Loading...
PZC Packet 071707WORK SESSION (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission ,6, Meeting Agenda for July`17, 2007 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon.Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road 3•' Description: Discussion of Regular Agenda Items. Work session is open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order It. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda r IV. Conflicts of Interest rtrk V. Consent Agenda ; ; • Approval of the June 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes. • Approval of the June 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes. . x VI. PUD Amendment/ Hamel — CONTINUED Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant Land Planning Collaborative/ Owner: Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to six single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes and restricted to 5,000 square feet. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. VII. PUD Amendment / Sheraton Mountain Vista - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision /140 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Applicant/Owner: Points of Colorado, Inc Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing property rights and zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application proposes to eliminate a 125 -room hotel, and increase the number of time-share units in the project's last phase of development. This application was last reviewed at the March 21, 2006 Commission meeting. VIII. Zoning Text Amendment Applicant: John Dunn, Town Attorney Posted on July 13, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • Avon Public Library • On the Internet at httD://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Description: Text amendment proposal concerning the applicability of the Town of Avon /`4r Munigioal Code to public projects: 0 IX. Sketch Design Plans - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 112, Single -Family Property Location: Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / Beaver Creek Point Applicant: Bill Nutkins/Owner: BBG Investments Description: Sketch Design for a Single -Family residence in the Wildridge Subdivision. The Lot is accessed off of Beaver Creek Point. The design features a 5,600 square foot residence with a 3 -car garage, and wood, stucco, and stone siding. B. Lot 69, Duplex Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane Applicant/ Owner: David Forenza Description: Sketch Design for a duplex residence in the Wildridge Subdivision. The Lot is accessed off of Ferret Lane. The design features a total of 8,900 square foot building with wood, stucco, and stone siding. X. East Avon Draft Plan Description: Detailed review of the remainder of Chapter 2 (Physical Plan), pages 25-43. This review will also include Chapter 3 (Implementation) of the Town Center East District Plan. The draft plan is dated May 10, 2007. Last review took place at the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting. XI. Urban Renewal Plan Description: First review of the Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan for review and recommendation to Town Council. A public hearing before the Town Council to adopt the Plan is scheduled for August 14`h 2007. The purpose of this meeting is to allow the Commission sufficient time to review, ask questions, and provide comments prior to the August 14`h public hearing and formal adoption of the Plan. XII. Other Business • Walkin' the Dog - Re -review requested at June 19, 2007 meeting • Lot 75, Block 4, Wildridge: Fence Staff Approval Review • July 31, 2007 Special Meeting to review Town Center Design Guidelines XIII. Adjourn Posted on July 13, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • _ Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • : Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby •' Avon Public Library • On the Internet at httD://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 19, 2007 VON Avon Townn i Cou c I Chambers ° ` ° " " ° ° Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - Work Session with Avon Town Council - - Work Session - 1. Madison Partners PUD Review Property Location: Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC / Owner: Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a revised plan for a 112 -unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. This application was reviewed with a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission's February 20, 2007 meeting. This is a revised proposal, and there is limited information being proposed. Matt Pielsticker revealed that there was no formal presentation by staff and documentation was provided in the Commissioner packets. Tab Bonidy, VAG, requested the Commission to gather around pictures hung on the wall. Greg Macik demonstrated changes from the original presentation, commented that landscaping would be used to hide the base of the building, and the decreased height of the building. Commission comments included the competition of a restaurant not in the Town Core might be inappropriate, using native Colorado vegetation, the shotcrete wall, traffic generation by a restaurant, and the LEED certification proposed. Bette Todd, Canyon Run resident, commented that she was contacted to give input on the project to the developers and stated that the project was very large, asked if the Commission felt it fit the Avon concept of development, the project does not step back to the hillside, significant engineering was needed for the 40% slope, didn't believe the restaurant was an issue, and the developer had been trying to get together with the residents. Commissioner Goulding commented that Leeds certification was presented when the project was done and the pedestrian connection to the Town. Commissioner Struve agreed with Commissioner Goulding regarding a quality material and architectural design. Commissioner Struve continued with concern regarding parking. Commissioner Lane commented that he would like to see the perspective from the road, and an effort to link this project to the Town. Commissioner Green would like to see how the parking gets resolved; has concerns with the number of units; affordable housing was of key importance, possible restaurant use was questioned; an improved pedestrian connection to Avon's core was important; and the reduction in massing was the right direction. Commissioner Smith stated the restaurant was an issue along with parking concerns. Commissioner Green would like to hear from the community. - Regular Meeting - 11. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:50 pm. III. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Evans. IV. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. V. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts to disclose. VI. Consent Agenda • Approval of the June 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes with the following corrections per Commissioner Green: page 1, last paragraph, end of Vh line, the word 'and' to be replaced by'than'; page 5, East Avon Draft Plan, reword to read "is Avon Road the line of demarcation we want to have between a higher and a lower part of Town?"; and, last sentence under East Avon Draft Plan should read that the "message" was to the Orion Group what was being proposed was not in scale and in keeping with what is in the Comp Plan or in the proposed East Town Development Plan. Commissioner Green moved to return to the next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting with revised June 5`h, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes to reflect Commissioner Green's revamp request. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 4-0 with Commissioner Goulding abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. VII. PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative /Owner: Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 four-plex) to six single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes and restricted to 5,000 square feet. Design and building standards would be tied to the new properties. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission along with additional letters from the public. Tambi Katieb, Land Planning Collaborative, introduced the members of his team and an outline of his presentation. Mr. Katieb began with a pictorial demonstration of the project framework, area slopes, site constraints, grading and roads in the area. Gerald �'o Miramonte, Miramonte Architects, approached the podium to discuss the building footprint, the slope survey analysis and access solutions to the site. Mr. Katieb commented on the proposed architecture of heavy timbers and presented criteria for public benefit. Mr. Katieb continued that the project was consistent with the Design Review Guidelines and staging was discussed. Commissioner Struve questioned the pump house and water mains. Mr. Katieb replied that it would not be impacted by construction of these lots. Commissioner Smith questioned un -buildable area. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Anne Clark, 5021 Wildridge Road East resident, provided a letter regarding this project to the Commission and approached the podium regarding her concern with the number of homes on the far end of the property and mentioned the concern of her neighbor, the Reese's, and another neighbor, Scott Rella whose kitchen would be impacted and mentioned his concern with the close proximity of the homes to the property line. Ms. Clark mentioned the wildlife corridor was an issue. Sherry Peach, 5183 Longsun resident, approached the podium to comment that the west side had a 5 home density and it seemed very dense. Ms. Peach continued that the natural environment needed to be maintained and site disturbance needed to be minimized. Brian Nolan, Longsun cul-de-sac resident, revealed that he agreed with Commissioner Green that as development novice, it is difficult to perceive and requested that Mr. Katieb walk him through the proposed development. Mr. Nolan questioned the approval process for the PUD and the variance with Commissioner Green responding on procedure. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green began commissioner review by agreeing to the size and grading of the site, commented that the applicant had to work closely with the neighborhood, that neighbors voiced a density problem and that the applicant's proposal was a better plan than originally proposed. Commissioner Green also suggested sketch up to Mr. Miramonte as a quick trick, expressed that the site was very difficult, concerned with cuts, agreed with staff findings, and there was a need to honor the land by watching how it was cut, filled and mitigated. Commissioner Lane commented that the presentation was well thought out, addressed the town's needs, concerned with the retaining wall's visual, deed restricted unit — in like with the other structures on site, importance was massing and its presentation to the neighbors, and elevations from the road to the neighbors would be beneficial. Commissioner Green voiced that a 3 dimensional view of this project could show the neighborhood what they had in mind on such a complicated site. Commissioner Struve commented that the two lots are like apples and oranges, 150 AMI and not 200 Ami, too much density on west side, 5000 sq ft with the garage was acceptable, roadway cut would be a real challenge and it would be desirable to have bear cut instead of retaining walls. Commissioner Goulding agreed with the approach of the access, allocation of density was an issue, another dwelling unit on the east side, affordable housing unit was a great idea, proponent of 'green' building, and commented that the developer was heading in the right direction but density was an issue. Commissioner Smith agreed with the strategy of what the developer was trying to do and Lot 38 had a lot of massing, massing models would be encouraged. Commissioner Green brought up concern with the wildlife mitigation through Wildridge and he would like to see it put on the table and identified. Mr. Katieb commented that there are landscaping directions that would address wildlife mitigation. Mr. Miramonte mentioned that he created a corridor, at his personal residence between himself and his neighbor, to accommodate a wildlife corridor. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VII, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road with Commissioner Green seconding and the motion passed unanimously with a 5 — 0 vote. VIII. Sketch Plans - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 3, Western Sage Single -Family Property Location: Lot 3, Western Sage PUD 15205 Longsun Lane Applicant: John G. Martin / Owner: Ted Leach, Western Sage Partners, LLC Description: Sketch Design for a Single -Family residence in the Western Sage PUD. Lot is accessed from private drive off cul-de-sac on Longsun Lane. The Design features a 2 -car garage, European style design with wood siding, stucco/stone siding, and large simple roof form. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. Jeff Manley, architect, approached the podium to address this application. Mr. Manley began by commenting on the differences of the three homes. Commissioner Green began commissioner review by commenting that he liked the design, any changes made were minute and not significant enough, too cookie cutter. Commissioner Smith mentioned that the homes were to be different in design. Commissioner Green agreed with staff that he was concerned with the precedent this home would create, needed more diversity and not more conformity. Commissioner Lane materials are there and form, too, but not enough differentiation. Commissioner Struve commented that the penetrations are different but the massing was the same, suggested picking up some of the design of the Ruther residence. Commissioner Goulding voiced its cookie cutter look and not complimentary, concerned with massing and roof forms. Ted Leach, one of the owners, commented that Lots 1 and 2 were approved with slight variations and questioned if Lot 3 had to be different, too. Commissioner response was that all homes were to be different. Commissioner Green commented that a clipped roof was a trick to diversity. B. Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision 14080 Wildridge Road West Applicant: Michael Hazard lOwner. Advanced Home Technologies, LLC r Description: Sketch Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Struve questioned the site coverage on CD 2.2 areas 5 on both sides. Commissioner Green questioned the driveway easement; Mr. Barnes responded that easement was a utility easement. Michael Hazard, applicant representative, approached the podium and introduced the site to the Commission and acknowledged awareness of the utilities in the easement and the responsibility to remove driveway at owner's expense to access. Mr. Hazard continued by addressing staff concerns with access and the neighbor's impact of the development — i.e., headlights, snow storage; and continued with discussing the courtyard concept, flat roof design and other site issues. Ernie and Bonnie Atlas, Lot 14 resident — 4151 Little Point, approached the podium to express that his initial impression was negative on this project. Mrs. Atlas commented to her husband that this design might compliment the Atlas home, the access road would be within 15 feet to their home, old trees would be removed to accommodate the road, and Mr. Atlas voiced safety concern for his grandchildren playing so close to the road, water drainage would go directly onto his property, not enough room for a snowplow to plow snow away from his property, light pollution was an issue with the deer, and headlights would be in his dining room, voiced concern with emergency vehicle access, and suggested the project move westward in order to accommodate the 25 foot setback. Mr. Atlas voiced that a hardship variance be granted to the neighbors to move the road 10 to 15 feet. Victoria Dauphnie, Wildridge Road West resident, her property overlooks this land, and requested that the hardship variance not be approved as it would impact her property, size down the project to accommodate the driveway, aesthetics of the buildings were in keeping of the neighbors but that this neighbor was unique to other surrounding homes in this area. Peter Warren, 4181 Beaver Creek Point, commented that approach in conformance to codes and guidelines, does it integrate with the neighborhood, and how large a mass it was, and the character of the architecture regarding the consistency, and sun and view impact. Mr. Warren continued with concern for easements of the town and the utilities. Gerald Miramonte, residence across from this project, commented with support of this project, revealed it was fun, not boring, novel connection of the units, and the plan was interesting. Mike Kelso, lives across from this project, supported Mr. Atlas' concerns with this project regarding easements and four residences on a ten foot road was a issue. Commissioner review began with Commissioner Goulding commenting that it was a large cluster of four identical units, access to the joint lots was an issue; perhaps shift it with two accesses. Commissioner Struve could not approve the driveway, setback variance has never been supported by the commission, greater differentiation between the duplexes was encouraged, colors would be key and should compliment the abode on Lot 14, and agreed that there were other ways to take advantage of the lot. Commissioner Lane approved of the individual massing, sketch makes project look very hard, appreciated the different style; materials would be a big part, and the need to address the neighbor's concerns. Commissioner Green liked the concept, a community duplex, interior courtyards create a sense of community within the duplexes, not hung up on the materials, potential to do a sophisticated color scheme that integrates with natural color, not in favor of variance, concerned with driveway over easement, fine with the architectural styling, and needed refining. Commissioner Smith mentioned that the two duplexes were identical and it was a concern. Mr. Hazard responded that he prefer to create a vocabulary of materials to provide differentiation. C. Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West Applicant: Michael Hazard IOwner.- Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Sketch Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in stucco and wood to diminish scale. See comments on Lot 12 above. IX. Minor Project - Shed Addition Property Location: Lot 41-B, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road Applicant: James G. Downs, Tuff Shed, Inc. / Owner Tony Prior Description: Construct a shed in the side yard of the subject property. The shed exterior finish will match the existing residence. Jared Barnes presented the staff report James Downs, Tuff Shed, approached the podium and explained the need for the shed was to contain the owner's possessions. Mr. Downs continued that the building would not be visible from the roadway and it was not a substantial structure. Commissioner Goulding commented that this is not the right solution to the applicant's storage issues by use of an ancillary building. Commissioner Struve would have to see this bumped up against the house and not a separate building. Commissioner Lane the structure was not right for the site. Commissioner Green commented that the owner has a toy problem and not a garage problem, and a shed was not an appropriate solution and it sets an inappropriate precedent. Commissioner Smith agreed with staff and it would set a precedent. Commissioner Struve moved to deny Item IX, Minor Project - Shed Addition, Property Location: Lot 41-13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 5 — 0. X. East Avon Draft Plan Description: Detailed review of Chapter 1 (Introduction/Background), and the Land Use portion of Chapter 2 of the Town Center East District Plan. The draft plan is dated May 10, 2007. Matt. Pielsticker discussed the memo presented to the Commission and was looking for comfort with pages 1 through 24. Larry Brooks, Town Manager, revealed his concern with written comments being handed to staff and recommended that to close the circle with a group discussion. Commissioner Green began by discussing the introduction — pedestrian circulation did not make sense; 8`h from bottom — common architectural character should be replaced with interesting architectural character; planning considerations ie Leeds; page 9 — paragraph 2 — building massing and footprints, etc.... needed a better disclaimer; third bullet point from bottom — district character needed to be better communicated, more specific, what is being encouraged; page 11, 3`d bullet point — what does it mean, don't sell to second homeowners needed to be articulated better; next bullet point third line — floor to ceiling ratio needed better definition; page 12 strike 'big box' in first bullet — mid size anchors and no big box, use retailers up to 15,000 sq ft; 'minimizing gaps in retail' — what about cool alleys, wrapping corners, arcade type; page 14 — under existing residential — so what to the 14 units came from; page 19 — proposed commercial use table — convenience goods, what does the term mean and is there a better term for it; page 22 — graphic — needs more character illustrate pedestrian ways, etc., plaza shouldn't be represented as four walls, needed to be more touchy Feely; have medical facilities closer to transportation and more accessible; page 23 — tenants plaza overall — encourage the use of outdoor space; book stores are not shown on plan; too sector-ized; post office needs to be on list; plaza overall could use more definition; omit pages 21 and 23; diagrams on page 22 could be eliminated; page 24 use pictures of building and not what is presented; page 7 schematic diagrams were unanimously great; page 25 — planning principles should define size of sidewalks; page 25 — 1" bullet point needs to encourage use; page 25 — 2"d bullet point — do not identify Christie Lodge but reinforce the concept; make an attempt to make the town LEED certified by presenting certain concepts; coversheet illustrated needs to be redesigned; need to state this plan is merely guidance; page 5 — need to emphasize full time residential; page 5 — need to emphasize varying building height; page 10 — item 15 — needs to be reworded; page 11 — 1 '` bullet — expand and create comfortable full time residential uses; page 15, last line, 2nd line — define residential, strike higher residency rate; XI. Other Business • Sutter fence was discussed, project was built over the last weekend, application met the intent of the fence guidelines, less than 2000 sq ft, two horizontal beams, does not impede wildlife, and planning to stain to match house. Dominic Mauriello, duplex neighbor, had no objection to the fence. Next step was to check square footage. Issue was that he did not comply with procedure. Other neighbor was concerned with fence. Commissioner Struve suggested that the Sutter's needed to come up with a remedy. Commissioner Green commented that the issue was that they built a fence without approval. Commissioner Goulding voiced that they need to apply for the fence and P & Z needs to approve, or they would need to rip it out. Matt Gennett revealed that P & Z could call up the Staff Approval. Commissioner Green suggested calling back the fence for Planning & Zoning Commission approval, Commissioner Goulding seconded. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. • Walkin the Dog — engineered plans are anticipated for the July 17`h meeting, they are trying to work out the access, and they need to get approval for what was already done. Commissioner Green voiced that she needs to know to come back and Commissioner Struve get her to bring her plans in. Commissioner Green — the Planning and Zoning Commission has he power to bring back the SRU. Commissioner Green requested Ms. Lehman be at the 17`" meeting to review what is happening on site. • Commissioner Green commented on the construction project at Bear Trap — Matsen project — materials on bike path, move onto site. XII. Adjourn Commissioner Goulding motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Terry Smith Vice Chairman Phil Struve Secretary w Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission f Meeting Minutes for June 5, 2007 VON Avon Town Council Chambers ° ` ° " A ° ° Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - Work Session with Avon Town Council - VAG, Inc. / Orion East Avon Concept Review (5:00pm) Description: Preliminary review of a redevelopment concept that encompasses four properties in the East Town Center District: Christy Sports (Lot 21), Avon Annex (Lot 65- B), Town of Avon parcel (Lot 65-A), and the Benchmark Shopping Center (Tract O). Matt Gennett presented the Staff Memo to the Commission and members of Town Council. Pedro Campos, VAG, Inc., approached the podium to present the Orion East Avon Concept and requested feedback from the audience. Mr. Campos began by describing the goal of this project, square footages for retail, residential, office space, commercial space, open space and parking, above and underground. Mr. Campos commented that the land use mix had changed from the initial presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission and presented a slide of its detail that incorporated Lot 65 and another scenario without Lot 65. Ron Wolfe questioned compensation to the Town for Lot 65. Considerations for solar and snow issues were addressed in the design. Mr. Campos continued by demonstrating various design schemes. Commissioner Evans asked about root balls for large trees and where can they be planted with the underground parking. Additional slides were presented of easterly views, and overall project view showing currently existing structures. Brian Judge, Orion Development, approached the podium to further discuss the project and address utilities. Commissioner Evans commented on the consolidation of these parcels and the size, height and scale of the project as issues of immediate discussion with Town Council. Council concerns included height from the highway, what is the public benefit, height maximums for the Tract A of the Village at Avon, tunnel effect from the height of the buildings, and conference facilities as well as employee housing. Mr. Judge discussed the roads, pedestrian access, heights and widths. Commissioner Lane remarked that parcels are secondary to the massing and require a greater of style of architecture than what is being sold to the town. Commissioner Struve questioned the lot consolidation, the benefit at concept; commented that Avon has too many alleys and streets, good space for larger retailers, main street alignment and amenities are good, and the height as a precedent. Commissioner Smith was not as concerned with the consolidation as much as with height and massing, residential defined as year long residents, and tall buildings like Denver was not a goal. Commissioner Green complimented the streetscape, links between the two center plans was good, not concerned with density, height an issue, greater articulation needed on the north building, architecture will be very important, and was torn on the height/density issue. Commissioner Evans agreed with the streetscape, consolidation not as difficult as building bulk, not as concerned with height but width in the sketch up models creates huge walls, bird's eye view not favored, not looking for an urban downtown, bulk was too much for the site and the entire East Avon plan. The Commission reinforced their concerns about the general bulk, mass and height as presented in the concept plans, and ensured it was on the official record. - Regular Meeting - II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:55 pm. III. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Goulding. IV. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Move Item IX, Site Tour Follow-up, Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision I 254 Riverfront Lane, Item X, A, Final Design Plans - Wildridge Subdivision, Lot 1, Western Sage Single -Family, Property Location: Lot 1, Western Sage PUD / 5201 Longsun Lane, and Item X, B, Beowulf Single -Family, Property Location: Lot 6, Western Sage PUD, Block 4 / 5775 Wildridge Road East to the Consent Agenda. V. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Lane revealed a conflict with Item IX, Site Tour Follow-up, Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane. VI. Consent Agenda • Approval of the May 15, 2007 Meeting Minutes. • Item IX, Site Tour Follow-up, Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane • Item X, A, Final Design Plans - Wildridge Subdivision, Lot 1, Western Sage Single -Family, Property Location: Lot 1, Western Sage PUD / 5201 Longsun Lane • Item X, B, Beowulf Single -Family, Property Location: Lot 6, Western Sage PUD, Block 4 / 5775 Wildridge Road East Commissioner Green moved to approve the Consent Agenda with Commissioner Smith seconding the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Both Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Lane abstained from voting. VII. Executive Session — Town Attorney Meeting with the Town Attorney pursuant to CRS 24-6-402 (4)(b) conference with the Town Attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions related to a future Zoning Code Text Amendment. Commissioner Green moved to come out of executive session. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. VIII. PUD Amendment— PUBLIC HEARING 1w Property Location: Lot 1 Chateau St. Claire Subdivision / 38390 Highways 6 & 24 ApplicanUOwner. CSC Land LLC c/o Tim Barton, Manager Description: An amendment to the approved Development Agreement between the applicant and the Town of Avon. John Dunn, Town of Avon Attorney, approached the podium to present an Amendment to the Development Agreement and its date requirements, and the history of the Gates project with its conditions as presented in his Memorandum of June 5, 2007. Commissioner Evans questioned why dates are again changed in the Development Agreement. Joel Rosenstein, attorney for the developer, approached the podium to answer questions and requested the removal of the timeshare amenity fee. Commissioner Struve commented that the Project Manager for the development came before the Commission two months ago and questioned why it wasn't mentioned at that time. Mr. Rosenstein responded that he was not aware of it at that time. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Mike Neary, Madison Partners, commenting they were under contract for the adjacent property known as the Folson Tract, approached the podium to ask about requirements of deadlines. John Dunn responded that Mr. Folson's attorney's had been contacted and that an easement needed to be dedicated by CFC Land. Mr. Neary stated that they could not enter to any agreement with the Gates without Development Rights being concluded and that they were willing to pay up to $25,000 as opposed to the 100% of the costs as desired by the Gates for the easement. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green motioned to approve Item VIII, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Lot 1 Chateau St. Claire Subdivision / 38390 Highways 6 & 24. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion that included the deletion of timesharing as a Use by Right and to include all staff recommendations. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 5-0. IX. Site Tour Follow-up Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Zehren & Associates / Owner: East West Partners Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Riverfront Lodge. The project is comprised of 75 whole ownership units with underground parking garage. This item was first reviewed by the Commission at their May 16, 2006 meeting, and later reviewed and approved at the October 3, 2006 Commission meeting. An on-site mockup review for this agenda item took place at that meeting, and the February 20, 2007 meeting, but was never formally approved. Moved to Consent Agenda. X. Final Design Plans - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 1, Western Sage Single -Family Property Location: Lot 1, Western Sage PUD / 5201 Longsun Lane w Applicant: John G. Martin / Owner: Ted Leach, Western Sage Partners, LLC Description: Final Design for a Single -Family residence in the Western Sage PUD. Lot is accessed from private drive off cul-de-sac on Longsun Lane. The design features a 2 -car garage, European style design with wood siding, stucco/stone siding, and large simple roof form. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. Beowulf Single -Family Property Location: Lot 6, Western Sage PUD, Block 4 / 5775 Wildridge Road East Applicant: Bobby Ladd & Buz Reynolds lOwner: Beowulf Lot 6 LLC Description: A single-family residence on a Western Sage PUD property, accessed off Wildridge Road East at the top of Wildridge. Sketch review took place at the May 1, 2007 meeting. Moved to Consent Agenda XI. Minor Projects A. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Fence Property Location: Tract P, Block 2, BMBC / 870 West Beaver Creek Boulevard Applicant: Todd Fessenden, ERWSD / Owner: Town of Avon Description: Design application to replace 6' wood fence on southern border of property with Union Pacific railroad with 6' black chain link fence (w/ slats) for privacy and security. Also included is replacement of 4' chain link fence on east side of building with 6' black chain link to match others. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Todd Fessenden, ERWSD, approached the podium to discuss the fence and began by giving the history of the fence and details of breaches to the fence and attempts to break into the facility. Mr. Fessenden continued that the wood fence was easy to kick through and greater security would be with a chain link fence. Commissioner Green suggested a nasty thorny plant at the base of the fence to aid in the security of the location and Mr. Fessenden commented that those plants were present in another area of the facility for the same reason. Commissioner Lane commented that there are several chain link fences in the area and was fine with the slats. Commissioner Green motioned to approve the proposed fence for ERWSD at West Beaver Creek Boulevard with the specific findings that the concerns for safety overrides the design concerns raised for the proposed fence; the current wood was not as secure as the proposed 6' chain link fence; and the facility affects a considerable number of Valley residents outside of Avon. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion, all Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 5-0. Additionally and not part of the motion, the Commissioners strongly encouraged 'softening' the base of the fence with some sort of human resistant plant material. B. Reisinger Deck Modifications Property Location: Lot 42A - E, Block 4, WR / 5101 E Longsun Lane Applicant/Owner William Reisinger Description: Proposal to replace vertical wooden deck balusters with horizontal metal cables for east unit of duplex unit. This material change was partially completed prior to application. ,� Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report Gail Reisinger, Duplex Owner, approached the podium to discuss this project, • apologized for not getting a permit for the work, • presented a picture of their home to the Commission, • sample of the cable used, - discussed how her view was obstructed by vertical pickets, • commented on number 4 of the staff report that the existing color will remain the same as before, • Item 6 — road visibility of the home as one out of ten people for visual roadway driving impact, - the neighbor had visibility and no objection to this deck, • no intention to paint the cable to match the stucco, and Mrs. Reisinger continued by presenting snapshots of the visibility from the road, • from various angles along with neighbors decks and the varying designs in the area. Commissioner Lane commented that this was an aesthetic issue as the fence disappears. Commissioner Struve mentioned to obtain an approval letter from the duplex neighbor and make sure it was Building Code compliant, and the corners were safe. Commissioner Lane motioned to approve Item XI, B, Reisinger Deck Modifications, Property Location: Lot 42A - E, Block 4, WR / 5101 E Longsun Lane with the condition of a letter from the neighbor. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All Commissioner were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. XII. East Avon Draft Plan - PUBLIC HEARING Description: Second review of draft Town Center East District Plan. Commissioner Green voiced that an issue was if Avon Road was the line of demarcation we want between the higher and lower part of Town, with big block massing or smaller individual buildings on smaller pieces of property - are the design guidelines strong enough to support the issues of this plan? Eric Heidemann mentioned that the Comp Plan Subcommittee was trying to strive to prevent more Sheraton type structures. Commissioner Smith commented that the buildings would have residential on the top floors with local residents within. Commissioner conversation included: what should the plan look like and how is it achieved; Orion deserved a clear signal to use the Plan, Plan generates a possibility to taper the building height and massing, and thinner building profile to enhance view corridors. Mr. Heidemann proposed to return at the next meeting to address pieces of the Plan which would be more manageable. Commissioner Evans commented that his goal was to make sure that the language was strong enough to preserve views and openness, and height, with a mixture of 4 to 6 stories, driven for the local community and not driven by monetary issues. Commissioner Green was concerned with large proposals and how much local housing was missing; liked the idea of varying heights, be clear on housing mixtures and move the tone to a local's town center. Commissioner Lane remarked that the Plan needed to be very specific and very clear as to what was expected via the draft plan. Commissioner Green mentioned that it be formula driven rather than a texture of the development. Commissioner Evans suggested vignettes to provide the theme without photos to predetermine. Mr. Heidemann stated that he would reinforce the message from the Commission to the Plan consultants, and that the next meeting will review the draft plan and Chapter 2 will be reviewed for the next meeting, XIII. Other Business • July 3rd meeting cancelled • Next Meeting: Hamel PUD, Madison Partners Revised PUD Work Session • Urban Renewal Authority is on the 6/12/07 Town Council meeting, said report will be distributed to the Commission. • Subcommittee meeting to discuss Duplex Guidelines will be scheduled for July date. • Housing discussion and the possibility of Guidelines versus Ordinances. • Walkin the Dog — deadline for erosion control and for Friday at 5pm, fencing is okay, engineer drawings are on the way and will be brought back to the Commission to review. Landowner has not responded. The SRU approval is up for review in November and can be called up at anytime if the conditions have been violated. Commissioner Evans suggested a restoration bond. X. Adjourn Commissioner Green motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary Ifiemo �, �� To: Planning and Zoning Commission AVO 1 From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner II c o L o x n o 0 Data July 12, 2007 Re: Hamel PUD Amendment - Tabled from June 19, 2007 Meeting Summary: After holding a public hearing at the June 19, 2007 meeting, this application was unanimously tabled by the Commission. At the meeting, several letters of public input were distributed to Commissioners. These written comments are attached as Exhibit C. There have been no further written comments received by Staff. At the public hearing on June 19th, three residents provided oral comments. And after a lengthy presentation by the applicant and discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the application was tabled in order to respond to the comments received. Since the last meeting, the applicant has produced a massing model, and a sketch up model for review. Additionally, the building envelopes have been staked in the field for Commissioner (and public) review. Please find time to visit the site and become more familiar with the exact building envelope and proposed driveway locations. Available Actions: The following options are available for action on this application: 1) Approve application with findings 2) Deny application with findings 3) Table application to future meeting Staff Recommendation: Based on the findings within Staffs previous report, dated June 12, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibit B, Staff is recommending conditional approval of this application. Exhibits: A - Letter from Applicant, dated July 10, 2007 B - Staff Report, dated June 12, 2007 (with attachments) C - Written Public Comments received to date D - Applicants Binder and Reduced Plans E - Stakeout Map, dated 5/11/07 July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Page 1 of 1 Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, W ildridge - Hamel PUD Amendment Exhibit A July 10, 2007 • Planning & Zoning Commissioners Avon Community Development Staff P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81631 RE: Hamel PUD Amendment - Tabling Z-PU2007-2 , Lots 38/39, Block 4, Wildridge Dear Commissioners & Staff: As requested upon tabling of our application at the June 19th meeting, we have prepared both a sketch up and massing model to review with you at the July 17th hearing. Unfortunately, as a result of tabling over the summer holiday of the 4th, we were unable to prepare and submit the massing model or sketch up for your advance review in this packet. In addition to evaluating the model, we will review all issues discussed with you at the initial hearing. We are hopeful that we can address and respond to any issues or concerns with the application as proposed and advance a project to Town Council that is a win-win for both the applicant and the Town. Kind Regards, RECEIVED JUL 1 0 2007 CMMW y Develw rn Tambi Katieb Cc: Frank Hamel Gerry Miramonti Land Planning Collaborative P.O. Drawer 3722 Eagle, CO 81631 Voice & Fax: 970.328.4364 Staff Report PUD -Amendment June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting EXHIBIT B C O L O R A D O Report Date June 12, 2007 Project Type Planned Unit Development Amendment Legal Description Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Current Zoning Lot 38 & Lot 110: 2 Units (Duplex) Lot 39: 4 Units (2 Duplexes or 1 Fourplex) Introduction The applicant, Land Planning Collaborative, is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 fourplex) to six single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes that are restricted to 5,000 square feet in size. Design and building standards would be tied to the new properties. Steep existing topography typifies the subject properties, with most of the street frontage and areas within Lot 39 containing slopes of over 40%. A shared driveway for the six single-family homes is being proposed. For reference, the approximate driveway location is staked in the field for review by the Commission. In addition to the reformatting of Lots 38 and 39, the applicant is proposing to construct a duplex and deed restrict one-half of it on Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision for a 'buyer qualification' unit. This unit is targeted to locals earning 200% of the Area Median Income (AMI). As proposed, the unit would be unlike other existing deed - restricted units in the Town by not carrying a price restriction. Rather, a 'buyer qualification' would be tied to the property requiring sales to be limited to locals - not second home owners. This staff report outlines all of the mandatory review criteria in Section III for the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council to consider when reviewing this application. Based on review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this report, staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of this application. II. Public Notice Requirement Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIM TW June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ommission meeting Page 2 of 9 AM This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to all property owners within 300' of the subject property. To date staff has been in contact with the owner of Lot 5, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision. This property is across the street immediately south of subject properties. As of the date of this report there have been no written comments received by staff. PUD Design Criteria According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating this application. According to Code, "It shalt be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution is consistent with the public interest." Please refer to Pages 4 - 14 of Exhibit A for the applicant's responses to these principal review criteria. 1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. District 24 Wildridae Residential District (Comp Plan Page 98-99) The subject properties are located in the "Wildridge Residential District." The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the limited number of existing trees and the open character of the Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan states that "special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings." One of the planning principles for this district is to "site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, be compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk." This land use proposal appears to be compatible with existing surrounding development. The building bulk would be dispersed with the building envelopes, and the new properties maximize the south facing exposure. Future Land Use Plan (Comp Plan Page 27) The Future Land Use Plan envisions continued "Residential Low Density" development. Residential Low Density development is intended to provide sites for single-family, duplex, and multi -family dwellings at a density no greater than 7.5 dwelling units per acre. If the "non -developable" areas (areas exceeding 40% existing slope) are subtracted from the net acreage of Lots 38 and 39, the density would be 2.8 units per acre. Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Pages 37 - 63) The Comprehensive Plan contains several regional policy goals related to land use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed PUD plans in Town. Some of the Goals and Policies that pertain to this application as follows: Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN( June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ommission meeting Page 3 of 9 AT, Policy B.2.3: Encourage cluster style development in areas of less density to promote creative and efficient site design that avoids impacts on environmental resources and augments open space. Staff Comment: This application proposes a cluster style development in a low- density neighborhood. While platted open space is a positive attribute, it is unlikely this development application would result in a net increase of open space. Policy C.1.1: Ensure that proposed development projects conform to the Future Land Use Plan's designations and are a scale and intensity appropriate for the planning district which they are located. Staff Comment: If density were calculated per Avon Zoning Code, Lots 38A -38F would be at a density of approximately 2.8 units per acre of "developable' land. This density is appropriate for the Wildridge Residential District. Policy C.2.2: Require new residential development to provide a variety of housing densities, styles, and types based upon the findings of a housing needs assessment study. Staff Comment: The housing needs assessment study was completed in November of 2006. This study finds a lack of most price ranges, particularly units below $450,000 value in Avon and Eagle County. As proposed, the 'move up' housing unit would be targeted to locals making 200% of the Area Median Income (AMI), or those who can afford a home priced at $570,000. The price of the 'move up' unit would not be restricted except for the initial sales price. While this specific type of housing unit does not exist in the community (i.e. buyer qualified — not price restricted and buyer qualified), in order to ensure that this unit remains affordable, staff recommends that the deed restriction agreement guarantee the following general criteria: initial sales price targeted for families making not more than 160% AMI, buyer qualified for full time Eagle County workers, and with a deed restricted tiered price appreciation cap structure. Policy F2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than separated from, the rest of the community. Staff Comment: The proposed deed restricted unit on Lot 110 would be connected to another free market unit, and integrated with the rest of the subdivision. Policy H.1.4: Require appropriate revegetation for all development that requires grading and excavating. Staff Comment: The applicant states that sagebrush and drought tolerant grasses would be planted in areas receiving over -lot grading. Further, these areas "shall require the use of temporary overhead irrigation systems until established." These provisions appear to be responsive to the site's existing vegetation. Policy H.2.1: Avoid development in environmental hazard areas such as tloodplains, steep slopes, areas with geologic hazards, wildfire hazard areas, and areas with erosive soils. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoni% . ommission meeting Page 4 of 9 70 Staff Comment: Development is proposed within areas of steep existing topography. The value of clustered homes and a deed restricted unit must be weighed against this policy. Policy H.4.3: Require the use of innovative and environmentally friendly building techniques including water conservation approaches for new development. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing 'green standards' to be incorporated into this development. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town. There is a conceptual site plan drawing included in the plan set. There is also a sample elevation drawing on Page 7 of the applicant's submittal that demonstrates the general materials and colors that would be utilized in this enclave type development. While the elevation is not binding, it does represent a certain level of quality and architectural style. In Section III of the applicant's submittal there are PUD Design Standards which require the 6 structures to be limited to the same material palette and architectural style. All walls are to be constructed of stone, timber, and/or wood siding. Within each residence the applicant is proposing some fundamental "Green Footprint" standards for conservancy including: 'Energy Star appliances, in -floor radiant heat, 'Low -E' glass requirements, etc. Where the PUD is silent to architectural standards the Town's Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines would apply. The Town's Guidelines put emphasis on the overall design theme for the Town. According to the Guidelines, the theme for the Town shall be to establish an attractive appearance for visitors and residents, and yet be flexible enough to allow design innovation. The site design and corresponding development standards appear to be in general agreement with the existing topography of the site. There would be a significant amount of disturbance required to construct the proposed private access drive, and associated retaining walls. Aside from the disturbance required for access, each building would be limited to the building envelopes defined unless approved by P&Z. Staff has some concern with the building envelope language and the possibility of permitting disturbance outside of the envelopes. Specifically, "only minor grading, landscaping, and retaining shall be permitted in the areas immediately adjacent to building envelopes labeled 'no -build." Minor architectural encroachments (overhangs, battered stone) may be permitted through the Town design review approval process only." In addition to this language, "over lot grading incidental and necessary for the preparation of and construction of home sites and landscaping shall be permitted in these areas." Unlike some other properties in Town that have platted 'non -developable' areas, or areas that must be left in their present state, this proposal would permit some disturbances. Staff would recommend that grading and disturbances be limited to Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARINAll, June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning ommission meeting I Page 5 of 9 the building envelopes, except that which is required for utilities, drainage, and disturbances related to construction of the private driveway and infrastructure. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. This proposal would be compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation. Please refer to the zoning standards on Page 23 of 23 in the submittal. In terms of design compatibility, a clustered development with uniform building and architectural standards should be compatible with other development in the subdivision. 4. Uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The single-family residential use and building envelope layouts provide an efficient, workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. There is a mix of single- family and duplex buildings in close proximity. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. There have no been no geologic hazards identified on the subject properties. Rock outcroppings are present, which is indicative of bedrock in the area. Preliminary investigations report that steep excavations would likely be possible on these hill sides. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The existing topography is steep throughout. Most notably, the grades adjacent to Wildridge Road East, and the area in the middle of Lot 39 are exceptionally steep. This portion of Lot 39 would remain free from development as proposed. As proposed, a 1 acre "Tract 390" would be created in its place. There appears to be a. high degree of alteration to the existing site required to enable this development to function. While the buildings would be linear in fashion to avoid the hillside as much as possible, the site layout and driveway do not appear to be particularly sensitive to the natural features of the site. The proposed driveway runs directly through areas that exceed 40% slope. Extensive site retention and mitigating measures would be essential for this development to function. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and 'off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan. There is a functional 20' wide driveway for the six proposed residential units. A hammerhead turnaround is also proposed between Lots 38C and 38E. This turnaround was designed with fire department vehicle maneuverability in mind. The Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN( June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning . ommission meeting Page 6 of 9 A turnaround could also be used for trash removal vehicles. It appears that visibility is good in each direction entering and leaving the proposed curb cut location. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. As mentioned, the 1+ acre platted open space would remain non-developed except for the driveway and associated retaining walls and infrastructure installations. The applicant is proposing the minimum landscape area be increased from 25% to 30%. The platted building envelopes further define open space and help to preserve views. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. The applicant has included a timeline for completion of the project on Page 10 of the submittal. Construction of the duplex on Lot 110 would be the first phase of the project. The driveway access and utilities would be constructed in the next phase of construction. After construction of the driveway, the phasing plan indicates the construction of approximately one house per year. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. Letters expressing the ability to serve have been included in the Appendices of the applicant's binder from: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Xcel Energy, Holy Cross Energy, and Comcast. Adequate services can be provided for this proposal. 11.That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. Wildridge Road East is suitable to carry the anticipated traffic, and the visibility entering and leaving the driveway appears safe. 12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code: A. The application demonstrates a public purpose, which the current zoning . entitlements cannot achieve. Staff Comment: It can be argued that a public benefit is demonstrated with respect to the overall quality of development, and the provision of a 'move up' housing opportunity on a separate parcel. Staff would recommend that the terms of this 'move up' unit be strengthened by introducing a price appreciation cap. Without control of price it is unlikely the unit would maintain it's affordability for households that earn the targeted 200% of the AMI. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN( r♦ June 19, 2007 Planning R Zoning ommission meeting Page 7 of 9 According to the Housing Needs Assessment completed last year, the largest gap identified in Avon's housing stock is between 120% and 180% of the AMI. Staff would recommend'a price restricted unit priced at a point affordable to a household earning not more than 160% of the AMI. B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. Staff Comment: Staff does not foresee any potential adverse economic impacts as a result of the zoning change proposed. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. Staff Comment: The shared access and clustered home sites provide an organized development. The platted building envelopes would guarantee some level of certainty with regard to the siting of development. IV. Preliminary Subdivision Plan Pursuant to Sections 16.20 and 16.40 of Avon Municipal Code, the application for Preliminary Plan has been reviewed by the Engineering Department for compliance with the appropriate design and improvement standards. The following comments pertaining to the applicant's Preliminary Plan (for subdivision) resulted from this review: Due to the amount of cuts/grading required to construct the retaining walls and driveway, it appears that a soils report should be provided according to 16.20.150 (7). The retaining walls required to build the driveway require that cross sections be provided according to 16.20.180(2). It appears that a drainage study should be provided. It is unclear how drainage over the retaining walls and onto the driveway will be handled. V. Subdivision Variance The lot configurations presented in Preliminary Subdivision portion of this application require that a Variance to be granted from Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code: Subdivisions. Chapter 16.40.330 of the Avon Municipal Code requires that each lot have a frontage width on a dedicated street of not less than twenty-five (25) feet. As presented, four of the seven lots included in the Preliminary Subdivision require a Variance to be granted. Lots 38A, 38C, 38E, and 38F all have less than a twenty-five foot frontage onto Wildridge Road East. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN p'W June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning ,;ommission meeting Page 8 of 9 According to Chapter 16.12 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Town Council may, at its discretion, grant variances from some or any requirements of the subdivision regulations based up the following criteria: (1) Whether a strict, literal application of these subdivision regulations would result in an undue hardship to the subdivider due to the purpose, size, shape, location and character of the proposed subdivision; (2) Whether the provisions of the regulations from which relief is requested are not materially important, in a planning sense, to the orderly controlled development of the tract in question; (3) Whether the granting of the request might adversely affect the use of the land in the immediate area of the tract in question. It is important to note that the Town Council shall hold a noticed public hearing, prior to acting on this Variance request, and it is acceptable to run the notice and public hearing in concurrence with the public hearing required by the zoning amendment and Preliminary Subdivision portion of this application. The public notices that were sent to all owners within three hundred (300) feet of the properties in question indicated that a public hearing would be held considering a Planned Unit Development Amendment application, Preliminary Subdivision, and Subdivision Variance request. VI. Findings Based on review of the mandatory review criteria outlined in Section III of this report, staff finds the following: 1. The application is in general conformance with the Town of Avon ComDrehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. 2. The application is in conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and Design Guidelines of the Town. 3. The design is compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. 4. The uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 5. The site plan, building design, and location and open space provisions are designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 6. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space is provided in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 7. The provided phasing plan and subdivision plan maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. By Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Hamel PUD - PUBLIC HEARIN,b . June 19, 2007 Planning & Zoning ommission meeting ( Page 9 of 9 constructing the driveway and utilities in the first phase, each property can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases= 8. The application provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code. VII. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends CONDITIONAL APPROVAL of the Hamel PUD application for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision and Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. A•deed restriction agreement will be executed for a 'move up' housing unit on Lot 110, with price appreciation cap, targeting households earning between 120% and 160% of the AMI prior to Final Design approval. 2. Grading outside of the building envelopes will be expressly limited to that required for utilities, drainage, and disturbance related to construction of the private driveway. 3. Except as otherwise modified by this approval; all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. Is If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department in the Municipal Complex. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner II VIII. Report Attachments EXHIBIT A: Applicant's Proposal EXHIBIT B: Vicinity Map EXHIBIT C: Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 d I EXHIBIT C Town District Planning Principles However, the gateway approach needs to be redesigned to enhance the overall image of the community, including but not limited to lighting, road and right of way materials, enhanced view corridors, and signage. The emphasis should be on the creation of a positive entry experience that extends the character of the Town Center to Avon's front door. Planning Principles: • Enhance the intersections at the on/off ramps on Avon Road to include streetscape improvements and special landscape features. • Maintain the cottonwood trees that contribute to the gateway experience. • Improve the I-70 interchange for pedestrians and bikers. District 24: Wildridge Residential District This area consists of a residential subdivision containing varying densities, located on the sunny, south -facing slopes north of the main valley floor. The character for the developed landscape should reflect the area's dry climate and typically steep terrain with low water -requiring plant materials and natural landscaping. Due to the limited amount of existing trees and shrubs and the open character of the property, special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings. Planning Principles: • Redesign the intersection of Metcalf and Nottingham Roads, and implement the other recommendations for District 4 to enhance the entry to Wildridge and provide more direct access from the Town Center to Wildridge. • Construct bicycle lanes along Metcalf and Wildridge Roads. Promote a trail system through open space areas in Wildridge to provide alternatives to the roadways for pedestrian circulation and greater connection to the surrounding open space. Preserve and enhance the existing open space trails and explore the possibility of developing additional parcels into pocket parks. �Pwni Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Cage 98 Town District Planning Principles • Acgk!ire and maintain as public open space the U.S. Forest Service -owned parcel adjacent to Wildridge that includes Beaver Creek Point. • Add an alternative or second access route to Wildridge (perhaps forest service road during the spring and summer). • Identify and delineate all open space parcels and public traits. • Site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views, be compatible with existing surrounding development, and break up building bulk. District 25: Mountain Star Residential District This area is a planned unit development established in 1992, of large -lot, single-family homes, located east of Wildridge on the south -facing slopes north of the main valley floor. This covenant -controlled, gated community has its own design review committee. Planning Principles: • Prohibit significant alteration of natural environment and minimize stress on wildlife and loss of habitat. Consider the development of a trailhead to access the surrounding public lands. District 26: Swift Gulch District The Town of Avon's Public Works and Transportation Departments are located in the Swift Gulch District. In response to the area's high visibility from I-70, efforts have been made to screen the existing buildings and facilities and ensure that they blend into the surrounding environment. Planning Principles: • Encourage building at a scale that minimizes visibility from I-70. • Screen accessory uses with landforms and landscaping. • Encourage sidewalks and pedestrian connections. own of Avon Comprehensive Plan age 99 AO a J z a J CL W z LUW a O u z O LL O z 0 Exhibit C To: Recording Secretary, Town of Avon RECEIVED (sent via email to Matt Pielsticker, mnielsticker( .avon.ore) JUN 112007 From: Anne Clark and Doug Baird, homeowners immunity Devatunt 5021(E) Wildridge Road East anneclarka,msn.com 748-4565 Re: Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting for June 19, 2007 PUD Amendments – Public Hearing Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East Date: June 17, 2007 The following is to voice our concerns about the proposed amendment to the Wildridge PUD. We have reviewed the Hamel PUD Amendment document of May 11, 2007 and are familiar with the proposal. While some of the benefits are appealing, there are a number of issues that are problematic: 1. The clustering of five single-family units at the west end of the property creates a massing of homes. This is inconsistent with the Town of Avon's goal to minimize the (visual) impact of development. 2. The homes proposed on the west end of the property are remarkably close to the existing homes on the west and north boundaries. 3. Clustering five homes at the west end of the site, close to existing development to the west, intrudes into—and most likely blocks—an important wildlife migration corridor that runs north -south at the west end of the property. 4. Lots 38 and 39 appear to be among the steepest in Wildridge. The builder would need to cut into the bedrock to construct the homes. We're concerned whether the site can sustain six -5,000 square foot homes. 5. In general, we are concerned about overall safety, the traffic impact, and the treatment of the rock face. We understand that six dwelling units are consistent with the original zoning and that development is inevitable. However, we question the original thinking to put so many units on such a steep site; we concerned about whether the site can support six single- family residences of (up to) 5,000 square feet each. We urge the Town Council to decline the proposed amendments requested by the Hamel development project. Thank you for your consideration. Steven G and Elsa B Reiss 5 Cawdor Burn Road 5021 Wildridge Road East, Unit W Brookfield, Ct 06804 Avon, Colorado Tel 203-775-6431 Tel 970-748-1412 June 18, 2007 RECEIVED To: Recording Secretary, Town of Avon JUN 1 8 2007 (sent via email to Matt Pielsticker, maielstickera.avon.oro) Community Devek n From: Steven and Elsa Reiss elsa re issla.aol.com 203-770-0485 cell Re: Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting for June 19, 2007 PUD Amendments — Public Hearing Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East We have reviewed the Hamel PUD Amendent document of May 11, 2007 and we oppose adopting this amendment. We are pleased that the building philosophy will be "green" and the building style will be consistent with current homes in the area. The donating of a lot and deed restricted home in Lower Wildridge is certainly a plus, however, the negative aspects of this project are alarming. Building six large individual homes on such a small amount of buildable land does not work well for these lots. The larger lot is zoned for 2 duplexes or one fourplex. Since most of the land on that lot is unbuildable, the builder is designating that as open space. Five of the six houses are being built very close together on the western end, creating a huge mass of large buildings. This is not in keeping with the ambiance of the rest of the Wildridge development. There have been many rock and soil slides, and we are concerned not only about the visual impact of this mass of buildings, but also the environmental impact. Because these lots are the steepest in Wildridge, we feel that the town of Avon should be very careful in what they approve to be built there. It seems that because it is too difficult for the builder to build what has already been approved, he is seeking changes from the Town of Avon for his purposes only. These changes will not benefit us enough to allow this site to be developed as he wishes. We would recommend that only three houses be allowed to be built in that area instead of six. The homes that are proposed to be built on the western end are much too close to existing homes and to each other. The density of these proposed homes will impact wildlife migration, an important aspect of Wildridge living. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the meeting on July 19th. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Scott eamoice.com From: Alice Leeds (alice(Mvailmeetings.comj Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 8:01 PM To: scoff®feamoiae.com Subject: Emailing: Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 001.jpg, Wildridge Sgi Family Homes 002.jpg, Wildridge Sgi Family Homes 003.jpg Attachments: Wildridge Sgi Family Homes 001.jpg; Wildridge Sgi Family Homes 002.jpg; Wildridge Sgt Family Homes 003.jpg Nildridge Sgl FamilyMldridge Sgi FamilyMldridge Sgl Family Homes 001... Homes 002... Homes 003... Hi Scott - Thanks so much for taking the time to get involved with the petition for the Wildridge lots. I've attached three photos that I just took of five single family homes that was built below me in lower Wildkidge, similar to what they want to rezone for by us. I hope these photos will help show the density when trying to squeeze in too many homes. Good luck, Alice The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 001.jpg Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 002.jpg Wildridge Sgl Family Homes 003.jpg Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2007 Community Developrnem 1 ;a 7 .D ? e � t KNOW.' I To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Name: IOC6 16Eas Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Address:.So3t u A);idi&dge. ltd Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: Address: RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2007 Community Development To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Named 4f t 6" Address: Name: . 1�< o t7.'11 A Address: 3-ri—V 1 wkADriOh- Rye Name: Address: Name: I Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2007 Community Development r t f To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wildridge Road East. Name: �� oma- --Address: Nam e, 1, Address: tvl 14 6J,9.., Name: Address., A lJ �( Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEIVED JUN 1 S 2007 community Development To: Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Re: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Avon, Colorado (5032 & 5040) We, the undersigned, object to an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to allow for six (6) residential single family lots or one (1) duplex and one (1) fourplex to be built on the above two lots. We object to any changes that would allow more than one duplex to be built on each lot. This is in keeping with the existing building pattern of the houses on Wil a Road East. Name ,�� Address: S7 .3 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2007 Community Development Leslie Roubos 5039 Wildridge Road E P.O. Box 2119 Avon, CO 81620 June 18, 2007 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission do Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 To Whom it May Concern: RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2007 community Development I am writing in protest of the request for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East). When I purchased my lot, which is directly below Lots 38 and 39, I did so on the reliance of the current PUD designation for this property. I knew that this meant that there would be two, possibly three, buildings on the site. It is not appropriate to increase the number of buildings and size of each footprint given that all of us who already live in this area purchased our properties in good faith based on the existing zoning. The owner of the property purchased it knowing what the current zoning called for, as did the rest of us in Wildridge. Changing the zoning to allow for six 5,000 square foot units is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. The proposed homes are excessive for the size of the lots and would create 6 separate buildings on the sites as opposed to two or three separate buildings as currently zoned. Allowing six separate structures increases the impact to the land and a general loss of open area that would have existed around the buildings. We all moved up here for the quality of life and knew that based on the current zoning, we would be subject to 2 — 3 years of construction on those two lots. To now propose, realistically, 5-6 years of construction (presumably one year per home) would severely impact the quality of life of not only those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhood but also of every single person who lives in the Wildridge subdivision. The noise pollution and traffic during construction is already unbearable and to propose to increase that by another 3 years or so is unacceptable. To that end, while I do not think that a fourplex on one of the lots is appropriate either, given the quality of the surrounding homes, I do believe that 3 duplexes, limited in size to 4,000 square feet each, would be a much more appropriate option and would fit in nicely with the surrounding neighborhood. In the spirit of looking for solutions, and despite my argument above of not increasing the number of buildings allowed on the site, I could also possibly be convinced that four smaller single family homes, limited to 4,000 square feet each, might be an appropriate use of the land. In a perfect world, I would like to see more lots developed as I did mine... by decreasing the density on the lot rather than increasing the size and number of buildings on each lot. Thank you for considering these arguments. Sincerely, �- Leslie Roubos cc: Ron Wolf Tamra Underwood Dave Dantas Kristi Ferraro Rich Carroll Amy Phillips Brian Sipes PUD Intent: , An architecturally controlled duntered residential enclave of six single family dwelling units mssstent with the neigbleodlood and community character and seal. of Wildril Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory Uses: • Permitted Usee, 6(six) Single Family Dwelling Units, Open Space, and access driveeay. + C,om iti...I Uses: Per the Wildrldge PUD and the Avan Muniupd Code. ' Accessary Uses: Per the Wildridge PVD and the Avon Menimpol Cede. Site Re Wornentse + S." square feet maximum building size per residential lot. e Budding most be loomed! entirely in plaited building envelopes as indicated on the PUD and SabdlNelon pines. + Residential design shall be Per the Useign Steldams adopted herein and the Awn Residential Design Reyiew Guidelines, whichever is more restrictive and reNectiv i of intent of the Arahitectured Character Statement of the development. Maximum 8ollding Height +'Deeny -Five (35) Feet, as W the Awn Municipal Code. 9etbanks. A. per the plotted building envelopes of Ulu Hamel PUJ, no archfiend front yard setback from the orhets drive shall apply. A twenty -fine foot (25) reelbaak .hall be maintained Hem Wildridge Read East, and a ten foot (l0) setback *011 be mointmeed fm Of properties adjacent to the suLdr'nuen. Off Sliest Parking: I Pe, the Avon Muniepal Cade. minimum Londscg0 Regueanents: + 30% minimum landscaped area per lot. Snow Storage + Per the Avon MOOIapOI Code. Note: For ot sm,derds not spadflcolly .,xiem sed vhove or in the Hamel PUD Design Standard.. the Witdridge SubdiMsion Plat and the Town of Avon MuNcpal Code reaahements shall apply NOTES, 1. For all standards not specifically addressed above m in the Hamel P.U.D. Design Standards, the Wildndge Subdivision Plat. mid the Town of Awn municipal Cade requlrements shall apply. NOtel A onfing to Colorado Ins , mrel c any ni,al moon based upon any detect W Nva wem, 14e enure be.. ye.L mine- f^¢ recd of each defecL le vent ewy any action be. upon any effect in this rwy be cxmmxnmd m e Than len Xm, "sin the dole of .edification yawn bacon Ica Inti �'Ja` I PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE THE HAMEL P.U.D. SUBDIVISION, LOTS 38A A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 38 AND 39, BLOCK 4, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO fi-- J- VICINIriTY MAP OCN£ 1'. 5DCn SHEET INDEX: SHEET 1 SHEET 2 SHEET 3 SHEET 4 SHEET 5 SHEET 6 SHEET 7 COVER SHEET TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY PRELIMINARY PLAT ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE ROAD PLAN AND PROFILE UTILITY PLAN & TRACT 390 CERTIFl AS DF UiPJCAltpti At1D OWNERSHIP KNOW ALL MEN OY TKSE PRL n THAT. D` ondvsived. mAn eats mmw in re, mon", of oil No. 1q "Cully ril¢atM M toe County. C Dido. doaraee an fdlo.s: LEGAL 003Ch1PTION aF PROPERTY AS Actua lING TO CURRENT PUT ON iyl .. Rtteptlnn (lamb a . Deal— Jsive Cox., of fogls, Slate 1 Cdo mer 000loiring 1,387 sina or Me,: M1an by Ihwe present- l iJ -f, pMa led and wbJMOeJ Ibe some. ext LOB end 611 ac .chin trenme mal rea l¢ the wine as THE Hol Ron, sIIWIYiSW. LOTS 30A - 3ii A TRACT 390. A RESUVOleo X OF IeTS 38 AND 30. 1NIgXO4i SUBOI'ASION. TOM OF AWN. iCOUNTY. CR.Sll .no tleAr le Iry w"Ik ¢.' u¢ or ge soslmu, dimly and draao, xmmb, ,Leon more, for o .1, ullilY aN tlrauL9¢ pmpm� ally. sial Do enterLllal¢ Mot fM1b wbdiui,im MLII OP WbjlCl to Me Pre,. C¢—mu, Rod Died re.. for .6 ]uocive. In use arra, ¢f em ex, and Reorder of Emgl¢ Comb,, Worme. is Deennent Xumbn Executed Ihk __ day o1 _ AO. 20ot 1 o0i to etatl¢p ... poen, a, looted m Mln PWL Fronk Hamel 2147 efolmrt Ave. Sl. Purl, MR few STATE OF COLORADO ) caxgTr Or EA0.E ) The fagMg Oedkabw oe ocknewedged boom ins Me ___ dry of A0. by Oomeflosse oelmo _ fail my IwrM and xm Notary PUNia 52RhlF�Re PERTIFICATF 1. Wane D. FMrngee do hereby Corby Not I an o RejstvvN Lord 'x.,x, IicesseJ under be los¢ of be aide of Comada. Mal MIs Wt is a ti omel Me ove,Wke Not of No SEN)i LDoi MA S 7ACTT 390, ASRE909DTHE AybON Or LOTS 36 MD 39, MINAE SLOWNSION. 10. or AVfM, EADLE Dal COLO xw a, Net ad. planed. deFroted anal sown hi Net wCh Z e® mod, from on soca mli aw,ey of too w¢PM, by ere and miner my ow"Iden and ."y gran the facobm ond Grmoser e m Me i.L emements aoa ."mete re end mbdlNaNn as He. ... me noon, seen Me yound ncomprmea lith mwre irum. ee"Hice, gawm'mg Ne mddlweion of kind d Aa to a r t No xii by the SIbilhime Rnuletmi a of Iii. Timeof Awn In ensen ebeem, 1 h. on my, boa and cool toil day of _— RONDO. Lial sS rm+ N. Rac26 T lhis owlAlnen]ea Plmnea Ona Om Chi lot ommiso wiu"on ai any IOL I0e6 owmenA wd A9hts-of-woy Wedwtly dedicated and net dedkaled hemm, and Me w,es, —inq wisril res ma form. me sol for the Rewbairkion of Lot, 36 anal 39. WiWWW (amnsim) by the Toon of Avon. Eage. Comity, Comade, this any of ______ 2x07 for mine sill, the sed mid slier of the carry of Eaye and ftt canveyear. of the ablm dedkmima on. herein. Me nmet m ,oPaaNe 1. war Plod So:d nl o me N lea .ny obbeex the To— of on I., any beymsmrente and isomiet of sok uta Plan by Me Time to Consent coir end H not to be o"emes a n¢ n 'Pmol of Me ..mm ro reclnec n1 line: plmi for any aowmentarwn fol woo to. W (NESS MY HAND AND SEAL Cf TIE TOWN of AWN: TOM CODICIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON uY: AIiEST_ w F_+��1 �aia>�r�►�r a a as wsatta �',, .dKii,af� 11.numoul TF7 rwl a NJ a I '1 HILT , arMomw tow I the WOO or .='%sw salt" �La laoln.l 1 Pant Odorado P" oto aNsM R crwd a aiattalal Do,. 1 r• I 1 it r t 1 1 L , LAR N PA N�t 0•s►t irmam� m t t AMM&P LOW1 o w:pzr =n DOW imm tok.w D s w ew ow wu® m rAM W# ♦ LAR w P 1 1 r ri �t it " Na 3M ram9 r+n' w/xAsnc LAr LS T]69H \ ,\UINIYANOORAmA4E \\C/ EAS£8/ENi ,.. ,., FGAYO P/N vv &W, GM ` QJ. 10' fl£AN .4'I9AIX AMl - FA'm0 Pm rY/YSASAC CAP FQ"rNN r+dl' w/ K!0.