and use of the
Property as provided in this agreement and the Development Standards. Pursuant to
Section 17.14.050 of the Municipal Code, approval of this Agreement and the
Development Standards constitutes a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of
Title 24, C.R.S., as amended.
3.4 Property Rights Vested. The rights identified below shall constitute the vested
property rights under this Agreement:
(a) The right to develop plan and engage in land uses with the Property in the
manner and to the extent set forth in and pursuant to this Agreement, the
Development Standards and the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan.
(b) The right to develop, plan and engage in land uses with the Property in
accordance with the densities, physical development standards and other
physical parameters set forth in the Development Standards.
(c) The right to develop the Property in the order, at the rate, and at the time
as m arket conditions dictate, s ubject t o the terms and conditions o f t his
Agreement and the Development Standards.
(d) The right to develop and complete the development of the Property
(including, without limitation, the right to receive all properly applied for
and complete application approvals necessary for the development of the
Property) with conditions and standards determined pursuant to Section
3.2(b) which conform to the regulations and guidelines imposed by the
Town set forth in this Agreement and the Development Standards,
provided that such conditions, standards and dedications shall not directly
or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing,
diminishing, delaying or otherwise materially a dversely a ffecting any of
Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards.
(e) The Town shall not initiate any zoning, land use or other legal or
administrative action that would directly or indirectly have the e ffect of
materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, delaying or
otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights that do not apply to
other properties in the Town, as set forth in this Agreement or the
Development Standards.
' 1111111.111111111111111
868660
Page: 10 of 25
02/23/2004 04:54
3.5 Exactions. The following exactions are intended to provide adequate facilities,
pedestrian and vehicular access, and other related improvements for the public
benefit of the Town:
(a) Right -of -Way Dedication. The newly created right-of-way referred to as
"Benchmark Court" will be dedicated to the Town by the approved Final
Plat, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek ("Final
Plat") in accordance with Title 16, Avon Municipal Code
contemporaneously with the approval of this Agreement and the Lot 61
PUD Development Plan.
(b) Drainage. On site drainage facilities for the Property shall be provided by
Owner to handle drainage resulting from the development of the Property.
(c) Building Setbacks and Encroachments. It is the intention of the Town to
provide for necessary at grade and above grade setbacks to allow for the
building and/or structure to encroach as depicted on plans shown in
Exhibit B.
These provisions for allowing the building and/or structure elements over
and on the Town property will be set forth in the Resubdivision of Lot 61,
A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
("Resubdivision") and must be approved contemporaneously with this
Agreement. The Resubdivision contains specific plat restrictions, which
require as -built drawings upon the construction of the Property or the
Resubdivision will be vacated subject to the terms and conditions of
Section 2.1.
(d) Transportation Center. The Final Plat shall also include an easement for a
Transportation Center, including necessary at grade and above grade
setbacks as depicted on Exhibit B.
In the event the Town elects to proceed with construction of the
Transportation Center prior to the commencement of construction of the
Lot 61 PUD Development Plan, then written notice must be provided to
the Owner prior to 180 days of commencement of construction.
The Town agrees to provide mechanical ventilation consistent with the
current building code at the time of building permit application for the
Transportation Center as part of the construction of the Lot 61 PUD
Development Plan. Positive chase and ductwork for the Transportation
Center will be provided by the Owner.
8
11.1,111111111111,111
V
868660
Page: 11 of 25
02/23/2004 0454F
R 126.00 D 0.00
Noise generated by public transportation vehicles at the proposed
Transportation Center shall be reduced to the maximum extent reasonably
possible and in no case shall it raise the ambient sound level above the No
Impact for Category 1 or 2 Sites as shown in the following Table 3-1 from
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report April 1995,
prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. for the Office of
Planning, Federal Transit Administration, U. S. Department of
Transportation. The existing level of ambient noise, project noise and
allowable noise levels shall be established in accordance with applicable
procedures, methods and criteria conforming to the above referenced
Impact Assessment, Final Report.
The owner of Lot 61 will assume responsibility for the isolation of
vibration transmission to the structure, supporting the residential and
commercial occupancies, from the Transportation Center.
The owner of Lot 61 will assume responsibility for the attenuation of
sound transmission, from the Transportation Center to the residential and
commercial occupancies such as the introduction of acoustic blankets,
resilient suspension devices and the like associated with the base building
construction.
The Town of Avon will assume the responsibility of constructing the
specific Transportation Center shelter and transit administrative office.
They will be designed with sufficient mass and structural isolation to
provide whatever measures needed to attain the acoustic criteria.
9
Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO
i
It101
868660
Page: 12 of 25
02/23/2004 04:!
128.00 D 0.00
•
3-4 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
Table 3-1 Noise Levels Defining Impact for Transit Projects
Existing Project Noise impact Exposure. L,a(h) or Li„,(dBA)
Noise
Exposure.Category 1 or 2 Sites j Category 3 Sites
L,f(h) or L,,,
(dBA)
R
No Impact f Impact I Severe Impact No Impact
I Severe
Impact impact
<43 <Ambient+IU A°tbiant+ >Ambient+I5 <Ambient+15
10 to t5
Ambient • >Ambient+20
151020
43 <52
52-58
>58 i <57
57-63 >63
44 <52
52-58
>58 <57 57-63 >63
45' <52
52-58
>58 <57 57-63
>63
46 , <53
53-59
>59 i <58
58-64
>64
47 ! <53 53-59
>59 <58
58-64
>64
48 I <53 53-59 >59 I <58
58-64 >64
49 I <54 54-59
>59 59
59-64 >64
50 <54 54-59
5I <54 54-60
>59 <59 59-64 >64
>60 I <59 59-65 >65
52 <55 I 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65
53 ! <55 55-60 >60 <60 60-65 >65
54 I <55 55-61 >61 <60 60-66 >66
55 <56 56-61 >61 <6I 61-66 >66
56 j <56 56-62 . >62 <61 61-67 ; >67
57. <57 57-62 f >62 <62 I 62-67 :>67
58 <57 57-62 ! >62 <62 1 62-67 i >67
59
<58 58-63 >63 <63 ! 63-68 f >68
60
<58
58-63 >63 <:63 ( 63-68 >68
61
<59
59-64 >64 <64 64-69 >69
62
<59 59-64 1 >64 <64 64-69 >69
63
<60 60-65 i >65 <65 65-70 >70
64 <:61 61-65
>65 <66 66-70 >70
I
65 I <6I 61-66
>66 i <66 66-71 >71
66 <62 62-67 >67 <67 I 67-72 >72
67 <63 63-67 >67 <68 68-72 ' >72
68 <63 (
63-68 >68 i <68 68-73 >73
69 <64
64-69 >69 >69 <69 69-74 >74
70 i <65 65-69 ! >69 <70 70-74 i >74
71 <66 66-70 >70 <7) 71-75 >75
72 I <66 66-71 >71 <71 71-76 >76
73
<66 66-71
>7I :7) 71-76 >76
74
75
<66 66-72
<66 i 66-73
>72 <'7I'71-77
t
>73 <7)
>77
71.78 j >78
76 <66 66-74
>74 <71
71-79 >79'
77 <66 I 66-74
>74 <71 71-79 ! >79
>77 <66 66-75 >75 ! <71 , 71-80 :>80
- L>, is used for land use where nighttime sensitivity is a factor: L„ during the hour of maximum transit noise exposure
is used lb, land use involving only daytime activities.
(e) Transit Administrative Office: A minimum of 400 square feet of floor area
on the ground level adjacent to the Town Transportation Center for typical
administrative purposes including rough -in plumbing for public restroom
facilities associated with transportation must be dedicated upon
construction of the Transportation Center by the Town and/or with design
review approval for Lot 61.
(f) Water Rights: The developer will be responsible for the acquisition of
additional water rights and their subsequent dedication to the Town if
necessary to amend the Town's Augmentation Plan based upon the
specific proposal applied for.
1° 1,1111,1111,11E1)1111111121,1111
III"868660
Page: 13 of 25
02/23/2004 0454
0 11.1% NG n e AA
(g)
Timeshare Amenities Fee: Commencing as of the effective date of this
Agreement, and continuing in perpetuity, the timeshare ownership
association formed to manage the timeshare ownership project located on
Lot 61 is obligated to collect from each timeshare owner and remit to the
Town a Timeshare Amenities Fee. The Owner is exempt from the
obligation for the timeshare amenities fee until the first-time sale of a
timeshare interval. The provisions for the obligation for each timeshare
owner to pay shall be a covenant running with the land and reflected
accordingly on the Resubdivision Plat and association covenants. Prior to
the formation of any timeshare ownership association, the Owner shall be
obligated to collect and remit any and all Timeshare Amenities Fee.
The number of units shall be calculated at the time of time-share
subdivision. The fee shall be paid to the Town semi-annually and will be
based upon the following schedule:
Number of Units Constructed
125 — 149 Timeshare Units
150 — 174 Timeshare Units
175 — over Timeshare Units
Per Timeshare Week*
$ 58.35
$ 48.52
$ 41.51
* Timeshare Week is defined as seven (7) consecutive days constituting a
maximum of fifty-two (52) intervals per calendar year.
The amount of the semi-annual payments will be calculated according to
the following formula:
Number o f existing o r newly deeded timeshare interests p er semiannual
period (January- June, calculated as of June 1, and July -December
calculated as of December 1), multiplied by the appropriate fee based
upon the Deeded Timeshare Units schedule (or as adjusted by CPI -U, as
defined below), divided by 2.
The due dates for the semiannual payment are August 20 and February 20
for the previous semiannual calculation period.
On January 1, 2005, and on the first day of each year thereafter, the
amount of the fee shall be increased by the prior years average consumer
price index for All Urban Consumers for the Denver -Boulder -Greeley
metropolitan area as published semiannually and appearing in the January
and July issues of the CPI Detailed Report published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (the "CPI -U").
It shall be the duty of the timeshare association to keep and preserve such
records as are necessary to determine the amount of fees due hereunder.
11
IIllnln�1nV1ll
11011 8,426r83:1621400.4,0;
0/2�
R 126.00 0 0.00
Such records shall be preserved for a period of three years and shall be
open for inspection by representatives of the Town during regular business
hours. Prior to the formation of the timeshare association, the Owner shall
have the above -referenced obligation to keep and preserve such records.
If a remittance to the Town is delinquent, or the remittance is less than the
full amount due, the Town shall make a written determination of the
amount due and deliver or mail the same to the office of the condominium
timeshare association. The amount properly determined to be owing shall
be from the due date of the remittance at the rate of one and one-half
percent per month until paid. Prior to formation of the timeshare
association such written determination will be delivered to the Owner.
3.6 Timing on Development. In the event the Owner obtains a building permit and
complies with all other relevant rules and regulations governing development on the
Property consistent with the Lot 61 PUD Development Plan, then the Owner must
provide written notice 180 -days prior to commencement of construction to the Town
of the development schedule.
There is no phasing proposed or contemplated for the development of this Property.
The Owner and the Town agree to cooperate in construction staging and
development to allow for orderly and safe construction of the Property.
3.7 No Obligation to Develop. Owner shall have no obligation to develop the Property
and shall have no liability to the Town for its failure to develop the Property. The
Town shall have no obligation to permit the Owner to construct under the dedicated
road right-of-way or transportation center after 5 years from the Effective Date of
the Agreement, and shall have no liability to the Owner or any other party for its
failure to develop all or any part of the Property. In the event an amended
Resubdivision of Lot 61, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
based upon as -built drawings is not recorded, then the Resubdivision will be vacated
subject to the terms and conditions of Section 2.1.
3.8 Compliance with General Regulation. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement or the Development Standards, the establishment of vested property
rights under this Agreement shall not preclude the application, on a uniform and
non-discriminatory basis, of Town regulations of general applicability ( including,
but not limited to design review, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, the Municipal Code, and other Town rules and regulations) or the application
of state or federal regulations, as all of such regulations exist on the date of this
Agreement or may be enacted or amended after the date of this Agreement,
provided that such newly enacted or amended Town regulation shall not directly or
indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing,
delaying or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this
12
868660
Page: 15 of 25
02/23/2004 045
R 120.00 0 0.00
Agreement or the Development Standards. Owner does not waive its rights to
oppose the enactment or. amendment of any such regulations inconsistent with other
properties in Town.
ARTICLE IV
DEFAULTS, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION
4.0 Default by Town. A "breach" or "default" by the Town under this Agreement shall
be defined as: (a) any zoning, land use or other action or inaction, direct, indirect or
pursuant to an initiated measure, taken without Owner's consent, that materially
alters, impairs, prevents, diminishes, delays or otherwise materially and adversely
affects any development, use or other rights of Owner under this Agreement or the
Development Standards or PUDs; or (b) the Town's failure to fulfill or perform any
material obligation of the Town contained in this Agreement.
4.1 Default by Owner. A "breach" or "default" by Owner shall be defined as Owner's
failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of Owner contained in this
Agreement.
4.2 Notices of Default. In the event of a default by either party under this Agreement,
the non -defaulting party shall deliver written notice to the defaulting party of such
default, at the address specified in Section 5.7, and the defaulting party shall have
thirty (30) days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. If such
default is not of a type which can be cured within such thirty (30) day period and
the defaulting party gives written notice to the non -defaulting party within such
thirty (30) day period that it is actively and diligently pursuing such cure, the
defaulting party shall have a reasonable period of time given the nature of the
default following the end of such thirty (30) day period to cure such default,
provided that such defaulting party is at all times within such additional time period
actively and diligently pursuing such cure.
4.3 Remedies.
(a) If any default under this Agreement is not cured as described above, the
non -defaulting party shall have the right to enforce the defaulting party's
obligation hereunder by an action for any equitable remedy, including
injunction and/or specific performance, and/or an action to recover
damages. Each remedy provided for in this Agreement is cumulative and
is in addition to every other remedy provided for in this Agreement or
otherwise existing at law, in equity or by stature.
(b) In the event of default by the Owner, notwithstanding other available
remedies s et forth h erein, the T own i s under no o bligation t o i ssue any
13
i
N
1111101 86866
Page: 18 of 25
02/23/20040 0454
289 R 126.00 D 0.00
land use approvals, including but not limited to design review and building
permits for the Property.
(c) The Town acknowledges that since this Agreement and the Development
Standards constitute a development agreement which confers rights
beyond those provided by the three (3) year statutory vesting approach
described in the Vested Property Rights Statute, in the event of a breach or
default by the Town, in addition to any of the foregoing remedies, Owner
shall be entitled to:
(i) recover from the Town any damages that should have been
specifically available to Owner as contemplated in
Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-68-105(l)(c) as in
effect on the Effective Date, plus any other and additional
damages provable at law.
ARTICLE V
MISCELLANEOUS
5.0 Applicable Law. Agreement shall be constructed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the State of Colorado and the relevant portions of the Avon Municipal
Code..
5.1 No Joint Venture or Partnership. No form of joint venture or partnership exists
between the Town and Owner, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
constructed as making Town and Owner joint venturers or partners.
5.2 Expenses. Except as otherwise provided in a separate written agreement, Owner
and the Town shall each bear their respective costs and expenses associated with
implementing and enforcing the terms of this Agreement.
5.3 Waiver. No waiver of one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall constitute a
waiver of other terms. Nor waiver of any provision of this Agreement in any
instance shall constitute a waiver of such provision in other instances.
5.4 Town Findings. The Town hereby finds and determines that execution of this
Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare,
and the provisions of this Agreement, the PUD, Development Standards, and
vesting agreements contained herein are consistent with the Avon Comprehensive
Plan, A von Municipal Code, T own C enter Plan, and other applicable regulations
and policies of the Town.
5.5 Severability. If a ny term, p rovision, covenant or condition o f t his A greement i s
held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the
14
u
I
Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO
0 ell
868660
Page: 37 of 2S
02/23/2004 045
R 120.00 D 0.00
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect so
long as enforcement oft he remaining provisions would not be inequitable to the
party against whom they are being enforced under the facts and circumstances then
pertaining.
5.6 Further Assurances. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other
further instructions and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this
Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete
enjoyment of its rights and privileges under this Agreement.
5.7 Notices. Any notice or communication required under this Agreement between the
Town and Owner must be in writing, and may be given either personally or by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. If given by registered or
certified mail, the same shall be deemed to have been given and received on the
first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the
party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five days a registered or certified letter
containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the
United States mail, if personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been
given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. Any party hereto may at
any time, by giving written notice to the other party hereto as provided in this
Section designate additional persons to whom notices or communications shall be
given, and designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such
notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be
given to that parties at their addresses set forth below:
If to Town:
If to Owner:
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
IDG 3 LLC
c/o C. Philip Smiley
P.O. Box 5000
Avon, CO 81620
Attn: Town Manager
5.8 Assignments. This Agreement shall be binding upon and except as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest or
the legal representatives of the parties hereto. Except as specifically set forth herein,
Owner shall have the right to assign, delegate or transfer all or any portion of its
interests, rights o r o bligations under this A greement t o third p arties acquiring a n
interest or estate in the Property, including, but not limited to, purchasers or long
term ground lessees of individual lots, parcels, or of any improvements now or
hereafter located within the Property. Provided that the Town's approval of the
assignee or transferee is first obtained, an assumption or transfers providing for
express assumption of any of Owner's obligations under this Agreement by its
assignee or transferee shall be relieved of any further obligations under this
Agreement with respect to the matter so assumed. The Town's obligations
15
111.,11.111.111,111
i
86866@
Page: 18 of 25
02/23/2004 0454
R 126.00 0 0.00
hereunder may not be assigned or delegated without Owner's written consent, and
any attempted assignment or delegation by the Town not in compliance herewith
shall be null and void. The Town's approval of any such assignee or transferee shall
not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
5.10 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall
constitute one and the same agreement.
5.11 Amendments and Waivers. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this
Agreement, nor consent to any departure here from, shall in any event be elective
unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then such
waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific
purpose for which given.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and the Town have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.
TOWN:
TOWN OF AVON, a municipal corporation
of the State of Cobra
B
ATTEST
P
Tow • 1 k
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF 4c� )
Mayor
Subscribekl before me this 1`i•'M day ofgPuc�.
a Lg r D. 'Rt-Ltilcst.c1S as Mayor
municipal corporatioife.the State of Colorado.
iiio1VUNNI
My Commission Expires: 4 I e I o 4
299
II
i
Ell6160
Page:86819 of 28 16
02/23/2004 04:54P
R 128.00 D 0.00
My Commission Expires 04/08/2006
• r
MyComffioionE 12118004
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF 1r._ )
Subscribed before me this / ft
f- et- -/ T> z':i r- /1/E r k t,r irks
corporation of the State of Colorado!
day of i 4), �. �+ --/ , 2004, by
as Town Clerk (6f Avon, a municipal
My Commission Expires: J' /1 & /z.Lrz.,,7
ATTES' n ExPkes 11/1812007
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF la le )
• 1
Notary Public
OWNER:
By:
M
'.,%"•i zdao 3cZ
Subscribed before me this day of 2004, by
- Ojrl r Cas r .o r' =D CT3 C.L
y Commission Expires: /,� f 7/
llffiI111VGVNI�'
i
A
!:!!!!155
68660
Page: 20 of 25
02/23/2004 045
R 128.00 0 0.00
Exhibit "A" To Lot 61 PUD Development Agreement
Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, according to the Final
Subdivision Nat — Amendment Number 4, recorded September 5, 1978, in
Book 274 at Page 701 as Reception No. 171107, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado.
111,11 1114114
i
h
289
i
86866o0
Page: 21 f 25
02/23/2004 04:54P
R 126.00 D 0.00
!:,42I!!2
86
Pag.r 22 of 26
02/23/2004 04:54P
R 126.00 D 0.00
V N
in 0 V O W N N E
COeV'
re" YEN
OOOOS
fit
•y
c
O
E-
'312
- 3
CZ
2
gv
;�
�ro
ed
g,
�•U
O4.4
.55
t5 O
c4
o
U
u
�
A
t O'
0.
O 0
r
o_
0
CA
03 5
•L
N Q
E-
A POWER OF ATTORNEY MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS,
LEGAL ADVICE SHOULD BE OBTAINED IN THE DRAFTING OF
ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,
THAT, I, C. PHILIP SMILEY, reposing special trust and confidence in MICHAEL A. HAZARD, have
made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint the said MICHAEL A.
HAZARD, to be my true and lawful attorney in fist, to act for ire and in my stead, and to Whiner; hypothecate,
and give a deed of trust aftbcting the following properly;
A RE.SUBDIVISION OF REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK,
TOWN OF AVON
COUNTY OP EAGLE
STATE OF COLORADO
My agent is hereby authorized to sign, scat and delver, as my sot and deed any contract, deed, deed of trust,
pretnlssory note, or other instrument in execution of any agreement fir refinance made by me or my agent in such
manner that the estate and interest in said land may be effectually and assured to the Public Trustee of the County
in which the above described' property is situate, or to such other parson or entity as my agent may name or
appoint; and I hereby declare that any and all of the contracts, deeds, receipts, notes, plats or matters, and things
which shall be by my said agent given, •made or done fbr the aforesaid purposes shall be as good, valid, and
effectual as if they had been signed, sealed and delivered by me in my own proper person; and I hereby undertake
at all times to ratify whatsoever my said agent shall lawfully do or cause to be done in or concerning the premises
by virtue of these presents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto'set my hand and seal this __134day of 4.464412005
STATE OF COO` RADO '
COUNTY OF
}
C. PHILIP S
Dawn R Anderson
Notary Public
State of Colorado
The fo ing In eat was acknowledged before me Witn� q� my HandQ icial seal.
this l day of 200¢by C. PHILIP l �Vt�t�
SM LE?
Commission cap
Notary
1 1101 11111 11111 10111 II lif2T3/;!"0:7.54P
Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO 289 R 120.00 0.00
HEART of the VALLEY
Memo
�VUN
COLORADO
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Matt Gennett, AICP, Planning Manager
Date: October 14, 2008 Council Meeting
Re: Applications for the new Avon 21 Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision Applications
(PUD08001 & SNW08004) for a Proposed Development Site
Consisting of the Following Properties: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract
TK-3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Introduction
The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the owner of
the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the
properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed
PUD is envisioned as a contemporary mixed -use development including retail space,
office space, residential and lodging units in three new buildings; and the existing
improvements demolished. More specifically, the PUD would consist of a maximum of
105,860 square feet of commercial, retail and guest -oriented space; 118 Lodging Units,
237 Residential Units, and twelve (12) "Professional Employee Housing Units" that
would collectively comprise approximately 759,150 square feet. The parking proposed
with this project consists of a combination of surface and structured, underground
spaces totaling 628 parking spaces, the majority of which are below -grade and
structured within the two lowest floor plates of the combined building footprint. The
proposed PUD is described as a vibrant, year-round attraction for residents offering a
mixed -use, pedestrian oriented development with the potential to become a key
architectural landmark and a focal point of community activity in Avon. The tallest of the
three proposed buildings (the East Building) would be eight (8) levels measures at 110
feet, the proposed maximum for the PUD, due to ceiling -to -floor plate heights of fourteen
to twenty feet (14'-20') in all at -grade commercial / retail space.
As further detailed in the Minutes from each of the six (6) Planning and Zoning
Commission hearings held for this item, and in the PUD Design Criteria section of this
memorandum; since the original submittal in February of this year, the applicant has
been asked repeatedly for information necessary for Town Staff to evaluate the
application using the codified criteria and this required information remains outstanding.
While there are elements of the proposal which appear to have the potential of
conforming to the applicable PUD Design Criteria (17.20.110h, AMC), Staff and the
Commission have determined the burden of proof has not been met by the applicant
with the current application materials. Therefore, staff is recommending DENIAL to the
Avon Town Council of the application for a new PUD, Avon 21, with the findings set forth
in this memorandum and Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 08-06 which
are based on the applicable criteria as set forth therein.
Background
The subject application was heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June
3, 2008, June 17, 2008, July 1, 2008, July 15, 2008, August 5, 2008, and August 19,
2008; and public hearings were opened and closed during each of the aforementioned
meeting dates for this application (Please see Attachment 2 for the Minutes from each
Commission hearing.)
At the August 19, 2008 meeting, the Commission made findings of fact based upon the
twelve (12) principal criteria by which a new PUD is to be reviewed, and concluded that
the applicant's materials and various presentations did not adequately demonstrate the
proposal's conformance to the applicable PUD Design Criteria referenced above
(Resolution 08-06).
At each of the five (5) preceding hearings of the Avon 21 PUD, the applicant was
provided with feedback from the Commission based on lengthy visual and oral
presentations made by the applicant and their representatives and the Commission's
deliberation following such presentations. The comments made by the Commission at
each of the hearings were consistently focused on concerns related primarily to the
following elements of the project: maximum building height; building bulk and mass;
depicted buildings' character -compatibility with immediate properties; the proposed
number of attainable housing units; and the overall scale of the project as it will relate to
size of redevelopment in East Avon as compared to West Avon. It has been envisioned
in the various comprehensive and district plans that the East Town Center District
redevelopment improvements will be of a discernibly smaller height and scale than those
in the West Town Center District.
Project Summary and Analysis
Preliminary Plan for Subdivision Plat
The newly subdivided lots, as depicted on Sheet C1.07 of the attached, reduced plan
sets are proposed as follows:
Lot 1 (East): 1.104 acres
Lot 2 (North): 1.515 acres
Lot 3 (South): 1.935 acres
Lot 4 (Main Street Right of Way) is proposed to comprise 0.868 of an acre and will be a
properly dedicated public Right of Way.
As enumerated in greater detail below, the total acreage of the development site, as
proposed in the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision and inclusive of the existing Town of
Avon -owned land, is 5.484 acres.
Existing Lot and Parcel Summary
Lot 21, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek: 0.928 acres
Lot 65-A the Annex at Avon*: 0.613 acres
Lot 65-B the Annex at Avon: 1.496 acres
Tract Q Benchmark at Beaver Creek: 2.131 acres
Tract R Benchmark at Beaver Creek: 0.060 acres
Parcel No. TK-3*: 0.256 acres
*(Indicates land owned by the Town of Avon included as part of the proposed development site)
Total Area (gross)
EAH LLC land
Town land
5.484 acres
= 4.615 acres
0.869 acres
Town Center (TC) Zone District Development Standards
Minimum Lot Size: 30,000 sq ft
Maximum Building Height: 80'
Minimum Building Setbacks: 25' front, 7.5' side, 10' rear
Maximum Site Coverage: 50%
Minimum Landscaped Area: 20%
Maximum Density: 30 dwelling units (DU) per acre of build -able area / or
90 accommodation units (AU) per acre
Maximum Allowable Development Standards (Parcels in EAH LLC Ownership only)
Site Coverage: 2.308 acres (or 100,536 sq ft)
Gross Floor Area: 603,087 sq ft (6 stories at 50% Site Coverage)
Density: (138) dwelling units or (414) accommodation units
Current Land Uses
Retail Shops; Professional Offices; Personal Service Shop; Restaurants; Cocktail
Lounges; Medical Center
Current Land Use / Density Breakdown
Lot 21: 14,314 sq ft Gross Floor Area (7,386 sq ft Retail, 6,928 sq ft Office)
Lot 65B: 13,940 sq ft Gross Floor Area (11,540 sq ft Retail, 2,400 sq ft Office)
Tract Q: 24,521 sq ft Gross Floor Area (6,824 sq ft Retail, 6,479 sq ft Office, and
11,218 sq ft Restaurant)
Total All (3) Parcels: 52,775 sq ft Gross Floor Area (25,750 sq ft Retail, 15,807 sq ft
Office, 11,218 sq ft Restaurant) No residential or lodging units currently located on the
proposed development site.
Proposed Lots - Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision
Lot 1 East (1.104 acres)
Lot 2 North (1.515 acres)
Lot 3 South (1.935 acres)
Lot 4 Main Street Right of Way* (0.868 acres)
* To remain under Town of Avon ownership
Total Area (all parcels) = 5.484 acres
EAH LLC Parcels = 4.615 acres
Town Parcels = 0.869 acres
Proposed Development Standards of the Avon 21 PUD Zoning Designation
Minimum Lot Size: Not Applicable
Maximum Building Height: 110'
Minimum Building Setbacks: Variable & close to zero lot line at certain points
Maximum Site Coverage: 3.260 acres (59% of Total PUD Area)
Open Space: 2.164 acres (41% of Total PUD Area)
Impervious Open Space: TBD (Main Street, Other Streets, Sidewalks, Plaza)
Pervious Open Space: TBD (Lawn areas / Planting areas)
Structured Open Space: TBD (Outdoor Terraces / Patios within Site Coverage)
Proposed Gross Floor Area: 865,012 sq ft above grade
Maximum Density: 50 Dwelling Units (DU) per acre
Parking: 628 spaces (286,500 sq ft below grade)*
*(The gross total number of parking spaces required by Section 17.24.020, AMC, broken out and
calculated by use, is 781. After applying the 15% mixed -use reduction, which accounts for 117.15
spaces, the total number of parking spaces required goes down to 664 without factoring in
required Guest parking spaces (17))
Applicant's Comparative Analysis Using TC Zoning Designation
Site Coverage: 50%*
Gross Floor Area: 603,087 sq ft (or 6 stories at 50% Site Coverage)*
Density: 138 Dwelling Units (DU) or 414 Accommodation Units (AU)*
Maximum Density: 30 Dwelling Units (DU) per acre of build -able area, or 90
Accommodation Units (AU) per acre*
*(Assumes maximum allowable development standards approved via Final Design Application)
Site Coverage
The entire project area included in the PUD application is 5.484 acres and compromised
of Lots 21, 65A, Lot 65 B, Tract Q, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Tract R Benchmark at
Beaver Creek, and Parcel No. TK-3. The total combined building footprint area at the
street level is 142,005 sq ft, or 59% of the total site area. The buildings begin to reduce
and shift alignment of the floor plates at the third and fourth floors above street level in
an attempt to create the architectural effect of movement and articulation of sheer mass.
The gross site coverage expressed in square footage (sq ft) corresponds to the total
area of impervious improvement footprint for the entire development. It is worth noting
that the East Building has s maximums of eight levels above grade while the North and
South Buildings are proposed at a maximum of six (6) levels above grade.
The total proposed site coverage of 59% represents a 9% increase in the 50% site
coverage maximum allowed under existing Town Center zoning. The other 96,878 sq ft,
or 41% of the total site area, would be covered by a mix of exterior amenities, open
space, the new Main Street and a multi -events plaza.
Building Height
A significant portion of the project abutting street level is shown at two (2) stories and
less than forty feet (40') in height. The majority of the project is depicted at six (6)
stories and measures eighty feet (80') in height. There is one area of the project, a
portion of the East Building, which is depicted as being eight (8) stories and measures
110 feet in height. The site coverage underneath the portion of the project that rises
above eighty (80) feet comprises approximately seven percent (7%) of the total site
area. Levels 7 and 8 are proposed to create visual interest and contain substantial
density. The Town Center (TC) zoning designation has an eighty foot (80') maximum
allowable height. The maximum height of the project is proposed to be eight (8) stories
at 110 feet. A majority (94.2% or 544,681 sq ft) of the above grade gross floor area
proposed is located in the first six (6) stories of the project at a building height of eighty
(80) feet. Only 5.84%, or 33,812 sq ft, of the above grade gross floor area proposed is
located in Levels 7 and 8 of the North Building and measure 110 feet in height.
Gross Floor Area
The total gross floor area reflected in the submitted plans is 865,000 sq ft (100%), with
286,500 sq ft (33%) situated below grade to be used as parking, and 578,500 sq ft
(67%) above grade with a mix of land uses detailed later in this report. The above grade
Gross Floor Area (GFA) proposed is 24,587 sq ft less than the maximum allowable
gross floor area of 603,087 sq ft under Town Center (TC) zoning standards for the
combined three parcels (4.615 acres) owned by the Applicant.
Building Bulk and Mass; Views, and Solar Exposure
According to the applicant, the building mass has been developed to avoid the casting of
shadows onto integral areas of the proposed development during the most critical times
of the year, especially along the new Main Street and multi -events plaza. The buildings
have been designed to step back away from the street above the 2nd story in an attempt
to respond to view corridors and solar conditions. The plan is intended to create
southern and south western outdoor spaces and maximize the most desirable solar
exposure aspects. Solar massing studies at various times of year are analyzed in
drawings sheets A -C-11.01, A -C-11.02, and A -C-11.03. These studies are intended to
be used as massing models and do not reflect architectural character, final form or
articulation. Relationships to existing streets and the interface between the buildings,
sidewalks, streets, and parking are depicted on drawing sheets L1.02 and L1.03.
The South building is offset from the eastern -most lane of Avon Road at a minimum of
105 feet with a majority of the building approximately 135 feet back from the road. The
new Main Street right-of-way is 87 feet wide and the space between the buildings to be
situated north and south of Main Street varies between 94 and 200 feet.
Proposed Land Uses
The proposed mix of land uses contemplated includes a combination of retail,
restaurant, conference, spa, residential (market rate condominium and professional
housing), and accommodation (hotel and timeshare). The following is a breakdown of
uses by type (figures have been rounded):
• Retail: 36,500 sq ft
• Restaurant: 15,600 sq ft
• 2nd Floor Commercial: 11,000 sq ft
• Conference Facility: 25,200 sq ft
• Spa: 17,600 sq ft
• Residential: 318,400 sq ft
• Accommodation: 80,500 sq ft
Proposed Unit Mix and Density
A total of 237 residential dwelling units is proposed in the project and located in the three
buildings: East, North, and South. In further detail, 59 studios; 94 one bedroom
condominiums; and 84 two and three -bedroom condominium units comprise the total
residential unit count. Also, twelve (12) of these units are included in the professional
(attainable) housing program proposed with this PUD application. Additionally, 118
accommodation units (AUs) have been proposed with this development application. The
average square footage of an accommodation unit is 682 sq ft. Pursuant to how the
AMC calls for the accounting of density, 276 dwelling units are being proposed with this
PUD application making for a total project density of 50 dwelling units (DUs) per acre.
The Town Center (TC) zone district allows for a maximum 30 dwelling units per acre.
The subject PUD application proposes to increase density in keeping with the applicant's
interpretation of the applicable planning documents, the 2006 Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan and the East Town Center District Plan.
Surrounding Land Uses
The existing land use and zoning for the surrounding properties are as follows:
• North: Christie Lodge / Town Center (TC) Zoning
• South: Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad
• West: Benchmark Plaza / TC Zoning
• East: Chapel Square / PUD
Referrals
This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to property
owners within 300' of the subject property. To date staff has received no public
comments regarding the applicant's requests. In addition to the required public notice,
staff has transmitted the application material to the following agencies, with their
comments summarized below:
Eagle County School District Comments
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
Communications between the applicant and the District are included in the
Correspondence attachment to this memorandum (Attachment 5).
Colorado Department of Transportation
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eagle County Planning Department
Eagle County did not have specific referral comments related to this application.
Eagle County Fire Protection District
A letter from District is in the Correspondence section of this memorandum.
Colorado Department of Wildlife
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
Eagle County Health Services District
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
ECO Trails
To date, staff has not received a response to our request for comments.
PUD Design Criteria
According to the. Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria
shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD. It shall be the burden of the
applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development
plan comply with each of the following design criteria, or demonstrate that one or
more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution is
consistent with the public interest.
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and
Objectives.
