PZC Packet 1101161 Agenda posted on Friday, October 28, 2016 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
-Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org
Please call 970-748-4030 for Questions
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
One Lake Street
If you require special accommodation please contact us in advance and we will assist you. You may call David
McWilliams at 970-748-4023 or email cmcwilliams@avon.org with any special requests
I. Call to Order – 5:00pm
II. Roll Call
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Major PUD Amendment – Short Term Lodging Use – CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 4, 2016 MEETING
File #: PUD16004
Applicant: Carryn and Bret Burton
Property: Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 1060 W. BC Blvd.
Owner: Westgate at Avon LLC
Summary: Application to amend the Westgate PUD to permit short term lodging use as a use by
right, and covert approximately 3,500 square feet from office into a hostel operation.
Applicant has requested a continuance to the December 6, 2016 meeting.
VI. Sign Design – Sun and Ski
File: SGN16010
Legal Description: Tract B-1, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 218 Beaver Creek Place
Applicant/Owner: Town of Avon
Summary: Application for a tenant identification sign at a new retail space in Chapel Square.
VII. Alternative Equivalent Compliance – Fence Design
File: AEC16007
Legal Description: Lot 5, Block 4, Wildirdge / 5774 Wildridge Road East
Applicant/Owner: Jeff Patterson
Summary: AEC to allow for a three railed fence with metal wire, and find an existing non-
approved fence acceptable.
VIII. Major Design & Development Plan / Alternative Equivalent Compliance - Hotel - PUBLIC HEARING
File: MJR16007 / AEC16005
Legal Description: Lot B, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Applicant: Treadstone Development, LLC
Summary: Public Hearing and recommendation to Town Council on a development plan for a
142-unit hotel project. In addition to the hotel, the project includes four (4) units of
whole ownership residential, “micro-retail” units, and recreational facilities for
owners and guests.
2 Agenda posted on Friday, October 28, 2016 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
-Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org
Please call 970-748-4030 for Questions
IX. Approval of Meeting Minutes
October 18, 2016 Meeting Minutes
X. Approval of PZC Record of Decisions
Alternative Equivalent Compliance for Tree replacement plan on Lot 20, Block 4, Wildridge – October
18, 2016 Meeting.
XI. Adjourn
PZC Findings of Fact: #AEC16006 Page 1 of 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECCOMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: October 18, 2016
APPROVAL OF FINDINGS: November 1, 2016
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Alternative Equivalent Compliance
PROPERTY LOCATION: Lot 20, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
FILE NUMBER: #AEC16006
APPLICANT: Jack Hunn
This decision and recommendation is made in accordance with Avon Development Code
(“Development Code”) §7.16.120(b):
DECISION: Recommendation to approve Rezoning of the property from Planned Unit
Development (PUD) to the Public Facilities (PF) zone district, citing the following findings :
FINDINGS:
(1) The application was reviewed pursuant to AMC 7.16.120, Alternative Equivalent
Compliance;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the design standard to the same
or better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(4) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are
equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard;
(5) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties
than would occur through compliance with the spec ific requirements of this
Title; and
(6) The proposed landscaping plan contains more Landscaping Units than would be
required following the AMC.
VOTE: The motion passed with a 7-0 vote.
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED:
BY:______________________________________
PZC Chairperson
Dear PZC and Town of Avon Committee
RE: NOVEMBER 1 TOWN PUD AMENDMENT HEARING FOR COHABIT AT
WESTGATE PLAZA
We would like to thank everyone at the Town of Avon for allowing us to present our application
consideration and for the opportunity to come before the board again November. Our
application was tabled so that we could present additional information regarding parking.
We understand that parking is a major challenge at Westgate Plaza and we have been working
with the HOA and the property manager on solutions. Unfortunately parking has been
resolved. The owners and the HOA have not yet come to agreement on how parking will be
assigned to the units. We understand the discussion has begun and they are working on a
proposal to allocate a percentage of deeded spaces to each unit owner.
We regret that we will not have this information to present to you at the November 1
hearing. We do not want to waste the committee's time and we therefore ask for an extension to
reschedule our hearing for December 6. We are confident the Westgate HOA would have come
to an agreement by then, as Vail Resorts would have begun charging for parking in the Bear Lot
at the end of November.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to presenting a parking solution to the
Board in December.
Kind Regards,
Carryn and Bret Burton
COhabit LLC
(248)-797-4290
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
SGN16010 –Sun and Ski Sign Design 1
Staff Report – SGN16010
November 1, 2016 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Staff Report Overview
This staff report contains one application for consideration by the PZC:
1. SGN16010: Sign Design for the new Sun and Ski location. This application seeks approval
for one building identification sign. Staff administratively approved a sign affixed to the
monument sign near the City Market Bus stop based on compliance with the Master Sign
Program.
Summary of Request
On behalf of SCB Properties Holdings the owner of Chapel Square, Rick Dodgen of Sun and Ski
is proposing to replace the SPORTS AUTHORITY tenant identification sign. The
Application proposes a new design including background panel, interior lit channel letters and
logo, and interior lit channel letters for tagline elements. All lighting would be with internal
white LEDs. The background panel measures 5’7” tall by 23’ wide and would project 4” from
the stucco building. The Applicant has demonstrated that the sign area is less than that of the
existing sign.
Vicinity Map of Area
Project type:
Sign Design
Zoning: PUD
Address: 218 Beaver Creek Place
Location: Tract B1, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
Applicant: Rick Dodgen, Sun and Ski
Owner: SCB Properties Holdings
Prepared by: David McWilliams, Town Planner
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
SGN16010 –Sun and Ski Sign Design 2
Design Guidelines
Section 15.28.060 of the Sign Code offers the following sign design guidelines for PZC
consideration:
(a) Harmonious with Town scale. Sign location, configuration, design, materials and colors
should be harmonious with the existing signs on the structure, with the neighborhood and
with the Townscape.
(b) Harmonious with building scale. The sign should be harmonious with the building
scale, and should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue
attention to itself.
(c) Materials. Quality sign materials, including anodized metal; routed or sandblasted
wood, such as rough cedar or redwood; interior-lit, individual Plexiglas-faced letters; or
three-dimensional individual letters with or without indirect lighting, are encouraged. Sign
materials, such as printed plywood, interior-lit box-type plastic and paper or vinyl stick-on
window signs are discouraged, but may be approved, however, if determined appropriate to
the location, at the sole discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
(d) Architectural harmony. The sign and its supporting structure should be in harmony
architecturally, and in harmony in color with the surrounding structures.
(e) Landscaping. Landscaping is required for all freestanding signs, and should be designed
to enhance the signage and surrounding building landscaping.
(f) Reflective surfaces. Reflective surfaces are not allowed.
(g) Lighting. Lighting should be of no greater wattage than is necessary to make the sign
visible at night, and should not reflect unnecessarily onto adjacent properties. Lighting
sources, except neon tubing, should not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or
vehicles, and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine in a
disturbing manner.
(h) Location. On multi-story buildings, individual business signs shall generally be limited
to the ground level.
Staff Response:
The PZC should examine whether they find the sign is in harmony with the Town, building scale,
and architecture. The white rectangular background panel may “visually dominate” the structure and
the Townscape. Also, Staff was unclear of the expected wattage within the sign and whether it
would disturb surrounding properties, pedestrians, or properties.
Review Criteria:
In addition to the sign design guidelines above, Section 15.28.070, states that PZC shall consider the
following items in reviewing the Application:
1. The suitability of the improvement, including materials with which the sign is to
be constructed and the site upon which it is to be located;
2. The nature of adjacent and neighboring improvements;
3. The quality of the materials to be utilized in any proposed improvement;
4. The visual impact of any proposed improvement, as viewed from any adjacent
or neighboring property;
5. The objective that no improvement will be so similar or dissimilar to other signs in
the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic, will be impaired;
6. Whether the type, height, size and/or quantity of signs generally complies with the sign
code, and are appropriate for the project;
7. Whether the sign is primarily oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and whether
the sign is appropriate for the determined orientation.
Staff Response:
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
SGN16010 –Sun and Ski Sign Design 3
This Application proposes high quality materials, and is suitable for a commercial setting. The
proposed sign has a background of 128.4 square feet, with a total sign area (name, logo, and tagline)
of 61.9 square feet, in compliance with the Sign Code allowance of up to 64 square feet of signage
for individual tenant signage. One (1) square foot is allowed for each linear foot of frontage up to
thirty five (35) linear feet. After that one third foot (1/3) of square footage is allowed per one (1)
linear foot of frontage, maximizing out at sixty four (64) square feet.
The previous Sports Authority sign background measured 162.6 square feet with illuminated channel
letters over a wood grained, red background panel. In the area, there is a mix of existing signs. Pier
One and the shopping center across the street have pan channel internally lit letters. Other outlets in
the Chapel Square area have oval, exterior lit polycarbonate signs.
Examples of Area Signs
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approving Case #SGN16006 because it meets the requirements of the Sign
Code.
Recommended Motion and Findings:
“I move to Approve Case #SGN16010, a Sign Design application at Tract B1 , Block 2 Benchmark
at Beaver Creek with the following finding:
1. The Application was reviewed in conformance with Section 15.28, Sign Code, and found
to be in conformance with the design review criteria outlined in Section 15.28.070, Avon
Municipal Code.
2. The sign materials are of high quality and the style is supported by the Sign Code, which
encourages interior lit, individual plexiglass-faces letters, or three dimensional individual
letters (15.28.060(c)).
3. Sign lighting is not directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles (15.28.060(g))”
Attachments Sign Design (Proposed)
Andy V 9/16/16
220 Beaver Creek Place, Avon, C O 1 of 2
Storefront Signage
Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
61.9 Sq. Ft.3'-9 1/2"4'-3"15'-11"9 1/2"2'-2"14'-3"
21'-0"5'-7"16.1
34.5
11.3
23'-0"
5"
4"
SPECIFICATIONS
FABRICATE AND INSTALL:
• (1) 5'-7" x 23' x 4" DEEP, NON-ILLUM. WALL-MTD, FAB'D ALUM.
BACKGROUND PANEL
• (1) SET FACE-LIT PRIMARY LED CHANNEL LETTERS
"MOUNTAINS / SUN"LOGO"
• (1) SET FACE-LIT TAGLINE LED CHANNEL LETTERS
"SPORTS • BIKES • RENTALS" with BLACK/WHITE PLEX FACES
PMS 123C GOLD
PMS PROCESS CYAN
3M 3630-167 BRIGHT BLUE
VERIFY ALL MEASUREMENTS PRIOR TO FABRICATION
BACKGROUND:
PANEL MOUNT:
FACES:
TRIMCAPS:
RETURNS:
INTERIORS:
ILLUMINATION:
POWER SUPPLIES:
ELECTRICAL:
4" DEEP FAB'D PANEL PAINTED WHITE
WALL MOUNTED MATE CLIPS @ TOP & BOTTOM
PRIMARY: WHITE PLEXIGLAS W/ VINYL OVERLAY
TAGLINE: BLACK / WHITE PLEX
PRIMARY: 1" WHITE
TAGLINE: 1" BLACK
PRIMARY: .063" ALUM. X 5" DEEP, PAINTED WHITE
TAGLINE: .063" ALUM. X 5" DEEP, PAINTED BLACK
PAINTED WHITE
INTERNAL WHITE LEDS
INTERNAL
SINGLE ELECTRICAL PENETRATION
4" fab'd alum.
frame painted white,
mtd to wall with
internal mate clips
top & bottom
5"face-lit LE D
channel letters
vinyl reg. mark
black / white
plex faces
mounting
top & bottom
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
AEC16007 Fence Application 1
STAFF REPORT
Case #AEC16007 Alternative Compliance Equivalent
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
PROJECT TYPE: Alternative Equivalent Compliance
PUBLIC HEARING: Not Required
LOCATION: Lot 5 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
ADDRESS: 5774 Wildridge Road East E
ZONING: PUD
PREPARED BY: David McWilliams, Town Planner
BACKGROUND
Jeff Patterson (the Applicant) applied and received approval for landscaping improvements in March, 2013 (selected
pages attached as Exhibit 1). The fence approval within the landscaping plan allowed for a ”traditional split rail fence”,
which was displayed within the application as a two rail spilt rail fence with no metal wiring.
After receiving the approval, the Applicant built a three rail fence, at 4 feet high, which contained metal wire to keep
their dog in. The fence was built to roughly 2/3 completion, and extends from the house to the terraces. The applicant
mentioned to staff that he thought the terraces would effectively contain their dog. After discovering that their dog is
capable of scaling the terraces and escaping the yard, the Applicant hired a contractor to install the remaining enclosure
with the same three rail fence and metal wiring as was previously installed.
After construction materials were brought to the house, Staff was notified of the construction activity, and the possible
deviations from Avon Municipal Code (AMC). A site visit confirmed the possible deviations, and therefore Staff
requested the Applicant to delay construction. The AEC process was suggested as a possible way to resolve the issue.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Applicant proposes the AEC to allow for a three railed fence with metal wire (Exhibit 2) pictured, to complete the
enclosure. That is, the third side of the fence is to be consistent with what is installed, and the proposed AEC would find
the entire fence compliant.
REVIEW PROCEDURES
According to 7.16.120 of the AMC, “applications for alternative equivalent compliance shall be processed concurrently
with the underlying development application for which alternative equivalent compliance with the applicable design
standards is desired and shall follow the procedures for such underlying development application. Applications for
alternative equivalent compliance may be initiated by the owner of property for which alternative equivalent
compliance is desired.”
It is clear that no inspection was conducted after the first stage of construction, which would have shown the deviation
from the approval. Therefore, while this AEC application is not necessarily concurrent with the development
application, staff considers this process necessary to provide direction to the homeowners for completion of their
project.
FENCES IN WILDRIDGE
Section 7.28.080(b), of the Municipal Code offers the following intent and design of fence structures in Wildridge:
Although discouraged in Wildridge and Wildwood, in all instances fences should complement the property and
landscape rather than contain the property. Fences that delineate property boundaries are not permitted. Fences
will be considered for approval by staff only when demonstrated by the applicant that the design is consistent with
the following criteria:
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
AEC16007 Fence Application 2
i. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four (4) feet in height;
ii. Fences shall be constructed using a split rail design with no more than two (2) horizontal rails;
iii. Fences shall not delineate property lines;
iv. Fences shall not enclose an area of two thousand (2,000) square feet or more;
v. Fences shall ensure that wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence
design;
vi. If a fence is part of a multi-family project, approval shall be received from the association and
the fence design shall be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property; and
vii. If a fence is located on a duplex property, written approval shall be received from the adjoining
property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The following review criteria, section 7.16.120(d), serves as the basis for the AEC application decision:
(1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or
better degree than the subject standard;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or
better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than
compliance with the subject standard; and
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through
compliance with the specific requirements of the AMC.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The AEC application achieves the intent of the development standards to the same degree without causing great
impacts on adjacent properties. The proposal meets the same four (4) foot height restriction as required in the code,
providing no more visual obstruction than the original design. The fence is located behind the house on the uphill side,
therefore providing minimal obstructed views from the street or adjacent properties. The location of the entire fence,
as approved in March, 2013, complies with Policy B.1.3 of the Comprehensive plan to, “Ensure development protects
the enjoyment of outdoor spaces by maximizing sun exposure and protecting views.”
The intent of the fence design to contain the Applicant’s dogs is better achieved through the proposed design than the
development standards would allow. General neighborhood complaints from upper Wildridge report roaming dogs
disrupting the quiet, harassing animals, and causing other nuisances. The Applicant reports their dog escaping and other
dogs entering their property. By completing this fence as applied, the issue may be diminished in the neighborhood,
therefore benefiting the neighborhood as a whole more than a split rail fence without metal wiring would.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
“I move to approve Case #AEC16007, an application to approve the entire three rail fence with metal wiring, on Lot 5,
Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision together with staff’s recommended findings.”
FINDINGS
(1) The application was reviewed pursuant to AMC 7.16.120, Alternative Equivalent Compliance;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the fence design standard to the same or better degree than the
subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better
degree than the subject standard;
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through
compliance with the specific requirements of the AMC; and
(5) The approved size and location of the fence on the top of Wildridge and on the uphill side does not result in
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
AEC16007 Fence Application 3
diminished views from the AEC proposal of metal wiring and a third rail.
ATTACHMENTS
1)Exhibit 1: Land Development Approval
2)Photo of current fence
I:[TIL11
F-6 --it 6 - f 6
Post Office Box 975
1 Lake Street
Avon, CO 81620
970 - 748 -4000
970 -949 -9139 Fax
970 -845 -7708 TTY
TOWN OF AVON - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Minor Development Plan
PLANNER: Jared Barnes, Planner I
PHONE: 970.748.4023
LOCATION: Lot 5, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
ADDRESS: 5774 Wildridge Road East
PROPERTY OWNER: Jefferson Patterson
4537 Dupont Ave So
Minneapolis, MN 55419
FILE NUMBER: MNR13003
DATE: March 6, 2013
EMAIL: jbarnes @avon.org
APPLICANT: Creative Environments
PO Box 5313
Vail, CO 81658
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: Proposal to modify the rear yard, generally to the northeast
of the structure, to create an outdoor livable area. The improvements will include removing an existing
Trex deck and install: a two tiered flagstone patio (Colorado Buff); gas fireplace with masonry surround
Vogelman brown light dry stacked sandstone); partially recessed hot tub with masonry surround
Vogelman brown light dry stacked sandstone); two stone veneered retaining walls of varying heights
not to exceed 4 feet (Vogelman brown light dry stacked sandstone); a traditional split rail fence;
landscape lighting (SPJ Lighting - SPJ11 -02; brass); flagstone steps from rear improvements to front of
house (Colorado Buff ); and various trees and shrubs (1 Siberian Cherry tree; 3 Aspen trees; 11 Red Twig
Dogwood shrubs; 5 Rose shrubs; 2 Spruce shrubs; and 5 Alpine Currant shrubs). The work will be
accessed from the driveway of 5768 Wildridge Road E (Lot 6, Block 4, WR) and both owners have
consented to the temporary access.
REVIEW CRITERIA:
7.16.080 — Development Plan; §7.16.090 - Design Review, §7.28.050 — Landscaping
STAFF DECISION:
Approved as submitted /proposed.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1) The design modifications, as depicted on the plans, do not significantly impact the overall
design of the building.
2) The modifications are consistent with the standards outlined in §7.16.080, Development Plan
and §7.16.090, Design Review.
60X _ _
44 Barnes, Community Development
DATE 1
Atttachment 1
2/19/13
RE:
Patterson residence
5774 Wildridge Road E Unit A
Wildridge Subdivision
Eagle County, CO
This project encompasses enhancement to the outdoor living area at back of the house. Currently
the area has a slope down the backyard with native grasses and a small deck. The focus of this
project is to make this area a more usable living space. We are looking to add two flagstone
patios. The larger lower patio to have a electronic controlled gas fireplace. The smaller upper
patio is to have a partially recessed hot tub with the above grade portion surrounded with
masonry work. To allow for this space two poured concrete /stone veneered retaining walls are
needed. Additional split rail fence above wall to contain owners dogs is proposed as well. All the
materials to be used in this project are natural stone selections used in the area. We do have
permission of the owners to the east to use their driveway for construction access.
Sincerely,
Scott Bi el
Creative Environments, llc
O Box t
0n
N
i
0
w
N
W
FN C)
II Q
O
rn
00
yl
PATTERSON -WDRME SUBDMSON
5774 EAST WILDRIDGE DRIVE
AVON, COLORADO 81620
p
o CD
cr
Z),
17 X. rn
m
t
n C)
Elz
CJ u
i
c) C) 1) c I 1
ij
yl
PATTERSON -WDRME SUBDMSON
5774 EAST WILDRIDGE DRIVE
AVON, COLORADO 81620
p
o CD
cr
17 X. rn
mI
G)
yl
PATTERSON -WDRME SUBDMSON
5774 EAST WILDRIDGE DRIVE
AVON, COLORADO 81620
p
o CD
cr
Attachment 2
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 1 | P a g e
STAFF REPORT
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Application Types: Major Development PlanAlternative Equivalent Compliance
Property: Lot B, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision 140 W. Beaver Creek Blvd
Applicant: Treadstone Development, LLC
File No.: #MJR16007#AEC16005
Zoning: Town Center
Prepared By: Matt Pielsticker, AICP
Introduction
The Applicant, Treadstone Development, LLC, representing the owner, Chicago Title Insurance Company,
of the site located at 140 West Beaver Creek Boulevard (the “Property”) has submitted a Major
Development Plan (“Exhibit A”) and concurrent Alternative Equivalent Compliance (“Exhibit B”) request
(collectively the “Application”). The Major Development Plan is for the development of a one-hundred-forty-
two (142) unit hotel project, four (4) condominiums, and supporting retail space on the Main Street
Pedestrian Mall. The Application includes recreation center facility for owners and guests, as well as a full
level of underground parking. The Application materials include design plans, a written narrative for the
Alternative Equivalent Compliance (“AEC”), and a parking study. Additional reports (i.e. drainage study)
are on file with the Town but not included in this packet due to their technical nature.
The Planning and Zoning Commission (“PZC”) will review the Application and conduct a public hearing on
November 1, 2016. After reviewing the Application materials, Staff’s analysis, and public input, the PZC will
forward a recommendation to the Town Council.
Background
The Property was originally part of Lots 47-54, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision and zoned
Specially Planned Area (SPA). The properties included a number of “Commercial / Condominium /
Apartment” unit allocations, and the Plat included a broad definition for permitted Commercial land uses;
building heights up to eighty (80) feet were granted by right.