[ G' r LS rllF E LS 9377 _ {'qµp PM w/ Ur11/n'FASYFNT (I1P) (17]398 £X/SPNC )O' KIIY Cnr ` \ \ ulNm ANO pN.VNAC{ Ls JIXNr \ /nuNO ru' W/rLAslr[ Ur E.vsrmc r0 Fae's'eur \ smrlraw orrmm�sF .1. ��.;� — — — — � 77 Ls z]sm "�� I r> xm£ unrlr, \ Ea sENcrr 640.82' _ L� _ AgA \ �'-uBnmAGE ANO nccFss - F b� � /5140 sq. ft A / 0.348 r4'W1rUWU)Y, 1@ LOT. AmA[£ ANO ALLE55 I XI )I 1 crz L= r 17,041a D41 aN.I 1 TRACT G039,390 =.g:r 1 oa]es 1 n 1 ® 41,412 COT 3BA lBWelTsf' cY 1.090 acres _al! !26,294 ft/ A LOT Gna¢ Acuxss A. / W 1 0.604 Ees /9h SNOWSr6PAAE A. \ NrSimG L1NF NO n:l 'i. yi Cl9 \ Al VAU ff BY WS Im _— _ 5 d5?352�W rAFll' TO .T.B' y _ ORAB�N LOWY�'S5" / LtlSrLVC ]5 LOT ENSWO 30' /VIN IY AN00?AINAC£ OPAMAL'EGSMEXI )$514 S9.H M1R GJ \ ' t •� ` \ FA SM" D.356 acres / ` cis \ \ z+' INLF umlrr, Ts0!' . \ 5gf^(J' dIAINALk', All£$5 ANO � \ I as:f3_sa" w_.rol.so [,] SNOwW FAST 1•S _�- / / U1K/IY ANO G __ -� _� S9' FRLWr BUNGYNC ' i 24" lll(�T. NHR' U- \ \ / OAAWACE EASCINNT -- �1 SENApr iM'J - QTAWAC£ ACLFA. A T IJ / 0.343 xics J.][L+'SY zs'fROVT euxomc r 15,432 sq. ft, uN.w/ '�unLrrr arm cwwaur.E LS s4+> / sElsnIX i rm1 I / /� crow smWAeE Arm woAo R=32SOO' ` ` iae a a354 sues V 4 / xrAm, EASEULNT _—-L=.i09. rr ar umltt Arro oauulcF I FNsnNc ls' $ ., ' _ r' 1A.1 �1` r .h", I AFM m lrt / i / / — " M54307B' I - is s.UYj� NAmT, FA�NNr .._ — ' N653276'W vsms'A�muNT J \ yr. '7 ' cro RE9AM —S7893J6'E— EA ,. ROA \ --- � - �— T] rag=ttsee' GRAPHIC SCALE_ --_ N79:WX"E , J J 1 \ LW i w Weer 7 1 inch = 1m IL I LUaIE IAe[F GIME rr 1 ILN4"M IANRTIT 42 LOT AREA SUMMARY`s, c1 r� C3 .. m' -L aw tOT NOfiIrAL RFEA fNROING ENIIICI`E UY 1 ALDRFSS I cb 5130J' 1i ]3' V 1B j ry/y(�•1�'1'p,- Sa F/ I(IJ 693 rt IDLLYE - I6V£ 4NJ i I L] 525 ��^,yq� ' I I]d150. FI 040 N SINl2E IV,- UMr1 I iV 3�' ���' l2Tl'• 1 L T.L9l ]//ITA/ R SOYYE FAN2Y- lNpy���I I CIO .9Av 1117 � 55 Z17' LOr AE IaIN M FS _ /. F - •,Ip 1 I I C[I rStM' 25sr UM - [Or j Y fT - ].845 —a. JN]'.F FA Y - !YY UAVT I I C9Z M' V AC£ I 15i. pS�C.2 HpIF OMNfIS ASSO 1 I 1 CM pp/ 1 i01AL 151,!341 51]. R. , Icro—Nf7 n8 5 C5 I fi%7�1 • '� ° C9 j 1 C/O SZSW' IMSi' %O2' Imm, LINE TA9L£ _ if _ _ 31.73 [�PS3i'N !) Is f669 Si}S8Y42 i3 � w L+ LS 7w 700 sIS14'S0'y 7 L] 1 424 }q�pg SIA,% 59'Rivv yjrl,4S9• BY a w�� CYO IDD slamiTSY none[, neewalre to eaoram lax >w mDsf wmmePoe Dny MNm MIn aclron Woad wm mr eerxl T id rv, rza }nwe aHor yuu Orel alewror sUM aeIn In tt nD even!. may any ooflw pawl uPoD mY aeMc( 6 Fh rwr saf cetl A. Mm M yaws han It"te at aertmmiDD A. naaa�. BCAPoNG i 0. TA 1 fYH"IT 1 rU'm' 1 FA &"�Sfr6Eo U ~ � g F Z O Z O p a w�� J a < J W I 11. I � Q Z ommrtn� � wrxx ex � i blvm Oe nAF I. s -11-m I ��_06-0712E_ 4D of 7 GRAPHIC SCALE Ip 0 i0 20 W ( IN FEET ) I inch - 20 it. SUMMARY TABLE FT TORAGE LOT 38A; �f AREA AND % OF SITE GREATER MAN 40% SLOPE - 5,837 SF MID 22.2 % AREA AND % OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE - 2,065 SF AND 7.9% AREA AND X OF SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA - 0 SF AND 0 X LOT 38B. AREA AND % OF SITE GREATER THAN 4OX SLOPE - 6,607 SF AND 42.8 % AREA AND X OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE - 1,833 SF AND 11.9 % AREA AND % OF SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA - 852 SF AND 46.5% LOT 38C A % O SITE GREATER THAN 4019 SLOPE - 3.513 SF AND 20.6 % AREA AND % OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE = 2,899 SF AND 1TOX AREA AND % O SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA = O SF AND 0 X LOT s8D AREA AND IT OF SITE GREATER THAN 40% SLOPE a 2,615 SF AND ITS X AREA AND X OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE - 1,046 SF AND 7.0% AREA AND % OF SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA - 664 SF AND 63.4% LOT 38E: AREA AND % OF SITE GREATER THAN 40% SLOPE = 330 SF AND 2.2 % AREA AND X OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE - 2,473 SF AND 16.3X AREA AND % OF SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA - O SF AND OX AREA AND' % OF SITE GREATER THAN 40% SLOPE - 0 S AND 0 X AREA AND % O IMPERMEABLE SURFACE - 945 SF AND 6.IX AREA AND X OF SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA = 0 F AND 0% TRACT 390 OPEN SPACE: AREA AND X OF SITE GREATER THAN 40X SLOPE - 40,325 SF AND 84.9 % AREA AND % O IMPERMEABLE SURFACE - 7,670 SF AND 16.2X AREA AND % O SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA - 2.445 S AND 3J._.. TOTAL AREA AND X OF SITE GREATER THAN 40X SLOPE - 59.227 SF AND 39.0 X AREA AND % OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE = 18.931 SF AND t2.5% AREA AND % OF SNOW STORAGE TO IMPERMEABLE AREA - 3.961 SF AND 20.9% i ------------ GENERAL NOTES: / 1. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 10-31-2005 BY EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYNC, INC., MICHAEL A POST, CO PLS NO. 30116. BASIS OF ELEVATION: SEWER MANHOLE 1680 INVERT EL=8357.6, BASIS OF PROPERTY UNE LOCATION/8EARING, MONUMENTS ON LOTS AND SUBDIVISION PIAT. / 2. CONSTRUCTION STAKING SHALL BE PERFORATED BY A COLORADO LICENSFD PROFESSIONAL LAND - - SURVEYOR. 3. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT LOCATED WIINN KNOWN FLOOD PRONE AREAS OR AN ESTABLISHED TOG -YR FLOOD PLAIN. FREE WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED AT THE WE OF DRILLING -_ (12-1-2005) OR MEN CHECKED 6 DAYS LATER IN BORINGS ON LOTS 38 AND 39. SUBSOILS AND BEDROCK MATERIAL WERE DESCRIBED AS SLIGHTLY MOIST TO MOIST DURING THE GEOTECHNICAL / INVESTIGATION. 1 - 4. PERIMETER AND FOUNDATION DRAINS SHALL BE INSTALLED, IN ACCORDANCE WTH THE 1 / ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANS. AS REWIRED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. i / OUTFALLS FROM THESE DRAINS SHALL BE EXTENDED TO DAYLIGHT AND PROVIDED WITH RIP -RAP OR / APPROPRIATE, PERMANENT, FABRIC EROSION PROTECTION APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. - PROPOSED RETANN6 WALL (TIP) / 5. GENERALLY, CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 2:1. CUTS IN THE FORMATION ROCK MAY BE 1:1, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS BY H -P GEOTECH, DATED 12-11-2006. WHERE SLOPES BETWEEN 3:1 AND 2:1 ARE CONSTRUCTED. THEY SHALL BE HYDRO -SEEDED AND MULCHED. USING A SPRAY -ON TACKIFIER, AND PROTECTED BY AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 6. BOULDER RETAINING WALLS SHALL NOT EXCEED 4' IN HEIGHT. INTER -MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL RETAINING WALL DESIGNS (RETAINING WALLS EXCEEDING 4'). WALE LOCATIONS, HEIGHTS. AND STYLES SHOWN HEREON ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF a THOSE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BY THE TOWN DURING THE RE-PLATTING/PUD AMENDMENT REVIEW AND - APPROVAL PROCESS. A COLORADO UCFNSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHALL PREPARE AND SEAL . RETAINING WALL DESIGNS AND SHOP DRAWINGS, AS REWIRED BY THE TOWN OF AVON, FOR THEIR ' REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. i 7. STABILITY OF ALL CUTS AND FILLS OF 10 FEET OR MORE SHALL BE EVALUATED AND APPROVEDBY THE GEOIECHNICAL ENGINEER. _..... .......5� . - 8. THE AREA ENCOMPASSED BY THE DISTURBANCE LIMIT IS APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE. THE d CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CONFORMING TO APPENDIX A AND 8_333 OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FROM ! R THE STATE OF COLORADO, AS REWIRED. EROSION AND SEGMENT CONTROLS SHALL ALSO CONFORM Yz TO LOCAL STANDARDS AND REWIREMENIS. y22y F . 9. SILT FENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO SITE DISTURBANCE. OTHER EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SOON AS •..IIII1IIII $ PRACTICAL, CONCURRENT WITH GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. zz 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND STORE TOP SOL SEPARATELY FROM OTHER EXCAVATED • OR MATERIALS SEDIMENT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED AROUND ME BASE O' STOCKPILES. F • 11. POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ROAD, UTILITY AND STRUCTURE EXCAVATIONS IS R x� REWIRED CEDURINGCHA CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. INCLUDING GRADING. TEMPORARY SR EFFICIENCY �S CONVEYANCE CHANNELS MAY BE FIELD LOCATED AS NECESSARY TO OPTIMIZE THEIR EFFICIENCY UNDER EXTANT SITE CONDITIONS. � � - 12. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBUTY TO CHECK AND FIX THE INSTALLED DEVICES ON A Ba PERIODIC BASS AND AFTER EVERY MAJOR STORM EVENT AND TO REMOVE THE TEMPORARY CONTROLS, AS NECESSARY. AFTER DISTURBED AREAS ARE FINALLY STABILIZED. • $y� fi >Y 13. ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED, ENCLOSED, SURFACED OR REVEGETATED. AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS, IN A TIMELY MANNER. TEMPORARY REVEGETATION IS REWIRED FOR DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN EXPOSED AND INACTIVE LONGER THAN 14 DAYS gg P OR OVER WINTER. EXCEPT CUTS IN FORMATION ROCK. RE -VEGETATION SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH - S A A MINIMUM OF 6 NICHES OF TOPSOLL, SOD OR AN APPROVED LOCAL NATIVE SEED MIX AND MULCH. OR AS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN(S). HAY OR STRAW MULCH PLACED ON SLOPES &1 OR FLATTER SHALL BE FREE OF NOXIOUS WEEDS, AT LEAST I" THICK AND ANCHORED TO - THE SOL BY CRIMPING. APPROVED HYDRO -MULCH IS REWIRED ON SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 BUT .� STEEPER THAN 5:1. 14. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO PUD DESIGN GUIDELINES AND APPLICABLE TOWN AND/OR x DISTRICT STANDARD'S AND SPECIFICATIONS AND BE SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION BY - THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN, AND KEEP ON-STE, COPIES OF SUCH STANDARDS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO HAVE ONE (1) COMPLETE, SIGNED (APPROVED BY THE CIVIL ENGINEER, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, TOWN AND DISTRICT) COPY OF THE FINAL CONTRACT Ts fr� o DOCUMENTS (INCLUDING ADDENDA, PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS, AND CHANGE ORDERS) ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN, AT HIS EXPENSE. ALL PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS WHICH ARE \ REWIRED TO PERFORM THE PLANNED WORK. PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED A MINIMUM O 48 HOURS \ IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE SCHEDULED A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS M F.c ^ fr fir£ � ADVANCE. 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. ANY MISSING DIMENSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES IN PLANS, FIELD STAKING OR PHYSICAL FEATURES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER. IF CONTRACTOR PROCEEDS WITH THE WORK WITHOUT � W NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER, HE DOES SO AT HIS OWN RISK. IF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE 2 - UNCLEAR, OR IF ERRORS OR DISCREPANCIES ARE DISCOVERED, THE ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE Q {IAR� fr Ep IF THE CONTRACTOR OR CLIENT MAKES HIS OWN INTERPRETATION OF AND/OR REVISES THE ORIGINAL INTENT. 17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN H -P GEOTEM S SUBSOIL STUDIES. _ Q £ 8 ` COMPLETED DECEMBER 22 AND 30, 2005 FOR LOTS 38 AND 39. RESPECTIVELY, OR THE E 3f R esr o SUPPLEMENTARY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 11. 2006. WHICHEVER IS APPUCABLE. 18. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE FINAL GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR DETAIL SF A 8 3 E R - DRAWINGS, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED AS FOLLOWS USING THE STANDARD - `4e 12E, PROCTOR DENSITY (ASTM D-698): BF•frr� s 95% BELOW ROAD AND ADJACENT TO BOULDER RETAINING WALLS 90% IN DRAINAGE CHANNELS AND LANDSCAPED EAS £ • g AS SPECIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS BENEATH EOE SLABS AND FOUNDATIONS. AND ADJACENT TO WALLS AND OTHER STRUCTURES.M>g+- 19. SAFETY IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE 8 Tc a£ FOR SAFETY 1N, ON, OR ABOUT THE PROJECT SITE, NOR FOR COMPLIANCE BY THE APPROPRIATE €`X6Rug,.b PARTY WITH MY REGULATIONS RELATING THERETO. RRY� ,T „,..., ..........,...... 20. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, SIGNS. IN THE C. FLAGMEN, OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY T PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY IN TATEACCORDANCE RA A CURRENT MANUAL OF UNIFORM ^.•, ,,. •^ 6428 TRAFFIC CONTROL DEUCES, INCLUDING THE STATE O COLORADO AMENDMENTS. ,FI FV - ams°a 21. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM PERMANENT DRAINAGE A.D. - LOO 8424 FACILITIES (SUCH AS INLETS, PIPES, CULVERTS, DITCHES, CHANNELS, ETC.) WRING FINAL CLEAN-UP. W K - 12.50 ( Q 1 °IJ.VV w I 8420 O o 0 8416 Q oK T_r Z O ®. m 8412 ' Q W Q V G d aa06 o L \ m M1 O Z , \ \. 8404 i Q 0 J O o 8400- d O _�- 8396 Q J W ul \ '392 + Q S 1388 8384 DATUM G O S E IWC tT. 8960 {4�y �'MM t�$y 'c3 r� n WWlsr MM °al�� °p m oECWm rr SUM 1+00 I o;oo NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I�`�,�"°. 5-11-07.... HAMEL CT CENTERLINE PROFILE 06-0112E HORZ. SCALE 1' = 20' VERT. SCALE 1' - 10' 5oF7 i HIGH PONT ELEV 6415.76 HIGH PONT STA - 3447.44 PVI STA = 3+47.44 PN ELEV 8420.56 A.D. _ -16.00 K - 15.00 240,00' VC rlc, 0 3+00 2+00 r i 1 3+00 2+00 N I OT — — \I LOT 38D 1 LOT38 \TAW. .. AH,., ��8¢so TRACT .J, tis PROPOSED REi AINWG WALL (TiR) \� f i.Qll eQLS '/„/ 3$140 bA.w.. T.O.M. - N3tA \v� 4 S 1 r ✓'P PROPOSED STORM SE (1W) - Vh .. _ 1X t:ua havtT nW_ea�s:t I STA x y.0 41 64 SO f-! IW STORAGE _ ' Ali -1 "-- --- – / 39 qzs- OW SO FT // 1 —SNOW SAGE . SNOW STORAGE. –�'I" - tIXw \ T —' -- --- – PROPOSED BOULDER WALL (TYP) ` ! j Ano- --- ----- I m - I 6 Min.. 8428 - i a PN STA = 7+10: m 1 , ro 8424 90OU 1 8420 _ 1 20.00'- 8416 8412 I + ♦ n IV �-- 8404 64Do 8396 8392 – - I I 8388 I I I I I I 8384 I I I 7+00 6+00 5+00 4+00 H ere ly- i f'T RLINE PROFILE VERT. SCALE I" 10• €$ HE �,g;Ytia moo X`" . =$fift . 265 - NIGH POINT REV a 3417.70 _ J 1.- 265 - HIGH POINT STA a 7+47.{4 33 PSTA 747,44 ma 2i A.D.a=k= PNM ELEV a 1420.50 7hg{-4 D.. –10.00 Z 2– E�fi K -15.0D P 240.00' VC ss •- gyfia€. S�'oE € `€ g8 E4 IRE 1 S 1 0 9 0 Q M ~ Z o W oo oa W O Z g Q Z3 O � p U n: a � w i5ip 7. w .t d Q Z 3+00 %t .... NN qq �L gg NM 3°�,,yy pp jgy��y'' -Occlun er SEM ;oAti B?�: 5-11-07 06-0112E NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIOA 6 OF 7 p EXlSPNC Z5" UPlIZP ANO CRANVACE EASAAS2— A \ PROPOS 1 1 11 11 L ED SEWER SERVICE \ / ky /r gY X 6' TEE J \ �` B' GATE VALVE .� +`v / 6' GATE VALVE \ ` THRUST 01,0\ LQr \ GRAPHIC SCALE as E 15 J� Iw I 1 I i 1 ( IN PLTD I I inch - 30 ft. � ` r ^� 1 Y.k 1. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 10-31-ZW5 BY EAGLE VALLEY GOHVI,YM, INC- MICHA4 A PUSI, GV UEG IBJ PLS NO. 30116. BASIS OF ELEVATION: SEWER MANHOLE 1680 INVERT EL -8357.6. BASIS OF \ \ PROPERTY LINE LOCATION/BEARING: MONUMENTS ON LOTS AND SUBDIVISION PLAT. EXISTING AREA OF 407 SLOPE OR GREATER EXISTING AREA OF 30% TO 40% SLOPE 2. CONSTRUCTION STAKING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A COLORADO LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR. 3. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT LOCATED WITHIN KNOWN FLOOD PRONE AREAS OR AN ESTABUSHED 100 -YR FLOOD PLAIN. FREE WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED AT THE TIME OF DRILLING (12-1-2005) OR MEN CHECKED 6 DAYS LATER IN BORNNGS ON LOTS 38 AND 39. SUBSOILS AND BEDROCK MATERIAL WERE DESCRIBED AS SLIGHTLY MOST TO MOIST DURING THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. 4. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR IS WARNED THAT THERE MAY BE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING UTIUTIES, PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LINE LOCATIONS. HE SHALL LOCATE ALL UTILITIES (INCLUDING DEPTH) AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER. ANY CONFLICTS NTH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY SO THAT LINE OR GRADE CHANGES CAN BE MADE TO ELIMINATE THEM. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE BY THE CONTRACTOR. DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN CULVERTS/STORM SEWERS AND SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE LINES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET. 5. STABILITY OF ALL TRENCH CUTS OF 10 FEET OR MORE SHALL BE EVALUATED AND APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 6 POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM UTILITY AND STRUCTURE EXCAVATIONS IS REQUIRED WRING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. TEMPORARY STORMWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS MAY BE FIELD LOCATED AS NECESSARY TO OPTIMIZE THEIR EFFICIENCY UNDER EXTANT SITE CONDITIONS 7. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE TOWN AND/OR DISTRICT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND BE SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. 8, SAFETY IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY IN, ON, OR ABOUT THE PROJECT SITE, NOR FOR COMPLIANCE BY THE APPROPRIATE PARTY NTH ANY REGULATIONS RELATING THERETO. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, SIGNS. BARRICADES, FLAGMEN, OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, INCLUDING THE STATE OF COLORADO AMENDMENTS. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP A SEPARATE, FULL SET OF CONTRACT DRAWINGS WHICH HE SHALL MARK UP TO FULLY INDICATE AS -I LILT CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AT LEAST THREE TIES FROM PHYSICAL MONUMENTS TO SURFACE LEVEL UTILITY APPURTENANCES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO INDICATE THE DISTANCES ALONG THE LINES BETWEEN VALVES, FITTINGS, INLETS, TANKS, CLEANOUTS. ETC.. THE ELEVATION AND LENGTH OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND RWM AND INVERT ELEVATIONS OF GRAVITY PIPELINES, FITTINGS, INLETS. VAULTS, TANKS, AND MANHOLES. IT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF ALL TEST REPORTS AND INSPECTION RECORDS FOR THE WATER MAIN INSTALLATION TO THE TOWN AND DISTRICT. r !�& aB i 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCT ION o- z- 80 ss �t °a a� m6: R I 33�Nyy' �p eF =35g Hilt F 'fr5$frs`>o Q �FF SEY �Ee 1 4 ��b Ease abE 'tgo Eo�SeT s's>sE�fr ie E""�ES s �§ E: e8E53S W U O O O Q Z ~ Z 0 O Q 0 a- ZW r W 00 1— Q 3 O 0 W � J d J W W wEa a�bA;714: MM �iRAWN BY: I MM �a4IXFD BT. am 5-1T-07 06-0112E arta no 7 OF 7 PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING PROPERTY LINE — — — — — — — — — — — EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING 2' CONTOUR "----------__"' EXISTING 10' CONTOUR '�-`------�—� PROPOSED 2" CONTOURS 1-----'�� PROPOSED 10' CONTOURS EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ® PROPOSED WATER MANHOLE WV PROPOSED WATER VALVE Q PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ® PROPOSED WATER SERVICE EXISTING AREA OF 407 SLOPE OR GREATER EXISTING AREA OF 30% TO 40% SLOPE 2. CONSTRUCTION STAKING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A COLORADO LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR. 3. PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT LOCATED WITHIN KNOWN FLOOD PRONE AREAS OR AN ESTABUSHED 100 -YR FLOOD PLAIN. FREE WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED AT THE TIME OF DRILLING (12-1-2005) OR MEN CHECKED 6 DAYS LATER IN BORNNGS ON LOTS 38 AND 39. SUBSOILS AND BEDROCK MATERIAL WERE DESCRIBED AS SLIGHTLY MOST TO MOIST DURING THE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. 4. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR IS WARNED THAT THERE MAY BE CONFLICTS WITH EXISTING UTIUTIES, PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR LINE LOCATIONS. HE SHALL LOCATE ALL UTILITIES (INCLUDING DEPTH) AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER. ANY CONFLICTS NTH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY SO THAT LINE OR GRADE CHANGES CAN BE MADE TO ELIMINATE THEM. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE BY THE CONTRACTOR. DAMAGED UTILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN CULVERTS/STORM SEWERS AND SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE LINES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 2 FEET. 5. STABILITY OF ALL TRENCH CUTS OF 10 FEET OR MORE SHALL BE EVALUATED AND APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 6 POSITIVE SURFACE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM UTILITY AND STRUCTURE EXCAVATIONS IS REQUIRED WRING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. TEMPORARY STORMWATER CONVEYANCE CHANNELS MAY BE FIELD LOCATED AS NECESSARY TO OPTIMIZE THEIR EFFICIENCY UNDER EXTANT SITE CONDITIONS 7. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE TOWN AND/OR DISTRICT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND BE SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. 8, SAFETY IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE ENGINEER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY IN, ON, OR ABOUT THE PROJECT SITE, NOR FOR COMPLIANCE BY THE APPROPRIATE PARTY NTH ANY REGULATIONS RELATING THERETO. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, SIGNS. BARRICADES, FLAGMEN, OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, INCLUDING THE STATE OF COLORADO AMENDMENTS. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP A SEPARATE, FULL SET OF CONTRACT DRAWINGS WHICH HE SHALL MARK UP TO FULLY INDICATE AS -I LILT CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AT LEAST THREE TIES FROM PHYSICAL MONUMENTS TO SURFACE LEVEL UTILITY APPURTENANCES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO INDICATE THE DISTANCES ALONG THE LINES BETWEEN VALVES, FITTINGS, INLETS, TANKS, CLEANOUTS. ETC.. THE ELEVATION AND LENGTH OF ALL SERVICE LINES AND RWM AND INVERT ELEVATIONS OF GRAVITY PIPELINES, FITTINGS, INLETS. VAULTS, TANKS, AND MANHOLES. IT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE COPIES OF ALL TEST REPORTS AND INSPECTION RECORDS FOR THE WATER MAIN INSTALLATION TO THE TOWN AND DISTRICT. r !�& aB i 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCT ION o- z- 80 ss �t °a a� m6: R I 33�Nyy' �p eF =35g Hilt F 'fr5$frs`>o Q �FF SEY �Ee 1 4 ��b Ease abE 'tgo Eo�SeT s's>sE�fr ie E""�ES s �§ E: e8E53S W U O O O Q Z ~ Z 0 O Q 0 a- ZW r W 00 1— Q 3 O 0 W � J d J W W wEa a�bA;714: MM �iRAWN BY: I MM �a4IXFD BT. am 5-1T-07 06-0112E arta no 7 OF 7 Staff Report ­Al PUD AMENDMENTVON " W-, ,) July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date July 12, 2007 Project type Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) Legal description Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision Current Zoning PUD Address 160 - 180 West Beaver Creek Boulevard I. Introduction: The applicant, Pointes of Colorado, is requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Development ("PUD") for Sheraton Mountain Vista — Lot C. This application was tabled from the Planning and Zoning Commission's March 21, 2006 meeting. Since the March 21, 2006 meeting, the applicant and representatives of Starwood Vacation Ownership ("SVO") have been involved with several meetings regarding the Town Center West development plan and associated Urban Renewal Authority.',, The Lot C PUD is a mixed-use project that includes residential, office and commercial land uses. The developed portion of the project includes 85 two-bedroom time-share units, 20 employee -housing units, and ground level office/retail space. The undeveloped uses include additional timeshare units, general office and retail, restaurant, and a 125 -room hotel. As currently approved, the build -out of the project occurs in three phases: Phases 1A, 1B, and 1C. The portion of the timeshare and commercial space along with the employee housing has been built in accordance with Phase 1A and 1 B with the majority of ground -level retail and hotel/restaurant occurring in the last phase (Phase 1C). The amendment request applies to Phase 1 C, which is now being referred to as "Phase C- 1", and the inclusion of an additional Phase (Phase C-2). Both Phase C-1 and Phase C-2 would have an occupancy date of February 2012, based on the existing vesting. There are no proposed changes to the vesting period. Phase 1C is currently entitled 48 timeshare units, 5,500 square feet of commercial/retail, 4,800 square feet of restaurant, and a 125 -room hotel. The amendment request would eliminate the hotel, and increase the number of time-share units. Also part of this application is the proposed conversion of floors two and three of the office building which fronts Main Street from office use to fee simple condominiums. The exact number of condominium units is yet to be determined, however, there is Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax(970)949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista AVON July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 11 approximately 10,500 square feet of space and after a preliminary assessment the applicant envisions up to four units. The first floor of the same three story building would be designated as restaurant space. IL Background A prior amendment request was processed in 2005. That application was similar to the current request by proposing the elimination of the hotel potion of the project; however, the building height and resulting massing were larger than the current submittal. Following three separate public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the application was withdrawn by the applicant at the first Town Council Hearing. This application was received by Staff in January of 2006. After a thorough review, Staff recommended denial of the application at the March 21, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Staffs main areas of concern were: the legitimacy of the parking analysis provided by the applicant, permitting "professional office" instead of restaurant use as a use by right on the ground level of Lot 4, affordable housing and its inclusion within the Metro District and associated mill levy, massing of Phase C-1, and conflicts with the newly adopted Commercial Design Guidelines. The applicant requested a tabling at the March 21, 2006 meeting. Without discussion or a formal review of the application at that hearing, the application was unanimously tabled to a future meeting. As mentioned in the introduction, there have been several meetings since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing relative to the West Town Center Master Plan and this revised submittal. To clarify this amendment request, the following table represents the existing entitlements (pursuant to Ordinance No. 00-02), organized by use, comparing dwelling units and square footages with the current submittal: Existing PUD Unit Breakdown & Square Footages Dwelling Square Land Use Units Units Footaqe Hotel 125 41.25 Commercial (Office/Retail) 27,050 Employee Housing Units 20 20 1 Bedroom Timeshare Units 2 Bedroom Timeshare Proposed PUD Unit Breakdown & Square Footages Dwelling Units Units 20 Square Footaqe 16,000 20 11" 1 8.32 Units 133 177.29 1 174 231.94 1 3 Bedroom Timeshare Units 5" 9 Totals 239 27,050 269 16,000 ' 4 of these units are less than 600 sq. ft. and are "accommodation" units by definition. 1 of the 5 3 -bedroom units is not divisible. The remaining 4 units contain 2 full kitchens & therefore would be counted as 2 D.U.'s respectively. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista p' July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 11 II. Public Notice Requirement: This application is a noticed public hearing with written notice provided to all property owners within 300' of the subject property. Staff mailed the notices to property owners within 300' on July 5th, 2007. To date there have been no written comments received. The Commission must hold a public hearing on July 17, 2007 in accordance with Section 17.12.110(b) of the Town of Avon Zonina Code. III. PUD Design Criteria: According to the Town of Avon Zonino Code, Section 17.20.110, the following criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating this application. According to Code, "It shalt be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following design criteria,or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution is consistent with the public interest. " Please refer to Pages 3-8 of Exhibit A for the applicant's responses to these principal review criteria. 1. Conformance with the 2006 Town of Avon Comurehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. District 1: West Town Center District (Comp Plan Page 71-72) The subject property is located in the "West Town Center District." The Comprehensive Plan states that the role of the West Town Center District is to serve as the heart of the community. It is a pedestrian oriented area that serves as the primary focus for residential and lodging development within the overall town core. Some of the planning principles for this district that directly relate to this application include: • Realign West Benchmark Road to improve circulation in the area and enhance the development feasibility of vacant parcels. • Develop a mix of uses that provide a strong residential and lodging bed base supported by community and guest commercial uses. • Use architectural detailing on ground level/first floor to enhance the pedestrian environment that includes a human scale, display windows, and other pedestrian amenities. • Ensure convenient pedestrian and auto access to the entire Town Center. Goals and Policies (Comp Plan Pages 37 - 63) — The Comprehensive Plan contains several regional policy goals related to land use and development patterns that should be reviewed with respect to all proposed PUD plans in Town. Some of the Goals and Policies that pertain to this application are as follows: Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista p° July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 11 Policy B2.3: Encourage a range of uses in the Town Center, including retail, offices, hotels, recreation, tourism, and entertainment. Staff Response: The applicant's commitment to make the necessary improvement to the office building for a future restaurant creates an entertainment anchor to support the types of densities being proposed consistent with the existing approval and the Town master plan documents for the Town Core. The proposed amendment maintains a mix of uses that includes commercial uses (restaurant, retail, and office), residential timeshare, and a limited number of whole ownership residential units. As currently proposed, the next phase of construction ("C-1") would contain 49 timeshare Units and 2,650 Gross Leasable Floor Area (GLFA) of "Ground Floor/Retail Space." Also included in Phase C-1 is the construction of 144 parking spaces. The final phase ("C-2") proposed would contain 58 additional timeshare units, and 2,300 GLFA of retail space. The balance of 53 parking spaces would be constructed in Phase C-2. Policy B.1.7: Require that development within the Town Center Districts maintain a strong street edge, however all floors above the third shall be setback and articulated. Staff Response: There are some building setbacks moving from Main Street to the north toward West Beaver Creek Boulevard, particularly the area between Phases C-1 and C-2, nearest the existing three story Lot 4 building. No significant building setbacks at the third story are proposed in other portions of the project. The articulation presented in the elevation drawings is consistent with that of the already constructed phases. Policy C.3.1: Require vertical andlor horizontal mixed-use development to enhance the Town's ability to respond to changing market conditions. Staff Response: As stated above, there are vertically mixed land uses proposed with this application. Policy D.1.3: Restrict large surface parking areas that directly abut local streets. Staff Response: The majority of parking for this project is located underground, or underneath portions of proposed buildings. It is important to note that the majority of the future parking structure would be built during the next phase of development. The primary view of the project is of buildings, as opposed to large surface parking areas. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista AVON July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 11 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the town, the sub -area design recommendations and design guidelines of the Town. ' Staff Response: According to General Note 4 on Sheet T1.00: "The architectural designs depicted in this PUD Development plan are conceptual only. Final architectural design including, but not limited to, building color, materials, fenestration, trim and theme will be determined in the design review process." While the proposed elevations are conceptual in nature, the general massing depicted in the drawings is likely given the density envisioned in the West Town Center district and the number of units proposed. There have been significant changes to the proposed massing of both future project phases. Most notably, the South Elevation (view from Lot B and Avon Center) of Phase C-1 has been modified and lowered to conform to the West Town Center plan. The height of Phase C-2, closest the three story building on "Main Street', has also been lowered since the 2005 application submittal. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. Staff Response: The Town plays a critical role by establishing a framework for development, then evaluating individual development proposals against that pattern. This framework, articulated through the Town Comprehensive Plan, Town Center West Plan, and corresponding Desion Guidelines, gives current and potential property and business owners a reasonable set of expectations upon which they can base investment decisions, and some assurance that development approvals on adjacent properties will be made using the same set of criteria. Because development in this district is so interdependent with surrounding development, having and adhering to this framework is especially important. Staff believes that compatibility with surrounding uses, especially "Main Street," will be improved with the location of the proposed restaurant on the future "Main Street' and a smaller retail location on the lower level of Phase C-2. There has been an effort made to draw pedestrians in and through the Sheraton property. Attached to this report as Exhibit D is the Draft Design Guidelines specific to Lot C for the Main Street Master Plan. While this is a draft document, there has been a great deal of energy put into the draft and it is likely the draft will move forward in the near future. The applicant has participated in several meetings regarding "Main Street' redevelopment, including meetings directly related to the Design Guidelines. Staff would encourage the Commission to review the scale of this development in context with the envisioned West Town Center master plan. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista p° O July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 11 4. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Staff Response: The uses, activities, and densities proposed with this application can provide a workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Lot C is a dense project that should benefit "Main Street" with a large proportionate mix of 'hot beds'. Additional fee simple condominiums above the restaurant space on Lot 4 will also provide vitality to "Main Street." There was discussion during the last review of this application relative to the existing affordable housing units constructed on the project. Staff expressed the desire to reconfigure some of the units to increase their size and livability. This could result in a further decrease in parking demand for the project. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. Staff Response: There appear to be no natural or geologic hazards that affect the property. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Staff Response: It has been suggested that the original approval did not provide for the most functional and responsive site plan. While the development is functional, the porosity of the project has been discussed at length. Meetings regarding "Main Street" indicated a continued desire for a welcoming project that pedestrians dould penetrate through from Main Street toward the Post Office, or in the opposite direction. The overall site plan remains largely unchanged with this amendment application. There has been some effort to invite pedestrians around the west side of the Lot 4 building into the open plaza space in the middle of the project where additional commercial space will be located at plaza level. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation Plan. Staff Response: The proposed PUD includes primarily underground parking, with limited above ground parking. As proposed, the circulation of vehicular traffic would be accessed off Benchmark Road, and two access points off West Beaver Creek BLVD: the existing main entrance, and one new entrance on the east side of the project bordering Lot B. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista p' N July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 11 During the formulation of the Main Street development plan and District Design Guidelines, and through conversations last year with the Planning Commission regarding circulation, it was determined that the preferred pedestrian circulation emphasis moving from Main Street through the project was not between,Lot C and Lot B, but rather between the future Phase C-1 and the existing buildings. This was in response to the existing setbacks on Lot C and the possible building location(s) on Lot B. The new vehicle entrance would also effectively cut off pedestrians as they approach West Beaver Creek Boulevard. The Main Street design guidelines acknowledge the importance of keeping the west border of the project as pedestrian friendly as possible. Access to the existing affordable housing units and limited service access is envisioned in this area. The plan suggests public art and human -scale design on this side of the project to encourage pedestrian usage. Staff would recommend designated areas for public art as a condition of approval. Vehicular circulation, particularly from Benchmark Road, has been discussed over the past couple years. As the "Main Street" plan was developed, it became very apparent that Benchmark Road would need to be realigned around the Recreation Center, and vehicular access to Lot C should be limited as much as possible on this side of the project. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Staff Response: A detailed landscape plan is required during the Final Design phase of review. At that time, staff would be better prepared to discuss whether landscaping is optimized. The areas to provide for landscaping are extremely limited with the existing/proposed site plan layout. The site coverage is maximized, and the majority of open space is centrally located around the pool area. Staff would ask the applicant to demonstrate how aesthetic landscaping is optimized with this development in advance of a Final Design application, since traditional landscaping is unlikely given the amount of 'hard space', and structured parking underneath the great majority of the property. The plaza level site plan suggests at grade planters to help break the hard surface of the plaza. Staff would recommend an all inclusive master landscape and plaza plan as a condition of approval. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. Staff Response: As proposed, there are no alterations to the current vesting period and the project would be completed by 2012. Construction of Phase C-1 does not Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista p' B July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 11 depend on the future construction of Phase C-2; however, construction of Phase C-2 is dependent on the construction of Phase C-1, primarily for parking. 10.Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks, and police and fire protection. Staff Response: With the exception of water, the proposed PUD would have adequate public facilities. Based on Staffs calculation of this amendment, the PUD will increase water rights requirements by approximately 24.72 acre feet. The application does not address this deficiency; however, the applicant has met with the water district to discuss how additional water rights will be provided to the Town. The plans generally conform to the street and streetscape improvement plans developed by the Town; subject to more detailed reviews in conjunction with the Final Design Review process and Building permit review. It is important to note that the bus stop location remains on West Beaver Creek Boulevard and is moved slightly to the east under a covered arcade area. 11.That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. Staff Response: Both Benchmark Road and West Beaver Creek Boulevard are operational and under capacity. These are the two primary roads that serve the site, and existing streets and roads appear suitable to carry the amended proposal as they would the existing approval. The future Main Street would not directly access this project with vehicles. It is envisioned that limited on -street parking could be utilized by customers visiting businesses within Lot C. 12. That the PUD or amendment to PUD requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code: A. The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. B. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. C. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. Staff Response: There are economic and social benefits with this zoning application which appear to outweigh those experienced with the current zoning. The built form is improved by further reductions in massing of the two future project phases, and circulation conforms to the draft Main Street Design Guidelines. In addition to circulation Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 9 of 11 Am and massing, the assurance of a restaurant on the ground level of Lot 4 is beneficial to the vitality of Main Street. Based on previous economic models and the related occupancy variations between a hotel and timeshare use, Staff does not have concerns with the elimination of the 125 - room hotel to be substituted for additional timeshare units. A detailed financial analysis of the development, and associated development agreement, will follow the Planning and Zoning Commissions review. IV. Findings: Based on review of the mandatory review criteria outlined in Section III of this report, staff finds the following: 1. The application is in general conformance with the Town of Avon Comarehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives. 2. The application is in conformity with the Main Street Design Guideline Recommendations. 3. The design is compatible with the immediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character, and orientation. 4. The uses, activity, and density provide a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 5. The site plan, building design, and location and open space provisions are designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 6. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space is provided in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 7. The provided phasing plan maintains a workable, functional, and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. 8. The application provides evidence of compliance with the public purpose provisions, as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Avon Municipal Code. V. Discussion: Based on a thorough evaluation of both policy and approval criteria outline in Section IIII of this report, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the PUD amendment application, with conditions. In addition to the approval criteria, Staffs recommendation is based on changes presented in light of comments received during the prior amendment requests, subsequent joint work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council, and West Town Center redevelopment meetings. The applicant has satisfactorily addressed some of the items requested at previous meetings. The primary areas of discussion are summarized below: Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 10 of 11 Am • Design and Massing: The applicant has attempted to address Staff and Commission suggestions to reduce the massing and terrace the building heights for both proposed future phases: Phase C-1 and Phase C-2. Much of the review in 2005 and 2006 revolved around the massing and building height for Phase 1 C. • Parking: The applicant is requesting a variation from the current Municipal Code time-share parking standard of 1 space per 600 square feet to a parking ratio standard of 1.23 parking spaces for all types of timeshare units. The parking study recommends at least 374 total parking spaces for the property. During review last year the applicant provided an 'in house' parking study to represent peak -demand scenarios for the project. Staff requested a more sophisticated analysis before moving forward. Included within the applicant's submittal, Exhibit A, is a parking analysis provided by Walker Parking Consultants, dated May 4, 2007. • Commercial/Office ,Land Uses & Restaurant on Lot 4: The applicant is now proposing to keep the currently approved restaurant use on the ground level of Lot 4 instead of changing to "professional office," as was previously contemplated. It was made clear during previous review that a restaurant use was preferred in this location, given the significance of a "Main Street" frontage. • Affordable Housing: Due to the size of the existing affordable housing units, some of which measure approximately 250 square feet, and given the duration the units have been vacant, Staff previously requested the unoccupied and contiguous units be reconfigured. Based on prior discussions with the applicant, approximately 6 of the studio units can be reconfigured allowing for the size of the unit to be doubled. Although not contemplated with this application, Staff is requesting that the affordable housing units be removed from the Metro District (and associated mill levy), and be reconfigured to increase the floor area of at least 4 studio units. While this would decrease the quantity of affordable units, the livability would be greatly increased and parking demand could be further diminished. • Architecture/Massing: Staff would ask the Commission to consider the current architecture of the project and the continuity expressed with compatible materials, detailing, fenestration, etc. As discussed, the massing has been modified and improved since last review. The most notable area of change is that the main body of Phase C-1 has been lowered approximately 25', and the southern most portion of the Phase C-2 building now steps down toward "Main Street." • Technical Issues: Our calculations indicate the proposed PUD will increase water rights requirements by approximately 24.72 acre feet above the water rights required to supply the development under the original zoning. Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot C PUD, Sheraton Mountain Vista July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting VI. Recommended Motion: Page 11 of 11 DON Staff is recommending the Commission conditionally APPROVE the PUD amendment application for Sheraton Mountain Vista, application date stamped May 4, 2007, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall convey to the Town the water rights necessary to serve the proposed development. Final water right determination shall be resolved between the property owner and the Town prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase C-1. Approximately 24.72 acre feet shall be supplied. 2. The property owner will identify, with architectural plans, at least 4 affordable studio units to be reconfigured to increase their size prior to completion of the project. The units will be reconfigured prior to completion of the project. In addition to reconfiguration, all of the units will be removed from the Metro District. 3. The property owner shall submit a master landscaping and public plaza design plan, including public art locations integrated along the pedestrian corridor on the west side of the project, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for Phase C-1. 4. Building heights shall not exceed those depicted in the Amended PUD Development Plan. 5. The proposed restaurant shall be open and operating prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase C-1. 5. Except as otherwise modified by this approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representatives in this application and in public hearings shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielsticker Planner II VII. Attachments: Exhibit A: PUD Application, May 4th, 2007 Exhibit B: Supplemental Information, May 4th, 2007 Exhibit C: Aerial Vicinity Map Exhibit D: Town Center West Design Guidelines for Lot C (DRAFT) Town of Avon Community Development Phone (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749 PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION P SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA RECEIVED MAY 6 4 2007 Community Development Points of Colorado, Inc. 8801 Vistana Centre Drive Orlando, FL 32821 Prepared by: Ruth Borne, Attorne» at Law P.O. Box 7833 Avon, CO 81620 a PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION P SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA RECEIVED MAY 6 4 2007 Community Development Points of Colorado, Inc. 8801 Vistana Centre Drive Orlando, FL 32821 Prepared by: Ruth Borne, Attorne» at Law P.O. Box 7833 Avon, CO 81620 PUD Amendment Application for Sheraton Mountain Vista Lot C, Mountain Resort Subdivision, Town of Avon, Colorado Points of Colorado, Inc. ("Applicant') is requesting a PUD Amendment to the Development Plan and Development Agreement for Lot C, Mountain Resort Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "Lot C") as set forth in Series 2000, Ordinance 00-02 in accordance with the requirements of the Avon Municipal Code, Section 17.20.110. A previous PUD Amendment Application ("Application") was submitted in May, 2005, and a revised Application was submitted in February 2006. After months of discussion and deliberation with staff, Town Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission ("P&Z"), several modifications have been implemented into this Application. Submitted to the Town of Avon ("Town") simultaneously with the Application are various plans, reports and other materials collectively referred to as "Supporting Materials." Some of the more significant improvements to the Application include: Phasing: Phase 1D will now be constructed first and is referred to as Phase C-1. Also included in this phase will be the construction of restaurant space in Lot 4 (Office Building) and floors 2 and 3 will be converted to fee simple residential condominium units. The revisions to the phasing will result in more parking being constructed earlier and the creation of a new free-standing building. Although the conversion of the office building to fee simple ownership on floors 2 and 3 results in a net loss of commercial square footage, it accommodates recommendations of Design Workshop conveyed at stakeholder meetings, the draft of Avon Town Center West Design Guidelines and the recent creation of an Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") to facilitate the Town Center West Plan. Massing/Architectural Interest: The roof lines on Phases C -I and C -II step down toward Main Street and wrap around the plaza level with retail/commercial space and timeshare units. Architectural articulation on both phases has been enhanced including wall planes, pedestrian areas, roof details, fenestration, paving, and overall detailing. Attention had been made to enhance the entry to the project on all sides for pedestrians as well as overall visual enhancement. The overall scale and bulk have been reduced in response to public input provided at the P&Z hearings as well as a joint work session with Council and P&Z. Parking Study and Operational Analysis: Points of Colorado, Inc. engaged Walker Parking Consultants to prepare a parking analysis, which is attached hereto as Sheraton Mountain Vista May 1007 PUD Amendment Application Exhibit "A". The parking study recommends a parking ratio standard of 1.23 parking spaces for all types of timeshare units. The overall parking demand for the project is estimated at 347 parking spaces. We are proposing a total of 374 parking spaces creating a surplus of 27 parking spaces. Vesting: Applicant is not proposing any changes to the vesting period. The vesting terminates on February 22, 2012. This timeline is important for the Town's projected valuation for the URA as well as other long-range planning goals. We have also provided Supplemental Information under separate cover, which includes the following documents: 1. PUD Development Plan - February 22, 2000 2. Development Agreement for Confluence and Lot C - 1998 3. Ordinance 02, Series of 2000 Ordinance Approving the PUD Development Plan for Tract C 4. Amendment to Development Agreement for Confluence and Tract C - 2000 5. Proposed Second Amended Development Agreement for Lot C Sheraton Mountain Resort Subdivision 6. Fiscal Analysis Prepared by Price Waterhouse dated March 24, 2005 Applicant hereby requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council of the Town take administrative notice of each of the supporting materials identified in the Application, Supplemental Information and Amended PUD Development Plans. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUD CRITERIA —17.20.110 AVON TOWN CODE The following shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating a PUD application: 1. Conformity with the February 2006 Avon Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. We will discuss conformance with the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, the Avon Town Center West Market Investigation, Avon Town Center Implementation Plan, and the Draft West Town Center Design Guidelines. Please note: the Town Center Plan was originally adopted in November 2001, subsequent to the approval of the Lot C PUD Development Plan and related documents. The design review approval for Phase 113 complied with the terms and conditions of the Town Center Plan. Lot C is identified as High Priority District, District 1: West Town Center District serves as the heart of the community. The District acts as a common ground between full-time residents, part-time residents and destination guests through diverse retail and entertainment opportunities. The District is intended to be an intensely developed mixed use, pedestrian—oriented area that serves as the primary focus for residential and lodging development within the overall Town Center. Applicant complies with the District's priorities by creating an intensely developed mixed use, pedestrian—oriented development that serves as the primary focus for visitors and residents. This PUD Amendment ensures the future of attracting tourism and creating a balance of land uses with additional retail space and timeshare units. The PUD Amendment consists of 20 deed restricted housing units, a minimum of 16,000 5F of commercial/retail space, and 192 timeshare units. The parking includes a combination of surface and structured underground parking and includes 374 parking spaces. Planning principles of the High Priority 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 Lot C is a high density project in conformance with the Town Center West Plans. The project is well integrated with commercial and retail uses on the ground level with residential/timeshare units on the upper levels. The occupancy rates continue to increase for timeshare as well as hotel accommodations. The additional density for this Application will only reinforce the growing bed base. 3 • Create inviting storefronts with retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses on ground levels and offices, lodging, and residential uses above Restaurant and retail is proposed on the grounds levels with condominiums on the upper floors facing Main Street. Applicant will continue to work with staff to incorporate the requirements of the draft Town Center West Design Guidelines as they become formalized. The architectural articulation, pedestrian corridors and central restaurant plaza have been incorporated into the plans to create inviting storefronts. • Establish public plazas and other gathering places for community interaction and social events The Application includes a public plaza with several inviting portals for pedestrians. Outdoor seating is proposed as a special review use in accordance with Town code requirements and may occur on Main Street and other retail/commercial locations. • Site buildings of varying sizes along the street to maximize sun exposure, protect views and break up building bulk The project now has a variety of heights and overall massing which diminishes as it gets closer to Main Street as well as an opportunity for a central restaurant plaza with outdoor seating. • Ensure convenient pedestrian and auto access to the entire Town Center Pedestrian and vehicular portals have been created to ensure convenient access and create a one-stop parking opportunity for guests, residents, patrons, and visitors. The majority of parking for this project is an underground structure and may be accessed from three separate locations in Town Center. Goal D.2 Create community gateways and streetscapes that reflect and strengthen Avon's unique community character and image. The project allows for pedestrian movement on all areas adjacent to public rights of way and throughout the project. The pedestrian circulation design for resort guests, visitors and employees emphasizes pedestrian movement. The close proximity to the Riverfront, Town Center, Nottingham Lake and Avon Recreation Center encourages pedestrian movement rather than automobile traffic. The project now includes a transit oriented aspect by providing a bus shelter surrounded by retail space on both sides. 12 Goal E.3 Increase the number of visitors to Avon by enhancing our attractiveness as a destination resort community. The occupancy rate for Sheraton Mountain Vista has exceeded expectations and continues to excel. The Town now has the benefit of the Starwood brand throughout Town Center, which includes the Riverfront project, which provides for a variety of visitors accommodating all types of price points. The approval of this PUD Amendment will further enhance the community and provide for more opportunities as a destination resort. 2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme of the Town, the subarea design recommendations and design guidelines adopted by the Town. Particular attention has been made to creating interesting pedestrian walkways, entries, articulated roof and wall planes, fenestration and opportunities for vital retail and commercial development. The PUD Amendment reinforces the commercial design guidelines and contributes to the overall aesthetics of the community. The character and architectural design of Lot C has been established with the construction and development of the office building, affordable housing and two phases of the timeshare building. The PUD Amendment continues to create articulation and architectural interest of the buildings on the plaza and street levels, stepping down of the overall massing as it moves closer to Town Center, and an overall project which contributes to the goals and objectives of effective development in the Town of Avon. 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation. The evolution of timeshare across the country is expanding as a result of different vacation needs for families. The American Resort Development Association (ARDA) International Foundation recently reported the following: • Time-share business has seen 15 years of growth, achieving an average of more than 15% gains every year • In 2005, timeshare owners took approximately 5.7 million timeshare vacations, spending an average of $1,768. each trip, which translates to about $10 billion • $22.6 billion was spent in 2005 on purchases of new timeshare, maintenance fees and other purchases during timeshare vacations The Fiscal Analysis Report contained in the Supplemental Information supports the premise that there is an increased occupancy rate for timeshare over hotel accommodations. See Supplemental Information, Tab #6, Fiscal Analysis, 5 SUPPLEMENT TO PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION DATED MAY, 2007 3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, character and orientation. Mountain Vista Resort is an existing mixed-use development. As the Town of Avon develops the implementation of the Town Center West, the proposed density, scale, and overall character contained in this amendment reinforces the direction of the Town's development goals. The overall scale, bulk and density have been reduced throughout this application process as suggested by Staff, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Town Council. Both phases include a reduction in overall height and stepping down as the buildings move closer to "Main Street" and pedestrian corridors have been enhanced to provide for more effective circulation. Both exterior wall and roof planes have more articulation and architectural interest. The placement of retail and commercial space is complementary to Town Center West planning and design objectives. Mountain Vista Resort combined with the other properties being developed by Starwood as well as other developers in the Town will continue to create an enhanced environment for residents and visitors to the community. Occupancy Rates- Exhibit "B". The Fiscal Analysis evaluates the proposed mix of uses and supports this PUD Amendment. This project consists of a compatible and efficient mix of uses consisting of timeshare, affordable housing, retail, surface and underground structured parking. 4. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The recent construction and development on the Riverfront project, development of Town Center East and West combined with this Application will provide a compatible and enhanced benefit to the Town's future with this Amendment. All of the elements of a mixed use development with on-site affordable housing are provided consistent with the Town's short and long term planning and economic goals. 5. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed. There are no natural or geologic hazards associated with the existing or proposed PUD Amendment. 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetations and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Lot C is a functional development. Each phase will stand on its own as an independent project and continue to reinforce the plans for Town Center West. The proposed phases will be sensitive to the aesthetics of the community and function independent of future phases. The site plan allows for developing retail throughout the project, aesthetic landscaping, hardscape, and articulated massing to maintain views and encourage pedestrian movement. 7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrian addressing on and off-site traffic circulation that is compatible with the Town Transportation plan. Lot C contemplates vehicular and pedestrian circulation in compliance with the Town Transportation Plan, the development of access to the Riverfront property as well as the potential for development of the Town Center West Plan. The vehicular access has not been modified from the existing Lot C PUD approval and provides vehicular access to the project through Sun Road, proposed limited access for Benchmark Road, and Beaver Creek Blvd. Pedestrian access has been reinforced on all areas of the project to include an enticing environment for visitors, residents and guests. 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views, and function. n The hardscape and landscaping are intended to preserve pedestrian function and overall views to recreation, public art, and the natural environment. Both Phase C -I and Phase C -II step down toward the Town Center Mall. Pedestrian access and interest has been enhanced on all access points to the project. 9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without relying upon completion of future project phases. The existing Lot C PUD includes three phases of development; two of the phases are complete in accordance with the terms and conditions of the PUD. This Amendment includes one additional phase for a total of four (4) phases. Each phase complies with the development standards without relying upon the completion of the future phase. Phase C -I will be a free-standing building enhancing the site with an additional vehicle access point, retail opportunities and an overall balancing of the architectural elements. Phase C -II is the final piece of the site specific development plan and does not rely upon completion of another phase. 10. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads, parks and police and fire protection. The public services required for this PUD Amendment are adequate and discussed in depth in the fiscal analysis which is included in this application. 11. That the existing streets and roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD. There are no modifications to the PUD being proposed with this application. 12. That the PUD Amendment requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions of Section 17.28.085 of the Zoning Code. • The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. The current PUD does not contemplate the construction and development of the Riverfront project along with the Town Center West Plans and newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. The revisions contained in this application provide opportunities for enhancing retail, vitality, and pedestrian access that would otherwise not be available to the Town. %I • Approval of the zoning application provides long-term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. As confirmed in the Avon Town Center West Investigation prepared by Design Workshop ("Investigation") dated January 10, 2006, the proposed revisions of this Amendment clearly support the long-term economic and social goals of the Town. Most significant is the additional retail and restaurant opportunities presented in this PUD Amendment as well as adequate parking to bring the vitality the Town is looking for. In fact, the Investigation cites the Price Waterhouse study prepared on behalf of Points of Colorado for this Amendment to confirm the higher occupancy rates and relationship to consumer spending creating the critical mass the Town is seeking. • The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. Town Center West and all of the relevant planning documents support this PUD Amendment. The refinement of pedestrian access, more restaurant/retail opportunities, and adequate parking facilities support this modification and comply with all the current planning goals and objectives. 13. Description of the proposed development standards. The developments standards are set forth on the cover sheet of the Amendment PUD Development Plan. The highlights of the development standards for this Amendment include: • Enhanced design for retail/commercial square footage • Construction of free-standing retail/commercial and timeshare building for first phase of development • Restaurant space on Lot 4 (Office Building) • Condominium units on 2nd and 3`d floor facing Main Street • Adequate parking accommodations for each phase of development All hotel accommodation and sales taxes are remitted to the Town 8 EXHIBIT "A" PUD AMENDMENT APPLICATION MAY 2007 SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA MEMORANDUM PARKING ANALYSIS — SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PAGE DATE: May 4, 2007 TO: Aleksandr Shekyhet COMPANY. Obermeier-Shekyhet Architecture ADDRESS. 1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 200 CITY/STATE: Denver, CO 80203 cc: HARD COPY TO No FOLLOW' FROM: Jeremiah J. Simpson PROJECT NAME: Sheraton Mountain Vista PROJECT NUMBER: 23-7051.00 SUBJECT Parking Demand Assessment Dear Aleksandr: WALKER PARKING CONSUITAN-5 Walker Parking Consultants 5350 S Roslyn Street, Suite 220 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Voice: 303.694.6622 Fax. 303.694.6667 www walkerparking corn The following memo contains Walker's preliminary parking demand analysis for the proposed Sheraton Mountain Vista timeshare and commercial project in Avon, Colorado. BACKGROUND Obermeier-Shekyhet Architecture has retained Walker Parking Consultants ("Walker") to provide a preliminary parking demand analysis for the mixed-use Sheraton Mountain Vista timeshare development in Avon, Colorado The project was designed as a multi -phase development with Phases 1A and 1B already completed. The project has in place an existing and approved PUD (Ordinance 00- 02). The developer applied for an amendment to that PUD and was denied approval from the Town of Avon. A primary issue that factored into the town not approving the amendment was contention about the required number of parking spaces. Based on their assessment, the Town thinks that 400+ spaces will be necessary, while the developer feels that the proposed 374 spaces will be sufficient. The Town of Avon requested that the developer hire a qualified third party consultant to analyze the project and determine parking demand. INTRODUCTION The existing Sheraton Mountain Vista ("SMV") project consists of timeshare, commercial, and employee housing land uses. The proposed development in Phase C-1 and C-2 will include additional timeshare units, commercial/retail, and restaurant uses. Existing development on the site is shown in Table 1, c tdocuments and settings1ruthVocal settrngslfemporary Internet rilesblk32c1mem050407-sheraton_mtn_vista-nf (2) doc MEMORANDUM PARKING ANALYSIS— SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PAGE 2 Table 1: Existing Development Type Total Units or S.F. 1 Bedroom Timeshare 4 Units 2 Bedroom Timeshare 81 Units Employee Housing 20 Units Commercial/ Retail 5,880 GSF 1 . For densty purposesthe existing PUD countsthese four 1 bedroom units as two -bed room units "Source: Obermeier-Shekyhet Architecture WALKER PAAKMG CONSUtTA: !S Additional development is proposed for the site under future project phases. At full build -out, the PUD amendment proposes approximately 190 timeshare units and roughly ±16,000 S.F. of commercial space. (Note that the project would actually include only 187 timeshare units; however for density purposes, the PUD lists each of the 3 -bedroom sub -divided units as two separate units - see footnote 2 below). Table 2 reflects the total build -out scenario including existing uses and uses planned for Phases 1C and 1D. Table 2 Proposed Development Type 1 Bedroom Time -Share 2 Bedroom Time -Share ' 3 Bedroom Time -Share Subdivided 2 3 Bedroom Time -Share Not Subdivided Employee Housing Office Space 3 Commercial/ Retail Restaurant ° N umber of Units or S F 1 Units 182 Units 3 Units 1 Units 20 Units 10,500 S.F. 12,000 S.F. 4,281 S. F. (GLA) 1. 2 bedroom time-share units have a look -off component and can be used as a single unit, or as 2 separate units /keys. 2. 3 bedroom time-share units have a lock -of component and can be used as a single unit, or as 2 separate units /keys. When divided into 2 units, one unit is a 1 -bedroom and the other is a 2 bedroom Note that for density purposes, the PUD counts the 3-bdr subdivided units as two units instead one -unit, therefore the total PUD unit count is slightly higher. 3. This 10,500 S F. is constructed and is currently vacant. The developer is planning to revise the plan to convert this square footage from office space to full ownership condominium units. See additional discussion in the text. 4. 5,250 S.F. of commercial space is represented on the PUD. The client has established that this space will be a restaurant. The client estimates that roughly 969 S.F. will be a common space, making the estimated actual S.F. for the restaurant only 4,281 S.F. Source: Obermeier-Shekyhet Architecture The developer is currently considering a revision to the plan to convert the existing 10,500 S.F. of vacant office space into wholly owned residential condominiums. Since residential units typically generate less demand for parking than commercial space, the developer feels that this change will reduce the impact on overall parking needs for the site. c:ldocuments and settingslruthllocal settrngsltemporary rntemet fleslolk32clmem050407-sheraton_mtn_vista-nl (2).doc MEMORANDUM '" WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS— SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA ► PARKING C ONSUirAN'.S PAGE 3 Scenario B showing residential units instead of office is shown below. At this time, Scenario B is the more likely of the two scenarios assuming that the Town approves the change. Table 3: Proposed Development - Scenario B Type 1 Bedroom Time -Share 2 Bedroom Time -Share 3 Bedroom TmeShare Subdivided 3 Bedroom Time -Share Not Subdivided Employee Housing Wholly Owned Condos (10,500 SF)' Commercial/ Retail Restaurant Number of Units or S F 1 Units 182 Units 3 Units 1 Units 20 Units 4 Units 12,000 S.F 4,281 S.F. (GLA) 1. The developer is planning to revise the plan to convert this square footage from office space to approximately 4 full ownership condominium units. Source: Obermeier-Shekyhet Architecture Existina and Proposed Parkina Sheraton Mountain Vista currently has one below -grade parking garage with 115 stalls, one above - grade garage with 10 stalls, and 68 surface lot parking stalls. The developer previously submitted a PUD amendment proposing revised parking standards for the site. Using these standards, this PUD would requirement a total of 317 stalls based on the following breakdown. Table 4: Developer's Proposed Parking Standards Use Timeshare Units, Commercial/ Retail/ Restaurant: Total Proposed Need Source Obermeier-Shekyhet Architecture Standard 1.0 Spaces per 1 Bedroom Unit 1 25 Spaces per 2 Bedroom Unit 2 0 Spaces Per 3 Bedroom Unit 5 Spaces per 1,000 S.F. 317 Spaces The developer feels that this number of spaces will be sufficient to accommodate all of the planned uses shown on the PUD amendment. Table 5. Proposed Parking Construction by Phase cAdocuments and settingslruthVocal settingsltemporary intemet fileslolk32clmem050407-sheraton—mtn—wsta-nl (2).doc MEMORANDUM PARKING ANALYSIS — SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PAGE Phase Number of Stalls 1A,1B 167 1B 26 C-1 144 C2 53 Number of Temporary Stalls' 16 Total 374 - 1. Note that temporary stalls will be removed with the completion of each subsequent phase. Source: Obermeier-Shekyhet Architecture SHARED PARKING OVERVIEW WALKER PARKING CONS4fTAYS Generally, Walker uses a ULI-style model for calculating shared -use parking demand.' This methodology takes into account the number of cars generated by various land -use components in a mixed-use development at different times of the day. Adjustments are built into the model to reflect factors such as the hourly presence for various user groups (i.e., employees, visitors, etc.), seasonal trends, mode split, and captive rate. For mixed-use developments, the shared use methodology is preferable over City[Town code requirements, which tend to over-estimate parking demand by assuming that demand from all components of a development peak at the same time. Also, code requirements rarely make allowances for factors such as captive rate and mode split. The terms "mode split' and "captive rate" are discussed below: Mode Split = the percentage of patrons or employees that arrive to the development via car versus other forms of transportation such as taxi, shuttle, or public transit. Note that areas with high transit usage will have a higher mode split adjustment. Also, rideshare programs and transportation demand management strategies (such as pricing) are considered when determining the potential mode split. Captive Rate = the percentage of customers who may utilize a land use but are already parked on-site for another primary demand generator. A classic example is a hotel population that is already parked on-site but may visit the hotel restaurant for lunch or dinner. For SMV, we assume that some of the employees for the project may utilize transit (since there is a bus stop immediately adjacent to the project). However the overall impact on the parking demand will be minimal since most of the parking demand will be generated by timeshare guests and visitors for the restaurant and retail. For the commercial uses at SMV, Walker has assumed a 20% captive rate (or 80% non -captive), meaning that at the peak hour, roughly 20% of the total customers will be timeshare guests who are already staying and parked on site. This adjustment is reasonable considering the number of potential 'Several of Walker's primary sources for the Shared Parking Model areas follows 1. ULI-the Urban Land Institute, "Shared Parking", 2nd Edition. Washington, DC. ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 2005. 2. Parking Generation, Third Edition. Washington DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004 3. Data collected by Walker Task Force members. c:Wocuments and settingslrutWocal settingsltemporary internet tiles1olk32clrnem050407-sheralon—mtn vrste-nl (2).doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PARKING CONSUITAV-5 PAGE 5 guests staying at the project on a typical design day (at 100% occupancies) as compared to the amount of on-site retail and restaurant space. For the SMV shared -use model the projected the peak hour parking demand is calculated as follows: • (Land Use SF.) x (base ratio) x (transit/mode split adjustments) x (hourly presence) = peak hour demand. The demand for timeshare and residential uses will be calculated slightly differently since the total demand is based on occupied units (and/or keys) rather than square footage. Both residential and commercial uses are discussed below. PROGRAM DATA The following section provides a breakdown of the development program provided by the client. Timeshare Based on our assessment of the timeshare product, Walker recommends utilizing a model that includes total keys per unit, and takes into account the percentage of people actually driving to SMV. Note that on a typical design day, some percentage of the units will be in use as a whole unit and some will be in use as lock -off keys. Therefore it makes the most sense to asses the total parking needs on a per -key basis. Walker anticipates that 230 spaces for the 187 timeshare units (190 units as specified in the PUD) will be sufficient. Our calculations are shown below. Table 6: Timeshare Projected Parking Needs Type Total Units Max. Keys Ratio Driving Adjustment 1 Total Demand 1 Bedroom Time -Share 1 1 .751 key 0.725 1 2 Bedroom Timeshare Subdivided 182 364 .751 key 0.725 198 3 Bedroom Time -Share Subdivided 3 6 .751 key 0 725 3 3 Bedroom Time-share N of Subdivided 1 1 .75/ key 0.725 1 Visitor Parking .151 unit 1.000 27 ITotal -- _ 167- - - ------ --2301 1. The driving adjustrnert represerss to number of timeshare viatruswho arrive title development via carversus shutlk or some olherform of tansponalion Ourtable asvmes 1 00%oompances of all units on to peak dedgn day Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2006. The driving adjustment represented on Table 6 is based on transit data that was provided from a comparable resort project in Beaver Creek. This study was performed by VRI Market Research. Results showed that an average of 78.5% of resort visitors arrive via the airport and that 35% of visitors take a shuttle (vs. renting a car). Based on this data we anticipate that a .275 (.785 x .35) mode split adjustment is appropriate. Assuming that the research data on the Beaver Creek resort is comparable to the Sheraton Mountain Vista project, we have assumed that 72.5% of resort timeshare users arrive via car. In total, the 230 spaces projected represents a blended ratio of 1.23 parking spaces per unit (including all types). cAdocuments and settingsVulhVocal settingsVemporary internal rilesb1k32cVnem050407-sheraton_mtn_vista-nl (2).doc MEMORANDUM v WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PARKINGCONWITAN'S PAGE Emplovee Housinq Sheraton Mountain Vista currently has 20 employee housing units. The following table provides Walker's assessment of parking demand generated from the employee housing. Note that a total of 16 reserved spaces are currently provided for the employee housing units. However, since the employees are expected to live and work on site and the development is served by public transit, Walker feels that a ratio of 0.50 spaces (approved under the previous PUD) is more appropriate. Only 8 of the 16 spaces were occupied when Walker staff visited the site. Table 7: Employee Housing Parking Needs Type Total Units Total Keys Ratio Driving Adjustment Total Demand I Employee Housing 20 20 51 unit 1 1 000 10 Vsitor Parking 15! unit 1 000 3 Total 20 20 131 11 According to the developer, the original PUD yeahed a ratio of 0 5 parking 4allsper unit of employee houang 1 Source: Walker Parking Consultants As with the timeshare units, Walker recommends that a small amount of visitor parking be included as part of the overall ratio (typically 0.15/unit is sufficient). Commercial. Retail & Restaurant SMV currently has 5,800 S.F. of existing commercial and retail space. They also have 10,500 S.F. of constructed, but vacant office space. Additional development will add a total of roughly 6,200 S.F. of additional commercial/retail and 4,281 S.F. of restaurant space (excluding circulation areas). The base ratios applied for each of the commercial uses are: • 18.00 / 1,000 S.F. for restaurant (based on GIA space only), • 4.00 / 1,000 S.F. for the general retail, and • 3.811,000 S.F. for the office space. We have assumed a 20% captive adjustment for both retail and restaurant uses assuming that some of the patrons for the commercial space will be timeshare guests and will already be parked on site. In addition, the project will benefit from some hourly shared use since quality restaurants generate peak demand during the evenings while general retail is typically a daytime use. Office space will obviously generate the most demand during the day on weekdays. The shared use tables below project hourly trends for each land -use type on both the weekday and weekend. Table 8: Peak Demand for Commercial, Retail & Restaurant on Weekday Commercial! Retail 100% Employee ' 100% Fine/ Casual Dining 100% Employee 100% Omce <i5:000sq ft 100% Employee 100% TOTALDEMAND Customer 8 Employee 9 TOTALDEMAND Estimated Peak Hour Parking Demand On Weekday 7:00 AM 9 00 AM 11'00 AM 1'00 PM 3:00 PM 1 8 21 28 28 1 6 8 8 8 9 9 14 26 14 2 7 8 8 7 48 2 1 1 1 11 35 37 33 37 1 10 36 55 43 14 48 53 49 52 15 58 89 104 95 5 00 PM 7:00 PM 9 00 PM 11 00 PM 24 21 14 4 8 8 6 1 26 34 34 26 9 9 9 8 19 4 1 50 55 48 30I 36 21 16 9 86 76 64 391 cAdocuments and settingslruthIlocal settingsVemporary internal fileslolk32clmem050407-sheraton_mtn vista-nl (2).doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PARKING CONunTANTS PAGE 7 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, SPM, 2006. Table 9: Peak Demand for Commercial, Retail, Restaurant, Office on Weekend Estimated Peak Hour Parking Demand On Weekend Source: Walker Parking Consultants, SPM, 2006. The overall peak hour for commercial uses is projected at 1 pm during the week when the retail is the busiest and the office space has its highest occupancy. Based on Walker's shared use parking model, we have determined that the peak parking demand generated from the commercial, retail, and restaurant uses will be 106 parking spaces on a weekday. However, the presence of timeshare guests at 1 pm in the afternoon on a weekday is expected to be relatively low since many visitors will be checking in- and out- of their units or may be off-site visiting other area attractions. On the weekend, the overall peak hour is projected at 7 pm (for a Friday or Saturday evening) when the restaurant is at its busiest. Consequently, the 7 pm hour will also be the busiest time for timeshare guests when most visitors are expected to be checked in to their units and parked in the garage. No parking demand is generated from the office space at the peak hour on a weekend evening. Since timeshare guests will be present at the weekend peak hour, Walker projects that the weekend model will be more critical to overall parking demand. Based on the model, we have identified the peak parking demand generated on the weekend to be 95 spaces. TOTAL PARKING DEMAND Based on Walker's assessment, we anticipate that the Sheraton Mountain Vista development project will generate a demand for 339 parking spaces. This projection was based on the following general assumptions: 1. Base ratios are established per Walker's Shared Parking Model, 2005 and represent statistical national average parking generation rates for each land use type (at peak). 