The proposed development site is designated as being within a High Priority District
(District 2) in the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan and is referred to as the East
Town Center District. The specific language for District 2 is as follows:
District 2: East Town Center District
The East Town Center District is a key revitalization prospect for the
community. Significant redevelopment opportunities exist in the district, and
must be considered comprehensively with concern for the needs and desires
of the community. This district also abuts the Village at Avon and its
associated future development. Strong pedestrian and street connections
should be established so that these districts create a consistent and cohesive
community core.
The size of the parcels provides an opportunity for a variety of redevelopment
opportunities. The challenge will be to overcome the confusing street
patterns, indirect pedestrian walkways, diminished sight corridors, and to
entice people out of their car to experience the entire Town Center.
A mix of uses, including major retail establishments, smaller retail shops,
personal services, offices, and supporting residentiaUlodging uses will be
essential for the district.
Also relevant to the subject application are the Planning Principles for this district,
which are listed verbatim and in their entirety as follows:
• Develop a mix of commercial uses with supporting residential/lodging
development
• Plan for public plazas and other community gathering places
• Develop structured parking facilities to make parking less obtrusive to the
pedestrian
• Accommodate anchor retailers without large expanses of parking to
ensure these uses are integrated into a unifying framework
• Create a cohesive physical framework and community image (compatible
building orientation, scale, massing, sitting, street alignments, streetscape
furnishings, signage, lighting, etc.) between the Town Center Districts and
the Village at Avon
Diagram not to scale.
• Use architectural detailing on ground level/first floor to enhance the
pedestrian environment that includes a human scale, display windows,
appropriate lighting, and other pedestrian amenities
• Site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure,
protect views, and break up building bulk
• Ensure convenient pedestrian and auto access to the entire Town Center
Illustration of High Priority District 2 (pg 73, Comp Plan):
Potential Redevelopment Sites
Series of Public Plazas
Roundabout
Vehicular and Pedestrian Crossing
Anchor Retail
The recently adopted East Town Center District Plan contains seventeen (17) Planning
Principles which are distinctly pertinent and applicable to the subject development
proposal. These Planning Principles are refinements of those listed in the 2006 Town of
Avon Comprehensive Plan and are to be addressed in the same manner.
Planning Principles from the East Town Center District Plan:
• Develop a mix of commercial uses with supporting residential / lodging
development
As proposed, Avon 21 is a comparatively high -density mixed -use
redevelopment project comprised of a variety of use types, including
commercial retail and restaurant/bar/cafe uses on the ground level; and
office, residential, and lodging units on the upper levels.
• Implement a street pattern that functionally extends "Main Street" across
Avon Road.
The proposed Avon 21 PUD has been designed and configured to effectively
create an extension of West Town Center's "Main Street" across Avon Road
into the East Town Center District.
• Plan for public plazas and other community gathering places
The submitted plans depict an area described as being designed to function
as a multi -events plaza, in addition to designated outdoor seating and similar
gathering spaces.
• Develop structured parking facilities to make parking less obtrusive to the
pedestrian
The Avon 21 PUD application plans depict the majority of parking as being
located in a series of underground structured parking facilities. In each of the
three proposed buildings, two levels of sub -grade parking are shown on the
plans. As noted earlier in the Project Summary and Analysis portion of this
memorandum, the proposed number of parking spaces falls short of the
required number of spaces per the codified method of calculation.
• Accommodate anchor retailers without large expanses of (surface) to ensure
these uses are integrated into a unifying framework
The floor space located on the street grade has been proposed to
accommodate commercial land uses, mostly retail/restaurant in nature. The
individual commercial tenant spaces appear to have been designed with a
variety of sizes and floor space configurations.
• Create a cohesive physical framework and community image (compatible
building orientation, scale, massing, site, street alignment, streetscape
furnishings, signage, lighting, etc.) between the Town Center Districts and the
Village at Avon)
The Avon 21 PUD proposal cites the cohesive physical framework
established by the proposed ("Main Street extension") road realignment and
design, and the enhanced pedestrian network depicted in the submitted
plans. The proposed building bulk, mass and scale, particularly with respect
to the maximum height of the East Building (110'), exceed the maximum
allowable development standards of the existing Town Center (TC) zone
district, hence the request for a rezoning to a new PUD. However, the
compatibility element of this principle and how it applies to a cohesive
physical framework or the community image remains in question and was a
central piece of the Commission's uncertainty over how this project could fit
into the existing and contemplated fabric of the east side of Avon.
• Use architectural detailing on ground level/first floor to enhance the
pedestrian environment that includes a human scale, display windows,
appropriate lighting, and other pedestrian amenities
Architectural elements such as awnings, light fixtures, and signs with
substantial detailing and distinct characteristics would be considered during
the Sketch and Final Design stages of the project to enhance its aesthetic
appeal.
• Site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure,
protect views, and break up building bulk
As stated previously in this report, a total of three separate buildings varying
in size, shape, and articulation are proposed with this project. Whether the
proposed structures maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break up
building bulk remains a matter of conjecture.
• Ensure convenient pedestrian and auto access to the entire Town Center
The proposed, straightened 'Main Street' depicted in the plans appears to
have the potential to improve pedestrian and automobile access on the east
side of town.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub-
area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town.
The applicant is proposing a design style and thematic approach to the buildings
reflective of more progressive, contemporary architectural forms and methodologies.
It is important to note the architectural details are not required to be absolute or
binding at this stage of the process; however, the applicant is required to
demonstrate the basic visual form the proposed buildings will take, on a conceptual
level, and the architectural style they are endeavoring to achieve with this proposal.
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 size and scope of the proposed physical improvements will be dominant in this
part of Avon's core and will subsequently set the tone of future development. In
comparison to the existing structures within the immediate vicinity of the application's
development site, the scale, bulk and height of the proposed buildings bare no
resemblance to those there today. There does not appear to be a cohesive
architectural design theme in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development
site for the Avon 21 PUD.
4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
As outlined under criterion one (1), the uses, activity, and density that will result from
this new PUD could provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with
surrounding uses and activity; however, matters such as construction phasing
sequence, transit, and attainable housing, remain unresolved and thereby this
criterion has not been demonstrably met.
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards
that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
Not Applicable
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 proposed PUD amendment, as submitted, does not adequately demonstrate
compliance with this criterion as it remains unproven with respect to the overall
aesthetic quality to 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.
As detailed above, the changes proposed to the circulation system designed for the
PUD, if incorporated with the pertinent comments from the Engineering Department,
will achieve the purpose and intent of this criterion. Please refer to the comments
made by the Engineering Department Staff for more information.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
The new landscaping and open space associated with the proposed development
have not been planned beyond a conceptual level and the information provided thus
far indicates the proposal should be able to meet the elements of this criterion.
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.
As submitted, the phasing plan provided with this application does not meet the
intent of this criterion and requires a different sequencing to ensure the functional
independence of each proposed phase.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation
systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Please see the comments of the Engineering and Transit / Transportation attached
to this report as Attachment 5.
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 are reviewed throughout the subdivision process
associated with this rezoning and development application. It is noteworthy here that
the developer is required to complete the final construction of the roads in this area,
including the proposed streetscape, adherent to and concurrent with and the
subdivision process codified in Title 16, Avon Municipal Code. Please refer to the
comments made by the Transit, Transportation, Public Works and Engineering
Departments in Attachment 5.
12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of
substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as
outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code:
A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning
entitlements cannot achieve.
As detailed earlier in this memorandum, the application does not demonstrate a
public purpose that cannot be achieved under the current zoning entitlements.
B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social
community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a
result of the changed zoning rights.
The economic modeling of this development application performed based upon the
originally submitted materials for this project has not demonstrated compliance with
this criterion.
C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better
siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources,
and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master
plan documents.
There exists no guarantee within the contents of the subject application, as
submitted, that the approval of this proposal will result in an improved site orientation
of future development; the preservation of valued environmental and cultural
resources; and an increase in the amount of public benefit consistent with the
community master plan documents.
Town Manager Comments:
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Minutes from the Six Commission Hearings
3. Resolution No. 08-06 from the Planning and Zoning Commission
4. Proposed PUD Plan & Applicant's "Compatibility Matrix"
5. Correspondence, Comments, and the Attainable Housing Matrix created by Staff
6. Narrative analyses from Stan Berstein & Assoc.
7. New Materials from the Applicant (received after 4:00 PM on October 8, 2008)
8. Town of Avon Model Development Agreement (Template)
9. Reduced Plan Sets (received after 4:00 PM on October 8, 2008)
6)6 /01
Within ten calendar days from this meeting, or not later than June 13th, a bid from a qualified
contractor showing the cost estimated to complete work, will be provided to staff along with a
cash security or letter of credit totaling 125% of said estimate. Additionally, the red tag will be
lifted tomorrow in order to allow for continued work in the interim period. The completion date
for the project is set to be Sept 2"d.
Commissioner Prince clarified that the applicant will be required to find a reputable bidder, as
determined by staff, and 125% of surety posted within 10 days. Prince asked the applicant
what the ballpark number is and if he could produce the 125%. Discussion continued with
respect to the remaining work, and that since the materials were already ordered the
contractor simply schedules hours of labor. The letter of credit process could take one week.
The motion was clarified that this is an extension to the design approval submittal; 125% bid of
reputable contractor. If these conditions are not met in 10 calendar days, it will be a violation
of Town Code and subject to remedies outlined therein.
Commissioner Green seconds the motion and all commissioners were in favor. 6-0 vote.
VIII. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application
Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision 162, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road
Applicant/ Owner: Brian Judge, Orion Development
Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the
owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the
properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is
envisioned to be a contemporary mixed -use development including retail space, office space,
residential and lodging in three new development buildings to be located on the site.
Discussion: Matthew Gennett, Planning Manager, presented Staff's report to the Commission.
He explained that this is the first redevelopment project the Town has ever reviewed. Mr.
Gennett outlined the proposal and the development standards, including but not limited to the
building locations, parking, phasing, and mixed -use vibrant character of development. The
East Town Center plan was adopted prior to finding the application complete.
The building height was presented, along with the street patterns and vehicular ways. The
extension of Main Street is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gennett explained that
the purpose of this hearing is to introduce the project to the Commission and the public. The
bulk, height, mass, are being presented tonight. What we are looking at is the mix of uses,
street patterns, footprints, and how these items address the principles in the East Town Center
Plan and Comprehensive Plan.
It was explained that Staff has identified some discrepancies with the plan set. Staff is
reviewing the phasing plan, employee housing, traffic generation, engineering comments,
financing mechanisms, and are looking forward to the development agreement and how that
might be drafted. The recommendation to table a formal review to the June 17, 2008 meeting
is to allow the application time respond to Staff and Commissioner comments.
Mr. Gennett continued to outline the packet materials. Page 2 of Staff's report goes through
the nuts and bolts of the application. Page 6 outlines the goals and policies of the East Town
Center Plan. The report highlights each planning principle, and how this development
responds to the plan. There needs to be a discussion as to what the Commission wants to
see at the next hearing.
Page 16 of the report contains the Comprehensive Plan goals. Mr. Gennett explained that
Goals F.1 and F.2 merit discussion, to understand how attainable housing policies relate to
this development plan. Page 18, Criteria 2, highlights the conformity with the design theme of
the Town. Criteria 3 for review contemplates the adjacent bulk building height, etc. The
theme of this project could set a tone for the rest of the district, and not simply the immediate
surrounding properties.
Staff recommends tabling to the 17th.
Pedro Campos, representing Orion Development, introduced the development team. Brian
Judge, Orion Development, approached the podium to discuss the project's history. His team
was encouraged over 2 1/2 years ago to look bigger, and to look at other redevelopment
project possibilities in the area. He continued to explain that his team was been active in the
financing districts, and participation in the processes involved with the East and West Avon
workshops in the preceding years.
Pedro Campos began a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the project goals, including:
increased density, strengthened Main Street retail pedestrian environment, new multi -use
landmark public space, enhancement of pedestrian circulation, clarification of auto circulation,
and the elimination of surface parking lots that exist in the area.
The background of the project was again highlighted. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, and
2003 updated Comprehensive Plan both envision connecting west and east town centers.
Between 2005 and 2007, consolidation of parcel ownership has taken place and the project
site now totals approximately 5.4 acres of land. During the same time frame, the West Town
Center Investment Plan, Urban Renewal Authority creation, and the East Town Center plan
was being developed.
Pedro explained that the development team has held four joint Town Council and Planning
and Zoning Commission work sessions in 2006 and 2007. Meetings with staff and
representatives have ensued throughout this timeframe.
The Comprehensive Plan Community Framework diagram was presented to the Commission,
highlighting the east -west Main Street configuration. Functionally extend Main Street into East
Town Center was a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. The project site is located in high priority
district number two.
The existing and proposed parcel configurations were presented to the Commission. Tk3 and
65-A are the two TOA properties. The proposed reconfigured .86 acres of Right of Way land
would be maintained with the new parcel and resulting Right of Way configuration. It was
again pointed out that the Main Street alignment would effectively extend Main Street across
Avon Road. The multi -event space in the middle of the development and sidewalk circulation
were shown in the overall site plan.
Service and deliveries were to be located on the east side of the south building, and west side
of the north building, out of the public domain. Public art opportunities have been identified by
the applicant, and the general quality of the streetscape environment.
Building perspectives were presented in the Power Point presentation looking north through
the north and east buildings (from south side of public plaza). The street level amenities and
the mix of building materials were pointed out. A perspective looking south from above the
Christie lodge property toward the railroad tracks was presented. Pedro explained that the
goal of the building orientation and mass was to optimize views and solar orientation.
Additional perspectives were presented, including: gateways of the project from major
intersections, pedestrian oriented retail environment, place -making and public space studies,
and solar orientation/shade studies.
Chairman Evans opened the public hearing.
Kent Beidel, owner of Loaded Joe's, approached the podium. Existing businesses and how
these are built into the framework of the project was questioned. He explained his concern
with limiting interruption of existing businesses during construction, and the phasing approach.
Brian Judge explained that all of the tenants should approach him with those types of issues.
Due to the straightening of Main Street, the current phasing shows the east building
construction first. Brian's team is seeking other properties in the East Town Center for
possible relocations.
Kent continued that at grade parking is important to businesses such as Loaded Joes or
Pazzos for quick pick-ups. Affordability of local businesses to lease the tenant spaces was a
concern to Kent, as a local business owner.
The public hearing was closed with no other comments.
Commissioner Lane questioned how the public plaza would function. The intent of East Town
Center plan is for view corridors to go straight through the plaza, and would like to keep the
view corridor through the plaza. Pedro explained that a visual connection between East Town
Center and West Town Center is one of the driving forces between the plaza and Main Street
design. The plans indicate a 200' opening in the plaza to see across Avon road.
Brian Judge re -iterated the teams concern with engaging the future park in front of the old
Wal-Mart space. His team currently has Chapel Square under contract with a short closing
window. If the closing went through it could help assure what type of extension of Main Street
into the park could be realized.
Commissioner Goulding commented on the following: the PUD process and evaluation of the
criteria must be clear to the public and the Commission; the Comprehensive Plan implications
and principles must be clear, and how the project meets these principles; parking will be
looked at in detail; 2bdrm units will require two spaces; and feedback will be sought from the
Town, neighbors, public utilities, and the most importantly from the general public.
Commissioner Green expressed concern with how this development compliments the Town,
and how the mix, retail, residential, and what we are getting. How is the residential mix
including or excluding local residents (i.e. how big are the units)? How does this plan exceed
or compliment the local environment. Commissioner Green mentioned that this is the time we
determine mix of uses, and types of housing.
Commissioner Evans explained that we are reviewing mass, height, and densities. Conflicts
with the Design Guidelines were pointed out relating to roofs, and the massing/height of the
buildings shown. Technical issues must be addressed including water rights, utilities,
engineering, etc. Mr. Evans commented that the 12 employee housing units proposed are
insufficient. Existing businesses must be maintained, and how the phasing affects the tenants
must be addressed. The financial implications to the Town are extremely important to
Commissioner Evans. He continued to explain that the phasing plan is inadequate, and that
the Town amenities need to be up front in the phasing. Who is EAH, LLC?
Commissioner Evans continued to explain that there has never been an obligation to develop
with previous PUD approvals. He questioned what kind of guarantee the Town has if only a
portion of the development is complete, and the developer leaves. What kind of burden would
this produce on the Town? How do we ensure that this remains friendly to local ownership
and businesses?
Commissioner Roubos expressed concern with precedent, and to be careful to keep the
character of Avon and how the Town envisions it. Commissioner Roubos felt that the
buildings are ugly, and while we are not reviewing that now, the drawings have been
presented and a response is warranted. Commissioner Prince explained that a timeline must
be established, and citizen input is important. What can the applicants do to solicit feedback?
Commissioner Green would like to have the uses clearly identified and distinguished in the
plan set.
Eric Heidemann responded to the Commissioners comments and offered a strategy to
address the items of concern. Town Staff will meet with the applicants and develop new ways
to disseminate the information, and public input strategies. He explained that the Stan
Bernstein model is forthcoming and that the opportunity for an urban renewal authority is
present. A development agreement and agency comments will be presented as Staff receives
them.
Action: Commissioner Green motioned to table the application to the June 17th, 2008
Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roubos and all
Commissioners were in favor. The application was tabled unanimously_
IX. Other Business
▪ July 15, 2008 DOLA training
▪ Commissioner Lane questioned the approved monument signs at Boat Building
▪ Commissioner Lane felt that development of outdoor spaces in PUDs is extremely
important, instead of just the numbers
• Process Discussion with regard to PUD applications.
X. Adjourn
Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50pm
APPROVED:
Chris Green
Vice Chairperson
Phil Struve
Secretary
06'// lo
Commissioner Struve stated that he was not sure how else to erect the retaining walls.
Intensive landscape plan. Commissioner Roubos still didn't think the garage fit with the rest of
the building, but is fine with material changes.
Action: Commissioner Roubos recommend conditional approval of the retaining walls with the
condition that an "extensive" revised landscape plan be provided showing how the walls will be
addressed. The motion included a denial of the garage addition, and approval of material
changes to the driveway and stone walls.
There was no second to the motion, and the motion died.
Commissioner Prince moved to approve the site modifications, subject to an improved
landscape plan, specifically to hide the 14' retaining wall, with more than one tree, including
aspens, and varying sized spruces. The motion included action to approve the material
changes to the stone veneer siding and driveway. The motion was to approve garage
modifications.
Commissioner Lane motioned to deny the site retaining wall modifications, approve the
building improvements and the condition that landscape plans are submitted for re -review.
There was no second and the motion died.
Commissioner Roubos motioned to approve the site changes and material changes with the
condition that the applicant comes back with a revised landscape plan to better screen the
retaining walls and proper snow removal be demonstrated. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Prince, and the motion passed with a 3-1 vote; Commissioner Lane objected.
Commissioner Prince moved to approve the garage as proposed. Commissioner Lane
seconded the motion and it passed with a 3-1 vote; Commissioner Roubos objected.
VIII. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road
Applicant / Owner: Brian Judge, Orion Development
Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the
owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the
properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is
envisioned to be a contemporary mixed -use development including retail space, office space,
residential and lodging uses in three new buildings to be located on the site.
Discussion: Matt Gennett presented staffs report and the new approach to reviewing this
redevelopment proposal. The allowed vs. proposed comparison of entitlements is to be
reviewed at this meeting. Densities, bulk, height, and massing will be broken down. The
agendas for the July 1St and July 15th Planning and Zoning Commission hearings were
highlighted. Staff is recommending a tabling until the July 1st hearing. -
Pedro Campos, representing the owners of the property, presented the proposed gross floor
area of the project. Approximately 67% of the GFA is above grade, and 33% below grade.
Current Town Center allows 603,087 sq. ft. of GRA, and Avon 21 is proposing 24,587 sq. ft.
under allowed zoning. (Applicant's PowerPoint presentation available upon request)
The project density was broken down, and consists of: 118 lodging units, 237 residential units,
and 12 local professional units. Total project density reaches 276 units.
94% of Avon 21 is at or below 80' building height allowed by current zoning. Approximately
6% of the buildings are above the Town Center zoning, and the development standards show
a 130' allowance. The buildings in the plan set show are not more than 110'. The proposed
site coverages were presented to the Commission:
Pedro continued with his presentation by outlining the parking requirements. Parking
requirements for Town Center Zoning, per Town Municipal Code, requires 681 parking
spaces. Avon 21 requests 590 parking spaces. It was explained that the design team has
applied the Confluence PUD parking ratios.
Land Uses were presented: 318,000 sq. ft. residential, 89,000 accommodation, etc
A lot by lot breakdown of dwelling units (dwelling units and accommodation units), commercial
space, and common space was presented. Pedro reiterated the future meeting schedule, and
the continuing process.
Commissioner Green opened up the review for Commissioner comments. Commissioner
Lane questioned the parking disparity expressed in the buildout table. There were 681 spaces
per Town requirements, and 590 proposed in the PUD. Brian Judge offered his interpretation
of the parking study as it relates to occupancy rates. The parking plan contemplates private
owner areas, and an 'open to the public' portion of the garages.
Commissioner Green questioned the applicant on how dwelling units are defined. The total
buildout includes studios, 1 bdrm, and 12 professional units. Green wanted to know what the
other units consisted of: market residential condos, and fractional ownership possibilities.
Brian Judge approached the podium to explain the unit type, branding, and partnerships
evolving with this project. There is admittedly some flexibility built into the development plan,
based on the possible ownership patterns envisioned.
Commissioner Green opened the meeting to public comment.
Kent Beidel, owner of Loaded Joes, offered his advice for future public input options, possibly
involving his venue. He reiterated his concern that local businesses must be maintained in
Town. How can we be assured local businesses are kept and successful with concern to
rental prices. Commercial deed restricted businesses might be a possibility. Kent questioned
the phasing approach, and when each building would get demolished and new ones built. He
has not been purvey to the phasing plan.
Kent commented on parking, and felt that 40 surface parking spaces are insufficient. More
parking spaces than required by town code might be necessary. Kent had no further
comments.
Sandy Helms, Valley Girl Boutique owner, approached the podium. Parking issue is a concern
to her business, in addition to accessibility. She felt that a first right of refusal to current
tenants is a concern, and should be considered to address current business owners. The
Commission questioned how much parking is demanded by her business. In the morning, 2
customers might be in the store, and a peak at 5-10 spaces with this development.
The public comment portion of the meeting was closed with no further comments.
Brian Judge approached the podium to recap the discussion and the approach to existing and
future tenants of the buildings. He explained that numerous conversations have taken place
with staff and council members about local store and tenants, and the ultimate care will be
given to preferred tenants. Brian's team is committed to keeping businesses.
Commissioner Lane commented on the direction of the Town towards pedestrian friendly
environments, with underground parking. Lane questioned if the park was part of future
agenda items.
Commissioner Prince challenged the applicant with respect to the variances from Town Code
development standards. Where is the public benefit to the Town to permit these
discrepancies? Pedro responded that this is being molded in part by the bonding and
economic impacts and future analysis will follow.
Commissioner Roubos was in full agreement with Commissioner Prince's comments.
Commissioner Struve had no further questions.
Commissioner Green requested a floor plate by floor plate review of the different land uses
proposed. Pedro and Brian Judge presented each floor in the plan set in detail. The
Professional unit numbers and locations were clarified.
Commissioner Green questioned if the amount of office space will be reduced under current
levels on the same parcels with this redevelopment. He pointed out the office space numbers,
and they are reduced. Mr. Judge would like to challenge those numbers and come back with
refined numbers if requested. Commissioner Green did not feel that would be necessary.
A broad discussion continued concerning the future development patterns of the Town. The
intent of the East Town Center District Plan was discussed. Matt Gennett explained that at the
next hearing staff will attempt to break down the report to review this proposal -against all of the
planning principles contained in the East Town Center District Plan.
Action: Commissioner Roubos motioned to table this application to the July 1s`, 2008
meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. All Commissioners were in
favor and the vote carried with a 5-0 vote.
IX. Other Business
o Snow Run is in order and compliance with the Planning Commission approval.
o Lot 7, Western Sage will be reviewed at the next hearing.
X. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:47pm.
APPROVED:
Chris Green
Vice Chairperson
Phil Struve
Secretary
o lo, log
Commissioner Prince stated that he would like to see the heights of each retaining wall.
Commissioner Evans stated that he would like to see the studies that prove this is the option
with the least amount of retaining walls.
Commissioner Struve asked what colors were planned for. Buzz stated that the colors of the
rock are the samples shown and the windows would be a gray hue.
Commissioner Roubos stated that she was concerned about the size of the proposed house
and square footage.
Commissioner Goulding stated he doesn't have a problem with the size, but does have a
problem with the massing. The building needs to be stepped down not up the hillside. He
also wanted to see a parking study to show proper movement in the driveway.
As this is a Sketch Design application, no formal action was taken.
VIII. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road
Applicant / Owner. Brian Judge, Orion Development
Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the
owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the
properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is
envisioned to be a contemporary mixed -use development including retail space, office space,
residential and lodging uses in three new buildings to be located on the site.
Discussion:
Matt Gennett, Planning Manager, presented the outline for the meeting and staffs report
included in the Commissioner packets. The Staff report outlines the policies from both the
Comprehensive Plan and East Town Center District plan.
Commissioner Struve questioned Planning Principle #14, maximizing solar exposure, and
whether that meant limited shaded areas. Mr. Gennett responded that while vague, this
planning principle can imply limiting shaded areas.
Pedro Campos, representing the owners of the property, introduced the presentation and the
outline of his presentation. Pedro went through the Planning Principals stated in the
Comprehensive Plan in an attempt to show how the proposed PUD complies with each
principal.
Commissioner Evans questioned how the floor plates, specifically the plaza level, related to
the current grades on the site.
Pedro continued the presentation by illustrating how the proposed PUD complies with the East
Town Center Plan.
Commissioner Evans asked how the proposed project compares to the number of floors from
illustrated in the East Town Center Plan.
Pedro stated that the proposed project complies in most instances as the buildings vary
between 6-8 stories.
Commissioner Evans stated that he believes the residential street designation in the East
Town Center Plan is intended to drive the street size but not the use on the street level.
Commissioner Evans informed the applicant that he believes the uses there should still be
commercial or retail.
Pedro referred Mr. Evans to the section detail of the residential street side of the project
depicted in the ETCD Plan and the "residential" label on the detail for the whole building.
Commissioner Evans asked how the revised traffic study is progressing. Pedro responded
that their traffic engineer is reviewing their work to ensure that it is correct.
Commissioner Evans asked about acquisition of water rights and sewer rights. He asked
where they were currently in the process of acquiring these rights. Brian Judge asked that the
Planning and Zoning Commission only look at the uses so that the applicants can determine
their exact requirements.
Commissioner Evans opened the Public Hearing for Public Comment.
Kent Biedel, owner of Loaded Joe's, wanted to reiterate his comments from previous
meetings. He did determine that by code he would need about 10 parking spaces, but during
peak hours the number of parking spaces can grow to the 20-25 range. He stated that the
surface parking is a lifeline for his business and wouldn't occupy a location without that
adequate parking. He offered his business as a place to hold a public outreach meeting if the
Town and Applicant wanted a place to hold additional meetings.
Commissioner Evans stated that the current parking code is flawed, but is unsure what the
amounts should be. He stated that parking would be dealt with on a project by project basis.
Kent stated that the affordability issue related to tenant spaces is another concern and that he
would like to see rent controlled retail spaces.
Commissioner Evans closed the Public Comment portion of the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Evans stated that he has concerns about the price ranges of the units proposed
in the proposed PUD. He asked how the vibrancy and critical mass of downtown is to be
benefited by the proposed price ranges.
Brian Judge responded that the need is for a professional housing price range for households
that can afford to live in these homes and frequent the local business.
Commissioner Evans asked if the phasing is negotiable. Brian Judge responded that phase
one provides 99% of the public benefit by realigning the roads and utilities.
Brian Judge asked for clarification of what Commissioner Evans is asking for.
Commissioner Evans is asking for the developer to guarantee to the town that once a phase is
undertaken that the Town will receive the public benefit that the developer is representing to
finish at the completion of that phase.
Commissioner Goulding stated that he feels the applicant did not fully address the principals of
the East Town Center and the compliance of the proposed PUD.
Commissioner Evans stated that he wanted to understand why every planning goal and policy
of the Comp Plan was not addressed. Matt Gennett responded that only the applicable
principals were included in the staff report as determined.
Commissioner Green asked if the Commissioners could make comments without public
feedback. He acknowledged that the proposed PUD meets the sun shading and Main Street
alignment and that the architectural design is irrelevant at this time.
Commissioner Lane asked if this is a building that we want to see in town now and later. He
stated that he does not think he can see this in town now.
Commissioner Green asked the other Commissioners how the lower end of the housing and
commercial are attainable by locals. He also asked how the town would be obligated to assist
so that locals can occupy the units affordably.
Commissioner Goulding asked his fellow Commissioners to provide the applicant some
feedback on what their stance is on many issues so that the applicant can adequately respond
to those issues. Commissioner Evans responded that he agrees, but would like to see more
information so that he can make comments that are substantive.
Commissioner Evans commented that he understands the fabric of the East Town Center area
and he does not feel that this project meets that fabric due to costs associated with residing in
the proposed PUD.
Commissioner Goulding asked the Commissioners to provide staff and the applicant with
direction needed to be taken so that they can provide the applicant with feedback so that he
can determine what is going to work for them.
Matt Gennett stated that there are still eleven (11) other PUD Design Criteria that need to be
reviewed to provide recommendation for the PUD. He suggested that the next meeting and
staff report focus the discussion on those criteria.
The Commissioners agreed that it would be a good approach and logical next step.
Commissioner Roubos moved to table the application. Commissioner Struve seconded the
motion and it passed with a 7-0 vote.
IX. Other Business
• Andy Hill from DOLA will be at the next meeting to do Commissioner Training.
• During the August 5th meeting, a discussion on Financial Impacts and Fiscal Analysis with
Stan Bernstein will be held.
• Matt Pieisticker asked about having a greater level of detail for Sketch Design Applications.
X. Adjourn
Commissioner Struve moved to adjourn at 10:40. Commissioner Goulding seconded the
motion and it passed 7-0.
APPROVED:
Chris Evans
Chairperson?
Phil Struve
Secretary
nQ cc5AAr-,_)
o /1370
sought for this type of use and its possible location. Pedro continued to explain Zone F and its
constraints. This area will undoubtedly be staged last, and therefore the schematic ideas are
extremely preliminary in nature. A possible multi -purpose structure was envisioned by the
consultant team.
Commissioner Evans would like to see some iteration of the lighting standard started with the
transit center continued into the park. Commissioner Roubos desired a softer entrance to the
park off Main Street.
Commissioner Goulding explained that the edge on the railroad tracks might need to be more
permanent, possibly a structure of some kind, since there is nothing that is going to happen
along this edge anytime in the near future. He also expressed the desire to see increased
activity in the area where the existing pavilion is and the area included on the north side of the
field.
Commissioner Struve felt that the survey reflected the true value the community has with the
park, and leaving the park the way it is today.
X. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road
Applicant I Owner. Brian Judge, Orion Development
Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the
owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the
properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is
envisioned to be a contemporary mixed -use development including retail space, office space,
residential and lodging uses in three new buildings to be located on the site. This item was
tabled from the July 1, 2008 meeting.
Discussion: Matt Gennett explained the results from the last meeting. A letter from Lynn
Morgan, Wildridge resident, was received by Staff and is now a part of the record. This is the
forth meeting reviewing this project.
Matt clarified that review Criterion #1 was already been reviewed. The Staff report outlines the
remaining 11 review criterion for review of this application. Pedro Campos, representing the
owners of the property, explained his understanding and desired outcome of this meeting. His
team would like to hear from the Commission regarding the 11 remaining criterion.
Matt Gennett started to introduce each review criteria, starting with Criterion #2.
Commissioner Roubos read an excerpt from the East Town Center Plan as it relates to
architectural theme. She felt that the extensive use of flat roofs, and resulting box -like look of
buildings, appears to conflict with the Guidelines in place.
Commissioner Roubos read design recommendations from the East Town Center District
Plan.
Brian Judge, Orion Development, approached the podium to clarify what he heard regarding
building height and what was being proposed. Commissioner Evans explained that if a
developer came in to redevelop an existing Town Center lot, that the entire building could not
approach 80'.
Commissioner Roubos explained her concern with the box -like forms presented.
Commissioner Prince also felt that the appearance was of a flat roof, even though there was a
minimal roof pitch shown on the plans. Pedro explained that they were trying to produce a
highly energized pedestrian experience with this project.
Commissioner Struve felt that he was not seeing the intent of the East Town Center District
Plan reflected in the building forms shown.
Matt Gennett read Criterion #3: "Design compatibility with the immediate environment,
neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, character, and orientation." Looking at surrounding development, there is
no cohesive network of existing buildings.
Commissioner Green felt that this project would have a significant impact on neighboring
properties, and design compatibility is not the entire issue here. Commissioner Evans framed
the review criteria. The Commissioners were in agreement that Criteria #3 is not applicable
and/or this criterion is captured within Criteria #1 and #2.
Staff highlighted Criterion #4, including uses, locations and densities envisioned. Staff would
like additional clarification as to phasing, trip generation, and the traffic analysis since these
items are directly related to this Criterion. •
Commissioner Green wanted to understand Staffs interpretation of this criterion. For
example, are the uses on the first level compatible to the existing neighboring land -uses? Mr.
Gennett responded that density, uses, and the increased level of activity should also be looked
at in detail as they relate to the possible future neighboring redevelopment projects. A
financial model must be reviewed before this criterion can be reviewed in full detail.
Pedro explained that his team is struggling with the Transportation Master Plan that is
currently underway and how it may or may not affect this project. His team is concerned with
this study.
Mr. Gennett re -iterated that Criterion #5 is not applicable. The Commissioners were all in
agreement. He continued to outline Criterion #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."
Given the lack of information related to drainage and snowmelt, etc. presented at this stage of
development, and the fact that this is scrape and entire redevelopment; this criterion would
largely be dealt with at a design review stage of review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Commissioner Evans felt that Criterion #6 is less applicable, since the overall aesthetic value
of the community is dealt with looking at some of the other review criteria. All of the
Commissioners agreed that this Criterion is either not applicable or dealt with in other criteria.
Matt Gennett presented Criterion #7, the transportation impacts this project may present. He
directed the Commission to the Engineering comments attached to the Staff report. This
Criterion could possibly be dealt with at the next meeting. Commissioner Evans pointed out
the comments received from Jennifer Strehler, Public Works and Transportation Director, and
how the bus system in this area would match the current level. Chairman Evans felt that the
level of demand, above what existing TC zoning could experience, should be accounted for
and addressed with this application.
Matt Gennett presented Criterion #8, "Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open
space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and
function." He commented that these items would be discussed at a greater level during the
Sketch Design and Final Design reviews.
Commissioner Prince commented that it appears there is a limited amount of natural features.
Commissioner Evans stated that representations are made for mature trees, but in reality
those plantings are much smaller. How can we ensure that the plantings are what have been
represented throughout the public process?
Commissioner Goulding would prefer to see a full landscape plan to clarify the intent of the
landscaping and open space provided by the proposed project.
Matt Gennett presented Criterion #9, the potential phasing plan and its functionality.
Commissioner Roubos questioned what would be provided by Stan Bernstein at the next
meeting. Matt clarified that his presentation would focus on the financial implications of the
proposed phasing, but there are other issues that need to be addressed in the interim.
Commissioner Goulding wanted to ensure that current businesses are retained during the
phasing and that the town is ensured that all phases will be complete — avoiding a Cascade
ruins possibility.