The properties were later re-platted as Lots A, B, and C in the general layout that exists today with: Lot A
(now Lodge at Avon Center), Lot B, and Lot C (Sheraton Moun tain Vista PUD). The project was originally
envisioned as a phased project with Lot A being Phase I, Lot B as Phase II, and Lot C as Phase III. The
Avon Center was constructed in 1981, with some parking deferred to future phases and constructed as the
surface parking on Lot B. It was not until 1999 that Lot C was rezoned to PUD to advance the Sheraton
Mountain Vista Development Plan. Construction of the first phase of that development began in 2001.
In 1998, the Avon Town Council approved a zone chang e for Lot B from the TC zone district to PUD. The
PUD zone district was proposed for several reasons: increased building height, reduced setbacks, and a
reduced number of parking spaces. The PUD Development Plan that was approved in 1999 by Ordinance
1999-3, and later ratified in 2000 by Ordinance 2000 -20 included:
104 Accommodation Units
6 Employee Housing Units
All Uses allowed in Town Center with addition of Timeshare Use
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 2 | P a g e
106’ Building Height with ability to reach 111’ with ancillary structures
17,500 sq. ft. Minimum Commercial Density
50,000 Maximum Commercial Density
Modified Parking standards including 1 parking space/ per Accommodation Unit and 2.4 parking
spaces / per 1,000 sq. ft. of Commercial
Surface and garage parking requirements including 95 spaces for Lodge at Avon Center
Off-Site Snow removal
The Development Plan expired and the vested property rights expired in 2008 when the Development
Agreement expired after ten (10) years of no movement. And after several years of inactivity, Treadstone
Development, LLC, proposed a rezoning from PUD to the Town Center (TC) zone district for the Property.
The rezoning request was approved by Ordinance 2015-06 and is now subject to Title 7: Development
Code, requirements.
Process
The review process for the Application includes a noticed public hearing with PZC and recommendation to
Town Council. Another public hearing is required with the Town Council before final action. Final action is
required by Town Council since the Property is located in the “Town Core” area as defined by the
Development Code.
Pursuant to AMC §7.16.020(b)(4), Concurrent Review Permitted, where multiple development applications
cover the same property, the Director may permit concurrent review of the development applications for
efficiency and practicality. The Major Development Plan and AEC application are being reviewed
concurrently given their inherent linked nature.
Major Development Plan
All new development is subject to the standards and requirements outlined in AMC §7.28, Development
Standards. The purpose of these standards is to establish the minimum requirements for the physical
layout and design of all development including: access, parking, landscaping, screening, architectural, and
other design standards. These provisions address the physical relationship between development and
adjacent properties and public streets in order to implement the Avon Comprehensive Plan’s vision for a
more attractive, efficient, and livable community.
The Application was evaluated against the General Development Standards in AMC §7.28; the Project was
found to be either in compliance with the standards or requiring an AEC application in one instance. Table
1: General Development Standard Compliance demonstrates general conformance with the Standards,
with an AEC request submitted for off-site landscaping.
Table 1: General Development Standard Compliance
Development
Standards AMC Section Compliant N/A AEC
Parking & Loading §7.28.020 X
Access Drive §7.28.030 X
Mobility & Connectivity §7.28.040 X
Landscaping §7.28.050 X
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 3 | P a g e
Screening §7.28.060 X
Retaining Walls §7.28.070 X
Fences §7.28.080 X
Parking and Loading
The Application is in conformance with the Parking and Loading provisions of the AMC, and all parking
spaces required to serve the buildings are located on the Property. Per AMC Table 7.28-2: Off-Street
Parking, the Application provides one (1) space per accommodation unit, four (4) spaces per 1,000 square
feet of retail, ten (10) visitor parking spaces, and residential parking for the condominiums . The AMC
allows the Director to apply a Mixed-Use reduction of fifteen percent (15%) to the total parking calculation.
Additional parking is included for the Lodge at Avon Center per separate agreement.
A parking demand study was submitted (“Exhibit C”) in accordance with AMC 7.28.020(g)(4), based upon
the unique parking agreements in place with the adjacent p roperties and the mix of uses presented. The
parking study is attached (“Exhibit C”) and demonstrates a surplus of parking based upon review of code
requirements and actual demand observed and anticipated for the land uses.
Loading to accommodate trash removal and deliveries is proposed within the shared access drive
bordering Lot B and Lot C. Pursuant to AMC §7.28.090(m), Off-Street Loading, access must be designed
“with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with
traffic movement, as approved by the Town Engineer.” The Applicant has provided turning movements
studies to the Town Engineer to satisfy this requirement, and all turning movements occur within the
Property.
Access Drive
The access drive onto West Beaver Creek Blvd is aligned with Sun Road as proposed in the West Beaver
Creek Blvd. streetscape project. The access drive is located in a 39-FT wide reciprocal access easement
that is located along the northwest property line which was dedicated as part of the previous approval of the
Sheraton Mountain Vista. The driveway access is intended to eventually be shared with a future phase of
the Sheraton Mountain Vista development. The developer is currently negotiating with the Sheraton
Mountain Vista on the final alignment and grades for the access drive and parking garage ramp. The
design of the connection to West Beaver Creek Blvd will be finalized as p art of the final design of the West
Beaver Creek Blvd streetscape project this winter.
Emergency access for fire district vehicles is accommodated with an emergency access point into the
motor court area between the hotel and the Lodge at Avon Center. The Application is in compliance with
all other access requirements, including but not limited to: minimum width, grading, and sight distance
triangle requirements. The Eagle River Fire Protection District has reviewed the plan s and are in general
acceptance, as documented in attached correspondence (“Exhibit D”).
Snow Storage
The AMC requires that snow storage must be accommodated on -site, unless waived by the Town
Engineer. The Application proposes to snowmelt most parking and loading areas, and therefore the Town
Engineer has granted a waiver to the on-site snow storage requirements. There is some concern with the
area on the west/north side of the building, near the ramp. The parking spaces and pedestrian path
connection in that area are only partially covered by the building and could pose snow management and
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 4 | P a g e
potential safety issues during big snow events. Staff requests a snow management plan to demonstrate
that the area will be safe from snow shedding from the building, and that there are areas to store any
excess snow that is not melted by the snowmelt system.
The project may connect to the Town’s heat recovery system that currently heats the recreation center
pools to mitigate the snowmelt energy off -set fee. An analysis to determine if the existing heat recovery
system has the capacity to meet the project’s heating demands in on -going and could be constructed in
concert with the Town of Avon as the Town seeks excess capacity for the adjacent new Town Hall.
Drainage
Pre-development hydrology patterns are to be maintained in accordance with AMC §7.32.050, Stormwater
Drainage. The project is in conformance with the Town’s drainage standards. The flood detention and
stormwater quality treatment requirements will be met by an underground facility owned by the Town under
the parking lot adjacent to the future Town Hall.
Bicycle Facilities
Developments that contain twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces must provide bicycle parking facilities,
with at least one (1) space for every ten (10) vehicle parking spaces. The Application proposes racks in the
landscaped pedestrian access area facing the new town hall building. The garage also contains a bike
rack, allowing for less visible and more covered options.
Mobility and Connectivity
Bicycle and pedestrian path connectivity is included in the site design with a path connecting the Main
Street Pedestrian Mall with Beaver Creek Boulevard on the north and south sides of the project. Ramps
and stairs connect the retail spaces with the Main Street Pedestrian Mall, and the existing path adjacent to
the Lodge at Avon Center would continue to be functional . Extensive improvements are proposed within
the Main Street Pedestrian Mall to coincide with paver treatments su rrounding the Wyndham project and
elsewhere in the Town Center. The final design of Beaver Creek Boulevard is forthcoming and will need to
be coordinated.
Landscaping
The stated purpose of the landscaping standards in the Development Code is to ensure that the Landscape
Plan:
(1) Integrates building sites with natural topography and existing vegetation,
(2) Minimizes disturbed areas,
(3) Respects the limitations and best uses of water resources,
(4) Reduces the amount of reflected glare and heat absorbed in and around developments,
(5) Breaks up large expanses of parking lots, and
(6) Preserves residential neighborhoods by lessening the impacts of potentially incompatible
uses.
The minimum landscaped area required for the TC zone district is 20%, and according to the landscaping
standards the maximum irrigated area is 20% of the landscaped area. In order to comply with the 20%
minimum landscape area requirement, the Applicant submitted a concurrent AEC application to provide off-
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 5 | P a g e
site landscaping areas. The “Landscape Areas” exhibit clearly shows the breakdown of the landscape
areas to meet minimum requirements.
The irrigated area is 17.4% of the landscaped area and in conformance with the standards. In general, the
Landscape Plan appears to respect the best uses of water resources, and helps to integrate the vertical
building improvements with the existing adjacent landscaping and improvements in the area.
Screening
The loading and trash storage should have minimal impact upon adjacent properties as the ramp is below
grade. At this stage in design development the screening of rooftop equipment is not clear. It must be
demonstrated at building permit that rooftop mechanical equipment is adequately scre ened pursuant to the
design standards. The roof forms should screen most or all of the equipment, however, this would be
reviewed in more detail with detailed permit plans.
Fences
There is a fence surrounding the pool deck area. The design standards req uire the fence to be
“architecturally compatible with the style, materials, and colors of the principal buildings on the same lot.”
The design of the fence will be compatible in design with the railings on the building. The railing detail is
constructed with painted metal and wood caps.
General Design Standards
The design standards contained in §7.28.090, Design Standards, AMC, are the cornerstone of the
Development Code. This Chapter deals with all architectural standards to determine compatibility with the
Town’s overall appearance, and surrounding development. While the immediate area of the Property is
dominated by stucco construction, a shifting theme is emerging with this project and others in the area,
including the most recently completed Wyndham building. More stone has been introduced to the base of
buildings, and additional materials such as hardi -board siding are more commonly found on newer
construction.
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 6 | P a g e
The application was evaluated against the Generally Applicable Design Standards from §7.28.090(c), ADC;
the Project was found to be in compliance with all of the Generally Applicable Design Standards, and are
listed in Table 2 below:
Table 2: Design Standard Compliance
General Design
Standards AMC Section
Compliant N/A AEC
Site Disturbance
Envelope §7.28.090(c)(1) X
Site Design §7.28.090(c)(2) X
Building
Materials/Colors §7.28.090(c)(3) X
Roofs (general) §7.28.090(c)(4) X
Weather Protection §7.28.090(c)(5) X
Site Design
The site design guidelines speak to complementing the existing topography and views of the site. The site
disturbance envelope encompasses the entire property and therefore the existing topography will be
modified for the entirely of the site. The building steps down from street to mall and matches existing
topography. Additionally, the condominium/recreation building is siting to bring relief the large blank
existing wall of the Lodge at Avon building.
Building Materials and Colors
The use of high quality, durable building materials is required. Additionally, “Indigenous natural or earth
tones, such as brown, tan, grey, green, blue or red, in muted flat colors with a Light Reflective Value (LRV)
of sixty (60) or less are required.” The material and color palette are in compliance with these design
standards. It should be noted that the stone siding base, glass at emergency stairways, and two of the four
stucco colors have been changed since the last presentation to PZC pursuant to comments received.
Materials are of high quality, durable, and reflect the Town’s sub-alpine character.
Roofs
The Design Standards require roofline modulation and varied roof forms. Additionally, for buildings
exceeding four (4) stories, the minimum overhang length shall be thirty six (36) inche s for primary roof
forms. Roof forms shall have a pitch of not less than four-to-twelve (4:12). The roof design is in over-all
compliance, proposing mostly 4:12 and 6:12 roof pitches, and up to 5’ overhangs at balcony roof forms.
The remainder of the roof design includes 6” cap details. The plan sheet titled “Roof Plan” is the best
representative drawing of the roof form locations.
Weather Protection
Building entrances are protected, as are balconies and pedestrian walkways and sidewalks. A snow
management plan will be required to ensure that the pedestrian walkway s and areas of the exposed
parking are sufficiently protected. Snow fence details have been provided to Staff and are under initial
review.
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 7 | P a g e
Mixed-Use and Nonresidential Design Standards
In addition to the generally applicable standards, this Application is subject to AMC §7.28.090(j), Mixed-Use
and Nonresidential Design Standards. These standards include an extra layer of review, including some
standards specific to Town Center (TC) zoned properties located in the “Town Core”. The following chart
includes each mixed-use standard, and outlines conformance, or non-conformance with each one:
The application was evaluated by Staff against the Mixed-Use and Non-Residential Design Standards from
§7.28.090(j), AMC; the Project was either found to be in compliance with the standards, not applicable to
the standards, or requiring the processing of a concurrent AEC application.
Table 3 below indicates that the design either meets the Mixed-Use standards, includes AEC for particular
standards, or the sections were found to be not applicable.
Table 3: Mixed-use and Non Residential Design Standard Compliance
Building Orientation
The building massing reinforces the street edge, maximizes solar orientation, and is in general compliance
with this subsection. The project has evolved to ‘front’ the Main Street Pedestrian Mall first and foremost;
the design modifications to the north facade facing Beaver Creek Boulevard are reviewed favorably. PZC
Standard AMC Section
Complian
t N/A AEC
Building Orientation §7.28.090(j)(3)(i) X
Outparcels §7.28.090(j)(3)(ii) X
Parking §7.28.090(j)(3)(iii) X
Common Spaces §7.28.090(j)(3)(iv) X
Building Layout &
Design §7.28.090(j)(4)(i) X
Four-sided Design §7.28.090(j)(4)(ii) X
Compatible Design §7.28.090(j)(4)(iii) X
Mixed-Use §7.28.090(j)(4)(iv) X
Scale and Massing §7.28.090(j)(4)(v) X
Development
Transitions §7.28.090(j)(4)(vi) X
Storefronts &
Pedestrian Entrances
§7.28.090(j)(4)(vii
)
X
Materials
§7.28.090(j)(4)(vii
i) X
Roofs §7.28.090(j)(4)(ix) X
Windows §7.28.090(j)(4)(x) X
Parking Structures §7.28.090(j)(5) X
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 8 | P a g e
must determine whether or not the first floor treatments facing Beaver Creek Boulevard meet the design
intent of this standard, which is to create “human-scaled” places that face toward streets.
Parking
The majority of the parking is located underground, under the building, or is screened to the fullest extent
possible if located on the surface between the Lodge at Avon Center and the proposed hotel structure.
Additional landscaping has been added to the Main Street Pedestrian Mall to help screen parking areas.
Common Spaces
This Application provides both indoor and outdoor common areas. While the owner s lounge patio on The
Main Street Pedestrian Mall is not open to the public, there are several areas that border the property that
can be enjoyed by non-guests. The plan creates the long-planned terminus to Lettuce Shed Lane, which
can be used for small events or as a pedestrian gathering area. The Main Street Pedestrian Mall frontage
includes plaza space and multiple pedestrian connections.
A passageway on the east side of the property between the recreation center and Avon Center will be open
to the public as a permanent easement between and across the property. This passageway will create a
secondary access from the Main Street Pedestrian Mall to West Beaver Creek Boulevard, although the
passage may be unintuitive to visitors due to diminished sight lines.
The west side of the property will also have a pedestrian corridor allowing flow between the Main Street
Pedestrian Mall and Beaver Creek Boulevard. The connection is ADA accessible and will offer easy
access to the new Town Hall and Seasons building as well.
Building Design
The design standards encourage building design that is appropriate to the site and a “positive element in
the architectural character of Avon. Without prescribing a specific architectural style or organization,
buildings should provide a sense of proportion and visual balance.” The overall building design is fitting for
the site and its surroundings.
Four-sided Design
In effect, this property has two “fronts”: one on Beaver Creek Boulevard and one on Main Street Pedestrian
Mall. Each side appears to be designed with equal care and quality. The Main Street Pedestrian Mall side
contains the three micro-retail units and the main hotel entrance. The other building elevations have been
refined to further distinguish the base, body, and top of the building and the same materials and treatments
are used throughout. At the suggestion of PZC during the October 4, 2016 work session, the building
supports have been modified and are now wrapped with stone veneer to match the rest of the building.
The new entrance arch also provides an improved “front of house” feel to the Beaver Creek Boulevard
vehicle entrance.
Compatible Design
A clearly defined architectural theme has been established with the revised plans. In compliance with the
design standards, a number of architectural features have been utilized to create compatible design,
including but not limited to the following: consistent roof forms, outdoor balconies, vertical banding tower
elements at stairwells, and horizontal banding and railings.
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 9 | P a g e
Mixed-Use Buildings in Town Core
This subsection requires retail, personal service, or restaurant uses for portions of the building fronting
Lettuce Shed Lane, Benchmark Road, and Main Street. The Main Street Pedestrian Mall includes micro-
retail space to activate the mall area and therefore is in compliance with this standard.
Scale and Massing
These standards seek to break up building mass to ensure a pedestrian-friendly scale at the ground level of
new buildings. In all instances, buildings taller than two (2) stories or thirty feet (30’) “shall be designed to
reduce apparent mass and visually anchor the building to the site by including a clearly identifiable base,
body and top, with horizontal elements separating these components.” This section requires a step back of
eight (8) feet, between twelve feet (12’) and forty-five feet (45’); the Application includes an AEC reques t
from this particular standard. The AEC request and review criteria are included later in this report.
Development Transitions
The relationship of the Hotel structure to existing adjacent structures is an important consideration given
the infill nature of the project. As mentioned, the transition from the Lodge at Avon Center to the
condominium building addresses the subsection which speaks to “graduating building height and mass in
the form of building step-backs….so that new structures have a comparable scale with existing structures.”
The Hotel building height is significantly less (approximately 30’) than that of surrounding structures and
this relationship must be evaluated in the context of these standards. Staff feels that the transition between
the Lodge at Avon Center and the proposed recreation center effectively create s a more human scaled
environment on the Main Street Mall.
Storefronts & Pedestrian Entrances
The storefronts on the Main Street Pedestrian Mall are pedestrian-friendly and human-scale. The floor
height of retail frontage now meets the minimum 12’ height requirement.
Given that the main entrance to the building is located on the Main Street Mall side of the project and not
fronting Beaver Creek Boulevard, the connection for pedestrians to the lobby entrance is essential for this
project to meet these standards. Several design options were explored to satisfy pedestrian connectivity.
The decision to move the pedestrian walkway was made in concert with changes to the vehicle entrance
and results in a straight shot approach toward the back of the building.
According to 7.28.090(j) (4)(vii)(B), “when transparency is in conflict with internal functions of the building,
other means shall be used to activate the street-facing facades, such as public art, architectural
ornamentation or details or color patterns”. Architectural orientation and detail was added and the elevation
was modified based upon previous PZC comments.
Materials
Multiple high quality materials are proposed on each building elevation. There is a weighted hierarchy, with
heavy stone materials at the base of the building and lighter materials (i.e. stucco siding) above. A color
and material board will be available for review at the meeting. Staff recommends that a on-site mockup be
a condition of approval if PZC is largely comfortable with the material and color palette.
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 10 | P a g e
Roofs
The roof design is proportional, and generally in compliance with the standards. The design standards
discourage asphalt roofing, and also state that any metal roofing should be muted. As proposed, the
design includes muted grey metal roofing for the sloped forms.
Windows
All buildings on “Main Street, Lettuce Shed Lane, and Benchmark Road” are required to use large display
type windows to activate the street experience. This design standard is adhered to with activated building
frontage on the Main Street Pedestrian Mall for the portion of the building fronting the mall. .
Parking Structures
The areas of the first floor that front the public ways are wrapped with retail or other materials to add visual
interest.
Major Development Plan Review Criteria
Pursuant to AMC §7.16.080(f), Review Criteria, the PZC is charged with reviewing this Design and
Development application against the following Development Plan and Design Review Criteria:
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as
specified in §7.04.030, Purposes;
Staff Response: As documented in this report, this Application is found to be in compliance
with the purpose statements from the Development Code. The purpose statement directly
germane to this Application is §7.04.030(l), which reads “Promote architectural design which is
compatible, functional, practical and complimentary to Avon’s sub -alpine environment.”
(2) Evidence of substantial compliance with the §7.16.090, Design Review.
Staff Response: The Major Development Plan provides compliance with the design review
chapter. The proposed materials and colors are visually harmonious with the Town’s overall
appearance, and that of the buildings in the immediate vicinity.
(3) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response: The Avon Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to the built
environment and land uses align with the following Planning Principles from the West Town
Center District:
Develop a mix of uses that provides a strong residential and lodging bed
base supported by community and guest commercial uses.
Establish public plazas and other gathering spaces for community interaction
and social events.
Use architectural detailing on ground level/first floor to enhance the
pedestrian environment that includes a human scale, display windows,
appropriate lighting, and other pedestrian amenities.
Site buildings of various sizes along the street edge to maximize sun
exposure, protect views, and break up building bulk.
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 11 | P a g e
In addition to the West Town Center District planning principles, the Comprehensive Plan’s Future
Land Use Map (“FLIM”) calls for a “mixed-use” designation. The Application is in alignment with
the Comprehensive Plan definition of mixed-use as follows:
Mixed Use– The intent of the mixed-use designation is to create an area
providing commercial retail and service uses with a supporting mix of office,
residential, lodging, and entertainment uses in an urbanized, pedestrian-oriented
environment. A high proportion of lodging and other residential uses should be
achieved in order to create the needed critical mass of population and activity to
energize the Town Center District. Building should be vertically mixed, with
retail, restaurants, and other commercial services located on the lower levels in
order to encourage a high level of interest and pedestrian activity. Building
design, siting, and orientation, as well as shared parking facilities and public
gathering spaces create an environment that is appealing and inviting for
pedestrians and vehicles.
