PZC Packet 0206181 Agenda posted on Friday, February 2, 2018 at the following public places within the Town of Avon:
-Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org
Please call 970-748-4023 for questions.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
If you require special accommodation please contact us in advance and we will assist you. You may call David McWilliams at 970-
748-4023 or email cmcwilliams@avon.org for special requests.
I. Call to Order – 5:00pm
II. Roll Call
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
IV. Conflicts of Interest
V. Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment) Village at Avon PUD – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17001
Legal Description: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon
Applicant: Harvey Robertson
Summary: PUD Guide amendment for changes to Planning Area F, a 13-acre property located at
the intersection of Post Blvd and East Beaver Creek Boulevard, including: 1) increase
density allowance from 18 dwelling unit/ acre to 25 dwelling units per acre; 2) increase
maximum allowable residential development from 50% to 100; and 3) increase
allowable building height from 48’ to 66’ for multi-family buildings. The applicant has
requested that this public hearing be continued to the February 20, 2017 PZC
meeting.
VI. Rezoning and Preliminary PUD – CO World Resorts - PUBLIC HEARING
Files: REZ18001 & PUD18001
Legal Description: Folson Property | Highway 6 & 24
Applicant: Greg Macik with TAB Associates
Summary: Proposal to rezone the parcel to the Mixed-Use Commercial and Open Space,
Landscaping, and Drainage zone districts. The includes a 185 room hotel / 25 unit
condominium development, with restaurant and supporting retail uses, with a height
of 95 feet. The PUD Overlay would allow for reduced parking supply, increased
building height, and development within 40% slopes.
VII. Meeting Minutes
• January 16, 2018 Meeting
VIII. Staff Updates
IX. Adjourn
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
Meeting Date: February 6, 2018
Agenda Topic: PUBLIC HEARING and Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment)
Village (at Avon) PUD - File #PUD17001
SUMMARY:
The Planning and Zoning Commission continued this application and public hearing from the January 16,
2018 meeting. An additional continuance request was received by the applicant; therefore staff
recommends that PZC open and close the Public Hearing, and continue the application to the February
20, 2018 public hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to continue file #PUD17001, a Preliminary PUD Amendment for the Village PUD to the February 20,
2018 public hearing.”
APPLICATION MATERIALS:
To view the application materials visit: www.avon.org/planning
ATTACHMENT:
Continue Request
1
From: Harvey Robertson
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 1:18 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker; Virginia Egger
Subject: PUD 170001
Dear Director Pielsticker,
At the request of the property Owners we would like to request a continuance until February 20, 2018 on our PUD
amendment Application PUD17001.
I apologize for any inconvenience that this may cause the board or the public.
Thank you.
Regards,
Harvey Robertson
Harvey Robertson, AIA
Principal
RMT Architects, PC
800‐587‐7058
Harvey@rmtarchitects.com
www.rmtarchitects.com
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 1
Staff Report – Rezoning & Preliminary PUD
February 6, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project Files Case #REZ18001 & #PUD18001
Current Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) – No Development Plan
Proposed Zoning
Mixed Use Commercial & PUD Overlay
Address Not Assigned | Highway 6 & 24
Legal Description Folson Property
Subdivision Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
Introduction
The Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing and review two development
applications, collectively referred to as the “Colorado World Resorts” Hotel and Condominium project.
The applications include:
1) Rezoning. Change the underlying zoning from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation
to the Mixed-Use Commercial (MC), and Open Space, Landscaping, and Drainage (OLD) zone
districts.
2) Preliminary PUD. This overlay district is processed in two steps: preliminary and final. The PUD
overlay would be on top of the MC zoning classification and is intended to allow a flexible
development pattern not specifically provided for in the Development Code. Variations to the
building height (increase), natural resource regulations (40% slope development), and parking
regulations (reduction) are sought.
The applications include a project description narrative (Attachment A), and plans (Attachment B) to detail
the site and building design characteristics. In addition to the public notification requirements and mailing
to owners within 300’, agency referrals were sent to special d istricts and adjacent land managers for
comments. Written comments received by February 2, 2018 are included as well (Attachment C).
Process
The review processes require a noticed public hearing with PZC, and a recommendation on both
applications forwarded to Town Council. The Town Council shall review and render a final decision on the
Rezoning application after conducting another public hearing, and action on two readings of an Ordinance.
The Preliminary PUD requires a public hearing before Council. Unless otherwise approved by the Town
Council, approval of a preliminary PUD application shall vest no rights to an applicant other than the right to
submit a final PUD development plan. There is a six (6) month timeframe following approval of a Preliminary
PUD plan, whereby the applicant must initiate the second stage of the process by filing a Final PUD plan and
proceed through the same process with PZC and Town Council.
Property Background
The property was annexed in 1985. Shortly after annexation, the Town of Avon Official Zone District Map
was amended to include the property as zoned Special Planned Area (SPA); the SPA zoning was the
precursor to PUD and allowed development proposals that vary from the Town’s zoning ordinance.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 2
However, no development plan has ever been approved for the property. Over the years there have been
several development proposals and conceptual reviews, the most recent concluding in 2007.
Rezoning Review Criteria Analysis
The review process and review criteria for zoning amendments are governed by AMC §7.16.050, Rezonings.
PZC shall use the following criteria as the basis for a recommendation on the Rezoning Application to
the Avon Town Council:
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code;
Staff Response: The Purpose of the Development Code is to divide the Town into zones and regulate the
siting and appearance of built structures. The overarching goals of the Development Code are summarized
below:
• Avoid traffic congestion and promote mass transportation and enhancement of attractive and
economical pedestrian opportunities.
• Promote light, air, landscaping and opens space while avoiding sprawl and hapless environmental
degradation.
• Sustain our local water resources.
• Provide adequate open space, while sustaining the tourist-based economy, and preserving property
values.
• Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, and complimentary to Avon’s sub-alpine
environment.
• Achieve a diverse range of attainable housing.
The rezoning application has been reviewed and found complimentary to the purpose statements of the
Development Code. The MC zone district strikes a balance between tourist-based needs and the preservation
of property values and the environment. The proposal for MC zoning on the Highway 6 & 24 frontage, coupled
with OLD zoning on the upper hillside, will ensure a compact development form that meets the goals of the
development standards. Additionally, a mix of housing is proposed in order to offset some of the employee
generation of the project on-site.
(2) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response: The rezoning application is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. General land use goals and policies from the Avon Comprehensive Plan worth noting
include:
Goal B.1: Provide a balance of land uses that offer a range of housing options, diverse commercial
and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations, and high quality civic and recreational
facilities that work in concert to strengthen Avon’s identity as both a year- round residential community
and as a commercial, tourism and economic center.
Goal B.4: Encourage commercial development that enhances Avon’s overall economic health,
contributes to the community’s image and character, and provides residents and visitors with
increased choices and services.
Policy B.5.1: Ensure infrastructure improvements include sidewalks, utilities, and controlled
access from collector roads, like Nottingham Road.
Policy C.1.4: Extend Town Center urban design principles to appropriate adjacent Districts.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 3
Policy C.2.3: Reinforce community gateways along major roadway corridors that strengthen
Avon’s community identity.
Policy E.1.4: Integrate attainable housing within large developments and throughout Town.
The property is located in District 4: U.S. Highway 6 Gateway District. The area includes all of the Highway
6 frontage from the subject property to West Beaver Creek Boulevard, and is focused on the day skier
parking lots of Beaver Creek. The plan acknowledges that most of the parcels are outside of Avon’s
municipal boundaries, but seeks coordination with Eagle County on future plans for the area.
The planning principles for this district include:
• Work with CDOT to enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way to provide a sense of arrival and
departure for those traveling to and from Avon, and to strengthen Avon’s overall community image
and identity.
• Screens ski area parking and other accessory uses.
• Creates strong pedestrian connections to the Riverfront and Town Center Districts.
• Minimizes cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes. Buildings should be built into the hillside and
stepped up with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S. Highway 6.
• Shares property access when appropriate.
• Preserves access to the Eagle River.
DISTRICT 4 – HIGHWAY 6 GATEWAY DISTRICT
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 4
While the rezoning application in and of itself does not achieve the principles outlined for the U.S. Highway
6 Gateway District, the design plans submitted (Attachment B) with the PUD demonstrate a commitment to
a structure that will be built into the hillside, limiting development on steeper portions of the property, with
shared (emergency) access. The development concept for CO World Resorts would preserve all areas above
the structure with passive use and multi-use trails.
The building is set into the hillside with a single step back on the highway side of the building where the
height reaches up to 95’ tall, as evidenced by the building sections in the plans. The finer details of how a
project would fit onto the property would be vetted with a forthcoming development plan application. The
perspective and 3-D modeling demonstrates the intent to provide a landmark development that fits into the
steep topography of the site.
(3) Physical suitability of the land for the proposed development or subdivision;
Staff Response: The property is largely non-developable; areas abutting highway 6 and 24 are
generally more suitable to development called out for the MC zone district. There are a series of
retaining walls required to support the site plan and adjacent parking areas, which is expected with
the abrupt topography.
The upper 15 acres of the site are not suitable for development, which makes the OLD zone district
appropriate to preserve the land as it is today, and to accommodate passive recreation use. Staff will
propose a covenant restriction for the upper lot to ensure uses are controlled in addition to the zoning
designation.
(4) Compatibility with surrounding land uses;
Staff Response: The surrounding is undeveloped open space, United States Forest Service property,
as well as a tract of undeveloped land between the River Oaks condominiums to the east. In many
ways the lot is considered an “island” property, with limited direct impact to adjacent development.
(5) Whether the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions
in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned;
Staff Response: The property has been historically zoned SPA and PUD without a development plan
or approved standards. Rezoning to MC and OLD is found to be appropriate given that all Town
properties in the vicinity have been developed.
(6) Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development for the
type and scope suggested by the proposed zone compared to the existing zoning, while maintaining
adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: Much of the infrastructure needed to serve the development is in close proximity. No
water rights have been assigned to the property; therefore, water rights from the Upper Eagle Regional
Water Authority (UERWA) must be obtained. The applicant must secure an appropriation with approval by
the UERWA board and a cash-in-lieu payment; otherwise water rights will need to be secured.
(7) Whether the rezoning is consistent with the stated purpose of the proposed
zoning district(s);
Staff Response: The rezoning is found to be consistent with the stated purpose of the MC and OLD
zone districts. As outlined in Sec. 7.20.080(b), the MC district “is established to group and link places
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 5
used for working, shopping, educating and recreating with residential uses, thereby creating a compact
community form. This district allows commercial, office, civic, townhouse and apartment uses and….is
the preferred district and development type in Avon. The mostly vertical mix of uses will reduce vehicle
trips, relieve traffic congestion and provide an urbanized, pedestrian environment. MC implements the
mixed-use land use classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located adjacent to the
Town Center as a transitional district.” The property is suited to a mix of land uses that is connected
with pedestrian improvements and regional transportation networks.
The OLD district is “intended for areas that will be public or private undeveloped open spaces. Some
landscaping and drainage control work may be necessary and desirable. The OLD district may also be used
to preserve and protect land areas of special or unusual ecological or geographic interest. There are no
dimensional requirements for this district.” The upper reaches of the property have unique rock
formations and a tree canopy distinct from other valley floor parcels in Avon. The upper areas within
the open space will be preserved and open to public use.
(8) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management,
wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts upon the natural environment. By
rezoning the majority of the upper portion of the property as OLD, it would be protected
from development or further impacts. D evelopment must confo rm to the environmental
regulations contained in Title 7: Development Code.
To provide assurance that water use for landscaping is meeting the goals of the Landscaping
Regulations and those of the ERWSD, staff recommends that additional informa tion be
provided at Final PUD. This would include items such as a water budget, irrigation
requirements, and clear enforcement provisions moving forward.
(9) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
Staff Response: No substantial impacts to other properties in the vicinity are envisioned with MC
or OLD zoning designations. Natural and manmade buffers existing in all directions of the property.
(10) For rezoning within an existing PUD, consistency with the relevant PUD Master
Plan as reflected in the approval of the applicable PUD; and,
Staff Response: The existing PUD does not have an associated Master Plan or development plan
approval. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
(11) Adequate mitigation is required for zoning amendment applications which result
in greater intensity of land use or increased demands on public facilities and infrastructure.
Staff Response: No direct mitigation is recommended for the rezoning application. If rezoned MC
and OLD, staff does not foresee a significant increase in demands on public facilities. The
accompanying PUD application presents additional development potential and therefore some
mitigating “benefits” are offered by the applicant and addressed accordingly with the PUD
application.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 6
Preliminary PUD Review Criteria Analysis
The Development Code process for a PUD overlay is governed by Section 7.16.060 of the Development Code,
and includes a multiple step process: 1) Determine Eligibility; 2) If found eligible move to Preliminary PUD
Application; 3) If approved, move to Final PUD Application. Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria,
AMC, the PZC shall consider the following criteria when forming the basis of a recommendation:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or incorporates
creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and represents an
improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise
applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in quality may include, but are not limited
to: improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation
preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and services; or increased choice of living
and housing environments.
Staff Response: The PUD overlay district confers several public benefits as outlined in the attached project
narrative. If developed as proposed, there would be guaranteed worker units constructed on and offsite,
as well as additional public open space for trailhead and access to an overlook of Town. Staff also finds that
the property is unique in its location and physical constraints, and a sound candidate for a PUD overlay based
on the Development Code standards being more suited toward smaller lots in the Town Core. Most of the
trees and vegetation on upper benches of the property would be preserved in perpetuity, which ensures the
long-standing aesthetic of a natural forest unique within the municipal boundary.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: Staff finds no detrimental effects on the public health, safety or general welfare with a
change in building height or small reduction in parking requirements for a standalone project. With any
hillside development, drainage and physical concerns must be mitigated and addressed with a development
plan application.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this Development
Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
Staff Response: The attached Preliminary PUD was found to be eligible with the criteria set forth in Section
7.16.060(b), Eligibility Requirements, with public benefit commitments and preservation of natural site
features. Additionally, compatibility with the Avon Comprehensive Plan is cited above in the Rezoning
analysis.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire protection,
and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while
maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: The facilities and services necessary to serve the development are either in place, in process,
or will be addressed with a Final PUD application. Staff is recommending that a General Improvement
District be created, like that which was approved for the neighboring Ascent project, to off-set demands on
services (i.e. transportation) with a levy of taxes. Water supply and demand assurances must be approved
by UERWA and addressed with a Final PUD. No comments were received from the fire district or other
emergency service departments.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts
upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife, and vegetation,
or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 7
Staff Response: The proposed Application will not result in any “significant” adverse impacts upon the
natural environment, compared to the underlying (blank PUD) zoning. Mitigation is required by the
Development Code for all development within the Town. For example, a stormwater control plan is a
requirement with a Development Plan submittal and must demonstrate water quality standards. Other
details would be vetted with a Development Plan application.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts
upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: The underlying zoning is proposed to be Mixed-Use Commercial. If the new MC zoning
classification is approved, there are no significant adverse impacts anticipated with a parking reduction and
building height increase for portions of the mixed-use hotel/condominium structure. Keeping development
contained to a single structure with mostly underground parking is found to mitigate externalities that are
experienced with other large developments in Town that do contain expanses of surface parking. If
palatable to PZC, staff would recommend additional decreases in parking standards which would eliminate
the surface parking extending as far east toward the bus stop.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on other
properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: Hotel, condominium, restaurant, and small retail spaces are found to be compatible with
existing and potential future uses in the vicinity. The area is a mix of affordable, local, and second home -
owner residential development. State highway requirements will ensure that access is safe and does not
present conflicts with other properties in the immediate area.
Available Options
1. Continue the Public Hearing to a date certain, pending additional information.
2. Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council
approve the application(s), together with findings.
3. Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council
deny the application(s), together with findings.
Recommended Motions:
MOTION NO. 1 - Rezoning
“I move to recommend Town Council approval of Case #REZ18001, an application for rezoning of the Folson
Property from PUD to MC and OLD zoning, together with the findings of fact listed in staff’s report.”
The following Findings may be applied to the Rezoning Application:
1. The Application was reviewed in accordance §7.16.050, Rezonings, Avon Development
Code, and is found to be in substantial compliance with the review criteria and Avon
Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in staff report;
2. The Application is substantially compliant with the purpose statements of the Development
Code by providing for the orderly, efficient use of the Property, while at the same time
conserving the value of the investments of owners of property in Town; and
3. MC and OLD districts are found to be compatible with adjacent residential development
based upon the intent to integrate mixed-use buildings that transition from residential to
commercial development found in the Town Core.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 8
MOTION NO. 2 – Preliminary PUD
“I move to recommend Town Council approval of Case #PUD18001, an application for a Preliminary PUD,
together with the findings and conditions listed in staff’s report.”
The following Findings may be applied to the Preliminary PUD Application:
1. The property and project are eligible for PUD approval based on the eligibility requirements
in Section 7.16.060 (b), Eligibility Criteria.
2. The Application is substantially compliant with the purpose statements of the Development
Code by providing for the orderly, efficient use of the Property, while at the same time
conserving the value of the investments of owners of property in Town; and
3. The Application demonstrates compliance with the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Compared to underlying MC zoning, the PUD overlay exceptions would not result in
significant adverse impacts upon other properties.
5. The tangible public benefits presented with the PUD application are commensurate with the
increase in building height, reduction in parking, and limited development on 40% slopes.
Conditions to be addressed with Final PUD Application:
1. A complete Final PUD must be submitted within six (6) months of Town Council action.
2. The application will include the following submittal requirements:
a. Landscape Plan prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect. Irrigation and water
budgeting based on best management practices and environmentally
responsible/reasonable use shall be incorporated into the PUD guide at the requirement
of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (UERWA).
b. Preliminary Subdivision, as specified by Section 7.16.060(e), Procedures, shall be
submitted concurrently with Final PUD.
c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be submitted for Mixed-Use designation on Future
Land Use Map.
d. Water Rights obtained by UERWA.
e. Development Agreement addressing the following requirements:
i. Worker Housing Units
ii. General Improvement District
iii. Trail Construction, Pedestrian Gathering, and Restrictive Use of Open Space
iv. Landscaping Guarantees
v. ECO Bus Shelter Replacement
Attachments
A. Application Narrative
B. Application Plans
C. Public Comments
Colorado World Resorts, LLC TAB Associates, Inc.
Colorado World Resorts PUD
Preliminary PUD Application
& Re-Zoning
Project Description
January 15, 2018
ATTACHMENT A
1 | Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 2 PROJECT TEAM
Page 3 Project Overview and Process
Page 5 Town Center Zoning – PUD Differences
Page 6 Building Mass
Page 7 Building Height
Page 8 Front Door Experience
Page 9 Amenities
Page 10 Fire Egress
Page 11 Traffic and Parking
Page 13 Connectivity
Page 14 Value Add to Town
Page 16 Findings and Conclusions
Page 16 DESIGN STANDARDS
PUD Information
Review of PUD Application
Public Benefit Criteria
Page 20 Rezoning Criteria
Page 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Existing Zoning and Land Use
Page 24 Town Center – Dimensions Chart
Page 25 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Project Phasing
Page 26 Access and Circulation
Employees
Page 27 Parking Analysis
Shuttle Service
Open Space
Page 28 Geological Study
APPENDIX Exhibit A Comparison Chart of example projects – Height, Massing, Density, Disturbance.
Exhibit B Possible Square Footage and Program Information – numbers may vary from PUD
application. PUD application supersedes.
Exhibit C Traffic Report
Exhibit D Partial Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Final Report July 2017 - - LSC
parking report and support data.
Exhibit E Geotech Report – Revised 2017
Exhibit F Goetech Report – Original 2006
Exhibit G Project Images
ATTACHMENT A
2 | Page
PROJECT TEAM
Owner
Colorado World Resorts, LLC
6460 S. Quebec St
Building 5
Centennial, CO 80111
Colorado World Resorts LLC and its predecessor companies have been family owned and operated in
Denver, CO for over 25 years. Since founding, the company has built, remodeled and operated 17 branded
hotels in the Denver area (3 new and 14 remodeled). Including other members of the team over 60 hotels
have been owned and/or operated in the Denver market area. The company is an approved Hilton Hotel
brand builder and operator. Brands built and operated include Ramada, Days Inn, Hampton Inn and Suites,
Fairfield Inn and Suites, Microtel, Wingate, Clarion and Super 8, IHG Hotels and independently branded
hotels.
The company also has roots as a European custom home builder. They have built over 500 homes (ranging
from 3,000s.f. - 40,000 s.f.) in the Denver area and has also completed over 2 million square feet of home
and commercial remodeling. This combined with the teams avid love of skiing, mountaineering, golf,
outdoor sports and the Vail Beaver Creek area, will result in a beautifully designed and meticulously
operated property over the long term.
CWR (as a show of good faith) has recently closed on this property showing the dedication to making this
project work.
Architect
TAB Associates, Inc.
56 Edwards Village Blvd
Suite 210
Edwards, CO 81632
Tab Bonidy, President
Greg Macik, Principal
Civil Engineering
Alpine Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 97
Edwards, CO 81632
(970) 926-3373
(970) 926-3390 fax
Geology
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-7988
(970) 945-8454 fax
Wetlands
Western Ecological Resource
711 Walnut Street
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 449-9009
(303) 449-9038 fax
Traffic
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 333-1105
(303) 333-1107 fax
Environmental Impact Report
Watershed Environmental Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 4618
Eagle, CO 81631
(970) 328-4364
(970) 328-4364 fax
ATTACHMENT A
3 | Page
Project Overview and Process
We have currently reviewed this project with the Planning and Zoning commission during two previous work
sessions in September and November of 2017. We have worked through many issues brought up by the
Commission with continual development for a great project. Although, we do understand some members
still have concerns about multiple issues and conditions. We will continue to work as a team with the
Commission to make the BEST project for the Town of Avon and our community.
This submittal is for two items. Re-Zoning of the existing property to Mixed-Use Commercial and then Re-
Zoning with a PUD overlay of the new mixed-use commercial zoning.
Property
The property is commonly known as the Folson property. Colorado World Resorts, LLC, as of December
20th is the new Owner of the property. The 21.52 acres site is contiguous to and east of the Ascent
Development which is directly east of the Beaver Creek Roundabout.
Colorado World Resorts, LLC is proposing a Hotel/Condominium complex located in the lower west portion
of the property. The project is being proposed as a single phase project.
The project site does begin to rise steeply after the rather flat front portion of the site. We have concentrated
the development on the lower flat section of the site to avoid as much as possible the steep slopes of the
site.
Condominiums will be for sale units.
Hotel portion will be a boutique Hotel without a major brand attachment at this time.
Additional Mixed-use commercial is also being planned. Some ideas to still be coordinated and discussed is
small commercial spaces (Ski shop, Barista, Jewelry, Art Gallery and Restaurant)
TAB Associates, Inc. began working with a developer on this site in 2006. By January of 2008 we were
close to an approval prior to economic issues and Owner withdraw from the project. Since 2008 we have
had at least six different developers approach us to help research and purse a new development. Projects
similar to this one, hotels, commercial and etc have been discussed. In most cases the potential developer
withdrew due to the complexity of the site and limited site area in relationship to potential salable square
footage.
Colorado World Resorts, LLC approached us in July of 2017 to potentially resurrect the project that was
abandoned in 2008. We do believe the process we went through in 2006 and 2007 developed a project that
met and still meets the Town Code.
We purposefully followed the previous process so as to build upon all the work and decision making
previously done and agreed upon, and this is a foundational premise so as to not waste building or P&Z
time.
As you will learn we have carefully reviewed the new Avon Town Code, Comprehensive Plan and Strategic
Plan to assure we meet the current plans and Code.
.
Proposed Use Description
Colorado World Resorts, LLC is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay of the Mixed-
Commercial Zoning pursuant to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan and direction received from the
Planning Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
We will be asking for various deviations from the Mixed-Commercial Zone District and Town Code.
Building Height
Revised Setbacks
Parking Requirements
Building in Steep Slopes
ATTACHMENT A
4 | Page
The following pages provide charts which are a point by point response to what we heard during our
September and November work sessions. November work sessions comments added in italics.
Items we heard that were issues or items which needed further explanation and information:
Town Center Zoning/ PUD Differences
Building Mass Building Height
Front Door Experience
Amenities
Traffic and Parking
Connectivity
Value Add to Town
ATTACHMENT A
5 | Page
Town Center Zoning/ PUD Differences
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Is the site Residential?
Should we consider this a
Grandfathered, continuation
of 2007 applications?
Is the project appropriate for
site and Avon?
Some Favored the project on
the site.
Base Camp- Ex PUD Zoning.
Town Center is not
appropriate
Site is transitional site
Residential – It is part of a transitional zone from condo to medium
density
o Continue to review as PUD
o Town Center Comparison
o Creates transitional zone considering Eagle Vail medium
density is over 350 yards away and separated by large
mountain.
We have revised underlay zoning to Multi Use-Commercial
Height (MC-60 feet) – (PUD-95’)
o Stepped VS Flat
o Average TC Height – 93’-3” (5 Studied)
o We will be restricted to 45% of building. TC does not limit.
Could build 60 feet across entire project. We are restricting
our project more than other projects in Town.
Increased Setbacks
o Front – (MC-10) – (PUD-40’)
o Side – (MC-0) – (West - PUD-22’, East- PUD-80’)
o Rear – (MS-10) – (PUD-50’)
o PUD is More restrictive than MC projects.
Lot Coverage (MC-50%) – (PUD-50%)
o Building – Lot Coverage 33.9% of 40% slope
o Impermeable Site and Building – 65% of 40% slope.
o Building - Lot Coverage 16.3% of entire north portion
o Impermeable site and Building – 31.5% of entire north
portion
o Site Disturbance 58.4% of entire north lot
o Average Town Center coverages – 80% (5 Studied)
o No comparison. Disturbance is less than any other project
in Avon
Landscaping (MC-20%) – (PUD-30%) of North Lot
Goal of PUD standards are to create the transition wanted from the Ascent and put restrictions on the
property which are much more restrictive than Multi-Use Commercial (MC) guidelines.
We are only asking for the height and in addition burden the project with other items beyond the MC.
Height – Stepping (more restrictive height limitations)
Setbacks – More restrictive larger setbacks.
Landscaping – Higher percentage of landscaping
ATTACHMENT A
6 | Page
Building Mass
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Move mass east
Shift lower floor to create
more stepping
Correct disturbance numbers
Perspective showing
massing comparison
Small building on east side
Provide additional pedestrian
views
Provide additional
clarification of pavilion
building
Stepped west portion and shifted height to middle of building
Moved garage entry
Lowered building levels 5 feet
o Overall height to 95 feet.
Site Disturbance (All walls, grading, building, etc) – 16.3% entire
site
Added more massing examples
o Examples and comparisons show we are in the average
across the Town.
o Additional site sections and pedestrian 3-D views provided.
Stepped building to lower height zone on west
o We have continued to step the west portion of the building
by removing an additional floor on the end so the building
lines up with the Ascent roof line. We did add some
additional length to the east end of building to replace the 8
units lost on the west.
Discussing small pavilion building for trail usage
o Define building – Welcome center type building with trail
maps for site and Town of Avon trail system. Covered for
protection. Approximately 30’ x 30’.
o Possible Picnic location.
See also the appendix for Town of Avon Comparison Chart. Chart shows the comparison of a number of
development items for 5 existing structures in the Town.
Square Footage
Units
Density
Footprint
Disturbance
Height
Parking
ATTACHMENT A
7 | Page
Building Height
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Show Height Comparisons to
other buildings
Comparison showing year
built, parking, square footages
of disturbance and footprint,
density
Height not an issue vs
massing
Precedent Set in TC.
Is it a Transitional Property?
Height reduction enough?
East hill not part of transition.
Overall agreed building fits
against hill
Lowered height from 104’ to 95’
We have kept the stepping limitations
Comparisons are shown in new images as well as noted in
Comparison Chart in Appendix.
Compatible with Avon structures in height and massing
o Continued to reduce massing on west end to better tie into
Ascent
Can argue fits better against hill than in middle of town
Transitions from Ascent to hillside to Eagle-Vail
West lowest height is equal to height of the Ascent.
We are asking for a restricted stepped building height as outlined further in this description. This would put
restrictions in the PUD which would allow us to only achieve certain heights as percentages of the building
length. This would insure a stepped building height.
Town Center building height is noted as 80 feet but the Avon Center, Sheraton and Westin are above 90
feet.
We maintain the building mass becomes a part of the massive mountain that creates the site. It blends
more appropriately versus a longer lower building.
We have pushed the building further back up the hill to move it further from the road and thus give more
relief.
We feel the building mass creates an extension of the existing developments and does not create a canyon
effect.
We could achieve a lower building height by creating a similar situation as the Accent by digging out the
grade and starting the building lower on the site. We chose to work with the site instead of digging it out.
We still feel the building height proposed is the best compromise to address the site constraints as well as
economic constraints.
a) Proposed 95 foot height is 24 feet higher than Ascent as measured per Town Code.
i) This development should not be held to the fact the Accent removed grade to achieve a lower
main level.
ATTACHMENT A
8 | Page
Front Door Experience
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Entry Not so Massive
Decks and overlooks
Green Space in Front-
Reduce Asphalt
What are retaining walls?
Pedestrian Perspective
South Façade more attractive
Parking Lot Lighting
Provide landscape plan
accurate to town standards
Concern about height of walls
Many items are more for the Design Review Stage – still working
on
Reduced entry elements
Reduce asphalt and created more green space to the west.
o Fire Access confirmed but reduced in scale and paving
material. Grass Crete.
o Will consider and use Landscape Architecture for Mitigation
Will hire Landscape Architect for future submittals
and design review. Still compelled to provide high
level of landscaping.
o Parking discussion – Plans show possible full code parking
to east. Can be deleted if parking reduction is acceptable.
More images showing stone veneer retaining walls. Walls are
reduced at the street frontage.
o More consideration for the street level - Pedestrian Images
Parking Lot lighting – Night sky compliant. Reduce tall lights against
Hwy 6, address from farther back in lot.
o Will further develop lighting plan with emphasis on low or
bollard lighting against hwy 6.
Lower site walls – We will attempt to keep the exposed walls along
Hwy 6 to under 6 feet high. We have begun to break up the upper
walls above the parking lot to lower the heights as well as provide
larger planting areas for more landscaping. We have reduced the
retaining walls along Hwy 6 to very minimal in height. The more
parking not installed the less walls will be required.