Commissioner Green would like to see a timeline to attach dates to all phases from beginning
to completion. Commissioner Goulding clarified his comments and stated that he wanted a
commitment from the applicant that if a phase is begun then it will be complete, and what are
the public benefits provided at the completion of each phase.
Matt Gennett presented Criterion #10, the adequacy of public services. He commented that
most of these comments have been provided to the Commission in this or previous Staff
reports. Matt clarified that the Water rights would be provided prior to final plat acceptance.
Commissioner Goulding asked that this criterion be clarified for each issue to ensure that the
Commission can adequately find compliance. Pedro Campos stated that many of the
comments presented by Public Works and Engineering are currently being addressed and
hopefully will be able to be resolved by the next meeting.
Matt Gennett presented Criterion #11, the adequacy of the roads and streets proposed by the
PUD. Commissioner Green wanted to know when the roads and streets will be agreed to be
provided by the developer for the benefit of the town. Matt Gennett responded that it would be,
agreed upon with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement at a later review stage by Council.
Matt Gennett presented Criterion #12, the compliance with the public purpose provisions. Matt
highlighted each subsection of this criterion. Commissioner Evans asked if the realignment of
Main Street could be achieved without the need for a rezoning and if so, would this truly be a
benefit to the public and town. Mr. Gennett responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Evans continued to comment that this criterion cannot be discussed without
being able to review the financial models. Commissioner Goulding asked Staff to provide him
with a clear list of items where the PUD application deviates from zoning. He wants this
information so that he can properly assess the need for public benefits.
Chairperson Evans opened the Public Comment portion of the meeting. Seeing that there
were no comments he closed the Public Comment portion of the meeting.
Action: Commissioner Green moved to table, Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously with a 6-0 vote.
Xl. Other Business
None
XII. Adjourn
Commissioner Goulding moved to adjourn at 11:00pm. Commissioner Roubos seconded the
motion, and it passed with a 6-0.
APPROVED:
Chris Evans _
Chairperson
Phil Struve
Secretary
o8loslog
Description: An application for modifications to an approved Final Design for two lots on Little
Point. The modifications include changes to material locations, window and door locations,
modified entries for each unit, and modified roof plans.
Discussion: Discussed during Work Session.
Action: Approved on Consent Agenda.
X. Harry A. Nottingham Park Master Plan
Property Location: Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Description: The Vail Architecture Group will distribute a working Draft Master Plan for the
Harry A. Nottingham Park to the Commission for them to review, prepare comments and
questions, and discuss during the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting on August 19, 2008.
Discussion: This will be discussed at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
XI. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road
Applicant! Owner Brian Judge, Orion Development
Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the
owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the
properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is
envisioned to be comprised of three new buildings configured and designed as a
contemporary, mixed -use development including retail space, office space, residential and
lodging uses. The focus of this public hearing will be on the fiscal impact analysis and the
probable financial impacts of the proposed project on the Town of • Avon and the larger
community. Stan Bernstein of Bernstein & Associates This item was tabled from the July 15,
2008 meeting pending further information.
Discussion: Matt Gennett explained that the meeting tonight is to present Stan Bernstein's
three economic impact models. Also, where the project deviates from the current zoning is
also highlighted in the packet materials.
Stan Bernstein presented the financial impacts of the proposed redevelopment project. Three
new buildings are to replace three existing buildings. The East Tower is to replace the Annex
Building, North Tower to replace the Benchmark Shopping Center, and the South Tower is to
replace the Christy Sports building.
The Town Staff requested modeling sensitivity and demonstrating impacts if phase three were
never constructed. The second request to model what would happen if the third phase
(South), the one with the most public financial benefit, were constructed first.
The analysis looks at impacts to three areas: Water Fund, Capital Projects, and the
General/Operating Funds. Stan highlighted the impacts to the General Fund during the
construction process, a net decrease of approximately $450,000 per year.
Stan Bernstein presented the balance scenario if Phase Ill were never constructed. While the
Capital Projects Fund (RETT) continues to generate, the General Fund balance are negatively
impacted. Commissioner Struve questioned the Town Manger, Larry Brooks, whether or not
funds could be moved between the General and Capital Funds. Larry explained that the code
could be amended; however, this method would not be supported by Staff. Secondly, there
must be a nexus between the money coming in and the expenditures on the Town side.
Stan Bernstein continued to present the scenario if Phase III were built first and the resulting
positive impacts to both the General and Capital Funds. The first five years, during
construction, produce positive impacts to the General Fund. At full buildout the numbers look
extremely similar to the first scenario presented which was normal construction per the
submitted staging plan. Phase III includes the majority of the high quality commercial space
and the accommodation related uses and associated taxes. In Stan's opinion, Phase III first
would be a better scenario for the Town as it would strengthen the ability to bond, and produce
monies up front.
The Incremental revenues, by source, were presented. These sources include: sales and
accommodation taxes from short term rentals, revenues from the existing base, property tax
revenues, RETT initial sales (excluding purchase price of land), RETT secondary sales, water
tap fees, construction permits, and timeshare amenities fees. The initial one time RETT funds
comprise the majority of the base.
Stan presented the summary of incremental general fund operating expenditures by town
department. He continued to describe the potential metro district ("Avon 21 Metro") creation,
and the resulting bonding capacity if formed. The residential district could levy 45 Mills, and
the Commercial district could levy 25 Mills. The district would maintain the plaza space and
issue bonds. The assumed maintenance costs amount to $750,000 for the annual plaza
maintenance, partially funded from the $1,500 annual user fee for each residential unit.
Commissioner Green questioned what the bonds would pay for if there was the possibility of
securing. Stan explained that refunds could help pay for up -front utility and infrastructure
costs.
The potential for URA bonding capacity was also explored by Stan Bernstein. The number of
variables and assumptions makes this analysis difficult; however, they have identified
approximately $15 million of bond capacity with $11.8 million in proceeds. Stan felt that if
Phase III were constructed first this scenario would be more probable since you would be able
to issue a series of bonds instead of one large bond at the start of the project.
Commissioner Roubos would like to see a financial model of what would happen if Phase III
were the only phase constructed.
Commissioner Prince questioned the percentage this project area represents for the total
Town tax base. Scott Wright stated that this amounts to approximately 7% of the Town's
entire tax base.
Commissioner Evans questioned what the $1,500 annual user fee amounts to in Mills. Stan
responded that it would be about 20 more Mills on top of the projected 45 for residential.
Commissioner Prince asked what the different impacts be if the maximum development rights
of each lot were modeled. Brian Judge fielded the question and explained that there would be
99 less dwelling units, and that the parking levels are based on the amount of
retail/commercial space.
Commissioner Evans opened the meeting to public comment.
Lee Freeman, resident of California, questioned the relationship between incremental
revenues (-$1.1 million) and incremental expenses which amount to a significantly larger
number at steady state.
Stan Bernstein pointed out that his presentation only highlighted the major incremental
expenses, and not every single expense.
Kent Beidel, owner of Loaded Joes, questioned what would happen from a modeling
perspective if there was some sort of assistance to business owners locating in the new
development. Commissioner Evans explained his understanding that the positive cash flow
numbers indicate that the commercial space was not a significant factor.
Commissioner Evans asked what the current rates to rent commercial space are and what is
projected for the future. Brian Judge responded that they are currently approximately $24 per
square foot. He also stated that it is impossible to predict the rents due to various influences.
Commissioner Evans asked if it was viable for the current Phase Ill to become the new Phase
I, and the possibility of a revised phasing plan to be brought forth at the next meeting. Pedro
Campos responded that it is not economically viable as currently proposed. He also stated
that the phases could be reviewed and modified to make the current Phase III an economically
viable Phase I.
Commissioner Roubos wanted the applicant to provide the town with a phasing scenario
where the Town does not lose money in the general fund at any point during the development.
Matt Gennett asked the applicant to propose the phasing plan and asked the Commission to
continue with their review as a whole and potentially move the application to a vote within the
next couple meetings. Brian Judge commented that it appeared the Commission wanted him
to show a phasing and development that does not lose money in the General Fund.
Commissioner Evans stated that it appears that the original phasing plan will not go forward
with a recommendation of approval with any annual deficit in the General Fund.
Eric Heidemann asked the Commission to make sure all changes to the PUD be viewed with
relation to all of the PUD criteria instead of just a sole criterion.
Commissioner Green asked his fellow Commissioners to listen to what Staff is recommending
and to take a step back at the next meeting and review all 12 criteria and then ask the
applicant to revise the proposal if deemed necessary at that time. Commissioner Evans
agreed, and urged the other commissioners to take this step.
Commissioner Goulding clarified the point of this meeting, and that the Planning and Zoning
Commission does not feel comfortable with the Town taking a loss in the General Fund due to
this project.
Action: Commissioner Goulding motioned to Table to the August 19, 2008 meeting, with
Commissioner Green seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
XII. Other Business
• August 13 there is an Open House for the Main Street Project.
• Land -use Code rewrite should be awarded next month.
• New Town Attorney is to be appointed on August 26th, 2008.
• Complaint about Lot 41, Block 3, WR being a blight.
XIII. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 PM
APPROVED:
Chris Evans _
Chairperson
Phil Struve AIS
Secretary
CC -c..,----
015 ! /Ct 1O8
Commissioner Green stated that this area should be primarily used for open space, but a
secondary play area use.
Pedro Campos stated that portals or gateways are a needed asset to signify entrance into the
park. He showed a few sketch options of what these entrance gateways could be.
Zone E was presented next and Pedro Campos highlighted the future need for facilities for this
park. He stated that due to the existing buildings in this area, that this would be the most
functional space for the need for improved facilities.
Pedro Campos followed with a brief overview of Zone F. Sherry Dorward stated that this is a
much later zone and the zone would be redeveloped to highlight a two path system.
The final zone, Zone H, was presented as a future redevelopment site with many potential
uses.
Sherry Dorward presented the proposed phasing plan.
Eric Heidemann asked that the Commission to focus on the phasing and priorities.
Commissioner Evans stated that he feels that Zones A and C should be the top priorities given
the proximity to other current and near future public improvements. Commissioners Green
and Roubos agreed with Commissioner Evans' comments. 'Commissioner Roubos also stated
that she felt as though Zone C would be the highest priority.
Commissioner Goulding pointed out that a new Pump House fa�ade is an improvement that is
a lower priority, but within a high priority zone. He would suggest that within specific Zones,
the list of improvements be further prioritized to help Staff and Council budget for construction.
Paul Anderson, Avon Resident, asked if a dog park was left out of this park. Sherry Dorward
stated that the dog park was left out of the plan due to the high intensity of other uses.
Action: No formal action is necessary. This plan will be presented to Council at their August
26th meeting.
IX. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road
Applicant/ Owner: Brian Judge, Orion Development
Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the
owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the
properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is
envisioned to be comprised of three new buildings configured and designed as a
contemporary, mixed -use development including retail space, office space, residential and
lodging uses. This item was tabled from the August 5, 2008 meeting, following the review of
the financial analysis performed by Stan Bernstein and Associates.
Discussion: Pedro Campos began his presentation by reviewing Criteria number 2, the
conformity with the overall design theme of the Town, sub -area recommendations, and design
guidelines of the Town. He explained that there is no unified design theme for the Town.
Commissioner Goulding brought up the notes from the July 15, 2008 meeting regarding this
review criterion. He cited conflicts with specific elements of the East Town Center (ETC)
District Plan that were brought forth at previous hearings. Commissioner Evans was in
agreement that the application appeared to conflict with the ETC plan.
Brian Judge approached the podium to address the Commissioner comments. He explained
that there are clearly variations between this proposal (i.e. roof pitches) and the adopted
guidelines of the Town. He felt that this all comes down to tradeoffs in the end.
Mr. Judge requested feedback on the specific criteria, instead of 'agreeing to disagree' on this
criterion. Pedro continued the presentation by beginning to step through the individual
planning principles from the ETC Plan.
Commissioner Struve explained the background and development of the ETC Plan, and the
intentional 'scaling down' of this district compared to the West Town Center and Main Street
area. Pedro responded that the buildings do step back, consistent with the recommendations
borne out of the ETC plan. He showed on the building elevations where the buildings
intentionally step back on the second, fourth, and sixth floors.
Brian Judge explained his philosophy behind the sense of place created by this development,
and its relationship to surrounding developments, both existing and potential future
redevelopment. He explained his frustration that after six public meetings, he is finally starting
to hear comments for the first time.
Commissioner Evans opened the meeting for public comment. No comments were received.
Commissioner Goulding reviewed his notes. He pointed out, for example when looking at
criterion number two, there are apparent discrepancies related to height, form, affordable
housing, views and implementation when the proposal is compared to the design guidelines.
Mr. Goulding highlighted his concern with the affordable housing mitigation. These are not
deal killers, he said; however, he wanted to better understand the benefits.
Brian Judge explained that they were requesting approximately 99 additional dwelling units;
therefore, approximately 12% of the additional units requested would be "professional's units."
Mr. Goulding continued by narrowing down his perceived public benefits with this
development: a redevelopment of a much needed area of Town, some affordable housing
mitigation, the creation of a public plaza, and the realignment of the public way. He did not
feel that the benefits presented outweighed the other potential impacts. Mr. Goulding voiced
concern with the lack of compliance with staff's (Public Works and Engineering) concerns that
were already raised, the potential phasing, tenant relocation, and the general construction
impacts to the Town such as tower cranes and contractor parking. He did not feel that these
impacts have been adequately addressed.
Commissioner Struve highlighted his primary concerns: height, mass and articulation, low
pitched roofs, phasing, the disruption to the other Town business and residents, and the lack
of attainable housing.
Commissioner Roubos was in agreement with Commissioner Goulding with the opinion that
parking, height, massing, density, rooflines, preservation of view corridors, employee housing,
phasing, precedent to other redevelopment, and existing businesses are all ongoing issues.
She disagreed that the roofline is not flat as represented. Ms. Roubos felt that these issues
have been expressed at past meetings and this was not the first time these issues were
raised. She disagreed with the applicant.
Commissioner Prince expressed a concern with the flat appearance of the roofline. He felt
that planning principles were the focus up to this meeting. Commissioner Prince echoed the
other Commissioners' concerns that were already raised. He liked the feel of the pedestrian
plaza and mall space; however, the overall height of the structures remains a great concern.
Commissioner Lane voiced concerns with the phasing and attainable housing. He voiced
concerns with phasing and massing. He questioned whether or not written design guidelines
specifically tied to this development are appropriate. Matt Gennett explained that this is a
typical requirement for Planned Unit Developments. Commissioner Lane liked the 'flavor' of
the depictions, but would like a verbal background.
Commissioner Green did not have issues with the architecture, but continues to struggle with
the scale of the development as it relates to surrounding development and existing
businesses. Under Land Use, the scale and intensity of development is a struggle to agree
with under these circumstances.
When the ETC plan was developed, the tenant size mix of local businesses in the area was
focused upon and this proposal might lose some of the tenant mix currently available in the
area. Mr. Green continued to explain his perceived conflict with the policy that is to "ensure
each development contributes to a healthy jobs balance mix for the Town."
Another cited policy that Commissioner Green felt this application conflicts with is "to promote
a wide range of residential uses." He stated that if you consider condo-tels and timeshare,
fractional units, and 12 professional units a wide range than yes, you would meet this criterion.
He did not feel that this development met this specific requirement.
Mr. Green continued to point out that "vertical and horizontal mixed use to respond to
changing market conditions." In concept this is mixed use. But when you look at the
sustainable model, this plan might meet today's needs, but fails to deal with future land use
desires in 30 years.
Commissioner Green continues to struggle with how to get around the public benefits of the
project, in relation to the character of the Town of Avon. He questioned whether or not the
character and height of the development is compatible with existing and planned uses, and the
image of Avon.
Commissioner Green continued to highlight the workforce housing program, and the struggle
to properly address this issue. He felt that the architecture and density could probably be dealt
with, but the other issues remain. Mr. Green felt the public benefit is the issue at hand.
Commissioner Evans did not agree with the comment made by Commissioner Green that the
architectural approach was appropriate. Commissioner Evans reiterated all of the previous
concerns raised by the Commission including phasing, the financial aspects related to
phasing, and employee housing. He felt that it lacks adherence to the Town's vision of height,
bulk, massing, and use of flat roofs. The residential impacts, traffic study results, and the ratio
of public benefits are all concerns.
Commissioner Evans went through all of the Comprehensive Plan's Goals and made the
determination of either conformance or not. Goal A.1 Collaborate with Eagle County, adjacent
municipalities, and other agencies to implement this plan and to ensure Avon's needs and
goals are being met - Does not meet.
Goal B.1 Provide a compact urban form - Yes, this application appears to meet. Goal B.2
Provide a distinct physical and visual separation between Avon and its surrounding
communities that preserves the natural beauty of the surrounding mountains and the Eagle
River valley— No.
Goal C.1 Provide a balance of land uses that offers a range of housing options, diverse
commercial and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations, and high quality
civic and recreational facilities, working in concert to strengthen Avon's identity as both a year-
round residential community and as a commercial, tourism and economic center.— he did not
feel that the range is there. Goal C.2 Ensure that Avon continues to develop as a community
of safe, interactive, and cohesive neighborhoods that contribute to the Town's overall
character and image.— this does not meet this goal based on the ETC plan. Goal C.3 Use
mixed -use development to create a more balanced, sustainable system of land uses — this
application meets this goal. Goal C.4 Encourage sustainable commercial development that
enhances Avon's overall economic health, contributes to the community's image and
character, and provides residents and visitors with increased choices and services — Until we
see a functional phasing plan, this application does not contribute to the economic health of
the Town.
Goal D.1 Ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with existing and planned
adjacent development and contributes to Avon's community image and character— based on
the ETC plan, Commissioner Evans felt that this application does not comply. Goal D.2
Create community gateways and streetscapes that reflect and strengthen Avon's unique
community character and image— this application does meet this Goal. Goal D.3 Develop new
and continue to enhance existing cultural and heritage facilities, events, and programs that
strengthen Avon's community character and image — he felt that this Goal is not applicable.
Goal E.1 Ensure that there is a positive environment for small businesses— Commissioner
Evans felt that this application utterly failed to demonstrate compliance with this Goal.
Goal F.1 Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse segments of the
population — fails to meet. Commissioner Evans felt that Goal G.3 is not applicable, but that it
does meet Goal G.4 and Goal G.5.
Goal H.1 Protect Avon's unique natural setting and its open spaces. — in some aspects it does
meet this Goal, but due to the proposed height it may not meet this in other areas.
Goal I.1 Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the
year-round leisure needs of area residents and visitor— he feels that plaza could be considered
open space and therefore could meet this. Goal #.2 Coordinate and collaborate with
surrounding jurisdictions and agencies to develop seamless recreational opportunities — not
applicable in his mind.
Goal J.1 Utilize this comprehensive plan in all town dealings including capital planning,
operation/maintenance of facilities, and programming of events — he noted that applicant
states that the proposal meets this Goal. Goal J.2 Ensure cost effective provision and
development of public facilities and services. — Commissioner Evans felt that this Goal is
addressed with the Engineering Staffs concerns.
He continued to review the 12 PUD review Criteria and the redevelopment standards based on
current zoning. Commissioner Evans felt that, in the end, Criteria 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 application does not meet; Criteria 3 Design
compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative
to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation —
does not meet; Criteria 4 Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity — meets. Criteria 5 Identification and
mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which
the PUD is proposed — is not applicable, Criteria 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 —
appears to meet; Criteria 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
— yes; Criteria 8 Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function — yes; Criteria 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 —
Does not meet the intent, based on the financial model produced at the last meeting; Criteria
10 Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads,
parks, and police and fire protection — not demonstrated yet; Criteria 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 — until traffic study is complete and engineering
signed off it has not been met; Criteria 12 a) The application demonstrates a public purpose
which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve - there isn't anything that could not be
achieved that the current zoning already permits; Criteria 12 bi Approval of the zoning
application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal
to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights - does not
meet; Criteria 12 c) The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in
better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and
increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents
- yes, based on plaza and roadways; however, the zoning application is not necessary for
these improvements.
In total, Commissioner Evans felt that the application conflicted with 8 of the 12 mandatory
PUD review criteria.
Matt Gennett recommended tabling to the September 16th meeting instead of the September
2nd meeting to give the applicant adequate time to provide outstanding information, such as
architectural design guidelines, and to respond to technical concerns raised by other
department; and to give Planning Staff time to review such material. Brian Judge explained
his frustration with the process, the comments received, the lack of direction throughout the
process, and the inability to complete his slide presentation.
Action: Commissioner Green moved to table the application to the September 2"d, 2008
meeting in order to further discuss the comments. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion
and all • commissioners were in favor. The motion passed unanimously with a 6-0 vote.
Commissioner Goulding was absent.
The motion and resulting action were then further discussed. Mr. Judge did not feel that he
could cure all of the issues that were expressed during the public hearing by the September
2nd meeting. He requested a vote at this time and to reconsider the motion. Commissioner
Evans questioned his fellow Commissioners to see if anybody would like to entertain a
reconsideration of the action to table.
Commissioner Green motioned to reconsider the motion that had already been approved. The
motion was seconded, and the motion to overturn the previous motion to table passed with a
5-1 vote.
A discussion continued relating to the ability to vote on the application tonight, and bring forth
a resolution memorializing the comments made during the hearing.
New Motion: Commissioner Roubos made a motion to recommend DENIAL of the PUD, as
submitted, to the Town Council based upon the findings that this application does not meet the
12 PUD Criteria listed in 17.20.110 (AMC), with further documentation to be provided at the
September 2nd meeting via resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve.
The motion to DENY passed with a 5-1 vote.
X. Other Business
• Community Survey to be handed in by Friday.
• Thursday Open House for Main Street Design
• Water District and painting
• PUD Process discussion
• Evans may be late or absent for the September 2, 2008 meeting
XI. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45pm.
APPROVED on - • - m ' er 2 2008:
Chris Green
Vice Chairperson
Phil Struve
Secretary
HEART of the VALLEY
COLORADO
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda for September 16, 2008
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road
WORK SESSION (5:00pm - 5:30pm)
Description: Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public.
REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm)
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:30pm.
II. Roll Call
Commissioner Roubos was absent. All other Commissioners were present.
Ill. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
Moved item VII. Minor Design Application to consent agenda with Staff's recommendation.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest to disclose.
V. Consent Agenda
A. Approval of the September 2, 2008 Meeting Minutes
B. Approval of Resolution 08-06, Recommending Denial of the 'Avon 21' PUD Application
for Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK-3, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Subdivision
Commissioner Lane modified the Meeting Minutes.
Commissioner Green motioned to approve the consent agenda with the revised version of
Resolution No 08-06, and Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion, and all
Commissioners were in favor.
VI. Sketch Design Review — Debra's Addition & Renovation
Property Location: Lot 34, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2195 Long Spur
Applicant: Andrew Abraham, A/A / Owner: Debra Rappaport
Description: Andrew James Abraham of AJA Studio is proposing a Sketch Design application
for an addition and complete renovation to a single family residence at the end of Long Spur
Road. This application proposes a complete "new skin" with several roof additions, one-story,
and two-story building additions totaling approximately 1,390 square feet of space.
Discussion: Matt Pielsticker briefly outlined the Staff Report.
Posted on September 12, 2008 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
• Avon Municipal Building, main lobby
• Avon Recreation Center, main lobby
• Alpine Bank, main lobby
• Avon Public Library
• On the Internet at http://www.avon.org / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION No. 08-06
A.
COLORADO
N
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL TO THE AVON
TOWN COUNCIL OF A REZONING APPLICATION TO REZONE
FROM THE TOWN CENTER (TC) ZONING DESIGNATION TO A
NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR LOTS 21,
65A, 65B, TRACT 0, AND PARCEL TK-3, BLOCK 2,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF
AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the owner of
the property, EAH, LLC, has applied for a PUD Amendment for Lots 21, 65A and 656;
Tracts Q & R; And Parcel No. TK-3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, pursuant
to Section 17.20.110 of the Avon Municipal Code (AMC); as presented in the original
application dated February 6, 2008; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the pertinent noticing procedures required by law, the Planning
and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held public hearings on June 3, 2008,
June 17, 2008, July 1, 2008, July 15, 2008, August 5, 2008, and August 19, 2008; at
which time the applicant was given an opportunity to present a proposal for a new PUD
and hear the feedback from both the Commission and members of the public, in addition
to the written comments from Staff regarding this PUD request; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission was provided with Staff Reports at
each of the aforementioned hearings which included pertinent support materials and
which provided a thorough analysis of the technical zoning information as it relates to the
applicable twelve PUD Design Criteria found in Section 17.20.110(h), AMC; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant, Town Staff, and the
public, deliberated extensively upon each of the applicable twelve criteria at all six of the
aforementioned public hearings held for the subject application; and
WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the following criteria
when evaluating this application:
1. Conformance with the Town of 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 of 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 cany
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed
PUD.
12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of
substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined
in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code (as follows):
Zoning applications
The Town shall consider the following public benefit criteria when evaluating
zoning applications:
(1) The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning
entitlements cannot achieve.
(2) Approval of the zoning application provides long-term economic, cultural
or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential
adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights.
(3) The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in
better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and
cultural resources and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with
the community master plan documents.
WHEREAS, Section 17.20.110(h) of the Avon Municipal Code states the following:
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 (1) or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular
development solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing at their August 19, 2008 meeting, the
Planning & Zoning Commission made the following findings with respect to the subject
application (pursuant to Section 17.20.110(h) of the Avon Municipal Code):
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate conformance with the Town of Avon
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives, as applicable, particularly with
respect to Topic Areas B. Built Form; D. Community Character, and F. Housing.
2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate conformity and compliance with the
overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and
design guidelines of the Town, with specific regard to the proposed roof forms
and monolithic appearance of the proposed buildings.
3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate design compatibility with the
immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to
architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and
orientation.
4. The proposed uses, activity, and density have not been proven to provide a
compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and
activity;
5. Not Applicable (Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or
geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.)
6. The proposed site plan, building design and location and open space appear
to have been designed to produce a functional development responsive and
sensitive to natural features and vegetation, but not to the overall aesthetic
quality of the community.
7. A circulation system has been designed for both vehicles and pedestrians but
has not been demonstrated to adequately address on and off site traffic
circulation in a manner compatible with the Town Transportation Plan.
8. The applicant has demonstrated that functional and aesthetic landscaping
and open space can be planned in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, views and function.
C
9. The proposed phasing plans fail to demonstrate the ability to maintain a
workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the
PUD. The phasing plan does not clearly demonstrate that each phase can be
workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future
project phases.
10. The adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools,
transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection has not been
satisfactorily demonstrated.
11. The existing streets and roads appear suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed
PUD.
12. That the PUD has not demonstrated evidence of substantial compliance with
the public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon
Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission of
the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby makes a recommendation of DENIAL to the
Avon Town Council for the PUD Amendment application for Lots 21, 65A and 656;
Tracts Q & R; And Parcel No. TK-3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town
of Avon, Eagle County Colorado, with the findings set forth herein.
ADOPTED AND REAFFIRMED THIS 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008
Signed:
Chair
Attest:
Secretary
r - Date: 9/( 6 (or
Date: / 69
2/6/2008
PUD & PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR AVON 21
A MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Lot 21, Tract Q and Tract R, Benchmark at Beaver Creek; Lot 65A and Lot 65B, The Annex at Avon; and
Parcel No. TK-3, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
EAH LLC ("Applicant") is making preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision applications
for Tract Q, Tract R and Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek; Lot 65-A and Lot 65-B of The Annex at
Avon; and Parcel No. TK-3, located in the Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (herein referred to as "Avon
21") as set forth in accordance with the requirements of the Avon Municipal Code, Section 17.20.110 and
Section 16.20. The application is being put forth by the Applicant after months of discussion and deliberation
with staff, Town Council, and the Planning & Zoning Commission, and active participation in the Town's on-
going master planning for the East Avon Redevelopment District.
The Applicant hereby requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council of the Town take
administrative notice of each of the Application Materials and supplemental information to be provided by the
Applicant during the review process at the request of the Town. The Applicant requests to meet with the
Planning & Zoning Commission as early as possible in the review process to discuss the project in detail.
A. APPLICATION FORM AND FILING FEES
Completed application forms and associated fees are attached with this application.
B. WRITTEN STATEMENT - 17.20.110(B) AVON TOWN CODE
Executive Summary
Avon 21 is envisioned to be a vibrant, high density, mixed -use life-style' project that will serve as a catalyst for
redevelopment in the Town of Avon, and specifically the East Town Center District. The project is configured
and oriented to implement the Town's Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, as well as the principles set forth
for High Priority District #2, the East Town Center District.
Most significantly, Avon 21 proposes to `functionally' extend the planned West Main Street that is the
foundation of Town Center West into the East Town Center District. To accomplish this, the project proposes
to reconfigure existing parcels and roadways in order to enable a new, straight 'Main Street' associated
sidewalks, and plazas in alignment with the future East Main Street. The goal is to create a clear circulation
framework that will simplify and improve automobile and pedestrian circulation and increase the overall quality
and character of the built environment. The project seeks to increase and concentrate density in the Town
Center while meeting most of the current Town Center zoning and maximum allowable development rights and
standards.
Intent and Rationale of PUD Zoning Application
In order to achieve the full potential of the land within the PUD and East Town Center District, a PUD and
Subdivision process is necessary to:
1) reconfigure existing parcels;
2) vacate existing easements and re -align existing utilities;
3) include Town owned land within the development;
4) create a new, straight Main Street right of way to be re -dedicated back to the Town on an equal basis to
the land included; and
5) provide the necessary zoning flexibility in order to establish development standards appropriate for
project not possible under current `straight' zoning, and in line with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Description of Proposed Development
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 1 of 23
2/6/2008
Avon 21 is a three building mixed -use phased development organized around a new 'Main Street' as described
through out this application. Three buildings are proposed: an East, North, and South building. The 'Main
Street' creates a new corridor for shopping and business in the Town of Avon East Town Center. The new Main
Street right-of-way is 87' wide and the space between buildings north and south of Main Street varies between
94' and 240 feet depending on the portion of Main Street measured. Please refer to drawing sheets LI.02 and
L1.03 for street sections around the periphery and within the project.
A multi -use plaza located at the center of the project, in association with Main Street, serves as the central
organizing space for the project. A spatial arrangement that contemplates large gatherings and flexibility for
special events is proposed. The multi -events plaza will be a dynamic public place with a very rich level of detail
and texture at the pedestrian level.. Water feature(s), public art, and special landscaping are planned for the space.
Grade separations with curbing and articulating bollards are proposed to define the path of automobile circulation
and allow for road closures, and for the space to be exclusively used for pedestrian uses such as out door markets,
concerts, performances, and special community celebrations. South facing outdoor seating is proposed along the
north fa�ade of the East and North buildings facing the plaza, and where there will be ample sun light and views.
Retail and restaurants are proposed along the majority of ground floor space oriented unto Main Street and the
multi -events plaza. A pedestrian alley and connection is proposed in between the East and North building, and
providing an important north — south pedestrian connection between the new 'Main Street' and Beaver Creek
Place. This connection lacks in the present day conditions, and will create a much more cohesive pedestrian
circulation network through out the East Town Center District by affording pedestrians an alternative route that is
not currently present. Please refer to drawing sheets L1.02 for a section of across the plaza and pedestrian alley.
Street furnishing will be selected for visual effects and multiple uses across season. Elements such as seating,
trash cans, hanging banners, flower and light displays will be incorporated and coordinated to create a special
sense of place and identity Colorful awnings, signs, and other architectural elements will be placed along the
building facades facing 'Main Street'. Sidewalks, special paving of the travel surface, and street furnishings will
unify the project, and create a unique sense of identity and place. Possible temporary overhead structures
associated with the plaza space may be considered as the project evolves and discussion with the Town.
Avon 21 will help establish the Avon Town Center District as a major central commercial, residential, and
lodging core in the upper Eagle / Vail Valley. The vision is for the project to become a unique landmark readily
identifiable with the Town of Avon as a vibrant space for living, visiting, shopping, and doing business. The
project contemplates a variety and mix of land uses, including retail, food and beverage, office, accommodation /
lodging, and residential. The project caters to entertainment venues, and targets community gatherings and events
which will be a major catalyst for redevelopment in Avon's Town Center. The project will create a high quality,
downtown environment that integrates into the overall framework for the Town Center. The Applicant intends for
the project to serve as a precedent project to foster and set the tone for other high quality redevelopment in the
Town of Avon.
Avon 21 Pl'D ' Subdivision Application
Page 2 of 23
2/6/2008
Inclusion of the Town owned land in Application
The Applicant has consolidated several independently owned parcels in the East Town Center District into a
single ownership. The total area of the PUD is 5.484 acres. 4.615 acres is land owned by the Applicant in four
lots (Lot 65B, Lot 21, Tract Q, and Tract R). 0.869 acres is land owned by the Town in two lots (Lot 65A and
Parcel No TK-3.) In order for the project to be configured to functionally extend Main Street, Town owned Lot
65A and Parcel TK-3 are required to be included in the PUD and Subdivision applications.
Per the code, PUD and subdivision of land applications require to obtain written consent and power of attorney
from all property owners of land to be included within the boundaries of the proposed PUD and final plat.
Consequently, the Applicant requires the Town's consent and approval in order for the PUD and Subdivision
applications to proceed and satisfy the requirements of the Municipal Code. This written consent has been
provided to the Applicant in a letter attached to this application.
Via the PUD and Subdivision applications, the Applicant is requesting a partnership with the Town of Avon to
implement the development of High Priority District #2 from the Comprehensive Plan. The subdivision process
will reconfigure Lot 65A and Parcel No TK-3 into a new 'Main Street' right-of-way with the same cumulative
area of 0.869 acres to remain under Town ownership. Likewise, the 4.615 acres of land owned by the Applicant
will be re -configured into three lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) with the same cumulative area under current ownership.
Site Coverage
The entire project area included in the PUD application is 5.484 acres, and compromised by Lot 21, Lot 65B, Lot
65 A, Tract Q Benchmark, Tract R Benchmark, and Parcel No. TK-3. The total building footprints at the ground
floor / street level 1 and level 2 is 142,005 sf or a 59% coverage of the total site area. The building footprint of
levels 3 and 4 is 45% of the total site area, a 14% step back from the street level. The building footprint of levels
5 and 6 is 40% of the total site area, a 19% step back from street level. The building footprint of levels 7 and 8 is
7% of the total site area, a 42% step back from street level. These figures are combined for all three buildings
proposed. Only the East Building has 7 and 8 levels above grade. The North and South Buildings have 6 levels
above grade.
The overall 59% site coverage is a 9% increase in the 50% site coverage allowed under `straight' Town Center
zoning. The other 96,878 sf or 41% of the total site area is covered in a mix of exterior amenities, open space,
new 'Main Street' and a multi -events plaza. In addition significant areas of outdoor roof patios are proposed,
which overlap with site coverage, and are in addition to the 41% open space.
Height
A significant portion of the project abutting street level is (2) stories at less than 40 feet in height. The majority
of the project is (6) stories at 80 feet. There is one isolated area of the project, in the East Building, that is (8)
stories at 110 feet. The area of the project above 80 feet covers only 7% of the site area. Levels 7 and 8 are
proposed to create visual interest and capture necessary density. The Town Center zoning designation has an 80
foot uniform maximum allowable height. The maximum height of the project is (8) stories at 110 feet. A
majority (94.2% or 544,681 sf) of the above grade gross floor area proposed is located in the first (6) stories of the
project at a building height of 80 feet. Only (5.84% or 33,812 sf) of the above grade gross floor area proposed is
located in stories (7) and (8) at a building height of 110 feet.