(4) Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned
development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as
applicable;
Staff Response: The previously approved PUD has expired, and the property remains subject
to various easements and privately recorded covenants. The Application has been modified to
further comply with the reciprocal access easement with Lot C. It is understood that a minor
subdivision will likely be required prior to construction in order to address areas of Lot A that
are encroached upon.
(5) Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this
Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and
Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development
Standards; and
Staff Response: Compliance with the applicable development standards has been
documented in the report, or otherwise addressed through the AEC application.
(6) That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not
limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services.
Staff Response: The development can be adequately served by city services. The Applicant
has worked with the fire district to facilitate a successful fire protection plan, including a control
panel at the corner of the building facing Beaver Creek Boulevard. Pursuant to comments
provided by the fire district, minor additional details will need to be developed prior to final
approval or permit.
§7.16.090(f), Design Review
(1) The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or,
where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon
as a whole;
Staff Response: The Design of the building compliments neighboring existing development
and are compatible with any surrounding redevelopment that could occur. Design queues are
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 12 | P a g e
taken from other recent construction, including that on the Wyndham Resort, and updates to
the Seasons building immediately to the south.
(2) The design meets the development and design standards established in this
Development Code; and
Staff Response: The design is in general conformance with the development and design
standards established in the Municipal Code; where literal conformance is not met, the
Applicant has proposed an alternative design through the AEC process.
(3) The design reflects the long-range goals and design criteria from the Avon
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents.
Staff Response: Avon’s long range planning documents speak heavily to requiring mixed -use
development in the Town Center. The Application is in conformance with a number of the
overarching Goals and policies from the Avon Comprehensive Plan, including Built Form and
Land Use recommendations (i.e. Policy B.1.5 – Require that development within the Town
Center is readily accessible to and integrated with existing retail areas and transit service
routes for both pedestrians and vehicles).
While the Application is not in strict conformance with some of the design criteria found in the
West Town Center Investment Plan, Staff finds that the Major Development Plan’s design and
programming are supportable based on AMC §7.040.090(f); this section states that
conformance with the criteria in the West Town Center Investment Plan is not required since
strict compliance is not practical given market conditions and the current needs of the
community. Most notable is the Main Street Pedestrian Mall instead of a roadway. Due to the
parking burdens that carry with the property from the Lodge at Avon Center, fronting the entire
Main Street Pedestrian Mall with building or retail space is infeasible. From a historical
perspective, development between parcels directed retail density to The Lodge at Avon
Center, and directed parking density to Lot B.
Alternative Equivalent Compliance
Accompanying the Major Development Plan submittal is an AEC request from some of the design
standards. This procedure allows development to meet the intent of the design-related provisions of this
Chapter through an alternative design. It is not a general waiver or weakening of regulations; rather, this
application procedure permits a site-specific plan that is equal to or better than the strict application of a
design standard specified in this Development Code. AEC decisions are site specific and do not establish
a precedent for approval of other requests.
The Application request AEC approval from the following standards:
Table 7.28-6, Minimum Landscaped Area and Maximum Irrigated
Area by Zone District
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 13 | P a g e
§7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(D) Building Stepping
(D) Where primary building walls exceed three (3) stories or forty-five (45)
feet in height, as measured from finished grade to the underside of the eaves,
building form shall step back at least eight (8) feet in depth and shall generally
occur between twelve (12) feet and forty-five (45) feet above the finished
grade, depending on the height of the structure and the surrounding
development context.
According to AMC 7.16.120(d), Review Criteria, PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for
a decision on an application for AEC:
(1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development
standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or
better than compliance with the subject standard; and
(4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would
occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this ordinance.
Staff Response: The Application appears to achieve the overarching goals of the
Comprehensive Plan which speaks to creating vibrant pedestrian friendly developments with
attention to the human scale. Reduced building height, varying building materials, and
articulation (vertical and horizontal) achieve the intent of the building stepping requirements to
the same or better degree than strict compliance.
The building setback, required between twelve feet (12’) and forty-five feet (45’) is absent from
the north, east, and south sides of the main hotel. The intent of the code is satisfied by
differentiation in building color, material, shapes, and the addition of balconies to break up the
appearance of massing and scale.
The landscaping requirements are proposed to be fulfilled by making off-site improvements to
the Main Street Mall area, a small area adjacent to the New Town Hall, and areas along Beaver
Creek Boulevard, totaling in 15,474 square feet of landscaping – best depicted on the colored
“Landscape Areas” exhibit near the end of the plan set. This would equate to 23% of the site
area, and satisfy the intent of the Code.
Available Actions
1. Provide a Recommendation for Approval to Town Council, as submitted.
2. Provide a Recommendation for Approval with conditions to Town Council.
3. Provide a Recommendation for Denial to Town Council.
4. Continue the public hearing for the Application for a period not to exceed thirty-five (35) days,
unless the Applicant consents to a longer time period.
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 14 | P a g e
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the following specific findings and recommended conditions of approval:
A. Major Design and Development Plan. The PZC recommends that the Town Council APPROVE
the MAJOR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN Application, with the findings and conditions
set forth below:
Findings:
(1) The Development Plan and Design review criteria in AMC §7.16.080(5), and
§7.16.090(f) respectively, have been considered by PZC and the Application is
found to be either in strict conformance with the criteria or otherwise fulfilled with
an alternative design that meets the requirements of AEC approval;
(2) The Application is in conformance with AMC §7.20, Zone Districts and Official
Zoning Map, §7.24, Use Regulations, and §7.28, Development Standards;
(3) The Lighting Plan and all proposed exterior lighting is in conformance with AMC
§15.30, Outdoor Lighting Standards.
(4) The Application implements the general land use goals and policies of the
Avon Comprehensive Plan including the Land Use Map designations, and
planning principles of the Town Center West District.
(5) Pursuant to AMC §7.04.090(b), strict compliance with the Avon Comprehensive
Plan, and sub-area plans, is not required due to the following:
a. The development application is consistent with the general goals and intent
of the Avon Comprehensive Plan taking into consideration the unique
circumstances of the property, market conditions, and the current needs of the
community;
b. Strict compliance with some provisions of the Avon Comprehensive Plan,
particularly the West Town Center Investment Plan, is not practical; and,
c. The procedures for amending the Avon Comprehensive Plan are not
beneficial as applied to the development application for the purpose of
promoting public involvement, community planning, or adopting or clarifying
the precedence of this land use decision.
Conditions:
(1) An on-site mockup will be constructed for final approval of materials and colors.
The scale and design of the mockup will be reviewed by PZC, as well as final
approval once constructed;
(2) All potential exterior signage must be approved by the PZC with a Mas ter Sign
Program application submitted by the property owner;
(3) A development agreement will be prepared for final review and action by Town
Council; and
(4) Prior to building permit, the following items will be addressed:
a. A snow shed management plan will be provided to Staff and approved by
the Building Official;
November 1, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – PUBLIC HEARING
Lot B Hotel: Major Development Plan, Alternative Equivalent Compliance 15 | P a g e
b. A Parking Management Plan will be submitted with approval by
neighboring adjoining owners; and
c. Design details addressed in the October 19, 2016 letter from Eagle River
Fire Protection will be addressed prior to building permit.
B. Alternative Equivalent Compliance. The PZC recommends that the Town Council APPROVE
the concurrent ALTERNATIVE EQUIVALENT COMPLIANCE Application, with the findings and
conditions set forth below:
Findings:
(1) Reduced building height, varying building materials, and articulation (vertical and
horizontal) achieve the intent of the building stepping requirements to the same or
better degree than strict compliance.
(2) The design alternatives contained in the Major Development Plan application meet
the intent of the subject design and development standards to the same or better
degree than the subject standard; and
(3) The AEC and proposed design imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties
than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of the
Development Code.
Exhibits
A – Major Development Plans
B – AEC Narratives
C – Parking Study w/ Addendum
D – Design Related Correspondence
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
SHEET NUMBERCHECKED BY:SHEET TITLEDRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONSULTANTPCREVISIONSPROJECT TITLEJAG07.12 .20162961 W. MacArthur Blvd.Suite 120Santa Ana, California, 92704t. (714) 556-2656f. (714) 556-269615-57505 8TH StreetHermosa Beach, CA 90254t.(310) 999-8791www.treadcon.comSTAMP AREAENTITLEMENT PACKAGE:AVON HOTEL05.11.2016HOA SET07.01.2016MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL07.11.2016HOA SUBMITTAL07.12.2016SHARED ACCESSTREADSTONEC O R P O R A T I O N09.16.2016PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL130 W. BEAVER CREEK BLVDAVON, CO 8162010.18.2016PLANNING RE-SUBMITTALLANDSCAPE PLANL -1.0N1CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN1" = 20'-0"PLANExhibit A
SHEET NUMBERCHECKED BY:SHEET TITLEDRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONSULTANTPCREVISIONSPROJECT TITLEJAG07.12 .20162961 W. MacArthur Blvd.Suite 120Santa Ana, California, 92704t. (714) 556-2656f. (714) 556-269615-57505 8TH StreetHermosa Beach, CA 90254t.(310) 999-8791www.treadcon.comSTAMP AREAENTITLEMENT PACKAGE:AVON HOTEL05.11.2016HOA SET07.01.2016MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL07.11.2016HOA SUBMITTAL07.12.2016SHARED ACCESSTREADSTONEC O R P O R A T I O N09.16.2016PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL130 W. BEAVER CREEK BLVDAVON, CO 8162010.18.2016PLANNING RE-SUBMITTALLANDSCAPE NOTESAND PLANTSCHEDULTEL -1.1GENERAL NOTES:1. ALL DISTURBED OR RE-GRADED AREAS TO BE RE-VEGETATEDWITH A LANDSCAPE TREATMENT SIMILAR TO THE AREASADJACENT TO THE DISTURBED AREA.2. SILT FENCE OR HAY BALES ARE TO BE PLACED AT THE LIMITOF CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED TO PREVENT EROSION ANDSEDIMENTATION. A CONSTRUCTION FENCE WILL BE PLACEDAT THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE WHERE THE SILT FENCE ORHAY BALES ARE NOT USED.3. ALL WORK ON BOTH PROJECTS SHALL BE PERFORMED INACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, ORDINANCES,AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT STANDARDS PER THE APPROVEDPLANS.4. CONTRACTORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTINGALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATES OF ALLUNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONAND BECOMING AWARE OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIESAND SUB-SURFACE INFRASTRUCTURE. CONTRACTORSSHALL TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY COST INCURREDDUE TO DAMAGE TO UTILITIES.5. ALL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, BOULDERS AND TREES THATARE NOT IDENTIFIED FOR DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL ARE TOBE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED DURING ALL PERIODS OFWORK.6. ALL SITE AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS SHALL BE LOCATEDAND LAID OUT IN THE FIELD BY THE CONTRACTOR ANDAPPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FINALINSTALLATION.7. FINAL LOCATION AND STAKING OF ALL PLANT ANDHARDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THELANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AT THE DIRECTION OF THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT PROCEEDWITH PLANTING AND FINAL INSTALLATION UNTIL LAYOUT ANDSTAKING HAS BEEN FULLY APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.8. ALL BOULDER PLACEMENT IS TO BE APPROVED IN ADVANCEBY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FINAL PLACEMENT.9. ALL ROADWAY AREAS WITHIN AND SURROUNDING WORKAREAS SHALL BE SWEPT AND CLEANED AT COMPLETION OFWORK EACH DAY AND NO MATERIALS SHALL BE STOREDWITHIN OR SURROUNDING THE WORK AREA OVERNIGHT.CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETEUNTIL ALL PROJECT AREAS HAVE BEEN CLEANED OF ALLDIRT, DEBRIS, MATERIALS, AND ALL DAMAGED ITEMSREPAIRED WITH ACCEPTANCE BY THE TOWN ENGINEER ANDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.IRRIGATION NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS:1. AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL NEW TREES, SHRUBS, ANDPERENNIAL BEDS. AUTOMATIC 6" POP-UP SPRAY HEADS OR ROTORS SHALL BEPROVIDED FOR LAWN AREAS. ALL OVERHEAD IRRIGATION HEADS SHALL BE SPACEDON CENTER PER THEIR COVERAGE RADIUS TO PROVIDE EVEN AND EFFICIENTWATERING.2. FLUSH DIRT AND DEBRIS FROM PIPING BEFORE INSTALLING SPRINKLERS AND OTHERDEVICES.3. A LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEM MANUFACTURED EXPRESSLY FOR CONTROL OF AUTOMATICCIRCUIT VALVES OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED. SYSTEM SHALLINCLUDE AN ADJUSTABLE 24 HOUR TIME CLOCK WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR AUTOMATIC,SEMI-AUTOMATIC, OR MANUAL OPERATION; CIRCUIT CONTROL WHICH ALLOWS FORMANUAL OR AUTOMATIC OPERATION; AND PROGRAMMABLE CAPABILITIES THATALLOW FOR INDEPENDENT WATERING SCHEDULES PER ZONE. THE SYSTEM SHALLINCLUDE A PRESSURE REGULATOR AND BACKFLOW PREVENTOR DEVICE WITH 20 GPMAT 60 PSI AT A 1" POINT OF CONNECTION. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THEREQUIRED FLOW CANNOT BE MET.4. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC MOISTURE SENSOR THAT IS ABLE TOSHUT OFF THE SYSTEM WHEN RAIN IS DETECTED.5. PROVIDE 4'' PVC SLEEVING BELOW ALL HARDSCAPE TO ADJACENT PLANTING AREAS.6. MAINLINE IS TO BE BURIED 12''-18'' BELOW FINISHED GRADE. LATERAL PIPES SHALLBE BURIED 8''-12'' BELOW FINISHED GRADE IN LANDSCAPED AREAS AND A MINIMUM OF2'' BELOW FINISHED GRADE IN NATIVE/UNDISTURBED AREAS. ALL PIPE TRENCHESSHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS AND DEBRIS PRIOR TO PIPE INSTALLATION. BACKFILLTRENCHES WITH SOIL THAT IS FREE OF ROCKS AND DEBRIS.7. INSTALL ALL DRIP IRRIGATION LINES PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS.8. VALVE BOX LOCATIONS ARE TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOINSTALLATION.9. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE OWNER WITH AS-BUILT IRRIGATION PLANS THATINCLUDE APPROXIMATE MAINLINE ROUTING AND VALVE BOX LOCATIONS.10. THE FOLLOWING IRRIGATION TESTS AND INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THECONTRACTOR:10.1.LEAK TEST: AFTER INSTALLATION, CHARGE SYSTEM AND TEST FOR LEAKS.REPAIR LEAKS AND RETEST UNTIL NO LEAKS EXIST.10.2.OPERATIONAL TEST: AFTER ELECTRICAL CIRCUITRY HAS BEEN ENERGIZED,OPERATE CONTROLLERS AND AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVES TO CONFIRMPROPER SYSTEM OPERATION10.3.TEST AND ADJUST CONTROLS AND SAFETIES: REPLACE DAMAGED ANDMALFUNCTIONING CONTROLS AND EQUIPMENT.11. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE START UP AND BLOW-OUT SERVICES FOR IRRIGATIONSYSTEM FOR THE FIRST SEASON IT IS INSTALLED.PLANT SCHEDULESymbolKeyBotanicalDescriptionQTYSizeSpacingNotesRMRosa 'MordenSunrise'MordenSunrise Rose14 5 gal.asshownSymbolKeyBotanicalCommon NameQTYSizeSpacingNotesCSCornus sericea'Isanti'IsantiDogwood13 5 gal.asshownSJSVSpirea japonica'Goldflame'GoldflameSpirea17asshown5 gal.Syringa vulgaris'Albert Holden'Albert HoldenLilac22asshown15 gal.CCCrataeguscrus-galli inermisThornlessCockspurHawthorne18Single Stem2.5"Cal.asshownDeciduous TreesAGAcergrandidentatumBigtoothMaple3Single Stem2.5"Cal.asshownPTPopulustremuloidesQuakingAspen9Single andMulti - Stem3"Cal.asshownConiferous TreesPPPicea pungens'Fat Albert'Fat AlbertBlue Spruce12 8' Ht.asshownPAPinus aristataBristleconePine76' Ht.asshownShrubsBTBerberisthunbergii'Atropurpurea'JapaneseBarberry11 5 gal.asshownPMPinus mugo'Big Tuna'Big TunaMugo Pine51 3' ht.asshown6' Ht.10' Ht.IRRIGATION AREA CALCULATIONSLandscape Area Provided11,622 SF17.4% of Lot / Sq. Ft.Total Irrigated Area2,018 SFSpray Area478 SFDrip Area1,540 SFSymbolKeyBotanicalCommon NameQTYSizeSpacingNotesGrassesCA104 5 gal.asshownCalamagrostisacutiflora 'KarlForester'Karl ForesterFeather ReedGrassHelictotrichonsempervirensHS95 5 gal.asshownBlue AvenaGrassKAKolkwitzia amabilisBeauty Bush30 5 gal.asshownPOPhysocarposopulifolius AmberJubileeAmber JubilleeNinebark19 5 gal.asshownJMJuniperus x media'Sea Green'Sea GreenJuniper10 5 gal.asshownACAbies concolorWhite Fir48' Ht.asshownKeyBotanicalCommon NameQTYSizeSpacingNotesPerennials - 1,942 sfN/AAquilegiachrysanthaYellowColumbine6018"1 gal.N/ARudbeckia fulgidaBlack EyedSusan1 gal.18"55N/AHemerocallis'Hyperion'YellowDaylily6018"1 gal.N/AAquilegia coeruleaRockyMountainColumbine6418"1 gal.N/ASalvia nemorosaPurple Salvia1 gal. 18"55N/AMonarda'GardenviewScarlet'Red Bee-Balm1 gal. 18"57N/AOsteospermum'Avalanche'AvalancheWhite DwarfSun Daisy1 gal. 18"49N/AAquilegia 'WhiteStar'White StarColumbine5518"1 gal.N/AHemerocallis''Autumn Red'Red Daylily6618"1 gal.N/AHuecherasanguinea'Splendens'Red CoralBells5618"1 gal.N/AGeraniumviscosissimumStickyGeranium4318"1 gal.N/ACampanulapersicifoliaPeach-LeavedBellflower6118"1 gal.N/AGeraniumcaespitosumPurple WildCranesbill4218"1 gal.EuEriogonumumbellatumSulphurFlower3118"1 gal.N/AMachaerantherabigeloviiSanta FeAster1 gal.18"43N/AHemerocallis'Stella De Oro'Dwarf GoldDaylily5718"1 gal.Ground CoverSymbolKeyBotanicalCommon NameQTYSizeSpacingNotesPoa pratensisN/A N/A-478s.f.KentuckyBluegrass SodProvide (4) trees ateach specified Ht.PLANTING NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS:1. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN. PLANTS SHALL BEHEALTHY AND FREE OF DISEASE AND PESTS. ALL PLANT MATERIALS ARE TOBE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2. LAYOUT AND LOCATION OF ALL PLANTS AND TREES TO BE APPROVED BYOWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.3. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY PHOTOS AND LOCATION OF THESOURCE OF ALL TREES AND SHRUBS TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF MATERIALS TO THE PROJECT SITE.4. ALL CONTAINER PLANTS SHALL HAVE BEEN GROWN IN THE CONTAINERS INWHICH THEY ARE DELIVERED FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO MONTHS, BUT NOTMORE THAN TWO YEARS FOR SHRUBS AND GRASSES AND ONE YEAR FORPERENNIALS AND GROUND COVERS.5. TOP SOIL / PLANTING BACKFILL IS TO BE CLEAN AND WELL SCREENED. ITSHALL CONSIST OF 66% NATIVE TOPSOIL AND 33% COMPOST, WITH A 25%HORSE MANURE CONTENT, TO A DEPTH OF 9" ACROSS THE ENTIRE EXTENTOF ALL PLANTED AREAS, EXCEPT AREA OF SOD.6. ALL TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING AREAS ARE TO BE MULCHED WITH 2” DEPTHMULCH. THE SPECIFIED MULCH FOR ALL PLANTING BEDS IS TO BE A FINEBARK MULCH7. ALL PERENNIAL BEDS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A TOP COAT OF 2” OFCOMPOST OR SOIL PEP (NO MULCH). CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ASAMPLE OF COMPOST AND ITS SOURCE TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIORTO PLANT INSTALLATION.8. TREES SHALL HAVE ALL BINDING MATERIAL REMOVED AROUND THE BASE ONTHE TRUNK AND BURLAP MATERIALS REMOVED AT LEAST HALFWAY TO THEMIDDLE OF THE ROOT BALL PRIOR TO BACKFILLING AND PLANTING.9. EVERGREEN TREES GREATER THAN 6' ARE TO BE STAKED WITH (3) 5' STEELT-STAKES AND GUYED WITH GALVANIZED WIRE.10.