ATTACHMENT A
9 | Page
Amenities
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Employee Housing a must.
Off site not preferred
Mixed use necessary?
Discussions about trail- is
bike or hiking appropriate?
More definition of trail
amenities
8 Units
o Deed restricted housing on site.
o Or off site
o What would be needed if site required housing? None are
required due to size and site disturbance being less than
60%. If we used the housing mitigation calculations on this
project 8 units are calculated.
Typical housing minimums per Town of Avon Code
- 1 bedroom suite 500 sqft or 1 bedroom in a
housing unit 750 sqft.
o We are proposing 8 units with a minimum of 4 on site. We
would consider additional units provided offsite. These
offsite units would not be provided in existing low income
areas. For example: purchase of housing units in Chapel
Square of similar locations in the Town of Avon could
occur. We are open for further discussion.
Feel some Commercial can be a further draw to site and amenity
for users on site.
Developed a possible Trail System
o Conservation Easement TBD
o Trail is designed for a bike which means it is flatter than a
possible hiking trail. Bikes were considered since there is a
bike trail in close proximity at the top of the mountain.
Working with the National Forest could occur to connect
paths.
o The trail as designed could access at least two current view
points.
The first bench is near the first switch backs and is
a bench just west and above Eagle-Vail. Great
place to watch the sun rise.
The second spot is the incredible valley views from
the gypsum hills above Beaver Creek. Sunsets,
fireworks – best seat in the house.
The TOA Bike Share program was researched. Project will support
a bike share location on site.
Sustainable Design
o Shuttles – Fuel efficient and possible electrical vehicles for
local routes
o Design – Most codes require efficiencies in design. The
ATTACHMENT A
10 | Page
intent is to establish additional sustainable goals in the
design beyond those required by code.
o Zero Waste – Develop a “zero” waste program for the
building operations which would include using all recyclable
products sending no products to the landfill.
Fire Egress
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Other design options?
Follow up with Fire
Department- Update?
A Option Preferred
Site Plan
o A Option – drive through
There is an Easement in place on the ascent
property. Would need to adjust south for road
alignment.
Preferred option by FD.
o B Option – hammer head no access road. Created more
wider disturbance.
Discussed with FD – Fire access to west portion of building is
required.
o Building can not be reached from Hwy 6.
ATTACHMENT A
11 | Page
Traffic and Parking
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
CDOT Concerns
Show Comparisons
How does Shuttle Service
work?
More information about
operation, stops, etc.
Correct Employee Count
Employee Parking Plan
Where would employees
actually park if not on site.
Not in favor of parking
reductions
Majority on board with parking
reduction with additional
information about shuttles.
Challenge of Historic Study
numbers.
Updated traffic study
o 20% reduction for Shuttle
o Initial discussion with CDOT and TOA.
o Site plan shows suggested turn lanes and Hwy 6
improvements.
24 hour shuttle service - operation and benefits
o Safety
o High Level of service
o 3 Shuttles (Local, Eagle, Denver)
o Additional fuel efficient cars will be used as need.
o Additional information has been provided in the following
guide.
Employees
o 53 on site
o Parking Plan
Use of shuttle of local routes
On bus route
It is our intent at least 25% of the employees will be
able to park on site in designated areas.
Parking Reduction
o 20% Standard CDOT reduction (for traffic) with use of
shuttle
o 9% overall reduction
o Our current numbers still show a reduction of 9%. The site
plan included in the drawing set show in the red box the
possible parking we would need to add to meet the Town
code. We still make the point the parking is not required
and reducing the surface parking even more is a better site
plan. The parking if proven later that it is needed it could be
added.
o We have updated our Traffic report which lays out a
number of discussions backup up our proposed reductions.
See page 3 of the Traffic Report.
o July 2017 – Avon Study (suggestions and findings) Partial
copy attached in Appendix. This is provided for a
comparison only. Report is still pending TOA review and
approval.
ATTACHMENT A
12 | Page
Study attached in appendix. Provides actual
parking counts which were used to determine
reduction possibilities.
15% 2017 Avon Study – Mixed Use
2017 Avon Historic Study - .8-.94 parking used per
unit.
Suggested parking option - 1.25 per unit – Covers
all uses on site. We would only need to add 20
more spots to meet this requirement. This would be
calculating parking a different way than the current
code.
ATTACHMENT A
13 | Page
Connectivity
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Sidewalk extents
Bike route
What facilitates pedestrian
use?
Who owns conservations
easement and trail system?
It is what it is?
Sidewalk extends to bus drop off
o Topography interrupts
o Extension of sidewalk system to bus stop and possible trail
system
Extension, trail and uses facilitates
o New Biking and Hiking trail could possibly connect to other
existing trails in Beaver Creek and the National Forest.
Ownership of Easement still TBD
o Eagle Valley Land Trust?
o On site Ownership?
o Other
It is what it is?
o Topography – extends to bus stop
o Building is end of path, extension of Trail
Replace existing bus stop with new ECO standard bus stop with
upgrades per ECO transit.
ATTACHMENT A
14 | Page
Value Add to Town
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17 Response
Room Occupancy need?
Open Space Plan
Need for Middle Upper Class Rooms
Continued growth since 2010.
Westin, BG Ritz, Park Hyatt, Four Seasons
o Average Daily Rate (ADR) increase 37%
o Revenue Per Available Room(RevPAR) increase 57%
o Room Demand up 15%
o 61% average occupancy (12 month)
o 90%‐100% during peak
o 2016 revenue up 58%
Trail – Proposed hiking and biking trail
o Proposed pavilion (information building) at trail head
o Connection to existing hiking and biking trails above
mountain. Possible connectivity.
o New Path provides various opportunities for access to view
areas and connectivity to existing trails.
o Parking – 6 spaces can be dedicated for trail parking.
Spaces are included in current parking count.
15.5+ acres open conservation easement
Additional 2+ acres not developed on building lot
The Vail Valley area has a well-established lodging market that offers a wide range of product. At the higher
end of the range are luxury projects that have good locations relative to skiing and the resort core areas,
and usually a sizable amount of meeting space. The latter is important for supporting occupancy during the
summer and off-seasons, particularly for larger properties.
Lodging market conditions have been improving since 2010. The state economy is expected to continue to
grow, and lodging demand year-round is expected to increase, and Vail-Beaver Creek are expected to
continue to be a world leader.
Based on a proprietary STR report produced on October 6, 2017 for 4 key properties in the area (Westin
Riverfront, Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch, Park Hyatt Beaver Creek, and Four Seasons Resort Vail, taken as
a group from 2011 through August 2017):
ADR ($) has increased from $341.05 to $467.11, up 37%;
RevPAR has increased from $182.36 to $286.44, up 57%;
ATTACHMENT A
15 | Page
Supply of rooms is essentially flat and demand for rooms is up 15% and trailing 12 month average
occupancy is 61%, with particular days of the week during peak season at 90-100% occupancy.
Revenue ($) for the group was $48.6mm in 2011, and $76.7mm in 2016 (up 58%). 2017 YTD is running
approximately $2mm ahead of 2016 pace.
These are very strong ADR’s with very stable resort occupancy in a top world renown resort community.
Conditions are perfect for developing a property that is positioned on the mountain side of Route 6,
positioned as middle upper class luxury segment, just below the upper upper class luxury segment
(Westin) and luxury class segment (Ritz, Park Hyatt and Four Seasons).
Volume of residential sales has gradually increased with steady improvement in prices per square foot.
ATTACHMENT A
16 | Page
Findings and Conclusions
We are disturbing approximately 3.5 acres of the entire site including buildings and all site walls.
15.5 acres dedicated as conservation easement.
Trail system extension.
The new access will provide better emergency access to our site, as well as The Ascent.
The plan provides a continuation of pedestrian access along the south side of U.S. Highway 6 and
access to the site above via a hiking trail system. Safer public transit access.
Most of the parking is structured with shuttle service.
Massing of the building is appropriate with the slope of the land. We are building on the flatter section
of the land with limited disturbance of the upper slope.
The building will provide additional high quality residences and hotel units to the Town of Avon.
The use is appropriate to the Town of Avon Code.
Sustainable building design and sustainable building operations.
The development will create an enhanced visual impact for the east entry to Avon in regards to
Comprehensive goals to promote the resort image.
Long-term economic gains via transfer taxes for the Town through first sales and re-sale of the units
will continue.
The hotel, restaurant and limited commercial will also provide a tax source.
Additional information and potential Design standards are provided below for consideration.
ATTACHMENT A
17 | Page
DESIGN STANDARDS
PUD Information
We have responded below to many of the direct questions and goals listed in the Town documents. But,
many of these items are also supported and mentioned in the following pages and description.
Review for PUD Application
7.16.060 (e) (4) The Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council shall consider the following
criteria as the basis for a recommendation or decision to rezone a property to PUD overlay, approve a
preliminary PUD plan or process a PUD amendment:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and
represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict
application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in
quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access;
environmental protection; tree/ vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads and
other utilities and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
1- 16 acres of dedicated conservation easement.
2- Improved pedestrian access along the south side of Hwy 6.
3- Preservation of natural resources.
4- Hwy 6 CDOT upgrades.
5- Additional residential and short term rental options.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
1- Extension of Town of Avon trail system.
2- Sustainable building design and sustainable building operations.
3- Safer public transit access.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code and the eligibility criteria outlined in Subsection 7.16.060(b);
1- There are no direct discussions in the Comp Plan in regards to this area of the Town. The future
land use plan shows the site as high density residential and the Community framework plan shows
it as regional commercial. District 4 – US Highway 6 Gateway Corridor does include the site. Even
though the description describes this district as flat areas.
A. Some of the planning principals for District 4.
1) Work with CDOT and create a gateway and sense of arrival and departure. The
project creates a high quality sense of arrival to the Town. Once you leave Eagle-
Vail and come around the corner of the mountain the project will provide an inviting
quality structure built into the hillside.
2) Create strong pedestrian connection to the Riverfront and Town Center. The
extended walk along Hwy 6 across the frontage will tie the bus stop and existing
walks to our project and the main north south Town connection.
3) Minimize cuts and preserve steep slopes. We are building into some of the steep
slopes but the majority of the building is within the lower flatter section of the site.
There is also over 70% of the site remaining as undisturbed.
The large front setback we have proposed as well as the bend in the west portion
of the building actually makes the disturbance worse. If we kept the existing
allowable setbacks we would reduce the steep slope disturbance. But, during the
design process with the P&Z it was our understanding the tradeoff could occur.
ATTACHMENT A
18 | Page
4) Share property access. The shared emergency access and possible future trail
expansion is part of the project.
5) Preserve access to the Eagle River. Although not directly connected the sidewalk
expansion provide access from the bus stop and project to the Eagle River through
the Town walk and trail system.
2- The Comp plan lays out a strategy for a vibrant Town Center and the areas around it. So, we
looked at the Comp plan as an overall guidance for an area it does not fully address.
3- If we look at the various Goals and Policies we can provide support for the project. Many of the
Goals and Policies actually address more of the Town Center and not specifically this site so we try
to address many of the items which do impact this site:
A. Built Form:
1) Compact Community Form: This property is one of the last remaining lots in Avon
which was (until very recently) Owned by the same Owner for about 30 years. Our
project has been developing to provide a building which is a balance of scale in
comparison to the hill side. Keeping the mass on the west side of the site adjacent
to the Ascent has created a more compact developed area. The density of the
development in comparison to various models is much lower than Town Center
developments.
The connectivity to adjacent properties is strong.
2) Distinct and visual separation between Avon and surrounding Communities and
preserving natural environment: This part seems a bit contradictory to the District 4
principals but with a majority development to the west we do have a transition to
the east.
B. Land Use:
1) Balance of land uses providing range of housing, commercial, employment
opportunities, accommodations, high quality civic and recreational facilities for a
year round community: We are not focusing the guest accommodations to the
Town Center because we feel this site is more productive for guest
accommodations due to the unique views and enhanced natural environment of the
site. You come to the mountains for the nature not a downtown feel. This site fits
within that attraction.
2) Develop safe, interactive and cohesive neighborhoods contributing to the Town’s
overall character and image: Our project continues the stage set by the Ascent for
residential and resort housing on this side of Hwy 6. We our proposing a much
more developed site providing high quality accommodations, activities and mixed
uses. The intent is to create a part of the community not an island. Connectivity
with the walks, shuttles to the Town and ski areas, trail development and the
commercial spaces create a project which will interact with the Town.
3) Encourage commercial development which enhances economic health, image and
character while providing residents and visitors increased choices and services:
Ditto what we have said above. Goes without saying the economic boost from the
housing, hotel rooms, and commercial will be noticeable.
The project is committed to sustainable design, zero waste, low emission shuttles.
Trail development to continue the Towns efforts in creating a vibrant trail system in
the Town.
C. Community Character:
1) Ensure the development is compatible with existing planning, Create community
gateways and streetscapes to strengthen Avon’s community character and image:
As we have noted above the projects strengths are the ability to create a vibrant
development providing a variety of housing and hotel units within the Town of
ATTACHMENT A
19 | Page
Avon. High Quality Architecture, sustainable design, preserving of the natural
environment, trail development, connectivity to existing modes of transportation
and mixed uses on site all contribute to a well balances project at a gateway to the
Town.
D. Economic Development:
1) Promote high quality investments, enhance year round activities: The mixed use
components of restaurant, health, commercial space can provide local residents
additional opportunities for small businesses and exposure.
The projects ability to attract new visitors to the Town is possible due to the
location of the building. Currently the Town provides a certain “Town/City” feel to
the accommodations. Our project can provide a more mountain feel for those who
want to be part of the environment and a ski town feel. The proximity to public
transportation is a plus.
E. Housing:
1) Achieve a diverse range of housing, styles, types. Attainable or employee housing:
Although not required through the code the project will provide onsite employee
housing.
F. Multi-Modal Transportation & Parking:
1) Minimize dependence on automobile travel, improve connections with Beaver
Creek, encourage park once environment: 80% of the proposed parking is
underground, shuttle service proposed.
G. Environment:
1) Protect Avon’s natural settings, mitigate potential environmental hazards,
discourage air, water, light, and noise pollution: 80% of property being preserved,
sustainable design, dark sky lighting with limit of tall pole lighting along hwy 6.
During our 2007 studies we did have an Environmental Impact Report and
Wetlands study completed.
The studies showed there are No Wetlands on the property.
The summary from the EIR - In conclusion, the proposed project will have no
significant impact on sensitive environmental resources identified herein. Care
must be taken to develop more specific mitigation measures where necessary as
the project continues to move forward. These mitigation measures should include,
but are not limited to specific recommendations on stormwater management and
abatement of geologic hazards.
H. Parks, Recreation, Trails & Open Space:
1) Provide system of trails, parks, recreation: Trail system developed in approximately
15.5 acre conservation easement with dedicated parking and possible information
pavilion. Pocket pedestrian seating areas along hwy 6.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire
protection and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
A. We have begun working with the Water District and CDOT. Initial approval from the
Water district has been discussed that they can serve the site with existing
facilities. Initial meetings with CDOT have occurred to discuss road improvements.
Initial discussion with the Fire department have also occurred.
The Owners dedication to sustainable design will lessen the loads on the electrical,
water and sewer systems.
Zero waste goals could drastically reduce trash pick up.
ATTACHMENT A
20 | Page
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife
and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
A. Our project does not adversely effect the natural environment since we are limiting
the development to the lower section of the property which is flatter and less
forested.
Air, water, noise and storm water are all items which are addressed in sustainable
designs to limit the effects on the environment.
Preliminary landscape plans show we are dedicated to mitigating any landscape
removal.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on
other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
A. We have worked with the Town staff and the commission to continue to develop a
project that fits well against the existing slope of the mountain and transition from
the adjacent property.
(1) The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot
achieve.
The property is currently not zoned. So, the new PUD zoning overlay of the Mixed-Commercial zone
district provides a vehicle to develop the property for a public use. Providing for sale units hotel
rooms, open space, and a restaurant.
(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.
1. The development will create an enhanced visual impact for the east entry to Avon in regards to
Comprehensive goals to promote the resort image.
2. Long-term economic gains via transfer taxes for the Town through first sales and re-sale of the
units will continue.
3. The restaurant will also provide a tax source.
4. Significant tax revenue from hotel rooms.
5. Pedestrian access across hwy 6 and onto hillside via a hiking trail system to multiple viewing
benches. Existing views areas, one on the east above Eagle-Vail and one to the west on the
Gypsum cliffs.
6. Conservation easement dedication of upper 15+ acres of lot.
7. Sustainable building design.
8. Sustainable operations.
(3)The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in the better siting of the
development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources and increasing the amount of
the public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents.
New zoning allows us to provide a development located out of visual corridors and provides a large
amount of open space.
Rezoning 7.16.050(c)
(c) Review Criteria. The PZC and Town Council shall use the following review criteria as the basis for
recommendations and decisions on applications for rezonings:
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code;
A) The following is a list of items which we are asking for which differ from the development code
and the Mixed Use Commercial Zone district. If not asked for below we intend to meet the current
Town Code requirements for this site.
ATTACHMENT A
21 | Page
1) Height Variance – Height increase from 50 feet to a maximum of 95 feet. We have
included in the following pages other restriction on the height to assure a stepped
building and to create massing in locations more desirable.
2) Setback increases. We will increase setbacks.
3) Parking reduction as outlined in following pages.
4) 7.28.100 (a) (3) Natural Resource Protection – 40% or greater slope protection. We are
building into areas which are great than 40% slope as designated in the submitted site
plans. We will support slopes as shown with stepped retaining walls with Code required
landscaping. The preliminary landscape plan also shows our intent to mitigate lost
vegetation with a highly re-vegetated site.
When you look at the 40% slope map you will noticed the the hatching is broken up
showing flatter sections mixed in with the 40% slopes. Beside building in these mixed
areas the majority of the other building will be retaining walls outside of the building
footprint. As mentioned above, if we kept the existing setbacks and did not articulate
the building on the west end much of the building in the 40% slopes would not occur.
(2) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
A) See detailed response above.
(3) Physical suitability of the land for the proposed development or subdivision;
A) The existing land form provide a developable bench on the west end of the site and slopes
which are appropriate for development of this sort. The attached soils reports provide information
to support buildable land for this type of development.
(4) Compatibility with surrounding land uses;
A) Existing surrounding uses are residential. Townhomes, Condos and Apartments. New uses
are compatible condo and hotel uses. Mixed Use commercial will provide some limited
commercial support with restaurant and small commercial spacs.
(5) Whether the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of
the area proposed to be rezoned;
A) The property is current not zoned. Adjacent properties are currently zoned PUD. Our
request for the underlying Mixed Use Commercial Zone district provides the property the
flexibility
(6) Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope
suggested by the proposed zone compared to the existing zoning, while maintaining adequate
levels of service to existing development;
A) See section above for initial evidence of utility support.
(7) Whether the rezoning is consistent with the stated purpose of the proposed zoning district;
A) 7.20.080 (b) Mixed-Use Commercial (MC). The MC district is established to group and link
places used for working, shopping, educating and recreating with residential uses, thereby
creating a compact community form. This district allows commercial, office, civic, townhouse and
apartment uses and, along with Neighborhood Commercial, is the preferred district and
development type in Avon. The mostly vertical mix of uses will reduce vehicle trips, relieve traffic
congestion and provide an urbanized, pedestrian environment. MC implements the mixed-use
land use classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located adjacent to the
Town Center as a transitional district.
Our project is adjacent to existing PUD zoning. The Mixed-Use Commercial (MC) district was
chosen because the project is providing a mix of uses in the development. The intent is to provide
some additional commercial opportunities within the area in which are none existing on the south
side of Hwy 6. This mix could help reduce traffic if the commercial uses provide amenities useful
for the adjacent properties. Uses such as the restaurant, health facility, ski shops, art and gifts
shops could provide a great place to shop.
ATTACHMENT A
22 | Page
(8) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in adverse impacts upon
the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and
vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
A) See similar explanation above.
(9) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
A) The property is not currently not zoned. If compared to existing adjacent uses the new
district is similar in comparison to what is being proposed.
(10) For rezoning within an existing PUD, consistency with the relevant PUD Master Plan as reflected
in the approval of the applicable PUD; and
A) Not applicable.
(11) Adequate mitigation is required for rezoning applications which result in greater intensity of land
use or increased demands on public facilities and infrastructure.
A) Since the property is not zoned there is no comparison whether or not there is increased
intensity on land. It is vacant land so yes it is more intense than existing. But, in comparison we
can compare the unit density of the Ascent and our project. The Ascent has a unit density of 6.9
units per acre (based on original full property). Our project density is 4 units per acre for the entire
property.
ATTACHMENT A
23 | Page
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
The subject tract 21.52 acres and much of this property is heavily forested with the exception of the
lower section adjacent to highway 6, as well as a small additional portion mid-way up the site on the
east side. Approximately 1000’ of the north property boundary is contiguous with U.S. Highway 6
ROW.
The property has never been developed and is currently not zoned with no specific entitlements. We
are proposing to develop the lower, flatter section of the property that is contiguous with U.S. Highway
6. Mixed-Use Commercial will be used as the Zone District with the PUD overlay.
Colorado World Resorts, LLC and its consultants have reviewed several options for access, orientation,
and massing. The following proposal represents our desire to provide the Town with a project that is
compatible with the current Town goals, massing, potential use and site adaptiveness based on
feedback from the current staff, Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council.
Existing Conditions
The existing lot size is 21.52 acres located south of U.S. Highway 6 east of the Beaver Creek
roundabout. There are approximately 2.9 acres of buildable area with grades of 40% or less.
The site flows down to Highway 6 and provides a number of possible access locations.
The property is adjacent to a developed Condominium project “The Ascent”. In comparison the adjacent
property was developed much differently than we are proposing. The Ascent dug a big hole with a large
retaining wall to fit the building on the site at the Hwy 6 level.
We are building on the flatter portion of the site and building into the hillside as well as placing the
building much further back on the site to reduce the canyon effect of the building adjacent to Hwy 6.
This is a more appropriate way to integrate into the site.
Existing Zoning and Land Use
Existing zoning is none with no specific entitlements and is currently undeveloped. We are planning a
PUD development as an overlay over the Mixed Use - Commercial Zoning. The following is a
comparison of the Mixed Use - Commercial requirements and our proposed PUD.
7.20.800 Mixed-use and commercial districts purpose statements.
Mixed-Use Commercial (MC). The MC district is established to group and link places used for working,
shopping, educating and recreating with residential uses, thereby creating a compact community form.
This district allows commercial, office, civic, townhouse and apartment uses and, along with
Neighborhood Commercial, is the preferred district and development type in Avon. The mostly vertical
mix of uses will reduce vehicle trips, relieve traffic congestion and provide an urbanized, pedestrian
environment. MC implements the mixed-use land use classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan
and should be located adjacent to the Town Center as a transitional district.
We are asking for the following changes:
1- Minimum front setback from 10 to 40 feet. Providing for a buffer from Hwy 6.
2- Minimum side setbacks from 0 to 22.5 and 80 feet. The 80 feet east setback is also in consideration
of a setback to the east steep slopes and open space.
3- Maximum building height to provide a variety of maximum roof heights to create a stepping of the
roof form across the site.
ATTACHMENT A
24 | Page
Table 7.20-8
Dimensions for Mixed-Use Commercial District
PUD dimensional changes underlined and in Italics.
Min.
Lot
Size
(acre
s or
sq.
ft.)
Min.
Lot
Width
(feet)
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Min.
Landscape
Area (%)
Min. Front
Setback
(feet)
Min. Side
Setback
(feet)
Min. Rear
Setback
(feet)
Max.
Building
Height
(feet)
TOA [3] 40 50 [4] 20 10 0 [1] 10 [2] 60
PUD 21.52 1000 50 30 40 22 /80 [6] 50 95 [5]
[1] MC abutting a residential district shall match the side setback of that district.
[2] When abutting a public street, alley or public right-of-way. The rear setback for MC abutting a
residential district shall be 20 feet, regardless of the location of any street, alley or ROW.
[3] Must meet density and setback requirements.
[4] May be increased to 70% if employee housing mitigation is provided in accordance with Section
7.20.100.
[5] Height requirements vary across east west façade to create a stepping of the roof forms.
Building Height 60’-0” and no more than 95’-0”
Zone 1- 45% of building length – maximum 95’-0”
Zone 2 (Transition)- 15% of building length – 95’-0 to 75’-0”
Zone 3- 20% of building length – maximum 80’-0”.
Zone 4- 20% of building length- Maximum 60’-0”
[6] West side setback is a minimum of 22’6”. East side setback is 80 feet.
ATTACHMENT A
25 | Page
Development Plan
Proposed Density:
Condominium Break Down: 3, 2 and 1 Bed Units – (2,400 sqft Max)
Unit Total – 25
Hotel: 195 Units (Effective units 65 Units)
Site Unit Total: 220 Unit Total (Effective units 90 Units)
Density of 35 units per developable acres of 2.9 acres (40% slope or less)
Density of 15 units per north lot of 6 acres.
Density of 4 units per acres of total site or 21.52 total acres.
Building Square Footage:
Main Structure 350,000 Sq.Ft. Maximum
Setbacks: Refer to Development Plan for Building envelops. Site walls, signs and
amenities can be located outside of the Building Setback.
Landscaping: Minimum of 20% (As Presented) 30%
Building Height:
Condominium Height: Building Height 60’-0” and no more than 95’-0”
Zone 1- 45% of building length – maximum 95’-0”
Zone 2 (Transition)- 15% of building length – 95’-0 to
75’-0”
Zone 3- 20% of building length – maximum 80’-0”.
Zone 4- 20% of building length- Maximum 60’-0”
Building length along the Street frontage will be
limited to a maximum of 500’-0” in length along
U.S. Highway 6.
Lot Coverage: Building footprint coverage is 42,737 Sq.Ft. Maximum.
Lot Coverage: Maximum of 50%
Building Lot Coverage – 33.9% of 40% or less slope.
Impermeable Site and Building Coverage – 65% of 40% or less slope.
Building Lot Coverage – 16.3% of entire north lot.
Impermeable Site and Building Coverage – 31.5% of entire north lot.
Site Disturbance 58.4% of entire north lot.
Uses: Planned Unit Development
Condominium
Hotel and Restaurant.
Mixed-Use Commercial
Project Phasing
The project is proposed as a single phase project.
ATTACHMENT A
26 | Page
Access and Circulation
We have revisited the Traffic with a new Traffic Study and a meeting with the Fire Department.
History
On October 31, 2006, a meeting was held with the Colorado Dept of Transportation and Town of Avon
to discuss Highway Dept Access Permit issues, prior to submitting an application for State Access
Permit (meeting minutes are attached). The intent of the meeting was to gather information from CDOT
and TOA for the design criteria. It was discussed (among other things) that a shared/joint access with
the Accent was highly recommended, and that additional traffic studies should be completed.
Upon completion of requested information and studies (per the October meeting), we met with CDOT
again on November 29th. 3 new options were presented, and new traffic study results were reviewed,
(including the Level of Service of each driveway option, queuing lengths, delays, and safety). The
updated Traffic Study supports the access geometry and layout shown on this submittal, which is also
supported by CDOT and TOA representatives. This access plan involves coordination and approvals
from the Accent Owners. Details of the access design is somewhat dependent on the outcome of the
meeting with the Gates (primarily involving whether the “frontage” road connection to the Gates has a
gate (at the Gates’/Folson property line, or not), and whether the Folson Access (to US Highway 6) is a
full movement or partially restricted left turn (either in or out). However, the location of the access to US
Highway 6, and the internal driveway layout as shown on this submittal is not expected to change, and
the requirements of CDOT, the TOA and Fire District can be accommodated by use of a gate operable
only by the Fire Department onto the Gates property or onto Highway 6 Once the meeting with the
Gates has been held, we are ready to meet with CDOT and TOA again. We are happy to
accommodate the TOA and CDOT in participating in a shared access agreement with the Gates on
rational terms, but such is not necessary to the development of the Project.
Meetings were held with Eagle River Fire Protection District regarding Fire Dept Access issues, in
September and November of 2006, for which the recommendations have been incorporated in the plan.
We have revisited the access road with Eagle River Fire in September of 2017. At this meeting it was
confirmed the FD still requires access to the west end of the building. Access can be from the through
road or a possible turn around at the west side of the site.
Employees
Hotel/ Condominium
Front Desk- 6
Concierge – 1 on staff
Laundry - 3
Housekeeping - 10
Maintenance – 3 on staff per 2 shift, Amenity Staff – 2 maximum
Shuttle Drivers - 3
Valet – 5 (See breakdown per phase below)
Phase 1 only, peak period – 2
+ Phase 2 only, peak period – 2 (This includes Valet for Restaurant)
+ Phase 3 only, peak period - 1
Restaurant
Per shift
6 Servers
1 Busperson
1 Hostess
1 Manager
1 Bartender
6 Kitchen Staff – Total 16
Commercial Spaces - 6
Total Possible Employees – 53
ATTACHMENT A
27 | Page
Parking Analysis
Min. Width 9’-0”
Min. Depth 18’-0”
Min. 24’-0” wide aisle for 90 degree parking.
MOST OF THE PARKING IS STRUCTURED PARKING, BELOW OR ABOVE GRADE, BUT WITHIN
THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
Town of Avon Requirement
Type – Use Units Multiplier Qty
Hotel Units 185 Units 1 per unit 185
Condo Units 25 Units 1 per unit 25
Restaurant 3,000 Sq.Ft. with 1,500 Sq.Ft. of Seating/ 1 per 60 25
Guest Spots 10
Total 245
PUD Request
Type – Use Units Multiplier
Hotel Units 185 Units .85 per unit 158
Condo Units 25 Units 1 per unit 25
Restaurant 3,000 Sq.Ft. with 1,500 Sq.Ft. of Seating/ 1 per 60 25
Trail Parking 6
Guest Spots 10
Total 224 9% Reduction
We currently have 224 Parking Spaces provided.
187 Structured Spaces (21 spaces are double stacked designated for Valet), 36 Surface.
Other items to be provided are bike storage, bike share program and a property supplied shuttle
system.
Shuttle Service
The project will be served by Fuel Efficient shuttle buses. The actual plan at time of operation can be
reviewed by Town of Avon staff at initial operation and we would suggest an every other year review of
the program. These additional reviews could provide future evaluation for our site but also provide the
Town with valuable evaluation information for future Town projects.