Gross Floor Area
The total gross floor area reflected in the current plans is 865,000 sf (100%), with 286,500 sf (33%) of this below
grade as parking uses, and 578,500 sf (67%) above grade with a mix of land uses as listed below. These figures
have been rounded. please see the attached Preliminary Development Summary chart for exact figures. The
above grade GFA proposed is 24,587 sf less than the maximum allowable gross floor area of 603,087 sf per Town
Center zoning for the combined three parcels (4.615 acres) owned by the Applicant.
Avon 21 PUD / Subdh ision Application
Page 3 of 23
2/6/2008
Bulk, Mass, Views, Solar Aspect
The building mass has been developed to avoid shadow casting into key areas of the plan during the most critical
times of the year, especially along the new 'Main Street' and multi -events plaza. In all cases the buildings
deliberately step back away from the street above the 2nd story to respond to view corridors and solar conditions.
Special care has been given to create sun -filled south and south west outdoor spaces and maximize the most
desirable solar aspects. Solar massing studies at various times of year are analyzed in drawings sheets A -C-11.01 ,
A -C-11.02, and A -C-11.03. These studies are purely massing models and not intended to be reflective of
architectural character and final form and articulation.
Building orientation and configuration is proposed to create a development pattern that reinforces pedestrian and
automobile circulation, creates ground floor space with a pedestrian scale and proportion, captures the most
favorable views into and out of the project, and maximizes solar exposure. All facades will be treated with great
care given the presentation and visibility to the community. There is no 'back of house' proposed on this project.
Emphasis has been placed in the orientation of elements to create a cohesive street fabric at the ground level and
to frame primary and secondary views to, from and through the project. Relationships to existing streets, and the
interface between the buildings, sidewalks, streets, and parking is depicted in drawing sheets L1.02 and L4.03.
Care has taken to site the buildings away from major view corridors, within the constraints of the site. The South
building is offset from the eastern most lane of Avon Road a minimum of 105' with a majority of the building at
least 135' feet away. The new Main Street right-of-way is 87' wide and the space between buildings north and
south of Main Street varies between 94' and 200' feet. An ample visual corridor will be created by Main Street
and allow for a visual relationship and connection between Avon Road, West Main Street, and the future 'Town
Square' conceptually planned immediately to the east of the project.
Proposed Land Uses
The proposed mix of land uses contemplated includes a combination of retail, restaurant, conference, spa,
residential (market rate condominium and professional housing), and accommodation (hotel and timeshare).
Following are some of the major areas of use by type, and as reflected in the preliminary development summary
spreadsheet attached with the graphic portion of the submittal (figures have been rounded):
• Retail: 36,500 sf
• Restaurant: 15,600 sf
• 2"d Floor Commercial: 11,000 sf
• Conference Facility: 25,200 sf
• Spa: 17,600 sf
• Residential: 318,400 sf
• Accommodation: 80,500 sf
Proposed Unit Mix and Density
A total of (237) residential dwelling units are proposed in the project and located in three buildings, East, North.
and South. There are a total of (59) studios (94) 1 -bedroom condominiums and (84) 2- and 3 -bedroom
condominiums. (12) of these units are included in the professional housing program proposed by the PUD. In
addition, a total of (1 18) accommodation units are proposed in the project. The average square footage of an
accommodation unit is 682 sf. Per these figures, 276 dwelling units are proposed in the project at a total density
of 50 dwelling units (du.) per acre. Current town center zoning allows for a maximum 30 units per acre. The
PUD increases density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Draft East District Town Center Plan in order
to provide additional residential and accommodation densities in the East Town Center, both land uses that are not
currently present in the area of the project. More detail is provided in the attached "Preliminary Development
Summary — Full Build Out" chart.
Contemplated Ownership Patterns
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 4 of 23
2/6/2008
The Applicant is proposing to include the Town's Lot 65A and Parcel No. TK-3 within its redevelopment area by
establishing the framework for, designing, and building the new 'Main Street'. The subdivision process will
reconfigure Lot 65A and Parcel No TK-3 into a new 'Main Street' right-of-way with the same cumulative area of
0.869 acres to remain under Town ownership. Likewise, the 4.615 acres of land owned by the Applicant will be
re -configured into three lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) with the same cumulative area. The three lots will be organized
into an east parcel (Lot 1), a north parcel (Lot 2) and a south parcel (Lot 3) connected by a main street and a
public multi -use events plaza.
Parking
Avon 2I proposes the majority of required parking (600 spaces) in a series of underground structured parking
facilities. Two levels of underground parking are contemplated. The goal is to make parking convenient and give
the project a highly pedestrian oriented focus at street level. Surface parking (28 spaces) is located along Main
Street as well as other roadways around the perimeter. A total 628 spaces are proposed by the project. The
required parking requirement is 590 spaces as calculated applying parking standards for the PUD, and 647 spaces
as calculated using Town Center Zoning. In both cases a 15% mixed use parking reduction is proposed. Parking
requirement calculations are provided in the attached Preliminary Development Summary — Full Build Out chart.
Public parking will be located below the South Building accessed at the east end and south side of the new 'Main
Street'. Private parking will be primarily located in the underground structure(s) below the North and South
buildings. The Applicant will partner with the Town to meet the intent to provide underground parking in the
East Town Center, a major goal within the District.
Phasing
Please refer to drawing sheet A -C-10.01 Phasing Plan in association with this discussion. The project includes
three phases of development. Phase One will consist of a complete demolition of the Avon Annex building,
construction of the East Building and associated structured parking, and construction of the new alignment of
'Main Street,' including all subsurface work associated with re -alignment of utilities contained in the new 'Main
Street'. Temporary surface parking will be created in Lot 3 due to the loss of parking on Lot 1. Phase Two will
consist of complete demolition of the Benchmark building, construction of the North Building and associated
structured parking, completion of the construction of the north — south connection between 'Main Street' and
Beaver Creek Place, and construction of final improvements on the north side of 'Main Street' and the multi -
events plaza. The third and final phase, Phase Three, will consist of complete demolition of the Christy Sports
building, construction of the South Building and associated structured parking, and construction of final
improvements on the south side of 'Main Street'.
Each phase will be developed on its own as an independent project towards implementing the overall vision for
the District. Proposed phases will be sensitive to the aesthetics of the community and be able to operate
independently of other phases. Each phase will enhance the community as well as be workable, functional and
efficient without relying upon completion of future phases. Traffic control will be provided by the applicant to
enforce required circulation patterns during the various phases of the project.
Preliminary Site Engineering and Design Issues
A separate letter by Marcin Engineering is provided with this application to address preliminary design issues
including The East Benchmark Roadway Realignment and Layout, Horizontal Site Layout, Grading and
Drainage, Existing and Proposed Utilities, and the Preliminary Plat per the Subdivision process. In addition,
several Civil Engineering drawing sheets are included with the application that address these items. as referenced
in the drawing index.
\i on 21 PI'D Subdivision Application
Page 5 of 23
2/6/2008
`Professional Housing' Program / Attainable Housing Calculations
Housing is a major issue facing the greater resort region and EAH LLC is prepared to help the Town of Avon set
the best precedent possible in this arena. Avon 21 proposes an innovative housing program specifically targeting
local `professionals' to help keep professionals living year round in Avon. This approach places emphasis on
providing professional employee housing within the core of the project, integrated within the project `on -site' and
embraced into the rest of the community. Housing will be attractive, convenient, and desirable. The program will
help promote a sense of community by increasing year round resident occupancy within the Town Center.
The Applicant has participated in several work sessions with the Town of Avon regarding housing issues and
provided direct feedback as part of this process. It is the Applicant's understanding that the current direction the
Town is pursuing on this issue is to amend the 2006 Comprehensive Plan with language to require developers to
calculate housing requirements per the draft Attainable Housing Guidelines dated September 2007, and
subsequently negotiate the provision of attainable housing in each project on a case by case basis in context with
the each project's overall community and public benefits `package' and development agreement.
Given this understanding, the Applicant has applied the draft Attainable Housing Guidelines dated September
2007 to determine the project's attainable housing requirements. Per this exercise, and combining both
inclusionary residential and commercial housing calculations, the Applicant has established the project's
attainable housing unit obligation to be 6 units for a 10% rate of housing mitigation. Please refer to the attached
chart titled Town of Avon Attainable Housing Obligation regarding these calculations. In the context of the
overall project and the community benefits proposed, the Applicant is proposing (12) units or a 20% mitigation
rate to be included in the professional housing program, described in greater detail below.
The proposed local `professional' housing program is a public/private joint venture structured creatively to
provide developer and town assistance with mortgage down payments and discounted unit prices (compared to
market values) for qualifying individuals. The mechanics of this program will be reviewed in detail with Town
Staff as part of the application process and as it evolves.
Highlights of the `local professional' work force program include:
• 12 units (or a 20% mitigation rate of total housing obligation) are proposed to be included in the program.
Each unit is anticipated to be a 2 bedroom unit with an average area of I200 sf;
• Each unit included the program will be offered at a 20% restricted discounted price from appraised
market value, for perpetuity. Sales prices for units participating in the program will be set at 80% of
appraised market value in perpetuity;
• Qualifying buyers of the units included in the program will be offered a mortgage down payment
assistance of 15% of the total mortgage. This 15% is to be shared on an equal basis (50% / 50%) by the
Town and the Developer.
• Each qualified buyer will have to provide 5% of the 20% down payment as part of participation in the
program;
• The mortgage down payment assistance applies for the first time buyer AND subsequent buyers, each
time a unit is re -sold.
• A minimum 2 year period of ownership is required prior a unit re -sale to receive appreciated value
returns;
• The down payment assistance is re -adjusted per a unit's valuation over time and per future re -sales, to be
set per market conditions. The buyer and seller retains the obligation to maintain and re -satisfy the 20%
down payment assistance at closing and sale of a unit in the program;
• No appreciation cap is included in the program. The program is self-adjusting with market conditions and
units appraise with market conditions;
• Initial qualifications would include that qualifying individuals work full time within the Town of Avon
and demonstrate historical 2 person dual income at 200% of AMI for Eagle County;
\N on 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 6 of 23
2/6/2008
• The down payment assistance program funding is structured to compound and have a 10 year maturity
date to generate a full return on the original investment placed into the program by the Developer and
Town; The Developer will be re -funded its share of the original contribution and the Town at its option
can re -issue the funds toward a new housing program, an/ or re -invest in the current program.
• Local banks, mortgage, and title companies will be invited to participate as financial partners in the
professional housing program. Preliminary discussions with some local businesses indicate heightened
interest in developing local partnerships around the proposed housing program.
The Applicant requests the Town consider methods of becoming a partner in the program such as relief from real
estate transfer tax for 1 s` time home buyers, contributions to the program from the URA, sales tax, accommodation
tax, real estate transfer tax, and in setting the appropriate mill levy for the Service District for the Professional
Housing component of the project.
Community Benefits
Avon 21 has been prepared with a great level of care to provide a variety of complementary community benefits
to the Town of Avon. Some of these benefits are direct and tangible benefits, while others are intangible and
inherent in the project. Ultimately it is Applicant's intent to negotiate closely with the Town to reach a balance
between what is being provided to the Town as community benefits and what is being granted by the Town
toward making the project possible for the Applicant. The Applicant requests the Town consider methods of
becoming a partner in the redevelopment program with contributions to the program from a possible future East
Avon Urban Renewal Authority, sales tax, accommodation tax, real estate transfer tax, and in setting the
appropriate mill levy for the Service District for the Professional Housing component of the project.
Listed in no particular order and as an initial basis for discussion with the Town, as the application process
evolves are the community benefits associated with the Avon 21 project. These are discussed in substantial
greater detail in this narrative, in the analysis of the PUD design criteria and conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The list below is thus intended only to highlight the public benefits.
1. Parcel Area Configuration: The consolidation of (4) of the key parcels in the East Avon District and the
proposal to redevelop these as a whole is of tremendous value to the Town of Avon. It greatly facilitates the
implementation of a new main street as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and also allows a significant
area of the Town Center to redevelop, with a critical mass sufficient to catalyze redevelopment and fit within
the Urban Renewal Plan that the Town is seeking to establish.
2. Building Height: The majority of the project is (6) stories with one area reaching a maximum of (8) stories.
The proposed heights conform to the Comprehensive Plan's Built Form Diagram that show a maximum of
(8) stories in East Town Center.
3. Site Coverage: Avon 21 proposes a 59% site coverage in order to create the desired main street and
circulation framework, in some cases applying a 'zero lot' line approach encouraged in the Draft East Town
Center District Plan
4. Setbacks: The project proposes no established setbacks and where necessary, such as along Main Street
applies a 'zero lot' line approach encouraged in the Draft East Town Center District Plan.
5. Density: Avon 21 proposes to exceed the minimum density standards in the Town Center District and
significantly increase the critical mass of retail. residential, and accommodation units that is needed in the
Town Center District.
6. Mix of Land Uses: Avon 21 proposes and responds to the desired mix of uses for the Town Center, and
specifically additional commercial space, and new residential and accommodation land uses that do not
currently exist in this area of the East Town Center.
Avon 21 Pt U. Subdivision Application
Page 7 of 23
2/6/2008
7. Land Ownership: Avon 21 consolidates multiple land ownerships and facilitates the redevelopment process
in the East Avon Town Center. The project also proposes to maintain the ratios of land ownership between
the Town and the Applicant, configured in the manner that allows the direction of the Comprehensive Plan
to be implemented.
8. Automobile Circulation: Avon 21 creates a more direct and efficient road network through East Town
Center, with the dimensions recommended in the Draft East Town Center District Plan.
9. Pedestrian Circulation: Avon 21 creates a more cohesive pedestrian network with a complete system of
sidewalks and plazas through out the entire proposed development. Existing roads will benefit from new and
enhanced sidewalks.
10. Sales / Accommodation Tax: Avon 21 will increase the Town's volume of sales and accommodation tax by
virtue of the proposed densities and mix of new land uses.
11. Real Estate Transfer Tax: Avon 21 will increase the Town's volume of real estate transfer tax by virtue of
the proposed residential dwelling units within the project, and in an area where no residential land uses
existed.
12. Parking: Avon 21 meets the proposed parking standards, provides the majority of required parking in easily
accessible underground parking structures, and sets aside some parking exclusively for public uses.
13. Multi Use Plaza: Avon 21 proposes a dynamic and flexible outdoor multi -use events space that
complements Main Street and establishes a sense of place in the East Town Center.
14. East 'Main Street': Avon 21 `functionally' extends West Main Street in the exact location and alignment as
included in the Comprehensive Plan.
15. Landscaping / Urban Design: Avon 21 will implement high quality landscaping and urban design elements
through out the project drawing from the design guidelines developed for West Town Center.
16. Financial Mechanism / Engine: Avon 21 will create a new financial `engine' that will help catalyze
additional redevelopment in the Town Center/
17. Streamline Application Review Process: Avon 21 streamlines redevelopment in the East Avon Town Center
District by proposing a PUD for a major and significant sub area of the District under one single application.
18. Professional Housing: Avon 21 proposes an innovative and creative housing program that increases year
round occupancy of full time professional employees in the Town Center.
Avon 21 PUD; Subdivision Application
Page 8 of 23
2/6/2008
COMPLETE ZONING ANALYSIS - 17.20.110(D) AVON TOWN CODE
Please refer to attached Preliminary Development Summary Matrix for complete breakdown of areas, unit
quantity and types, parking calculations, and gross floor area totals.
Existing Conditions Analysis
Lots and parcels included in Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision:
Lot 21, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek - 0.928 acres
Lot 65-A the Annex at Avon* - 0.613 acres
Lot 65-B the Annex at Avon - 1.496 acres
Tract Q Benchmark at Beaver Creek - 2.131 acres
Tract R Benchmark at Beaver Creek - 0.060 acres
Parcel No. TK-3* - 0.256 acres
* Denotes parcels owned by the Town of Avon included in PUD / Subdivision Application
Total Area (all land)
• EAH LLC owned land =
Town owned land =
5.484 acres
4.615 acres
0.869 acres
Town Center (TC) Zoning Designation
Development Standards:
Minimum Lot Size: 30,000 sf
Maximum Building Height: 80'
Minimum Building Setbacks: 25' front, 7.5' side, 10' rear
Maximum Site Coverage: 50% Lot Coverage
Minimum Landscaped Area: 20%
Maximum Density: 30 dwelling units per acre of buildable area or 90 accommodation units per acre
Maximum Allowable Development Rights (Parcels in EAH LLC Ownership only):
Site Coverage: 2.308 acres (or 100,536 sf)
Gross Floor Area: 603,087 sf (6 stories at 50% Site Coverage)
Density: (138) dwelling units OR (414) accommodation units
Current Land Uses:
Retail Shops; Professional Offices; Personal Service Shop; Restaurants; Cocktail Lounges; Medical Center
Current Land Use / Density Breakdown
Lot 21: 14,314 sf Gross Floor Area (7,386 sf Retail, 6,928 sf Office)
Lot 65B: 13,940 sf Gross Floor Area (11,540 sf Retail, 2,400 sf Office)
Tract Q: 24,521 sf Gross Floor Area (6,824 sf Retail, 6,479 sf Office, and 11,218 sf Restaurant)
Total All (3) Parcels: 52,775 sf Gross Floor Area (25,750 sf Retail. 15,807 sf Office, 11,218 sf Restaurant)
No residential or lodging present (no density of dwelling or accommodation units is present).
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 9 of 23
2/6/2008
Proposed Conditions Analysis
Lots resulting from Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision:
Lot 1 East (1.104 acres)
Lot 2 North (1.515 acres)
Lot 3 South (1.935 acres)
Lot 4 Main Street Right of Way* (0.868 acres)
* To remain under Town of Avon ownership
Total Area (all parcels) = 5.484 acres
EAH LLC Parcels = 4.615 acres
Town Parcels = 0.869 acres
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning Designation
Site Development Standards:
Minimum Lot Size: Not applicable.
Maximum Building Height: 110'
Minimum Building Setbacks: varies, close to zero lot line in some cases.
Maximum Site Coverage: 3.260 acres (59% of Total PUD Area)
Open Space: 2.164 acres (41% of Total PUD Area)
Impervious Open Space: TBD (Main Street, Other Streets, Sidewalks, Hardscape Plaza)
Pervious Open Space: TBD (Lawn areas / Planting areas)
Structured Open Space: TBD (Outdoor Terraces / Patios within Site Coverage)
Proposed Gross Floor Area: 865,012 sf above grade
Maximum Density: 50 dwelling units / acre
Maximum Allowable Development Rights if applying straight TC Zoning Designations
Site Coverage: 50%
Gross Floor Area: 603,087 sf (6 stories at 50% Site Coverage)
Density: (138) dwelling units OR (414) accommodation units
Maximum Density: 30 dwelling units per acre of buildable area or 90 accommodation units per acre
Employee Housing Calculation
Applicant proposes Professional Housing scheme geared to keep professional employees living in Avon year
round and permanently.
Parking Calculation
Please refer to the attached Preliminary Development Summary — Full Build Out chart for parking calculations.
Avon 21 PI D / Subdivision Application
Page 10 of 23
2/6/2008
C. PUD DESIGN CRITERIA ANALYSIS - 17.20.110(H) AVON TOWN CODE
The following shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD District:
1. Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
Conformance is discussed per the currently adopted Comprehensive Plan dated February 2006. In this document
Avon 21 is identified as a High Priority District (District 2) and includes the following relevant language:
East Town Center District is a key revitalization prospect for the community. Significant redevelopment
opportunities exist in the district, and must be considered comprehensively with the concern for the needs and
desires of the community. Strong pedestrian and street connections should be established so that these districts
create a consistent and cohesive community core. The challenge will be to overcome the confusing street
patterns, indirect pedestrian walkways, diminished sight corridors, and to entice people out of their car to
experience the entire Town Center. A mix of uses, including major retail establishments, smaller retail shops,
personal services, offices, and supporting residential /lodging uses will be essential for the district.
The Application complies with the District's priorities by master planning the redevelopment of several key sites
in the District in a comprehensive manner to create a cohesive community core with clear street patterns and
pedestrian walkways. The Applicant is proposing to create a vibrant, mixed -use pedestrian -oriented development
that will serve as a landmark and focal point for visitors and residents.
The PUD will attract year round residents, increase tourism, and create a better balance of land uses than the
present day mix, with additional retail space, office space, lodging and residential uses. The PUD consists of a
minimum of 105,859 SF of commercial, retail, and guest oriented space, 118 Lodging Units, 225 Residential
Units, and 12 Professional Employee Housing Units. The parking includes a combination of surface and
structured underground parking for a total of 628 parking spaces.
a. Conformity with planning principles of the High Priority East Town Center District
❖ Develop a mix of commercial uses with supporting residential / lodging development
Avon 21 is a high -density mixed -use redevelopment project in conformance with the Town of Avon's
Comprehensive Plan and with concepts contemplated in the Draft East Town Center District plan. The
project is integrated with commercial retail and food and beverage uses on the ground level, with office,
residential, and lodging units on the upper levels. The additional density proposed above the existing
Town Center zoning will allow the Town to capture a historically growing bed base.
❖ Implement a street pattern that functionally extends "Main Street" across Avon Road.
Avon 21 is configured to specifically `functionally' extend West 'Main Street' into the East Town Center
District and across Avon Road. The Applicant has consolidated ownership of the key parcels required in
order to pursue a straightened 'Main Street.' The goal is to create a clear circulation framework that will
simplify and improve automobile and pedestrian circulation, and increase the overall quality and character
of the built environment.
M on 21 Pl'D / Subdivision Application
Page 11 of 23
2/6/2008
❖ Plan for public plazas and other community gathering places
Avon 21 includes an area designed as a multi -events plaza and several outdoor seating and gathering
spaces. Inviting portals and gateways for pedestrians have been designed to link into these spaces. Care
has been given to site and locate these spaces in the most favorable areas of the development, and
specifically those that receive the most sunshine along the new 'Main Street.' Outdoor seating is
proposed as a special review use in accordance with Town Code requirements, in order for Main Street
and possibly other retail and commercial locations to capture increased pedestrian activity. The project
also anticipates a possible future 'Town Square' park on the adjacent property as contemplated in the
Draft East Town Center District Plan.
❖ Develop structured parking facilities to make parking less obtrusive to the pedestrian
Avon 21 proposes the majority of required parking to be located in a series of underground structured
parking facilities. Two levels of underground parking are contemplated. The goal is to make parking
convenient and give the project a highly pedestrian -oriented focus at street level. Limited surface parking
is contemplated along Main Street for ease of pedestrian access as well as other roadways around the
perimeter of the project.
❖ Accommodate anchor retailers without large expanses to ensure these uses are integrated into a
unifying framework.
Avon 21 proposes the majority of ground floor space to be commercial land uses. A variety of sizes of
commercial spaces are being planned at ground floor within the overall project. Several of these spaces
are designed and oriented to be able to receive anchor retailers while fitting into a Main Street framework
without large expanses. Minimum setback has also been implemented to allow for retail continuity.
❖ Create a cohesive physical framework and community image (compatible building orientation,
scale, massing, sitting, street alignment, streetscape furnishings, signage, lighting, etc.)between the
Town Center Districts and the Village at Avon).
All aspects of the proposed Avon 21 project have been carefully studied and analyzed to meet the intent
of this principle, while maximizing the development potential. A cohesive physical framework is
established by the proposed straight 'Main Street' and associated roads and the enhanced pedestrian
network through the development. The alignment and location of the proposed straight 'Main Street'
largely dictates the orientation and massing of proposed building — and provides a framework that easily
connects to other Town Center Districts, especially West Town Center and the Village at Avon. The
clear circulation framework will simplify and improve automobile and pedestrian circulation, and increase
the overall quality and character of the built environment.
The proposed building scale and massing exceed maximum allowable standards of the existing Town
Center zoning designation. However, the proposed maximum (8) stories respects the Town's
Comprehensive Plan Built Form Diagram. All proposed buildings step back after the 3rd floor to create
articulation, visual interest, and enhanced solar exposure at the street level. Streetscape furnishings,
signage, and lighting will be designed as a coordinated `kit of parts' and provide a well -choreographed
aesthetic experience. All such elements will be closely associated with the guidelines and standards
adopted in the West Town Center Guidelines and Implementation Plans. The end goal is to establish a
positive community image and special and unique sense of place.
Avon 21 RID / Subdivision Application
Page 12 of23
2/6/2008
❖ Use architectural detailing on ground level/first floor to enhance the pedestrian environment that
includes a human scale, display windows, appropriate lighting, and other pedestrian amenities.
The 14' minimum floor -to -ceiling height for all ground floor space that is at street level will optimize
display space, provide ample light penetration, and enhance the desired proportion and scale along the
street level. Architectural elements such as awnings, light fixtures, and signs with significant detailing
and character will be proposed in the project to create a refined human scale and visual interest.
❖ Site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, and break
up building bulk.
A total of (3) buildings of varying size and footprint are proposed as part of the overall project. Each
building has a unique form and varies in its articulation, stepping back in order to break up bulk and mass.
Buildings are oriented to create and reinforce a 'Main Street' framework and sized in order for the
majority of the project to conform to the existing Town Center height limit of 80 feet, with a limited area
of the project reaching 110 feet. A mix of commercial spaces of various sizes is proposed for the ground
floor spaces. Breaks in the buildings along the main street fa�ade are proposed in order to allow for
automobile and pedestrian access to occur along 'Main Street' and through -out the proposed project while
still maintaining a continuous retail experience. The emphasis has been on maximizing commercial space
on the north building and south -facing facades given the favorable and increased solar aspect. The
proposed plaza intends for all ground floor space on the North buildings to be in sunlight at different
times of day (and year) with ample areas to `spill' out into, especially during special events and
appropriate times of year.
❖ Ensure convenient pedestrian and auto access to the entire Town Center.
By including a straight 'Main Street' through the East Avon Town Center, the Avon 21 project proposes
to simplify, and improve both pedestrian and automobile access within the District. More broadly,
because the project will functionally extend Main Street from West Town Center and across Avon Road,
the project will make it pedestrian and automobile more convenient through out the entire Town. To
assist in the crossing of Avon Road, the Applicant proposes to work with the Towns' districts and
enhance the street crossing with additional lighting and signage, and provide better visual signalization
when pedestrians are present. Roadways and sidewalks are proposed to facilitate access for both
pedestrian and automobiles through out the project in order to create a continuous circulation network.
The close proximity of the project to other Districts encourages pedestrian movement rather than
automobile traffic. Structured parking is proposed to make pedestrian and automobile traffic more
convenient and safer.
Avon 21 Pl.-0 / Subdivision Application
Page 13 of 23
2/6/2008
b. Conformity with Comprehensive Plan Goals
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal B.1: Promote a compact community form
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy B.1.1: Avon 21 fits the overall Built Form according to the Built Form diagram in the
Comprehensive Plan.
• Policy B.1.3: Avon 21 has been configured and laid out to maximize sun exposure with particular
attention given to plaza and outdoor gathering areas.
• Policy B.1.4: Avon 21 meets the density guidelines as indicated on the Future Land Use Map.
• Policy B.1.6: Avon 21 includes vertically integrated mixed -uses.
• Policy B.1.7: Avon 21 maintains a strong street edge over a majority of the perimeter of each
proposed building, and all floors above the third are setback and articulated.
• Policy B.1.8: Avon 21 generates traffic near transit facilities, and proposed shared parking
facilities to minimize automobile traffic and `re -parking' within the same area.
• Policy B.1.9: Avon 21 encourages redevelopment and revitalization of currently outdated,
•
rundown, or otherwise neglected areas.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal C.1: Provide a balance of land uses that offers a range of housing
options, diverse commercial and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations, and
high quality civic and recreational facilities, working in concert to strengthen Avon's identity as
both a year round residential community and as a commercial, tourism, and economic center.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy C.1.1: Avon 21 conforms to the Future Land Use Plan's designations and with a scale and
intensity appropriate for the planning district in which they are located. The proposal
contemplates less than the maximum allowable gross floor area development rights under current
Town Center zoning designation.
• Policy C.1.3: Avon 21 focuses lodging and guest accommodation in a High Priority Town Center
District.
• Policy C.1.5: Avon 21 proposes flexible zoning via the Planned Unit Development zoning as an
alternative to straight zoning in order to allow for a more effective development pattern that
provides community benefits of a straight Main Street and multi -use events plaza.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal C.3 Use mixed -use development to create a more balanced, sustainable
system of land uses.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy C.3.1: Avon 21 includes vertical mixed -use development that will enable the Town to
better respond to changing market conditions.
• Policy C.3.2: Avon 21 will provide opportunities for short-term office and service uses in ground
floor retail space when market demand is low, but retain permanent designation as retail.
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 14 of 23
2/6/2008
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal C.4 Encourage a sustainable commercial development that enhances
Avon's overall economic health, contributes to the community's image and character, and provides
residents and visitors with increased choices and services.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy C.4.1: Avon 21 will reconfigure land in a manner that conforms to the Draft East Town
Center District Plan and increases the District's viability with clear and efficient automobile and
pedestrian circulation alignments.
• Policy C.4.2: Future commercial businesses included in the project are clustered and oriented to
publicly accessible amenities (sidewalks, outdoor seating areas, and multi -use event plaza).
• Policy C.4.4: Avon 21 will utilize innovative and environmentally friendly planning and
construction techniques. The project may be designed to a minimum LEEDS certification
standard and pursue one or more forms of USGBC LEEDS certification.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal D.1 Ensure that development and redevelopment is compatible with
existing and planned adjacent development and contributes to Avon's community image and
character.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy D.1.1: Avon 21 is as a forward thinking development consistent with adopted plans, and
that establishes a new benchmark for quality and innovation in the Town of Avon.
• Policy D.1.2: Avon 21 responds to adjacent development by minimizing disruption of adjacent
properties and integrating with the existing pedestrian and automobile framework of Town.
• Policy D.1.3: Avon 21 eliminates existing large surface parking areas and proposes the majority
of required parking be placed in structured parking below grade.
• Policy D.1.4: The configuration, scale, massing, siting, street alignments, and streetscape
furnishings proposed in the project create a unified and cohesive physical framework and
community image.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal D.2 Create community gateways and streetscapes that reflect and
strengthen Avon's unique community character and image.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy D.2.1: Avon 21 will beautify the town and establish a new benchmark for the built
environment and public space in the Town of Avon. High quality landscape, street furnishing,
and public art will be incorporated into the project.
• Policy D.2.2: Avon 21 responds to adjacent development by minimizing disruption of adjacent
properties and integrating with the existing framework of Town.
• Policy D.2.3: Avon 21 eliminates existing large surface parking areas and proposes the majority
of required parking be placed in structure parking below grade, while maintaining some limited
surface parking.
• Policy D.2.4: The configuration, scale, massing, siting, street alignments, and streetscape
furnishings proposed in the project will create a unified and cohesive physical framework and
community image. The project will reinforce redevelopment efforts already being undertaken by
the Town by utilizing a coordinated style and aesthetic.
Avon 21 PUD /Subdivision Application
Page 15 of 23
2/6/2008
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal D.3 Develop new and continue to enhance existing cultural and heritage
facilities, events, and programs that strengthen Avon's community character and image.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy D.3.2: Avon 21 will encourage local festivals and events. The project is creating, as a
central feature, a multi -use plaza that will, at appropriate times, be used as a venue for select
community events.
• Policy D.3.4: Avon 21 will develop a multi -use plaza where cultural event will be able to take
place.
• Policy D.3.5: Avon 21 anticipates submitting a plan for select art installations through out the
project.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal E.2 Ensure the ability to fund and implement the necessary development
and redevelopment by encouraging strategic use of town funds to leverage high quality private
sector investment.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy E.2.3: Avon 21 is a substantial private investment in Avon that consolidates key land
parcels and positions a high priority district in the Town center for redevelopment as identified in
the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The project may apply Tax Increment Financing Plan, a
Metropolitan District Service Plan, or other plans that will be advantageous to economic
development.
• Policy E.2.4: As a `lifestyle' project with integrated professional housing, Avon 21 specifically
targets professionals with high quality jobs.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal E3 Increase the number of visitors to Avon by enhancing our
attractiveness as a destination resort community.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy E.3.3: Avon 21 proposes to exceed the minimum density standards in the Town Center
District and increase the critical mass of retail, residential, and accommodation units that is
needed to transform the Town Center District into a destination resort community.
• Policy E.3.5: Avon 21 proposes a conference facility and multi -use plaza that will develop
additional cultural and recreational attractions oriented toward both residents and visitors.
• Policy E.3.8: Avon 21 will fit into an integrated way -finding signage program oriented towards
both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
• Policy E3.10: Avon 21 will provide a `fresh' high quality, pedestrian -oriented `niche' retail
shopping experience to Avon that will become a new and interesting tourist attraction for the
Town.
• Policy E3.14: Avon 21 will be a year-round `lifestyle' project with the potential to expand the
schedule of events to strengthen the Town's year-round guest potential and provide an amenity
for local residents.
\%on21 PI'D' Subdivision application
Page 16 of 23
2/6/2008
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal F.1 Achieve a diverse range of quality housing options to serve diverse
segments of the population.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy F.1.1: Avon 21 proposes a local `professionals' housing program to retain and attract
professionals to year-round living in Avon.
• Policy F.1.2: Avon 21 is a private development that includes a diversity of housing types, sizes,
architectural styles, and prices.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal F.2 Provide a workforce housing program that incorporates both rental
and ownership opportunities for residents that are attractive, safe, and integrated with the
community.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy F.2.1: Avon 21 is a major redevelopment project that includes a `local professional'
housing program providing some mortgage assistance and discounted unit prices for qualifying
individuals.
• Policy F.2.2: The proposed `local professional' housing program is integrated with, rather than
separated from the rest of the community, and is of the desired tone of this neighborhood and
resort destination.
• Policy F.2.5: There will be no net loss of housing as no residential uses currently exist within the
PUD, and a `local professional' housing program is proposed by the project thus increasing the
housing the year round housing supply within the Town Center District.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal G.1 Create an integrated transit system that minimizes dependence on
automobile travel within the Town by making it easier and more inviting to use transit, walk, ride
bicycles, and utilize other non -motorized vehicles.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy G.1.3: Avon 21 creates a new Main Street that will facilitate transit circulation and help
link pedestrian circulation through -out Town and minimizes dependence on automobile travel.
• Policy G.1.4: Avon 21 will be an environment where pedestrians are prioritized, allowing
walking access to multiple stores and businesses without having to drive or park more than once.
The project will make it easy for people arriving by car to park in underground structures, get out
of their cars and walk, minimizing in -town automobile travel.
• Policy G.1.6: The new Main Street and all other streets associated with the Avon 21 project
provide for pedestrian circulation, and prioritize the pedestrian by utilizing special paving in
sidewalks, crosswalks, and in key focal spaces, such as plazas and seating areas.
• Policy G.1.7: Streets associated with the development are being closely studied to accommodate
transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of transportation.
• Policy G.1.8: Existing streets affected by the development will be retrofitted to provide safe and
inviting pedestrian sidewalks, shoulders. and crosswalks. Sections have been developed to
understand the impact and ways to integrate with existing streets.
• Policy G.1.9: Roadway and intersections will be coordinated with the Town Engineer so there are
adequate provisions within the public right-of-way to fully incorporate both auto and non -auto
modes.