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ERADICATION,REMOVAL, DISPOSAL OF WEEDS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK DURING THECONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND THROUGH THE PROJECT'S FINAL ACCEPTANCE.11.THE PLACEMENT OF RE-LOCATED TREES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH ANDDETERMINED BY THE TOWN OF AVON.12.AT THE TIME OF PLANTING ALL NEWLY PLANTED TREES AND SHRUBS SHALLBE FERTILIZED WITH BIOSOIL MIX, ALL-PURPOSE FERTILIZER PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. THIS FERTILIZER TO BE MIXED IN WITHPLANTING BACKFILL. PLEASE CONTACT ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIO-PRODUCTS,10801 E. 54TH AVENUE, DENVER, CO. 80239, PHONE (303) 696-8964.13.ALL SOD, PERENNIAL BED, AND MULCH AREAS SHALL BE SEPARATED FROMONE ANOTHER WITH EDGING. THE PREFERRED PRODUCT IS RYERSON METALEDGING OR EQUAL. EDGING SHALL BE 1/8” X 4” STEEL ROLL TOP, PINNED INPLACE WITH THREE 12” EDGING PINS SPACED EVENLY PER 10' SECTION OFEDGING. OVERLAP EDGING BY A MINIMUM 12” AND SECURE OVERLAPPINGEDGES WITH 2 PINS. EDGING SHALL NOT EXTEND ABOVE SURROUNDINGFINISHED GRADE BY MORE THAN ¼”.7. THE PLANT LIST IS PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AND THE CONTRACTORIS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL PLANT COUNTS AND IF A DISCREPANCYEXISTS, THE PLAN SHALL DICTATE.8. PRIOR TO PLANTING, THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY IN PLACEAND OPERATIONAL. ALL PLANTED AREAS ARE TO BE IRRIGATED.IRRIGATION TO BE DESIGN BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.9. PREPARATION OF ALL SOD AREAS WILL INCLUDE: LOOSENING THE SOIL TO AMINIMUM OF 6” DEPTH, REMOVING ROCKS AND DEBRIS OVER 1” IN DIAMETER,AND AMENDING WITH 2” COMPOST AND 2” TOPSOIL, AND TILLING TO AMINIMUM 6” DEPTH. ALL SOD AREAS WILL BE GRADED TO BE A SMOOTH,CONSISTENTLY EVEN, FREE DRAINING SURFACE.10.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN DOCUMENTREGARDING ITS POLICY OF PLANT WARRANTY FOR PLANTS PROVIDED BYCONTRACTOR. EACH WARRANTY SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINIMUMSTANDARD OF REPLACING ALL MATERIALS INCLUDING LABOR, DUE TO THESICKNESS OR DEATH OF A PLANT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. FOLLOWINGTHE PLANTS INSTALLATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT.11.ALL EXCESS NATIVE SOIL RESULTING FROM SOIL PREP SHALL BE DISPOSEDOF AND REMOVED FROM THE SITE.12.REFER TO CIVIL GRADING PLAN FOR PROPOSED GRADESSITE CALCULATIONS:SITE AREAS WITHIN PROPERTY BOUNDARYxTOTAL LOT AREA: 66,925 SFxTOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 11,622 SF = 17.4% OF TOTAL SITE AREAADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHOWN OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY = 5,819 SFHARDSCAPE NOTES:1. LANDSCAPE BOULDERS ARE INTENDED TO MATCH THEEXISTING BOULDERS USED ALONG TH PEDESTRIAN MALLAND SHALL BE ANGULAR COLORADO BUFF SANDSTONEBOULDERS WITH VARIATION IN COLOR INCLUDING LIGHTBROWN, BEIGE, DARKS BROWNS, AND RUST ORANGE.2. RIVER ROCK MULCH IS TO BE 3” MINIMUM TO 6” MAXIMUMDIAMETER ROUNDED RIVER COBBLE OF SIMILAR COLORRANGES AS THOSE USED IN ALONG THE PEDESTRIAN MALL.3. PEDESTRIAN MALL PATH GRADING IS PROPOSED TO BERAISED BY ONE FOOT IN THE AREA SHOWN ON THELANDSCAPE PLAN. THIS WILL CREATE A BETTERRELATIONSHIP TO THE RETAIL FRONTAGE AND LOBBYENTRANCE OF THE NEW HOTEL ALONG THE PEDESTRIANMALL. LANDSCAPE AREAS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THEPATH WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATERAISING THE PATH GRADE.4. PAVERS SHOWN ON PEDESTRIAN MALL PATH ARE INTENDEDTO REPLACE THE EXISTING ASPHALT PATH IN ITS CURRENTALIGNMENT. COLOR AND PATTERN OF THE PAVERS IS TOMATCH THE EXISTING PAVER AREAS TO THE EAST.5. PAVERS SHOWN ALONG THE RETAIL SPACES OF THE NEWHOTEL ARE INTENDED TO BE A DIFFERENT PATTERN WITH ASIMILAR COLOR PALETTE TO COMPLEMENT BOTH THEPEDESTRIAN MALL PAVERS AND COLORS USED ON THEHOTEL.6. VEHICULAR DRIVEWAY PAVERS (80mm THICKNESS) AREINTENDED TO GUIDE GUESTS TOWARD THE HOTEL LOBBYAND DROP OFF AREA.17.4% of Landscaped area / Sq. Ft.23.7% of Irrigated area / Sq. Ft.76.3% of Irrigated area / Sq. Ft.Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
Exhibit A
FLUSHACTIVATORON WIDE SIDEFLUSHACTIVATORON WIDE SIDE30" x 48" CLEARSPACE
30" x 48" CLEARSPACE
30" x 48" CLEARSPACE
0.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.50.50.50.50.50.50.50.5111111122222222222735 S. Xenon Ct. #201Lakewood, Colorado 80228Ph: 303.716.1270Fax: 303.716.1272www.givenandassociates.comProject #G16090ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE:AVON, COLORADOAVON HOTEL05.11.2016HOA SET07.01.2016MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL10.17.2016PLANNING RE-SUBMITTALSITE LIGHTINGPHOTOMETRIC PLANE-1.0Exhibit A
735 S. Xenon Ct. #201Lakewood, Colorado 80228Ph: 303.716.1270Fax: 303.716.1272www.givenandassociates.comProject #G16090ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE:AVON, COLORADOAVON HOTEL05.11.2016HOA SET07.01.2016MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL10.17.2016PLANNING RE-SUBMITTALSITE LIGHTINGCUTSHEETSE-2.0Exhibit A
735 S. Xenon Ct. #201Lakewood, Colorado 80228Ph: 303.716.1270Fax: 303.716.1272www.givenandassociates.comProject #G16090ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE:AVON, COLORADOAVON HOTEL05.11.2016HOA SET07.01.2016MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL10.17.2016PLANNING RE-SUBMITTALSITE LIGHTINGCUTSHEETSE-3.0Exhibit A
Z E H R E NAND ASSOCIATESP.O. BOX 1976 Avon, Colorado 81620ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 970.949.0257 FAX 970.949.1080www.zehren.comAVON HOTELMAJOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTALEXHIBITS REVISION #310.18.2016INDEXVicinity map , Building + Code SummaryBoundaries - first floor - basement Subdivision exhibitSite Plan - first floor - basement Fire Access - first floorParking - first floor - basement Pedestrian Access - first floorVehicle Access - first floor - basement Service Access - first floor - basement Illustrative Landscape PlanLandscape Area CalcLot Coverage - first floorSnow Melt CoverageMaterialsMaterial Boards - hotel - condoRoof Plan - hotel - condoElevations - hotel - condoCODEVICINITY MAPThe following codes apply:2015 International Building Code2015 International Energy Conservation Code2015 International Plumbing Code2015 International Mechanical CodeBuilding Information:Building Type: IA Concrete podium + VA above - fully sprinkleredAllowable Height: 5 floors + Basement - Height is under 80’-0”Use and Occupancy ClassificationPrimary Occupancy : R-1Parking : S-2Type of Construction Table 601Building Elements: S-2 (1-A) R-1 (V-A)A. Structural Frame 3 hr 1 hrB. Bearing Walls - Exterior 3 hr 1 hrC. Bearing Walls - Interior 3 hr 1 hrD. Non-bearing Walls - Ext. 0 hr 0 hrE. Non-bearing Walls - Int. 0 hr 0 hrF. Floor construction 2 hr 1 hrG. Roof construction 1-1/2 hr 1 hrMAIN STLETTUCE SHED LNSEASONSAVON RDRAILWAYWYNDHAMAVON CTRSHERATONRAILWAYW BEA
VER
CREEK BL
V
DSUN RDAVON RDI-70BUILDING SUMMARYAvon HotelSheets A-1.0 + A-1.1Parking TabulationGround floor BasementTotal 66 regular stalls 7 ADA stalls121 regular stalls204 stalls 11 regular stall for Lot BSheets A-2.0 + A-2.1Gross Building AreaHotelGround floorBasement2nd floor3rd floor4th floor5th floorRetailGround floorTotal 8, 552 sq ft. 3, 605 sq. ft 23, 810 sq. ft 21, 634 sq. ft 21, 634 sq. ft 21, 634 sq. ft 536 sq. ft101, 405 sq. ftRooms - total 142 unitsAccessible Double Queen BalconyAccessible King BalconyAccessible King SofaDouble Queen, 1Double Queen, 2Double Queen, 3Double Queen BalconyDouble Queen Balcony, 2King BalconyKing SofaKing Sofa Balcony2nd112248206503rd112248246524th112248246525th11224824652Sq.ft534534480294306330402545434384497units per floorRecreation CenterSheets A-2.3+ A-2.4Gross Building AreaRecreation CenterGround floor Outdoor deckFitness areaCondo2nd floor3rd floor4th floor5th floorTotal 2, 900 sq. ft 1, 678 sq. ft 3, 545 sq. ft 3, 545 sq. ft 3, 545 sq. ft 2, 545 sq. ft17, 213 sq. ftPool 18’x36’42” deepPhase II Specification1. Pool not less than 18’ x36’, 42” deep2. Spa not less than 10’ dia., 36” deep3. Outdoor deck including pool + spa not less than 2,800 sq. ft4. Fitness area not less than 250 sq ft to include changing rooms/restroomSpa 10’ Dia.36” deepOpen Deck 2, 900 sq. ftLot 3 (Airspace)Lot 2 (Deck Surface)Covered WalkwayExhibit A
ACCESS EASEMENTPROPERTY LINEfirst floor planscale:1/32”=1’-0”SITE PLANA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S Exhibit A
basementscale:1/32”=1’-0”SITE PLANA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T .Exhibit A
LOT ALOT B (PHASE II)LOT 5 (SUBSURFACE)LOT 6 ( SURFACE + AIR)LOT 2A (LOT A)LOT 3A (LOT B)LOT 7 (PHASE II)LOT 1 (SUBSURFACE PHS I)LOT 2(DECK SURFACE PHS II)LOT 3(AIRSPACE PHS II)A V O N C E N T E R H O T E L LOT 4 H O T E L first floor planscale:1/32”=1’-0”BOUNDARIESS E A S O N S F U T U R E T O W N H A L LW E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T .A V O N C E N T E RExhibit A
A V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T .A V O N C E N T E RLOT ALOT B (PHASE II)LOT 5 (SUBSURFACE)LOT 6 ( SURFACE + AIR)LOT 2A (LOT A)LOT 3A (LOT B)LOT 7 (PHASE II)LOT 1 (SUBSURFACE PHS I)LOT 2(DECK SURFACE PHS II)LOT 3(AIRSPACE PHS II)LOT 4basementscale:1/32”=1’-0”BOUNDARIES H O T E L Exhibit A
SUBDIVISION EXHIBITExhibit A
first floor planscale:1/32”=1’-0”FIRE ACCESSA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S FIRE TRUCKFIRE CMD CTRFHFHFIRE HYDRANTFHSTAND PIPESPSPExhibit A
first floor scale:1/32”=1’-0”PARKINGA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S 1ST FLOOR 66 STANDARD10 LOW EMISSION 7 ADA PARKING 11 AVON CTR PARKINGBASEMENT121 STANDARDTOTAL204 PARKINGExhibit A
W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T .A V O N C E N T E Rbasementscale:1/32”=1’-0”PARKING1ST FLOOR 66 STANDARD10 LOW EMISSION 7 ADA PARKING 11 AVON CTR PARKINGBASEMENT121 STANDARDTOTAL204 PARKINGExhibit A
first floor scale:1/32”=1’-0”PEDESTRIAN + VEHICULAR ACCESSA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S INOUTONE WAYPATH OF TRAVELHOTEL ENTRANCERETAIL ENTRANCEExhibit A
W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T .A V O N C E N T E Rbasementscale:1/32”=1’-0”PEDESTRIAN + VEHICULAR ACCESSINOUTONE WAYExhibit A
first floor scale:1/32”=1’-0”SERVICE/DELIVERY ACCESSA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S SERV TRUCKSMALL SERV. TRUCKExhibit A
W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T .A V O N C E N T E Rbasementscale:1/32”=1’-0”SERVICE/DELIVERY ACCESSSERV TRUCKSMALL SERV. TRUCKExhibit A
first floor LANDSCAPEA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S Z E H R E NAND ASSOCIATESP.O. BOX 1976 Avon, Colorado 81620ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 970.949.0257 FAX 970.949.1080www.zehren.comExhibit A
first floor LANDSCAPE AREASA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S Z E H R E NAND ASSOCIATESP.O. BOX 1976 Avon, Colorado 81620ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 970.949.0257 FAX 970.949.1080www.zehren.comExhibit A
first floor planscale:1/32”=1’-0”COVERAGEA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S COVERAGETOTAL LOT B LOT COVERAGE 24,149 SF66,925 SFSNOWMELT31, 813 SF H O T E L Exhibit A
scale:1/32”=1’-0”ROOF PLANA V O N C E N T E R H O T E L W E S T B E A V E R C R E E K B L V D.M A I N S T . F U T U R E T O W N H A L LS E A S O N S Exhibit A
WALL SCONCETRESPAGREYED CEDARTRESPARUSTED BROWNMETAL ROOF SIDINGSILVER GRAYFLEETWOOD WINDOWCOLOR : F-4STUCCODET 620 BARNWOOD GRAYSTUCCODET 625 RECLAIMED WOODSTUCCODE6367 COVERED IN PLATINUMSTUCCO/TRIMSDET634 DOWNING TO EARTHGALLEGOSFACADEMOUNTAIN ASH STONE1234567891012345310679781010fitness / spaMATERIAL BOARDExhibit A
hotelMATERIAL BOARDWALL SCONCETRESPAGREYED CEDARTRESPARUSTED BROWNMETAL ROOF SIDINGSILVER GRAYFLEETWOOD WINDOWCOLOR : F-4STUCCODET 620 BARNWOOD GRAYSTUCCODET 625 RECLAIMED WOODSTUCCODE6367 COVERED IN PLATINUMSTUCCO/TRIMSDET634 DOWNING TO EARTHGALLEGOSMOUNTAIN ASHFACADE123456789106123437363412324101061035713334Exhibit A
hotelscale:1/32”=1’-0”ELEVATIONS7454'-0"1ST FLOOREASEMENT "A"EASEMENT "B"PROPERTY LINESETBACK7470'-0"2ND FLOOR7490'-0"4TH FLOOR7500'-0"5TH FLOOR7510'-0"ROOF7480'-0"3RD FLOORAVON HOTEL10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"16'-0"56'-0"10'-0"7454'-0"1ST FLOOR7470'-0"2ND FLOOR7490'-0"4TH FLOOR7500'-0"5TH FLOOR7510'-0"ROOF7480'-0"3RD FLOOR7451'-6"RETAIL7450'-0"MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN PATH15'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"16'-0"56'-0"10'-0"EASEMENT "A"EASEMENT "B"PROPERTY LINESETBACK7454'-0"1ST FLOOR7470'-0"2ND FLOOR7490'-0"4TH FLOOR7500'-0"5TH FLOOR7510'-0"ROOF7480'-0"3RD FLOOR7451'-6"RETAIL7450'-0"MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN PATHICE CREAMBOOTSCOFFEEAVON HOTEL10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-2"9'-10"16'-0"56'-0"7454'-0"1ST FLOOR7470'-0"2ND FLOOR7490'-0"4TH FLOOR7500'-0"5TH FLOOR7510'-0"ROOF7480'-0"3RD FLOOR7451'-6"RETAIL7450'-0"MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN PATHICE CREAM BOOTSCOFFEE10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-2"9'-10"16'-0"56'-0"ASOUTH ELEVATION1/16 = 1'-0"13121110987654321ABCD13121110987654321ABCDBNORTH ELEVATION1/16 = 1'-0"CWEST ELEVATION1/16 = 1'-0"DEAST ELEVATION1/16 = 1'-0"Exhibit A
*5281')/225
1')/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
522)
5')/225
67)/225
*5281')/225
1')/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
522)
5')/225
67)/225
*5281')/225
1')/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
522)
5')/225
67)/225
DWEST ELEVATION
CNORTH ELEVATION
BEAST ELEVATION
ASOUTH ELEVATION
condoscale:1/32”=1’-0”ELEVATIONSExhibit A
September 19, 2016
Matt Pielsticker
Planning Manager
Town of Avon Community Development Department
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Re: Submittal for an AEC for use of Tract G, Lot 4, and frontage on West Beaver Creek Blvd to
meet requirement for a minimum of 20% on-site landscaped area (ADC Table 7-20-9)
Dear Matt:
Treadstone Development LLC is submitting this application for an Alternative Equivalent
Compliance (AEC) to allow for the use of public land to meet the requirement for a minimum of
20% on-site landscaped area per ADC Table 7-20-9. Currently, the plan includes on-site
landscaped area of 11,102sf of the total lot area of 66,925sf, equal to 16.6% of the lot area.
This AEC application would propose to landscape an additional 4,372sf of adjacent property,
including 3,230sf of Tract G (Pedestrian Mall), 739sf of Lot 4, and 403sf of frontage along West
Beaver Creek Boulevard adjacent to Lot B. This additional landscaped area would increase the
total landscaped area for the project to 21.7%.
BACKGROUND
Lot B has been the subject of numerous development applications dating back to the early
1980’s. This history included approved PUD’s in 1998, 1999, and 2002. As part of these PUD
approvals the lot owner, neighboring lot owners, and the Town of Avon executed/recorded
numerous agreements affecting items such as shared parking facilities, access easements, and
drainage requirements. Despite the fact that the PUD approvals have since expired, these
legacy agreements have survived and, as such, impose limitations on development on Lot B.
For example, by agreement with the Town of Avon, a portion of the parking required for
development of The Avon Center on Lot A was transferred to Lot B. As a result, any
development on Lot B must include parking that is in excess the quantity required by code for
the project.
As a result of these encumbrances that have been recorded on Lot B, the lot area available for
landscaping is limited. Rather than seek a variance for the landscaping area minimum, the
applicant is seeking to utilize Town owned land to install additional landscaping and thereby
meet the requirement of the code. The Avon Town Council reviewed the proposal to utilize
public space to satisfy the landscaping requirement at its September 13, 2016 meeting. At that
meeting the motion was made to allow Treadstone Development LLC to process a development
application for a hotel project using portions of Town property to meet minimum landscaping
requirements. The motion was approved unanimously.
Exhibit B
…2
REVIEW CRITERIA
Pursuant to ADC 7.16.12, the Town offers the following criteria as the basis for granting an AEC
application:
• The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development
standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard: By utilizing the
adjacent Town owned property, the project will be able to meet the requirement to
provide a 20% minimum on-site landscaping coverage. In fact, the proposed
landscaping coverage of 21.7% will actually exceed the minimum requirement. In
addition, the project will also be able to provide strong integration between the building
development and the landscaping of the adjacent pedestrian mall. This will enhance the
vitality of the Main Street corridor as envisioned in the West Town Center Investment
Plan.
• The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard: In the Avon
Comprehensive Plan, the pedestrian mall right-of-way is identified as the heart of the
West Town Center District. The integration of high density, multi-use development with
pedestrian friendly spaces is critical to the realization of Town Center as a vibrant,
active, user-friendly area. Meeting/exceeding the 20% landscaping requirement is
essential to maintaining the intent of this plan. By utilizing the public spaces as
envisioned in the application, the project will be able to fulfill this aspect of the
Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to
or better than compliance with the subject standard: The utilization of the public
property will allow the development to fulfill the requirements for Lot B as presented in
the legacy agreements which encumber the lot while also meeting the landscaping
requirement as set forth in the code for Town Center development. In addition, it will
proactively ensure that the development project and the Main Street mall will be well
integrated and provide an exciting/inviting pedestrian space.
• The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than
would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title: There
will be no impacts on adjacent properties as a result of using the proposed Town owned
property to satisfy the minimum landscaping requirement.
Exhibit B
…3
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your approval of our
application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Gregory Less
President
Treadstone Development, LLC
Exhibit B
September 19, 2016
Matt Pielsticker
Planning Manager
Town of Avon Community Development Department
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Re: Submittal for an AEC to utilize alternative architectural approaches to achieve the
objectives of ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(D)
Dear Matt:
Treadstone Development LLC is submitting this application for an Alternative Equivalent
Compliance (AEC) to allow for the use of alternative architectural elements to meet the
requirement that states if the primary building walls exceed three (3) stories or forty-five (45)
feet in height, as measured from finished grade to the underside of the eaves, then the building
form shall step back at least eight (8) feet in depth (ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(D)). The objective for
this requirement is to organize the form and mass of a building to provide human scale to
adjacent streets, pedestrian walkways, plazas or other public spaces. The building mass is
varied to create variety in the character of the adjacent streets and pedestrian places. The
plan as presented includes step-backs on the pedestrian mall end of the building. The north-
west, east, and south-east faces of the building do not include a step-backs; however, the plans
meet the objective of reducing the apparent mass and scale of the building through three
alternative approaches: 1) The plans incorporate the use of distinct changes in color, texture,
and materials to break up the visual impact of the building height; 2) The building height is 69’
which is significantly less than the Sheraton building to the north-west or the Avon Center to
the south-east. This lesser height creates a transition in the neighborhood, which lessens the
impact of the mass of the building; and 3) The building includes multiple changes in form such
as the inclusion of balconies and alcoves which break up the impact of the height of the
building. It is also noted that the proposed design is consistent with neighboring buildings such
as the Avon Center and Sheraton in the use of alternative architectural elements to break-up
their apparent mass and scale.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Pursuant to ADC 7.16.12, the Town offers the following criteria as the basis for granting an AEC
application:
• The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development
standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard: As noted above, the
objective of ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(D) is to reduce the apparent mass and scale of a
building. The plans as presented include set-backs as a design element on the west end
Exhibit B
of the building. On the other sides of the building, the design that has been proposed is
able to achieve a reduction in apparent mass and scale through the use of alternative
architectural features, such as:
§ Pronounced recesses and projections
§ Distinct changes in texture and color of wall surfaces
§ Ground level arcades and galleries/balconies on higher floors
§ Protected and recessed entries
§ Vertical accents or focal points.
