TC Council Packet 08-24-2010TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO FHON
AVON REGULAR MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2010
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL, DAVE DANTAS, KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS, ALBERT "Buz" REYNOLDS, JR.
TOWN STAFF
TOWN ATTORNEY: ERIC HEIL 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 TOWN HALL 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4. COMMUNITY & CITIZEN INPUT
5. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Minutes from August 17, 2010
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. ORDINANCES
a. Public Hearing Continued From July 27. 2010, August 10, 2010, August 17, 2010 on
Ordinance No. 10 -14, Series of 2010, First Reading, An Ordinance Amending the Avon
Municipal Code by Enacting Title 7, The Avon Development Code; Repealing Title 16:
Subdivisions; Repealing Title 17: Zoning; and Repealing Portions of Title 2: Administration and
Personnel (Sally Vecchio, Asst Town Manager Community Development, Eric Heil, Town Attorney)
Review proposed Development Code as adopted by the Planning & Zoning Commission
8. TOWN MANAGER REPORT
9. TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT
10. MAYOR REPORT
11. ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA DATES & PROPOSED TOPICS:
SEPT 14T ": Ordinance No. 10 -14 the Avon Development Code, Bond Refinancing Ordinance, Sherman &
Howard Engagement Letter for Bond Refinancing, Proposal, Recommendation & Agreement for
VoIP Upgrade, Budget 2011: Review Administrative Programs, New hotel and restaurant liquor
license for Gondola Pizza
Avon Council Meeting.10.08.24
Page 2 of 2
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Initials
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Sally Vecchio, Ass't Town Mgr/ Community Development
Eric Heil, Town Attorney
Date: August 18, 2010
Re: Avon Development Code Review. Revisions to the Commercial Zone
Districts and PUD requirements.
Summary: Last week, the Council continued its discussion of the proposed commercial
zone districts, development bonuses and PUD requirements. After hearing public
comment, Council provided a range of comments and direction regarding desired
revisions. Staff has attempted to describe the desired revisions and effects on the
Development Code.
The Town Center Zone District — desired revisions:
Eliminate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement (both minimum and maximum).
2. Eliminate the Development Bonus section 7.28.100.
3. Retain the existing flexibility and applicability of the Planned Unit Development.
Eliminate Floor Area Ratios: The elimination of the minimum and maximum Floor
Area Ratio in the commercial zone districts would generally result in building sizes being
determined by site coverage, building height, and compliance with the development and
design standards. Increasing the permitted building site coverage in the Town Center
Zone District from 50% to 80% theoretically could allow much larger buildings (4.8:1
FAR); however, the actual volume of buildings would likely be constrained by parking
requirements and other development and design standards. As proposed, consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan is a review criteria for development standards and design
review; therefore, the Town Council could require the minimum FAR of 1.6:1 along Main
Street as stated in the West Town Center Investment Plan (e.g. Lot 61 and Lot B).
Eliminate the Development Bonus Section: The elimination of the Development
Bonus section would result in reduced potential for the Town to realize or negotiate
"public benefits" from large scale projects in the Town Core. The Development Bonus
section was tied directly to the FAR maximums; therefore, without FAR standards there
would be no purpose or effect for a Development Bonus program. Several Council
members did express interest in guidelines for public benefits. The Comprehensive
Plan and related documents should provide sufficient guidance regarding desired public
benefits, or such documents could be revised and updated to better define desired
Town Council
RE: Town Commercial Zone Districts
August 19, 2010
Page 2 of 3
public benefits. Council should give some consideration to their definition and
expectation for "public benefits." Development or redevelopment of properties in the
Town commercial core in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan documents if often
times considered a public benefit in itself.
The PUD Requirements: Retaining the existing PUD provisions would include the
following standards:
1. No minimum property size requirement would be adopted. All properties in the
Town of Avon of would be eligible to apply for PUD Zoning.
2. A PUD could be used to modify or waive zoning requirements (height, lot coverage,
setbacks, uses), development standards (mobility connectivity, parking, landscape,
design, and natural resource) and subdivision requirements; however, PUDs could
not be used to waive or modify the permitted uses in the underlying zone district.
3. The underlying zoning district standards would be used as the base by which
modifications are considered.
4. Council would have broad discretion to determine the appropriate public benefits
which should be required for a particular PUD project.
Discussion: These proposed changes would result in the following:
1. Revisions to the Town Center Zone District (TC) to increase maximum site coverage
standards (from 50% to 80 %), while retaining the existing maximum building height
(80 ft) would allow the type of development density envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff further recommends revising the current density limit of
30 dwelling units /per acre to allow unlimited residential density (without PUD
approval) provided that the applicant provides sufficient water rights and parking for
the additional units. This change supports the Comprehensive Plan goal to
encourage more housing opportunities in the Town Core area without negatively
impacting the town's water rights and infrastructure.
2. Development and Design Standards that regulate the location of buildings and
improvements will promote the Comprehensive Plan goals for a more pedestrian
and transit - oriented Town Core.
3. Retaining a PUD process that permits the Council to waive or modify the zone
district standards and the development and design standards.
4. No improvement in guidance regarding the public benefits which Council may desire
or require for PUD approvals other than goals and policies stated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
In order to further refine these proposed changes, Council should discuss and consider:
2
Town Council
RE: Town Commercial Zone Districts
August 19, 2010
Page 3 of 3
1. Whether the PUD should allow developments to waive or modify the Development
Standards or whether the Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) process will be
required. Development Standards include: Parking, Mobility /Connectivity,
Landscaping, Open Space and Design.
2. If Council determines that a goal of the Town Center zone district is to allow
sufficient density and development rights without the PUD process, then should the
maximum building height be increased over 80 feet? Should the maximum 30 /units
per acre density be increased or eliminated (assuming all developments provide
required water)?
3. Should the minimum parking requirements be reduced in the Town Center Zone
District or potentially eligible for reduction through the PUD process? Council could
consider allowing additional reductions for office and commercial parking
requirements if met through a parking district with a centralized public parking
garage.
Conclusion: A number of significant, complex and interrelated issues were discussed
at the last Council. The general consensus of Council appeared to be to eliminate both
the minimum and maximum FAR standards, eliminate the development bonus section,
and retain a flexible PUD zoning overlay district. Staff requests confirmation and
direction with regard to these matters before attempting to further revise these sections
of the Development Code.
Thank you, Sally and Eric
3
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Initials
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Sally Vecchio, Asst Town Mgr, Community Development
Date: August 12, 2010
Re: Avon Development Code Review — Commercial Zoning and PUDs
Summary:
Based on a discussion at the last Town Council meeting concerning the proposed PUD and
commercial zone district standards, staff will prepare an updated presentation on these topics
for the Council's special meeting on August 171h. The PowerPoint presentation from the April
work session on these topics is attached.
The updated presentation will include: 1) a design test of the Riverfront PUD comparing the
proposed Town Center (TC) zone district regulations to the entitlements approved by the PUD,
2) the relationship of the regulations to the Town Center Investment Plans, and 3) key elements
of the proposed PUD regulations and suggested revisions based on comments received at the
last meeting.
The special meeting will also include a presentation by the Town Attorney on the Annexation
and Disconnection Procedures (Chapter 7.36) and the 1041 Regulations (Chapter 7.40) in the
proposed Development Code.
Town Manager Comments:
4
Attachment:
PowerPoint presentation: Topic 1: Commercial Zone Districts
Topic 1 - Commercial Zone Districts
PLANNING fi ZONING COMMISSION
WORK Sf':55ION
APRIL b, 2010
I OIVN COUNCIL WORK SFSSION
APRIL1 , 2010
JOINT 1 ^JORK SESSION
APRIL 20, 2010
Phase 1 (Project Initiation'g'nd Analysis) Complete
Phase 2 (Diagnosis and Annotated Outline) Complete
Phase 3 (Draft New Land Use Code) Completed
Phase 4 (Public Review /Adoption Process) Undenvay
ZAC Review Draft of Code Feb 2008 — March 2010
Public Review of Code
PZC Review April — June 2010
• Council Review July — September 2010
Commercial Zoning /Bonus Density
April 6 PZC work session
April 13 TC work session
April 20 TCIPZC joint work session
Design and Development Standards
April 27 TC work session
May 4 PZC work session
May 11 TC/PZC joint work session
Review Redlined Code (other discussion topics TBD)
May 18 PZC work session
June 1 PZC work session
PZC Public Hearing (Targeted Date) June 15
East Town Center District Plan
West Town Center District Plan
Avon Comprehensive Plan
Avon Transportation Plan
Improve Vitality of Town Core
Encourage Transit Oriented Design
Improve Circulation (Vehicles and Pedestrians)
Promote Residential Opportunities
Reduce the use of PUDs for development
approvals.
Establish baseline uniform development
standards.
Provide more specific information about the public
benefit process.
Create appropriate zone districts and overlays.
8/12/2010
Zone Districts Updated & Amended
. ...... - ---------------- I ...... . ...... .
....... I..., . ............. ......... . - 8 ---------- ------ -------- ---
COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICTS
DISTRICT
TYPE
ABBREVIATION
DISTRICT NAME
Commercial
NC
Neighborhood Commercial
MC
Mixed Use Commercial
and Mixed
Use
TC
Town Center
Industrial
1C
Industrial Commercial
Retired
RH-C Res High Density/Commercial
SC Shopping Center
Parking, Loading and Access
Mobility and Connectivity
Landscape, Walls and Fences
Design (Building Orientation, Massing, Articulation)
Natural Resource Protection
Sustainability
• Density bonuses tied to goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Identifies allowable density increases for specific public benefits.
• Bonus density caps at 35% above base density.
• Town Center, Neighborhood Commercial & Mixed Commercial
Zone Districts eligible for bonus.
• Formulas provide guidance. Council has final discretion to
approve.
8/12/2010
Floor Area Ratio - What is appropriate base density in
the TON1m Core?
Bonus Density — do the incentives and public benefits
listed reflect community goals?
Parking Regulations — how should parking
requirements be addressed in the Town Core?
Determined existing density in Town Core
Tested new development standards
Parking requirements
Reduced lot coverage requirements
oDevelopment Bonus formulas
Current TC Zoning — 3:1 FAR (NV /out parking)
Existing Density in Town Center
FAR range 1:1 to 2.75:1 (w /reduced parking)
PUDs provided variances to:
Building Height, Lot Coverage, Parking Reductions
and Dwelling Units.
PUDs did not increase FAR or Public Benefits.
Chapel Square Bldg B
Mixed Use Commercial Zone
Design Test
Existing Conditions
New MC Zoning w /Bonus
Site Coverage
33 0/6
Site Coverage
70 °0
FAR 1:1
120,762 sf
FAR 1.5:1
179435 sf
2:1 max bonus
239,247 st
Dwelling Units
69
Dwelling Units
55
xv /max bonus
75
Max Bldg IIt
66'/107 ft
Max Slclg IIt
6o ft
w/ max bonus
81 ft
Parking
297 spaces required
Parking
418 spaces required
262 spaces provided
8/12/2010
10
Sheraton Mtn Vista PUD
Design Test
11
8/12/2010
12
PUD Zoning
Site Coverage 59 00
FAR :1.62:1/ 865,021 sy ft
D�celling Units 237
Max Bldg IIt 110 ft
Parking 590 spaces
PUD Zoning
Attainable Housing 12 DU
Transportation Improvements
Transit Stops
Pccicstrian Cross alts
Open Space Linkages to Optimize
Pedestrian Routes
Public Plaza 95,000 scl ft
Maitt St realignment
New TC Zoning w /Bonus
Site Coverage
30 0,0
FAR 3.1
716.649 scl ft
w /luax bonus
967.476 scl ft
DmIling Ultits
164
\N /max bonus
219
Max BIdg IIt
So ft
w/ max bonus
103 ft
Parking
goo spaces
765(-15%)
New TC Zoning w /Bonus
Attainable Housing Units
of max du/acre (i(4) = 551ntit5
Ru<idcnc*• reshictcd 27 of 55)
Cahiaion c;appcd 14
Public Spaces
esk;tlfi Phim = 951: residential sq ft
Transportation improvements
Realigmuent of V \lain Street. cross«alks.
siduc;IIL, and trmsit stops
Larry Brooks
From: Ron Wolfe email
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:50 PM
To: Larry Brooks; Sally Vecchio
Cc: Buz Reynolds; Brian Sipes Remote email; Kristi Ferraro email; Ron Wolfe email; Dave Dantas
email; AMY PHILLIPS; Rich Carroll email; Patty McKenny; Goulding Todd
Subject: Formal Input to LUC Review and Approval
Attachments: Formal Input to Draft LUC.docx
Attached is a formal submission of ideas and suggestions that I request be
evaluated and responded to during the continuing LUC adoption process.
Ron
1
Formal Input to Draft TOA Development Code
Role PUD: PUD's should be an alternative to Zone District compliance anywhere in
the current town and for any annexations. There should be no size or other
limitations. Hopefully good Zone District parameters and dkimensions will allow more
development within them and minimize the use of the PUD process. If they do not
there is no negative associated with PUD defined development. Is it correct to
interpret that in a PUD process, the "bonus" provisions and standards will be
applicable in order to exceed the dimensions of the underlying zoning?
Building Height: I have long contended that in Town Center (and possibly in Town
Core) we should be using a more imaginative definition of "building height." The
current definition drives use of the PUD process or a height development bonus
application to achieve significant vertical building articulation beyond any permitted
as an "architectural projection." I contend we are unnecessarily promoting the use of
the PUD process, inhibiting more beneficial street -level design, promoting bulky and
monolithic buildings and perhaps also inhibiting building design that efficiently
accesses views and the creation of higher value space. To remediate this
weaknesses, I want to introduce "footprint weighted average height" as follows:
"FWHt" (Footprint Weighted Height) _ (E[SN x HN])/ESN, provided that
"FWHt" < Zone District Maximum Building Height and
HM < Zone District Maximum Building Height + 20' ;(which is 80' + 20' in TC)
where SN is a specific portion of the building footprint measured in square feet, 1
through N portions comprise the total footprint which when combined, over which
there is single and unique measured height, HN is the height above that portion,
Feet, measured as we usually do and as defined in the Code, HM is the height of the
tallest portion of the building footprint, Feet, and which is limited to the Zone District
Height plus 35' or 44 %. In TC the 80' maximum height is increased to 100' for some
portion of the building and is offset by other portions of the building being below the
Zone District Maximum Building Height.
This method of defining and calculating height does not add any volume to the
building
Height Bonus: This bonus should now be applied to the above "FWHt," as an
increase in HM to < Zone District Maximum Building Height + 45' ; (which is 80' +
45' in TC). Therefore in TC the maximum height of any portion of a building will be
125' offset by some other portions being lower.
The standards for granting a height bonus should be used as drafted with the
additional requirement to (A) and (B) that "dedicated" space and uses be
memorialized in a legally binding and perpetual way so that the owner, town and
public cannot "forget" the provision that justified the bonus at a later amendment of
change of use
This Bonus does not add any volume to the building.
FAR: In TC the maximum FAR is too low and will drive development to the PUD
process and /or application for FAR Bonus. A FAR of 3 to 3.5 seems to be required
to shut off alternative approaches. This is a negative outcome if we wish to minimize
the use of the PUD process but is a good outcome if we which to potentiate gaining
the TOA benefits required to award a FAR Bonus. So perhaps 2.0 is a good point.
FAR Bonus: Three standards are available to grant a FAR Bonus: a restricted
housing requirement, a quantified and dedicated public improvement or benefit and
a water dedication.
1. Housing standards are reasonable and may or may not be attractive to
Developers. I suggest adding:
"100% of the added FAR is irrevocably committed to the sale, lease or free provision
to workers required to be employed by the project and /or the businesses uses
resident in it." Our prior use - worker correlation may be useful in analyzing whether
or not the added floor area can be justified by the employee needs created by the
project.
2. The Public Improvement standard is a good one except our starting point
of 75% is likely too high to engage interest. We should bring into play the probable
gross profit margin of a successful project, say 20% ( ?) and share in that extra profit
at perhaps 50 %. That approach results in a 10% factor. I suggest that this argument
be refined and that it is more appropriate and leverages the Developer's basic
project plan and investments for mutual benefit.
3. Dedication of one SFE of water per 1,000 of additional floor area is
acceptable.
Density Bonus: Same as Height Bonus adding the employee standard in (!)
above.
Ron Wolfe
August 12, 2010
Patty McKenny
From:
Dominic Mauriello [dominic @mpgvail.com]
Sent:
Thursday, August 12, 2010 8:45 AM
To:
Eric Heil Email; Sally Vecchio; Matt Gennett
Cc:
Town Council Members
Subject:
Re: Development Code
That would be great.