Avon 21 PI D / Subdivision Application
Page 17 of 23
2/6/2008
• Policy G.1.12: Avon 21 will provide transit amenities such as waiting areas, pedestrian access,
and lighting that may be required within the PUD.
• Policy G.1.13: Avon 21 will utilize traffic calming measures to achieve the desired balance
between vehicular, pedestrian and bike travel capabilities. The emphasis will be on slowing
vehicles in favor of pedestrian traffic.
• Policy G.1.16: The Applicant will depict pedestrian circulation clearly in the application and
ultimately prepare a pedestrian circulation plan for the entire PUD that will clearly articulating
concepts of creating a highly pedestrian friendly environment.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal G.4 Provide a safe and efficient vehicular transportation system.
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy G.4.1: Avon 21 will create a road system that more effectively disperses and relieves
traffic congestion in community centers and on major roads. The straight 'Main Street' and
improved intersection points will help clarify circulation.
• Policy G.4.2: Avon 21 provides multiple access point into the development and parking in order
to disperse traffic and allow for safe and expeditious evacuation if needed.
❖ Comprehensive Plan Goal G.5 Encourage a "park once/shop many" environment
The proposal conforms with or directly addresses several policies of this goal:
• Policy G.5.1: Avon 21 requests relief from current parking requirements in the form of a mixed -
use parking reduction due to the mixed -use nature of land uses proposed in the project.
• Policy G.5.2: Proposed parking facilities will be easily accessible via pedestrian connections and
because a majority will be underground, has minimal visual impacts.
• Policy G.5.3: Avon 21 will with the Town as it relates to a joint development of a public access /
retail access structured parking facility in the PUD .
• Policy G.5.4: Avon 21 incorporates a majority of required parking in structured parking
facilities. There are possibilities to share access and connect these to future adjacent underground
parking structures.
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 18of23
2/6/2008
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the sub -area design
recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town.
Avon 21 PUD conforms and complies with the overall design theme of the Town by applying a mountain
contemporary theme, which is encouraged and requested in the Town's Design Guidelines. This theme utilizes
materials often used and easily accessible in our region implemented in a variety of innovative ways intended to
create articulation and visual interest of buildings at all levels. The East Avon District design principles as stated
in the Comprehensive Plan are respected and applied. All elements of the project will be closely associated with
the guidelines and standards adopted in the West Town Center Guidelines. The end goal is to establish a well -
coordinated and cohesive community image that fosters a special and unique sense of place.
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative
to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation.
As the Town of Avon continues the implementation of Town Center West, and considers adoption of the Draft
East Town Center District plan, the proposed density, scale, and overall character contained in this proposal
reinforces the direction of the Town's development goals. The project is the first major redevelopment of its size
in the East Town Center and thus has the potential to innovate and create a special place while moving in the
Town's desired direction. Since there is not a predominant architectural style or noteworthy precedent within the
District, the Applicant is positioned to set a high -quality precedent for other redevelopment in Avon to follow.
All aspects of the proposed Avon 21 project have been carefully studied and analyzed to ensure the project is
compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural
design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation. All buildings have been substantially
scaled down in overall height from previous schemes reviewed informally with the Town during a series of work
sessions conducted in 2007. A pedestrian corridor in the North / South axis has been created to provide for more
effective circulation. Exterior wall and roof planes are articulated and designed to create architectural interest.
Solar studies have informed the placement, bulk, and orientation of building features in order to maximize solar
exposure at the ground floor level. The placement of commercial, office, residential, and accommodation spaces
is in keeping with planning and design objectives included in the Draft East Town Center District plan. The Avon
21 project will help create an enhanced environment for residents and visitors to the community.
4. Uses activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with
surrounding uses and activity.
The Town's development of Town Center West, the development of the Westin and related projects, combined
with the Avon 21 project proposed by this application will synergistically provide enhanced benefits and greater
economic vitality for the Town's future. The current proposal represents enormous potential for the East Town
Center District. The project can serve as a catalyst for other redevelopment through out the Town center district.
As a true mixed -use project, Avon 21 is consistent with the Town's short and long-term planning and fiscal goals.
The project proposes a mix of additional commercial, new office, new residential and new lodging uses that
currently do not exist within the District and are identified as priorities in the Comprehensive Plan and the Draft
East Town Center District plan.
%ion 21 PUD Subdivision Application
Page 19 of 23
2/6/2008
5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and or geologic hazards that affect the property
upon which the PUD is proposed.
There are no natural or geologic hazards associated with the existing or proposed PUD and Subdivision
Application.
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designated to produce a functional
development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetations, and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
Avon 21 is proposed to be a functional development, and one that vastly improves the functionality of the entire
East Town Center District. This will be achieved by implementation of a new, straightened and `functionally'
extended 'Main Street' across Avon Road, combined with a high -density project with a diverse mix of land uses
desired by the Town. The site plan, building design, and location respond directly to the Town's goals and
objectives. The site plan calls for retail throughout a majority of the ground floor level, and aesthetic treatment of
all edges, including high quality landscaping, hardscaping, and streetscape furnishings compatible with the Town
Center West guidelines. Building massing has been manipulated to maintain views and encourage pedestrian
movement and comfort.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrian addressing on and off site traffic
circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation plan.
Avon 21 proposes vehicular and pedestrian circulation in compliance with the Town Transportation Plan, the
development of Town Center West and future West Main Street, and the new full roundabout completed by the
Town in 2007. Pedestrian access is located through -out the project, and on sidewalks proposed along every new
or existing road. Vehicular access is proposed through -out the development at slow speeds, with a few key access
points into structured parking. Structured parking is provided to minimize car traffic and repeat car trips, and to
emphasize a pedestrian -oriented project where walking is intended to be the key mode of transportation.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, views, and function.
The project is organized around a 'Main Street' and multi -events plaza intended to be highly functional and
aesthetic. High quality hardscapes and landscapes, compatible with the Town Center West design guidelines, are
planned for all public exterior spaces. The south -facing multi -events plaza will serve as a key open space, and
offer 'relief' to the tension created by the buildings on both side of the new 'Main Street'. The space will
function at different times of the year for a variety of activities, become a focal point in the overall framework of
the East Avon District, and provide a destination for the overall Town of Avon. Views will be oriented to the east
and west along 'Main Street', to reinforce the primary east / west axis of pedestrian circulation in the downtown
districts and across Avon Road. Select views from different areas of the project will be framed according to
vantage points. The entire project is intended to provide a new network of circulation that unifies the East Town
District and connects to other districts in the manner identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Applicalion
Page 20 of 23
2/6/2008
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.
The project will be phased in three phases of development. Phase One will consist of a complete demolition of
the Avon Annex building, construction of the East Building and associated structured parking, and construction of
the majority of the new alignment of 'Main Street' including all subsurface work associated with re -alignment of
'Main Street' utilities. Temporary surface parking will be created in Lot 3 due to loss of parking in Lot 2. Phase
Two will consist of complete demolition of the Benchmark building, construction of the North Building and
associated structured parking, completion of construction of the north — south connection between Main Street
and Beaver Creek Place, and construction of final improvements on the north side of Main Street and the multi -
events plaza. The third and final phase, Phase Three, will consist of complete demolition of the Christy Sport
building, construction of the South Building and associated structured parking, and construction of final
improvements on the south side of Main Street.
Each phase will be developed on its own as an independent project towards implementing the overall vision for
the District. Proposed phases will be sensitive to the aesthetics of the community and be able to operate
independently of other phases. Each phase will enhance the Town, as well as be workable, functional, and
efficient without relying upon completion of future phases.
10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and
police and fire protection.
The public services required for this PUD are adequate and discussed in greater depth in the engineering
narrative. The project is being planned in an area with a Town Center zoning designation, is identified in the
Future Land Use map as High Density, and is currently serviced by public services. During the progress of the
proposal and review process with the Town of Avon, police, fire, and school services will need to be established
as part of the process and negotiation of community benefits in exchange for provision of these services.
Submitted with this application are preliminary civil engineering plans that address 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
All new or existing roadways around the perimeter of the project have been designed to meet the minimum design
standards set forth in the Draft East Avon Town Center plan, which anticipates comparable densities and greater
for the redevelopment of East Town Center District. Roadway gradients, dimensions, and design standards for
new roads apply the Town of Avon development code. In some cases, existing roads will be affected by the PUD
and will be redesigned according to the same standards. Thus future roads will be suitable and adequate to carry
anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. Please refer to the Civil
Engineering narrative for additional information.
Avon 21 PUP / Subdivision Application
Page 21 of 23
2/6/2008
12. That the PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purposes
provisions of Section 17.28.085 of the Zoning Code.
❖ The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot
achieve.
The current zoning entitlements, land ownership pattern, and existing roadway patterns preclude a project
that provides the public purpose and benefit as proposed by Avon 21. The project will create a new
'Main Street' with more direct, clear, safe and enjoyable pedestrian and automobile traffic through East
Avon. A PUD is required for the Applicant to subdivide the land, create a new ownership framework,
and give the Applicant flexibility not allowed by `straight' zoning density, setback, coverage, and height
restrictions.
❖ Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural, or social community
benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed
zoning rights.
The Avon 21 PUD and Subdivision Application will provide substantial long term economic, cultural and
social community benefits to the Town of Avon. New and additional commercial space will result in
additional sales tax dollars from retail, food and beverage land uses. Proposed lodging uses will increase
the bed -base and the Town's ability to capture dollars year round, as well as an increase revenue from the
accommodation tax. Year-round residential uses will increase activity in the Town Center, and elevate
the sense of culture and social character of the community. Residential uses will generate increased
revenue from the Real Estate Transfer Tax. The overall mixed -use orientation of the project, grounded
with a rich retail environment, will create a new sense of place, energy, and identity for the community.
The multi -use events plaza will increase the ability to hold outdoor cultural events. New restaurants and
shops will enhance the social environment within the community and give visitors and locals more
interesting and diverse choices to keep or bring them to Avon, and energize the community economically,
culturally, and socially. The Conference Center will serve as a year round magnet for visitors. The
Applicant believes these benefits far outweigh any potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed
zoning. The Applicant has requested the Town's partnership in the project by the inclusion of Town -
owned land in the project and 'buy in' to the requested zoning change based on conformity to the
governing Town documents.
❖ The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the
development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources and increasing the amount of
public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents.
The flexibility that will be afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in the roadway and
development pattern that is outlined and described in the Comprehensive Plan — a `vertical' mixed use
project that functionally extends West Main Street into East Avon. This is understood at the onset to be a
much better siting of the development rather than the present day condition. The public benefits of the
project are very consistent with the community master plan documents. Avon 21 will assist the Town in
taking a significant step forward toward redeveloping a High Priority District, and implementing a key
element, the 'Main Street,' as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Great care and thought has been
taken to study multiple development possibilities for the sites and to arrive at the solution that results in
the greatest public and private benefit.
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 22 of 23
2/6/2008
13. Description of the proposed development standards.
The development standards for the proposed PUD will be established by the Town Council and Applicant as part
of the review and approval process.
D. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY CHARTS
Several development charts are attached with this narrative in 11 x 17 format, and as information reference in the
body of this narrative. These charts are submitted as part of the Application Materials submitted by the Applicant
in association with the PUD and Subdivision Applications.
E. through L.
Additional application Materials provided in support of this PUD and Subdivision Application are provided under
separate cover as listed on the transmittal for the application dated February 6, 2008
-- END OF DOCUMENT --
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 23 of 23
3/5/2008
COMPLETE ZONING ANALYSIS - 17.20.110(D) AVON TOWN CODE
Please refer to attached Preliminary Development Summary Matrix for complete breakdown of areas, unit
quantity and types, parking calculations, and gross floor area totals.
Existing Conditions Analysis
Lots and parcels included in Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision:
Lot 21, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek - 0.928 acres
Lot 65-A the Annex at Avon* - 0.613 acres
Lot 65-B the Annex at Avon - 1.496 acres
Tract Q Benchmark at Beaver Creek - 2.131 acres
Tract R Benchmark at Beaver Creek - 0.060 acres
Parcel No. TK-3* - 0.256 acres
* Denotes parcels owned by the Town of Avon included in PUD / Subdivision Application
Total Area (all land) =
EAH LLC owned land =
Town owned land =
5.484 acres
4.615 acres
0.869 acres
Town Center (TC) Zoning Designation
Development Standards:
Minimum Lot Size: 30,000 sf
Maximum Building Height: 80'
Minimum Building Setbacks: 25' front, 7.5' side, 10' rear
Maximum Site Coverage: 50% Lot Coverage
Minimum Landscaped Area: 20%
Maximum Density: 30 dwelling units per acre of buildable area or 90 accommodation units per acre
Maximum Allowable Development Rights (Parcels in EAH LLC Ownership only):
Site Coverage: 2.308 acres (or 100,536 sf)
Gross Floor Area: 603,087 sf (6 stories at 50% Site Coverage)
Density: (138) dwelling units OR (414) accommodation units
Current Land Uses:
Retail Shops; Professional Offices; Personal Service Shop; Restaurants; Cocktail Lounges; Medical Center
Current Land Use / Density Breakdown
Lot 21: 14,314 sf Gross Floor Area (7,386 sf Retail, 6,928 sf Office)
Lot 65B: 13,940 sf Gross Floor Area (11,540 sf Retail, 2,400 sf Office)
Tract Q: 24,521 sf Gross Floor Area (6,824 sf Retail, 6,479 sf Office, and 11,218 sf Restaurant)
Total All (3) Parcels: 52,775 sf Gross Floor Area (25,750 sf Retail, 15,807 sf Office, 11,218 sf Restaurant)
No residential or lodging present (no density of dwelling or accommodation units is present).
Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision Application
Page 9 of 23
3/5/2008
Proposed Conditions Analysis
Lots resulting from Avon 21 PUD / Subdivision:
Lot 1 East (1.104 acres)
Lot 2 North (1.515 acres)
Lot 3 South (1.935 acres)
Lot 4 Main Street Right of Way* (0.868 acres)
* To remain under Town of Avon ownership
Total Area (all parcels) = 5.484 acres
EAH LLC Parcels = 4.615 acres
Town Parcels = 0.869 acres
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning Designation
Site Development Standards:
Minimum Lot Size: Not applicable.
Maximum Building Height: 110'
Minimum Building Setbacks: varies, close to zero lot line in some cases.
Maximum Site Coverage: 3.260 acres (59% of Total PUD Area)
Open Space: 2.164 acres (41% of Total PUD Area)
impervious Open Space: TBD (Main Street, Other Streets, Sidewalks, Hardscape Plaza)
Pervious Open Space: TBD (Lawn areas / Planting areas)
Structured Open Space: TBD (Outdoor Terraces / Patios within Site Coverage)
Proposed Gross Floor Area: 865,012 sf above grade
Maximum Density: 50 dwelling units / acre
Maximum Allowable Development Rights if applying straight TC Zoning Designations
Site Coverage: 50%
Gross Floor Area: 603,087 sf (6 stories at 50% Site Coverage)
Density: (138) dwelling units OR (414) accommodation units
Maximum Density: 30 dwelling units per acre of buildable area or 90 accommodation units per acre
Employee Housing Calculation
Applicant proposes Professional Housing scheme geared to keep professional employees living in Avon year
round and permanently.
Parking Calculation
Please refer to the attached Preliminary Development Summary — Full Build Out chart for parking calculations.
Avon 21 PUP / Subdivision Application
Page 10 of23
EAGLE RIVER
aNWAIVWATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
846 Forest Road • Vail, Colorado 81657
(970) 476-7480 • FAX (970) 476-4089
June 04, 2008
Mr. Matt Gennett
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Subject: Approval Process for Avon 21 Development
Dear Mr. Gennett,
As you are aware, sewer service in the Town of Avon is provided by the Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District (District), and water service is provided by the Upper Eagle
Regional Water Authority (Authority). Both the District and the Authority have adopted
the same Rules and Regulations. The District operates the Authority's water system
under contract, and is responsible for administration of rules and regulations for both the
District and Authority. Developments receiving District or Authority water or sewer
service are required to be included within the District and/or Authority boundaries and
the owners of proposed developments (Applicants) must obtain approval from the
District prior to connection to the public water and sewer systems. The approval process
includes the following elements:
Water
1. Dedication of adequate water rights.
2. Payment of applicable fees (treated water storage, plant investment, tap, etc.)
3. Evaluation of existing water distribution infrastructure with respect to the
hydraulic requirements of the proposed development.
4. Evaluation of drinking water plant capacity and impact the proposed development
will have on plant capacity.
5. Construction acceptance of proposed system modifications and/or extensions.
Wastewater
6. Evaluation of existing conveyance infrastructure with respect to the hydraulic
requirements of the proposed development
7. Evaluation of wastewater treatment plant capacity and impact the proposed
development will have on plant capacity.
8. Construction acceptance of proposed system modifications and/or extensions.
Senior Management Staff from the Town and District have been working on the mutual
areas of concern in a collaborative effort to determine our common needs and
requirements to service our constituents.
Ns,
WATER, WASTEWATER, OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT SERVICES
In order to evaluate the impacts of proposed development on water and sewer
infrastructure, as well and the adequacy of water rights dedication, the Applicant is
required to submit the following:
1. Legal description of property
2. Vicinity map
3. Description of proposed land use including number of dwelling units (with square
footages)
4. Square footage of commercial space and square footage of irrigated area
5. Proposed water rights dedication (physical or cash -in -lieu)
6. Completed water demand worksheet
7. Description of proposed water and sewer service plan
The plans and specifications for the proposed infrastructure connection and extension to
the existing public system must receive Construction Plan Approval from the District's
Construction Review Team prior to the beginning of construction. Construction Plan
Approval will not be granted until inclusion and water rights issues have been resolved.
New development may be subject to tap fees and plant investment fees in accordance
with Appendix A of the District's Rules and Regulations and may be subject to treated
water storage fees per the District's Rules and Regulations (Article 5.1.6).
Please feel free to contact me at any time during this approval process with questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
4111.sz. 1614g,
Fred S. Haslee
Regulations Administrator
Cc Dennis Gelvin
Linn Brooks
Andy Strehler
Project File
CD
(7)
01
(7)
O
900Z,feVJ :area wjoj
;e mean Ja;ema;seM
m
y
O
z
O
Project Name: Avon 21 - EAH, LLC
O
CD
O
6
CD
0
3
0
cD
N
Q
m
90
cn O
0 =
m
0 cm
-O m
m m
I 7J O
D
11-'`D
CD Z
oea ' m
� C
m a- XI
CD-D..m
3 E
m
ow -Z+
o
C)
z
r
m
c
Avon
Department of Transportation
To: Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer
Eric Heidemann, Assistant Town Manager Community Development
From: Jennifer Strehler, Director of Public Works and Transportation
Date: May 28, 2008
Re: Response to Letter Dated April 21, 2008 from VAg, Inc on behalf of
Orion Development
Comments were provided by the Departments of Public Works and Transportation on the original
project submittal in February 2008 with respect to street design layout and the associated
operation and maintenance aspects. The following comments continue to require an acceptable
response from the Applicant in a subsequent submittal:
1. BUS PULLOUTS -Currently the Town owns two bus stops on East Benchmark Road (1
currently in use on the west side of Benchmark and 1 on the opposite side in reserve for
the future). Both of these stops must be replaced on the new Main St. located within
the Applicant's project area. The Applicant's suggestion that riders are to cross Avon
Road or walk to the City Market stop are unacceptable. The Town will be implementing
dual -directional service down this portion of Main St. when the project is completed.
The Applicant must provide a site plan showing bus pull-outs which conform to the
Town's design requirements (e.g., for 40 -foot long buses). Contact the Department of
Transportation for more information.
2. TRAFFIC STUDY — A traffic study is required. This should show volumes, stacking,
turning movements, pedestrian traffic, and identify the need for turn pockets and cross
walks.
3. SNOW STORAGE - Snow storage must be provided within the project limits sufficient to
accommodate the square footage of the areas to be snow plowed. The Applicant must
provide a site plan showing a minimum of 10 feet on either side of Main St. for snow
storage.
The Applicant must provide a revised site plan and traffic study demonstrating that these basic
operational features of the streetscape are included in the project.
EAGLE RIVER
miliffriVKWATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
846 Fores! Road • Vail, Colorado 81657
(970) 476-7480 • FAX (970) 476-4089
March 25, 2008
Mr. Pedro Campos
VAg, Inc.
P.O. Box 1734
Avon, CO 81620
Subject: Inclusion of Avon 21 Project, Avon, Eagle County
Dear Mr. Campos:
The above -referenced property is located within the boundaries of the Eagle River Water
& Sanitation District for sewer service, within the boundaries of the Upper Eagle .
Regional Water Authority for water service and is within a subdivision currently being
served by the District/Authority.
Approved infrastructure is currently in place in this subdivision. The owner of the
property may connect and receive service provided that all applicable documents have
been submitted and fees due paid in full. If existing infrastructure is not adequate to
convey water to and wastewater from the proposed development, the developer may be
required to contribute to off -site infrastructure upgrades.
Because square footage on this project is proposed to exceed currently developed square
footage, the developer will likely be required to dedicate additional water rights to the
Authority before the Authority can supply the full amount of water required by the
project. Additionally, inclusion into the District/Authority does not necessarily mean that
all water rights, treated water storage, water and sewer fees associated with the project
have been paid.
Sincerely,
Fred Haslee, Regulations Administrator, ERWSD
cc: Customer Service File No. 01098000
Andy Strehler
FSH/mep
F:\15WSD18Regs\Forms\InclusionLetter08\Avon21Project.doc
WATER. WAST'c.. TER, O0ERA'ICNS & MANAGEMENT ' iE T SERVICES
Ccomc:ast.
March 4, 2008
E.A.H., LLC.
Attn: Brian Judge
PO Box 1734
Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: Avon 21
Avon, Colorado
Dear Brian:
Please accept this letter as confirmation of Comcast of Colorado/Florida, Inc.'s ability to
provide cable service to the captioned location. The provision of service is contingent
upon successful negotiations of an agreement between the developer and Comcast
Cable.
Should you require additional information, please contact Michael Johnson at 970-205-
5432 or mobile at 970-930-4713.
Sincerely,
Michael Johnson
Sr. Construction Professional
Colorado Market
This letter is not intended to give rise to binding obligations for either party. Any contractual relationship between the parties will be
the result of formal negotiations and will only become effective upon execution of the contract by representatives of the parties
authorized to enter into such agreements. During any negotiations, each party will bear its own costs and will not be responsible for
any costs or expenses of the other party, unless separately agreed to in writing.
MAR
March 5, 2008
Mr. Paul Anderson, PE
Marcin Engineering, LLC
PO Box 1062
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Avon 21 - Electric System
Dear Mr. Anderson:
3799 HIGHWAY 82 • PO BOX 2150
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
(970) 945-5491 • FAX (970) 945.4081
The above mentioned development is within the certificated service area of Holy Cross Energy.
Holy Cross Energy has existing power facilities located on or near the above mentioned project.
These existing facilities have adequate capacity to provide electric power to thedevelopment,
subject to the tariffs, rules and regulations on file. Any power line enlargements, relocations,
and new extensions necessary to deliver adequate power to and within the development will be
undertaken by Holy Cross Energy upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and
subject to necessary governmental approvals.
Please advise when you wish to proceed with the development of the electric system for this
project.
Sincerely,
HOLY CROSS ENERGY
Rex O. Berens,
Engineering Department
Rberens@holycross.com
(970) 947-5444
RB:vw
Enclosure
cc: E A.N. LLC
Attn Brian Judge
PO Box 1734
Vail, CO 81658
bes ens \Anderson
A 'fcolt: rsrone Energy' Ca :naive ?(.
Sam Tooley
Senior Design Engineer
591 Center Circle
PO Box 739
Silverthome, CO 80498
Paul Anderson, P.E.
MARCIN ENGINEERING, LLC
101 Eagle Rd. #5
PO Box 1062
Avon, CO 81620
1/23/08
REF: Project known as "Avon 21"
Dear Paul:
Spirit of Service
Qwest does have the capacity and we do intend to provide telephone service to the above
referenced property.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 970-468-6860 or
Samuel.tooley@gwest.com.
Sincere
y,
Sam Tooley
Qwest Senior Design Engineer
Z d 1ZE00000SL'oN/bS:t '1S,SS:L 8OOZ bZ M1/W(NOW) Zt6O80VOL6 3NLOH12l3A-IIS 1S3MO WO2ld
Xcel Energy
Post Office Box 1819
Silverthome. Colorado 80498
March 5, 2008
Marcin Engineering LLC
Attn: Paul Anderson
Post Office Box 1062
Avon, Colorado 81620
Re: Will serve letter for Avon 21
Dear Mr. Anderson.
In accordance with our tariffs filed with and approved by the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission, Gas facilities can be made available to serve your project known as Avgn.. 21,
located on Benchmark Road in Avon, Colorado.
Service will be providedafter engineering is completed, payment is received, any easements are
signed and construction can be completed. We will have better information available after design
has been completed as to a scheduled in-service date.
If l can be of further assistance, please contact me at 970-262-4024.
Sincere.y,
Kathryn Bo'gertl lanner
Design Department/Mountain Division
Cc: E. A. LLC
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO: Whom it May Concern
You are hereby notified pursuant to provisions of Section 17.12.100 of the Avon Municipal Code, that a Public
Hearing on applications for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and concurrent Preliminary Plan for
Subdivision (PUD08001 & SNW08004) will be held and considered at the regular meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, on June 3. 2008 at 5:30 PM in the Avon Municipal Complex, 400
Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado, at which time and place you are hereby invited to be present and be heard.
PROPERTY OWNER:
_ APPLICANT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PUD:
DEADLINE:
PUBLIC REVIEW:
E.A.H., LLC
90 Benchmark Road, Suite 202
Avon, CO 81620
(970) 949.7034
Pedro Campos
Vail Architecture Group
P.O. Box 1734
Vail, CO 81658
(970) 949.7034
Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract TK-3, Benchmark at
Beaver Creek Subdivision & The Annex
The Avon 21 Planned Unit Development (PUD) is
proposed to be a phased, dense mixed -use
development with a realignment of Benchmark Road
to serve as the continuation of Main Street; and
concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision
application for a proposed development site
consisting of the properties listed above.
If you wish to be heard on this matter, you may
appear personally or by designated agent at the -public
hearing on June 3. 2008. OR you may file a written
statement with the Recording Secretary, Town of
Avon, P.O. Box 975, Avon, Colorado 81620. In
order to be considered by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, such written statement must be received
in the Town offices no later than 4:00 PM, Tuesday,
June 3.2008.
Copies of the applications are available for review by
the public in the Community Development Office
during regular business hours. For further
information, call (970) 748.4030.
POSTED AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON:
• AVON MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
• AVON RECREATION CENTER
• AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY
• ALPINE BANK
Mailed and posted on 05/12/08 by The Community Development Dept
MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC
February 6, 2008
Matthew Gennett, AICP
Planning Manager, Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
400 Benchmark Road
Avon, CO 81620
RE: East Avon Center
Preliminary Design Letter
Dear Matthew:
The following letter has been prepared on behalf of the E.A.H., LLC, the developer of the East
Avon Center project. Marcin Engineering has prepared a set of preliminary drawings intended to
show that the project will function in following areas:
• East Benchmark Roadway Realignment and Layout
• Horizontal Site Layout
• Grading and Drainage
• Utilities
East Benchmark Road Realignment and Horizontal Site Layout:
The realignment of East Benchmark Road is an important part of this project and a vital part of
the Town of Avon's East Town Center. East Benchmark Road will essentially become East
Main Street and align with West Main Street The road alignment conforms with the Town's
current Comprehensive Plan (updated 2004) and is consistent with concepts set forth in the Draft
East Town Center District Plan (issued July 2007). There will be directional 45 degree parking
along the new roadway on the east and west end of the project. The westerly end of the road
comes off of the existing roundabout #4. The project team is proposing to leave the existing
island at the east side of the roundabout, as this fairly new construction will still function with
the intended use of the proposed East Main Street. Traveling southeast from the roundabout, the
existing driveway to the north that services the "Boat Building" parking lot and garage entrance
will be maintained to function as it currently exists. This driveway is the northwesterly boundary
of the East Avon Center project. The asphalt and easterly side of the drive will most likely be
replaced during the construction process of the proposed Lot 2 (reference drawing Sheet CX.X )
and corresponding utilities. Next on the new East Main Street will be two entrances to the front
entryway of the south building on Lot 3. Also, on the south side of the road there will be a
parking garage entrance to the northeast corner of the south building. The east side of the
proposed East Main Street will tie back into the existing East Benchmark Road. This will be a
four-way intersection that functions as follows:
PO Box 1062, Avon Colorado 81620 (970) 748-0274
1. To the west will be the new East Main Street as previously described.
2. To the north will be the existing East Benchmark Road: this roadway will
be partially reconstructed during the vertical construction process of east
building on Lot 1.
3. To the east will be the existing driveway and parking lot of Chapel Square.
The existing driveway to Chapel Square is slightly misaligned with the
new East Main Street. The project team seeks to coordinate a better
alignment with the Town Staff. It is our understanding that this may
someday be a continuation of East Main Street and it makes sense that the
alignment address the new portion of East Main Street.
4. To the south, the existing alley access for Chapel Square will be
maintained. There will need to be some minor paving and curb additions
to redirect the traffic where there is currently the intersection with East
Benchmark Road.
East Benchmark Road realignment is most certainly the primary road improvement in the
proposed project. To access the west building, a driveway is being added off of the alley just
east of the Boat Building. To access the east building and the plaza between the east and west
buildings, a driveway is being added off of Beaver Creek Place. As previously mentioned,
during the construction of the buildings and the necessary utility improvements, the surrounding
roads and curbs will likely be replaced. The replacement of this flatwork (including sidewalks,
curb and gutter and asphalt) will tie the new construction in with the existing roadways, creating
a smooth transition for an exciting pedestrian and vehicular area of Town.
Grading and Drainage:
Marcin Engineering will perform a complete drainage study for the proposed site with future
submittals. It is anticipated that since both the existing and proposed sites consist of nearly
100% impervious surfaces (primarily asphalt and buildings), there will be little, if any, storm
water detention required. The grading and drainage design will aim to follow historic drainage
patterns. The site generally slopes to the south and west towards Avon Road and the railroad
property. The design will pick up the storm water in intermediate catch basins throughout the
project, and route the water to the southwest. Currently, water exits the site area via a 36" storm
pipe. The drainage report will analyze this pipe to ensure that capacity is not exceeded and. if
required, will spec out new piping to handle the drainage.
The drainage report will size all necessary storm water inlets and piping throughout the project.
Surface drainage will be designed so as to sheet flow water away from all building structures at
2% minimum for paved surfaces and 10% for unpaved surfaces. The proposed East Main Street
drops approximately 6 vertical feet in 460 feet of run, sloping from the east towards the west.
This will result in an approximate 1.3% prevailing grade, which should provide adequate surface
drainage for asphalt and concrete materials.
PO Box 1062, Avon Colorado 81620 (970) 748-0274
All grading and drainage design will be in conformance with the Town of Avon requirements, as
well as any other jurisdictional authority rules and regulations. The attached sheets C1.01 to
C.1.10 include preliminary civil engineering design information including elevations throughout
the site.
Utilities:
A significant amount of coordination and design with the respective utility companies must be
performed. Basically, all of the existing utilities within the project site will need to abandoned,
removed and relocated around the proposed building structures. The proposed East Main Street
roadway will serve as the main utility corridor to bring utilities from the Avon Road corridor
through the project. Utilities that currently run through the proposed buildings will be rerouted
outside of the building footprints to run underneath either the sidewalks or asphalt roadways. On
the south side of the south building, utilities will be rerouted along the railroad ROW for a short
distance around the proposed building. The proposed project does not anticipate a requirement
for additional Single Family Equivalents (SFE's) since the density proposed complies with the
underlying zone district. Therefore, additional water rights will not be required. It is anticipated
that the water and sewer will both be tied into the existing mainlines surrounding the project.
Again, Marcin Engineering will go to great lengths to coordinate with all of the appropriate
utility companies to determine sizing and location of the proposed lines.
Coordination will also be made to reroute the existing irrigation channel around the proposed
buildings.
Preliminary Plat:
A Preliminary Plat has been prepared for the project reflecting both the existing and proposed
conditions. The existing overall project parcel consists of six separate properties: Tract Q, Tract
R & Lot 21, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek; Lot 65-A and Lot 65-B of The Annex at
Avon; and a tract known as Parcel No. TK-3, which was created out of Tract Q through court
proceedings in 1991. Lot 65-A and Parcel No. TK-3 are owned by the Town of Avon, and the
other three properties are owned by the East Avon Holding partners. The private parcels all
contain existing development in the form of commercial/retail structures, and the parcels owned
by the Town contain part of the existing location of East Benchmark Road. As shown on Sheet
2 of the Preliminary Plat, there are a considerable number of platted and recorded easements
affecting the overall property. These existing easements primarily serve the existing
development pattern on the subject site and to some extent the adjacent lots. The proposed
redevelopment calls for the vacation of all existing easements in favor of new easements which
will be created to specifically serve the needs of the new project. In cases where current
easements also provide service to adjacent or "downstream" parcels, the newly created
easements will be designed to continue existing or improved levels of service. As noted
previously, the East Benchmark Road right-of-way will be routed through the approximate
center of the subject property in the location designated by the East Town Center plan. The new
subdivision plan will create three separate lots, two north of the new road alignment and the third
to the south. Lot I on the Preliminary Plat is anticipated to be Phase I of the project
development.
PO Box 1062, Avon Colorado 81620 (970) 748-0274
If you have any questions regarding the information submitted by Marcin Engineering, please do
not hesitate to call me at (970) 748-0274.
Respectfully Submitted,
MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC
Paul Anderson, P.E.
PO Box 1062, Avon Colorado 81620 (970) 748-0274
Confirmation Report —Memory Send
Time : May -07-2008 01:10pm
Tel line : 9709495749
Name : TOWN OF AVON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Job number
Date
To
Document pages
Start time
End time
Pages sent
Status
Job number
: 506
: May -07 01:10pm
: 9498134
: 001
. May -07 01:10pm
. May -07 01:10pm
: 001
: OK
: 506 *** SEND SUCCESSFUL ***
CD IFJF'ff CD _1E,
Ina eram CD
AVON
G O L. OR -ADO
To: Pedro Campos. Senior Land Planner. VAg
Via Facsim Ile: 949-8134
From; Matthew R_ Gannett, AICP, Planning Manager
iDala May 7, 2008
fRo: Completeness Letter for the PUD Amendment and Preliminary
Subdivision Applications (SNW08004 8. PUI308001)
"Avon 21": Lots 21, 65A, 656, Tract TK-3, ISMBC 8. The. Annex
Pedro:
The aforementioned applications for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and
Preliminary Plan for Subdivision have been found substantively complete by the
Community Development and Engineering Departments of the Town of Avon.
If you haves any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact me directly at
748-4002.
Regards,
Matthew R. Gannett, AICP
Planning Manager
Town of Avon
Cc: Flle (SNW08004 8, PUD08001)
F:\000704.00Op,.001EXfee'. aIV.Van✓Wsp1COmPbro/+oiNSsWvw.2'l 08070a
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into between the
TOWN OF AVON ("the Town"), a municipal corporation, and EAH, LLC.
RECITALS
EAH, LLC has purchased four parcels in East Avon: Lot 21; Lot 65B; and Tracts Q
& R, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. It is the desire of EAH, LLC to develop these properties in
conjunction with two properties owned by the Town of Avon (Lot 65A and parcel No. TK-3).