The shuttle will be available 24 hours. On-demand/concierge/scheduled service with passenger
vans and resort cars operated by Hotel.
3 dedicated shuttles.
Passenger Vehicles will be added for the quick in and out trips.
Access to:
o Defined local route – Town of Avon- Various locations, Beaver Creek Base, Vail
transportation Center. 45 minute loops.
o Eagle Airport – Approximately every hour and a half.
o Denver Airport – Approximately 4 trips per day.
o Or as need and available to each location.
Benefits and experience gained while operating 17 hotels
Guests value and appreciate the vehicle free experience, especially when toting gear, as a vehicle
is rarely needed “in resort”
Safer (weather and night driving, apres ski)
More time efficient (loading/unloading/parking a vehicle)
More flexible for family members to travel intra-resort at different times, care free transport
experience
Open Space
Approximate developed area is 3.5 acres (building, parking, drives) with 2 acres of the north lot not
ATTACHMENT A
28 | Page
disturbed. The approximate remaining undeveloped area of 15.5 acres will remain as a Conservation
Easement.
Geological Study
Original Soil studies determined the site consisted of a debris flow area. This determination meant the
developer would need to address potential large debris activity in the design of the site. This was
originally part of the 2008 submittal.
In 2008 we were prepared to additional studies of the site with more extensive studies to confirm the
debris flow. With the withdrawal of the application this never occurred. Colorado World Resorts per TAB
Associates, Inc. suggestions obtained a permit to pursue the additional test.
The test was conducted the week of August 21st 2017 and we do have preliminary results. The results
were very positive and the Geotech Engineer has determined the site is Not at risk for debris flow. It will
be reclassified as an alluvial fan. We still need to address storm water and minor erosion but we do not
need to provide large diversion ditches behind the building.
ATTACHMENT A
29 | Page
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENT A
30 | Page
Exhibit A
Comparison Chart of example projects – Height, Massing, Density, Disturbance.
ATTACHMENT A
Town of Avon
Building Comparisons
Ascent CWR PUD
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 141,636.00 SqFt 105,351.00 SqFt 2.42 Square Feet 315,800.00 SqFt 213,444.00 SqFt 4.90
Building Ht 74.00 Feet 7,536.00 Building Ht 94.00 Feet 7,563.00
Units 40.00 Units 210.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 23,800.00 Sqft 22.59%
Site Coverage/
Footprint 43,900.00 Sqft 20.57%
Disturbed 73,616.00 Sqft 69.88%1.69 Disturbed 172,275.00 Sqft 34.49%1.69
Density 16.54 Per AC Density 15.00 Per AC
Parking 120.00 3.00 Per Unit Includes sqft for spa, etc.Parking 243.00 1.16 Per Unit
Original Property prior to subdivision 2.42 Current Original Property prior to subdivision 4.90 Current
3.38 Dedicated to TOA 16.62 Dedicated
252,648.00 5.80 Total Lot 937,411.20 21.52 Total Lot
Unit Density 6.90 Per AC Unit Density 4.00 Per AC
Disturbed 73,616.00 29.14%1.69 Disturbed 172,275.00 18.38%1.69
Westin Restaurant 3,000.00 60 Per Sqft 50
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation Parking 193.00
Square Feet 544,325.00 SqFt 183,400.00 SqFt 4.21 0.92
Building Ht 137.00 Feet 7,565.75
Units 291.00
Footprint 114,345.00 62.35%
Disturbed 139,840.00 76.24%3.21
Density 69.12 Per AC
Parking 319.00 0.91 Per Unit Includes sqft for spa, etc.
Restaurant 5,512.00 60 Per Sqft 92
Parking 227.00
0.78 Per unit, does not include SPA, Gym, Pool and etc.
Sheraton
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 141,985.00 SqFt 141,134.00 SqFt 3.24
Building Ht 97.00 Feet 7,556.00
Units 100.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 43,250.00 30.64%
Disturbed 62,932.00 44.59%1.44
Density 30.86 Per AC Phase 1A Only
Parking 163.00 1.63 Per Unit
Avon Hotel
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 101,405.00 SqFt 73,709.00 SqFt 1.69
Building Ht 69.00 Feet 7,523.00
Units 148.00 Includes 6 Employee
Site Coverage/
Footprint 24,716.00 33.53%
Disturbed 73,709.00 100.00%1.69
Density 87.46 Per AC
Parking 204.00 1.38 Per Unit
Restaurant 3,709.00 60 Per Sqft 62
Parking 142.18
0.96 Per Unit
WYNDHAM
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 132,355.00 SqFt 46,522.00 SqFt 1.07
Building Ht 73.20 Feet 7,528.00
Units 58.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 31,051.00 SqFt 66.74%
Disturbed 46,522.00 SqFt 100.00%1.07
Density 54.31 Per AC
Parking 58.00 1.00 Per Unit
Avon Center
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 165,000.00 SqFt 118,300.00 SqFt 2.72
Building Ht 90.00 Feet 7,550.00
Units 50.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 35,317.00 SqFt 29.85%
Disturbed 35,317.00 SqFt 29.85%0.81
Density 18.41 Per AC
Parking 0.00 0.00 Per Unit
ATTACHMENT A
31 | Page
Exhibit B
Possible Square Footage and Program Information – numbers may vary from PUD
application. PUD application supersedes.
ATTACHMENT A
Folson Property ‐ Concept Square Footage Summary
Lower Level Parking
Parking Garage 38,450 83 spots
Back Off House 8,700
47,150
Main Level Parking
Parking Garage 46,200 101 spots
Mechanical 2,800
Lower Lobby 3,800
Loading/Unloading 1,800
54,600 184 Spots
3rd Level
Units 15,300 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Common Space 4,900 23 485 Typical 11,155
Restaurant 4,000 3 923 Suite 2,769
Gym/ Restrooms 3,000 26 13,924
Lobby 4,600
Administration 8,000
Commercial Element 1,200
41,000
4th Level
Units 34,800 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
46 485 Typical 22,310
2 672 Plus 1,344
Common Space 7,200 8 923 Suite 7,384
42,000 56 31,038
5th Level
Units 34,800 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
46 485 Typical 22,310
2 672 Plus 1,344
Common Space 7,200 8 923 Suite 7,384
42,000 56 31,038
6th Level Total
Units 33,400 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
46 485 Typical 22,310
1 672 Plus 672
Common Space 6,600 7 923 Suite 6,461
40,000 54 29,443
7th Level Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Units 24,350 1 1,100 One Bed 1,100
Common Space 4,500 10 1,550 Two Bed 15,500
28,850 3 2,400 Three Bed 7,200
14 23,800
8th Level Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Units 18,150 2 1,100 One Bed 2,200
Common Space 2,050 5 1,550 Two Bed 7,750
20,200 3 2,400 Three Bed 7,200
10 17,150
Total Square Footage 315,800 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Measured to outside of wall 161 485 Typical 78,085
5 672 Plus 3,360
26 923 Suite 23,998
3 1,100 One Bed 3,300
15 1,550 Two Bed 23,250
6 2,400 Three Bed 14,400
Totals 216 146,393
Measured interior of walls
ATTACHMENT A
32 | Page
Exhibit C
Traffic Report
ATTACHMENT A
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 333-1105
FAX (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lsc@lscdenver.com
December 20, 2017
Mr. Greg Macik
TAB Associates, Inc.
56 Edwards Village Blvd., Suite 210
Edwards, CO 81632
Re: Colorado World Resorts PUD
Traffic Impact Analysis
Avon, CO
LSC #171070
Dear Mr. Macik:
In response to your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared this traffic
impact analysis for the proposed Colorado World Resorts PUD development. As shown on
Figure 1, the site is located south of US Highway 6 and east of Village Road/Avon Road in
Avon, Colorado.
REPORT CONTENTS
The report contains the following: the existing roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of
the site including the lane geometries, traffic controls, posted speed limits, etc.; the existing
weekday peak-hour traffic volumes; the existing daily traffic volumes in the area; the typical
weekday site-generated traffic volume projections for the site; the assignment of the projected
traffic volumes to the area roadways; the projected short-term and long-term background and
resulting total traffic volumes on the area roadways; the estimated parking demand; the site’s
projected traffic impacts; and any recommended roadway improvements to mitigate the site’s
traffic impacts.
LAND USE AND ACCESS
The site is proposed to include 25 residential townhome units, a 185-room hotel, a 100-seat
restaurant, about 1,200 square feet of supportive retail, and 243 parking spaces. Full move-
ment access is proposed to US Highway 6 as shown in the conceptual site plan in Figure 2.
ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Area Roadways
The major roadways in the site’s vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and are described below.
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik Page 2 December 20, 2017
Colorado World Resorts PUD
•US Highway 6 (US 6) is an east-west, two-lane state highway roadway north of the site.
It is classified as NR-A (Non-Rural Principal Highway) by CDOT. The posted speed limit in
the vicinity is 45 mph but transitions to 35 mph just west of the site.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometries, traffic controls, posted speed limits, and traffic
volumes in the site’s vicinity on a typical weekday. The weekday peak-hour traffic volumes and
daily traffic counts are based on US 6 traffic data from the CDOT website. The directional
distribution of existing and site traffic was based on the attached traffic counts conducted by
Counter Measures, Inc. in October, 2017 at the existing The Ascent driveway just west of the
site.
2020 and 2040 Background Traffic
Figure 4 shows the estimated 2020 background traffic and Figure 5 shows the estimated 2040
background traffic. The projected 2020 and 2040 background traffic volumes assumes an
annual growth rate of about 0.34 percent based on the CDOT 20-year growth factor of 1.07.
TRIP GENERATION
Table 1 shows the estimated weekday, morning peak-hour, and afternoon peak-hour trip
generation for the proposed site based on the formula rates from Trip Generation, 9th Edition,
2012 by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the proposed land use.
The proposed land use is projected to generate about 1,582 vehicle-trips on the average week-
day, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the morning
peak-hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., about 69 vehicles
would enter and about 63 vehicles would exit the site. During the afternoon peak-hour, which
generally occurs for one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., about 76 vehicles would enter and
about 64 vehicles would exit. This assumes an internal capture of 20 percent for the restaurant
use and 50 percent for the supportive retail use and a 20 percent alternative travel mode reduc-
tion for the residential and hotel use. The alternative modes will be largely from a proposed 24-
hour shuttle service planned between the site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski
resorts in the area as well as local bus service which will likely be utilized by a portion of staff.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Figure 6 shows the estimated directional distribution of the site-generated traffic volumes on
the area roadways. The estimates were based on those in the attached traffic counts conducted
by Counter Measures, Inc. in October, 2017 at the existing The Ascent driveway just west of
the site.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Figure 7 shows the estimated site-generated traffic volumes based on directional distribution
percentages (from Figure 6) and the trip generation estimates (from Table 2).
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik Page 3 December 20, 2017
Colorado World Resorts PUD
2020 and 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC
Figure 8 shows the 2020 total traffic which is the sum of the 2020 background traffic volumes
(from Figure 4) and the site-generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 8 also shows the
recommended 2020 lane geometry and traffic control.
Figure 9 shows the 2040 total traffic which is the sum of 2040 background traffic volumes
(from Figure 5) and the site-generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 9 also shows the
recommended 2040 lane geometry and traffic control.
PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE
Level of service (LOS) is a quantitative measure of the level of congestion or delay at an inter-
section. Level of service is indicated on a scale from “A” to “F.” LOS A is indicative of little
congestion or delay and LOS F is indicative of a high level of congestion or delay. Attached are
specific level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections.
The US State Highway 6/Site Access intersection was analyzed to determine the 2020 and 2040
total levels of service. Table 2 shows the level of service analysis results. The level of service
reports are attached.
•US State Highway 6/Site Access: All movements at this unsignalized intersection are
expected to operate at LOS “C” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours
through 2040 with implementation of the recommended improvements.
PARKING SUPPLY VS. DEMAND
The Town of Avon requires a total of 270 on-site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a
ten percent parking reduction with 243 on-site parking spaces with valet service. This reduc-
tion is supported by shared parking principles as well as an applicant-funded 24-hour shuttle
between the site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski resorts in the area. Table 3
shows the code required parking for each of the four land uses proposed on the site along with
the number of parking spaces being proposed for each. Table 3 shows the applicant proposing
158 parking spaces for the 185 hotel rooms with the code level of parking being provided for
the other three uses on the site.
Table 3 includes a time of day parking demand for each of the four land uses on the site based
on the recommended time of day factors for each from Shared Parking from the Urban Land
Institute. Excerpts from Shared Parking are included in the appendix. To remain conservative,
the condo and guest parking spaces were assumed to be fully parked at all times. This data
shows the maximum parking demand is expected to be 245 spaces at 9:00 PM on both week-
days and weekends. This is only two spaces more than is being provided by the applicant.
The 24-hour shuttle service being provided by the applicant and local bus service are expected
to reduce overall volume to/from the site by about 20 percent and reduce the shared parking
demand of 245 parking spaces to well below the 243 parking spaces being provided on the site.
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik Page 4 December 20, 2017
Colorado World Resorts PUD
CONCLUSIONS
Trip Generation
1. The proposed land use is projected to generate about 1,582 vehicle-trips on the average
weekday, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the
morning peak-hour, about 69 vehicles would enter and about 63 vehicles would exit the
site. During the afternoon peak-hour, about 76 vehicles would enter and about 64 vehicles
would exit. This assumes an internal capture of 20 percent for the restaurant use and 50
percent for the supportive retail use and a 20 percent alternative travel mode reduction
for the residential and hotel use. The alternative modes will be largely from a proposed 24-
hour shuttle service planned between the site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the
ski resorts in the area as well as local bus service which will likely be utilized by a portion
of staff.
Projected Levels of Service
2. All movements at the US Highway 6/Site Access intersection analyzed are expected to
operate at LOS “C” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2040
with implementation of the recommended improvements.
Parking Demand vs. Supply
3. A parking reduction of about ten percent (243 spaces provided vs. 270 spaces required by
the Town) is supported by shared parking principles and a 24-hour shuttle between the
site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski resorts in the area.
Conclusions
4. The impact of the Colorado World Resorts PUD development can be accommodated by the
existing roadway network with the following improvements.
RECOMMENDATIONS
5. The northbound access approach to US 6 should be stop-sign controlled.
6. An eastbound right-turn deceleration lane is recommended on US 6 approaching the site.
An appropriate length for the 35 mph posted speed limit is a 190-foot deceleration lane
plus a 120-foot transition taper.
7. A westbound left-turn deceleration lane is recommended on US 6 approaching the site.
An appropriate length for the 45 mph posted speed limit is a 300-foot deceleration lane
(275 feet for deceleration and 25 feet for vehicle storage) plus a 160-foot transition taper.
An appropriate redirect taper would be 45:1.
8. A westbound left-turn acceleration lane is recommended on US 6 departing the site. An
appropriate length for the 35 mph posted speed limit west of the site would be a 150-foot
acceleration lane plus a 120-foot transition taper.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Table 1ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATIONColorado World Resorts PUDAvon, COLSC #171070; December, 2017Vehicle - Trips GeneratedTrip Generation Rates(1) PM Peak - Hour AM Peak HourAveragePM Peak HourAM Peak HourAverageOutInOutInWeekdayOutInOutInWeekdayQuantityTrip Generating Category6131431880.2460.5000.5450.1127.52DU (3)25Townhomes (2)545740581,2730.2940.3060.2170.3136.88Rooms185Hotel (4)182323244830.1760.2340.2260.2444.83Seats100Restaurant (5)3333532.8902.2702.2702.89044.32KSF (7)1.20Retail (6)819680881,997TotalInternal Capture (8)455597Restaurant (20%)111126Retail (50%)5666122Internal Capture =Alternative Travel Mode Trips (9)133138Townhomes (20%)1111812255Hotels (20%)12141113293Internal Trips =647663691,582Net External Trips =Notes:Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012.(1)ITE Land Use No. 230 - Townhomes - formula rates(2)DU = Dwelling Unit(3)ITE Land Use No. 310 - Hotel (formula rate for weekday rate)(4)ITE Land Use No. 932 - High-Turnover (Sit-Down Restaurant) - average rates(5)ITE Land Use No. 826 - Specialty Retail Center - no AM rates are available, so the PM rates were reversed. Formula PM rate is above range so(6)the high end of range was used.KSF = 1,000 square feet(7)20% of restaurant trips and 50% of retail trips are expected to be from guests staying on-site so do not generate vehicle-trips.(8)20% of residential and hotel trips are assumed to be alternative travel modes. The majority of alternative travel mode trips is expected to be via the(9)proposed 24-hour shuttle service planned between the site and Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski resorts in the area as well as local bus servicewhich will likely be utilized by a portion of staff.ATTACHMENT A
Table 2Intersection Levels of Service AnalysisColorado World Resorts PUDAvon, COLSC #171070; December, 20172040 Total Traffic2040 Total Trafficwith Left-Turnwithout Left-Turn2020Accel LaneAccel LaneTotal TrafficLevel ofLevel ofLevel ofLevel ofLevel ofLevel of ServiceServiceServiceServiceServiceServiceTraffic PMAMPMAMPMAMControlIntersection LocationTWSCUS Highway 6/Site AccessCCEEDENB LeftBBBBBBNB RightAAAAAAWB Left20.420.738.441.733.235.9Critical Movement Delay ATTACHMENT A
Table 3Shared Parking PrinciplesColorado World Resorts PUDAvon, COLSC #171070; December, 2017Weekday Parking Demand by Hour (1)ProposedRequired12:00 PM11:00 PM10:00 PM09:00 PM08:00 PM08:00 AM07:00 AM06:00 AMParkingParking185185176176167167176176158185Hotel25252525252525252525Condo152030343515505050Restaurant10101010101010101010Guest Spaces235240241245237217216211243270TotalWeekend Parking Demand by Hour (2)ProposedRequired12:00 PM11:00 PM10:00 PM09:00 PM08:00 PM08:00 AM07:00 AM06:00 AMParkingParking185185176176167167176176158185Hotel25252525252525252525Condo152030343515505050Restaurant10101010101010101010Guest Spaces235240241245237217216211243270TotalNotes:Based on time of day factors from Table 2-5 of Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute.(1)Based on time of day factors from Table 2-6 of Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute.(2)Peak demand assuming 100% usage of condo and guest parking.ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
From Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Applicable to Two-Way Stop Control, All-Way Stop Control, and Roundabouts
LOS
Average
Vehicle Control
Delay Operational Characteristics
A <10 seconds Normally, vehicles on the stop-controlled approach only have to
wait up to 10 seconds before being able to clear the intersection.
Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street do not have to wait
to make their turn.
B 10 to 15
seconds
Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach will experience delays
before being able to clear the intersection. The delay could be up
to 15 seconds. Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street
may have to wait to make their turn.
C 15 to 25
seconds
Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach can expect delays in the
range of 15 to 25 seconds before clearing the intersection.
Motorists may begin to take chances due to the long delays,
thereby posing a safety risk to through traffic. Left-turning vehicles
on the uncontrolled street will now be required to wait to make
their turn causing a queue to be created in the turn lane.
D 25 to 35
seconds
This is the point at which a traffic signal may be warranted for this
intersection. The delays for the stop-controlled intersection are not
considered to be excessive. The length of the queue may begin to
block other public and private access points.
E 35 to 50
seconds
The delays for all critical traffic movements are considered to be
unacceptable. The length of the queues for the stop-controlled
approaches as well as the left-turn movements are extremely long.
There is a high probability that this intersection will meet traffic
signal warrants. The ability to install a traffic signal is affected by
the location of other existing traffic signals. Consideration may be
given to restricting the accesses by eliminating the left-turn move-
ments from and to the stop-controlled approach.
F >50 seconds The delay for the critical traffic movements are probably in excess
of 100 seconds. The length of the queues are extremely long.
Motorists are selecting alternative routes due to the long delays.
The only remedy for these long delays is installing a traffic signal
or restricting the accesses. The potential for accidents at this inter-
section are extremely high due to motorist taking more risky
chances. If the median permits, motorists begin making two-stage
left-turns.
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2020 Total
3: Site Access & Highway 6 AM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 600 51 17 400 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 600 51 17 400 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 750 64 21 500 60 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 814 0 1292 750
Stage 1 - - - - 750 -
Stage 2 - - - - 542 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 813 - 180 411
Stage 1 - - - - 467 -
Stage 2 - - - - 583 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 813 - 175 411
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 175 -
Stage 1 - - - - 455 -
Stage 2 - - - - 583 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 30.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)175 411 - - 813 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.343 0.049 - - 0.026 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 35.9 14.2 - - 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS E B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 0.2 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2020 Total
3: Site Access & Highway 6 PM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 445 57 19 665 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 445 57 19 665 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 494 63 21 739 53 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 557 0 1275 494
Stage 1 - - - - 494 -
Stage 2 - - - - 781 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1014 - 184 575
Stage 1 - - - - 613 -
Stage 2 - - - - 451 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1014 - 180 575
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 180 -
Stage 1 - - - - 600 -
Stage 2 - - - - 451 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 27.8
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)180 575 - - 1014 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.296 0.031 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 33.2 11.5 - - 8.6 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 0.1 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w/o LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 AM Peak
Synchro 10 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Future Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 806 65 21 531 59 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 871 0 1379 806
Stage 1 - - - - 806 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 159 382
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 155 382
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 155 -
Stage 1 - - - - 427 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 34.9
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)155 382 - - 774 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.379 0.052 - - 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 41.7 14.9 - - 9.8 -
HCM Lane LOS E B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 0.2 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w/o LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 PM Peak
Synchro 10 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 528 63 21 794 53 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 591 0 1364 528
Stage 1 - - - - 528 -
Stage 2 - - - - 836 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 163 550
Stage 1 - - - - 592 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 160 550
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 160 -
Stage 1 - - - - 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 31.8
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)160 550 - - 985 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.333 0.032 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 38.4 11.8 - - 8.7 -
HCM Lane LOS E B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 0.1 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 PM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 528 63 21 794 53 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 591 0 1364 528
Stage 1 - - - - 528 -
Stage 2 - - - - 836 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 163 550
Stage 1 - - - - 592 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 160 550
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 287 -
Stage 1 - - - - 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 18.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)287 550 - - 985 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.186 0.032 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.4 11.8 - - 8.7 -
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.1 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w/ LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 AM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Future Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 806 65 21 531 59 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 871 0 1379 806
Stage 1 - - - - 806 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 159 382
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 155 382
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 288 -
Stage 1 - - - - 427 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 19.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)288 382 - - 774 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.204 0.052 - - 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.7 14.9 - - 9.8 -
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.2 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
33 | Page
Exhibit D
Partial Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Final Report July 2017 - -
LSC parking report and support data.
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 31
Chapter 4
Existing Parking Conditions
Existing Public Parking Supply and Regulations
The current public parking supply within the commercial core area is shown in Table 12. As
indicated, there are a total of 359 spaces, of which 299 are west of Avon Road and 60 to the
east. Of the total, 21 percent are on‐street spaces and the remainder in lots. While none of the
public spaces require a fee, just under half of these spaces (47 percent) have a 2 or 3 hour
parking time limit. As noted, all of the parking areas are served by Avon Transit, and two areas
are within a convenient 5‐minute (quarter‐mile) walk of the gondola base.
In addition to these spaces, beyond the commercial core area 19 public spaces are available on
the north side of Nottingham Park, 72 spaces are available at Avon Elementary School on
weekends, 170 public spaces are available at Traer Creek Plaza, and there are a total of 765
spaces available for skier overflow at the Rodeo Grounds.
East of the study area, there are a total of 170 covered parking spaces in Traer Creek Plaza,
served by both Avon Transit and Eco Transit. The Town has also made agreements with
individual private property owners to allow parking for special events when spaces are
available, as follows:
TABLE 12: Existing Public Parking in Avon Commercial Center
Area Spaces Current Restrictions Transit Stop Gondola
West Town Center
Town Hall/Lake St 123 Weekend Only
Rec Center/Fire 93 3 Hr Max
West Beaver Creek Blvd On‐Street 22 2 or 3 Hr Max
Library On‐Street 25 2 Hr Max
Mikaela Way Public Lot (New Town Hall) 36 None
Subtotal 299
East Town Center
E. Benchmark Rd On‐Street 21 2 Hr Max
Chapel Place 9 2 Hr Max
Behind Chapel Sq.30
Subtotal 60
Total 359
Note: No overnight parking on any facilities (12 AM to 6 AM). Excludes loading spaces.
Within Convenient 5‐Minute
Walk Of…
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 32
Nottingham Park evening special event parking ‐‐ US Bank after 6:00 p.m., First Bank
after 6:00 p.m.
Weekend special event parking ‐‐ Mtn. Vista Office Building, US Bank and FirstBank after
12:00 p.m. on Saturday; all day Sunday, Beaver Creek Bear Lots (overflow only).
Existing Private Parking Supply
There are a total of 3,767 private parking spaces in the Town Core, consisting of 1,812 surface
spaces and 1,039 underground spaces. The largest of these private parking areas (with 200 or
more spaces) consist of the following:
Chapel Square (excluding Tract A) 604 spaces
Christie Lodge 401 spaces
Sheraton Mountain Vista 374 spaces
Westin 314 spaces
The Seasons at Avon 291 spaces
Of the total parking spaces in the Town Core, 13 percent are public and 87 percent are private.
Existing Parking Counts and Utilization
Winter Counts
Parking accumulation counts were conducted throughout the Avon commercial core area over
the course of a busy winter day (Saturday, February 18, 2017, which was the Saturday of
President’s Day Weekend). LSC staff conducted parking counts at a total of 15 on‐street and
off‐street parking areas every hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The individual areas are
depicted in Figures 11 and 12, while the results of the counts are shown in Table 13. A review
of this data indicates the following:
The parking spaces in the 15 areas total 887. At the peak time of overall parking
utilization (6:00 PM hour), 402 vehicles were observed in these areas in total (45
percent utilization).
The overall parking utilization is depicted graphically in Figure 13. As shown, utilization
grows at a rapid rate until the 12:00 PM hour, and then grows at a slower rate over the
afternoon before falling starting at 7:00 PM.
A review of hourly utilization by specific area, as depicted in Figure 14, shows how
parking is utilized in different patterns. Many areas see the highest utilization in mid‐
day or the early afternoon hours. The Rec Center parking lot grows over the day to a
peak at 5:00 PM, after which it drops quickly. Other areas such as the Loaded Joes,
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 33
H = East BenI = Chapel PJ = Behind CK = Chapel SL = Loaded Jnchmark Rd Place Chapel Place Square Joes a Figure 11: Avon Parking Count Areas - EastATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 34
A = Town HaB = Lake St C = Rec CenteD = Fire E = W BeaverF = Library G = New TowM = Bob’s PlaN = DMV ll er r Creek wn Hall ace Figure 12: Avon Parking Count Areas - WestATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 35
TABLE 13: Avon Commercial Core Parking Accumulation Counts ‐‐ Saturday, February 18, 2017ID Parking Location Type Capacity 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PMA1 Town Hall‐Police Lot2011121112121212141211109ATown Hall Lot6510111014181817171110 8 8BLake StOn‐street382 101219302830271911 7 3CRec CenterLot 80 9 22 31 35 47 46 48 49 70 61 43 29DFireLot433 1121252319242426252112EW Beaver Creek On‐street30131410111100F LibraryOn‐street 25 1 0 2 3 15 15 20 17 5 7 7 7GNew Town Hall Lot37122327273231352917151310MBob's Place Lot135626670637065746878868896NDMVLot42101417211618232022303220HEast Benchmark Rd On‐street21063237514109167IChapel PlaceOn‐street9001111121088JBehind Chapel Place Lot 30 12 12 14 20 21 25 21 16 20 19 17 17KChapel SquareLot 239 11 19 28 36 40 52 55 59 57 47 36 29LLoaded Joes Lot73263330322930172944706963Subtotal: West Side515 121 172 202 223 264 252 284 266 261 257 229 194Subtotal: East Side372 49 70 76 91 94 115 99 120 132 145 146 124Subtotal: Public West Side318 38 80 104127 166 157 175 164 149 130 99 69Subtotal: Public East Side60 12 18 18 23 25 33 27 32 31 28 41 32Subtotal: Public378 50 98 122 150 191 190 202 196 180 158 140 101TOTAL887 170 242 278 314 358 367 383 386 393 402 375 318Percent of CapacityA1 Town Hall‐Police Lot2055% 60% 55% 60% 60% 60% 60% 70% 60% 55% 50% 45%ATown Hall Lot 65 15% 17% 15% 22% 28% 28% 26% 26% 17% 15% 12% 12%BLake StOn‐street 38 5% 26% 32% 50% 79% 74% 79% 71% 50% 29% 18% 8%CRec CenterLot 80 11% 28% 39% 44% 59% 58% 60% 61% 88% 76% 54% 36%D FireLot 43 7% 26% 49% 58% 53% 44% 56% 56% 60% 58% 49% 28%EW Beaver Creek On‐street 30 3% 10% 3% 13% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0%F LibraryOn‐street 25 4% 0% 8% 12% 60% 60% 80% 68% 20% 28% 28% 28%GNew Town HallLot 37 32% 62% 73% 73% 86% 84% 95% 78% 46% 41% 35% 27%MBob's PlaceLot 135 46% 49% 52% 47% 52% 48% 55% 50% 58% 64% 65% 71%N DMVLot 42 24% 33% 40% 50% 38% 43% 55% 48% 52% 71% 76% 48%HEast Benchmark Rd On‐street 21 0% 29% 14% 10% 14% 33% 24% 67% 48% 43% 76% 33%IChapel PlaceOn‐street 9 0% 0% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 22% 11% 0% 89% 89%JBehind Chapel Place Lot 30 40% 40% 47% 67% 70% 83% 70% 53% 67% 63% 57% 57%KChapel SquareLot 239 5% 8% 12% 15% 17% 22% 23% 25% 24% 20% 15% 12%LLoaded JoesLot 73 36% 45% 41% 44% 40% 41% 23% 40% 60% 96% 95% 86%Subtotal: West Side23% 33% 39% 43% 51% 49% 55% 52% 51% 50% 44% 38%Subtotal: East Side13% 19% 20% 24% 25% 31% 27% 32% 35% 39% 39% 33%Subtotal: Public West Side12% 25% 33% 40% 52% 49% 55% 52% 47% 41% 31% 22%Subtotal: Public East Side20% 30% 30% 38% 42% 55% 45% 53% 52% 47% 68% 53%Subtotal: Public Total13% 26% 32% 40% 51% 50% 53% 52% 48% 42% 37% 27%TOTAL19% 27% 31% 35% 40% 41% 43% 44% 44% 45% 42% 36%
ATTACHMENT A
Avon Multi
B
ev
U
T
co
u
W
a
ex
imodal Transpo
ob’s Place a
vening hour
Utilization rat
he highest u
omparison, t
tilization in t
While the tot
reas indicate
xceeding 80
o Rec Ce
o The N
in the
o Chape
o The lo
o Loade
ortation and Pa
nd Chapel P
rs.
tes were obs
utilization we
the east side
the 5:00 PM
tal utilization
es areas of h
percent con
enter – 87 p
ew Town Ha
2:00 PM ho
el Place – 89
ot behind Ch
ed Joes lot –
arking Plan
Place parking
served to be
est of Avon R
e of the com
M and 6:00 PM
n rate was o
high parking
nsisted of th
percent at 5:
all lot – Betw
our
9 percent in t
hapel Place –
After 6:00 P
g areas, how
e higher wes
Road was ob
mmercial core
M hours.
bserved to b
utilization.
he following:
00 PM
ween Noon a
the 6:00 PM
– 83 percent
PM, with a p
LS
wever, see th
st of Avon Ro
bserved to b
e had a max
be relatively
Parking are
:
and 2:00 PM
M and 7:00 PM
t at 1:00 PM
eak of 96 pe
SC Transportat
he highest ut
oad than eas
be 55 percen
ximum of 39
y low, a revie
as with utiliz
M, with a pea
M hours
ercent in the
tion Consultant
Pa
tilization in t
st of Avon R
nt, at 2:00 PM
percent
ew of specifi
zation rates
ak of 95 perc
e 6:00 PM ho
ts, Inc.
age 36
the
oad.