I have been thinking about all of the discussion related to parking in the core of Avon. It was stated that many
PUD's obtain deviations to parking requirements and yet I was unaware that there was really a parking
problem at any of the properties in the core (maybe the Season's building is an exception when VR occupied
the space intensively).
I have been involved with and studied many residential and mixed projects for parking requirements, though
mostly in Vail. My experience is that core area properties that are mostly residential tend to be over parked,
meaning they built too many parking spaces and the parking structures are largely empty 98% of the time. On
mixed use projects (usually developed with a mixed use reduction) the problem tends not to be that there
isn't enough parking spaces but how they are restricted. Here I think the Town needs to focus on creating
more public parking areas within the parking structure that are open to customers (not the general public)
without the need to have a restricted pass to enter. The Westin is an ok example of this. I can enter to go to
the club and I get a pass or pay to exit.
Trying to require excessive amounts of parking under the theory that those spaces will be available for public
consumption is not a realistic approach. In some instances the parking requirements of code for a mixed use
project can be excessive.
Below is a section of the Town of Vail code that allows for a site specific study of parking demand and
utilization. Having a provision like this in Avon's code would be helpful on larger more complicated
development projects.
12- 10 -20: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12 -10 -18 of this chapter, the planning and environmental
commission may approve a reduction to the number of required spaces specified in section 12 -10 -10
of this chapter, provided a report documenting the presence of unique parking characteristics is
provided by a qualified consultant and the following findings are made by the planning and
environmental commission:
A. The parking demand will be less than the requirements identified in section 12 -10 -10 of this
chapter; and
B. The probable long term use of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate
additional parking demand; and
C. The use or activity is part of a demonstrated permanent program (including, but not limited to,
"rideshare" programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts) intended to reduce parking demand
that has been incorporated into the project's final approved development plan; and
I think there has been a lot of productive comments over the last two hearings with the Town Council and a lot
of direction on proposed changes.
I am hoping that before the next hearing the public could have a draft showing additions and deletions
(underline /strike -thru or track changes) from the version the Town Council began with. I think this is an
efficient for all of us to track what changes are occurring.
Let me know if that is the plan as it will give me and others confidence that we are all on the same page with
the changes that are reflective of the Town Council input.
Thanks,
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 1127
5601A Wildridge Road
Avon, Colorado 81620
970 - 376 -3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 1127
5601A Wildridge Road
Avon, Colorado 81620
970 - 376 -3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
Patty McKenny
From: Dominic Mauriello [dominic @mpgvail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:57 PM
To: Sally Vecchio; Matt Gennett
Cc: Town Council Members; Todd Goulding; Eric Heil Email
Subject: Wildridge Duplex Lots
Hi Sally and Matt:
Please share this with the Planning and Zoning Commission. I wanted to offer another approach to allowing
duplex structures to be developed as two single - family structures on the duplex lot.
I don't think it is necessary to subdivide a currently platted duplex lot under the minor subdivision process nor
do I believe a PUD amendment is required. I think this can be handled more as a design standard or guideline
that states that:
"the two dwelling units allowed on a duplex lot may be separated and developed as two independent
structures provided that they are planned as a single project, share the same access and driveway (except
where it may be found that independent driveways of accesses improve the design of the site (for example, a
property that has access to more than one street), and that a minimum of 20' of separation is provided
between the walls of the structures. Less than a 20' separation may be allowed in the case of narrow lot or
some other hardship found on the property, subject to approval by the Design Review Board. Ownership of
these homes may be created by a duplex plat as two or three parcels (in the case of a common area parcel)."
I think this methodology allows independent structures without a drastic departure from current recorded
platted lots. I am not suggesting that this would be the final language but I think it is a good starting place. I
know this may not be consistent with the definition of "duplex lot" in the covenants however, neither a PUD
amendment nor a resubdivision would void the original covenant language.
Thank you for allowing me to offer my two cents. I think I am now maybe up to 14 cents.
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Mauriello Planning Group, LLC
PO Box 1127
5601A Wildridge Road
Avon, Colorado 81620
970 - 376 -3318 cell
www.mpgvail.com
��EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
UPPER EAGLE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
846 Forest Road ♦ Vail, Colorado 81657
♦ Phone (970) 476 -7480 ♦ FAX (970) 4764089
erwsd,,merwsd.org ♦ www.erwsd.org
August 13, 2010
Mr. Justin Hildreth
Town of Avon Engineer
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Comments on Development Review Procedures, Chapters 7.16 and
Water Supply and Sewage Disposal, Section 7.32.070
Dear Justin:
i7A
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Town of Avon Land Development Code and for meeting
with me on this topic. This letter contains the written comments from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
(District) and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (Authority), collectively referred to as the Service
Providers, consistent with our discussions on July 26 and August 12, 2010. Many of these comments are intended
to further align the Town's review procedures with the District's and Authority's Developer Approval Process to
ensure a high level of coordination between our organizations, a clear and efficient approval process for
developers, and liability protections for both the Town and the District and Authority related to the approval of
new development. The District's and Authority's comments are as follows:
Development Review Procedures, 7.16
1. The District's and the Authority's Developer Approval Process provides for an "Ability to Serve Letter"
stating that proposed use of the Water System or Wastewater System will be served under the following
conditions:
a. The property to be served must be included in the Service Provider Boundary, and
b. Water rights dedication requirements must have been met, which may entail either the dedication
of water rights, agreement by the Town that the use will be served within the Town's water lease
agreement with the Authority, or a water services agreement between the Authority and the
developer has been executed, and
c. Sufficient system capacity is available to serve the proposed uses.
An Ability to Serve letter may contain conditions, will describe general requirements for service that have
been identified to date, and will state an expiration date. In order to comply with the requirements of
Colorado law, the Town should not grant development rights to a developer until the developer provides
proof of an Adequate Water Supply. Please confirm that the "Service Letter" required by section
7.32.070(e)(2) meets the minimum requirements of C.R.S. §29 -20- 304(2).
WATER, WASTEWATER, OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT SERVICES
F 13WSD` I ADM INIASSISTANTGENrRALMANAGEMLETTERS\2010VUSTINHILDRETH-AUGUST 11,2010.DOC
Justin Hildreth
August 13, 2010
2. The Town or a lending entity may request that a developer obtain commitments to serve the development
before the conditions to obtain an Ability to Serve Letter from the Service Providers can be met. In this
case the Service Providers will issue a Conditional Capacity to Serve Letter to the developer that states
that the Service Provider will serve the development if all conditions for an Ability to Serve Letter can be
met. A Conditional Capacity to Serve Letter does not commit the Service Provider to serve the
development if its conditions cannot be met, is based on information received by the Service Providers
from the developer at the time the letter is issued, and it may include an expiration date.
3. The Authority suggests that the process for a developer to obtain approval by the Town and Authority to
develop new water uses that will be covered under the Town's water rights lease agreement with the
Authority be described in the code.
4. In section 7.16.070 (e) (11) Preliminary Plan Review Criteria of the proposed code, the Service
Providers suggest that the section refer to a Conditional Capacity to Serve Letter, instead of an Ability to
Serve Letter, since development rights are not granted at the conclusion of this portion of the Town's
approval process.
5. In section 7.16.070 (f) Final Plat Review Criteria of the proposed code, the Service Providers suggest
that the requirement for the developer to provide an Ability to Serve Letter for water and sewer service be
written into this section, as a condition of Final Plat approval, which is the point at which development
rights are granted to the developer.
6. In section 7.16.140 (b) of the proposed code, the Service Providers suggest the code state that no vested
property right shall be granted or shall exist without proof of an Adequate Water Supply. The
determination of Adequate Water Supply shall be made in accordance with C.R.S. § 29 -20 -305. Any
change in use of water shall necessitate a review of the adequacy of the water supply by the water
provider and an additional water dedication may be required.
Water Supply and Sewage Disposal, Section 732.070
In section (e)(1) Required, the draft code states that "A final court decree of adjudicated water rights for
adequate quantity and use shall be a prerequisite of a final plat approval ... ". The Authority suggests that
the code also accept an executed Water Services Agreement between the developer and the Authority,
which would allow a developer to obtain final plat approval prior to a final court decree, if provisions are
agreed to that provide an assured alternate water supply should a decree not be obtained, such as a cash
payment, in lieu of a water rights dedication.
2. In section (e)(2) Service Letter, in the second line, the word "district" should be replaced with
"UERWA ". The Authority suggests that the code refer specifically to the Conditional Capacity to Serve
Letter and Ability to Serve Letter in this section.
3. In section (e)(3)(ii), the Authority suggests that the following language be added after the word "usage ":
"for residential uses and based on engineering calculations for other water uses." The Authority also
WATER, WASTEWATER, OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT SERVICES
F: 15WSD I ADM INIASSISTANTGENERAL MANAGER LET7ERS%2010UUSnN HILDRCPH AUGUST ]3.2010 DOC
Justin HiIdreth
August 13, 2010
requests that the following sentence be added to the end of this section: "Infrastructure capacity
calculations must be approved by UERWA."
4. In section (e)(4) Design Review, the Authority requests that the words "and capacity modeling." be added
after the word "estimates."
In section (f)(1) Sanitary Sewage Disposal, Service Letter, please remove the word "Upper ". The
District suggests that the code refer specifically to the Conditional Capacity to Serve Letter and Ability to
Serve Letter in this section.
6. In section (f)(2)(i), please replace "that department" with "ERWSD ".
7. In section (f)(2)(iii), the District suggest that the following language be added to the end of the section:
"for residential uses and calculated peak demand for other uses. Capacity calculations must be approved
by ERWSD."
8. In section (f)(3) Design Review, please add "and capacity modeling" to the end of the second sentence.
We are continuing to review section 7.16.150 Location, Character and Extent, and Chapter 7.401041
Regulations, and we will offer our comments on these provisions separately.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions concerning these comments.
Sincerely,
�a
inn Brooks
Assistant General Manager
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority
cc: Larry Brooks
WATER, WASTEWATER, OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Pi I5WSDII ADM INMSSISTANI Gr'NE:RAL MANAGER LETTCRS:010VUSTIN HILDRETH - AUGUST 13.2010.DOC
HEIL LAW
& PLANNING, LLC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor Wolfe and Town Council members
CC: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
FROM: Eric Heil, Town Attorney
DATE: August 4, 2010
SUBJECT: Responses to Public Comments
Summary: This memorandum responds to a variety of public comments received by
the Town of Avon regarding the draft Avon Development Code as presented to the
Town Council. The responses are intended to provide background information
regarding proposed Development Code language, legal issues and rationale, and
highlight relevant considerations in order to assist with Council's review of the proposed
Development Code.
Comment: Non - Conforming Structures. We should not be writing codes that create
non conforming uses of the majority of the existing development in the residential areas.
By doing this additional expenses will be created both by Town and the property
owners. Town staff will have a much larger job evaluating remodels, redevelopment
and new development.
ADC 7.04.120(c) Structures only prohibits an enlargement or increase in the non-
conformity. Additions or alterations to a non - conforming structure which meet the
requirements of the Development Code are not prohibited. Attention should be given to
the specific regulations which render structures non - conforming in order to understand
the actual impact of regulations. If desired or deemed beneficial, additional language
could be inserted to expressly state, "Additions or alterations to a non - conforming
structure which meet the requirements of the Development Code are not prohibited."
Comment: Director. This section essentially requires that there be a Director of
Community Development. The Town should have the flexibility to not have this position
in order to react to budgetary requirements. You might consider using a more generic
term like "Administrator" that the Town Manager can designate to enforce and interpret
the Code. This tends to be more common.
The Existing Code section 17.12.080 established a "Planning Department" under the
administration and control of a "Planning Director." The ADC defines "Director" as the
Director of the Community Development Department of the Town of Avon, as such
person is designated by the Town Manager. Avon's Home Rule Charter, Section 8.3
provides that the Town Manager has the duty to enforce laws and ordinances and has
the authority to hire all employees. Regardless of the term, the Director is the person
Heil Law & Planning, «C Eric Heil, Esq., A.I.C.P.
1499 Blake Street, Unit 1 -G Tel: 303.975.6120
Denver, CO 80202 eheil@avon.org
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 2 of 11
whom the Town Manager appoints and the Town Manager can eliminate the position,
assume the duties of the Director, or delegate such duties to a non - employee contractor
for the Town. The term "administrative officer" or other term could be used to describe
the person to whom application review responsibility was delegated.
Comment: Appeals Process. The other area that I would recommend looking closely
at is the appeals process and the timeframe for hearing and deciding appeals. In my
experience, you might get a verbal decision that you disagree with from staff, but then
getting that in a "final' written form could take weeks. With that and then the process to
get before the P &Z could take weeks. I would not rely on that as much of a relief value.
The appeals process should be discussed by Council. The Existing Code establishes a
process to appeal decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission to Town Council.
This process requires that a written appeal must be filed within 15 days of a decision.
Then, Town Council must review the appeal within 30 days of the date of filing the
appeal, then render a decision within 30 days "following commencement of review" or
may postpone final action for additional 30 days for additional information. The current
Zoning Code did not include an appeals process for administrative decisions and
interpretations. The Existing Code established the Town Council as the Board of
Building Appeals and provides in section 2.20.030(b) that "Any party in interest having a
legitimate pending question may file a request for ruling."
The proposed Development Code attempts to establish a clear and uniform appeals
process for all administrative and Planning and Zoning Commission decisions such that
the Town Council is the ultimate and final decision on all land use regulation matters
before a property owner or interested party can resort to District Court to challenge the
decision of the Town. As proposed, a written appeal must be filed within 14 days of the
date of a decision. Town Council must render a decision within 35 days of holding a
hearing. The proposed Development Code does not specify the maximum timeframe in
which the Council must hold a hearing.
1 suggest that a hearing for an appeal should be scheduled within 45 days after the day
that a written appeal is received. Also, a minimum notice should be provided to the
appellant of the date of the appeal hearing. 1 suggest a minimum written notice of the
date of an appeal hearing to be sent at least 10 days prior to the appeals hearing.
Comment: Cash in Lieu. The definition (in combination with its practice in the Park
Land dedication standards) leaves the issue entirely up for negotiation- no certainty for
investment or calculation of costs associated with development.
The language for the School Site Dedication and Park Land Dedication should be
discussed. The following issues are important for consideration: (1) the land dedication
language should ensure that the dedicated land is suitable for it intended use, (2) cash -
in -lieu should be allowed where the size of the development is not sufficient to result in
a usable land dedication or it adequate lands already exist for the public facility which
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 3 of 11
are in a location that can serve the development, and (3) the method of determining the
amount of cash -in -lieu should be based on the estimated value of unimproved, vacant
land after the requested approval for development, annexation, subdivision and /or
zoning. The determination of acceptable land dedications and acceptable cash -in -lieu
payments should be subject to review by the Town to promote land dedications and /or
cash payments which practically meet Town goals.
Comment: Development. Items exempted from the development definition seem to
contradict those areas being defined by the proposed 1041 (AASI) regulations as
development. Also, the definition seems to contradict the non - conforming uses being
created.
Response: The following revision is proposed for the definition of Development.
Development means the grading or clearing of land, the erection, construction or
alteration of structures, the change of use of a property, and the division of property to
create two (2) or more separate ownership interests.
(a) Development shall also include:
(1) Any construction, placement, reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material
change in the external appearance of a structure on land;
(2) Any change in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of
dwelling units in a structure or on a tract of land or a material increase in the
intensity and impacts of the development;
(3) Any change in use of land or a structure;
(4) Any alteration of a shore or bank of a river, stream, lake, pond, reservoir or
wetland;
(5) The commencement of drilling oil or gas wells, mining, stockpiling of fill materials,
filling or excavation on a parcel of land;
(6) The demolition of a structure;
(7) The clearing of land as an adjunct of construction;
(8) The deposit of refuse, solid or liquid waste, or fill on a parcel of land;
(9) The installation of landscaping within the public right -of -way, when installed in
connection with the development of adjacent property; and
(10) The construction of a roadway through or adjoining an area that qualifies for
protection as a wildlife or natural area.
(b) Unless otherwise regulated by this Development Code elsewhere, Development
shall not include:
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 4 of 11
(1) Work by a highway or road agency or railroad company for the maintenance or
improvement of a road or railroad track, if the work is carried out on land within
the boundaries of the right -of -way;
(2) Work by any public utility for the purpose of inspecting, repairing, renewing or
constructing, on established rights -of -way, any mains, pipes, cables, utility
tunnels, power lines, towers, poles, or the like; provided, however, that this
exemption shall not include work by a public entity in constructing or enlarging
mass transit or fixed guide way mass transit depots or terminals or any similar
traffic- generating activity;
(3) The maintenance, renewal, improvement, or alteration of any structure, if the
work affects only the interior or the color of the structure or the decoration of the
exterior of the structure;
(4) The use of any land for an agricultural activity ;
(5) A change in the ownership or form of ownership of any parcel or structure; or
(6) The creation or termination of rights of access, easements, covenants
concerning development of land, or other rights in land.