• The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard: The West Town Center
Investment Plan encourages diversity through its stated objective to provide enough
consistency in the materials, forms, and building elements to create a district, while
allowing enough flexibility to encourage unique architectural designs and character. In
the context of the existing buildings, the proposed development will offer unique and
interesting architectural elements. At the same time, it will conform the design
standards which require the building mass to be varied and to offer a human scale. The
alternative design elements will perform the same function as the set-back would
achieve.
• The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to
or better than compliance with the subject standard: The Avon Comprehensive plan
envisions that the West Town Center District will offer multi-use development that is
well-integrated with a pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed development will
offer retail spaces and hotel access directly from the pedestrian mall. The effect of this
design will be to activate the Main Street area to a significant degree. The design of the
hotel will offer additional activation with decks and balconies to bring together the
pedestrian environment of Main Street with the guests staying in the units. The
architectural elements that have been proposed will lessen the impact of the scale of
the building while staying consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
• The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than
would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title: There
will be no impacts on adjacent properties as a result of using alternative architectural
elements to satisfy ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(D).
Exhibit B
…3
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your approval of our
application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Gregory Less
President
Treadstone Development, LLC
Exhibit B
=8
PARKING NEEDS STUDY
AVON CENTER, LOT B
Prepared for:
Mr. Keith Hampton, Managing Member,
Treadstone Development, LLC
MARCH 14, 2016; REVI SED APRIL 25, 2016 ;
REVISED AUGUST 6, 2016 ; REVISED
SEPTEMBER 29, 2016
FINAL REPORT
Exhibit C
WALKER PROJECT # 23-7605.00
PARKING NEEDS STUDY
AVON CENTER, LOT B
Prepared for:
Mr. Keith Hampton, Managing Member,
Treadstone Development, LLC
MARCH 14, 2016 ; REVISED APRIL 25, 2016 ;
REVISED AUGUST 6, 20 16; REVISED
SEPTEMBER 29, 2016
FINAL REPORT
Exhibit C
April 25, 2016
Mr. Keith Hampton, Managing Member
Treadstone Development, LLC
624 Mountain Village Boulevard
Mountain Village, CO 81435
Re: Avon Center—Lot B Parking Needs Study
Dear Mr. Hampton:
Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to submit this study regarding parking needs surrounding
the development of Lot B in Avon, Colorado.
This document is intended to assist Treadstone Development LLC with decisions related to
parking planning, including decisions regarding adding parking, parking requirements, shared
uses, and employing existing physical assets efficiently. The information provided is for
Treadstone’s internal use only. It includes our findings and projections based on the data
collection, analysis, industry standards, code research, and professional assumptions discussed
herein.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this important analysis. Please do not
hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
David Jay Lieb, Robert E. Stanley, P.E., NSPE, LEED AP, BD+C
Parking Consultant, Project Manager Managing Principal, Vice President
Enclosure
cc: John W. Dorsett, AICP, Walker Parking Consultants
5350 South Roslyn Street, Suite 220
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Tel: 303.694.6622
Fax: 303.694.6667
www.walkerparking.com
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Walker Project #23-7605.00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 2
Project Approach .............................................................................................................................. 3
Summary Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................................... 7
Inventory/Occupancy ........................................................................................................................ 8
Current Conditions – Inventory ........................................................................................................ 8
Current Conditions – Occupancy ................................................................................................. 10
Peak Hour Demand ................................................................................................................... 18
Permit Parking and Turnover .................................................................................................... 19
Future Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 23
Based On Observation ............................................................................................................. 23
Based on Shared Parking Model ............................................................................................. 23
Based on Zoning ......................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Aggregate Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 26
Current Code Requirements .......................................................................................................... 26
Future Code Requirements ............................................................................................................ 27
Actual Parking Demand .................................................................................................................. 28
ADA Parking ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Statement of Limiting Conditions ...................................................................................................... 31
Appendix A – Town of Avon Excerpt from Municipal Code .......................................................... 32
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 1 Walker Project #23-7605.00
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the owners, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Treadstone Development, LLC
(“Treadstone”) plans to develop a hotel on Lot B in Avon Center at Beaver Creek (see map).
This parcel is currently a surface parking lot to the north of The Lodge at Avon Hotel (located on
Lot A). Lot B is 1.71 acres and contains approximately 120 parking spaces.
Figure 1: Study Area and Sub-Area Boundaries
Source: Treadstone; graphic prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, over Google Maps base, 2016
The proposed hotel is planned to have 142 rooms, four condominiums, and a small retail space.
It will be constructed using a podium-style design above structured parking. Based upon
Treadstone’s understanding of the local zoning code, the site will require approximately 142
parking spaces associated with the new hotel, plus an additional 19 spaces for visitors,
condominium residents, and retail use. The actual demand for parking on the site may vary from
the code requirement due to utilization patterns and prior shared-use agreements.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 2 Walker Project #23-7605.00
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
When Lot A was developed it was granted a variance that permitted the construction of less
parking than code required, with the understanding that parking spaces in Lot B would be
available for users of facilities located in Lot A. Accordingly, Treadstone’s plans include the
construction parking spaces in excess of their code requirements, in order to accommodate
the needs of the adjacent Lot A.
Figure 2: Parking Lots in the Study Area
Source: Treadstone; graphic prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, over Google Maps base, 2016
The map above illustrates the approximate boundaries of the parking lots within the study area.
The three parking areas in Lot A are associated with the Lodge at Avon Center. There is a row
of surface parking along the northwestern face of the Lodge at Avon Center and a larger lot
due east. There is also parking beneath the facility accessed from Lot B. The parking at Lot 55 is
associated with the Alpine Bank building; a ramp leads down from Lot A to a small underground
parking garage beneath the building, and one surface space to the north of the access ramp.
Treadstone engaged Walker to provide answers to four key questions:
1. What is the aggregate inventory of parking spaces in the study area (including all surface
and underground parking in Lot A, Lot B, Lot 55, and Out-lot 1)?
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 3 Walker Project #23-7605.00
2. Based on all existing land uses within the study area, how many parking spaces does the
Town of Avon zoning code require?
3. Once Lot B is developed, what will the parking requirement be based upon the local
zoning code? Provide a comparison of the current code to the 1988 code, under which
(arguably) the current development may be governed.
4. What is the actual parking demand within the proposed study area?
PROJECT APPROACH
1. Meet with the client and conduct a site visit in Avon (combine with field observations in
item #4, below). Conduct parking inventory.
2. Review Town of Avon zoning code requirements to determine the number of spaces
required for existing and proposed uses.
3. Projection of parking space needs for Lot B:
a. Review Town of Avon code requirements to determine the number of spaces
required for planned use of Lot B;
b. Prepare a shared-parking model for the site based on industry-supported ratios,
along with local adjustments to account for non-driving transit usage, captive
effects between uses, etc.;
c. Prepare a projection that reflects observations from the site visit and occupancy
counts (below).
4. Conduct field observations within the designated study area over two days—one
weekday and one weekend day—during a period of peak demand.
a. Study area to include above- and below-grade parking in Lot A (incorporating
parking designated as “Out-lot 1”), above-grade parking in Lot B, and above- and
below-grade parking in Lot 55.
b. Observe parkers’ destinations (i.e., inside study area or outside) from 7:30 a.m. to
10:00 a.m., to include Lot B at a minimum and other lots with support from
Treadstone.
c. Perform occupancy counts every hour from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., identify
number of vehicles by parking lot number/letter and posted regulations
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 4 Walker Project #23-7605.00
d. Perform an inventory of Avon Center residential dashboard permits and Alpine
Bank dashboard permits by parking lot number/letter. Placard counts at 10:00
a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m.
e. Continue observations of parking and on- or off-site destinations between counts
throughout both days, as deemed necessary.
5. Provide a draft technical memorandum (in PDF format) outlining all findings and
recommendations. Memorandum to include infographics along with supporting
narrative.
6. Obtain one set of consolidated comments from the client and planning team, and issue
a revised final memorandum (in PDF format).
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 5 Walker Project #23-7605.00
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Treadstone requested that Walker perform a study to answer the following four questions:
1. What is the aggregate inventory of parking spaces in the study area (including all surface
and underground parking in Lot A, Lot B, Lot 55, and Out-lot 1)?
2. Based on all existing uses in the study area, how many parking spaces does current Town
of Avon code require?
3. When Lot B is developed what will the parking requirement be, according to Town code?
Compare current code to 1988 code, under which (arguably) the current development
could be governed.
4. What is the actual parking demand in the study area?
Walker’s study, findings, analysis, and conclusions suggest the following:
The current inventory of the study area is 297 parking spaces;
Based on existing uses, Town of Avon Code requires 257 parking spaces, but has
allowances for mixed-use and available on-street parking that reduce this requirement
to 218;
The proposed 142-room hotel will be required to provide one parking space per room for
customers and employees, and another ten spaces for guests. Walker has confirmed that
this requirement of 152 parking spaces is consistent with industry standards, and is similar
whether the 1988 or current zoning Code requirement is applied;
The hotel will house three condominiums of greater than 2,500 square feet, which will be
required to have two spaces per unit; one condominium of less than 2,500 square feet
will be required to have one space. The total requirement for the four condominiums is
seven spaces;
There will also be 536 square feet of retail. This space is allowed a ten percent reduction
for zoning purposes, to 482 square feet. At four spaces per 1,000 square feet, another two
spaces would be required;
Actual peak demand within the study area observed by Walker was 193 vehicles at 10:00
a.m. on Friday, February 26, 2016 (of these vehicles seven could be attributed to Alpine
Bank overflow, about a dozen to individuals who parked on Lot B, but headed for off-site
destinations, and approximately 20 parking spaces were lost to materials storage,
equipment, or derelict vehicles);
During this observation period, Walker noted a surplus of 104 parking spaces, even at
times of the most intensive use (this surplus exceeds 140 spaces when Alpine Bank
overflow, off-site users, and inventory lost to storage are accounted for);
The number of parking spaces required by code for the entire study area , assuming the
proposed development is completed, is 355 spaces. The planned development creates
a net total of 376 parking spaces (a 21-space surplus); and,
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 6 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Projected peak demand is estimated to be 354 parking spaces (193 based on current
observations, plus 161 related to the planned hotel/retail/condo). Walker’s observations
included as many as 40 spaces apparently occupied by stored and derelict vehicles,
equipment, overflow parking, and vehicles parked by individuals with off-site
destinations. Factoring in these variables, it is possible that future demand may be as low
as 314 parking spaces at peak.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 7 Walker Project #23-7605.00
DEFINITION OF TERMS (FOR REFERENCE)
Several terms are used in this report which may have specific meanings when applied to parking
planning, demand analysis, and/or parking management. For this report the following definitions
are assumed:
ADA Parking: Shorthand notation for “handicapped” or disabled parking stalls which are
typically marked with blue striping and signage. Design standards for these spaces are
set by the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which were
published to clarify the 1990 ADA legislation and were last updated in 2010.
Peak Hour Occupancy: The overall peak conditions as observed during our parking
demand surveys. In this case, the peak hour occurred at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, based on
the survey data collected for this study.
Survey Day(s): The days when parking occupancy data was collected. For this study,
parking occupancy data was collected on Friday and Saturday, February 26th and 27th,
2016. Our survey included an initial count at 7:30 a.m., and hourly counts between 10:00
a.m. and 8:00 p.m., to show parking demand patterns on a typical weekday and
weekend day.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 8 Walker Project #23-7605.00
INVENTORY/OCCUPANCY
On February 25th-27th, 2016, Walker undertook parking inventory and occupancy counts of the
study area in Avon, Colorado to assess supply and demand during peak hours. On Thursday,
February 25th Walker verified the parking inventory by visiting each lot and counting the number
of parking spaces. Lots were noted by user type (permit-required, 15-minute, two-hour, gated,
ADA, etc.). Individual parking spaces were counted; in those locations without curb stops or
pavement markings (absent or worn/faded), the number of spaces was estimated.
On Friday and Saturday, February 26th and 27th, Walker observed occupancy within the study
area to gauge the level of parking demand. Twelve counts were performed per day: an initial
count at 7:30 a.m., followed by hourly counts from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The days and times of
the counts were selected based on Walker’s and Treadstone’s mutual understanding that the
days of week, time of year, and times of day chosen represent peak demand conditions—i.e.,
typically busy days during high season.
CURRENT CONDITIONS – INVENTORY
On Thursday, February 25th, 2016, Walker took an inventory of the parking in the study area. The
defined study area contains 297 parking stalls, which are allocated as follows:
Lot A (aboveground) contains 55 spaces
Lot A (underground) has 100 spaces
Lot B accounts for 126 spaces
Lot 55 (aboveground) is 1 space
Lot 55 (underground) represents 15 spaces
Lot A is inclusive of the area also known as “Out-lot 1.” The full inventory is showing in the table
on the following page.
Alpine Bank parking spaces are considered in the inventory and occupancy counts per legacy
agreements.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 9 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 3: Study Area Parking Inventory
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
The map of the study area appears below. The Lot A areas are indicated by green, Lot B by
blue, and Lot 55 by brown. The hatched pattern represents underground parking.
Figure 4: Parking Lots in the Study Area
Source: Treadstone; graphic prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, over Google Maps base, 2016
TOTAL INV.
26 15-minute
28 2-hour
1 Unmarked
98 Gated
2 ADA
120 2h/permit
6 ADA
1 Near ramp (above ground)
15 Gated
TOTAL 297 297
INVENTORY
Lot A
(above
ground)
55
Lot A
(below
ground)
100
Lot B 126
Lot 55
(below
ground)
16
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 10 Walker Project #23-7605.00
CURRENT CONDITIONS – OCCUPANCY
On Friday and Saturday (February 26th-27th, 2016), Walker recorded the occupancies of all
inventoried lots at 7:30 a.m. and hourly from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., to measure the ebb and
flow of demand throughout the day. As expected, the area was only beginning to fill at 7:30
a.m., peaking at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, and at 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. With little exception, the
demand was fairly level throughout the day on both days that Walker observed, with
approximately 60 percent occupancy in the study area on Friday, and approximately 51
percent occupancy on Saturday.
At 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. on both days, dashboard placards and window decals
were also counted. These placards and decals function as permits allowing all-day parking in
surface lots in Lots A and B. Both lots are signed for 2 -hour and permit parking only, with the
exception of 26 15-minute parking spaces in Lot A (east of the Lodge at Avon Center building).
Alpine Bank window decals are issued by the bank to its employees; residents and employees
of the businesses in the Lodge at Avon Center are issued either dashboard placards or window
decals. The full-day table of occupancies by lot (A, B, or 55), along with sub-designations (2-
hour, 15-minute, ADA/handicapped, or unmarked), and the number of placards and decals
each day, are as follows:
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 11 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 5: Full Occupancy Data, Friday, February 26, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
7:30 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Avg.
26 15-minute 2 9 9 6 13 8 14 15 14 11 7 6 10
28 2-hour 11 22 18 21 19 22 21 17 17 18 19 22 19
1 Unmarked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
98 Gated 59 63 63 62 61 60 56 57 68 59 56 57 60
2 ADA 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
120 2h/permit***55 85 82 83 87 90 82 78 76 74 86 74 79
6 ADA 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1
Near ramp
(above
ground)
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
15 Gated****?12 11 11 9 8 9 9 7 5 4 4 8
TOTAL 297 129 193 184 186 191 190 183 178 185 168 173 165 178
Percentage 43%65%62%63%64%64%62%60%62%57%58%56%60%
Avon Center Decals/Placards (A)9 6 5 7
Alpine Bank Decals (A)5 4 1 3
Subtotal Lot A 14 10 6 10
Avon Center Decals/Placards (B)40 36 30 35
Alpine Bank Decals (B)5 7 0 4
Subtotal Lot B 45 43 30 39
Subtotal Avon Center 49 42 35 42
Subtotal Alpine Bank 10 11 1 7
TOTAL 59 53 36 49
*Lot A includes out-lot 1
** Lot B estimated, no lot markings, some spaces not available due to snow
*** Includes 5 spaces occupied by a backhoe and two trailers
**** One space used for storage; others reserved for bank or bank tenant employees
Lot A*
(above
ground)
Lot A*
(below
ground)
Lot B**
Lot 55
(below
ground)
OCCUPANCY
INVENTORY
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 12 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 6: Full Occupancy Data, Saturday, February 27, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
7:30 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Avg.
26 15-minute 0 4 4 6 3 3 4 5 7 7 9 6 5
28 2-hour 3 14 17 13 14 13 11 8 13 16 22 16 13
1 Unmarked 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 Gated 68 64 66 64 65 65 62 62 60 58 61 60 63
2 ADA 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1
120 2h/permit***51 61 70 66 64 67 62 60 62 70 78 74 65
6 ADA 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
1 Near ramp
(above 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 Gated****2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
TOTAL 297 127 149 163 155 150 152 143 137 144 154 173 160 151
Percentage 43%50%55%52%51%51%48%46%48%52%58%54%51%
Avon Center Decals/Placards (A)4 5 3 4
Alpine Bank Decals (A)0 0 0 0
Subtotal Lot A 4 5 3 4
Avon Center Decals/Placards (B)32 34 32 33
Alpine Bank Decals (B)0 0 0 0
Subtotal Lot B 32 34 32 33
Subtotal Avon Center 36 39 35 37
Subtotal Alpine Bank 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 36 39 35 37
*Lot A includes out-lot 1
** Lot B estimated, no lot markings, some spaces not available due to snow
*** Includes 5 spaces occupied by a backhoe and two trailers
**** One space used for storage; others reserved for bank or bank tenant employees
Lot 55
(below
ground)
Lot A*
(above
ground)
Lot A*
(below
ground)
Lot B**
OCCUPANCY
INVENTORY
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 13 Walker Project #23-7605.00
To give a sense of the intensity of use, we’ve combined the various uses in each lot and
employed heat maps to illustrate the two survey days. The heaviest occupancies show as red,
the lightest as green, with a continuum between:
Figure 7: Parking Occupancy Heat Map, Friday, February 26, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Figure 8: Parking Occupancy Heat Map, Saturday, February 27, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Parking Facility 7:30 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Avg.
Lot A Surface 24% 56% 49% 49% 58% 55% 64% 60% 58% 53% 47% 51% 52%
Lot A Garage 60% 64% 63% 63% 62% 61% 57% 58% 69% 60% 57% 58% 61%
Lot B Surface 44% 67% 65% 67% 69% 71% 65% 62% 60% 59% 68% 60% 63%
Lot 55 Combined 6% 81% 75% 75% 63% 56% 56% 56% 50% 31% 25% 25% 54%
OCCUPANCY
Parking Facility 7:30 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Avg.
Lot A Surface 5% 33% 38% 35% 31% 29% 27% 24% 36% 42% 56% 40% 33%
Lot A Garage 70% 66% 67% 66% 67% 67% 64% 62% 60% 58% 61% 61% 64%
Lot B Surface 41% 48% 56% 52% 51% 53% 49% 48% 49% 56% 63% 60% 52%
Lot 55 Combined 13% 25% 25% 25% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 16%
OCCUPANCY
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 14 Walker Project #23-7605.00
We can translate these occupancies onto maps of the study area. Because the occupancies
were relatively level throughout the day, we present the peak and average occupancies for
each day (rather than one for each hour of each day), as follows:
Figure 9: Parking Peak Occupancy, Friday, February 26, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 15 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 10: Parking Average Occupancy, Friday, February 26, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 16 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 11: Parking Peak Occupancy, Saturday, February 27, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 17 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 12: Parking Average Occupancy, Saturday, February 26, 2016
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Viewed through the lens of availability, the table below illustrates parking vacancies throughout
the course of the day:
Figure 13: Parking Vacancies
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Currently, even at peak demand on a weekday, Walker observed a minimum of 104 total
spaces available in the study area.
Day 7:30 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM Avg.
Friday 168 104 113 111 106 107 114 119 112 129 124 132 119
Saturday 170 148 134 142 147 145 154 160 153 143 124 137 146
AVAILABILITY IN STUDY AREA
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 18 Walker Project #23-7605.00
PEAK HOUR DEMAND
During Walker’s observations, peak demand in the study area occurred at 10:00 a.m. on Friday,
with 193 vehicles parked in the study area. At this hour there were 104 parking spaces available.
During the study days, there were an average of 119 spaces available on Friday and 146 spaces
available on Saturday.
By taking the inventory numbers and subtracting the observed occupancies, we can calculate
the parking adequacy (remaining capacity) or deficit (shortage) of parking in each space type
and in each parking facility.
At the peak-use observed, the system had 104 parking spaces available. Of these spaces 39
were within gated facilities, so in order for the system to avail itself of this capacity, usage
patterns would need to be redistributed, or policies would need to change. However, in all,
during the period observed, the study area has 35 percent of its parking spaces available.
Figure 14: Capacity by Lot and Time
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Inventory 7:30 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM
Lot A (above
ground)55 42 24 28 28 23 25 20 22 23 26 29 27
Lot A (below
ground)100 40 36 37 37 38 39 43 42 31 40 43 42
Lot B 126 71 41 44 42 39 36 44 48 50 52 40 51
Lot 55 16 15 3 4 4 6 7 7 7 8 11 12 12
TOTAL 297 168 104 113 111 106 107 114 119 112 129 124 132
Percent Available 57%35%38%37%36%36%38%40%38%43%42%44%
Inventory 7:30 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM
Lot A (above
ground)55 52 37 34 36 38 39 40 42 35 32 24 33
Lot A (below
ground)100 30 34 33 34 33 33 36 38 40 42 39 39
Lot B 126 74 65 55 60 62 59 64 66 64 55 47 51
Lot 55 16 14 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
TOTAL 297 170 148 134 142 147 145 154 160 153 143 124 137
Percent Available 57% 50% 45% 48% 49% 49% 52% 54% 52% 48% 42% 46%
CAPACITY - Friday, February 26, 2016
CAPACITY - Saturday, February 27, 2016
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 19 Walker Project #23-7605.00
PERMIT PARKING AND TURNOVER
Lot A (above-grade) and Lot B are signed for permit and short-term parking only. Lot A (below-
grade) is permit- and gate-controlled. Lot 55 is gate controlled with marked reserved spaces in
the underground garage; Lot 55 also contains one surface space, which is not marked or
designated in any way. Because of the double credentialing (permit and gate) in the gated
areas, only the permits/placards/decals in surface areas were noted; the gated areas are
assumed to be 100 percent occupied by permitted parkers.
As part of the study, Walker observed and counted permit parkers periodically throughout Friday
and Saturday. Counts of permits—in the form of dashboard placards or window decals—were
conducted at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. on both days, with the following results:
Figure 15: Friday, February 26, 2016 – Permit Use
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
10:00 AM 1:00 PM 6:00 PM
55 55 55
31 32 29
9 6 5
5 4 1
45% 31% 21%
25% 18% 11%
10:00 AM 1:00 PM 6:00 PM
126 126 126
85 87 74
40 36 30
5 7 0
53% 49% 41%
36% 34% 24%
TOTAL Lots A (surface) and B 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 6:00 PM
181 181 181
116 119 103
49 42 35
10 11 1
51% 45% 35%
33% 29% 20%
Avon Ctr. Permit
Alpine Bank Permit
PERCENT PERMITTED VEHICLES
PERCENT OF SPACES IN LOT
Lot A (surface)
Lot B
PERCENT PERMITTED VEHICLES
PERCENT OF SPACES IN LOT
TOTAL PERMITS
Inventory
Occupancy
PERMITS
Inventory
Occupancy
Avon Ctr. Permit
Alpine Bank Permit
Alpine Bank Permit
PERCENT PERMITTED VEHICLES
PERCENT OF SPACES IN LOT
Inventory
PERMITS
Occupancy
Avon Ctr. Permit
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 20 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 16: Saturday, February 27, 2016 – Permit Use
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
Friday Permit Use
Throughout business hours on Friday, about half of the vehicles parked in the areas being
observed had either Lodge at Avon Center or Alpine Bank credentials. Because these lots were
not full at any time, permits represented a third or fewer, of the total parked cars. The number
of permits dropped off significantly after the bank and other retail and services began to close
for the day. By 6:00 p.m., a little over a third of the parked vehicles had permits, representing
about 20 percent of the parking occupancy in these two lots.
Of the permits displayed, the vast majority were associated with the Lodge at Avon Center
versus Alpine Bank (49 of 59 at 10:00 a.m., 42 of 53 at 1:00 p.m., and 35 of 36 by 6:00 p.m.). While
there were a maximum of 49 Lodge at Avon Center permits at 10:00 a.m., Alpine Bank
10:00 AM 1:00 PM 6:00 PM
55 55 55
18 17 23
4 5 3
0 0 0
22% 29% 13%
7% 9% 5%
10:00 AM 1:00 PM 6:00 PM
126 126 126
61 64 71
32 34 32
0 0 0
52% 53% 45%
25% 27% 25%
TOTAL Lots A (surface) and B 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 6:00 PM
181 181 181
79 81 94
36 39 35
0 0 0
46% 48% 37%
20% 22% 19%PERCENT OF SPACES IN LOT
Inventory
Occupancy
Avon Ctr. Permit
Alpine Bank Permit
PERCENT PERMITTED VEHICLES
Avon Ctr. Permit
Alpine Bank Permit
PERCENT PERMITTED VEHICLES
PERCENT OF SPACES IN LOT
TOTAL PERMITS
PERCENT OF SPACES IN LOT
PERMITS
Lot B
Inventory
Occupancy
Inventory
Occupancy
Avon Ctr. Permit
Alpine Bank Permit
PERCENT PERMITTED VEHICLES
PERMITS
Lot A (surface)
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 21 Walker Project #23-7605.00
experienced a maximum of only 11 at 1:00 p.m.—including their parking spaces in Lot 55, their
total maximum presence (as evidenced by permit- and gate-controlled parking) was 23
vehicles at 10:00 a.m., on Friday (or excess of seven vehicles versus the Lot 55 inventory).
Saturday Permit Use
As one would reasonably imagine, demand patterns are different on a Saturday than on a
weekday, as some service businesses (including Alpine Bank) are closed.
Throughout the whole day on Saturday, less than half of the vehicles parked in the areas being
observed had parking credentials—none of these were Alpine Bank; all permits were associated
with the Lodge at Avon Center. Because these lots were not full at any time, these permits
represented only about 20 percent of all parked cars. The number of permits remained stable
all day as the light to moderate use of the observed lots varied due to transient users. The
number of permits was 36 at 10:00 a.m., 39 at 1:00 p.m., and 35 at 6:00 p.m., on Saturday.
Other Impacts on Inventory
PERMIT HOLDERS
Based upon current signage, the holders of permits for the Lodge at Avon Center may park in
Lot A and Lot B. There are also a portion that park in underground Lot A. While transient parkers
can park in the surface Lots A and B, they do not have access to the underground parking.
Based upon observed occupancies, underground Lot A could accommodate many of the
Lodge at Avon Center permit holders that are parking aboveground, freeing up more space
for the transient 15-minute and 2-hour parkers.
STORAGE
In addition to parking permits, capacity in these parking areas can be impacted by rarely-used
or derelict vehicles, and by equipment storage. Lot B experiences most of this diminution of
available parking—a backhoe occupies three spaces, two trailers occupy parking stalls, a few
pick-up trucks and SUVs appear to have been left in the lot, untouched for weeks (snow piled
around them, flat tires, covered for storage, etc.), and one large box truck seems to have fallen
into disuse. All of these unused or lesser used pieces of equipment are found either on the ramp
to underground Lot A, or in the surface spaces due west of the ramp. The upper portion of the
lot, closest to West Beaver Creek Boulevard, experiences more frequent turnover, even among
the vehicles with parking credentials.
The underground Lot A parking also contains several vehicles that have vehicle covers, are
coated in dust, or otherwise appear unused. One space closest to the entrance is used for
materials storage, and at least four spaces in the lot are lost to ice dams in two locations that
are the result of significant leaks from above. There is also a trailer, and a commercial van
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 22 Walker Project #23-7605.00
(perhaps building-owned) that are a consistent presence. Similarly, underground lot 55
contained one space occupied by stored materials, and two cars that didn’t mov e on either
Friday or Saturday, including during times at which the Alpine Bank building may be presumed
to have been empty.
In all, over twenty spaces in the study area (or nearly ten percent) appear to be to be lost to
long-term vehicle storage, material and equipment storage, and infrastructure damage.
OFF-SITE USERS
As part of the study, Walker observed the behaviors of Lot B parkers between 7:30 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. on both Friday and Saturday, February 26 and 27. Specifically, when a car pulled in
and parked, its occupants were monitored to see if their destinations were within, or outside of,
the study boundaries. The observations were as follows:
Figure 17: On- and Off-Site Users
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
This morning sampling of behaviors appears indicative of daily patterns; Walker and Treadstone
mutually agreed that this sampling was adequate, as opposed to attempting to monitor each
parker through the whole day. The observed pattern was that on a weekday o ver 80 percent
of parkers remained in the study area (residents, employees, and customers). The few that left
the site appeared to be employers or contractors walking in the direction of Seasons, Wyndham,
and the Westin; three or four of the “off-site” users were individuals (often carrying ski equipment)
dropped off at their cars, which had been stored there overnight. Anecdotally, most of those
who walked off-site appeared to be parked throughout the day (individual vehicles were not
specifically monitored). The 13 off-site users entering lot B on Friday, February 26, 2016, yielded a
total of ten vehicles parked between 7:30 a.m. and 9:59 a.m. The remaining three vehicles were
immediately removed by people who were dropped off to pick up their cars.
Friday, February 26, 2016 Saturday, February 27, 2016
On-site Off-site On-site Off-site
7:30 - 7:59 AM 8 2 7:30 - 7:59 AM 7 2
8:00 - 8:59 AM 24 7 8:00 - 8:59 AM 7 5
9:00 - 9:59 AM 26 4 9:00 - 9:59 AM 12 5
TOTAL 58 13 TOTAL 26 12
82%18%68%32%
Destinations
Lot B Parkers'Lot B Parkers'
Destinations
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 23 Walker Project #23-7605.00
On Saturday, February 27, 2016, observations were conducted during the same period. A total
of 12 vehicles (or about a third) were off-site users, between 7:30 a.m. and 9:59 a.m. This
contributed ten cars—as with the previous day, two cars dropped off individual s whose cars
had been parked overnight. Of these ten cars, three contained skiers, who took their equipment
off-site with them, and four appeared to be employees going to work in the direction of Seasons,
Wyndham, and the Westin; among the remaining three vehicles parked, the destinations of the
occupants were unclear, but was certainly outside the study area.
In all, given this small sample, off-site users appeared to account for about a dozen vehicles
parked in the study area on each day.
FUTURE CONDITIONS
Projecting the need for parking as development occurs on Lot B is part art and part science. In
order to make its best projections, Walker has used actual observations during a period of peak
demand, and has used nationally-recognized standards to assess what the expectations of
parking demand will (based upon the proposed uses within the study area). In addition, Walker
has researched Town of Avon Code, to assess what the Town is likely to expect based upon its
ordinances.
BASED ON OBSERVATION
As noted in the previous section, Walker conducted observations of parking use in the study
area throughout Friday and Saturday, February 26 and 27, 2016. During this observation period,
Walker noted an effective surplus of 104 parking spaces, even at times of the most intensive use.
Among overflow from Alpine Bank, derelict vehicles, materials and equipment storage, and off -
site users of lot B, approximately 40 more spaces could be made available.
Next, Walker applied a shared parking model, which was co-developed by the Urban Land
Institute and Walker Parking Consultants. This formula-based approach is nationally respected
and considered the state of the art in anticipating parking demand in mixed- and shared-use
applications.
BASED ON SHARED PARKING MODEL
Walker built a shared parking model for a 142-room hotel on the site of Lot B; the model predicts
a peak demand of 142 parking spaces for guests and employees, plus the need for 11 parking
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 24 Walker Project #23-7605.00
spaces for visitors, seven spaces for condominiums, and an additional two spaces supporting
536 square feet of retail space (482 square feet, allowing for a ten percent reduction, per
code)—a total of 162 parking spaces. As described in the section below, zoning would require
a maximum of ten spaces for visitors.
BASED ON ZONING
As interpreted by Walker, Town of Avon Code (see Appendix A), currently requires the study
area to have 257 parking spaces for the existing uses. The study area contains 297 spaces.
According to Code, parking requirements are reduced by 15 percent (or 39 spaces) for mixed
use; and are eligible for a further reduction of one space per on-street parking space adjacent
to the front boundary of the site—a credit of an additional six spaces; however, at the Town’s
request the on-street credit is not considered in this analysis. The shared parking reduction
reduces the mandated number of spaces to 218, giving the site a current surplus of 79 spaces.
Again, as interpreted by Walker, the Code would require a new hotel to provide one parking
space per room to accommodate hotel, plus ten spaces to accommodate the visitors of hotel
guests, seven spaces for condominiums, and two spaces to support retail space. In the case of
the current plans, this is likely to yield a requirement of 161 parking spaces.
Treadstone intends to displace the 126 spaces in Lot B with the new construction and add a
parking facility containing 205 parking spaces.
With the addition of the hotel, the study area would be subject to a code-based requirement
for 418 parking spaces, again tempered by a 15 percent mixed-use reduction. The resulting
requirement would be 355 spaces. The current inventory is 297 spaces, the expected loss is 126,
and the planned addition of parking is at least 205 spaces. This yields 376 parking stalls, a surplus
of 21 spaces based upon code.
Although the hotel project was originally conceived in 1988, Walker applied current code,
having found no evidence that there was difference between historical and current codes.
In tabular form, the preceding analysis appears as follows:
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 25 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 18: Code-Based Parking Requirements
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
CURRENT USE: Lodge at Avon Center - Commercial
Unit #Area (sq. ft.)Use Sq. ft. by use Spaces required
107 5,597 Municipal Office 5,037 22
109 407 Office
110 321 Office
121 1,901 Office
200 2,783 Office
208 1,381 Office
216 485 Office
219 625 Office
222 1,871 Office
228 728 Office
230 1,191 Office
234 1,182 Office
236 1,671 Office 13,091 39
204 1,501 Medical/dental
210 272 Medical/dental
214 270 Medical/dental
218 662 Medical/dental
220 557 Medical/dental
224 1,555 Medical/dental
232 1,124 Medical/dental 5,347 21
125 3,289 Restaurant
127 1,251 Restaurant
129 4,201 Restaurant 7,867 79
113 1,523 Commercial
114 4,071 Commercial 5,035 20
Subtotal 40,419 36,377 182
CURRENT USE: Lodge at Avon Center Condominiums
Units <2,500 sq ft > 2,500 sq ft
3BR 43 41 2 45
4BR 7 4 3 10
5BR 2 0 2 4
Subtotal 52 59
CURRENT USE: Bank
Area (sq. ft.)
Bank 4000 Bank 3,600 14
1500 1st fl. Tenants 1,350 4
Office 5500 2nd fl. Tenants 4,950 15
de facto Town variance (17)
Subtotal 11000 16
PLANNED USE: Hotel
142 rooms 1 per room 142
Condominiums under 2,500 sf 1 1
Condominiums over 2,500 sf 3 6
Guest parking see code max. 10 10
Retail 4 per 1000 sq ft (10% reduction)482 2
TOTAL REQUIREDSubtotal 161
418
Reductions
Mixed use reduction (15%)15%(63)
On-street parking reduction (1 for 1)6 0
Requirement 355
Current Inventory 297
Potential loss to construction (126)
Proposed new parking facility 205
Plan 376
Surplus/(Deficit)(plan minus requirement)21
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 26 Walker Project #23-7605.00
CONCLUSIONS
This study began with four major questions posed by Treadstone; this section summarizes
Walker’s conclusions addressing those points.
AGGREGATE INVENTORY
1. What is the aggregate inventory of parking spaces in the study area (including all surface
and underground parking in Lot A, Lot B, Lot 55, and Out-lot 1)?
The total parking inventory is approximately 297 spaces. Because much of Lot B does not have
striped spaces, the capacity has been estimated.
Figure 19: Study Area Parking Inventory
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS
2. Based on all existing uses in the study area, how many parking spaces does current Town of
Avon code require?
If the current Town of Avon Code is applied to the study area, the total requirement is 257 spaces
(square-foot calculations have been based upon 90 percent of the gross square footage,
based upon Code, and restaurants have been assumed to have 60 percent of their space
devoted to seating area). With reductions for shared-use (15 percent), the requirement could
potentially be lowered to 218 spaces, possibly leaving the study area (which has an inventory
of 297 spaces) with a surplus of 79 parking spaces versus code. This information is presented in
tabular form as follows:
TOTAL INV.
26 15-minute
28 2-hour
1 Unmarked
98 Gated
2 ADA
120 2h/permit
6 ADA
1 Near ramp (above ground)
15 Gated
TOTAL 297 297
Lot 51
(below
ground)
16
Lot A
(above
ground)
55
Lot A
(below
ground)
100
Lot B 126
INVENTORY
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 27 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Figure 20: Study Area Parking Inventory
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
FUTURE CODE REQUIREMENTS
3. When Lot B is developed what will the parking requirement be, according to Town code?
Walker reviewed the current code and found the parking provisions to be unchanged when
compared to 1988 code (the year in which the current development was initially conceived).
For each hotel accommodation unit (under 600 square feet), code requires one parking
space—yielding a requirement of 142 spaces to meet the needs of customers and employees
of a 142-room hotel. Code further requires additional “guest” spaces, to a maximum of ten per
building; the proposed project reaches the threshold for this maximum requirement (see excerpt
from Code, in Appendix A). The retail component of 536 square feet (adjusted down ten
percent to 482 square feet, per code) will have a requirement of four spaces per 1,000 square
feet. Using a nationally-accepted model for projecting parking demand, Walker independently
CURRENT USE: Lodge at Avon Center - Commercial
Use Adj. Sq. Ft.Code Requirement
Municipal Office 5,037 4 spaces/ksf 22
Admin/Professional Office 13,091 3 spaces/ksf 39
Medical/Dental Office 5,347 4 spaces/ksf 21
Restaurant 7,867 1 space/60 sf seating 79
Commercial (retail)5,035 4 spaces/ksf 20
Subtotal 36,377 182
CURRENT USE: Lodge at Avon Center Condominiums
Use Units Code Requirement
≥3BR (less 2,500sf)45 1 per unit 45
≥3BR (2,500sf or greater)7 2 per unit 14
Subtotal 52 59
CURRENT USE: Alpine Bank Building
Use Square Feet Code Requirement
Commercial (bank)3,600 4 spaces/ksf 14
Office 6,300 2nd fl. Tenants 19
de facto Town variance (17)
Subtotal 9,900 16
SUBTOTAL REQUIRED
257
Reductions
Mixed use reduction (15%)15%(39)
On-street parking reduction (1 for 1)6 0
TOTAL REQUIRED 218
CURRENT INVENTORY 297
Surplus/(Deficit)79Inventory minus required
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 28 Walker Project #23-7605.00
came up with a projected need for 142 parking spaces plus 11 for guests—this helps validate
the Code requirement as a reasonable number.
When the proposed development is added among the current uses, the tabulated
surplus/deficit appears as follows:
Figure 21: Projected Code Requirement
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
ACTUAL PARKING DEMAND
4. What is the actual parking demand in the study area?
Walker observed a peak parking demand of 193 vehicles, at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 26,
2016. This suggests a current surplus of 104 parking spaces—a number that could be
approximately 40 spaces higher, if people who park in the study area but have destinations
outside the study area no longer have access, if vehicles that are stored or neglected in the lots
within the study area are relocated elsewhere, and if Alpine Bank doesn’t overflow into Lots A
and B.
As an exercise and illustration, Walker has overlaid today’s current demand with a theoretical
maximum demand related to the proposed development. The proposed parking supply is 376
spaces. The observed peak was 193 vehicles; the future hotel could have a demand of 161
vehicles (at one per room plus ten guests, plus seven for condos, plus two for retail). This yields a
potential peak demand for 354 parking spaces (with an adjustment of as many as 40 vehicles
CURRENT USES: Lodge at Avon Center and Alpine Bank Building
Calculated requirement 257
PROPOSED USE (142-room hotel)
Customers/employees 142
Guests 10
Condos 7
Retail 2
TOTAL REQUIREMENT 418
Reductions
Mixed use reduction (15%)(63)
On-street parking reduction (1 for 1)0
355
Current Inventory 297
Potential loss to construction (126)
Proposed new parking facility 205
Plan 376
Surplus/(Deficit)21
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 29 Walker Project #23-7605.00
to account for stored, derelict, overflow, and off-site uses), which makes the planned supply
adequate. In table form, this appears as follows:
Figure 22: Observed Current Demand Plus Projected Parking Supply and Demand
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
ADA PARKING
Incorporated within the count of spaces above is an inventory of eight ADA parking stalls, for
individuals with disabilities. This number of accessible spaces is in compliance with the Americans
with Disability Act accessibility guidelines. The requirements thereof are as follows:
Figure 23: ADA Parking Requirements
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2016
The study area has 297 total parking stalls. According to these guidelines, the study area would
be required to have seven ADA spaces. With eight spaces, the study area exceeds the legal
minimum. This calculation uses an interpretation of ADA regulations which suggest that the
whole parking inventory may be taken in aggregate. This may be appropriate, because existing
agreements make the parking within the entire study area open to multiple parcels. Although
Proposed parking supply 376
Current peak demand 193
Hotel at full demand 161
Projected peak demand 354
Potential adjustment*(40)
Surplus/(Deficit)62
* storage and derelict vehicles, parkers going off-site, etc.
Total Number of Parking Spaces in Facility Minimum Number of Accessible Space Required
1 - 25 1
26 - 50 2
51 - 75 3
76 - 100 4
101 - 150 5
151 - 200 6
201 - 300 7
301 - 400 8
401 - 500 9
501 - 1000 2% of total
1001 and over 20, plus 1 for each 100, or fraction thereof, over 1000
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 30 Walker Project #23-7605.00
there are four or five distinct parking areas (depending upon which ones are counted as
unique), it may be interpreted that not each parking area is required to have ADA spaces.
Instead, the accessible spaces may be allowed to be concentrated into particular areas.
According the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
Where separate parking facilities serve the same building or entrance, accessible spaces
may be grouped together, as long as the number of spaces provided is determined
according to each of the separate parking facilities.
If parking is developed as planned, with a net resulting parking inventory of 376 parking stalls,
the required number of ADA spaces would be eight, equivalent to the current number. Spaces
should be placed so as to be convenient to the accessible entries and paths of travel for all
facilities within the study area. This assumes that the study area continues to be served by
parking which is managed and offered as a shared resource among all properties and owners.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 31 Walker Project #23-7605.00
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. This report is to be used in whole and not in part.
2. Walker’s report and recommendations are based on certain assumptions pertaining to the
future performance of the local economy and other factors typically related to individual
user characteristics that are either outside Walker’s control or that of the client. To the best
of Walker’s ability we analyzed available information that was incorporated in projecting
future performance of the proposed subject site.
3. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in
visualizing the property. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is within
the boundaries of the property described, and that there is no encroachment or trespass
unless noted.
4. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by Walker
Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. are assumed to be true and correct. We assume no
liability resulting from misinformation.
5. Unless noted, we assume there are no encroachments, zoning, violations, or building
violations encumbering the subject property.
6. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless
specified otherwise.
7. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission, and
the report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations,
news, sales, or other media.
8. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent to
the date of our field inspections.
9. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants; all opinions, recommendations,
and conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment are rendered by the staff
of Walker Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as individuals.
10. The conclusions and recommendations presented were reached based on Walker’s
analysis of the information obtained from the client and our own sources. Information
furnished by others, upon which portions of this study may be based, is believed to be
reliable; however, it has not been verified in all cases. No warranty is given to the accuracy
of such information; moreover, any significant differences between these assumptions and
actual performance may impact the financial projections for the subject parking
operation.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 32 Walker Project #23-7605.00
APPENDIX A:
Town of Avon Excerpt from Municipal Code
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 33 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 34 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 35 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 36 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY
Page 37 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Exhibit C
=8
PARKING NEEDS STUDY
AVON CENTER, LOT B
ADDENDUM
Prepared for:
Mr. Keith Hampton, Managing Member,
Treadstone Development, LLC
OCTOBER 27, 2016
FINAL REPORT
Exhibit C
WALKER PROJECT # 23-7605.00
PARKING NEEDS STUDY
AVON CENTER, LOT B
ADDENDUM
Prepared for:
Mr. Keith Hampton, Managing Member,
Treadstone Development, LLC
OCTOBER 27, 2016
FINAL REPORT
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 1 Walker Project #23-7605.00
October 27, 2016
Mr. Keith Hampton, Managing Member
Treadstone Development, LLC
624 Mountain Village Boulevard
Mountain Village, CO 81435
Re: Avon Center—Lot B Parking Needs Study-ADDENDUM
Dear Mr. Hampton:
Herein, please find revised study area maps, correcting the boundaries between “Lot A” and
“Lot 55.” There are also a revised tables and text showing the inventory of spaces in each of the
zones within the study area. This document is intended to be an addendum to the Final Report,
dated September 29, 2016.
The overall number of spaces, of course, remains the same, as do the zoning code requirements.
Other than the redrawn boundaries, our findings, conclusions, and recommendations remain
the same.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue to be of service to you as you work to move the
project forward. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS
David Jay Lieb,Robert E. Stanley, P.E., NSPE, LEED AP, BD+C
Parking Consultant, Project Manager Managing Principal, Vice President
Enclosure
cc: John W. Dorsett, AICP, Walker Parking Consultants
5350 South Roslyn Street, Suite 220
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Tel: 303.694.6622
Fax: 303.694.6667
www.walkerparking.com
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 2 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Revised study area map—adjusting the boundaries of “Lot A” and “Lot 55.”
Replaces Figure 1 on page 1 of the Final Report, dated September 29, 2016.
Figure 1: Study Area and Sub-Area Boundaries
Source: Treadstone; graphic prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, over Google Maps base, 2016
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 3 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Revised parking areas map—adjusting the boundaries of “Lot A” and “Lot 55.”
Replaces Figure 2 on page 2 of the Final Report, dated September 29, 2016.
Figure 2: Parking Lots in the Study Area
Source: Treadstone; graphic prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, over Google Maps base, 2016
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 4 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Revised parking area distribution—adjusting the inventories of “Lot A” and “Lot 55.”
While the distribution of spaces in each zone changes, the overall inventory remains the same.
Replaces text page 8 of the Final Report, dated September 29, 2016.
CURRENT CONDITIONS – INVENTORY
On Thursday, February 25th, 2016, Walker took an inventory of the parking in the study area. The
defined study area contains 297 parking stalls, which are allocated as follows:
Lot A (aboveground) contains 26 spaces
Lot A (underground) has 100 spaces
Lot B accounts for 126 spaces
Lot 55 (aboveground) is 30 spaces
Lot 55 (underground) represents 15 spaces
Lot A is inclusive of the area also known as “Out-lot 1.” The full inventory is showing in the table
on the following page.
Alpine Bank parking spaces are considered in the inventory and occupancy counts per legacy
agreements.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 5 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Revised parking area distribution—adjusting the inventories of “Lot A” and “Lot 55.”
While the distribution of spaces in each zone changes, the overall inventory remains the same.
Replaces Figure 3 on page 9 of the Final Report, dated September 29, 2016.
Figure 3: Study Area Parking Inventory
TOT AL INV.
26 15-minut e
0 2-hour
0 Unmarked
98 Gat ed
2 A DA
120 2h/permit
6 A DA
30 A bov e ground (2-hour)
15 Gat ed
TOTAL 297 297
INVENTORY
Lot A
(above
ground)
26
Lot A
(below
ground)
100
Lot B 126
Lot 55
(below
ground)
45
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
The map of the study area appears below. The Lot A areas are indicated by green, Lot B by
blue, and Lot 55 by brown. The hatched pattern represents underground parking.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 6 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Revised parking areas map—adjusting the boundaries of “Lot A” and “Lot 55.”
Replaces Figure 4 on page 9 of the Final Report, dated September 29, 2016.
Figure 4: Parking Lots in the Study Area
Source: Treadstone; graphic prepared by Walker Parking Consultants, over Google Maps base, 2016
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 7 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Revised parking area distribution—adjusting the inventories of “Lot A” and “Lot 55.”
While the distribution of spaces in each zone changes, the overall inventory remains the same.
Replaces Figure 19 on page 26 of the Final Report, dated September 29, 2016.
AGGREGATE INVENTORY
1. What is the aggregate inventory of parking spaces in the study area (including all surface
and underground parking in Lot A, Lot B, Lot 55, and Out-lot 1)?
The total parking inventory is approximately 297 spaces. Because much of Lot B does not have
striped spaces, the capacity has been estimated.
Figure 5: Study Area Parking Inventory
TOT AL INV.
26 15-minut e
0 2-hour
0 Unmarked
98 Gat ed
2 A DA
120 2h/permit
6 A DA
30 A bov e ground (2-hour)
15 Gat ed
TOTAL 297 297
INVENTORY
Lot A
(above
ground)
26
Lot A
(below
ground)
100
Lot B 126
Lot 55
(below
ground)
45
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 8 Walker Project #23-7605.00
STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. This report is to be used in whole and not in part.
2. Walker’s report and recommendations are based on certain assumptions pertaining to the
future performance of the local economy and other factors typically related to individual
user characteristics that are either outside Walker’s control or that of the client. To the best
of Walker’s ability we analyzed available information that was incorporated in projecting
future performance of the proposed subject site.
3. Sketches, photographs, maps and other exhibits are included to assist the reader in
visualizing the property. It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is within
the boundaries of the property described, and that there is no encroachment or trespass
unless noted.
4. All information, estimates, and opinions obtained from parties not employed by Walker
Parking Consultants/Engineers, Inc. are assumed to be true and correct. We assume no
liability resulting from misinformation.
5. Unless noted, we assume there are no encroachments, zoning, violations, or building
violations encumbering the subject property.
6. All mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, and servitudes have been disregarded unless
specified otherwise.
7. None of this material may be reproduced in any form without our written permission, and
the report cannot be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations,
news, sales, or other media.
8. We take no responsibility for any events or circumstances that take place subsequent to
the date of our field inspections.
9. This report was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants; all opinions, recommendations,
and conclusions expressed during the course of this assignment are rendered by the staff
of Walker Parking Consultants as employees, rather than as individuals.
10. The conclusions and recommendations presented were reached based on Walker’s
analysis of the information obtained from the client and our own sources. Information
furnished by others, upon which portions of this study may be based, is believed to be
reliable; however, it has not been verified in all cases. No warranty is given to the accuracy
of such information; moreover, any significant differences between these assumptions and
actual performance may impact the financial projections for the subject parking
operation.
Exhibit C
FINAL REPORT
AVON CENTER, LOT B PARKING NEEDS STUDY - ADDENDUM
Page 9 Walker Project #23-7605.00
Exhibit C
1 | P a g e
August 10, 2016
Treadstone Development, LLC
505 8th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE: Initial Review Comments for Lot B Hotel Submittal
Greg,
First off, the Town is excited to receive and review your hotel project, and look forward to finalizing plans
for a successful project. This important infill project will undoubtedly bring vitality to the Town Core area
and we are eager to move forward through the approval process. Staff will continue to make itself
available to assist with the preparation and review of final plans.
This letter summarizes Staff’s initial review comments for your Major Development Plan submittal. While
the application remains incomplete pending utility verification approvals, the Town wanted to take this
opportunity to offer comments and solicit additional information to refine your proposal and consider
alternative design approaches. These comments and questions are important to address to ensure
compliance with the Avon Development Code (“ADC”) as well as helping to aid in the review of this
project by the general public and decision making bodies.
In addition to this initial review conducted by Town Staff, input from OZ architecture was solicited to
review the proposal and provide comments and questions on the design plan as it relates to the
Development Code and surrounding projects. This firm is familiar with the Town of Avon development
code, infill construction with the Wyndham project, and mountain construction in general. Attached to
this letter are comments from OZ with document titled “Review of a Major Development Plan”, dated
August 8, 2016. We look forward to reviewing these comments with you at your earliest convenience.
1. Zoning:
The plans indicate 9,549 square feet of landscaped area on site (14.2% of lot area), and
6,631 square feet off-site, bringing the total landscaped area to 24.17% of lot area. The
code requires a minimum of 20% on-site landscaped area; therefore, the Town Council
must authorize using adjacent public land on Tract G to meet minimum standards. ADC
Table 7-20-9
Please demonstrate the total square footage of the building coverage within the lot to
meet lot coverage requirements.
The plans must demonstrate compliance with 80’ building height. Please show the roof
plan with USGS existing contours underneath the building.
2. Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC):
An accompanying AEC application must be submitted to address the following design
standards:
o The code requires a 4:12 pitched roof. Since the design utilizes a flat roof for the
primary form. ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(ix)
o Buildings greater than thirty (30) feet in height shall be designed to reduce
apparent mass and visually anchor the building to the site by including a clearly
identifiable base, body and top, with horizontal elements separating these
components.” ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(B)
o After 45’ of vertical rise, buildings are required to have a stepback of at least 8’.
ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(D)
Exhibit D
2 | P a g e
3. Access & Circulation:
According to Avon’s access management guidelines, curb cuts are generally limited to
one point of access. Please demonstrate how the second entry “required for necessity,
create[s] a better site design and that safety to the traveling public will not be
compromised.” ADC 7.28.030(d)(6). The curb cuts are separated by 70 feet. Ideally
these curb cuts will be consolidated. In an effort to minimize curb cuts and provide a
safer and more pedestrian-oriented experience along Beaver Creek Boulevard.
Demonstrate how Lot C is served with this access easement and agreement. The
access ramp indicates a retaining wall on the west side; please show the details for this
retaining wall and how it is finished.
The proposed parking ramp has a grade of 9.4%. Site distance could be limited
approaching West Beaver Creek Boulevard (“WBCB”), particularly to see pedestrians and
bicycles. The sloping driveway is required to have no more than a 4% slope for the first
20 feet from the edge of the street pavement. ADC 7.82.030(d)(9)(iii)
What is the suggested turning movements for delivery and service vehicles?
The current circulation schemes require hotel guests to drive out to WBCB after checking
in, to access the ramp that connects with the lower level parking garage. Connecting to
the ramp from underneath the building appears could be studied.
4. Mobility and Connectivity:
While there is a direct pedestrian connection from the Main Street Pedestrian Mall to the
hotel entrance, a connection lacks from the WBCB side to the hotel entrance. Planning
suggests a delineated material or striping connecting WBCB to the entrance, and
widening the entrance near the Mall to allow for a more seamless pedestrian experience.
ADC 7.28.040(e)(4).
Bicycle facilities at a rate of 1 bicycle parking space per 10 vehicles (21 total spaces
required) be placed within 150’ from the primary building entrance in a conveniently
located area. Please demonstrate compliance with this code requirement. ADC
7.28.020(J)
The north to south pedestrian connection along the reciprocal access easement is an
extension of Sun Road. This corridor not only has the potential to create a desirable four
way stop along Beaver Creek Boulevard but it also provides access form WBCB to the
Main Street Pedestrian Mall. This is a critical connection identified in the Avon West
Town Center Investment Plan and the draft WBCB Reconstruction Plan. The current
plans do not show any pedestrian connection in this location. A safe attractive
pedestrian corridor through this easement or a more intuitive connection through the
parking lot should be explored.
5. Screening:
How is the refuse screened from view? ADC 7.28.060
Please show how any rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened from nearby taller
buildings. ADC 7.28.060(d)
6. Snow Storage:
The sloping drive is shown to have snowmelt. What are the total dimensions of
pavement heating for the project? The Exterior Energy Offset requirements will be
triggered for area in excess of 200 square feet. Avon Municipal Code (AMC) 15.27
Please include a snow storage plan for areas that will not be snowmelted.
7. Parking Study:
This study appears to meet the requirements of 7.28.020(g)(4)(ii), which allows for
parking demand studies that are based upon relevant data and combination of land uses
between Lot 55, Avon Center, and Lot B.
Exhibit D
3 | P a g e
Retail space in the hotel, while minimal, does not appear to be accounted for.
The analysis accounts for six (6) spaces in the street. The final plans for WBCB are
forthcoming and these spaces should not be accounted for until plans are final.
8. Design Standards:
The corrugated metal material for roofs will need to be presented. Are there examples
of this material in use in a similar way on other projects? There are maintenance, finish
appearance, and aesthetic concerns as the material stretches all the way to ground level
in certain points.
Material #12 is not shown on the plans. Please demonstrate where it is located.
Lighting – AMC 15.30
o Please confirm the plan indicates 2 poles (AA 1-3) on WBCB.
o The bollards on the Mall must match existing bollards in the Mall.
o Please confirm that the FF lighting housing is “full cutoff” per code.
The WBCB side of the building does not appear to be a pedestrian friendly scale or 4-
sided design as the Development Code encourages. ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)
Please refer to the attached ‘Review of a Major Development Plan Submittal’ performed
by Oz Architecture, dated August 8, 2016, for additional design comments to be taken
into consideration when finalizing the plans.
1. Miscellaneous:
The number of hotel units is listed as 140, 141, and 142 in different places. Please
provide the accurate number across documents.
Fire
o An Initial Code Summary for fire will be necessary.
o What is the movement for fire trucks?
o If there is not truck access on the property is there a Fire Command Center? If
so, where is it located?
o What is the fire rating of the construction?
o What type of glass is suggested for the two perpendicular faces of the exit stairs
on the WBCB side? They must be 2-hr fire rated (1027.6 of fire code)
Mechanical
o Where will the exhaust from laundry facilities be located? Will there be a diesel
generator? Will these areas be forced to vent onto the Mall?
o What types of mechanical units will be on the roof?
o Will each room have its own AC unit, or will it be roof mounted?
o Where is the roof access point and will it require a stair access or hatch?
In order to address comments, and ensure that the public hearings can be accommodated in a timely
manner, Staff offers the above following draft schedule for discussion and finalization. Given the
substantive nature of some of the comments, we anticipate the need to reevaluate this schedule moving
forward.
DRAFT SCHEDULE:
Revised Plans Deadline for September PZC August 22, 2016
Public Notification sent to Vail Daily August 31, 2016
PZC Hearing & Recommendation to Council September 6, 2016
TC Hearing #1 *September 13, 2016
TC Hearing #2 September 27, 2016
*If PZC continues hearing, these dates subject to change
Exhibit D
4 | P a g e
Respectfully,
Matt Pielsticker, AICP
Planning Director
Att: Review of a Major Development Plan by OZ Architecture
Cc: Project File
Exhibit D
1
Review of a Major Development Plan Submittal for the project described as:
AVON HOTEL
Performed for: The Town of Avon
Performed by: OZ Architecture, Inc.
August 8, 2016
Architectural Concerns and Notations:
This first section lays out the initial reactions and/or questions that the architectural team at OZ
produced prior to the review of the Town’s planning, entitlement and design guideline documents.
Many of these initial notions will reappear in the sections which follow this one and will be further
explored in the review of those documents as they relate to the Avon Hotel submittal.
Site Plan and Overall Development:
o Of the approximately 290 ft. of Main Street Mall frontage available to this project, only
around 88 ft. is actually, “occupied” or “reinforced” by the design and location of these
buildings;
o Retail is minimal along the Main Street Mall;
Suggestions:
Add retail to the south of hotel entrance under the overhang currently
comprising a single parking space – combine that with Retail #3 and the office
space shown to create better sized retail space;
Add a sundries shop in south-east corner of Hotel Lobby area;
Add significant-sized retail (perhaps F&B) at the west, currently blank end of
fitness/condo addition to the Avon Center building thus replacing the 5 parking
spaces shown there in the proposed site plan;
o The parking along the mall seems unsightly;
Suggestions, in lieu of completely reorienting the buildings proposed for the site:
See the retail suggestion for the end of the fitness and condo building;
Remove all of parking spaces adjacent to the mall edge and replace with
pedestrian-oriented construction and uses;
o The Hotel building seems to stand on a hollowed-out floor (of parking), and is perched
on stilts similar in concept to LA-styled Mid-century apartment buildings. The building
does not fully cover the parking level below it at grade so that the perimeter cars are
exposed to sight, sun and snow. The planning department would be hesitant to
positively associate this form as a solution for building a “base at the ground level”.
Issues of weather, snow shedding and blowing, automobile noise for hotel guests, or
ground plane pedestrian activity are all concerns;
o Cars will, therefore, be the predominant feature of the ground level experience on
nearly all sides of the buildings;
o Screening of the parking garage, ramp and loading will be paramount to the building
sitting appropriately on its site and to it being pedestrian friendly;
o We have concerns as to how the parking lighting will affect the mall and the site at
night;
o There seems to be zero internal landscape proposed (other than the perimeter
landscaping which is required to fulfil a certain portion of the landscape requirement)
Exhibit D
2
resulting in the impression that both buildings reside in a sea of pavement and that the
hotel in fact, sprouts from the parking surface;
o The trash chute appears to terminate at the basement level – is this where the
dumpsters sit? We are concerned with where the dumpsters may be stored on a daily
basis and how odors will be handled near the mall;
o We would caution against opening the doors out of the secondary elevator vestibule so
close to the traffic movement and snow management issues inherent in the drive
(which, at the same location, passes under the connecting bridge above these doors).
Building Mass and Form
o Neither of the two buildings seems to be, “fronting” the mall. Rather, the massing of
the development is arranged perpendicular to Main Street.;
o We have concerns as to the method of roof access and what that structure will look like
in elevation;
o The metal shards of sloping roof seem to shed onto the outdoor dining deck and the
sidewalk on West Beaver Creek Boulevard (WBC);
o Elevation B on Sheet A-3.1 does not adequately reflect the building design at the ground
floor.
Materials and Colors Proposed
o Given the last point above, we have concerns with the distribution of materials at this
key location and how they relate to the Main Street Mall and the Sheraton property.
o The materials used at the base of the buildings may not uphold the requirement for
durability listed elsewhere in this analysis;
o The metal shards roofing turning into siding does not seem to uphold the notion of,
“blending in with their surroundings” found elsewhere in this analysis;
o This material will need to be non-reflective but even with that, the material selection
does not seem to meet the Development Code Standards for earth-toned materials;
o The glazing of the exit stair enclosures may not, depending on the construction type
chosen, meet the code for separation of those stairs from the fuel source of a fire;
o The material selection seems to warrant a full sized wall mock-up so as to determine its
suitability of aesthetics and durability-in-performance and given the published design
guidelines of the town.
Technical Issues
o We have concerns with the locations of the mechanical equipment and where the
ground mounted transformers for the project might be and how they are screened from
the Sheraton and others near and on the site;
o We have concerns as to the method by which the kitchen exhaust and trash smells will
be handled at the 2nd Floor food preparation and trash storage areas given their
proximity to the Main Street Mall and the pedestrian connection to the Sheraton;
o The condominium/fitness building does not appear to have any means of handling trash
and recycling. Is this why the buildings are connected by a bridge?
o Similarly, there is no indication of mechanical systems and the inherent exhaust
associated with them for the condo structure;
Exhibit D
3
o We have concerns as to the clear height under the connection bridge between the two
structures. From some of the information given, it appears to be less than what is
needed for truck and fire apparatus clearances.
Avon Development Code (Title 7, with Appendix 7A) Observations:
7.28.060 (e)(3 “Service areas and access drives shall be located so they do not interfere with the
normal activities of building occupants or visitors on driveways, walkways, in parking areas or at
entries”.
We have concerns with the application of the above section. In addition and from the same section,
Paragraph 2 states that loading and service areas need to be screened from being visible off site.
From WBCB, the loading will be clearly seen by pedestrians in its current configuration;
Materials and Colors Proposed
Section 7.28.090 – Design Standards
The examples and issues discussed in these sections begin with generally-applicable design
standards and gradually move into those more specific to mixed use buildings and finally to those
that apply to this type of building within Avon’s Town Core.
(c)(3)(i):
“The use of high quality, durable building materials is required.”
The materials proposed for use at grade appear to be a foreign-made integrally-colored cement
composite panel in a cool grey color. The quality and appropriateness of the use of this material in Avon
is of concern.
(c)(3)(II)
“Preferred materials reflect the Town’s sub-alpine character such as native stone, wood siding,
masonry or timbers.” None of the preferred materials from this section are to be found in the proposed
development.
(c)(3)(v)
“Indigenous natural or earth tones . . . in muted, flat colors with an LRV (Light Reflective Value) of 60
or less are required.” No reflectivity information for the metal shards described as, “Metal Roof Siding
Silver Grey” was provided. However, (b)(4)(iii) further states that, “roofing materials shall be suitable
for local environmental conditions. Colors shall be natural or earth tones.” Besides a huge flat and
therefore unseen roof, the metal is the only presumed roof material suggested.
(c)(5)(i)(A)
Generally suggests that pedestrians should be protected from shedding snow coming off of roofs above.
As stated earlier, the dining deck at the second level of the hotel building, which looks out over Main
Street, appears to be unprotected against the snow coming off of the metal shard roof above.
Exhibit D
4
Paragraph (C) repeats these requirements saying that roof designs which would allow accumulated
snow, ice or rain to fall or slide onto sidewalks or other pedestrian building spaces should be avoided.
Building Mass and Form
(j)(3)(I)(A)
“Buildings shall reinforce the street edges and create pedestrian-scaled open spaces.” Given that this
development is listed as one of the town’s top priorities, we are concerned about the WBCB side of the
project.
(j)(3)(iv)
“Mixed-use development shall incorporate on-site indoor and outdoor common spaces . . .” The
section then goes on to describe the various types of patios, plazas, parks, squares, gardens, etc. which
might satisfy the objective of the statement.
Except for the, “multi-use lawn area (1636 s.f.)” near Lettuce Shed Plaza, there are no other common
spaces on the site. This lawn area, may also detract from the Plaza by blurring its edges. The section
concludes with this statement, “New development in Town Core shall maintain a high interaction
between pedestrians and the activities inside the buildings at ground level.” Auto traffic is primarily
accommodated on this site plan and very little interaction between inside and outside is to be found in
the plan.
(j)(4)(iii)
Compatible Design (B)
This section lists methods that might lead to an acceptable compatibility of design, presumably not only
within the specific site development but also along the pedestrian mall and Town Center generally.
While it declares that these features are not limited to the list of 12 architectural elements, the only one
included in the design is the outdoor patio which appears at the second level, reserved for the hotel
guest.
(j)(4)(iv)
Mixed-Use Buildings in Town Core
“ . . . any portion of a new mixed-use building with street frontage floor area (lists the streets
surrounding, for the most part, this development except for WBCB) must be occupied by retail,
personal service and restaurant uses . . .” This project has slightly more than 530 s.f. of retail at its mall
end, has a private pool, fitness and spa facility above grade in the addition to the Avon Center and, for
the remainder of its ground level square footage, has an exposed parking space.
NOTE: this section also requires, “ground-floor commercial space . . . be at least twelve (12) feet in
height as measured from the finished floor elevation to the finished ceiling.” The section drawings
indicate that the hotel and condo buildings all have a 12 foot floor-to-floor dimension that will yield
something between 10’ to 10’-6” of floor to ceiling space. Therefore the design should be revised with
the addition of 1’-6” to 2’ of floor to floor height at its ground floor so as to garner the required 12 foot
clear height for commercial space. In addition to being a requirement, we would suggest that a clear
height of 12 ft. is much more in keeping with industry standard for extra height at the ground floors of
contemporary hotels. The extra height obviously provides a clearer “base” level, garners much needed
light and visibility for the uses there, and generally speaks to the civic nature of the front of houses areas
that hotels are often expected to provide.
Exhibit D
5
(j)(4)(v)(B)
Scale and Massing
“Buildings greater than two stories or thirty (30) feet in height shall be designed to reduce apparent
mass and visually anchor the building to the site by including a clearly identifiable base, body and top,
with horizontal elements separating these components.” With a parking structure comprising the
dominant amount of the “base” area of this building, and thus having only columns or pilotis and open
air as its base, the building does not seem to present the stable ground plane this section suggests. Also,
with the predominantly flat roof and no cornice or overhangs at the sky plane, the top of this building
has no clear distinction from the, “body”. The building appears simplistic therefore, but for the metal
shard roof turning into wall notion that appears in a few select areas.
(j)(4)(viii)(C)
Synthetic Materials
“The use of synthetic materials is discouraged unless they can be shown to display the ability to age in
a manner similar to or superior to the natural materials they replace.” While it is uncertain whether or
not the materials selected for the project were meant to, “replace” natural versions, this development is
made up of nearly 100% synthetic replicas of wood, stone panels and plaster.
(j)(4)(x)(C)
Windows
“Upper floors shall be differentiated through the use of more solid areas than voids and with smaller
vertically oriented windows in a regular pattern.” The fenestration strategy for this development
appears to employ predominantly horizontally oriented windows (divided internally with some vertical
muntins), modernist, slit-type or eyebrow windows at the exit stairs and curtain wall- like glazing behind
the metal shard wall material at the Main Street and WBCB elevations.
Development Code standards for parking-only structures warrant inclusion due to the separation of uses
between the “base” and “body” of this building.
(j)(5)
Parking structures:
(i) “To the maximum extent feasible, (the) ground floor of parking structures shall be
wrapped with retail storefronts or residential uses to provide visual interest and to create
pedestrian activity at the street level.”
(v) “To the maximum extent feasible, parking structures shall be designed to significantly
screen or buffer views of parked cars from surrounding properties through the use of
architectural screens or other features.”
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
ZONING 1. The plans indicate 9,549 square feet of
landscaped area on site (14.2% of lot
area), and 6,631 square feet off-site,
bringing the total landscaped area to
24.17% of lot area. The code requires a
minimum of 20% on-site landscaped
area; therefore, the Town Council must
authorize using adjacent public land on
Tract G to meet minimum standards.
ADC Table 7-20-9
The percent of landscaping required per town
zoning is 20% of the total site area. This would
equate to 13,385 sf of the total site area of 66,925 sf.
Currently, the plan includes on-site landscaped area
of 11,102sf of the total lot area of 66,925sf, equal to
16.6% of the lot area. The applicant has submitted
an AEC application which proposes to landscape an
additional 4,372sf of adjacent property, including
3,230sf of Tract G (Pedestrian Mall), 739sf of Lot 4,
and 403sf of frontage along West Beaver Creek
Boulevard adjacent to Lot B. This additional
landscaped area would increase the total
landscaped area for the project to 21.7%.
2. Please demonstrate the total square
footage of the building coverage within
the lot to meet lot coverage
requirements.
See attached Landscape Area Calculations
freferencve rreference.
Site coverage per the plans is 36%
3. The plans must demonstrate
compliance with 80’ building height.
Please show the roof plan with USGS
existing contours underneath the
building.
See attached Roof Plan for reference.
The height of the building is less than the 80’ building
height maximum.
ALTERNATIVE
EQUIVALENT
COMPLIANCE
(AEC)
1. The code requires a 4:12 pitched roof.
Since the design utilizes a flat roof for the
primary form. ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(ix)
Consistent with ADC7.28.090(j)(4)(ix), sloped
secondary roof forms in the plan are at 4:12 in slope.
The flat roof form remains predominant in the plan.
We understand that it is discouraged; however, it is
utilized in the plan as it is beneficial to other
important considerations such as the inclusion of
solar panels and reduced ice/snow shed. It is also
consistent with neighboring properties.
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
2. Buildings greater than thirty (30) feet in
height shall be designed to reduce
apparent mass and visually anchor the
building to the site by including a clearly
identifiable base, body and top, with
horizontal elements separating these
components.” ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(B)
Pursuant to ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(B), the design has
been modified to include architectural elements
that clearly define the base, body, and top of the
building. These include elements such as distinct
color/texture, varied materials, and the addition
identifiable architectural treatments.
3. After 45’ of vertical rise, buildings are
required to have a step back of at least
8’. ADC 7.28.090(j)(4)(v)(D)
AEC Application is included as part of development
application
ACCESS
AND
CIRCULATION
1. According to Avon’s access
management guidelines, curb cuts are
generally limited to one point of access.
Please demonstrate how the second
entry “required for necessity, create[s] a
better site design and that safety to the
traveling public will not be
compromised.” ADC 7.28.030(d)(6). The
curb cuts are separated by 70 feet.
Ideally these curb cuts will be
consolidated.
The project plan has been modified to include one
curb cut.
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
2. Demonstrate how Lot C is served with
this access easement and agreement.
The access ramp indicates a retaining
wall on the west side. Please show
details for this retaining wall and how it is
finished.
Lot C will utilize the access drive to enter the lot from
the south-east side. The plan includes a landing 20
feet from the street entrance. This will serve as the
grade level entrance to Lot C. Lot C has indicated
that future plans will not include an underground
garage. Therefore it is not expected that Lot C will
use the lower end of the access ramp.
3. The proposed parking ramp has a grade
of 9.4%. Site distance could be limited
approaching West beaver Creek Blvd,
particularly to see pedestrians and
bicycles. The sloping driveway is
required to have no more than a 4%
slope for the first 20 feet from the edge
of the street pavement. ADC
7.28.030(d)(9)(iii)
The plan has been modified to include one entrance
at the shared access across from Sun Rd. The ramp
slope has been modified and will be further defined
as plans for the design of WBCB are finalized.
4. What is the suggested turning
movements for delivery and service
vehicles?
Service vehicles can be accommodated per the
included vehicle movement plan. Service vehicles
will turn into the entry drive from WBCB and proceed
to the first landing. At the landing, vehicles will turn
left into the upper parking entrance. They will then
back out into the access drive and back down to
the service area. Vehicles will depart directly up the
ramp to WBCB.
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
5. The current circulation schemes require
hotel guests to drive out to WBCB after
checking in, to access the ramp that
connects with the lower level parking
garage. Connecting to the ramp from
underneath the building appears could
be studied.
Plan has been modified to eliminate this circulation
scheme.
MOBILITY
AND
CONNECTIVITY
1. While there is a direct pedestrian
connection from the Main Street
Pedestrian Mall to the hotel entrance, a
connection lacks from the WBCB side to
the hotel entrance. Planning suggests a
delineated material or striping
connecting WBCB to the entrance, and
widening the entrance near the Mall to
allow for a more seamless pedestrian
experience. ADC 7.28.040(e)(4).
A 6’-0” accessible pedestrian walkway is being
provided along the shared access easement on the
north-west side of the lot. Use of different paving
material, lighting, and landscape will be provided to
delineate walk way.
2. Bicycle facilities at a rate of 1 bicycl e
parking space per 10 vehicles (21 total
spaces required) be placed within 150’
from the primary building entrance in a
conveniently located area. Please
demonstrate compliance with this code
requirement. ADC 7.28.020(J)
21 Bicycle parking spaces have been provided on
both grade level and lower level parking.
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
3. The north to south pedestrian connection
along the reciprocal access easement is an
extension of Sun Road. This corridor not only
has the potential to create a desirable four
way stop along Beaver Creek Boulevard but
it also provides access form WBCB to the
Main Street Pedestrian Mall. This is a critical
connection identified in the Avon West
Town Center Investment Plan and the draft
WBCB Reconstruction Plan. The current
plans do not show any pedestrian
connection in this location. A safe attractive
pedestrian corridor through this easement or
a more intuitive connection through the
parking lot should be explored.
A 6’-0” accessible pedestrian walkway is being
provided along the shared access easement on the
north-west side of the lot. Use of different paving
material, lighting, and landscape will be provided to
delineate walk way.
SCREENING
1. How is the refuse screened from view?
ADC 7.28.060
The refuse and recycling area is located below
grade level on the north-west side of the lot. In this
location, it is not visible from WBCB or adjacent
property owners.
2. Please show how any rooftop
mechanical equipment will be screened
from nearby taller buildings. ADC
7.28.060(d)
Rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened
per the plan utilizing sloped roof elements that are
integral to the design. These sloped roof elements
are at least as high as the mechanical equipment
being screened.
SNOW
STORAGE
1. The sloping drive is shown to have
snowmelt. What are the total dimensions
of pavement heating for the project?
The Exterior Energy Offset requirements
will be triggered for area in excess of 200
square feet. Avon Municipal Code
(AMC) 15.27
The plan includes 31,813 sf snow melt area. Per the
Exterior Energy Offset program, the project includes
renewable energy systems that will be installed on-
site prior to completion of the project which will
generate the equivalent of at least 50% of the
energy needed for the exterior energy use. Energy
use includes snowmelt, outdoor pool, and hot tub
facilities.
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
2. Please include a snow storage plan for
areas that will not be snow melted.
No snow storage is provided on the property as all
exterior areas will utilize snowmelt.
PARKING
STUDY
1. This study appears to meet the
requirements of 7.28.020(g)(4)(ii), which
allows for parking demand studies that
are based upon relevant data and
combination of land uses between Lot
55, Avon Center, and Lot B.
The study has been updated to include parking for
included retail space.
2. Retail space in the hotel, while minimal,
does not appear to be accounted for.
3. The analysis accounts for six (6) spaces
in the street. The final plans for WBCB are
forthcoming and these spaces should
not be accounted for until plans are
final.
DESIGN
STANDARDS
1. The corrugated metal material for roofs will
need to be presented. Are there examples
of this material in use in a similar way on
other projects? There are maintenance,
finish appearance, and aesthetic concerns
as the material stretches all the way to
ground level in certain points
The standing seam roofs are used throughout the
Colorado mountain area. The plan does not use
corrugated metal. The use of this material is to
provide durable, long lasting roofing as well as to
provide flexibility to be able to provide screening of
any roof equipment.
2. Material #12 is not shown on the plans.
Please demonstrate where it is located.
The concrete panel noted as material #12 will be
used as an accent color within the swisspearl panels
on the lower level
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
3. Lighting – AMC 15.30
- Please confirm the plan indicates 2
poles (AA 1-3) on WBCB.
- The bollards on the Mall must match
existing bollards in the Mall.
- Please confirm that the FF lighting
housing is “full cutoff” per code.
2 light pole have been added to WBCB
Bollards will be provided on the mall to match
existing.
4. The WBCB side of the building does not
appear to be a pedestrian friendly scale or
4-sided design as the Development Code
encourages. ADC 7.28.090(j)(4
The plan has been modified as follows: 1) Balconies
have been added to WBCB side of building. These
balconies will serve to connect guests in the hotel to
WBCB; 2) the ground level frontage on WBCB
includes landscaping elements that encourage
public gathering and interaction with the project
area; and 3) the entrance to the accessible
pedestrian walkway that connects WBCB to the
pedestrian mall is integrated with the WBCB end of
the building.
5. Please refer to the attached ‘Review of a
Major Development Plan Submittal’
performed by Oz Architecture, dated
August 8, 2016, for additional design
comments to be taken into consideration
when finalizing the plans.
MISC. 1. The number of hotel units is listed as 140,
141, and 142 in different places. Please
provide the accurate number across
documents.
142
2. Fire
- An Initial Code Summary for fire will be
necessary.
- What is the movement for fire trucks?
- If there is not truck access on the property is
there a Fire Command Center? If so, where
is it located? NEED TO INCLUDE.
- What is the fire rating of the construction?
Fire access will be off WBCB with use of Fire
Access Entry
A fire command control will also be provided at
WBCB exit stair. See attached 11x17 exhibit.
The hotel will be Type I construction on 1st level +
type V construction on the 4 floors built on
concrete base
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
- What type of glass is suggested for the two
perpendicular faces of the exit stairs on the
WBCB side? They must be 2-hr fire rated
(1027.6 of fire code)
The exit stairs @ WBCB are exterior stairs with a
glass facade
The 2 hour rating will be between the guest room
and corridor into the exterior exit stairs.
3. Mechanical
- Where will the exhaust from laundry facilities
be located? Will there be a diesel
generator? Will these areas be forced to
vent onto the Mall?
- What types of mechanical units will be on
the roof?
- Will each room have its own AC unit, or will it
be roof mounted?
- Where is the roof access point and will it
require a stair access or hatch?
Laundry exhaust will be from lower level parking and
may be vented to roof, not to mall area.
Each room will have its own fan coil A/C unit piped
to mechanical equipment on roof.
One of the 3 exit stairs will extend to the roof.
Technical
Issues (Oz
Report)
1. Service Area Access
- Location of service areas and access drives
- Will loading and service areas be screened
from being visible off site?
Service and loading areas will be located below
grade. As such, it will not be visible from either WBCB
or the pedestrian mall. Service vehicles will access
the area via the drive from WBCB.
2. Locations of mechanical equipment
- Where are they located?
- How are they screened?
Most equipment will be located on the roof and will
be screened by roof elements. Some mechanical
equipment will be in the lower level parking area.
3. Kitchen exhaust and trash smells
- How will they be vented?
- How are they screened?
The hotel will be a limited service establishment
offering pre-prepared foods. Therefore, there will be
minimal cooking equipment and resulting odors.
Trash area is located below grade and a significant
distance from the pedestrian mall.
4. Condominium/Fitness Building Trash
- Where is trash located?
Trash will be taken to the trash enclosure in the
service area.
Exhibit D
TOWN APPLICANT RESPONSE
5. Locations of mechanical equipment in the
condo building
- Where are they located?
- How are they screened?
Mechanical equipment will primarily be in the units
and venting will be to the roof.
6. Clearance height for bridge
The bridge design has been modified to meet the
requirements of the fire department.
7. Ground floor commercial spaces must be at
least 12’ in height
The design has been modified to meet this
requirement.
Exhibit D
Post Office Box 7980/351 Benchmark Road. Avon, Colorado 81620-7980
Phone: 970-736-5064• FAX: 970-949-7965· Email: mwoodworth@eagleriverfire.org
October 19, 2016
Matt Pielsticker
Town of Avon
Comments Avon Hotel
1) Emergency ingress/egress grade. The 8.1% grade meets the requirements for apparatus access.
16 feet wide access is acceptable by the fire district. I do want to know how the emergency
access will be gated. Gate, Chain, Collapsible Bollards, etc.
2) Fire lane or equivalent on Beaver Creek rd. Beaver Creek road will need to be designed with fire
engine parking at the command room. A sidewalk bump out or cars parked on the road at the
command room will cause Beaver Creek road to be shut down anytime that the fire engine
responds to the Avon Hotel.
3) Fire Command Room. The location of the fire command room will need to be added to the plans.
I found the section that has the fire hydrant, standpipe and command room but it is not at an
actual location.
4) Hydrant. I do see that the hydrant will be moved to the west side of the emergency access. This
is great, it will keep the fire hose out of the way of the apparatus that will be using the
emergency access.
Matt, I believe that these are my concerns. I do want to look at the final when it arrives. Please let me
know if you require anything else.
Mick
Exhibit D
1 October 18, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
One Lake Street
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 PM by chairperson Clancy.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were present.
III. Conflicts of Interest
No conflicts of interest were reported.
IV. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
A new item was added to the agenda: AEC16006,
File: AEC16006
Application Type: Alternative Equivalent Compliance
Legal Description: Lot 20, Block 4
Applicant/Owner: Jack Hunn
Summary: Application for an Alternative Equivalent Compliance to replace three substantial
trees with a total of 9 trees of varying height.
Action: Commissioner Barnes made a motion to approve the application with the following findings
of fact:
(1) The application was reviewed pursuant to AMC 7.16.120, Alternative Equivalent Compliance;
(2) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the design standard to the same or better
degree than the subject standard;
(3) The proposed alternative achieves the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to
the same or better degree than the subject standard;
(4) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or
better than compliance with the subject standard;
(5) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would
occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title; and
(6) The proposed landscaping plan contains more Landscaping Units than would be required
following the AMC.
Commissioner Hardy seconded the motion and the motion passed with a 7-0 vote.
V. Consent Agenda
Action: Commissioner Barnes moved to approve the consent agenda; Commissioner Hardy seconded
the motion, and the motion passed 6-0, with Commissioner Minervini absent for the vote.
VI. Sign Design – Joint Public Safety Building
File: SGN16008
Application Type: Master Sign Program
Legal Description: Lot 1B, Buck Creek / 60 Buck Creek Road
2 October 18, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Applicant/Owner: Town of Avon
Summary: Application for a Master Sign Program for freestanding directional and building
identification signage.
Action: Commissioner Minervini made a motion to table, and requested more information
about site layout and sign envelopes. Commissioner Bonidy seconded and the
motion passed with a 7-0 vote.
VII. Work Session – Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Summary: Review of Goals and Policies strikethrough.
VIII. Approval of Meeting Minutes
October 4, 2016 Meeting Minutes
Action: Commissioner Minervini moved to approve the minutes as amended; Commissioner Hardy
seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
IX. Staff Approvals
Bank of America Sign – 25 Hurd Lane
Color Change - 2852 O’Neal Spur
X. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 PM.
Approved this 1st Day of November, 2016
SIGNED:
_______________________
Jim Clancy, Chairperson