2. A .725 transit adjustment has been applied for timeshare guests per the Beaver Creek research data (as referenced on Table 6). 3. Non -Captive adjustments reflect the percentage of guests that may arrive from off-site to use the commercial/retail and restaurant spaces. Because of the large number of timeshare guests already parked on-site, we assume that destination traffic for these land uses will be decreased. Captive adjustments have been applied based on recent comparable studies at other resort projects. cAdocuments and settmgslruthVocal settingsVemporary internet rrleslolk32clmemO50407-sheraton mtn_vista-nl (2) doc 7 00 AM 9 00 AM 11 00 AM 1:00 PM 3'00 PM 5 00 PM 7.00 PM 9 00 PM 11 00 PM Commercial/ Retail 100% 2 11 21 29 30 26 23 15 5 Employee 100% 2 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 2 Fine/ Casual Dining 100% - - 8 29 23 31 49 47 47 Employee 100% 2 7 9 9 9 12 12 12 10 Office <25,000sp it 100% - - - - - - - - - Employee 100% 1 3 4 3 2 - - - - TOTALDEMAND j Customer 2 11 29 58 53 57 72 62 52 1 Employee 5 18 23 22 21 22 22 20 12 TOTAL DEMAND 7 29 52 80 74 79 94 82 64 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, SPM, 2006. The overall peak hour for commercial uses is projected at 1 pm during the week when the retail is the busiest and the office space has its highest occupancy. Based on Walker's shared use parking model, we have determined that the peak parking demand generated from the commercial, retail, and restaurant uses will be 106 parking spaces on a weekday. However, the presence of timeshare guests at 1 pm in the afternoon on a weekday is expected to be relatively low since many visitors will be checking in- and out- of their units or may be off-site visiting other area attractions. On the weekend, the overall peak hour is projected at 7 pm (for a Friday or Saturday evening) when the restaurant is at its busiest. Consequently, the 7 pm hour will also be the busiest time for timeshare guests when most visitors are expected to be checked in to their units and parked in the garage. No parking demand is generated from the office space at the peak hour on a weekend evening. Since timeshare guests will be present at the weekend peak hour, Walker projects that the weekend model will be more critical to overall parking demand. Based on the model, we have identified the peak parking demand generated on the weekend to be 95 spaces. TOTAL PARKING DEMAND Based on Walker's assessment, we anticipate that the Sheraton Mountain Vista development project will generate a demand for 339 parking spaces. This projection was based on the following general assumptions: 1. Base ratios are established per Walker's Shared Parking Model, 2005 and represent statistical national average parking generation rates for each land use type (at peak). 2. A .725 transit adjustment has been applied for timeshare guests per the Beaver Creek research data (as referenced on Table 6). 3. Non -Captive adjustments reflect the percentage of guests that may arrive from off-site to use the commercial/retail and restaurant spaces. Because of the large number of timeshare guests already parked on-site, we assume that destination traffic for these land uses will be decreased. Captive adjustments have been applied based on recent comparable studies at other resort projects. cAdocuments and settmgslruthVocal settingsVemporary internet rrleslolk32clmemO50407-sheraton mtn_vista-nl (2) doc MEMORANDUM `. WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS—SHERATONMOUNTAINVISTA PAWINGCONSutTA-4-s PAGE 8 The table below shows the total projected shared use parking demand under the original scenario presented by the PUD amendment. Table 10: Total Projected Parking Demand — PUD Amendment Type Total Units Max Keys Ratio Driving Adjustment I Total Demand 2 Bedroom Timeshare 182 364 0 75/ key 0 725 198 3 Bedroom Timeshare Subdivided 3 6 0.751 key 0.725 3 3 Bedroom Timeshare Not Subdivided 1 1 1.501 unit 0 725 1 1 Bedroom TimeShare 1 1 0 75/ key 0.725 1 enployee Housing 20 20 0.50/ unit 1.000 10 Visitor Parking (for 204 total residential & timeshare units) 0.15/ unit 1.000 31 Office Space (at 10,500 S.F.) z 3.8/ 1000 S F. 1 000 - Commercial (at 12,000 S F) 1 000 33 Restaurant (at 4,281 S F) 1 000 61 Total 207 392 338 j 1. Fepmmnts lw peroe ge of gue dnvirig a veNck me Mw ullizing "nalor a dmule 2. The overall peak hour occurson a weekend evening when the restaurant l3 busest and all Ameshare mils am occupied, rlo office demand is expected at"sUrne Source Walker Parking Consultants c: ldocuments and settingslruth1local settingsltemporary mtemet iilesWk32cVnemOSO407-sherator mtn vista-nl (2) doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PARKING•.-ONsuiANTS PAGE 9 SCENARIO B PROJECTIONS As discussed earlier, the developer would like to convert the 10,500 S.F. currently designated as office space into full -ownership condominium units. We anticipate that this change would result in a slight increase in the overall parking demand since these condo units would need reserved parking on a 24 - hr basis Under Scenario B, the following demand would be generated from the whole ownership units. Reserved spaces may be needed to sell these units to potential owners. Table 11: Scenario B Whole Ownership Parking Needs Type Approximate Units Ratio Driving Adjustment Total Demand (Full Ownership (10,500sf total) 4 2.00 / unit 1.000 8 Visitor Parking 0.15 / unit 1.000 1 (Total 4 9 Source: Walker Parking Consultants Assuming the aforementioned base ratios for restaurant, and commercial/retail, Walker has projected the demand generated by restaurant and commercial uses under Scenario B as follows. Note that the tables are the same as Scenario A, minus the weekday demand generated by the office tenant. Table 12: Peak Demand for Commercial, Retail & Restaurant Weekday Estimated Peak Hour Parking Demand On Weekday Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2006 Table 13Peak Demand for Commercial, Retail & Restaurant Weekend Estimated Peak Hour Parking Demand On Weekend 7'00 AM 7 00 AM 9'00 AM 11'00 AM 1'00 PM 3 00 PM 5'00 PM 7'00 PM 9:00 FTA 11.00 PM Commercial/ Retail 100% 1 8 21 28 28 24 21 14 4 Employee 100% 1 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 1 Fine/ Casual Dining 100% - - 14 26 14 26 34 34 26 Employee 100% 2 7 8 8 7 9 9 9 8 Customer 1 8 35 54 42 50 55 48 30 Employee 3 13 16 16 15 17 17 15 9 TO TAL DEM AND 4 21 51 70 57 67 72 63 39 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2006 Table 13Peak Demand for Commercial, Retail & Restaurant Weekend Estimated Peak Hour Parking Demand On Weekend 7'00 AM 900 AM 11'00 AM 1 00 PM 3.00 PM 5'00 PM 7 00 PM 9 00 Rd 11 00 PM Commercial/ Retail 100% 2 11 21 29 30 26 23 15 5 Employee 100% 2 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 2 Fine/ Casual Dining 100% - - 8 29 23 31 49 47 47 Employee 100% 2 7 9 9 9 12 12 12 10 Customer 2 11 29 58 53 57 72 62 52I Employee 4 15 19 19 19 22 22 20 12 TOTAL DEM AND 6 26 48 77 72 79 94 82 641 Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2006 Table 14 shows the total parking demand generated under Scenario B. Table 14: Total Parking Demand for Scenario B c:ldocuments and settingslruthVocal settmgsltemporary intemetrrilesblk32clmem050407-sheraton_mtn_vista-nl (2).doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS—SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA PARKING CONSunA'47 PAGE 10 Type Total Unita Max. Keys Patio Driving Adtusurent' Total Demand 2 Bedroom Timeshare 182 364 0 75/ key 0 725 198 3 Bedroom Timeshare Subdivided 3 6 0 75/ key 0 725 3 3 Bedroom Timeshare Not Subdivided 1 1 1 50/ unit 0 725 1 1 Bedroom Timeshare 1 1 0.75/ key 0 725 1 Employee Housing 20 20 0 50/ unit 1 000 10 Wholly Owned Condominiums 2 4 4 2 01 unit (res) 1 000 8 visitor Parking (for 208 total resdental 8 timachare units) 0 15/ unit 1 000 32 Commercial (at 12,000 S F) 1 000 33 rtestaurant (at 4,281 S F) 1.000 61 (Total 211 396 347 1. %pmsenbtmpemz geofgwe dnvirigavefuclevemsftwubizirgfanstora9ulle 2. The four condominium umtstake the place of the 10,5009 of office mace from the previous scenario Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2006 Based upon the assumptions made under Scenario B, Walker anticipates that the planned parking system will be sufficient to accommodate the projected design day parking demand. Walker recommends a total parking supply of at least 347 parking spaces to support the development at full build -out. CONCLUSIONS Based on Walker's parking study, we recommend a reduction of parking requirements as set forth in the Town's response to the amended PUD. Assuming that the developer pursues Scenario B, Walker recommends an alternative minimum requirement for 347 parking spaces. This requirement would represent a 13.9% reduction to the Town's proposed minimum for the project. Table 15 Proposed Parking Reduction Under Scenario B Town Requirements 403 Walker's Recommendation 347 (Percent Reduction 13.9% Source Walker Parking Consultants The developer is planning to supply 374 spaces for the project. c:ldocuments and settings1ruth1focal settingsltemporary internet frlesiolk32c1mem050407-sheraton_mtnwsta-ni (2).doc PUD..AMENDMENT SHERATON MOUNTAIN VISTA SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION r Y1 Points of Colorado, Inc. 8801 Vistana Centre Drive Orlando, FL 32821 Prepared by: Ruth Borne, Attorney at Law P.O. Box 7833 Avon, CO 81620 RECEIVED JUL 1 t 2007 c mmunity Development TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN - FEBRUARY 22, 2000 2. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONFLUENCE AND LOT C 3. ORDINANCE 02, SERIES OF 2000 ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TRACT C 4. AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONFLUENCE AND TRACT C 5. PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOT C SHERATON MOUNTAIN RESORT SUBDIVISION 6. FISCAL ANALYSIS PREPARED BY PRICE WATERHOUSE DATED MARCH 249 2005 v ir' "Pq I Ij -lit Sit ui m W R Y mac- - - - -- - -' - --_.�.._. - - - - -- - - - - "-' --•- - - - - -- - - - _......-_ � a a ' 0 � V Go as y D J () J Co CL N w EW uoi o O N Z Cli N .- W a Z _ IL Z =� W LU a } a ui m W R Y mac- - - - -- - -' - --_.�.._. - - - - -- - - - - "-' --•- - - - - -- - - - _......-_ � a ui m W R Y mac- - - - -- - -' - --_.�.._. - - - - -- - - - - "-' --•- - - - - -- - - - _......-_ 0 ;3,5(11e5 (@ Final 10/27/98 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Confluence and Tract C THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered into as of October 27, 1998 by and between Vail Associates Investments, Inc., a Colorado limited liability company (hereinafter "Owner"), Avon Commercial Center Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, Shapiro Development Co., general partner, or assigns (hereinafter "Shapiro") and the Town of Avon, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (the "Town"). RECITALS A. Owner is a limited liability company, duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Colorado. Shapiro is a Colorado limited partnership, duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Colorado. B. Owner owns a parcel of real property conditionally annexed to the Town and generally referred to as the "Confluence" as more particularly described in Exhibit A-1 attached to this Agreement (the "Confluence"). In addition, Owner owns a parcel of real property in the Town generally known as "Tract C" as more particularly described in Exhibit A-2 attached to this Agreement ("Tract C"). Shapiro owns a parcel of real property in the Town generally known as "Tract B" as more particularly described in Exhibit A-3 attached to this Agreement. C. Owner desires to develop the Confluence and Tract C as mixed use developments (the parcels referred to collectively as the "Property") which may include, among other uses, lodging, restaurant, retail, parking, public facilities, open space, office, commercial, conference center and other uses. Shapiro desires to develop Tract B pursuant to the terms of a separate agreement and desires to avail itself of the provisions of Article V of this Agreement to aid in such development for the benefit of the Town and Shapiro. D. A condition of annexation of the Confluence was the successful negotiation of a "Development Agreement' concerning the development of the Property, failing which, the Confluence shall be disconnected from the Town. A significant element of the negotiations affecting the Property is the zoning of the Property for which Owner has submitted a Zoning Application to the Town for the Confluence and a separate Zoning Application for Tract C. The Town and Owner acknowledge that this Development Agreement properly addresses matters related to Tract C and Tract B notwithstanding that execution hereof is a condition to annexation of only the Confluence. E. The Town has authority to zone and govern development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement, the Comprehensive Plan, the Confluence PUD, the Tract C PUD (as such terms are defined herein), the Municipal Code, and other applicable Town requirements and polices. Furthermore, the Town has authority to agree to the vesting of property development rights concerning the Property, the creation of special districts to provide public facilities relating to the Property, the rebate of sales and other taxes which would normally be collected as a result of taxable activities occurring on the Property and on Tract B and the 749431 IIlII�1411CI1lgItl11YlYC e'w°�d':. Final 10/27/98 granting of tax credits to assist with the equitable sharing of costs associated with development of public facilities. F. The Property and Tract B are expected to contribute substantially to the economic growth of the Town and consequently will increase future tax revenues to the Town. The Town desires to satisfy the condition of annexation of the Confluence by execution and performance of this Development Agreement affecting the Confluence, Tract C and Tract B in order to provide for orderly growth in and around the Town and to increase its tax revenues. Owner, Shapiro and the Town desire to provide for a tax rebate mechanism so that Owner and Shapiro may use the rebate revenues or other fees imposed in Iieu of taxes to assist in financing the public facilities that will be required by the Property and Tract B which will benefit the Town. G. The Town may agree to rebate taxes to the Districts subject to discretionary annual budget appropriations by the Town which, if not made, by the Town, will substantially impair the ability of Owner to develop the Property, will substantially impair the ability of Shapiro to develop Tract B, and which failure to appropriate shall be deemed to be a failure of a condition to annexation of the Confluence resulting in a contractual right of Owner to disconnect the Confluence from the Town. H. The legislature of the State of Colorado adopted Sections 24-68-101, gl seq. of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Vested Property Rights Statute") to provide for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment -backed expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning; said Vested Property Rights Statute authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with landowners providing for vesting of property development rights. I. Consistent with the Vested Property Rights Statute, Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with landowners and other qualified applicants providing for the vesting of property development rights. J. Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide for orderly growth in accordance with the policy and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, ensure reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process, stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment -backed expectations of Owner, foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning, and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Vested Property Rights Statute and Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code were enacted. In exchange for these benefits and the other benefits to the Town contemplated by this Agreement, together with the public benefits served by the orderly development of the Property, Owner desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the Property pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. K. The Town's authority to enter into this Agreement stems from the power vested generally in Colorado municipalities to address matters of local concern by contract, ordinance 749431 Page: 2 0612001 U W 2 Sara Fisher Easta Cty, CO 23 R 166.00 D 0.00 Final 10/27/98 or otherwise. Because the Town of Avon collects its own taxes, it also has authority to rebate taxes collected or grant credits to taxpayers for fees collected by Owner and Shapiro within certain geographical areas. Further, the Town may allow Owner or qualified non-profit corporations to collect such fees. Because such fees will not be collected by the Town and will not derive from the Town, and because all rebates due hereunder shall be subject to annual budget appropriation, the rebate of taxes by the Town, the grant of tax credits by the Town, and the collection of fees by qualified corporations in lieu of such taxes shall not be multiple fiscal year contractual undertakings of the Town and shall not be a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to the Town which would otherwise require electoral approval. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the terms, conditions and covenants set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner and the Town agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.0 Definitions. The following terms and references shall have the meanings set forth below unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates otherwise: 1.1 Affordable Housing. Housing where the occupant is paying no more than 30% of gross income for gross housing costs, including utility costs. 1.2 Annexation Agreement. The conditional Annexation Agreement affecting the Confluence Parcel approved by the Town on August 25, 1998, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit B. 1.3 Confluence. The parcel of unimproved real property described on Exhibit A-1. 1.4 Comorehensive Plan. The Avon Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town on November 5, 1996. 1.5 Develonment Standards. As defined in Section 3.2. The Development Standards pertaining to the Confluence are attached hereto as Exhibit C-1 and the Development Standards pertaining to Tract C are attached hereto as Exhibit C-2. 1.6 District4. Shall mean Confluence Metropolitan District and Avon Station Metropolitan District approved by the Town to serve the Property and Tract B. 1.7 Dwelling Unit. As defined in Section 17.08.270 of the Municipal Code. YItl�11Y�IIW�I11111NIII111YYIIIW Page:9431 Final 10/27/98 1.8 Effective Date. The effective date of the Town Council ordinance approving this Agreement. 1.9 Exhibits. The following are Exhibits to this Agreement, all of which are incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement; Exhibit A 1 Legal Description of the Confluence Exhibit A-2 Legal Description of Tract C Exhibit A-3 Legal Description of Tract B Exhibit B The Annexation Agreement Exhibit C-1 The Development Standards for the Confluence Exhibit C-2 The Development Standards for Tract C 1.10 Lodging Tax. For purposes of this Agreement, Lodging Tax shall mean any municipal lodging or accommodations tax imposed by the Town pursuant to Municipal Code Ch. 3.28 or any similar code provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon any sales or rental of lodging within the Property and Tract B. 1.11 Mall. Avon Town Center Mall established by Ordinance 81-11. 1.12 Municipal Code. The Town's Municipal Code, as in effect from time to time. 1.13 Propert`r. The Tract C property and the Confluence property. 1.14 PUD. Planned unit development or PUD, as such terms are defined and used in the Municipal Code. 1.1 S Real Estate Transfer Tax. For purposes of this Agreement, Real Estate Transfer Tax shall mean any municipal real estate transfer tax imposed by the Town pursuant to Municipal Code Ch. 3.12 or any similar code provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon sales of time share units within the Property and Tract B. 1.16 Sales Tax. For purposes of this Agreement, Sales Tax shall mean any municipal sales tax imposed by the Town pursuant to Municipal Code Ch. 3.08 or any similar code provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon furnishing of rooms or accommodations within the Property and Tract B. 1.17 Sanitation District. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. 1.18 Subdivision Improvement Agreement. An agreement guaranteeing the construction of public improvements for the Property pursuant to Title 16 of the Municipal Code. ���IIAIIIIINIIA��dYI1Nll Page;,a;�:3 f'.:m Final 10/27/98 1. 19 TDwLL The Town of Avon, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado. 1.20 Town Council. The Town Council of the Town. 1.21 Tract B. The real property described in Exhibit A-3 attached hereto. 1.22 Tract C. The parcel of unimproved real property described on Exhibit A-2. 1.23 Vested Property Rights Statute. As defined in Recital H above. 1.24 Zoning. Formal and final passage of an ordinance and/or resolution by the Town Council confirming a zoning designation on a parcel of land as provided in the Municipal Code. Such final passage shall be deemed to occur after the passage of any statutory or common law period for the filing of a petition for referendum to reverse or nullify such zoning ordinance. 1.25 Zonintt Anolication. The separate zoning applications for each parcel comprising the Property. ARTICLE H CONDMONS PRECEDENT; COVENANTS; THIS AGREEMENT 2.1 Condition Precedent. Annexation of the Confluence to the Town was accomplished pursuant to Ordinance No. 98-18and Resolution No. 98-54, and the Annexation Agreement which specifically provided that said annexation would be conditional and sdbject to disconnection until this agreement is executed and effective. The parties hereto agree that annexation of the Confluence was in all respects in accordance with the Town charter and the Colorado Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, as amended (C.R.S. §§ 31-12-101, et seq.). The condition of annexation of the Confluence shall not be deemed to have been satisfied until Zoning of the Property pursuant to Article III of this Agreement has been completed and thereafter shall be deemed to have not been fully satisfied if the Town fails or is prevented in any way from making rebate payments or granting tax credits as set forth herein. Until Zoning pursuant to Article III of this Agreement has b'een.completed, this document shall constitute an offer by Owner and the Town to enter into this Agreement (notwithstanding the parties' mutual execution and delivery of this document) and the condition to annexation of the Confluence to the Town shall not be deemed satisfied. Consequently, at any time before such condition is satisfied, Owner or the Town may withdraw the offer to enter into this Agreement. If either party withdraws its offer to enter into this Agreement, this Agreement shall be deemed void and of no force or effect, the Confluence shall be deemed not annexed to the Town and shall be immediately disconnected, and the vested property rights described in this Agreement shall be deemed not established. 2.2 Term. In recognition of the size of the development contemplated under this Agreement, the substantial investment and time required to complete the development of the 749431 Page: 5 of 33 02/05/2eei 04:40P Sara Fisher Esslo Cty. CO 23 R 166.00 D 0.00 Final 10/27/98 Property, the potential for phased development of the Property, and the possible impact of economic cycles and varying market conditions during the course of development, Owner and the Town agree that the term of this Agreement and the vested property rights established under this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until the 35h anniversary of the Effective Date. References to the Term of this Agreement and the vesting of property rights in the proceeding sentence shall not be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the rights of the Town described in Section 6.2 to initiate or pursue dissolution of the Districts. After the expiration of the Term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no fiuther force or effect; provided, however that such termination shall not effect (a) the annexation of the Confluence to the Town; (b) any common-law vested rights obtained prior to such termination, or (c) any right arising from Town permits, approvals or other entitlements for the Property which were granted or approved prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Agreement and the Development Standards. 2.3 Amendment of Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement may be amended or terminated only by mutual consent of the Town and Owner in writing following the public notice and public hearing procedures required for approval of this Agreement. For the purpose of any amendment to this Agreement, "Owner" shall mean only the Owner as defined herein and those parties, if any, to whom such signatories have specifically been granted, in writing by Owner, the power to enter into such amendments. Any amendment to any provision of this Agreement which affects Shapiro's rights to rebates or tax credits hereunder shall require Shapiro's written consent. 2.4 Cooperation in Defending_ Legal Challenges. If any legal or equitable action or other proceeding is commenced by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Development Standards, Owner and the Town agree to cooperate in defending such action or proceeding and to bear their own expenses in connection therewith. Unless the Town and Owner otherwise agree, each party shall select and pay its own legal counsel to represent it in connection with such action or proceeding. ARTICLE III ZONING, VESTED RIGHTS AND EXACTIONS 3.1 PUD Zoning. Each parcel comprising Confluence and Tract C shall be zoned as a separate PUD as provided in this Agreement and in their respective Development Standards. 3.2 Development Standards and Phasing. (a) Development Standards. The "Development Standards" set forth the guidelines for development of the Property are approved by the Town as the zoning for the Property, and indicate, among other things, set back distances, building height limitations, site coverage levels, development densities, allowed uses (both permitted uses by right and those permitted upon special review), parking requirements and other guidelines and limitations for the development of the Property. 749431 w Final 10/27/98 (b) Subseauent Development Ao_ nroval. After PUD Zoning of the Property pursuant to Section 3.4(a), Owner and the Town shall enter into a development plan approval process, pursuant to which Owner and the Town shall, in a manner which is uniform with and similar to other phased development approvals of the Town (and consistent with the provisions of Section 3.4(d)) further refine the Development Standards and designate site plans, PUDs and other details, including an approved Subdivision Improvement Agreement, all consistent with the Development Standards and this Agreement (collectively, "Subsequent Development Approval." 3.3 Vesting of Property Rights. Owner and Town agree that (a) this Agreement and the Development Standards constitute an approved "site-specific development plan" as defined in the Vested Property Rights Statute and Section 17.14.100 of the Municipal Code and as adopted pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.12.020 of the Municipal Code which the Town acknowledges hereby has been approved by proper procedure under the Town's charter and the Municipal Code, and (b) that Owner as the legal owner of the Property shall have vested property rights to undertake and complete development and use of the Property as provided in this Agreement and the Development Standards. Pursuant to Section 17.14.050 of the Municipal Code, approval of this Agreement and the Development Standards constitutes a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. 3.4 Property Rights Vested. The rights identified below shall constitute the vested property rights under this Agreement: (a) The right to develop, plan and engage in land uses within the Property in the manner and to the extent set forth in and pursuant to this Agreement and the Development Standards. (b) The right to develop, plan and engage in land uses within the Property in accordance with the densities, physical development standards and other physical parameters set forth in the Development Standards. (c) The right to develop the Property in the order, at the rate and at the time as market conditions dictate, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Development Standards. (d) The right to develop and complete the development of the Property (including, without limitation, the right to receive all Town approvals necessary for the development of the Property) with conditions and standards determined pursuant to Section 3.2(b)which are no more onerous than those imposed by the Town upon other Owners in the Town on a uniform, non- discriminatory and consistent basis, and subject only to the exactions and requirements set forth in this Agreement and the Development Standards; provided that such conditions, standards and dedications shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise materially adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. IN��I�III�II��IIpII��I�V I ';'�.; Final 10/27/98 (e) The Town shall not initiate any zoning, land use or other legal or administrative action that would directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. 3.5 Exactions. (a) Access Roads. Roadways within the Property shall be provided by Owner and/or one or more of the Districts which shall dedicate such roads to the Town, whereupon the Town shall accept such roads for dedication in their then current condition and shall assume maintenance of such roads, including snow removal. All such roadways shall be constructed to the Town's normal standards for similar roadways, which standards shall be set forth in the Subsequent Development Approval relating to the portion of the Property containing such roadways. (b) Drainage. On site drainage facilities for the Property shall be provided by Owner and/or one or more of the Districts to handle drainage resulting from the development of the Property. (c) Pedestrian Overuass. Owner and/or one or more of the Districts shall provide a pedestrian overpass (crossing the railroad line provided such railroad line has not been vacated, in which case an appropriate pedestrian crossing will be provided) connecting the Confluence with the Town core area. The pedestrian overpass shall be constructed along with the first phase of the conference center as set forth in Section 3.5(d). The design, location and other details of the pedestrian overpass shall be determined by Owner and the Town. Any dispute concerning such matters shall be resolved by arbitration. (d) Conference Center. One or more of the Districts shall construct a conference center facility on the Confluence as part of the development on the Confluence. Such conference center shall contain a total of approximately 15,000 square feet and will be constructed in two phases (one half of the square footage of the conference center in each such phase). The first phase of the conference center construction shall be commenced upon the Town's issuance of a building permit for the 100th Dwelling Unit for the Confluence and shall be diligently pursued to completion. The second phase of conference center construction shall be undertaken upon the Town's issuance of a building permit for the 200x` Dwelling Unit for the Confluence. The twenty -mill levy contemplated by the Districts' service plan shall be utilized for construction and operation of the conference center. In connection with development of the conference center, Owner shall reserve space and/or air rights in its development for expansion of the conference center to up to a total of 40,000 square feet; provided, however, that neither Owner nor the Districts shall be obligated under this Agreement to pay for such expansion of the conference center nor for land costs. At the Town's request, the twenty mill levy imposed by the Districts for construction and operation of phase 1 and phase 2 of the conference center shall be imposed by the Districts (after retirement of debt for phase 1 and phase 2) for purposes of assisting to finance the expansion of the conference center and to pay operating costs of the expanded conference center. Owner shall use best efforts to cause the Districts to issue bonds for such expansion but shall not be required to provide credit 74943'1 Page: a of 33 02/06/2001 04:40P Sara Fisher Eaple Ctv, CO 23 1 165.00 D 0.00 8 Final 10/27/98 enhancement for or purchase such bonds. Owner shall use best efforts to cause the Districts to seek electoral authorization at a November 1999 election for such bonds. (e) Affordable Housing. Owner shall develop deed restricted affordable housing units (each, an "Affordable Housing Unit") within the Town, either on or off the Property at a rate of five Affordable Housing Units for each 54Dwelling Units developed on the Property. As a condition to issuance by the Town of each 5011 building permit (i.e., 501' 1001', 15011, etc.) for Dwelling Units on the Property, Owner must establish that it has developed or unconditionally commits to develop the required number of Affordable Housing Units. The nature and form of the deed restrictions on such Affordable Housing Units shall be substantially similar to that used in other affordable housing projects in the Town, and shall be determined by Owner and the Town prior to issuance by the Town of a building permit for the 50'h Dwelling Unit. (f) Fee for Fire Station Expansion. Owner or the Districts shall pay to the Town $160,000 prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Property for expansion of fire station facilities. (g) Railroad Crossing. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the Property, Owner shall grant to the Town an easement for an "at grade" crossing of the existing railroad tracks at the west end of the Confluence at a location and pursuant to terms reasonably satisfactory to Owner and the Town. Said easement shall be subject to all matters of record, including without limitation the railroad right of way, Owner shall have no obligation to make any improvements related to such easement. Any dispute concerning the size or design of such ,crossing shall be resolved by arbitration. (h) Water and Water Rights. (i) The Town's augmentation plan decreed in Water Division No. 5 Case No. 84CW225 allocated 5.52 consumptive acre feet for the development of the Confluence (Avon Station). The allocated consumptive use was based upon the development of 200 Dwelling Units, 10,000 square feet of commercial area and 1.8 acres irrigated area. The proposed Confluence development will include up to 200 dwelling units, 800 hotel rooms, 40,000 square feet of commercial area and a non-specified irrigated area. Depending upon the final development plan, water requirements for the Confluence are expected to be higher than that allocated in the Town's augmentation plan. The difference between the 5.52 'consumptive acre-feet and the water requirements for the proposed Confluence development is hereinafter defined as the "Increased Water Requirements." (ii) Owner shall commission a study regarding water consumption and augmentation requirements related to the maximum development as allowed by the approved PUD zoning. The study shall determine the Increased Water Requirements of the Confluence. Said study and projections shall be subject to review and approval by the Town. Upon Town approval of the water consumption and augmentation study, Owner shall, as a condition of water service for the Increased Water Requirements, dedicate and convey to the Town sufficient water rights and water storage rights that can be used in conjunction with the augmentation plan and the storage capacity presently owned by the Town to make up the amounts needed to serve the Increased Water 749431 Page: 9 of 33 02105/2001 04:40P 9 Sara Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 23 R 186.00 D 0.00 11/0211998 16:30 3038581802 WHITE AND ASSOC PAGE 02 Final 14/27/99 Requirements. Owner shall reimburse the Town's w pensee, including reasonable and actual engineering costs and legal fees, of including such additional water in the Town's augmentation plea. Any water rights to be dedicated and conveyed to the Tovxm shall be subject to the Town's approval and acceptance., provided, however, Eagle Park Reservoir water shall be deemed,an acceptable source of dedication water under this Agreement. The Town shall not be req*cd to store water in or release water from Benchmark Lake to meet any Increased Water Requirements. Dedication of augmentation water and related water rights shall be completed prior to the issuance ofthe first building permit on the Confluence 10 3A1. The: Town and Owns' agree that the Mall shall be constructed and maintained by the Districts pursuant to the Districts' service plan 3.6 No Obligation to Develo. Owner shall have no obligation to develop -all or any portion of the Property and shall have no liability to the Town or any other party for its failure to develop all or any part of the Property. Owner and the Town contemplate that the Property may be developed in phases. Owner shall have no obligation to develop all or any portion of any such phase notwithstanding the development or non -development of any other phase, and Owner shall have ride liability to the Town or any other party for. its failure to develop all or any portion of any such phase o£the Property. 3.7 CMnh, 'Ince with General geatiletiQUA. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the Development Standards, the establishment of vested property rights under this Agreement shall not preclude the application on a uniform and non-discriminatory basis of Town regulations of general applicability (including but not limited to, building, fire, plumbin& electrical and mechanical code, the Municipal Code, and other Town rules and regulations) or the application of state or fexiearal regulations, as all of such regulations exist on the date of this Agreement or may be enacted or amended after the date of this ,Agreement, provided that such newly enacted or amended Town regulation shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise adversely aftctiq any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards Owner does not waive its right to oppose the enactment or amendment of any such regulations. 3.8 ti2it The parties agree that any dispute arising wander this Article M shall be subject to arbitration among the parties in accordance with customary rules of the American Arbitration Associations that shall be binding upon the parties. 3.9 Owner Obligations. All obligations of Owner in this Agreement may be performed by the Districts at Owner's election. ARTICLE IV PUBLIC FACILITUS 4.1 Mmicipal ls.YLm. The Town shall have the responsibility and obligation to Provide all municipal services, including transit busing, to the Property and other administrative services equivalent to those provided to any other area of the Town on a uniform and non- disa ftiatory basis. 749431 page: 10 of 33 02/0612001 04:40P 10 Sara Fisher E&914 Cty, CO 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 Final 10/27/98 4.2 Water and Services. The Town shall provide water service to the Property upon notification of need by Owner as required for the development of the Property. The Town's obligation to provide water shall survive any disconnection of Confluence pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise. Water infrastructure/capital facilities which are necessary for the Town to provide water to the Property shall be provided by Owner and/or one or more Districts which shall dedicate such improvements to the Town, whereupon the Town shall accept such improvements for dedication in their then current condition and shall assume maintenance of such improvements and facilities. All such improvements shall be constructed to the Town's normal standards for similar facilities, which' standards shall be set forth in the relevant Subsequent Development Approval relating to the portion of the Property containing such water improvements. The Town shall charge water tap fees and usage charges to users within the Property on a uniform, non-discriminatory basis with other users within the Town and shall use best efforts to require the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, or other water service providing entity to abide by this covenant. 4.3 Sanitation Service. The Property shall receive sanitation service from the Sanitation District. The Town shall not impose rates, fees, tolls or charges for sanitation services for the Property. ARTICLE V REBATE AGREEMENT 5.1 Allocation of Taxes. In consideration of the performance by Owner of its obligations under this Agreement, the Town agrees: (a) to account for all Sales Taxes and Lodging Taxes collected by the Town and attributable to the Property and to Tract B and (b) to rebate 75% thereof to the Districts within sixty (60) days following the end of the calendar month when collected (or partial month, if appropriate, in the case of the month in which this Agreement becomes effective or is terminated). The Town shall maintain a separate "Rebate Account" into which such taxes shall be deposited until rebated; one for each parking improvement project located within the Confluence, Tract C, and Tract B, respectively. Said Rebate Accounts shall be separately accounted for and shall not be used, pledged or otherwise encumbered except as specifically set forth herein. As additional consideration of the performance by Owner of its obligations under this Agreement, the Town further agrees: (a) to account for all Real Estate Transfer Taxes collected by the Town and attributable to the Property and to Tract B and (b) to rebate 50% thereof to the Districts within sixty (60) days following the end of the calendar month when collected (or partial month, if appropriate, in the case of the month in which this Agreement becomes effective or is terminated). Such taxes shall be deposited into the separate Rebate Accounts as provided above until rebated. Said Real Estate Transfer Taxes shall be required to be rebated only with respect to the first sale of each time-share interest in each unit constructed on the Property or Tract B, and shall not be required with respect to any subsequent resale thereof. It is the expectation of the parties that a separate series of bonds shall be issued for each parking improvement project located within the Confluence, Tract C, and Tract B, respectively. It is also the expectation that the allocation and rebate of taxes from each separate 749431 Page: 11 of 33 02/0512001 04:40P 11 Sara Fisher Es91e Cty, CO 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 Final 10%27/98 Rebate Account as provided above be used only for paying the debt service corresponding to the parking improvements financed and secured by future rebates from each separate respective Rebate Account. The allocation and rebate of taxes as contemplated in this Section 5.1 shall continue to be made from each separate Rebate Account until the bonds or other instruments of indebtedness issued by the Districts and secured by rebates from the separate Rebate Accounts have been paid in full. However, in no instance shall the Town continue the allocation and rebate of taxes from each separate Rebate Account beyond fifteen (15) years after the commencement of deposits in each Rebate Account for each respective bond issue. The Town shall make all such allocations and deposits unless prevented by court order from so doing. In the event any action is commenced challenging the right of the Town to make such allocations and deposits, the Town shall notify Owner and Shapiro in writing of such action prior to the Town filing its first responsive pleading in such action and shall allow the Districts to participate in any defense to such action as set forth in Section 2.4 above. 5.2 Limitation on Bonds to be Issued, Financing on behalf of the Districts for each individual parking improvement project located within the Confluence, Tract C, and Tract B, respectively, is hereby limited to two-thirds (2/3rd') of the estimated capital cost of the respective parking improvement being financed. 5.3 Determination of Amount of Allocated Revenues. The Town shall provide the Districts a summary of any Sales Tax, Lodging Tax, and Real Estate Transfer Tax collected by the Town for each month or partial month with respect to the Property and Tract•B that supports the amounts rebated for such month. Such summary shall be provided at the time the rebate is made. 5.4 Computation of Tax Revenues. Within one hundred twenty (120) days following the end of the each Town fiscal year, the Town shall deliver to the Districts a final accounting of all sales taxes, lodging taxes and real estate transfer taxes collected by the Town and attributable to the Property and to Tract B and the amount rebated to the Districts. 5.5 No Debt or Pecuniary Liabilitv: No Multiple -Fiscal Year Obligation. All rebate payments hereunder and any other financial obligation of the Town herein in any year shall be expressly subject to annual appropriation by the Town; provided, however, that it is the present expectation of the parties that the Town will make the payments contemplated by this Agreement. The Town agrees that failure to appropriate sufficient funds in any year to enable the Town to perform its obligations hereunder shall constitute, at the Districts' election, a failure of the Town to perform this Agreement and therefore a failure of a condition of annexation of the Confluence and shall permit the Districts, at its sole election, to disconnect the Confluence as set forth herein. Such rights shall not impair the Districts' rights set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. The Town also agrees that failure to appropriate sufficient funds in any year to enable the Town to perform its obligations hereunder shall also entitle Shapiro to the benefits of section 5.9 hereof. None of the obligations of the Town hereunder to the Districts shall be payable from any source other than as provided in Section 5. 1, and this Agreement shall never constitute a debt, indebtedness or multiple -fiscal year financial obligation of the Town within the meaning of the Constitution or laws of the State of Colorado. 749431 Page: 12 of 33 02/05/2001 04:40P Sara Fisher Eagle Ctv, CO 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 12 Final 10/27/98 5.6 BudOet and Antaromiation of Pavments. The Town's finance director shall include in the budget proposals submitted to the Town Council in each year prior to termination of this Agreement, amounts sufficient to meet the obligation of the Town hereunder to the extent the Town shall have received such amounts, or anticipates receiving such amounts from Sales Taxes, Lodging Taxes or Real Estate Transfer Taxes. The Town hereby represents that it presently intends to appropriate the amounts under this Agreement to the fullest extent permitted by law. If, based upon an opinion of independent counsel not previously or at the time such opinion is delivered representing the Districts and acceptable to the Town, it is determined that the activities under this Agreement shall be determined an "enterprise" of the Town for purposes of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, or that transactions of a nature similar to the transactions provided for in this Agreement are not required under the laws of the State of Colorado to be subject to annual appropriation without regard to approval of any such transactions by the electors of the Town, this Agreement shall be reformed so as to delete the annual appropriation provision of Section 5.4 and as elsewhere found in this Agreement. 5.7 Subseauent Chances in Tax Rates. In the event that the Town reduces the Sales Tax, Lodging Tax, or Real Estate Transfer Tax rate applicable to taxable activities on the Property and Tract B, the calculation of the rebate percentage for rebates due to the Districts shall be recalculated so that the Districts shall receive rebates throughout the term of this agreement as if no change in tail rates had occurred. In the event the Town increases the Sales Tax, Lodging Tax, or Real Estate Transfer Tax pursuant to an election and the incremental increase in the tax rate is earmarked for a special purpose pursuant to the ballot question that is passed by the voters, such addition taxes resulting from the tax increase and collected by the Town applicable to the Property and Tract B shall not be subject to allocation and rebate by the Town to the Districts. 5.8 Books and Records. Both the Town and the Districts shall maintain adequate books and records to accurately perform and 'account for their respective obligations under this Agreement. Town and District representatives shall be granted reasonable access during normal business hours to such books and records in order to determine compliance with the terms of this Agreement or the accuracy of such books and records. The parties shall use their best efforts to resolve any issues, discrepancies, or inaccuracies discovered in any review of either parties' books and records. 5.9 Tax Credits. (a) In the event the Town is prevented by binding court order from paying rebates with respect to the Property or otherwise fails to appropriate, Owner shall have the option of disconnecting the Confluence from the Town as contemplated herein. in the event Owner determines not to disconnect the Confluence, or if the Town contests or otherwise fails to assure said disconnection in any way, the provisions of Section 5.8(b) hereof shall be immediately binding upon the Town. In the event the Town is prevented by binding court order from paying rebates with respect to Tract B, or otherwise fails to appropriate, the provisions of Section 5.8(b) hereof shall be immediately binding upon the Town. 749431 Pay*: 13 of 33 02)0612001 04:40P Sara Fisher Eacl* MY, CO 23 R 166.00 D 0.00 13 Final 10/27/98 (b) Each taxpayer liable for Sales Tax, Lodging Tax or Real Estate Transfer Tax on taxable transactions within the Property or Tract B shall receive a credit against such taxes in each year equal to the total amount of the rebate which would otherwise have been due from the Town. The Town shall notify all persons who would typically collect such taxes from a taxpayer that taxes shall not be due from such taxpayer in an amount equal to fees paid by such ,taxpayer. Such,credit shall be automatic and shall take effect immediately without being claimed on taxpayer's return relating to the applicable tax and without any requirement of approval or other action by the Town, but the transactions and payments supporting the credit for any given year shall nevertheless be subject to audit to the same extent, for the same limitations periods and in the same manner as the items which are required to be reported on the taxpayer's return relating to the applicable tax. The Town`s agreement to grant such credit shall not be considered a multiple fiscal year financial obligation of any kind. The credits contemplated in this Section shall continue until bonds or other instruments of indebtedness issued by the Districts or other eligible non-profit corporations acting on behalf of the Districts which are paid by the fees received from such taxpayers have been paid in full and notice thereof has been delivered to the Town. It is the expectation of the parties that a separate series of bonds shall be issued for Confluence parking improvements, Tract C parking improvements and Tract B parking improvements. The Town shall grant such credits unless prevented by court order from so doing. In the event any action is commenced challenging the right of the Town to grant such credits, the Town shall notify Owner and Shapiro in writing of such action prior to the Town filing its first responsive pleading in such action and shall allow the Owner and/or Shapiro to participate in any defense to such action as set forth in Section 2.4 above. The Town agrees that it shall take no action to prevent, and shall not fail to take any action necessary to allow, Owner and/or Shapiro, or corporations they organize, from imposing and/or collecting fees as contemplated herein. 5.10 Legal Challenge to Tax Agreement. In the event any agreement contained herein regarding taxes is ever the subject of a successful legal challenge, the Town shall diligently resist such challenges in cooperation with the Owner as set forth in Section 2.4 above. If such challenges are successful in any material way, the Town shall undertake such curative actions as are necessary to attempt to fully restore the benefits of this Agreement to each of the parties. 5.11 Town Denosits. The Town may make other deposits from any other taxes or funds of its own to the rebate accounts 5.12 Town Expenses. Upon receipt of an invoice from the Town, the Districts shall pay the reasonable expenses of the Town for calculating and administering the rebates hereunder. ARTICLE Yi SPECIAL DISTRICTS 6.1 Snecial Districts. The Town agrees to take all reasonable action necessary to approve an amendment to the service plan for the Districts to conform to the financial provisions of this Agreement and to permit the Districts to form qualifying non-profit corporations to carry 749431 Page: 14 of 33 02105/2001 04:40P 14 Sara Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 Final 10/27/98 out the purposes of this agreement and the amended service plan. The Mall shall be included in the Districts at the request of the Town. In addition, properties known as Avon Town Square, Lot 61, and other properties maybe included in the Districts upon reasonable terms and conditions. 6.2 Dissolution of Districts. Dissolution of the Districts shall occur in the manner set forth in the service plan for the Districts and in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in C.R.S. §§ 32-1-701, et seq. as in effect as of the date of this Agreement. ARTICLE VII DEFAULTS, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION 7.1 Default by Town. A "breach" or "default" by the Town under this Agreement shall be defined as: (a) any zoning, land use or other action or inaction, direct, indirect or pursuant to an initiated measure, taken without Owner's consent, that materially alters, impairs, prevents, diminishes, imposes a moratorium on development, delays or otherwise materially and adversely affects any development, use or other rights of Owner under this Agreement or the Development Standards or PUDs; or (b) the Town's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of the Town contained in this Agreement. 7.2 Default by Owner. A "breach" or "default" by Owner shall be defined as Owner's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of Owner contained in this Agreement. 7.3 Notices of Default. In the event of a default by either party under this Agreement, the non -defaulting party shall deliver written notice to the defaulting party of such default, at the address specified in Section 8.8, and the defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. If such default is not of a type which can be cured within such thirty (30) day period and the defaulting party gives written notice to the non - defaulting party within such thirty (30) day period that it is actively and diligently pursuing such cure, the defaulting party shall have a reasonable period of time given the nature of the default following the end of such thirty (30) day period to cure such default, provided that such defaulting party is at all times within such additional time period actively and diligently pursuing such cure. 7.4 Remedies. (a) If any default under this Agreement is not cured as described above, the non -defaulting party shall have the right to enforce the defaulting party's obligations hereunder by an action for any equitable remedy, including injunction and/or specific performance, and/or an action to recover damages. Each remedy provided for in this Agreement is cumulative and is in addition to every other remedy provided for in this Agreement or otherwise existing at law, in equity or by statute. (b) The Town acknowledges that since this Agreement and the Development Standards constitute a development agreement which confers rights beyond those provided by 749431 0z050m GP 1201 15 Sara Fisher Eapls Cty, Co 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 Final 10127/98 the three (3) year statutory vesting approach described in the Vested Property Rights Statute, in the event of a breach or default by the Town, in addition to any of the foregoing remedies, Owner shall be entitled to: (i) recover from the Town any damages that should have been specifically available to Owner as contemplated in Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24- 68-105(l)(c) as in effect on the Effective Date, plus any other and additional damages provable at law; and (ii) cause the Confluence, or any portion thereof designated by Owner, to be disconnected from the Town. 7.5 Disconnection. The Town acknowledges that Owner has agreed to develop the Confluence at significantly lower density than Owner originally desired in consideration of the Town's agreement to rebate taxes as set forth herein, and that failure of the Town to appropriate revenues sufficient to pay the rebates contemplated herein will substantially impair the value of the Confluence. Accordingly, in the event the Town exercises its discretion in any year and determines not to make sufficient budget appropriations to pay such rebates, fails to make any other appropriations which may be required by law to enable the Town to perform this Agreement in all respects, if the Town contests disconnection or otherwise acts (or fails to act) in any way to avoid disconnection, if the Town is prevented by appropriate judicial order from making such appropriations, or if any other event occurs to cause rebates not to be paid as contemplated hereinOwner shall have the immediate and continuing right, at its election, to disconnect the Confluence from the Town it being the express agreement of the parties hereto that any such act, at the sole election of Owner, shall be deemed to be a failure of the Town to meet a condition of annexation of the Confluence and/or a failure to serve the Confluence in the manner agreed herein, and shall entitle Owner to the immediate disconnection of the Confluence notwithstanding any statutory procedure or requirement for disconnection by petition. In furtherance of said agreement, the Town represents that as a home rule municipality this contractual right of disconnection shall be in addition to any statutory right or procedure for disconnection which may exist under law which shall not be deemed exclusive rights and procedures. The Town agrees in such event that it will take all necessary steps to accomplish such disconnection and shall not contest any disconnection effort by Owner. The Town shall cooperate in all respects to accomplish such disconnection whether under the agreements set forth herein or under any applicable statutory disconnection procedure, which a court may require. Said disconnection shall not affect any development rights concerning the Confluence which are vested under common law vesting principles or which are vested pursuant to this Agreement. In the event the Town breaches this Agreement by failing to pay rebates, credit taxes or amend its Municipal Code as agreed in Article V hereof, Owner shall have all rights of disconnection set forth herein. 31 IIIIII�.IINIIIIII�111A�IYII�II��I�of 33 r Easle CtY, CO 23 r.;094ew 16 Final 10/27/98 ARTICLE VIII MISCELLANEOUS 8.1 Applicable Law. Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 8.2 No Joint Venture or Partnership. No form of joint venture or partnership exists between the Town and Owner, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as making Town and Owner joint venturers or partners. 8.3 Exvenses. Except as otherwise provided in a separate written agreement, Owner and the Town shall each bear their respective costs and expenses associated with implementing and enforcing the terms of this Agreement. 8.4 Waiver. No waiver of one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of other terms. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement in any instance shall constitute a waiver of such provision in other instances. 8.5 Town Findinus. The Town hereby finds and determines that execution of this Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and the provisions of this Agreement, the PVDs, Development Standards, and vesting agreements contained herein are consistent with the Comprehensive Pian, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations and policies of the Town. 8.6 Severabilitv. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect so long as enforcement of the remaining provisions would not be inequitable to the party against whom they are being enforced under the facts and circumstances then pertaining. 8.7 Further Assurances. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges under this Agreement. 8.8 Notice . .Any notice or communication required under this Agreement between the Town and Owner must be in writing, and may be given either personally or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. If given by registered or certified mail, the same shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to whom it is addressed. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving written notice to the other party hereto as provided .in this Section designate additional persons to whom notices or communications shall be given, and designate any other 749431 Pape: 17 of 33 02105/2001 04:40P Sara Fisher Ea91a Cty, CO 23 R 185.00 D 0.00 17 Final 10/27/98 address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: If to Town: Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Attention: Town Manager If to Owner: Vail Associates Investments, Inc. c/o James S. Mandel, Esq. P.O. Box 7 Vail, Colorado 81658 Attn: Legal Department Attn: James P. Thompson With a Copy to: Sheldon & Gordon, P.C. 4582 South Ulster Street Parkway, Suite 902 Denver, Colorado 80237 Attn: Michael A. Sheldon, Esq. and to: White and Associates Professional Corporation 8005 S. Chester Street, Suite 125 Englewood, Colorado 80112 Attention: Gary R. White, Esq. If to Shapiro: Avon Commercial Center Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, Shapiro Development Co., general partner c/o Shapiro Development Co. P.O. Box 5640 Avon, CO 81620 Attn: Ken Shapiro 8.9 Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest or the legal representatives of the parties hereto. Except as specifically set forth herein, Owner shall have the right to assign, delegate or transfer all or any portion of its interests, rights or obligations under this Agreement to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Property, including, but not limited to, purchasers or long term ground lessees of individual lots, parcels, or of any improvements now or hereafter located within the Property. Provided that the Town's approval of the assignee or transferee is first obtained, an assumption or transfers providing for express assumption of any of Owner's obligations under this Agreement by its assignee or transferee shall be relieved of any further obligations under this Agreement with respect to the matter so 749431 Page: 18 Final 10/27/98 assumed. The Town's obligations hereunder may not be assigned or delegated without Owner's written consent, and any attempted assignment or delegation by the Town not in compliance herewith shall be null and void. The Town's approval of any such assignee or transferee shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 8.10 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 8.11 Amendments and Waivers. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement, nor consent to any departure herefrom, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and the Town have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. TOWN: TOWN OF AVON, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado By:o� a y o� STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF ih Subscribed before me this day of 1998, by —,Vfi-- riki1%e.It. as Mayor of Town of Avon, Colorado and as Town Clerk of Avon. N4 0'cr .riiiission Expires ov,/28/2oo2 My commission expires: Notary Nblic 749431 02/08/200! 04:40P 19 Sara fisher Eagle ;ty, Co 23 R 166.00 D 0.00 Final 10/27/98 OWNER: VAIL ASSOCIATES INVESTMENTS, INC., a Colorado limited liability company Its- 10)'L chc E 04171 ATTE T STATE OF COLORADO ) SS. COUNTY OF `li{- ) i aSub rib ` before me this da of �(jj Y,�� 1998, by kyal� as ��?: h.� ' � t i),_ ( AJ-,31&vk 4- of Vail Associates Investments, Inc. and (0.1Ma,0 ISI k,.��.�.�1�1t,t>d as VI4;51'a Rt �,Dr�t�fra�t �.�.of Vail Associates Investments, Inc. U My commission expires: Notary Public 749431 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Page: 20 of 33 02106/2001 04:40P Sara Fisher Eaale Cty, CO 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 20 Final 10/27/98 SHAPIRO: Avon Commercial Center Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, Shapiro Development Co., general partner By: Its: (."'crrs� ATTEST STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF E"I E ) Subscribed before me this day of Oc10 %e r SAkm'-A `$d me as u�cF 9Tes;dQ-1+ ShA Qve ioPnleh�- Co. and X4c-e n lZedvhor\ SeCct +C"C of Sl\a p: cp 'bevel opme ntco My commission expires: 10(si j C? �r "oN.R. Notary Public •'•ic;8 L1G.•'•o 0 OF COLOPP 749431 Page: 21 of 33 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 G2/05/2001 04:40P Sara Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 VAINCWGR-i1GRW (0081001980 244.2036 21 1998, by of as Final 10/27/98 Exhibit A-1 749431 Pago: 22 of 33 0210512001004 i 40P The Conllutatc lAga1 Description A partel of land located in the south '/2 of the northwest % of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the Sixth Principal Wrri'dian, Eagle, County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Rail Road and the westerly right-of-way line of Avon Road, from which the Center''/. comer of Section 12 bean S 04°18'06" E, 612.39 feet; thence along the southerly railroad right-of-way N 65°23'27" W,1729.75 feet to the southeasterly most corner of Tract H, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Amendment Number 4, as recorded in book 274 at page 701; thence departing the southerly right-of-way line ,and along the southerly line of Tract H N 891132'01" W, 397.29 feet to a point on the easterly line of Beaver Creek Subdivision, Tracts 0 and P, as recorded in Book 656 at page 662, said line being also the approximate centerline of the Eagle River, thence along the easterly line the following ten (10) courses: 1) S W08'55" E,132.70 feet, 2) S 57022'26" E, 341.00 feet, 3) S 4905013" E, 455.67 feat, 4) S 47047'00" E, 293.81 feet, 5) S 43°40'09" E, 152AI fees, 6) S 50° 10'13- E. 154.% feet, 7) S 53"42'45" E, 187.29 feet, 8) S 8102634" E, 214.88 feet, 9) N 86°00'59" E. 162.21 feet, 10) N 86"36'05" E, 197.35 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Avon Road; thence along the westerly right-of-way line the following four (4) courses: 1) N 12"05'08" E, 120.18 feet, 2) N 12907'30" E, 86.00 feet, 3) N 21-17'14- E. 52.00 feet, 4) N 04-29'54- E. 119.79 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 18.886 acres. II�IIWI�I�IIWII�MN�III�AI� �-94".:: Final 10/27/98 Exhibit A-2 II�IhIVIIII�I�mu�VIIIV��IwI �°�"nw 041, Lot C Legal Description A parcel of laud described as Lot C. Avon Center at Beaver Creek, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amendment No. 4. Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, being more particular described as follows: Beginning at the easternmost corner of Lot C, also being the northernmost comer of Lot B; thence along the line common to Lots B and C. S52° 41'02"W, 397.57 feet; thence departing said common tot line, N6V 58'08'W, 22.72 feet, thence N020 30'12"W, 576.33 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of Benchmark Road; thence along said right-af-way N590 20'02"E, 160.00 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of Beaver Creek Boulevard thence along said right-of-way S276 05'23'T, 400.62 feet; thence continuing along said right-of-way along the arc of a tangent curve to the left 80.83 foes, having a radius of 540.00 feet, a central angle of Oft° 34'36" and a chord which bears S3 V 22'41"E, 80.76 tea to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 3.24 acres. 749431 Page: 25 of 33 02/05/2001 04:40P S*rs Fisher Esgls AYE CO 23 1 165.00 0 0.00 Fisher Easle Cty, CO 23 R 166 Exhibit A-3 749431 Page: 26 of 33 0210612001 04:40P 00 D 0.00 24 Fina! 14/27/48 FXHIBIT A-3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B, Avon Center at Beaver Creek The point of beginning being the southwest corner of Lot 8, Avon Center; thence N.52'41'01 "E., a distance of 397.67 feet to a point on a•curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 450.00 feet; thence along said curve a distance of 187.14 feet through a central angle of 19'51'21 ", having a chord bearing and distance of 5.45135139"E.0 186.20 feet; thence S.62'54'37"W., a distance of 15.00 feet; thence 5.27'05'23'VE., a distance of 12.03 feet; thence 5.82'54'37"W., a distance of 137.49 feet; thence 5.27107'37"E., a distance of 65.53 feet; thence 5.62'52'23"W., a distance of 55.96 feet; thence S.27'06'23"E,, a distance of 61.17 feet; thence S.62'54'27"W., a distance of 12.10 feet; thence S.27'05'23"E., a distance of 40.06 feet; thence N.65'88'08"W., a distance of 366.19 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Said parcel of land contains 75,617 square feet (1.735 acres), more or less. 749431 11111111 mill 111111 Pagoa: 27 of 33 0210812001 04:40P Sara Fisher Eagle 3y, CO 23 R 185.00 D 0.00 2'd Wd2z:90 86, 22 100 Final 10/27/98 Exhibit C-1 749431 Page: 28 of 33 I� 0210512001 UAW Sara Fisher Eagl• Cty, CO 23 R 185.00 0 0.00 26 Confluence PUD Revised Submittal No3 October 27, 1998 SECTION M. Zoning Review: Title 17 I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; A. Intention: This development is intended to complement the adjacent town center developments, future developments and expansions and to provide a variety of uses on the Confluence such as lodges, commercial establishments and offices in a predominantly pedestrian environment. These development standards are intended to provide a development which distinguishes this development from other areas within the Town. B. Allowed Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in this Confluence development and those designated with a t shall also be allowed at plaza / ground level, those uses not designated with a ■ shall not be permitted at plaza / ground level. Commercial uses designated with a 0 shall be permitted to a maximum of 40,000 SF GLFA. 1. ■ O Retail Stores; 2. ■ O Specialty Shops; 3. ■ O Restaurants, excluding drive-through windows; 4. ■ O Cocktail Lounges; 5. ■ O Personal service shops; 6. ■ 0 Professional offices; 7. ■ Hotels; 8. ■ Lodges; 9. Apartments; 10. Condominiums; 11. ■ indoor recreation 12. ■ 0 Financial Institutions; 13. Bed and breakfast lodge; 14. Time-share, interval ownership, and fractional fee ownership projects; 15.: intercept / day -shier parking; 16. ■ 0 Entertainment Facilities 17. ■ Additional uses determined to be similar to allowed uses in accordance with the intent of this zone district, to be approved by the zoning admihinistrator. C. Special Review Uses: 1. Public Transportation facilities; 2. Public parking facilities except for intercept / day -skier parking provided at initial development phase. 3. Theatres; 4. Conference / Convention Facilities; 5. Aboveground public utility installations; 6. Churches; 7. Drive-through windows. 749431 Page: 29 of 33 02105/2001 04:42P Sara Fisher Eagle Cty. CO 23 R 165.00 D 0.00 Confluence PUD Revised Submittal .No.3 October 27, 1498 Page 2 of 2 D. Development Standards: 1. Lot Area: 18.886 Acres (Not to be affected by future condominium and/or subdivision platting) 2. Buildiaag Height: No building or portion thereof may extend above a plane 10 feet below that projected horizontally fxom, the top of the Avon Center Building, and in no case shall any building be taller than 120 feet, measuring said height as defined in Title 17 of the Avon Municipal Code. Specific buildings will provide for appropriate .view corridors from town core areas. 3. Building Setbacks: See Building Setback Diagram — Exhibit N (Revised 10/9/98) A. R.iverfront: Seventy Five Feet [75'] from the mean armual high water mark. if the 100 year flood plain or identified wetlands exceed the 75' setback those exceptions will constitute the designated setback. B. Side (East): Twenty Feet [20] C. Rear [North]; Ten Feet [10] Zero Feet [0'] for structures pertaining to transportation systems and / or buildings or pedestrian linkages. Non -habitable porte-cochere, low level roof structures covering open air pedestrian ways and awnings relating to commercial uses may encroach into setback. 4. Maximum Site Coverage: Seventy per cent [70°!0] 5. Maximum Density: 456 Dwelling Units which equates to 30 Dwelling Units per acre of buildable area. (3 hotel rooms or Accommodation Units = I Dwelling Unit) 6. Parking: A. Commercial: Five spaces per thousand square feet gross leasable floor area [GLFA] applied to a full range of commercial uses [allowed in `Town Center' zoning such as retail, restaurant, and / or office] excluding parking requirements for incidental guest oriented commercial uses within hotels. B. Residential/Lodging: 1. Hotel: 1.0 parking space per room (Including parking requirements for incidental guest oriented commercial uses within hotel) 2. Timeshare / Interval Ownership Units: 0,6 parking spaces per bedroom 3. Dwelling Unit: 2.0 parking spaces per unit up to two [2) bedrooms plus, 0.5 parking spaces per additional bedroom. 4. Deed Restricted Employee Housing: 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom C. No additional guest spaces shall be required. All surface and below grade parking spaces shall be counted toward meeting these requirements. 749431 Page: 30 of 33 02/05/2001 04:40P Sara Fisher Ea0le Cty, CO 23 R 166.00 D 0.00 Final 10/27/98 Exhibit C-2 IIII�N�111191�IIII'IW IIIIII III m°w m31w.:mSara Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 23 R 166.00 D 0. 00 27 Lot C PUD Revised Submittal October 27,1998 SECTION H: Zoning Review: Title 17 I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Intention: This development is intended to complement the surrounding town center developments, future developments and expansions and to provide a variety of uses on Lot C such as lodges, commercial establishments and offices in a predominantly pedestrian environment. These development standards are intended to provide a development which distinguishes this development from other zone districts within the Town. B. Allowed Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in this Lot C development and those designated with a ■ shall also be allowed at plaza / ground level, those uses not designated with a 6 shall not be permitted at plaza / ground level: 1. ■ Retail Stores; 2. ■ Specialty Shops; 3. ■ Restaurants, excluding drive-through windows; 4. ■ Cocktail Lounges; 5. ■ Personal service shops; 6. ■ Professional offices; 7. 0. Hotels; 8. ■ Lodges; 9. Apartments; 10. Condominiums; 11. ■ Indoor recreation and/or entertainment facilities; 12. ■ Financial Institutions; 13. Sed and breakfast lodge; 14. Time-share, interval ownership, and fractional fce ownership projects; and, 15. ■ Additional uses determined to be similar to allowed uses in accordance with the intent of this zone district, to be approved by the Zoning administrator. C. Special Review Uses: 1. Public Transportation facilities; 2. Public parking facilities; 3. Theatres; 4. Conference / Convention Facilities; 5. Churches; S. Aboveground public utility installations; and, 6. Drive-through windows. IflIII11�YIMflIIlAll111�1�1�111 749431 : r Lot C PUD Revised Submittal October 27, 1998 Page 2 of 2 D. Development Standards: 1. Lot area: 3.24 Acres [Subject to future condominium and/or subdivision platting] 2. Building Height: Subject to a Building Height equal to the Avon Center Building Height subject to,verification by a licensed professional surveyor. 3. Building Setbacks: A. Front [North]: West Beaver Creek Boulevard - Twenty Feet [20'] Front [West]: Benchmark Road — Twenty Feet (20'] B. Side [East]: Lot 'B' —Ten Feet [IO'] Side [West]: Benchmark Road — Ten Feet [10'] C. Rear [South]: The Town of Avon Mall - Ten Feet [10'] (Non -habitable porte-cochere, low level roof structures covering open air pedestrian ways and awnings relating to commercial uses may encroach ten feet into setbacks.) 4. Maximum Site Coverage: Seventy per cent [70%] 3. Maximum Density: 210 Dwelling Units - Site Density of 65 Dwelling Units / Acre (3 hotel rooms or Accommodation Units = 1 Dwelling Unit) . Parking. A. Commercial: Five spaces per thousand square feet gross leasable floor area [GLFA] applied to a full range of commercial uses [allowed in `Town Center' zoning such as retail, restaurant, and / or office] excluding incidental guest oriented commercial uses within hotel. B. Residential/Lodging: 1. Hotel: 1.0 parking space per room (including incidental guest oriented commercial uses within hotel) 2. Timeshare / Interval Ownership Units: 0.6 parking spaces per bedroom 3. Residential Unit: 2.0 parking spaces per unit up to two [2] bedrooms plus, 0.5 parking spaces per additional bedroom. 4. Deed Restricted Employee Housing: 0.5 parking spaces per bedroom C. No additional guest spaces shall be required. All surface and below grade parking spaces shall be counted toward meeting these requirements. III�II�HIIMfl��Ik�NIN��I�II 749431 Page; TOWN OF AVON ORDINANCE NO. 02 SERIES OF 2000 AN ORDINANCE CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS) FOR TRACT C, AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Vail Associates Investments, Inc., a Colorado corporation ("VA") is the owner of Tract C (also known as Lot C), Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision, and WHEREAS, upon the application of VA the Town,'on or about October 27, 1998, enacted Ordinance 98-21, approving a zoning change of said Tract from TC to PUD, and WHEREAS, said ordinance provided, among other things, that "Development may occur on this site only in conformance with a site-specific Development Plan ... reviewed and approved by the Town through a separate application and review process pursuant to Section 17.20.110 of the Avon Municipal Code," and WHEREAS, contemporaneous with the adoption of Ordinance 98-21 the Town and VA entered into that contract known as "Development Agreement— Confluence and Tract C," (the "1998 Development Agreement"), and WHEREAS, VA now has applied to the Town for approval of a site-specific Development Plan (including Development Standards) (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof), concerning Tract C, and WHEREAS, the Town and VA desire to enter into a contract, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof, amending the 1998 Development Agreement insofar as it concerns Tract C only, and WHEREAS, a public hearing as prescribed by law was held on VA's said application before the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission, followed by the delivery to the Town Council of P&Z's recommendation on said application (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof), and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that VA's application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Town, and 11111111111111111111111111111111111111! 1111111111111111 730844 05/30/2000 11:23A 289 Sara Fisher CO DOCS A 56190 v 4 1 of 18 R 90.00 0 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO WHEREAS, an express condition of the Town's adoption of this ordinance and approval of VA's application is the execution of the attached form of "Amendment to Development Agreement For Confluence and Tract C" (the "Amendment") and, WHEREAS, subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this ordinance, the Town Council wishes to grant approval of VA's application, and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance and the execution of the Amendment are both in the public interest and serve the public purposes of increasing employment and economic development in the Town, including the development of new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY -THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, that: 1. The Mayor is authorized to execute on behalf of the Town the attached Amendment; 2. Upon the execution of the Amendment, VA's application for approval of its attached Development Plan for Tract C is approved subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in Sections 8.12 and 8.13 of the attached form of Amendment. INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED POSTED, this 8`h day of February, 2000, and a public hearing on this Ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado on the 22nd day of February, 2000, at 5:30 p.m., in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon, Colorado. INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED POSTED, this 22"d day of February, 2000. 3 IR TTEST* Kr ash, Town Clerk CO DOCS_A 56190 v 4 1111111111111111111 III 111111111111111111111111111111111 730844 05/30/2000 11:25A 289 Sara Fisher 2 of 18 R 90.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: 4401-t" Burt Devin, Town Attorney 111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 III 1111111111111 730844 05/30/2000 11:25A 289 Sara Fisher 3 of 18 R 90.00 Q 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO CO DOCS A 56190 v 4 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CONFLUENCE AND TRACT C THIS AMENDMENT to the Development Agreement for Confluence and Tract C (this "Amendment") is made and 'entered into by and between Vail Associates Investments, Inc., a Colorado limited liability company (hereinafter "Owner") and the Town of Avon (hereinafter the "Town"), a Colorado municipal corporation. RECITALS A. Owner owns a parcel of real property in the Town generally known as Tract C (also known as Lot Q, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision (hereinafter "Tract C"), as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached. B. On or about October 27, 1998, the parties hereto entered into a contract, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, titled "Development Agreement - Confluence and Tract C" (hereinafter the "1998 'Development Agreement"). C. The parties wish to amend the 1998 Development Agreement concerning Tract C only. The parties expressly intend not to modify any of the terms of the 1998 Development Agreement insofar as that agreement refers to and concerns the properties defined therein as the "Confluence" and "Tract B." D. The Town Council of the Town has made a finding in its Ordinance No. 02,,Series 2000 (the "Ordinance") that execution of this Amendment serves the public purposes of increasing employment and economic development in the Town, including the development of new businesses and the expansion of existing businesses. AMENDMENT ARTICLE III ZONING, VESTED RIGHTS AND EXACTIONS 3.3 Vesting of Property Rights. The parties hereby amend Section 3.3 of the 1998 Development Agreement regarding the vesting of property rights by the addition of the following language: Owner and Town agree that: (a) this Amendment and the Development Plan for Tract C is a site specific Development Plan as defined in the Vested Property Rights Statute and Section 17.14. 100 of the Municipal Code, and is adopted pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.12.020 of the Municipal Code, which the Town acknowledges hereby has been approved by proper procedure under the Town's Charter and the Municipal Code; (b) the Owner shall have vested property rights to undertake and CO—DOCS_A 56189 v 7 749432 Page: I of I I 02/0512001 04;49P Sara Fisher Eagle Cty, Co 29 R 56.00 D 0.00 complete development and use of Tract C in phases as provided in paragraph 8.13.13 of this Amendment and the Development Plan for Tract C as hereinafter provided; and (c) pursuant to Section 17.14.050 of the Municipal Code, approval of this Amendment and the Development Plan for Tract C constitutes a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. The provision concerning the term of vested property rights in Section 2.2 of the 1998 Development Agreement is deleted, and Owner shall have the following vested property rights for Tract C. Owner's vested property rights for Tract C shall commence on February 22, 2000, and shall, except as hereinafter provided, continue for the following periods: Phase 1-A vested property rights shall run from February 22, 2000 to February 22, 2004; Phase 1-B vested property rights shall run from February 22, 2000 to February 22, 2008; and Phase 1-C vested property rights shall run from February 22, 2000 to February 22, 2012. Owner's failure to commence construction of any phase within the vested property rights period for the specific phase set forth above shall terminate Owner's vested property rights for the remaining phase(s). ARTICLE V REBATE AGREEMENT 5.1 Allocation of Taxes. The parties have renegotiated their agreement with regard to the allocation of taxes, as follows. (a) Section 5.1 of the 1998 Development Agreement Deleted. Section 5.1 of the 1998 Development Agreement is hereby deleted as it pertains to Tract C, and the parties agree as follows. (b) Sales and Accommodations Taxes Attributable to Lease or Rental of Hotel Rooms. The Town agrees to account for sales taxes (as generated in accordance with Chapter 3.08 of the Avon Municipal Code, as amended) and accommodations taxes (as generated in accordance with Chapter 3.28 of the Avon Municipal Code, as amended) collected by the Town and attributable to the lease or rental of hotel rooms on Tract C, and to rebate 75 % thereof to the special district which includes Tract C within its boundaries (the "Tract C District") within sixty (60) days following the end of the calendar month when collected (or partial month, if appropriate, in the case of the month in which this Amendment becomes effective or is terminated). The Town shall maintain a separate "Tract C Sales and Accommodations Tax Rebate Account" (the "Sales Tax Rebate Account") into which such taxes shall be deposited until rebated to the Tract C District for payment of the bonds or other forms of indebtedness incurred in connection with the parking improvement project located on Tract C. Said Sales Tax Rebate Account shall be separately accounted for and shall not be used, pledged or otherwise encumbered except as specifically set forth herein. The Town shall not be obligated to account for or rebate any sales taxes on retail sales or other taxable sales occurring within the hotel or other commercial areas on Tract C. Y��4'iMYIYI�IRYtl na94e. °�.1:. Sara Fisher Eagle CtyCO 29 R 55.00 0 0.00 CO_OOCS_A 56189 v 7 749432 Page: 3 of It 02105/2001 04:49P The duration of this obligation to account for and rebate accommodations taxes or sales taxes attributable to the lease or rental of hotel rooms shall be for a period of fifteen (15) years, commencing upon the date when the hotel is opened to the public or on June 1, 2006, whichever date is earlier; provided, however, .that in no event shall the Town be under an obligation to account for or rebate such taxes after the bonds or other obligations related to the Tract C parking improvements project are satisfied or retired. (c) Real Estate Transfer Taxes. Subject to the conditions stated below, the Town agrees to account for all Real Estate Transfer Taxes (RETT) attributable to the first sale of each deeded time-share interest located on Tract C, and to rebate 50% thereof td'the Tract C District within sixty (60) days following the end of the calendar month when collected (or partial month, if appropriate, in the case of the month in which this Amendment becomes effective or is terminated). The Town shall maintain a separate "Tract C Real Estate Transfer Tax Rebate Account" (the "RETT Rebate Account"), into which such taxes shall be deposited until rebated for the parking improvement project located on Tract C. Said RETT shall be required to be rebated only with respect to the first sale of each deeded time-share interest in each unit constructed on Tract C, and shall not be required with respect to any subsequent resale thereof. For purposes hereof, "deeded time-share interest" is defined as any seven-day time-share interest in a two-bedroom time-share unit, one -bedroom dwelling unit or one -bedroom accommodation unit as described in the deed from a time-share developer to an initial purchaser or any subsequent transfer by deed thereafter. Deeded time-share interests shall also include time-. share interests which have been acquired by a time-share developer through foreclosure or deed in lieu -of foreclosure and are thereafter reconveyed by a time-share developer. As contemplated by paragraph 8.13.B.5 of this Amendment, the legal description of a two-bedroom time-share unit as the combination of a one -bedroom dwelling unit and one -bedroom accommodation unit in the deed to a purchaser will result in a "deeded time-share interest" in a single two-bedroom time- share unit. It is the expectation of the parties that a series or series of bonds or other obligations shall be issued or incurred for the parking improvements project located on Tract C. It is also the expectation of the parties that the allocation of and rebate from the RETT Rebate Account is to be used only for paying the debt service corresponding to the parking improvements project on Tract C. The allocation and rebate of RETT shall continue to be made from the RETT Rebate Account until the bond or bonds (or other obligations) issued or incurred by tiie,Tract C District and secured by rebates from said account have been paid in full. However, in no instance shall the Town continue the allocation and rebate of RETT taxes from the RETT Rebate Account beyond fifteen (15) years after the commencement of deposits in said account. Notwithstanding the foregoing, prior to the earlier to occur of June 1, 2007 or a hotel in Tract C opening to the public, all amounts required to be deposited by the Town in the RETT Rebate Account shall not be distributed to the Tract C District but shall constitute a legal reserve of Town funds which to the extent annually allocated to the RETT Rebate Account (1) shall not be available for any other Town purpose, (2) shall not be released except pursuant to the terms of CO_t70CS A 56189 v 7 749432 Page: 4 of 11 02105t2001 04,49P Sara Fisher Cagle Cty, Co 29 R 56.00 0 0.00 this paragraph, and (3) shall be invested in accordance with the Town's investment policy. In the event such hotel is opened to the public on or before June 1, 2007, any interest accumulated on rebateable funds within the RETT Rebate Account shall be split evenly between the Town and the Tract C District and the balance of such fund shall be conveyed to the Tract C District free and clear of any claim by the Town. Thereafter, amounts in the RETT Rebate Account shall be conveyed to the Tract C District in the manner described in the first paragraph of this Section 5.1(c). If the hotel is not opened to the public on or before June 1, 2007, then all amounts held in the RETT Rebate Account shall be paid to the Town free and clear of any claim by the Tract C District. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town shall in no event be under an obligation to rebate RETT in an amount which exceeds One and a half Million Dollars ($1,500,000) (excluding any interest accumulated on funds deposited within the RETT Rebate Account). (d) Cooperation by the Town. The Town shall make all allocations and deposits of taxes, as provided above, unless prevented. by court order from so doing. In the event any action is commenced challenging the right of the Town to make such allocations and deposits, the Town shall notify Owner and the Tract C District in writing of such action prior to the Town filing its first responsive pleading in such action and shall allow the Tract C District to participate in any defense to such action as set forth in Section 2.4 of the 1998 Development Agreement. (e) Effect of Amendment on Sections 5.2 through 5.12. Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed as modifying Sections 5.2 through 5.12 of the 1998 Development Agreement, with the exception that as such sections pertain to Tract C the term "Districts" shall be construed as applying only to the Tract C District. ARTICLE VIII MISCELLANEOUS 8.12 Recreation Amenities Fee. Commencing as of the effective date of this agreement, and continuing in perpetuity, the condominium timeshare association formed to manage the condominium time-share project in Tract C (the "Time -Share Association"), is obligated to the Town for payment of a Recreation Amenities Fee. The fee shall be calculated and paid to the Town semiannually and will be based on an initial annual amount of twenty-five ($25) dollars for each deeded time-share interest located on Tract C. Prior, to the formation of the Time -Share Association, the Owner shall be obligated to pay any Recreation Amenities Fee. The amount of the semiannual payments will be calculated according to the following formula; Number of existing or newly deeded time-share interests per semiannual period (January -June, calculated as of June 1, and July -December calculated as of December 1), multiplied by $25 (or as adjusted by CPI -U, as defined below), divided by 2. co_oocs_A 56189'v 7 4 �=�3dIN Sara Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 29 R 55.00 0 0.00 The due dates for the semiannual payments are August 20 and February 20 for the previous semiannual calculation period. On January 1, 2001, and on the first'day of each year thereafter, the amount of the fee shall be increased by the prior years average consumer price index for All Urban Consumers for the Denver -Boulder -Greeley metropolitan area as published semiannually and appearing in the January and July issues of the CPI Detailed Report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the "CPI -U"). It shall be the duty of the condominium Time -Share Association to keep and preserve such records as are necessary to determine the amount of fees due hereunder. Such records shall be preserved for a period of three years and shall be open for inspection by representatives of the Town during regular business hours. Prior to the formation of the Time Share Association, the Owner shall have the above -referenced obligation to keep and preserve such records. If a remittance to the Town is delinquent, or the remittance is less than the full amount due, the Town shall make a written determination of the amount due and deliver or mail the same to the office of the condominium Times -Share Association. The amount properly determined to be owing shall be subject to a penalty in the amount of ten percent of the amount due and shall bear interest from the due date of the remittance at the rate of one and one-half percent per month until paid. Prior to the formation of the Time Share Association, such written determination will be delivered to the Owner. 8.13. Additional Provisions. The Ordinance conditionally approves a PUD Development Plan (Including Development Standards) for Tract C. Said Development Plan was approved subject to the following conditions which are incorporated herein and made a part of this Amendment: A. Proposed storm water detention and pollution control facilities located on Town owned property known as Tract G (the "Town Lot"), as depicted on the Development Plan for Tract C, are approved in concept only, by the Ordinance. Design, construction, and management of the storm water detention and pollution control facilities located on the Town Lot must be approved by the Town at a later date, and will be governed by a separate agreement which shall provide satisfactory assurances that such facilities will be operated and maintained at no cost to the Town and will be relocated or replaced at no cost to the Town in the event the facilities conflict with future development on the Town Lot. B. At buildout, the project shall incorporate: 1. a minimum of 21,350 square feet (sf) of gross leaseable floor area (GLFA) ground -floor commercial space suitable for commercial retail use which square footage includes 4,800 sf GLFA of restaurant space in the hotel; CO_DOCS A 56189 v 7 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111749432 :a Sars. Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 29 R 55.00 D 0.00 2. a minimum of 10,500 sf GLFA of office/retail commercial space on the second and third floor of the freestanding commercial building closest to the Seasons building; 3. a hotel of no less than 125 rooms; 4. 20 dwelling units of deed restricted employee housing (the "Employee Units") including eight studios, eight one -bedroom, two two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units totaling no less than 26 bedrooms; and 5. not more than 133 two-bedroom time-share units, each of which may be subdivided into one one -bedroom dwelling unit and one one -bedroom accommodation unit for a total of 266 condominium units. For zoning density purposes each two-bedroom time-share unit will be one dwelling unit. However, each dwelling unit and accommodation unit shall be considered a separate time-share unit which may be separately conveyed, occupied, rented or exchanged. Subdivision of time-share units shall be accomplished by the condominium declaration and map for the project. . The phasing of the project shall be as follows: Phase I -A: 50 time-share units and 5,800 sf GLFA of ground' floor commercial space fronting West Beaver Creek Boulevard and the internal pedestrian connection to the Avon Town Center Mall and the Employee Units. 2,050 sf GLFA of such retail space may be used for lobby, check-in and support functions for the time-share units until Phase 1-B is completed. Parking will include construction of 180 spaces. Phase 1-B: 35 time-share units. A building permit will be issued for Phase 1-B (the second phase of the Timeshare portion of the project) at such time as a building permit is issued for the 15,750 sf GLFA three story freestanding commercial building closest to the Seasons building (at least 5,250 sf GLFA on the ground level will be retail use and 10,500 sf GLFA the second and third floors will be office or retail). Parking will include construction of an additional 11 spaces. Phase 1-C: 48 time-share units. A building permit will be issued for Phase 1-C (the third phase of the timeshare portion of the project) at such time as a building permit is issued for the hotel (which shall include a minimum of 5,500 sf GLFA ground -level commercial area suitable for retail use) and 4,804 sf GLFA of restaurant space in the hotel. Parking will include construction of an additional 183 spaces. C. A complete landscaping plan and construction laydown plan will be required prior to issuance of a building permit for each phase of the project. D. The parking structure will be designed for future access to the_Sunroad ramp and Tract B. CO DOCS A 56189 v 7 6 IIJJJJJ 1111111111,I111111IIIVgIII1111M749432 Peg*: Sara Fisher E&Gle MY, CO ig R 55.00 D 0.00 E. All parking aisles are required to comply with the 24'0" width. F. All of the encroachments proposed in the setbacks are non -habitable. The non - habitable encroachments are limited to balconies, porte-cochere, roof overhangs, awnings, and lower level roof structures. G. ' All perimeter sidewalks throughout the project shall be a minimum of 8'0" width. H. No columns or structural supports may either impede the 8'0" wide sidewalk clearance requirements or encroach into driveways or entrances. I. All curbs along streets and entrances must include 2'0" gutter pans in addition to the driving lanes. J. All streetscape improvements will include furniture, fixtures, kiosks, and lights per Town standards. K. All street and streetscape improvements along West Beaver Creek Boulevard and Benchmark Road must be completed (except for any items that cannot be completed for seasonal or force majeure reasons) at or prior to the time of issuance of the firsttemporary certificate of occupancy ("TCO") for the project. •L. The final design and specifications for the bus stop require Design Review approval. M. All surface entries and loading entrances shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". N. All parking entrances from public roads shall have a 28'0" access width, which will include a 2'0" gutter pan on each side. 0. The fountain and seating area adjacent to the Town Center Mall must be complete at the time of issuance of the first TCO for the Phase I -B three-story freestanding commercial building closest to the Seasons building. P. The grading plan adjacent to the Town Center Mall included in the Development Plan shall be approved through Design Review (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) contemporaneously with the Streetscape Improvement Plan in connection with Phase I -A of the project. Q. An access easement containing the following terms and conditions must be granted by the owner of Tract C for the benefit of Tract B (as contemplated by the P & Z approval for Tract B) prior to the issuance of any building permit: CO DOCS_A 56189 v 7 , 7 Sara Fisher Eagle Ctv, CO' 29 �� ws00 �3m::. 1. A 19'5" wide access easement on Tract C extending southwesterly approximately 145 feet from the intersection of Sunroad and West Beaver Creek Boulevard to the entrance to the hotel. From the hotel entrance to the parking structure the easement shall be 12'5" wide on Tract C. 2. A provision for reciprocal licenses for access across and storage and staging during construction on designated, vacant portions of Tract B and Tract C, so long as such portions remain unimproved. The license shall specifically provide that any use of such area may be terminated upon 30 days' notice from the owner of either tract in anticipation of commencement of construction of any improvements on vacant areas of Tract B or Tract C. 3. The easement shall also set forth authorization for construction and management of the storm drainage facilities from Tract B across Tract C as contemplated by Paragraph A above. The failure of the owner of Tract B to convey an easement on its property or otherwise to cooperate in the activities contemplated by this paragraph Q shall not delay or otherwise affect the activities of the owner of Tract C hereunder, provided all Tract C development impacts including existing drainage from Tract B are confined to Tract C. R. The accessibility and function of the trash and delivery areas depicted in the Development Plan for Tract C are conceptually approved. Specific aspects of the trash and delivery areas will require subsequent Design Review approval. S. The architecture, construction details, final grading and drainage plans depicted in the Development Plan for Tract C are conceptually approved, but will require separate Design Review approval. T. Parking shall include 374 parking spaces upon completion of the entire Tract C project with a maximum of 30% of structured parking to be compact. U. The Town shall allow access in conformance with.Title 12 of the Avon Municipal Code from Benchmark Road, a public road owned by the Town, to Tract C as necessary to develop the project as contemplated by and shown on the PUD Development Plan for Tract C and the Development Standards. 8.14 Provisions Regarding 1998 Development Agreement. A. In the event Points of Colorado, a Colorado corporation, or its assigns ("POC") purchases Tract C from the Owner, the parties agree that the Owner's right, title and interest in this Amendment shall be assigned pursuant to Section 8.9 of the 1998 Development Agreement to POC and this Amendment and the 1998 Development Agreement shall be binding upon and except as otherwise provided in the Amendment, shall inure to the benefit of POC and its CO—DOCS A 56189 v 7 successors in interest. Further in the event of such purchase by POC, all obligations of the Owner herein shall become obligations of POC and Owner shall be released of all such obligations. B. This Amendment contains all obligations of the Owner with respect to the development of Tract C. The 1998 Development *Agreement shall continue to control the obligations of the owners of the properties defined therein as the Confluence and Tract B. No failure of the owners of the Confluence or Tract B to comply with the requirements of or satisfy the obligations of the 1998 Development Agreement 'shall affect the development of Tract C pursuant to the terms of this Amendment and the owner of Tract C and the Tract C District shall have no responsibility to comply with the requirements of or satisfy the obligations in the 1998 Development Agreement except as specifically set forth herein. Further, no failure of the owners of Tract C to comply with the requirements of or satisfy the obligations of the 1998 Development Agreement or this Agreement shall affect the development of the Confluence or Tract B. In the event any provisions of this Amendment may conflict with provisions of the 1998 Development Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment shall control. C. Unless amended herein, the terms of the 1998 Development Agreement remain in effect. 749432 Pas&: 9 of It 02/05MOI 94:49P Sara Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 29 R 56,00 D 0.00 CQ_DOCS—A 56189 v 7 I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and the Town have executed this Amendment as of the date indicated below. TOWN: =t TOWN OF AVON, a municipal corporation rfi ;` lr gdy Yod, or DATE: -o TE Ti L Kris Nash, Town Clerk APPROV D AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Burt Levin, Town Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Subscribed before me this, W day of , 2000, by Judy Yoder, as Mayor of the Town of Avon, Colorado. MY Commission Expires 0&0%2ooL- My commission expires: �IJ. U�,VVVJIA J r Public 749432 Page: 1@ of 11 021OS/2C01 04 49P Sara Fisher Eagle Cty, CO 29 R 55 80 D 0.00 co Docs A 56189 v 7 10 AMN VAIL ASSOCIATES INVESTMENTS, INC., a Colorado 1 t0-ited liability compnu By: Its: DATE: k ,, tet..e r" STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Subscribed before me this eday of Ft k%- .a.t, 2000, by -,Ta,,, s S. M as �(� �� ��.�, .of Vail Associates Investments, Inc. n expi �--- (-- �, �� \ Notary Public oF. C. -I ° ~ W a 0W2WM 749432 Page: 11 of 11 02105/2001 04:49P Sara Fisher Eagle Gtv, G0 29 R 55.00 D 0.00 CO DOCS A 56189 v 7 Deleted: DEVELOPMENT SECONDAMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOT C, %AGREEMENT j MOUN'T'AIN VISTA RESORT SUBDIVISION, GDoenfluenceandTractC I (Deleted: DEVELOPMT j THIS SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this T– 1­1 .."""""--- "Agreement') is made and entered into as of October 27, 1998 by and between Points of i Deleted: Vail Associates investments, ' inc., a Colorado limited Colorado, Inc.. a Colorado corporation, jhereinafter "Owner), end the Town of Avon, a - -` Deleted: liability company ty municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (the "Town'). ; _. _._. _.. _ _..__ .,__....____...._-_...__._.-_._.____} Deleted: Avon Commercial Center Ltd., a Colorado limited partnerships RECITALS Shapiro Development Co., general partner, or assigns (hereinafter "Shapiro and the A. Owner is a Comoration, duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the ........... Deleted: limited liability company, State of Colorado., „-----__ .._.... --------- ---- ------ --- -- -.---- -- _ ------ ---- (Deleted: Shapiro is a Colorado limited partnership, duly organized and in good ( the laws the State B. Owners owns a parcel of real property known as Lot C (also known as Tract C), standing under of of Mountain Vista Resort Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as "Lot C"), as snore particularly Colorado. _..... ..... _......._............, Deleted: conditionally annexed to the described in Exhibit A as attached to this Agreement. Town and generally referred to as the "Confluence' as more particularly C. On or about October 27, 1998, the Town entered into a Development Agreement described in Exhibit A-I attached to this Agreement (the "Confluence'). in -- Confluence and Tract C. (hereinafter referred to as "1998 DeveloDment Agreement") with Vail t addition. Owner owns a parcel of real in the Town known as Associates Investments, Inc.. a Colorado limited liability comoanv and entered into a subseouent property generally "Tract C" as more particularly described Amendment to Development Agreement for Confluence and Tract C on February 22. 2000, in Exhibit A-2 attached to this Agreement ('Tract C), Shapiro owns a parcel of real Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2000 concerning Lot C only (hereinafter referred to as "2000 property in the Town generally known as Development Agreement"), "Tract B' as more particularly described ii Exhibit A-3 attached to this Agreement. .".._-._................ ......... ...-.....,... ....---- .._...._. . .... ... .. D, [n IV It -ch 2000, Vail Investments Inc. assigned, transferred and conveyed all of its _..l'Deleted:�Ownerdesvestodevelopthe Confluence and Tract Casmixed use riLhts, liabilities and obligations as to Lot C to the Owner. Points of Colorado. Inc and its developments (that parcels referred to affiliates and assigns y - - I collectively as the"Property–which may include, among other uses, lodging, restaurant, retail, parking, public E. Owner is Submitting an anDlication for a second amendment to the Lot C facilities, open space, office, commercial, conference center and other, uses. DeveloDment Agreements, This Agreement amends and restates the 1998 DeveloDment Shapiro desires to develop Tract B Agreement and 2000 Development Agreement with respect to Lot C only, The Parties exDressly pursuant to the terms of a separate agreement and desires to avail itself of intend not to modify any of the terms of the 1998 Development Agreement insofar as that the provisions of Article V of this agreement refers t0 and concerns the properties defined therein as the "Confluence and Tract Agreement to aid in such developmentfor the benefit of the. Town andShapiro.q 13-• Deleted: D.. A condition of annexation of the Confluence was the successful F. The Town has authorityto zone and govern development of the Property in $ P P Y negotiation c a "Development Agreement" concerning the development accordance with this Agreement, the Comprehensive Plan, j,ot C Development" Plan (as such of the Property, failing which, the -" " _- - terms is are defined herein), the Municipal Code, and other app-licable - Town requirements and Confluence shall be disconnected from polices. Furthermore, the Town has authority to agree to the vesting of property development the Town. A significant element of the negotiations affecting the Property is the rights concerning the Property, the creation of special districts to provide public facilities relating eing of the Property for which owner has submitted a Zoning Application to the to the Property, the rebate of sales and other taxes which would normally be collected as a result Town for the confluence and a separatrfl _....................._....... _..._ _.._._.......-. ......... of taxable activities occurring on the Property and the granting of tax credits to assist with the , Deleted: the Confluence PUD, the tract ..._ _ equitable sharing of costs associated with development of public facilities. ; c PUP _ I Deleted: and on Tract B O. The Property x ected to continue to contribute substantially to the economic ,F P �, Deleted: and Tract Bare i Deleted: ...................... .......... ............. .................... ._... _ ......... _..................._1 growth of the Town and consequently will increase future tax revenues to the Town. The Town desires to execute this Second Amendment in order to provide for orderly growth in and around _ ............. ... . ----------- ..- -- ------- the Town and to increase its tax revenues for the Owner and the Town jo provide fora tax rebate mechanism so that Owner may use the rebate revenues or other fees imposed in lieu of taxes to — -------- ------------ ----— -- --— --assist in financing the public facilities,,which will benefit the Town. H. The Town may agree to rebate taxes to the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District ,subject to discretionaryannual budget appropriations by the Town which, if not made by the Town, will substantially impairAe ability. of Owner to develop the Property ------------ I. The legislature of the State of Colorado adopted Sections 24-68-101, et seg. of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Vested Property Rights Statute") to provide for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in, the land use planning process and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the --- ----- ---.......-. - reasonable investment -backed expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning; said Vested Property Rights Statute authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with landowners providing for vesting of property development rights. J. Consistent with the Vested Property Rights Statute, Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with landowners and Other qualified applicants providing for the vesting of property development rights. K Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide for - orderly growth in accordance with the policy and goals set forth irk the Comprehensive Plan, - ensure reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process, stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment -backed expectatio or> f the ,Owner, foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning, and otherwise achieve the goals ani purposes for which the Vested Property Rights Statute and -- ------ - - - - - ---- Chapter 17,14 of the Municipal Code were enacted. In exchange for these benefits and the other benefits to the Town contemplated by this Agreement, together with the public benefits served by the orderly development of the Property, Owner desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the Property pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. L. The Town's authority to enter into this Agreement stems from the power vested generally in Colorado municipalities to address matters glocal concern by contract, ordinance g4 otherwise. Because the Town of Avon collects its own taxes, it also has authority to rebate ---------------_ ----------------- ---- -- -- --- ----- taxes collected or grant credits to taxpayers for fees collected by Owner within certain geographical area. Further, the Town may allow Owner or qualified non-profit corporations to collect such fees. Because such fees will not be collected by the Town and will not derive from the Town, and because all rebates due hereunder shall be subject to annual budget appropriation, the rebate of taxes by the Town, the grant of tax credits by the Town, and the collection of fees by qualified corporations in lieu of such taxes shall .not be multiple fiscal year contractual undertakings of the Town and shall not be a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to the Town which would otherwise require electoral approval. ( Deleted: satisfy the condition of ! annexation of the Confluence by I execution and performance of this I Development Agreement affecting the IConfluence, Tract C and Tract B `Deleted.! , Shapiro `Deleted: desire l Deleted: and Shapiro i w-,w-: ,:•w:� ` Deleted: that will be required by the Property and Tract B Deleted: s <� Deleted: T Deleted: I Deleted: will substantially impair the ability of Shapiro to develop Tract B, and j which failure to appropriate shall be deemed to be a failure oft condition tt annexation of the Confluence resulting in a contractual right & Owner to disconnect the Confluence from the Ton Deleted: . ! Deleted: other Deleted: L jDeleted:Y I Deleted: — Deleted; of j Deleted; a i Deleted: at' { Deleted: or Deleted: and Shapiro AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the terms, conditions and covenants set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner and the Town agree as follows: . . .......................................... ARTICLE I Deleted: 1.1 Affordable Housing. DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS Housing where the occupant is paying no more than 30% of gross income for gross I housing costs, including utility costs.$ 1.0 Definitions. The following terms and references shall have the meanings set forth below i, Formatted: Underline unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates otherwise: Deleted: Deleted: on November 5-, 1-99-6 ----- - 1.1 Accommodation Tax. For purpose of this Agreement. Accommodation Tax shall, Formatted: Ind e: 0" mean anv municival lodging or accommodations tax imposed by the Town Dursuant to ent: First line: Deleted: 1.2 .-Annexation Airreement. Municinal Code Ch. 3.28 or anv similar code orovision enacted during the Term of this, i The conditional Annexation Agreement Agreement unon anv sales or rental of lodging within the Property. affiecting the Confluence Parcel approved by the Town on August 25, 1998, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as 1.2 Accommodation Unit. Anv room or L Exhibit B.1 roup of rooms used primarily for transient - ---------- * -------- --- ----- --- -- * ---------- ---------- -- ---- ------ ­ - ----- -- lodLyina an accessible from common corridors. elevators. walks or balconies without Dassing . . ........ - - - through another Accommodation Unit and shall be no larger than 600 sauare feet. An De . leted: 3 Accommodation Unit may include an efficient v kitchen. Each Accommodation Unit shall be Deleted: on Exhibit A -I counted as one-third (1/3) of a DwellingUnit for oumoses of calculating allowable Dwelling D eIeted : 1.4. Comorehensive Plan, The Avon Comprehensive Plan adopted Units oer acre. by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town on November 5, 1996 1 1.3 Comprehensive Plan. The Avon Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Planning i -------- --- ­_ -4-11 -- - ---- -- -- - - 6 and. i -_ - -_ - ­ - - . - . -: I : Deleted: 5 and 'Zomig lay Comm iss ion cr t e Town februa.ry 200. a iv amendments thereto. thereto. ­ � :1".. r i --- ----- - ---- ---- ---- Deleted: Section 3,2. The Development Standards pertaining to the Confluence 'A Confluence. The 9 are attached hereto as Exhibit C- I and the of unimproved real property described in (lie 19 8 . , i -- ------- -------- ---------- pa - r ' ce -- - -- ------- -------- - --- ---------------- * --------- ------------- ----- Development Standards pertaining to DeveloomentAareement�_ ...... .. ---- --- ------ - Tract C are attached hereto as Exhibit C- 2. Development Standards. As defined in the Lot C PUD Devel6r)metit Plan dated Deleted: 6 -- ------ -- February 22. 26�i(j--attached -'hereto --as--Exhibit -D--and ,-the --Second --Amended PI.JD-Develoolnent De-leted: s Plan attached hereto as Exhibit El. ------------ -------------------- -- ------- ------- ------------------- Deleted: 1.6 ...... District Metropolitan Dia etro Distric�_Shall mean the Mountain Vista psy - ­ ------ ­­ ---- -------- -- ------- ,M_ ------- ------------ approved bthe ...... Town ------ to serve the Property, ......... 1-7 , Dwelling Unit. One (1) or more rooms. including cooking facilities. intended or, designed -- -- --- * -------------------------------------- ---- - _.uests indenendent of other families or guests, or (2) An aaareme of Accommodation Units Drovided as follows: a. Three (3) Accommodation Units shall be counted as one dwelling unit. B. Two (2) accommodation Units in association with a dwelling unit shall be counted as one dwelling unit. -------------------------- ------------- --- ­ --- -- --- --------- ­ ­­ --­----------------- - 1.4 ..... Effective Date. The effective date of the Town Council ordinance approving this ------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --- I ----------- p .... Deleted: Confluence Deleted: and Avon Station Metropolitan District rDeleted: an'd­'Tr'a'ct B. .. ,••.,.•:\ .... LDeleted: 1.7. Dwelling Unit • I—— No underline Formatted: No underline Deleted: Deleted: As defined in Section 17.08.270 of the Municipal Code.1 r. .. ....... . . ..................... ...Deleted:.. . 8 .... .. . .. ....... . ... I ..... ... . .. ................. Agreement. 1.9 Efficiency Kitchen. An Efficiently Kitchen means a roam. wet bar or similar facility that may contain-a-sulkI refrigerator. dishwasher. microwave oven, cook toD. wet bar or similar facility. but expressly not a stove or oven within an Accommodation Unit or residential Unit. Stub outs for natural izas. propane, or 220-V electric hook-uns are not allowed. I.,jo Exhibits. The following are Exhibits to this Agreement, all of which are -- ............ _ ..... ... --------- ------------ --- * ----------- * ---- -- incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement: Formatted: Underline Deleted: 9 LDeleted: -1 1 Deleted: Confluence j Deleted: A-2 Exhibit ALepI.Description of the .. ....... i r Deleted: Legal Description of Tract Cj Deleted: A-3 Exhibit j3,,, j.998_P 0 meat A YreelTI. !�n Deleted* Legal Description of Tract . .. . ....... Deleted: BI Exhibit C 2000 Development Agreement,, i Deleted:B Deleted: The Annexation Agreement Exhibit Q� 2000 PUD Develooment Plarl,. . . .. . . .... .. -- --t ,:::::w,:,,,:,_::_ ,::::. im,zi= --7=gnz-r:Mi-.I.- ) Deleted: C- I ------- Deleted. 6 Exhibit F, 2007 Second Amended PUD Develt)ITIel.1i Plan , 1 Deleted: The Development Standards for the Confluence Deleted: I t Municipal Code. The Town's Municipal Code, as in effect from time o time. ---- ----- -- ---- -------- ------- --- . ..... Deleted: Exhibit( The 1 Development Standards for Tract C¶ 1.11 Property The oarcel of oroverty described on Exhibit A. known as Lot C (Tract Deleted: 1. 10 . Lodging Tax. For ------- purpose of this Agreement, Lodging Tax - ------ .., ---------- .... . .. ------------ -- shall mean any municipal lodging or accommodations tax imposed by the Municipal Code Ch. 1.13, PUD. Planned unit development or PUD, as such terms are defined and used in Town pursuant to the Municipal Code and further defined herein as to the Pronertv.. 3.28 or any similar code provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon any sales or rental of ofthisment 1.1-j Real Estate Transfer Tax. For p ree., Real Estate Transfer --------- -- and Tract lodging within the Property 8.1 -------- --- .pi�r 'ries .Agr------ ean any municipal real estate transfer tax imposed by the Town pursuant Tax shall m to Deleted. - i�ii. . Avon Town Mail Center Mail established by Ordinance 8 l- Mpnicipal Code Ch. 3.12 or any similar code provision enacted during. the Term of this ........ ----- ---------------------------- * --------------------------------------------------------------- Agreement upon sales of time share units within the Property,... ------- ------------- j Deleted: 2 1.16 Sales Tax. Forpurposes of this Agreement, Sales Tax shall mean any municipal. ----- ----- ... .... ---- - . .. ...... ... Del 3 sales tax imposed by theTown pursuant to Municipal Code Ch. 3.08 or any similar code Deleted: Tract C p roperty provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon furnishing of rooms or d Deleted and the Confluence property. accommodations within the Property, il Deleted: 4 Deleted: 5 1.16 Sanitation District, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. -------- - .... Deleted: in 1.17, Subdivision Improvement Agreement An agreement guaranteeing the ---- --- * - ----------- - ---- -- Agreement ---- --- --- ------- .. .... ..... . .......... ....... Deleted: and Tract B. % Deleted: 6 construction of public improvements for the Property pursuant to Title 16 of the Municipal Code. Deleted: and Tract B 1.18, Town. The Town of Avon, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado. --- -------- ------ Deleted: 7 ------ ...... --------------- ...... ........ -- -- -------- (neleted: 8 Deleted: 9 . .......... ...... 11-1 .... . ..... . ..... .......... 1. 19 Town Council. The Town Council of the Town. - —� -------------------- _----------- ---- ---------- --- - --- -- -------.... I.20 Vested Provertv Rights Statute. As defined in Recital H above. --- - ------ -------------- ------ -- ---- --- ---- 1.21Zonin ; Format and final passage of an ordinance and/or resolution by the Town - — --- -...- Council confirming a zoning designation on a parcel of land as provided in the Municipal Code. Such final passage shall be deemed to occur after the passage of any statutory or common law period for the filing of a petition for referendum to reverse or nullify such zoning ordinance. 1.21, Zoning Application. TheZoning. applications for the Property. i ARTICLE II CONDITIONS PRECEDENT; COVENANTS; THIS AGREEMENT i..- ... ..... .. .. ........... . ........ ............... .... ...-.--- . ..-. Term. In recognition of the sizef the develoopment contemplated under this Agreement, the substantial investment and time required to complete the development of the Property, the potential for phased development of the Property, and the possible impact of economic cycles and varying market conditions during the course of development, Owner and the Town agree that the term of this Agreement and the vested property rights established under this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until February 22. 2011. References to the Term of this Agreement and the vesting of property rights in the proceeding sentence shall not be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the rights of the Town described in Section 7 2 to initiate or pursue dissolution of the Districts. After the expiration of —. ..... the Term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force or effect; provided, however that such termination shall not effect 4� any common-law vested rights obtained prior . ...... . _. to such termination, or (1_ any_ right arising from Town permits, approvals or other entitlements for the Property which were granted or approved prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Agreement and the Development Standards. : 2,1, Amendment of Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement may be amended or terminated only by mutual consent of the Town and Owner in writing following the public notice and public hearing procedures required for approval of this Agreement. For the purpose of any amendment to this Agreement, "Owner" shall mean only the Owner as defined herein and those parties, if any, to whom such signatories have specifically been granted, in writing by Owner, the power to enter into such amendments. 2.3 Cooperation in Defendine Lesal Challenees. If any legal or equitable action or �-------------------- -------- ----------- ---- --- --- -- - - . _-_...1 other proceeding is commenced by a third party challenging$he validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Development Standards, Owner and the Town agree Jo cooperate in defending ----------------- such action or proceeding and to bear their own expenses in connection therewith. Unless Town and Owner otherwise agrees each party shall select and pay its own legal counsel to represent it in connection with such action or proceeding. ARTICLE III ZONING, VESTED RIGHTS AND EXACTIONS Deleted: 20 Deleted: . 1.21 Tract B. The real property described in Exhibit A-3 attached hereto.¶ I Deleted:. 1.22. Tract C. The parcel of unimproved real property described on Exhibit A-2.1 i$ Deleted: 3 Deleted: 4 Deleted: 5 ! Deleted: separate I I! Deleted: each parcel comprising the { Property. Deleted: 2.1 . Condition Precedent. Annexation of the Confluence to the Town was accomplished pursuant to Ordinance No. 98.18 and Resolution No.98-54, and the Annexation Agreement which specifically provided that said annexation would be conditional and subject to disconnection until this agreement is executed and effective. The patties hereto agree that annexation of the Confluence was in all respects in accordance with the Town charter and the Colorado Municipal'Annexation Act of 1965, as amended (C.R.S.. §§ 31-12-101, et seq.). The condition of annexation of the Confluence shalt not be deemed to have been satisfied until Zoning of the Property pursuant to Article III of this Agreement has been completed and thereafter shall be deemed to have not been fully satisfied if the Town fails or is prevented in any way from making rebate payments or granting tax credits as set 1i forth herein.$ Deleted: Until Zoning pursuant to Article III of this Agreement has gen t2l_ Deleted: 2 Deleted: the 35th anniversary of the Effective Date Deleted: 6 i Deleted: (a) the annexation of the Confluence to the Town; i Deleted: b Deleted: c Deleted: 3 Deleted: Any amendment to any T provision of this Agreement whict(".., Bl Deleted: 4 { Deleted:. Deleted: --------._....--- -----i - .. . ( Deleted: die 3.1 PUD Zoning. The Pronertv shall be a separate PUD as provided in this Agreement and in their respective Development Standards. 3.2 Develooment Standards and Phasing. (a) Development Standards. The "Development Standards" attached hereto as Exhibit E set forth the guidelines for development of the Property are approved by the Town as the zoning for the Property, and indicate, among other things, set back distances, building height limitations, site coverage levels, development densities, allowed uses (both permitted uses by right and those permitted upon special review), parking requirements and other guidelines and limitations for the development of the Property. 'rhe Develooment Standards take precedence over other Town_zoninregulations or the Town's Municipals. ode, (b) Subsectuent DeveloDment Aonroval. Atter PUD Zoning of the Property pursuant to Section 3.4(a), Owner and the Town shall enter' into a desiLln review ,zpproval process, pursuant to which Owner and the Town shall, in a manner which is uniform with and similar to other phased development approvals of the Town (and consistent with the provisions of Section 3.4(d) further refine the Development'Standards and,pther details, consistent with the Development Standards and this Agreement (collectively, "Subsequent Development Approval.") 3.3 Vesting of Property Rights. Owner and Town agree that (a) this Agreement and the Development Standards constitute an approved "site-specific development plan" as defined in the Vested Property Rights Statute and Section 17.14.100 of the Municipal -Code and_ as adopted pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.12.020 of the Municipal Code which the Town acknowledges hereby has been approved by proper procedure under the Town's charter and the Municipal Code, and (b) that Owner as the legal owner of the Property shall have vested property tights to undertake and complete development and use of the Property as provided in this Agreement and the Development Standards until February 22. 2011, Pursuant to Section 17.14.050 of the Municipal Code, approval of this Agreement and the Development Standards constitutes a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. 3.4 Pronertv Rights Vested. The rights identified below shall constitute the vested property rights under this Agreement (a) The right to develop, plan and engage in land uses within the Property in the manner and to the extent set forth in and pursuant to this Agreement and the Development Standards. (b) The right to develop, plan and engage in land uses within the Property in accordance with the densities, physical development standards and other physical parameter set forth in the Development Standards. (c) The right to develop the Property in the order, at the rate and at the time as market conditions dictate, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Deleted: Each parcel comprising Confluence and Tract C shall, be zoned as a .......... .1 ........... ...... _...... -..._............__....._._...._.. ............� t Deleted: velopment plan a Deleted, designate site plans: PUDs and Deleted: , including an approved Subdivision Improvement Agreement, all Deleted: e Development Standards. (d) The right to develop and complete the development of the Property (including, without limitation, the' right to receive all Town approvals necessary for the development of the Property) with conditions and standards determined pursuant to Section 3.2(b) which are no more onerous than those imposed by the Town upon other Owners in the Town oraa uniforr nondiscriminatory and consistent basis, and subject only to the exactions and requirements set forth in this Agreement and the Development Standards; provided that such conditions, standards and dedications shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing;_p;reventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying; or otherwise materially adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. (e) The Town shall not initiate any zoning, land use or other legal or administrative action that would directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. 3.5 Water and.Water Rights. Upon Town anDroval pf the increased water ,consumption required for the Pronertv, Owner shall, as a condition of water service for the increased Water Requirements dedicate and convey to the Town sufficient water rights and water storage rights that can be used in conjunction with the augmentation plan and the storage' capacity presently owned by the Town to make up the amounts needed to serve the Increased Water Requirements. Owner shall reimburse the Town's expenses, including reasonable and actual engineering costs and legal fees, of including such additional water in the Town's augmentation plan. Any water rights to be dedicated and conveyed to the Town shall be subject to the Town's approval and acceptance, provided, however, Eagle Park Reservoir water shall be deemed an acceptable source of dedication water under this Agreement. The Town shall not be required to store water in or release water from Benchmark Lake to meet any Increased Water Requirements. Dedication of augmentation water and related water rights shall be completed prior to the issuance ofthetuildingpermit Cor !'base 1 Cti 3.6 No Obligation to Develop. Owner shall have no obligation to develon all of anv ---- h-r u- eDortion ofthePronertvand shall -have -no liabilityto the Town oranvotepartvfor its farto develop all of anv Dart of the-Prooertv. Owner and the Town contemplate that the Pronertv may be developed in Phases. Owner shall have no obligation to develop all or anv portion of anv such Dllase notwithstanding the development or non -development of anv other oliase and Owner shall have no liabilitv to the Town or anv other partv for its failure to develop all of anv portion of anv such phase of the Pronertv. _...... ADeleted: n....,.... P Deleted: 3.5. Exactions. .. ¶ - (a) Access Roads. Roadwav within the Pronertv shall be orovided by Owner I and/or one or more of the Districts which shall dedicate such roads to the Town, whereupon the Town shall accept such roads for dedication in their then current condition and shall assume maintenance of such roads. including snow removal. All such roadways shall be constructed to ! the Town's normal standards for similar roadway s. which standards shall be set, forth in the Subseauent Development Approval relating to the portipn of the Pronertv containing such madways. I (b) . Drainage. Onsite drampa I facilities for the Property shall be provided by Owner and/or one or more of the Districts to handle drainage resulting i from the development of the Property. ¶ Pedestrian Ovemass.. Owner gttdlor one or more of the Districts shall, provide a nedestrian overnass (crossing the railroad line nrovided such railroad lire has not been vacated- in which case an anoronriate nedestrian crossing will be orovided) connecting the Confluence with the Town core area. T lyp�{jgstn) .i Deleted: I h Water a. tw Formatted ;, Formatted: Underline Formatted Formatted: Underline ,1 t Formatted I .. 191 I r� Formatted: Underline Formatted ...................:.::........:.........................10 _'— .j I,t Formatted: Underline R Formatted Fill rt 3.7 Compliance with General Regulations. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the Development Standards, the establishment of vested property rights under this Agreement shall not preclude the application on a uniform and non-discriminatory basis of Town regulations of general applicability (including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, the Municipal Code, and other Town rules and regulations) or 11AI Formatted: Underline Formatted Formatted: Underline i. I Formatted -- ... 13 (`Formatted: Underline Formatted r .. r141 Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline Deleted:. (iii) Mail. The Town and Owner agree that the Mall shall Fib [151 I Formatted: Underline Deleted. � — 1. � ..' f 16 1 the application of state or federal regulations, as all of such regulations exist on the date of this Agreement or may be enacted or amended after the date of this Agreement, provided that such newly enacted or amended Town regulation shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. Owner does not waive its right to oppose the enactment or amendment of any such regulations. 3.8 Arbitration. The parties agree that any dispute arising under this Article 111 shall be subject to arbitration among the parties in accordance with customary rules of the American Arbitration Associations that shall be binding upon the parties. 3.9 Owner Obligations. All obligations of Owner in this Agreement may be performed by the District at Owner's election. ARTICLE IV PUBLIC FACILITIES 4.1 Municipal Services. The Town shall have the responsibility and obligation to provide all municipal services, including transit busing to the Property and other administrative services equivalent to those provided to any other area of the Town on a' uniform and non- discriminatory basis. 4.2 Water and Sewer Services. The Town shall provide water service to the Property f upon notification of need by Owner as required for the development of the Property. Water . infrastructure/capital facilities which are necessary for, the Town to provide water to the Property shall be provided by Owner and/or one or more Districts which shall dedicate such improvements to the Town, whereupon the Town shall accept such improvements for dedication in their then current condition and shall assume maintenance of such improvements and facilities. All such improvements shall be constructed to the Town's normal standards for similar facilities, which standards shall be set forth in the relevant Subsequent Development Approval relating to the portion of the Property containing such water improvements The Town shall charge water tap fees and usage charges to users within the Property on a uniform, non- discriminatory basis with other users within the Town and shall use best efforts to require the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, or other water service providing entity to abide by this covenant. Deleted: s i Deleted: s 1 Deleted: The Town's obligation to provide water shall survive any i disconnection of Confluence pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise. 4.3 Sanitation. The Property shall receive sanitation service from the Sanitation District. The Town shall not impose rates, fees, tolls or charges for sanitation services for the ,Eroperty. Deleted: P ] ,ARTICLE V Deleted:I REBATE AGREEMENT _._....-...._--_----.. ....... ____ - ...... . _....__ 5.1 Allocation of Taxes. (a) Sales and Accommodations Taxes Attributable to Lease on Rental of Hotel Rooms. The Town shall retain one hundred percent ( I OV,o) of the accommodations and sales taxes attributable to the lease or rental of hotel rooms on the Pronertv. The Toxin shall not be obliaated to account for or rebate anv salts on idol sales other taxable sales occurring within the hotel or other commercial areas on the Property. In no event shall the Town be under an obl iaation to account for or rebate such taxes after the bonds or, other obligations related to the parking improvements on the Prooenv are satisfied or retired. _ (c) Real Estate TransferTaxes._S ibjectto the ecuxbititxi.5-sem below. the Townaffeestq,cct utt Real Fstate Transfer Takes (RETT) attribrtable to the first sale of each deeded time-share interest located on the Proverty , and to rebate 50% thcreofto the Motuhtain Vista Metronolitarh District: within sixty (00) days following the end of the calendar month when collected (or i ia! i i xinth ifapprot)riate, in the case of the month in which this Amendment becomes elT'ective or is terminated). The Town shall maintain a separate "Lot C Real Estate Transfer Aa;ount" (the "REIT Rebate Accotuht"), into which such tares shall be decxosited until abated for the parking improvement oroiect located on the Prnoerty. Said RFTT shall be reauired to be rebated only with respect to the first sale of each deeded time-share interest in each unit constnx-tcd on the Property%, and shall not Tie recruited with tmrx)ctto any stdise%c trent )sale therec,_f. For muirxises hereof, "deeded time-share interest" is defined as any seven-day time-share interest in a t Formatted: Font: 14 pt three-bedroom, two-bedroom time-share unit=one-bedroom dwelling unit or one-bbedrooni accommodation habit as described in the deed from a time-share developer to an initial nun;iiaser or am, wbsc.=xxht trrnsfer by deed d=nf er. Deeded tirncshare intoxsLs shall also incline tinno4arc interests Mich havc been ac ouinxi by a tinio4iare developer throu0i foreclosure or deed in lieu -of fixeclosure and are theruiffer reconveved by a time- share developer. It is the expectation of the parties that a series or series of bonds or other obligations shall be issued or incurred ftx the park -me improvements moic ct located on Promity. It is also the extiectation of t e nartics that the allocation of and rebate ti-orn die RFTT Rebate ,Account is to be used old , for 'n<> the debt service co Mr pc)nding to the parking impmwmicnts oroiect on the Ptotmty. The allocation and mate of RTs f T shall corttiniie to be fiom the RFFr Rebate Account tuhtil the lxmd or bands (or other oblicantions) issued or incurred by the NI(xinnri � ista 14fetronolitan District and secured by rebates f irn said account have been paid in full. However, in no instance shall the Town continue the allocation and rebate of REFI" taxa fi-onh the RFTT Rebate Acccxuht bevorhd fif ecxh t 15) years after the commencement of detxxsits in said accam Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town shall in no event be under an obligation to rebate RGTT in an amount which exceeds One and a half Million Dollars (S1,500.000.) excluding any interest accumulated on funds deposited within the REIT Rebate Account). (d) Cooperation by the Town. The Town shall make all allocations and deposits of taxes. as provided above, unless prevented by court order from so doing. In the event anv action is commenced challene int; the right of the Town to make such allocationsattd dePnsits.,the Town shall notify- (.honer and the Mountain.,. Vista Metropolitan District in writing of such action prior to the T"Tubb filing its first resm)nsive pleading in such action and shall allow the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District to participate in anv defense to such action as set forth in Section 3.4 ofthis Agreement. 5.2 Limitations on Bonds to be Issued. Financing on behalf of the Mountain Vista Deleted: .5.1.Allocation ofTaxes. In ., Metropolitan District for the oarking imDrovements located on the Propertyjis hereby limited to consideration of the performance by two-thirds (213rds) of the estimated capital cost of the respective parking improvement being :,', Owner of its obligations under this Agreement, the Town agrees: (a) to financed. account for alt Sales Taxes and Lodging Taxes collected by the Town and attributable to the Property and to Tract B 5.3 Determination of Amount of Allocated Revenues. The Town shallrovide the p and b) to rebate 75% thereof to the Districts within sixty (60) days following Districts a summary of "teal Estate Transfer Tax collected by the Town for each month or 1 the end of the calendar month when --- ---------------- --- - -. -- - ......- artial month with respect to the Property hat su arts the amounts rebated for such month.. ; Ii I} p �-•---...PI?----------- ---------. .-------- PP in collected (or he m nth in, if i appropriate in the case of the month in which this Such summary shall be provided at the time the rebate is made. ; Agreement becomes effective or is terminated). The Town shall maintain a i separate "Rebate Account" into which 5.4 Computation of Tax Revenues. Within one hundred twenty (120) days following '. such taxes shall be deposited until the end of the each Town fiscal year, the Town shall deliver to the Mountain Vista Metropolitan rebated; one for each parking improvement project the tB m District final accounting of all he real estate transfer taxes collected b the Town and '„ :, �.. g- y Confluence, Tract C, and Tract ..,�.. ------------ - -...................................... - attributable to the Property and the amount rebated to the Distrie� ;, - . ...... - ------ ---_ - --- - -. ......... respectively. Said Rebate Accounts shall be separately accounted for and shall not be used, pledged or otherwise 5.5 No Debt or Pecuniary Liabilitv; No Multiple -Fiscal Year Obligation. All rebate'i', eredexcept asspeciticallyset payments hereunder and any other financial obligation of the Town herein in any year shall be forth hhererein. ¶ expressly subject to annual appropriation by the Town; provided, however, that it is the present As additional consideration blithe expectation of the parties that the Town will make the payments contemplated by this ,, ', performance by Owner of its obligations ;under this Agreement the Town further Agreement.,None of the ob_ligatio_ ns_ of the Town hereunder to the Mountain Vista NIetronolitan 's , --- - !Transfer Taxescallect dbythegrees: (a) to account for all Tbwnte Distric shall be payable from an source other than asrovlded in Section 5.1, and this ;, y__.. and attributed to the Property and to Tract ----..--_I?_�'•............. ._ ..----- _. - ...P_ - -- - ------------ ---- ---------- -.--- - - Agreement shall never constitute a debt, indebtedness or multiple fiscal year financial obligation Band (b)torebate 75%thereof tothe Districts days fallowing within sixty (60) of the Town within the meaning of the Constitution or laws of the State of Colorado. the end tithe calendar month when collected (or partial month if applff pJ ql 5 b B d t d A t' f P t Th T f d' t h it '' ''' �'.• � = ; Formatted: Underline u ge an ppropna ion o avmen s. a owns mance irec ors a to the Town of hs Ag eement, amounts sufficient ito meet the obligation nof the Town hereunderto the lext extent ,'',:+} e in the g proposals nation -- ---------------- --. - -- ..in each y --...ear prior the Town shall have received such amounts, or anticipates receiving such amounts from Sales taxes, Accommodation,Taxes or Real Estate Transfer Taxes. The Town hereby represents that it --- - - - ---- --- presently intends to appropriate the amounts under this Agreement to the fullest extent permitted by law. It based upon an opinion of independent counsel not previously or at the time such opinion is delivered representing the District and acceptable to the Town, it is determined that the activities under this Agreement shall be determined an "enterprise" of the Town for purposes Article S, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, or that transactions of a nature similar to the transactions provided for in this Agreement are not required under the laws of the State of : Colorado to be subject to annual appropriation without regard to approval of any such transactions by the electors of the Town, this Agreement shall be reformed so as to delete the annual appropriation provision of Section 5.4 and as elsewhere found in this Agreement. 5.7 Subseauent Changes in Tax Rates. In the event that, the Town reduces the Real Estate Transfer Tax rate applicable to taxable activities on'the Property, the calculation of the rebate percentage for rebates due to the Districl-shall be recalculated so that the Districts shall receive rebates throughout the term of this agreement as if no change in tax rates had occurred. Deleted: it behalf of the Districts for ! each individual parking improvement 11 project located within the Confiuen---ce_Lig- 1-1 Deleted: any Sales Ta; Lodging Tax; and -- — -- } Deleted: and Tract B Deleted: Districts Deleted: t sates taxes, lodging taxes and Deleted-, and to Tract B Deleted: s Deleted: The Town agrees that failure to appropriate sufficient finds in any year to enable the Town to perforin it; =fig Deleted: s Deleted: 7/48 --- Deleted: 4 Deleted: Lodging Deleted: s Deleted: Sales Tax, Lodging Tax, or In the event the Town increases the Meal Estate Transfer Tax pursuant to an election and ( Deleted: and Tract B ) n the incremental increase in the tax rate is earmarked for a special purpose pursuant to the ballot .Deleted: s j Deleted: Sales Tax, Lodging Tax; or question that is passed by the voters, such addition taxes resulting from the tax increase and collected by the Town applicable to the Property shall not be subject to allocation and rebate by `Deleted: and Tract B Shall not the Town to the District. 5.8 Books and Records. Both the Town and the District; shall maintain adequate ;Deleted: s books and records to accurately perform and account for their respective obligations under this Agreement. Town and District representatives shall be granted reasonable access during normal business hours to such books and records in order to determine compliance with the terms of this Agreement to determine Jhe accuracy of such books and records. The parties shall use their best ! Deleted: of f efforts to resolve any issues, discrepancies, or inaccuracies discovered in any review of either ! Deleted: a parties' books and records. 5.9 Tax Credits. a Each- (?- taxpayer liable for the ea! Estate T --------- prevented by binding court order from transactions within the Pro ert hall receive a credit a ainst such taxes in each ear a ua! to the P--•----•-------------------g..__,._.,.--.----._..----.--y.... �1..__..__he paying rebates whir respect to the total amount of the rebate which would otherwise have been due from the Town. The Town shall Property or otherwise fails to appropriate, notifyall persons who would typically collect such taxes from a taxpayer that taxes shall not be P YP Ydisconnecting Owner shall have the option of the Confluence from the due from such taxpayer in an amount equal to fees paid by such taxpayer. Such credit shall be '. Town as contemplated herein. in the automatic and shall take effect immediate) without being claimed on taxpayer's return relating Y gg event Owner determines not to disconnect the Confluence, or if the Town contests to the applicable tax and without any requirement of approval or other action by the Town, but or otherwise fails to assure said the transactions and payments supporting the credit for an given year shall nevertheless be P Y PP g Y �+' Y disconnection b any way, the provisions of Section 5.8(b) hereof shall be subject to audit to the same extent, for the same limitations periods and in the same mariner as immediately binding upon the Town. In the items which are required to be reported on the taxpayer's return relating to the applicable tax. q Pg PP by the event the Town frprevented re ;binding court order from paying rebates The Town's agreement to grant such credit shall not be considered a multiple fiscal year ; with respect to Tract B, or otherwise fails financial obligation of an kind. g Y to appropriate, the provisions Section ! 5. 8(b) hereof shall be immediately binding upon the Town. 9 The credits contemplated in this Section shall continue until bonds or other instruments tb) of indebtedness issued by the Districiwor other eligible non-profit corporations actin on behalf of g --- — — ; Deleted: Sales Tax, Lodging Tax or the Distriq which are paid by the fees received from such taxpayers hive been paid In full and -- -- -- -- ---- --------_. - notice thereof has been delivered to the Town. The Town shall rant such credits unless t "" Deleted:ly Y1. -----. -- - -- " - - --- prevented by court order from so doing. In the event any action is commenced challenging the I Deleted: or Tract B l Meted: s right of the Town to rant such credits the Town shall notify Owner n writin of such action 1 � g Y J ... _g._... - -. prior to the Town filing its first responsive pleading in such action and shall allow the Owner ; Deleted: s and/or Shapiro to participate in any defense to such action as set forth in Section 2.4 above. The Deleted: it is the expectation of the Town agrees that it shall take no action to prevent, and shall not fail to take an action necessary $ P � Y }' shines that a separate series a bonds shall he issued for Confluence parking to allow, Owner im osin and/or co€lectin fees as contem idled here►n. g... p improvements, Tract C parking -----P -g -- ------------ - "" improvements and Tract 8 parking 5.10 Legal Challenge to Tax Agreement. n the event an agreement contained herein y — — -------------------. improvements. -- — Deleted: and Shapiro regarding taxes is ever the subject of a successful legal challenge, the Town shall diligently resist ' , Deleted: and/or Shapiro, or such challenges in cooperation with the Owner as set forth in Section 2.4 above. If Such corporations they organize, challenges are successful in any material way, the Town shall undertake such curative actions as Deleted: are necessary to attempt to filly restore the benefits of this Agreement to each of the parties. 5.11 Town Deposits. The Town may make other deposits from any other taxes or funds of its own to the rebate accounts. 5.12 Town Expenses. Upon receipt of an invoice from the Town, the Districts shall pay the reasonable expenses of the Town for calculating and administering the rebates hereunder.' ARTICLE VI RECREATIONAL AMENITIES FEE 6.1 Commencina as of the effective date of this aLyreement, and continuine in perpetuity. the condominium time-share association formed to manaee the condominium time-share oroiect in Tract C (the "Time -Share Association), is obligated to the Town for Davment of a Recreation Amenities Fee. The fee shall be calculated and paid to the Town semiannually and will be based on an initial annual amount of twenty-five {$25). dollars for each deeded time-share interest located on 'tract C. Prior to the fomhation of the "time -Share. Association, the Owner shall be oblieated tapar_ an}_ Recreation Amenity Fee_ The amount of the semiannual navmcnts vyill be calculated according to the follo%ving fonnula: Number of e.ristina or newly deeded time-share interests ocr semiannual period (January -June. calculated as of June 1. and Julv-December calculated as ofDec6mber_ )..,.mutt l%ed,-bti,. 25 For as adjasted b 0I-11) as defined below divided by 2. The due dates for the serniannual navnhents are August 20 and February 20 for the nrevious semiannual calculation period. On January 1, 2001, and on the first day of each year thereafter, the amount of the fee shall be increased by the prior van averaue consumer once index for All Uttxni C.onstarters fbr the Denver-Boulder-Cireelev mein2nolitan area as published semiannually and apmearina in the Januaiy and j I _xyissues ofthe CPI Detailed Report vublishe d by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (die "M -U-1. It shall be the dutv of the oxidorninium Tune -Share .Association to keep and mtsave such neconis as are, necessary to determine the amount of fees due hereunder. Such records shall be oreserved for a period of ihrie ys and shall be open for inspection by reDresentatives of the Town dudnai�lar bc>,siness hours. Prior to the formation of the Time -Share Association, the Owner shall have the above-refereiced obliadion to keen and preserve such records. If a r emituice to the Town is delinauent. or the remittance is less than the full amount due. the Town shall r lake a written determination of the arnotint due and deliver or mail the same to the office of die condominium Tinhes- Slim Associaticili. The amount Imrpeliv determined to be ovine shall be subiect to a rienalty in tie amount often oerrent of the amount due and shall bear• intent frim the due datc of the wynittatice at the rate of cute;-lialf oAxt.•ertt tier month until paid. Prior to the fornication of the Titre Share Association, quch Aritten determination will be delivered - to the 0%vnher. ARTICLE VII SPECIAL DISTRICT 7,,1 Special Districts. The Town agrees to take all reasonable action necessary to — -- -------- --------- .......-----...._.. — Deleted: s Deleted: S f ( Deleted: 6 approve any amendment to the service plan for �MPti,l7tain Vista MetrovalitanDistrictto conform to the financial provisions of this Agreement„ 7X2 Dissolution of Districts. Dissolution of the Districtshall occur in the manner set — — — — — — forth in the service plan for the District and in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in C.R..S, §§ 32-1-701, et seq. as in effect as of the date of this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII DEFAULTS, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION A, I Default by Town. A "breach" or "default" by the Town under, this Agreement shall be defined as: (a) any zoning, land use or other action or inaction, direct, indirect or pursuant to an initiated measure, taken without Owner's consent, that materially alters, impairs, prevents, diminishes, imposes a moratorium on development, delays or otherwise materially and adversely affects any development, use or other rights of Owner under this Agreement or the Development Standards or PUDs; or (b) the Town's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of the Town contained in this Agreement. Deleted: the Deleted: s Deleted: and to permit the Districts to form qualifying non-profit corporations to carry out the purposes of this E agreement and the amended service plan. The Mall shall be included in the Districts at the request of the Town. In addition, properties known as Avon Town Square, Lot 61, and other properties maybe j included in the Districts upon reasonable terms and conditions. Deleted: 6 Deleted: s Deleted: s Deleted: 7 2 Default by Owner. A "breath" or "default" by Owner shall be defined as Owner's_ Deleted: 7 failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of Owner contained in this Agreement. 3 Notices of Default. In the event of a default by either party under this Agreement, 1 Deleted: 7 ) the non -defaulting party shall deliver written notice to the defaulting party of such default, at the address specified in Section 8.8, and the defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. If such default is not of a type which can be cured within such thirty (30) day period and the defaulting party gives written notice to the non - defaulting party within such thirty (30) day period that it is actively and diligently pursuing such cure, the defaulting party shall have a reasonable period of time given the nature of the default following the end of such thirty (30)' day period to cure such default, provided that such defaulting party is at all times within such additional time period actively and diligently pursuing such cure. 44 Remedies. ( Deleted: 7 ) -------------- ------- _ ........ --- _- - --- _..._..---- --- - ----- - _- (a) If any default under this Agreement is not cured as described above, the non -defaulting party shall have the right to enforce the defaulting party's obligations hereunder by an action for any equitable remedy, including injunction and/or specific performance, and/or an action to recover damages. Each remedy provided for in this Agreement is cumulative and is in addition to every other remedy provided for in this Agreement or otherwise existing at law, in equity or by statute. (b) The Town acknowledges that since this Agreement and the Development Standards constitute a development agreement which confers rights beyond those provided by the three (3) year statutory vesting approach described in the Vested Property Rights Statute, in the event of a breach or default by the Town, in addition to any of the foregoing remedies, I -Deleted: Owner shall be entitled to: Deleted: ... I (i) recover from the Town any damages that should have been Deleted: (ii) . cause the Confluence, or any portion thereof designated by specifically available to Owner as contemplated in Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24 Owner, . to be disconnected from the as in effect on the Effective Date,plusy other and additional damages Town.1 ............... - - ----- - --- ---- -- provable at law; and I . 7.3 . Disconnection. The Town acknowledges that Owner has agreed to develop the Confluence at significantly ARTICLE.... ­ --- lower density than Owner originally ­ .. . ...... ... MISCELLANEOUS desired inconsideration of the town's agreement to rebate taxes as set forth herein, and that failure of the Town to Applicable Law. Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with appropriate revenues sufficient to pay the ,91.. --- ----- - ------ --- ..... ...... the laws of the State of Colorado. rebates contemplated herein will 1 substantially impair the value of the 1 Confluence. Accordingly, in the event 9,2 No Joint Venture or Partnership. No form of joint venture or partnership exists --- -- ---------trued 1 the Town exercises its discretion in any year and determines not to make -------------------------- - -------othing --- ---nta-- ----- between the Town and Owner, acontained in -th--is Agreement shall be cons as and ncoi sufficient to c ient budget appropriations pay such rebates, fails to make any other making Town and Owner joint ventures or partners, appropriations which maybe required by law to enable the Town to perform this ,93 Expenses. Except as otherwise. provided in a separate'written agreement, Owner Agreement in all respects, if the Town contests disconnection or otherwise acts ... ... - - ------ ------ and the Town shall each bear their respective costs and expenses associated with implementing (or fails to act) in any way to avoid disconnection, if the Town is prevented and enforcing the terms of this Agreement by appropriate judicial order from making such appropriations, or if any other event ,94 Waiver. No waiver of one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall constitute ........ •occurs to cause rebates not to be paid as contemplated herein, Owner shall have a waiver other terms. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement in any instance shall the immediate and continuing right tits constitute a waiver of such provision in other instances. election, to disconnect the Confluence from the Town it being the express agreement of the parties hereto that any Town Findings, The Town hereby finds and determines that execution of this such act, at the sole election of Owner, shall be deemed to be a failure of the ,95 --- I ------------------- � I -------- ------------- --- ­ ----------- ------------- -- ---- Agreement is in the best interests of the. public health, safety, and general welfare, and the Town to meet a condition of annexation provisions of this Agreement, the PUDs, Development Standards, and vesting agreements of the Confluence and/or a failure to serve the Confluence in the manner contained herein are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and other agreed herein, and shall entitle Owner to the immediate disconnection of the applicable regulations and policies of the Town. Confluence notwithstanding any statutory procedure or requiiement for Severability. If any­�.term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is isconn petition. In furtherance di agreement, of said agreement, the Town represents held by a court of competent jurisdicti6n to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining that as a home rule municipality 4!5f�ol provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect so long as enforcement of the l Deleted: Vill remaining provisions would not be inequitable to the party against whom they are being enforced 8 Deleted:r. under the facts and circumstances then pertaining. - t .-7 Deleted: s 97 Further Assurances. Each shall execute and deliver to the other all such ----------------- ­­ ------ . .. ..... ----------- -1 ------- -------111 ------ such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges under this Agreement. 9 ,8 Notices. Anv notice or - communication re�uired under this Agreement between communication ---- ­ --------- the Town and Owner must be in writing, and may be given pX registered or certified mail with ­­ ----------- --- - --- -- return receipt requested. If given by registered or certified mail, the same shall be deemed to Deleted: 8 tDeleted: l Deleted: 8 Deleted: 8 (-Deleted: 8 Deleted: 8 r ---- Deleted: My Deleted: either personally or lDeleted: , _.___........_.___.____........_..._.._.... have been given and received- on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving written notice to the other party hereto as provided in this Section designate additional persons to whom notices or communications shall be given, and designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given, Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: If to Town: Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Attention Town Manager If to Owner: Points of Colorado, Inc. c/o Mr. ,lim McKnight, 4 9 Assignment. This Agreement shall be --- - provided in this Agreement, shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest or the legal representatives of the parties hereto. Except as specifically set forth herein, Owner shall have the right to assign, delegate 9L transfer all or any portion of its interest rights or'_obligations under this Agreement to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Property, including, but not limited to, purchasers or long term ground lessees of individual lots, parcels, or of any improvements now or hereafter located within the Property. Provided that the Town's approval of the assignee or transferee is first obtained, an assumption or transfers ,i rovidinla, for express ., assumption of any of Owner's obligations under this Agreement by its assignee or transferee shall be relieved of any further obligations under this Agreement with respect to the matter so assumed. The Town's obligations hereunder may not be assigned or delegated without Owner's i ..White and Associates Professional written consent, and any attempted assignment or delegation by the Town not in compliance ! Corporation herewith shall be null and void, The Town's approval of any such assignee or transferee shall not e�ele Chester h sten Bao Suite 12 be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Attention; Gary R. white, Esq. If to Shapiro:. Avon Commercial Center Ltd. a Colorado limited partnership Shapiro Development Co., general Partner y .. c/o Shapiro Development Co. ¶ P.O.BoxSb40 9 Avon, CO 81620 -¶ Attn: Ken Shapiro . . Deleted: - - - —_ Deleted: Po -ding ` Deleted: �.. w Deleted: 8 Deleted: 8 Deleted: EEOP Deleted: If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the pasty to whom it is addressed 1 Deleted: Vail Associates Investments, I Inc i Deleted: . 1 Deleted: James S. Mandel, Esq.$ # Deleted: . P.O. Box 71 ... Vail, Colorado 816581 i ... Attn: Legal Department$ Atm: James P. Thompson. 'I j With a Copy to:. Sheldon & Gordon. j P.C.¶ 4582 South Ulster Street Parkway, I Suite 902 . I Denver, Colorado 80237 1 ! . Atm: Michael A. Sheldon, Esq. 9 and to: . ¶ 9,10 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall beee dmed be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 9,11 Amendments and Waivers. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this -------- -----------------------------..._. ----- shall nor consent to any departure hereof, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which even. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and the Town have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. TOWN: TOWN OF AVON, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado By: ATTEST Town Clerk Mayor STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF Subscribed before me this day of 200_, by as Mayor of the Town of Avon, Colorado and as Town Clerk of Avon. My commission expires: Notary Public SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOT C, MOUNTAIN VISTA RESORT SUBDIVISION THIS SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement') is made and entered into as of , 2005 by and between Points of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation (hereinafter "Owner), and the Town of Avon, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (the "Town"). RECITALS A. Owner is a Corporation duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Colorado. B. Owners owns a parcel of real property known as Lot C (also known as Tract C), Mountain Vista Resort Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as "Lot C"), as more particularly described in Exhibit A as attached to this Agreement. C. On or about October 27, 1998, the Town entered into a Development Agreement — Confluence and Tract C, (hereinafter referred to as "1998 Development Agreement") with Vail Associates Investments, Inc., a Colorado limited liability company and entered into a subsequent Amendment to Development Agreement for Confluence and Tract C on February 22, 2000, Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2000 concerning Lot C only (hereinafter referred to as "2000 Development Agreement"). D. In March 2000, Vail Investments Inc. assigned, transferred and conveyed all of its rights, liabilities and obligations as to Lot C to the Owner, Points of Colorado, Inc and its affiliates and assigns. E. Owner is submitting an application for a second amendment to the Lot C Development Agreements. This Agreement amends and restates the 1998 Development Agreement and 2000 Development Agreement with respect to Lot C only. The Parties expressly intend not to modify any of the terms of the 1998 Development Agreement insofar as that agreement refers to and concerns the properties defined therein as the "Confluence and "Tract B". F. The Town has authority to zone and govern development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement, the Comprehensive Plan, Lot C Development Plan (as such terms is are defined herein), the Municipal Code, and other applicable Town requirements and polices. Furthermore, the Town has authority to agree to the vesting of property development rights concerning the Property, the creation of special districts to provide public facilities relating to the Property, the rebate of sales and other taxes which would normally be collected as a result of taxable activities occurring on the Property and the granting of tax credits to assist with the equitable sharing of costs associated with development of public facilities. G. The Property is expected to continue to contribute substantially to the economic growth of the Town and consequently will increase future tax revenues to the Town. The Town desires to execute this Second Amendment in order to provide for orderly growth in,and around the Town and to increase its tax revenues for the Owner and the Town to provide for a tax rebate mechanism so that Owner may use the rebate revenues or other fees imposed in lieu of taxes to assist in financing the public facilities, which will benefit the Town. H. The Town may agree to rebate taxes to the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District subject to discretionary annual budget appropriations by the Town which, if not made by the Town, will substantially impair the ability of Owner to develop the Property. I. The legislature of the State of Colorado adopted Sections 24-68-101, et seg. of the Colorado Revised Statutes (the "Vested Property Rights Statute") to provide' for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment -backed expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning; said Vested Property Rights Statute authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with landowners providing for vesting of property development rights. J. Consistent with the, Vested Property Rights Statute, Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code authorizes the Town to enter into development agreements with landowners and other qualified applicants providing for the vesting of property development rights. K. Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement will provide for orderly growth in accordance with the policy and goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, ensure reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process, stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment -backed expectation of the Owner, foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning, and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Vested Property Rights Statute and Chapter 17.14 of the Municipal Code were enacted. In exchange for these benefits and the other benefits to the Town contemplated, by this Agreement, together with the public benefits served by the orderly development of the Property, Owner desires to receive the assurance that it may proceed with development of the Property pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. L. The Town's authority to enter into this Agreement stems from the power vested generally in Colorado municipalities to address matters of local concern by contract, ordinance or otherwise. Because the Town of Avon collects its own taxes, it also has authority to rebate taxes collected or grant credits to taxpayers for fees collected by Owner within a certain geographical area. Further, the Town may allow Owner or qualified non-profit corporations to collect such fees. Because such fees will not be collected by the Town and will not derive from the Town, and because all rebates due hereunder shall be subject to annual budget appropriation, the rebate of taxes by the Town, the grant of tax credits by the Town, and the collection of fees by qualified corporations in lieu of such taxes shall not be multiple fiscal year contractual undertakings of the Town and shall not be a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain to the Town which would otherwise require electoral approval. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the terms, conditions and covenants set forth in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner and the Town agree as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.0 Definitions. The following terms and references shall have the meanings set forth below unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates otherwise: 1.1 Accommodation Tax. For purpose of this Agreement, Accommodation Tax shall mean any municipal lodging or accommodations tax imposed by the Town pursuant to Municipal Code Ch. 3.28 or any similar code provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon any sales or rental of lodging within the Property. 1.2 Accommodation Unit. Any room or group of rooms used primarily for transient lodging and accessible from common corridors, elevators, walks or balconies without passing through another Accommodation Unit and shall be no larger than 600 square feet. An Accommodation Unit may include an efficiency kitchen. Each Accommodation Unit shall be counted as one-third (1/3) of a Dwelling Unit for purposes of calculating allowable Dwelling Units per acre. 1.3 Comprehensive Plan. The Avon Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town on February 2006 and any amendments thereto. 1.4 Confluence. The parcel of unimproved real property described in the 1998 Development Agreement. 1.5 Development Standards. As defined in the Lot C PUD Development Plan dated February 22, 2000 attached hereto as Exhibit D and the Second Amended PUD Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit E. 1.6 District. Shall mean the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District approved by the Town to serve the Property. 1.7 Dwelling Unit. One (1) or more rooms, including cooking facilities, intended or designed for occupancy by a family or guests independent of other, families or guests, or (2) An aggregate of Accommodation Units provided as follows: a. Three (3) Accommodation Units shall be counted as one dwelling unit. B. Two (2) accommodation Units in association with a dwelling unit shall be counted as one dwelling unit. 1.8 Effective Date. The effective date of the Town Council ordinance approving this Agreement. 1.9 Efficiency Kitchen. An Efficiency Kitchen means a room, wet bar or similar facility that may contain a sink, refrigerator, dishwasher, microwave oven, cook top, wet bar or similar facility, but expressly not a stove or oven within an Accommodation Unit or residential Unit. Stub outs for natural gas, propane, or 220-V electric hook-ups are not allowed. 1.10 Exhibits. The following are Exhibits to this Agreement, all of which are incorporated by reference into and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A Legal Description of Lot C Exhibit B 1998 Development Agreement Exhibit C 2000 Development Agreement Exhibit D 2000 PUD Development Plan Exhibit E 2007 Second Amended PUD Development Plan 1.12 Municipal Code. The Town's Municipal Code, as in effect from time to time. 1.13 Provertv. The parcel of property described on Exhibit A, known as Lot C (Tract C). 1.14 PUD. Planned Unit Development or PUD, as such terms are defined and used in the Municipal Code and further defined herein as to the Property.. 1.15 Real Estate Transfer Tax. For purposes of this Agreement, Real Estate Transfer Tax shall mean any municipal real estate transfer tax imposed by the Town pursuant to Municipal Code Ch. 3.12 or any similar code provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon sales of time share units within the Property. 1.16 Sales Tax. For purposes of this Agreement, Sales Tax shall mean any municipal sales tax imposed by the Town pursuant to Municipal Code Ch. 3.08 or any similar code provision enacted during the Term of this Agreement upon furnishing of rooms or accommodations within the Property. 1.17 Sanitation District. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. 1.18 Subdivision Improvement Agreement. An agreement guaranteeing the construction of public improvements for the Property pursuant to Title 16 of the Municipal Code. 1.19 Town. The Town of Avon, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado. 1.20 Town Council. The Town Council of the Town. 1.21 Vested Propertv Rights Statute. As defined in Recital I above. 1.22 Zoning. Format and final passage of an ordinance and/or resolution by the Town Council confirming a zoning designation on a parcel of land as provided in the Municipal Code. Such final passage shall be deemed to occur after the passage .of any statutory or common law period for the filing of a petition for referendum to reverse or nullify such zoning ordinance. 1.23 Zoning Application. The zoning applications for the Property. ARTICLE II CONDITIONS PRECEDENT; COVENANTS; THIS AGREEMENT 2.1 Term. In recognition of the size of the development contemplated under -this Agreement, the substantial investment and time required to complete the development of the Property, the potential for phased development of the Property, and the possible impact of economic cycles and varying market conditions during the course of development, Owner and the Town agree that the term of this Agreement and the vested property rights established under this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until February 22, 2012. References to the Term of this Agreement and the vesting of property rights in the proceeding sentence shall not be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the rights of the Town described in Section 7.2 to initiate or pursue dissolution of the Districts. After the expiration of the Term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force or effect; provided, however that such termination shall not effect (a) any common-law vested rights obtained prior to such termination, or (b) any right arising from Town permits, approvals or other entitlements for the Property which were granted or approved prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Agreement and the Development Standards. 2.2 Amendment of Agreement. Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement may be amended or terminated only by mutual consent of the Town and Owner in writing following the public notice and public hearing procedures required for approval of this Agreement. For the purpose of any amendment to this Agreement, "Owner" shall mean only the Owner as defined herein and those parties, if any, to whom such signatories have specifically been granted, in writing by Owner, the power to enter into such amendments. 2.3 Cooperation in Defending Legal Challenges. If any legal or equitable action or other proceeding is commenced by a third party challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Development Standards, Owner and the Town agree to cooperate in defending -- such action or proceeding and to bear their own expenses in connection therewith. Unless the Town and Owner otherwise agrees each party shall select and pay its own legal counsel to represent it in connection with such action or proceeding. ARTICLE III ZONING, VESTED RIGHTS AND EXACTIONS 3.1 PUD Zoning. The Property shall be a separate PUD as provided in this Agreement and in its respective Development Standards. 3.2 Development Standards and Phasing. (a) Development Standards. The "Development Standards" attached hereto as Exhibit E set forth the guidelines for development of the Property are approved by the Town as the zoning for the Property, and indicate, among other things, set back distances, building height limitations, site coverage levels, development densities, allowed uses (both permitted uses by right and those permitted upon special review), parking requirements and other guidelines and, limitations for the development of the Property. The Development Standards take precedence over other Town zoning regulations or the Town's Municipal Code. (b) Subsequent Develooment Approval. After PUD Zoning of the Property pursuant to Section 3.4(a), Owner and the Town shall enter into a design review approval process, pursuant to which Owner and the Town shall, in a manner which is uniform with and similar to other phased development approvals of the Town (and consistent with the provisions of Section 3.4(d)) further refine the Development Standards and other details consistent with the Development Standards and this Agreement (collectively, "Subsequent Development Approval.") 3.3 Vesting of Property Rights. Owner and Town agree that (a) this Agreement and the Development Standards constitute an approved "site-specific development plan" as defined in the Vested Property Rights Statute and Section 17.14.100 of the Municipal Code and as adopted pursuant to the requirements of Section 17.12.020 of the Municipal Code which the Town acknowledges hereby has been approved by proper procedure under the Town's charter and the Municipal Code, and (b) that Owner as the legal owner of the Property shall have vested property tights to undertake and complete development and use of the Property as provided in this Agreement and the Development Standards until February 22, 2012. Pursuant to Section 17.14.050 of the Municipal Code, approval of this Agreement and the Development Standards constitutes a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended. 3.4 Property Rights Vested. The rights identified below shall constitute the vested property rights under this Agreement (a) The right to develop, plan and engage in land uses within the Property in the manner and to the extent set forth in and pursuant 'to this Agreement and the Development Standards. (b) The right to develop, plan and engage in land -uses within the Property in accordance with the densities, physical development standards and other physical parameters set forth in the Development Standards. (c) The right to develop the Property in the order, at the rate and at the time as market conditions dictate, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Development Standards. (d) The right to develop and complete the development of the Property (including, without limitation, the right to receive all Town approvals necessary for the development of the Property) with conditions and standards determined pursuant to Section 3.2(b) which are no more onerous than those imposed by the Town upon other Owners in the Town on a uniform nondiscriminatory and consistent basis, and subject only to the exactions and requirements set forth in this Agreement and the Development Standards; provided that such conditions, standards and dedications shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise materially adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. (e) The Town shall not initiate any zoning, land use or other legal or administrative action that would directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing,. diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. 3.5 Water and Water Rights. Upon Town approval of the increased water consumption required for the Property, Owner shall, as a condition of water service for the increased water requirements dedicate and convey to the Town sufficient water rights and water storage rights that can be used in conjunction with the augmentation plan and the storage capacity presently owned by the Town to make up the amounts needed to serve the increased water requirements. Owner shall reimburse the Town's expenses, including reasonable and actual engineering costs and legal fees, of including such additional water in the Town's augmentation plan. Any water rights to be dedicated and conveyed to the Town shall be subject to the Town's approval and acceptance, provided, however, Eagle Park Reservoir water shall be deemed an acceptable source of dedication water under this Agreement. The Town "shall not be required to store water in or release water from Benchmark Lake to meet any Increased Water Requirements. Dedication of augmentation water and related water rights shall be completed prior to the issuance of the building permit for Phase 1 C. 3.6 No Obligation to Develop. Owner shall have no obligation to develop all of any portion of the Property and shall have no liability to the Town or any other party for its failure to develop all or any part of the Property. Owner and the Town contemplate that the Property may be developed in phases. Owner shall have no obligation to develop all or any portion of any such phase notwithstanding the development or non -development of any other phase and Owner shall have no liability to the Town or any other party for its failure to develop all or any portion of any such phase of the Property. 3.7 Compliance with General Regulations. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the Development Standards, the establishment of vested property rights under this Agreement shall not preclude the application -on a uniform and non-discriminatory basis of Town regulations of general applicability (including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, the Municipal Code, and other Town rules and regulations) or the application of state or federal regulations, as all of such regulations exist on the date of this Agreement or may be enacted or amended after the date of this Agreement, provided that such newly enacted or amended Town regulation shall not directly or indirectly have the effect of materially altering, impairing, preventing, diminishing, imposing a moratorium on development, delaying or otherwise adversely affecting any of Owner's rights set forth in this Agreement or the Development Standards. Owner does not waive its right to oppose the enactment or amendment of any such regulations. 3.8 Arbitration. The parties agree that any dispute arising under this Article III shall be subject to arbitration among the parties in accordance with customary rules of the American Arbitration Associations that shall be binding upon the parties. 3.9 Owner Oblivations. All obligations of Owner, in this Agreement may be performed by the District at Owner's election. ARTICLE IV PUBLIC FACILITIES 4.1 Municipal Services: The Town shall have the responsibility and obligation to provide all municipal services, including public transit to the Property and other administrative services equivalent to those provided to any other area of the Town on a uniform and non- discriminatory basis. 4.2 Water and Sewer Services. The Town shall provide water service to the Property upon notification of need _by Owner as required for the' development of the Property. Water infrastructure/capital facilities which are necessary for the Town to provide water to the Property shall be provided by Owner and/or one or more Districts which shall dedicate such improvements to the Town, whereupon the Town shall accept such improvements for dedication in their then current condition and shall assume maintenance of such improvements and facilities. All such improvements shall be constructed to the Town's normal standards for similar facilities, which standards shall be set forth in the relevant Subsequent Development Approval relating to the portion of the Property containing such water improvements. The Town shall charge water tap fees and usage charges to users within the Property on a uniform, non- discriminatory basis with other users within the Town and shall use best efforts to require the Upper Eagle River and Water Sanitation District, or other water service providing entity to abide by this covenant. 4.3 Sanitation. The Property shall receive sanitation service from the Sanitation District. The Town shall not impose rates, fees, tolls or charges for sanitation services for the Property. ARTICLE V REBATE AGREEMENT 5.1 Allocation of Taxes. (a) Sales and Accommodations Taxes Attributable to Lease or Rental of Hotel Rooms. The Town shall retain one hundred percent (100%) of the accommodations and sales taxes attributable to the lease or rental of hotel rooms on the Property. The Town shall not be obligated to account for or rebate any sales on retail sales or other taxable sales occurring within the hotel or other commercial areas on the Property. In no event shall the Town be under an obligation to account for or rebate such taxes after the bonds or other obligations related to the parking improvements on the Property are satisfied or retired. (c) Real Estate Transfer Taxes. Subject to the conditions stated below, the Town agrees to account Real Estate Transfer -Taxes (RETT) attributable to the first sale of each deeded time-share interest located on the Property , and to rebate 50% thereof to the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District: within sixty (60) days following the end of the calendar month when collected (or partial month, if appropriate, in the case of the month in which this Amendment becomes effective or is terminated). The Town shall maintain a separate "Lot C Real Estate Transfer Account" (the "RETT Rebate Account"), into which such taxes shall be deposited until rebated for the parking improvement project located on the Property. Said RETT shall be required to be rebated only with respect to the first sale of each deeded time-share interest in each unit constructed on the Property, and shall not be required with respect to any subsequent resale thereof. For purposes hereof, "deeded time-share interest" is defined as any seven-day time-share interest in a three-bedroom, two-bedroom time-share unit, one -bedroom dwelling unit or one - bedroom accommodation unit as described in the deed from a time-share developer to an initial purchaser or any subsequent transfer by deed thereafter. Deeded time-share interests shall also include time-share interests which have been acquired by a time-share developer through foreclosure or deed in lieu -of foreclosure and are thereafter reconveyed by a time-share developer. It is the expectation of the parties that a series or series of bonds or other obligations shall be issued or incurred for the parking improvements, project located on Property. It is also the expectation of the parties that the allocation of and rebate from the RETT Rebate Account is to be used only for paying the debt service corresponding to the parking improvements project on the Property. The allocation and rebate of RETT shall continue to be from the RETT Rebate Account until the bond or bonds (or other obligations) issued or incurred by the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District and secured by rebates from said account have been paid in full. However, in no instance shall the Town continue the allocation and rebate of RETT taxes from the RETT Rebate Account beyond fifteen (15) years after the commencement of deposits in said account. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town shall in no event be under an obligation to rebate RETT in an amount which exceeds One and a half Million Dollars ($1,500,000.) excluding any interest accumulated on funds deposited within the RETT Rebate Account. (d) Cooperation by the Town. The Town shall make all allocations and deposits of taxes, as provided above, unless prevented by court order from so doing. In the event any action is commenced challenging the right of the Town to make such allocations and deposits, the Town shall notify Owner and the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District in writing of such action prior to the Town filing its first responsive pleading in such action and shall allow the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District to participate in any defense to such action as set forth in this Agreement. 5.2 Limitations on Bonds to be Issued. Financing on behalf of the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District for the parking improvements located on the Property is hereby limited to two-thirds (2/3rds) of the estimated capital cost of the respective parking improvement being financed. 5.3 Determination of Amount of Allocated Revenues,. The Town shall provide the Districts a summary of the Real Estate Transfer Tax collected by the Town for each month or partial month with respect to the Property that supports the amounts rebated for such month. Such summary shall be provided at the time the rebate is made. 5.4 Computation of Tax Revenues. Within one hundred twenty (120) days following the end of each Town fiscal year, the Town shall deliver to the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District a final accounting of all the real estate transfer taxes collected by the Town and attributable to the Property and the amount rebated to the District. 5.5 No Debt or Pecuniary Liabilitv: No Multiple -Fiscal Year Obliszation. All rebate payments hereunder and any other financial obligation of the Town herein in any year shall be expressly subject to annual appropriation by the Town; provided, however, that it is the present expectation of the parties that the Town will make the payments contemplated by this Agreement. None of the obligations of the Town hereunder to the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District shall be payable from any source other than as provided in Section 5.1, and this Agreement shall never constitute a debt, indebtedness or multipld-fiscal year financial obligation of the Town within the meaning of the Constitution or laws of the State of Colorado. 5.6 Budget and Appropriation of Pavments. The Town's finance director shall include in the budget proposals submitted to the Town Council in each year prior to termination of this Agreement, amounts sufficient to meet the obligation of the Town hereunder to the extent the Town shall have received, such amounts, or anticipates receiving such amounts from Sales taxes, Accommodation Taxes or Real Estate Transfer Taxes. The Town hereby represents that it presently intends to appropriate the amounts under this Agreement to the fullest extent permitted by law. It is based upon an opinion of independent counsel not previously or at the time such opinion is delivered representing the District and acceptable to the Town, it, is determined that the activities under this Agreement shall be determined an "enterprise" of the Town for purposes of Article S, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, or that transactions of a nature similar -to the transactions provided for in this Agreement are not required under .the laws of the State of Colorado to be subject to annual appropriation without regard to approval of any such transactions by the electors of the Town, this Agreement shall be reformed so as to delete the annual appropriation provision of Section 5.4 and as elsewhere found in this Agreement. 5.7, Subsequent Chances in Tax Rates. In the event that, the Town reduces the Real Estate Transfer Tax rate applicable to taxable activities on the Property, the calculation of the rebate percentage for rebates due to the District shall be recalculated so that the Districts shall receive rebates throughout the term of this agreement as if no change in tax rates had occurred. In the event the Town increases the Real Estate Transfer Tax pursuant to an election and the incremental increase in the tax rate is earmarked for a special purpose pursuant to the ballot question that is passed by the voters, such additional taxes resulting from the tax increase and collected by the Town applicable to the Property shall not be subject to allocation and rebate by the Town to the District. 5.8 Books and Records. Both the Town and the District shall maintain adequate books and records to accurately perform and account for their respective obligations under this Agreement. Town and District representatives shall be granted reasonable access during normal business hours to such books and records in order to determine compliance with the terms of this Agreement and to determine the accuracy of such books and records. The parties shall use their best efforts to resolve any issues, discrepancies, or inaccuracies discovered in any review of either parties' books and records. 5.9 Tax Credits. (a) Each taxpayer liable for the Real Estate Transfer Tax on taxable transactions within the Property shall receive a credit against such taxes in each year equal to the total amount of the rebate which would otherwise have been due from the Town. The Town shall notify all persons who would typically collect such taxes from a taxpayer that taxes shall not be due from such taxpayer in an amount equal to fees paid by such taxpayer. Such credit shall be automatic and shall take effect immediately without being claimed on taxpayer's return relating to the applicable tax and without any requirement of approval or other action by the Town, but the transactions and payments supporting the credit for any given year shall nevertheless be subject to audit to the same extent, for the same limitations periods and in the same manner as the items which are required to be reported on the taxpayer's return relating to the applicable tax. The Town's agreement to grant such credit shall not be considered a multiple fiscal year financial obligation of any kind. In the event the Town is prevented from by binding court order from paying rebates with respect to Lot C, or otherwise fails to appropriate, the provisions of Section 5.8 hereof shall be immediately binding on the Town. The credits contemplated in this Section shall continue until bonds or other instruments of indebtedness issued by the District or other eligible non-profit corporations acting on behalf of the District which are paid by the fees received from such taxpayers have been paid in full and notice thereof has been delivered to the Town. The Town shall grant such credits unless prevented by court order from so doing. In the event any action is commenced challenging the right of the Town to grant such credits, the Town shall notify Owner in writing of such action prior to the Town filing its first responsive pleading in such action and shall allow the Owner to participate in any defense to such action as set forth in Section 2.3 above. The Town agrees that it shall take no action to prevent, and shall not fail to take any action necessary to allow, Owner from imposing and/or collecting fees as contemplated herein. 5.10 Legal Challenge to Tax Agreement. In the event any agreement contained herein regarding taxes is ever the subject of a successful legal challenge, the Town shall diligently resist such challenges in cooperation with the Owner as set forth in Section 2.3 above. If such challenges are successful in any material way, the Town shall undertake such curative actions as are necessary to attempt to fully restore the benefits of this Agreement to each of the parties. 5.11 Town Deposits. The Town may make other deposits from any other taxes or funds of its own to the rebate accounts. 5.12 Town Expenses. Upon receipt of an invoice from the Town, the District shall pay the reasonable expenses of the Town for calculating and administering the rebates hereunder. ARTICLE VI RECREATIONAL AMENITIES FEE 6_1 Commencing as of the effective date of this agreement, and continuing in perpetuity, the condominium time-share association formed to manage the condominium time-share project in Lot C (the "Time -Share Association), is obligated to the Town for payment of a Recreation Amenities Fee. The fee shall be calculated and paid to the Town semiannually and will be based on an initial annual amount of twenty-five ($25) dollars for each deeded time-share interest located on Lot C. Prior to the formation of the Time -Share Association, the Owner shall be obligated to pay any Recreation Amenity Fee. The amount of the semiannual payments will be calculated according to the following formula: Number of existing or newly deeded time-share interests per semiannual period (January - June, calculated as of June 1, and July -December calculated as of December 1), multiplied by $25 (or as adjusted by CPI -U as defined below divided by 2. The due dates for the semiannual payments are August 20 and February 20 for the previous semiannual calculation period. On January 1, 2001, and on the first day of each year thereafter, the amount of the fee shall be increased by the prior years average consumer price index for All Urban Consumers for the Denver -Boulder -Greeley metropolitan area as published semiannually and appearing in the January and July issues of the CPI Detailed Report published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the "CPI -U"). It shall be the duty of the condominium Time -Share Association to keep and preserve such records as are necessary to determine the amount of fees due hereunder. Such records shall be preserved for a period of three years and shall be open for inspection by representatives of the Town during regular business hours. Prior to the formation of the Time -Share Association, the Owner shall have the above -referenced obligation to keep and preserve such records. If a remittance to the Town is delinquent, or the remittance is less than the full amount due, the Town shall make a written determination of the amount due and deliver or mail the same to the office of the condominium Times -Share Association. The amount properly determined to be owing shall be subject to a penalty in the amount of ten percent of the amount due and shall bear interest from the due date of the remittance at the rate of one-half percent per month until paid. Prior to the formation - of the Time Share Association, such written determination will be delivered to the Owner. ARTICLE VII SPECIAL DISTRICT 7.1 Special Districts. The Town agrees to take all reasonable action necessary to approve any amendment to the service plan for Mountain Vista Metropolitan District to conform to the financial provisions of this Agreement. 7.2 Dissolution of Districts. Dissolution of the District shall occur in the manner set forth in the service plan for the District and in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in C.R..S. §§ 32-1-701, et seq. as in effect as of the date of this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII DEFAULTS, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION 8.1 Default by Town. A "breach" or "default" by the Town under this Agreement shall be defined as: (a) any zoning, land use or other action or inaction, direct, indirect or pursuant to an initiated measure, taken without Owner's consent, that materially alters, impairs, prevents, diminishes, imposes a moratorium on development, delays or otherwise materially and adversely affects any development, use or other rights of Owner under this Agreement or the Development Standards or PUDs; or (b) the Town's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of the Town contained in this Agreement. 8.2 Default by Owner. A "breach" or "default" by Owner shall be defined as Owner's failure to fulfill or perform any material obligation of Owner contained in this Agreement. 8.3 Notices of Default. In the event of a default by either party under this Agreement, the non -defaulting party shall deliver written notice to the defaulting party of such default, at the address specified in Section 9.8, and the defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days from and after receipt of such notice to cure such default. If such default is not of a type which can be cured within such thirty (30) day period and the defaulting party gives written notice to the non - defaulting party within such thirty (30) day period that it is actively and diligently pursuing such cure, the defaulting party shall have a reasonable period of time given the nature of the default following the end of such thirty (30) day period to cure such default, provided that such defaulting party is at all times within such additional time period actively and diligentlypursuing such cure. 8.4 Remedies. (a) If any default under this Agreement is not cured as described above, the non -defaulting party shall have the right to enforce the defaulting party's obligations hereunder by an action for any equitable remedy, including injunction and/or specific performance, and/or an action to recover damages. Each remedy provided for in this Agreement is cumulative and is in addition to every other remedy provided for in this Agreement or otherwise existing at law, in equity or by statute. (b) The Town acknowledges that since this Agreement and the Development Standards constitute a development agreement which confers rights beyond those provided by the three (3) year statutory vesting approach described in the Vested Property Rights Statute, in the event of a breach or default by the Town, in addition to any of the foregoing remedies, Owner shall be entitled to recover from the Town any damages that should have been specifically available to Owner as contemplated in Colorado Revised Statutes Section 24-68- 105 (1)(c) as in effect on the Effective Date, plus any other and additional damages provable at law. ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 Applicable Law. Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 9.2 No Joint Venture or Partnership. No form of joint venture or partnership exists between the Town and Owner, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed,as making Town and Owner joint ventures or partners. 9.3 Expenses. Except as otherwise provided in a separate written agreement, Owner and the Town shall each bear their respective costs and expenses associated with implementing and enforcing the terms of this Agreement 9.4 Waiver. No waiver of one or more of the terms of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of other terms. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement in any instance shall constitute a waiver of such provision in other instances. 9.5 Town Findings. The Town hereby finds and determines that execution of this Agreement is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and the provisions of this Agreement, the PUDs, Development Standards, and vesting agreements contained herein are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and other applicable regulations and policies of the Town. 9.6 Severability. If any term, provision covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect so long as enforcement of the remaining provisions would not be inequitable to the party against -whom they are being enforced under the facts and circumstances then pertaining. 9.7 Further Assurances. Each party shall execute and deliver to the other all such other further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out this Agreement in order to provide and secure to the other party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges under this Agreement. 9.8 Notices., Any notice or communication required under this Agreement between the Town and Owner must be in writing, and may be given by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested. If given by registered or certified mail, the same shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. Any party hereto may at any time, by giving written notice to the other party hereto as provided in this Section designate additional persons to whom notices or communications shall be given, and designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below: If to Town: Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Attention: Town Manager If to Owner: General Counsel Points of Colorado, Inc.. 8803 Vistana Center Drive Orlando, FL 32821 9.9 Assimnment. This Agreement shall be binding upon and except as otherwise provided, in this Agreement, shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest or the legal representatives of the parties hereto. Except as specifically set forth herein, Owner shall have the right to assign, delegate or transfer all or any portion of its interest rights or obligations under this Agreement to third parties acquiring an interest or estate in the Property, including, but not limited to, purchasers or long term ground lessees of individual lots, parcels, or of any improvements now or hereafter located within the Property. Provided that the Town's approval of the assignee or transferee is first obtained, an assumption or transfers providing for express assumption of any of Owner's obligations under this Agreement by its assignee or transferee shall be relieved of any further obligations under this Agreement with respect to the matter so assumed. The Town's obligations hereunder may not be assigned or delegated without Owner's written consent, and any attempted assignment or delegation by the Town not in compliance herewith shall be null and void. The Town's approval of any such assignee or transferee shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 9.10 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 9.11 Amendments and Waivers. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement, nor consent to any departure hereof, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which even. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and the Town have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. TOWN: TOWN OF AVON, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado By: Mayor ATTEST Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF Subscribed before me this day of 200_, by as Mayor of the Town of Avon, Colorado and as Town Clerk of Avon. My commission expires: Notary Public Analysis of Fiscal Impacts of Two Future Development Scenarios of the Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort in Avon, Colorado March 24, 2005 Prepared for Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. Hospitality & Leisure Group PRICEWATEW-10US�GIOPERS 3 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 1441 Brickell Avenue Suite 1100 Miami FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375 7400 Facsimile (305) 375 6221 March 24, 2005 Mr. Denis Ebrill Sr. Vice President of Product Development Starwood Vacation Ownership 8801 Vistana Centre Dr. Orlando, FL 32821 Re: Avon, Colorado Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Ebrill: In accordance with PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC') engagement letter dated November 19, 2004 and addendum dated December 9, 2004, this report contains the findings of our analysis. The oSiecdve was to assist Starwood Vacation Ownership in analning various fiscal impacts of two development scenarios in Avon, Colorado related to the Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort. Our report is subject to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, which follow. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS The accompanying analyses do not constitute an audit, examination, review or compilation of historical or prospective financial information conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards or with standards established by die American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA"), Accordingly, we are unable to express any opinion or any other form of assurance with respect to whether the prospective financial information is presented in conformity with AICPA presentation guidelines. To the best or our knowledge and belief, the statements of facts contained in d-iis report, upon which the analysis and conclusion(s) expressed are based, are true and correct. Information, estimates and opinion furnished to us and contained in the report were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no representation, liability or warranty for the accuracy of such items is assumed by or imposed on us, and is subject to corrections, errors, omissions and withdrawals without notice. Our analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in connection with this engagement. Some assumptions, however, inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances will occur. We take no responsibility for any events, conditions or circumstances that take place subsequent to the last day of our fieldwork, December 16, 2004. This report and its comments are intended solely for the internal use of Starwood Vacation Ownership and may not be relied on for any other purpose or by any other entity. Neither our report, nor its contents, nor any reference to PwC may be included or quoted in any loan document, offering circular, registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, appraisal, or other agreement. Respectfully submitted, Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. Table of Contents March 24, 2005 ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................... 1 ProjectOverview........................................................................................................... 1 FiscalImpact Results.................................................................................................... 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 6 Overview........................................................................................................................ b SelectedAssumptions.................................................................................................... 6 VisitationAnalysis............................................................................................................. 8 Hotel............................................................................................................................... 8 VacationOwnership...................................................................................................12 Visitor Spending and Related Sales Tax Impactv........................................................... 18 VisitorSpending.........................................................................................................18 RetailSales Tax........................................................................................................... 21 CountyTax Rebate..................................................................................................... 21 AccommodationRelated Taxes....................................................................................... 22 PropertyTaxes and Other Revenues............................................................................... 23 PropertyTaxes............................................................................................................ 23 RealEstate Transfer Taxes........................................................................................ 24 FranchiseFee............................................................................................................... 24 RecreationAmenities Fee........................................................................................... 25 Construction Permit Fee and Water and Tap Fees.................................................25 TransportationExpenses................................................................................................. 26 OtherExpenses................................................................................................................ 28 PoliceDepartment....................................................................................................... 28 MallArea Maintenance............................................................................................. 28 AdministrativeCosts.................................................................................................. 28 CommunityDevelopment Fees..................................................................................28 Capital Projects Funds, Debt Service Fund and Transfer to Water Fund............ 28 Revenueand Expenses Based on Property Value....................................................30 Revenue and Expenses Based on the Number of Visitors.......................................31 Revenueand Expenses Based on Accommodations................................................. 32 Revenue and Expenses Based on Fees....................................................................... 33 Summary...................................................................................................................... 34 PKEWATERNOUSECODPERS 9 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Overview PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.("PwC) prepared on analysisofthe fiscal impact hnthe Town of Avon ("Town"), Colorado of two future development scenarios proposed by Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. ("SVO") for the Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort "SMV TkoaonL", the Original Scenario and the Modified Scenario. This analysis measures expected revenues from sales and accommodation taxes, property taxes, and various fees, and expected additional costs tothe Town of Avon. The purpose ofthe analysis iotu compare the level of tax revenues less certain costs in each scenario for the purpose of discussions between the 'rovvn and 8V(} related to potential nnndifiootioun to the development plan. The Town retained Stun Bernstein and Associates, Inc. to evaluate P\vCoanalysis and provide feedback onboth scenarios. The Town also provided certain assumptions, in particular in the area ofexpenses. 8VC> provided operating history nfthe existing 8M\/ Ele^ort and certain assumptions about the expected future vacation ownership sales performance in each scenario, and conducted an abbreviated visitor spending survey at SMV Resort. PvvC analyzed the 7oou| lodging market to estimate the potential performance of the hotel component n t i n the Scenario, analyzed the potential demand for vacation ownership interests 10comment on the reasonability of8\/O`u uo|eo estimates, and pnnpnp#d visitor spending assumptions. Based on this information, PvvC calculated estimated levels of tax revenues and costs to the Town ineach scenario. The two scenarios analyzed are described as fh}|ovvx. In the Original Scenario, 40 vacation ownership units are developed, o 125'noomn hV1c| in developed (the "Proposed Hotel^),and the parking garage is completed. (nthe Modified 8ccnario, 119 vacation ownership units are developed, and the parking garage Js completed. In both scenarios, the dmocshun: units are referred to as tvvo'hodrnonn lock -off units. Because each unit may be used as two separate one -bedroom units, each bedroom |xtherefore also referred h000 w "key". The existing SMV Resort consists of 85 timeshare units, 20 employee housing units, u parking garage, and a three-story cnmnrnnrciu| office building. The tux revenues and costs analyzed relate only in the new development in each scenario and exclude the revenues and costs supported hythe existing resort. It is4asumoud that the vacation ownership and hotel units in the Original Scenario are completed for occupancy as of June }. 2007. In the Modified Scenario, 55 vacation opvme,ubip units are completed for occupancy as of June ], 2007, and 64 vacation ownership units are completed for occupancy aoofJune 1, 2011. The 14 -year analysis period extends from 2007 through 2020; some construction permit fees expected tooccur in2OO6are also included. Fiscal Impact Results The Modified Scenario is expected to generate uu|iQhdy higher level of net revenue to the Town. This is the result of spending by an |ncn:4Scd number of visitors and additional revenues generated from taxes and fees assessed to vacation ownership units, vvh|oh are expected to more than offset the expected decline in hotel accommodation 0@ » '�"�'~~'° nn"S-«�^""`S�� Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 tuxes. /All figures are expressed in constant 2004 dollars'./. Our key findings an: as follows: w The Modified Scenario is expected to offer a greater bedroom capacity than the Original Scenario. In the Original Scenario, the 40 timeshare units offer 96bedrooms and the hotel offers l25guentrnorns,for atotal of 221, bedrooms, or keys. Meanwhile, the Modified Scenario offers the equivalent of238bedrooms, orkeys. |ntotal, during ustabilized year, the Original Scenario is expected to offer 80,509 available keys, and the Modified Scenario isexpected tooffer Q0,032available keys. w The annual occupancy ofthe timeshare units in both scenarios, including rentals, is expected' to average approximately 85 percent in 'a stabilized year after vacation ownership sales have been completed, while the annual occupancy nfthe Proposed 8nto| is expected to average approximately 55 percent. This difference is expected because households that own vacation ownership intervals in resorts tend to use the resort time they have available rather than lose the opportunity, and timeshare facilities are able achieve m higher occupancy through owners, owner exchangers and renters. Meanwhile hotels, which focus on serving guests seeking to rent accommodations on o temporary basis, must also uonnpctc with rental programs of vacation ownership and condominium units that offer kitchens and parlors, inaddition toother hotels. ° 8VK)and PvvCconducted alimited survey at SMV Resort during the week beginning December 14. 2004. 9vvCwooiuto6 with the survey design and with the development of the approach used to solicit responses from guests. Pvv[believes such uvisitor survey isanappropriate way tVgather useful information onguest expenditures and has used such visitor surveys in other ccnn0rnio impact analyses. It should be noted that, due to the limited period uvui|ob|o for the fiscal impact analysis, this survey only represents alimited sample o[resort guests during none-week period and itisnot representative nyanentire year. • |Quned on the visitor spending ourvny, it was umuunoed that vacation ownership guests spend an average of $22.00 iuxub|r dollars per person per day, and that hotel guests spend an average of $26.00 per person per day (a rounded figure potentially with lower spending on groceries more than offset by increased spending ntnon(uurants). Based on an average of 1.7 Auealo per hotel room, 2.0 guests per vacation ownership rental key (equivalent to 4.0 guests per a two-bedroom lock -off unit), and 2.25 guests p'r vacation ownership key (4.5 guests per two-bedroom lock -off unh), visitors in the Original Scenario are cnpock:d to support $2,562,115 in annual taxable retail upending. This compares to $3,002`159 in annual taxable cctoi| visitor spending in the Modified Scenario. These estimates / The dollar amounts presented are inmost cases estimates shown without rounding. This should not be interpreted to give an additional level of precision to the estimates; instead, it has been done to make the corresponding number in the tables easier for the reader m follow. fkJW~'�� nr°��-v�"�'"~, u� Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 exclude spending on accommodations, purchases made at Wal-Mart, and all other non-taxable spending as defined by the Town, and its consultant Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. ("Stan Bernstein and Associates"). Wal-Mart is located in the Village at Avon and, as a result, is not expected to generate tax revenues for the Town during the analysis period. Accommodation taxes are calculated separately. • In a stabilized year, retail sales tax revenue to the Town is estimated to be $102,485 in the Original Scenario and $144,086 in the Modified Scenario. For the 14 -year period of analysis, Town revenue from retail sales taxes on visitor spending is expected to total $1,344,907 in the Original Scenario and $1,526,359 in the Modified Scenario. • The Town is assumed to rebate 75 percent of the hotel room ,sales and accommodation taxes to the Mountain Vista District which has been set up by SVO. Therefore, the Town will receive 25 percent of the sales and accommodation taxes on hotel rooms in the Original Scenario and 100 percent of the sales and accommodations taxes on the rental of vacation ownership units in both scenarios. In a stabilized year, the Town's portion of hotel room and vacation ownership rental tax revenue is expected to be approximately $71,560 in the Original Scenario and $40,544 in the Modified Scenario. The tax revenues for the Town generated from hotel room and vacation ownership unit rentals in the 14 - year period is estimated to be $1,253,967 in the Original Scenario and $1,360,107 in the Modified Scenario. • The recreation amenity fee assessed to all deeded vacation ownership units is expected to generate $107,005 in a stabilized year in the Original Scenario and $258,001 in a stabilized year in the Modified Scenario. For the 14 -year period of analysis, total revenue from the recreation amenity fee is expected to be $1,388,536 in the Original Scenario and $2,709,339 in the Modified Scenario. • The assessed value used for the calculation of general fund property tax and specific ownership property tax mill levies is estimated to be $3,443,605 in the Original Scenario and $2,590,562 in the Modified Scenario. In a stabilized year, the general fund property tax revenues are anticipated to be $30,841 in the Original Scenario and $23,201 in the Modified Scenario. For the 14 -year period, general fund tax revenues are expected to total $382,859 in the Original Scenario and $250,585 in the Modified Scenario. Specific ownership property taxes are expected to be $2,847 per year in the Original Scenario and $2,142 in the Modified Scenario, totaling $35,347 in the Original Scenario and $23,135 in the Modified Scenario. • The additional cost of the complementary bus services is estimated to be $47 per labor hour, and $33,000 annually per bus for lease costs. In both scenarios, transportation expenses are estimated to be $1.95 per guest night during ski season and $1.44 per guest night during non -ski season. f )RCUATE WOU5EC()PPRS 3 3 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 Total transportation expenses during the 14 -year period are estimated to be $3,435,087 in the Original Scenario and $4,127.080 in the Modified Scenario. Total police department expenses in the Original Scenario are estimated on the basis of Property value and are estimated to be $41,323 in m stabilized year. In the Modified Scenario, police department expenses were auourncd to be approximately 25 percent higher than in the Original Scenario to reflect an increased level of visitation, and were expected to be $51,654 in u stabilized year. This supports an estimated total during the 14-ynur period of$55Z,37U in the Original Scenario and $581"108 in the Modified Scenario. Other anticipated expenses to the Town include the debt service fund, capital projects fund, administrative coato, rno|| area maintenance, community development R:oo, and vvute, fund expenses. For the 14'yeur period these expenses are expected to total $4,000`159 in the Original Scenario and $6,hl0,)4\ \nthe Modified Scenario. Net revenue for the entire 14'yoor period is negative $379'848 in the Original Scenario, with costs exceeding revenue, and $271`769 in the Modified Scenario, with revenue exceeding cun1u. l`hn,cfhn:, the Modified Scenario isexpected tohave unet revenue impact of$05l'b77 relative to the Original Scenario. The average difference between the two scenarios equates $oapproximately $46,544per year, Or I percent 0[the total revenue generated in o stabilized year in the Original Scenario. Figure l on the following page presents the total revenue and expenses for each scenario for the 14 -year period of analysis. 8 I LT. d � o c '= N (� R m CP m ) a M x } o m r co a o m n L t� no Cf N O tC M LL0 d tV N tR to 00 t0 } a, to t7 [ N O 4) Lo qt N V ol 't cs ti') t0 OD O DS 4 M V a a`. O tm> M O O ZC oO0. ' L LL p) d0 O O V [h m ,- r w a OM ( � t N N m N O FN cS ( M r tV NU) N tr �p Qt c Zq u7 NCV N r LL N m 0 LO LO w :0SZ N N C � j LL n oa V N v r O tp C) N O N it M 0 4 m rn Ln O M E to to o i- P N Q Ip r r CL u NL r` N v "mt. N R -i ui N V) N M „r„ tl) N C U:) N O LL - N v to Qq ;3 c to irk 0 to Tat d N W to M O O O q OM h mO tN CJ R Q> to M U p M N to O� C! N N .G1 li. 2 N r.`r,- O O _ to V O V' � t~D N t0 O O M U d n. ui N1 tp caCD tl N C'iM N (� Zo N E LL to O lP ) a M N cn may} r tD to O N i V 0 .E U no Cf to Qq ;3 c to irk 0 to Tat d N W to M O O O q OM h mO tN CJ R Q> to M U p M N to O� C! N N .G1 li. 2 N r.`r,- O O _ to V O V' � t~D N t0 O O M U d n. 0 a M Ey N O r E CL d u) Ncc E LL to O lP ) a M v N to a' I r tD to O N i V 0 .E U cOp c� Q i 0 a M Ey N co co O O � P U U A IY) - o ol A tD O w v C-; N v N to a' I {pp jp C tnp tD S 41 y w tD O om K a: N i O 47 O tp t7 t+ m a m�rtOi 0 �In 0 0 ol M r U in a`. N y p O O ZC oO0. LU y O D O N m O tT to t71 A tD O w °D" v N to a' to a> A c S 41 y w om K a: m O Y ! x i 0 V h 3 O N ol M r o to a`. Can h $ U tI7 fi m r w .a 0 y a r- h �c N x ,s0� cS C U y 0 O a fi 0 e 0 v s. Starwood Vacation Ownership, inc. March 24, 2005 INTRODUCTION Overview PwC prepared an analysis of the fiscal impact to the Town o[Avon, Colorado of two future development scenarios proposed by SV[> for the Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort, the Original Scenario and the Modified Scenario. This analysis measures expected revenues from sales and accommodation taxes, property taxes, and various fees, and expected corresponding costs tnthe Town. Thc'purposrofthe analysis imtocompare the level oftax revenues less certain costs in each scenario for the purpose ufdiscussions between the Town and 8l/O related to potential modifications to the development plan. Our analysis corresponds 10 the assumptions presented below. The results are presented in seven parts, with the first part covering Our visitation analysis, and the subsequent parts comparing the various cotinnadcd revenues and expenses of the two scenarios, beginning with visitor spending cmtinnmKes and related oo|cs tux innpactn, and yh||ovved by property taxes, accommodation taxes. fees, transportation costs, other expenses, and moonc|uding summary. All dollar figures are shown mu2004dollars without adjustment for inflation, uo|ssa otherwise noted. The dollar amounts presented are in most cases shown without rounding. This should not be interpreted to give an additional level of precision to the estimates; instead, it has been done to nnukc the corresponding number in the tables easier for the reader to follow. However, because pennies are not shown, some dollar figures in tables donot total, Selected Assumptions The estimates presented correspond {nthe two following scenarios: * Original Scenario: Forty-eight vacation ownership units are developed, u 125'unit hotel is developed, and the parking garage is completed. The vacation ownership and hotel units on: completed for occupancy as of June l,2OO?. m Modified Scenario: One hundred and nineteen vacation ownership units are developed, and the parking garage is completed. Fifty-five vacation ownership units are completed for occupancy -as ufJune l, 2007, and 64 vacation ownership units are completed for occupancy 4so[June 1, 2011. Additionally, the following assumptions may bcnoted: w In both scenarios, the vacation ownership units are referred to as two- bedroom lock -off units because each unit may be used as two separate one -bedroom units, each unit iotherefore a|s6 referred tomm n^^key". w It is assumed that 52 vvetko per year are Sn}d per vacation ownership unit, with routine maintenance conducted during periods oflow occupancy. m The existing SMV Resort consists of 85 timeshare units' 20 employee housing units, u parking garage, and q three-story unrnmeruio| office building. The tax revenues and costs analyzed relate only to the new development in each scenario and exclude the 'revenues and Costs supported bythe existing resort. �� » R�^v~nr~'Owo^�^�' ^'`' wn 6 Stanwood Vacation Ownership, Inc, March 24, 2005 m It has been assumed that the proposed gondola, which would connect Avon to Beaver Creek Landing, is not completed- during the analysis period. * PwC assumed that 3VO and the Town will reach an agreement similar Uo ourrentlotrrg6vrnmmnonta| Agreement and the Town isassumed tnrebate 75 percent 'of the hotel ronmn sales and accommodation taxes to the Mountain Vista Special District, and oca| estate transfer taxes for the original sale nfvacation ownership units will he shared by the Town and ' the Mountain Vista District. This assumption is based on conversations with 8VO. w Pm'[ excluded any fiocu| impacts from on-site restaurant uo|eo and additional on-site retail space in both scenarios. Visitor spending on mnubaonon1u and at retail outlets in Avon, including the existing retail outlets o1SMV Ruuomi' is included in the impact analysis which used the results of the visitor spending survey presented in the visitor spending section of this repor1. While the availability of an on-site restaurant or retail space may be expected to increase visitor spending` Pn'C did not conduct specific market research to estimate the nx1cn1 to which such facilities vvnu|d generate additional sales in the Town and therefore have not included such an estimate in the analysis o[either scenario. 8 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. VISITATION ANALYSIS March 24, 2005 The numbers of overnight visitors supported by each scenario are key inputs in the calculation of fiscal impacts. Thenz[bn:, Pvv[ placed an emphasis on understanding the market conditions inAvon and preparing reasonable estimates w{the expected occupancy rates in each noenario. These occupancy |cvn|s` multiplied by easurncd visitors per goes1nmonn, support the fiscal impact esLinnadca related to visitor spending presented subsequently. To prepare for the occupancy onu|ysim. PwC conducted fieldwork in Avon on December l41b, 15th and |6th` 2004. We visited the site, interviewed operators of |nxu| hotels, timeshare momorta'` and condominiums with rcn1u} programs, and collected published statistics on occupancy rates in the Vail /u!|uy� We conducted interviews with the managers at SMV Resort responsible for 1imonuhanz sales and hotel operations. To encourage candid discussion, these interviews were conducted without members of the 8VO development team. Additionally, we moe1 with representatives of the Town and discussed potential developments inthe local area. The results of our onm|yyim are presented below; first addressing the general site characteristics, then the expected occupancy rate for the Proposed Hotel in the Original Scenario, and third the expected occupancy rate for the proposed timeshare portions in the Original and Modified Scenarios. The Town of Avon is located in the \/oi| \/o||cy proximate to skiing at @eover'Creok, Bachelor Gulch, Vm|\ and Arrowhead. It supports leisure traveler demand in the winter, and its proximity to outdoor n:oreodnn opportunities supporta leisure traveler demand in the summer. However, the town is not on the mountain, and consequently has not experienced the same tourism development uxthe resort nn:us located On the mountain. lnst:m]. the 'von more closely rouemnb|ca other communities located along [n1orst e 70. Currently, the Comfort Inn is the only hotel in Avon and there are several vacation �vac4tinn ownership properties. Hotel The Proposed Hotel isassumed tohoan upscale 125 -unit hotel with the Sheraton brand. It is assumed that the Proposed Hotel will offer restaurant on the ground floor and u single meeting room suitable for onnu|| group events. Due to its yrna|| size, the hotel is not assumed to offer a uonnp|ctc array of full-service hotel amenities, banquet kitchen or extensive meeting space. We have summarized our key hotel market findings in three statements: l\ Seasonal fluctuations iodemand, combined with weak demand in smrnennid+veck periods even during peak season, are expected to make it difficult for the Proposed Hotel 1nreach ostrong annual occupancy. 2) The location of the Proposed Hotel is of limited attractiveness to skier; or motorists on 1-70, two important Sources of lodging demand in Vail Valley. 3\ The Proposed Hotel is expected toexperience competition 0ronn other area hOtc}x as well as vacation ownership and condominium facilities in Avon with rental programs. These vacation ownership and condominium facilities provide units �@ f�uv "S vm Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 with additional amenities such as parlor rooms and kitchens and offer low prices during many periods. These findings are supported by the following market observations: • The Vail Valley is a popular destination subject to considerable seasonal fluctuation in demand. Because hotels rent rooms on a daily basis as opposed to weekly timeshare sales, they are more greatly affected by weekly fluctuations. ■ Statistics reported by Hill & Company in the Vail Valley Occupancy and Average Rate Research Study dated February 2004 indicate that hotel occupancy rates in the area fluctuate significantly by season, with average monthly occupancies as high as 76 to 80 percent in the strongest months such as February and March, and lows of 30 to 35 percent in the weakest months of May, October and November. Monthly occupancy rates in Vail Valley during 2003 are presented in Figure 2. Figure 2 —Vail Valley Hotel Occupancy by Month: 2003 i100°l0 ................... ........ ........ _......... i i { I 60% - — - - - ...... _ . 40°l0 --- -- -- -- - -.� ._. i 20% _ .... - 0%- Source: 010_ Source: Hili & Company: PricewalerhouseCoopers, L.L.P • Local hotel operators confirm such seasonal fluctuations and indicate that the slow periods make it challenging to achieve strong annual hotel occupancy rates. For example, demand is exceptionally weak in the shoulder months of May and October. Even during strong winter months, midweek nights, which are less popular with leisure travelers, can be difficult to fill. • On an annual basis, hotel occupancies in the Vail Valley have ranged between 55 and 62 percent during the five-year period ending December 31, 2003.2 Our interviews with hotel operators, such as the general managers at the Park Hyatt in Beaver Creek, Riverwalk Inn in Edwards 2 Source: Hill & Company, February 2004. PP4CEWATEMOUSECQ9PERS 13 9 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 and Comfort Inn in Avon, indicate that v/hi|c in previous years some hotels have achieved higher occupancy rates and properties with ski- in/ski-out locations typically outperform the average, these levels are an nocunmtc reflection of the current market. Many of the hotels able to achieve higher than average occupancy rates are located in areas that offer direct access to the ski slopes, are uh|e to attract large nncotiogm and conventions during the non -ski season, or both. The Proposed Hotel will not offer either ofthese advantages. m The 1'70 corridor offers many limited service hotels catering to rate - sensitive walk-in guests. Although the Proposed Bntc| is expected tooffer n superior product, it will nevertheless face competition from these limited service hotels for some travelers, making it difficult to attract guests by 'offering |ovv prices. • Avon offers several vacation ownership resorts and condominiums that operate rental programs. Many o[these units offer parlors and kitchens, making them an attractive alternative for guests seeking temporary accommodations, and the Proposed Hotel will face competition from these properties for some travelers. • The Sheraton brand, benefits from participation in the Starwood Preferred Guest program, and isrecognized hymany leisure and business travelers. In many situations, the addition of branded hotel has the potential to induce new room nights into local lodging market, through the increased exposure that accompanies marketing activities and the tendency ofsome brand -loyal travelers to stay at a tunoi|ior hotel brand despite somewhat less convenient locations. In this case, while the Proposed Hotel is still expected to induce sonmo new dcnm4nd to the market, the effect of the addition ofthe Sheraton brand will bosomewhat muted. SMV Resort is already listed unthe Sheraton brand website, and already accomnnmodates� some travelers who believed they were booking u room at u standard Sheraton hotel rather than u vacation ownership property. To estimate'the Proposed Hotel's oucupuncy` PvvC considered the monthly occupancy rates of hotels and other accommodations in the Vail Valley. /\apart mf this analysis, vvc considered information gathered in interviews with the Park Hyatt in Beaver Creek, the Riverwalk Inn in Edvvurds, and the Comfort Inn in Avon' and estimated each of these hotels' monthly occupancy rates. We used the information presented by Hill & Company inits Vail Valley Occupancy and Average Rate Research Study tnunderstand monthly occupancies inthe Vail Valley overall. VVcalso analyzed the monthly occupancy rates of vacation ownership and condominium rental programs in Avon reported in interviews we conducted with management at Christie Lodge, The Seasons, and SMV Resort. PvvCthen estimated monthly occupancies for the Proposed Hotel, considering its ability tncompete with other hotels and other available accommodation inventory. {}vcra|i, our estimates show the Proposed Hotel is expected to achieve n stabilized annual occupancy level ofapproximately 55percent. �� x°� `Evw`cRnOuSEC^` °^ ^5 *� 10 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 We estimate that the Proposed Hotel will reach this stabilized level in the first year of operation by selling rooms to the SMV Resort timeshare sales team for the use of accommodating potential timeshare owners. SMV Resort currently utilizes local hotels in the area to accommodate potential buyers while on sales tour vacations, and is expected to be able to readily shift much of this business to the Proposed Hotel. By accommodating these guests, the Proposed Hotel will achieve higher occupancy rate in its first year of operation than would be expected if the SMV Resort did not operate an active vacation ownership sales program. We have assumed an average of 1.7 guests will occupy each guestroom. This estimate reflects an assumption that the Proposed Hotel will serve a mix of business travelers with an average of guests per room closer to 1.0, and leisure travelers with an average of guests per room closer to 2.0. Therefore, overall we estimate the Proposed Hotel will support approximately 42,659 visitors annually at a stabilized level (Figure 3). Figure 3 — Overnight Visitors Supported by Proposed Hotel in Stabilized Year Number of rooms 125 Rooms available 45,625 Occupancy 55% Number of occupied rooms 25,094 Guests per room 1.7 Total number of guests 42,659 Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P. To estimate the Proposed Hotel's average daily rate, PwC used a similar approach as was used to estimate the expected occupancy rate, preparing monthly estimates of ADR for the Proposed Hotel that were then used in calculating an annual average. The 2003 Vail Valley Hotel ADR statistics presented by Hill & Company were useful in this analysis and are presented in Figure 4. PKWATEWOUSECODPERS 1 11 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. Figure 4 — Vail Valley Hotel ADR by Month: 2003 $450 ,— $400.t -- $350 400.t-.$350 $300 > ........ ... ...._- .. $250 $200 '--- $150 $100 $50 $0 Source: Hill & Company; PriceivaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P. March 24, 2005 ..................... I ............. .. PJB � 4G�o� oar fio��o � O Because the Proposed Hotel will not offer direct access to ski slopes, it is not expected to be able to achieve the same ski -season rates as the hotels in the Vail Valley study. Furthermore, we estimate that room rates at the Proposed Hotel in the non -ski season will also be below the average ADR in the Vail Valley because the Proposed Hotel will face competition from rental programs at nearby vacation ownership and condominium facilities that typically offer units at low prices during non -ski season months and will not be able to attract groups seeking meeting facilities. We have estimated that the Proposed Hotel will achieve an average daily rate of approximately $110 on an annual basis. This estimate reflects the seasonal fluctuations in average daily rate that are reported by other hotels and resort accommodations in the area, the average nightly rental rate achieved by the existing SMV Resort, and our analysis of the lodging market. Vacation Ownership Our analysis of the expected occupancy rate of vacation ownership units reflects the anticipated sales pace of the vacation ownership expansion in its initial years and the expected usage patterns for owner -held and developer -held units. We have estimated that the sales pace and occupancy levels will be approximately equal in both the Original Scenario and the Modified Scenario. Figure 5 represents the absorption schedule provided by SVO. The absorption rate reflects the number of units sold as a share of the total number of units in each phase. Jk MATERMOUSECOOPERS 13 12 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 Figure 5 — Assumed Sales Pace for Vacation Ownership Intervals 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Original Scenario 48 two-bedroom lock -off units Total intervals 2,496 2,496 2,496 2,496 2,496 2.496 Sold intervals 253 632 664 697 250 0 Absorption rate 10% 25% 27% 28% 10% 0% Modified Scenario Phase 1-C. 55 two-bedroom lock -off units Total intervals 2,860 2.860 2,860 2,860 2,860 2,860 Sold intervals 253 632 664 697 614 0 Absorption rate 9% 22% 23% 24% 21% 0% 2,860 2.860 2,860 2,860 2,860 Phase 1-0, 64 two-bedroom lock -off units Total intervals 3,328 3,328 3,328 3,328 3,328 3,328 3,328 Sold intervals 112 ' 734 771 809 850 52 0 Absorption rate 3% 22% 23% 24% 26% 2% 0% Note: Units sold are expected to be available for owner occupancy in the following year. Sales in 2006 reflect a partial year sales effort. Source: Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. and PriceivaterhouseCoopers, L. L.P. SVO provided an estimated average sales price of $31,643 for a two-bedroom lock -off interval with one-week of annual use. PwC believes these estimates are reasonable for the purposes of this analysis based on the reported sales pace at the initial stages of the resort, interviews with the SMV Resort vacation ownership sales manager and other vacation ownership operators in the Vail Valley, and an understanding of trends in the timeshare industry. The Vail Valley is a very popular destination with vacation ownership travelers, and resorts in the region have reported rapid absorption of units. The SMV Resort, which offers an attractive vacation ownership product, well-known and respected brand, and location that is more affordable than resorts that offer direct access to ski slopes, is expected to continue to be a popular resort for potential buyers. Once sales are complete, the proposed vacation ownership expansion is expected to operate at a stabilized annual occupancy level of approximately 85 percent in both scenarios.3 This estimate reflects the following assumptions. Approximately 80 percent of available unit nights are expected to be occupied by the unit owners, their guests, or guests using the units as part of an exchange network such as the Starwood Vacation Network or interval International. Additionally, approximately 10 percent of the available inventory is expected to be made available for rental.a Of this available rental l This occupancy level is calculated to reflect occupied unit nights as a share of total available unit nights. Units that are not used because of reasons such as maintenance are considered unoccupied but are not deducted from the total number of available unit nights used in the denominator. 'This inventory is expected to become available as owners submit weeks or partial weeks to SVO for rental as a way to potentially earn rental income from time that they were not expecting to use, or through yield -management practices. Such yield -management practices are expected to enable the resort to anticipate and react to certain levels of non -usage. f ?PKEWATE OUSECCOPERS 1011 13 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 inventory,� approximately 45 percent is expected to be rented and occupied, The remaining lU percent of available inventory is expected to represent intervals that are held for the use nfowners nrexchange guests, but which gounoccupied. Inventory made available bvowners ur exchange guests who use only o partial week atthe resort, but who do not provide the resort adequate advance notice to permit an allocation to the n:nCe| pool, count uspan o[this unoccupied invcntory. While active sales on: sd|| in process at the vacation ownership expansion, ovnnwU occupancy levels are expected to be somewhat lower than the expected stabilized level of 85 percent. This represents the impact of two assumptions. First, u|dhuush vacation mwnoro0' occupancy remains at 80 percent of available (sold) rooms, the number of such rooms isless during the initial s4|cS; thus, the total number Ofrooms utilized by owners is \csS during the initial sales period. We have estimated a higher rental occupancy during this period to account for the availability of seasonally favorable rental weeks. Forthennore,a larger portion o[these unsold units will be used for revenue generating su|uo and marketing ao1|vidoo` such as hosting potential buyers at the nzuort. However, many unsold unit nightswill go unused, typically during mid -week periods orduring the shoulder season and the uoouu| rental occupancy is not expected to exceed 60 percent. The higher rental occupancy during initial yu|cs docs not compensate for the lower number ofowners. /\|so. at |enmi one unit will be kept unoccupied as o model for sales tours. Figure 8nnthe following page presents the vacation ownership and n:ntu| occupancy for 14-ye4r period of analysis. It may be noted that the {}dg\nu| Scenario stabilizes in 2011 and the Modified Scenario stabilizes in2U)0. PPMATERNOUSECCOPERS 8 14 N N m N co CD N A N LT. c w 0 N .a m o 10 Ap m o CL N C to c (a C 6 m C d V O U Q U j U �j O O N V 76 L .0 C .R 2 o z o cr zcr ° �0- a h 9 00 LO o C o 04 W� o N M o M CO o m N a M t a 'Q N W t0 to oo °° 7 o) do Do o N N oe M cl ' t0 11 Loo th co a tq coto is d'c"t co V M D1 N co coIQ fA yM VV ° oo N M ' tD to t7> cofD to Go co f0 't N co cn " Mi N to to m Mt004 co to N o o M o to a O °0 to co tD to fD N v M cn w N tD to to co o N M a to a O M Cl) O N -o c0 u v D? O04 a. tl� co c to O o tT b t22 o M N N os� N ? Moo M c N to ali LO D) QJ o N O oo N' c,4 M o f0 'V' cp [D t!7 W V' M M m N n O N co o to ' 0 c-4 clj °ti O o cl a, O co st LQ oo t0 W N O t7) tV V M M Qi N N fD M O� V. .4 a Oo 'Tofle O o to � � � V M M D'J N tt) M D1 a cn o N ojr) M o c co o a 'o CD to M tri N .t N M tD vo v o 0o vo 00 'a a M N M V oo o n o co o (o o M'o tD Go � n SD o O N h O o M o co c O q tT c Cn c co to N NM r N [Y' N N r oo N Q N Np p N p o tD N ocn ,v O o M O 0 DMj tL7 Go to "o to o? M tD t0 (D M (3i M LT. c w 0 N .a m o 10 Ap m o CL N C to c (a C 6 m C d V O U Q U j U �j O O N V 76 L .0 C .R 2 o z o cr zcr ° �0- a h 9 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 The estimate that total unit occupancy is expected to stabilize at 85 percent is based on the following observations: ■ The Vail Valley is a popular destination among timeshare owners, and it is currently the only timeshare ski destination in the Starwood Vacation Ownership network. • The occupancy of owner -held units at the existing vacation ownership units at SMV Resort by owners and exchange guests has averaged approximately 77 percent in recent years. ■ The occupancy of owner -held units at the Lakeside Terrace resort, which is no longer in active sales and which is managed by SVO, averages approximately 82 percent. ■ The occupancy of units made available for rental at the SMV Resort has averaged approximately 42 percent in recent years. • The occupancy of units made available for rental at other timeshare and condominium resorts in Avon fluctuates greatly by season, exceeding 90 percent in some periods, and falling below 35 percent in shoulder periods. • SMV Resort offers a well-designed and maintained resort product, with a well-recognized brand that is expected to be attractive to owners, exchange guests, and renters supporting occupancy levels even during less attractive periods of the year. We have estimated an average of 2.25 guests will occupy each bedroom (key) utilized by vacation owners and 2.00 guests will occupy each bedroom (key) utilized by guests renting vacation ownership units. This estimate reflects our discussions with the existing management of the SMV Resort. Therefore, overall we estimate the proposed vacation. ownership expansion will support approximately 66,044 visitors annually at a stabilized level in the Original Scenario and 163,734 visitors annually in the Modified Scenario (Figure 7). PwWATEWOUSECODPERS 1 16 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 Figure 7 — Overnight Visitors Supported by Proposed Vacation Ownership Expansion in Stabilized Year Original Scenario Modified Scenario Number of two-bedroom lock -off units 48 119 Number of keys (bedrooms) 96 238 Total number of keys available 34,944 86,632 (52 seven day weeks) Owners Number of keys sold 34,944 86,632 Owner occupancy 80% 80% Number of keys occupied by owners 27,955 69,306 Owner guest per key 2.25 2.25 Number owner guests 62,899 155,938 Rental Number of keys available for rental 3,494 8,663 Rental occupancy 45% 45% Number of occupied rental keys 1,572 3,898 Rental guest per key 2.00 2.00 Number of rental guests 3,145 7,797 Total Total keys occupied 29,516 73,204 Total occupancy 85% 85% Total number of guests 66,044 163,734 Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.Y. f kMATEWOUSEC(DPERS 0 17 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24,200j VISITOR SPENDING AND RELATED SALES TAX IMPACTS In an effort to better understand the annount visitors spend in Avon, PvvC and SVO conducted m limited visitor spending survey at SMV Resort. This section contains u summary of the survey n:nu\tm, visitor spending assumptions used to estimate total expenditures, and ubrief description o[the tax revenues generated as eresult oythese expenditures. Visitor Spending The table onthe following page presents the results n[usurvey conducted n1 SMV Resort during the week beginning Dcoonobor 14` 2004 (Figure #). pvv[ assisted with the survey design and with the development ofthe approach used to solicit responses from guests. PwC believes such a visitor survey is an appropriate way to gather useful information on guest expenditures and has used such visitor surveys in other economic impact analyses. ltshould bo noted that, due tothe limited period available for the fiscal impact analysis, this survey only rcpn:xcots a |\nnitcd sample of resort guests during o one-week period and it isnot representative ofnnentire year. Of the 06 visitor parties at the resort that were provided copies of the survey, 44 responded. The key results of the survey may beSummarized nsfollows. (]nunaverage per person per day basis, the visitors surveyed spent $02.04 during their resortmtuy.5 Of this spending, $4.00 occurred nn'uhc at SMV Resort, $27.47 occurred ntother businesses inAvon excluding Wa|-Ma�6,$3.51 Occurred a<Wui'Mort^and $47.26occurred outside Avon. Overall, $35.58 was spent per person per day in Avon, representing 45 percent of the total. The total amount spent in Avon excluding sales at Wal-Mart was $32.07. The following is an example todrcnonstrm1ehow the information in each rnpv inFigure 8 may be read. Using the row in the "In /\vnn" section that covers "Restaurant meals and take-out food", the first column shows that, of those owners that reported spending money on restaurant nnoa|s and tuku-01.11 food in Avon at any point in their trip. the average amount spent per person per day was $10.42. Since 75 percent ofrespondents made such purubaaso` referred to as the participation rate, the average spending per person per day overall for all respondents was $7.0\. Calculating the sum ofthe average spending per person per day in the seven rows of the "In Avon" category results in the sub -total of $27.47. ^ Based onusample mean of$82.D4.ostandard deviation o[$57.05and 44respondents, the 95percent confidence interval around the sample mean is %65.89m%99.70. ^ Town does not currently receive tax revenue from sales in the Village at Avon, which contains the Wa)- Mart. lklCEWATEMOUSECCOPERS 11 18 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, •2005 Figure 8 - Average Per Person Per Day Visitor Spending Average number of people in party Adults 2.96 2.25 1.01 Children 6.77 0.45 4.77 Total 13.56 2.70 7.09 Average number of bedrooms occupied by vsiting 10.42 1.18 7.81 Average number of people per key (bedroom) 2.72 2,33 0.25 Average number of nights at the SMV Resort 24.81 5.77 6.20 Other Average 5% Average Subtotal: In Avon (excluding on-site) amount spent Participation spending per Outside Avon per day rate person per day On -Site 8.48 66% 5.59 Gas, parking, transportation $7.14 2% $0.16 Groceries purchased at stores other than Wal-Mart 42.86 2% 0.97 Non -grocery items purchased at stores other than Wal-Mart 3.10 18% 0.56 Restaurant meals and take-out food 8.93 5% 0.41 Health spa and exercise facilities 3.21 2% 0.07 Outdoor recreation activities 13.94 16% 2.22 Other 4.54 5% 0.21 Subtotal: on-site $4.60 In Avon (excluding on-site) Gas, parking, transportation 2.96 34% 1.01 Groceries purchased at stores other than Wal-Mart . 6.77 70% 4.77 Non -grocery items purchased at stores other than Wal-Mart 13.56 52% 7.09 Restaurant meals and take-out food 10.42 75% 7.81 Health spa and exercise facilities 2.72 9% 0.25 Outdoor recreation actiuties 24.81 25% 6.20 Other 7.50 5% 0.34 Subtotal: In Avon (excluding on-site) $27.47 Outside Avon ' Gas, parking, transportation 8.48 66% 5.59 Groceries purchased at stores other than Wal-Mart 6.65 20% 1.36 Non -grocery items purchased at stores other than Wal-Mart 17.60 52% 9.20 Restaurant meals and take-out food 15.01 61% 9.21 Health spa and exercise facilities 9.15 5% 0.42 Outdoor recreation activities 28.54 59% 16.86 Other 25.40 18% 4.62 Subtotal: Outside Avon $47.26 At Wal-Mart Groceries 5.68 30% 1.68 hems other than groceries 5.02 36% 1.83 Subtotal: At Wal-Mart $3.51 ° Total per person per day $82.84 Purchases in Avon including Wal-Mart $35.58 Items purchased at Wal-Mart $3.51 Other items that may not be taxed by the Town $10.46 (gas, parking, transportation, health spa and exercise faculty, outdoor recreation activates, other) Note: a total of 44 surveys were received and processed. Source: Starwood Vacation avnership, Inc. and PriceivaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P. J�R1CWATERHOUSECWPERS ® 19 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 Although this survey is not representative of an entire year, it may be noted that the spending levels reported were similar to the findings in other industry surveys. As a point of reference, a nation-wide survey conducted in .2004 by PwC and IBM for the American Resort Development Association ("ARDA") reported average spending of $65 per person per day by vacation owners and their guests. Longwood international reported overall per person per day spending by Colorado visitors in 2003 averaged $79, with the spending of skiers averaging $144. The following per person per day estimates were drawn from the survey and used in the impact analysis: • Based on discussions with the Town and Stan Bernstein and Associates, it was assumed that approximately $14 of the total per person per day spending in Avon will not be taxable by the Town. This amount includes all expenditures at Wal-Mart ($3.51) and other stores in the Village at Avon plus any other non-taxable items categories in the survey form ($10.46). Therefore, the estimated taxable per person expenditure in Avon for visitors utilizing vacation ownership units is estimated to be the total amount spent in Avon ($35.58) less the amounts outlined above, is $21.61, which has been rounded up to $22 per day. The visitor spending survey conducted at SMV Resort collected information from respondents at the resort, regardless whether they were owners at the resort, exchange guests, or renters. While it is technically possible to separate the survey responses into categories, the limited number of survey respondents does not support a useful comparison between average spending by owners and exchange guests, and average spending by renters. Additionally, while the renters who responded to the survey were paying a nightly or weekly rate, they also had access to a kitchen in each bedroom, and may have exhibited different spending patterns than hotel guests at the Proposed Hotel. For the purpose of this analysis, in the Original Scenario it was assumed that hotel guest spending would be similar to vacation ownership resort guest spending with two differences as explained in the following assumption: • Spending per hotel guest is assumed to be slightly higher than the visitors utilizing vacation ownerships units as hotel guests will not have kitchens and may potentially spend more in local restaurants. It is assumed hotel guest spending on restaurant and takeout meals may be expected to be approximately $10 higher than vacation ownership guest restaurant spending. Meanwhile, hotel guests may make fewer grocery purchases, and the full $4.77 in average daily per person grocery spending was excluded from expected hotel guest spcnding. This resulted in a rounded total of $26.00 per guest. Based on the per person per day spending assumptions and the, visitor assumption presented, total visitor spending in Avon in a stabilized year, excluding non-taxable•sales and spending at Wal-Mart, is estimated at $2,562,115 in the Original Scenario and $3,602,159 in the Modified Scenario. f kMATE&IOUSECCOPERS 8 20 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. Retail Sales Tax March 24, 2005 The Town receives n Dour percent sales tax on all retail sales, excluding sales that occur at the Village at Avon, which contains the Wal-Mart. For each scenario, total estimated retail ouhs were multiplied by four percent to calculate retail so|cm tax receipts. In o stabilized Year, retail sales taxes are nxpcz0od to total $102,405 in the Original Scenario and $144,086 inthe K4odifi6dScenario. For the l4-yrurperiod, total revenue from retail sales taxes Vn visitor spending is expected to be $1,344,907 in the Original Scenario and $l,528,359inthe Modified Scenario. County Tax Rebate Bused on discussions with the Town. PvC has assumed the Town will receive u 15 percent rebate on the one percent Eagle County ("County") tun on sales that take p)uou in Avon. Because the County docs not tax groceries, visitor spending estimates for this calculation dnnot include estimated grocery expenditures. Revenue generated from the rental of -hotel rOnrns and vacation ownership unit rentals is included in the total amount taxed by the County and, therefore, is also included in the rebate to the Town. In u stabilized year, the county tax rebate is expected to be $7,900 in the Original Scenario and $5,196 in the Modified Socnorio, resulting in m 14-ycur total of $110,564 in the Original Scenario and $72,408 in the Modified Scenario. PNCEWATERHOUSECOOPERS .0 21 Stanwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 AccomMODATION RELATED TAXES Revenues generated from hotel guest room sales and rental of vacation ownership units are subject bou four percent accommodation tax and u [bur percent sales tax. Vuoutk)n ownership units utilized by owners are not subject to these taxon, though o recreational amenities fee does apply and is discussed later in this document. The Town is assumed to rebate 75 percent of the hotel room sn|ca and accommodation taxes tothe Mountain Vista District which hos been set up by 3V(}, for Dftocn years beginning the earliest date of June l,2O0Mnrupon the hotel opening. Therefore, the Town will receive 25 percent ofthe sales and accommodation taxes on ho*:} runrns in the Original Scenario and lOO percent of the sales and accommodations taxes on the rental of vacation ownership units )nboth scenarios. lnustabilized year, the estimated total accommodation tax revenues are expected tobe $237,139 inthe Original Scenario and $40.544 in the Modified Scenario. The Town's portion ufthose revenues inexpected to be $71.560 inthe Original Scenario and the full $40,544 in the Modified Scenario. For the 14-ywur period, the Town's portion 0fthe tax revenues generated from hotel room and vacation ownership unit rentals are estimated tm be $1,253,967 in the Original Scenario and $1,360.107 in the Modified Scenario. Modified Scenario generates ngreater |cvc} ofsales and accommodation taxes useresult of the increased number ofrooms available torental guest during the initial years ofboth phases. PKEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 8 22 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 PROPERTY TAXES AND OTHER REVENUES The following section covers the other sources of tax revenues and fees that have been included in this analysis. These include revenues supported by property values, real estate transfer taxes, franchise fees. recreation amenities fees, construction ponnb fees, and water and tap fees. Property Taxes . Our estimates ofannual tax revenues supported by property values ineach scenario may he summarized as follows. 8uycd on discussions with officials at the County assessor's office, hotel properties are classified as non-residential property and are subject toareal property tax that is calculated bythe County using an income approach. Tnprepare an estimate of the approximate total value that may apply for the Proposed Hotel, we used the total market values ofthree hotels in Eagle County reported bythe County assessor's office to calculate an average total value per key, or per guostroomn. of approximately $86,170.7 Multiplying the estimated total value per key by }Z5keys supports noestimate of total value for property tax purposes nfapproximately $0`271'281. Multiplying bythe 29 percent assessment rate for non-residential properties supports an estimated assessed value of$2,3g0,,672. Meanwhile, vacation ownership units are su6iect to a r*o| property tax that is calculated by Eagle County using ncomnparmb}e sales approach that treats on individual vacation ownership unit 48 equivalent to a whole ownership unit of similar physical ohnrmck:riydou. The units in the Original Scenario or Modified Scenario vacation ownership expansion are expected to be similar in size and quality tothe existing units e4 SMV Resort. Therefore, u representative total market value of $286,440 per two-bedroom lock -off unit, v/biuh is based on average va|uosu of each portion of the existing units reported bythe assessor's office, has been used in h0ih scenarios. Multiplying this value hvthenurnbor0funi10 in each scenario, and a 7.6 percent assessment rate for residential properties,' supports an estimated assessed value of $1'044,933 in the Original Scenario and $2,590,563 in the Modified Scenario. Based on conversations with Stan Bernstein 'and Associates, PvvC assumed the property will first be assessed in January of 2007, when the property is partially cnrop}cte^ for a property tax payment i�2U08. and then reassessed in 2008 as a completed building for its property tax payment due in2UU9. PwC used this timing and cs1irna1nd assessed values to oytirn4tc general fund property tax, debt service fund property tax and specific ownership tax revenues: * The general fund property tax amount, cu|ou|otcd as $8.956 per $|,OOOofassessed value, is oot\noa1ed at I30,841 per year in the Original 3ueouriu and $23^201 in n stabilized year inModified Scenario. ' The total values of the three hotels on a per key basis were as follows: Riverside Inn in Edwards $70,400, Comfort Inn inAvon, $48.\31 and West Vail Lodge iuVail $79,979. 8 The County assessor's office assesses each unit separately, and PwC calculations used a representative price for each unit and added thorntogether for onaverage value ufotwo-bedroom lock -off unit, which ix approximately $227per square foot. PMEWATERHOUSfCCOPERS G 23 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc./Nunch 24, 2005 * The debt service fund property tax amount, calculated oo$4.825 per $1,000 of aos#oncd value, isestimated at $16,615 per year in the Original 8ocnmho and $12/499 inastabilized year inthe Modified Scenario. * The specific ownership tax revenue amount, calculated as six percent of the combined total of the general fund property tax revenue plus the debt service fund property tax revenue, is estimated at $2,847 per year in the [}dginui Scenario and $2,142 in u stabilized year inthe Modified Scenario. * The county nmud and bridge fund represents the Town's portion of the tax revenue collected for the State's county road and bridge fund and it is calculated as 50 percent of the total 1.91 mill levy assessed. It is anticipated that Town will collect $3.289 in a stabilized year in the Original Scenario and $2,474 in a stabilized year in the Modified Scenario. Real Estate Transfer Taxes Real estate transfer taxes apply \othe sale ofvacation ownership units and are calculated as two percent of the total sale price. Although the Town has no exemption for the Ont time purchase of primary residences up to $100,000, this does not apply to vacation ownership units. For the original sale o[uvacation ownership unit, there is a 50 percent transfer tax rebate to the Mountain Vista District. Therefore, one percent of the fin% xo|c goes tnthe Town and one percent to the Mountain Vista [}ieLriul; and, the entire two percent tux in received by the Town on all subsequcn1 sales of the same unit. For the purpose Ofcalculating annual transfer tax revenues supported by subsequent sales, the yearly percentage of vacation ownership units resold each year was assumed at five percent of the total sold inventory after /bur years of operation. This assumption was based on information provided by SV{) and information on typical default rates on timeshare mortgages reported by other companies in the industry. Total transfer tux revenues for the 14-yeur period are estimated to be $1,729.670 in the Original Scenario and $3,836,904inthe Modified Scenario. Franchise Fee Franchise fees are revenues derived from the sales of)(co| Energy, Comcast Cable and Holy Cross Electric, which have franchises granted by the Town for the use n[public streets and r\ghts-of-v/oy, and the privileges of doing business in Avon. For each utility, 8 percentage of gross sales is charged as o'franchise fee. Gross sales were estimated buned on the 2003 total bills at SMV Resortin terms nftota) expense per occupied key (bedroom) or per available key (bedroom) on adaily buois.» Total franchise fees for the }4_yem,period are estimated to be $229.665 inthe Original Scenario and $242,255 in the Modified Scenario. vThe following table outlines the estimated expense and fee charged bythe Town onudaily basis: u0ity Amount used to estirrate total revenue Fee charged to total revenue Con -cast Cable *oroPer available key 5m Franchise fee Excel Energy $5.35 Per occupied key amFranchise fee Holy Cross Bectric $3.28 Per occupied key 3% Franchise fee �� � Pffl�v ERS w� 24 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. Recreation Amenities Fee March 24, 2005 All vacation ownership units that have been deeded by the developer to the owner, including units which have been foreclosed upon or re -conveyed in lieu of foreclosure, are subject to an annual $28.02 recreation amenities fee. This fee is based on an original agreement of $25 per deeded unit with an annual increase of the consumer price index for the Denver -Boulder -Greeley metropolitan area. The fee applies whether the unit is a two-bedroom or one -bedroom interval.i(' Because this model is based in 2004 dollars, $28.02 was used throughout the' model. Total recreation amenities fees for the 14 -year period are estimated to be $1,388,536 in the Original Scenario and $2,709,339.in the Modified Scenario. Construction Permit Fee and Water and Tap Fees Estimates of construction permit fees and water and tap fees were provided by SVO and confirmed by the Town. The fees in both scenarios are one time fees paid the year prior to opening. In the Original Scenario, estimated fees are $364,804 for construction permits and $582,300 for water and tap fees. 1n the Modified Scenario, construction permit fees are expected to be $223,982 in 2006 for and $231,273 in 2010, and water tap fees are estimated to be $440,000 and $512,000 in 2006 and 2010, respectively. 10 Based on conversations with SVO, one bedroom unit sales are estimated to be 53 percent in the Original. Scenario, 53 percent in phase 1 C of the Modified Scenario and 45.2 percent in phase 1 D of the Modified Scenario. PMATFRNOUSECCOPFRS 9 25 . Starwood Vacation t?wnership, Inc. March 24, 2005 TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES The Town provides a complementary shuttle to Beaver Creek and in -town, during ski season and operates a shorter in -town route throughout the year. For the purpose of this analysis, PwC has used assumptions for the calculations of transportation expenses that were provided by the Town and its representatives. As with certain other assumptions from the Town, we have discussed transportations expenses to understand how the calculations are performed but have not independently assessed whether the expense levels are appropriate. In general, the transportation expense calculations assume that an increase in the number of visitors may necessitate additional busses and driving hours''. Transportation expense estimates are based on the total number of visitors and it is assumed that all types of overnight guests will use the complementary transportation service equally. To estimate the transportation expense, the cost of total estimated hours of utilization is added to total estimated lease costs for additional buses. The estimated number of busses required in ski -season is calculated by assuming that half of the daily skiers who ride the bus will desire to ride at the same time during peak hours.'2 Since each bus is assumed to carry 61 riders, the calculation assumes that for each 122 additional average daily skiers who ride the bus, another bus will be required. As a result, in a stabilized year in the Original Scenario 1.4 busses are required, and in the Modified Scenario 2.1 busses are required; in addition, in each scenario one half of a bus is included as a spare bus in calculating lease costs. Daily operating hours per bus are estimated separately for ski -season and non -ski -season. It is assumed that 12 hours of daily service will be provided. In ski -season, it is assumed that all required busses will be used during the six peak hours of each day, and that half the busses will be used for an additional six non -peak hours each day. Therefore, a total of nine hours of daily operation are required per required bus. In the Original Scenario, the 1.4 required busses result in a total of 12.4 daily ski -season operating hours, and in the Modified Scenario the 2.1 required busses result in 18.7 daily ski -season operating hours. In non -ski -season, it is assumed that the number of operating hours each day will be 45 percent of the operating hours on an average ski -season day. This assumption is based on the Town of Avon's 2005 budgeted operating hours, which shows 45 percent as many operating hours on the average non -ski -season day as on an average ski -season day. Therefore, in the Original Scenario, a total of 5.6 daily non -ski -season operating hours are expected, and in the Modified Scenario, 8.4 daily non -ski -season operating hours are expected. Based on figures provided by the Town of Avon, the cost per hour is estimated to be $47 and the, lease cost of additional buses needed is assumed to be $33,000 per bus. The cost " To calculate total ski season guests, PwC utilized monthly occupancy figures to estimate 52 percent of total'oceupancy occurs during ski season. 12 To calculate ski season bus utilization, PwC used the Town's assumption that 66 percent of the visitors will ski and 85 percent of the skiers will utilize the bus. PfflMATEMOUSECCOPERS 8 26 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 of an additional one half of a bus is included to account for a contribution to the pool of spare buses required for maintenance purposes. In a stabilized year, transportation expenses are estimated to be $260,673 in the Original Scenario and $384,285 in the Modified Scenario. For the 14 -year period, total transportation expenses are expected to be $3,435,087 in the Original Scenario and $4,127,080 in the Modified Scenario. In both scenarios, transportation expenses are estimated to be $1.95 per ski season guest and $1.44 per non -ski season guest. 13 13 This per guest figure refers to the total number of visitors, not the visitors who use the bus. PfflCEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 8 27 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 OTHER EXPENSES This section covers additional expenses to the Town. Police Department It is difficult to assess additional expenses that the police department may incur with an increase in accommodations and visitors. For the purpose of this analysis, the Town provided a millage rate assumption to be used in the model of $12 per $1,000 of assessed value to estimate police department expenses. PwC and Stan Bernstein and Associates discussed the assumption that with a higher level of visitation in the modified scenario it is appropriate to assume a higher level of police department expenses. Therefore, police department expenses in the Modified Scenario were assumed to be 25 percent higher than in the Original Scenario. The 25 percent increased does not reflect the full difference in the number of visitors as some police costs may not necessarily increase proportionately with the number of visitors. The estimated stabilized yearly police department expense in the Original Scenario is $41,323 and $51,654 in a stabilized year of the Modified Scenario. Because the Modified Scenario has two phases and will not reach its full number of keys until the year 2012, PwC adjusted years 2007 to 2011 by proportionally reducing the Modified Scenario police department expenses based on the number of keys available each year relative to the maximum capacity. Total police department expenses during the 14 -year period are estimated to be $554,310 in the Original Scenario and $581,108 in the Modified Scenario. Mall Area Maintenance PwC assumed maintenance expenses for the mall area related to the new portion of SMV Resort to approximate $58,333 per year, or one third of the `amount used in previous models for the entire SMV Resort. This amount is a flat fee each year and it is assumed to be equal in each scenario. Both scenarios are expected to have a total 14 -year expense to the Town of $816,667. Administrative Costs Administrative costs are estimated to be 7.5 percent of all operating expenses, which are transportation, police department and mall area maintenance. This estimated percentage was provided by the Town and has been used in previous models. For the 14 -year period, total administrative costs are estimated to be $360,455 in the Original Scenario and $414,364 in the Modified Scenario. Community Development Fees Community development fees are estimated to be 100 percent of construction permit fees. SVO provided estimated construction permit fees for the purpose of this analysis. Total community development fees are estimated to be $364,804 in the Original Scenario and $455,255 in the Modified Scenario. Capital Projects Funds, Debt Service Fund and Transfer to Water Fund Based on previous models and discussions with the Town, PwC assumed the capital projects fund, debt service fund and transfer to water fund expenses to be equal to a corresponding tax or fee. The capital projects fund is equal to the real estate transfer tax f �RICEWATERHOUSECO DPERS 9 28 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 revenue. Total capital project fund expenses during the 14 -year period are estimated to be $1,729,670 in the Original Scenario and $3,836,904 in the Modified Scenario. The debt service fund is equal to the debt service fund property tax revenue, which is estimated to be $206,263 in the Original Scenario and $135,001 in the Modified Scenario, during the 14 -year period. The total transfer to water fund is equal to the water and tap fee estimates, which are $582,300 in the Original Scenario and $952,000 in the Modified Scenario. ftK"ATEWOU$ECOOPERS PQ Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. SUMMARY OF RESULTS March 24, 2005 Based onthe assumptions outlined inthis report, the Modified Scenario is expected to generate m{ieht}v more revenue for the Town than the C>dginn| Scenario. The net inurern#n1o\ revenue for the entire 14_ycar period in negative $379,048 in the Original Scenario, with costs exceeding revenue, and $271,769 in the Modified Scenario, with revenue exceeding costs. Therefore, the Modified Scenario isexpected to have anet revenue impact u[$05\,0\7 relative to the Original Scenario. The average difference between the two scenarios equates to approximately $46,544 per year, or |l percent of the total revenue generated in a stabilized year in the Original Scenario. This summary examines the changes in revenue and expenses between the scenarios by summarizing the analysis as four ports: revenue and expenses related to property value, revenue and expenses hunnd on the number ofvisitors, revenue and expenses based on occupancy taxes, and revenue and expenses based on fees. Revenue and Expenses Based on Property Value Figure 9presents the estimated revenues and expenses that are based on property value through utransfer tax, mill levy or on association with revenue derived by applying Amill levy. The revenue and expenses presented in the table are the sum of the estimated yearly revenue and *xpcnucx in each scenario for the 14-ycar period. The differences represent the Modified Scenario less the Original Scenario. Figure 9 — Revenue and Expenses Based on Property Value: 2007 to 2020 Revenue NbdifiedGcenario Original Scenario Difference Expenses WdiftedGcenario Original Scenario Difference Debt Service ObligationProjects Fund 135.001 206,263 Revenue difference minus expense difference Capital Projects Fund Subtotal 3,836,904 3,97,90 1.728070 1.835,933 2,107,234 $2,035,972 Source: Town of Avon Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc.and Pricewaterho use Coopers, LLP. The variance between the Original and Modified Scenarios can be attributed to* the manner in which vacation ownership properties and hotels are assessed. As discussed previously, vacation ownership units are assessed as residential property that is subject to u 7.6 percent assessment ratio, vvhi|o hnto|u are assessed as commercial property that is subject t0a2A percent assessment ratio. Therefore, the Original Scenario containing the hotel has a higher uSSe8Ged value than the Modified Scenario and the revenue and expenses based on mill levies are higher in the Original Scenario. The general fund f W"ATERHOUSECCOPERS ww ]O Dem Specific County Road General Service Ownership and Bridge Real Estate Fund Fund Taxes pvnu Taxes Subtotal 250.585 135.001 23.185 26.720 3.836.904 4.273.345 382,859 206.263 35.347 40.825 1.729.670 2.394.966 Debt Service ObligationProjects Fund 135.001 206,263 Revenue difference minus expense difference Capital Projects Fund Subtotal 3,836,904 3,97,90 1.728070 1.835,933 2,107,234 $2,035,972 Source: Town of Avon Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc.and Pricewaterho use Coopers, LLP. The variance between the Original and Modified Scenarios can be attributed to* the manner in which vacation ownership properties and hotels are assessed. As discussed previously, vacation ownership units are assessed as residential property that is subject to u 7.6 percent assessment ratio, vvhi|o hnto|u are assessed as commercial property that is subject t0a2A percent assessment ratio. Therefore, the Original Scenario containing the hotel has a higher uSSe8Ged value than the Modified Scenario and the revenue and expenses based on mill levies are higher in the Original Scenario. The general fund f W"ATERHOUSECCOPERS ww ]O .. Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 property tax, debt service fund property tax and county road and bridge fund revenues are all estimated by applying a mill levy to the assessed property value. The specific ownership taxes are estimated to be six percent of the general service fund and debt service fund, and the debt service obligation fund expense is equal to the debt service fund. Real estate transfer taxes are a percentage of the sale of vacation ownership units, and, therefore, a larger amount is collected in the Modified Scenario which has a greater number of vacation ownership units. However, the transfer tax revenue are not expected to have an impact on the net difference between the two scenarios or the net revenue for the Town because the revenue generated from real estate transfer taxes is equal to the capital projects fund expense. It may be noted that general fund property tax, specific ownership tax and the county road and bridge fund do not have a corresponding expense and, therefore, impact the net revenue in each scenario. The revenue derived from the general fund mitt levy, specific ownership tax and county road and bridge fund mill levy is $459,032 in the Original Scenario and $300,440 in the Modified Scenario, and the difference between the two scenarios represents the total difference in the revenues and expenses based on property value. Revenue and Expenses Based on the Number of Visitors This section reviews the estimated revenue and expenses that are related to an increased number of visitors. A separate analysis of the revenues generated from taxation of visitor spending on hotel room and vacation ownership rental is presented in a separate section covering the revenues associated with visitor accommodations. Figure 10 presents the estimated revenues and expenses which are calculated based on the number of visitors in each scenario. The revenue and expenses presented in the table are the sum of the estimated yearly revenue and expenses in each scenario for the 14 -year period. The differences represent the Modified Scenario less the Original Scenario. PKEWA1ERHOUSECtOPERS 1 31 Starwood Vacation Inc. March 24, 2005 Figure 10—Revenue and Expenses Based mnthe Number *f Visitors: 2007to%0%0 Revenue difference minus expense difference ($591,248) Source: Town of Avon; Sfun°ood Vacation Ownership, Inc.; and Pricewaterhouse Coopers, L.L.P. The number ofvisitors that stay in the Town of Avon hos u financial impact onthe Town through re�| spending d the expenses nf�didservicesunm�servicesrequired. The udQniniobu�vecosts presented above are 7.5 percent nfthe [nuU area maintenance, police and transportation system expenses and is gn:ody impacted by the transportation and police expense; for this reason, administrative expenses are considered toho.drivcnby the number Ofvisitors and included inthis portion ofthe summary. Based nnthe assumptions outlined in this report, the revenue generated from retail sales ionot enough 1uoffset the additional expenses required to support additional visitors to the Town. It is possible that this relationship could change over time as Avon develops as w more pedestrian friendly resort destination encouraging visitors to spend u larger portion of their Vntu| vacation spending in Avon. Given the current assumptions, before considering revenues generated hyaccommodations, the Modified Scenario results in negative impact. Revenue and Expenses Based onA econintodations There are significant shifts inocoupunoy taxes and fees assessed to deeded units between the scenarios. For this reason, revenues and expenses related k}the accommodations io examined separately from the impact ofthe number Ufvisitor tothe Town. Figure ll presents the estimated revenues generated from the rental of hotel noonno and vacation ownership units and the recreation omncn|\y 'fee uaoconcd to deeded vacation ownership units. The differences represent the K4odified Scenario less the Original Scenario. ' ^ N� �� 32 Retail Sales Revenue, Tax Subtotal WdifiedGcenaho 1`520.358 1`528.358 Original Scenario 1.344.907 1.344.907 Difference 181.452 $101.452 Transportation Police Gyatann Admniriis1redion Department Coots Costs Subtotal Expenses K8odUDed8oenaho 581.100 4.127.080 414.364 5.122.552 Original Scenario 554.310 3.435.087 360.455 4.349.853 Difference 28.798 681.993 53.909 $772.700 Revenue difference minus expense difference ($591,248) Source: Town of Avon; Sfun°ood Vacation Ownership, Inc.; and Pricewaterhouse Coopers, L.L.P. The number ofvisitors that stay in the Town of Avon hos u financial impact onthe Town through re�| spending d the expenses nf�didservicesunm�servicesrequired. The udQniniobu�vecosts presented above are 7.5 percent nfthe [nuU area maintenance, police and transportation system expenses and is gn:ody impacted by the transportation and police expense; for this reason, administrative expenses are considered toho.drivcnby the number Ofvisitors and included inthis portion ofthe summary. Based nnthe assumptions outlined in this report, the revenue generated from retail sales ionot enough 1uoffset the additional expenses required to support additional visitors to the Town. It is possible that this relationship could change over time as Avon develops as w more pedestrian friendly resort destination encouraging visitors to spend u larger portion of their Vntu| vacation spending in Avon. Given the current assumptions, before considering revenues generated hyaccommodations, the Modified Scenario results in negative impact. Revenue and Expenses Based onA econintodations There are significant shifts inocoupunoy taxes and fees assessed to deeded units between the scenarios. For this reason, revenues and expenses related k}the accommodations io examined separately from the impact ofthe number Ufvisitor tothe Town. Figure ll presents the estimated revenues generated from the rental of hotel noonno and vacation ownership units and the recreation omncn|\y 'fee uaoconcd to deeded vacation ownership units. The differences represent the K4odified Scenario less the Original Scenario. ' ^ N� �� 32 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. Figure I I — Revenue and Expenses Based on Accomodations: 2007 to 2020 Revenue Modified Scenario Original Scenario Difference Expenses Nlodified Scenario Original Scenario Difference County Tax Rebate 72,488 110,564 (38,076) Accomodation and Sales 1,360,107 1,253,967 106,141 Revenue difference minus expense -difference March 24, 2005 Recreation Franchise Amenities Fee Fees Subtotal 2,709,339 242,255 4.384,189 1,388,536 229,665 2,982,731 1,320,803 12,589 $1,401,457 Subtotal 0 0 $0, $1,401,467 Source: Town of Avon; Starwood Vacation Ownership. Inc.: and Price waterhouse Coopers, L.L.P. The revenues based on accommodations are affected by the different typ6 of taxes and fees placed on hotel rooms and vacation ownership units. Because the Town only receives 25 percent of the hotel sales and accommodation taxes, the replacement of the hotel with a greater number of vacation ownership units in the Modified Scenario does not have an overall negative impact on the difference between the scenarios. The sales and accommodations tax revenues in the Modified Scenario are generated from taxes on vacation ownership rentals. The county tax rebate is a rebate of all sales taxes charged by.the County, and in this analysis, taxes on accommodations account for the majority of the rebate. Franchise fees are placed on utility services used in the units by the hotel and vacation ownership guests. The net increase between the scenarios can primarily be attributed to the annual recreation amenity fee placed on each deeded timeshare unit; because this fee is not placed on hotel rooms, it is significantly larger in the Modified Scenario. Revenue and Expenses Based on Fees Figure 12 presents the estimated revenues and expenses related to certain fees. The differences represent the Modified Scenario less the Original Scenario, JkWATEMIOUSECCOPER5 S 33 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. Figure 12 — Revenue and Expenses Based on Fees: 2007 to 2020 Modified Scenario Original Scenario Difference March 24, 2005 Construction Water and Tap Permit Fees Fees Subtotal 455.255 Mall 364.804 Walkway Expenses Maintenance Modified Scenario 818.687 Original Scenario 810.667 Difference O March 24, 2005 Construction Water and Tap Permit Fees Fees Subtotal 455.255 852.000 364.804 582.300 80`451 369.700 Community TrenmYerto Development Water Fund Fee 455.255 952.000 364.804 582.300 90.451 869.700 Revenue difference minus expense difference Source: Town of Avon,- Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc.: and PricewaterhouseCoopers, ��P. 1,407 '55 947,104 $460,151 Subtotal 2.223.922 1.703.771 $460,151 $0 The fees presented above do not cause unoverall net revenue difference because each revenue source is matched by an equivalent expense. The estimated water and tap fee and construction permit fee are one time fees. The expenses are all estimated to be 100 percent of fees, and for this reason, there is no difference between the scenarios. Summary To understand comparisons of the socnarioo, it is useful to note that the difference between the scenarios is driven primarily by the change in the revenues ineach scenario rather than by a change in expenses. The greatest change in revenue between the scenarios is the real estate transfer tax umount, which generates an additional $2`107,234 inthe Modified Scenario. 8ovvcvcr' the real estate transfer taxes are offset hy the capital projects ƒbud which nullifies its impact on the net revenue in each scenario in this analysis. The revenue that has the largest impact on the net revenue in each scenario is the recreation amenity fee placed On the vacation ownership units. This fee generates an additional $1`]20,80] in the Modified Scenario. (}vern|\, considering revenues bythe four conceptual cmb:Qur\eu` the greatest impact between the scenarios cornus from revenues based on property values with the Modified Scenario generating an additional $],877.3D0inrevenue. The main changes in expenses not mnn1ohcd by corresponding changes in revenues are transportation expenses, which are based on the number of visitors. Transportation expenses are eo1irnutnd to be $3,435,087 in the Original Scenario and $4,127,080 in the Modified Scenario, resulting inunadditional $6g|,09] oftransportation expenses inthe Modified Scenario. PRCEWATERHOUSECCOPERS 8 34 Starwood Vacation Ownership, Inc. March 24, 2005 Figure 13 summarizes the conclusion. For each group of revenues and expenses presented in the previous figures, the net change in revenue between the two scenarios is listed as a gain or loss for the Modified Scenario. The'total is the difference between net revenue in each scenario." Therefore, the Modified Scenario is expected to have a net revenue impact of $651,617 relative to the original scenario. Figure 13 — Summary of Difference in Net Change Between the Two Scenarios: 2007 to 2020'5 Based on Property Value (158,592) Based on Accommodations 1,401,457 Based on Number of Visitors (591,248) Based on Fees 0 Total Difference $651,617 Source: Town ofA von; Starwood Vacation Ownership, h1c.; and Price walerhouseCoopers, L. L.P. A " For a complete summary of revenue and expenses in each scenario, see the appendix. PKMATERHOUSECOOPERS CL t Ot R ct cL CL cL O R Ot ct OD 0 �4 �W n4 co w w w w wtom+ w --O� -W c qp ut pf -ED z-2 4" 8 C; 4) O cK of td o U. vq 0 CL OLc ulCNc t 10 � M LE LL CL VJ O I rL R CL .< N m 0, 00 CO WWco , c"i N cl� C% 2 ' ' ' '% w t co q pi g V4 4 pi ej pi S c,4tD c7 tD 1J4 cV tq Nt N in Z U9 2 Z Vi 0,? O Op — - - - - - - - - - - 0 C, O 0 c 0 rn '2 t!2 t1' t2 V V un tn tf1 411 In In Sp 062 to rn U. 16 le (d Cd (6 (6 (d (d 6 Id pSS— — — — — — — — — — — — - 0 0 9936� 9 lug 2 2 m m 10 00 m m C k tE6 76 ko 10 a, Q I m Q Q (I rk rk Q I . si (p LO t0 tp tp SD 18 t0 ttJ o' IN . -N . -m LU 40 i Fu Appendix 3 — Visitor Spending Survey The visitor spending survey is on the following page. /kCE NATEWOU$ECC OPERS Sheraton MOUNTAIN VISTA December 15, 2044 Dear Starwood Vacation Ownership Owner or Guest, We would appreciate your participation in a brief survey on guest spending in the local area. The Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort is surveying only a small number of guests during this week and each response is very important to us. We ask for your help and encourage you to complete the survey form promptly on one of the last days of your trip and return it to the resort front desk by Wednesday December 22. As a further incentive, respondents who return the completed survey by the deadline will have the opportunity to wilt $1,000 cash prize (see instructions on last page). Your responses to all questions are confidential. Sincerely, Brad Jeffers, Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort General Manager VISITOR SPENDING SURVEY The questions refer to your current vacation at Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort. The survey covers spending during the current vacation only; please do not include spending prior to this current vacation period. 1. Please describe the ownership status of the unit in which you stayed: I own a unit at Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort F_ I am visiting this unit on exchange I am renting this unit i Other (please specify below) Other 2. How many people were in your party, including yourself? Adults: I I I Children 18 years or younger: I How many total bedrooms were in the unit or units used by your party during your current vacation? Please count a two-bedroom unit as two and a one -bedroom unit as one. Number of bedrooms: I 4. How many nights did your traveling party stay at the Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort? (please report spending covering this entire period in question 5 on the following page) Number of nights: ❑ Page 1 5. Considering the period of your stay at the Sheraton Mountain Vista Resort as indicated in Question 4.please estimate the total expenditures of your entire Partv for each of the following items. Indicate amounts spent at the timeshare resort separately from spending mAvon oroutside Avon. For reference mmap of Avon iulocated on the next page. Outside Avon would include all areas off of the map including Beaver Creek, Echvandm and Vail. Do not include the rental cost of the resort aocommodsdiona, if any. It is important that the spending reported cover the same time period and traveling party asreported above, Enter azero ifnothing was spent hv ocateQorY Gasoline, and other local transportation (toxs, buaos, rental cars etc. Please exclude initial transportation to and B departure 0om,thedeo\nak\onj Groceries purchased at stores other than Wal -mart (excluding packaged alcoholic beverages) Groceries purchased atWal-mart (excluding packaged alcoholic beverages) Shopping for demo other than groceries at stores other than Wal -mart (packaged a|cohoUo beverages, dothen, ski equipment, souvenirs, art, jewelry, handicrafts, etc.) � Shopping for items other than groceries mtWal-mart (packaged alcoholic beveragos, c|cthes, ski equipmen1, souvenirs, art. jewelry, handicrafts, etc.) Restaurant meals and beverages, take-out food � Health spac�m��o�em��� ` - $ On-site at resort $ � NIA $ Outdoor recreation services (downhill and cross -county skiing lift tickets and renhuls, other equipment rentals such as snowmobile, snowshoes, etc.) $ Other expenses and services (not including occupancy or maintenance fees charged hythe timeshare resort) $ Total expenditures ofyour entire party $ U Outside In Avon Avon � $ N/A � � MAP OF AVON (PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE IN ANSWEREING QUESTION #5) Wal -mart Domino'i Cassidy's A a ..�042�0. . f North to Mountah Star Residential S Library C44P Rec Contor an P4tlr A4. U . . . . . . . .... th tare N01011 PW Pazzo,s O wr North to Pizza Hut Wildridge In * a Nottingham Lake Page 3 To enter the drawing for a $1,000 cash prize as mentioned in the instructions, please print your name and address in the space provided below. This information will be used only to notify you if you are a winner, and will not be linked to any data. See enclosed rules below for additional information. iZ Address: City: State: Zip: Nome Phone (optional): ( } WIN $1,000 CASH PRIZE By returning your completed survey to the front desk by December 22, 2004, you are eligible to win $1,000 cash prize. One respondent will be chosen randomly within two weeks after the end of the contest. Just return the completed survey by December 22, 2004. The winner will be informed within seven (7) days of drawing. Chances of winning approximately 1 in 150. Void where prohibited or otherwise restricted by law. OFFICIAL RULES OF CONTEST No purchase necessary to enter to win. This promotion is sponsored by Points of Colorado, Inc. ("Sponsor), 8801 Vistana Centre Drive, Orlando, FL 32821. Contest ends at 11:59 pm ET on December 22, 2004. Your answers to the survey questions do not affect your chances of winning. The $1,000 prize will be awarded. Points of Colorado, Inc. or its affiliated entity is obligated under the Internal Revenue Code to issue a form 1099 for prize winnings in excess of $600. Taxes on prize, if any, are the sole responsibility of the Prizewinner. For the name of the Prizewinner, send a self addressed, stamped envelope to "Sheraton Mt Vista Survey" Contest, 8801 Vistana Centre Drive, Orlando, FL 32821. Page 4 Bench.,iark at Beaver Creek - talk 2, Lot C f .: Exhibit C W. t C V* Y �M ♦� fry � ti e 4� ,� 116,1 t� 1 :0 �[ZiLotC Property Boundaries I/ { I O R, C u sti t c o s v o v L E d G ° c° s 5 ❑ m v ° 5 U D u O b0 i 'O ai C C O •�'• ^O u 59. u F c E❑ y s v 'y °" r y bfi v G C ❑ C '<aJ u G ^tl v p O b0 a U o v _a v 5 y 3 G C E o 0 id T G C C s n ob '� cr O 'd :i n p m u G big 'ti u k U ^G u C oY u v E E a o o a .� ❑ c o p U v � C ,a U ' -c> 79 � M ° u E c u c ro E m D .'". 'w pu N E p T C u Q.oz -cjo m ,v, 3 F' a v`O a C m.C. 00 v: In „� U -SGL G E CL ��', v u E U u� � U � N F' �k � > z ) §m�§u /\ ) ; zo 2 /\B/k })(§</ {k) � �¥� a: \ 2!\ ) \00 } § �k � > z ) §m�§u /\ ) zo ))§ /\B/k })(§</ {k) � �¥� a: U IM Q 5 r�ii ..': ' 0 K O z 0 lowu ui x , O Z�wx O 4 0 ¢ x ><0 0 ' x r j W f t7 0 W a an000 ITMS NOV9 d31S o MY 0£ -�— <mo < u 'XVW.58 yy y� an000 iivHSHOVB dais XX XX XX 'XVW .bb ' 7 �WV IY Z y5 ioN aaO IXXXX Xii(XJ W � W N O xQZ—w MO Z p s 0 p 2 0Q LL U Zm(n Jj WQ w W Q U ¢JZ pVO w Jzs N W Q I J m a Z 0 w a Ww J a7� p O r� 0O T zQ 0 K O z 0 lowu ui x , O Z�wx O 4 0 ¢ x ><0 0 ' x r j W f t7 0 W a an000 ITMS NOV9 d31S o MY 0£ -�— <mo < u 'XVW.58 yy y� an000 iivHSHOVB dais XX XX XX 'XVW .bb ' 7 IY Z y5 pw rc�z OOO m a a p�oz < I J E 7 OO m p Q 0O 0 C O U C V V 0 7 1 IW MHOW 010130 V 03SWOHd 30 3AV 3H1 NOW 'R .S9 HY 9 m YnOOO ll HS HOVE d31S No ZM os' W�m YYX O a oo <LL< �_ 2WY �Y Q mNm " /52525252 1� Sn0 TVHS MDtl d31S -' H. H.0 y zQ z O F 3w C mo q� � x aZ.woo u y~jj�OW m 1 IW MHOW 010130 V 03SWOHd 30 3AV 3H1 NOW 'R .S9 HY 9 m I $� ay an000 IWHS Hive d315 'xvw .Yb �- YnOOO ll HS HOVE d31S ZM �MM��[YYYY]CY W�m YYX O oo m `g 0a <�ws <arcF x I $� ay an000 IWHS Hive d315 'xvw .Yb �- a � l l RM O&UMOO `Nona s gill 8 Mdld A3Wd013A3a rind 434N3hV $ a g ViSIA NIViNnoN S,NOiVU3HS 15o ail°� Qd�LL q I fill oil .� Ax ®'as o __ Am III HigIgRIMMag m5� Vo949? V°9494V 4449494V?9a�1am o R3a'u�o 'r" cq o7e e�0U"886 cqq��g55y° ° Y°{y±��q+Vqpg°Yid�44d� Ry Qj°a !Ir 8 9 MIA � x � 8 Y ss� !Ir MIA !Ir -; �`NIIQIIIII li,llll�lll�llill (IIilQlllllllll � vJ � ; � 1` DO 1#pal bbl + I '`'�k ,�nINIIIII�Ik I IIIIIII��IINI 11NIII91111. I; � � << �x:/ � ��III,IIIIIIINi� N 1111�II=11111 Il�lllwliq' �',I�, �,�, f IE I 1 I I ► .". '.fi , �kWlIIIIIIIINI �INI01111111CEW WORM fil 190P m - 11lMlll �1�-� 111IAIA a. �� ii01 - `�,rcl� 7177•'11 "1!!171 i RII�i L r(RI 7 srre7 narJJ ���� p r r .r r6—ANSIZIMSIn aYiu M311"!f C•J�! , �:r„�'�� ,=r�'!�I Freiaxll S. IRISH � rr i�i�s✓=i i IP( 11, u R X111 A t 1 I y y OMP rati ME it II� A,�i f I,iy1 11 ,�t t IA'k; 1 m ( f i ) 1' I A , 1• m Ii i ( f i ) 1' I A , 1• Ii �l Y a:k § UM OOVBO OO \OA ! § §! ® a Nd d iNIVIdO13A30and030N3aV � § ®■■ § ;| .§ !.. � ! |! o §§§||\\ VƒS|A N|VƒN n oN S.\ OƒVIJ3 H S( ( f \) / §�§ OZ \ /» � � §=2)! \ 7}§§2)_____}� §�§ \ �� \I \ � � � \ \ | \ \ \I| | � \ . \ � \ � � §w; \ �� \I 8919 00VU0100 `NOAV S g NVId A3WdO13AK and (130N3At/ d1SIA NId1Nnon S,NOiVUDHS i o Q m a� a z OFI] 11 ! 4 >e!51 PP 100, y.� F lift OZ91800V)JO100`NOAV s a G M8Ndld A3WdMl A30 0nd 030N3A`dlip g � m� g e�_ N diSIA NIViNnom S,NOiVH3HS o E Ea$ Q %2 Q z a a r>4 a ' low OZ918 OCIVHOIOO `NOAV 8 g o G 1 N'dld 1N3WdOl3A34 and 03aN3Wb' m m o om M d1SIA NId1Nnovq S,NOiVH3HS o Q / ' I . ' I / / /�i U• CL 'o x O LL C � I � I � I CL 'o x O LL C H Bill ON 18 00VU0100 'NOAV g e C � N'dld 1N3Wd0l3A3a Ofld 43aN3Wb'16 e s � e d1SIA NId1Nnon S.NOiVH3HS U U aaa OFT \ 0, S 0 It N Q 8 ♦•1 � 1 • 1;11 � 1 WWI \ 0, S 0 It N Q 8 MRS O(IVHO10O `NOAV Ndld A3Wd013A30 and 030N3AV ViSIA NId1NnOW S,NOiVIJ3HS FuG�1 I,. yy CE R 21 F ll OM O(IVHO10D `NOAV g e � 8 NVId 1NNU013AK and a30N30 N o m d1SIA NId1Nnovi S,NOiVH3HS Hl 9 a U U w <a aa� OHH F 2919 O(IVHOIOO `NOAV G gill Ndld 1N3WdOl3A3a and 03aN3hV g= gs mdiSIA NIVAnoW S,NOiVH3HS 9 b Ii H 0 Fj SO N 2919 OOVUOIOO `NOAV g v— NVId 1N3WdOID30 and 030N30$ m s 8 w 00 99 d1SIA NId1Nnovi S,NOiVH3HS o g � o �o / , / / - / r / , I lilt ON 19O(IVHO100 `NOAV g 7 o G NVId 1N3WdOl3A30 and 030N3Wb'as m & m m W� d1SIA NIViNnovi S,NOiVd3HS o o g9 rte`— / / / rte`— 2M OGVHOIOa `Nona u _ C �8 Ndld A3WdM3A30and a3GN3hV e a o o d1SIA NId1Nnon S,NOiVH3HS 91 F, N. o o 1_ U 29L800VU0100 `NOAV NV]d ANM013AM and 430N30 ViSIA NIViNnoN S,NOiVH3HS n '�1 I „9 -.OL .9-,Ot .9-A1 .9 -Al I .9-.01 .9-A1 .9-m E cll i F eats I I I I I I I I I I I I I '�1 I „9 -.OL .9-,Ot .9-A1 .9 -Al I .9-.01 .9-A1 .9-m a� Z 0 W J W H Q W eats a� Z 0 W J W H Q W W TAI J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I a� Z 0 W J W H Q W §§\§ 29 G OOVBO OO \OAV \ § g a� Nd diNNU ]A3 O andO]ON3NV ViS|A N|VƒN n o n S.N OƒVd 3 H S )I }I I I I I I I I I 1 I I [ I I i I I I I I : I I I I I I I I k FAEORR w ( Q! � ■ � �\ > w i g U919 OOdaOIOO `Nona G a � NVId 1N3WdO13A30 and 030N3Wb' �� LL d1SIA NId1Nnovq S,NOiVH3HS im ZI0 w w F w wb CO 2EL$ 8 I I IF,9-Al I I ,9-A1 ,9-,O1 I ,9-,Ol I ,9 -Al 1 1 ,9-A1 r ,9 -,Il hL 0 I i I i i II li I w I I I I I I I I i I i I I I Q I j I I I I W I n Q 4 O W I I I I I r r a W I I I ZI0 w w F w wb CO 2EL$ 8 J ozs Gs oadaoloo `Nona o Wd AlAdolIA30 and OdaNIAV "s r o V1SIA NIV1Nnon S,NOlVH3HS g I o I o Q o- o Z o arw W W u u d n N^ LU a o aw _ U or W N Q OZ918 O(IVHOIOO 'NOAV Nbld AMdOl3A30 and 030NDVYV g ViSIA NId1NnoN S,NOiVd3HS I P il I miff Ohl,a- M LL F 7� Ori . H919 OGVHOIOO `Nona o o �8 Ndld 1N3WdMIAK Ond MON30 N d1SIA NIViNnon S,NOiVHIHS g o W a t - O Z OZ) ¢¢ w= m C 6 OW a 2 ON OO W ys F�/ d Y W d Om ¢w ❑ ¢ wa m= w U a W W Le m W IL N f- LXz O=) OW ¢¢ oa mx ULLJ 6 W ' OF CU a H ozs Ga oadaoIoO `NOAd � � 8 NVld AN Ndo13AK and 030N3NVG g R ` iSIA NI` iNnoN S�NOiVd3HS P H �tl X13 €I, P rrla.la��.r »,,ar ft/,L% 2 I Irs rr rr rr rr >w ar rr U U) z s J m W Cc ZU) 0 W ZO zQ zW s OU JL m01 �F ljj9 G i8 8919 OadUOIOO `NOA`d NVId ADVIdO13R30and a3aN3AV 7 .. d1SIA NI` iNnon S,NOiVIJDHS o ann�. — — — — . — _ _ _ — — W...- r/ M M M M I M rn gg I1 0 Z 0 M m Cc Zm oLU W~ 0 0� Kw , �LL m0 U a 111 0 Z 0 M m Cc Zm oLU W~ 0 0� Kw , �LL m0 U MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY RE: APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 17 TO PUBLIC AGENCIES DATE: July 17, 2007 Section 17.04.080 makes the Town's zoning applicable to governmental agencies "to the extent permitted by law." The proposed amendment to that section would delete that language. It is unclear why the language was included in the first place. The concern is that the inclusion of the language could raise some issue as to the relationship of the Town's zoning and the requirements of state law. The Town of Avon is a home rule municipality. As such, it possesses the power to preempt state law in areas of local and municipal concern. Planning and zoning is a traditional area of local and municipal concern, and the courts for the most part have allowed home rule legislation to preempt state statute (except with respect to vested rights). The purpose of the deletion of the quoted language is to remove from the Town's ordinances any basis for an argument that the Town's regulations do not preempt state law. The Commission should be aware that the school district is not involved in this discussion. The school district law deals specifically with school facilities, and that statute is not preempted. Staff requests that the Commission recommend that the Town Council adopt the proposed ordinance as an amendment to the Town's zoning code. Jwd:ipse ORDINANCE NO. 07-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17, MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON, AS IT RELATES TO APPLICABILITY TO PUBLIC AGENCIES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO: Section 1. Amendment. Section 17.04.080, Chapter 17.04 of Title 17, Avon Municipal Code, is amended to read as follows: The provisions of this Title shall apply to all public bodies, districts and agencies of the federal, state, county and municipal governments. INTRODUCED, APPROVED, PASSED ON FIRST READING AND ORDERED POSTED the day of , 2007, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council on the day of . 2007, at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. Ronald C. Wolfe, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, FINALLY APPROVED, PASSED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED POSTED the day of 2007. Ronald C. Wolfe, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John W. Dunn, Town Attorney opwotoo'uony @ > O of p!apl!M `Z L G 101 3 3 Q Jill I eauepisea enIJrInoedS 0 r j;l r, Lill] / \ opeJoiop'uony $ a aBP!apl!M 'Z L L fol Icl� eouepped eAgulnoedS L�flli!!I lisiill : 1t+11IIIII #tlit 11tlytl+ttttt}Itt t ! I} i, mAkQ l I I I I I O 0 I;IOld IIJ11 1111![HI►'131I1 I I t I I�� I I1 yy yalad�ea3�a�iiCteees54l9.�ifreeEliir� � � ta�R i I Vol ° lit 1 y � � a i i 7 � CO (L a .I �ty$°$ 3 ` 33 d s3 �133Z1� Zl3ntr39 ld �'v'Wt1�N39 ---- _— .aan K_�e.00ms ' i .a0'7W`7 AWldOe — tori.. % A 6••" ir'8-______ - r i r y.,��� � i r ,� /• 188 II _�___—__ �— i i r \L ------ UZI"' WE / - __ /� \ 1 .✓/ i ` i ��� I / ____ < X1,1 i I °. 1 iF ` � / / . 3' \ P i I � I' .•111' S i � I ' \ \.'• 1 i I --- --------------------- \ . \ 6 -- ----------- --------- lit AL � 1 .ree KLE, /-------------� ' -----+ < / ,i\ L / •I --- ------------------------------------ - \ " o / _ .__ __-- __—__ __—___-1____ _ _L_____—__ ____—__ _____� _�_--_ i__—__J—___F____—__ _______—__ �1'1 —'\ f i i i I i I i �11 �y�L! - 1 rll•� Ill i L KLL _ " -- i LYY[I fe0 - i � .MA I I \ I I I1 I1 —'-----'�-------------------- (.— 1.-- -- i;,a------------------------- �a,a . , 21,ig / ope�o�OO'uony a 18 15 a a6PuPl!M'ZLL 301 a o r 1Hy1 � H eoue ISa eAl fl 1 a a P. a .ltl �t�g � oSs g•� b sb 6 ebcg6 .$ �« ag 'i� s afi ., d s •• 6£ 3 °s _Sg .$^ 9za 8§, 6 ,. .c b Ah 5 g_ 6 g 6 0 ° 5 0 S" E Y 3 b € $�:6. p aa 'E44 gE�fi "`Ya fi�.c $ .ctl.s ys•`a-h h$ •h RS •S,o _ Sr�d .€:.Y ° V \ S� is • obi' �S5 g" a c6 5Y; as . ES �_ b� _eb a s :E�b^b •� "s� .cs .s $ � en's . .. '• `' ph'6 `o IN 6E C ���d B$i'o �. bN-y>1 E� p �-• f S �v u Q) � E8 0 4°o,� 2 a E [ �' �6b LT �� �ab,c i E x. a S ac g g 8 `=�� ^^ E zu ad fi 8Y$ o� S^ h EE�a� h 9"' E. Q 6 h 5 $ 5 aFg`e 4 S;€ •g s a� �$ ��. 6 '" § A b 3. fx s $ 0 bE3S" �.a �a �.� - • "� � � n 40 � . s�.6 - E°�� $ 66g -a m ��.g� bs� a cn ^ sH^� A 4 �^a� Z 8 1314111H§E,S8a �� a°£6€' b¢ B6 6$fi a6n a"aha ��1 aSe aE "9D�€ S"ss y��Spe Z:E$$8 g$ x a.. sY"<''S IUQ a§<r figs°aY a E Q:' s - $ .� $'`sp b5_ ��s 46`" _ b g b g6- SSt b'h.aa a 5, ;-90 6S 6S� CoE-ob I8 -a5` .$°`0 3.�p p $aa g�6 @ 8"f .+ a;�fi gR 5 $$ gggg Y$� 55Y a SD c 55� ^4g g.e ^ ofi t, 8 bb a•� SgxgQ �.c�5Sa @gY6 .Sa°5h6. "b �366 3 6 o N Wa Y3 -a saob°�E ^s $$5 •� .� - sy=5 ;^ �aY.� s:s�x 0 E;Y6 "sfi "sfH� 0 8 °�= k�S a �,$ v•hd "b��o �' x=° 8°0 6z _ fig`- Sa'a •' C c a .Y x tp s s T3 .i - 58 Y Yf!'701 E5 su. sob 5° x� 5 �Y i S9S 6_ c $A:•-p,ey h 6 a h, J.-.2 . 0 $�.^T ° . a ^o $o °.£..+ 5'`��"u o c � 55 '6'k ' $� �§,� rE- go c�hS �fi L � �-g `oo°.. ��� °'§ os � 6 Is ' sea po g- 6 "} oES R 88`a 9a3�-� a «. 0" E"^fi E a 6-a " Seo "Ea° E ' hEh �.. fit .� : f"i & u>b V a"- obe $�5 •Fa �s $ 's s� 6' L bre x5 66° sh§� 61i I .n :r. 'A 5 b�E if _ ' Kofi€ss aafia a > � Z jff;$e; Y�;€�b �� � Ssb� i6F_s8, � 5n9_a uao� s E a. _ ° a e� , ��$ �� !' E M.S. bY� "€�?. Y ,� 0 x 8 g � � rc ° JI s _ _ v ° o s� oa fiass Z (�� -6 8t 3 I I I Q� b g3 boY c0 L b- - --� d .•i . n u n c m " " '� _ _ .- n oc lL F- ,-n§=.i fib£ �•CSac Z(1 �b.�i! a c £ ; UD x I IL AowN$ � u � Yry < J � II ape,oiOO 'UOAV e6p!Jpl!M `Z L L 101 93UGPISOH 8AI;S!n08dg o _ ❑ __ Li rl _ a® g II e 4D 5D 7 L_____----_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r—� I I I 1 I I I 1 I$ opWOIOO 'uony N J~ a6P!�PIIM `Z G G lad J a o ta— if gj S�Ue }S8 BRr�alnaadg I P. a . i; 40 a-- — ___------------------- al I I r 11 [1 �T-9 I I i I y • i i i ��IIii ii I i I i It I - ---------- I 3 ��yt pip • .a t I H I I � • t s Et9 �! g s I .fr.a hr K 1 I ' I I�VJ I 14DI t V w r. -j � sn -N� me a CC 21 OPRJCIOO 'uony e6pilpliM `Z L L 101 aOuepisea eAgoinoedS 4JD CD am III1 04) �8 1 A� I�JLLd e � .Fr•,� i s 1 oll a ?� a6p!JPI!M 'Z L L 101 ! 9 GOUGP!sea en!je!noedg 9�3 �ep , ---rr _______-------- -------- - - Yr-- --_ -- - — __c _- r � I.__ ------------° z °f D jL—JL'=====JI II �I seRz II °L �� � JI °• �„ II •a �� ` I I a$ II I I --__= JL � ----J L_----- s Illllrllll III I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 III •9 l i k=;=�='=J==`=`=`=T=-===_-,. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N III 8 l l I 1 1 1 I I 1 µ 1 1 1 I III + I l I l l l l I I 1 a$ it I 1 i ✓� 1/ II I 1 M III u° ----------------------- ° ------------r -------amu ii °r M III 3yx�yg @pJ ° ftir I I I M II I ----- ----- L--_ I I H I I I I;I I' 1 I li ri i I I fie III � I I Y li 1 II 1 1 w l ll 1 .� II ° ftir I I I M 111 III III I I H I I I I;I I' 1 I 111 i rvl II x I. I I 9 � I.r=========Jj I I Y III II ° II J -- ------ I I I II ..I %— 'I i1 11 4 w II II I' ,I a� ' I ; !6 a ii II W M III Ill III 4f I I I 1 I I;I I' 1 I ' PI 4f w II II I. N / 1181111 Jill Ile Fw, OPWOIOO 'UOAV 96PpPI!M `Z l l 10-1 ODUGP!seb en!}eln39dg dp � N 00 C yy W m Cl) i Q � 3 �W cd Jillm. ���§ c o o N a e6P!�PI!M Z L G 101 � o eOuep!sea en!IE!noedS 1 w Z W Q a� 0 xx%xa F W9 L E Staff Report N � O 1■ Sketch Design C 0 L 0R A 00 July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date July 12, 2007 Project type Single Family Residence Legal description Lot 112, Block 1, .Wildridge Subdivision Zoning PUD — 1 Unit per lot Address 2080 Beaver Creek Point Introduction The applicant, Bill Nutkins, has submitted a Sketch Design application for a single family residence on Lot 112, Block 1 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lot would be accessed off of Beaver Creek Point. The proposed residence is 5,600 sq. ft. and measures approximately 19 feet in height. The residence utilizes stucco, stone, and wood siding on the exterior walls with pitched roof forms. Included in the attached reduced plan set are a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit B). Staff Comments It appears the application generally conforms to the site development guidelines section of the Design Review Guidelines. Note 5 of the Wildridge Plat restricts the height of Lot 112 to 24 feet as measured from the finished road centerline elevation at the center of the lot frontage. Using this height measurement calculation, the maximum height is approximately 19 feet. There are a few inconsistencies between the guidelines and the proposal. First, the driveway has a grade that is too steep, the first 20 feet adjacent to the roadway has a slope of 5% instead of the required 4%, as stated in the Design Guidelines. Second, the retaining wall is over the allowed height for non- structural retaining walls and will have to be designed by a licensed engineer and submitted as stamped plans prior to building permit approval. The location of the wall is also questionable since it is located within a platted utility and drainage easement. The Guidelines state that any development in easements should be avoided. The proposal also is in conformance with the building design guidelines. The building utilizes high quality exterior wall materials such as stucco, stone, and Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 A# - Lots Lots 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Speculative Residence Sketch Design July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2 wood siding. The roof pitches vary from a minimum of 4:12 to a maximum of 7:12. Staff also has concerns with the location of the building on the site and site disturbance associated with this proposal. The proposed structure abuts the setback on the east and west. The applicant will need to show at final design submittal that the entire construction disturbance will be located within their site. The Engineering department also has concerns about: • Snow storage locations for the residence should be shown on the site plan; • It appears that the development and site disturbance covers a large portion of the lot. Quantities that were not included in the Site Info table on sheet A1.1 will be required at Final Design application; and • The plans should include a Block number in the Title Block of each sheet. Design Review Considerations The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code; and B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. The Commission will take no formal action on this sketch plan application. At the meeting, the applicant will receive guidance from the Commission and Staff to incorporate into a Final Design application. A full size (24" x 36") plan set will be available for the Commission's review at the July 17, 2007 meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me directly at 748-4023, or stop by the office of Community Development. ecttully submittecj� Jae Barnes G Planner) Attachments: Exhibit A: Aerial Vicinity Map Exhibit B: Plan Sets Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4034 Fax (970) 949-5749 A s � r r A r r r A 101 _ ��'� Staff Report �� �/� VON Sketch Design Co L 0RAD0 July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date July 12, 2007 Project type Duplex Residence Legal description Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning PUD — 2 Units per lot Address 5351 Ferret Lane Introduction The applicant, David Forenza, has submitted a Sketch Design application for a duplex residence on Lot 69, Block 4 of the Wildridge Subdivision. The lot would be accessed off of Ferret Lane. The proposed residences are 4,607 sq. ft. (Unit A) and 5,035 sq. ft. (Unit B) including garages and measure approximately 35 feet in height. The residence utilizes stucco, stone, and wood siding on the exterior walls with pitched roof forms. Included in the attached reduced plan set are a site plan, floor plans, and elevations (Exhibit B). Staff Comments It appears that the application generally conforms to the Residential Design Review Guidelines. The building materials appear to be high quality and of a natural or earth tone color. Roof pitches vary from a maximum of 9:12 to a minimum of 4:12. A few items need to be shown at Final Design submittal that were not included in this Sketch Design review. Some of these items are: • driveway grades; • snow storage areas; • a roof plan that calls out ridge height elevations and roof pitches; • a revised landscape plan that includes a rain sensor note and includes a table with landscaped area, irrigated area, spray area, drip area, and sod area; and • a boulder retaining wall detail to show the design. The Engineering department also has concerns about: Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lots 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Forenza Duplex Sketch Design July 17, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 2 • The driveway entrance off of Ferret Lane appears to be located in front of Lot 68. Staff recommends that this be revised to keep the entrance located in the public right-of-way in front of the subject property. • Erosion control. measures (silt fence, straw bales, etc.) must be shown on plans. Design Review Considerations The Commission and Staff shall evaluate the design of the sketch plan utilizing the specific Design Standards, and by using the following general criteria: A. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Zoning Code; and B. General conformance with Residential Development Sections A through D of the Town of Avon Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines. The Commission will take no formal action on this sketch plan application. At the meeting, the applicant will receive guidance from the Commission and Staff to incorporate into a Final Design application. A full size (24" x 36") plan set will be available for the Commission's review at the July 17, 2007 meeting. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me directly at 748-4023, or stop by the office of Community Development. Respectfully submitted, Jared Barnes Planner I Attachments: Exhibit A: Aerial Vicinity Map Exhibit B: Plan Sets Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 to i t, ilk tttsHttt1113 tia W AA VM .. .�,�.�,,,. -0..1._T�- r..,. 0 El aD ® m m F%v 20 I I I I I I i I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I ; 1 I I I I I 1 • I I I I 3F ] m I I 4 m 20 Il L— I I I I I I i I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I ; 1 I I I I I 1 • I I I I I I I i I I 4 r — ---- I I I I I I i I I I I I Il L— R I a L C7 6 ❑j m ' I, - O cj M !® ©moi i A 0 \\ � m ® m mI � FI r-------+IBJ I I I 1 I I I I I I I i I I - I 1 - k I I I 1 I I I I I _.GI "--r R I a L C7 6 ❑j m ' I, - O cj M !® ©moi i A 0 \\ � m ® m mI � FI 4 Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Matt Pielsticker, Planner II' ;l Date July 9, 2007 Re: Draft Town Center East District Plan Introduction: . .� /i r AVON C O L O R A D O At your last meeting, we reviewed Chapter 1 and the first half of Chapter 2 of the draft Town Center East District Plan. At the July 17th meeting, Staff would ask the Commission to be prepared to provide detailed feedback on the following portions of the plan: • Chapter 2: Circulation/ Parking/ District Character/ Views (Pages 25-46) • Chapter 3: Implementation (Pages 47-56) The July 19th meeting will be the fourth time the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed this draft District Plan. We look forward to your continued detailed feedback on any proposed changes, prior to modifying the Plan and presenting to Town Council. Once the Commission is comfortable with the revised Plan, staff will prepare a resolution for your endorsement before moving to Town Council for final adoption. Background: This draft District Plan is a reflection of feedback received from a week long design charrette last summer, individual stakeholder meetings, and more recently a meeting this past February where the Commission reviewed the "preferred alternative." The feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission at the February meeting was to move forward with the altemative presented, build flexibility into the plan to accommodate obstacles to the implementation of road realignments, and to put together a sketch up model that includes the West Town Center plan, East Town Center plan, and the Riverfront Village. All input has been considered in the draft of the District Plan. July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 2 1 Attachment: • Summary of Commissioner comments to date July 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 2 Summary of Planning Commissioner Questions/Comments 5/15/07 Plannina and Zonina Commission Meeting • Energy Efficiency and Green Building Standards are a good baseline for the plan. • No 'box' stores are preferred unless conforming to design standards. The word box should not be used in the plan. • Setbacks need to be emphasized with the desire for open spaces. • 3-5 stories should be the preferred height, and no "Canyon Effect" is desired. Taller buildings may be appropriate if designed appropriately. X07 Plannina and Zonina Commission Meeting • Is Avon Road the Line of Demarcation for Taller buildings? • In reference to the massing models, is big block massing the preferred alternative or smaller individual buildings on smaller pieces of property? • Language to protect view corridors needs to be strong to preserve open feel of district as it is today. • Varying building heights needs to be expressed in the plan. Cross section(s)? • Additional vignettes should be provided in place of photographs where possible (e.g. bottom of page 6, or bottom of page 7). 6/19/07 Plannina and Zonina Commission Meetinq • Coversheet illustration needs to be redesigned. Page 1: The last paragraph must be highlighted and reinforced. More than putting "not" in bold is required to get this message across. Page 5: The need for "complimentary" or "interesting" architecture instead of "common". Pedestrian circulation is confusing and needs to be emphasized. Bullets #3 and #5 must be reworded. Bullet #5 is confusing as it reads "to attract full time residents but are not of a high enough quality to appeal to the other markets". What are we trying to say here? Views must be emphasized and roofline articulation. The diminished sight corridors must be addressed in the plan in this section. • Page 7: Schematic diagrams were unanimously great. More are needed. • Page 9: Captions need to be reworded and more visible. The District Character Language was questioned - should it read design character? What exactly is being encouraged here? • Page 10: Bullet #15 must be reviewed carefully. What does it mean to encourage visibility' from Interstate 70? The Commission was not in agreement with this planning principle. This language also shows up on Page 41 of the document. i • Page 11: "Give preference" bullet point needs to reinforce locals housing and needs to be reworked. First bullet should state to 'expand and create comfortable full time residential uses.' • Page 11: The floor to ceiling ratio was questioned and its meaning. The first bullet point needs to be reworked. We need to expand and create housing options that strengthen full time residency. • Page 12: Strike 'big box' language and reword to 'retailers up to 15,000 sq. ft.' The gaps in retail frontage were appropriate and the plan needs to embrace good techniques and creative solutions to enhance spaces between buildings. The plan should encourage porosity and create open spaces where possible. Secondary pedestrian access is of high importance. • Page 14: Strike reference to Vail City Market. • Page 15: There needs to be a definition for 'Full -Time' residents. The preference should be given to units with high occupancy rates in the form of full time residents. Does this mean all timeshare/hotel? • Page 19: Commercial use table: "Convenience Goods" - what does this term mean? Prescribing tenant mixes might not be appropriate for this plan. • Page 22: The shapes of the suggested buildings on the graphic need character. For example, storefronts need to be illustrated and no hard edge lines should be present. This goes for all depicted buildings in site plan view within the plan. The Plaza should not be surrounded by four walls. • Page 23: The medical tenants and/or urgent care should be accessible. It was questioned whether a post office in East Avon is appropriate. The plaza overlay should encourage articulated outdoor spaces. How about bookstores? • Page 24: Pictures need to be included to demonstrate, for example, what flex space in second level looks like, in addition to diagrams. • Page 25: First bullet should read "create a strong pedestrian connection" or "create and encourage a strong connection". The second bullet point needs to be reworded to reflect the desire to reroute E. BC Blvd and should not call out Christie Lodge by name. The intent of moving the street should be highlighted (i.e. to move lodging closer to the core of East Avon and for circulation purposes). The principles should define the size of sidewalks. • LEED ND or AIA 50 steps to sustainability need to be heavily encouraged. The Commission envisions sustainable development, and this needs to be included in the front end of the document. GIMemo To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Matt Gennett, AICP, Senior Planner". Date July 17, 2007 Re: "Walkin' the Dog" Special Review Use (SRU) Review Introduction and Background: C O L O R A D O The applicant, Marisa Lahman, has been operating a "doggy day care' facility in Unit 201 of the Metcalf Commercial Building since receiving a Special Review Use (SRU) permit (Resolution No. 02-03) on May 7, 2002. The approval was for up to 25 dogs in the facility at any time, and the approval was limited to one year time subject to re -review. No dog walking was permitted outside of the unit. The SRU approval was reviewed again by the Planning and Zoning Commission in May of 2003 and extended for an additional three years (Resolution No. 03-13). The subsequent review and approval on October 3`d, 2006, was not only for a permit extension, but for an outdoor expansion onto the adjacent Lots 20 & 21 to the south (Resolution No. 06-14, Exhibit A). At the time, the applicant likewise sought and received approval for an increased capacity to accommodate up to 50 dogs. In addition to the increased canine capacity, the applicant requested approval for a new fenced "exercise" area to be located on the properties immediately to the south for use between the hours of 9am and 4pm. The outdoor dog walking area was to be accessed from a new proposed landing off the applicant's unit via a new exit door, as well as a paved driveway access off of Metcalf Road. The fence itself was proposed to be a 6' high game style fence with wooden posts placed every 50'. On March 20, 2007, after observing significant grading activity on the subject properties without having received the required engineered drawings, erosion control and storm water runoff plans for such work, the Chief Building Official issued the applicants a "red tag", otherwise known as a Stop Work Order. Since that time, the Commission has made repeated inquiries of staff concerning the status of the application and whether the engineered drawings for the site work were ever submitted, which was a condition of approval under Resolution 06-14 (Exhibit A). The applicant has recently submitted engineered drawings of the subject properties, which are attached for reference (Exhibit B). The existing land use and zoning for the surrounding properties are as follows: North: Industrial Commercial (IC) property with two buildings. South: Two vacant Industrial Commercial (IC) lots and contractor office building with day care facility further to the south East: Metcalf Road Right -of -Way & Power Substation. • West: Undeveloped 'Open Space, Landscaping, and Drainage' (OLD) zoning. Discussion: As stated above, condition number four (4) of Resolution No. 06-14 requires the applicant to submit engineered plans for any grading work associated with the improvements proposed on the subject site prior to commencing any significant modifications to existing contours; and that the proposed access be adequately graded, but not paved. Because the approval of the SRU permit expires approximately two and a half months from now and is subject to Commission review based on the findings and conditions listed in Resolution No. 06-14, the Commission has asked to review the progress of this SRU permit. As part of this review, Staff has included engineered drawings submitted to the Community Development Department by the applicant on July 3, 2007 (Exhibit B); and documentation of correspondence between the applicant, Town of Avon staff, and several local, private engineering firms (Exhibit C). Also included as exhibits to this memorandum for the consideration of the Commission in their review are the comments of the Engineering Department dated July 11, 2007 (Exhibit D) Exhibits: A. Resolution No. 06-14 B. Engineered Drawings Submitted on July 3, 2007 C. Documentation of Correspondence D. Engineering Department's Comments F:1Planning & Zoning CommissionWemos\20071Walkin'DogSRUReOew07.17.07.doc a A Exhibit A TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-14 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE PERMIT FOR FENCED OUTDOOR DOG EXERCISE YARD AND INCREASE IN DOG LIMIT FOR UP TO 50 DOGS AT DAYCARE SERVICE IN UNIT 201, LOT 18/19 AND LOTS 20/21, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Marissa Lahman has applied for a special review use permit for dog daycare, outdoor fenced exercise area, and increase in dog limit for up to 50 dogs at any one time, as described in the application dated July 31, 2006, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon on September 5th & October 3rd, 2006, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the.public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Special Review Use permit application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered the following: A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; and B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses; and D. That the granting of the special review use requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the following public purpose provisions: The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot achieve. 2. Approval of the zoning application provides long term economic, cultural or social community benefits that are equal to or greater than potential adverse impacts as a result of the changed zoning rights. 3. The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in better siting of the development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources, and increasing the amount of public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby approves a Special Review Use permit for increased dog capacity to 50 dogs and fenced outdoor exercise area, as described in the application originally dated July 31, 2006, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code for Unit 201, Lot 18/19, and Lots 20 & 21, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, based upon the following findings: I. The proposed use otherwise complies with all other requirements imposed by the Zoning Code; and 2. The proposed use is compatible with existing planned and approved adjacent uses. 3. The proposed use is in conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 4. The special review use requested provides evidence of substantial compliance with the public purpose provisions in the Zoning Code. Approved with the following conditions: 1. Approved for one (1) year time subject to Planning Commission re -review. 2. 50 dogs maximum, and Town must be notified within 5 days of going over limit. 3. Documentation must be provided to the Town for sanitation chemicals used. Engineered drawings must be submitted to staff "or new access and parking area on Lots 20 and 21. The Driveway must be graded (not paved) adequateiv for access. 6. Feces to be removed within 24 hours. Adopted this 3rd day of October, 2006 Signed Chair Attest: Secretary Date: Date: F. Planning & Zoning CommissionlResolutions120061Res 06-14 Walken Dog Expansion: SRUdoc SAME AS ORIGINAL t HEPWORTH-PAWLA.K CEOTECHMICAL. June 7, 2007 Walkin the Dog Attn: Marisa Lahman P. O. Box 6532 Vail, Colorado 81658 Exhibit C 1 L.pmur It I-1' ut l:d. Ciu 1 LC1 COQ (2unno, R I.I,I 1', 4 Gt_nuu,,,I I,tit q , Crtor.t.Io.,1601 PhoT ic: 1)7"-')4i- t "S 70-9 I j. S-154 ut, ul: I ip"'Qu I, hpgwtQch.cum RECEIVED JUL 0 9 2007 community Development Job No. 107 0187 Subject: Recommendations for Site Grading Design, Proposed Fenced Play Yard, Walkin the Dog Facility, Lots 20 and 21, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 111 Metcalf Road, Avon, Colorado -Dear Marisa: - - As requested, we are providing recommendations for site grading design of the proposed fence play yard at the subject site. As part of our study we observed the site conditions on April 6, 2007. The findings of our observations and recommendations for the grading design are presented in this report. The service was performed in accordance with our agreement for professional services to Walkin the Dog dated March 29, 2007. Proposed Construction: It is planned to construct a relatively flat fenced -in play yard area on Lots 20 and 21 (adjacent the south side of the existing facility) and an access drive from Metcalf Road. Recommendations for the site grading are needed for design of the project. Of primary concern is the potential for construction induced slope in- stability and soil erosion. Site Conditions: The site is vacant and located on the western side of the Metcalf Creek valley above Metcalf Creek Road. The terrain is moderately steep to steep, easterly facing hillside. The natural slope ranges from about 25 to 40% at the site, increasing to about 50 to 65 % above the site.. The site has undergone some previous grading consisting of cut along the uphill and fill along the downhill side of site, as well as for the drive up to the site from Metcalf Road in the northern part of the site. The cuts are about 3 to 8 feet deep and the fills about 6 to 10 feet deep. The cut and fill slopes vary from about 1 to 1 to horizontal to 1 vertical_ The soils exposed in the cuts consist primarily of sandy gravelly clay and silt with cobbles. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds to moderately thick sage brush with scattered jumper trees in the undisturbed areas. Conclusions and Recommendations: The proposed project should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations with proper design and construction. The hillside terrain in the area appears stable, however, deeper cuts into the hillside could cause construction -induced slope in stability. To limit the potential for instability, cuts and fills should be limited in depth and sloped back to stable grade. Additionally, the slopes should be protected from erosion. The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low provided cut and fill heights are limited to about 10 to 12 feet and graded at 1'/i horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. In the existing fill -i:Ci lh r 1 -71 1 ! p Cohlri '.t CnLir. ., 7111-62", 5562 x �.Ih crLhomc 970-46S. i 9�"q Walkin the Dog June 7, 2007 Page 2 areas, such as the access drive, a minimum 3 feet of structural fill should be placed and compacted on the existing fill. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil, scarifying to a depth of about S inches, moistening to near optimum, and compacting to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched horizontally into slopes that exceed 20% grade. The cut and fill slopes should be protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. In steep slope areas, an erosion mat should be placed on the surface to aid in the re -vegetation. Surface water runoff from the hillside above the site should not be allowed to discharge uncontrolled down the slopes. Limitations: The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on our observation of the existing site conditions and our -experience in the area, and did not include subsurface -investigation or a formal slope stability analysis. It is possible the data obtained by subsurface exploration could change our findings. We should observe the cut slopes for sign of instability, and observe structural fill placement and test compaction on a regular basis during construction. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, INC. David A. Young, P Rev. by: SLP DAY/ksw 'pitIYOAttgt+°°. cc: Johnson, Kunkel & Associates - Attn: Steve Miller Job No. 107 0187 GAAec,h Apr 02 04 09:58a - Phone: (970)476.8197 Fax:(970)949-1607 i?r Fax SAME AS P.1 �rYj"TAT A T To: Wllllam Gray From: MARISA LAHMAN Fax: 9495749 Date: Phan« Pages 15 INCLUDING COVER CC: Fenced Dog Yard Metcalf Rd YOU CAN CONTACT ME A76 970.4765197 WORK 970-977.0147 CELL 9704)49.1007 FAX walkinthedog7®comcast. net THANK YOU MARISA LAHMAN 1 h ..e Apr 02 04 09:59a At the time of our initial reque yard, the main concern, which was the fencing. So far we ha% of fencing. We have had great plans and the image if the yarc SAME AS p,a ORIGINAL To continue the work that needs to be done for the play yard we will be addressing the following issues. We will submit the engineered site plans requested (JKA contract price of $6,000.00) and the HP Goetechnlcal Review (contract price of $800.00). The site plans will address all issues stated on the March 26 fax, (now B points) not including the colvert, per Shane Pegram. 1 have Included copies of the contracts mentioned, the written letter from Johnies 6,,grd , n revegetating and site completion, as well as ,estii(11a, a c, t revegitae the property once'we have left the property►; We have also submitted a report of what other dog;day;< to sanitize outdoor areas. We plan to follow, the guideIii Department of Agriculture - division of Animal Industry. As a reminder, 1 have also included a copy of the fence contract which was extensively discussed and approved at the town meeting on Oct 3M. The contract states the specifics as to what type and size of fencing will be used for the play yard. All of which have been previously approved. There was also a request for documentation of the number of dogs we are having at the daycare since the maximum number of dogs was increased. We have submitted a report. In the original permit approval,we were,gh year time subject to Planning Commission. Apr 02 04 09:59a iR • 4 SAME nJ i• A �' ; ORIGINAL Since our approval In October, we have been going back and for the with the town planning and zoning commission regarding the actual go ahead to start constructing the play -yard. Approval depended on certain conditions, one being "engineered drawings must submitted to staff for new access and parking area on lots 20121. The driveway must be graded (not paved) adequately for access." The following is a list of steps taken to me t the conditions ofM theermit : 4 '` 1p Contacted Johnson Kunkel & associa $ Erb to request site plan and drawings of acce and qqr areas. 2. Johnson Kunkel provided a Terrain VI Wnsitmmap_0 .lata .. tri. ,�:.:.,:.' 20121 and surveyed the land for property boundary lines. Steve Miller the engineer from Johnson Kunkel determined that the existing drivelaccess to the property was sufficient enough for the proposed use and that the level area at the. top of the drive was large enough for turn around and parking of approximately two to three cars. The terrain vision map also showed rough sketch of fence placement. 3. Once we were told that there were other concerns regarding the access of the property we had several phone calls between your engineering department and the engineer from Johnson Kunkel, Steve Miller. We received a fax outlining what need to be addressed. After hav1`°�� visited the site and taking; notes Tand4TeasuWme s, , tev Miller,responded .with>a: 41 page, repo,..7 d ss!ngb points mentioned on the fax sent out on Nov Te:report,c stated "in my professional engineinl n' 'rel wastno need for an actual site plan because the site was'sultable for the proposed use". I, s 4. On Nov 216' the planning and zoning commissions determined that previous requirements had still not been met. Apr 02 04 10:00a p•4 SAME A5 ORIGINAL requesting that this one year time begins ace the play y rd is. in a.. use..i .�1ai , fi` taken for us to continue this project. Signed authorization from property owner will be provided 'once we receive the site plans and they are submitted to you. A new ROW permit will be applied for once the plans are finished," " submitted and approved. If all the above steps are taken and request met, we hope there will not be any more opposition to this project. I have outlined a quick summary of the money we have already spent and' -,the` is "I amount still needed to be spent to get the y ard. Thank you, MarisaLahimalt,,*.�lkinitJiq# V Apr 02 04 10:00a 06-35P T*VM of 97f7:'74B..I9SB mwwa SAW 251 Metuffft AvoX4M311=-e ;lot Minch 26t 2007 a ILI, Fax: 97(��1607arc Re: Walking The Do&lot 20&al, Bkck 4110mbsut MctcWfRoad) a 1-1 At n A. ?5 ORIGINAL p.6 P.02 PON qr4w Aux 071 4Wfi&MhM?*xMd Av" P - -i'affin Dew Maria ==A Xradliiglhat bu 8=T"d CM ft abOyis TOMMODd!iM ft u.sm or ft I M"% ad that a Site, ftm mistbe providW to the Town of Avore 3 Town but &tcmin AM approved. by the kannQ — idilg DePuMOU CMmunity Deve'Wracat stdanplo plata At &.Onfimirn and Zoning Commis6on priorto any additional work tMkIDS Site plan and xftwAiad documentation Truat address the f0flawilris issues: • :huco kmafi0n; All sits".,..0 0 Erosion Cmj"A Mmom it ac=fdsm With 1113t inchtditys rMgCtsaujj of &Mpbod uValt. Colosado; Ur be inmrred fel In- • EAg*n0CeS CUM . hem vacated by Walking the Dog; signed atniori'mfion ftm Prcq=tY owns am allows the sift i1nFovem"M per • wovww She PWL Irs,te scom from MotcalfRoad Yn-U not he HMWA 10 o=MuctjM the existing ddire-WAY must be hupmved in aocordzm with Town of Avon Design 001i4clia" tu"allow 3 . all� cnfty mad exit fromMocalfRoad, ft parkiar . ammust allow movements to PtQvGot backing out onto MotegIfRoad. and thoi*Xihllrg itoW Permitwill Apr 02 04 10:01a SAME AS ORIGINAL Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERM • STRUCTURAL ENGIPEERING • SURVEYING • MAPPINQ ESTABUM ED 1972 ' April 4, 2007 Marisa Lehman Wallin' the Dog P.O. Box 6532 Vail, Cfl 81658 Re: Proposali'erSsrve"Ma Enigfostallm Sead as For Lots 20 & 21, Denchmarfr at tBeaw Crrek. Avon, Colorado JKA Job #EA66297 — Scope Variance #1 Dear Ms. Lehman Johnson, Kunkel and Associates, Ina is pleased to submit this Letter Agreement to render professional engineering and surveying services for the above-mentioned project.Based on our understanding of the projeid, this proposal is to provide fallowing services for Lots 20 8.21, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Avon, Colorado: PROJECT SCOPE 1) Catified Topographic Survey. 2) Engineering design of site plan including: I{4i I) Access road plan and profile. , y"�•11t iq Site grading, drainage and erosion can" ?esigtt- 111) AulpTum enalysi5 of ago Toad and rh$r area', 9M. All eWmIions Mail be bq� vn t� AAIYP-§ 4@NM4 be *Aa onur field asuvey of eMrg bora OW evk boundary survey. as such tam is def nett in rule 6.5 for Professiorai Engineers and ProfasdonW land St SCOPEASSUIPTfON8 ;�: ..v A„•s 1) An analysis of offsite drainage impacts to the site will not be required. 2) Client will provide Bre following: 1) A Thee Policy. ii) A Soil Investigation, Including :.>. : e :ons for the access road and euVMI slopes. ContractAmount ............. ......... _... ................ .........._...----•----.....:......-.....----..._-...-------.�'.. It is agreed that elf fees will be paid within 30 days of the work in progress biting date or ire final billing date, whichever comes first, iciness prior agreements have been made with respect to method of payment. if payment is not made within 30 days of the invoice date, a minimum service charge of $5.00 or interest at a rate of 1.5% per month will be charged on any outstanding balance. Johnson, Kunkel and Associates Ina reserves the right to suspend work on any project with an account balance 30 days past due. If a job is canceled atter the Agreement is signed, It is agreed that payment will be made for all services performed prior to the cancellation date. If it becomes necessary for Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Ina to pursue legal action to cpibct any outstanding balance, it is agreed that the undersigned Is responsible for payment of all reasonable allornWa fees p% 00ileetion , z . tees that rruay be incurred. _ ,' •• t�1'. / � _ yq c C. This proposal represents the marc WdsstarMing be{weiM yqu circ u : wjtb resrpgf� 1o,tft P.ZI�cx bgr11lod, gd . writing sgfrad by bath of us, If thio propkisal s�is�Dfi7• bCM YP J!.W WA)W- 9 o ap t 1 r your signing the enclosed PYof this letter t•4F tI.47 a r �i4. Sincerely,.X* P� �% -- By: Stephen L Miller, P.E. Marisa Lehman Johnson, Kunkel &Associates. Ina Walkin'the Dog P.Q Hoon 409' 12a8 Ct ambera Ave. • Suie 200 • Eagle, Colorado 81631 • Phone: (970)32 84 i69 • Fax: (970) 328-1935 Apr 02 04 10:01 a EPWOITH—PAW OTESY . �,..JSAME A BA2q county;Rgaq 154 ORIGINAL Glenwood Spiingt;, Gtilotado 81801 Phone: 970-945-7900 Fax: 970.948-9464 E-mail: hpgeo@hpgeoteeh.com PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEN'IEENi' March 29, 2007 Sob No. 107 0187 Walkin The Dog Attn: Marisa Lahman P.O. Box 6532 Vail, Colorado 81658 Phone: 970-476-8197 Project: Geotechnical Review, Proposed Walkin The Dog Fence Pfaff at'd�"}L' Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 311 Metcalf Road, Avon; olorado: 4 . .. �� ..,' nvr.y.:�,' 114.MIM„y..iM.. • a {t�liY Professional Servicer - - �� � ,5�"'�.' „ Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. (H -R GEOTECH) egrees'tci perform�tii &�v The CLIENT may subsequently amend the scope of services with the conet{e&Ic*F:i}T3 Services provided by H -P GEOTECH will be consistent with the engineering stfiitd&ds1ireuailm44t the time and in the area that the services are performed; no warranty, express"ar`;implied; ii'�intchid d. CLIENT is responsible to provide the information known to be existing regarding the ;"p ect'as;;.it applies to the execution of H -P GEOTECH's services. Please note the attacked.,T_e_rmi'and Conditions are a part of this Agreement and contain a limitation of liability clause Scope of Services Perform a review of the, subject property and with respect to slope stability, site drainage and erosion based on the planned grading for the proposed construction. Present the results in a letter report. . r Fee Our fee will be based on the unit costs listed on the attached Fee Schedule and other costs needed to perform our services. We estimate our total fee for the scope of services to be $800. Termination This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon stopped and feed will be calculated to include all s,rvice! 0 p Acce tance'� We are proceeding with the above scope of services based ons the veriial-na Lahman on March 29, 2007. Unless notified otherwise, we assume that you_ Prior to issuing our report, one copy of this Agreement must lie signed and had INC. CLIENT Signature (please print) fit.r ? .t 41=4�,41 be �. W, ignil;y�'Maiisa is iAgreernent. Apr 02 04 10:02a •joluln:'s Gaslcu, P.O. liax 511 Vail, CO 81 G58 P.9 rvi jolut c s Carden a.Rttx 237M I lirillway 6 8t 24 Mnttunt, CO 8164') Plxo= (970)827-4128 " Wallin' the Dog 281 MdcalfRoad Axa Awe, CO 11620 SAME AS, OR10I'i�1A +ti',Mat RE: Desmiptiea of Pmjoct/ SpetalicW&M Dear Memll and Marisa, PhaseSodthe gspcdfiatkmfsra - oneeMzftacid . „. : fscfeoen ptojod. Min the d= hr =how b The Town of Avco. 1c • j, 1. Existing vc$dMlnn around proposed fence kmd m to be raaoved or.trattplamed'b:..;•:s: if possible. Every attempt will be.made to relocate the ivegetation to wegtevisugl buffeas to dw aaw @sae. 2. Miner asdaudo9 WM be PWh m W to enNts aogoli b atallatim tbade to be leveled aid etimUnd oul s _Ipe It �P.� wilt reeoain ed a 3. An dgturbrrd, so0 drill 44 �.1)11F 1>4 1a h! per lg0dr trtaw p414 Native craw Sand Mis± 29lG Saodbai� 8itic"(yrws; 25% CaabJr Rodry Merntaia Feeaee. 23% Sheep Fesae Phase conted me at 827-9x00 if you need any fiather ioformelim ;J' R etde's Gerdc4 lne cmilri4 lila ; OlrrCc 11211 Mout tittt�, MtiYur[t, 4'� lgvxw: 0M)11274=0 rax: 0 i 1374" Skin Dar Manisa, SAME AS ` ORI GINAI Thank you for the omrhmity to give you an codrmue far she Wowing work W be parkmad at o4m ma lotto WWWa T'he Dog All work is pabrMW oa a time nd materials basis, Tbaw prions are goad fw 34 days k m +dnm of proposal. Wads will be schWWW upon receipt of 50%prapaymmt The folkmmg ratan apply:' , -IA Fonamc Labor. macbuse ansa R� s wW-. kHvdoa Labor: True arc 55M par mar -hour S45410 par M" SO." perhoar- S$75.00 per loW 345.04 per mea -hour 555.04 peraso4ovr .. , I. _ Dareriptlomi of work to be perfora>cds Rengetetion of acct with straw bale, native need Sad tilt*am The wvegatsdm of the ane wig mane tkat thane wil be no e:osia - uopasistg d tW site. MateriatK 140 Straw Bales 17 Foundr: Native Grana Sand Mix 364 Feat otSilt Faeroe Labors 43 ]alma Hours Batbaated'Matetish*WLabor S4r071.i1 Plow dw* tea services you wish rrs to Imfm., aW sign at the battam. Tlaadt yo} *11'A for the aplpottaaiq+ to pre:ertt you this ercagasta and we dor s Ditugltta Kubik Aaaepted by i .r.ir�i�b •i ...rr.r o.0 oru•oii�■ ri��uru.aa w•uuu..■ •u■■uuii■ Apr 02 04 10:03a SAME AS ORIGINAL weds thurs frl 43 40 40 34 40 39 37 47 36 RANDOMLY SELECTED 2ND WEEK OF THE PAST THREE MONTHS .�yocr flP,li S. . mon Lues Jan -07 36 36 Feb -07 26 35 Mar -07 21 36 SAME AS ORIGINAL weds thurs frl 43 40 40 34 40 39 37 47 36 RANDOMLY SELECTED 2ND WEEK OF THE PAST THREE MONTHS .�yocr flP,li S. . Apr 02 04 '10:04a p.14 SAME AS ., �.�s� A > ORIGINAL Johnson Kunkel Associates Johnies Gardens/Ecavation Monthly Lease and Taxes Permits Strategic Fence Company Rental ADDITIONAL COST FOR FENCE PROJECT HP Geotech Johnson Kunkel Associates Johnies Gardens Monthly Lease and Taxes Strategic Fence 1668 13000 7650 925 700 23943 600 6000 9000 1700 12000 29500 r 9,,,._ I't . et Apr 02 04 10:03a SAME AS' p'11 ORIGINAL Documentation for Sanitation Chemicals A as an animal. care facility in Colorado we are licensed by the State' of Colorado Department of Agriculture - Division Qf Animal Industry. They perform regular check up on any facility in the state to assure; ...tea . they are maintaining records and cleanliness. I called the Ani I' F Department and spoke to Chris Thompson PAC A Inspector cleaning of outdoor areas in relation to animal,y aster His recommendation was to wash aff,yvith bleaghffi Atprl 0 . ratio of ltbs per gallon of water. Depending on the size oftt be used depends on the frequency of cleaning. a 3' The following is a list of a few facilities and what they do and use for cleaning. City Bark - Denver, 12,000 square foot outdoor facility. 303-573-9400 1 time per day using a garden sprayer and hose with bleach and water solution. Dog Den - S'ummit County, small outdoor area. 970-389-2006 Bleach and water solution, 2 times per week High Tails - Glenwood Springs, small outdoor alea primarily used for , pee breaks not play. 970-947-0014. Spray down with Pet Force Micro- cleaner &bleach dndjilY�l r. solution, Also uses product called Pet Force q M crocleaner O. a� _ x week. ,t Camp Bow Wow - Denver Central Location, Franchise 303-2,§f�A They use a chemical by the name of SPARTAN. It comes in'thn liquid formats; they use Equalizer Consume (disinfectant & order control) & Consume (digestive bacteria) every other day and FIDQn' Neutral (super strong disinfectant) once every other week. Chris Thompson State of Colorado Animal Care Facitlity Inspector - 303 -886-6997 Recommends bleach and water solution used as needed for order and sanitizing control. He stated that other products would not be as effective. Dilution of urine would probably, have the most results. He said to call with any questions and speak to him directly. a MEMORANDUM 11 C 0 L g N A D U EXHIBIT D To: Matt Gennett, AICP, Senior Planner From: Shane Pegram, Engineering Department Date: July 11, 2007 Re: "Watkin' the Dog" Engineered Drawings COMMENTS: The following comments are in response to my review of the above referenced plans. 1. Although the proposed 1.5;1 grades are steeper than the 2:1 max that we typically recommend, Johnson, Kunkel and Associates has followed HP Geotech's recommendation of a 1.5:1 maximum slope with soil stabilization matting. The existing steep grades do not allow the development of a 2:1 slope without grading the entire lower portion of the lots, therefore I believe the steeper slopes are justifiable. 2. The slope cuts that were previously made must be stabilized by establishing a slope that is not steeper than 1.5:1, revegetation and installation of stabilization matting. All soil cuts and fills should be observed by a soils engineer as suggested in HP Geotech's report. 3. Some method of temporary irrigation should be used until vegetation is established on the steep south facing slopes. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 748-4114. C:\Documents and Settings\mgennett\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE4\Walking the Dog Comments 7-11-07 (2).doc 0 1,W, Nq Memo SON C O L O R A D O To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Jared Barnes, Planner ICV Date July 17, 2007 Re: Fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road East Background and History: On June 8"', 2007, the Town of Avon's Development Review Inspector, Paul Brogren, noticed that work was beginning on a fence at 5601 Wildridge Road East (Lot 75B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision). Mr. Brogren informed the owner that a "Minor Design and/or Minor Modification" application needed to be submitted and approved prior to the erection of a fence. Over the weekend, prior to submittal of the application, the applicant, Ryan Sutter, continued work on his fence. On June 13, 2007, an application was received for the project and Mr. Sutter was informed that the area he intended to enclose was more than the 2,000 square feet, the maximum allowed by the Design Review Guidelines. The applicant then submitted revised plans, on June 18, 2007, depicting an enclosure of 1,950 square feet and the fence was subsequently changed to reflect the revised application. Staff reviewed the project and granted approval on June 18, 2007, with the condition that the fence was no more than four feet in height. Staff informed Mr. Sutter that he would be allowed to finish work on his fence in accordance with the approved plans. At the June 19, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioner Green made a motion to call up the Staff Approval for the Sutter Fence. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion and a unanimous vote of approval followed. The following day, staff informed the applicant that the Staff Approval was being called up by the Planning and Zoning Commission and that they should cease all work on the fence until after a decision has been made at the scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 17, 2007. Mr. Sutter asked if he could stain his fence so that the wood would not be ruined while he was waiting for the hearing date. Staff informed Mr. Sutter that he may stain his fence at his own risk since the Planning and Zoning Commission may require changes to the fence. On July 2, 2007, staff received letters and signatures in opposition of this fence (Exhibit B). Staff received more letters of opposition (Exhibit C) on July 5, 2007 as well as a revised application from Mr. Sutter describing his landscaping and fencing work (Exhibit D). Also on July 5, 2007, staff received a letter requesting a tabling from the July 17, 2007, Planning and Zoning commission meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and another letter responding to several comments made in opposition to the fence (Exhibit E). Discussion: The Town of Avon's Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Review Guidelines regulate fence construction as listed verbatim below. All fences require approval through a `Minor Project and/or Modification' application. Although discouraged in Wildridge and WiIdwood, 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 consistant with the following criteria: 1. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four feet in height 2. Split rail design with no more than 2 horizontal `rails'. 3. Does not delineate property lines. 4. Fenced area is less than 2, 000 square feet. 5. Wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design. 6. If part of a multi -family project approval must be received from the association, and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property. 7. If located on a duplex property, written approval must be received from adjoining property owner and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design. Applications that do not meet one or more of the above criteria can only be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff reviewed the application for a fence and determined its compliance with the intent of all of the criteria. Staff then approved a fence for Lot 75B, Block 4 of the Wildridge Subdivision. Below are the criteria upon which the fence was approved: 1. Split Rail type fence built using 4'x6" posts and 2"W' rails; 2. Stained a natural wood color to match wood trim on the existing residence; and 3. Enclose an area of 1950 square feet; After the Staff Approval was called up, Staff went to the site to verify that what was built was the same as what was proposed and approved. Staff found a few discrepancies between the built fence and its associated approval. Below are the differences: 1. The applicant enclosed an area of approximately 3,190 square feet; 2. The applicant attached chicken wire to the inside portion of the fence; and 3. The applicant created a second gate to the northeast side of the fence. F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Memos\2007\Sutter Fence - 071707.doc • Exhibits: • • A. Vicinity Map B. Letters of opposition from Eileen and George Hricik and Jack and Greer Gardner C. Letter of opposition from Randy Smith D. Revised application stating Mr. Sutter's intent for landscaping and fencing on his property E. Letters from Ryan and Trista Sutter requesting a Tabling and responding to the letters of opposition F. Letter of support from Dominic and Diane Mauriello. F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Memos\2007\Sutter Fence - 071707.doc EXHIBIT B RECEIVED JUL 0 2 2007 Eileen and George Hricik ccmmumty PgVQ19Pment 5711 A Wildridge Road East Avon, Colorado 81620 1951 Welch Street Houston , Texas 77019 June 30, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Avon, Colorado 81620 Dear Sirs : I write this to you to protest a fence that has been erected over the past few weeks on Lot 75 , Wildridge Road East. The property belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Ryan Sutter. My husband George and I own and occupy Lot 80, which is directly above Lot 75. The fence on Lot 75 was erected without our knowledge or consent, and it does not comply to The Protective Covenants of Wildridge Subdivision. I will address the Covenant particulars individually on one of the following pages. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter, but there is much to be said. Please understand that we deeply regret having to protest this fence erected by our neighbors, but they have given us no choice. Had M/M Sutter discussed this with us prior to building it, this protest would not be necessary . We were here at our house for five days over Memorial Day, and my husband spent most of his time outside in the yard; Mr. Sutter could easily have spoken to him then. When we returned three weeks later, the fence was up. This fence impacts OUR property much more then it does Mr. Sutter's . The Sutter's house faces East - their primary view and their deck are on the front of their house. The fence is on the back of their house. Our house faces North. Our view and our decks are on the back and the East side of our property. The Sutter's fence is " in our face " from all three of our decks , from three bedrooms , and from our Living and Dining Room windows. Mr. And Mrs. Sutter seem a lovely young couple. I have been very impressed by columns IS&. Sutter has written for The Vail Trail . He is obviously a man of integrity, and a very fine writer. Knowing this makes the fence issue very puzzling, as his lack of respect for the rights of his neighbors doesn't seem to fit the man. He has made a serious mistake , and it needs to be rectified. We assume that this is the Sutter's first home, and that they may not have been aware that they should have consulted with their neighbors prior to putting up a fence ; common courtesy dictates that they do so , and in most subdivisions and towns mutual agreement about fences is mandatory. Mr. Sutter is definitely a skilled craftsman and builder, and he apparently really likes fences. This is the second fence he has erected on his property. The fence that he put up last year did not adhere to The Covenants either , but it was less bold . Trying to be nice neighbors , we chose to ignore it , but this new fence cannot be ignored . Mr. Sutter claims that he needs the fence to keep his dogs in ........ but as almost every house up here has at least one dog, and no one else has a fence , his reasoning is not acceptable. I think he simply likes fences. I have included pictures of the fence, and diagrams of the areas impacted by his fence. Diagram A shows our " cluster " of 8 Lots, #'s 74 thru 82 , and how the houses sit on the Lots , with the beautiful parkland/ Wildlife Corridor in the center. Diagram B shows Mr. Sutter's duplex, our duplex, and a portion of the single family house on Lot 76 which adjoins Mr. Sutter's property , and our own. The Diagrams are not to scale , but are accurate representations of the situation. I will include a color code with the Diagrams. SPECIFIC ISSUES / THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS OF WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION. " Fences " Section H Page 9, # 12. 1) " The objective of the WDC is to provide for the free and uninhibited movement of all wildlife. " The open land surrounded by the houses is definitely a Wildlife Corridor. We have seen deer, fox, coyote, and a mountain lion in this corridor during the 9 years since we have been here. A bear was also seen at the top of the corridor , at the street, though we were not here at the time. 2) " No fence other then a split rail fence. " Mr. Sutter's fence is not a split rail fence. It consists of two boards with a space in between, and it is stained a coppery brown to match the wood on his house. Chicken wire is attached to the entire fence, on the inside. At times the chicken wire reflects the sun, making it " shiny " ( see Covenants, page 9, 13.4 ) as well as unattractive. Chain Link fences are expressly forbidden by the Covenants. Surely chicken wire must be as well. Mr. Sutter feels that his fence is " more attractive then a split rail " . I disagree. I would argue that the reason a split rail is specified in the Covenants is because it is the most " natural " fence , and as it ages it " mellows " in color, becoming less noticable as it blends into the natural landscape. The new fence recently erected on Metcalf Road is a perfect example of a split rail fence that will blend in beautifully. The one further up Metcalf, erected last year, has already done so. Mr. Sutter has two gates in his fence. One gate is to his driveway , the other gate faces our property. Mr. Sutter claims that the second gate is to access his property outside the gate. In reality , the minute piece of his property outside the second gate could easily be accessed by going around the outside of his fence from his driveway. The only realistic explanation of the second gate is to allow him to cut through our property to the road above. 3} " The Fencing of an entire lot is prohibited. " I don't think that any of us know the exact boundaries of our properties, nor do we need to, as long as it is open space ..... welcoming to all. Putting in a fence drastically changes this issue , and a legal survey should have been done, and agreed to by the adjacent properties, before a single nail was driven, as a courtesy and as protection for all the property owners whose land touches Mr. Sutter's. As the current President of Greater Houston Preservation Alliance , Houston's local Partner of The National Trust for Historic Preservation , I am well aware of legal and environmental issues. The National Trust is very involved in environmental issues , and works very closely with The Department of Defense, which is responsible for 45,000 acres of U. S. Land, and with The National Park Service. Also, as a former President of The Homeowner's Association of The Metropolis Lofts building in Houston, I have experience enforcing By - Laws and Deed Restrictions ( Covenants ) , and experience with lawsuits. Metropolis was a brand new building of 32 units, all of which had been sold prior to the completion of the building. A young owner of one of the units , just prior to moving into the building , quietly brought a man up to the roof of the building to install a private satellite dish for his unit only. The By - Laws of the Home Owners Association expressly forbade this, as there was a communal satellite dish already there. Once we discovered the illegal dish , we asked him to have it removed. He refused to do so . We tried to reason with him, explaining that if he could do this, so could every owner in the building, which would mean 32 dishes on the roof , and foot traffic for repairs , etc. The roof was not designed to hold all of that weight, and could collapse. He didn't care - he wanted HIS dish, and nothing else mattered to him. We insisted, so he sued the Home Owners Association. When we got to court, the Judge looked at him and immediately said, " You have wasted enough people's time already - take it down. " The young man was stunned , but was heard to say , as he left the Courtroom , " I figured that if it was already there , nobody would bother. " I don't want to think that Mr. Sutter has that same mentality, but I am told that he began to build his fence before he even applied for a permit. Mr. Sutter's fence isn't going to bring down a roof , but it could definitely bring down the value of OUR property. Should Mr. Sutter want to sell his house , any prospective buyer would realize that if he didn't like the fence , he could simply have it taken down. Should WE want to sell ours , however, a prospective buyer would have to purchase it knowing that he might have to live with that fence forever. I frankly doubt that we could find a purchaser ........ Why would anyone want to buy a house facing an unnecessary and unusual fence when the rest of Wildridge doesn't have them ? I FIRMLY believe that the " laws " of any organization - call them Covenants , Deed Restrictions , or By - Laws - MUST be enforced for the protection of all involved. Allowing exceptions to stated regulations opens a frightening door , and sets a dangerous legal precedent. Exceptions tend to " breed " more exceptions, with the end result being damage to the community , a drop in property values , and eventually lawsuits as owners try to protect their investments and their quality of life. I believe that The Planning Commission has an obligation, to all the residents of Wildridge , to protect our property values, and to uphold our Covenants. In closing, I hope that The Planning Commission will understand that we are not " difficult neighbors " . We built our house, and moved into it in 1998. We have never before voiced a single complaint, though we certainly could have. From our house we have watched camper/trailers parked outside for months on end ( page 12, 18.4 ) , snowmobiles parked , and used , ( page 13 , #27 ) , motorcycles frequently on Wildridge Road traveling at very high speeds ( page 13 , # 27 ) - as recently as two days ago - and several dogs that have been allowed to roam freely for years , ( page 12, # 21 ) . We have never mentioned any of these issues to anyone , as they do not threaten the good of the community. I only mention them now to illustrate the fact that we are not " complainers". Two summers ago, because our house looks so directly down on the Sutter's house , we decided that it would be a kindness to give them some privacy. We planted, entirely at our own expense, five large Schubert Trees , and two pines. We already had over a hundred trees on our property , and had not had any intention of planting more. Because we were putting the trees there as a screen, even though they were entirely on our property , we made sure to tell the Sutter's about it before having them planted. We have no desire to cause problems for anyone , but as this is the second time Mr. Sutter has erected an inappropriate fence, we have to seriously worry about what he might decide to do NEXT summer, if this fence is allowed to remain. I feel it is the responsibility of The Covenants Committee of Wildridge, and of the Town of Avon, to revoke any permission that has been given, and to insist that this inappropriate " free form " wood and chicken wire fence be removed immediately. We have been told that this issue will be discussed at the Planning Committee Meeting on July 17th , 2007. We urge our neighbors to voice their opinions in writing, as soon as possible. We also urge all interested parties to come and see this for themselves , and to call us with any questions, at 970 - 845 - 8442. Respectfully submitted, Eileen Hricik. George Hricik. Cc: Property Owners of Lots 74 through 82, Wildridge Subdivision Wildridge Covenants Committee Members Concerned Wildridge Neighbors. Color Code for Diagrams Green: Open green space corridors Light Purple: Houses Blue : Decks on houses Brown : Street and Property Lines Grey: Driveways and Patios Dark Green: Fir Trees Deep Purple : Schubert Trees Dark Brown Dotted Line : Mr. Sutter's Fence Dark Brown vertical lines : Mr. Sutter's Gates. Light Brown / Dark Brown area: Site where Mr. Sutter began to erect A solid wood fence. rLNTJ4iTify) ptiou t AW6; 0a 1 o jt 1 ,i 2 U �0 < GJ q) 0 7 W ,M N.sI O I �A.l Yf� Ot M_qi A L In 6 SAME AS ORIGINAL SAME AS ORIGINAL .qM ^' 4 ,.. July 1, 2007 RECEIVED Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon JUL 0 2 2007 Avon, Colorado 81620 OommuNtY DevebpneM Re: Fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road Dear Commissioners : We are owners of properties in the vicinity of 5601B Wildridge Road and are opposed to your issuance of a permit for the fence that the occupant of that property has constructed. We think the questions for your Commission are simple : First, does the fence that the occupant has constructed ( without a permit) comply with the Town's ordinances and the Wildridge Covenants, and second, is there a valid reason why it should not comply ?? We think the answers to both of these questions should be "No," and the permit should be denied. Also at issue is the flagrant disregard that the occupant has shown for the Town's laws, policies and procedures. As was observed in a recent Vail Daily article, some folks think such rules and policies can be igonored if they are inconvenient. It was obviously "inconvenient" for the occupant to go through regular channels and apply for a permit BEFORE constructing his fence. At each step of construction, he chose to proceed in spite of protests and warning from Town staff and his neighbors - - right up to the final touch of applying chicken wire. For these reasons, we urge your Commission to deny the permit and require the removal of the fence. Sincerely, 7 7� Name:tea% .6 Name.11vk Address: s72 3 u -r, i d r:,i Address: S3 Signa t�z Signature: ��«zti� Name:�QP, NAo rz22c) Address: e,135 CO f I(tn*?P, �Ck ' Signature v Name: ;3�1-L -4 ",4/E Address:-T',-ff q $--t,.� itp Ei D4c 7- D F Signature:�_� July 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Avon, Colorado 81620 Re: Fence at 5601B Wildridge Road Dear Commissioners: We are owners of properties in the vicinity of 5601 B Wildridge Road and are opposed to your issuance of a permit for the fence that the occupant of that property has constructed. We think the questions for your Commission are simple : First, does the fence that the occupant has constructed ( without a permit) comply with the Town's ordinances and the Wildridge Covenants, and second, is there a valid reason why it should not comply ?? We think the answers to both of these questions should be "No," and the permit should be denied. Also at issue is the flagrant disregard that the occupant has shown for the Town's laws, policies and procedures. As was observed in a recent Vail Daily article, some folks think such rules and policies can be igonored if they are inconvenient. It was obviously "inconvenient" for the occupant to go through regular channels and apply for a permit BEFORE constructing his fence. At each step of construction, he chose to proceed in spite of protests and warning from Town staff and his neighbors - - right up to the final touch of applying chicken wire. For these reasons, we urge your Commission to deny the permit and require the removal of the fence. Sincerely, Name:an ciz S / Address: i yy/ _ ilcl/Uov Signature Name•.,_4 , — Address: ` �-., V'..ck Sct c, Signature: 46? V Name:5se �C�W�ffQ Address: t v ✓4 ((= Signature umogm �- *Ja-\ ,14'sT ?6iL V\V 7FWSf>1 oN Name: Address: Signature: EXHIBIT C RECEIVED JUL 0 b 2007 Community Development July 3, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Avon, CO 81620 Dear Commission Members, I own and reside year round at Lot 80 5711-B Wildridge Road East, the south side of the unit owned by Mr.and Mrs, George Hricik and I want to express my strongest opposition to the fence erected on Lot 75 by Mr. and Mrs. Sutter. The fence erected by the Sutters is in my view shed from every east facing window and all of my outside decks. By it's design it is an eyesore with the look of a chicken coop but that is not my primary objection, as we all know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is simply not a legal fence by any interpretation of the Wildridge Covenants regarding fences. I think the letter written to you by Mr. and Mrs. Hricik dated June 30,1`1007 very succinctly, accurately and eloquently expresses the concerns of many of the Stutter's neighbors. I would however, like to elaborate on the simple fact that is in violation of the Protective Covenants of the Wildridge Subdivision. For the life of me I can not understand how one neighbor would think that the Covenants did not apply to him and simply ignore due process. I would hope that this very basic but compelling fact would be enough to have you rule c;iai ibis fence be removed. Sin rely, andy Smi 711 Wildri ge Road East 1Jnit B Avon, Co 81620 July 6, 2007 Avon Town Planning and Zoning Commission PO Box 975 RECEIVED Avon, CO 81620 JUL 0 e 2001 ,CC: Mr. and Mrs. Ryan Sutter Colnmurmy Hand DeliveredAf Dear Commission Members, Mr. Sutter was kind enough to stop by my residence yesterday and dropped off a letter that he had written to you disputing many of the arguments and statements made by his neighbors, including myself. It is too bad we had not opened up a dialogue sooner as it might have prevented all of this. I think all parties might share some blame in this regard including myself. I am amazed at the wildly divergent stories. If my assertion, based on information that was relayed to me, which I assumed to be accurate; that Mr. Sutter did not follow due process, is incorrect, I sincerely apologize. I do however remain adamant that the fence constructed is not acceptable based on the guidelines contained in the Wildridge Covenants. I understand these to be guidelines but they seem very clear and concise as to what type of a fence is acceptable. I will not hazard a guess as to how the commission might interpret these guidelines but I would ask that at the very least you ask Mr. Sutter to remove the wire mesh. That part of the project can not be considered acceptable no matter how you interpret the guidelines. The contention by Mr. Sutter that the mesh will tarnish and blend in may be true but so would a barbed wire fence and an untreated chain link fence and we probably don't want to debate that any time soon. andy S i 7 11 - ldridge Road East ,von, CO 81620 Landscape Pla EXHIBIT D nCLCi V tU &601 B Wildridge Road East - Sutter Residence JUL 0 b 2007 Community DwolopmeM Overview - This plan outlines the intentions at 6601 B Wildridge Road East, The Sutter Residence (referred hereto after as "The Residence"). The plan will relate the ideas and theories associated with the residence's current and planned outdoor living environment in regard to boarders, retaining walls, patios and landscape. It is the goal of this plan to demonstrate and justify the creation and maintenance of an effective, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing outdoor experience. Current Landscape - At the onset of the planned landscape renovation, the residence's current landscape consisted mainly of a small back concrete patio, a four -foot brick retaining wail and a section of split rail fencing. In addition, the residence's landscape includes a small lawn, a small front patio, a ourbside large boulder retaining wall. The focus of this landscape plan will be on the rear and side landscapes.. Little change will be made to the front portions Of the lot. Prior to the submittal of this Landscape Flan and with approval from the Town of Avon Design Review Board, a fence has recently been constructed to replace the old, dilapidated split rail and to help in bringing definition to the outdoor living space. See attached "Fence" attachment for further explanation. Under the current landscape plan the following are intended: • Completion of aforementioned fence - Please see "Fence" attachment. • Installation of flagstone patio to replace concrete slab - Will expand current patio, providing an area for outdoor living, including dining and relaxing. The patio will be constructed to provide a porous surface for water run-off mitigation. • Lowering and stair stepping of current brick retaining wall - Will provide a more open environment and opportunity for a more interactive and creative landscaping. • Flora - Most of the natural landscape and vegetation will be unaltered. Special consideration will be made to preserve drought tolerant native vegetation and eliminate noxious weeds. A buffer of native vegetation will be maintained and enhanced around the perimeter of the outdoor living space. It is the intent of this buffer to provide a transition into the living space as well as to maintain the native look and feel of the area to both the residence and the neighboring property. The creation of various sitting spaces - Will provide opportunity to ' enjoy a more intimate natural experience within the outdoor living space. Modiilcation of Irrigation System - Implementation of this landscape plan will reduce lawn space and decrease irrigation needs. Traditional sprinkler heads will be replaced or modified where applicable. Low flow drip irrigation will be utilized in areas where supplemental irrigation may be needed. Conclusion - The Landscape Plan at 5801 B Wildridge Road East has been designed with the intent of providing a safe, effective and beautiful outdoor living environment. It offers the space for comfortable outdoor living while specifically allowing buffer zones to bring the native landscape into the living environment. The design was created with respect to the natural environment, the residence and the neighborhood. Its footprint is small, especially when considering the size and scale of neighboring homes. Wildlife corridors are respected and maintained. ' Feol e'Attachment Fence - The fence at the residence is an integral part of the overall landscape plan. It also seems to be a point of contention and thus deserving of special explanation and consideration. Intent- The ntent- The intent of the fence is to define and enhance an outdoor living space. Additionally, it provides security and the ability for an entire family, in this case consisting of two dogs and an enfant, to enjoy the outdoors together without worry. By blending into the landscape and relating in style and finish the home structure, the fence in effect creates an outdoor living room. It allows the occupants the opportunity to experience and enjoy the natural environment without the confines of walls or a ceiling. Defining an ample yet conservative space allows natural buffer zones to create a transition from "wild" space to "living" space while also serving to blend the fence into the landscape. Construction - The fence is constructed in traditional post/rail construction using dimensional posts of 4" x 8" size and rails of 2" x 8" x 8' size. Each post is placed 8 foot on center with a series of two rails extended between each post. While consistent in style and dimension to traditional cedar split rail fences, this fence is far superior in design and construction. Each section is secured with wood screws for sturdiness and durability. The height of the fence does not exceed four feet in height. Unfinished lumber was used in order to avoid leaching of pressure treated chemicals into the soil. A more bio-Mendly alternative was used to preserve and protect the wood below grade. Above grade, the fence was stained to match the siding of the home structure and to blend into the overall landscape. In order to effectively provide a safe and worry free environment, wire mesh was hung between each post. The mesh used is the lowest gauge available with the largest effective spacing. It was tailored to fit securely and discreetly within each section of fence. Though immediately upon installation the mesh is a shiny metallic, it will tarnish over time to become mostly invisible within the natural background. Additionally, a buffer of native grasses, brush and trees, growing upwards of three feet in height and surrounding the fence, will further aid in blending the fence into the landscape. The fence runs briefly along the property line between units of the duplex where it replaced the old fence but avoids delineating the property in any other area or affecting wildlife migration. Furthermore, a large portion of the fence runs below the highest grades of the site providing additional camouflage. Conclusion - While this fence cannot be classified as traditional cedar split rail, its post/rail design reflects the tradition of cedar split rail while allowing for a higher quality, safer and more finished looking fence. Its design is consistent with that of the home as well as the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The fence was constructed with care and craftsmanship and with the intent, as part of a greater landscape plan, to create a usable and enjoyable outdoor living environment. F i Landscape Plan - Site Map Legend A - Flag Stone Patio B - Rock Stairway and Garden C - Existing Stone Retaining Wall D - Proposed Stepping of Retaining Wall E - Fence �4 i t i a ��' w� �� o �. View From Front of Home, Shows relationship of fence to home in design and color. View From Side of Home. Shows that most of side fence is below grade and not visable. View from Above Home. Shows relatively low visual impact of fence from above. Also shows relationship of fence to home and landscape. Demonstration of fence height in relation to surrounding vegetation. Buffer Zone - Demonstrates fence against natural landscape. Also is a good visual as to construction of fence and color in relation to flora. Replacement Fence where prior fence had been. Horizontal section shows weathered metal mesh material vs. new material on slanted portion of fence. Deer passim by side fence unaffected. Also shows effort made to tailor meshing to fence sections. Deer passing by rear fence unaffected. Again also demonstrates effort made to tailor mesh to fence sections. Buffer Zone. Also shows retaining wall to be stepped back. The following photos demonstrate the current size and scale of new home construction near the residence in question. Please note the extent to which each home occupies the building site. Also note the significant difference in curbside affect as compared to the curbside photo of the residence in question. New Home on Wildridge Road - shows extent of lot taken up by home. Home is built from easement to easement. New Home on Longsun - shows curb view of 10 plus foot retaining walls. New Home on WildRidge Road - shows extent in size of new construction allowed in neighborhood. Demonstrates a lack of concern in new construction for site disturbance, Wildlife Migration or curbside dominance. The following are demonstrations of fences near the home in question that do not conform to the Town of Avon Guidelines. Many have similar characteristics to the residence in question. The final photo is an example of a post/rail fence with wire mesh matching the aesthetic of the home. This design is almost identical to the residence in question. New Home on Wildridge Road - 4, shows non -conforming three rail split rail fence w a k SM Home on Longsun - shows non- conforming split rail design with wire mesh. Home on wildridge Road Shows non -conforming cable fence. 4 Home on Longsun with views from Wildridge Road - shows non-conforming post/rail fence with wire mesh. Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission PO Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Dear Commissioner, EXHIBIT E July 5, 2007 RECEIVED JUL 0 6 2007 Community Daval9pm9nt In submitting my Landscape Plan for your review today, July 5, 2007, it became apparent to me that the issue concerning my property and most notably my fence has become rather heated to some. I have since responded to several letters submitted to you (please see attached) and made personal visits to several of my disgruntled neighbors in order to present them with the same letter. While I feel I have presented a thorough design plan, because of the attention this case is getting, I feel it particularly important that I am in attendance when my project is reviewed. This however, is not possible for the July 17, 2007 meeting as I am engaged in an out of town business matter and unable to attend. I have had this matter scheduled for over six months and simply cannot reschedule, though I have tried. I would like to formally request that the review of my project be scheduled for a later date. I was not given an option in this case and would request that my cooperation up to this point be considered. I sincerely believe that no one else can as effectively represent my case. Ordinarily my wife would be able to fill in, however, she will be 36 weeks pregnant at the time of the meeting and per doctor's orders cannot attend. (Please see attached doctor's note.) Thank you for you time and consideration on this matter. Avon, Colorado Colorado Mountain Medical, P.C. 191 W. Meadow Dr. Veil, CO 91997 97W476-5696 Gale Saha Maria, M.D. Fed. No. BS 4847426 322 Beard Creek Rd. Edwards, CO 91632 97019266340 Nlma Patel, M.D Fed. No. 13F 84&i 17 232 Broadway Eagle, CO 91931 970M28.1650 Joseph M. Ferrera, M.D. Fed, No. AF 9245413 Name �� �J1iC,4' Aga r�j Address Datef -i =— 4 ��I,,,,nn ,�.1� R�;eQ,t7q Cmc "MOO. DISPENSE AS WRI N INITIALS Refill Times M.D. 1 � This signature page is in regards to the fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road East, The Sutter's Residence. The undersigned agree that they have seen the fence and do not take issue with it. I Name Address y---ffAO f8& SGSo w W i%�r�ms r vA 45"( (eVnrm 2(D6G GvrK�,_.s.,53r c� � .r?J y s- Idk� S6�S w'a+!>r�r0/e: I.AVIe /ACC .%%60 Farit� �s�.N.t r {t p 5330. Ferrcf lkej6' � s gK Co 4e- IW -lx � n nC bed'c-\ 5 Sfro Co Alb I•e-- k c d*S,-qO C `G L o �- :. CAVAdle 5c05k 'VJ%(dr%dge s� Town of Avon July 5, 2007 Planning and Zoning To whom it may concern, I have issued the following statements in response to letters received by your office. I did not receive these letters directly from their sources, but instead obtained them through your offices. Please review them as I believe much of what they state to be misleading and untrue. Thank you. cerel Ryan S er 5601 B Wildridge Road East Avon, Colorado 81620 Response to Comments made in a letter written by Eileen and George Hricik and submitted to the Planning and Zoning commission on June 30, 2007. Though Mr. and Mrs. Hricik distributed the letter throughout the neighborhood, a copy was not directly given to me. I obtained my copy through the Design Review Board. "We were here at our house for five days over Memorial Day and my husband spent most of his time outside in the yard, Mr. Sutter could easily have spoken to him then. When we returned three weeks later, the fence was up. " Both my wife and I were out of town on business in New York City over Memorial Day weekend. We had zero encounters with the Hriciks during that time. The fence was not started until June 8, 2007, 11 days after Memorial Day. The Hriciks were not occupying there Wildridge home at the time. "The fence impacts our property much more then it does Mr. Sutter's" The fence is well within my property line and well below the roofline of my home. Every residence located above mine, including the Hricik's is oriented towards the view of Beaver Creek. In order for my fence to impact their view, they would have to consciously look back and down at it. This in essence would be on the same plane as looking into first floor rear windows. The fence in no way impedes anyone's panoramic views. Additionally I enjoy the time spent in my back yard despite the lack of view and have the right as a property owner to do so. To say that something impacts one property more than another is a subjective point of view. I could say that the bolt on green and white striped, retractable canvas awnings located on the Hricik's back deck impacts me more than they. After all I have to look at it where as they only benefit from its shade. Does it really matter? Other than the fact, of course, that they don't comply with the Town's guidelines stating that shading must be consistent with the aesthetic of the residence. "We assume that this is the Sutter's first home, and that they may not have been aware that they should have consulted with there neighbors... " It is indeed my first and only home. I life hear year round and have tremendous respect for my neighbors. The Town of Avon guidelines state that written permission is required by the second side of a duplex unit in order to receive a permit for work. That permission was requested and given. In addition, the owner of the home adjacent to the North granted permission. The Hricik's spend limited time at their home here and were not in town at the time the fence was started. They were however back in town on June 18"' as I was working on the fence. Mr. Hricik commented to me directly that he thought everything "looked great." Mrs. Hricik later explained that this was just her husband's way of being a courteous neighbor and that in fact he did not like the fence. I am not sure how I was supposed to interpret Mr. Hricik's disapproval from his positive comment but apparently that is what I was supposed to do. I instead took his comments at their literal translation and assumed not only that he did not mind the fence but also that he actually liked it. Mr. Hricik made similar comments to my duplex neighbor Dominic Mauriello a few days later. "The open land surrounded by the houses is definitely a Wildlife Corridor... " Though it is not officially a designated wildlife corridor, Deer and other animals have and continue to use it as such. The fence has had zero impact on the presence of wildlife. I have pictures if you would like to see them. "Mr. Sutter's fence is not a "split rail" fence..." The fence in question is not a traditional cedar split rail fence. It is however, constructed in the same dimension and general post/rail style. As submitted to the Design Review Board: Intent — The intent of the fence is to define and enhance an outdoor living space. Additionally, it provides security and the ability for an entire family, in this case consisting of two dogs and an infant, to enjoy the outdoors together without worry. By blending into the landscape and relating in style and finish the home structure, the fence in effect creates an outdoor living room. It allows the occupants the opportunity to experience and enjoy the natural environment without the confines of walls or a ceiling. Defining an ample yet conservative space allows natural buffer zones to create a transition from "wild" space to "living" space while also serving to blend the fence into the landscape. Construction — The fence is constructed in traditional post/rail construction using dimensional posts of 4" x 6" size and rails of 2" x 8" x 8' size. Each post is placed 8 foot on center with a series of two rails extended between each post. While consistent in style and dimension to traditional cedar split rail fences, this fence is far superior in design and construction. Each section is secured with wood screws for sturdiness and durability. The height of the fence does not exceed four feet in height. Unfinished lumber was used in order to avoid leaching of pressure treated chemicals into the soil. A more bio -friendly alternative was used to preserve and protect the wood below grade. Above grade, the fence was stained to match the siding of the home structure and to blend into the overall landscape. In order to effectively' provide a safe and worry free environment, wire mesh was hung between each post. The mesh used is the lowest gauge available with the largest effective spacing. It was tailored to fit securely and discreetly within each section of fence. Though immediately upon installation the mesh is a shiny metallic, it will tarnish over time to become mostly invisible within the natural background. Additionally, a buffer of native grasses, brush and trees, growing upwards of three feet in height and surrounding the fence, will further aid in blending the fence into the landscape. The fence runs briefly along the property line between units of the duplex where it replaced the old fence but avoids delineating the property in any other area or affecting wildlife migration. Furthermore, a large portion of the fence runs below the highest grades of the site providing additional camouflage. Conclusion — While this fence cannot be classified as traditional cedar split rail, its post/rail design reflects the tradition of cedar split rail while allowing for a higher quality, safer and more finished looking fence. Its design is consistent with that of the home as well as the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The fence was constructed with care and craftsmanship and with the intent, as part of a greater landscape plan, to create a usable and enjoyable outdoor living environment. "I don't think that any of us know the exact boundaries of our properties... " "We planted, entirely at our own expense, five large Schubert Trees and two pines. We already had over a hundred trees on our property, and had not had any intention of planting more. Because we were putting the trees there as a screen, even though they were entirely on our property, we made sure to tell the Sutter's about it before having them planted. " I have recently completed a survey of my property line (entirely at my own expense) so I do in fact know the exact boundary of my property. I can only assume Mrs. Hricik is speaking of her own ignorance in regard to her property line. That would certainly explain the fact that four of the five trees planted, "entirely on (her) own property" are actually planted entirely on my property. In addition the only permission asked for or given in regards to those specific trees was to the landscape company who showed up at our door asking if they could drag the trees through our yard in order to get them up the hill. We granted permission though at the time we did not know where or for who the trees were headed. Five large trees being drug with chains by half a dozen men left a visible impression on our yard. We did not complain and I must say don't mind having the trees there. I cannot, however, speak for the owner of the lot directly North of the Hriciks. It appears a significant portion of the landscaping done on that end of the Hricik's property also extends past their property line and onto the neighboring lot. Apparently not knowing the exact boundaries of your property justifies complaints against your neighbor's land while at the same time gives permission to occupy it? What kind of president does that set? Comments on letters receive by the Planning and Zoning Commission: Letter from John and Greer Gardner, Connie Herman, Joanne Morgan and Bill Hubbard, submitted July 1, 2007. "Also at issue is the flagrant disregard that the occupant has shown for the Town's laws, policies and procedures. As we observed in a recent Vail Daily article, some folks think such rules and policies can be ignored if they are inconvenient. It was obviously "inconvienient"for the occupant to go through regular channels and apply for a permit BEFORE constructing his fence. At each step of construction, he chose to proceed in spite ofprotests and warning from the Town staffand his neighbors — right up to the final touch of applying chicken wire, " I recognize the fact that I did not understand the need for a permit to build a fence. I understand this is in fact not unusual and that the Design Review Board sees it happen quite often. My conclusion was based on the fact that I was not altering the exterior of my home nor the drainage of my site. When informed of the need for a permit on Friday, June 8, 2007, I agreed to submit for one and had an application to the Review Board by 10:00 am on Monday, June 11, 2007. I would say this is far from "flagrant disregard." I received approval to complete the fence on June 18, 2007 and did so with the exception of the rear gate and stain by the end of the day June 19, 2007. On June 20, 2007 I received word that due to a neighbor complaint I would have to bring my fence plan up for review nearly a month later at the July 17, 2007 DRB commission meeting. Because the lumber I used in construction was not treated I asked permission to stain the fence. Permission was granted to complete the fence under the permit issued with the understanding that the commission may ask me to change something after review. I took into consideration neighbor complaints as well, however they were coming from mostly one direction and at times appeared to be more a personal vendetta than a direct fence issue. For example, a complaint was made that "these Hollywood types get away with murder." Furthermore a complaint was issued the morning of June 21, 2007 that I had been out constructing a "fence within my fence" at 7:00 that morning. In fact, I had been working the first 24 hours of a 48-hour shift at the firehouse and was not even home. In case you were wondering my seven months pregnant wife was not out building a fence either. Letter submitted by Randy Smith on July 3, 2007. "I would however, like to elaborate on the simple fact that (it) is in violation of the protective covenants of the Wildridge Subdivision. For the life of me I cannot understand how one neighbor would think the Covenants did not apply to him and simply ignore due process. The Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission and their guidelines govern the Subdivision of Wildridge. I assume by the addressing of this letter to said Planning and Zoning Commission that the writer knew that. The guidelines are just that, guidelines and are up the interpretation of the Review Board, Commission and Council. For that reason, a variety of fence styles and constructions exist within Wildridge. That said, and as I have stated previously, I most certainly followed "due process" and received a permit to build the fence. July 5, 2007 Dear Sirs and Madams of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission, Prior to beginning this letter, please accept my apology for its very existence. After becoming aware of a packet that has been circulated by Eileen and George Hricik concerning our property, I feel I have no choice. The fact is that I am 8 months pregnant and by my doctor's recommendation, I was hoping to avoid any unnecessary involvement in this situation. However, due to it's timing and my neighbor's insistence of their involvement, I feel that a letter to you all to be the best and most appropriate way to shed light on the rest of the story and still keep myself safe from the stress. My hope is that this letter will be accepted as an addendum of sorts to the letter my husband wrote earlier today in response to the Hricik's packet. As his wife, I fully support all of the statements he has made. I do feel that there are additional facts that should be considered. 1. The Hricik's state in the second paragraph of the first page of their letter that our fence "does not comply to the Protective Covenants of Wildridge Subdivision". Although this is our first home in Wildridge, as Mrs Hricik pointed out, we feel that we do our best to intelligently and considerately abide by the laws of the community. In speaking with others that live around us, we were under the impression that because a Homeowner's Association of Wildridge does not currently exist that the Covenants of Wildridge are essentially unenforceable as the Town's Planning and Zoning Committee sets the guidelines to be upheld by its home-on� I asked this of the Town's staff members and have been assured that it is the case, so I am unsure why the Hricik's, Gardner's, and Randy Smith continue to refer to them in their protest and would hope that they hold no weight in this discussion, unless they are of course part of the guidelines of the Town, itself. 2. The Hricik's state in the third paragraph of the first page of their letter that their protest would not be necessary had we discussed it with them prior to building it. However, on the second page, second paragraph, they state that "He has made a serious mistake, and it needs to be rectified". These are completely contradictory statements and lead any reader to logically deduce that the very existence of their protest stems from the fact that they are taking this issue very personally. Not mentioned anywhere to date is the fact that Eileen Hricik appeared in our backyard on June 25m crying intensely and stating that she had been doing so for hours because of our fence. That additionally demonstrates that she is emotionally tied to this situation for some reason and seems to be using it as a crux in finding "Hiles" to fight what she simply doesn't like. Due to this fact, I would hope that the concerns of our neighbors be disregarded if they have only subjective merit. 3. The Hricik's state on the second page, first paragraph of their letter that our fence is "in their face from all three decks, three bedrooms, and living and dining room windows", essentially disrupting their view. This is completely disconcerting to me as the only time the fence comes into view from any of their decks or the inside of their home is when they are looking directly at and into our home. I find it difficult to understand why they would want to spend their time looking down onto our property and into our home when they have a beautiful scenic view that most people in Wildridge pay a high price to be able to enjoy and hope that the commission take this fact into account when considering our fence. 4. The Hricik's state on the second page, fourth paragraph of their letter that "Mr. Sutter claims that he needs the fence to keep his dogs in... but as almost every house up here has at least one dog, and no one else has a fence, his reasoning is not acceptable". When we moved up to Wildridge four year; ago, the leash law was not being enforced. Most whom lived on our street who owned a dog, let them roam. For over a year now, the Town of Avon's Police Department has enforced this leash law, requiring those up in Wildridge to abide this law and have their dogs on leashes at all times. When Eileen stated that my husband claims he needs a fence to keep our dogs in, he was referring to the fact that we are attempting to abide by the newly enforced laws of this community, unlike the Hricik's as shown in one of the pictures in their letter. Yes, we continue to take our dogs for walks, but we would also like for our Siberian Husky to enjoy the natural outdoor surroundings that we paid for when purchasing this property, without violating the law or restricting her with a rope or chain. In addition, a little over a year ago, we adopted a 5 pound Yorkshire Terrier who absolutely loves his mountain home. Without a mesh -covered fence, we would need to be on constant alert that he would escape and either be run over or attacked by the local wildlife. Unfortunately, electric fences are not an option for our dogs as the thick fur of the Husky doesn't allow for effective utilization and the extremely small size of our Yorkie would cause him harm if inflicted with the charge of that type of fence uses. Our dogs are as much a part of our family as the baby we hope to deliver this summer. We would like our family to enjoy our surroundings together, safely, and in a law-abiding way and we had hoped that the fence would provide that. 5. The Hricik's discuss that our fence is not a split rail fence, as stated in the Covenants of Wildridge and that by allowing us to keep up our fence that you are allowing exceptions that will bring "damage to the community, a drop in property values, and eventually lawsuits". At the start of this endeavor, our belief was that a split rail fence includes those in which your sight allows for viewing between rails, regardless of material. We felt confident that violations were not being committed due to the fact that multiple homes in Arddridge have fences that diverge from typical cedar split -rail design. As we do not wish to cause difficulties with these homeowners, I have left out the addresses and would ask that they not be disturbed just due to the discussion over our lot, but that their existences be taken into account as precedents have certainly already been set. 6. Lastly, it is highly upsetting and seemingly unlawful that people in our community who subjectively disagree with the aesthetic of our fence can distribute information that is of a slandering nature to myself and my husband. Prior to their distribution, we were not approached by anyone who has taken issue with the fence. It seems that by their standards, this would show a modicum of respect, but yet we have not been shown that. In actuality, phone calls are being made to our neighbors and letters being left on their doorsteps to spread mistruths about a fence my husband constructed with the approval of the Town Staff. Having been on television in the past, we are unfortunately familiar with having to deal with other people's opinions of our individual personality and character. In this situation, however, I feel that being called disrespectful and discourteous and inferring that we will directly bring down property values and "damage our community" is absolutely unnecessary and should be looked down upon. The truth of the matter is that my husband, as a first time home -owner in this neighborhood, was naively unaware that a fence of our nature required a permit. When approached by Paul Brogren of the Town in our yard on Friday, June 8th, Ryan was told that as long as he had an application turned in by the following week, that he would be okay to continue working on it. Ryan did just that and while he was working a 24 hour shift at the Vail fire station on Saturday, June 9'", Paul returned with a warning slip stating that the Town had received complaints overnight by Greer Gardner and that the work needed to be discontinued until the application had been received. Ryan coTXleted the application over the weekend and had it into the office on Monday, June 11 . After measuring the site, and returning a few times to review the fence itself, it was approved by the Town Staff on June 18th. After realizing his mistake in not filing an application initially, Ryan did everything he was asked to do in accordance with the Town. However, information continues to be disseminated contradictory to these facts and in "flagrant disregard" of our integrity. Although this may not directly impact your decision on the existence of our fence, I feel it sheds a necessary light on how this matter is being dealt with. I, again, apologize for the need for this letter, but feel it within my rights to respond to the lengthy packet that our neighbors have distributed to you and everyone surrounding us. I truly hope that this will be resolved in a timely way in order to not waste your valuable time and that we can continue to live in peace in a place that we have grown to love. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Trista Sutter 5601 B Wildridge Road East Avon, CO 81620 EXHIBIT jr Dominic and Dune Mauriello 560 I A Wildridge Road Avon, Colorado 81 620 July 10, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81 620 Re: Fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road Dear P*Z Members: We are neighbors to Ryan and Trista Sutter who have recently installed a two -rail fence in a small area to the rear of their home. We own the other half of the duplex shared with the 5utter5. We are writing this letter as we will be out of town on the scheduled hearing date and cannot personally appear. Ryan has been work ng very hard to improve the quality and appearance of the landscape around the property and we appreciate having a neighbor who is working to improve the quality of his home. We approved the plan for the fence and have been impressed with the quality of craftsmanship employed in its construction. We are very happy to see the final product and how consistent it appears with the stain and architecture of the home. A custom built fence in our mind is clearly better than an off the shelf fence that can be purchased at any hardware store and seen in any subdivision in the country. We have reviewed the town's design gu delmes with respect to fences and believe that this fence complies with the guidelines and their spirit and intent. We have tried to stay above the fray being generated by some of our neighbors. We don't feel like the opposition to the fence really has anything to do with the fence itself. One concern we have heard about is the chicken -wire being used on the inside of the fence. This is a very common application and once weathered will generally not be visible. We believe the Planning and Zoning Commission should let the staff approval of this fence permit stand. 51ncerely, Dominic F. Mauriello ' Diane H. Mauriello Memo To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners From: Eric Heidemann, Community Development Director Date July 12, 2007 Re: Review of Proposed Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan Introduction Attached. to this memo is the proposed Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan" or the "Urban Renewal Plan") for review and recommendation to Town Council. As noted in the timeline provided below, a public hearing before the Town Council to adopt the Plan is scheduled for August 14th 2007. The purpose of this distribution is to allow the Commission sufficient time to review, ask questions, and provide comments prior to the August 10 public hearing and formal adoption of the Plan. The Urban Renewal Plan contains general background information, a description of the purpose and intent of the Plan, and the statutory requirements and findings necessary for adoption. Of particular importance for the Commission's review is the relationship of the Plan to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to Sections 3.0 and 4.0 for a detailed discussion relative to conformance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has been made available to business and property owners located within and adjacent to the Plan boundaries, as well as other Avon residents. Staff has provided notification of the public hearing to property owners, residents, and owners of businesses for input on the Plan's content. Background On June 26t", 2007 the Town Council approved the formation of the Avon Urban Renewal Authority, (the "Authority") pursuant to the provisions of the Urban Renewal Law of the State of Colorado. The Authority, which is comprised of all seven Town Council members, will be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this Plan, including the preparation and execution of any documents implementing the Plan. Timeline July 17 Distribution to the Planning and Zoning Commission August 7 Planning and Zoning Commission Review and Recommendation August 14 Town Council Public Hearing and Adoption 07/16/2008 19:05 4128875072 JOHN SALKO, PAGE 01 RECEIVED JUL 1 6 2007 Community Development ATI: MATT PIELSTICKER COMMUNITY DEVEt.:iPMENT AVON, CO. PLANNINC AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY116, 2007 AVON, GO. My name is Johr N. Salko, and I live on 5177 Longsun Lane in Wildridge Subdivision. 6 am about 30 feet from the proposed new development on Wildridge Rd. Piss'. I bought this East Duplex Home in 1988(the first Unit on Longsun Lane from Buzz Reynolds Corp. and enjoyed living in this lovely home in Wildridge. Each morning I was awakep by the beautiful sun- rise from the Fast. and the spectaculor setting of t sun in the evening. I thought that for the rest of my life I would enjoy) the beauty of Bea- ver Greek, Bach.rlor Gulch, Arrow Head and the New Xlrk Mountain Range. And then this pass week I found out from my neighbol(not from the town of Avon) that tho lots which are 30 feet from my property were being developed for one single home and a five unit duplex. Can you image the feeling I had in my hears to see the loss of a million dollar view disappear in a flash of a mome;it. The thought of not having this beautiful view sadden me very much. as you can tell from the words that I am definitely against this proposed n!tw development. Everyone on Longsun Lane is very, very up- set that the t.owo of Avon would allow this development to move forward. I strongly hope ritat the planning and Zoning Commission would at hear to the voices of the r,:si,dents on Longsun Lane and not allow this development to go any further. This development would drastically dower the value of all the hones on Long5iAn Lane_ It is my hope aud'tq he hope of all the residents . on Longsun Lanf- that this proposal will be defeated. Thank you so much for listening to my words and I hope that this letter gives the Planning and Zoning Board a !,erter idea of how the residents on Longsun Lane feel about this proposed d-wOlopment. i With best regards, John H. Salko V-. Leslie Roubos 5039 Wildridge Road E P.O. Box 2119 Avon, CO 81620 July 16, 2007 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission c/o Recording Secretary Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 To Whom it May Concern I am writing a second letter to ask for your consideration in not approving the amendment, as it has been submitted, for the Wildridge PUD for Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision (5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East). I have met with the developer's planner and architect to review their plans, and we walked the property together. I think they've done a good job in trying to do what the developer wants; however, I think that what the developer wants is too much and, as someone who is directly impacted by this development, I strongly urge you require him to alter his amendment request. As I stated in my original letter to you date June 16, 2007, when I purchased my lot, which is directly below Lots 38 and 39,1 did so on the reliance of the current PUD designation for this property. I knew that this meant that there would be two, possibly three, years of construction on the site. 1, and my existing neighbors, purchased our properties in good faith based on the existing zoning and construction timeframes. My understanding now, after my meeting with the planner, is that this project will most likely take 7 years of construction; 1 year for the driveway and infrastructure followed by I year per home. That is absolutely unacceptable and is in no way at all good for the surrounding community. As I mentioned in my fust letter to you, we moved here for the quality of life and knew that based on the current zoning, we would be subject to 2 — 3 years of construction on those two lots. To now propose 7 years of construction would werelly impact the quality of life of not only those of us who live in the surrounding neighborhood but also of every single person who lives in the Wildridge subdivision. In addition to the excessive years of construction, I strongly believe that the developer should be required to reduce the density from 6 to 5 units. Single family homes are more N Yi en 07/16/2006 19:05 412BB75072 RECEIVED JUL 1 6 2007 Community Development ATT: MATT PIELSTICKER COMMUNITY UEVEt0PNENT AVON, CO. JOHN SALKO PAGE 01 I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JULY116, 2007 AVON, CO. My name is Johr. H. Salko, and I live on 5177 Longsun Lane in Wildridge Subdivision. ! am about 30 feet from the proposed new development on Wildridge Rd. P3si. I bought this East Duplex Home in 1988(the first Unit on Longsuii Lane from Buzz Reynolds Corp. and enjoyed living in this , lovely home in Wildridge. Each morning I was awaken by the beautiful sun- rise from tht East and the spectaculor setting of tlje sun in the evening. I thought that for the rest of my life I would enjoy the beauty of Bea- ver Creek, Barholor Gulch, Arrow Bead and the New Ygrk Mountain Range. And then this pass week I found out from my neighbor(not from the town of Avon) that the lots which are 30 feet from my property were being developed for one single !tome and a five unit duplex. Can you image the feeling I had in my hear,. to see the loss of a million dollar view disappear in a flash of a moment. The thought of not having this beautiful view sadden me very much. As you can tell from the words that I am definitely against this proposed n,vw development. Everyone on Lougsun Lane is very, very up- set that the town of Avon would allow this development to move forward. I strongly bope that the Planning and Zoning Commission would at bear to the voices of the r•isidents on Lougsun Lane and not allow this development to go any further, This development would drastically dower the value of all I the homes on Longsun Lane. It is my hope andAthe hope of all the residents 1 . on Longsun Lana that this proposal will be defeated. Thank you so much for listening to my words and I hope that this letter gimes the Planning and Zoning Board a !•ertter idea of how the residents on Langsun Lane feel about this propo-,ed d-•volopment. With best regards, John K. Salto July 14, 2007 Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission Avon, CO 81620 To Whom It May Concern, RECEIVED JUL 1 6 2007 Community Davalopment Please allow this letter to serve as our voice at the Town of Avon meeting scheduled for July 17th. Due to prior commitments in Denver, we are unable to attend, however, we do wish to be heard concerning the recently erected fence on Lot 75, Wildridge Road East which we understand is on the agenda for the July 17th meeting. 01 We currently reside in the single family home on Lot 76, 5651 Wildridge Road East. That being said, our lot line to the west borders that of Lot 75 to their east. We wish to begin by saying that we personally were aware of the fence going in prior to it being erected. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there does not exist an active Association within Wildridge. We were never instructed of this when we purchased our lot and built our home in 2005 and so if one exists we would certainly like to know more about it. However, given that this fence is being erected in order to abide by the Leash Laws that are strictly enforced in Wildridge we do not see the problem. In addition, this particular fence is exactly like the fence which has been in place for 5+ years that currently sits on Longsun Lane, Lot 46A With reference to the letter addressed to The Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commissions by Eileen and George Hricik dated June 30, 2007 they state ".....but as almost every house up here has at least one dog, and no one else has a fence, his reasoning is not acceptable. I think he simply likes fences." We find that to be a bit direct and condescending. Possibly the fear of being asked by neighbors to tear a fence down once erected is a bit concerning to dog owners. Again, given the strict Leash Laws in Wildridge, we ourselves worry that'd our dog were to innocently wander off our property into a neighbor's yard that the police would be called and we would be ticketed. This concern has certainly caused us to consider erecting a fence around our yard. And should we do so, it is NOT because we "simply like fences" but rather to abide by the Leash Law and keep our dog in our yard. Also noted in the Hricik letter, of which we have a bit of a problem, is when referencing the property referred to as a "Wildlife Corridor." In the event that someone were to slip and fall in this'Wildlife Corridor' (involving 8 separate lots) on the comer of our section, it would appear that we, the property owners, would be the one sued (as it should be) and not the other 7 "property owners" along the Wildlife Corridor, But aside from our personal feelings, in no way does the fence on Lot 75 prevent wildlife from moving between the 8 properties of the'Wildlife Corridor", neither East to West nor North to South. We have seen wildlife in this area over the past 5 years and continue to see wildlife, as early as today, even with the fence in place. It is our understanding thatthe first fence Lot 75 erected was modified to comply with the required square footage and that the fence now sits well within Lot 75's property lines allowing for a wildlife passage in both directions. So even if we were to erect a fence ourselves, the fence on Lot 75 sits far enough into their property to allow a path for wildlife to walk freely between Lots 75 and 76. As far as a split rail fence vs. a wooden fence - I feel that is just a matter of personal taste/choice. Wood is wood and both a split rail and flat board wood will "mellow' equally over time and both appear rustic and appropriate in Wildridge. We see no problem in the wooden fence and find @ much more effective in keeping in pets than a split rail fence. We too currently have the "ability' to view the fence from our lot, however, we do not find it to be either an "eyesore' Win poor taste." In actuality, we are notable to view any area of the fence in It's entirety in any one area of their lot due to the natural grasses that are growing on both our property and that of Lot 75's. I believe that Lot 75 and we (Lot 76) have made every effort to maintain the natural appearance of the two lots including the growth of the tall native grasses and trees between the two homes allowing both privacy and the natural appearance of the area. Again let me state that there remains a wide area between the newly erected fence and our lot line for wildlife to walk thru and we believe that the tall native grasses that grow in Wildridge not only help to maintain the natural appearance of the area but also helps to hide the fence now in place while still allowing the fence to serve its purpose. Over time, should the 8 surrounding homes within the Wildlife Corridor allow the natural grasses of the Wildridge habitat to continue to grow, the fence in question, especially the lower half where the wire is attached, will soon be hidden from view and weathered, eliminating any reflection that might currently be a result of the sun. As is apparent of the fence on Lot 46A, you cannot tell that chicken wire even exists on this fence. July 14, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Concerning the gate off the back of the yard 1 must say I have NEVER seen Mr. Sutter cut through anybodies property to get to the back roads of Wildridge. Being the athlete that he is I am sure it is much more advantageous to walk around the lots and on the road than to cut thru a Lot full of sage brush and chiggers. Mr. Sutter even takes the road whenever coming to our home, and we share a lot line! So I do believe that the back gate is for the sole sake of accessing his backyard outside of the boundaries of the fence. In viewing the submitted photographs we actually find it difficult in some of the pictures to even locate the fence and gate amongst their trees and grass. That being said, should the Hricik's choose to look up and over the Sutter's home at the beautiful views of Beaver Creek, Bachelor Gulch and the New York Mountains vs. looking down into the back yard of the Sutter's, they would not see the fbnce. For many of us with southern deck views, we see the rusty/beat-up guard rail along sections of Wildridge Rd (clearly an EYESORE), but personally, we choose to let it serve its purpose vs. staring down upon it. And so for the Hricik's to retain property value, which appears to be the concern that they have with the fence, they might want to consider planting shrubs or allowing the tall natural grasses of Wildridge to grow along their lot line in order to hide the fence and wire, though again I wish to state that I find it difficult to see the fence in their photos since the landscape of their yard seems to do a good job already of hiding the fence and this will only increase with time. And so the bottom lines are 1) are fences, such as the Sutter's, indeed forbidden in Wildridge(?), especially since Lot 46A has the exact same fence, and has for 5+ years? Given the leash laws, it would be impossible to reside here without a perfectly trained dog where a fence would not be necessary. 2) If a wooden fence and chicken wire both "mellow" over time then why is lt necessary for a split rail fence (which doesn't serve the purpose of maintaining pets in ones yard) vs. a flat board wooden fence matter as long as it's wood? 3) In no way does the fence on Lot 75 restrict wildlife from passing within the 8 lots listed in the Hricik's June 30th letter. Lastly, 4) the information referred to by the Hriciks, disputing the Sutter's fence, is confusing to us since to our knowledge, being homeowners of Wildridge on two separate occasions since 2002, we are not aware of any such 'Covenants" or Association. Thus, if a decision is made based on 'Covenants' that do not even exist, than it does not seem fair to ask the Sutter's to take down their fence. Additionally, in all fairness, is the Town of Avon then prepared to ask Lot 46A to remove their fence? In closing we would like to say that we have met the Hdcik's and found them to be very nice people. Based on their June 30s' letter, we do believe that "they" truly feel that they have reason to be concerned over the fence on Lot 75. However, once the Sutter's backyard is finished I am sure they will find a beautifully manicured yard prevails, should they continue to look down upon them, and that the distress caused over this was unnecessary and that the fence will not in any way lower their property value. In fact, some might think that planting over 100 trees on a lot in Wildridge is a bit obsessive and might break "covenants" within the neighborhood making the lot appear out of place as 4 a forest has suddenly grown on one single lot. I'm sure the fence will look nice, appropriate for Wildridge and both the wood and wire will have "mellowed" by next summer. Our concern, above and beyond the Hdcik's, lie with "other" neighbors within Wildridge who believe in 'covenants" that either *DO NOT EXIST or "NO LONGER EXIST' — and appear to set out to make Wildridge neighbors miserable at any cost. If those such neighbors feel compelled to cause expense and distress to surrounding neighbors then it seems they might be better off moving out of Wildridge, onto a piece of land consisting of many acres where NO neighbors can be seen around them vs disrupting the neighborhood which has so nicely meshed together. Please let this letter be documented in the minutes reflecting our desire to let the Sutter's move ahead with their fenceas is. We feel that in the end the fence will not only serve its' purpose but that it will also look nice and fit in well within the habitat of Wildridge. Thank you for your time. Rasps ully submitted, f � mon an re L e e 5651 Wildridge Rd E Lot 76 Avon, CO 61620-4629 (970)445-8020 2 Landscape Plan: 5601 B Wildrldge Road East - Sutter Residence Overview - This plan outlines the intentions at 5601 B Wildridge Road East, The Sutter Residence (referred hereto after as "The Residence"). The plan will relate the ideas and theories associated with the residence's current and planned outdoor living environment in regard to boarders, retaining walls, patios and landscape. It is the goal of this plan to demonstrate and justify the creation and maintenance of an effective, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing outdoor experience. Current Landscape - At the onset of the planned landscape renovation, the residence's current landscape consisted mainly of a small back concrete patio, a four -foot brick retaining wall and a section of split rail fencing. In addition, the residence's landscape includes a small lawn, a small front patio, a curbside large boulder retaining wall. The focus of this landscape plan will be on the rear and side landscapes. Little change will be made to the front portions of the lot. Prior to the submittal of this Landscape Pian and with approval from the Town of Avon Design Review Board, a fence has recently been constructed to replace the old, dilapidated split rail and to help in bringing definition to the outdoor living space. See attached "Fence" attachment for further explanation. Planned Landscape - Under the current landscape plan the following are intended: • Completion of aforementioned fence - Please see "Fence" attachment. • Installation of flagstone patio to replace concrete slab - Will expand current patio, providing an area for outdoor living, including dining and relaxing. The patio will be constructed to provide a porous surface for water run-off mitigation. • Lowering and stair stepping of current brick retaining wall - Will provide a more open environment and opportunity for a more interactive and creative landscaping. • Flora - Most of the natural landscape and vegetation will be unaltered. Special consideration will be made to preserve drought tolerant native vegetation and eliminate noxious weeds. A buffer of native vegetation will be maintained and enhanced around the perimeter of the outdoor living space. It is the intent of this buffer to provide a transition into the living space as well as to maintain the native look and feel of the area to both the residence and the neighboring property. The creation of various sitting spaces - Will provide opportunity to enjoy a more intimate natural experience within the outdoor living space. Modification of Irrigation system - implementation of this landscape plan will reduce lawn space and decrease irrigation needs. Traditional sprinkler heads will be replaced or modified where applicable. Low flow drip irrigation will be utilized in areas where supplemental irrigation may be needed. Conclusion - The Landscape Pian at 5601 B Wildridge Road East has been designed with the intent of providing a safe, effective and beautiful outdoor living environment. It offers the space for comfortable outdoor living while specifically allowing buffer zones to bring the native landscape into the living environment. The design was created with respect to the natural environment, the residence and the neighborhood. Its footprint is small, especially when considering the size and scale of neighboring homes. Wildlife corridors are respected and maintained. 4 FGALG" Attachment Fence - The fence at the residence is an integral part of the overall landscape plan. It also seems to be a point of contention and thus deserving of special explanation and consideration. The intent of the fence is to define and enhance an outdoor living space. Additionally, it provides security and the ability for an entire family, in this case consisting of two dogs and an enfant, to enjoy the outdoors together without worry. By blending into the landscape and relating in style and finish the home structure, the fence in effect creates an outdoor living room. It allows the occupants the opportunity to experience and enjoy the natural environment without the confines of walls or a ceiling. Defining an ample yet conservative space allows natural buffer zones to create a transition from "wild" space to "living" space while also serving to blend the fence into the landscape. construction - The fence is constructed in traditional post/rail construction using dimensional posts of 4" x 8" size and rails of 2" x 8" x 8' size. Each post is placed 8 foot on center with a series of two rails extended between each post. while consistent in style and dimension to traditional cedar split rail fences, this fence is far superior in design and construction. Each section is secured with wood screws for sturdiness and durability. The height of the fence does not exceed four feet in height. Unfiuished lumber was used in order to avoid leaching of pressure treated chemicals into the soil. A more bio -friendly alternative was used to preserve and protect the wood below grade. Above grade, the fence was stained to match the siding of the home structure and to blend into the overall landscape. In order to effectively provide a safe and worry free environment, wire mesh was hung between each post. The mesh used is the lowest gauge available with the largest effective spacing. It was tailored to fit securely and discreetly within each section of fence. Though immediately upon installation the mesh is a shiny metallic, it will tarnish over time to become mostly invisible within, the natural background. Additionally, a buffer of native grasses, brush and trees, growing upwards of three feet in height and surrounding the fence, will further aid in blending the fence into the landscape. The fence runs briefly along the property line between units of the duplex where it replaced the old fence but avoids delineating the property in any other area or affecting wildlife migration. Furthermore, a large portion of the fence runs below the highest grades of the site providing additional camouflage. Conclusion - While this fence cannot be classified as traditional cedar split rail, its post/rail design reflects the tradition of cedar split rail while allowing for a higher quality, safer and more finished looking fence. Its design is consistent with that of the home as well as the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The fence was constructed with care and craftsmanship and with the intent, as part of a greater landscape plan, to create a usable and enjoyable outdoor living environment. sib m E3 r Ul Landscape Plan - Site Map Legend A - Flag Stone Patio B - Rock Stairway and Garden C - Existing Stone Retaining Wall D - Proposed Stepping of Retaining Wall E - Fence View From Front of Home. Shows relationship of fence to home in design and color. View From Side of Home. Shows that most of side fence is below grade and not visable. View from Above Home. Shows relatively low visual impact of fence from above. Also shows relationship of fence to home and landscape. Demonstration of fence height in relation to surrounding vegetation. Buffer Zone - Demonstrates fence against natural landscape. Also is a good visual as to construction of fence and color in relation to flora. Replacement Fence where prior fence had been. Horizontal section shows weathered metal mesh material vs. new material on slanted portion of fence. w '. V* -} 41 i 1 n Deer passing by side fence unaffected. Also shows effort made to tailor meshing to fence sections. Deer passing by rear fence unaffected. Again also demonstrates effort made to tailor mesh to fence sections. Buffer Zone. Also shows retaining wall to be stepped back. The following photos demonstrate the current size and scale of new home construction near the residence in question. Please note the extent to which each home occupies the building site. Also note the significant difference in curbside affect as compared to the curbside photo of the residence in question. New Home on Wildridge Road - shows extent of lot taken up by home. Home is built from easement to easement. New Home on Longsun - shows curb view of 10 plus foot retaining walls. New Home on WildRidge Road - shows extent in size of new construction allowed in neighborhood. Demonstrates a lack of concern in new construction for site disturbance, Wildlife Migration or curbside dominance. W The following are demonstrations of fences near the home in question that do not conform to the Town of Avon Guidelines. Many have similar characteristics to the residence in question. The final photo is an example of a post/rail fence with wire mesh matching the aesthetic of the home. This design is almost identical to the residence in question. New Home on Wildridge Road - shows non -conforming three rail split rail fence Home on Longsun - shows non- conforming split rail design with wire mesh. Home on Wildridge Road - Shows non -conforming cable fence. Home on Longsun with views from Wildridge Road - shows non -conforming post/rail fence with wire mesh. Home on Longsun with views from Wildridge Road - shows non -conforming post/rail fence with wire mesh. G O .p On Q C o 0.0to o D F &�1 � k E � \ 7 .0 2 % n 7 LL2_ o \ § 0 L� f C } 2 4- F%§ m g 2 / CD [ 0 \ ` Q > 2 @ M CD . •§ J./ CL : E o 2E/@ E ■ 0 8 0 0 0 2D f - 0k D 0 -0 , 2 ■ t c c g 9■ c� E 'L) f �£_%a a F m - °)/ ■ m 0 ■ £ 2 0.§ 7 k 0 / 2 (D°2_0 § IN -0E a) CO c- _� § § % ° $ E ¥ / C 2 0� 2 k a) 2/ E E ¥: q > 0 3 0 m 0 x m 0 e > / ± f @ o ■ § © 2 § E ° k 2 ° c f �� x $ 3/ 0 E5 0 0 � 2.- k 2\ E Q 0@ o 0 o ® @� 0 2 a c$ 0- a C m O _j f «f 3E22 a) R J o m @ k a E 2 ƒ 75 2 E -0 ® c @ � o V @ °'� ■ �. k k 0� ©gam/\ o ■� ° } K I 2 g q « 2 / 0 b 0§ S 0 �. _ ',i r N o � U N N ilk Q S1 N 0 " U � G D i'► (UP Vi G c6 N is 7 C G' � G G O V p tGtS d 0 �j NLi1 G C6 N R O G d0 w - O ` C Nt}? 9 t5. G •-+ 0 G co to V Nt7 ii rs� CO N? 0 'i co Q tG6 N .► 0) C N 6► d S1 ��, O N 7 N t6 N ,^ G N NLS N N �0 G Lon V Q. v ttf N Q N N 0 7 ++ OG ++ N N `� G �cli ►- N G O G v+ to C6 v C O -p v ? O5. tn N N tV t3 a% N N Pj 0 Qy 0 �v N tf�r L ® V v G N 0 N �- C Q o'. 0 N 0 U U. %� Nj w v td 1 OS1- g 85 A✓1 o W A N -el N 0 3 N U 'L3 o U O Q .. G to- cr, N G v- -1 -- G 7 G U1 '� a' ay N G t� G v o ni U n+w 7 r. cb O T� QNo v ~ 'd°, N AAO � s . a to _ca G m °It U0G�r m ui OG \ � .y \ . blD) a j f 7 \ m � 2 b E a CL ƒ a) ■ n 0 E E f / k § k C % m FL ■ m E 2 k ® 2a 3 ) @ 'v 7 `A > « m C0. ° o k a c / 0— £ @ o -0 ■ 2 f 2 0 2 § © g §® 0 2� E 2 2 t 2 r a� o N$ a� cc ca a c o 0) c 2 % 2@■@® t E� / m 0 Q D / E v $°� 2 a e. E£ a« m 7 N@ a• p 2 '� � 2§ 2 2 0 CL E�- d§ ® ¢ \ / o d k � ° \ o@ CO m E 6� k 0 C ƒ k. ® k ■ ■ k -■ R ) ° 0 o ƒ o : ƒ c t k f § a)§ 2 0% 2 2/ 2 U& CL 3 m C _ AM rJ % % v � r � � 7 g � 2 % coo to % ta � ¢ O 40- 7 \ � � g � � � I CL c 3 c C9 c tQ L E N y ez 7 V C �1 N c- GgLtVA r 7_ t3 z C� A9 a Qa NCAV LIP bA 0 U iAW AW c 'Q ( IL M i _ O �19am r t' `F':. J 0 0 a AAW AW 0 1 Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map B. Letters of opposition from Eileen and George Hricik and Jack and Greer Gardner is 171 C. Letter of opposition from Randy Smith D. Revised application stating Mr. Sutter's intent for landscaping and fencing on his property E. Letters from Ryan and Trista Sutter requesting a Tabling and responding to the letters of opposition F. Letter of support from Dominic and Diane Mauriello. 6,p0 257VA bF3 - F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Memos\2007\Sutter Fence - 071707.doc EXHIBIT B RECEIVED JUL 0 2 2007 Eileen and George Hricik c rnmurusy PlevelgPment 5711 A Wildridge Road East Avon, Colorado 81620 1951 Welch Street Houston , Texas 77019 June 30, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Avon, Colorado 81620 Dear Sirs : I write this to you to protest a fence that has been erected over the past few weeks on Lot 75 , Wildridge Road East. The property belongs to Mr. and Mrs. Ryan Sutter. My husband George and I own and occupy Lot 80, which is directly above Lot 75. The fence on Lot 75 was erected without our knowledge or consent, and it does not comply to The Protective Covenants of Wildridge Subdivision. I will address the Covenant particulars individually on one of the following pages. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter, but there is much to be said. Please understand that we deeply regret having to protest this fence erected by our neighbors , but they have given us no choice. Had M/M Sutter discussed this with us prior to building it, this protest would not be necessary. We were here at our house for five days over Memorial Day, and my husband spent most of his time outside in the yard; Mr. Sutter could easily have spoken to him then. When we returned three weeks later, the fence was up. This fence impacts OUR property much more then it does Mr. Sutter's . The Sutter's house faces East - their primary view and their deck are on the front of their house. The fence is on the back of their house. Our house faces North. Our view and our decks are on the back and the East side of our property. The Sutter's fence is " in our face " from all three of our decks, from three bedrooms , and from our Living and Dining Room windows. Mr. And Mrs. Sutter seem a lovely young couple. I have been very impressed by columns Mr. Sutter has written for The Vail Trail . He is obviously a man of integrity , and a very fine writer. Knowing this makes the fence issue very puzzling, as his lack of respect for the rights of his neighbors doesn't seem to fit the man. He has made a serious mistake , and it needs to be rectified. We assume that this is the Sutter's first home, and that they may not have been aware that they should have consulted with their neighbors prior to putting up a fence ; common courtesy dictates that they do so , and in most subdivisions and towns mutual agreement about fences is mandatory. Mr. Sutter is definitely a skilled craftsman and builder, end he apparently really likes fences. This is the second fence he has erected on his property. The fence that he put up last year did not adhere to The Covenants either , but it was less bold . Trying to be nice neighbors , we chose to ignore it , but this new fence cannot be ignored . Mr. Sutter claims that he needs the fence to keep his dogs in ........ but as almost every house up here has at least one dog, and no one else has a fence , his reasoning is not acceptable. I think he simply likes fences. I have included pictures of the fence, and diagrams of the areas impacted by his fence. Diagram A shows our " cluster " of 8 Lots, #'s 74 thru 82 , and how the houses sit on the Lots, with the beautiful parkland/ Wildlife Corridor in the center. Diagram B shows Mr. Sutter's duplex, our duplex, and a portion of the single family house on Lot 76 which adjoins Mr. Sutter's property, and our own. The Diagrams are not to scale , but are accurate representations of the situation. I will include a color code with the Diagrams. SPECIFIC ISSUES / THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS OF WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION. " Fences " Section H Page 9, # 12. 1) " The objective of the WDC is to provide for the free and uninhibited movement of all wildlife. " The open land surrounded by the houses is definitely a Wildlife Corridor. We have seen deer , fox , coyote , and a mountain lion in this corridor during the 9 years since we have been here. A bear was also seen at the top of the corridor , at the street, though we were not here at the time. 2) " No fence other then a split rail fence. " Mr. Sutter's fence is not a split rail fence. It consists of two boards with a space in between, and it is stained a coppery brown to match the wood on his house. Chicken wire is attached to the entire fence , on the inside. At times the chicken wire reflects the sun , making it " shiny " ( see Covenants, page 9 , 13.4 ) as well as unattractive. Chain Link fences are expressly forbidden by the Covenants. Surely chicken wire must be as well. Mr. Sutter feels that his fence is " more attractive then a split rail " . I disagree. I would argue that the reason a split rail is specified in the Covenants is because it is the most " natural " fence, and as it ages it " mellows " in color, becoming less noticable as it blends into the natural landscape. The new fence recently erected on Metcalf Road is a perfect example of a split rail fence that will blend in beautifully. The one further up Metcalf, erected last year, has already done so. Mr. Sutter has two gates in his fence. One gate is to his driveway, the other gate faces our property. Mr. Sutter claims that the second gate is to access his property outside the gate. In reality , the minute piece of his property outside the second gate could easily be accessed by going around the outside of his fence from his driveway . The only realistic explanation of the second gate is to allow him to cut through our property to the road above. 3) " The Fencing of an entire lot is prohibited. " I don't think that any of us know the exact boundaries of our properties, nor do we need to, as long as it is open space ..... welcoming to all. Putting in a fence drastically changes this issue , and a legal survey should have been done, and agreed to by the adjacent properties, before a single nail was driven, as a courtesy and as protection for all the property owners whose land touches Mr. Sutter's. As the current President of Greater Houston Preservation Alliance , Houston's local Partner of The National Trust for Historic Preservation, I am well aware of legal and environmental issues. The National Trust is very involved in environmental issues, and works very closely with The Department of Defense, which is responsible for 45,000 acres of U. S. Land, and with The National Park Service. Also. as a former President of The Homeowner's Association of The Metropolis Lofts building in Houston, I have experience enforcing By - Laws and Deed Restrictions ( Covenants ) , and experience with lawsuits. Metropolis was a brand new building of 32 units, all of which had been sold prior to the completion of the building. A young owner of one of the units, just prior to moving into the building, quietly brought a man up to the roof of the building to install a private satellite dish for his unit only. The By - Laws of the Home Owners Association expressly forbade this, as there was a communal satellite dish already there. Once we discovered the illegal dish, we asked him to have it removed. He refused to do so . We tried to reason with him , explaining that if he could do this , so could every owner in the building, which would mean 32 dishes on the roof , and foot traffic for repairs , etc. The roof was not designed to hold all of that weight, and could collapse. He didn't care - he wanted HIS dish, and nothing else mattered to him. We insisted , so he sued the Home Owners Association. When we got to court , the Judge looked at him and immediately said, " You have wasted enough people's time already - take it down. " The young man was stunned, but was heard to say, as he left the Courtroom, " I figured that if it was already there, nobody would bother." I don't want to think that Mr. Sutter has that same mentality , but I am told that he began to build his fence before he even applied for a permit. Mr. Sutter's fence isn't going to bring down a roof , but it could definitely bring down the value of OUR property. Should Mr. Sutter want to sell his house, any prospective buyer would realize that if he didn't like the fence, he could simply have it taken down. Should WE want to sell ours, however, a prospective buyer would have to purchase it knowing that he might have to live with that fence forever. I frankly doubt that we could find a purchaser ........ Why would anyone want to buy a house facing an unnecessary and unusual fence when the rest of Wildridge doesn't have them ? I FIRMLY believe that the " laws " of any organization - call them Covenants, Deed Restrictions, or By - Laws - MUST be enforced for the protection of all involved. Allowing exceptions to stated regulations opens a frightening door, and sets a dangerous legal precedent. Exceptions tend to " breed " more exceptions , with the end result being damage to the community, a drop in property values, and eventually lawsuits as owners try to protect their investments and their quality of life. I believe that The Planning Commission has an obligation, to all the residents of Wildridge , to protect our property values, and to uphold our Covenants. In closing, I hope that The Planning Commission will understand that we are not " difficult neighbors " . We built our house , and moved into it in 1998. We have never before voiced a single complaint, though we certainly could have. From our house we have watched camper/trailers parked outside for months on end ( page 12, 18.4 ) , snowmobiles parked, and used, ( page 13 , #27 ) , motorcycles frequently on Wildridge Road traveling at very high speeds ( page 13 , # 27 ) - as recently as two days ago - and several dogs that have been allowed to roam freely for years, ( page 12, # 21 ) . We have never mentioned any of these issues to anyone , as they do not threaten the good of the community. I only mention them now to illustrate the fact that we are not " complainers". Two summers ago, because our house looks so directly down on the Sutter's house, we decided that it would be a kindness to give them some privacy. We planted , entirely at our own expense , five large Schubert Trees, and two pines. We already had over a hundred trees on our property , and had not had any intention of planting more. Because we were putting the trees there as a screen, even though they were entirely on our property, we made sure to tell the Sutter's about it before having them planted. We have no desire to cause problems for anyone, but as this is the second time Mr. Sutter has erected an inappropriate fence, we have to seriously worry about what he might decide to do NEXT summer, if this fence is allowed to remain. I feel it is the responsibility of The Covenants Committee of Wildridge, and of the Town of Avon, to revoke any permission that has been given, and to insist that this inappropriate " free form " wood and chicken wire fence be removed immediately. We have been told that this issue will be discussed at the Planning Committee Meeting on July 17'h , 2007. We urge our neighbors to voice their opinions in writing, as soon as possible. We also urge all interested parties to come and see this for themselves , and to call us with any questions, at 970 - 845 - 8442. Respectfully submitted, Eileen Hricik. George Hricik. Cc : Property Owners of Lots 74 through 82, Wildridge Subdivision Wildridge Covenants Committee Members Concerned Wildridge Neighbors. Color Code for Diagrams Green : Open green space corridors Light Purple: Houses Blue: Decks on houses Brown: Street and Property Lines Grey: Driveways and Patios Dark Green: Fir Trees Deep Purple : Schubert Trees Dark Brown Dotted Line : Mr. Sutter's Fence Dark Brown vertical lines: Mr. Sutter's Gates. Light Brown / Dark Brown area: Site where Mr. Sutter began to erect A solid wood fence. E to a1 M.31 A Sri SAME AS ORIGINAL 0 SAME AS ORIGINAL •Y4 ` � t R r < y t3 } c♦ R • } ilk � a Y July 1, 2007 RECEIVED Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon JUL 0 2 200 Avon, Colorado 81620 Community Development Re: Fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road Dear Commissioners : We are owners of properties in the vicinity of 5601B Wildridge Road and are opposed to your issuance of a permit for the fence that the occupant of that property has constructed. We think the questions for your Commission are simple : First, does the fence that the occupant has constructed ( without a permit) comply with the Town's ordinances and the Wildridge Covenants, and second, is there a valid reason why it should not comply ?? We think the answers to both of these questions should be "No," and the permit should be denied. Also at issue is the flagrant disregard that the occupant has shown for the Town's laws, policies and procedures. As was observed in a recent Vail Daily article, some folks think such rules and policies can be igonored if they are inconvenient. It was obviously "inconvenient" for the occupant to go through regular channels and apply for a permit BEFORE constructing his fence. At each step of construction, he chose to proceed in spite of protests and warning from Town staff and his neighbors - - right up to the final touch of applying chicken wire. For these reasons, we urge your Commission to deny the permit and require the removal of the fence. Sincerely, Name:-.fak", .€ �'stur�rt+�'ss� Name�llvK� r f Address: r7.2 3 —� Address: ;; ' s Signa G t. Signature:�,�y Nam P, Name: 71-L —f Tcw,416 f'itibriAfr> Address:iA) i lrin'21'eP. ��t i' Address: Signature=: /V1Cr Signature July 1, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Avon Avon, Colorado 81620 Re: Fence at 5601B Wildridge Road Dear Commissioners: We are owners of properties in the vicinity of 5601 B Wildridge Road and are opposed to your issuance of a permit for the fence that the occupant of that property has constructed. We think the questions for your Commission are simple : First, does the fence that the occupant has constructed ( without a permit) comply with the Town's ordinances and the Wildridge Covenants, and second, is there a valid reason why it should not comply ?? We think the answers to both of these questions should be "No," and the permit should be denied. Also at issue is the flagrant disregard that the occupant has shown for the Town's laws, policies and procedures. As was observed in a recent Vail Daily article, some folks think such rules and policies can be igonored if they are inconvenient. It was obviously "inconvenient" for the occupant to go through regular channels and apply for a permit BEFORE constructing his fence. At each step of construction, he chose to proceed in spite of protests and warning from Town staff and his neighbors - - right up to the final touch of applying chicken wire. For these reasons, we urge your Commission to deny the permit and require the removal of the fence. Sincerely, Name: 76�t C�/ .S✓n /fll Address: y J� Cl/d • 2��Jd/f Signature fZAI-- Name: Address: Signature: —{6� ujvp4F-tD �- ar"n 14ST P6R t'o`ss v-Ew up ��� L Name: f s4�ttSSe �t Address: t� ✓4,/ C= Signature:--* Name: Address: Signature: EXHIBIT C RECEIVED JUL 0 5 2007 Community Development July 3, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Avon, CO 81620 Dear Commission Members, I own and reside year round at Lot 80 5711-B Wildridge Road East, the south side of the unit owned by Mr.and Mrs. George Hricik and I want to express my strongest opposition to the fence erected on Lot 75 by Mr. and Mrs. Sutter. The fence erected by the Sutters is in my view shed from every east facing window and all of my outside decks. By it's design it is an eyesore with the look of a chicken coop but that is not my primary objection, as we all know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is simply not a legal fence by any interpretation of the Wildridge Covenants regarding fences. I think the letter written to you by Mr. and Mrs. Hricik dated June 30th 2007 very succinctly, accurately and eloquently expresses the concerns of many of the Stutter's neighbors. I would however, like to elaborate on the simple fact that is in violation of the Protective Covenants of the Wildridge Subdivision. For the life of me I can not understand how one neighbor would think that the Covenants did not apply to him and simply ignore due process. I would hope that this very basic but compelling fact would be enough to have you rule that ihis fence be removed. Sin rely, (711 y Smi Wildrige Road East Unit B Avon, Co 81620 July 6, 2007, Avon Town Planning and Zoning Commission PO sox 975 Avon, CO 81620 CC: Mr. and Mrs. Ryan Sutter Hand Delivered Dear Commission Members, RECEIVED JUL 0 9 1007 C"fta ly ows*.", Mr. Sutter was kind enough to stop by my residence yesterday and dropped off a letter that he had written to you disputing many of the arguments and statements made by his neighbors, including myself. It is too bad we had not opened up a dialogue sooner as it might have prevented all of this. I think all parties might share some blame in this regard including myself. I am amazed at the wildly divergent stories. If my assertion, based on information that was relayed to me, which I assumed to be accurate; that Mr. Sutter did not follow due process, is incorrect, I sincerely apologize. I do however remain adamant that the fence constructed is not acceptable based on the guidelines contained in the Wildridge Covenants. I understand these to be guidelines but they seem very clear and concise as to what type of a fence is acceptable. I will not hazard a guess as to how the commission might interpret these guidelines but I would ask that at the very least you ask Mr. Sutter to remove the wire mesh. That part of the project can not be considered acceptable no matter how you interpret the guidelines. The contention by Mr. Sutter that the mesh will tarnish and blend in may be true but so would a barbed wire fence and an untreated chain link fence and we probably don't want to debate that any time soon. ,--�S;!c rely, Randy S i 5711- Idridge Road East %von, CO 81620 Landscape Pla EXHIBIT D nC�CiVtU 6601 B Wildridge Road East - Butter Residence JUL 0 b 2007 Communfgr 9welepment Overview - This plan outlines the intentions at 6601 B Wildridge Road East, The Sutter Residence (referred hereto after as "The Residence"). The plan will relate the ideas and theories associated with the residence's current and planned outdoor living environment in regard to boarders, retaining walls, patios and landscape. It is the goal of this plan to demonstrate and justity the creation and maintenance of an effective, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing outdoor experience. Current Landscape - At the onset of the planned landscape renovation, the residence's current landscape consisted mainly of a small back concrete patio, a four -foot brick retaining wall and a section of split rail fencing. In addition, the residence's landscape includes a small lawn, a small front patio, a curbside large wider retaining wall. The focus of this landscape pian will be on the rear and side landscapes. Little change will be made to the front portions of the lot. Prior to the submittal of this Landscape Plan and with approval from the Town of Avon Design Review Board, a fence has recently been constructed to replace the old, dilapidated split rail and to help in bringing definition to the outdoor living space. See attached "Fence" attachment for further explanation. Planned Landscape - Under the current landscape plan the following are intended: • Completion of aforementioned fence - Please see "Fence" attachment. • Installation of flagstone patio to replace concrete slab - Will expand current patio, providing an area for outdoor living, including dining and relaxing. The patio will be constructed to provide a porous surface for water run-off mitigation. • Lowering and stair stepping of current brick retaining wall - Will provide a more open environment and opportunity for a more interactive and creative landscaping. • Flora - Most of the natural landscape and vegetation will be unaltered. Special consideration will be made to preserve drought tolerant native vegetation and eliminate noxious weeds. A buffer of native vegetation will be maintained and enhanced around the perimeter of the outdoor living space. It is the intent of this buffer to provide a transition into the living space as well as to maintain the native look and feel of the area to both the residence and the neighboring property. The creation of various sitting spaces - Will provide opportunity to enjoy a more intimate natural experience within the outdoor living space. " Modification of Irrigation System - Implementation of this landscape plan will reduce lawn space and decrease irrigation needs. Traditional sprinkler heads will be replaced or modified where applicable. Low flow drip irrigation will be utilized in areas where supplemental irrigation may be needed. Conclusion - The Landscape Plan at 8801 B Wildridge Road East has been designed with the intent of providing a safe, effective and beautiful outdoor living environment. It offers the space for comfortable outdoor living while specifically allowing buffer zones to bring the native landscape into the living environment. The design was created with respect to the natural environment, the residence and the neighborhood. Its footprint is small, especially when considering the size and scale of neighboring homes. Wildlife corridors are respected and maintained. +FGhI�C" Attachment Fence - The fence at the residence is an integral part of the overall landscape plan. It also seems to be a point of contention and thus deserving of special explanation and consideration. Intent - The intent of the fence is to define and enhance an outdoor living space. Additionally, it provides security and the ability for an entire family, in this case consisting of two dogs and an enfant, to enjoy the outdoors together without worry. By blending into the landscape and relating in style and finish the home structure, the fence in effect creates an outdoor living room. It allows the occupants the opportunity to experience and enjoy the natural environment without the confines of walls or a ceiling. Defining an ample yet conservative space allows natural buffer zones to create a transition from "wild" space to "living" space while also serving to blend the fence into the landscape. Construction - The fence is constructed in traditional post/rail construction using dimensional posts of V x 8" size and rails of 2"x 8"x 8' size. Each post is placed 8 foot on center with a series of two rails extended between each post. while consistent in style and dimension to traditional cedar split rail fences, this fence is far superior in design and construction. Each section Is secured with wood screws for sturdiness and durability. The height of the fence does not exceed four feet in height. Unfinished lumber was used in order to avoid leaching of pressure treated chemicals into the soil. A more bio -friendly alternative was used to preserve and protect the wood below grade. Above grade, the fence was stained to match the siding of the home structure and to blend into the overall landscape. In order to effectively provide a safe and worry free environment, wire mesh was hung between each post. The mesh used is the lowest gauge available with the largest effective spacing. It was tailored to fit securely and discreetly within each section of fence. Though immediately upon installation the mesh is a shiny metallic, it will tarnish over time to become mostly invisible within the natural background. Additionally, a buffer of native grasses, brush and trees, growing upwards of three feet in height and surrounding the fence, will fl rther aid in blending the fence into the landscape. The fence runs briefly along the property line between units of the duplex where it replaced"the old fence but avoids delineating the property in any other area or affecting wildlife migration. Furthermore, a large portion of the fence runs below the highest grades of the site providing additional camouflage. Conclusion - While this fence cannot be classified as traditional cedar split rail, its post/rail design reflects the tradition of cedar split rail while allowing for a higher quality, safer and more finished looking fence. Its design is consistent with that of the home as well as the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The fence was constructed with care and craftsmanship and with the intent, as part of a greater landscape plan, to create a usable and enjoyable outdoor living environment. II t. Landscape Plan - Site Map Legend A - Flag Stone Patio S - Rock Stairway and Garden C - Existing Stone Retaining Wall D - Proposed Stepping of Retaining Wall E - Fence t� :+� J��. a� W � � View From Front of Home. Shows relationship of fence to home in design and color. View From Side of Home. Shows that most of side fence is below grade and not visable. View from Above Home. Shows relatively low visual impact of fence from above. Also shows relationship of fence to home and landscape. Demonstration of fence height in relation to surrounding vegetation. Buffer Zone - Demonstrates fence against natural landscape. Also is a good visual as to construction of fence and color in relation to flora. Replacement Fence where prior fence had been. Horizontal section shows weathered metal mesh material vs. new material on slanted portion of fence. Deer passing by side fence unaffected. Also shows effort made to tailor meshing to fence sections. Deer passing by rear fence unaffected. Again also demonstrates effort made to tailor mesh to fence sections. Buffer Zone. Also shows retainer wall to be stepped back. The following photos demonstrate the current size and scale of new home construction near the residence in question. Please note the extent to which each home occupies the building site. Also note the significant difference in curbside affect as compared to the curbside photo of the residence in question. New Home on Wild -ridge Road - shows extent of lot taken up by home. Home is built from easement to easement. New Home on Longsun - shows curb view of 10 plus foot retaining walls. New Home on WildRidge Road - shows extent in size of new construction allowed in neighborhood. Demonstrates a lack of concern in new construction for site disturbance, Wildlife Migration or curbside dominance. The following are demonstrations of fences near the home in question that do not conform to the Town of Avon Guidelines. Many have similar characteristics to the residence in question. The $nal photo is an example of a post/rail fence with wire mesh matching the aesthetic of the home. This design is almost identical to the residence in question. New Home on Wildridge Road - shows non -conforming three rail split rail fence Home on Longsun - shows non- conforming split rail design with wire mesh. Home on Wildridge Road - Shows non -conforming cable fence. Home on Longsun with views from Wildridge Road - shows non -conforming post/rail Pence with wire mesh. Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission PO Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Dear Commissioner, EXHIBIT E July 5, 2007 RECEIVED JUL 0 b 2007 Community Dayalppm®nf In submitting my Landscape Plan for your review today, July 5, 2007, it became apparent to me that the issue concerning my property and most notably my fence has become rather heated to some. I have since responded to several letters submitted to you (please see attached) and made personal visits to several of my disgruntled neighbors in order to present them with the same letter. While I feel I have presented a thorough design plan, because of the attention this case is getting, I feel it particularly important that I am in attendance when my project is reviewed. This however, is not possible for the July 17, 2007 meeting as I am engaged in an out of town business matter and unable to attend. I have had this matter scheduled for over six months and simply cannot reschedule, though I have tried. I would like to formally request that the review of my project be scheduled for a later date. I was not given an option in this case and would request that my cooperation up to this point be considered. I sincerely believe that no one else can as effectively represent my case. Ordinarily my wife would be able to fill in, however, she will be 36 weeks pregnant at the time of the meeting and per doctor's orders cannot attend. (Please see attached doctor's note.) Thank you for you time and consideration on this matter. Avon, Colorado Colorado Mountain Medical, P.C. 161 W. Meadow Dr. 322 Beard Creek Rd. 232 Broadway Vail, CO 81657 Edwards, CO 81632 Eagle, CO 81631 9701476.5665 97019266348 9701328.1658 Dale Santa Made, M.D. !me Patel, M.D. Joseph M. Ferrara, M.D. Fed. No, BS 4847426 F 7 Ped, No. AF 9245413 i Name `rr-(5 f a -atke Age r Address Date�ff4a 'R j �Tm� G,�frons . ❑ DISPENSE AS INITIALS Refill__ .._._Times M.D. This signature page is in regards to the fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road East, The Sutter's Residence. The undersigned agree that they have seen the fence and do not take issue with it. Name Address w �F�1UL.fAf Y2 17( (MNC72•db kHd[ff 5'SDf f'eYaJ'+s 2.fD6G .F,Sw C'�y 4-r� rz'(F wvle �, � S3aaFari,eA L...�t A3;L�/ 538U FcrrCf laNC ��--- C55% r � ve-&4- 5s-sQ r6 040- kc4v, , iL Town of Avon r July 5, 2007 Planning and Zoning To whom it may concern, I have issued the following statements in response to letters received by your office. I did not receive these letters directly from their sources, but instead obtained them through your offices. Please review them as I believe much of what they state to be misleading and untrue. Thank you. pcerel Ryan S er 5601 B Wildridge Road East Avon, Colorado 81620 Response to Comments made in a letter written by Eileen and George Hricik and submitted to the Planning and Zoning commission on June 30, 2007. Though Mr. and Mrs. Hricik distributed the letter throughout the neighborhood, a copy was not directly given to me. I obtained my copy through the Design Review Board. "We were here at our house for f ve days over Memorial Day and my husband spent most of his time outside in the yard; Mr. Sutter could easily have spoken to him then. When we returned three weeks later, the fence was up. " Both my wife and I were out of town on business in New York City over Memorial Day weekend. We had zero encounters with the Hriciks during that time. The fence was not started until June 8, 2007, 11 days after Memorial Day. The Hriciks were not occupying there Wildridge home at the time. "The fence impacts our property much more then it does Mr. Sutter's" The fence is well within my property line and well below the roofline of my home. Every residence located above mine, including the Hricik's is oriented towards the view of Beaver Creek. In order for my fence to impact their view, they would have to consciously look back and down at it. This in essence would be on the same plane as looking into first floor rear windows. The fence in no way impedes anyone's panoramic views. Additionally I enjoy the time spent in my back yard despite the lack of view and have the right as a property owner to do so. To say that something impacts one property more than another is a subjective point of view. I could say that the bolt on green and white striped, retractable canvas awnings located on the Hricik's back deck impacts me more than they. After all I have to look at it where as they only benefit from its shade. Does it really matter? Other than the fact, of course, that they don't comply with the Town's guidelines stating that shading must be consistent with the aesthetic of the residence. "We assume that this is the Sutter's first home, and that they may not have been aware that they should have consulted with there neighbors... " It is indeed my fust and only home. I life hear year round and have tremendous respect for my neighbors. The Town of Avon guidelines state that written permission is required by the second side of a duplex unit in order to receive a permit for work. That permission was requested and given. In addition, the owner of the home adjacent to the North granted permission. The Hricik's spend limited time at their home here and were not in town at the time the fence was started. They were however back in town on June 18`b as I was working on the fence. Mr. Hricik commented to me directly that he thought everything "looked great." Mrs. Hricik later explained that this was just her husband's way of being a courteous neighbor and that in fact he did not like the fence. I am not sure how I was supposed to interpret Mr. Hricik's disapproval from his positive comment but apparently that is what I was supposed to do. I instead took his comments at their literal translation and assumed not only that he did not mind the fence but also that he actually liked it. Mr. Hricik made similar comments to my duplex neighbor Dominic Mauriello a few days later. "The open land surrounded by the houses is definitely a Wildlife Corridor... " Though it is not officially a designated wildlife corridor, Deer and other animals have and continue to use it as such. The fence has had zero impact on the presence of wildlife. I have pictures if you would like to see them. "Mr. Sutter's fence is not a "split rail" fence..." The fence in question is not a traditional cedar split rail fence. It is however, constructed in the same dimension and general post/rail style. As submitted to the Design Review Board: Intent — The intent of the fence is to define and enhance an outdoor living space. Additionally, it provides security and the ability for an entire family, in this case consisting of two dogs and an infant, to enjoy the outdoors together without worry. By blending into the landscape and relating in style and finish the home structure, the fence in effect creates an outdoor living room. It allows the occupants the opportunity to experience and enjoy the natural environment without the confines of walls or a ceiling. Defining an ample yet conservative space allows natural buffer zones to create a transition from "wild" space to "living" space while also serving to blend the fence into the landscape. Construction — The fence is constructed in traditional post/rail construction using dimensional posts of 4" x 6" size and rails of 2" x 8" x 8' size. Each post is placed 8 foot on center with a series of two rails extended between each post. While consistent in style and dimension to traditional cedar split rail fences, this fence is far superior in design and construction. Each section is secured with wood screws for sturdiness and durability. The height of the fence does not exceed four feet in height. Unfinished lumber was used in order to avoid leaching of pressure treated chemicals into the soil. A more bio -friendly alternative was used to preserve and protect the wood below grade. Above grade, the fence was stained to match the siding of the home structure and to blend into the overall landscape. In order to effectively provide a safe and worry free environment, wire mesh was hung between each post. The mesh used is the lowest gauge available with the largest effective spacing. It was tailored to fit securely and discreetly within each section of fence. Though immediately upon installation the mesh is a shiny metallic, it will tarnish over time to become mostly invisible within the natural background. Additionally, a buffer of native grasses, brush and trees, growing upwards of three feet in height and surrounding the fence, will further aid in blending the fence into the landscape. The fence runs briefly along the property line between units of the duplex where it replaced the old fence but avoids delineating the property in any other area or affecting wildlife migration. Furthermore, a large portion of the fence runs below the highest grades of the site providing additional camouflage. Conclusion — While this fence cannot be classified as traditional cedar split rail, its post/rail design reflects the tradition of cedar split rail while allowing for a higher quality, safer and more finished looking fence. Its design is consistent with that of the home as well as the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The fence was constructed with care and craftsmanship and with the intent, as part of a greater landscape plan, to create a usable and enjoyable outdoor living environment. "1 don't think that any of us know the exact boundaries of our properties... " "We planted, entirely at our own expense, five large Schubert Trees and two pines. We already had over a hundred trees on our property, and had not had any intention of planting more. Because we were putting the trees there as a screen, even though they were entirely on our property, we made sure to tell the Sutter's about it before having them planted " I have recently completed a survey of my property line (entirely at my own expense) so I do in fact know the exact boundary of my property. I can only assume Mrs. Hricik is speaking of her own ignorance in regard to her property, line. That would certainly explain the fact that four of the five trees planted, "entirely on (her) own property" are actually planted entirely on my property. In addition the only permission asked for or given in regards to those specific trees was to the landscape company who showed up at our door asking if they could drag the trees through our yard in order to get them up the hill. We granted permission though at the time we did not know where or for who the trees were headed. Five large trees being drug with chains by half a dozen men left a visible impression on our yard. We did not complain and I must say don't mind having the trees there. I cannot, however, speak for the owner of the lot directly North of the Hriciks. It appears a significant portion of the landscaping done on that end of the Hricik's property also extends past their property line and onto the neighboring lot. Apparently not knowing the exact boundaries of your property justifies complaints against your neighbor's land while at the same time gives permission to occupy it? What kind of president does that set? Comments on letters receive by the Planning and Zoning Commission: Letter from John and Greer Gardner, Connie Herman, Joanne Morgan and Bill Hubbard, submitted July 1, 2007. "Also at issue is the flagrant disregard that the occupant has shown for the Town's laws, policies and procedures. As we observed in a recent Vail Daily article, some folks think such rules and policies can be ignored if they are inconvenient. It was obviously "inconvienient "for the occupant to go through regular channels and apply for a permit BEFORE constructing his fence. At each step of construction, he chose to proceed in spite ofprotests and warning from the Town staff and his neighbors — right up to the final touch of applying chicken wire, " I recognize the fact that I did not understand the need for a permit to build a fence. I understand this is in fact not unusual and that the Design Review Board sees it happen quite often. My conclusion was based on the fact that I was not altering the exterior of my home nor the drainage of my site. When informed of the need for a permit on Friday, June 8, 2007, I agreed to submit for one and had an application to the Review Board by 10:00 am on Monday, June 11, 2007. I would say this is far from "flagrant disregard." I received approval to complete the fence on June 18, 2007 and did so with the exception of the rear gate and stain by the end of the day June 19, 2007. On June 20, 2007 I received word that due to a neighbor complaint I would have to bring my fence plan up for review nearly a month later at the July 17, 2007 DRB commission meeting. Because the lumber I used in construction was not treated I asked permission to stain the fence. Permission was granted to complete the fence under the permit issued with the understanding that the commission may ask me to change something after review. I took into consideration neighbor complaints as well, however they were coming from mostly one direction and at times appeared to be more a personal vendetta than a direct fence issue. For example, a complaint was made that "these Hollywood types get away with murder." Furthermore a complaint was issued the morning of June 21, 2007 that I had been out constructing a "fence within my fence" at 7:00 that morning. In fact, I had been working the first 24 hours of a 48-hour shift at the. firehouse and was not even home. In case you were wondering my seven months pregnant wife was not out building a fence either. Letter submitted by Randy Smith on July 3, 2007. "I would however, like to elaborate on the simple fact that (it) is in violation of the protective covenants of the Wildridge Subdivision. For the life of me I cannot understand how one neighbor would think the Covenants did not apply to him and simply ignore due process. The Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission and their guidelines govern the Subdivision of Wildridge. I assume by the addressing of this letter to said Planning and Zoning Commission that the writer knew that. The guidelines are just that, guidelines and are up the interpretation of the Review Board, Commission and Council. For that reason, a variety of fence styles and constructions exist within Wildridge. That said, and as I have stated previously, I most certainly followed "due process" and received a permit to build the fence. July 5, 2007 Dear Sirs and Madams of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission, Prior to beginning this letter, please accept my apology for its very existence. After becoming aware of a packet that has been circulated by Eileen and George Hricik concerning our property, I feel I have no choice. The fact is that I am 8 months pregnant and by my doctor's recommendation, I was hoping to avoid any unnecessary involvement in this situation. However, due to it's timing and my neighbor's insistence of their involvement, I feel that a letter to you all to be the best and most appropriate way to shed light on the rest of the story and still keep myself safe from the stress. My hope is that this letter will be accepted as an addendum of sorts to the letter my husband wrote earlier today in response to the Hricik's packet. As his wife, I fully support all of the statements he has made. I do feel that there are additional facts that should be considered. 1. The Hricik's state in the second paragraph of the first page of their letter that our fence "does not comply to the Protective Covenants of Wildridge Subdivision". Although this is our first home in Wildridge, as Mrs Hricik pointed out, we feel that we do our best to intelligently and considerately abide by the laws of the community. In speaking with others that live around us, we were under the impression that because a Homeowner's Association of Wildridge does not currently exist that the Covenants of Wildridge are essentially unenforceable as the Town's Planning and Zoning Committee sets the guidelines to be upheld by its home -owners. I asked this of the Town's staff members and have been assured that it is the case, so I am unsure why the Hricik's, Gardner's, and Randy Smith continue to refer to them in their protest and would hope that they hold no weight in this discussion, unless they are of course part of the guidelines of the Town, itself. 2. The Hricik's state in the third paragraph of the first page of their letter that their protest would not be necessary had we discussed it with them prior to building it. However, on the second page, second paragraph, they state that "He has made a serious mistake, and it needs to be rectified". These are completely contradictory statements and lead any wader to logically deduce that the very existence of their protest stems from the fact that they are taking this issue very personally. Not mentioned anywhere to date is the fact that Eileen Hricik appeared in our backyard on June 25m crying intensely and stating that she had been doing so for hours because of our fence. That additionally demonstrates that she is emotionally tied to this situation for some reason and seems to be using it as a crux in finding "rules" to fight what she simply doesn't like. Due to this fact, I would hope that the concerns of our neighbors be disregarded if they have only subjective merit. 3. The Hricik's state on the second page, first paragraph of their letter that our fence is "in their face from all three decks, three bedrooms, and living and dining room windows", essentially disrupting their view. This is completely disconcerting to me as the only time the fence comes into view from any of their decks or the inside of their home is when they are looking directly at and into our home. I find it difficult to understand why they would want to spend their time looking down onto our property and into our home when they have a beautiful scenic view that most people in Wildridge pay a high price to be able to enjoy and hope that the commission take this fact into account when considering our fence. 4. The Hricik's state on the second page, fourth paragraph of their letter that "Mr. Sutter claims that he needs the fence to keep his dogs in ... but as almost every house up here has at least one dog, and no one else has a fence, his reasoning is not acceptable". When we moved up to Wildridge four years ago, the leash law was not being enforced. Most whom lived on our street who owned a dog, let them roam. For over a year now, the Town of Avon's Police Department has enforced this leash law, requiring those up in Wildridge to abide this law and have their dogs on leashes at all times. When Eileen stated that my husband claims he needs a fence to keep our dogs in, he was referring to the fact that we are attempting to abide by the newly enforced laws of this community, unlike the HricWs as shown in one of the pictures in their letter. Yes, we continue to take our dogs for walks, but we would also like for our Siberian Husky to enjoy the natural outdoor surroundings that we paid for when purchasing this property, without violating the law or restricting her with a rope or chain. In addition, a little over a year ago, we adopted a 5 pound Yorkshire Terrier who absolutely loves his mountain home. Without a mesh -covered fence, we would need to be on constant alert that he would escape and either be run over or attacked by the local wildlife. Unfortunately, electric fences are not an option for our dogs as the thick fur of the Husky doesn't allow for effective utilization and the extremely small size of our Yorkie would cause him harm if inflicted with the charge of that type of fence uses. Our dogs are as much a part of our family as the baby we hope to deliver this summer. We would like our family to enjoy our surroundings together, safely, and in a law-abiding way and we had hoped that the fence would provide that. 5. The Hricik's discuss that our fence is not a split rail fence, as stated in the Covenants of Wildridge and that by allowing us to keep up our fence that you are allowing exceptions that will bring "damage to the community, a drop in property values, and eventually lawsuits". At the start of this endeavor, our belief was that a split rail fence includes those in which your sight allows for viewing between rails, regardless of material. We felt confident that violations were not being committed due to the fact that multiple homes in Wildridge have fences that diverge from typical cedar split -rail design. As we do not wish to cause difficulties with these homeowners, I have left out the addresses and would ask that they not be disturbed just due to the discussion over our lot, but that their existences be taken into account as precedents have certainly already been set. 6. Lastly, it is highly upsetting and seemingly unlawfid that people in our community who subjectively disagree with the aesthetic of our fence can distribute information that is of a slandering nature to myself and my husband. Prior to their distribution, we were not approached by anyone who has taken issue with the fence. It seems that by their standards, this would show a modicum of respect, but yet we have not been shown that. In actuality, phone calls are being made to our neighbors and letters being left on their doorsteps to spread mistruths about a fence my husband constructed with the approval of the Town Staff. Having been on television in the past, we are unfortunately familiar with having to deal with other people's opinions of our individual personality and character. In this situation, however, I feel that being called disrespectful and discourteous and inferring that we will directly bring down property values and "damage our community" is absolutely unnecessary and should be looked down upon. The truth of the matter is that my husband, as a first time home -owner in this neighborhood, was naively unaware that a fence of our nature required a permit. When approached by Paul Brogren of the Town in our yard on Friday, June 8a', Ryan was told that as long as he had an application turned in by the following week, that he would be okay to continue working on it Ryan did just that and while he was working a 24 hour shift at the Vail fire station on Saturday, June 9*, Paul returned with a warning slip stating that the Town had received complaints overnight by Greer Gardner and that the work needed to be discontinued until the application had been received. Ryan coTXleted the application over the weekend and had it into the office on Monday, June 1 I . After measuring the site, and returning a few times to review the fence itself, it was approved by the Town Staff on June I e. After realizing his mistake in not filing an application initially, Ryan did everything he was asked to do in accordance with the Town. However, information continues to be disseminated contradictory to these facts and in "flagrant disregard„ of our integrity. Although this may not directly impact your decision on the existence of our fence, I feel it sheds a necessary light on how this matter is being dealt with. I, again, apologize for the need for this letter, but feel it within my rights to respond to the lengthy packet that our neighbors have distributed to you and everyone surrounding us. I truly hope that this will be resolved in a timely way in order to not waste your valuable time and that we can continue to live in peace in a place that we have grown to love. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Trista Sutter 5601 B Wildridge Road Fast Avon, CO 81620 EXHIBIT jr Dominic and Diane Mauriello 5601 A Wildr dge Road Avon, Colorado 81 620 July 10, 2007 Plammng and Zoning Commission Town of Avon PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81 620 Re: Fence at 5601 B Wildridge Road Dear P*Z Members: We are neighbors to Ryan and Trista Sutter who have recently installed a two -rail fence in a small area to the rear of their home. We own the other half of the duplex shared with the 5utter5. We are wrting this letter as we will be out of town on the scheduled hearing date and cannot personally appear. Ryan has been working very hard to improve the quality and appearance of the landscape around the property and we appreciate having a neighbor who is working to improve the quality of his home. We approved the plan for the fence and have been impressed with the quality of craftsmanship employed in its construction. We are very happy to see the final product and how consistent it appears with the stain and architecture of the home. A custom built fence in our minds clearly better than an off the shelf fence that can be purchased at any hardware store and seen in any subdivision in the country. We have reviewed the town's design guidehnes with respect to fences and believe that this fence complies with the guidehnes and their spirit and intent. We have tried to stay above the fray being generated by some of our neighbors. We don't feel like the opposition to the fence really has anything to do with the fence itself. One concern we have heard about is the chicken -wire being used on the inside of the fence. This is a very common application and once weathered will generally not be visible. We believe the Planning and Zoning Commission should let the staff approval of this fence permit stand. sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello Diane H. Mauriello