Comment: Determination of Completeness. A development application shall be
reviewed for completeness by the Director within fifteen (15) business days after
receipt. If the application is determined to not be complete then a written communication
shall be promptly provided to the applicant indicating the specific deficiencies in the
application. The determination that an application is complete or the failure to determine
an application is incomplete within fifteen (15) days shall not preclude the Town from
requiring information which is necessary and relevant to evaluate the development
application for compliance with the review criteria. A determination by the Director that
the application is incomplete may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with
the procedures in §7.16.160. 15 days to determine completeness seems fairly
excessive. Completeness of an application should be done in no more than 5 days.
Comment: Determination of Completeness. With the requirement of a pre -
application meeting or meetings with any development application, stretching
completeness review to half a month appears excessive especially for smaller classes
of development applications.
The Existing Code does not establish a minimum timeframe to determine if an
application is complete. The determination of completeness can often be performed
within a few days, however, the timeframe depends upon (1) the number of
applications, (2) the nature and complexity of the application, and (3) the schedule of
staff persons who may be required to conduct the review for completeness. Eagle
County allows 10 working days to determine completeness of a Development
Application. 10 working days would be acceptable to Town Staff.
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 5 of 11
Comment: Vested Property Rights and Site Specific Development Plan. When
asked during your first reading about the need to approve a development agreement to
receive a `Development Bonus', I was informed that a development agreement is
possible without a site specific development plan or need for a PUD. The code as
penned contradicts this. Which is it?
The proposed Development Code section 7.16.140 defines "Site Specific Development
Plan" as
"Site specific development plan means a planned unit development plan, or any
amendment thereto, approved pursuant to §7.16.060 of this Code, together with
a development agreement a roved ursuant to CROSS REFERENCE
FORTH COMING) hereof. , sne-specITIC development plan that creates vested
property rights may also include other development approvals if approved at the
discretion of the Town Council upon request by apro a ownee,; however, such
request shall not result in an application for a development approval other than a
planned unit development plan to be treated as a site specific development plan
for the purposes of C.R.S. §24 -68- 102.5(1)."
The proposed Development Code establishes a process to review "Development Plans"
in Section 7.16.080. This process, and the term "Development Plan," has a different
meaning that "Site Specific Development Plan" under the vested property rights statute
and under Section 7.16.140. The vested property rights statute allows a local
government to define "site specific development plan" for the purpose of the application
of the vested property rights statute. The vested property rights section of the Existing
Code was revised in January and February of 2009 to broaden the definition of "site
specific development plan" to mean not only PUDs but also any other development
approval so long as it is (1) approved by Town Council, (2) stated in a development
agreement, and (3) approved by ordinance.
Comment: Comp Plan Amendment. There are new amendment review criteria in this
section which conflict, expand or replace the existing amendment procedures outlined in
Appendix E of the Comprehensive Plan itself — which is it? Why are we proposing a
new criteria and where is the public notice that we now seek to scrap the amendment
procedures of the existing and approved Comprehensive Plan?
The language in the proposed Development Code was drafted by Clarion and
presented to ZAC in early summer of 2009. /do not recall if ZAC specifically discussed
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment criteria at the meeting last summer. Technically,
the review "criteria" are "considerations" because the amendment of a Comprehensive
Plan is a policy and legislative decision. The criteria or considerations in the proposed
Development Code are more detailed and seem appropriate for consideration.
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 6 of 11
With regard to the public notice requirements and amendment of the process to amend
the Comprehensive Plan, Appendix E Amendment Procedure of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan states,
"Any amendment proposed for the Comprehensive Plan shall follow the Town's
public notice and public hearing procedures as prescribed in the Town Municipal
Code."
The Town is following the public notice and public hearing procedures. There are no
specific procedures in the Town Municipal Code which govern amendments to the Avon
Comprehensive Plan. For convenience, the Plan Amendment review criteria in the
proposed Development Code is presented as follows:
(1) The surrounding area is compatible with the land use proposed in the plan
amendment or the proposed land use provides an essential public benefit and
other locations are not feasible or practical;
(2) Transportation services and infrastructure have adequate current capacity, or
planned capacity, to serve potential traffic demands of the land use proposed in
the plan amendment;
(3) Public services and facilities have adequate current capacity, or planned
capacity, to serve the land use proposed in the plan amendment;
(4) The proposed land use in the plan amendment will result in a better location or
form of development for the Town, even if the current plan designation is still
considered appropriate;
(5) Strict adherence to the current plan would result in a situation neither intended
nor in keeping with other key elements and policies of the plan;
(6) The proposed plan amendment will promote the purposes stated in this
Development Code; and,
(7) The proposed plan amendment will promote the health, safety or welfare of the
Avon Community and will be consistent with the general goals and policies of the
Avon Comprehensive Plan.
The Amendment criteria in Appendix E, Amendment Procedure of the Comprehensive
Plan states:
1. Include a justification for the proposed change;
2. Be in conformance with the Plan's overall vision and its supporting goals and
policies;
3. Be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses; and
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 7 of 11
4. Not result in excessive detrimental impacts to Avon's existing or planned
infrastructure systems.
Comment: Referral to Other Agencies. 30 days for a referral is excessive. Referrals
should be limited to 14 days.
The need and timeframe for referrals depends upon the nature and complexity of the
application. The Town of Vail mails a notice to agencies at least 15 days prior to a
preliminary subdivision and preliminary plan review. Eagle County establishes several
timeframes for referrals depending upon the nature of the development application
which referral periods range from 14 days, to 21 days, to 30 days, or longer if
determined appropriate. The Eagle County approach appears more tailored to
reasonable needs of various development applications.
Comment: Mailed Notice The Town should be responsible for mailing any notices
otherwise will be issues with content and inconsistencies. The application fees should
cover this. You might consider having town staff also generate the list of owners within
300' by using GIS and again eliminating potential errors. Notice and process should be
the most important aspect of the Town's role and pawning this off on the applicant could
create significant issues
Town Staff or the County can assist with generating a list of owners within 300'. Town
staff should assist and review the form of the public notice. The applicant can supply a
certificate of mailing to verify the mailing of notice. Otherwise, the issue of responsibility
for mailing notices and who should bear the cost is a matter of policy.
Comment: Public Hearings. Why limit the timeframe for tabling? Why not have the
maximum flexibility on behalf of the Town as possible?
A maximum timeframe for continuing public hearings was included in the proposed
Development Code, section 7.16.020(e) due to experiences with recent development
applications which continued for lengthy periods. The proposed language allows a
maximum timeframe (with consent of the applicant) of 3 months by PZC and 3 months
by Town Council to render a decision on an application.
VAIL BOARD OF REALTOR COMMENTS, July 23, 2010 letter from Mr. Matt
Fitzaerald, Chair: Please note that the comments and questions have not been
reprinted in this memorandum. The letter from the Vail Board of Realtors (VBR) is
attached to this memorandum.
Role of a Zoning Map: Changes to the zoning map, or re- zonings, are not proposed
with the Development Code because the adoption of the Development Code is a
legislative process and revisions to the official zoning map, or rezoning of properties, is
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 8 of 11
a quasi-judicial process. A different notification process is required for zoning
amendments.
Comprehensive Plan and Its Relationship with the Development Code: Section
7.04.090 of the proposed Development Code clarifies that the Comprehensive Plan and
all related documents are regulatory documents [NOTE: The definition of Avon
Comprehensive Plan is intended to include other related documents, including the
transportation plan, trails plan and east and west town center investment plans].
Compliance with the Future Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan is
mandatory for rezoning, PUD, subdivision and annexation approvals. An application
which is not consistent with the Future Land Use plan in the Comprehensive Plan
would be required to amend the Comprehensive Plan prior to rezoning, PUD,
subdivision and annexation approval [NOTE: the Town amended the Comprehensive
Plan for the Red House Annexation /Subdivision /PUD approval]. Overall, the
relationship of the Comprehensive Plan to the Development Code is the same as the
Existing Code; however, the proposed Development Code expressly clarifies the
relationship.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is a criteria for review for the following
applications:
Comprehensive Plan amendments (7.16.030(c)(7) — amendments should be
consistent with general goals and policies of Avon Comprehensive Plan. NOTE:
Appendix E of the Comprehensive Plan, Amendment Criteria 2. states the criteria
as "Be in conformance with the Plan's overall vision and its supporting goals and
policies; ").
2. Code Text Amendments (7.16.040(c)(2) - promotes or implements goals and
policies with Comprehensive Plan).
3. Zoning Amendment (7.16.050(c)(2) — consistency with Comprehensive Plan —
NOTE: Existing Code 17.28.080(2) has same criteria).
4. Planned Unit Development (7.16.060(b)(2) — consistency with Comprehensive
Plan — 7.16.060(e)(4)(iii) — consistency with Comprehensive Plan — NOTE:
17.20.110(h)(1) states criteria as "Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan goals
and objectives.)"
5. Subdivisions (7.16.070(e)(3) — preliminary subdivision plans shall be consistent
with Avon Comprehensive Plan and other community planning documents —
NOTE: Existing Code has similar requirement: 16.20.040 Review —
conformance to applicable regulations. (1) The Comprehensive Plan.)
6. Development Plan (7.16.080(f)(3) consistency with Comprehensive Plan —
NOTE: intent is to allow Town to require pedestrian connections and building
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 9 of 11
orientation as contemplated in the East and West Town Center Plans,
Transportation Plan and Trails Plan. The existing Design Review Guidelines
states under General Approval Criteria, 2. General conformance with the Goals
and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan
which pertains.
7. Design Review (7.16.090(d)(3) design reflects the long range goals and design
criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan
documents. NOTE: see above regarding Design Review Guidelines).
8. SSoecial Review Use (7.16.100(c)(1) — consistent with Comprehensive Plan.
17.48.040(2) — conformance with Comprehensive Plan).
9. Alternative Equivalent Compliance (7.16.120(d)(2) — proposed alternative
achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or
better degree than the subject standard. NOTE: This is a new section so there
is no comparison to the Existing Code).
10. Location, Character and Extent (7.16.150(d)(2) — consistency with
Comprehensive Plan. NOTE: This is a new section so there is no comparison to
the Existing Code).
7.04.120(e)(3) [Lot Reduction]: This section is copied verbatim from Existing Code
section 17.32.050(c). I agree with the concerns raised by VBR regarding this language
and recommend that it be deleted from the proposed Development Code.
7.04.160(e) [Persons Liable]: This language was proposed by Clarion in the Module 1
draft. I agree with the concerns raised by VBR regarding this language and recommend
that this section be modified to simply state that the property owner is liable for
violations of the Development Code, including violations caused by agents, invitees and
renters of the property.
7.04.190(a) [Right of Entry]: This language is copied verbatim from the Existing Code
17.12.080(b). The proposed Development Code contains additional procedures for
"non- emergency violations" and "emergency violations" which provides greater
guidance with regard to notifying property owners. The right of entry for inspection of
violations is standard enforcement language in land use regulations and I recommend
that this language be retained.
7.04.200(d) [Revocation of Permits]: 7.04.200(d) provides that Town Council may
revoke a permit based upon five separate findings, one of which is "violation of any
provision of the Development Code." 7.04.200(d)(11). VBR suggests that revocation of a
permit for a code violation is unnecessarily severe. Town Council should discuss this
issue.
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 10 of 11
7.16020(a) [Pre - Application Conference]: VBR suggests that pre - application
conferences should be waived for minor development applications. Technically, an
applicant can bring in a fully completed application to a pre - application conference and
if such application is truly complete, the applicant may simply hand - deliver the
application at the end of the pre - application conference. Community Development
believes that pre - applications will improve the application review efficiency for both
Town and the applicant and desires to retain the ability to require pre - application
conferences.
7.16.020(b)(3) [Required Studies and Reports]: VBR states that reports and studies
should only be required where the necessary findings to approve a development
application cannot be made in their absence. I agree that reports and studies should
only be required where necessary for review and I believe the proposed wording in the
Development Code captures this intent. The wording of 7.16.020(b)(3) states, "Reports
and studies may be necessary to adequately evaluate the development application for
compliance with review criteria."
7.16.080(f)(6) [Development Review Criteria — Concurrency]: VBR questions the
appropriateness of a public facilities concurrency requirement for Development Plan
review. Generally I would agree that a concurrency requirement is not appropriate for
platted and zoned properties which only need a development plan; however, there is a
significant amount of unimproved land in Avon which currently does not have adequate
public facilities. The intent of this section is to rely upon the Town's capital improvement
plans for public facilities and services provided by the Town and the capital
improvement plans of other public entities which provide other public services.
7.16.090(d)(1), (3) [Design Review Criteria]: VBR expresses concerns that the Design
Review Criteria is vague and suggests objective standards and clearly worded
objectives. I agree with this comment and recommend that Council give attention to
adding and clarifying the standards and criteria for Design Review. My understanding is
that the Design Review Guidelines may be modified or further incorporated into the
Development Code depending upon Council direction.
7.16.100(d),(e) [Special Review Use— Expiration]: VBR recognizes that a Special
Review Use is valid for 2 years unless a longer period is approved, the next section
states that Special Review Uses must be established within 1 year or according to an
approved schedule. I do not believe these two provisions are in conflict because the
default timeframes require the Special Review Use to be established at least 1 year
prior to its expiration. The reviewing entity has the authority to approve both the
timeframe for a Special Review Use as well as a schedule for establishing such use.
7.16.110(c)(3) [Variances — Review Criteria]: VBR comments that the variance review
criteria stated in 7.16.110(c)(3), "such other factors and criteria as the decision making
body deems appropriate" is too vague. This language is copied verbatim from Existing
Code section 17.36.040(4). The nature of a variance request is to consider relief from
Town Council
RE: Response to Public Comments
August 4, 2010
Page 11 of 11
strict application of the Code due to unique circumstances, therefore, I believe it is
appropriate to include a statement that the reviewing body can consider other factors
"deemed appropriate" with the understanding that the other factors must be related to
the property and the variance request. The Council may wish to clarify this criteria with
language that states, "such other factors and criteria related to the subject property,
proposed development or variance request as the decision making body deems
appropriate."
Thanks, Eric
VAIL BOARD OF
- REALTORS
Town Council
Avon, Colorado
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
July 23, 2010
Dear Mayor Wolfe and Council Members,
On Behalf of the Vail Board of REALTORS® (VBR), which represents over 700 REALTORS® and
affiliates in Eagle County, we are writing regarding the update of the Avon Development Code.
After our members who reside in Avon attended 2 of the public hearings in May and June, VBR
retained premier land use attorneys to review the update, and advise VBR of its implications.
We commend the Town's efforts to update the development code. This type of work is lengthy
and detailed.
After review of the draft new Avon Development Code, the Vail Board of REALTORS® has the
following comments that either provide support, opposition, or in many cases, ask for
clarification:
Role of a Zoning map
Presumably the Town will create and adopt a revised zoning map that reflects the new zoning
district classifications. The new map might alter zoning district classifications. Unfortunately,
the draft of the development code circulated for public comment does not include a revised
zoning map. When will a revised zoning map be prepared in connection with the development
code?
VBR encourages the Council to postpone Council action until a revised zoning map is made
available for public review and comment as part of the public hearing process.
Non - Conforming Status
We are also not aware of any parcel- specific analysis to determine how many properties in
Avon will be downzoned under the Development Code, and how many existing uses and
structures would become non - conforming. Does an analysis exist?
If it does not, VBR suggests that the Town direct the consultants to provide a comprehensive
analysis of the impact that the Development Code would have on the development potential
of specific parcels in Avon. The analysis should compare the development potential that exists
0275 Main Street. Suite G004 Edwards. CO 81632
970 - 766.1028 (office) 970 - 766 -1030 (fax) info @vbr.net
for parcels under the current zoning code with the development potential under the proposed
Development Code. These maps will help the citizens of Avon, and perhaps the Council, better
understand the proposed changes.
VBR appreciates the Town's effort to allow non - conforming buildings to exist as is, but require
that non - conforming buildings get up to code when making alterations to their existing space.
VBR believes this is a fair way to move forward without penalizing property owners that aren't
able to comply with the new code due to financial constraints.
The Increased Cost of Development in Avon
Many of the proposed Chapter 7.28 development standards can be expected to decrease the
development potential and increase the cost of development on affected properties in Avon.