M. In
c
cent
our
ATTACHMENT A
Avon Multi
Another
Study con
conducte
(totaling
and Sun
overall o
maximum
These av
parking s
two walk
Summer
In the su
facilities
O
fi
a
imodal Transpo
recent sourc
nducted by W
ed for the Av
297 spaces)
Road on Frid
ccupancy of
m of 173 veh
vailable park
shortages at
k at all times
Counts
mmer of 20
shown in Fig
On the date o
lled all publi
lso highest i
ortation and Pa
ce of winter
Walker Park
von Center a
) along the s
day, Februar
f 193 vehicle
hicles (58 pe
ing counts in
peak times.
s.
15, Town sta
gure 15. The
of the evenin
ic parking w
n the areas
arking Plan
parking occ
king Consulta
area, consist
outh side of
ry 26, 2016 a
es (65 percen
ercent) on Sa
ndicate that
. However, p
aff conducte
e results sho
ng count (Au
est of Avon
east of Avon
cupancy data
ants. This in
ting of the pa
f West Beave
and Saturday
nt) was obse
aturday (at 7
there are sp
public parkin
ed a series o
own in Table
ugust 6th) the
Road. Parki
n Road, thou
LS
a is the Avon
ncludes park
arking lots a
er Creek Bou
y, February
erved on Frid
7:00 PM).
pecific sub‐a
ng is typicall
f counts for
e 14 indicate
ere was a sp
ing utilizatio
ugh this reac
SC Transportat
n Center Lot
ing occupan
and below‐gr
ulevard betw
27, 2016. A
day (at 10 AM
areas that ex
ly available w
key times in
e the followin
pecial event
on during thi
ched only 47
tion Consultant
Pa
B Parking N
ncy counts
round space
ween Avon R
A maximum
M) and a
xperience
within a bloc
n the parking
ng:
that comple
s period was
7 percent.
ts, Inc.
age 37
Needs
es
Road
ck or
g
etely
s
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 38
Figure 15Summer Parking Count AreasP41st BankATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 39
Other than during this evening special event, there were several specific times when
some individual facilities reached 100 percent utilization, in the vicinity of Benchmark
Road/Mikaela Way. In all these cases, however, there were available spaces in other
nearby facilities.
Overall, parking utilization during these summer counts was observed to reach a
maximum of 76 percent during the special event, and 45 percent in other periods. West
of Avon Road the maximum occupancy beyond the special event was 56 percent, while
it reached a maximum of 32 percent east of Avon Road.
TABLE 14: Summer Parking Counts
7/30/2015 7/31/2015 7/29/2015 7/28/2015 7/27/2015 8/5/2015 8/3/2015 8/6/2015
9:00‐9:30am10:30‐11:00am12:00‐1:00pm12:30‐1:45pm1:00‐2:00pm 3:15‐4:00pm 3:30‐4:00pm 8:00‐9:00pm
G1 39 12 15 14 32 21 13 21 39
G2 37 17 26 25 29 30 33 24 37
G3 12 9 9 10 11 12 11 6 12
G4 12 6 9 6 11 12 11 8 12
G5 15 8 10 12 10 11 10 10 15
P1 7 2 1 2 5 4 4 4 7
P2 18 2 9 16 11 16 13 16 18
P314435345314
P4 8 8 2 2 1 2 3 3 8
B1 84 37 39 42 29 34 36 31 84
B2 14 8 15 15 12 13 11 12 14
Y1 36 12 13 9 12 7 10 6 36
TA 150 9 34 0 41 49 43 41 65
TB‐1 84 15 7 26 0 24 9 10 42
TB‐2 17 15 12 12 13 8 10 11 12
Subtotal: West Side 296 125 151 158 166 166 160 144 296
Subtotal: East Side 251 39 53 38 54 81 62 62 119
TOTAL 547 164 204 196 220 247 222 206 415
Percent of Capacity
G1 31% 38% 36% 82% 54% 33% 54% 100%
G2 46% 70% 68% 78% 81% 89% 65% 100%
G3 75% 75% 83% 92% 100% 92% 50% 100%
G4 50% 75% 50% 92% 100% 92% 67% 100%
G5 53% 67% 80% 67% 73% 67% 67% 100%
P1 29% 14% 29% 71% 57% 57% 57% 100%
P2 11% 50% 89% 61% 89% 72% 89% 100%
P3 29% 21% 36% 21% 29% 36% 21% 100%
P4 100% 25% 25% 13% 25% 38% 38% 100%
B1 44% 46% 50% 35% 40% 43% 37% 100%
B2 57% 107% 107% 86% 93% 79% 86% 100%
Y1 33% 36% 25% 33% 19% 28% 17% 100%
TA 6% 23% 0% 27% 33% 29% 27% 43%
TB‐1 18% 8% 31% 0% 29% 11% 12% 50%
TB‐2 88% 71% 71% 76% 47% 59% 65% 71%
Subtotal: West Side 42% 51% 53% 56% 56% 54% 49% 100%
Subtotal: East Side 16% 21% 15% 22% 32% 25% 25% 47%
TOTAL 30% 37% 36% 40% 45% 41% 38% 76%
Parking Lot
Total
Spaces
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 40
Existing Parking Code
The provision of parking in Avon is regulated by Section 7.28.020 of the Code of Ordinance. The
base parking rates (spaces required per unit of development) are shown in Table 15. In
addition, the Code identifies several adjustments/considerations that impact the number of off‐
street spaces required:
A 15 percent reduction can be applied if the Town determines that an appropriate mix
of uses is proposed.
TABLE 15: Town of Avon Off‐Street Parking Requirements
Dwelling, Single‐Family, Duplex 2 per unit; 3 per unit for units over 2,500 sq. ft.
Studio/ Lockoff/ Accommodation unit ‐ 1 per unit
1 bedroom/ DU over 2,500 sq. ft. ‐ 2 per unit
3‐5 units ‐ 2 spaces
5‐10 units ‐ 3 spaces
11‐15 units ‐ 4 spaces
16‐20 units ‐ 5 spaces
21‐25 units ‐ 6 spaces
Over 25 units ‐ 7 spaces plus 1 space for each 5 units
in excess of 25 up to a maximum of 10 additional
spaces.
Group Homes 1 per bed plus 1 per 100 sq. ft. of GFA
Retirement home, nursing home or assisted living
facility
1 per 4 beds and 1 per employee with
conside ration to the number of shifts worked.
Art gallery or museum 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Community centers 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Government services, offices and facilities 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Library 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Religious assembly 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Child care center 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Preschool, nursery school 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
College or university (non‐exempt)4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
School, K‐12 (public and private)4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
School, vocational ‐technical and trade 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Medical center/ hospital 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Medical and dental clinics and offices 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Urgent care facility 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Parks and Open Space Golf course 4 per green
4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Food and Beverage Services Restaurants, bars and taverns 1 per 60 sq. ft. of indoor seating area.
Office Administrative and professional offices 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Recreation and Entertainment, Outdoor Outdoor commercial recreation/ entertainment Determined by the Director
Recreation and Entertainment, Indoor Indoor commercial recreation/ entertainment Determined by the Director
Wholesale Business Wholesale business 1 per 800 sq. ft. GFA
1 per 800 sq. ft. GFA
https://www.municode.com/library/co/avon/codes
Residential Uses
Community Services
Residential and Accommodation Uses
General Industrial Uses unless otherwise stated
Day Care
Educational Facilities
Health Care Facilities
Commercial Uses
General Commercial Uses unless otherwise stated
Industrial Service
Dwelling, Multi ‐Family
Guest Parking for Multi ‐Family
Group Living
Public and Institutional Uses
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 41
Adjacent on‐street parking along the front property line may “count” towards the total
parking supply, at the discretion of the Town.
Off‐site parking may be considered as part of a planned unit development, so long as it
is within 500 feet from the use and a direct, adequate and convenient pedestrian
connection is available.
The maximum number of off‐street spaces that may be provided is 125 percent of the
required minimum number of spaces.
Comparison of Parking Counts with Code
The parking counts provides the opportunity to compare the existing Code requirements
against the observed peak parking demand. The close proximity between uses in the Avon
commercial core makes it a challenge to find parking areas with observed use that can be
directly compared against the land uses served. Two specific areas allowed this direct
comparison:
The Chapel Square commercial center Building B consists of 53,318 square feet of
commercial floor area. At the Code rate, it would require 214 spaces. A maximum of 59
parked vehicles were observed, indicating that the current parking rate is almost 4 times
the observed peak rate.
Given this high occupancy, it is probable that approximately 10 of the peak 16 vehicles
parked in the adjacent East Benchmark on‐street spaces were also generated by this
center. This indicates that the current Code rates are approximately 132 percent of the
observed peak.
The Avon Center Lot B Parking Needs Study data can also be used to compare Code
requirements with observed parking. Current Town Code parking requirements for the
existing land uses would require 218 spaces. Compared with the maximum observed
parking demand, and adjusting for the five spaces included in the counts but used for
equipment storage, the current Code requires 16 percent more spaces than observed at
maximum.
ATTACHMENT A
34 | Page
Exhibit E
Geotech Report – Revised 2017
ATTACHMENT A
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
3609 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 400
Lakewood, Colorado 80235
303.914.4300 tel | 303.914.3000 fax
www.wje.com
Headquarters & Laboratories–Northbrook, Illinois
Abu Dhabi | Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Cleveland | Dallas | Denver | Detroit | Dubai | Honolulu | Houston | Los Angeles
Minneapolis | New Haven | New York | Princeton | San Francisco | Seattle | South Florida | Washington, DC
September 12, 2017
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
56 Edwards Village Boulevard, Suite 210
Edwards, Colorado 81632
Re: Geological Engineering Services
Folson Project, Hwy 6
Avon, Colorado
WJE No. 2017.4534
Dear Mr. Macik:
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) is pleased to submit this report detailing the geological
engineering services performed and the associated findings, interpretations, and recommendations related
to the characterization of debris flow hazards at the above referenced project site.
Background
Michael W. West & Associates, Inc. (MWWAI) submitted an engineering geological and geotechnical
review on December 10, 2007 which included a site characterization description, a review of a proposed
mitigation approach, and a proposed scope of work with respect to further site investigation. In this review,
MWWAI stated the following:
“A terrain feature consistent with physical characteristics of an alluvial or debris fan is present on the site…
(W)e are not sure at this time whether the feature is an alluvial fan or debris fan… We believe that further
investigation into this issue or question is appropriate, especially considering the level of mitigation (and
cost) associated here with debris flows. We recommend additional investigation and characterization of this
feature… At one extreme, this additional investigation may support the characterization of the feature as
an alluvial fan, resulting in substantially reduced mitigation effort. The other extreme would be a
confirmation (approximately) of the current characterization and approach. We believe an outcome between
these two extremes is more likely, although we do not guarantee any outcome.”
MWWAI was acquired by WJE on July 1, 2017. Consequently, WJE submitted a field work proposal for
continuation of the project on July 25, 2017, which outlined a scope of work and schedule, consistent with
MWWAI’s earlier recommendations. Michael W. West, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., WJE Principal, and Emma
Bradford, WJE Associate II, performed the site investigation on August 24 - 26, 2017. Ms. Bradford
prepared a draft of the report, and the final report was reviewed and finalized by Dr. West and Frank
Harrison, P.E., WJE Associate Principal and Project Manager.
Site Investigation
On the morning of August 24, 2017, WJE directed Site Resource Management (SRM) to excavate a trench
according to specifications outlined in the July 25, 2017 field work proposal. Specifically, the trench,
located within the upper part of the fan and oriented perpendicular to the slope, was excavated with three
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
September 12, 2017
Page 2
4-foot high sub-vertical walls separated by 6-foot wide benches on the upslope side. Photos of the site are
appended to this report. The downslope side of the trench was laid-back to an approximately 1.5h:1v slope
similar to the benched upslope side of the trench. The trench was oriented approximately 101° from North.
Following the completion of excavation, WJE established survey control on the sub-vertical trench walls,
delineated geological units exposed in the trench, mapped unit contacts, took photos, and noted other
relevant site characteristics. Before backfilling the trench on August 26, 2017, WJE recorded soil
descriptions and took soil samples of each geologic unit. SRM backfilled in the trench per the terms stated
in the July 25, 2017 field work proposal.
Trench Stratigraphy
We identified six geological units along the walls of the trench, all of which are silty fine-grained soils or
silty to sandy gravels. River terrace alluvium with sub-rounded cobbles and gravels (Unit 1) is the relatively
oldest unit that was identified in the trench. Photo 1 highlights the signature of Unit 1 dominated by sub-
rounded clasts. Areas of high clast concentration show 100% carbonate coverage. Unit 2 contains mixed
facies of both river terrace alluvium and drainage alluvium (Unit 2). Photo 2 displays the variability of clast
concentration laterally along the unit. A carbonate-rich drainage alluvium (Unit 3) which dominated Bench
No. 3 exists above Unit 2. Photo 3 depicts the low clast percent by volume (5% - 10%) and mottled
carbonate presence throughout Unit 3. Unit 3 is overlain by a drainage alluvium (Unit 4) which grades
vertically upward into a secondary textural B soil horizon (Unit 4-Bt). We identified carbonate-rich gravel
lenses and channels (Unit 4-CA) within both the secondary textual B soil horizon and the drainage alluvium.
Photo 4 demonstrates the distinct increase in percentage of clasts by volume in Unit 4-CA compared to
Units 4 and 4-Bt. Above Unit 4-Bt is a younger textural B soil horizon (Unit 5-Bt) that contains both a
drainage alluvium lens (Unit 5) and a drainage alluvium lens with carbonate (Unit 5-CA). Unit 5-CA is
easily distinguishable due to its high carbonate content as represented in Photo 5. The first unit at the ground
surface underlain by Unit 5-Bt is a modern A soil horizon (Unit 6). Photo 6 illustrates the soil structure of
Unit 6.
Above referenced photos of trench stratigraphy and geologic relations are included in the appendix. Please
use the approximately quarter-sized yellow flagging shown in these photos for scale. Furthermore, the
orange flagging ties are one meter apart. In addition, a trench log and corresponding unit descriptions that
depict geological unit contacts and more detailed unit descriptions, respectively, can be found in the
appendix.
Interpretation
The Eagle River runs to the north of Highway 6, north of the site. Unit 1, river terrace alluvium, represents
a former floodplain of this river. The sub-rounded to rounded clasts that dominate Unit 1 are a product of
erosional activity commonly associated with high-energy flow. Subsequently, the river has cut into the
terrace level (Unit 1), ultimately reaching its current elevation. Unit 2, associated with the steep drainage
to the south, likely eroded the terrace gravels as the river down-cut its channel. Localized fine-grained
drainage alluvium and angular clasts from a source basin within the steep drainage likely cut into and
intermixed with the river terrace alluvium creating a mixed facies unit (Unit 2) which contains both river
terrace alluvium sub-rounded to rounded clasts as well as sub-angular clasts. Units 3, 4, 4-CA, 5, and 5-
CA were similarly transported from the southern source basin to the fan predominantly by alluvial
processes, evidenced by the sub-angular clasts within these units. A period of stability occurred on the fan
surface after the deposition of Unit 4, allowing Unit 4-Bt to develop. Unit 4-Bt was likely covered by
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
September 12, 2017
Page 3
additional material across the fan surface associated with the source basin to the south. Unit 5 and Unit 5-
CA represent a second period of stability which prompted the formation of both Unit 5-Bt and darker-
colored Unit 6, the modern A horizon.
The term debris flow describes a slurry of poorly-sorted, highly-concentrated sediment that acts as a fluid.
At concentrations of up to 80 percent solids, debris flows have a high density, allowing them to transport
boulders that are up to meters in diameter (Cruden and Varnes, 1996). Debris-flow deposits typically
contain large cobbles and boulders and other debris (tree, brush, etc.) suspended in a matrix of gravel, sand,
and/or silts and clays (Boggs, 2006). Debris-flow deposits are characterized by poorly-sorted angular, sub-
angular, and/or sub-rounded clasts in a relatively fine-grained matrix. No internal layering or imbrication
of clasts is typically present in a debris-flow deposit, but individual debris-flow events in a debris fan can
sometimes be recognized by crude layering defined by variations in debris composition and the presence
of soil-forming intervals between subsequent events.
The trench showed no evidence that a debris flow has taken place on the fan of interest. Only two units in
the trench exhibited a clast-dominated matrix-supported signature. One was clearly fluvial in origin as the
clasts were predominately sub-rounded to rounded (Unit 1), and the other contained a maximum clast size
of small (approximately 3 inch diameter) sub-angular gravel and cobbles (Unit 4-CA) where a significant
debris-flow event would be expected to deposit boulder-sized clasts. Although it is likely that small-scale
flow events have occurred on the fan of interest in the past, the material in the trench is not characteristic
of a relatively large debris-flow deposit which would typically contain sub-angular cobbles and boulders in
a clay-dominated matrix. The destructive potential of relatively small-volume flows containing a maximum
clast size of gravel or small cobbles compared to those of a large debris flow are of less concern, though
this condition should still be considered in design as recommended below.
Recommendations
Based on the characterization discussed above, we do not believe that a debris flow hazard exists at this site
to the degree that specific debris flow mitigation is required. The site will be subject to precipitation and
runoff, and thus normal, prudent storm water engineering practices should be followed. Large runoff events
with significant overland flows may indeed contain sediment, but large bulking factors as are typically
associated with debris flow events need not be considered in such designs. It would, however, in our
opinion, be prudent to oversize conveyance channels, culverts, and related structures by 25 to 50 percent to
account for sediment loading. Best management practices to control erosion and minimize sediment
generation should be followed. We are available to consult with the civil designer, and to review any plans
or calculations if requested.
Our scope of work on this project has been limited specifically to review, investigation, and
recommendations related to potential debris flow hazards for the site in question. We have not investigated
other geologic hazards such as rockfall, landslides, or collapsible soils, nor does our scope of work currently
include foundation recommendations or recommendations or designs related to earth retention or slope
stability. Please call if you require such services.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
September 12, 2017
Page 5
References
Boggs, S. (2006). “Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy - 4th Edition.”, Transport and Deposition
of Siliciclastic Sediment, Pearson Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cruden, D. M., and Varnes, D. J. (1996). “Landslides Types and Processes.” Landslides: Investigation and
Mitigation Special Report 247, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 36-71.
ATTACHMENT A
Appendix A
ATTACHMENT A
Site Location and Site Photos
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 1
Figure: Site Location (after GoogleEarth, 2017)
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
nn
Approximate location and
orientation of trench
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 2
Figure: General Site Photos
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
ATTACHMENT A
Trench Stratigraphy Photos
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 3a
Figure: Trench Stratigraphy Photos
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
Photo 1: River terrace alluvium Unit 1 dominated by sub-rounded
clasts
Photo 2: Clast concentration variability of mixed facies Unit 2
Photo 3: Mottled carbonate and low clast concentrations within Unit
3
Photo 4: Channelized 4-CA Unit in Bench No. 1 with much higher
clast concentration than Units 5-Bt, 4-Bt- and 4 (on Bench No. 2)
Unit 3
Unit 4 Unit 5-Bt
Unit 4-Bt
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 3b
Figure: Trench Stratigraphy Photos
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
Photo 5: White coloration highlights the high carbonater presence in
Unit 5
Photo 6: Soil structure of Unit 6
Unit 5-Bt
ATTACHMENT A
Trench Log and Unit Description
ATTACHMENT A
Abbreviated Stratigraphic Explanation:
6. Modern A Horizon
5-CA. Drainagea alluvium lens with carbonate
5. Drainage alluvium lens
5-Bt. Textural B Horizon
4-Bt. Secondary textural B Horizon (gradation contact with 4)
4-CA. Drainage alluvium gravel lens or channel with carbonate
4. Drainiage alluvium (gradational contact with 4-Bt)
3. Drainage alluvium with carbonate
2. Mixed facies - River terrace alluvium/Drainage alluvium
1. River terrace alluvium
METERS
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24MATCH LINETRENCH ORIENTATION: N101°E
-2METERS7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
3 4
3
4
3
33
4
4
4-CA
4-CA
4
4-CA 4-CA
4-Bt
4-Bt
4-Bt
5-Bt
5-Bt
5-Bt
5-CA
6
6 6
Bench No. 1
Bench No. 2
Bench No. 3
5
ATTACHMENT A
UNIT ID.NAMEDESCRIPTIONUSCS Name: Percent clasts by volume, clast rounding, carbonate presence, Munsell soil color6 A HorizonSilt (ML): Very minimal pebble presence, rounding not applicable, no carbonate present, 10YR 4/25-CACarbonate HorizonSilt (ML): Very minimal pebble presence, rounding not applicable, carbonate uniformly present throughout, 2.5Y 6/25 Drainage alluviumSilt (ML): Very minimal pebble presence, rounding not applicable, no carbonate present, 10YR 4/25-BtTextural B HorizonSilt (ML): 5% coarse gravel with some pebbles, sub-angular, typically no carbonate present but some ghosted coverage, 10YR 4/24-BtSecondary textural B Horizon (gradation contact with 4) Silt (ML): 5% - 10% coarse gravel with minimal small-sized cobbles and some pebble clusters, sub-angular to sub-rounded, typically no carbonate present but concentrated pebble clusters show ghosted coverage, 10YR 4/24-CADrainage alluvium lens or channel with carbonateSilty gravel (GM): 70% - 85% coarse gravel with some small-sized cobbles and pebbles, sub-angular to sub-rounded, ghosted carbonate coverage to full carbonate coverage, from top to bottom: 2.5Y 6/2, 2.5Y 5/24Drainage alluvium (gradational contact with 4-Bt)Silt (ML): 5% - 10% coarse gravel with pebbles concentrated in clusters or filling void space in between gravels near bottom of unit, sub-angular to sub-rounded, typically no carbonate present but small amount of mottled carbonate observed on west side of bottom of unit, from top to bottom of unit: 10YR 4/2, 2.5Y 4/43Drainage alluvium with carbonateSilt (ML): 2.5% - 10% coarse gravel with few small concentrated pebble clusters at bottom of unit, sub-angular to sub-rounded, mottled carbonate to full carbonate coverage, from top to bottom of unit: 10YR 5/2, 2.5Y 5/2, 10YR 4/32Mixed facies - River terrace alluvium/Drainage alluvium Sandy silt with gravel (ML): Average of 15% small- to medium-sized cobbles and coarse gravel with pebbles but clast concentration is highly variable laterally, predominantly sub-rounded to rounded with some sub-angular, typically no carbonate present except for full carbonate coverage in areas with high clast concentration, 10YR 3/31River terrace alluviumSandy silt to silt with gravel and cobbles (ML): 15% - 20% small- to large-sized cobbles with coarse gravel and pebbles near bottom of unit and average of 70% small- to large-sized cobbles and coarse gravel in middle and top of unit where clast concentration is highly variable laterally, predominantly sub-rounded to rounded with some sub-angular, typically no carbonate present but some clusters of gravels and pebbles show full carbonate coverage, from top to bottom of unit: 2.5Y 5/2, 10YR 4/2 UNIT DESCRIPTIONATTACHMENT A
35 | Page
Exhibit F
Geotech Report – Original 2007
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
36 | Page
Exhibit G
Project Images
ATTACHMENT A
37 | Page
ATTACHMENT A
38 | Page
ATTACHMENT A
39 | Page
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
Parking notrequiredwithreductionATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
EAGLE-VAIL/VALLEY OVERLOOKGYPSUM CLIFFSVALLEY OVERLOOKBIKING AND HIKINGTRAIL TOOVERLOOKSPOSSIBLE LINK TONATIONAL FORESTBIKING/ HIKINGTRAILSPOSSIBLE LINK TOEAGLE VAIL TRAILDEDICATEDPARKING FOR TRAILPAVILIONTRAIL CONNECTIONATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
L1.0PROPOSED TRAILEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING TREE LINEPEDESTRIANAREA - SEATINGGATHERINGPEDESTRIANAREA - SEATINGGATHERINGTRAIL PARKINGPEDESTRIANAREA - SEATINGGATHERINGATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
From: Matthew Abramowitz
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 2:25 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>; jeff layman
Cc: Peter Dillon
Subject: 38388 Highway 6 Development
Hi Matt & Jeff,
I recently saw that 38388 Highway was sold and I understand that the developer plans to build a large residential / hotel
property on the site. As a neighbor in RiverOaks, I am very excited about another wonderful development that will add
to our amazing community. However, as a neighbor, I also have some concerns regarding the added traffic to the area
and the impact that may cause.
Currently, as a resident of RiverOaks, we have no way to access the path directly across the way without running across
highway 6 (with children in tow) or the main roundabout without walking down highway 6 until we reach the path by
the Ascent. Both options are extremely dangerous! And now a new development has the potential to increase traffic
exponentially.
With that being said, we would like to make sure everyone involved understands our residents concerns. When
considering the new new development, Please consider building a path all the way from the round about to RiverOaks
and possibly a lighted crosswalk (at the round about and /or in front of RiverOaks). In an effort to work with the
developer, the town of Avon & EV, I believe that we would be willing to sell a portion of our property on the west side to
facilitate the walkway. This would also provide EV with an option of extending their trails and have access to a path that
leads directly into Avon. I believe a win for all parties.
As you move forward with the approval process for the new development, we would like to be part of the discussions so
that we can come to the best possible outcome for everyone!
Thanks in advance for your time in regards to this matter! I look forward to hearing back from you and working
together!
Thank you for all that you do for our communities!
Thanks,
Matthew Abramowitz
ATTACHMENT C
1
From: Thomas Heston
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 9:59 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>; Matthew Abramowitz Cc: jeff layman ; Pete Dillon
Subject: Highway 6 development/Riveroaks Condo."
Dear Matt,
My name is Tom Heston. My wife, Marlene, and I have owned property in the River Oaks Condominium complex since
1995. We recently learned from Matt Abramowitz that the property west of our complex will soon be home to a 200
plus room hotel/condo development. We are pleased the development should be a huge asset to the neighborhood,
however the project does create concerns for myself and the residents of River Oaks.
Since the bike path completion on the north side of Highway 6, it has become evident that the path has
shortcomings related to River Oaks residents. The most serious concern for our residents is the danger involved in
accessing the bike path. With no crosswalk on highway 6, it becomes a matter of "taking your life in your own hands" in
order to cross the highway to get to the path. The only other alternative is to walk down highway 6 to the round‐about
by the Accent, which may be possibly even more life threatening.
The east bound bus stop is only accessible from River Oaks by walking west along the berm of Highway 6. This is also
quite dangerous with the absence of a walkway.
I've investigated some old River Oaks planning documents from 1980, and discovered the parcel of land just west of the
existing complex was earmarked for a second phase of development. The parcel, approximately 7 acres on top, was to
accommodate 3‐4 additional building sites. My thought is, with cooperation between River Oaks, Eagle‐Vail, Avon, and
the developers, possibly an arrangement could be struck to alleviate the pedestrian safety shortcomings on highway 6
by creating a sidewalk, or path. Or, perhaps additional options could be created utilizing the 7 acres to provide the new
development with more parking for their planned Eagle‐Vail Trail Head, or low cost employee housing, etc.
Realizing there would be a vast amount of excavating to be done, the 7 acres from River Oaks might possibly be a great
location for a transit sub‐station. Additional parking at the site might provide a solution for the parking issues currently
experienced at the Avon Transit Station.
In closing, I would hope the concerns of the residents of River Oaks would be considered in any decisions that are made
regarding the forthcoming development.
Sincerely,
Thomas C Heston Jr
River Oaks E202
ATTACHMENT C
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 1
Staff Report – Rezoning & Preliminary PUD
February 6, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Project Files Case #REZ18001 & #PUD18001
Current Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) – No Development Plan
Proposed Zoning
Mixed Use Commercial & PUD Overlay
Address Not Assigned | Highway 6 & 24
Legal Description Folson Property
Subdivision Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
Introduction
The Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing and review two development
applications, collectively referred to as the “Colorado World Resorts” Hotel and Condominium project.
The applications include:
1) Rezoning. Change the underlying zoning from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation
to the Mixed-Use Commercial (MC), and Open Space, Landscaping, and Drainage (OLD) zone
districts.
2) Preliminary PUD. This overlay district is processed in two steps: preliminary and final. The PUD
overlay would be on top of the MC zoning classification and is intended to allow a flexible
development pattern not specifically provided for in the Development Code. Variations to the
building height (increase), natural resource regulations (40% slope development), and parking
regulations (reduction) are sought.
The applications include a project description narrative (Attachment A), and plans (Attachment B) to detail
the site and building design characteristics. In addition to the public notification requirements and mailing
to owners within 300’, agency referrals were sent to special d istricts and adjacent land managers for
comments. Written comments received by February 2, 2018 are included as well (Attachment C).
Process
The review processes require a noticed public hearing with PZC, and a recommendation on both
applications forwarded to Town Council. The Town Council shall review and render a final decision on the
Rezoning application after conducting another public hearing, and action on two readings of an Ordinance.
The Preliminary PUD requires a public hearing before Council. Unless otherwise approved by the Town
Council, approval of a preliminary PUD application shall vest no rights to an applicant other than the right to
submit a final PUD development plan. There is a six (6) month timeframe following approval of a Preliminary
PUD plan, whereby the applicant must initiate the second stage of the process by filing a Final PUD plan and
proceed through the same process with PZC and Town Council.
Property Background
The property was annexed in 1985. Shortly after annexation, the Town of Avon Official Zone District Map
was amended to include the property as zoned Special Planned Area (SPA); the SPA zoning was the
precursor to PUD and allowed development proposals that vary from the Town’s zoning ordinance.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 2
However, no development plan has ever been approved for the property. Over the years there have been
several development proposals and conceptual reviews, the most recent concluding in 2007.
Rezoning Review Criteria Analysis
The review process and review criteria for zoning amendments are governed by AMC §7.16.050, Rezonings.
PZC shall use the following criteria as the basis for a recommendation on the Rezoning Application to
the Avon Town Council:
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code;
Staff Response: The Purpose of the Development Code is to divide the Town into zones and regulate the
siting and appearance of built structures. The overarching goals of the Development Code are summarized
below:
• Avoid traffic congestion and promote mass transportation and enhancement of attractive and
economical pedestrian opportunities.
• Promote light, air, landscaping and opens space while avoiding sprawl and hapless environmental
degradation.
• Sustain our local water resources.
• Provide adequate open space, while sustaining the tourist-based economy, and preserving property
values.
• Promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, and complimentary to Avon’s sub-alpine
environment.
• Achieve a diverse range of attainable housing.
The rezoning application has been reviewed and found complimentary to the purpose statements of the
Development Code. The MC zone district strikes a balance between tourist-based needs and the preservation
of property values and the environment. The proposal for MC zoning on the Highway 6 & 24 frontage, coupled
with OLD zoning on the upper hillside, will ensure a compact development form that meets the goals of the
development standards. Additionally, a mix of housing is proposed in order to offset some of the employee
generation of the project on-site.
(2) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response: The rezoning application is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. General land use goals and policies from the Avon Comprehensive Plan worth noting
include:
Goal B.1: Provide a balance of land uses that offer a range of housing options, diverse commercial
and employment opportunities, inviting guest accommodations, and high quality civic and recreational
facilities that work in concert to strengthen Avon’s identity as both a year- round residential community
and as a commercial, tourism and economic center.
Goal B.4: Encourage commercial development that enhances Avon’s overall economic health,
contributes to the community’s image and character, and provides residents and visitors with
increased choices and services.
Policy B.5.1: Ensure infrastructure improvements include sidewalks, utilities, and controlled
access from collector roads, like Nottingham Road.
Policy C.1.4: Extend Town Center urban design principles to appropriate adjacent Districts.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 3
Policy C.2.3: Reinforce community gateways along major roadway corridors that strengthen
Avon’s community identity.
Policy E.1.4: Integrate attainable housing within large developments and throughout Town.
The property is located in District 4: U.S. Highway 6 Gateway District. The area includes all of the Highway
6 frontage from the subject property to West Beaver Creek Boulevard, and is focused on the day skier
parking lots of Beaver Creek. The plan acknowledges that most of the parcels are outside of Avon’s
municipal boundaries, but seeks coordination with Eagle County on future plans for the area.
The planning principles for this district include:
• Work with CDOT to enhance the U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way to provide a sense of arrival and
departure for those traveling to and from Avon, and to strengthen Avon’s overall community image
and identity.
• Screens ski area parking and other accessory uses.
• Creates strong pedestrian connections to the Riverfront and Town Center Districts.
• Minimizes cut areas and preserve areas of steep slopes. Buildings should be built into the hillside and
stepped up with rising topography to reduce their dominance above U.S. Highway 6.
• Shares property access when appropriate.
• Preserves access to the Eagle River.
DISTRICT 4 – HIGHWAY 6 GATEWAY DISTRICT
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 4
While the rezoning application in and of itself does not achieve the principles outlined for the U.S. Highway
6 Gateway District, the design plans submitted (Attachment B) with the PUD demonstrate a commitment to
a structure that will be built into the hillside, limiting development on steeper portions of the property, with
shared (emergency) access. The development concept for CO World Resorts would preserve all areas above
the structure with passive use and multi-use trails.
The building is set into the hillside with a single step back on the highway side of the building where the
height reaches up to 95’ tall, as evidenced by the building sections in the plans. The finer details of how a
project would fit onto the property would be vetted with a forthcoming development plan application. The
perspective and 3-D modeling demonstrates the intent to provide a landmark development that fits into the
steep topography of the site.
(3) Physical suitability of the land for the proposed development or subdivision;
Staff Response: The property is largely non-developable; areas abutting highway 6 and 24 are
generally more suitable to development called out for the MC zone district. There are a series of
retaining walls required to support the site plan and adjacent parking areas, which is expected with
the abrupt topography.
The upper 15 acres of the site are not suitable for development, which makes the OLD zone district
appropriate to preserve the land as it is today, and to accommodate passive recreation use. Staff will
propose a covenant restriction for the upper lot to ensure uses are controlled in addition to the zoning
designation.
(4) Compatibility with surrounding land uses;
Staff Response: The surrounding is undeveloped open space, United States Forest Service property,
as well as a tract of undeveloped land between the River Oaks condominiums to the east. In many
ways the lot is considered an “island” property, with limited direct impact to adjacent development.
(5) Whether the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions
in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned;
Staff Response: The property has been historically zoned SPA and PUD without a development plan
or approved standards. Rezoning to MC and OLD is found to be appropriate given that all Town
properties in the vicinity have been developed.
(6) Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development for the
type and scope suggested by the proposed zone compared to the existing zoning, while maintaining
adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: Much of the infrastructure needed to serve the development is in close proximity. No
water rights have been assigned to the property; therefore, water rights from the Upper Eagle Regional
Water Authority (UERWA) must be obtained. The applicant must secure an appropriation with approval by
the UERWA board and a cash-in-lieu payment; otherwise water rights will need to be secured.
(7) Whether the rezoning is consistent with the stated purpose of the proposed
zoning district(s);
Staff Response: The rezoning is found to be consistent with the stated purpose of the MC and OLD
zone districts. As outlined in Sec. 7.20.080(b), the MC district “is established to group and link places
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 5
used for working, shopping, educating and recreating with residential uses, thereby creating a compact
community form. This district allows commercial, office, civic, townhouse and apartment uses and….is
the preferred district and development type in Avon. The mostly vertical mix of uses will reduce vehicle
trips, relieve traffic congestion and provide an urbanized, pedestrian environment. MC implements the
mixed-use land use classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located adjacent to the
Town Center as a transitional district.” The property is suited to a mix of land uses that is connected
with pedestrian improvements and regional transportation networks.
The OLD district is “intended for areas that will be public or private undeveloped open spaces. Some
landscaping and drainage control work may be necessary and desirable. The OLD district may also be used
to preserve and protect land areas of special or unusual ecological or geographic interest. There are no
dimensional requirements for this district.” The upper reaches of the property have unique rock
formations and a tree canopy distinct from other valley floor parcels in Avon. The upper areas within
the open space will be preserved and open to public use.
(8) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management,
wildlife, and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
Staff Response: Staff does not anticipate any adverse impacts upon the natural environment. By
rezoning the majority of the upper portion of the property as OLD, it would be protected
from development or further impacts. D evelopment must confo rm to the environmental
regulations contained in Title 7: Development Code.
To provide assurance that water use for landscaping is meeting the goals of the Landscaping
Regulations and those of the ERWSD, staff recommends that additional informa tion be
provided at Final PUD. This would include items such as a water budget, irrigation
requirements, and clear enforcement provisions moving forward.
(9) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
Staff Response: No substantial impacts to other properties in the vicinity are envisioned with MC
or OLD zoning designations. Natural and manmade buffers existing in all directions of the property.
(10) For rezoning within an existing PUD, consistency with the relevant PUD Master
Plan as reflected in the approval of the applicable PUD; and,
Staff Response: The existing PUD does not have an associated Master Plan or development plan
approval. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable.
(11) Adequate mitigation is required for zoning amendment applications which result
in greater intensity of land use or increased demands on public facilities and infrastructure.
Staff Response: No direct mitigation is recommended for the rezoning application. If rezoned MC
and OLD, staff does not foresee a significant increase in demands on public facilities. The
accompanying PUD application presents additional development potential and therefore some
mitigating “benefits” are offered by the applicant and addressed accordingly with the PUD
application.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 6
Preliminary PUD Review Criteria Analysis
The Development Code process for a PUD overlay is governed by Section 7.16.060 of the Development Code,
and includes a multiple step process: 1) Determine Eligibility; 2) If found eligible move to Preliminary PUD
Application; 3) If approved, move to Final PUD Application. Pursuant to §7.16.060(e)(4), Review Criteria,
AMC, the PZC shall consider the following criteria when forming the basis of a recommendation:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town, and/or incorporates
creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and represents an
improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict application of the otherwise
applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in quality may include, but are not limited
to: improvements in open space provision and access; environmental protection; tree/vegetation
preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads, and other utilities and services; or increased choice of living
and housing environments.
Staff Response: The PUD overlay district confers several public benefits as outlined in the attached project
narrative. If developed as proposed, there would be guaranteed worker units constructed on and offsite,
as well as additional public open space for trailhead and access to an overlook of Town. Staff also finds that
the property is unique in its location and physical constraints, and a sound candidate for a PUD overlay based
on the Development Code standards being more suited toward smaller lots in the Town Core. Most of the
trees and vegetation on upper benches of the property would be preserved in perpetuity, which ensures the
long-standing aesthetic of a natural forest unique within the municipal boundary.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
Staff Response: Staff finds no detrimental effects on the public health, safety or general welfare with a
change in building height or small reduction in parking requirements for a standalone project. With any
hillside development, drainage and physical concerns must be mitigated and addressed with a development
plan application.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this Development
Code, and the eligibility criteria outlined in §7.16.060(b);
Staff Response: The attached Preliminary PUD was found to be eligible with the criteria set forth in Section
7.16.060(b), Eligibility Requirements, with public benefit commitments and preservation of natural site
features. Additionally, compatibility with the Avon Comprehensive Plan is cited above in the Rezoning
analysis.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire protection,
and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while
maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
Staff Response: The facilities and services necessary to serve the development are either in place, in process,
or will be addressed with a Final PUD application. Staff is recommending that a General Improvement
District be created, like that which was approved for the neighboring Ascent project, to off-set demands on
services (i.e. transportation) with a levy of taxes. Water supply and demand assurances must be approved
by UERWA and addressed with a Final PUD. No comments were received from the fire district or other
emergency service departments.
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts
upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife, and vegetation,
or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 7
Staff Response: The proposed Application will not result in any “significant” adverse impacts upon the
natural environment, compared to the underlying (blank PUD) zoning. Mitigation is required by the
Development Code for all development within the Town. For example, a stormwater control plan is a
requirement with a Development Plan submittal and must demonstrate water quality standards. Other
details would be vetted with a Development Plan application.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts
upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
Staff Response: The underlying zoning is proposed to be Mixed-Use Commercial. If the new MC zoning
classification is approved, there are no significant adverse impacts anticipated with a parking reduction and
building height increase for portions of the mixed-use hotel/condominium structure. Keeping development
contained to a single structure with mostly underground parking is found to mitigate externalities that are
experienced with other large developments in Town that do contain expanses of surface parking. If
palatable to PZC, staff would recommend additional decreases in parking standards which would eliminate
the surface parking extending as far east toward the bus stop.
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on other
properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
Staff Response: Hotel, condominium, restaurant, and small retail spaces are found to be compatible with
existing and potential future uses in the vicinity. The area is a mix of affordable, local, and second home -
owner residential development. State highway requirements will ensure that access is safe and does not
present conflicts with other properties in the immediate area.
Available Options
1. Continue the Public Hearing to a date certain, pending additional information.
2. Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council
approve the application(s), together with findings.
3. Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council
deny the application(s), together with findings.
Recommended Motions:
MOTION NO. 1 - Rezoning
“I move to recommend Town Council approval of Case #REZ18001, an application for rezoning of the Folson
Property from PUD to MC and OLD zoning, together with the findings of fact listed in staff’s report.”
The following Findings may be applied to the Rezoning Application:
1. The Application was reviewed in accordance §7.16.050, Rezonings, Avon Development
Code, and is found to be in substantial compliance with the review criteria and Avon
Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in staff report;
2. The Application is substantially compliant with the purpose statements of the Development
Code by providing for the orderly, efficient use of the Property, while at the same time
conserving the value of the investments of owners of property in Town; and
3. MC and OLD districts are found to be compatible with adjacent residential development
based upon the intent to integrate mixed-use buildings that transition from residential to
commercial development found in the Town Core.
CO World Resorts Rezoning & Preliminary PUD 8
MOTION NO. 2 – Preliminary PUD
“I move to recommend Town Council approval of Case #PUD18001, an application for a Preliminary PUD,
together with the findings and conditions listed in staff’s report.”
The following Findings may be applied to the Preliminary PUD Application:
1. The property and project are eligible for PUD approval based on the eligibility requirements
in Section 7.16.060 (b), Eligibility Criteria.
2. The Application is substantially compliant with the purpose statements of the Development
Code by providing for the orderly, efficient use of the Property, while at the same time
conserving the value of the investments of owners of property in Town; and
3. The Application demonstrates compliance with the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan.
4. Compared to underlying MC zoning, the PUD overlay exceptions would not result in
significant adverse impacts upon other properties.
5. The tangible public benefits presented with the PUD application are commensurate with the
increase in building height, reduction in parking, and limited development on 40% slopes.
Conditions to be addressed with Final PUD Application:
1. A complete Final PUD must be submitted within six (6) months of Town Council action.
2. The application will include the following submittal requirements:
a. Landscape Plan prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect. Irrigation and water
budgeting based on best management practices and environmentally
responsible/reasonable use shall be incorporated into the PUD guide at the requirement
of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (UERWA).
b. Preliminary Subdivision, as specified by Section 7.16.060(e), Procedures, shall be
submitted concurrently with Final PUD.
c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be submitted for Mixed-Use designation on Future
Land Use Map.
d. Water Rights obtained by UERWA.
e. Development Agreement addressing the following requirements:
i. Worker Housing Units
ii. General Improvement District
iii. Trail Construction, Pedestrian Gathering, and Restrictive Use of Open Space
iv. Landscaping Guarantees
v. ECO Bus Shelter Replacement
Attachments
A. Application Narrative
B. Application Plans
C. Public Comments
Colorado World Resorts, LLC TAB Associates, Inc.
Colorado World Resorts PUD
Preliminary PUD Application
& Re-Zoning
Project Description
January 15, 2018
ATTACHMENT A
1 | Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 2 PROJECT TEAM
Page 3 Project Overview and Process
Page 5 Town Center Zoning – PUD Differences
Page 6 Building Mass
Page 7 Building Height
Page 8 Front Door Experience
Page 9 Amenities
Page 10 Fire Egress
Page 11 Traffic and Parking
Page 13 Connectivity
Page 14 Value Add to Town
Page 16 Findings and Conclusions
Page 16 DESIGN STANDARDS
PUD Information
Review of PUD Application
Public Benefit Criteria
Page 20 Rezoning Criteria
Page 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Existing Zoning and Land Use
Page 24 Town Center – Dimensions Chart
Page 25 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Project Phasing
Page 26 Access and Circulation
Employees
Page 27 Parking Analysis
Shuttle Service
Open Space
Page 28 Geological Study
APPENDIX Exhibit A Comparison Chart of example projects – Height, Massing, Density, Disturbance.
Exhibit B Possible Square Footage and Program Information – numbers may vary from PUD
application. PUD application supersedes.
Exhibit C Traffic Report
Exhibit D Partial Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Final Report July 2017 - - LSC
parking report and support data.
Exhibit E Geotech Report – Revised 2017
Exhibit F Goetech Report – Original 2006
Exhibit G Project Images
ATTACHMENT A
2 | Page
PROJECT TEAM
Owner
Colorado World Resorts, LLC
6460 S. Quebec St
Building 5
Centennial, CO 80111
Colorado World Resorts LLC and its predecessor companies have been family owned and operated in
Denver, CO for over 25 years. Since founding, the company has built, remodeled and operated 17 branded
hotels in the Denver area (3 new and 14 remodeled). Including other members of the team over 60 hotels
have been owned and/or operated in the Denver market area. The company is an approved Hilton Hotel
brand builder and operator. Brands built and operated include Ramada, Days Inn, Hampton Inn and Suites,
Fairfield Inn and Suites, Microtel, Wingate, Clarion and Super 8, IHG Hotels and independently branded
hotels.
The company also has roots as a European custom home builder. They have built over 500 homes (ranging
from 3,000s.f. - 40,000 s.f.) in the Denver area and has also completed over 2 million square feet of home
and commercial remodeling. This combined with the teams avid love of skiing, mountaineering, golf,
outdoor sports and the Vail Beaver Creek area, will result in a beautifully designed and meticulously
operated property over the long term.
CWR (as a show of good faith) has recently closed on this property showing the dedication to making this
project work.
Architect
TAB Associates, Inc.
56 Edwards Village Blvd
Suite 210
Edwards, CO 81632
Tab Bonidy, President
Greg Macik, Principal
Civil Engineering
Alpine Engineering, Inc.
P.O. Box 97
Edwards, CO 81632
(970) 926-3373
(970) 926-3390 fax
Geology
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-7988
(970) 945-8454 fax
Wetlands
Western Ecological Resource
711 Walnut Street
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 449-9009
(303) 449-9038 fax
Traffic
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 333-1105
(303) 333-1107 fax
Environmental Impact Report
Watershed Environmental Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 4618
Eagle, CO 81631
(970) 328-4364
(970) 328-4364 fax
ATTACHMENT A
3 | Page
Project Overview and Process
We have currently reviewed this project with the Planning and Zoning commission during two previous work
sessions in September and November of 2017. We have worked through many issues brought up by the
Commission with continual development for a great project. Although, we do understand some members
still have concerns about multiple issues and conditions. We will continue to work as a team with the
Commission to make the BEST project for the Town of Avon and our community.
This submittal is for two items. Re-Zoning of the existing property to Mixed-Use Commercial and then Re-
Zoning with a PUD overlay of the new mixed-use commercial zoning.
Property
The property is commonly known as the Folson property. Colorado World Resorts, LLC, as of December
20th is the new Owner of the property. The 21.52 acres site is contiguous to and east of the Ascent
Development which is directly east of the Beaver Creek Roundabout.
Colorado World Resorts, LLC is proposing a Hotel/Condominium complex located in the lower west portion
of the property. The project is being proposed as a single phase project.
The project site does begin to rise steeply after the rather flat front portion of the site. We have concentrated
the development on the lower flat section of the site to avoid as much as possible the steep slopes of the
site.
Condominiums will be for sale units.
Hotel portion will be a boutique Hotel without a major brand attachment at this time.
Additional Mixed-use commercial is also being planned. Some ideas to still be coordinated and discussed is
small commercial spaces (Ski shop, Barista, Jewelry, Art Gallery and Restaurant)
TAB Associates, Inc. began working with a developer on this site in 2006. By January of 2008 we were
close to an approval prior to economic issues and Owner withdraw from the project. Since 2008 we have
had at least six different developers approach us to help research and purse a new development. Projects
similar to this one, hotels, commercial and etc have been discussed. In most cases the potential developer
withdrew due to the complexity of the site and limited site area in relationship to potential salable square
footage.
Colorado World Resorts, LLC approached us in July of 2017 to potentially resurrect the project that was
abandoned in 2008. We do believe the process we went through in 2006 and 2007 developed a project that
met and still meets the Town Code.
We purposefully followed the previous process so as to build upon all the work and decision making
previously done and agreed upon, and this is a foundational premise so as to not waste building or P&Z
time.
As you will learn we have carefully reviewed the new Avon Town Code, Comprehensive Plan and Strategic
Plan to assure we meet the current plans and Code.
.
Proposed Use Description
Colorado World Resorts, LLC is proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay of the Mixed-
Commercial Zoning pursuant to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan and direction received from the
Planning Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
We will be asking for various deviations from the Mixed-Commercial Zone District and Town Code.
Building Height
Revised Setbacks
Parking Requirements
Building in Steep Slopes
ATTACHMENT A
4 | Page
The following pages provide charts which are a point by point response to what we heard during our
September and November work sessions. November work sessions comments added in italics.
Items we heard that were issues or items which needed further explanation and information:
Town Center Zoning/ PUD Differences
Building Mass Building Height
Front Door Experience
Amenities
Traffic and Parking
Connectivity
Value Add to Town
ATTACHMENT A
5 | Page
Town Center Zoning/ PUD Differences
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Is the site Residential?
Should we consider this a
Grandfathered, continuation
of 2007 applications?
Is the project appropriate for
site and Avon?
Some Favored the project on
the site.
Base Camp- Ex PUD Zoning.
Town Center is not
appropriate
Site is transitional site
Residential – It is part of a transitional zone from condo to medium
density
o Continue to review as PUD
o Town Center Comparison
o Creates transitional zone considering Eagle Vail medium
density is over 350 yards away and separated by large
mountain.
We have revised underlay zoning to Multi Use-Commercial
Height (MC-60 feet) – (PUD-95’)
o Stepped VS Flat
o Average TC Height – 93’-3” (5 Studied)
o We will be restricted to 45% of building. TC does not limit.
Could build 60 feet across entire project. We are restricting
our project more than other projects in Town.
Increased Setbacks
o Front – (MC-10) – (PUD-40’)
o Side – (MC-0) – (West - PUD-22’, East- PUD-80’)
o Rear – (MS-10) – (PUD-50’)
o PUD is More restrictive than MC projects.
Lot Coverage (MC-50%) – (PUD-50%)
o Building – Lot Coverage 33.9% of 40% slope
o Impermeable Site and Building – 65% of 40% slope.
o Building - Lot Coverage 16.3% of entire north portion
o Impermeable site and Building – 31.5% of entire north
portion
o Site Disturbance 58.4% of entire north lot
o Average Town Center coverages – 80% (5 Studied)
o No comparison. Disturbance is less than any other project
in Avon
Landscaping (MC-20%) – (PUD-30%) of North Lot
Goal of PUD standards are to create the transition wanted from the Ascent and put restrictions on the
property which are much more restrictive than Multi-Use Commercial (MC) guidelines.
We are only asking for the height and in addition burden the project with other items beyond the MC.
Height – Stepping (more restrictive height limitations)
Setbacks – More restrictive larger setbacks.
Landscaping – Higher percentage of landscaping
ATTACHMENT A
6 | Page
Building Mass
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Move mass east
Shift lower floor to create
more stepping
Correct disturbance numbers
Perspective showing
massing comparison
Small building on east side
Provide additional pedestrian
views
Provide additional
clarification of pavilion
building
Stepped west portion and shifted height to middle of building
Moved garage entry
Lowered building levels 5 feet
o Overall height to 95 feet.
Site Disturbance (All walls, grading, building, etc) – 16.3% entire
site
Added more massing examples
o Examples and comparisons show we are in the average
across the Town.
o Additional site sections and pedestrian 3-D views provided.
Stepped building to lower height zone on west
o We have continued to step the west portion of the building
by removing an additional floor on the end so the building
lines up with the Ascent roof line. We did add some
additional length to the east end of building to replace the 8
units lost on the west.
Discussing small pavilion building for trail usage
o Define building – Welcome center type building with trail
maps for site and Town of Avon trail system. Covered for
protection. Approximately 30’ x 30’.
o Possible Picnic location.
See also the appendix for Town of Avon Comparison Chart. Chart shows the comparison of a number of
development items for 5 existing structures in the Town.
Square Footage
Units
Density
Footprint
Disturbance
Height
Parking
ATTACHMENT A
7 | Page
Building Height
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Show Height Comparisons to
other buildings
Comparison showing year
built, parking, square footages
of disturbance and footprint,
density
Height not an issue vs
massing
Precedent Set in TC.
Is it a Transitional Property?
Height reduction enough?
East hill not part of transition.
Overall agreed building fits
against hill
Lowered height from 104’ to 95’
We have kept the stepping limitations
Comparisons are shown in new images as well as noted in
Comparison Chart in Appendix.
Compatible with Avon structures in height and massing
o Continued to reduce massing on west end to better tie into
Ascent
Can argue fits better against hill than in middle of town
Transitions from Ascent to hillside to Eagle-Vail
West lowest height is equal to height of the Ascent.
We are asking for a restricted stepped building height as outlined further in this description. This would put
restrictions in the PUD which would allow us to only achieve certain heights as percentages of the building
length. This would insure a stepped building height.
Town Center building height is noted as 80 feet but the Avon Center, Sheraton and Westin are above 90
feet.
We maintain the building mass becomes a part of the massive mountain that creates the site. It blends
more appropriately versus a longer lower building.
We have pushed the building further back up the hill to move it further from the road and thus give more
relief.
We feel the building mass creates an extension of the existing developments and does not create a canyon
effect.
We could achieve a lower building height by creating a similar situation as the Accent by digging out the
grade and starting the building lower on the site. We chose to work with the site instead of digging it out.
We still feel the building height proposed is the best compromise to address the site constraints as well as
economic constraints.
a) Proposed 95 foot height is 24 feet higher than Ascent as measured per Town Code.
i) This development should not be held to the fact the Accent removed grade to achieve a lower
main level.
ATTACHMENT A
8 | Page
Front Door Experience
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Entry Not so Massive
Decks and overlooks
Green Space in Front-
Reduce Asphalt
What are retaining walls?
Pedestrian Perspective
South Façade more attractive
Parking Lot Lighting
Provide landscape plan
accurate to town standards
Concern about height of walls
Many items are more for the Design Review Stage – still working
on
Reduced entry elements
Reduce asphalt and created more green space to the west.
o Fire Access confirmed but reduced in scale and paving
material. Grass Crete.
o Will consider and use Landscape Architecture for Mitigation
Will hire Landscape Architect for future submittals
and design review. Still compelled to provide high
level of landscaping.
o Parking discussion – Plans show possible full code parking
to east. Can be deleted if parking reduction is acceptable.
More images showing stone veneer retaining walls. Walls are
reduced at the street frontage.
o More consideration for the street level - Pedestrian Images
Parking Lot lighting – Night sky compliant. Reduce tall lights against
Hwy 6, address from farther back in lot.
o Will further develop lighting plan with emphasis on low or
bollard lighting against hwy 6.
Lower site walls – We will attempt to keep the exposed walls along
Hwy 6 to under 6 feet high. We have begun to break up the upper
walls above the parking lot to lower the heights as well as provide
larger planting areas for more landscaping. We have reduced the
retaining walls along Hwy 6 to very minimal in height. The more
parking not installed the less walls will be required.
ATTACHMENT A
9 | Page
Amenities
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Employee Housing a must.
Off site not preferred
Mixed use necessary?
Discussions about trail- is
bike or hiking appropriate?
More definition of trail
amenities
8 Units
o Deed restricted housing on site.
o Or off site
o What would be needed if site required housing? None are
required due to size and site disturbance being less than
60%. If we used the housing mitigation calculations on this
project 8 units are calculated.
Typical housing minimums per Town of Avon Code
- 1 bedroom suite 500 sqft or 1 bedroom in a
housing unit 750 sqft.
o We are proposing 8 units with a minimum of 4 on site. We
would consider additional units provided offsite. These
offsite units would not be provided in existing low income
areas. For example: purchase of housing units in Chapel
Square of similar locations in the Town of Avon could
occur. We are open for further discussion.
Feel some Commercial can be a further draw to site and amenity
for users on site.
Developed a possible Trail System
o Conservation Easement TBD
o Trail is designed for a bike which means it is flatter than a
possible hiking trail. Bikes were considered since there is a
bike trail in close proximity at the top of the mountain.
Working with the National Forest could occur to connect
paths.
o The trail as designed could access at least two current view
points.
The first bench is near the first switch backs and is
a bench just west and above Eagle-Vail. Great
place to watch the sun rise.
The second spot is the incredible valley views from
the gypsum hills above Beaver Creek. Sunsets,
fireworks – best seat in the house.
The TOA Bike Share program was researched. Project will support
a bike share location on site.
Sustainable Design
o Shuttles – Fuel efficient and possible electrical vehicles for
local routes
o Design – Most codes require efficiencies in design. The
ATTACHMENT A
10 | Page
intent is to establish additional sustainable goals in the
design beyond those required by code.
o Zero Waste – Develop a “zero” waste program for the
building operations which would include using all recyclable
products sending no products to the landfill.
Fire Egress
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Other design options?
Follow up with Fire
Department- Update?
A Option Preferred
Site Plan
o A Option – drive through
There is an Easement in place on the ascent
property. Would need to adjust south for road
alignment.
Preferred option by FD.
o B Option – hammer head no access road. Created more
wider disturbance.
Discussed with FD – Fire access to west portion of building is
required.
o Building can not be reached from Hwy 6.
ATTACHMENT A
11 | Page
Traffic and Parking
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
CDOT Concerns
Show Comparisons
How does Shuttle Service
work?
More information about
operation, stops, etc.
Correct Employee Count
Employee Parking Plan
Where would employees
actually park if not on site.
Not in favor of parking
reductions
Majority on board with parking
reduction with additional
information about shuttles.
Challenge of Historic Study
numbers.
Updated traffic study
o 20% reduction for Shuttle
o Initial discussion with CDOT and TOA.
o Site plan shows suggested turn lanes and Hwy 6
improvements.
24 hour shuttle service - operation and benefits
o Safety
o High Level of service
o 3 Shuttles (Local, Eagle, Denver)
o Additional fuel efficient cars will be used as need.
o Additional information has been provided in the following
guide.
Employees
o 53 on site
o Parking Plan
Use of shuttle of local routes
On bus route
It is our intent at least 25% of the employees will be
able to park on site in designated areas.
Parking Reduction
o 20% Standard CDOT reduction (for traffic) with use of
shuttle
o 9% overall reduction
o Our current numbers still show a reduction of 9%. The site
plan included in the drawing set show in the red box the
possible parking we would need to add to meet the Town
code. We still make the point the parking is not required
and reducing the surface parking even more is a better site
plan. The parking if proven later that it is needed it could be
added.
o We have updated our Traffic report which lays out a
number of discussions backup up our proposed reductions.
See page 3 of the Traffic Report.
o July 2017 – Avon Study (suggestions and findings) Partial
copy attached in Appendix. This is provided for a
comparison only. Report is still pending TOA review and
approval.
ATTACHMENT A
12 | Page
Study attached in appendix. Provides actual
parking counts which were used to determine
reduction possibilities.
15% 2017 Avon Study – Mixed Use
2017 Avon Historic Study - .8-.94 parking used per
unit.
Suggested parking option - 1.25 per unit – Covers
all uses on site. We would only need to add 20
more spots to meet this requirement. This would be
calculating parking a different way than the current
code.
ATTACHMENT A
13 | Page
Connectivity
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17,
11/21/17
Response
Sidewalk extents
Bike route
What facilitates pedestrian
use?
Who owns conservations
easement and trail system?
It is what it is?
Sidewalk extends to bus drop off
o Topography interrupts
o Extension of sidewalk system to bus stop and possible trail
system
Extension, trail and uses facilitates
o New Biking and Hiking trail could possibly connect to other
existing trails in Beaver Creek and the National Forest.
Ownership of Easement still TBD
o Eagle Valley Land Trust?
o On site Ownership?
o Other
It is what it is?
o Topography – extends to bus stop
o Building is end of path, extension of Trail
Replace existing bus stop with new ECO standard bus stop with
upgrades per ECO transit.
ATTACHMENT A
14 | Page
Value Add to Town
P& Z Comments – 09/19/17 Response
Room Occupancy need?
Open Space Plan
Need for Middle Upper Class Rooms
Continued growth since 2010.
Westin, BG Ritz, Park Hyatt, Four Seasons
o Average Daily Rate (ADR) increase 37%
o Revenue Per Available Room(RevPAR) increase 57%
o Room Demand up 15%
o 61% average occupancy (12 month)
o 90%‐100% during peak
o 2016 revenue up 58%
Trail – Proposed hiking and biking trail
o Proposed pavilion (information building) at trail head
o Connection to existing hiking and biking trails above
mountain. Possible connectivity.
o New Path provides various opportunities for access to view
areas and connectivity to existing trails.
o Parking – 6 spaces can be dedicated for trail parking.
Spaces are included in current parking count.
15.5+ acres open conservation easement
Additional 2+ acres not developed on building lot
The Vail Valley area has a well-established lodging market that offers a wide range of product. At the higher
end of the range are luxury projects that have good locations relative to skiing and the resort core areas,
and usually a sizable amount of meeting space. The latter is important for supporting occupancy during the
summer and off-seasons, particularly for larger properties.
Lodging market conditions have been improving since 2010. The state economy is expected to continue to
grow, and lodging demand year-round is expected to increase, and Vail-Beaver Creek are expected to
continue to be a world leader.
Based on a proprietary STR report produced on October 6, 2017 for 4 key properties in the area (Westin
Riverfront, Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch, Park Hyatt Beaver Creek, and Four Seasons Resort Vail, taken as
a group from 2011 through August 2017):
ADR ($) has increased from $341.05 to $467.11, up 37%;
RevPAR has increased from $182.36 to $286.44, up 57%;
ATTACHMENT A
15 | Page
Supply of rooms is essentially flat and demand for rooms is up 15% and trailing 12 month average
occupancy is 61%, with particular days of the week during peak season at 90-100% occupancy.
Revenue ($) for the group was $48.6mm in 2011, and $76.7mm in 2016 (up 58%). 2017 YTD is running
approximately $2mm ahead of 2016 pace.
These are very strong ADR’s with very stable resort occupancy in a top world renown resort community.
Conditions are perfect for developing a property that is positioned on the mountain side of Route 6,
positioned as middle upper class luxury segment, just below the upper upper class luxury segment
(Westin) and luxury class segment (Ritz, Park Hyatt and Four Seasons).
Volume of residential sales has gradually increased with steady improvement in prices per square foot.
ATTACHMENT A
16 | Page
Findings and Conclusions
We are disturbing approximately 3.5 acres of the entire site including buildings and all site walls.
15.5 acres dedicated as conservation easement.
Trail system extension.
The new access will provide better emergency access to our site, as well as The Ascent.
The plan provides a continuation of pedestrian access along the south side of U.S. Highway 6 and
access to the site above via a hiking trail system. Safer public transit access.
Most of the parking is structured with shuttle service.
Massing of the building is appropriate with the slope of the land. We are building on the flatter section
of the land with limited disturbance of the upper slope.
The building will provide additional high quality residences and hotel units to the Town of Avon.
The use is appropriate to the Town of Avon Code.
Sustainable building design and sustainable building operations.
The development will create an enhanced visual impact for the east entry to Avon in regards to
Comprehensive goals to promote the resort image.
Long-term economic gains via transfer taxes for the Town through first sales and re-sale of the units
will continue.
The hotel, restaurant and limited commercial will also provide a tax source.
Additional information and potential Design standards are provided below for consideration.
ATTACHMENT A
17 | Page
DESIGN STANDARDS
PUD Information
We have responded below to many of the direct questions and goals listed in the Town documents. But,
many of these items are also supported and mentioned in the following pages and description.
Review for PUD Application
7.16.060 (e) (4) The Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council shall consider the following
criteria as the basis for a recommendation or decision to rezone a property to PUD overlay, approve a
preliminary PUD plan or process a PUD amendment:
(i) The PUD addresses a unique situation, confers a substantial benefit to the Town and/or
incorporates creative site design such that it achieves the purposes of this Development Code and
represents an improvement in quality over what could have been accomplished through strict
application of the otherwise applicable district or development standards. Such improvements in
quality may include, but are not limited to: improvements in open space provision and access;
environmental protection; tree/ vegetation preservation; efficient provision of streets, roads and
other utilities and services; or increased choice of living and housing environments.
1- 16 acres of dedicated conservation easement.
2- Improved pedestrian access along the south side of Hwy 6.
3- Preservation of natural resources.
4- Hwy 6 CDOT upgrades.
5- Additional residential and short term rental options.
(ii) The PUD rezoning will promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
1- Extension of Town of Avon trail system.
2- Sustainable building design and sustainable building operations.
3- Safer public transit access.
(iii) The PUD rezoning is consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, the purposes of this
Development Code and the eligibility criteria outlined in Subsection 7.16.060(b);
1- There are no direct discussions in the Comp Plan in regards to this area of the Town. The future
land use plan shows the site as high density residential and the Community framework plan shows
it as regional commercial. District 4 – US Highway 6 Gateway Corridor does include the site. Even
though the description describes this district as flat areas.
A. Some of the planning principals for District 4.
1) Work with CDOT and create a gateway and sense of arrival and departure. The
project creates a high quality sense of arrival to the Town. Once you leave Eagle-
Vail and come around the corner of the mountain the project will provide an inviting
quality structure built into the hillside.
2) Create strong pedestrian connection to the Riverfront and Town Center. The
extended walk along Hwy 6 across the frontage will tie the bus stop and existing
walks to our project and the main north south Town connection.
3) Minimize cuts and preserve steep slopes. We are building into some of the steep
slopes but the majority of the building is within the lower flatter section of the site.
There is also over 70% of the site remaining as undisturbed.
The large front setback we have proposed as well as the bend in the west portion
of the building actually makes the disturbance worse. If we kept the existing
allowable setbacks we would reduce the steep slope disturbance. But, during the
design process with the P&Z it was our understanding the tradeoff could occur.
ATTACHMENT A
18 | Page
4) Share property access. The shared emergency access and possible future trail
expansion is part of the project.
5) Preserve access to the Eagle River. Although not directly connected the sidewalk
expansion provide access from the bus stop and project to the Eagle River through
the Town walk and trail system.
2- The Comp plan lays out a strategy for a vibrant Town Center and the areas around it. So, we
looked at the Comp plan as an overall guidance for an area it does not fully address.
3- If we look at the various Goals and Policies we can provide support for the project. Many of the
Goals and Policies actually address more of the Town Center and not specifically this site so we try
to address many of the items which do impact this site:
A. Built Form:
1) Compact Community Form: This property is one of the last remaining lots in Avon
which was (until very recently) Owned by the same Owner for about 30 years. Our
project has been developing to provide a building which is a balance of scale in
comparison to the hill side. Keeping the mass on the west side of the site adjacent
to the Ascent has created a more compact developed area. The density of the
development in comparison to various models is much lower than Town Center
developments.
The connectivity to adjacent properties is strong.
2) Distinct and visual separation between Avon and surrounding Communities and
preserving natural environment: This part seems a bit contradictory to the District 4
principals but with a majority development to the west we do have a transition to
the east.
B. Land Use:
1) Balance of land uses providing range of housing, commercial, employment
opportunities, accommodations, high quality civic and recreational facilities for a
year round community: We are not focusing the guest accommodations to the
Town Center because we feel this site is more productive for guest
accommodations due to the unique views and enhanced natural environment of the
site. You come to the mountains for the nature not a downtown feel. This site fits
within that attraction.
2) Develop safe, interactive and cohesive neighborhoods contributing to the Town’s
overall character and image: Our project continues the stage set by the Ascent for
residential and resort housing on this side of Hwy 6. We our proposing a much
more developed site providing high quality accommodations, activities and mixed
uses. The intent is to create a part of the community not an island. Connectivity
with the walks, shuttles to the Town and ski areas, trail development and the
commercial spaces create a project which will interact with the Town.
3) Encourage commercial development which enhances economic health, image and
character while providing residents and visitors increased choices and services:
Ditto what we have said above. Goes without saying the economic boost from the
housing, hotel rooms, and commercial will be noticeable.
The project is committed to sustainable design, zero waste, low emission shuttles.
Trail development to continue the Towns efforts in creating a vibrant trail system in
the Town.
C. Community Character:
1) Ensure the development is compatible with existing planning, Create community
gateways and streetscapes to strengthen Avon’s community character and image:
As we have noted above the projects strengths are the ability to create a vibrant
development providing a variety of housing and hotel units within the Town of
ATTACHMENT A
19 | Page
Avon. High Quality Architecture, sustainable design, preserving of the natural
environment, trail development, connectivity to existing modes of transportation
and mixed uses on site all contribute to a well balances project at a gateway to the
Town.
D. Economic Development:
1) Promote high quality investments, enhance year round activities: The mixed use
components of restaurant, health, commercial space can provide local residents
additional opportunities for small businesses and exposure.
The projects ability to attract new visitors to the Town is possible due to the
location of the building. Currently the Town provides a certain “Town/City” feel to
the accommodations. Our project can provide a more mountain feel for those who
want to be part of the environment and a ski town feel. The proximity to public
transportation is a plus.
E. Housing:
1) Achieve a diverse range of housing, styles, types. Attainable or employee housing:
Although not required through the code the project will provide onsite employee
housing.
F. Multi-Modal Transportation & Parking:
1) Minimize dependence on automobile travel, improve connections with Beaver
Creek, encourage park once environment: 80% of the proposed parking is
underground, shuttle service proposed.
G. Environment:
1) Protect Avon’s natural settings, mitigate potential environmental hazards,
discourage air, water, light, and noise pollution: 80% of property being preserved,
sustainable design, dark sky lighting with limit of tall pole lighting along hwy 6.
During our 2007 studies we did have an Environmental Impact Report and
Wetlands study completed.
The studies showed there are No Wetlands on the property.
The summary from the EIR - In conclusion, the proposed project will have no
significant impact on sensitive environmental resources identified herein. Care
must be taken to develop more specific mitigation measures where necessary as
the project continues to move forward. These mitigation measures should include,
but are not limited to specific recommendations on stormwater management and
abatement of geologic hazards.
H. Parks, Recreation, Trails & Open Space:
1) Provide system of trails, parks, recreation: Trail system developed in approximately
15.5 acre conservation easement with dedicated parking and possible information
pavilion. Pocket pedestrian seating areas along hwy 6.
(iv) Facilities and services (including roads and transportation, water, gas, electric, police and fire
protection and sewage and waste disposal, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject
property while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
A. We have begun working with the Water District and CDOT. Initial approval from the
Water district has been discussed that they can serve the site with existing
facilities. Initial meetings with CDOT have occurred to discuss road improvements.
Initial discussion with the Fire department have also occurred.
The Owners dedication to sustainable design will lessen the loads on the electrical,
water and sewer systems.
Zero waste goals could drastically reduce trash pick up.
ATTACHMENT A
20 | Page
(v) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon the natural environment, including air, water, noise, storm water management, wildlife
and vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
A. Our project does not adversely effect the natural environment since we are limiting
the development to the lower section of the property which is flatter and less
forested.
Air, water, noise and storm water are all items which are addressed in sustainable
designs to limit the effects on the environment.
Preliminary landscape plans show we are dedicated to mitigating any landscape
removal.
(vi) Compared to the underlying zoning, the PUD rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; and
(vii) Future uses on the subject tract will be compatible in scale with uses or potential future uses on
other properties in the vicinity of the subject tract.
A. We have worked with the Town staff and the commission to continue to develop a
project that fits well against the existing slope of the mountain and transition from
the adjacent property.
(1) The application demonstrates a public purpose which the current zoning entitlements cannot
achieve.
The property is currently not zoned. So, the new PUD zoning overlay of the Mixed-Commercial zone
district provides a vehicle to develop the property for a public use. Providing for sale units hotel
rooms, open space, and a restaurant.
(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.
1. The development will create an enhanced visual impact for the east entry to Avon in regards to
Comprehensive goals to promote the resort image.
2. Long-term economic gains via transfer taxes for the Town through first sales and re-sale of the
units will continue.
3. The restaurant will also provide a tax source.
4. Significant tax revenue from hotel rooms.
5. Pedestrian access across hwy 6 and onto hillside via a hiking trail system to multiple viewing
benches. Existing views areas, one on the east above Eagle-Vail and one to the west on the
Gypsum cliffs.
6. Conservation easement dedication of upper 15+ acres of lot.
7. Sustainable building design.
8. Sustainable operations.
(3)The flexibility afforded in approval of the zoning application will result in the better siting of the
development, preserving valued environmental and cultural resources and increasing the amount of
the public benefit consistent with the community master plan documents.
New zoning allows us to provide a development located out of visual corridors and provides a large
amount of open space.
Rezoning 7.16.050(c)
(c) Review Criteria. The PZC and Town Council shall use the following review criteria as the basis for
recommendations and decisions on applications for rezonings:
(1) Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code;
A) The following is a list of items which we are asking for which differ from the development code
and the Mixed Use Commercial Zone district. If not asked for below we intend to meet the current
Town Code requirements for this site.
ATTACHMENT A
21 | Page
1) Height Variance – Height increase from 50 feet to a maximum of 95 feet. We have
included in the following pages other restriction on the height to assure a stepped
building and to create massing in locations more desirable.
2) Setback increases. We will increase setbacks.
3) Parking reduction as outlined in following pages.
4) 7.28.100 (a) (3) Natural Resource Protection – 40% or greater slope protection. We are
building into areas which are great than 40% slope as designated in the submitted site
plans. We will support slopes as shown with stepped retaining walls with Code required
landscaping. The preliminary landscape plan also shows our intent to mitigate lost
vegetation with a highly re-vegetated site.
When you look at the 40% slope map you will noticed the the hatching is broken up
showing flatter sections mixed in with the 40% slopes. Beside building in these mixed
areas the majority of the other building will be retaining walls outside of the building
footprint. As mentioned above, if we kept the existing setbacks and did not articulate
the building on the west end much of the building in the 40% slopes would not occur.
(2) Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan;
A) See detailed response above.
(3) Physical suitability of the land for the proposed development or subdivision;
A) The existing land form provide a developable bench on the west end of the site and slopes
which are appropriate for development of this sort. The attached soils reports provide information
to support buildable land for this type of development.
(4) Compatibility with surrounding land uses;
A) Existing surrounding uses are residential. Townhomes, Condos and Apartments. New uses
are compatible condo and hotel uses. Mixed Use commercial will provide some limited
commercial support with restaurant and small commercial spacs.
(5) Whether the proposed rezoning is justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of
the area proposed to be rezoned;
A) The property is current not zoned. Adjacent properties are currently zoned PUD. Our
request for the underlying Mixed Use Commercial Zone district provides the property the
flexibility
(6) Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope
suggested by the proposed zone compared to the existing zoning, while maintaining adequate
levels of service to existing development;
A) See section above for initial evidence of utility support.
(7) Whether the rezoning is consistent with the stated purpose of the proposed zoning district;
A) 7.20.080 (b) Mixed-Use Commercial (MC). The MC district is established to group and link
places used for working, shopping, educating and recreating with residential uses, thereby
creating a compact community form. This district allows commercial, office, civic, townhouse and
apartment uses and, along with Neighborhood Commercial, is the preferred district and
development type in Avon. The mostly vertical mix of uses will reduce vehicle trips, relieve traffic
congestion and provide an urbanized, pedestrian environment. MC implements the mixed-use
land use classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located adjacent to the
Town Center as a transitional district.
Our project is adjacent to existing PUD zoning. The Mixed-Use Commercial (MC) district was
chosen because the project is providing a mix of uses in the development. The intent is to provide
some additional commercial opportunities within the area in which are none existing on the south
side of Hwy 6. This mix could help reduce traffic if the commercial uses provide amenities useful
for the adjacent properties. Uses such as the restaurant, health facility, ski shops, art and gifts
shops could provide a great place to shop.
ATTACHMENT A
22 | Page
(8) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in adverse impacts upon
the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and
vegetation, or such impacts will be substantially mitigated;
A) See similar explanation above.
(9) That, compared to the existing zoning, the rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse
impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
A) The property is not currently not zoned. If compared to existing adjacent uses the new
district is similar in comparison to what is being proposed.
(10) For rezoning within an existing PUD, consistency with the relevant PUD Master Plan as reflected
in the approval of the applicable PUD; and
A) Not applicable.
(11) Adequate mitigation is required for rezoning applications which result in greater intensity of land
use or increased demands on public facilities and infrastructure.
A) Since the property is not zoned there is no comparison whether or not there is increased
intensity on land. It is vacant land so yes it is more intense than existing. But, in comparison we
can compare the unit density of the Ascent and our project. The Ascent has a unit density of 6.9
units per acre (based on original full property). Our project density is 4 units per acre for the entire
property.
ATTACHMENT A
23 | Page
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Introduction
The subject tract 21.52 acres and much of this property is heavily forested with the exception of the
lower section adjacent to highway 6, as well as a small additional portion mid-way up the site on the
east side. Approximately 1000’ of the north property boundary is contiguous with U.S. Highway 6
ROW.
The property has never been developed and is currently not zoned with no specific entitlements. We
are proposing to develop the lower, flatter section of the property that is contiguous with U.S. Highway
6. Mixed-Use Commercial will be used as the Zone District with the PUD overlay.
Colorado World Resorts, LLC and its consultants have reviewed several options for access, orientation,
and massing. The following proposal represents our desire to provide the Town with a project that is
compatible with the current Town goals, massing, potential use and site adaptiveness based on
feedback from the current staff, Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council.
Existing Conditions
The existing lot size is 21.52 acres located south of U.S. Highway 6 east of the Beaver Creek
roundabout. There are approximately 2.9 acres of buildable area with grades of 40% or less.
The site flows down to Highway 6 and provides a number of possible access locations.
The property is adjacent to a developed Condominium project “The Ascent”. In comparison the adjacent
property was developed much differently than we are proposing. The Ascent dug a big hole with a large
retaining wall to fit the building on the site at the Hwy 6 level.
We are building on the flatter portion of the site and building into the hillside as well as placing the
building much further back on the site to reduce the canyon effect of the building adjacent to Hwy 6.
This is a more appropriate way to integrate into the site.
Existing Zoning and Land Use
Existing zoning is none with no specific entitlements and is currently undeveloped. We are planning a
PUD development as an overlay over the Mixed Use - Commercial Zoning. The following is a
comparison of the Mixed Use - Commercial requirements and our proposed PUD.
7.20.800 Mixed-use and commercial districts purpose statements.
Mixed-Use Commercial (MC). The MC district is established to group and link places used for working,
shopping, educating and recreating with residential uses, thereby creating a compact community form.
This district allows commercial, office, civic, townhouse and apartment uses and, along with
Neighborhood Commercial, is the preferred district and development type in Avon. The mostly vertical
mix of uses will reduce vehicle trips, relieve traffic congestion and provide an urbanized, pedestrian
environment. MC implements the mixed-use land use classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan
and should be located adjacent to the Town Center as a transitional district.
We are asking for the following changes:
1- Minimum front setback from 10 to 40 feet. Providing for a buffer from Hwy 6.
2- Minimum side setbacks from 0 to 22.5 and 80 feet. The 80 feet east setback is also in consideration
of a setback to the east steep slopes and open space.
3- Maximum building height to provide a variety of maximum roof heights to create a stepping of the
roof form across the site.
ATTACHMENT A
24 | Page
Table 7.20-8
Dimensions for Mixed-Use Commercial District
PUD dimensional changes underlined and in Italics.
Min.
Lot
Size
(acre
s or
sq.
ft.)
Min.
Lot
Width
(feet)
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Min.
Landscape
Area (%)
Min. Front
Setback
(feet)
Min. Side
Setback
(feet)
Min. Rear
Setback
(feet)
Max.
Building
Height
(feet)
TOA [3] 40 50 [4] 20 10 0 [1] 10 [2] 60
PUD 21.52 1000 50 30 40 22 /80 [6] 50 95 [5]
[1] MC abutting a residential district shall match the side setback of that district.
[2] When abutting a public street, alley or public right-of-way. The rear setback for MC abutting a
residential district shall be 20 feet, regardless of the location of any street, alley or ROW.
[3] Must meet density and setback requirements.
[4] May be increased to 70% if employee housing mitigation is provided in accordance with Section
7.20.100.
[5] Height requirements vary across east west façade to create a stepping of the roof forms.
Building Height 60’-0” and no more than 95’-0”
Zone 1- 45% of building length – maximum 95’-0”
Zone 2 (Transition)- 15% of building length – 95’-0 to 75’-0”
Zone 3- 20% of building length – maximum 80’-0”.
Zone 4- 20% of building length- Maximum 60’-0”
[6] West side setback is a minimum of 22’6”. East side setback is 80 feet.
ATTACHMENT A
25 | Page
Development Plan
Proposed Density:
Condominium Break Down: 3, 2 and 1 Bed Units – (2,400 sqft Max)
Unit Total – 25
Hotel: 195 Units (Effective units 65 Units)
Site Unit Total: 220 Unit Total (Effective units 90 Units)
Density of 35 units per developable acres of 2.9 acres (40% slope or less)
Density of 15 units per north lot of 6 acres.
Density of 4 units per acres of total site or 21.52 total acres.
Building Square Footage:
Main Structure 350,000 Sq.Ft. Maximum
Setbacks: Refer to Development Plan for Building envelops. Site walls, signs and
amenities can be located outside of the Building Setback.
Landscaping: Minimum of 20% (As Presented) 30%
Building Height:
Condominium Height: Building Height 60’-0” and no more than 95’-0”
Zone 1- 45% of building length – maximum 95’-0”
Zone 2 (Transition)- 15% of building length – 95’-0 to
75’-0”
Zone 3- 20% of building length – maximum 80’-0”.
Zone 4- 20% of building length- Maximum 60’-0”
Building length along the Street frontage will be
limited to a maximum of 500’-0” in length along
U.S. Highway 6.
Lot Coverage: Building footprint coverage is 42,737 Sq.Ft. Maximum.
Lot Coverage: Maximum of 50%
Building Lot Coverage – 33.9% of 40% or less slope.
Impermeable Site and Building Coverage – 65% of 40% or less slope.
Building Lot Coverage – 16.3% of entire north lot.
Impermeable Site and Building Coverage – 31.5% of entire north lot.
Site Disturbance 58.4% of entire north lot.
Uses: Planned Unit Development
Condominium
Hotel and Restaurant.
Mixed-Use Commercial
Project Phasing
The project is proposed as a single phase project.
ATTACHMENT A
26 | Page
Access and Circulation
We have revisited the Traffic with a new Traffic Study and a meeting with the Fire Department.
History
On October 31, 2006, a meeting was held with the Colorado Dept of Transportation and Town of Avon
to discuss Highway Dept Access Permit issues, prior to submitting an application for State Access
Permit (meeting minutes are attached). The intent of the meeting was to gather information from CDOT
and TOA for the design criteria. It was discussed (among other things) that a shared/joint access with
the Accent was highly recommended, and that additional traffic studies should be completed.
Upon completion of requested information and studies (per the October meeting), we met with CDOT
again on November 29th. 3 new options were presented, and new traffic study results were reviewed,
(including the Level of Service of each driveway option, queuing lengths, delays, and safety). The
updated Traffic Study supports the access geometry and layout shown on this submittal, which is also
supported by CDOT and TOA representatives. This access plan involves coordination and approvals
from the Accent Owners. Details of the access design is somewhat dependent on the outcome of the
meeting with the Gates (primarily involving whether the “frontage” road connection to the Gates has a
gate (at the Gates’/Folson property line, or not), and whether the Folson Access (to US Highway 6) is a
full movement or partially restricted left turn (either in or out). However, the location of the access to US
Highway 6, and the internal driveway layout as shown on this submittal is not expected to change, and
the requirements of CDOT, the TOA and Fire District can be accommodated by use of a gate operable
only by the Fire Department onto the Gates property or onto Highway 6 Once the meeting with the
Gates has been held, we are ready to meet with CDOT and TOA again. We are happy to
accommodate the TOA and CDOT in participating in a shared access agreement with the Gates on
rational terms, but such is not necessary to the development of the Project.
Meetings were held with Eagle River Fire Protection District regarding Fire Dept Access issues, in
September and November of 2006, for which the recommendations have been incorporated in the plan.
We have revisited the access road with Eagle River Fire in September of 2017. At this meeting it was
confirmed the FD still requires access to the west end of the building. Access can be from the through
road or a possible turn around at the west side of the site.
Employees
Hotel/ Condominium
Front Desk- 6
Concierge – 1 on staff
Laundry - 3
Housekeeping - 10
Maintenance – 3 on staff per 2 shift, Amenity Staff – 2 maximum
Shuttle Drivers - 3
Valet – 5 (See breakdown per phase below)
Phase 1 only, peak period – 2
+ Phase 2 only, peak period – 2 (This includes Valet for Restaurant)
+ Phase 3 only, peak period - 1
Restaurant
Per shift
6 Servers
1 Busperson
1 Hostess
1 Manager
1 Bartender
6 Kitchen Staff – Total 16
Commercial Spaces - 6
Total Possible Employees – 53
ATTACHMENT A
27 | Page
Parking Analysis
Min. Width 9’-0”
Min. Depth 18’-0”
Min. 24’-0” wide aisle for 90 degree parking.
MOST OF THE PARKING IS STRUCTURED PARKING, BELOW OR ABOVE GRADE, BUT WITHIN
THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
Town of Avon Requirement
Type – Use Units Multiplier Qty
Hotel Units 185 Units 1 per unit 185
Condo Units 25 Units 1 per unit 25
Restaurant 3,000 Sq.Ft. with 1,500 Sq.Ft. of Seating/ 1 per 60 25
Guest Spots 10
Total 245
PUD Request
Type – Use Units Multiplier
Hotel Units 185 Units .85 per unit 158
Condo Units 25 Units 1 per unit 25
Restaurant 3,000 Sq.Ft. with 1,500 Sq.Ft. of Seating/ 1 per 60 25
Trail Parking 6
Guest Spots 10
Total 224 9% Reduction
We currently have 224 Parking Spaces provided.
187 Structured Spaces (21 spaces are double stacked designated for Valet), 36 Surface.
Other items to be provided are bike storage, bike share program and a property supplied shuttle
system.
Shuttle Service
The project will be served by Fuel Efficient shuttle buses. The actual plan at time of operation can be
reviewed by Town of Avon staff at initial operation and we would suggest an every other year review of
the program. These additional reviews could provide future evaluation for our site but also provide the
Town with valuable evaluation information for future Town projects.
The shuttle will be available 24 hours. On-demand/concierge/scheduled service with passenger
vans and resort cars operated by Hotel.
3 dedicated shuttles.
Passenger Vehicles will be added for the quick in and out trips.
Access to:
o Defined local route – Town of Avon- Various locations, Beaver Creek Base, Vail
transportation Center. 45 minute loops.
o Eagle Airport – Approximately every hour and a half.
o Denver Airport – Approximately 4 trips per day.
o Or as need and available to each location.
Benefits and experience gained while operating 17 hotels
Guests value and appreciate the vehicle free experience, especially when toting gear, as a vehicle
is rarely needed “in resort”
Safer (weather and night driving, apres ski)
More time efficient (loading/unloading/parking a vehicle)
More flexible for family members to travel intra-resort at different times, care free transport
experience
Open Space
Approximate developed area is 3.5 acres (building, parking, drives) with 2 acres of the north lot not
ATTACHMENT A
28 | Page
disturbed. The approximate remaining undeveloped area of 15.5 acres will remain as a Conservation
Easement.
Geological Study
Original Soil studies determined the site consisted of a debris flow area. This determination meant the
developer would need to address potential large debris activity in the design of the site. This was
originally part of the 2008 submittal.
In 2008 we were prepared to additional studies of the site with more extensive studies to confirm the
debris flow. With the withdrawal of the application this never occurred. Colorado World Resorts per TAB
Associates, Inc. suggestions obtained a permit to pursue the additional test.
The test was conducted the week of August 21st 2017 and we do have preliminary results. The results
were very positive and the Geotech Engineer has determined the site is Not at risk for debris flow. It will
be reclassified as an alluvial fan. We still need to address storm water and minor erosion but we do not
need to provide large diversion ditches behind the building.
ATTACHMENT A
29 | Page
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENT A
30 | Page
Exhibit A
Comparison Chart of example projects – Height, Massing, Density, Disturbance.
ATTACHMENT A
Town of Avon
Building Comparisons
Ascent CWR PUD
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 141,636.00 SqFt 105,351.00 SqFt 2.42 Square Feet 315,800.00 SqFt 213,444.00 SqFt 4.90
Building Ht 74.00 Feet 7,536.00 Building Ht 94.00 Feet 7,563.00
Units 40.00 Units 210.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 23,800.00 Sqft 22.59%
Site Coverage/
Footprint 43,900.00 Sqft 20.57%
Disturbed 73,616.00 Sqft 69.88%1.69 Disturbed 172,275.00 Sqft 34.49%1.69
Density 16.54 Per AC Density 15.00 Per AC
Parking 120.00 3.00 Per Unit Includes sqft for spa, etc.Parking 243.00 1.16 Per Unit
Original Property prior to subdivision 2.42 Current Original Property prior to subdivision 4.90 Current
3.38 Dedicated to TOA 16.62 Dedicated
252,648.00 5.80 Total Lot 937,411.20 21.52 Total Lot
Unit Density 6.90 Per AC Unit Density 4.00 Per AC
Disturbed 73,616.00 29.14%1.69 Disturbed 172,275.00 18.38%1.69
Westin Restaurant 3,000.00 60 Per Sqft 50
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation Parking 193.00
Square Feet 544,325.00 SqFt 183,400.00 SqFt 4.21 0.92
Building Ht 137.00 Feet 7,565.75
Units 291.00
Footprint 114,345.00 62.35%
Disturbed 139,840.00 76.24%3.21
Density 69.12 Per AC
Parking 319.00 0.91 Per Unit Includes sqft for spa, etc.
Restaurant 5,512.00 60 Per Sqft 92
Parking 227.00
0.78 Per unit, does not include SPA, Gym, Pool and etc.
Sheraton
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 141,985.00 SqFt 141,134.00 SqFt 3.24
Building Ht 97.00 Feet 7,556.00
Units 100.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 43,250.00 30.64%
Disturbed 62,932.00 44.59%1.44
Density 30.86 Per AC Phase 1A Only
Parking 163.00 1.63 Per Unit
Avon Hotel
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 101,405.00 SqFt 73,709.00 SqFt 1.69
Building Ht 69.00 Feet 7,523.00
Units 148.00 Includes 6 Employee
Site Coverage/
Footprint 24,716.00 33.53%
Disturbed 73,709.00 100.00%1.69
Density 87.46 Per AC
Parking 204.00 1.38 Per Unit
Restaurant 3,709.00 60 Per Sqft 62
Parking 142.18
0.96 Per Unit
WYNDHAM
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 132,355.00 SqFt 46,522.00 SqFt 1.07
Building Ht 73.20 Feet 7,528.00
Units 58.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 31,051.00 SqFt 66.74%
Disturbed 46,522.00 SqFt 100.00%1.07
Density 54.31 Per AC
Parking 58.00 1.00 Per Unit
Avon Center
Building Units Site Acres Actual Elevation
Square Feet 165,000.00 SqFt 118,300.00 SqFt 2.72
Building Ht 90.00 Feet 7,550.00
Units 50.00
Site Coverage/
Footprint 35,317.00 SqFt 29.85%
Disturbed 35,317.00 SqFt 29.85%0.81
Density 18.41 Per AC
Parking 0.00 0.00 Per Unit
ATTACHMENT A
31 | Page
Exhibit B
Possible Square Footage and Program Information – numbers may vary from PUD
application. PUD application supersedes.
ATTACHMENT A
Folson Property ‐ Concept Square Footage Summary
Lower Level Parking
Parking Garage 38,450 83 spots
Back Off House 8,700
47,150
Main Level Parking
Parking Garage 46,200 101 spots
Mechanical 2,800
Lower Lobby 3,800
Loading/Unloading 1,800
54,600 184 Spots
3rd Level
Units 15,300 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Common Space 4,900 23 485 Typical 11,155
Restaurant 4,000 3 923 Suite 2,769
Gym/ Restrooms 3,000 26 13,924
Lobby 4,600
Administration 8,000
Commercial Element 1,200
41,000
4th Level
Units 34,800 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
46 485 Typical 22,310
2 672 Plus 1,344
Common Space 7,200 8 923 Suite 7,384
42,000 56 31,038
5th Level
Units 34,800 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
46 485 Typical 22,310
2 672 Plus 1,344
Common Space 7,200 8 923 Suite 7,384
42,000 56 31,038
6th Level Total
Units 33,400 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
46 485 Typical 22,310
1 672 Plus 672
Common Space 6,600 7 923 Suite 6,461
40,000 54 29,443
7th Level Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Units 24,350 1 1,100 One Bed 1,100
Common Space 4,500 10 1,550 Two Bed 15,500
28,850 3 2,400 Three Bed 7,200
14 23,800
8th Level Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Units 18,150 2 1,100 One Bed 2,200
Common Space 2,050 5 1,550 Two Bed 7,750
20,200 3 2,400 Three Bed 7,200
10 17,150
Total Square Footage 315,800 Keys SQFT Type SQFT
Measured to outside of wall 161 485 Typical 78,085
5 672 Plus 3,360
26 923 Suite 23,998
3 1,100 One Bed 3,300
15 1,550 Two Bed 23,250
6 2,400 Three Bed 14,400
Totals 216 146,393
Measured interior of walls
ATTACHMENT A
32 | Page
Exhibit C
Traffic Report
ATTACHMENT A
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
1889 York Street
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 333-1105
FAX (303) 333-1107
E-mail: lsc@lscdenver.com
December 20, 2017
Mr. Greg Macik
TAB Associates, Inc.
56 Edwards Village Blvd., Suite 210
Edwards, CO 81632
Re: Colorado World Resorts PUD
Traffic Impact Analysis
Avon, CO
LSC #171070
Dear Mr. Macik:
In response to your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared this traffic
impact analysis for the proposed Colorado World Resorts PUD development. As shown on
Figure 1, the site is located south of US Highway 6 and east of Village Road/Avon Road in
Avon, Colorado.
REPORT CONTENTS
The report contains the following: the existing roadway and traffic conditions in the vicinity of
the site including the lane geometries, traffic controls, posted speed limits, etc.; the existing
weekday peak-hour traffic volumes; the existing daily traffic volumes in the area; the typical
weekday site-generated traffic volume projections for the site; the assignment of the projected
traffic volumes to the area roadways; the projected short-term and long-term background and
resulting total traffic volumes on the area roadways; the estimated parking demand; the site’s
projected traffic impacts; and any recommended roadway improvements to mitigate the site’s
traffic impacts.
LAND USE AND ACCESS
The site is proposed to include 25 residential townhome units, a 185-room hotel, a 100-seat
restaurant, about 1,200 square feet of supportive retail, and 243 parking spaces. Full move-
ment access is proposed to US Highway 6 as shown in the conceptual site plan in Figure 2.
ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Area Roadways
The major roadways in the site’s vicinity are shown on Figure 1 and are described below.
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik Page 2 December 20, 2017
Colorado World Resorts PUD
•US Highway 6 (US 6) is an east-west, two-lane state highway roadway north of the site.
It is classified as NR-A (Non-Rural Principal Highway) by CDOT. The posted speed limit in
the vicinity is 45 mph but transitions to 35 mph just west of the site.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Figure 3 shows the existing lane geometries, traffic controls, posted speed limits, and traffic
volumes in the site’s vicinity on a typical weekday. The weekday peak-hour traffic volumes and
daily traffic counts are based on US 6 traffic data from the CDOT website. The directional
distribution of existing and site traffic was based on the attached traffic counts conducted by
Counter Measures, Inc. in October, 2017 at the existing The Ascent driveway just west of the
site.
2020 and 2040 Background Traffic
Figure 4 shows the estimated 2020 background traffic and Figure 5 shows the estimated 2040
background traffic. The projected 2020 and 2040 background traffic volumes assumes an
annual growth rate of about 0.34 percent based on the CDOT 20-year growth factor of 1.07.
TRIP GENERATION
Table 1 shows the estimated weekday, morning peak-hour, and afternoon peak-hour trip
generation for the proposed site based on the formula rates from Trip Generation, 9th Edition,
2012 by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the proposed land use.
The proposed land use is projected to generate about 1,582 vehicle-trips on the average week-
day, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the morning
peak-hour, which generally occurs for one hour between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., about 69 vehicles
would enter and about 63 vehicles would exit the site. During the afternoon peak-hour, which
generally occurs for one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., about 76 vehicles would enter and
about 64 vehicles would exit. This assumes an internal capture of 20 percent for the restaurant
use and 50 percent for the supportive retail use and a 20 percent alternative travel mode reduc-
tion for the residential and hotel use. The alternative modes will be largely from a proposed 24-
hour shuttle service planned between the site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski
resorts in the area as well as local bus service which will likely be utilized by a portion of staff.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Figure 6 shows the estimated directional distribution of the site-generated traffic volumes on
the area roadways. The estimates were based on those in the attached traffic counts conducted
by Counter Measures, Inc. in October, 2017 at the existing The Ascent driveway just west of
the site.
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Figure 7 shows the estimated site-generated traffic volumes based on directional distribution
percentages (from Figure 6) and the trip generation estimates (from Table 2).
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik Page 3 December 20, 2017
Colorado World Resorts PUD
2020 and 2040 TOTAL TRAFFIC
Figure 8 shows the 2020 total traffic which is the sum of the 2020 background traffic volumes
(from Figure 4) and the site-generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 8 also shows the
recommended 2020 lane geometry and traffic control.
Figure 9 shows the 2040 total traffic which is the sum of 2040 background traffic volumes
(from Figure 5) and the site-generated traffic volumes (from Figure 7). Figure 9 also shows the
recommended 2040 lane geometry and traffic control.
PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE
Level of service (LOS) is a quantitative measure of the level of congestion or delay at an inter-
section. Level of service is indicated on a scale from “A” to “F.” LOS A is indicative of little
congestion or delay and LOS F is indicative of a high level of congestion or delay. Attached are
specific level of service definitions for unsignalized intersections.
The US State Highway 6/Site Access intersection was analyzed to determine the 2020 and 2040
total levels of service. Table 2 shows the level of service analysis results. The level of service
reports are attached.
•US State Highway 6/Site Access: All movements at this unsignalized intersection are
expected to operate at LOS “C” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours
through 2040 with implementation of the recommended improvements.
PARKING SUPPLY VS. DEMAND
The Town of Avon requires a total of 270 on-site parking spaces. The applicant is proposing a
ten percent parking reduction with 243 on-site parking spaces with valet service. This reduc-
tion is supported by shared parking principles as well as an applicant-funded 24-hour shuttle
between the site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski resorts in the area. Table 3
shows the code required parking for each of the four land uses proposed on the site along with
the number of parking spaces being proposed for each. Table 3 shows the applicant proposing
158 parking spaces for the 185 hotel rooms with the code level of parking being provided for
the other three uses on the site.
Table 3 includes a time of day parking demand for each of the four land uses on the site based
on the recommended time of day factors for each from Shared Parking from the Urban Land
Institute. Excerpts from Shared Parking are included in the appendix. To remain conservative,
the condo and guest parking spaces were assumed to be fully parked at all times. This data
shows the maximum parking demand is expected to be 245 spaces at 9:00 PM on both week-
days and weekends. This is only two spaces more than is being provided by the applicant.
The 24-hour shuttle service being provided by the applicant and local bus service are expected
to reduce overall volume to/from the site by about 20 percent and reduce the shared parking
demand of 245 parking spaces to well below the 243 parking spaces being provided on the site.
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik Page 4 December 20, 2017
Colorado World Resorts PUD
CONCLUSIONS
Trip Generation
1. The proposed land use is projected to generate about 1,582 vehicle-trips on the average
weekday, with about half entering and half exiting during a 24-hour period. During the
morning peak-hour, about 69 vehicles would enter and about 63 vehicles would exit the
site. During the afternoon peak-hour, about 76 vehicles would enter and about 64 vehicles
would exit. This assumes an internal capture of 20 percent for the restaurant use and 50
percent for the supportive retail use and a 20 percent alternative travel mode reduction
for the residential and hotel use. The alternative modes will be largely from a proposed 24-
hour shuttle service planned between the site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the
ski resorts in the area as well as local bus service which will likely be utilized by a portion
of staff.
Projected Levels of Service
2. All movements at the US Highway 6/Site Access intersection analyzed are expected to
operate at LOS “C” or better during both morning and afternoon peak-hours through 2040
with implementation of the recommended improvements.
Parking Demand vs. Supply
3. A parking reduction of about ten percent (243 spaces provided vs. 270 spaces required by
the Town) is supported by shared parking principles and a 24-hour shuttle between the
site and the Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski resorts in the area.
Conclusions
4. The impact of the Colorado World Resorts PUD development can be accommodated by the
existing roadway network with the following improvements.
RECOMMENDATIONS
5. The northbound access approach to US 6 should be stop-sign controlled.
6. An eastbound right-turn deceleration lane is recommended on US 6 approaching the site.
An appropriate length for the 35 mph posted speed limit is a 190-foot deceleration lane
plus a 120-foot transition taper.
7. A westbound left-turn deceleration lane is recommended on US 6 approaching the site.
An appropriate length for the 45 mph posted speed limit is a 300-foot deceleration lane
(275 feet for deceleration and 25 feet for vehicle storage) plus a 160-foot transition taper.
An appropriate redirect taper would be 45:1.
8. A westbound left-turn acceleration lane is recommended on US 6 departing the site. An
appropriate length for the 35 mph posted speed limit west of the site would be a 150-foot
acceleration lane plus a 120-foot transition taper.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Table 1ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATIONColorado World Resorts PUDAvon, COLSC #171070; December, 2017Vehicle - Trips GeneratedTrip Generation Rates(1) PM Peak - Hour AM Peak HourAveragePM Peak HourAM Peak HourAverageOutInOutInWeekdayOutInOutInWeekdayQuantityTrip Generating Category6131431880.2460.5000.5450.1127.52DU (3)25Townhomes (2)545740581,2730.2940.3060.2170.3136.88Rooms185Hotel (4)182323244830.1760.2340.2260.2444.83Seats100Restaurant (5)3333532.8902.2702.2702.89044.32KSF (7)1.20Retail (6)819680881,997TotalInternal Capture (8)455597Restaurant (20%)111126Retail (50%)5666122Internal Capture =Alternative Travel Mode Trips (9)133138Townhomes (20%)1111812255Hotels (20%)12141113293Internal Trips =647663691,582Net External Trips =Notes:Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012.(1)ITE Land Use No. 230 - Townhomes - formula rates(2)DU = Dwelling Unit(3)ITE Land Use No. 310 - Hotel (formula rate for weekday rate)(4)ITE Land Use No. 932 - High-Turnover (Sit-Down Restaurant) - average rates(5)ITE Land Use No. 826 - Specialty Retail Center - no AM rates are available, so the PM rates were reversed. Formula PM rate is above range so(6)the high end of range was used.KSF = 1,000 square feet(7)20% of restaurant trips and 50% of retail trips are expected to be from guests staying on-site so do not generate vehicle-trips.(8)20% of residential and hotel trips are assumed to be alternative travel modes. The majority of alternative travel mode trips is expected to be via the(9)proposed 24-hour shuttle service planned between the site and Eagle County Airport, DIA, and the ski resorts in the area as well as local bus servicewhich will likely be utilized by a portion of staff.ATTACHMENT A
Table 2Intersection Levels of Service AnalysisColorado World Resorts PUDAvon, COLSC #171070; December, 20172040 Total Traffic2040 Total Trafficwith Left-Turnwithout Left-Turn2020Accel LaneAccel LaneTotal TrafficLevel ofLevel ofLevel ofLevel ofLevel ofLevel of ServiceServiceServiceServiceServiceServiceTraffic PMAMPMAMPMAMControlIntersection LocationTWSCUS Highway 6/Site AccessCCEEDENB LeftBBBBBBNB RightAAAAAAWB Left20.420.738.441.733.235.9Critical Movement Delay ATTACHMENT A
Table 3Shared Parking PrinciplesColorado World Resorts PUDAvon, COLSC #171070; December, 2017Weekday Parking Demand by Hour (1)ProposedRequired12:00 PM11:00 PM10:00 PM09:00 PM08:00 PM08:00 AM07:00 AM06:00 AMParkingParking185185176176167167176176158185Hotel25252525252525252525Condo152030343515505050Restaurant10101010101010101010Guest Spaces235240241245237217216211243270TotalWeekend Parking Demand by Hour (2)ProposedRequired12:00 PM11:00 PM10:00 PM09:00 PM08:00 PM08:00 AM07:00 AM06:00 AMParkingParking185185176176167167176176158185Hotel25252525252525252525Condo152030343515505050Restaurant10101010101010101010Guest Spaces235240241245237217216211243270TotalNotes:Based on time of day factors from Table 2-5 of Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute.(1)Based on time of day factors from Table 2-6 of Shared Parking by the Urban Land Institute.(2)Peak demand assuming 100% usage of condo and guest parking.ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
From Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
Applicable to Two-Way Stop Control, All-Way Stop Control, and Roundabouts
LOS
Average
Vehicle Control
Delay Operational Characteristics
A <10 seconds Normally, vehicles on the stop-controlled approach only have to
wait up to 10 seconds before being able to clear the intersection.
Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street do not have to wait
to make their turn.
B 10 to 15
seconds
Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach will experience delays
before being able to clear the intersection. The delay could be up
to 15 seconds. Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street
may have to wait to make their turn.
C 15 to 25
seconds
Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach can expect delays in the
range of 15 to 25 seconds before clearing the intersection.
Motorists may begin to take chances due to the long delays,
thereby posing a safety risk to through traffic. Left-turning vehicles
on the uncontrolled street will now be required to wait to make
their turn causing a queue to be created in the turn lane.
D 25 to 35
seconds
This is the point at which a traffic signal may be warranted for this
intersection. The delays for the stop-controlled intersection are not
considered to be excessive. The length of the queue may begin to
block other public and private access points.
E 35 to 50
seconds
The delays for all critical traffic movements are considered to be
unacceptable. The length of the queues for the stop-controlled
approaches as well as the left-turn movements are extremely long.
There is a high probability that this intersection will meet traffic
signal warrants. The ability to install a traffic signal is affected by
the location of other existing traffic signals. Consideration may be
given to restricting the accesses by eliminating the left-turn move-
ments from and to the stop-controlled approach.
F >50 seconds The delay for the critical traffic movements are probably in excess
of 100 seconds. The length of the queues are extremely long.
Motorists are selecting alternative routes due to the long delays.
The only remedy for these long delays is installing a traffic signal
or restricting the accesses. The potential for accidents at this inter-
section are extremely high due to motorist taking more risky
chances. If the median permits, motorists begin making two-stage
left-turns.
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2020 Total
3: Site Access & Highway 6 AM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 600 51 17 400 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 600 51 17 400 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 750 64 21 500 60 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 814 0 1292 750
Stage 1 - - - - 750 -
Stage 2 - - - - 542 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 813 - 180 411
Stage 1 - - - - 467 -
Stage 2 - - - - 583 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 813 - 175 411
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 175 -
Stage 1 - - - - 455 -
Stage 2 - - - - 583 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 30.5
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)175 411 - - 813 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.343 0.049 - - 0.026 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 35.9 14.2 - - 9.5 -
HCM Lane LOS E B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 0.2 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2020 Total
3: Site Access & Highway 6 PM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 445 57 19 665 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 445 57 19 665 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 494 63 21 739 53 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 557 0 1275 494
Stage 1 - - - - 494 -
Stage 2 - - - - 781 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1014 - 184 575
Stage 1 - - - - 613 -
Stage 2 - - - - 451 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1014 - 180 575
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 180 -
Stage 1 - - - - 600 -
Stage 2 - - - - 451 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 27.8
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)180 575 - - 1014 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.296 0.031 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 33.2 11.5 - - 8.6 -
HCM Lane LOS D B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 0.1 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w/o LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 AM Peak
Synchro 10 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Future Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 806 65 21 531 59 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 871 0 1379 806
Stage 1 - - - - 806 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 159 382
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 155 382
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 155 -
Stage 1 - - - - 427 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 34.9
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)155 382 - - 774 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.379 0.052 - - 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 41.7 14.9 - - 9.8 -
HCM Lane LOS E B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.6 0.2 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w/o LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 PM Peak
Synchro 10 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 528 63 21 794 53 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 591 0 1364 528
Stage 1 - - - - 528 -
Stage 2 - - - - 836 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 163 550
Stage 1 - - - - 592 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 160 550
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 160 -
Stage 1 - - - - 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 31.8
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)160 550 - - 985 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.333 0.032 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 38.4 11.8 - - 8.7 -
HCM Lane LOS E B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.4 0.1 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 PM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Future Vol, veh/h 475 57 19 715 48 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 528 63 21 794 53 18
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 591 0 1364 528
Stage 1 - - - - 528 -
Stage 2 - - - - 836 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 163 550
Stage 1 - - - - 592 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 985 - 160 550
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 287 -
Stage 1 - - - - 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - 425 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 18.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)287 550 - - 985 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.186 0.032 - - 0.021 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.4 11.8 - - 8.7 -
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.1 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 Total - w/ LT Accel Lane
3: Site Access & Highway 6 AM Peak
Synchro 9 Report
KMK
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Future Vol, veh/h 645 52 17 425 47 16
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 0 0 - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 80 80 80 80 80 80
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 806 65 21 531 59 20
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 871 0 1379 806
Stage 1 - - - - 806 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 159 382
Stage 1 - - - - 439 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 774 - 155 382
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 288 -
Stage 1 - - - - 427 -
Stage 2 - - - - 564 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.4 19.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)288 382 - - 774 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.204 0.052 - - 0.027 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.7 14.9 - - 9.8 -
HCM Lane LOS C B - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 0.2 - - 0.1 -
ATTACHMENT A
33 | Page
Exhibit D
Partial Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Final Report July 2017 - -
LSC parking report and support data.
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 31
Chapter 4
Existing Parking Conditions
Existing Public Parking Supply and Regulations
The current public parking supply within the commercial core area is shown in Table 12. As
indicated, there are a total of 359 spaces, of which 299 are west of Avon Road and 60 to the
east. Of the total, 21 percent are on‐street spaces and the remainder in lots. While none of the
public spaces require a fee, just under half of these spaces (47 percent) have a 2 or 3 hour
parking time limit. As noted, all of the parking areas are served by Avon Transit, and two areas
are within a convenient 5‐minute (quarter‐mile) walk of the gondola base.
In addition to these spaces, beyond the commercial core area 19 public spaces are available on
the north side of Nottingham Park, 72 spaces are available at Avon Elementary School on
weekends, 170 public spaces are available at Traer Creek Plaza, and there are a total of 765
spaces available for skier overflow at the Rodeo Grounds.
East of the study area, there are a total of 170 covered parking spaces in Traer Creek Plaza,
served by both Avon Transit and Eco Transit. The Town has also made agreements with
individual private property owners to allow parking for special events when spaces are
available, as follows:
TABLE 12: Existing Public Parking in Avon Commercial Center
Area Spaces Current Restrictions Transit Stop Gondola
West Town Center
Town Hall/Lake St 123 Weekend Only
Rec Center/Fire 93 3 Hr Max
West Beaver Creek Blvd On‐Street 22 2 or 3 Hr Max
Library On‐Street 25 2 Hr Max
Mikaela Way Public Lot (New Town Hall) 36 None
Subtotal 299
East Town Center
E. Benchmark Rd On‐Street 21 2 Hr Max
Chapel Place 9 2 Hr Max
Behind Chapel Sq.30
Subtotal 60
Total 359
Note: No overnight parking on any facilities (12 AM to 6 AM). Excludes loading spaces.
Within Convenient 5‐Minute
Walk Of…
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 32
Nottingham Park evening special event parking ‐‐ US Bank after 6:00 p.m., First Bank
after 6:00 p.m.
Weekend special event parking ‐‐ Mtn. Vista Office Building, US Bank and FirstBank after
12:00 p.m. on Saturday; all day Sunday, Beaver Creek Bear Lots (overflow only).
Existing Private Parking Supply
There are a total of 3,767 private parking spaces in the Town Core, consisting of 1,812 surface
spaces and 1,039 underground spaces. The largest of these private parking areas (with 200 or
more spaces) consist of the following:
Chapel Square (excluding Tract A) 604 spaces
Christie Lodge 401 spaces
Sheraton Mountain Vista 374 spaces
Westin 314 spaces
The Seasons at Avon 291 spaces
Of the total parking spaces in the Town Core, 13 percent are public and 87 percent are private.
Existing Parking Counts and Utilization
Winter Counts
Parking accumulation counts were conducted throughout the Avon commercial core area over
the course of a busy winter day (Saturday, February 18, 2017, which was the Saturday of
President’s Day Weekend). LSC staff conducted parking counts at a total of 15 on‐street and
off‐street parking areas every hour between 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM. The individual areas are
depicted in Figures 11 and 12, while the results of the counts are shown in Table 13. A review
of this data indicates the following:
The parking spaces in the 15 areas total 887. At the peak time of overall parking
utilization (6:00 PM hour), 402 vehicles were observed in these areas in total (45
percent utilization).
The overall parking utilization is depicted graphically in Figure 13. As shown, utilization
grows at a rapid rate until the 12:00 PM hour, and then grows at a slower rate over the
afternoon before falling starting at 7:00 PM.
A review of hourly utilization by specific area, as depicted in Figure 14, shows how
parking is utilized in different patterns. Many areas see the highest utilization in mid‐
day or the early afternoon hours. The Rec Center parking lot grows over the day to a
peak at 5:00 PM, after which it drops quickly. Other areas such as the Loaded Joes,
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 33
H = East BenI = Chapel PJ = Behind CK = Chapel SL = Loaded Jnchmark Rd Place Chapel Place Square Joes a Figure 11: Avon Parking Count Areas - EastATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 34
A = Town HaB = Lake St C = Rec CenteD = Fire E = W BeaverF = Library G = New TowM = Bob’s PlaN = DMV ll er r Creek wn Hall ace Figure 12: Avon Parking Count Areas - WestATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 35
TABLE 13: Avon Commercial Core Parking Accumulation Counts ‐‐ Saturday, February 18, 2017ID Parking Location Type Capacity 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PMA1 Town Hall‐Police Lot2011121112121212141211109ATown Hall Lot6510111014181817171110 8 8BLake StOn‐street382 101219302830271911 7 3CRec CenterLot 80 9 22 31 35 47 46 48 49 70 61 43 29DFireLot433 1121252319242426252112EW Beaver Creek On‐street30131410111100F LibraryOn‐street 25 1 0 2 3 15 15 20 17 5 7 7 7GNew Town Hall Lot37122327273231352917151310MBob's Place Lot135626670637065746878868896NDMVLot42101417211618232022303220HEast Benchmark Rd On‐street21063237514109167IChapel PlaceOn‐street9001111121088JBehind Chapel Place Lot 30 12 12 14 20 21 25 21 16 20 19 17 17KChapel SquareLot 239 11 19 28 36 40 52 55 59 57 47 36 29LLoaded Joes Lot73263330322930172944706963Subtotal: West Side515 121 172 202 223 264 252 284 266 261 257 229 194Subtotal: East Side372 49 70 76 91 94 115 99 120 132 145 146 124Subtotal: Public West Side318 38 80 104127 166 157 175 164 149 130 99 69Subtotal: Public East Side60 12 18 18 23 25 33 27 32 31 28 41 32Subtotal: Public378 50 98 122 150 191 190 202 196 180 158 140 101TOTAL887 170 242 278 314 358 367 383 386 393 402 375 318Percent of CapacityA1 Town Hall‐Police Lot2055% 60% 55% 60% 60% 60% 60% 70% 60% 55% 50% 45%ATown Hall Lot 65 15% 17% 15% 22% 28% 28% 26% 26% 17% 15% 12% 12%BLake StOn‐street 38 5% 26% 32% 50% 79% 74% 79% 71% 50% 29% 18% 8%CRec CenterLot 80 11% 28% 39% 44% 59% 58% 60% 61% 88% 76% 54% 36%D FireLot 43 7% 26% 49% 58% 53% 44% 56% 56% 60% 58% 49% 28%EW Beaver Creek On‐street 30 3% 10% 3% 13% 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0%F LibraryOn‐street 25 4% 0% 8% 12% 60% 60% 80% 68% 20% 28% 28% 28%GNew Town HallLot 37 32% 62% 73% 73% 86% 84% 95% 78% 46% 41% 35% 27%MBob's PlaceLot 135 46% 49% 52% 47% 52% 48% 55% 50% 58% 64% 65% 71%N DMVLot 42 24% 33% 40% 50% 38% 43% 55% 48% 52% 71% 76% 48%HEast Benchmark Rd On‐street 21 0% 29% 14% 10% 14% 33% 24% 67% 48% 43% 76% 33%IChapel PlaceOn‐street 9 0% 0% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 22% 11% 0% 89% 89%JBehind Chapel Place Lot 30 40% 40% 47% 67% 70% 83% 70% 53% 67% 63% 57% 57%KChapel SquareLot 239 5% 8% 12% 15% 17% 22% 23% 25% 24% 20% 15% 12%LLoaded JoesLot 73 36% 45% 41% 44% 40% 41% 23% 40% 60% 96% 95% 86%Subtotal: West Side23% 33% 39% 43% 51% 49% 55% 52% 51% 50% 44% 38%Subtotal: East Side13% 19% 20% 24% 25% 31% 27% 32% 35% 39% 39% 33%Subtotal: Public West Side12% 25% 33% 40% 52% 49% 55% 52% 47% 41% 31% 22%Subtotal: Public East Side20% 30% 30% 38% 42% 55% 45% 53% 52% 47% 68% 53%Subtotal: Public Total13% 26% 32% 40% 51% 50% 53% 52% 48% 42% 37% 27%TOTAL19% 27% 31% 35% 40% 41% 43% 44% 44% 45% 42% 36%
ATTACHMENT A
Avon Multi
B
ev
U
T
co
u
W
a
ex
imodal Transpo
ob’s Place a
vening hour
Utilization rat
he highest u
omparison, t
tilization in t
While the tot
reas indicate
xceeding 80
o Rec Ce
o The N
in the
o Chape
o The lo
o Loade
ortation and Pa
nd Chapel P
rs.
tes were obs
utilization we
the east side
the 5:00 PM
tal utilization
es areas of h
percent con
enter – 87 p
ew Town Ha
2:00 PM ho
el Place – 89
ot behind Ch
ed Joes lot –
arking Plan
Place parking
served to be
est of Avon R
e of the com
M and 6:00 PM
n rate was o
high parking
nsisted of th
percent at 5:
all lot – Betw
our
9 percent in t
hapel Place –
After 6:00 P
g areas, how
e higher wes
Road was ob
mmercial core
M hours.
bserved to b
utilization.
he following:
00 PM
ween Noon a
the 6:00 PM
– 83 percent
PM, with a p
LS
wever, see th
st of Avon Ro
bserved to b
e had a max
be relatively
Parking are
:
and 2:00 PM
M and 7:00 PM
t at 1:00 PM
eak of 96 pe
SC Transportat
he highest ut
oad than eas
be 55 percen
ximum of 39
y low, a revie
as with utiliz
M, with a pea
M hours
ercent in the
tion Consultant
Pa
tilization in t
st of Avon R
nt, at 2:00 PM
percent
ew of specifi
zation rates
ak of 95 perc
e 6:00 PM ho
ts, Inc.
age 36
the
oad.
M. In
c
cent
our
ATTACHMENT A
Avon Multi
Another
Study con
conducte
(totaling
and Sun
overall o
maximum
These av
parking s
two walk
Summer
In the su
facilities
O
fi
a
imodal Transpo
recent sourc
nducted by W
ed for the Av
297 spaces)
Road on Frid
ccupancy of
m of 173 veh
vailable park
shortages at
k at all times
Counts
mmer of 20
shown in Fig
On the date o
lled all publi
lso highest i
ortation and Pa
ce of winter
Walker Park
von Center a
) along the s
day, Februar
f 193 vehicle
hicles (58 pe
ing counts in
peak times.
s.
15, Town sta
gure 15. The
of the evenin
ic parking w
n the areas
arking Plan
parking occ
king Consulta
area, consist
outh side of
ry 26, 2016 a
es (65 percen
ercent) on Sa
ndicate that
. However, p
aff conducte
e results sho
ng count (Au
est of Avon
east of Avon
cupancy data
ants. This in
ting of the pa
f West Beave
and Saturday
nt) was obse
aturday (at 7
there are sp
public parkin
ed a series o
own in Table
ugust 6th) the
Road. Parki
n Road, thou
LS
a is the Avon
ncludes park
arking lots a
er Creek Bou
y, February
erved on Frid
7:00 PM).
pecific sub‐a
ng is typicall
f counts for
e 14 indicate
ere was a sp
ing utilizatio
ugh this reac
SC Transportat
n Center Lot
ing occupan
and below‐gr
ulevard betw
27, 2016. A
day (at 10 AM
areas that ex
ly available w
key times in
e the followin
pecial event
on during thi
ched only 47
tion Consultant
Pa
B Parking N
ncy counts
round space
ween Avon R
A maximum
M) and a
xperience
within a bloc
n the parking
ng:
that comple
s period was
7 percent.
ts, Inc.
age 37
Needs
es
Road
ck or
g
etely
s
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 38
Figure 15Summer Parking Count AreasP41st BankATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 39
Other than during this evening special event, there were several specific times when
some individual facilities reached 100 percent utilization, in the vicinity of Benchmark
Road/Mikaela Way. In all these cases, however, there were available spaces in other
nearby facilities.
Overall, parking utilization during these summer counts was observed to reach a
maximum of 76 percent during the special event, and 45 percent in other periods. West
of Avon Road the maximum occupancy beyond the special event was 56 percent, while
it reached a maximum of 32 percent east of Avon Road.
TABLE 14: Summer Parking Counts
7/30/2015 7/31/2015 7/29/2015 7/28/2015 7/27/2015 8/5/2015 8/3/2015 8/6/2015
9:00‐9:30am10:30‐11:00am12:00‐1:00pm12:30‐1:45pm1:00‐2:00pm 3:15‐4:00pm 3:30‐4:00pm 8:00‐9:00pm
G1 39 12 15 14 32 21 13 21 39
G2 37 17 26 25 29 30 33 24 37
G3 12 9 9 10 11 12 11 6 12
G4 12 6 9 6 11 12 11 8 12
G5 15 8 10 12 10 11 10 10 15
P1 7 2 1 2 5 4 4 4 7
P2 18 2 9 16 11 16 13 16 18
P314435345314
P4 8 8 2 2 1 2 3 3 8
B1 84 37 39 42 29 34 36 31 84
B2 14 8 15 15 12 13 11 12 14
Y1 36 12 13 9 12 7 10 6 36
TA 150 9 34 0 41 49 43 41 65
TB‐1 84 15 7 26 0 24 9 10 42
TB‐2 17 15 12 12 13 8 10 11 12
Subtotal: West Side 296 125 151 158 166 166 160 144 296
Subtotal: East Side 251 39 53 38 54 81 62 62 119
TOTAL 547 164 204 196 220 247 222 206 415
Percent of Capacity
G1 31% 38% 36% 82% 54% 33% 54% 100%
G2 46% 70% 68% 78% 81% 89% 65% 100%
G3 75% 75% 83% 92% 100% 92% 50% 100%
G4 50% 75% 50% 92% 100% 92% 67% 100%
G5 53% 67% 80% 67% 73% 67% 67% 100%
P1 29% 14% 29% 71% 57% 57% 57% 100%
P2 11% 50% 89% 61% 89% 72% 89% 100%
P3 29% 21% 36% 21% 29% 36% 21% 100%
P4 100% 25% 25% 13% 25% 38% 38% 100%
B1 44% 46% 50% 35% 40% 43% 37% 100%
B2 57% 107% 107% 86% 93% 79% 86% 100%
Y1 33% 36% 25% 33% 19% 28% 17% 100%
TA 6% 23% 0% 27% 33% 29% 27% 43%
TB‐1 18% 8% 31% 0% 29% 11% 12% 50%
TB‐2 88% 71% 71% 76% 47% 59% 65% 71%
Subtotal: West Side 42% 51% 53% 56% 56% 54% 49% 100%
Subtotal: East Side 16% 21% 15% 22% 32% 25% 25% 47%
TOTAL 30% 37% 36% 40% 45% 41% 38% 76%
Parking Lot
Total
Spaces
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 40
Existing Parking Code
The provision of parking in Avon is regulated by Section 7.28.020 of the Code of Ordinance. The
base parking rates (spaces required per unit of development) are shown in Table 15. In
addition, the Code identifies several adjustments/considerations that impact the number of off‐
street spaces required:
A 15 percent reduction can be applied if the Town determines that an appropriate mix
of uses is proposed.
TABLE 15: Town of Avon Off‐Street Parking Requirements
Dwelling, Single‐Family, Duplex 2 per unit; 3 per unit for units over 2,500 sq. ft.
Studio/ Lockoff/ Accommodation unit ‐ 1 per unit
1 bedroom/ DU over 2,500 sq. ft. ‐ 2 per unit
3‐5 units ‐ 2 spaces
5‐10 units ‐ 3 spaces
11‐15 units ‐ 4 spaces
16‐20 units ‐ 5 spaces
21‐25 units ‐ 6 spaces
Over 25 units ‐ 7 spaces plus 1 space for each 5 units
in excess of 25 up to a maximum of 10 additional
spaces.
Group Homes 1 per bed plus 1 per 100 sq. ft. of GFA
Retirement home, nursing home or assisted living
facility
1 per 4 beds and 1 per employee with
conside ration to the number of shifts worked.
Art gallery or museum 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Community centers 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Government services, offices and facilities 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Library 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Religious assembly 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Child care center 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Preschool, nursery school 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
College or university (non‐exempt)4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
School, K‐12 (public and private)4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
School, vocational ‐technical and trade 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Medical center/ hospital 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Medical and dental clinics and offices 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Urgent care facility 4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Parks and Open Space Golf course 4 per green
4 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Food and Beverage Services Restaurants, bars and taverns 1 per 60 sq. ft. of indoor seating area.
Office Administrative and professional offices 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA
Recreation and Entertainment, Outdoor Outdoor commercial recreation/ entertainment Determined by the Director
Recreation and Entertainment, Indoor Indoor commercial recreation/ entertainment Determined by the Director
Wholesale Business Wholesale business 1 per 800 sq. ft. GFA
1 per 800 sq. ft. GFA
https://www.municode.com/library/co/avon/codes
Residential Uses
Community Services
Residential and Accommodation Uses
General Industrial Uses unless otherwise stated
Day Care
Educational Facilities
Health Care Facilities
Commercial Uses
General Commercial Uses unless otherwise stated
Industrial Service
Dwelling, Multi ‐Family
Guest Parking for Multi ‐Family
Group Living
Public and Institutional Uses
ATTACHMENT A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 41
Adjacent on‐street parking along the front property line may “count” towards the total
parking supply, at the discretion of the Town.
Off‐site parking may be considered as part of a planned unit development, so long as it
is within 500 feet from the use and a direct, adequate and convenient pedestrian
connection is available.
The maximum number of off‐street spaces that may be provided is 125 percent of the
required minimum number of spaces.
Comparison of Parking Counts with Code
The parking counts provides the opportunity to compare the existing Code requirements
against the observed peak parking demand. The close proximity between uses in the Avon
commercial core makes it a challenge to find parking areas with observed use that can be
directly compared against the land uses served. Two specific areas allowed this direct
comparison:
The Chapel Square commercial center Building B consists of 53,318 square feet of
commercial floor area. At the Code rate, it would require 214 spaces. A maximum of 59
parked vehicles were observed, indicating that the current parking rate is almost 4 times
the observed peak rate.
Given this high occupancy, it is probable that approximately 10 of the peak 16 vehicles
parked in the adjacent East Benchmark on‐street spaces were also generated by this
center. This indicates that the current Code rates are approximately 132 percent of the
observed peak.
The Avon Center Lot B Parking Needs Study data can also be used to compare Code
requirements with observed parking. Current Town Code parking requirements for the
existing land uses would require 218 spaces. Compared with the maximum observed
parking demand, and adjusting for the five spaces included in the counts but used for
equipment storage, the current Code requires 16 percent more spaces than observed at
maximum.
ATTACHMENT A
34 | Page
Exhibit E
Geotech Report – Revised 2017
ATTACHMENT A
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
3609 South Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 400
Lakewood, Colorado 80235
303.914.4300 tel | 303.914.3000 fax
www.wje.com
Headquarters & Laboratories–Northbrook, Illinois
Abu Dhabi | Atlanta | Austin | Boston | Chicago | Cleveland | Dallas | Denver | Detroit | Dubai | Honolulu | Houston | Los Angeles
Minneapolis | New Haven | New York | Princeton | San Francisco | Seattle | South Florida | Washington, DC
September 12, 2017
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
56 Edwards Village Boulevard, Suite 210
Edwards, Colorado 81632
Re: Geological Engineering Services
Folson Project, Hwy 6
Avon, Colorado
WJE No. 2017.4534
Dear Mr. Macik:
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) is pleased to submit this report detailing the geological
engineering services performed and the associated findings, interpretations, and recommendations related
to the characterization of debris flow hazards at the above referenced project site.
Background
Michael W. West & Associates, Inc. (MWWAI) submitted an engineering geological and geotechnical
review on December 10, 2007 which included a site characterization description, a review of a proposed
mitigation approach, and a proposed scope of work with respect to further site investigation. In this review,
MWWAI stated the following:
“A terrain feature consistent with physical characteristics of an alluvial or debris fan is present on the site…
(W)e are not sure at this time whether the feature is an alluvial fan or debris fan… We believe that further
investigation into this issue or question is appropriate, especially considering the level of mitigation (and
cost) associated here with debris flows. We recommend additional investigation and characterization of this
feature… At one extreme, this additional investigation may support the characterization of the feature as
an alluvial fan, resulting in substantially reduced mitigation effort. The other extreme would be a
confirmation (approximately) of the current characterization and approach. We believe an outcome between
these two extremes is more likely, although we do not guarantee any outcome.”
MWWAI was acquired by WJE on July 1, 2017. Consequently, WJE submitted a field work proposal for
continuation of the project on July 25, 2017, which outlined a scope of work and schedule, consistent with
MWWAI’s earlier recommendations. Michael W. West, Ph.D., P.E., P.G., WJE Principal, and Emma
Bradford, WJE Associate II, performed the site investigation on August 24 - 26, 2017. Ms. Bradford
prepared a draft of the report, and the final report was reviewed and finalized by Dr. West and Frank
Harrison, P.E., WJE Associate Principal and Project Manager.
Site Investigation
On the morning of August 24, 2017, WJE directed Site Resource Management (SRM) to excavate a trench
according to specifications outlined in the July 25, 2017 field work proposal. Specifically, the trench,
located within the upper part of the fan and oriented perpendicular to the slope, was excavated with three
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
September 12, 2017
Page 2
4-foot high sub-vertical walls separated by 6-foot wide benches on the upslope side. Photos of the site are
appended to this report. The downslope side of the trench was laid-back to an approximately 1.5h:1v slope
similar to the benched upslope side of the trench. The trench was oriented approximately 101° from North.
Following the completion of excavation, WJE established survey control on the sub-vertical trench walls,
delineated geological units exposed in the trench, mapped unit contacts, took photos, and noted other
relevant site characteristics. Before backfilling the trench on August 26, 2017, WJE recorded soil
descriptions and took soil samples of each geologic unit. SRM backfilled in the trench per the terms stated
in the July 25, 2017 field work proposal.
Trench Stratigraphy
We identified six geological units along the walls of the trench, all of which are silty fine-grained soils or
silty to sandy gravels. River terrace alluvium with sub-rounded cobbles and gravels (Unit 1) is the relatively
oldest unit that was identified in the trench. Photo 1 highlights the signature of Unit 1 dominated by sub-
rounded clasts. Areas of high clast concentration show 100% carbonate coverage. Unit 2 contains mixed
facies of both river terrace alluvium and drainage alluvium (Unit 2). Photo 2 displays the variability of clast
concentration laterally along the unit. A carbonate-rich drainage alluvium (Unit 3) which dominated Bench
No. 3 exists above Unit 2. Photo 3 depicts the low clast percent by volume (5% - 10%) and mottled
carbonate presence throughout Unit 3. Unit 3 is overlain by a drainage alluvium (Unit 4) which grades
vertically upward into a secondary textural B soil horizon (Unit 4-Bt). We identified carbonate-rich gravel
lenses and channels (Unit 4-CA) within both the secondary textual B soil horizon and the drainage alluvium.
Photo 4 demonstrates the distinct increase in percentage of clasts by volume in Unit 4-CA compared to
Units 4 and 4-Bt. Above Unit 4-Bt is a younger textural B soil horizon (Unit 5-Bt) that contains both a
drainage alluvium lens (Unit 5) and a drainage alluvium lens with carbonate (Unit 5-CA). Unit 5-CA is
easily distinguishable due to its high carbonate content as represented in Photo 5. The first unit at the ground
surface underlain by Unit 5-Bt is a modern A soil horizon (Unit 6). Photo 6 illustrates the soil structure of
Unit 6.
Above referenced photos of trench stratigraphy and geologic relations are included in the appendix. Please
use the approximately quarter-sized yellow flagging shown in these photos for scale. Furthermore, the
orange flagging ties are one meter apart. In addition, a trench log and corresponding unit descriptions that
depict geological unit contacts and more detailed unit descriptions, respectively, can be found in the
appendix.
Interpretation
The Eagle River runs to the north of Highway 6, north of the site. Unit 1, river terrace alluvium, represents
a former floodplain of this river. The sub-rounded to rounded clasts that dominate Unit 1 are a product of
erosional activity commonly associated with high-energy flow. Subsequently, the river has cut into the
terrace level (Unit 1), ultimately reaching its current elevation. Unit 2, associated with the steep drainage
to the south, likely eroded the terrace gravels as the river down-cut its channel. Localized fine-grained
drainage alluvium and angular clasts from a source basin within the steep drainage likely cut into and
intermixed with the river terrace alluvium creating a mixed facies unit (Unit 2) which contains both river
terrace alluvium sub-rounded to rounded clasts as well as sub-angular clasts. Units 3, 4, 4-CA, 5, and 5-
CA were similarly transported from the southern source basin to the fan predominantly by alluvial
processes, evidenced by the sub-angular clasts within these units. A period of stability occurred on the fan
surface after the deposition of Unit 4, allowing Unit 4-Bt to develop. Unit 4-Bt was likely covered by
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
September 12, 2017
Page 3
additional material across the fan surface associated with the source basin to the south. Unit 5 and Unit 5-
CA represent a second period of stability which prompted the formation of both Unit 5-Bt and darker-
colored Unit 6, the modern A horizon.
The term debris flow describes a slurry of poorly-sorted, highly-concentrated sediment that acts as a fluid.
At concentrations of up to 80 percent solids, debris flows have a high density, allowing them to transport
boulders that are up to meters in diameter (Cruden and Varnes, 1996). Debris-flow deposits typically
contain large cobbles and boulders and other debris (tree, brush, etc.) suspended in a matrix of gravel, sand,
and/or silts and clays (Boggs, 2006). Debris-flow deposits are characterized by poorly-sorted angular, sub-
angular, and/or sub-rounded clasts in a relatively fine-grained matrix. No internal layering or imbrication
of clasts is typically present in a debris-flow deposit, but individual debris-flow events in a debris fan can
sometimes be recognized by crude layering defined by variations in debris composition and the presence
of soil-forming intervals between subsequent events.
The trench showed no evidence that a debris flow has taken place on the fan of interest. Only two units in
the trench exhibited a clast-dominated matrix-supported signature. One was clearly fluvial in origin as the
clasts were predominately sub-rounded to rounded (Unit 1), and the other contained a maximum clast size
of small (approximately 3 inch diameter) sub-angular gravel and cobbles (Unit 4-CA) where a significant
debris-flow event would be expected to deposit boulder-sized clasts. Although it is likely that small-scale
flow events have occurred on the fan of interest in the past, the material in the trench is not characteristic
of a relatively large debris-flow deposit which would typically contain sub-angular cobbles and boulders in
a clay-dominated matrix. The destructive potential of relatively small-volume flows containing a maximum
clast size of gravel or small cobbles compared to those of a large debris flow are of less concern, though
this condition should still be considered in design as recommended below.
Recommendations
Based on the characterization discussed above, we do not believe that a debris flow hazard exists at this site
to the degree that specific debris flow mitigation is required. The site will be subject to precipitation and
runoff, and thus normal, prudent storm water engineering practices should be followed. Large runoff events
with significant overland flows may indeed contain sediment, but large bulking factors as are typically
associated with debris flow events need not be considered in such designs. It would, however, in our
opinion, be prudent to oversize conveyance channels, culverts, and related structures by 25 to 50 percent to
account for sediment loading. Best management practices to control erosion and minimize sediment
generation should be followed. We are available to consult with the civil designer, and to review any plans
or calculations if requested.
Our scope of work on this project has been limited specifically to review, investigation, and
recommendations related to potential debris flow hazards for the site in question. We have not investigated
other geologic hazards such as rockfall, landslides, or collapsible soils, nor does our scope of work currently
include foundation recommendations or recommendations or designs related to earth retention or slope
stability. Please call if you require such services.
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Greg Macik
TBA Associates
September 12, 2017
Page 5
References
Boggs, S. (2006). “Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy - 4th Edition.”, Transport and Deposition
of Siliciclastic Sediment, Pearson Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Cruden, D. M., and Varnes, D. J. (1996). “Landslides Types and Processes.” Landslides: Investigation and
Mitigation Special Report 247, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 36-71.
ATTACHMENT A
Appendix A
ATTACHMENT A
Site Location and Site Photos
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 1
Figure: Site Location (after GoogleEarth, 2017)
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
nn
Approximate location and
orientation of trench
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 2
Figure: General Site Photos
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
ATTACHMENT A
Trench Stratigraphy Photos
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 3a
Figure: Trench Stratigraphy Photos
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
Photo 1: River terrace alluvium Unit 1 dominated by sub-rounded
clasts
Photo 2: Clast concentration variability of mixed facies Unit 2
Photo 3: Mottled carbonate and low clast concentrations within Unit
3
Photo 4: Channelized 4-CA Unit in Bench No. 1 with much higher
clast concentration than Units 5-Bt, 4-Bt- and 4 (on Bench No. 2)
Unit 3
Unit 4 Unit 5-Bt
Unit 4-Bt
ATTACHMENT A
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 3b
Figure: Trench Stratigraphy Photos
Project: Folson
Location: Avon, Colorado
Photo 5: White coloration highlights the high carbonater presence in
Unit 5
Photo 6: Soil structure of Unit 6
Unit 5-Bt
ATTACHMENT A
Trench Log and Unit Description
ATTACHMENT A
Abbreviated Stratigraphic Explanation:
6. Modern A Horizon
5-CA. Drainagea alluvium lens with carbonate
5. Drainage alluvium lens
5-Bt. Textural B Horizon
4-Bt. Secondary textural B Horizon (gradation contact with 4)
4-CA. Drainage alluvium gravel lens or channel with carbonate
4. Drainiage alluvium (gradational contact with 4-Bt)
3. Drainage alluvium with carbonate
2. Mixed facies - River terrace alluvium/Drainage alluvium
1. River terrace alluvium
METERS
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24MATCH LINETRENCH ORIENTATION: N101°E
-2METERS7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2
2
2
1
1
1
3 4
3
4
3
33
4
4
4-CA
4-CA
4
4-CA 4-CA
4-Bt
4-Bt
4-Bt
5-Bt
5-Bt
5-Bt
5-CA
6
6 6
Bench No. 1
Bench No. 2
Bench No. 3
5
ATTACHMENT A
UNIT ID.NAMEDESCRIPTIONUSCS Name: Percent clasts by volume, clast rounding, carbonate presence, Munsell soil color6 A HorizonSilt (ML): Very minimal pebble presence, rounding not applicable, no carbonate present, 10YR 4/25-CACarbonate HorizonSilt (ML): Very minimal pebble presence, rounding not applicable, carbonate uniformly present throughout, 2.5Y 6/25 Drainage alluviumSilt (ML): Very minimal pebble presence, rounding not applicable, no carbonate present, 10YR 4/25-BtTextural B HorizonSilt (ML): 5% coarse gravel with some pebbles, sub-angular, typically no carbonate present but some ghosted coverage, 10YR 4/24-BtSecondary textural B Horizon (gradation contact with 4) Silt (ML): 5% - 10% coarse gravel with minimal small-sized cobbles and some pebble clusters, sub-angular to sub-rounded, typically no carbonate present but concentrated pebble clusters show ghosted coverage, 10YR 4/24-CADrainage alluvium lens or channel with carbonateSilty gravel (GM): 70% - 85% coarse gravel with some small-sized cobbles and pebbles, sub-angular to sub-rounded, ghosted carbonate coverage to full carbonate coverage, from top to bottom: 2.5Y 6/2, 2.5Y 5/24Drainage alluvium (gradational contact with 4-Bt)Silt (ML): 5% - 10% coarse gravel with pebbles concentrated in clusters or filling void space in between gravels near bottom of unit, sub-angular to sub-rounded, typically no carbonate present but small amount of mottled carbonate observed on west side of bottom of unit, from top to bottom of unit: 10YR 4/2, 2.5Y 4/43Drainage alluvium with carbonateSilt (ML): 2.5% - 10% coarse gravel with few small concentrated pebble clusters at bottom of unit, sub-angular to sub-rounded, mottled carbonate to full carbonate coverage, from top to bottom of unit: 10YR 5/2, 2.5Y 5/2, 10YR 4/32Mixed facies - River terrace alluvium/Drainage alluvium Sandy silt with gravel (ML): Average of 15% small- to medium-sized cobbles and coarse gravel with pebbles but clast concentration is highly variable laterally, predominantly sub-rounded to rounded with some sub-angular, typically no carbonate present except for full carbonate coverage in areas with high clast concentration, 10YR 3/31River terrace alluviumSandy silt to silt with gravel and cobbles (ML): 15% - 20% small- to large-sized cobbles with coarse gravel and pebbles near bottom of unit and average of 70% small- to large-sized cobbles and coarse gravel in middle and top of unit where clast concentration is highly variable laterally, predominantly sub-rounded to rounded with some sub-angular, typically no carbonate present but some clusters of gravels and pebbles show full carbonate coverage, from top to bottom of unit: 2.5Y 5/2, 10YR 4/2 UNIT DESCRIPTIONATTACHMENT A
35 | Page
Exhibit F
Geotech Report – Original 2007
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
36 | Page
Exhibit G
Project Images
ATTACHMENT A
37 | Page
ATTACHMENT A
38 | Page
ATTACHMENT A
39 | Page
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
Parking notrequiredwithreductionATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
EAGLE-VAIL/VALLEY OVERLOOKGYPSUM CLIFFSVALLEY OVERLOOKBIKING AND HIKINGTRAIL TOOVERLOOKSPOSSIBLE LINK TONATIONAL FORESTBIKING/ HIKINGTRAILSPOSSIBLE LINK TOEAGLE VAIL TRAILDEDICATEDPARKING FOR TRAILPAVILIONTRAIL CONNECTIONATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
L1.0PROPOSED TRAILEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING TREE LINEPEDESTRIANAREA - SEATINGGATHERINGPEDESTRIANAREA - SEATINGGATHERINGTRAIL PARKINGPEDESTRIANAREA - SEATINGGATHERINGATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
From: Matthew Abramowitz
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 2:25 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>; jeff layman
Cc: Peter Dillon
Subject: 38388 Highway 6 Development
Hi Matt & Jeff,
I recently saw that 38388 Highway was sold and I understand that the developer plans to build a large residential / hotel
property on the site. As a neighbor in RiverOaks, I am very excited about another wonderful development that will add
to our amazing community. However, as a neighbor, I also have some concerns regarding the added traffic to the area
and the impact that may cause.
Currently, as a resident of RiverOaks, we have no way to access the path directly across the way without running across
highway 6 (with children in tow) or the main roundabout without walking down highway 6 until we reach the path by
the Ascent. Both options are extremely dangerous! And now a new development has the potential to increase traffic
exponentially.
With that being said, we would like to make sure everyone involved understands our residents concerns. When
considering the new new development, Please consider building a path all the way from the round about to RiverOaks
and possibly a lighted crosswalk (at the round about and /or in front of RiverOaks). In an effort to work with the
developer, the town of Avon & EV, I believe that we would be willing to sell a portion of our property on the west side to
facilitate the walkway. This would also provide EV with an option of extending their trails and have access to a path that
leads directly into Avon. I believe a win for all parties.
As you move forward with the approval process for the new development, we would like to be part of the discussions so
that we can come to the best possible outcome for everyone!
Thanks in advance for your time in regards to this matter! I look forward to hearing back from you and working
together!
Thank you for all that you do for our communities!
Thanks,
Matthew Abramowitz
ATTACHMENT C
1
From: Thomas Heston
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 9:59 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>; Matthew Abramowitz Cc: jeff layman ; Pete Dillon
Subject: Highway 6 development/Riveroaks Condo."
Dear Matt,
My name is Tom Heston. My wife, Marlene, and I have owned property in the River Oaks Condominium complex since
1995. We recently learned from Matt Abramowitz that the property west of our complex will soon be home to a 200
plus room hotel/condo development. We are pleased the development should be a huge asset to the neighborhood,
however the project does create concerns for myself and the residents of River Oaks.
Since the bike path completion on the north side of Highway 6, it has become evident that the path has
shortcomings related to River Oaks residents. The most serious concern for our residents is the danger involved in
accessing the bike path. With no crosswalk on highway 6, it becomes a matter of "taking your life in your own hands" in
order to cross the highway to get to the path. The only other alternative is to walk down highway 6 to the round‐about
by the Accent, which may be possibly even more life threatening.
The east bound bus stop is only accessible from River Oaks by walking west along the berm of Highway 6. This is also
quite dangerous with the absence of a walkway.
I've investigated some old River Oaks planning documents from 1980, and discovered the parcel of land just west of the
existing complex was earmarked for a second phase of development. The parcel, approximately 7 acres on top, was to
accommodate 3‐4 additional building sites. My thought is, with cooperation between River Oaks, Eagle‐Vail, Avon, and
the developers, possibly an arrangement could be struck to alleviate the pedestrian safety shortcomings on highway 6
by creating a sidewalk, or path. Or, perhaps additional options could be created utilizing the 7 acres to provide the new
development with more parking for their planned Eagle‐Vail Trail Head, or low cost employee housing, etc.
Realizing there would be a vast amount of excavating to be done, the 7 acres from River Oaks might possibly be a great
location for a transit sub‐station. Additional parking at the site might provide a solution for the parking issues currently
experienced at the Avon Transit Station.
In closing, I would hope the concerns of the residents of River Oaks would be considered in any decisions that are made
regarding the forthcoming development.
Sincerely,
Thomas C Heston Jr
River Oaks E202
ATTACHMENT C
1
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:00pm.
II. Roll Call – All members were present.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda –
• Former Commissioner Minervini addressed the PZC with final general remarks and suggestions.
IV. Conflicts of Interest - There were no conflicts of interest disclosed.
V. Preliminary PUD (Major Amendment) Village at Avon PUD – CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
File: PUD17001
Legal Description: Lot 1, Filing 1, Village at Avon
Applicant: Harvey Robertson
Summary: PUD Guide amendment for changes to Planning Area F, a 13-acre property located at
the intersection of Post Blvd and East Beaver Creek Boulevard, including: 1) increase
density allowance from 18 dwelling unit/ acre to 25 dwelling units per acre; 2) increase
maximum allowable residential development from 50% to 100; and 3) increase
allowable building height from 48’ to 66’ for multi-family buildings.
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to continue the Public Hearing to the February 6,
2018 meeting. Commissioner Glaner seconded the motion and the motion carried 6-
0. Staff was directed to return on February 6, 2018 with recommended findings and
conditions for PZC consideration.
VI. Meeting Minutes
• January 2, 2018 Meeting
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to approve the January 2, 2018 meeting minutes.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Howell; all Commissioners were in favor
and the motion carried 6-0.
VII. Approval of Record of Decision
• PUD17003 – Buck Creek PUD Amendment
Action: Commissioner Howell motioned to approve the record of decision. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Barnes; all Commissioners were in favor and the motion
carried 6-0.
VIII. Appointment of Vice Chairperson.
Action: Chairperson Hardy nominated Commissioner Barnes to serve as Vicechair when
applicable. Commissioner Howell seconded the motion and the motion carried 6-0.
IX. Work Session
Summary: The Commission agreed to discussing Short Term Rentals, Noticing Requirements,
AEC Process as it relates to Natural Resource Protection, Family definition, and any
other pertinent work plan items at the upcoming session. The recommendation was
to plan on one of the two March Avon Council meeting dates.
2
X. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Approved this 6th Day of February 2018
SIGNED: ___________________________________________
Lindsay Hardy, Chairperson