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES
1. EAH, LLC may file an application for approval of a zoning amendment to PUD
or other zoning. That application will be processed by the Town in the normal course, pursuant to
provisions of the Avon Municipal Code, as amended.
2. At the same time, the parties may enter into negotiation of a Development
Agreement, which negotiations will take into consideration the input of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the Town Council and the public. An agreement will not be entered into unless and
until the Town Council adopts an ordinance for approval of the zoning amendment.
3. EAR, LLC will reimburse the Town all costs incurred by the Town in association
with the above, including but not limited to legal fees charged by the Town Attorney and outside
counsel, outside engineering fees and charges for financial modeling.
TOWN OF AVON
EAH, LLC
By:
Date
Date
k-4//LLB �L/TYja►�lzco���rn�r��
Memorandum
To: Paul Anderson. P.E., Marcin Engineering, LLC
From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD
Date: 3/20/2008
Re: Avon 21, preliminary site review
I received your e-mail with a site plan and a request for a letter from the fire
department. In addition, I met with VAG last week and was given a detailed over
view of the project.
Fire protection and emergency response was reviewed with the conclusion that there
were no "red flags" that might prevent the project from moving forward. I did note
that radio amplification would probably be required so that emergency responders
could communicate within the structures.
Please give me a call at 970-748-4741 if there are any additional questions or
concerns.
1
April 4, 2008
Mr. Pedro Campos
VAg, Inc.
PO Box 1734
Vail, Colorado 81658-1734
Htpwo rh-Pawclak Geotechnical. Inc.
1O02 South Pro.rss Wav
Parker. ( 1, wadi, 8013-I
Plume: 303441-7119
Fax: 303441-7556
entail: hmtea2O11pge rech.c nt
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Commercial Development
Project, 182 Avon Road, 142 Beaver Creek Place, and 82 Beaver Creek Boulevard,
Avon, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Campos:
H -P Geotech is in the process of completing a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study for
the above referenced project. As, we understand the project, it is proposed to redevelop a 4.85 -
acre site located just east of the intersection of Avon Road and East Benchmark Road in Avon,
Colorado. Preliminary plans indicate the proposed development will consist of three 6 to 8 -story
retail, commercial and residential buildings. Currently, two levels of below grade parking are
planned for the structures.
The field investigation is complete and laboratory testing is in process. The materials
encountered in the borings generally consisted of about 10 feet of fill overlying dense sand and
gravel with cobbles to depths of about 32 to 60 feet. Bedrock was encountered in one of the
borings, at a depth of 32 feet. Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 40 to 50 feet.
Spread footing foundations and slab on grade floors or pavement will be acceptable for this site.
The determination of the horizontal and lateral extent of the existing fill was beyond the scope of
this study. It is likely that fill is present at other areas on the site. Any existing fill and the
foundations from the existing structures may need to be removed and replaced with structural fill.
It is possible that the new foundations will extend deeper than the existing fill and any current
foundations.
Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, our review of the samples obtained, and the
proposed construction it is our opinion that there are no adverse geologic or geotechnical
conditions that would preclude construction of the proposed project.
If you have any questions or require any additional information concerning our proposed scope of
work, please call our office at 303-841-7119.
Respectfully submitted,
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Alan J. LisoP.E.
Office Manager
•
McNeil! Property Management, Inc.
2077 N. Frontage goad #300
Vail, CO 81657
Phone 970-479-6047 Fax 970-477-1147
tiomediasi
"The Communi Association M • r . ement Specialists°
May 27, 2008
Matthew Gennett, AICP
Planning Manager, Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
400 Benchmark Road
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Avon 21: East Avon Redevelopment
Chapel Square HOA Letter of Support
Dear Mr. Gennett:
On behalf of the Board of Directors for Chapel Square Homeowners Association,
Inc. and the impending review of the Avon 21 East Avon Redevelopment Project
("Project"), we would like to express our opinion that this Project will be a key
stimulant to revitalize the east side of town. The Project will be a step in the right
direction as far as realigning the streets to be more user friendly and the perfect
complement to the West Main Street project slated for construction in 2009. The
Board for Chapel Square is primarily focused on the long-awaited realignment of
East Benchmark Road and the addition of new retail and restaurants to create
the vitality this side of Town is seeking. The Chapel Square HOA Board does
request that the Town of Avon consider traffic staging plans and implementation
during the construction process in order to maintain smooth access from Avon
Road to the east side of Town.
Cordially,
Dan McNeil,
Chapel Square Property Manager
C
O
a)
.CD
.C
0
D)
C
U)
0
N
.Q
CC
C
N
C
0
MttM0NI-CD
O 00 Tr. O CA O) CO
>. Q) � - Lc) CV CO
• O
E 0-
W E
O W
p. N
3
O O O
O O CO
U O O
Z I
CC • a Q
OOO00I•f�
8 (NMI,-000OO)
0 O C- V: co
CO O) N
N N M
CO
O--
0_10 O
E°)n
WE
N c
L
1- • O 0_
O (00000(0
O 'OOMcc0cc Tr M
O c) es) cc, co00 0
a- M
03 C
• O
F_ 0
C
0
N N
O O f6
•
0 CC
O O O
O v
M CC) M
0CO 0
M O
O 000000
0 0 0 0 0
• U1 g) CV VD
(O O V- O I's
O M V- N
N �.
(n
Co
C
_ z+ D
i U N
CO L L O
E EU
a) O. O al
>. 15 V m .C
I--�0 L (A
C 4) CD 0 O._.
DMCCOUc41
O O
CD • N C�)
> 0 .
• O
Wd
E
O W
p. N
2
la
2 2
O O CO
f)O O
3 �
O = 2
• a fl.
O
O)
O
CD 0
CO Y N O `-
J >. 0 O
0 L
al d C N
m W O CC
la
co
L
E C
E
Z
0
O)
O
O)
O
M
CC)
N
O
N
O
CO
O
N
O
0
(O
Ns -
CV
N
M
CO
M
U)
N
0)
c0
U)
0
73
C
O
U
O
m
1
O
m
co
N
CA
fO
0
15
7
H
W
U
Z
U
Z
W
O
O
W
i
W
0
(Source: Vag, Inc.)
Z_
J
5
m
V
z_
X
W
w
W
T
F-
W
U
J
W
oC
V
z
J
THREE NEW BU
a)
C
Existin • Bui • in
C
z
m CO
O�3Cto
dl m a-)
m O 1_
m
a)
C
Q
L I
CU
3N
O .,
I— O
1-+ l-
N) O
Cd (NI
m
CLFS
-C
U
-C r— V)
V N
4-J
m J V1
l —
F-
LU
U
Z
0
U
F-
cz
w
2
0
J
LU
LU
O
(Source Vag, Inc.)
L/1
I-
0
N
0
N
M
0
N
l'
0
i
0
Co
IIM
-
00
III
III
01
Lr1
N
01
L( m
N N
111 M
N
NI
M
00
i
N
I,
CO
MI
00
N
L n
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
L n
M
L n
0
u1
01
00
L t1
0 0 0 0 0 0
Hotel Condo
dl Ni L/
i. d- N
1 Bedroom
2/3 Bedroom
2/3 Bedroom TS
d-
M
Commercia
D
Z
J W
Q (1)
F- <
z
W W
WQ
�c
U I
Z
- w
� U
Oz
>-
Projects, and Water
U.
r
l
aj
L.)
Ln
O
ccs
I
O
OS
r -
CD
0
wA
00
O
0
4"
O
O
M
bet
rn
N 0
�— Ln
00 M
N N
Ln d. 4zo2t bet
O
00
O
M
r- M
M I�
00 M
01 Ln
Y 1 �
bet bet
$10,825,302
00
N
Ln
Ln
Ln N. r --
r-- 0O 01
01 • M
V 00 V
r*". gr I.
N
bet bet bet
U u
O 0
0
"a M V
Li. LI. L 1
_ of _ of a W
cL 2 a 2 a _ oC
V L V to v
• c
cm cm a c
Wes
Um as=
Water Fund
* Does not include approx. $520,000 of RETT from purchase of three properties
L
a)
z-rtS
= w
(n
LL
Q< v)
40
zoo
W z -o
WLLI
U •
Z � rzs
� u
O I (L2
>-'J' w (7)
Q V v
Zc c
Q
co V
0
I
O
0:4-
0
N
0
N
0
0
0
4-I
re
C
C
b
N
Ln-
b4
00
rn
CO
bR
CD
rn
bet
00
N
bet
($2,831,862)
rn
C31
C0
r --
bet
L(
co
rn
bet
0
N.
bet
00
00
M
L( CO
L
bet b4
U U
0 O
ek) IA
0 0 u
M M 'D'Dr"'
LL U-
_ Vf _ Vf a LLd
c0 CU (C -1w _ oC
L u L u r v
C
C cd C M a C
Vm Vm Uti
Water Fund
NCREMENTAL FUND
a)
•
O
1. -
CL
4-0
(15
udina Genera
U
Ln
O
N
O
O
N
0
a--+
0
m
u_
Ln
Ol 00
M 0O r-
A w w '
' \ L 1
M
01 CO 01 L11
UI
bet bet bet
LO
lfl
M
bet
r -
M
N
424,
L1
O
N
$10,949,967
N
00
r- M
o6 d'
mot'
.get bet
u u
O 0
CR
O O —
M D r-
LL LL
H of W
U i u co
W C a) C -j
Vm Vm cc
Water Fund
CD
rn
q)
rti
u
u
O
0
LL
@.)
a)
O
a)
a)
N
DC
a)
4J
a)
a)
Len N. 0 m d'
00 M 00 0 N 111
11 N N. 00 - 0 N. lfl
'qrLri 00 cfl Lri L
u1 - m N. 1- N. 00 N
▪ M N O1 1- u-
111 r- N
b9 b4 , H4 bet 64 V) 6�
C C C I C I I C
C C C 4) C 4) 4) C
N
C
a)
E
a)
L
O
E
GJ
E
O
V
a)
Sales Tax Revs Above Existing Base of $427,000
Property Tax Revs (Based on AV of $25.87 M)
4-
O
a)
V
CL
a)
ett
V
3
1L
u
W
vi
a)
ett
ctt
C
Vf
a)
DC J
RETT Revs (Secondary Sales)
Water Tap Fees
Construction Permits
Timeshare Amenities Fees
SUMMARY OF INCREMENTAL GENERAL
FUND OPERATING EXPENDITURES
4-t
O
m
L1_
N
a)
W
L
O
a),
x
W
Y
CCI
CU
O
C
U-
cCS
L
CJJ
4J
V
ncrementa
O
Source. Assum
c
a)
E
.1
as
a)
13 Mills X Assessed Value
a)
u
O
a.
C
tt
N
Cl.) L-
"0
W W
N
a) N
Ea)
0
N
N O
Q
o y
i OL
N
L
O •-
0.
d
0
C
O
E
u
O 4.-i
tv
aJ Q
s o0
Cl.)
C =
4..0- Ln
+
N "a O
L
u
C a) r"
a) Q p
Public Works
a)
N
a)
s
a O a)
o o 5
15oE
-a o OL
Q N L
Ln 4.0 N
00s as
+.+ L
a z• ° E
L.
6 o
a
▪ 0 —
L s >,
O "_ • u
0.• W tai
U N
LO O
a bA O
C 20.x. 70: +L-'
o a°2
H RS C
4-0 NI
U C
CU O
a>
X Q
as o
N
O 0
L
U a
O
N
ii -
111
Transit System
N
C
Ill
I-
tz
vi
L
O
a
a
W
U
O
a
V.
C
a!
E
C
W
15
O
u
4-
0
O
Ln
r:
Ln
N
0
u
)
N
N
L!
rn
I.
00
C
O
RS
l -
V)
C
E
Q
V;
�
> _
E
cu L-
O CO
a
E D
E 5
O N
O iv
• LIT
4C -a
a) cu
E rd
C c
s�
N O
N Ln
N N.
fii
N E
4
O
Community Dev.
LA
E
a)
a
C
cd
N
4-
a)
rl
L
o)
0
off°
Ln
N
s
W
E
N
fxr
Ln
LL
POTENTIAL METRO DISTRICT
H
U
U
V
Z
D
>-•
Z
O
m
L n
4-0
•
4-0
O
■ Residential
Ln
N
u
O
■ Commercia
ssues Bonds
O
4-0
a)
0
V)
V)
0
0
0
L n
0
U
cd
a)
2
N
0-
cs
■
L
s
u
rd
a) Q
L 3
o s
a 0
L
LL
Tts Ed
a)
a)
ca
0
O 0
Lel
0
o
0
O
a)
L
a --r
c0O. ES
A 2
•
■
N
a--+
O
U
in amount of $7,860,000 could be
0
▪ o
� O
O-8
c▪ zi
a)
c
F--
4-4
ai "
Co
J �
• V)
>-
F-
U
Q
a
Q
U
U
z
a
z
O
Ca
o
ON E a = c p 0
4.- O O a " -O
O U a) _a a a_ c
O
O > +�, SO
ctS v)
O
u = O .0
a) u o
> v = a u
>, }; �.E - u.�
c 00a,
U W
E O i-- c 4-Jp
L.) O O
O X a u a▪ )
� E 4-1 o o O2
1:3.a=aS
aJ .E •E Q fV
_O o a a) O X O CC 0
O
a Ln O
u c >
• vi 2 4 0- o `O Q
E - 4.•J
Cl. J 4-
a) N . CT
= -C
4E1 �1 Q Q c >. o L
Al a✓
W _ Li -v)
�1 �
u a i i . O c
O 4-
. >.O S 0 a--+
4-1
4--0 0 A O .hEi 2 1:1 A Lu (pc
ci= as = ad O Liu'
> � 2 Q : � •
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Financial Planners and Consultants
For Local Governments, Municipal Bond Underwriters, and Real Estate Developers
8400 East Prentice Avenue, Penthouse
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
Telephone: 303-409-7611, Fax: 303-409-7612; Email: stanplan@earthlink.net
June 16, 2008
Avon 21 Developers
Mr. Larry Brooks, Town of Avon
Mr. Scott Wright, Town of Avon
Mr. Eric Heidemann, Town of Avon
Mr. Matt Gennett. Town of Avon
(Sent Via Email)
RE: AVON 21 PRELIMINARY URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY AND TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN (AVON 21 PROJECT ONLY) — Draft 2
Gentlemen:
Attached is draft 2 Financing Plan for a hypothetical Avon 21 Property Tax Increment
Revenue Bond issue, dated January 1, 2013, in amount of $15.0 million netting $11.8
million in construction funds, or funds which could be used to reimburse the Developers
of the Avon 21 PUD for related infrastructure costs. This draft is very preliminary and is
being circulated to stimulate thinking with respect to the concept of forming an Urban
Renewal Authority ("URA") whose boundaries would be coterminous with the Avon 21
Project.
URA and related Tax Increment Financings are very complex and subject to many
variables such as (i) the assessed valuation within the boundaries of the Tax Increment
District when the assessed valuation is "frozen" (which in this case would not be until
2012 or 2013 after the demolishment of The Annex Building); (ii) the total mill levies
certified by taxing entities overlapping the boundaries of the URA (which in this case
would be those mill levies certified in 2012 for tax collection year 2013); (iii) municipal
bond interest rates; and (iv) the completion dates, related land use, and price points of the
three buildings proposed by the current developers of the Avon 21 project. Obviously
many of these key variables, all which will determine the amount of Tax Increment
Revenue Bonds that could be supported by Property Tax Increment Revenues, will differ
from those assumed in this draft and such differences will likely result in more or less
Tax Increment Revenue Bonds being issued than the $15.0 million presented in this draft.
Consequently, the Town and the Developers should clearly review this draft in the
context that all of the key variables are likely to change from this date to 2013 when it
June 16, 2008
Page ii
appears that Tax Increment Revenue Bonds could first be issued, and there is no
assurance that on January 1, 2013 $11.8 million of net Tax Increment Revenue Bond
proceeds will be available.
This draft assumes a similar debt structure as the one used for the recently issued Series
2008 Town Center West URA Tax Increment Revenue Bonds (The "Series 2008
Bonds"). The Series 2008 Bonds were able to be marketed at very low interest rates
because the Town of Avon entered into a "Moral Obligation Pledge" with investors — this
Moral Obligation Pledge documents the Town of Avon's intent (but not legal
commitment) to replenish the Debt Service Reserve Fund (which is equivalent to one
year's estimated debt service payments on the Series 2008 Bonds). This draft assumes
the same type of Moral Obligation Pledge from the Town of Avon, which will be
dependent upon the vote of the Avon Town Council during 2012 or 2013. Without a
Moral Obligation Pledge the assumed interest rates (including annual fees) of 4.5%
would be much higher and would result in a much lower bond issue than the $15.0
million assumed (unless the Developer agreed to credit enhance the bonds, etc.).
Without a Developer supported Letter or Credit or a Moral Obligation Pledge it is
unlikely that all of the bonds could be issued at once — it would be more likely that there
would need to be two separate bond issues (i.e., one issue in 2013 or 2014 and the next
bond issue in 2016 and 2017).
Assuming a $15.0 million Tax Increment Revenue Bond issue scheduled to be issued on
January 1, 2013, the Town of Avon would likely have to agree to a Moral Obligation
Pledge to replenish, if needed, a Debt Service Reserve Fund in amount of $1,155,000 (we
have assumed 4.5% interest rates, including fees, for sizing this bond issue assuming a
Moral Obligation Pledge). If the Town did not want to assume this obligation, then the
timing of the bond issue (s) would likely have to be deferred until 2015 or 2016 when the
tax increment assessed valuation was officially certified.
Another option would be for the URA to collect the property tax increment revenues and
contribute them to the proposed Avon 21 Metropolitan District #1 — these transferred
property tax increment revenues could be used by Avon 21 Metropolitan District #1 to
support its own bonds.
June 16, 2008
Page iiI
Tax Increment Cash now, Exhibit I, Page 1
This Exhibit presents the projected incremental property tax revenues that could be used
to support the issuance by the URA of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds. We have had
several discussions with knowledgeable officials at the Eagle County Assessor's Office
concerning tax increment assessment procedures that would apply when buildings are
demolished within the boundaries of a tax increment area (once a tax increment area is
established, demolished properties will reduce the net incremental assessed valuation
(and not the "Frozen Base"). Consequently it would be prudent to not establish a tax
increment area until after the first building is demolished so that the loss of assessed
valuation from improvements relating to The Annex ($943,370) will reduce the "Frozen
Base" and not the incremental assessed valuation.
Row 9 presents the incremental assessed valuation from new construction only (which
excludes a 12% allowance for the value of the land) that could be generated by the Vail
21 Project. We have netted out the lost assessed valuations from the demolishment of the
Benchmark ($312,289) and Lot 21 ($1,031,777) properties.
Rows 11 — 23 present the overlapping taxing entities current year's mill levies and
projects the incremental property tax revenues that could be available to service debt on
tax increment revenue bonds issued by the URA. Similarly, these tax increment
revenues could also be simply transferred to the proposed Vail 21 Metropolitan District
#1 and used by that District to support the issuance of its own bonds. Another issue for
the Town of Avon to consider is the rebate (full or partial) of Town of Avon General
Fund Property Taxes by the URA.
The box on Rows 54 -59 indicates the following uses of funds for a hypothetical $15.0
million Property Tax Increment Revenue Bond issue with an assumed issuance date of
January 1, 2013.
Costs of Bond Issuance, Underwriters Discount @ 1.5%
Funding of Capitalized interest/fees through 12/31/15
Fund Debt Service Reserve Fund
Reimbursement to Developer for Construction
Total Bonds Issued
$ 225,000
1,838,725
1,155,000
11,781,275
15,000,000
Row 49 presents the excess cumulative tax increment property tax revenues that could be
available for a Town of Avon General Fund rebate, or used for other purposes.
June 16, 2008
Page iii
Developer's Land Use, Price Points, and Buildout Assumptions (and Related
Assessed Valuation) — Schedule 1, page 4, and Schedule 2, page 6
The Financing Plan is based upon a total of 353 residential units with a current average
value of approximately $725 per square foot according to the Developers) completed by
December 31, 2015 (as presented on Schedule 1, page 4); and 81,219 square feet of
commercial space (with a current market value of $283 per square foot) completed by
December 31, 2015 (as presented on Schedule 2, page 6). For preliminary financial
modeling purposes, we have not assumed any inflationary increases and we have
assumed a continuation of the current 7.96% residential assessment rate (i.e., it is
assumed that any loss of assessed valuation from a reduction of the residential assessment
rate will be offset by inflationary value increases). Based upon these assumptions
assessed valuation for residential Financing District #2 is projected to increase from
approximately $6,754,378 for tax collection year 2013 to in excess of $23.3 million in
2017 (once full-buildout is achieved). Assessed valuation for commercial Financing
District #3 is projected to increase from approximately $1,086,108 for tax collection year
2013 to in excess of $6.6 million for tax collection year 2017 (once full-buildout is
achieved).
Limitations and Disclaimer
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. has assembled this Financing Plan based upon
information provided by the Developers and has not independently evaluated these key
assumptions. Consequently, Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. does not vouch for the
achievability of the assumptions or the results projected on Exhibit I or on Schedules 1
and 2 and disclaims any opinion as to their reliability. It is likely that actual assumptions
and results will vary from those assumed and such variation could be material. For
example a small variation in the land use, price points, rate of inflation, overlapping mill
levies, and buildout (which is very common in any type of real estate development
project) can have a significant impact on assessed valuation and related property tax
revenues, and the amount, and timing, of the assumed bond issue.
Very truly yours,
Stan Bernstein (for the firm)
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Stan Bernstein, President
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Financial Planners and Consultants
For Local Governments, Municipal Bond Underwriters, and Real Estate Developers
8400 East Prentice Avenue, Penthouse
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
Telephone: 303-409-7611, Fax: 303-409-7612; Email: stanplan@earthlink.net
July 29, 2008
Avon 21 Developers
Mr. Larry Brooks, Town of Avon
Mr. Scott Wright, Town of Avon
Mr. Eric Heidemann, Town of Avon
Mr. Matt Gennett, Town of Avon
William Ankele, Esq., White, Bear and Ankele
(Sent Via Email)
RE: AVON 21 METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS #1 - #3— Draft 3
Gentlemen:
Attached is draft 3 Financing Plan for Avon 21 Metropolitan Districts #1 - #3. This draft
is still very preliminary and is being circulated to stimulate thinking with respect to key
assumptions which will form the basis of a Financing Plan that will be submitted, in
conjunction with the Service Plan, to the Town of Avon.
The concept is that a Control District ("Service District #1) will be responsible for all
District administration, operations (which is estimated to stabilize at approximately
$750,000 for plaza maintenance costs) and infrastructure management. A residential
Financing District ("Financing District #2") will include all residential property and levy
45.0 mills which will be transferred, pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement
("IGA"), to Service District #1 and used to pay for administrative and operational costs.
A commercial Financing District ("Financing District #3) will include all commercial
property and levy 25.0 mills of which will be transferred, pursuant to an IGA, to Service
District #1 and also used to pay for administrative and operational costs.
On a preliminary basis, based upon conversations with officials of the Town of Avon the
property tax revenues generated from 10.0 mills would be transferred on an annual basis
to the Town of Avon and used to fund transportation related services.
Because of the relatively large costs associated with maintaining the plaza ($750,000 has
been assumed once all three buildings have been constructed), this draft incorporates the
concept of an annual maintenance user fee per residential unit in amount of $1,500 which
would be used to fund approximately 70% of the assumed plaza maintenance costs.
July 29, 2008
Page ii
This draft indicates that once full-buildout has been achieved, the Districts could support
a bond issue in amount of $7,860,000 which would provide net bond proceeds of
approximately $7,545,600 — it is assumed that these net bond proceeds will be used to
reimburse the Developer for Capital Loans advanced to the Districts by the Developer..
This draft also indicates the need for substantial Developer operating advances totaling
$1,375,000 from years 2010 through 2014 until the tax base is established from the
completion of all three buildings.
There are currently approximately 58.748 mills levied on the property from other
governmental entities such as the Town of Avon, Eagle County, the School District, the
Fire Protection District , the Library District and other small districts. The assumed 45.0
residential Financing District #2 mill levy would result in a total overlapping mill levy for
residential property of approximately 103.748 mills (which would be identical to the
Confluence and Sheraton Mountain Vista mill levies). For a multi -family home with an
assumed value of $1,000,000 the 45.0 Financing District #2 mill levy would result in
annual property taxes of approximately $3,582 and total annual property taxes (including
the exiting 58.748 mills) of approximately $8,258 (0.83% of market value). The assumed
25.0 commercial Financing District #3 mill levy would result in a total overlapping mill
levy for commercial property of 83.748. For a commercial property valued at
$1,000,000 the 25 Financing District #3 mill levy would result in annual property taxes of
approximately $7,250 and total annual property taxes (including the existing 58.748
mills) of approximately $21,775 or approximately 2.18% of market value.
Developer's Land Use, Price Points, and Buildout Assumptions (and Related
Assessed Valuation) — Schedule 2, page 13, and Schedule 3, page 15
The Financing Plan is based upon a total of 353 residential units with a current average
value of approximately $820,000 (based on whole ownership market values of $725 per
square foot according to the Developers) completed by December 31, 2015 (as presented
on Schedule 2, page 13); and 81,218 square feet of commercial space (with a market
value of $283 per square foot) completed by December 31, 2015 as presented on
Schedule 3, page 15). For preliminary financial modeling purposes, we have assumed
inflationary increases of 3% every other year (the assessor reassesses property every
other year) for residential product and no inflation for commercial product. Based upon
these assumptions assessed valuation for residential Financing District #2 is projected to
increase from approximately $6,957,010 for tax collection year 2013 to in excess of •
$25.2 million in 2017 (once full-buildout is achieved). We have assumed that the Service
Plan will allow the mill levy to increase in direct proportion to any decrease in the current
7.96% residential assessment rate. Assessed valuation for commercial Financing District
#3 is projected to increase from its current level of approximately $3,826,211 to in excess
of $6.67 million for tax collection year 2017 (once full-buildout is achieved).
July 29, 2008
Page iii
Preliminary Estimated Limited Tax General Obligation Supported Revenue
Bonding Capacity — Schedule 1, page 4
The completion of residential (and commercial) product will result in increased assessed
valuation within the boundaries of the Financing Districts.
All of residential Financing District #2 45.0 mill levy and Financing District #3 25.0
mill levy will be required to be transferred to Service District #1 to pay for
administrative, operating , transportation related 10.0 mill property tax transfers to the
Town of Avon, and annual debt service related to Limited Tax Supported Revenue
Bonds issued by the District #1 on December 1, 2016 in the amount of $7,860,000.
This draft indicates that once full-buildout has been achieved, the Districts could support
a bond issue in amount of $7,860,000 which would provide net bond proceeds of
approximately $7,545,600 — it is assumed that these net bond proceeds will be used to
reimburse the Developer for Capital Loans advanced to the Districts by the Developer.
Interest rates of 6.00% have been assumed with 30 -year level amortization.
It is also possible that these bonds could be issued at an earlier date in the event that the
Developer provides credit enhancement.
Cash Flow Forecast — Service District # 1 General Fund— Exhibit I, page 1
Exhibit I demonstrates how administrative, operating, and transfers to the Town of Avon,
could be funded from the transfer of property tax revenues from Financing Districts #2
and #3, and from user fees generated from an assumed $1,500 annual user fee generated
from each residential living unit. Operating costs related to the plaza are assumed to be
$750,000 once all three buildings are completed. Administrative costs are assumed to be
$156,000 annually including a $25,000 contingency allowance. All costs are assumed to
increase 2% annually.
It is very common for Metropolitan Districts to rely on Developer Operating
Contributions until the property tax revenue base is large enough to support costs. This is
the case with Service District #1 — approximately $1,375,000 of total Developer
Operating Contributions are projected from 2010 through 2014.
July 29, 2008
Page iv
Cash Flow Forecast — Service District Capital Projects Fund — Exhibit IA, (this
Exhibit is not presented on this draft but will need to be developed in subsequent
drafts)
Exhibit IA demonstrates how approximately $ million of infrastructure costs (this
information needs to be provided by the Developer's engineers — your costs have been
inflated 3% annually) could be funded. Initial funding of all capital costs estimated to
be incurred from 2010 - 2018 are assumed to be funded from the Developer.
Cash Flow Forecast — Residential Financing District #2 — Exhibit II, page 9.
Exhibit II presents the property tax and specific ownership tax revenues (estimated to be
5% of property tax revenues) and the annual transfer of property tax revenues to Service
District #1. Eagle County Treasurer fees are estimated to be 3% of property tax
revenues, and minor administrative allowances are also presented.
Cash Flow Forecast — Commercial Financing District #3 — Exhibit III, page 13.
Exhibit III presents the property tax and specific ownership tax revenues (estimated to be
5% of property tax revenues) and the annual transfer of property tax revenues to Service
District #1. Eagle County Treasurer fees are estimated to be 3% of property tax
revenues, and minor administrative allowances are also presented
Limitations and Disclaimer
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. has assembled this Financing Plan based upon
information provided by the Developer (i.e., the proponent of the Districts). and has not
independently evaluated these key assumptions. Consequently, Stan Bernstein and
Associates, Inc. does not vouch for the achievability of the assumptions or the results
projected on Exhibits I - III or on Schedules 1 - 3 and disclaims any opinion as to their
reliability. It is likely that actual assumptions and results will vary from those assumed
and such variation could be material. For example a small variation in the land use,
price points, rate of inflation, and buildout (which is very common in any type of real
estate development project) can have a significant impact on assessed valuation and
related property tax revenues, as well as the amount of Developer Operating
Contributions projected.
Very truly yours,
Stan Bernstein (for the firm)
Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc.
Stan Bernstein, President
00
H J
M o
ow
0c.)0
j =40
Z W 2
Z IL J
IT -00
� 2
Z tl o
0‹,4
to
Ssew
o l- sa
W
F o W
o m W
D
z
tl
3 y a
r
k
N LL
F
OWW
>40
<(.111.
N
K
a.
Z
�W(
W
wo
mw
wg
K ?
0.
WO
85
o m
v
z
H LL
m
S Z
X<
O
III)
to
N
R
K a O1�0l1
00 JN
OW IN
no
N
C)
0
O N o K M
O O KIw 0N-0
ow
0-m
1O N V) O pQ' O nM
R Q O t") �'N n
m t0 Q
O) 0 N
a
10 N N 0 O 0 � 0�..I�.
O M O 1��
0 a O oo
t0 N v N
N r
N
Q NO O MIO O
N 1
0,2.0!
O A
oNm
N N o
0m
bl 000
t0 O O Q N 0 Q t0 w Q a0 N
Q O) t0 N O
ty {0p N 0 0 0l n Q N
M M t0 MwO d 01 N fAI .N -I
n 0 m m to
eve �voQO�v
pa0 M tV N
t�) tQ0 M t0
O
• 01010
p 0 V
N
m
M
t0 N O W
0100 K
M 6e M
to
N N W
a00 t0 M
M O O
O11 OI 1b 1b
Ml KI NI ail
to
82
0 tOf jJ
tV d
p N
"
M M
t0 0
O N
M O
M
C1
O
OJ
OI
MI
N
�J
1 O O O O 80•8 f 08018 OI of OI
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
000 VV 0 0 0 q0I 00 q0I OI 0I 0I
N
01 0 1010 0 0 0 q0I 00
q0I OI 0I 0I
Cl)
O Q Q
OI 000 000q 0 q OI 00 q 0I 0I 01 0I
N
pl 000 0 0 0 0)0) 0 0 OI0I CI 01 01
H
W
J U
02
W K
=W
y W
K
0
N
W 0
h Z
U-
J � LL
0 a Z U
c = w 00w
00-no
O<F
e W Z
Ill v)ccOO
W xa Z W
W F > W
i-wx6W
w.00.<
MUJ J F
W O (_)
W W O
rcatano?~
1
W
m
0
tl
O
0
LL
7t
0
2
0
00w
N LL w
O K
Cl) . M H
x
CO Z w W
O KWX
O W W
O dW tl
d a O V g
W05
z W F H
~ tl Z Z F
O F 0 0 D
ROP. TAXES
EXCESS REVENUES & BONDS OVER EXPENDITURES
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - JANUARY 1
ENDING FUND BALANCE - DECEMBER 31
N M Q 10 tD K O 010- N M Q 1010 K W O) O N M Q 10 t0 K W
NNNNNNNNN
R,
F Q
b
I J
W Q
Ow
00
z a
i o
W
Z
O
a 2P.
W
O H
MM
,a
w
F• o W
W
0020
wE
J O
0
c
1 �
f UJ
N IJ H
W
0 =
Q 0 1O1.
ER 31, 2008 THROUGH 2040
W
0:
a
O
a.
W
WO
OW
Wg
CC CCZ z
WO)
0Z
re a
010
u. O
• Z
H W
m O
Z
W Q
oi co
el o
0 V V
N
0))
1'O)
V WO
ON
0
N Ci n
n n
0Dn
N
WOO
1.
... ^ 0 n N
N
0 n N
0 Q n W
M
NI N V V ' N O 0
0
N 0 ^ n Q )�
Of 0 N
a°o v n 0
N 0
N
Omo
QJJ Q p W{p
N OI 00
mo
Q Q a N�
3211 0) n
' 0 OO NI N�
* N 0
t') 0 0 0 f,) N n n n m
NW
6�� m'
t'0) 0 a M Q `
cJ
co
NII
N
OI
0
N
N�
0IO2 r allo n N 0) m n
ow or � V co
NiQm
1 000 <0 O �pW� aD aD N Y)
0 W Q Q CO N nJ W 0 O N
N 0 n '
o Mt0 Qo 'a
M
NI O 000 M.-01] NI 0 f0 V)
N Q Q 0 0 � aD N
N
O nam c-Mo
a
ow O 0f c - Q
6
NI
p W V V a N 0 tN'f Q N n N O
Q VW (OI Q Q fn �� 0I 0�
� 1 1J71 a0 N Q
17
a
co
�Op�OQ
O M 0 N M M 0 0 0 N
W
.-
N
rDl N) 0 0 Q N O N Q W O) W O O
0 Q Q Q V W N WWW)JIj R. O )N') 0 .0 N 0J N � . O1 N1
l')I M � 8
N
1 3 0 0 cD —1 t'n)
O
N Q Q N n
n 0
NI 0 W 0
0 N VV
N
a
N
W
J O
xx
Ww
W
O 1
y
DESCRIPTION
N
N
0 0 n
N m N
N N 10)
l+)
l''))
LO Wi
0
0 c- 0 0 0)� WNN� N 0I n
N n t0+) N N t00 N N•
�I 0D 0I
NWNa N N MN
W M
0 N ON)
Ipp
N 0 7.
23010
M 0
Q OnOnO
N ' M N
a.
0
0:
0
u.
e a0
a WWx
f F
W z N 0.
S D 0 0
it J 1"' u. > d
> M a R 0 > w0
O 00z OO00W
W W
Z a ic.0. O O' W _F
Z @0<- XUJC'
> o 0. 2 1- Z (n W
a W W m 00 �+ , 3 W O.
Z OF W W Z MOIL
oS
O CC W "' WW Z O W 0a-liaO Q K=
Qu. 0' X j W = m Z 7 F-
3 Z >cI 0ZZdce<ww 0 0 °"g
Q F- W K W W O~ .