To further the stated purpose of "implementing the comprehensive plan vision for a more
attractive, efficient and livable community," the Development Code introduces several
restrictive development standards that are likely to reduce the development potential of
property within the Town. Chapter 7.28 establishes detailed and elaborate development
standards for mobility and connectivity; landscaping, screening, walls and fences, and design
standards. These standards will decrease the amount of developable land on affected lots in
the Town. The minimum and strict standards require "high quality, durable building materials ",
and states that all exterior walls "shall be finished with at least two different building materials
in a manner sympathetic to the scale and architectural style of the building." The policy also
does not allow the use of asphalt siding, imitation brick, and plastic vinyl siding or cementious
board" on the exterior of any structure.
Has the Town considered the effect the Development Code will have on housing affordability
by reducing development potential and increasing development costs? VBR suggests the
Town should evaluate the impact of the development standards on the cost of residential
development and the production of affordable housing in Avon. The Town should ensure that
each proposed development standard is a cost - effective approach to achieving the stated
goal of fostering an "attractive, efficient, and livable community ". taking into account the
development costs and impact on a property's development potential.
Comprehensive Plan and Its Relationship With the Development Code
The Avon Comprehensive Plan explicitly states that it is an advisory document, however, as
currently drafted, the Development Code appears to give the Comprehensive Plan regulatory
effect as Colorado State Statute C.R.S. 31 -23- 206(1) contemplates. The statute states that the
"comprehensive plan or any part thereof may be made binding by inclusion in the
municipalities adopted subdivision, zoning, platting, planned unit development, or other similar
land development regulations ". Section 7.04.060(b) states that "development applications will
be reviewed for compliance with the Town of Avon's Comprehensive Plan, with the regulations
and standards adopted in this Development Code, or with such regulations as are applicable in
the Avon Municipal Code or state or federal law." Several other provisions of the proposed
Development Code contain similar requirements, referencing compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, including Section 7.16.020(f)(1) review criteria, Section 7.16.080(f)(3)
(Development Plan Review criteria), and Section 7.16.100(c)(1) (Special Review Use - Review
Criteria). As such, the Development Code appears to signal a departure from the understanding
that the Comprehensive Plan is merely an advisory document to guide regulatory policy, and
not a regulatory document in its own right.
Do the Development Code provisions as reference above mean that the Avon Comprehensive
Plan will now serve a regulatory function? If the answer is yes, the Town should explain its
rationale for changing the approach to the Comprehensive Plan. VBR strongly believes that if
the Development Code itself is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan, any proposed development that conforms to the requirements of the Development Code
must also be generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. To
the extent that a development that conforms to the requirements of the Development Code is
not perceived to be consistent with the Comp Plan, Appendix D indicates that amendments
should eventually be made to the either the Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan to
align provisions that are in conflict, but the immediate conflict should be resolved in favor of
the Development Code. VBR believes the Comprehensive Plan should be an advisory
document, leaving the Council and Planning Commission flexibility as economic and
environmental situations change.
Streamlining of Development Application Process and Adherence to Timelines
As currently drafted, the proposed "application processing" requirements arguably are
susceptible to delay and inefficiencies because some provisions do not require the Town's
reviewing and decision making authorities to perform their duties within specific time frames.
For example, although section 7.16.020(c)(3) requires the Director to "review the development
application in accordance with criteria established in this chapter and to prepare a written
findings of fact," it does not require those tasks to be completed within a specific timeframe. It
also appears that neither the "General Procedures and Requirements" for development
application review nor the specific review procedures for each type of development application
require that a final decision be issued within a certain period of time after application
submittal. If there is no time limit on these review processes, some applicants could be required
to wait an indefinite period of time for one or more agencies to review a development
application or to issue a decision. Such delays have the potential to increase the cost of
development and undermine the private property rights of the affected applicants.
VBR recommends that the Council revise Chapter 7.16 of the Development Code to include
deadlines for the Town's reviewing and decision making bodies to perform their duties.
Reviewing bodies should be required to review development applications and to issue
decisions on applications within a specified and reasonable period of time. VBR urges the
Town to reconsider the amount of time provided for development review and to condense the
time between the application and the public hearing. For example, 15 business days to review
an application is too long, particularly when an application is straightforward, such as a
special review use or variance application. 5 business days seems reasonable for such reviews.
Regarding Specific Provisions of the Development Code
Chapter 7.04: General Provisions
• Section 7.04.120(e)(3) (lot Reduction- Prohibition Against establishing New Non -
Conforming Uses) This provision states: Any "transferee who acquires a lot or parcel of
land in violation of this Section without knowledge of such violation, and any
subsequent transferee shall have the right to rescind and /or receive damages from any
transferor who violates the provisions of this section."
This appears to create certain rights and liabilities for parties involved in the transfer
of a lot or parcel created in violation of the Development Code. VBR would like to
know the source of the Town's authority to create these rights and liabilities.
• Section 7.04.160(e) (Persons liable) This provision appears to impose liability for
violations of the Development Code on any "owner, tenant, or occupant of any building
or land, any part of the building or land, and any architect, builder, contractor, agent or
other person who participates in, assists, directs, creates, or maintains any situation that
is contrary to the requirements of the Development Code or a permit or approval issued
pursuant to the Development Code."
VBR is concerned that because "agent' is included in the text of this provision, it
appears this provision could lead to liability for a real estate agent or REALTOR® who
is involved of the marketing of a property where a permit violation or code violation
exists, even though a REALTOR® did not cause and was not aware of the violation. VBR
strongly urges the Town to revise this provision to limit liability for Development Code
violations to responsible parties that were directly involved in the creating the
violations.
• Section 7.04.190(a) (Right of Entry): "Whenever necessary to make an inspection to
enforce any of the provisions of the Development Code, or whenever the Director has
reasonable cause to believe there exists in any building or upon premises any violation
of the development code, the Director may enter such building or premises at all
reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon the Director
by the Development Code ".
VBR is strongly opposed to any Town staff entering a private property without express
consent of the property owner or legal occupant of the property. The Director should
first obtain an inspection warrant or other remedy provided under law for gaining
entry under such circumstances.
• Section 7.04.200(d) (Revocation of Permits — Findings): This provision would authorize
the Town Council to revoke "any development permit, building permit, or other
authorization" upon finding "a violation of any provision of the Development Code."
VBR suggests that revocation of permits is a severe penalty that should be reserved for
serious offenses (e.g., obtaining a permit by false representation, as provided at
Section 7.04.200(d)(4)(iii)). General enforcement provisions of Chapter 7.04, including
Sections 7.04.170 (Penalties), 7.04.180 (Civil Infraction), and 7.04.190 (Enforcement
Authority and Procedures) are sufficient to address common Development Code
violations.
Chapter 7.16: Development Review Procedures
• Section 7.16.020(a) (Pre - Application Conference): Under this section, a pre - application
conference between an applicant and the Director is required "for all development
applications," unless waived by the Director.
VBR believes that the Town revise this section to make pre - application conferences
voluntary for relatively minor development applications such as administrative
subdivisions, minor subdivisions, minor development plans, special review uses,
variances, and roadway vacations.
• Section 7.16.020(b)(3) (Required Studies and Reports): This section would authorize
the Town to require applicants to submit reports or studies — including studies of soils,
geological hazards, fiscal impacts, market analysis, traffic impacts, and environmental
impacts —in connection with a development application. Such reports must be
prepared by "professionals or other persons qualified to provide the requested reports."
This is an example of an unnecessarily broad and burdensome requirement that is
likely to increase the cost of development in Avon. Such reports and studies should
only be required where the necessary findings to approve a development application
cannot be made in their absence.
• Section 7.16.080(f)(6) (Development Review Criteria): This section would establish the
following as a criterion for review of development plans: "That the development can be
adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater,
fire protection, and emergency medical services." To the extent this criteria could be
applied to deny a proposed development plan on the grounds that it cannot be
adequately served by one or more of the listed city services, Section 7.16.080(f)(6)
appears to be a concurrency requirement. In general, concurrency requirements, also
known as "adequate public facility ordinances" ( "APFOs "), tie development approvals to
the availability of adequate public facilities —if existing public facilities do not have
sufficient capacity to serve a proposed development, the proposal may be denied unless
the developer pays for the needed public facility improvements. Typically, a
concurrency ordinance contains two main components: (1) an identification of the types
of public facilities and related levels of service that are needed to permit new
development, and (2) a clear policy about when the public facilities must be in place
relative to the impact of development. Implementation of these requirements
necessitates an ordinance and map that specify the level of service ( "LOS ") that must be
maintained by each public facility, a coordination plan among affected service providers,
a long -term capital improvements plan (CIP) to each public facility, a system designed to
measure and monitor the levels of service, and a permit approval process with clearly
articulated standards.
As currently drafted, proposed Section 7.16.080(f)(6) does not appear to be tied to a
capital improvements plan ( "CIP ") for roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and
emergency medical services. Moreover, Section 7.16.080(f)(6) does not include specific
level of service standards for the public facilities that would allow developers and
property owners considering a particular parcel to ascertain whether adequate capacity
exists in the public facilities to accommodate a proposed development on that parcel.
Setting LOS standards is one of the most important steps in establishing an APFO. The
LOS standards established for roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency
medical services will determine how restrictive the concurrency provision would be.
Moreover, the LOS standards adopted under an APFO provide an objective basis for the
reviewing entity to determine whether sufficient capacity exists in the appropriate
public facilities to accommodate the proposed development. In contrast, Section
7.16.080(f)(6) includes no objective standards, instead relying upon the ambiguous
"adequately served" standard to determine whether existing public facilities are
adequate.
VBR would like the Town to identify its authority to enact such a concurrency
requirement, and address the concerns identified above.
• Section 7.16.090(d)(1), (3) (Design Review Criteria): This section would require
development plan designs to "relate ... to the character of the surrounding community"
and to "reflect the long range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive
Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents."
These criteria are vague and susceptible to inconsistent and potentially unfair
interpretation and application. VBR urges the Town to revise the design review
criteria to include objective standards, clearly worded guidelines.
• Section 7.16.100(d), (e) (Special Review Use - Expiration): Section 7.16.100(d) states
that "all special review use approvals shall be valid for two (2) years unless otherwise
stated in the approval ordinance." Section 7.16.100(e)(1), by contrast, states that
"developments and uses granted by special review use permit shall be developed or
established in accordance with an approved development schedule or within one year
of the date of approval."
These provisions appear to be inconsistent. These provisions should be revised to
address the apparent conflict.
• Section 7.16.110(c)(3) (Variances — Review Criteria): This section would establish the
following as a variance application review criteria: "Such other factors and criteria as the
decision - making body deems applicable to the proposed variance."
This provision appears to allow the Commission to establish ad hoc variance criteria in
connection with individual variance applications. This prevents an applicant from
knowing ahead of time what standards will be applied to its variance application. it
creates a high potential for arbitrary and inconsistent decision - making. VBR notes
that this provision is unfair to the applicant by preventing it from knowing ahead of
time what standards will apply to its application. There is also high potential for to
arbitrary and inconsistent decisions as the Commission might announce new review
standards for every application.
Chapter 7.28: Development Standards
• Section 7.28.030(i) (Bicycle Facilities): This provision would require developments
containing 25 or more parking spaces to provide bicycle parking facilities at a rate of one
bicycle space for every ten vehicle parking spaces, with a minimum of four bicycle
parking spaces. Bicycle parking spaces must be 4 feet by 6 feet in area. In general, the
idea of requiring bicycle parking spaces as a means of reducing motor vehicle
dependency is a good one.
VBR suggests the Town consider offering incentives for developers to include bicycle
parking spaces in new development projects rather than mandating their inclusion.
Reserved spaces for bicycle parking should not be required for all developments having
25 or less vehicle parking spaces.
• Section 7.28.070(a)(Steep Slopes): This provision would prohibit development on
natural slopes of 40 percent or greater and would limit development on slopes greater
than 30 percent. In addition, any lot that contains a natural slope area greater than 30
percent that is larger than 2,500 square feet would require a minimum lot size of one
acre and a minimum street frontage of 150 feet. The current Zoning Code does not
appear to restrict development on steep slopes. As proposed, Section 7.28.080(a)
would reduce the development potential on affected lots with slopes greater than 30
percent and would bar development on natural slopes of 40 percent or greater. The
proposed one acre minimum lot size requirement for lots having 2.500 square feet or
more of 30% slopes apparently would also render lots under an acre unbuildable.
Although Section 7.28.080(a)(2) authorizes the Director to waive the proposed steep
slope regulations for lots platted as of the date of adoption of the Development Code, it
is unclear on what basis the Director would decide whether to grant such a waiver.
Several provisions of Section 7.28.080(a)(3) contain specific quantitative threshold levels
and development restrictions. Below are several examples:
• (C) Minimum Lot Size: Where a lot contains a natural slope area of greater
than thirty percent (30 %) that is larger than 2,500 square feet, the lot shall
be a minimum of one (1) acre in size with a minimum street frontage of
one hundred and fifty (150) linear feet. Lots shall not be mass - graded to
avoid this section.
• (D) Limits on Changes to Natural Grade: The original, natural grade of a lot
shall not be raised or lowered more than six (6) feet at any point for
construction of any structure or improvement. Retaining walls must
comply with the requirements set forth in this section.
(E) Limits on Graded or Filled Man -Made Slopes:
(1) Grading of slopes to twenty-five percent (25 %) or less is greatly
encouraged wherever possible.
(2) Graded or filled man -made slopes shall not exceed a slope of fifty
percent (50 %).
(3) Cut man -made surfaces or slopes shall not exceed a slope of fifty
percent (50 %) unless it is substantiated, on the basis of a site
investigation and submittal of a soils engineering or geotechnical
report prepared and approved by the Town Engineer, that a cut at a
steeper slope will be stable and will not create a hazard to public or
private property.
(4) Bedrock which is exposed in a cut slope may exceed the maximum one
and one - half -to -one (1.5:1) cut slope.
These numerical standards arguably benefit property owners and applicants by providing a
measure of predictability that should result in consistent treatment of similar applications.
However, it is not clear how the drafters of the Development Code arrived at these particular
standards or what their engineering basis is.
VBR suggests the Town revise Section 7.28.080(a)(2) to make the waiver for lots platted on
the date of adoption of the Development Code automatic, or alternatively, to establish clear
and objective criteria for the Director to determine whether to grant a waiver request. What
basis were the quantitative standards set by Section 7.28.080(a) established?
Section 7.28.070(g)(4)(Small Wind Energy Systems):
This provision would establish standards for the installation of small wind energy systems in the
Town. Pursuant to Section 7.28.070(g)(4)(ii)(B), the height of any small wind energy system
would be limited to the maximum height allowed in the zoning district. The U.S. Department of
Energy provides the following guidance for small wind energy systems:
In addition to geological formations, you need to consider existing obstacles,
such as trees, houses, and sheds. You also need to plan for future
obstructions, such as new buildings or trees that have not reached their full
height. Your turbine needs to be sited upwind of any buildings and trees, and
it needs to be 30 feet above anything within 300 feet.
For comparison purposes, it is worth noting that the model small wind bylaw prepared by the
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources recommends the following height regulation:
Small wind turbines shall be no higher than 250 feet above the current grade
of the land, as measured at the uppermost point of the rotor's swept area. A
small wind turbine may exceed 250 feet if:
(a) the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that such height
reflects industry standards for a similarly sited wind facility;
(b) such excess height is necessary to prevent financial hardship to the
applicant, and
(c) the facility satisfies all other criteria for the granting of a building permit
under the provisions of this section.
The proposed height limit for small wind energy systems seems inconsistent with industry
standards and is likely to undermine the Town's efforts to encourage the use of small wind
energy.
We hope you find our comments to be useful in formulation of the Avon Development Code.
We realize our comments are extensive and may require the town to slow the process of
approval of the Development Code down to take these comments into consideration. We
encourage the Town to do so. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Sarah
Thorsteinson, VBR Government Affairs Director at (970) 393 -3939 or
sarah @coloradorealtors.com.
Sincerely,
Matt Fitzgerald
Chair
Patty McKenny
From: Brian Sipes Remote email
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Patty McKenny; Larry Brooks; Sally Vecchio
Subject: Avon Town Code Update Comments
Attachments: 100816 Avon Development Code Update - bps thoughts.pdf
Patty,
Can you please print copies of this out for each of the council members and the public?
Larry /Sally,
The attachment represents my comments mostly to the design standards for non - residential buildings and the
town core. I have always been more focused on shaping the form our town (core) will grow into and these
comments are no exception. To that end I think I am leaning strongly toward removing the design standards
from the code or removing most of them and leaving only basic stuff that is easily reduced to formula and
numbers and not dependent on proportion (mostly the engineering stuff). The code should then reference a
design review manual for the balance of the design requirements.
Sorry I didn't get this out earlier, but as you can see, I've been working on this for most of the week....
Thanks,
Brian
Avon Development Code Update
Comments, Thoughts and Suggestions — Brian Sipes
I. Town Core Map:
a. General Town form as depicted in the ComPlan does not support the use of TC
zoning north of BC Blvd on the west side of town. There is no urgent need for
the post office, Denny's and in some respects First Bank to redevelop into
denser, street oriented properties. In 20 or 30 years, fine, but our efforts should
be directed toward focusing dense development around Main Street. Same
could be said for the Christy Lodge.
i. I would draw the "Town Core" line differently and include only the portion
along Main Street.
ii. Since these lots are already TC zoning, reduce the minimum FAR
requirement (more on that later) and allow them to redevelop without
pushing up to TC standards if they so choose. Require a low density
redevelopment of First Bank or the Post Office to "build to" the BC Blvd
Setback. A redevelopment of Denny's should build to the Southeast
corner, but set back enough to preserve most of the significant trees at
that corner. This would be an ideal location for a tourism visitor center.
iii. Ask yourself if we are really well served with 80' tall (TC zoning) buildings
on the Denny's site or at the Post Office? Or even at the Christy Lodge?
What is the gateway experience that provides coming into town?
b. The lots north of 1 -70 should not be identified at "Town Core ". This causes
confusion semantically with "Town Center". Create a new designation on the
map — "Town Gateway" and include all 4 corners of the interchange.
c. The commercial lot with Burger King and Starbucks has always struck me as odd
and in an ideal world would redevelop into residential medium density. This
would be more compatible and reduce the awful traffic. Ideally the successful
businesses like the bakery would relocate to East Town Center.
i. This lot should also be excluded from the "town core ".
d. We should include some of the Village in the "town core" after all it will be critical
to defining the town as a distinct form.
e. What we should be after is overall town form. The zoning of individual lots is a
pretty lousy way to get to this goal given the irregular and very large lots that
make up much of the core area. I think we should draw the line in plan to
reinforce the diagrams we have in the comp plan that show the building heights
rising toward the center of town and falling to the perimeter.
i. I will pass around a redlined version of the map as I think it should be.
The line I propose would pass through some lots identifying areas that
are important to the core and areas that should be subordinate. There is
precedent for this. The Sheraton stepped their development (at the
affordable housing) to transition to the residential neighborhood (albeit it
August 15, 2010 Page 1
is a big step!). The Riverfront Property also steps as one moves west.
These were achieved by PUD, but we shouldn't lose this opportunity by
moving to zone districts.
The zone districts set the maximums and other criteria indicate the form
the town wants.
II. General Philosophical Statements and some specific comments:
a. PUD Relevance:
i. Leave the PUD in place, but make the review process based on or
reflective of the underlying zoning as noted in 7.16.060.c.1. All deviations
from that zoning should be identified specifically and enumerated and
explained in context. Chapter says this somewhat, but would like to see it
fleshed out specifically in the application procedures.
ii. The new zone district definitions are fine, but given that an applicant must
also confirm to the east and west tc plans where we have "told them what
we want" I don't see them being used much except as the base map for
the PUD overlay. Nor do I think that is a bad thing. I believe strongly that
our overall form statements and other goals like reinforcing streets are
more important specific to the conditions on the ground for each specific
lot than a generic zone district can describe.
iii. However, PUD's that result in multiple buildings should attempt to
subdivide the various pieces and describe them in terms of existing zone
districts as an end result. This should be encouraged especially for large
parcels since an overlot application of the maximum criteria for a dense
zone district on a large lot is not what I think we are striving for. In fact, I
think we should require large lots to subdivide into smaller parcels and
describe a project form. Since no one in their right mind would do this
without some assurance of general project approval, I think the only way
this would happen is with a PUD.
iv. A PUD that does not request to increase above any underlying zoning
standard should not have to show a public benefit other than achieving
ComPlan goals and policies. Public benefit should be reserved for Bonus
Density and PUD's aimed at achieving bonus density. Moving around
parts of what you already have the right to do in order to achieve a better
plan should be encouraged not exacted. Of course, the town is the
ultimate judge if the proposed moving of the parts results in a better plan
and that will require smart people and good judgment, not just checking
the boxes. Raise the floor, but eliminate the ceiling....
v. We started this process saying we wanted to phase out the PUD. I now
believe that our goal should be better underlying zoning and clearer
processes, but also more description of the form and uses we want in
town.
b. Parking:
i. Most successful urban areas have systematically reduced their parking
requirements and look at parking regionally not on a lot specific basis.
August 15, 2010 Page 2
We need to be careful with some of the proposed changes requiring
additional parking so that we don't become a town of parking lots. Within
the town core, I think we should park 100% of the residential use, 30 -50%
of the office use and no more than 10% of the retail use and that should
all be the on- street parking. No project should be allowed to put its retail
parking in a parking garage unless it is for employees. Most people
would say we don't have a parking problem now in the commercial district
and trying to solve a future ski area parking problem by loading up
individual projects with more parking will not solve the problem.
Centralized parking is what both skiers and shoppers want. More on-
street parking would allow the quick trip to the cleaners or coffee shop.
Think Cherry Creek North.
ii. The on- street parking should be reserved for the retail /commercial uses.
Since we are restricting the ground floor to retail type uses and excluding
office space on primary streets, this should be calculated in the aggregate
and allow the on- street spaces adjacent to the project to count for up to
10% of the demand. The rest should go into a central parking district
structure or lot. For instance: if a project has 20,000 of ground level retail
(a category I think we should define) that would require 80 parking
spaces. 8 spaces of on- street parking would be counted toward the
requirement (if they are available) with the remaining 72 spaces paid into
a central parking structure no more than % mile away.
iii. The parking numbers shown on the test study slides for existing TC
projects are still not that accurate. There is no correlation between
parking and FAR without first knowing the use. A large residential project
with larger units can actually have a relatively low parking requirement.
iv. I think parking by building area for K -12 schools is the wrong approach.
The school district should probably tell us what they need, but kids that
age don't drive so this would result in a much bigger lot than is needed.
One per staff member plus some number for guest and drop off is
probably better. Same goes for day care, but these uses typically require
a lot of drop off short term parking so this may be fine.
v. Bicycle parking: There are a lot of new innovative rack systems that take
less space than 4'x6'. I suggest that is too much space per bike and is
suburban in nature. Require the spaces and make the applicant prove
that bikes can be parked in the space required or no TCO.
vi. It would be nice for projects requiring large amounts of bike parking
provide covered parking. Also, why cap the requirement at 20 bikes?
LEED standards are a good guide here.
c. Development Bonus:
i. Eligible zone districts should not include neighborhood commercial (NC),
but should include residential high density (RH).
ii. Submittal requirements (models, drawings, etc.) must all depict the use
by right zoning and clearly identify the incremental additional requested
August 15, 2010 Page 3
and the net additional impacts. For instance, a building section (should
be a required drawing through the project and adjacent properties) should
show the building height allowed and proposed with the bonus area
shaded or otherwise identified. Sun angles for both the underlying zoning
and proposed new height should both be shown with the delta increase in
shading identified. The drawings should show forms and massing that
meets other sections of the code (can't show an underlying zoning
condition that doesn't meet the code to try to make the net change in
impact less).
iii. The way I read this section (I and ii), bonus' will always be granted up to
the maximum. I don't think this is our intent.
d. Increased FAR/increased Density.
L Not sure the economics would work to have anyone ever do this. Also,
since by definition this would only apply to the highest density zone
districts, I don't believe for sale deed restricted units should be our only
goal. Affordable rentals may be more attractive in town adjacent to
transit. It is not likely that families with small children would find these
homes attractive.
ii. The market targets are probably still fine, but just allow rentals. Home
ownership is being redefined in this country and many people will choose
to rent for years to come. Move up for sale housing in the form of
townhomes, etc. should be our goal for the next tier and those units will
likely be around the core, but not in it.
e. Accessory Dwelling: Definition allows 850 sf, but 7.24.070.e.iii only allows 600
sf. 850 is better. Neither makes it clear that the dwelling cannot be subdivided
and sold separately from the primary dwelling. I still think we should be
encouraging these "lock -off' rental apartments and a way to diversify and
decentralize affordable housing within town as long as they are legal and safe.
There really is no more impact to the neighborhood than someone renting a
bedroom, which happens a lot, but a complete unit is more attractive.
f. Mixed use and non - residential design standards:
i. In General 1 think the design standards are weak and we would be better
served re- writing this or just continuing with our current standards. At a
minimum we need lots more diagrams to make this user friendly. But
here are some specific comments:
ii. Section 7.28.0900)3. ii — The intent here is good, but will result in
unintended consequences as written. Paragraph A should be deleted.
Paragraph B should be focused more on the actual streets or type of
street we want to reinforce with retail. After all this only applies to
buildings in Town Center (Town Core ?) so we should be able to list them
or otherwise identify them. We should concentrate our efforts on Main
Street (lettuce shed lane, etc.) and allow the side streets to follow it's
success. Treating everything as equal has a potential to dilute the core
not strengthen it. Paragraph C is also well intentioned, but applying
August 15, 2010 Page 4
something from west town center throughout the town lacks the kind of
focus we applied in WTC. Paragraphs A and B deal with use, but C deals
with design that is not related to use. I think it should be separated and
then delved into in much more detail and then based on proportion and
not absolute numbers. If this must remain I suggest it not stand alone.
We must discuss the vertical massing of buildings under true design
standards. A better item C to deal with maximizing the attractiveness of
the retail space would be: The ground floor pedestrian accessed
commercial level of the building shall have a floor to floor height 2' greater
than the typical floors above except however that no ground floor shall be
less than 11' floor to floor nor greater than 15' floor to floor.
iii. Section 7.28.0900)4 — Building Design: We need a clear statement of
purpose here at the beginning of this section. Something like "Mixed use
and Non - Residential buildings within the town of Avon shall be designed
with varied massing, form and materials both vertically and horizontally to
create a visual hierarchy and proportion in three dimensions." Also, all
of these design standards should include diagrams!
1. Section (!).A: Change to: "All sides of a building shall receive
equal attention with respect to massing, form, materials and
detailing." Designing all four sides of a building does not mean all
four sides should be "equal ". Proportion and hierarchy sometimes
dictate a "quieter" part of a facade in order to create emphasis on
a building element.
2. Section (ii). Delete this section. This achieves no purpose as
written. In fact I think it would be preferable for a very large
project to create unique character for each portion of the
development. We only have so much town land to work with. If
the last phase of the Sheraton (the hotel) or the little building on
Main Street looked like a different project would that really be a
bad thing?
a. That said, we should encourage contextual
development, but this is most important at the street level
or the ground and 2nd floors. Since this is what creates the
continuity in a shopping district, lets focus our efforts on
these elements.
3. Section (iii) — should read: "Buildings greater than two stories or
taller than 30 feet shall be designed to reduce the apparent mass
and visually anchor the building to the site by including a clearly
identifiable base, body and top. The base and top shall be
proportional to the body of the building and further articulation
consisting of smaller and less tall additive forms shall be used to
break up this simple vertical articulation." This should then lead to
section (v).
August 15, 2010 Page 5
4. Section (iv) is pretty good, but could use a diagram and a clearer
statement of purpose. Also, the reason we have this standard is
to break up the ground level primarily and divide retail into smaller
"blocks" so this makes section (ii) even more contrary to what we
want to achieve.
5. Section (v) Add a fifth reason "(5). Provide for solar access to the
street level."
6. Section (vi) This is a good section.
7. Section (vii) Principal building entries shall orient to and front
upon the primary pedestrian focused street, plaza or way. In the
event a building requires an automobile focused entry that is not
adjacent to a pedestrian area (such as for a hotel check in area)
than the building shall have two principal building entries
connected on the interior by a lobby. Each entry shall be treated
as an architectural element of focus. None of the sub paragraphs
are needed beyond this statement because each have problems.
8. Section (viii) — Delete paragraph E. Glass needs to be
proportional. Fact is that solid to void ratio on a base element of a
building can be tricky and glass isn't always the best treatment.
The market will dictate glass if that is what the focus is, but glass
is also not very energy efficient so we should leave it to the
designers.
9. Section (ix) — This whole section should be re- written because it
contains a number of contradictions (no siding, but requiring
heavy timber) and too much specificity on some elements (size of
siding, requiring stone bases) while others are very general or
nonexistent (no mention of harmony between materials or total
number of different materials in any one fagade — editing is good).
Simple statements that provide flexibility, but with clear and
reviewable goals are better:
a. Materials and colors used on a building shall be
appropriate to Avon's western Rock Mountain environment
and heritage. Materials more typically seen in costal or
warm environments are discouraged. Color pallets shall
be derived from the surrounding environment.
b. At levels of pedestrian access and generally at the first two
floors above grade only natural materials or materials that
are true to their appearance shall be allowed. Artificial or
manufactured stone is an example of a material that
attempts to appear as something (stone), which it is not
(concrete).
c. Glass is encouraged to provide natural light and views.
Glazed openings in the building shall be located and
divided proportional to the overall fagade.
August 15, 2010 Page 6
d. The use of covered porticos and other projecting,
sheltering elements is encouraged along pedestrian street
frontages to protect the public from the elements. This is
especially true on the north side of buildings. If an existing
adjacent building has a portico element extending to the
shared property line setback, the proposed building shall
continue the portico although the design style and scale of
the element may change in proportion to the new building.
10. Section (x) Remove the sentence that appears to allow snow
fences to be acceptable. Primary entries, garage entries and
store entries shall have roof forms that direct the snow away
without the use of fences (or the annoying drips from melting
snow). Note: Flat roofs, planters or wells that hold the snow
above and create a vertical building step can also be quite
effective on pedestrian street frontages where the roof could get
too busy with lots of dormers
11. Section (xi). Good concept. Suggest changing interval to 32'
(two rods) and add a statement "no one shop shall occupy more
than 2 store entrances.
12. Section (xii). A. This section needs a little clean up. Secondary
roofs are mentioned in paragraph 4, but nothing about primary
roofs nor what is the difference in this context. Also, the secondary
shed roof pitch is the same as the minimum roof pitch so this is
confusing. For me lower slopes on secondary elements are fine if
in proportion to the whole building. Paragraph 3 should prohibit
flat roofs as primary roofs period. Green roofs on secondary flat
roofs should be encouraged.
13. Section (xii). B. Standing seam is an application not a material
like the other materials listed so it stands out as being different.
Concrete typically comes in tiles, but that isn't mentioned. Other
materials that are missing are zinc, cor -ten, aluminum. Shakes
should be prohibited period as a fire hazard. Materials that
naturally patina should be encouraged. Painted metal roofing
shall have a minimum 20 finish warranty.
14. Section (xii). C. Overhangs should be proportional to the overall
building form and designed to shelter the building wall plane from
the elements. Buildings 1 -2 stories shall have overhangs of 18"
minimum. Buildings 3 -4 stories shall have overhangs of 24"
minimum. Buildings 5 stories or more shall have a minimum roof
overhang of 36 ". Deeper overhangs shall be allowed and
encouraged to add emphasis, proportion, detail and shadow to
building facades where appropriate. The rake overhang of shed
dormers can be 12" where reviewed by the PZC.
August 15, 2010 Page 7
15. Section (xii). D. Replace this entire section with a value
statement about proportions of glass to wall (solid to void), variety,
etc. See 9c above.
16. Section (xii). E. Add "and provide visual interest' to item 1. Item
3 is problematic. If flat roofs and other protecting elements are
used the walkway can be anywhere. More important to refer here
to the snow shedding section I think. And also to refer to the
building massing requirement to step the building to provide solar
access.
August 15, 2010 Page 8
AVONTOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON WORK SESSION MEETING FOR TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2010 C `u . A
MEETING BEGINS AT 1 PM
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL, DAVE DANTAS, KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS, ALBERT "Buz" REYNOLDS, JR.
TOWN STAFF
TOWN ATTORNEY: ERIC HEIL TOWN MANAGER: 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 TOWN HALL AND RECREATION CENTER, ALPINE BANK, AND AVON LIBRARY
THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH
1:00 PM — 2:00 PM 1. SITE VISIT: THE MALL AKA PROPOSED MAIN STREET
Walk the mall & discuss possible area improvement scenarios; Meet outside Town
Hall
2:00 PM — 2:45 PM 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
a. Receiving legal advice pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute §24- 6- 402(4)(b)
related to pending litigation and settlement discussions regarding Town of Avon v
Traer Creek Metropolitan District, 2008 CV 0385 and Traer Creek, LLC, et.al. v
Town of Avon 2010 CV 316
b. Receiving legal advice pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute §24- 6- 402(4)(a)
and Colorado Revised Statute §24- 6- 402(4)(e) determining positions relative to
matter that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations
and instruction negotiators related to U.S. Forest Service & State Land Board
Multi -Party Land Exchange
2:45 PM 3. INQUIRY OF THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2:45 PM — 2:45 PM 4. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND STAFF UPDATES
a. Community Development Department Projects & Permit Activity Updates (Sally
Vecchio, Assistant Town Manager Community Development) Memo only
b. Wildridge Community Meeting on August 26, 2010 (Jaime Walker, Community
Relations Officer) Memo only
2:45 PM -3:45 PM 5. BUDGET 2011: REVIEW PROJECTED REVENUES & PROGRAM SERVICES LEVELS AND
RELATED EXPENDITURES FOR TRANSPORTATION (FLEET & TRANSIT) PROGRAMS
a. Review Revenue Projections (Scott Wright, Assistant Town Manager Finance)
b. Review Transportation Department Budget & Service Plan for FY2011 (Jenny
Strehler, Director PW &T, Dan Higgins, Fleet Manager, Jane Burden, Transit
Manager)
3:45 PM — 4:00 PM SET UP FOR JOINT MEETING WITH EAGLE COUNTY
4:00 PM — 5:00 PM 6. EAGLE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Regional planning and update on Eagle -Vail master planning process
• Regional transportation
✓ CDOT Transportation Commission: update on regional planning efforts
• Budget update
➢ Opportunities for resource sharing
➢ Possible ballot questions
• Other
5 PM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Avon Council Meeting. 10.08.24
Page 1 of 2
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Initials
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Sally Vecchio, Ass't Town Mgr /Community Development
Date: August 18, 2010
Re: Department Projects and Permit Activity
Planning /Zoning
1. Lighting Ordinance Enforcement Staff completed the field surveys of the entire Town in July and
has started notifying property- owners. Staff will also attend the community meeting in
Wildridge next week to provide information to homeowners on appropriate lighting fixtures for
their homes.
2. Land Use Code Update PZC held a Public Hearing on the Development Code on June 15, 2010,
and recommended adoption of the Code on July 6, 2010 Council began reviewing the document
on July 17th has been conducting weekly meetings and taking public comment.
3. Development Handbook Staff is preparing a Development Code Handbook to help guide an
applicant, step -by -step, through each type of development review and subdivision process. The
Handbook will include Submittal Requirements, Public Notice requirements and Review Criteria
for each type application.
Historic Preservation
1. Survey Project. Tatanka and Associates will complete six remaining historic property /site
surveys this year. The total project budget for surveys was $20,070. Seven surveys have been
completed and the remaining budget to complete work is approximately $8,700.
2. Waterwheel Project. Colorado Mountain College is committed to completing the majority of
this project by the end of the year, with some remaining work in the spring of 2011. The
waterwheel paddles have been reconstructed at the Leadville Campus. The school is currently
experiencing a shift in historic program staff and may have to sub - contract out some of the
work.
Building Department
1. Permit Activity —See attached tables.
Engineering Department
1. Recreation Center Roof Replacement. Construction scheduled for October.
2. H.A. Nottingham Park Sign Replacement Program. Sign replacement was completed this
summer.
3. Community Heat Recovery Project. Project is underway. See separate project update
memorandum for specific details.
4. Driveway Abatement, Lot41 B/k4 Wildridge. The town has completed abatement of a safety
and maintenance nuisance on this lot. Broken concrete and Jersey Barriers were removed and
replaced with an asphalt driveway. Work was completed the week of June 7th. The town will
lien the property for all costs associated with the work.
GIS Department - Jenny Koenig is on maternity leave and will be returning in September.
Building Permit and Development Application Revenues
January 1— August 15, 2010
Table 1.1
Application Fees
Table 1.2a
Buildina Permit Revenue By Tvoe - 2009
Building Addition /Remodel
Revenues Waived
Revenues Received
Fees
Jan.— May
Jan. — Aug
Contractor License Fees
0
$8,295.00
Building Permit Fees
$19,078.02
$134,147.64
Subdivision Review Fees
0
$2,970.00
Design Review Fees
$8,521.42
$4,075.00
TOTALS
$27,599.44
$149,487.64
Table 1.2a
Buildina Permit Revenue By Tvoe - 2009
Building Addition /Remodel
$25,803.00
New Building
$14,418.00
Mechanical
$1,430.00
Plumbing
$600.00
Table 1.2b
Buildina Permit Activity By Tvne - 2010
Permit Type
Revenue
Jan -May
Revenue
June - Aug
Total
Revenue
Building Addition /Remodel
$25,824.92
$8,760.63
$34,585.55
New Building
$50,418.61
$50,006.61
$100,425.22
Mechanical
$1,111.42
$403.55
$1,514.97
Plumbing
$75.00
0
$75.00
Tenant Finish
$15,417.94
$138.00
$15,555.94
Excavating /Grading
$1,068.98
$1,068.98
TOTAL Revenue
$92,847.89
$60,377.77
$153,225.66*
* ** Includes waived revenue - $19,078.02.
Table 1.3
Buildina Permit Valuations 2008 —2010
Permit Valuations
2008
2009
Jan. - May
2010
June - August
2010
New Commercial Construction Valuation
$2,525,749.00
$0
$0
$4,586,963.00
New Residential Construction Valuation
$11,165,780.00
$3,521,000.00
$3,898,614.00
0
New Residential Permits Issued
15
4
1
0
TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED
143
60
35
25
Development Applications -2010
Minor Design
47 E BC Blvd.
Staff Approved
Christie Lodge exterior improvements
Minor Design
4090 WR Rd.
Staff Approved
Color Change
Minor Design
2618 Beartrap Rd.
Staff Approved
Residential Addition
Minor Design
137 Benchmark Dr.
Staff Approved
Seasons Communication Equip
Minor Design
37347 Hwy 6
Staff Approved
Brookside Communication Equip
Minor Design_
950 Nottingham Rd.
Staff Approved
Commercial Color Change
Minor Design
210 Nottingham Rd.
Staff Approved
Deck Addition
Minor Design
5381 Eaglebend Dr.
Staff Approved
Door and Window Replacement
Minor Design
3063 WR Rd. Unit A
Staff Approved
Jarvis Patio Addition
Minor Design
2030 BC Point
Staff Approved
Landscaping Modifications
Minor Design
3016 WR Rd., Unit 4
Staff Approved
Deck and Patio Addition /Remodel
Minor Design
2461 Saddleridge
Staff Approved
Landscaping Mods /Basement Remodel
Minor Design
100 W. BC. Blvd.
Under Review
China Garden Exterior Mod's /Interior
Minor Design
5171 Longsun Lane
Staff Approved_
New Entrance/Vestibule
Minor Design
72 E. BC Blvd.
Staff Approved
City Market Enclosure _
Minor Design
2960 June Creek
PZC Approved 8/3
Solar Panels on Duplex
Minor Design
2350 Saddleridge
Staff Approved
Site Modifications
Minor Design
4121 Little Point
Staff Approved
Landscaping Modifications
Minor Design
2111 Saddleridge
Staff Approved
Addition
Minor Design
5501 Coyote Ridge
Under Review
Garage Apartment Remodel
Minor Design_
95 Post Blvd.
Under Review
Color Change
Minor Design
2395 Saddleridge
Staff Approved
Landscaping Modifications
Minor Design
231 Nottingham Rd.
Staff Approval
Retaining Walls
Minor Design
211 Nottingham Rd.
Staff Approval
Deck Addition
Sketch Design
2080 Beaver Creek Pt
PZC Reviewed 3/2
Single Family Residence
Sketch Design
One Lake St.
PZC Reviewed 3/16
HA Nottingham Park Pavilion
Sketch Design
20 Nottingham Rd
PZC Reviewed 8/17
New Commercial Bldg - Restaurant
Sketch Design
15 Sun Road
PZC 9/7
New Commercial Bldg - Wal- Greens
Final Design
130 Buck Creek Rd
PZC Approved 3/2
Gore Range Science School
Final Design
2101 Saddle Ridge
PZC Approved 5/4
Two Duplex Structures
Final Design
5075 WR Rd
PZC Approved 5/4
Single - Family Residence
Final Design
42 Riverfront Ln
PZC Approved 4/20
Timeshare East Building
Final Design
One Lake St
PZC Approved 5/4
HA Nottingham Park Pavilion
Final Design
2080 BC Point
PZC Approved 8/3
Wolf Family Sing
Zoning
Brookside Condos
PZC Approved 3/2
Short Term Rental Overlay
Zoning
Canyon Run Condos
PZC Approved 3/2
Short Term Rental Overlay
Sign Design
82 E. BC Blvd
Staff Approved
Walking Mountains Sign
Sign Design
137 Benchmark Rd
PZC 9/7
Seasons Master Sign Program
Sign Design
30 Benchmark Rd
PZC 9/7
Slifer, Smith, & Frampton Sign Program
Special Review
77 Metcalf Road
PZC 9/7
Montessori School Renewal in IC
Use
District
Special Review
Trees of Colorado
PZC Approved 3/2
Extension Approved for Tree Sales
Use
Memo
AVON
C 0 L 0 R A D 0
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Jaime Walker, Community Relations Officer
Date: August 17, 2010
Re: Staff Updates - Wildridge Community Meeting and Ice Cream Social (August 26, 2010)
Summary: Town staff will host an open house meeting and ice cream social at the Wildridge Fire
Station (and adjacent park) on Thursday, August 26, 2010 beginning at 6:00 PM.
Background: In continuing the Town's outreach efforts and to seek citizen involvement, the Wildridge
Community Meeting is designed to inform citizens about various projects, initiative, and new
ordinances during an informal ice -cream social and meeting.
Discussion: Citizens will be invited to the meeting through advertisement via the variable message
boards and though news releases to the media and public contacts. Representatives from various town
departments will address the topics below and be available to answer questions, share information, and
listen to the community's concerns.
Agenda:
POLICE
• Traffic Safety and Crime Prevention- Chief Ticer will present information on
neighborhood crime prevention and discuss traffic safety
PUBLIC WORKS / TRANSPORTATION
• Drainage Ditch Maintenance - Jenny Strehler will discuss the reasons for and the need to
maintain drainage ditches and culverts on private and Town -owned property
• Avon's Weed Ordinance -Jenny Strehler will describe the implications of the revised weed
ordinance and ways to mitigate noxious weeds
• Status of Avon Transit Jenny Strehler will review the changes to Avon transit: schedule,
routes and service levels
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ ENGINEERING
Lighting Compliance with the Dark Sky Initiative-Sally Vecchio will talk about the
enforcement of the lighting ordinance and compliant lighting fixtures
Metcalf Bike Lane- Justin Hildreth will discuss plans for the Metcalf Bike Lane and
construction schedule
Avon Town Center Redevelopment - Justin Hildreth will provide an update on the Main
Street Project and Nottingham Performing Arts Pavilion
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Legal: Eric Heil, Town Attorney
From: Scott Wright, Asst. Town Manager — Finance
Date: August 18, 2010
Re: Financial Matters / Revenue Presentation
Summary:
Initials
The Financial Matters Report normally including under Staff Updates has a few changes
beginning this month corresponding with the revenue presentation for the 2011 budget that
will be given during the Council worksession.
At the Town Manager's request, a monthly report summarizing the outstanding balances due
from the Traer Creek Metropolitan District will be in included in the future. This spreadsheet
reports the monthly, annual and total balances due the Town from Municipal Services, Sales
Tax Shortfall, East Avon Exaction, and East Beaver Creek Blvd billings and also includes
accrued interest to date.
In addition, Kelly Huitt, the Town's new budget analyst, has created a number of new table
and graphs for the Sales and Accommodation Tax Report, including breakdowns by
geographic area (GEO Codes) and by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) which is used by business and government to classify business establishments
according to type of economic activity. It has largely replaced the older Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) system.
A number of additional sales and accommodation tax graphs will be included in my
PowerPoint presentation during the worksession, along with analysis of other Town revenues
and our projections for 2011.
Discussion:
A brief discussion of the changes to the Sales and Accommodation Tax Report follows.
Page 1
FINANCIAL MATTERS
August 24, 2010
1. Sales and Accommodations Cover Memo and Report — June
2. Detail - Real Estate Transfer Taxes — July
3. YTD Building Revenue Report Actual vs Budget — July
4. A/R Balances Outstanding — Traer Creek Metropolitan District
Town of Avon Geo Codes
Staff has identified 12 different geographic areas within the Town, along a code for sales taxes
received from out -of -town merchants and special events. Two areas, the Gates and West
Residential did not have any activity for the period reported.
• Town Center East + East River District= East Avon
• Nottingham /Buck Creek + Metcalf + Wildridge= Nottingham /Wildridge
• Out of City + Special Events + Unknown= Out of City
• Town Center West + West Beaver Creek= West Avon
• Riverfront + West River District= Riverfront/West River District
• Village at Avon stands on its own since that area is unique in its taxation
New tables and graphs for Geo codes will include a pie chart with percentages by geographic
area, and a comparison of the current and prior year revenues by GEO code. A map of the
Town Geo Code boundaries is attached to this memo.
North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS)
Staff has consolidated the 60+ NAICS codes in use by the Town down to 9 areas for purposes
of reporting and graphing the Town's sales and accommodations tax by industry. The areas
are as follows:
• Home and Garden
• Grocery, Specialty and Health
• Liquor Sales
• Sporting Goods Retail and Rental
• Miscellaneous
• Accommodations
• Restaurant and Bars
• Other
• Service Related
In addition, for accommodations tax, the Accommodations type is broken down further into
timeshare, hotel/motel, and vacation rental.
Town Manager Comments:
• Page 2
Attachments:
A — Financial Matters Report and Cover Memo
B — Town of Avon GEO Code Boundaries
• Page 3
Memo
To: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Thru: Scott Wright, Asst. Town Manager — Finance
From: Kelly Huitt, Budget Analyst
Date: August 18, 2010
Re: Financial Matters — Sales and Accommodations June, 2010
Summary:
• Sales tax revenue is down 4.5% for the month of June, and down .71 % year to date
• Lost revenue from the Outback closing at the end of May
• 57% of total sales tax revenue is generated by East Avon
• West Avon and Riverfront/West River District sales tax revenue up slightly from 2009
• Sales tax up from 2009 in Sporting Goods and Accommodations
• Accommodations tax is also down 4.5% for the month of June, but up 9.26% for the
year to date
• The Riverfront generates almost half of our total accommodations tax revenue
• Accommodations tax is up 36% at the Riverfront, at least partially due to the opening
of the Westin Mountain Villas at the end of May 2009
• Accommodations tax for Hotels and Time Shares are up from 2009, while Vacation
Rentals are slightly down
Page 1
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
N
O
O
Cn
N
O
O
m
N
O
O
V
d
N
O
O
00
N
O
O
CO
N
O_
O
N
d
m
N
C7
x
O
CD
O
7
N
O
C-
c
7
to
v o o m
c v to < m ?• v
3 3 3 n Sr v
j
U c 1 cr
64
A
m
A
A
I �
CO
64
A
W
O
O
V
OD
N
64
cn
Cn
V
W
r
64
cn
N
co
cn
co
b9
Cn
O
C7D
O
O
00
CO
Cn
A
69
N
671
W
m
m
A
O
V
0
69
O O O A m CWO A CA V A N
W C7D 00 00 O N N A C7D Cn
CO OD
O W co co N N OO W A N N N A .41 0
C71 A � W N m CO N V Cn W W
O CO m Oo Cn � N V G C7) O
40
a N W W W W N W 0 A A
T V W V m O N O A OAD
n O A_ Cn V W W W �_ W V_
a A m Cn 0 m V_ O
B O O N m CO A m A
D 00 00 m O O O O O m
� O O � Cn Cn N W Cn W C71
EA
a W A A A A N W Cn A (01
J V tJ A .CN71 A V N V A tJ
T W O 00D W O 00D A N � N
I C01 V W V FO W (D V N O
D 9 w " N W A O A OD W
40
J W A A A A W W O Cn 0
0 Con m OND 000 v s N W A N
0 O W 0 W V m W O_ w
n CO m A W C71 �
O W -I W v v O A IV W
D Cn m — W O A 0 W O W
40
00 j N Cn V O CO CO m W W CA Cn Cn
Cn
m W O A CO m V tD m m N
V m ? Cn CO CO O W OD (D W O)
O CO W m cn m m W A A
m N Cn Cn m m O W W O CAD
CO O N CD N N V Cn ? 0) 0,
A N 0 CD O CO m— N OD V
611)
V A O N O
V N CO O A Cn
N W W W CVn O
O O
74 V N CD
A O N C01
N m O O O OD
O O O O O fD W C01 N 6
O O O O O C01 W O m N Oo
O O O O O OD C7D CO Cn Cn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
O
O
Ol
N
O
W
D
2
� N D
00 o r
01 Z
H � O
D
�Q =
a
co Z
� m
�m
N
O
O
O
N�
N n
O_ O
O �
O
7
N
O O
3
CD
N :r
O C0
tOD t�
CD
OWD O
O N
N A
A W
W O
O N
N A
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O O
N
O
O
Cn
N
O
O
m
N
O
O
V
d
N
O
O
00
N
O
O
CO
N
O_
O
N
d
m
N
C7
x
O
CD
O
7
N
O
C-
c
7
to
v o o m
c v to < m ?• v
3 3 3 n Sr v
j
U c 1 cr
64
A
m
A
A
I �
CO
64
A
W
O
O
V
OD
N
64
cn
Cn
V
W
r
64
cn
N
co
cn
co
b9
Cn
O
C7D
O
O
00
CO
Cn
A
69
N
671
W
m
m
A
O
V
0
69
O O O A m CWO A CA V A N
W C7D 00 00 O N N A C7D Cn
CO OD
O W co co N N OO W A N N N A .41 0
C71 A � W N m CO N V Cn W W
O CO m Oo Cn � N V G C7) O
40
a N W W W W N W 0 A A
T V W V m O N O A OAD
n O A_ Cn V W W W �_ W V_
a A m Cn 0 m V_ O
B O O N m CO A m A
D 00 00 m O O O O O m
� O O � Cn Cn N W Cn W C71
EA
a W A A A A N W Cn A (01
J V tJ A .CN71 A V N V A tJ
T W O 00D W O 00D A N � N
I C01 V W V FO W (D V N O
D 9 w " N W A O A OD W
40
J W A A A A W W O Cn 0
0 Con m OND 000 v s N W A N
0 O W 0 W V m W O_ w
n CO m A W C71 �
O W -I W v v O A IV W
D Cn m — W O A 0 W O W
40
00 j N Cn V O CO CO m W W CA Cn Cn
Cn
m W O A CO m V tD m m N
V m ? Cn CO CO O W OD (D W O)
O CO W m cn m m W A A
m N Cn Cn m m O W W O CAD
CO O N CD N N V Cn ? 0) 0,
A N 0 CD O CO m— N OD V
611)
V A O N O
V N CO O A Cn
N W W W CVn O
O O
74 V N CD
A O N C01
N m O O O OD
O O O O O fD W C01 N 6
O O O O O C01 W O m N Oo
O O O O O OD C7D CO Cn Cn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
O
O
Ol
N
O
W
D
2
� N D
00 o r
01 Z
H � O
D
�Q =
a
co Z
� m
�m
N
O
O
O
N�
N n
O_ O
O �
O
7
N
O O
3
CD
N :r
O C0
tOD t�
CD
64
A
m
A
A
I �
CO
64
A
W
O
O
V
OD
N
64
cn
Cn
V
W
r
64
cn
N
co
cn
co
b9
Cn
O
C7D
O
O
00
CO
Cn
A
69
N
671
W
m
m
A
O
V
0
69
O O O A m CWO A CA V A N
W C7D 00 00 O N N A C7D Cn
CO OD
O W co co N N OO W A N N N A .41 0
C71 A � W N m CO N V Cn W W
O CO m Oo Cn � N V G C7) O
40
a N W W W W N W 0 A A
T V W V m O N O A OAD
n O A_ Cn V W W W �_ W V_
a A m Cn 0 m V_ O
B O O N m CO A m A
D 00 00 m O O O O O m
� O O � Cn Cn N W Cn W C71
EA
a W A A A A N W Cn A (01
J V tJ A .CN71 A V N V A tJ
T W O 00D W O 00D A N � N
I C01 V W V FO W (D V N O
D 9 w " N W A O A OD W
40
J W A A A A W W O Cn 0
0 Con m OND 000 v s N W A N
0 O W 0 W V m W O_ w
n CO m A W C71 �
O W -I W v v O A IV W
D Cn m — W O A 0 W O W
40
00 j N Cn V O CO CO m W W CA Cn Cn
Cn
m W O A CO m V tD m m N
V m ? Cn CO CO O W OD (D W O)
O CO W m cn m m W A A
m N Cn Cn m m O W W O CAD
CO O N CD N N V Cn ? 0) 0,
A N 0 CD O CO m— N OD V
611)
V A O N O
V N CO O A Cn
N W W W CVn O
O O
74 V N CD
A O N C01
N m O O O OD
O O O O O fD W C01 N 6
O O O O O C01 W O m N Oo
O O O O O OD C7D CO Cn Cn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
O
O
Ol
N
O
W
D
2
� N D
00 o r
01 Z
H � O
D
�Q =
a
co Z
� m
�m
N
O
O
O
N�
N n
O_ O
O �
O
7
N
O O
3
CD
N :r
O C0
tOD t�
CD
O O O O O fD W C01 N 6
O O O O O C01 W O m N Oo
O O O O O OD C7D CO Cn Cn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
O
O
Ol
N
O
W
D
2
� N D
00 o r
01 Z
H � O
D
�Q =
a
co Z
� m
�m
N
O
O
O
N�
N n
O_ O
O �
O
7
N
O O
3
CD
N :r
O C0
tOD t�
CD
IAd
�4
d2
ham+ N W A l�n a) V 0000 . .
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O VI. 1/1� 4ill i^ i^ if). 4A. 4A. N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O In O In O In O In O
ZIMF-�_
N N N N
O O O O
0 O O O
O l0 00 V
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Na
o�
om�
C)
�z
OO
• 0D
00 <
= z
M m
�m
z
<;u *Ozm
O
m
S
00
~ K
w
rn 3
n
22 <
91-
?
o
m
oa
Zj
D
O
7
W cn CA N CO
NA ODOO W C
CO CO V CA OD V 7
CO CT OD A CO ACp
OD O CO V N--
OD CA NA(n V
W (n (n OD CA CA
W W N (n A
N W (71 V
pp_ CO W N
OODD CO AV COOS
W W A9) CO
V —N OD
A (n 0
N
�1
N
d
K
Q
a
1
<D
S1
<;u *Ozm
_ < CD 2. p 0
°1(D(
CD
D°,.0 D
0 <
N C_i ?
�
0
o
,fDrn
OL
CAD O
CD
v,
�.
<
rD
0
W �
V V� N O y
CT CD V N V (71
0 O —fo -IOC
O OD CA CA OCn cow
�
CO CO N N OD N A Q
x(71 IVO�CA Cr
<
ID
OD OD CA W V W
O
*
(71 -n
A_ W N0 N A7V
Q
V �A CT CA CT W
N
CT CO N CA AA OD
O
N-4 W co N OD O�
&I OD CA CO W Ca ?
F.l
CO W CA OD CA CA N
O
<
H
N
— OD CO CT W W 3
OO -I CO OD — W y
-CO
w m
N
NCOV COW(n�
W CO CA CA w w4
o K
V V CTA W.N
iii
N Cr pppp ODAO CT
ON W NOD
p
x
Q
O N N N N O
cOCOOOCO�ooD
co OD IJ -4 (n
W CO (n V V ��
V CO OOCO OO OD
>
O�COOCT IV IV
CO A CA AV WOl
m
A��NNNCT
W CT cn w
W � A Cn N V
8`<
P. OD OO NCO
V ? � N 0 0
(n (n (n co A N
W cn CA N CO
NA ODOO W C
CO CO V CA OD V 7
CO CT OD A CO ACp
OD O CO V N--
OD CA NA(n V
W (n (n OD CA CA
W W N (n A
N W (71 V
pp_ CO W N
OODD CO AV COOS
W W A9) CO
V —N OD
A (n 0
N
�1
N
d
K
Q
a
1
<D
S1
7
C
D
m
ro
a
C
d
Q
d
A
S
D
v
m
ro
D
w
N
ti
a
ro
3
a
1
O
4
O
a
1
Z
0
3
a
m
v
ro
m
3
a
m
In o lrn o Ln o Ln o Lnn o
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
0 0
r O
o �c
m
C
O
m
w
H
K
D
7
2
O
7
00
S
d
3
a
a
ID
O
c
0
n
2
9
D
0
."O
m
v 0
nN �
M m
N
Ol
aq
m
a
0
r r r r
O 0 o O O o o O
O O O O O O O O
O O O pO O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
■ ■
0 0
r o
o �o
A
O
3
V
N
O
m
0�
3
C
C
O
N
y
k
Q
a
A
H
7
C
m
x
N
d
to
vm7Vr rrn($
c�(n(nrrN(n(nv,co
Go
�N Ili . `V Mm�rf
vao�v(Doiuiui�
O V O r M M N N
(D (`') N M I N O N
ON OOD (0 (DN (0�
rnrvr�(D�mrn
C V O V Oi Oi Oi C
O) O O N
V O) O) (D �
'MCD(0r(OMOO(n W
0 (D (D M N V O) C r
N OD M M M 0 V V F,
N
r (D IQ OD O N (0 " O N (0 r
(n V oD N M
T O (D C7 r O r r N
aomry (0 N
� OD O M N m 'kCNO
O
N N N V M O
a
N
L
OD N N (0 (0 OD
_ M (D O N r (D O
C
'C oD r(D N a(D(D
C, V r (D o r r N (h ch
(+rf
0/
QM V OOONO C31
O!
m
T N m N (MD N Oi
O
M
X
H
N
tO)OTNrOCD mm
GJ
N N MOiOC
�
to
�(D �nC' �
taDOV
O NOR V�? m C V
N
(O
0
aa
�M NNT N(00(ODNM
O
o�or�OO Op 6rio�nvNri
2c)O1
F
N
qCo%!
dm
M NOv
LL M� Dr N
3
C
OD �10 N(OMtD (D M�
M N r N C V
1
10
A ON(DOMMOO('io
c Tr��v(MD. m (nr0
10v(")oor,oiovr(D'�i
0)0 V r-
C6,
m
Vr a�i
Q
2 = :°
F O
a N y 0 N O m N
N n O N
d 0 O N
41 l0 V% C O Q.
E N
O O U O N O n 2
y
N x C9L CL! Q Ofq
d
v
v �
E
0
v
A
d
v �
u
d
N
4.
H
M�
W
y
d
!0
N
01 O
O N
N N
d
10
d
u
w
v
t
O
`m
m
4J
a
c
o
3
o
E
£
E
m
r
y
N
O
o
tn
d
c
,L
m
m
u
06
G
O
V
0�
�d
r-W
a s
C
v
0
0
Q
u
u
G L
2' mqj
V
O
19
W
V
`m
l7
N
E
0
x
S °o S S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
°o °o °o °o °o °o
o pd o c 0 c 0
O
M N
Ln
OI CA.
C O
L N
U E
O �
0
H
C
0
y o
O O
v N
i
O
O
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
�� N N O Ui 0 0 0 0 0
M �O O O O O N M -
0O0 M - 00 In CO
00 CO CO CO CCU C`
O M I V O
an0
E9
O N O C
00 N ccl ccl ccl CO � � C,
C? N 0 O 0I�r lt) V M 00 P
O O N 0 M CO Cn M It CO V
M O M 00 O V' CO — O N 0C
0000 CCOO 0000 N - M � MM N - - C
r
W
W
= 0
00 CO CO M C
CA I
I-- CO CO N
N N d
Y C N
N
CO M
N
�
O O
O c
O O
� O
CO P
P CM P N C
CO O
O M A O
O CC O
O R
O
O
N
E9
lA O N lA CM h M 0 0 0 N
CO O CO Cl� O M lA CA CO O 00
Lq rn n oc oc pl%. n Lq ao CO O M
fA
0
CO
N
Cl)
fl-
Lq
Cco
Cl)
CH
O
M
03
C
Lc)
69
CA
N
CO
Cl)
CO
CA
L
O
CO
co
CA
O
CN
Cn
O
N
Cn
fA
M
00
n
rn
ce
M
Vi
� N d
C
2 2 0
'C
CL C >+ 0I d > U H
U- Q Q ui O z° o
d
A
.Q
H
C
v
v
a�
� N It N I`
0 CO N CO r
CO 0 r00 It O M O a
r co co N I- O C
T CO (O CO I- L �
co 00 LO ti
V-
N CO CO CO CO
OU� M N O a
O M M O C O N
C It N ti ti N c
M t to 't r- �
N I- L (O
T-
0 rM(NON�a
>n 00 T- 00 M Ln I.
(4 CO N CO v- v- N
M V- In O '-T
d' L
O M I- CO
00 M (O a) 114: a
co
Q C CO N q-
(OCO�OO
Q O M O r- M
N v- (O N N
04 0O - M q, C, CV
6 N 00 u
O N M r�z r
N U)
CO O CO N N
Z+ CO CO lf) IM O
L (O (O d' M l- r
O N r� v
U.
10 CO CO 0 U
Z+000��c
n
CI-0000M(OC,
7 O N C C
Al
U
•L
y C C > fL
O
N d N O C 4
U U m o
WC O C N
CDF-0 LL
m
L
/Q
• � ii
1 ti m
r
M
> (0D0 ,0
�LO m
co
c
M O
E
T 1 O
ui
4 V
N V
r
1 �
(0
N
I Lo
I r
i O
O
O
O
r
M
(O
M
0;
0)
M
V
co
H
0) O)
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C W
O
M
o
O O
O O
O
O
O
oC '
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
d O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0000
(A .
O
00
t0
d
N
t
O
rN-1
W U
N
O
v
C
3'
1
(.1
O
O
31
0 '
H
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C W
O
M
o
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
d O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0000
O
00
t0
d
N
t
O
rN-1
N
H
O
m
M
C W
O
M
o
E
H a)C
L
N
U
E
Q`
O
� U
/�
V
H o
Q
x
r ``
W
O
.—I
O
N
u
n
Y
LL
o v
v
L
L
J
n
u
u
v
L)
J
0 n �
N M O N
Ld Lei
r-- N n M
d ^ 00104k C0
N � � H
AIM
�M�O
COLq
LO
N CD
aOO N
04 00
Q C' 0)
CO LO di
C) I- C)
L'-t Cl) N
O N N
O N M
N CON
�r- C')
A
ai C�i
LL co)
�CRcq�
eCV) C3 °
�
CD - CO
e
m
o ` �
�a
N N O
E 0 V
H S >
W
CL
T
T
m
r-
0
N
m
CL
G
U
X
m
H
N
C
0
f0
O
E
E
O
u
u
Q
FD
Y
W
c
c
m o
o 0
N 0
N N
0 0 o O o
O O C G 0
O C C O O
O O O O O
N N icy O Lo
f0
C
d
CL'
C
0
Y
V
m
O!
O
2
v
�o
ti
a
E
Town of Avon
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Calendar Year 2010
Purchaser Name Property
Jun -10
Land Title Guarantee
Falcon Pointe 206.44
Land Title Guarantee
Falcon Pointe 208-45
Land Title Guarantee
Falcon Pointe 209 -36
Land Title Guarantee
Falcon Pointe 309-41
Land Title Guarantee
Falcon Pointe 406 -08
Title Comp Rockies
Mtn. Vista 27 -10
Title Comp Rockies
Mtn. Vista 29 -10
Title Comp Rockies
Mtn. Vista 30 -10
Bradford & Roselane Norris
Sunridge D -107
Kahn & Caren Rubin Kahn
Avon Crossing 11 3304
Jessica Cumming
3000 Eaglebend Fil 3 Lot 10
Ticor Title Ins
Riverfront 26 -10
Ticor Title Ins
Riverfront 27 -10
Ticor Title Ins
Riverfront 28 -10
Ticor Title Ins
Riverfront 29 -10
Ticor Title Ins
Riverfront 30 -10
Nathan & Jennifer Korte
Riverfront 327
Weyers Investments LLC
Riverfront 347
Mindy Duboff & David Hirschberg
Riverfront 512
Total July Revenue
Total YTD Revenue
Total 2010 Budget
Amount Received Riverfront PUD
$ 283,090.21 $ 989,893.40
16.00
17.86
35.70
17.86
20.00
199.00
218.00
714.00
4,850.00
6,700.00
7,300.00
4,821.20
6,149.50
2,381.00
8,605.20
3,950.00
5,164.04
6,565.00
5,785.00
$20,088.42 $43,420.94
303,178.63 1,033,314.34
1,000,000.00 1,091,798.00
Variance, Favorable (Unfavorable) $ (696,821.37) $ (58,483.66)
r[
\
l0 l0
M o u1 v
H
rl ri
01 0)
N N N M
m
m (•1
NN
100
N
N N
u1 u1
co aD ri N Ln u1
rl
rl ri
ri ri
rl
rl r•1
a
W
W
F
��
�oo�
rn
m m
.0H
CW7�
�J
mrn Lnm
0
m m
n
ri ri C ri
ri
1 C
a
w a ui w
vi
vi ui
JM
M
ri N
ri
H H
cx�
0
N
W�
as
rtoom
r
r n
w
E-
riri
ao00m
m
rn m
co ao
1-0 O r
Ln
in Ln
O H u1 %0
co
co co
O W
r r
000
M
t+1 M
N
F a
0
N
a s
H ri
o d- ui
N N
o
V.
o o
" d•
d�
ri rl
rl
rl ri
It
O
N
v
!A
00
0000
O
O 9
u1
W
00
0000
O
O o
R
o
H
N
W
N
U
ut
W
a
E
-
a
o
M
a
0
Z
N
0
N
Am
U) U)
0000
ut
ut U)
Qcn
-
OEa
00
0000
0
0 O
•
H
O
Ll O Ll
u1
u1 ul
O /1•
ri
W W
.0-0
N u1 n
H
H ri
E�
a
00
ri r o0
01
01 0%
N
W
a
�o
ri ri
r
r n
O W
N
El
q
W
•ri
a
a
a
O
E
00
0000
0
0 0
0000
O
O O
U00
ro
q
00
0000
0
0 0
a
00
0000
0
o O
Si
pq
00
0000
O
O C
b�
ro
ui ui
u i o o
u t
N
n n
N N
N u1
N N
N N N
ri
rl ri
v
O
}i
U
U
fn
to
El
w
q
m
H
U
0
El
a w
o
OF
W
'
F
W W W
w
�rUi
W
I
HF
W W WwW
"
of
(a
ou
04W
H
a sdo >a
00gyqy
qzqz W.4
H
a
UuHWW
z❑q
E
DD0
P
0
Q ••
aaD
DFO
z
oWMatn
aP�tt�o
WWWwww20o
H
w
zq
Eo
a0
oUH�0
P
HW
roa
wo
01
i
W
'n
CQZ
Z
ua
uuuu{{{{
ZH�
�av]gW
W
a
wrier
C7
zay
WE-FF
W
F
a
W O
a\ ••
2z
NO
C7 O
1
u
o
F
2 a
q o o
O H
W 0 a
O' pEq
.H]
PFq U
F
Cw7 a
H
nwm
PW
W
U1
W W
O
F W
O
o
o 0 0
�Fi
.7U
aF(7
OE
U
NF
FNNNF
F
F E
aiEOa
134H
0
ugigN
rn4
Q
uu)H
Huu)iuu)iuu)iF
F
E
AIR Balances Outstanding
Traer Creek Metro District
As of August, 2010
Municipal Services Sales Tax Shortfall East Avon Exaction East Beaver Creek Blvd. Accrued
Invoices & Payments Credits & Balance Due Invoices & Payments Credits & Balance Invoices & Credits & Balance Invoices & Credits & Balance Interest
Reconciliation Received Off -sets From (To) Reconciliation Received Off -sets Due Reconciliation Off -sets Due Reconciliation Off -sets Due @ 8/1/2010
2004 Sales Tax Shortfall Overpayment $ $
November, 2007
December, 2007
2007 Municipal Services Reconcilation
2007 Totals
Balance Forward to 2008
January, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
February, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
March, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
April, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
May, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
June, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
July, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
2008 Sales Tax Shortfall Reconciliation
-
25,772.59
August, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
September, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
October, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
November, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
December, 2008
58,205.69
(22,249.00)
2008 Municipal Services Reconciliation
(202,288.53)
2008 Totals
496,179.75
(266,988.00)
Balance Forward to 2009
January, 2009
48,406.77
(37,487.00)
February, 2009
48,406.77
(37,487.00)
March, 2009
48,406.77
(37,487.00)
April, 2009
48,406.77
(37,487.00)
May, 2009
48,406.77
14,353.47
June,2009
48,406.77
189,399.83
July, 2009
48,406.77
2009 Sales Tax Shortfall Reconciliation
-
40,906.81
August, 2009
48,406.77
September, 2009
48,406.77
185,368.60
October, 2009
48,406.77
November, 2009
48,406.77
12,820.41
December, 2009
48,406.77
312,120.26
2009 Municipal Services Reconciliation
(93,560.31)
2009 Totals
487,320.93
(149,948.00)
$ $
$ - $ (56,041.03) $
$ (56,041.03) $ $
$
$ $
$
$ (25,032.68)
40,906.81
(15,134.22)
8,732.76
40,906.81
25,772.59
8,454.82
(30,371.54) (30,371.54)
-
25,772.59
(5,671.57)
(30,371.54)
81,813.62 (56,041.03)
(13,516.67)
(30,371.54)
25,772.59
5,585.15
40,906.81
66,679.40
15,364.28
41,541.84
40,906.81
107,586.21
14,875.72
77,498.53
40,906.81
148,493.02
14,353.47
113,455.22
40,906.81
189,399.83
13,848.07
149,411.91
40,906.81
230,306.64
13,325.81
185,368.60
40,906.81
271,213.45
12,820.41
221,325.29
40,906.81
312,120.26
12,298.16
221,325.29
(17,613.05)
294,507.21
(2,698.42)
257,281.98
39,275.82
333,783.03
11,526.03
293,238.67
39,275.82
373,058.85 200,000.00
200,000.00
40,357.38
329,195.36
39,275.82
412,334.67 -
200,000.00
10,520.18
365,152.05
39,275.82
451,610.49
200,000.00
-
-
10,025.50
401,108.74
39,275.82
490,886.31
200,000.00
49,901.41
49,901.41
15,825.16
198,820.21
-
490,886.31
200,000.00
49,901.41
(21,592.22)
465,113.72
200,000.00
49,901.41
160,849.54
198,820.21
490,886.31
200,000.00
49,901.41
209,739.98
39,275.82
530,162.13 -
200,000.00
-
49,901.41
6,006.97
220,659.75
39,275.82
569,437.95
200,000.00
49,901.41
5,698.92
231,579.52
39,275.82
608,713.77
200,000.00
49,901.41
5,357.86
242,499.29
39,275.82
647,989.59
200,000.00
49,901.41
5,027.81
290,906.06
39,275.82
687,265.41
200,000.00
49,901.41
8,186.91
339,312.83
39,275.82
726,541.23
200,000.00
49,901.41
7,610.37
387,719.60
39,275.82
765,817.05
200,000.00
49,901.41
7,014.61
387,719.60
132,369.24
898,186.29
200,000.00
-
49,901.41
9,690.15
436,126.37
54,098.37
952,284.66
200,000.00
48,897.05
98,798.46
11,083.47
484,533.14
54,098.37
1,006,383.03
200,000.00
-
98,798.46
6,829.93
532,939.91
54,098.37
1,060,481.40
200,000.00
98,798.46
6,133.46
581,346.68
54,098.37
1,114,579.77
200,000.00
98,798.46
5,459.45
629,753.45
54,098.37
1,168,678.14
200,000.00
98,798.46
4,762.98
536,193.14
-
1,168,678.14
200,000.00
98,798.46
(2,501.78)
677,791.83
48,897.05
86,361.11
AIR Balances Outstanding
Traer Creek Metro District
As of August, 2010
Grand Totals Due E 873,824.82
Grand Total Due
Sales Tax Shortfall
Payments Credits &
Received Off -sets
Balance
Due
1,168,678.14
1,222, 776.51
1,276,874.88
1,330,973.25
1,385,071.62
1,439,169.99
1,493,268.36
1,547,366.73
1,583,144.62
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
$ 1,639,547.85
East Avon Exaction
Municipal Services
Invoices & Credits & Balance
Invoices & Credits & Balance
Reconciliation Off -sets Due
Invoices & Payments Credits &
Balance Due
Invoices &
98,798.46
Reconciliation Received Off -sets
From (To)
Reconciliation
Balance Forward to 2010
200,000.00
536,193.14
200,000.00
January, 2010
42,203.96
578,397.10
54,098.37
February, 2010
42,203.96
620,601.06
54,098.37
March, 2010
42,203.96
662,805.02
54,098.37
April, 2010
42,203.96
705,008.98
54,098.37
May, 2010
42,203.96
747,212.94
54,098.37
June, 2010
42,203.96
789,416.90
54,098.37
July, 2010
42,203.96
831,620.86
54,098.37
2010 Sales Tax Shortfall Reconciliation
-
831,620.86
35,777.89
August, 2010
42,203.96
873,824.82
56,403.23
September, 2010
-
873,824.82
October, 2010
873,824.82
November, 2010
873,824.82
December, 2010
873,824.82
-
2010 Totals
337,631.68
470,869.71
Grand Totals Due E 873,824.82
Grand Total Due
Sales Tax Shortfall
Payments Credits &
Received Off -sets
Balance
Due
1,168,678.14
1,222, 776.51
1,276,874.88
1,330,973.25
1,385,071.62
1,439,169.99
1,493,268.36
1,547,366.73
1,583,144.62
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
1,639,547.85
$ 1,639,547.85
East Avon Exaction
East Beaver Creek Blvd.
Invoices & Credits & Balance
Invoices & Credits & Balance
Reconciliation Off -sets Due
Reconciliation Off -sets Due
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,79846
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
200,000.00
98,798.46
E 200,000.00
Accrued
Interest
@ 8/1/2010
3,820.43
3,229.43
2,575.10
1,941.88
1,287.55
654.33
13,508.71
$ 98,798.46 247,202.69
$ 3,059,373.82
Z
c
N 03 N
C m >
0 0
m a C
C
Cl. 3 x
a F �
N
t5
U
N � r
� > N
>N N Uj
S
1 1
N �
W
a
c
sa� €
$s$ 3
f
yak
fill
E3g
ag38
a E
"c
fi
E F
10
co
O
O
N
N
d
�L
MO
W
d)
10
O
U
O
m
iTL
C�
m
c
ca
c
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Jennifer Strehler, Director of Public Works and Transportation
Scott Wright, Assistant Town Manager /Finance
Date: August 24, 2010
Re: Transportation Department Budget and Service Plan for FY2011
During this work session, staff from the Town's Department of Transportation will present their
accomplishments for FY2010 and discuss their proposed service plan and associated budgetary
implications for the remainder of FY2010 and for FY2011. Input from Town Council is welcome
and will help staff to verify or change the assumptions on which the budget will be finalized for
the transit and fleet divisions.
Previous Council Actions:
The FY2010 budget was adjusted in May 2010 through a formal budget amendment. The
planned expenditures for both fleet and transit divisions were cut to accommodate reduced
revenue projections.
On June 22, Avon Town Council decided not to refer the Connect Avon Now Project- which
included new revenue to be dedicated to transit service - to a public vote. The Town Council
discussed and affirmed specific budget constraints to be put upon the transit division for the
foreseeable future given the lack of new revenue and the Town's overall economic situation.
These constraints are discussed below as they have shaped the transit service plan for the 2010-
2011 ski season and summer season.
Background
Both Fleet and Transit Divisions operate as enterprise funds. When either Division does not
receive revenues which total division expenditures, a transfer from the General Fund (GF) is
necessary. Some background history about the financial structure of Avon's Fleet and Transit
Division are discussed below:
Fleet
Avon Fleet maintains the Town's own fleet of vehicles and equipment. Avon Fleet also contracts
services to 15 outside parties. Over 500 vehicles or pieces of equipment are under Avon Fleet's
care. From a financial budgeting perspective, the extent of work and associated revenue can be
difficult to predict. The Fleet Division budget must provide for tools, materials, training,
subcontracted services (e.g., body work) for all customers.
Transit
Historically, Avon Transit operated with a high proportion of contract service revenue and
outside contributions (e.g., from Vail Resorts, Eagle County). For this reason, Avon Transit was
set up as an enterprise fund. This fund structure remains today (despite the fact that nearly all
service is provided solely for the Town of Avon) because town staff remain optimistic that
outside contracts may arise in the near -term future. Such contracts could take the form of
partnerships with neighboring metro districts or cost - sharing partnerships with Eagle County's
ECO Transit. Avon's transportation staff and Town Council representatives have been
participating in the regional "Transit Action Group" (TAG) technical meetings which are
evaluating possible structural, financial, and operational changes to ECO Transit since
changes are likely to directly impact Avon.
Discussion
The service plans and budgetary implications for the Fleet and Transit Divisions are discussed
individually.
Fleet
The cost for Avon Fleet services is the same to all parties and is based on an hourly rate plus a
mark -up for parts, fuel, and other supplies. The hourly rate has been $105 /hr for the last two
years. The FY2011 budget recommends an increase in this rate to $108 /hr. The other mark-
ups are recommended to stay the same (10% of cost) for FY2011. These rates are in -line with
what is charged by comparable shops.
Both work orders and total third party revenue received by Avon Fleet during January - July
2010 is down about 20% compared to the same period in 2009. Several customers appear to
have cut back on vehicle use and /or delayed routine maintenance activities until the fall months.
The year -end projection for third party revenue is recommended to be adjusted to about $1.25M
for FY2010 and budgeted at about $1.40M for FY2011.
The cost for Avon's fleet maintenance is expected to be about $433,000 for FY2010 and
$447,000 for FY2011. Similar to trends in third -party work, this represents a decrease of about
25% as compared to 2009 actual expenses. With a reduction in staff and total working days,
and less private development activity, the Town has reduced vehicle usage and fuel
consumption.
The recommended resulting total budget and associated GF subsidy for FY2010 for Avon Fleet is
$2.2M with a $200K GF subsidy. The FY2011 total budget is estimated to be $2.2M with a
$200K GF subsidy. The GF subsidy to Avon Fleet represents about 1.5% of the anticipated GF
revenues. As the Fleet Building C.O.P.s are currently structured, this GF subsidy is equivalent to
the interest on the bond payment plus about 40% of the bond principal. If the Town moves
ahead with re- financing these bonds over a 20 -year period, the bond payment for FY2011 would
drop by about $65,000 /year as would the GF subsidy.
Transit
During the June 22, 2010 meeting regarding the proposed Connect Avon Now project, the Town
Council identified the need to cap the GF subsidy to Transit at $1,000,000 as a budget target for
2010 and 2011. Town staff interpreted the desired <_ $1,000,000 GF subsidy to be inclusive of
the gondola operations but exclusive of bus - purchase and capital expenditures. Gondola
operations will cost about $263,000 in FY2011 and offer an alternative mode to bus transport
to /from the mountain. Bus fleet replacement was originally budgeted for FY2010; the budget
was amended to move this expenditure to FY2011 due to delays in fabrication. 1 Because fleet
replacement is paid for from a combination of grants, fleet replacement funds, and not from the
general fund, it seemed appropriate to exclude bus capital purchases from the target GF subsidy
for operations. Regardless, this GF subsidy target cap reduces the affordable transit bus service
hours to a lower level than recent years. As a result, additional transit service cuts are planned
as compared to 2009 and the 2009 -2010 ski season.
The upcoming ski season and summer transit service plan is as follows. Service has been
concentrated to meet the ridership demand profile and has been cut during off - season and off -
peak times.
Avon Town Bus Routes
Ski Season (Nov 28 -Apr 24):
Blue route 6:30am- 6:30pm Mon -Sun
Red route 6:30am- 6:30pm Mon -Sun
Gondola express 8:30 -11, 2 -6pm Fri -Mon
Spring, Summer, Fall (Apr 25 - Nov 27):
Black route 6:30am- 6:30pm
Riverfront Gondola (operated by Vail Resorts)
Dec 20 - March 20
8:30am- 4:O0pm Mon -Sun
The draft budget for Avon Transit indicates that this service plan will require a $986,000 GF
subsidy. This represents about 9% of the anticipated GF revenues. The total budget for Avon
Transit for FY2011 is estimated to be about $1,760,000, which includes $733,000 for
replacement of two buses. The capital expenditure is funded via FTA grants (80% of 1St bus;
$293,300), Transit's Fleet replacement fund (20% of 1St bus; $73,324), and a capital lease
(100% of 2nd bus; $366,621). The buses should be delivered in about October 2011. Debt
payment on the lease will begin in 2012.
Financial Implications:
The financial implications are discussed above. Staff will continue to monitor workload demand
and staffing level for Avon Fleet and keep the Town Manager informed of any observed variances
from the expectations described here. Similarly, staff will relay feedback from the community
regarding how bus ridership is affected by the planned service changes.
Town Manager Comments
1 Avon Transit is overdue to replace rolling stock assets; 5 buses should have been replaced by end of
2010 based on engine hours and bus age. The Town ordered 2 new Gilig buses in December 2009 which
we will not pay for until about November 2011.