Is'> ~ i Z W~ J Z W Q
jyy� jyy� W Q H
M J .I Z" LLI W 0 Z Z Z 0<MM it
C
Q
EXCESS REVENUES 8 BONDS OVER EXPENDITURES
1 1
0
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - JANUARY 1
ENDING FUND BALANCE • DECEMBER 31
10/9/200810:49 AMMETRO DISTRICT2008_flnancial model draf_3 Iwnds 45 mills and_25_mills
N P) Q 0 0 n f0 O)
O r N f') Q 0 0 n 0 O) N N N N N N N N N
ria
O ca
- <O
k§k
k§k
z■s
(O
LU
<• w
�kX
z
2■
0
0
@
NLU
) k�
k
z
us
a.
us
■§
▪ U.
§ §
a5
O ▪ CD
03 O
U <
O
o
co
OS N:
CO V \\\§ CO st \
a` R a
j
voi
CO
• \ N.
N.
k (� j • j d
k
k
/
kILI §
§�
DESCRIPTION
a
0 co co
o
cei
Cti
00
CV
° 01
) \� j Css
A j
N. �
CSI j \ CO 9
�tO j d CO
° 00
O)
\§
CO OD Cr
LIS U) \
N
8 co
CO \co ri co ° k st � § oa CV ) k
&
� ®
�0_� --
a 22 ��
§
us
0
co
\
> z 0_
§- 0
- 00
I- Z
k§§�§
1O tie
§ a.z�
B0(�§
t
ar°°
■■
Ui 0 01
0- • <
EXCESS REVENUES & BONDS OVER EXPENDITURES
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE - JANUARY 1
ENDING FUND BALANCE - DECEMBER 31
DRAWING NUMBER
ta"" coo f .A
aKtO RO0UCIB . AO*ESMA
r,e.rarrwr,w
DRAWING NUMBER
SAFC0 PSOOwEet • .FW lOPE. I• ICEOTA
1@cai w 1.01 MAWR r4
THE SEASONS AT AVON
LOT 63/64
DRAWING NUMBER
WC -6(i expc �r 2
5ArrD PRODUCTS • PEW MOPE. 300016 10
Ito SA wPAW is naa
rw,ewererr �. —r Iereererrwrr
DRAWING NUMBER
Itittoep:
gevro*B6uki
SIPCO SWETS • AEW 10%. IAAE401A
LOT 61 P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BENCHMARK
COURT
R.O.W.
C.2
LOT B
\
QiS _t o S
AVM /sc, � \
/2
t \\
THE AVON MALL
TRACT G
65
war To .74s..00
-o\
a
FG
e.1"
AVON TOWN SQUARE
AVON CENTER
LOT A
N
\ v
0
�Bp,GK
OD h
• 103°d
O�NG��PR
0'
EXISTING BUS 6.
TURNAROUND
F. Clerk end Recorder's Girt ifWaite
The Lot 61 PUD Deebp,rn Pion are filed fee In the Offal
of the Casio e. Recorder a SM_e'a'ad,f M, 2 t .4 200.},
od a rly meld In
gore# g6Sal
Clerk ad Rcwde•
• _gal A r I\ //_ /1
IMIFIINIOWPIENTOAMI.
?AO *owe
9:coupe° Al -
DRAWING NUMBER
P4.- oF5
51YfO MOULTS • NEW NSE. MeeE4TA
WW0a worm seen fl
DEVELOPMENT STANARDS
A. Allowed Uwe,
rr..eeear.perr - -
I. Retail stores
2. Sp.crity .h .
9. Redone* oaken drive-tkaph ardor.
4. Cocktail la5q.s
S. Pine ewer shape
6. NM.ks m floor. doe Oer or/ sedated mettles
7. Cadanrae an floors abo,e grade
6. The shoe, Interval oarrship eat fractional fee
omen* .hare geeee which met beer a r. 'soared a e ity fee
a reek ewportatln facilities Wean 400 5.f. Ir .lt/a6hn
off o. 6 public trait hcuer d rade Immediately alert to trash center
The Tenor fele shrill be camper by Thy tan of Me.
D. Special Review Owe,
1. CaVr inadCaRrnt0* Rene
Wow recreation ad/or sWtth .nt facilities
2. Three
L. PP.ferlad Offices on crab Park Pedro Feller
5. Pharr Inetutions
6. Addend Ueee dst.rnared to be .Mar to allowed
wee In ear dare with tie rent of the .we dbtrkt.
C. Development Staderde,
I. Lot Are 1.07 Aar.
2. BWldq Serb A heed, as defined by the Taos of Awn Title 17, naked
Car of 106 het with o madmen deem of 7646.0 .
The .Ill be the height to the top of the eclo.hq roof structure.
elodr peewees, etas,., parapet. ad simile eppwtaure.
.Ill be deed to awed this datum .4th relic Deer Rehr
Dowd owed
9. Penalty.
Type
Pete,
Retm/carenercw
Re daW/Fe. Shpt.
17,000 S.F.
N.A.
I00 Udb 1 1,290 S.F.
Madman
NA.
60,000 S.F.
220,000 S.F.
Rsel.RWTwr She. 125 Wt. S 900 S.P. 220,000 S.F.
RudatH/Aamraddb, 160 Units 220,000 S.P.
Mhhun relaprni t of lot 61 PUD .Itll meld of 17,000 ogre feet of ntdl
h oarebale with at Ire ere of the folloude mMrwn redo* throttles.
126 ThyMr unit. or
NO /meoradtion alto, or
WO Cooknanern
A d.nbpriwd Is meaner ad udarplated for ties Property.
The rte ru,, lenity fro thwdve or aamad0tw, avert shall rot be
modified r %dyed, lroworer, ,pe Include a *triable amen of rada„man
unite. Pbadmm dwrkprrt .Ill amid of 260,000 snore feet In total,
40,000 spae feet of wNd, shall be retdV..roEWclal.
4. Ledeapa4lrhrcp. Site Coe'pe
L othate embreye der 6 de reran shall be determined by
Tan of Mar Plod Dear Rehear erred.
5. Patlrq.
A. Carer ial.
Pr ste,dords bdodd It the lot SI PUP DsMopmnt Agrerrt
B. hNdaelel.
Pr stadedr 5e1od.d In the lot SI PUD Developnint Agreement
C. Get Pwlaq
Per starker Included In the Lot SI PUD Dey.lapn ent Agreement
Projdhr each r whore.., roes, ,o ebud floor. ad dens may warmth
ro .*bade ad/or Meet of WRe with reek Team of Awe Derr Ryer
7. Due, *trims
The faller; d..rn guld.lw Mal be wartleed In edition to the De.q, Guideline
of the Ten of Aran are the Dear Guideline Included In the Tan Center Meter Plant
SDdfImIH, the project ua1 comply to the folb*,e gored deem renter
eaten krone ell be stepped to add *� t wale. All Mew of the hulld
nod rear* apd acri bean
berme*.
On. beer win be draped as o aprp.MWm of esNGcted shorans rather the
Ms loge
related In farm ad contort.
itr'wet-Ied wWbckrrsbier that cwill aerate ad when peered., =tatty an Mir Street
(thy marl best), aratayag a rely eater of mdall activity y.r.rud.
A. Articulation of Bede Frees.
Mikan ad mere eth
Intermediate facades fame ad pairier rojection. Lion eVayY, .pemlor of dew,, weer
ad clan treatments shall be amber to creole o rich tellerne that will arm. the
worst of the farad... Thy thew pinery haler ampounte comprising the buildber,
bee, be ad top' shall be dearly ad deberabty cowered. The bWld3p's bee shall
owner nets ad apport with the r of etch *aerials r Mae m e adlt.cted carob.
The ebod e of the ending Mel bpi, to erode from 'aerial. the ape more to lghcr
material. ad mare ope*pe ad surfer v.ktlom weeded. ad Magee h wall plat.
Reefs Mal be prapeler to the night ad wale of the varier building el *sae. The
sot ad of thy pbray roof(*) ad slope portion of the walls .Id1 be tMlwlald .o s e
erne their deed Impact to .orraudbq Paolo whirl, coq bolds each metros oe the
radwtlon of dodo ad the lowering of roof Ikea
B. Reef. at north property IIr.
In additkri to the suggested wall treatments mote dace, those roofs she be adoga y red
to add atterrvpd flat roofs. A6pwwmately 500 of the elevation are 2d above wee doll be
allotted tiro* tie Itrdudlon of dbrath ee roof fame such as elme pspe doer to the
all plat ad riders In roof sign, natter to the reek 1kr.
D. Owner's Certificate
Kr,o1Y all con by thew mere the beer the sob awns
h for ohpb of that real property decreed oe fat
lot Ha Bock �-�. Creek Doreen
Amendment .>_ _ 1 - Cart
1M ages
Pe.
A
IJ,
dy
lOSSL
IDG S C
iu , b" metes
My Cmmelm erne.
E. Tows Certifloote
lee Lot 61 P.U.D. Dwrbp,rn Mon has been approved by
Cadres 04-01 by the TWO, Caedl of The Tan of Man In Eagle
Count., Colorado e, the IOU, day of P.bruay, 2004. The apps* coWktes
e hate' ore DewbprNnt Pion We the note of The Co1rd. Vested
Right. Statute ad Ave, M.ddpal Code Chapter 17.14.030. TN. appal are
not aerate The Tan of Ave, to cortrvct any hpre.rrrb. The Tan of
Awn Woe no nespmenA5y far the Wankel accuracy of the pin or ow
rametatin thereto.
EXHIBIT B
TOT
Slack 2
Benchmark at
Seaver Creek
Amendment 4
Avon, Colorado
SITE PLAN AT GRADE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
C Copyright 2004 All RIeh r Peered
MICHAEL
HAZARD
ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 1068
Vail, CO
81656
c170.949.4c15F,
Fax A70.94A.4B3B
mha0vail.nat
Lot 61 P.U.D.
Development
Plan
Date
Issue
12/10/03 Planning d Zoning
12/23/03 Planning t Zoning
12/30/03 Planning t Zoning
1/2/04 Planning t Zoning
1/14/04 Council
2/4/04 Council
2/11/04
Council
Exhibit B to Ordnance 04-01
Sheet Number
DRAWING NUMBER
tort Mtn PLAA
WOO mcou.'IS• POPE. MNfSOTA
10ffRW MO HI.HNl652
I�M.OMI�,Msla
DRAWING NUMBER
IMMO PFOOtICTS • NEW POPE MINNESOTA
woman or PAP, MALI m62
THE SEASONS AT AVON
LOT 63/64
LOT B
/
/
/
/
/
NONE MMeAmon=IM
DRAWING NUMBER
Lcr6tt,,lorec$ z-
egtoiA_
IMMO PFOD CIS • NEW 16E. MPAESOTA
1E.PBiN TWIT MAGETI lds
DRAWING NUMBER
Per- 680 $6866/
SYOD PRODUCTS • NEW PONE. MNNEWITA
1WIRO@InRtroarn N92.
LOT 61 P.U.D. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
OF
THE AVON MALL
TRACT G
a�• F`
asNa. �°SR,
20°96-
W' ropU�
0.61 d5�'"
o.
AVON TOWN SQUARE
AVON CENTER
LOT A
ei
EXISTING BUS
TURNAROUND
Pc(9 ewo-
4 �
DRAWING NUMBER
SARm MECUMS • NEW INIPE. MM TA
reran Fa PAPM NJAf 916SQf 2
e SITE SECTION
No Scale
FIN. GRADE
tereeszamossmnoua
•
eSITE SECTION
Z No Scale
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
LO
61
Block 2
Benchmark at
Beaver Creek
Amendment 4
Avon, Colorado
SITE PLAN 'BELOW GRADE
SITE SECTIONS
0 c.I/rieht 3004 AllRtsit. ReeRv.d
MICHAEL
HAZARD
ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 1O68
Vail, CO
81658
970.949.4958
Fax 970.949.4858
mhalvail.net
Lot 61 P.U.D.
Development
Plan
Date
Issue .
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/30/03
1/2/04
1/14/04
2/4/04
2/11/04
Planning t Zoning
Planning t Zoning
Planning t Zoning
Planning It Zoning
Council
Council
Council
Exhibit B to Ordinance 04-01
Sheet Number
!-1
DRAWING NUMBER
kkk0 0115
6HCO RICaL19 • MEW HIE- MINNESOTA
MOM M ANYMIMON 06M1?
7c>")
DRAWING NUMBER
6AFp]RMCOUCIS • I•EW IEPC. I.QIFSOTA
MORNS IN PAM ROWER INN
THE SEASONS AT AVON
LOT 69/64
;roam ea•AY.I••matt•
DRAWING NUMBER
ter 6 t , PvGccaG
SNCOPRCCUCTS • MEW HON AB.EEOTA
MOM NOWA RumENR SSW
I:DRAWING NUMBER
efelaW 2-23.0►{
eXPrItivzik.86866(
SACTS • NEW HON. MMMSOTA
MONNE, Br ENT NAN. NW
Lot 61 P.U.D. Development Plan
c-2
LOT B
THE AVON MALL
TRACT G
65 .
W+r
sj2
AVON CENTER
LOT A
S12
2�//
040,52 W
s- -
AVON TOWN SQUARE
Gas
0'
EXISTING BUS
TURNAROUND
topmet
pekiiietmc
ItS68g
DRAWING NUMBER
UFO] PROOLCIS • ECM HOPE AOEEEOTA
MOWN WRNS NNEN
a SITE SECTION
No Scale
A
a
Ib
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
FIN GRADE
O SITE SECTION
No Scale
mn.0J!®AMIq —.— — — — — — —
6
Block 2
Benchmark at
Beaver Creek
Amendment 4
Avon, Colorado
SITE PLAN ABOVE GRADE
SITE SECTIONS
0 Copyr20Ie 900. A.: RIM. Rtu.ry d
MICHAEL
HAZARD
ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 1068
Vail, CO
81688
970.949.4988
Pax 970.949.4838
mhoavail.nat
Lot 61 P.U.D.
Development
Plan
Dote
Issue
12/10/03 Planning 8 Zoning
12/23/03 Planning t Zoning
12/30/03 Planning t Zoning
1/2/04 Planning t Zoning
1/14/04 Council
2/4/04 Council
2/11/04
C'w�cil
Exhibit B to Ordinance 04-01
9 Lot 61 PUD Development Pion Above Grade
Sheet Number
EXHIBIT C
TOWN OF AVON
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 05
Series of 2004
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, IDG 3, LLC has submitted a Final Plat for a Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark
at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Final Plat has been reviewed by the Town Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Final Plat was found to be substantially in conformance with Title 16 of the
Avon Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is in general conformance with the Preliminary Plan as
approved by Resolution No. 04-01 and complies with the requirements for consideration as a
Final Plat.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, that the Final Plat for A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek,
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 I Off'. DAY OF
ATTEST:
3
Pa cKenny 3
Town Clerk
I:\Town Clerk\Council\Resolutions\2004\Resolution No. 04-05 L61B2BMBC.doc
zi.ct
, 2004.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Albert D. Reynolds, M. or
EXHIBIT C
TIME CERTIFICATE
The undersigned does hereby certify it has examined the title to oil lands shown upon this Plot to be platted os FINAL PLAT,
A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK and that title to such lands is vested in IDG 3 LLC free
and clear of oil liens and encumbrances, except those recorded in the Clerk and Recorder's office of the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, as follows:
1. Right of proprietor of a vein or lade to extract and remove his are therefrom should the
same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises as reserved in United States potent
recorded September 26, 1941 in Book 128 at Poge 123.
2. Terms, conditions, obligations and easements or right of way stipulations and land use and
living unit densities of property as shown on plots recorded respectively. February 27, 1974
In Book 233 at Page 566; and December 26, 1974 In Book 23B of Poge 41; and as
amended October 1, 1976 in Book 249 at Page 93 and os amended In the plot filed
September 5, 197B in Book 274 at Page 701.
3. Restrictive covenants, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, but omitting ony
covenant or restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or notional
origin unless and only to the extent that cold covenants (A) is exempt under Chapter 42,
Section 3607 of the United States Code or (B) related to handicap but does not discriminate
against handicapped persons as contained In Instrument recorded April 7, 1975 in Book 239 at
Page 249 and as Amended in instrument recorded March 05, 1982 in Book 337 at Page 366
and as amended In Instrument recorded April 23, 1985 in Book 411 at Page 960 and as
amended in instrument recorded February 7, 1990 In Book 522 at Page 721.
4. Utility and drainage easements ten (10) feet in width ore reserved along each side of every
bock lot line of every lot line in the subdivision. In addition, utility and drainage easements
seven and one—half (7 1/2) feet In width ore reserved along each side of every lot In the
subdivision not fronting on a dedicated street or road as reserved on the recorded plot.
5. Right of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United States as
reserved in United States potent recorded September 26, 1941 In Book 12B at Page 122.
6. Terms, conditions and provisions of conveyance of easement recorded April 11, 1964 in Book
3B2 of Page 990.
7. Terms, conditions ono provisions of moil agreement recorded October 15, 1986 in Book 450
at Page 552.
B. Existing leases and tenancies.
-et'teceAs w�4k Doted this _day of VelOn., tkry A.D., 201]9-,
eaa Naas: Wants re. 5 1.L ((ff
- s t les re worst
16tiu ei Agent:Ney... Q ..a 1 c.>�rj
�1t't'P s..:1e.v rer.ttSe 4ao re..0 9N v b O
beet D. U..eet rotor p,,�Y0Jf45t 4s
- C� Ve.01. a tlb enyaF 4352•024 �ti�
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, Stephen R. Wujek, do hereby certify that I am a Registered Land Surveyor licensed under the laws of the State of
Colorado, that this Plot Is a true, correct and complete Find Plot, A Replot of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek,
Town of Avon, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as laid out, plotted, dedicated and shown hereon, that such Plot wos
mode from on accurate survey of sold property by me and under my supervision completed in January, 2004 and correctly
shows the location and dimensions of the lots, easements and streets of sold subdivision In compliers a with applicable
regulat_ _ to s_govpm ng the20subdivision of land. In Witness hereof, I have set my hand and seal this f} day
By.
Stephen R. Wujek, PLS No. 22589
Registered Land Surveyor
Stote of Colorado
NOTES
1) The purpose of this plot is to create new rood right—of—way and new easements, and to vacate certain existing easements, as shown
hereon.
2) Survey Dote: January 2004.
3) Property Lines and Typical Utility and Drainage Easements ore based upon the Official Plot — Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
and Flnol Subdivision Plot — Amendment No. 4, Benchmark at Beaver Creek as recorded on September 5, 197B in Book 274 at Page 701
of the Eagle County Records and Survey Monuments found at the time of this survey as shown hereon. Easements and other items
affecting the lot ore based upon Land Title ALTA Commitment Order No. V 50003804 doted December 15, 2003.
4) Bearing Base: Bearings ore based upon a bearing of S 52'41'01' W between the Northeast Corner and the Southeast Corner of the
Mountain Vista Resort Subdivision, both being found 1 1/2' diameter aluminum cops on No. 5 rebore stomped with LS No. 32834.
5) STREET ADDRESS: 0075 Benchmark Rood.
8) IDG 3 LLC hereby dedicates the following perpetual, non—exclusive easements and rights —of —way.
a) Utility and Drainage Easements on, aver, across and through those areas designated hereon as 'Typical Utility and Drainage Easement"
and as 'Public Right —of —Way for the purpose of I) the installation, use, repair, replacement, Improvement and maintenance of utilities of
any kind whatsoever, Including but not limited to waterlines and hydrants, sanitary seweriines and manholes, telephone imes, cable
television lines, gaelines, electric lines, fiber optic lines, other communications lines, and oil related structures, together with a perpetual
right of ingress and egress thereto, II) storm drainage, drainage of water flowing from other lands along with the installation, use, repair,
replacement. Improvement and maintenance of surface drainage structures including but not limited to 'wales, gutters, ditches, and
culverts, together with o perpetual right of Ingress and egress thereto.
b) Transportation Hub Easement on, over, across and through those areas designated hereon as 'Transportation Hub Easement' for the
purpose of the Installation, use, repair, replacement, Improvement and maintenance of facilities of any kind relating to transportation and
movement of pedestrian and commercial traffic. and the enhancement of traffic patterns or flows through the Town of Avon.
7) Thls lot is subject to Protective Covenants as recorded on February 27, 1974 in Book 233 at Page 565 and as amended in
Instruments recorded April 7. 1975 in Book 239 at Page 249; March 5, 1982 in Book 337 at Page 366; April 23, 1985 in Book 411 at
Page 960; and February 7, 1990 in Book 522 at Page 721.
8) This lot is subject to the Conveyance of Easement recorded April 11, 1984 in Book 382 at Page 990.
9) This lot may be subject to the Mall Agreement recorded October 15, 1986 in Book 450 at Page 552. [n
10) This Plot Is subject to Town of Avon Ordinance 04-01, Series of 2004, includkrg exhibits thereto, ac recorded February kax_ ,
2004, in the Office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder at Reception Na. 9,teTtY'7
aX1U'&r ail fk;Vg. 3to°dld.p:
My Commission expires 00111m;ac,',• r•4'rao
I) -G-2005
Witness my hand and seal
FINAL PLAT
A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
TOWN CERTIFICATE
Thla Plot is o ro dthe Co
uncil ire by Town Cou c9 of the Town of Avon, County of Eagle, Coloroo this /0 day of A.D,
2004 for filing with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Eagle. Approval of this plot by the Town is a c sent y and is
not to be construed as on approval of the techlcal correctness of this plot or any documentation relating thereto.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL OF THE TOWN OF AVON
STATE OF 14iVg`l
COUNTY
The foregoing Dedication was acknowledged before mq,tbi day of x.1040.(1 AD.. 2004 by
Robert D. West as 72Uf7xf of lea W6s. izONfb
Al/2e17541E PE. t &beV ry /A9i/✓/&1/.0i
)ss
)
MORTGAGEE
ROBERT D. ST
By.
Nor,,,.
Title _
Notary Public
PARCEL
LAND USE SUMMARY
LAND USE ADDRESS
Lot 61 PUD
Benchmark Court Public Rood Right —of —Way
AREA
0075 Benchmark Rood 0.845 Ac.
SCALE 1" --= 500'
SECTION 12, T.5S., R.82W., 6TH P.M.
C,FRTIFjr.ATF OF TAXFS PAP
0.223 Ac.
TOTAL 1.068 Ac.
I, the undersigned do hereby certify that the entire amount of taxes and assessment due and
payable ors of 1, fWIJ(Tt. upon all parcels of real estate described on this Plot ore
pond in full.
Dated thls.4_day of Ettamb1y, A.D., 2004
NOTICE: Aceading to Colorado low you MUST
commence any legal action eased upon any
dafeat M this survey within three years after you
first discover such defect. In no event. may ony
action bolted upon my defect in tine survey be
commenced more than ten store from the dote
of certification shown hereon.
Treasurer - of Eagle County
/ By f iLe7 L SiE/4.L{tll
Nome: J77O,4=7/10 .,' 41 g'
Title: (Deputp Treasurer
CERTIFICATION OF DEDICATION AND OWNERSHIP
Know all men by these presents that IDG 3 LLC, being sole owner in fee simple, of all that real property
situated in the Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado described as follows:
Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark of Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, County of Eagle, State
of Colorado according to the Official Plot — Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
& Final Subdivision Piot — Amendment No. 4 as recorded on September 5, 1978 in
Book 274 at Poge 701 as Reception No. 171107; containing a total of 1.07 acres,
more or less.
hoe by these presents laid out, platted and subdivided the some into Lots and tracts as shown on this
plot and designate the some as FINAL PLAT, A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER
CREEK, a subdivision in the Town of Avon, County of Eagle, State of Colorado and does hereby dedicate
and set apart all of the public roods and other public improvements and places as shown on the
accompanying plot to the use of the public forever, and does hereby dedicate those portions of said real
property which are indicated as easements on the accompanying plot as easements for the purpose shown
herein. including the Transportation Hub Easement for public transportation purposes, and does hereby
grant the right to install and maintain necessary structures to the entity responsible for providing services
far which the easements ore established.
\' EXECUTED this T'aay of ildid4A.D.,2004
OWNER:
IDG 3 LLC
By.
Name: .
ManagingPo
STATE OF Lo14Ytta0 )
)ss
COUNTY OF &Ik
".e foregoing 1'.u. attan was a knawleddged before me this I� day of A.D.,
2004 by Mc 1 k ItAz►Y.d as Managing Partner of IDG LLC.
CjcDlmiss:^[l
My Commission expires R•?.:i'
Witness my hand and seal
STATE OF
COUNTY
)
)ss
)
MORTGAGEE:
MESA NATIONAL BANK
By X— Q3 v .›
No
Title 119. Rs It
The foregoing D.dicotian was acknowledged before me this F2 day of bfuy A.A.D., 2004 by
•.r:., f. rya L.r:nk as V)'treeoelden of Mesa National Bank.
My Commission expires 1eb41e8
Witness my hand and seal
JACQUELINE J 'lELASQUEZ c
NOTAR41'UBUC
STATEN i.:k: cr`OLORADO ,,
..,r..3h6
STATE OF
COUNTY
))ss
MORTGAGEE:
C. PHILIP S
By,.
Ndme
Title
The foregoing Dedication was ockka1{ppw��ledged before me this /7'''''- day of/ 6t'ir.. i./ A.D., 2004 by
el -pimp -Smiley as fnrr.r/al/ R/1orgC7. -of t . .8/1///10 f'..;/<7
//%fr25a'-1 .4- /-la7ard �r
My Commission expires /, t/-7 y
Witness my hand and seal
MICOIRISSICOBWaipivau
CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE $2.I'a'y
This Final Plot was filed for record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle
County Colorado of `fir` .o'clock an this..23_day of f77M 1.
A.D., 2004, and is duly recorded of Reception No. RInSEi Ara(�
FINAL PLAT
A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC
TOM OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO
WARN 1111
SRW
MEd= PI!
SRW
saga, 03015V
ale
02-12-04
DRA'ar Ma, 03015VSH1
serr 1 or 2
P.O. Box 1062 P.O. Box 5018
AVON, CO 81620 EAGLE, CO 81631
(970) 748-0274 (970) 328-1900
(970) 748-9021 FAX (970) 328-1901 FAX
CD
TRACT G
— INDICATES STREET ADDRESS ON
BENCHMARK ROAD
LOT B
Tie to Southeost Corner of Mountain
Vista Resort Subdivision. Found 1.5"
Diameter Aluminum Cap on No. 5
Rebor. LS No. 32834 —
N 56'16'08" W 296.78'
SET SURVEY MONUMENT
1" DIAMETER BRASS DISC
111TH NAIL STAMPED LS 22589
/
THE SEASONS AT AVON f
y /a//
/ 7/ _V
�o o
\,.---\\
\ /
/ 1 BENCHMARK / a/
����/ COURT t
50' Public ///
fL/ 8, Right —of —Way ill -
em
„ 0.223 Ac. Y/
a/ t 3/r'-4
c /^/
rid/
\1\
•"1
Hatched Area Indicates Bement
Area to be Vacated ¶th this Plat/
I/
Found Na. 5 Rebor
& 1.5" Diameter Aluminum
Cop. LS No. 23048
0\& RaP� entl
`50 /
/
Found No. 5 Rebor
& 1.5" Aluminum Cap
(LS No. Not Legible)
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you MUST commence any legal
action based upon any defect in this survey within three years
after yeti first dlecovered such defect In no event, may any
action Dosed upon any defect In this survey be commenced more
than ten years from the date of certification shown hereon.
14'°&c.
C*'48 \
$6 �8`F\ue fgy-fNT
f06 6�\
\ \
AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK
/kV N-OMMERCIAL CENTER
\ AaJa
\°fit p
\�fy tMe
\
SS .S
LOT 61
0.845 Acres
SET 1.5" DIAMETER ALUMINUM
CAP ON #5 REBAR
STAMPED LS 22589
(7";;;;)
••"..S.€73*" 52
AVON TOWN
SQUARE CONDOS
TRACT G
FINAL PLAT
A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
\ Zs -
tor T�
rfy&O N 'S
\ wog° fos
\aa\�
SET 1.5" DIAMETER ALUMINUM
CAP ON #5 REBAR
STAMPED LS 22589
\t/7
s
\Ore'
%. e.
\off"3 -0
O
- `\r ET SURVEY MONUMENT
1" DIAMETER BRASS DISC
WITH NAIL STAMPED L5 22589
i
?I0\'D entl
Rp
lg0 /
TRACT G
/
GRAPHIC SCALE
( Dr MT )
I hush 20 ft
/
/
LOT 56, BLOCK 2
BENCHMARK AT
BEA'"_R CREEK
\
/
FlNAL PLAT
A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
TOM OF AVON. EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO
DRAM B7"
SRW
SRW
03015V
AIM 02-12-04
DRAPING NO:
03015VSH2
Byrn 2 or 2
MARCIN ENGINEERING LLC
P.O. Box 1062 P.O. Box 5018
AVON, CO 81620 EAGLE, CO 81631
(970) 748-0274 (970) 328-1900
(970) 748-9021 FAX (970) 328-1901 FAX
EXHIBIT D
TOWN OF AVON
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 06
Series of 2004
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN AND FINAL PLAT FOR A
RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 61, A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT
BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS,1DG 3, LLC has submitted a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for a Resubdivision of
Lot 61, A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat have been reviewed by the Town Staff; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat were 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
Preliminary Plan and Final Plat.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, that the Preliminary Plan and Final Plat for A Replat of Lot 61, Block 2, Benchmark
at Beaver Creek, 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 ID DAY OF
..
I� \A
J )
ATTEST:
ak fl -
Pat(ty M Kenny
Town Clerk
I:\Town Clerk\Council\Resolutions\2004\Resolution No. 04-06 L6IB2BMBC.doc
, 2004.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor
DRAWING NUMBER
10C p *fi
900(1
fuliCORICOUCTB • Km MK A
ROW BY pin WOOER 6Yi
DRAWING NUMBER
SAITO PRCOUCTS • PEW 16E. MNE501A
MOWER Or.•wl MAMIEIOW
MOSO//MOMM.IM
DRAWING NUMBER
�/A:Nab (u ef
115r€1 ,Y WOW PROM= • PLAN MBAuccit- ('� 9YGI PRODUCTS • fEw IaPF. MRlE90fA
HDRAWING NUMBER
peal)• : 8(8665
R®i®IW POR nU.eel assn
Warn IN MAT PARANA COW
MOW ONO PIONIANO IAN MAO roont •tIol
DRAWING NUMBER
-2
Sena PRODUCTS • PEW HOPE. h@1r.011*
WORM Br WAT WAWA 15931
Al•finoa 'WOMAN no IAN
EXHIBIT D
A FINAL PLAT
A RESUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 500'
N01E% Oat 1) Wes to create thisson to InteweedThe purism of horizontal property
IDote of Slows. February. 2004.
Ma.umentatlon s Moan an droning. Basis of bearings a found nanam.nt. merkb,g 164 most northerly
One of Lot St. (s. drob9).
5) Notice According to Colorado to. you must commence any legal
anion ba.M upon any defect in Od. ear.ey Ott. tens
pars alter you trot dome aunt defect. M no ore. may
any action bared upon any dOlect in this gamey be commenced
more ban tan pars from 164 date of certification Moan
Mean.
B) Bo.. of a0wtbne Isa a. with
of elevation moat
an o orgy nwda0
ggroymtMy 60 [eel south to. mid 0outh74 cover of Lot
M. 5.0.00 .00.110. . 7437.5', Inn fitment - 7441.T.
7) Lad 1O. Guaonls Company Commitment l No.Me information.
04.
dated 500.000 15. 2003 ..o ued la m title nbrm0Ux
5) The -Share Amenities Fee
in the event any portion of 164 property included .Hon 164
plat le reerMlNded into a tkm-aaM9 WWI." s a Pet
of such f.ee0Menn. recorded woman. Meal provide that
the seas of end: time-Mar0 .data May Pal' and 164 omen.
assodaten .bee collect, for poynant to the Ton of Awn. a
tint -Mare onenbw fee. the want of each shad be
dew*. at 164 Urns of re des.% bond wort the number
of unit. e.wl.d to tee -share use 164 obligation to P. 164
fat shall be mode o real oownanl 1.1 me Nth 1110 to each
unit for the benele of the euheN*1n.
9) Vocation of Plat
This plat .hd be .10}ct to woalln proceedings N 164
doMrom.M *doh I. contemplat.d ebb the .10010.00 . not
compel. in accord.. 61. 2. attRoar Subdivision the Devekenvent Agroment for l
1d.n s approved
by Ton of Awn Ordinance 04-01 recorded 2004.
as 6.opUon No. In 164 office of the Eagle
County Core and Roow*r. Ip.n termYatbn of the DMapn.nt
Warned. 440 .uldMMan Mall he wooled and Final Plot far
A R.plat of Lot 61. Eno. 2. Benchmark at beam Creek Ton of
Awn. E.M. Counts Colorado. recorded 2004.
as Reception No. Mao be reinstated as No
Wendedapplicable ...eon plat far 0,0 pop.ts
10)
M Amended Plat breed upon actual ae-buM orb. and
horizontal oan4Nbn. Mal be Red .nth 164 ofeee at the
Eagle County OW and Recorder upon .Ompl. loo of WNW..
n accordance with the D.Mapm..t A9ne.nwnt for Lot II. Block
2. Bonds.wk at Beam Crrek Subdivision as approved by Toon of
� teOrdinanceworded 164 01-01 and worded' re d In attic. of the Eagle
RR
County OW and Reader. N the deelo nant that le
contemplated IOW U0 sub...Ion le not completed 0.word.. nth DeveoPmelt _
0).1 la vocal., prac.d9. b.a. slated he
d In note above
.0
It) 11,0 lot 0 tubed to Protective Covenants as recorded an App 7. t975
In Book 239 at P.9s 249 and ee welded In Mtmnente word. March 5. 1952.
n ®eok 337 at Pogo 366: Apt 23. 1005, In Book Ott at Po9. 960: and February 7. 1990.
In Book 522 at P.9. 721.
t2) 764 Is I. anion to live Commas. of Ea0enant recorded Aprl It, 1984 in Book 362 at Pope 900.
13) Ihle lot may he sublet to the .a9 Awe.a..1 recorded Odder 15, 0966 in Book 450 at Page 552.
14) Rule lot 0 .10Ra1 to Ordnance ce 04-01 ncludrq al 0Mew terse ee recorded Fnruary__ 2004
at Remotion No.
CERTBICAT10N OF DEDICATION AND ONNER99P
Know d man by there Pr.. nts that IOC 3 1IC. and To.. of Awn.
being .ale(.) moor in fee simple. of re that no. praprty
eosabd .. follow
A R.ptet of Lot It, cos 2. Bredunak At Beam tree. Tom of
Awn. Eagle County, Colorado R�dhq to ecoptIon No.
the plat recorded b af6ea
al the Eap. County, Colorado. Oak and Roeorda. containing 1.066
0.111. TOM Or ISM
haw by thee prowls laid out. plotted and subdivided the some
Into tote and Mock. ewer Mason and dalpan. 164 sane 00
A Raw10Mdan of A Redo of Lot 01, Block 5. Baarmak At
Beim Creek Too n of Awn. County of Eagle. State of Colorado
and dedicate. IM utility ale drainage 00.anart. ah.en horoan for
oIERyY and trainee pa00000 ads and do bather state that lids
arm Wei be Wiwi to the Easements, had and recorded
for this 50004.000 In lhe OM. of the Clew. and Reamer of
Eagle Counts Colorado ee Doaanent Number
Executed 1hlo — day of AO. 2004.
COMER:
IOC 3 LLC
Agar...
B
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
TM I .c. adaaMW9pd Mkre Bl
AO., 2001 by a1i
re .tom sIDfi3LLC.
MOE
MCRTOAOEE
Ileeo National Bab „ R -
Print Nan.•. K.l1FL . C
,1Ue Viet. PrCS4.Cb*
STATE OF 0 Abukir, )
MINIM
TYafO�nFyl�f0��d pp9id! pel�r d
❑cee-PrLaYB.At *AT=
W.. Natbnd 0.,b. u�
MY CemmeMan .phec 10'24%e
%Mum my hand and she.
Address 160al
JACQ)1ELINE J yagilE2
NOTARY PUBLIC t
♦ STATE OF.OLORI.DO..
MORTGAGEE:
C. PIN
Pant Name:
1X00
STATE OF iy'19 )
COUNTY OF le- —1�,r1
The foregoing lstr.nett roe adoawed4ed before me 1h. J,a-- day
of f.' l.n.rtC. . A.D. 2004 by 0-Phl¢FmmL,.
0 mlc.+aNJ. R. w. 2.. Gk. O -S -
My Commission
epees )a \.'1 I 0,-1-Po...xx' 04 ',Al,. rout
tmnw ••r ^ ii c...nn. Lf 7 sU +•i, (r
p r aa'1Cv
r�
It
mamma: ' •
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
15.. fix iq }I.��ad mat. . 2004ob Robe me this . day
W Fe�B AA.. .do by 1000 D.a WM.
009111NSSII4 exPireD
My gyp....- ......� . _-$^.iIS
Menem my
jAir
Title f ' eodr�``-A NFS' l�Aerf
c Pt-dJ)aJ a1
—L i Di✓iDu4ikj
Adtrac eaB91FOw-+m` 4814
b b ua�ll�a:.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I. MM. ,L Pooldo booby certify UM 1 an. a R.9101d Land
=bat..
on oat kenester athe laof the State of Colorado. toot
11.0. Pbl e a taw. correct and complete Plot of A Roe' bdAblon al
A P.M of Lot 01. Block 2. Benchmark At 600♦er Creek sea out, p1att.
dolootod and eho.m hereon. that each Plat ere mode from an
aocurote sew at said prop.Iy blee and undr my supervision and
correctly shove the location and *0.I.kM of 164 lots. eosemelt0
gd Wore of said .aeuoan a. the same are staked span the
round In aonelio.ce .Ras applloml. Noontime governing the
*0104MM of land. Al morennante are set ee required by the
5n10010s.n Regulations of 164 Tool of Awn.
n�r.of I hw o aes m hd and seal the � day of
':,D.an2000.
MIMOII.jt
PrspeeOMf Land Su0Wyq I(!o. 301t6
•
T0l0*I EVI.. •'sr<;
This Pet'l► eythe Town Council of the Tool of A0...
County of ate of Colorado the - dey of
A.D.. 2004 10. 11Yq Mb 164 01* and Recorder of the County of
Eagle. Approval of Oft plat by the Ton I. a consont only and e
not to be cooerod as an appraw of the technical oonootme. of
thts plat or any daa0nontatlon relating the..
'e1NE55 MY NAND APO SEAL OF THE TOW OF AWN
7OF
LAND USE SUMMARY (PER SURFACE ESTATE ONLY)
LOT AREA (erne)
1 0.6445
B.ncdlark Cant 0.223
ADDRESS
0075 B.wn0ak Rood
Punk Rood RI(N-Of-Try
TILE CERTIFICATE
lab rm. Guaranty Compms doe. hrORY o 111y that Mw 1110 to
d lad. Mown upon this find plot hap bowl OeaM.d and le
...Wed In:. i L L C A celeeAdis t (A. 7vd l TgF1 }t Lq♦/
free and door of aid 10n.. onoure once'
11.14 ,e9 .+aePl ° Mee* n alerbened lenM EC. E1ft5d 1ItyyE
a.
n 1
As
LEMON.
rr.
MOW
Dated Ul d.y of C.eSpr. b 4. AO.. 2004.
Lad Title Guarantee Company
Addr..c 006 S. Frontage Rood WM.
8203
WR Co. 61057
CERTIFICATE OF TAMES PAID
I. the ...Med. do hereby certify that No an 1 of
toms and o..essmento aid and P.1ab1. ee o/ �13}� n,
upon d panels of rod state Wetted an the Fdot paid in
W.
Dated thls day of f.br-1 8 4y Am. 2004.
►emu O4/R" I2 f d22°J°PQ..d•",d°,
Trenwor of Eel.
CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE
164 met ore fer record n 164 D�l� d the $erk aid
Recorder 01 Y• o'da. 05284 JjO la• 2004. and 0
duly recorded In Aeceptkn No. er6t4w
Clerk and Recce.
Bs
Weedy
DRAWING NUMBER
IGfbl Qe5�
at.e.lucc C°2 -v)
SAEW PRODUCTS • NEW IA]EE. PmI6SCTA
MAIM By PART 6P59
DRAWING NUMBER
MPW Pi1mX11 • MW ROPE. MM!$RA
MOM SI PRAT NAM, 0052 WIDMER M FART MM. RN
PMW ranmas/PMP/Aie
DRAWING NUMBER.
kk'6c fAcCY,2-c e' 1
WOO PRMUCI6 • PAW PCPE. IAOFffiTA
POT IN TM YE
DRAWING NUMBER
yeoW4eo: 2- '."i
ReeeftMbD: 4 -gist&
6APm PRODUCTS • MW 1006. MMCTQTA
f@qR UT PART HAVER 0052
SIPCO PIC0IOS • NEW TOPE. MO6✓®TA
RBACRIBY PPS T•m2
WPM MUSLIN,
DRAWING NUMBER
sum PTCONLTS • PEW IBE. PAPWESOTA
ROHMR BY PMT NUMMI NW
maw •-n•norr gal
0' 60'
120' 160'
SCALE: 1' 60'
TRACT G
A FINAL PLAT
A RESUBDIVISION OF A REPLAT OF LOT 61, BLOCK 2
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
BENCHMARK
COURT
R.O.W.
0223 ACES
/ TMAONS
THE SEASONS /� T AVON
AT AVON
TRACT G
\ BF(50 cHMARK ROAD
R
\ ROADWAY &
• EASEMENT)
SUBSURFACE ESTATE
vAa 6E01201
ISOM. MC
T EACHIP ST ROTO
60.00
Pm I wsOCt mom)
/
no. to OM
iMal i V
MOS
C
6MG MA•
Bum Mto
u wMl
\ BENCH -K ROAD / /
\ (50 ROADWAY &
'-▪ M1WTY EASEMENT) / /
\ • /
SURFACE ESTATE
BENCHMARK
COURT
MAL
TRACT G
actioto
m a OIM THE SEASONS
AT AVON
•ATW. or
TRACT G
�_Q6' E
as•
no no Ea •
MAIIS IPSO
LI WPM
/
L,__ M'MmA
I 100.1 OOU60T ODOR ROR.
ICNCIAART dRAR RA.11. Owx =WACO $ -
}
TOT 1 00fTKACQ
T
SECTION A -A
MORN NC
mownTO ISM•0010101
M[
GSa
altos' SWAT OOMm
a
IOICOEART TWO
20.00--
/ 1MVIPORWATON NIA LW
194.15
MO SCAM
IOE a
NOW)
TRACT 0
Sena 6EMTm lD
vT�
11061T 116
TRACT 0
SRAW Mm6M_
VMS
MOW/ 1K
AC WAWA
AT AWN
u.a 6060
vr YAMS
POT T OINeU FAW
SECTION C -C
• BENCHMARK ROAD
50 ROADWAY &
\ \mum EASEMENT) /
\ /
•
AIRSPACE ESTATE
NOT 1 AK/
ARIPACO
TRACT 0
/eAa OEVATm lL
M6ES �.
Can U6
TRACT 0
Mena EI Mnox = _
v/o V
TRACT G
EXHIBIT E
DISTRICT COURT
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
885 E. Chambers Road
P.O. Box 597
Eagle, Colorado 81631
a COURT USE ONLY a
Plaintiff:
AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK — I
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a
Colorado corporation.
Defendants:
TOWN OF AVON, a Colorado home rule city;
TOWN OF AVON TOWN COUNCIL, and
FAIRFIELD RESORTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation.
Case Number: 04 CV 151
Div.: M
ORDER DECLARING ORDINANCE NO. 04-01 INVALID and DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's claims for C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)
review and for declaratory judgment. The Court has reviewed the record, the initial and
supplemental briefs of the parties, and being fully advised, finds as follows.
I.
This matter concerns the Town Council of the Town of Avon's ("Town Council")
adoption on February 10, 2004 of Ordinance No. 04-01 which approved a Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") Plan and Development Agreement for property known as Lot 61 and
located in the middle of what is known as the Town Center. Plaintiff is the homeowners
association for the Avon Center at Beaver Creek ("Avon Center") residential homeowners. The
Avon Center lies to the north of Lot 61 in the Town Center. Defendant Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
("Fairfield") is the current owner of Lot 61.
Plaintiff sought to invalidate the ordinance and commenced this action on March 8, 2004
asserting claims for C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) relief, injunctive relief and declaratory relief. Plaintiff's
motion for a preliminary injunction was denied on April 8, 2004. The Avon Defendants' motion
for summary judgment on the remaining claims was denied on April 21, 2005. The parties have
since briefed the C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) and declaratory judgment issues.
The Town Council approved the original Lot 61 PUD in 1999 by Ordinance No. 99-16.
In 2001, the Town adopted a plan entitled the Avon Town Center Implementation Plan ("Town
Center Plan"). In July of 2002, the Town Council granted a six-month extension of the
expiration date of the original PUD to February 3, 2003 by Ordinance 02-17 for the applicant to
consider the ramifications of the Town Center Plan. On January 8, 2003, by Ordinance No. 03-
01, the expiration date was further extended to February 3, 2004. The zoning would revert to
Town Center zoning if the PUD expired.
On June 24, 2003, Fairfield's predecessor, IDG 3 LLC, submitted an application to
amend the PUD to adhere to the Town Center Plan requirements. Attached to the application
was a three -sheet Lot 61 P. U.D. Development Plan ("Development Plan") prepared by Michael
Hazard Associates. On January 6, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval with conditions. Plaintiff asserts and Defendants do not dispute that prior to final
adoption, the Town of Avon ("Town") treated the application as a new PUD submittal rather
than as a PUD amendment. The transcript of the January 13, 2004 Avon Town Council Meeting
confirms that assertion. At the meeting, the Town Council approved Resolution No. 04-01
which approved a preliminary plat for Lot 61.
At the Avon Town Council Meeting of January 27, 2004, the Town Council approved
Ordinance No. 04-01 on first reading and approved Resolution 04-04 which referred the matter
to Planning and Zoning to consider an extension of the current PUD development rights on Lot
61 until a final decision was made on the pending application. The Town Council approved
Ordinance No. 04-01 on second reading on February 10, 2004 and adopted Resolutions Nos. 04-
05 and 04-06. Resolution 04-05 approved a replat which conveyed to the Town certain
easements and a right-of-way pertaining to Benchmark Court and the transportation hub pursuant
to the terms of the Development Agreement. Resolution 04-06 approved a resubdivision replat
which established respective subsurface, surface and airspace estates. Plaintiff did not appeal the
adoption of Resolutions No. 04-05 and 04-06.
II.
The C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) review centers on the approval of the Development Plan and
Development Agreement in the absence of compliance with the mandatory PUD submittal
requirements in Avon Town Code ("Code") § 17.20.110(D). Plaintiff contends that (1) the
Town Council exceeded its jurisdiction in exercising its discretion to waive the submittal
requirements in that such discretion is not afforded to the Town Council by the Code; (2) the
approval of Ordinance No. 04-01 was arbitrary and capricious in that the failure to comply with
the submittal requirements rendered the approval devoid of sufficient evidentiary support; and
(3) the vested rights statute and Code provisions do not confer authority on the Town or the
Town Council to disregard the submittal requirements of the Code.
(a) ... In the following cases relief may be obtained in the district court by
appropriate action under the practice prescribed in the Colorado Rules of Civil
Procedure:
2
(4) Where any governmental body or officer or any lower judicial body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy otherwise
provided by law:
(I) Review shall be limited to a determination of whether the body or officer has
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the
record before the defendant body or officer... .
C.R.C.P. 106.
"Abuse of discretion means that the decision under review is not reasonably supported by
any competent evidence in the record." Van Sickle v. Boyes, 797 P.2d 1267, 1271 (Colo.
1990)(citation omitted). "'No competent evidence' means that the governmental body's decision
is 'so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious
exercise of authority."' Board of County Commr's of Routt County v. O'Dell, 920 P.2d 48, 50
(Colo. 1996)(citation omitted). "[C]ompetent evidence is the same as substantial evidence."
Colorado Mun. League v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 739 P.2d 40, 44 (Colo. 1988).
"Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, and must do more than create a suspicion of the
existence of the fact to be established." Colorado Mun. League, 739 P.2d at 44 (citations
omitted). "The reviewing court must also determine whether an agency misconstrued or
misapplied the law. However, if there is a reasonable basis for its interpretation of the law, the
decision may not be set aside on those grounds." Save Park County v. Board of County
Commr's of the County of Park, 969 P.2d 711, 714 (Colo. App. 1998) aff'd 990 P.2d 35 (Colo.
1999)(citation omitted). "The agency's interpretation of its own regulations must be reviewed to
ensure that if does not amend its regulations in the guise of interpreting them." Save Park
County, 969 P.2d at 714.
HI.
Code § 17.20.110 contains the regulations pertaining to PUD developments. Generally,
the process requires a property owner to submit an application for PUD approval which must
include certain information including specific submittal requirements. Code § 17.20.110(B).
The Department of Community Development must then review the application and prepare a
report. Code § 17.20.110(C)(3). A hearing is then conducted by the Planning and Zoning
commission which prepares a report for the Town Council's review. Code § 17.20.110(C)(3).
The Town Council then considers the application and the principal criteria to evaluate the
proposed PUD zoning are the design criteria. Code § 17.20.110(H). A development plan is the
principal document which guides the development and which shall be approved by the Town
Council by ordinance in conjunction with the review and approval of PUD zoning. Code §
17.20.110(E). Development standards are to be determined by the Town Council as part of the
approved development plan and shall include an evaluation of the proposed PUD's compliance
with the design criteria. Code § 17.20.110(I). A design review process is thereafter conducted
before the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure compliance with various design
guidelines.
Code §§ 17.14.010-17.14.110 govern vested property rights. These provisions, intended
to implement the state vested property rights found at C.R.S. § 24-68-101 to 24-68-106,
3
essentially recognize vested property rights for three years but also permit the Town to enter into
a development agreement which vests the right to proceed under an approved site specific
development plan for an extended period of time. Code § 17.14.100 permits the Town Council
to designate an approval other than the standard development plan to be designated as the site
specific development plan for a specific project. However, Code § 17.14.070 provides that
"[a]pproval of a site specific development plan shall not constitute an exemption or waiver of
any other provisions of this Code pertaining to the development and use of property." C.R.S. §
24-68-103 pertaining to local government approvals provides that "an application for approval of
a site specific development plan as well as the approval, conditional approval, or denial of
approval of the plan shall be governed only by the duly adopted laws and regulations in effect at
the time the application is submitted to a local government." Article III of the Development
Agreement declares that the Development Agreement, Development Standards and Development
Plan constitute an approved site specific development plan for vested rights purposes.
Defendants do not, however, cite any specific provision in the state statutes or local regulations
which permit the governmental entity to disregard existing zoning regulations. To the contrary, a
review of the pertinent provisions indicates that approval must be the result of zoning and
development accomplished in accordance with existing local regulations.
IV.
The development plan and requisite development standards are to be determined upon
Town Council consideration of the information mandated by the submittal requirements.
E. Development Plan. An approved development plan is the principal
document in guiding the development, density, uses and activities of a PUD. A
development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the town council in
conjunction with the review and approval of any PUD. The development plan
shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with subsection D of this
section. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information
necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district
shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the
approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan,
parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted,
special review and accessory uses.
Code § 17.20.100(E)(emphasis added). Pursuant to Code § 17.08.010 "shall" is mandatory.
I. Development Standards. Development standards including lot area, site
dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and
parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved
development plan with consideration of the recommendation of the planning
commission.
This determination shall be based upon the evaluation of the proposed PUD's
compliance with the design criteria outlined in subsection H of this section.
Code § 17.20.100(I).
4
Upon review of the 11 design criteria contained in Code § 17.20.110(H), it is also
apparent that many of the criteria can only be addressed within the framework of the mandated
submittal requirements.
Plaintiff contends the Town Council failed to require submission of 10 of the 14
mandatory submittal requirements found in Code § 17.20.100(D).
B. Application. An application for approval of a PUD may be filed by any
owner of property to be included in the PUD or his or her agent or authorized
representative. The application shall be made on a form provided by the town and
shall include:
4. Submittal requirements as outlined in subsection D of this section.
D. Submittal Requirements.
3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of
the property to be included in the special development district, to include the
location of improvements, existing contour lines, natural features, existing
vegetation, water courses and perimeter property lines of the parcel.
5. A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed development to
include a square footage breakdown of all proposed uses, parking provided, and
proposed densities;
6. Proposed site plan showing the approximate locations and dimensions of
all buildings and structures and all principal site development features. For
projects less than two acres in size the plan shall be prepared at a scale not smaller
than one inch equals twenty feet. For projects larger than two acres in size the
appropriate scale shall be determined by the department of community
development[;]
7. Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not
smaller than 1/8 inch equals one foot in sufficient detail to determine floor areas,
circulation, location of uses, and general scale and appearance of the proposed
development;
8. A vicinity plan showing the proposed improvements in relation to all
adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet;
9. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable techniques for demonstrating a
visual analysis of the proposed development in relationship to existing conditions;
10. A site massing model depicting the proposed development in relationship
to development on adjacent parcels;
11. A preliminary landscape plan showing existing landscape features to be
retained and removed, proposed landscaping and landscaped site development
features such as recreation facilities, bike paths and trails, pedestrian plazas and
walkways, water features and other elements. For projects less than two acres in
size the plan shall be prepared at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty
feet. For projects larger than two acres in size the appropriate scale shall be
determined by the department of community development;
5
12. Preliminary drainage and grading plan;
13. Environmental impact report... .
Code § 17.20.110 (emphasis added).
The 10 submittal requirements set forth above are those Plaintiff disputes. By the Court's
Order Re Supplemental Briefing, the parties were ordered to submit supplemental briefs
addressing each of the submittal requirements and providing specific citations of the evidentiary
support or the lack thereof in the record. The supplemental briefs reflect the following as to the
disputed requirements.
The application did not include the stamped survey of Submittal Requirement No. 3. The
Town references the Lot 61 Development Site Plan ("Site Plan"), (Record, p. 4) and asserts
without explanation that a stamped survey was not required. The only items depicted on the Site
Plan are the boundaries and setback requirements. There is no indication of existing contour
lines, natural features, existing vegetations or water courses. Plaintiff contends a stamped survey
of existing conditions is necessary to review and evaluate the proposed plan in relation to
existing conditions. The PUD Application Checklist ("Checklist") (Record, p. 3) indicates a
"[p]roperty survey with RLS stamp and signature" is required.
The application did not include the zoning analysis of Submittal Requirement No. 5. The
Town cites the Checklist wherein the staff determined it was not applicable. No explanation is
offered. Plaintiff contends a zoning analysis, including a square footage calculation of all uses,
is required to determine at least minimum parking requirements.
The application did not include the proposed site plan contemplated by Submittal
Requirement No. 6. The Town references the Site Plan and Fairfield contends the information
contained in the Development Agreement and attachments thereto (Record, pp. 44-70), the Staff
Report (Record, pp. 289-98), the Development Plan and the hearing transcripts are sufficient to
determine the approximate locations and dimensions of the buildings and structures. The Court
has reviewed each of these documents. While these documents concern and identify certain
development standards pertaining to density, type and location of use, height maximums and
other matters, the record does not disclose approximate locations and dimensions of proposed
structures or site development features. It is apparent from the transcript of the January 27, 2004
Town Council meeting that no specific design had yet been developed. Plaintiff contends that
the Town Council could not have determined the impact of the proposed development on
adjacent properties and the aesthetics of the Town without such information.
The application did not include the preliminary building elevations, sections and floor
plans of Submittal Requirement No. 7. The Town states that the requirement was waived by
staff as reflected on the Checklist, but again without explanation of the waiver. Fairfield cites
the various restrictions within the development standards but fails to demonstrate how these
standards allow a determination of floor areas, circulation, location of uses and general scale and
appearance of the proposed development. Plaintiff contends the information is necessary to
determine the impact on adjacent properties and the Town.
6
The application did not include a specific vicinity plan on the scale required by Submittal
Requirement No. 8. The Town and Fairfield rely on the Site Plan and Development Plan which
reflect only a portion of adjoining properties. It appears from the record that site massing models
were presented, however, the models have not been presented as part of the record. Plaintiff
contends the vicinity plan is necessary to assess the impact on adjoining properties.
The Town concedes that nothing was submitted as to Submittal Requirement No. 9.
Fairfield references the 3 -dimensional analysis of the proposed development presented at the
February 10, 2004 meeting which is not part of the record in this matter. Plaintiff contends that
the required photo overlays would have shown that the proposed development is inconsistent
with current Town Center development and would interfere with both view corridors and solar
access.
A site massing model was not included in the application as required by Submittal
Requirement No. 10. However, it appears the Town Council later required a massing model
which was presented but is not included in the record. Select images from the model are
attached to the Development Agreement (Record, p. 67).
The Town staff waived the preliminary landscaping and preliminary drainage and
grading plans required by Submittal Requirements No. 11 and 12. Fairfield contends these
requirements are met because approval of ordinance No. 04-01 is expressly conditioned on final
design review, but fails to cite any specific Code provision by which waiver or deferral is
permitted. Plaintiff contends the landscape plan is of particular importance given the permitted
maximum of 90% site coverage and the resulting impact of the remaining 10% on the social and
recreational experiences within the Town Center. Plaintiff also contends the drainage and
grading plan is necessary to determine the potential adverse effects on adjacent properties, the
environment and Town infrastructure.
The Town staff determined the environmental impact report of Submittal Requirement
No. 13 was not applicable. The Staff Report (Record, pp. 292-95) cited by Fairfield does not
address the environmental impacts. Plaintiff contends this information is necessary to assess the
potential environmental impacts, particularly given that the PUD will contain a transportation
center with the potential to produce excess pollution as a result of extensive vehicular traffic in a
densely populated area.
The Court has also reviewed the staff reports which were prepared as the proposed
development progressed. It is obvious to the Court that the staff expended considerable effort in
formulating recommendations as to development standards and compliance with design criteria
based on the available information. It is also apparent from the record that the Town Council
proceeded based on advice that compliance with submittal requirements was not mandatory.
Nonetheless, the Court's review of the supplemental briefs and the portions of the record cited
therein clearly demonstrates a substantial lack of compliance with submittal requirements.
7
V.
In the briefing pertaining to the Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment, the parties disputed whether the vested rights statute and the Code provisions enacted
pursuant to the state statute conferred authority on the Town Council to waive compliance with
existing zoning regulations. The Court cited pertinent legal comment and concluded that "the
issue of the permissible scope of the Development Agreement remains unresolved by the present
briefing." The Court accordingly declined to enter summary judgment on the minimal legal
authority presented in the motion and anticipated further argument on the issue in conjunction
with the C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) briefing. However, the Avon Defendants stated in their response
brief that they would not repeat that argument and Fairfield asserted in a footnote that it desired
to preserve the argument that the vested rights provision in the Code presented an alternative
procedure to the formal submittal requirements but failed to present any legal authority as to the
permissible scope of Development Agreements under the vested rights provisions. As none of
the Defendants have presented further legal argument or authority pertaining to the permissible
scope of a Development Agreement and have previously failed to cite any legal authority by
which the vested rights provisions permits the local government to disregard existing zoning
regulations, the Court will not further address that issue and will not consider compliance with
submittal requirements to be waived based on the vested rights provisions or the Development
Agreement. Thus, the Court will proceed to consider the jurisdictional and evidentiary issues.
The caselaw cited by the parties reflects that an abuse of discretion analysis is appropriate
when a local government acts pursuant to discretion afforded to it by the regulations. When
discretion is not afforded and discretionary action is nonetheless taken, the analysis is whether
the governmental body exceeded its jurisdiction or misconstrued or misapplied the law.
Plaintiff relies principally on Sherman v. Colorado Springs Planning Comm 'n, 680 P.2d
1302 (Colo. App. 1983)("Sherman P") in which it was held that the city council exceeded its
jurisdiction in exercising discretion in the rejection of a condominium development plan where
no such discretion was afforded under the applicable zoning ordinances. Plaintiff contends the
Town Council acted in a similar fashion in waiving mandatory submittal requirements without
any discretionary authority to do so.
[T]he proper reading of Sherman I is that a home rule city's zoning code cannot
grant it the power to review and deny a permitted use unless the zoning code
provides adequate review standards or criteria to do so. Without the proper
standards or criteria, a court will not interpret the zoning provisions as granting
such authority.
Critical to the ruling of the court of appeals in Sherman / was the absence of any
standards or criteria for reviewing development plans... .
Colorado Springs v. Securcare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244, 1251 (2000).
In this matter, the Town of Avon had in place standards and criteria by which the Town
Council could exercise discretion in the review of the application and thus, the Court does not
8
find Sherman / dispositive. The central issue is whether the Town Council could properly act in
the absence of information determined to be relevant and mandated by the existing regulations.
In Save Park County, cited by Fairfield, the court addressed claimed deficiencies in the
approval process for a subdivision plat. In addressing the failure to submit a sketch plan, the
court noted that submission was mandatory for a rezoning request but discretionary for
subdivision approval. As the submissions contained much of the information that would have
been included in the sketch plan and as the applicant sought only subdivision approval, the court
determined the reviewing body acted within its discretion. The court did suggest however that
the failure to submit a mandatory submission could render the approval invalid. The court
further found that the failure to submit a drainage plan was not an abuse of discretion based on
the statutory language which required submission only where applicable and given that a letter
from a professional engineer had been submitted which concluded that a drainage study was
unnecessary.
In this matter, the regulations do not contain any discretionary language as to the
submittal requirements. As set forth in detail above, the supplemental briefs filed by the Town
and Fairfield almost entirely failed to demonstrate that the information to be provided by the
submittal requirements was presented to the Town Council. Thus, Save Park County is
distinguishable from the present matter.
Upon objection by Plaintiff's counsel at the January 27, 2004 Town Council meeting as
to the failure to comply with the submittal requirements, the Town Council was advised that the
submittal requirements may be waived by the Town Council. TR., pp. 33-36. See January 22,
2004 Memo to Town Council (Record, pp. 282-83). The justifications for the advice include (1)
the opinion that submittal requirements are for the benefit of the Town Council and it may
therefore waive them; (2) the general purpose clause of Code § 17.20.110(A) concerning the
flexibility of a PUD development; (3) Code § 17.20.110(E) to the extent that it provides for
discretion as to what is included in a development plan and need only establish parameters; (4)
Code § 17.20.110(J) which contemplates that existing PUDs may have been approved without a
specific plan; and (5) the vested rights provision. None of these stated justifications authorize
the approval of PUD zoning and a development plan in the absence of compliance with
mandated submittal requirements. The Town Council's interpretation of these provisions to
afford it discretion to unilaterally alter the approval process has the effect of improperly
amending the regulations.
As to the substantive information that would have been contained in the submittal
materials had they been presented, Defendants basically assert, without explanation, that a
particular submittal material was waived by staff, was not applicable, was not required or was
deferred to design review, or Defendants cite to a noncompliant submittal material or concede
that a particular material was not provided. No factual basis or finding is offered to substantiate
that a particular submittal material was properly waived or determined to be inapplicable, or that
the requisite information is contained elsewhere in the record. Accordingly, there is no
competent evidence in the record to support the waiver of the submittal requirements.
The deficient submittal requirements include such fundamental and critical matters as
environmental impact, drainage and grading plans, landscaping plans, a survey, zoning analysis
and a vicinity plan. This information is essential to evaluate the proposed PUD zoning within
the design criteria, to formulate development standards and to allow for meaningful Town
Council review or public comment. The matters contained in the submittal requirements are
those which have been legislatively determined to be relevant to any PUD zoning and
development plan consideration. Thus, the Court concludes the Town Council exercised a
discretion not afforded to it and further, acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in approving
the PUD application without requiring compliance with the submittal requirements and without a
factual basis for waiving compliance. Ordinance No. 04-01 is accordingly invalid.
VI.
Plaintiff finally seeks declaratory relief as to the effect of this Order on future
proceedings and the zoning designation of Lot 61. The Court finds the request to be premature.
As the Court has determined that Ordinance No. 04-01 is invalid, this matter is in effect
concluded until such time as the owner or the Town Council takes further action concerning the
status or development of Lot 61 upon remand for proceedings consistent with this Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED,
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on Plaintiffs
First Claim for Relief.
2. Ordinance No. 04-01 is hereby declared invalid.
3. Plaintiffs Third Claim for Relief is dismissed without prejudice.
DATED THIS 261" DAY OF APRIL, 2006.
BY THE COURT:
/s/R. Thomas Moorhead
District Court Judge
Original signature on file
10
IILARf ��I d�. VALLEY
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
WORK SESSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008
MEETING BEGINS AT4:45 PM
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD
Aye"
L O R A D O
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL, DAVE DANTAS, KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS, TAMRA NOTTINGHAM UNDERWOOD
TOWN ATTORNEY: JOHN DUNN
TOWN STAFF
TOWN MANOAGER: LARRY BROOKS TOWN CLERK: PATTY MCKENNY
ALL WORK SESSION MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME; PLEASE TELL THE MAYOR YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER No. 2 BELOW
ESTIMATED TIMES ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE
PLEASE VIEW AVON'S WEBSITE, HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG, FOR MEETING AGENDAS AND MEETING MATERIALS
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND RECREATION CENTER, ALPINE BANK, AND AVON LIBRARY
THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH
4:45 PM 1. INQUIRY OF THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 2. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND STAFF UPDATES
a. "Sister City" Update (Amy Phillips, Councilor)
b. Colorado Department of Wildlife "Fishing iS Fun" Grant Update (Jenny
Strehler, Director Public Works and Transportation) Memo only
c. Avon Recreation Center Projects Update (Shane Pegram, Engineer I)
5:00 PM 3. ADJOURNMENT
Avon Council Meeting. 08.10.14
Page 1 of 5
Town of Avon
Department of Public Works
Memo
To: The Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Through: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Jennifer Strehler, Director of Public Works
Rob Janusz, Superintendent of Parks Division
Date: October 14, 2008
Re: Staff Update Regarding Fishing Is Fun Grant from
Colorado Department of Wildlife
Summary:
In July 2008, The Town was notified that we received a grant of $65,000 from the
Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) under the Fishing is Fun Program. Because this
amount is insufficient to construct the project as originally scoped, Public Works staff has
been negotiating with CDOW to keep the 2008 grant funds and apply for additional monies
from CDOW in 2009. Staff's goal is to obtain grants of at least $100,000 and up to
$142,500 from CDOW such that an ADA-compliant fishing pier and a few other angler -
related amenities can be constructed. Acknowledgement of additional awards is expected
by June 2009. Local town match for this project would be $60,000 to $125,000. This
project is not currently specifically listed in the 2009-2014 CIP however there are CIP
budgeted funds of $200,000/yr as a placeholder for Nottingham Park Improvements.
There appears to be public support for a fishing pier based on results of the Parks Survey
and based on observations of the frequency of anglers on the lake.
This memorandum is provided as a staff update. No specific action of Town Council is
required at this time.
Background:
The Town applied for a FIF grant in February 2008. Mayor Ron Wolf and Town
Manager Larry Brooks wrote a joint letter of support to CDOW. The original project
had an estimated cost of $800,800 and requested approximately $460,000 in grant
funds from CDOW. The original project scope included a fishing pier, two picnic
shelters and associated furnishings, shoreline stabilization, new public restrooms,
public art, and interpretive signage around the lake. CDOW did not have sufficient
funding in 2008 to support this project as expected and offered an award equivalent
to only 8% of the total project budget ($65,000).
Page 1 of 4
Financial Implications:
The total CDOW-FIF grant funds contributed toward a fishing pier can be expected
to range from $65,000 (already secured) to $142,500. The Town will learn the
total award on or before June 2009. These grant funds are administered by CDOW
as reimbursements to the town's expenditures. Finance should expect a 45-60 day
lag in accounts receivable for reimbursement requests.
The local cost (i.e., town's share) of this project is expected to be in the range of
$130,000 to $150,000. The final value is dependant on the amount of CDOW-FIF
funds that are awarded in 2009, inflation of labor and materials, and on any
additional project elements that the Town Council may wish to include. Means to
contain costs include self -performance of some work items (e.g., engineering
design and specification preparation, bidding, general contract administration and
construction management, landscaping and site restoration), design/build services
on the pier and shelter, and the option to delete the picnic shelter and associated
amenities entirely. If sufficient monies are available, additional elements to be
considered might be to add 4-6 interpretive signs (e.g., regarding the lake's
history, construction, hydraulic function, and ecology) around the lake trail and/or
to outsource more of the design and construction management and oversight
activities.
This project is not specifically listed in
the Town's 2009 or 2010 CIP budget.
Please note, however, that $200,000
per year for each of the next several
years is budgeted in the proposed CIP
as a placeholder for "Nottingham Park
Improvements". (It was staff's
intentions to repair portions of the trail
as a priority but other improvements
have not yet been prioritized by the
consultants working on the Park Master
Plan.) If the Council likes this project,
it would be possible to use some of
these funds.
Recommendation:
This memorandum is provided as a staff update. No specific action of Town Council is
required at this time. Staff will continue to pursue additional funds from CDOW for a
fishing pier unless opposing feedback from Town Council is provided.
Town Mnager m•
Atta� ts:
Figure and cost estimate describing Fishing is Fun Conceptual Project Elements
Page 3 of 4
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer(44 -
Shane Pegram, Engineer II
Date: October 8, 2008
Re: Avon Recreation Center Projects Update
Summary: This memo provides an update to Town Council on the Avon Recreation Center's
projects that are currently underway. The Recreation Center will remain closed during the month of
October to complete multiple projects.
Discussion: Staging and preparation work for the Avon Recreation Center Remodel began in
September. The Recreation Center closed on October 1, 2008 for the remodel project start up. The
project has progressed very well and as of October 8 is one day ahead of schedule. The status of
the remodel is as follows:
• All structural steel has been installed and the new concrete floor has been placed.
• Framing and electrical has been completed in the daycare and sheet rock finishing is in
progress.
• Framing of the new lobby ceiling is nearing completion and installation of sheet rock is
scheduled for October 9m.
• Mechanical and electrical work in the new lobby ceiling will be completed by October 9th.
The following Recreation Center projects are also underway:
• The southwest patio ceiling and CMU column are in need of repair due to moisture damage.
Quotes for the patio repairs are being prepared now.
• Recreation Center pool resurfacing is underway.
• Replacement of two existing HVAC units and preventive maintenance on two existing air
handlers is scheduled for completion by Trane.
• Wiss, Janey, Elstner, Inc. is preparing their final report on the existing condition of the CMU
block and recommendations for repair. Staff will evaluate their recommendation and
proceed with repairs as required.
The remodel project will be substantially completed on October 31, 2008 to allow reopening the
Recreation Center on November 1, 2008.
Town Manager Comments: