TC Packet 02-13-2018 TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
TOWN OF AVON MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018
AVON LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM
AVON TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 5:05 PM
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
_______________________________________________________________________________
MEETING AGENDAS & PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, RECREATION CENTER, & AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY
IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING,
CALL TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE AT 970-748-4001 OR EMAIL DHOPPE@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS.
1
AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM (SEE SEPARATE AGENDA PAGE 3)
AVON TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 5:10 PM (SEE AGENDA BELOW)
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. MEETING PROCEDURES FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 2018
ACTION ITEMS
• PRESENTATION OF ITEM
• PUBLIC COMMENT – THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT
ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK,
UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO A
LONGER TIME
• COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• MOTION
• COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• VOTE
WORK SESSION AND PRESENTATIONS
• PRESENTATION OF ITEM
• COUNCIL DISCUSSION
• PUBLIC COMMENT – THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT
ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK,
UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO A
LONGER TIME
• COUNCIL DIRECTION
4. PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA*
THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT ALLOWED TO EACH PERSON WISHING TO SPEAK, UNLESS MAJORITY OF COUNCIL AGREES TO
A LONGER TIME (5 MINUTES)
5. ACTION ITEMS
5.1. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 18-01, APPROVING A REZONING OF THE FOLSON PROPERTY, FROM PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE MIXED-COMMERCIAL AND OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, AND DRAINAGE ZONE
DISTRICTS (PLANNING DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER) (20 MINUTES)
5.2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY PUD APPLICATION, COLORADO WORLD RESORTS, FOLSON PROPERTY
(PLANNING DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER) (45 MINUTES)
6. PRESENTATIONS
6.1. VAIL CENTRE PRESENTATION: CREATING COMPELLING COMMUNITY IDENTITY
(ROSS IVERSON, CEO THE VAIL CENTRE) (60 MINUTES)
7. ACTION ITEMS
7.1. DIRECTION TO TOWN STAFF REGARDING PREPARING A RESOLUTION FOR REBATING CERTAIN FEES FOR
WALKING MOUNTAINS SCIENCE CENTER IMPROVEMENTS (DEPUTY TOWN MANAGER PRESTON NEILL)
(15 MINUTES)
7.2. ACTION ON EAGLE COUNTY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN COLLABORATIVE MEMBERSHIP FEE REQUEST
(DEPUTY TOWN MANAGER PRESTON NEILL) (15 MINUTES)
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
TOWN OF AVON MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018
AVON LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM
AVON TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 5:05 PM
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
___________________________________________________________________________________________
MEETING AGENDAS & PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, RECREATION CENTER, & AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY
IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING,
CALL TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE AT 970-748-4001 OR EMAIL DHOPPE@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS.
2
7.3. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 18-02, AMENDING THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING ORDINANCE TO EXTEND
PERMITTED DURATION OF SEASONAL HOLIDAY LIGHTING (PLANNING DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER)
(10 MINUTES)
7.4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 MINUTES)
7.4.1. APPROVAL FOR MAYOR JENNIE FANCHER TO SIGN THE LETTER URGING CONGRESS TO NOT MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE DESTRUCTIVE ONSHORE AND SECURE ACTS
(MAYOR PRO TEM SARAH SMITH HYMES)
7.4.2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 23, 2018 COUNCIL MEETING (TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE)
8. PRESENTATIONS
8.1. PROCLAMATION CELEBRATING AVON’S 40TH ANNIVERSARY (MAYOR JENNIE FANCHER) (5 MINUTES)
8.2. RECREATION DEPARTMENT & RECREATION/PARKS WORK GROUP (RECREATION DIRECTOR JOHN CURUTCHET)
(25 MINUTES)
9. WRITTEN REPORTS
9.1. ABSTRACT FROM FEBRUARY 6, 2018 PZC MEETING (PLANNING DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER)
9.2. UPPER EAGLE RIVER WATER AUTHORITY JANUARY 25, 2018, BOARD MEETING SUMMARY
(MAYOR PRO TEM SARAH SMITH HYMES)
10. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMENTS & MEETING UPDATES (20 MINUTES)
11. ADJOURNMENT
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Public Comments: Council agendas shall include a general item labeled “Public Comment” near the beginning of all Council
meetings. Members of the public who wish to provide comments to Council greater than three minutes are encouraged to schedule
time in advance on the agenda and to provide written comments and other appropriate materials to the Council in advance of the
Council meeting. The Mayor shall permit public comments for any action item or work session item, and may permit public comment
for any other agenda item, and may limit such public comment to three minutes per individual, which limitation may be waived or
increased by a majority of the quorum present. Article VI. Public Comments, Avon Town Council Simplified Rules of Order, Adopted
by Resolution No. 17-05.
TOWN OF AVON MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2018
AVON LIQUOR AUTHORITY MEETING BEGINS AT 5:00 PM
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
_______________________________________________________________________________
MEETING AGENDAS & PACKETS ARE FOUND AT: HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON TOWN HALL, RECREATION CENTER, & AVON PUBLIC LIBRARY
IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION NEEDS, PLEASE, IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING,
CALL TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE AT 970-748-4001 OR EMAIL DHOPPE@AVON.ORG WITH ANY SPECIAL REQUESTS.
3
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA
4. RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES
4.1. APPLICANT: FIESTA JALISCO NUMBERO TRES, LLC D/B/A FIESTA JALISCO
LOCATION: 240 CHAPEL PLACE B-12
TYPE: HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LICENSE
MANAGER: JOSE G. RODRIGUEZ
5. MINUTES FROM JANUARY 23, 2018
6. ADJOURNMENT
ATTACHMENT
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2018
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
Page 1
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairwoman Fancher called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. A roll call was taken and Board members
present were Sarah Smith Hymes, Scott Prince, Amy Phillips and Megan Burch. Jake Wolf arrived at 5:01
p.m. Matt Gennett was absent. Also present were Town Attorney Eric Heil, Police Chief Greg Daly,
Recreation Director John Curutchet, Planning Director Matt Pielsticker, Public Works Director Gary
Padilla, Deputy Town Manager Preston Neill and Secretary Debbie Hoppe.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA
No public comments were made.
4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
Start time: 01:06
4.1. Applicant: China Garden, Inc. d/b/a China Garden
Current Owner: 3 Dragons, LLC. d/b/a QI
Address: 100 W. Beaver Creek Blvd.
New Owner: Sharon Mou
Chairwoman Fancher opened the public hearing and no comments were made. Sharon Mou was present
to answer any questions.
Board member Wolf moved to approve the Transfer of Ownership application for China Garden, Inc.
d/b/a China Garden. Vice Chairwoman Smith Hymes seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by
Board members present. Board member Gennett was absent.
5. RENEWAL OF LIQUOR LICENSES
Start time: 03:26
5.1. Applicant: Bob’s Place, LLC d/b/a Bob’s Place
Location: 100 W. Beaver Creek Blvd.
Type: Hotel and Restaurant License
Manager: Chris Doyle
The application was presented with no concerns. Board member Prince moved to approve the renewal
application for Bob’s Place, LLC d/b/a Bob’s Place. Board member Phillips seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously by Board members present. Board member Gennett was absent.
5.2. Applicant: Millers Bottle Shop, LLC d/b/a Joe’s Liquors
Location: 1060 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. #1b
Type: Liquor Store License
Manager: Bill Holm
The application was presented with no concerns. Board member Phillips moved to approve the renewal
application for Millers Bottle Shop, LLC d/b/a Joe’s Liquors. Board member Burch seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously by Board members present. Board member Gennett was absent.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2018
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
Page 2
5.3. Applicant: Vistana Colorado Management, Inc. d/b/a Sheraton Mountain Vista
Location: 160 Beaver Creek West
Type: Hotel and Restaurant License
Manager: David Weiss
The application was presented with no concerns. Vice Chairwoman Smith Hymes moved to approve the
renewal application for Vistana Colorado Management, Inc. d/b/a Sheraton Mountain Vista. Board
member Prince seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Board members present. Board
member Gennett was absent.
5.4. Applicant: PHO 20, LLC d/b/a PHO 20
Location: 47 E. Beaver Creek Blvd Unit C13-C14
Type: Hotel and Restaurant License
Manager: Cong Huang
The application was presented with no concerns. Board member Prince moved to approve the renewal
application for PHO 20, LLC d/b/a PHO 20. Board member Phillips seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously by Board members present. Board member Gennett was absent.
6. REPORT OF CHANGES- CORPORATION MASTER FILE
Start time: 06:54
6.1. Applicant: Dillon Companies, Inc. d/b/a City Market #26
Location: 72 Beaver Creek Place
Manager: Jeff Gentilini
The application was presented with no concerns. Vice Chairwoman Smith Hymes moved to approve
the Report of Changes – Corporation Master file for the Dillon Companies, Inc. d/b/a City Market #26.
Board member Phillips seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Board members present.
Board member Gennett was absent.
7. MINUTES FROM JANUARY 09, 2018
Start time: 07:30
Vice Chairwoman Smith Hymes moved to approve the minutes from the January 09, 2018, Liquor
Authority meeting. Board member Phillips seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Board
members present. Board member Gennett was absent.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON LIQUOR LICENSING AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2018
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
Page 3
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Board, Chairwoman Fancher moved to adjourn the
liquor meeting. The time was 5:08 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________________
Debbie Hoppe, Secretary
APPROVED:
Jennie Fancher ______________________________________
Sarah Smith Hymes ______________________________________
Jake Wolf ______________________________________
Megan Burch ______________________________________
Matt Gennett ______________________________________
Scott Prince ______________________________________
Amy Phillips ______________________________________
Colorado World Resorts - Rezoning – Ordinance 18-01 1
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council
From: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018
Agenda Topic: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 18-01, APPROVING A REZONING OF THE FOLSON PROPERTY, FROM
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE MIXED-COMMERCIAL AND OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, AND
DRAINAGE ZONE DISTRICTS
ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL
Vote on first reading of Ordinance 18-01 (Attachment A), approving a Rezoning Application for the Folson
Property from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to the Mixed-Commercial (MC) and Open Space,
Landscaping, and Drainage (OLD) zone districts.
PROPOSED MOTION
“I move to approve Ordinance 18-01, thereby approving a Rezoning Application for the Folson Property from
PUD to the MC and OLD zone districts.”
SUMMARY
The Folson property was annexed 1985 and has retained PUD zoning status, without an approved PUD
development plan. Past proposals were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) in 1997, 2006,
and 2007, however, no zoning application was ever fully processed or approved by the Town.
Last summer staff was approached by the prospective new owners of the property to determine next steps
in bringing back a proposal. The development code no longer offers PUD as an optional standalone zone
district classification; therefore, an underlying zone district and PUD overlay were recommended to proceed
through a review process.
PZC WORK SESSIONS
At the request of the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Commission held two work sessions to review the
updated proposal and to provide guidance prior to filing an application. The work sessions, held on
September 19, 2017, and November 21, 2017, were noticed on meeting agendas. While not required, due to the
size and location of the project, each work session’s materials were also posted on the Town of Avon
webpage, as additional outreach for people to become informed of the development.
Direction was provided by PZC to pursue Mixed-Commercial (MC), instead of the originally contemplated
Town Center (TC), as the new underlying zoning for the property. The Commission also gave guidance on the
mass and scale, height, parking requirements and deed restricted worker housing units. During the work
sessions, the PZC learned, through the work of the owner’s geotechnical studies that the concrete drainage
structures above the retaining walls would not be needed, plans for a restaurant, trail construction details,
and bike share program.
Colorado World Resorts - Rezoning – Ordinance 18-01 2
APPLICATIONS
Zoning and PUD applications are before the Town Council. The applications were referred to ERWSD, Eagle
Vail Community, Eagle County, ERWFD, and USFS. Conversations with CDOT have been ongoing since before
the work session took place last year. The PZC did not ask for other agencies, which they may direct, to be
included in the referral.
Zoning: The attached Application is for two zone district classifications: MC for the Highway 6 & 24 frontage,
and OLD for the upper portion of the site which is to remain open space. The Application was reviewed at the
February 6, 2018 PZC meeting, where the Commission made a unanimous recommendation for approval. All
the PZC materials, including the applications and analysis of the applicable review criteria, are included as
Attachment B.
While no comments have been received from outside agency referrals, written public comments (Attachment
C) were received and are now included in the public record. Additional correspondence and communication
from the Town Attorney, Eric Heil, regarding Ex Parte communication is also attached (Attachment D) for
Council consideration.
Preliminary PUD: The corresponding Preliminary PUD application materials are included herein; a
memorandum and separate action for the Preliminary PUD are included as Item 5.2 on the agenda.
PROCESS SUMMARY
July – August 2017 Pre-Application Meetings
September 19, 2017 Pre-Application PZC Work Session No. 1
November 21, 2017 Pre-Application PZC Work Session No. 2
January 15, 2018 Application Complete
January 17, 2018 Agency Referrals
January 26, 2018 Public Notification and 300’ Mailings
February 6, 2018 PZC Public Hearing and Recommendation
AVAILABLE ACTIONS
• Approve First Reading, setting the Public Hearing date for February 27, 2018.
• Continue First Reading to the February 27, 2018 Meeting.
• Deny First Reading
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance 18-01
B. PZC Materials, including Applications
C. Written Public Comments received through February 9, 2018
D. Memorandum from Town Attorney, dated February 8, 2018
Ord 18-01 Folson Property Rezoning
February 13, 2018 FIRST READING Page 1 of 5
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE 18-01
APPROVING A REZONING OF THE FOLSON PROPERTY, TOWN OF
AVON, FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE MIXED-
COMMERCIAL AND OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE, AND LANDSCAPING
ZONE DISTRICTS
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon (“Town”) is a home rule municipal corporation and body politic organized under the laws of the State of Colorado and possessing the maximum powers, authority and privileges to which it is entitled under Colorado law; and
WHEREAS, The Town of Avon (“Applicant”) has submitted a Rezoning application affecting
the following property (“the Property”) by applying the Mixed Commercial (“MC”) and Open
Space, Landscaping, and Drainage (“OLD”) zone district classifications:
Folson Property, Located in Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian;
WHEREAS, the Town’s Planning & Zoning Commission (“PZC”), after publishing and
posting notice as required by law, held a public hearing on February 6; and prior to formulating a
recommendation to the Town Council considered all comments, testimony, evidence and staff reports; and then took action with a unanimous recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the Application; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with AMC Section 7.12.020, Town Council, and in addition to
other authority granted by the Town Charter, its ordinances and State of Colorado law, the Town
Council has application review and decision-making authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny the Application; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Avon, after publishing and posting notice in
accordance with the requirements of AMC Section 7.16.020(d), Step 4: Notice, held public
hearings on February 13, 2018 and February 27, 2018, and prior to taking final action considered
all comments, testimony, evidence and Town Staff reports; and then took action by approving this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 7.16.050(c), Review Criteria the Town Council has
considered the applicable review criteria for a Rezoning application; and
WHEREAS, the Application complies with AMC Section 7.16.050(c), Review Criteria, and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of providing a balance of land uses, and inviting guest accommodations that strengthen Avon’s identity as both a year-round residential community
and a tourism center; and
ATTACHMENT A
Ord 18-01 Folson Property Rezoning
February 13, 2018 FIRST READING Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, the Property is physically suitable for mixed-use projects as outlined in development standards and AMC Section 7.24.040, Table of Allowed Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Application will provide for orderly, efficient use of the Property, while at
the same time conserving the value of the investments of owners of property in the Town in
accordance with the Purpose statements in the Avon Development Code; and
WHEREAS, approval of this Ordinance on First Reading is intended only to confirm the Town Council desires to comply with the requirements of the Avon Home Rule Charter by setting a Public Hearing in order to provide the public an opportunity to present testimony and evidence
regarding the application, and that approval of this Ordinance on First Reading does not constitute
a representation that the Town Council, or any member of the Town Council, supports, approves,
rejects, or denies this Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, COLORADO:
Section 1. Recitals Incorporated. The above and foregoing recitals are incorporated herein
by reference and adopted as findings and determinations of the Town Council.
Section 2. Rezoning. The Property is hereby rezoned and the Official Town of Avon Zoning Map shall be amended to designate the Property as MC and OLD as depicted in Exhibit A.
Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be
severable. The Town Council hereby declares that it has passed this Ordinance and each provision
thereof, even though any one of the provisions might be declared unconstitutional or invalid. As
used in this Section, the term “provision” means and includes any part, division, subdivision, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase; the term “application” means and includes an
application of an ordinance or any part thereof, whether considered or construed alone or together
with another ordinance or ordinances, or part thereof, of the Town.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon satisfaction of the condition sets forth in Section 4, but in no event shall take effect sooner than thirty (30) days after final
adoption in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Avon Home Rule Charter.
Section 5. Safety Clause. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the Town of Avon, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public and this Ordinance is necessary for
the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of pubic convenience and welfare. The
Town Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper
legislative object sought to be obtained.
ATTACHMENT A
Ord 18-01 Folson Property Rezoning
February 13, 2018 FIRST READING Page 3 of 5
Section 6. No Existing Violation Affected. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, liability or right or affect any audit, suit, or proceeding pending in any court, or any rights acquired, or liability
incurred, or any cause or causes of action acquired or existing which may have been incurred or
obtained under any ordinance or provision hereby repealed or amended by this Ordinance. Any
such ordinance or provision thereof so amended, repealed, or superseded by this Ordinance shall be treated and held as remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings and prosecutions, for the enforcement of such penalty, liability, or right, and for
the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree or order which can or may be rendered, entered,
or made in such actions, suits or proceedings, or prosecutions imposing, inflicting, or declaring
such penalty or liability or enforcing such right, and shall be treated and held as remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proceedings, actions, hearings, and appeals pending before any court or administrative tribunal.
Section 7. Correction of Errors. Town Staff is authorized to insert proper dates, references
to recording information and make similar changes, and to correct any typographical, grammatical, cross-reference, or other errors which may be discovered in any documents associated with this Ordinance and documents approved by this Ordinance provided that such corrections do not
change the substantive terms and provisions of such documents.
Section 8. Publication. The Town Clerk is ordered to publish this Ordinance in accordance with Chapter 1.16 of the Avon Municipal Code.
[EXECUTION PAGE FOLLOWS]
ATTACHMENT A
Ord 18-01 Folson Property Rezoning
February 13, 2018 FIRST READING Page 4 of 5
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED ON FIRST READING AND REFERRED TO PUBLIC
HEARING on February 13, 2018 and setting such public hearing for February 27, 2018 at the
Council Chambers of the Avon Municipal Building, located at One Lake Street, Avon, Colorado.
BY: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________
Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk
ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING on February 27, 2018.
BY: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Eric J. Heil, Town Attorney
ATTACHMENT A
Ord 18-01 Folson Property Rezoning
February 13, 2018 FIRST READING Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
ATTACHMENT A
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 districts 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.
ATTACHMENT B
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.
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
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. Development must conform 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.
ATTACHMENT B
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;
ATTACHMENT B
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.
ATTACHMENT B
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
ATTACHMENT B
Colorado World Resorts, LLC TAB Associates, Inc.
Colorado World Resorts PUD
Preliminary PUD Application
& Re-Zoning
Project Description
January 15, 2018
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 $286.44, up 57%;
ATTACHMENT B
15 | Page
Supply of rooms is essentially flat and demand for rooms is up 15% and trailing 12 month average
occupancy is 61%, with particular days of the week during peak season at 90-100% occupancy.
Revenue ($) 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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
29 | Page
APPENDIX
ATTACHMENT B
30 | Page
Exhibit A
Comparison Chart of example projects – Height, Massing, Density, Disturbance.
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
31 | Page
Exhibit B
Possible Square Footage and Program Information – numbers may vary from PUD
application. PUD application supersedes.
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
32 | Page
Exhibit C
Traffic Report
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
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 B
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 B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
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 15seconds Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach will experience delaysbefore being able to clear the intersection. The delay could be upto 15 seconds. Left-turning vehicles on the uncontrolled street
may have to wait to make their turn.
C 15 to 25seconds Vehicles on the stop-controlled approach can expect delays in therange 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 vehicleson 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 35seconds This is the point at which a traffic signal may be warranted for thisintersection. 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 50seconds The delays for all critical traffic movements are considered to beunacceptable. 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 trafficsignal 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 riskychances. If the median permits, motorists begin making two-stage
left-turns.
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
33 | Page
Exhibit D
Partial Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Final Report July 2017 - -
LSC parking report and support data.
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
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 B
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Avon Multimodal Transportation and Parking Plan Page 38
Figure 15Summer Parking Count AreasP41st BankATTACHMENT B
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 B
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
consideration 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 B
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 B
34 | Page
Exhibit E
Geotech Report – Revised 2017
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
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 B
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 B
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
Appendix A
ATTACHMENT B
Site Location and Site Photos
ATTACHMENT B
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 1
Figure: Site Location (after GoogleEarth, 2017)
Project: FolsonLocation: Avon, Colorado
nn
Approximate location and
orientation of trench
ATTACHMENT B
DATE: 09-06-17BY: ELB
PROJ. #: 2017.4534 FIGURE: 2
Figure: General Site Photos
Project: Folson Location: Avon, Colorado
ATTACHMENT B
Trench Stratigraphy Photos
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
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 B
Trench Log and Unit Description
ATTACHMENT B
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 6Bench No. 1
Bench No. 2
Bench No. 3
5
ATTACHMENT B
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 B
35 | Page
Exhibit F
Geotech Report – Original 2007
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT B
36 | Page
Exhibit G
Project Images
ATTACHMENT B
37 | Page
ATTACHMENT B
38 | Page
ATTACHMENT B
39 | Page
ATTACHMENT B
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
From: James Gregg
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 3:20 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>
Subject: PUD Colorado World Resorts
Matt
I looked through the proposal on line, as you suggested.
In my opinion, 95' is by far too tall for a building on this site, especially since it is an uphill site, which will make it appear
even taller and it sounds like they are not planning to set it down below existing grade. In addition, the building is
massive and will dwarf everything else around it, including the Ascent. I don't think comparing heights of buildings with
those in the town center is a valid argument. This area is transitioning to residential and there is no commercial zoning
around it,
My other concern is the amount of new traffic that will be generated. I've spent a lot of time on that corner in the last
few years and can attest to the fact that there is a high volume of cars on that roundabout all day long.
Obviously there is going to be development on that parcel. I'm sure Planning and Zoning will make every attempt to
have it blend both into the site and with the surrounding properties.
Thank you
Jim Gregg
Red House Avon LLC
ATTACHMENT C
1
From: Kristi Ferraro
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2018 6:22 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker <mpielsticker@avon.org>
Subject: Folson Property
Hi Matt,
Can you please provide the following comments on the application for the Folson property to P&Z at
the February 6, 2018 meeting?
I believe a 95 foot building height is very inappropriate in this location. As I stated in my comments
on the Traer Creek application, the comprehensive plan contemplates that the building heights in
Avon should be greatest near the Avon Center and the Westin and taper down radiating outward
from that area of Town. Approval of this application will create a canyon wall of height and mass
along Highway 6, and will make this entrance to Avon quite unappealing.
I also don't believe that a variance to allow construction of improvements on 40% slopes should be
granted. Building on such steep slopes will be environmentally disastrous and will create unsightly
development from both inside and outside this building. Approving this application will result in
development that is detrimental to Avon.
Thank you,
Kristi Ferraro
3860 Eaglebend Drive
Avon, Colorado 81620
ATTACHMENT C
1
From: Tamra
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 4:27 PM
To: Matt Pielsticker ; David McWilliams
Cc: Preston Neill <pneill@avon.org>
Subject: Folson Property ‐ public hearing tonight
February 6, 2018
Dear Planning & Zoning Commissioners:
I am in receipt of the Notice sent to property owners within 300 feet, but I cannot attend the P&Z hearing tonight.
I am writing to oppose the Colorado World Resorts application for the Highway 6 property known as
the Folson property.
To summarize, I have severe concerns with a 195-room hotel and mixed use commercial
structure being on “the far side” of Highway 6….nowhere close to our urban core and with
hotel guests unwittingly becoming endangered pedestrians as they try to cross Highway 6 to
make the long walk to Avon’s restaurants, shops and services. In addition, a 95’ height is not simply appropriate outside Town Center.
I have looked at P&Z’s 11 Rezoning Review Criteria for this application and it’s clear to me that this
project fails miserably and simply cannot be approved by your commission.
Among the problems:
1) It does not comply with the Development Code, in fact it violate the goals of the Development
Code in that this massive hotel/mixed-use/condo structure will:
increase traffic congestion outside of the urban center, promote vehicle trips (not mass transit)
and create a deadly pedestrian environment with hotel guests desiring to walk across Highway
6
create significant urban sprawl and environmental degradation including a 95’ building blocking
light from Highway 6 and the surrounding land
2) It does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan
This Gateway District is supposed to create a community gateway (not with a massive 95’building), work well with CDOT’s improvements (again, having so many hotelguests/pedestrians on “the far side” of Highway 6 is just too dangerous) and minimize cut
areas (the slope cuts are too great)
3) The land is not suitable for this use
ATTACHMENT C
2
Just look at the Staff Report – Staff states that the land is “largely not developable”!
4) The proposed project is not compatible with its surroundings
Again, please look at the Staff Report where staff says it is “an island property”… Avon cannot
put a 195-room hotel on an island property!
6) The developer brings no water rights (or other “facilities”) and yet asks for incredibly dense use
7) The application is not consistent with the proposed zoning…it actually does the opposite of theMC zone:
MC zoning is supposed to “link places”
MC zoning is supposed to “create a compact community form”
MC zoning is supposed to “reduce vehicle trips, relieve traffic congestion, and provide aurbanized pedestrian environment”…we simply cannot put Avon hotel guests at risk for being pedestrians on Highway 6
8) The project creates adverse impacts on the natural environment – the steep slope construction
and huge retaining walls are a clear threat to wildlife, vegetation and stormwater management on the
lot and surrounding lands
10 ) There is no mitigation of all the above-described negative impacts
Given the above, and the numerous other problems identified with this project, I ask that you vote to
DENY the application and NOT recommend it for approval by the Avon Town Council.
Very truly yours,
Tamra N. Underwood
ATTACHMENT C
1
From: Carroll Tyler
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 1:59 PM
To: Preston Neill <pneill@avon.org>
Subject: Proposed hotel
The site in question is too tight for a 315 room hotel rising 95 feet in the air next to the Ascent. This is way out of
character for Avon. And there are already several projects in the works that will impact the town with extended
construction for years. Thank you. Carroll Tyler 4737 Wildridge Road
Carroll Tyler
Broker Associate | Realtor
Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate
Protect yourself from wire fraud; Slifer Smith and Frampton associates will never send you wiring instructions.
ATTACHMENT C
Heil Law & Planning, LLC E-Mail: ericheillaw@gmail.com
H EIL L AW
TO: Honorable Mayor Fancher and Town Council members
FROM: Eric J. Heil, Town Attorney
RE: Colorado World Resorts Application: Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication;
Colorado Open Records Act and Development Applications
DATE: February 8, 2018
DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION: Council member Matt Gennett sent e-mail
messages on February 8, 2018 concerning the Colorado World Resort zoning and preliminary PUD
application which was sent to Mayor Jennie Fancher, Council member Scott Prince, Town Manager
Virginia Egger and Planning Director Matt Pielsticker. The e-mail messages ask procedural questions
concerning the review timeframe, analysis of impacts, and referral agencies. The e-mail messages
also express strong concerns that could be interpreted as formulating an opinion prior to the public
hearing. Furthermore, the e-mail messages include accusations of wrong doing on the part of the
Town Manager.
It is my opinion that these e-mail messages constitute Ex Parte communication and warrant
disclosure. Ex Parte communication is a Latin phrase meaning “on one side only; by or for one party”
and refers to when a party to a judicial proceeding communicates with the judge directly without the
other parties’ knowledge. The concern and recommended restriction on Ex Parte communication
applies to “quasi-judicial” proceedings, in which the reviewing body is acting as a “judge” to review an
application at a public hearing, must make a decision based on upon established review criteria, and
which decision is subject to judicial review.
Typically, Ex Parte communications in quasi-judicial development applications occur when the
Applicant or an interested member of the public communicates directly with a member of the reviewing
body outside of the public hearing. This situation is slightly different because it is a communication
from one member of the review body to two other members of the review body. There is no express
written rule concerning Ex Parte communication in the Colorado statutes. Rather, the case of Booth v.
Town of Silver Plume, 474 P.2d 227 (Colo. App. 1970) stands for the rule that Ex Parte
communications should be disclosed, and that failure to disclose can result in invalidating a decision.
The underlying consideration is that parties to a quasi-judicial proceeding have a constitutional due
process right to a fair and impartial proceeding, and evidence of bias or pre-judgment before a public
hearing can result in invalidating the vote of biased member of the reviewing body, or potentially
invalidating the vote of the entire reviewing body.
In addition, the e-mail messages included three Council members and should be disclosed under
the Colorado Open Meetings Act.
My recommendation is that Council member Gennett affirm at the beginning of the public hearing
that he does not have a bias and is able to judge the application on its merits, or if he has already
formulated an opinion on the application, to recuse himself from voting or participating on the
application review.
COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS: The Town Manager
characterized to the Avon Town Council that the Colorado World Resorts Development was
“confidential” when first received and during the initial review period to determine if the application was
M EMORANDUM & PLANNING, LLC
ATTACHMENT D
Avon Town Council
Ex Parte Communication and Public Records
February 9, 2018
Page 2 of 2
complete. Council member Gennett questioned the correctness of this characterization and stated
that development applications are public record when received. I have reviewed this question. The
Colorado Open Records Act establishes a general rule that every document in the Town’s possession
is a public record and then sets forth a series of exceptions for documents and records that the Town
may claim are not public records. None of the exceptions applies to development applications.
There is not a specific mention of development applications in the Colorado Open Records Act
and there is not any case law in Colorado that specifically addresses if development applications are
public records when initially submitted and during the initial completeness review period. I have
researched other states which have held that development applications are public records once
submitted and filed with the local government. I have also found examples of local governments in
other states that include a simple disclosure on development applications stating, “This Application
constitutes a public record and is subject to closure under open records laws.”
This memorandum does not address any formal or informal policies regarding the reporting to
Council and/or the Avon Planning and Zone Commission of the filing and pendency of development
applications and does not address how development applications are publicized. The Town’s only
legal requirement is to post and publish notice of development applications as required by the Avon
Development Code.
Thank you, Eric
ATTACHMENT A: Copy of E-Mail correspondence
ATTACHMENT D
From:Matt Gennett mgennett@avon.org
Subject:Re: Council Updates
Date:February 8, 2018 at 1:28 PM
To:Eric Heil ericheillaw@gmail.com
Cc:Jennie Fancher jfancher@avon.org,Virginia Egger vegger@avon.org,Matt Pielsticker mpielsticker@avon.org,Scott Prince
sprince@avon.org
Eric, all of my questions and concerns raised thus far have been strictly procedural rather than substantive regarding the application. How does this
constitute ex-parte communication? I am not judging or discussing the contents or merits of the application itself. More importantly, WHEN did thiscommunication become ex parte, according to your assessment? I didn't even know the application had been deemed materially complete until Iread the paper today.
We were told to keep the knowledge of it even having been submitted "CONFIDENTIAL" in writing on January 8, 2018. We both know that if aCouncil person is asked whether an application has been submitted for a certain property, answering "yes, please talk to staff" does not constitute exparte communication.What I have described above represents the catalyst of this entire discussion. Again, no one bothered to follow-up and let me know that thisZONING application had been officially deemed materially complete and eligible to proceed through the development review process. When did this
occur?THESE QUESTIONS DO NOT REPRESENT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION in my opinion. Should I consult private counsel?Thank you.Sincerely,Matt
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:10 PM, Eric Heil <ericheillaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Matt, this communication is ex-parte communication between Council members concerning a pending quasi-judicial application and thereforeneeds to be disclosed along with other public comments in the Council packet for the public hearing. The questions you raise below concerningthe application review process will be answered in the staff report accompanying the application.
Thank you,
Eric
Eric J. Heil, Esq. A.I.C.P.Dir 970.468.0635Cel 303.518.4678ericheillaw@gmail.com
This communication may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information. Unauthorized receipt or use of this communication is not permitted. If you have
received this message in error, please delete the message and any attachments and contact Heil Law & Planning, LLC immediately.
On Feb 8, 2018, at 10:29 AM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:
Jennie,
Yes, it's really for Virginia (Matt reports to Virginia) but given the context of all the previous emails on this since 1/9 and my expressed concernsabout the required public process for this project and a blatant lack of transparency (we were told the application had not been found completeand was therefore 'confidential' as of 1/8/18, that's 28 calendar days ago) the questions are for everyone's attention.
How could such a humungous Zoning application with so many large-scale impacts on the Town have been thoroughly analyzed and vetted insuch an incredibly short period of time by staff, referral agencies, and the public (there were just 18 working days from 1/8 through 2/2)? For aproject of this scope and scale, just sorting through the Fiscal Impact Analysis should take at least that long. A maximum of 350,000 square feetand 95 feet tall?!?! Walmart is 180,000 square feet, by way of comparison.
I realize that Virginia does not think very highly of our collective intellect, but personally, I consider this is a severe insult to my intelligence (soshould the rest of Council) and I am DONE with being lied to on a regular basis. The appearance of impropriety looms large here and it certainlystinks of a shady back-room deal that was railroaded through an abbreviated "fast track" opaque process.
Thanks,
Matt
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 8, 2018, at 9:30 AM, Jennie Fancher <jfancher@avon.org> wrote:
Matt,
I am guessing you meant these questions for Matt P and Virginia. I do not have the answers but am hoping Matt and Virginia do.
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT A: E-MAIL MESSAGES
Sincerely,
Jennie Fancher970-390-3089jfancher@avon.org
On Feb 8, 2018, at 8:48 AM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:
Wow. That was fast! As of January 8, the Zoning Application had yet to be deemed complete and was still "CONFIDENTIAL", and less thanone month later it has already sailed through Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval.
Did this go out for referral agency review and how long were they given to respond with comments? What did CPW say? They certainly had
plenty of concerns when Madison Partners applied for a smaller development on the Folson Property. What did USFS and ECO Transit say? What did Eagle County say? How about the School District? Anybody?
Speaking of the Madison Partners PUD, that application took over a year to get through Planning Commission. Just by way of comparison...
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 12, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:
Okay, but please hear me out.
By way of example and comparison, in my day job in a different jurisdiction, I give regular staff updates to Planning Commission andCouncil. In these updates I include a verbal report on current and new projects. All new submittals are included in these reports, includingthose recently received and in the 10-day completeness review process. We also inform everyone that the submitted materials areavailable for review in our offices with the caveat that an application may not have been deemed complete yet and may not be going to
public hearing as submitted.What this provides and embodies is complete transparency and offers the public full disclosure of every single Development ReviewApplication received in our office to date. We are particularly careful to make certain that new zoning applications are highlightedimmediately upon receipt to expedite public notice.Regardless of whether an application is ever deemed complete, we keep a record of it having been submitted and a copy of the submitted
materials on record for accountability purposes.In my professional capacity as Planning Manager, I do not tolerate any attempts to keep submitted applications "confidential" because theyare not. Prior to submittal? Sure. After Submittal? Never.Thanks,Matt
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 11, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Jennie Fancher <jfancher@avon.org> wrote:
Ok. I read it differently - that it is incomplete. In my eyes that makes it unprepared for the process. I think maybe we should reviewconfidentiality at our retreat.
Jennie FancherSent from my iPhone
On Jan 11, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:
Jennie,I know of no complaints other than mine.
The words "a zoning application has been received" are all you need to read!A zoning application is a public document that requires a PUBLIC PROCESS, from start to finish, and once such an "application hasbeen received", it is in the public domain and on the public record. It is public information and I will not pretend it doesn't exist, or thatit is "Confidential", as I am being told to do. What this demonstrates is a willful lack of transparency, honesty, and accountability. It ishighly unethical and simply unlawful to withhold pubic information, which is what we are being told to do if asked about it by a member
of the public. Please keep in mind, I do this for a living and deal with this exact scenario regularly. Words and terms such as"Confidential", "Freedom of Information Act", and "Open Records Request" have actual meaning and can have grave legalconsequences for a municipality.The principles being violated here should not be mine alone but everyone's, including those of the public, mainly their trust in ourgovernment. Frankly, I cannot believe that I need to explain these fundamental differences between right and wrong.
We're giving a protection to one individual or developer that is not available to everyone else (because it is illegal), which alsoconstitutes a grant of special privilege. Thank you, and I hope you're having a good day as well.Matt
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT A: E-MAIL MESSAGES
On Jan 11, 2018, at 10:25 AM, Jennie Fancher <jfancher@avon.org> wrote:
Matt,
I have no idea why you have read so much into this simple paragraph in the Council Update:
"A zoning application has been received for 25 condominiums, 185 hotel rooms and a small restaurant. The developer is
Colorado World Resorts, LLC. The application is not complete, so the project remains confidential. As I shared with youpreviously, the developer would like to break ground this year."
Your principals are disrupted but why? I read this to mean that the project will become public when the application is complete. Isee no mention of fees. If you have been getting complaints from people wanting to know more about this project why are you notdirecting them to Matt Pielsticker?
Mat, I am not trying to be confrontational but would really like to understand what is upsetting you so much about this simple
paragraph.
I hope you are having a good day.
Jennie Fancher
jfancher@avon.org
On Jan 11, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:
Eric,Please don't bother spending much time on this because my point more about principals.Just because someone would like to keep an application a secret doesn't make it confidential. If I or anyone else walked into
Town Hall right now and asked Com Dev what applications are currently under review in the development review process, at allstages of the process including completeness, is staff going to be honest?My point about fees is that once they're paid, a public record exists of the application having been submitted - time, date,everything. It is now a matter of public record. Instructing staff or Council that a public document is to be considered confidential is clear direction to hide something from the
public that is absolutely a matter of public record. I am not okay with this...Thanks,Matt
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 10, 2018, at 7:45 AM, Eric Heil <ericheillaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Matt, thanks for bringing to our attention to the confidential or public status of a development application. The general rule isthat any record or document the Town has is a public document and then there are a series of exemptions which are not
always clear. I don't recall that there is any specific guidance by either statute or case law on development applications, but I'lltake a closer look and provide guidance on development applications as well as correspondence with applicants. Beyond theimmediate question you raised, we often do have initial communications, correspondence and development plan materialsthat applicants and the Town desire, and expect, to keep confidential. I'll try to get back as soon as possible with a specificanswer on the question of whether a submitted development application is a public record during the initial completeness
review period. There are a few other matters I have to work on today and tomorrow, so it will probably be on Friday. I'd alsolike to give Com Dev comprehensive guidance on public records and development applications as long as I'm reviewing theColorado Open Records Act.
Thanks,
Eric
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:Sure, no problem. The fee payment is inferred.If the submitted application is undergoing the 10-day completeness review by staff, the codified development review fee
must have been paid.If the standard fee has not been paid, then staff should not be reviewing the submittal at all.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 9, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Jennie Fancher <jfancher@avon.org> wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. I am just not sure where you saw that fees were collected because I did not see that in theupdate.
Jennie Fancher
ATTACHMENT A: E-MAIL MESSAGES
Jennie Fancher
jfancher@avon.org
On Jan 9, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:
Jennie,
If the fee has been accepted and the application is being processed, it is public and there
is a record of it's existence. If the fee has been accepted, so has the submittal and it is
currently under review by staff at whatever stage of review (completeness, substantive
analysis, etc...).
If anyone wants information about the property or any development proposals submitted
for it, and they file a public records request, the application must be disclosed.
So, it cannot be confidential because it has already been accepted, incomplete or
otherwise. It is all a matter of public record. Therefore, if someone asks whether an
application has been submitted for this property, the answer has to be yes.
Thanks,
Matt
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 9, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Jennie Fancher <jfancher@avon.org> wrote:
Matt,
The way I read the council update was that an application was received but was in
complete. I’m not sure why fees are an issue right now and what that means to you if
the application is incomplete. Would you mind explaining?
Jennie Fancher
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Matt Gennett <mgennett@avon.org> wrote:
Hi Virginia,
I am somewhat confused about the status of the latest Folsom property application.
The update to Council states that an application has been "received", which implies
that the appropriate fee has been paid, certain materials accepted, and the new file is
under review in the Community Development Department.
Unless the application has been rejected and all associated materials, fee included,
returned to the applicant because the submittal is incomplete, it is an active
application and available to the public for viewing at Town Hall.
Any development application for a high profile (pun intended) property such as this
requires transparency on all levels, including the submittal stage of the proposal. If a
member of the public asks Com Dev staff whether any development application for
the subject property has been received by the Town, what is the answer? The
answer is yes, and the predictable follow-up questions regarding the details will
ensue.
Thanks for listening,
Matt
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 8, 2018, at 7:54 AM, Virginia Egger <vegger@avon.org> wrote:
<image001.jpg>
Good morning,
ATTACHMENT A: E-MAIL MESSAGES
Good morning,
The updates are attached. See you tomorrow evening.
Best regards,
Virginia
________________________________________
Virginia C. Egger, Town Manager
970.748.4452 (D) | 970.331.1439 (C) | 970.748.4000 (O)
www.avon.org
<image002.jpg>
<Town Council Update January 8 2018.pdf>
<CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS - Town Council Update January 8 2018.pdf>
-- Eric J. Heil, Esq., A.I.C.P.Heil Law & Planning, LLC
1022 Summit DriveDillon, CO 80435
O 970.468.0635M 303.518.4678
This communication may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information. Unauthorized reciept or use of this communication is not permitted. Ifyou have received this message in error, please delete the message and contact Heil Law & Planning LLC immediately.
ATTACHMENT A: E-MAIL MESSAGES
Colorado World Resorts - Preliminary PUD
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council
From: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018 Meeting
Agenda Topic: PUBLIC HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY PUD APPLICATION, COLORADO WORLD RESORTS, ON THE
FOLSON PROPERTY
ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL
Vote on record of decision concerning a Preliminary PUD Application for Colorado World Resorts Hotel and
Condominium Project
PROPOSED MOTIONS
“I move to approve the Findings of Fact and Record of Decision, thereby approving the Preliminary PUD
Application for Colorado World Resorts.”
SUMMARY
The preliminary (PUD) overlay request from Colorado World Resorts is being reviewed concurrently with a
rezoning application for new underlying zoning of the property. Both applications were evaluated and
acted upon separately by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on February 6, 2018. Final action of
the Preliminary PUD is by motion and vote and approval of a Findings of Fact and Record of Decision.
Conditional approval of the Preliminary PUD, as recommended by PZC and staff, would not provide vested
development rights; rather, it would provide the ability to submit a Final PUD application request.
All details and application materials for the Preliminary PUD request are bundled together with agenda
Item 5.1 – Rezoning from PUD to MC and OLD zone districts. Attached to this report is a draft Findings of
Fact and Record of Decision document for Council consideration. It was drafted to incorporate and expand
upon the motion and vote approved by PZC. Staff has outlined the applicable conditions to be addressed
with a Final PUD submittal, including details for a Development Agreement.
AVAILABLE ACTIONS
• Continue Public Hearing for a maximum of sixty-five (65) days without consent of applicant, or
ninety-five (95) days with consent of the applicant.
• Approve Findings and Fact and Record of Decision, as drafted.
• Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision, with amendments.
• Deny the Preliminary PUD application.
ATTACHMENT
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision
Colorado World Resorts Preliminary PUD
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision: #PUD18001 Page 1 of 3
AVON TOWN COUNCIL
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION
PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
FOR
COLORADO WORLD RESORTS HOTEL & CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
DATE OF DECISION: February 13, 2018
APPLICATION TYPE: Preliminary PUD
FILE NUMBER: #PUD18001
PROPERTY LOCATION: Folson Property | Highway 6 & 24
APPLICANT: Colorado World Resorts, LLC (represented by
TAB Associates, Inc)
PROPERTY OWNER: Colorado World Resorts, LLC
These findings of fact and record of decision for the Colorado World Resorts LLC application
(“Application”) is made in accordance with the Avon Development Code (“Development Code”)
§7.16.020(f):
PRELIMINARY PUD: The Avon Town Council hereby approves the Preliminary PUD Application for the
Folson Property (“Property”), with the following Findings and Conditions:
FINDINGS:
1.The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 6, 2018, after posting
notice of such public hearing in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.16.020(d), Step
4: Notice, and recommended approval of the Application citing conformance with the review
criteria.
2.The Avon Town Council held a public hearing on February 13, 2018, and after posting notice as
required by law, considered all comments, testimony, evidence and PZC staff report prior to
taking action on the Application.
3.The Application is eligible for Preliminary PUD approval based on the eligibility requirements in
Section 7.16.060 (b), Eligibility Criteria, as is more particularly described in the staff report, the
recommendation of the Avon Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Application.
4.The Application meets the PUD Amendment Review Criteria in Section §7.16.060(e)(4), as is
more particularly described in the staff report, the recommendation of the Avon Planning and
Zoning Commission, and the Application.
5.The Application materials include detailed architectural drawings and specifications with respect
to building size, location, setbacks, extent of building height increases, future potential to expand
parking and operation plans to provide and utilize shuttle services for guests and employees;
therefore, the Application provides sufficient information to determine that the Application
complies with the review criteria.
6.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
ATTACHMENT
Colorado World Resorts Preliminary PUD
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision: #PUD18001 Page 2 of 3
value of the investments of owners of property in Town.
7. The Application demonstrates compliance with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan as is more particularly described in the staff report, the recommendation of the Avon Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Application.
8. Compared to proposed underlying Mixed-Commercial (MC) zoning, the PUD overlay exceptions
to development standards in the Development Code would not result in significant adverse impacts
upon other properties.
9. Future residents and the Town will realize a recognizable and material benefit as a whole through
the establishment of this PUD, such benefits include but are not limited to: increased quality hotel
accommodations development in the Town of Avon, increase to economic activity in the Town of
Avon, location of the development on the lower portion of the Property to minimize site
disturbance, preservation of steep hillside open space and construction of a public trail, and
provision of deed restricted worker housing units, which benefits would not be feasible and would
be unlikely without the PUD approval and the exceptions to the development standards for Mixed-
Commercial (MC) zoning, including more specifically, the increase in building height for a portion
of the development on the Property and a reduction in required parking.
CONDITIONS: Approval of the Preliminary PUD Application is subject to performance, satisfaction and
completion of the following conditions:
1. Preliminary PUD approval is contingent upon approval of the underlying rezoning application (File
#REZ18001).
2. A complete Final PUD application must be submitted within six (6) months of Town Council final action
on the Preliminary PUD.
3. The Application shall 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.
c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be submitted for Mixed-Use designation on Future Land Use
Map.
d. Water Rights obtained by UERWA.
4. The complete Final PUD application shall include a proposed Development Agreement that addresses the
following minimum requirements:
a. Worker Housing Units
b. School Site Dedication
c. Park Land Dedication
d. Trail Construction, Pedestrian Gathering, and Restrictive Use of Open Space
Colorado World Resorts Preliminary PUD
Findings of Fact and Record of Decision: #PUD18001 Page 3 of 3
e. Landscaping Guarantees
f. ECO Bus Shelter Replacement
g. Other matters concerning required infrastructure improvements.
5. The PUD Guide shall be amended for Building Height in order to include Zone 5, with assurance that the
building design as presented in the Application and the “L” shaped portion of the structure is regulated in a
similar manner to the Highway 6 side of the building.
APPROVED on February 13, 2018, AVON TOWN COUNCIL
By:_____________________________________ Attest:___________________________________
Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council
From: Virginia Egger, Town Manager
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018
Topic: VAIL CENTRE PRESENTATION: CREATING COMPELLING COMMUNITY IDENTITY
ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL
This is a presentation by the Vail Centre. No action is required.
SUMMARY
Please welcome the Vail Centre’s Executive Director Ross Iverson, who will be presenting a vision for
a potential learning, education and cultural center, in Avon. Ross will be joined by the following team
of presenters:
Terry Minger – Gregory Canyon, LLC
Meredith Miller – 20th St. Strategy, LLC
Stephanie Copeland – Executive Director - Office of Economic Development &
International Trade
Materials, which provide the Presentation Agenda and introduction to the topic are included as
Attachments 1 and 2.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 - Vail Centre Presentation Agenda
ATTACHMENT 2 – Creating Compelling Community Identity PowerPoint
Town of Avon
Vail Centre/Town Center Presentation
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Executive Summary:
A team of community building experts will present their vision of a future community identity for Avon.
The presentation will address the potential that Avon has to link existing assets with new assets that can
create a compelling future pathway for the Town. This presentation is an initial presentation to the
public and council regarding the potential to engage with this planning team and others to explore the
identity of the Town. The outcome of this presentation is to begin a conversation to evaluate if this
vision not only aligns, but may play a role in Avon’s future.
Presenters:
Terry Minger – Gregory Canyon, LLC
Meredith Miller – 20th St. Strategy, LLC
Stephanie Copeland – Executive Director - Office of Economic Development & International Trade
Ross Iverson – Executive Director - Vail Centre
Agenda:
1.Vail Centre Overview
What is the Vail Centre?
What are its current/future needs?
What can It offer the Vail Valley?
What opportunities exist for a Vail Centre/ Town of Avon collaboration?
2.Innovative Town Center Models
What types of models can we look to? (Architectural, Economic, Collaborative, etc.)
Which models best inform Avon’s future?
Which elements are most exciting and/or applicable to Avon’s situation?
3.Town of Avon (Discussion)
What is the Current Avon DNA? Future (Preferred) DNA?
Is there a fit between the examples above and Avon’s vision and potential?
4.What Next? (Next Meeting or Additional Discussion)
How can you get from here to there?
ATTACHMENT 1
Creating Compelling
Community Identity
Prepared for
Avon Town Council
February 13, 2018
ATTACHMENT 2
Introduction
Terry Minger – Gregory Canyon, LLC
Meredith Miller – 20th Street Strategy, LLC
Stephanie Copeland - Executive Director
Office of Economic Development & International Trade
Ross Iverson – Executive Director Vail Centre
Mission &
Vision
Mission
The Vail Centre helps communities and
organizations develop talent for the future.
The Vail Centre is a 501c3 non-profit learning
organization
Vision
In five years, the Vail Centre will be the most robust
community learning platform in Colorado.
Through a collaborative approach working with
individuals and organizations, the Centre’s high
quality and relevant programs will be making a
measurable difference in communities.
Through an innovative campus model, the Centre
will be the connecting hub for career growth and
organizational learning.
Learning
&
Educa.on
Con.nuum
E.C.
Schools
CMC
VVF
Symposium
Vail
Centre
Pre
K-‐12
(6-‐18)
X
X
X
Undergraduate
(18-‐24)
X
Post
Graduate
(25-‐55)
X
Mid
Career
Professionals
(25-‐55)
X
Post
Career
(re.rees)
X
X
Filling a Crucial gap on the Western Slope
Program Overview
Individuals
• Career
Advancement
• Wage
Growth
• Cri.cal
thinking
Organiza.ons
• AUrac.on
+
Reten.on
• Improved
culture
• Expansion
Communi.es
• Economic
growth
• Collabora.on
• Public
service
effec.veness
Partners
Fuel a
World
Class
Platform
Vail Centre - Community Build Out (10 Years)
Program
Planning
Phase
Program
Launch
Program
Growth
Facility
Planning
Open
Facility
Deliver
Economic
Impact
2016
2018-‐2019
2020-‐2025
2020
2017-‐2019
2015
Progress! Vail Centre vs. Aspen Institute
Avg.
Course
Fees
%
of
Programs
for
Locals
Annual
Learning
Program
Days
in
Colorado
Accredited
Courses
Year
Founded
$9,500
47
1949
90%
2015
5%
$3,500
8
48
0
Meeting Focus : Elements of a Project
Iden%ty
Process/Sequence
Funding
Mechanisms
Partnerships
Structure
Leadership
Community
Engagement
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council
From: Preston Neill, Deputy Town Manager
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018
Topic: DIRECTION TO TOWN STAFF REGARDING PREPARING A RESOLUTION FOR REBATING CERTAIN FEES
FOR WALKING MOUNTAINS SCIENCE CENTER
ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL
Council is asked to review a request from the Walking Mountains Science Center for the rebate of
certain fees and taxes estimated at $78,000.00. Pending Council review, if the majority wishes to
provide rebates at any level, staff will prepare a resolution for the rebate(s) for action at the
February 27, 208, Council meeting.
SUMMARY
The Town has received a letter, included as an Attachment, from Markian Feduschak, President of
Walking Mountains Science Center, asking the Town to rebate the anticipated tax on construction
materials and building permit fees associated with the construction of their new Center for
Sustainability. The letter indicates that the estimated amount of tax on construction materials for this
project will be around $40,000.00, while the estimated amount of building permit fees will be around
$38,000.00. The total amount requested for rebate, while estimated, is $78,000.00.
Rebates, if any, would be funded from the 2018 General Fund Contingency line item. The line item
balance is $165,628.00.
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT – Letter from Walking Mountains Science Center
February 6, 2018
To: Avon Town Council Members
RE: Construction Materials Tax and Building Permit Fees Refund Request
From: Markian Feduschak, President
Walking Mountains continues to make positive progress towards our expansion plans as we
have previously shared with town council members. With the recent approval of the minor
amendment to the Buck Creek PUD we are working towards a spring 2018 ground breaking on
our new Center for Sustainability, pending fundraising progress relative to construction costs.
The new Center for Sustainability will allow Walking Mountains to better serve our community
with expanded educational and meeting space and provide much need office and work space
for our growing staff.
As we finalize the design of the Center for Sustainability we have received updated pricing that
is significantly higher than the anticipated budget, most recently in excess of $300K. The total
building costs, including an additional parking lot, will be approximately $4M and all these
funds will be raised from private sources. We have done all we can to reduce these higher costs
through value engineering and reasonable design changes and we continue to work hard to
raise additional funds. None the less, due to increase costs we are at risk of delaying
construction, which could further increase costs. For this reason, and as a 501(c)3 tax exempt
educational organization, we are requesting from the town of Avon a refund on the anticipated
construction materials tax and the building permit fees. These fees are estimated to be
approximately $40,000 and $38,000 respectively and a refund of this total amount would make
a real difference in our ability to break ground this spring.
The town of Avon continues to be an important partner and generous supporter of Walking
Mountains. Support such as the 96 acres conservation easement and the refund of the Real
Estate Transfer Tax make a real difference in our ability to provide our mission to the residents
of Avon and the community at large. As an important community asset, we do hope you will
agree that the benefit the town of Avon receives from Walking Mountains out weights the
amount of the refund we are requesting.
We are most grateful for all the support the town of Avon provides to Walking Mountains. I
look forward to providing you with more information in person regarding our expansion plans
and thank you again for your consideration of this request.
Best regards,
ATTACHMENT
1
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council
From: Virginia Egger, Town Manager on behalf of Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Smith Hymes
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018
Topic: ACTION ON EAGLE COUNTY CLIMATE ACTION COLLABORATIVE MEMBERSHIP FEE REQUEST
ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL
Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Smith Hymes is bringing to Council, as Town Council representative to the
Climate Action Collaborative (CAC), funding requests to support the CAC’s: 1) Hiring of a Project
Manager; and, 2) Delivering an education campaign to the community to reduce emissions. She is
also recommending that a research paper be prepared regarding steps and options to achieve
Avon’s 100% renewable power goal. Action to approve, in whole or in part, with or without
conditions, or to deny the funding requests is by motion and vote.
PROPOSED MOTION
The following motion is drafted to reflect the recommendation of Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Smith
Hymes:
I move to appropriate funding in the amount $14,034.00, for the CAC to: 1) Hire a Project Manager;
2) Deliver an education campaign to the business and residential community to reduce emissions;
and, 3) Provide to Avon a research paper on steps and options for Avon to reach the Town Council
adopted goal of “becoming a municipality which runs 100% on Renewable Power by 2030”.
In addition, I move to appropriate an additional $6,000.00, as a Leadership Funding Challenge, as an
approach to raise matching funds from other communities. Monies raised would be exclusively used
for increasing the compensation package for the Project Manager.
All monies appropriated will be from the 2018 General Fund Contingency line item; and, will be
released when an entity has been identified, which meets financial budgeting and reporting
accountability.
SUMMARY
The Climate Action Collaborative (CAC) was formed in 2017 to bring together Eagle County, and its
jurisdictions, to address the strategies in the Climate Action Plan for the Eagle County Community,
adopted in December 2016. From the work of the CAC, two priorities have evolved, which require
funding: 1) Hiring of a Project Manager; and, 2) Delivering an education campaign to the community
to reduce emissions.
• Attachment 1 details the funding request and formula for the Town of Avon funding share.
• Attachment 2 lists the activities CAC intends to support.
• Project Manager - In review of the CAC budget for the Project Manager, totaling $85,000.00,
Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Smith Hymes questioned whether a $60,000.00 salary would be
2
sufficient to attract qualified applicants to meet the important work of the CAC. The CAC
representatives indicated that a higher salary would most likely be required. As a result,
Mayor Pro Tem Hymes is recommending the salary be raised, if funding can be raised. She is
recommending Avon lead the salary increase through a Leadership Funding Challenge, with
Avon committing $6,000.00, if an additional $6,000.00 is matched by one or more
jurisdictions.
• Community Education - The Town Council, in its adopted Town of Avon priorities (March 28,
2017) for implementation of the County Action Plan, identified that the CAC, rather than the
Town, should develop and deliver an education campaign, which may require additional
funding. The CAC is requesting $85,000.00 for this work, in addition to other strategies listed
in Attachment 2.
It should be noted that Eagle County, with its approval of $56,000.00 to the CAC, also has
approved:
• $20,000 for the Climate Change Community Survey, which was released this week;
and,
• $24,000 for the Actively Green certification program for businesses - this supports
GHG reduction in businesses
• 100% Renewable Energy Research Paper – The Town Council, in addition to the strategies
identified in the Climate Action Plan, adopted a goal for Avon to become a municipality which
runs 100% on Renewable Power by 2030. In discussions with CAC representatives, Mayor Pro
Tem Hymes, asked that the addition of the CAC providing research for this goal be added to
the CAC activities during the funding period.
Funding - Funding, if appropriated, would be from the 2018 General Fund Contingency line item. The
current balance is $165,628.00.
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 - Climate Action Collaborative, Funding Request to Avon Town Council.
ATTACHMENT 2 – Climate Action Plan – Sector Working Groups
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Climate Action Plan – Sector Working Groups, December 2017
Sector: Commercial Buildings & Industrial
Focus on energy efficiency
Provide incentives
Adopt “above building code” standards
Promote and incentivize efficient use of water
Co-chair: Nikki Maline (Energy Smart CO/Walking Mountains)
Co-chair: Mary Weiner (Holy Cross Energy)
Aaron Sifuentes (Eagle County School District)
Sarah Gruen (Basalt Green Team)
Roberto Morales (Vail Valley Medical Center)
Derek Schmidt (East West Destination Hospitality)
Brian Tracy (Eagle River Water and Sanitation District)
Sector: Residential Buildings
Focus on energy efficiency
Expand Energy Smart Colorado program and incentives
Adopt “above building code” standards Promote and incentivize efficient use of water
Co-chair: John-Ryan Lockman (Energy Smart CO/Walking Mountains)
Co-chair: Barry Monroe (RA Nelson)
John Gitchell (Eagle County)
Glenn Phelps (Eagle River Water and Sanitation District)
John Widerman (Town of Minturn)
Sector: Transportation & Mobility
Include local commuter train or bus rapid transit
Expand use of electric vehicles
Encourage multi-modal transportation systems
Strive for efficient land use patterns with housing in proximity to workplaces
Co-Chair: Chris Lubbers (Eagle County)
Co-Chair: Fritz Bratschie/Brian Rodine (Vail Resorts)
Jared Barnes (Eagle County)
Kristen Bertuglia/Mark Hoblitzell (Town of Vail)
Anne McKibben (Town of Eagle)
Adam Palmer (Eagle County)
Sarah Smith-Hymes/Justin Hildreth (Town of Avon)
Conner Van Loan (Tesla Vail)
Sector: Waste & Landfill (Materials Management)
Set a waste diversion goal that is above the national average
Develop a plan to increase waste diversion through recycling and composting
Install waste-to-energy methane capture system at landfill
Provide residential and commercial composting services
ATTACHMENT 2
2
Co-chair: Melissa Kirr (Walking Mountains)
Co-chair: Jesse Masten (Eagle County)
Shawn Bruckman (Ground Up Composting)
Kate McDonald (RA Nelson)
Matt Donovan (Vail Honeywagon)
(And all other members of the EC Materials Management Steering Committee)
Sector: Education & Outreach
Establish climate education team
Create county-wide marketing campaign
Enhance Eco-Schools for K-12 schools
Expand Actively Green business trainings and certifications
Leverage special event platforms to change behaviors
Co-chair: Tom Boyd (Vail Valley Foundation)
Co-chair: Kim Langmaid (Walking Mountains)
Co-chair: Mikayla Curtis (Eagle River Youth Coalition/WECMRD)
Emma Sloan (Intern at Walking Mountains)
Gina Van Hekken (Walking Mountains)
Lana Gallegos (Town of Gypsum)
Preston Neill (Town of Avon)
Buck Elliott (Vail Symposium), Dale Mosier (Alternate, Vail Symposium)
Scott Robinson (WECMRD)
Ray Merry (Eagle County)
Mercedes Quesada-Embid (Colorado Mtn College, BASS)
Suzanne Silverthorne (Town of Vail)
John Gitchell (Eagle County)
Sector: Energy Supply
Expand local exterior energy offset programs (Eco-Build example)
Identify locations for local solar arrays
Encourage energy utilities to set aggressive GHG emission reduction goals
Ad Hoc Group: CAP Structure
John Gitchell
Adam Palmer
Kim Langmaid
John-Ryan Lockman
Kristen Bertuglia
Fritz Bratschie
Sarah Smith-Hymes
Sarah Gruen
Anne McKibben
Tom Boni
John Widerman
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To:Mayor and Town Council
From: David McWilliams, Town Planner
Matt Pielsticker, Planning Director
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018
Agenda Topic: First Reading of Ordinance 18‐02, Approving changes to the Outdoor Lighting Standards
ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL
Before Council is action on First Reading of Ordinance 18‐02, approving changes to the Outdoor Lighting
Standards.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
“I move to approve first reading of Ordinance 18‐02, thereby approving changes to the Outdoor Lighting
Ordinance.”
SUMMARY
Staff was directed by Town Council to conduct an application process to modify the Avon Municipal
Code (AMC) to extend the duration of the holiday lights “season” currently codified.
Holiday lights, defined as “Temporary festive lighting intended to celebrate the winter season and the
Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's holidays”, are exempted from the Outdoor Lighting Standards,
however, they are required to be removed by March 1st. Staff is therefore proposing the following Text
Amendment to AMC Section 15.30.040(3)(a), with the changes highlighted in red:
(3) All lighting (including, but not limited to street, parking lot, security, walkway and building)
shall conform with the definition for full cut‐off fixtures with the light source downcast and fully
shielded, with the following exceptions:
a.Holiday lighting from November 15th to March 1st April 1st.
AVAILABLE ACTIONS
1.Continue the First Reading of Ordinance 18‐02, pending additional information.
2.Approve First Reading of Ordinance 18‐02, and set the Public Hearing and Second Reading of
Ordinance 18‐02 for February 27, 2018.
3.Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council Deny
the amendments.
ATTACHMENT
Ordinance 18‐02
TOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE 18-02
APPROVING CHANGES TO THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon (“Town”) is a home rule municipal corporation and body politic organized under the laws of the State of Colorado and possessing the maximum powers, authority and
privileges to which it is entitled under Colorado law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the home rule powers of the Town of Avon ("Town"), the Town Council
has the power to adopt lighting regulations, and make and publish ordinances necessary and proper to
provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity, and improve the morals, order, comfort, and convenience of its inhabitants; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the modification of the Outdoor Lighting Standards will
promote the health, safety and general welfare of the Avon community; and
WHEREAS, approval of this Ordinance on first reading is intended only to confirm that the Town Council desires to comply the requirements of the Avon Home Rule Charter by setting a public hearing
in order to provide the public an opportunity to present testimony and evidence regarding the application and that approval of this Ordinance on first reading does not constitute a representation that the Town
Council, or any member of the Town Council, supports, approves, rejects, or denies this ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, COLORADO:
Section 1. Recitals Incorporated. The above and foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by
reference and adopted as findings and determinations of the Town Council.
Section 2. Amendment to Chapter 15. 30.040(3)(a) Outdoor Lighting Standards. Section
15.30.040(3)(a) of the Avon Municipal Code is amended to read as follows, with strike out indicating
language to be deleted and underline indicating language to be adopted:
a.Holiday lighting from November 15th to March 1st April 1st.
Section 3. Codification of Amendments. The codifier of the Town's Municipal Code, Colorado
Code Publishing, is hereby authorized to make such numerical and formatting changes as may be necessary
to incorporate the provisions of this Ordinance within the Avon Municipal Code. The Town Clerk is authorized to correct, or approve the correction by the codifier, of any typographical error in the enacted
regulations, provided that such correction shall not substantively change any provision of the
regulations adopted in this Ordinance. Such corrections may include spelling, reference, citation, enumeration, and grammatical errors.
Section 4. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
ATTACHMENT
application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable. The Town Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each provision thereof, even though any one of
the provisions might be declared unconstitutional or invalid. As used in this Section, the term "provision "
means and includes any part, division, subdivision, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase; the term "application" means and includes an application of an ordinance or any part thereof, whether
considered or construed alone or together with another ordinance or ordinances, or part thereof, of the Town.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after public notice
following final passage in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Avon Home Rule Charter.
Section 6. Safety Clause. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the Town of Avon, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The Town
Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained.
Section 7. Publication. The Town Clerk is ordered to publish this Ordinance in accordance with
Chapter 1.16 of the Avon Municipal Code.
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED ON FIRST READING AND REFERRED TO PUBLIC
HEARING on February 13, 2018 and setting such public hearing for February 27, 2018 at the Council
Chambers of the Avon Municipal Building, located at One Lake Street, Avon, Colorado.
BY: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk
ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING on February 27, 2018.
BY: ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________ Jennie Fancher, Mayor Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Eric J. Heil, Town Attorney
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor Jennie Fancher and Avon Town Council
From: Virginia Egger, Town Manager on behalf of Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Smithy Hymes
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018
Topic: APPROVAL FOR MAYOR JENNIE FANCHER TO SIGN THE LETTER URGING CONGRESS TO NOT
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESTRUCTIVE ONSHORE AND SECURE ACTS
ACTION BEFORE COUNCIL
Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Smith Hymes is recommending Town Council pass a motion in support of the
attached letter regarding pending action before Congress, which would transfer control of oil and
gas drilling on public lands to the states.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL MOTION
I move to authorize Mayor Jennie Fancher, on behalf of the Town of Avon, to become a signature
the letter drafted by Mountain Pact, to our Congressional representatives, opposing H.R. 4239, and
S. 2319.
ATTACHMENT
Mountain Pact Letter
[Town Logos]
March 2, 2018
Dear Members of Senate and House of Representatives:
As mountain communities that serve as world-class tourism destinations we would like to encourage you
to consider the implications of H.R. 4239, the SECURE American Energy Act on management of
America’s public lands. This bill, along with S. 2319 the ONSHORE Act in the Senate, would transfer
control of oil and gas drilling on public lands to states. This action would circumvent critical protections
for our watersheds, tourist attractions and outdoor recreation assets, along with public participation
requirements that currently give our community members and business owners a voice in the use of
nearby public lands.
Our communities representing [number of residents] year round residents and [number of visitors]
annual visitors rely on a healthy, well managed and balanced public lands system for continued economic
success. Public lands are the most basic infrastructure upon which the outdoor recreation economy
depends, and therefore public lands management that does not prioritize a balanced multiple-use
mandate would be detrimental to the economic base and vitality of our communities.
States are not bound by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) that require an environmental review process, public comment period, and a balanced
mix of activities on public lands. Because of this, under the SECURE and ONSHORE Acts, drilling on
tens of millions of acres of public lands would be exempt from NEPA reviews. Not only would this
endanger the health and safety of drinking water and the environment, but it would also keep public
voices like ours that will be most impacted out of the development process.
Additionally, the expanded financial burden of regulating oil and gas drilling would shift to states.
However some states face budget shortages and could be unable to perform the necessary regulation and
inspection in spite of promises to do so. Many states are already facing challenges inspecting their existing
oil and gas wells.
Overall, the SECURE and ONSHORE Acts would be detrimental to public lands activities such as
outdoor recreation that drives our economies and communities that rely on the shared and balanced use
of our public lands. We urge you to not move forward with this bill.
Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Sincerely,
[List of Town Names]
ATTACHMENT
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2018
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
Page 1
1.A CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Mayor Fancher called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. A roll call was taken and Council members
present were Megan Burch, Amy Phillips, Jake Wolf, Scott Prince and Sarah Smith Hymes. Matt Gennett
was absent. Also present were Town Manager Virginia Egger, Town Attorney Eric Heil, Police Chief Greg
Daly, Recreation Director John Curutchet, Public Works Director Gary Padilla, Planning Director Matt
Pielsticker, Deputy Town Manager Preston Neill and Town Clerk Debbie Hoppe.
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Fancher requested the addition of an executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice
from the Town Attorney for instructing negotiators under C.R.S. §24-6-402(2)(b). Councilor Wolf asked
for item 6.3.2., Resolution 18-04, to be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilor Wolf moved to
accept the changes to the agenda. Councilor Phillips seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by
Council members present. Councilor Gennett was absent.
3.MEETING PROCEDURES FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2018
4.PUBLIC COMMENT – COMMENTS ARE WELCOME ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA*
There were no comments made.
5.PRESENTATIONS
Start time: 20:41
5.1. VAIL VALLEY SALVATION ARMY PRESENTATION (TSU WOLIN-BROWN)
Tsu Wolin-Brown and Emma Von Arx with the Vail Valley Salvation Army, presented their “Bare
Roots” and “Get Out and Grow Avon” projects.
5.2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION (PLANNING DIRECTOR MATT PIELSTICKER)
Matt Pielsticker gave a brief overview of the Community Development Department. Councilor Prince
asked why Council is no longer receiving notifications of Planning and Zoning approvals/actions.
Matt said they used to do a meeting abstract and he will start sending it out again.
6.ACTION ITEMS
Start time: 54:48
6.1. PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 18-05, APPROVING A MINOR PUD AMENDMENT FOR LOTS
2A, 2B, 3, AND 5, BUCK CREEK PUD (TOWN PLANNER DAVID MCWILLIAMS)
Mayor Fancher opened the public hearing and no comments were made. Councilor Burch moved to
approve Resolution 18-05, thereby approving the Minor PUD Amendment for Lots 2A, 2B, 3 and
5 Buck Creek PUD. Councilor Wolf seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Council
members present. Councilor Gennett was absent.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2018
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
Page 2
6.2. ACTION ON 40TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION PROGRAM AND FUNDING
(COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER LIZ WOOD)
Start Time: 76:40
Councilor Burch moved to approve the program and funding for the 40th Anniversary Celebration with
funding appropriated from the 2018 General Fund Contingency in the amount of $15,372.00. Councilor
Phillips seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Council members present. Councilor
Gennett was absent.
6.3. CONSENT AGENDA
Start time: 95:42
Council moved to item 6.3.2.
6.3.2. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 18-04, APPROVING EASEMENTS FOR THE BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD
STREETSCAPE PROJECT (TOWN ENGINEER JUSTIN HILDRETH)
Councilor Burch moved to approve Resolution 18-04, Approving Easements for the
Beaver Creek Boulevard Streetscape Project. Councilor Phillips seconded the motion
and it passed with a vote of 5 to 1. Councilor Wolf voted no. Councilor Gennett was
absent.
Council moved to the Consent Agenda, minus item 6.3.2.
6.3.1. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 18-06, APPROVING WAIVER AND RELEASE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
FOR LOT 90, MOUNTAIN STAR (TOWN ATTORNEY ERIC HEIL)
6.3.3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 9, 2018 COUNCIL MEETING (TOWN CLERK DEBBIE HOPPE)
Councilor Burch moved to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Councilor Wolf
seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by Council members present. Councilor Gennett was
absent.
7. WRITTEN REPORT
7.3. MONTHLY FINANCIALS REPORT (SENIOR ACCOUNTANT MARTHA ANDERSON)
8. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMENTS & MEETING UPDATES
Start time: 97:33
Councilor Burch asked what the options are for ice removal on the Main Street Mall during the
winter months. Several options to remedy the issue were briefly discussed. Council asked staff to
evaluate the possibility of adding a snowmelt system on the Main Street Mall, possibly in
conjunction with the new hotel development project.
Mayor Fancher suggested pushing the February 6th Retreat time to 1:00 p.m. Staff was asked to send
out another Doodle Poll with potential meeting dates through mid-March. Mayor Fancher also described
some of the topics discussed at the last Mayor/Manager Meeting. Mayor Fancher congratulated Tess
Johnson for being named to the Olympic team. She thanked John Minervini for his years of service on
the Town’s Planning and Zoning Commission.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AVON REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2018
AVON TOWN HALL, ONE LAKE STREET
Page 3
Mayor Pro Tem Smith Hymes talked about the success of the post-holiday Recycling Event on January
13th.
Mayor Fancher made a motion to pause the regular meeting and convene in executive session for the
purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing
strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators, under C.R.S. §24-6-402(2)(e) and for the
purpose of receiving legal advice from the Town Attorney under C. R.S. §24-6-402(2)(b) related to the
potential rental of Town property. The time was 7:29 p.m.
Regular Meeting reconvened at 7:29 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Fancher moved to adjourn the
regular meeting. The time was 7:42 p.m.
These minutes are only a summary of the proceedings of the meeting. They are not intended to be
comprehensive or to include each statement, person speaking or to portray with complete accuracy. The
most accurate records of the meeting are the audio of the meeting, which is housed in the Town Clerk’s
office, and the video of the meeting, which is available at www.highfivemedia.org.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Debbie Hoppe, Town Clerk
APPROVED:
Jennie Fancher ___________________________________
Sarah Smith Hymes ___________________________________
Jake Wolf ________________________________
Megan Burch ________________________________
Matt Gennett ________________________________
Scott Prince ________________________________
Amy Phillips ________________________________
PROCLAMATION
Town of Avon, Colorado
TOWN OF AVON 40TH ANNIVERSARY
WHEREAS, Avon was incorporated on February 24, 1978, and marks the 40th
anniversary of its incorporation in 2018 with a year of celebration and special events;
and
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon honors the hard work of its early citizens and
volunteers who loved their thriving community and organized the successful
campaign which resulted in incorporation in 1978; and
WHEREAS, Avon anticipates a future town that continues to appreciate the
beauty of its natural environment, the livability of the community, and its active and
involved citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon dedicates 2018 as a year of community-wide
celebration to honor our past, celebrate our present and embrace our future.
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Avon Town Council of the Town of Avon,
Colorado, hereby proclaim 2018 as a year of celebration of the Town of Avon 40th
Anniversary, and we urge all citizens to join in the festivities.
Mayor Jennie Fancher
On behalf of the Town of Avon, Colorado
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
From: John Curutchet, Director of Recreation
Meeting Date: February 13, 2018
Re: RECREATION DEPARTMENT & RECREATION/PARKS WORK GROUP
BACKGROUND
The attached PowerPoint presentation has been prepared to provide an update on the Parks Work Group
Work Plan and Recreation Department business and programs. The presentation will include information
and discussion on the following topics:
•Parks Work Group Work Plan
•Community Swim Program
•Adult and Youth Programs
•Summer Beach and Park Programs
•Winter Ice Program
•Revenue, Expense and Visitation report
•Future Projects
ATTACHMENT
PowerPoint
Parks Work Group
John Curutchet, Recreation
Jamie Taylor, Recreation
Gary Padilla, Public Works
Greg Daly, Police
Louise Duncan, Events
Eva Wilson, Mobility
ATTACHMENT
Playground construction
Playground Ribbon cutting plan
Playground ribbon cutting ceremony
Beach parking plan and traffic calming strategies to be decided:
1.Increase right of way surface area?
2.Lower speed limit?
3.Increase signage?
4.Increase on-street markings?
5.Install speed table(s)?
Beach code enforcement, (hours, days, best practice)
Dogs on beach; leash law enforcement
Park open to dogs, 6:00am to 9:00am, (Trial period)
Increase beach swim area; include 50m lanes for long course lap
swimming and a Master swim program
Park restroom program: Shelters installed over port-o-lets
First and Second Quarter Work Plan
Recreation Department Update
1.Community Swim Program
2.Adult and Youth programs
3.Summer Beach and Park programs
4.Winter Ice Program
5.Revenue, Expense, Visitation and Pass Sales
6.Department Projects
Community Swim
Program
AES Learn To Swim Program 74 swimmers fall 2017, Fifth grade Spring 2018
Swim Team Participation significantly increased
10 State/Silver State qualifying swimmers (up from 4)
Free/Reduced Offerings for entire program (except privates)
Private/Semi-Private lesson frequency tripled
Group swim lessons are consistently filling
Community Swim
Program
2016 Highlights
Swim Team Revenues: $9,045
87 private lessons
98 semi-private lessons
165 competitive lessons
2016 revenues: $22,738
2017 Highlights
Swim team revenues: $33,379
515 private lessons
291 semi-private lessons
170 competitive lessons
2017 revenues: $77,058
Adult and Youth Programs
Adult revenues increased from
$19,718-$20,835
Tai Chi
Baby n’ Me Yoga
Tea Kettle Curling
Youth revenues increased from
$154,319$164,279
Partnered with BMHS Athletics
CCAP attendance has grown.
Increased field trip offerings
Summer Beach and Park Programs
SUP and Pedal Boat Rentals
$22,618 (up from $15,725 in 2016)
Destination: Jump, Splash, Learn!
Community Yoga on the Stage
Winter Ice Program
Social Rink
Hockey and League Rink
Skate Night January 10th 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Skate rentals are about 40% higher from 2016
Revenue, Expense, Visitation and
Pass Sales
Year Expense Revenue Recovery
2007 $2,610,660 $1,421,814 54.46%
2008 $2,772,757 $1,336,761 48.21%
2009 $2,983,142 $1,272,902 42.67%
2010 $2,580,331 $1,215,478 47.11%
2011 $2,326,601 $1,209,189 51.97%
2012 $2,148,410 $1,123,163 52.28%
2013 $1,631,867 $1,059,637 64.93%
2014**$1,276,370 $1,035,643 81.14%
2015 $1,141,277 $1,063,323 93.17%
2016 $1,266,188 $1,255,790 99.18%
2017 $1,406,151 $1,415,048 100.63%305
358 360
391
428
441
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Average Daily Visits
**Recreation Department Business Plan adopted
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Adult 2094 3494 3406 4019 4511 4802
Youth/Senior 407 628 739 894 991 866
Family 262 449 503 502 614 472
Punch Cards 1600 2425 2049 2389 2390 2574
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
SalesPass Sales History
SOURCE: DW OPEN HOUSE
JUNE 8, 2017
SOURCE: DW OPEN HOUSE
JUNE 8, 2017
1
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Abstract
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
I.Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:05pm.
II.Roll Call – All members were present with the exception of Commissioner Hardy. Commissioner Barnes
acted as interim Chair.
III.Additions & Amendments to the Agenda – There were no additions or amendments to the agenda.
IV.Conflicts of Interest – No conflicts of interest were divulged.
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
requested that the public hearing be continued to the February 20, 2017 PZC
meeting.
Public Comments: Chris Eckram spoke in general opposition to the application.
Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to continue the public hearing until the February
20, 2017 meeting. Commissioner Golembiewski seconded the motion and the motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
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.
.
Public Comments: Matt Abramowitz commented about potential additional public benefits for the PZC
to consider, including path connection on Highway 6 toward the east to River Oaks.
Action: Commissioner Howell motioned to approve file REZ18001 with the following findings:
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 the staff report;
2
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.
Commissioner Glaner seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.
Commissioner Howell motioned to approve file PUD18001 with the following Findings
and Conditions:
Findings:
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;
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; and
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:
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.
3. The PUD Guide will be amended, Page 25 -Building Height, in order for the "L" portion
of the structure to match the building height of the plans as presented.
Commissioner Glaner seconded the motion and it carried 3-2, with Commissioner
Barnes and Golembiewski voting in opposition.
VII. Meeting Minutes
• January 16, 2018 Meeting
Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to approve the meeting minutes. Commissioner
Howell seconded the motion and it carried 5-0.
3
VIII. Staff Updates
Staff updated the PZC regarding the Town Owned Properties planning effort.
IX. Adjourn - The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 pm.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Catherine Hayes, Board Secretary
DATE: February 6, 2018
RE: Summary of Authority’s January 25, 2018, Board Meeting
The following is a summary of items discussed at the January 25, 2018, Authority Board Meeting:
Board members present and acting included: Chair George Gregory, Vice-Chair Sarah Smith Hymes, Secretary Kim Bell Williams, Treasurer Geoff Dreyer, and directors Pam Elsner and Mick Woodworth.
Rules and Regulations Updates Tug Birk presented updates to the Rules and Regulations. He reminded directors that the document underwent a major overhaul in 2017; at that time, staff committed
to annually updating the document with minor revisions for board consideration. Tug also clarified that Appendix A included rates and fees and was approved with the
Authority’s budget in Nov. 2017.
Water Dedications for
Stillwater and 6 West PUDs
Jason Cowles discussed the District’s Stillwater project as well as Eagle County’s 6
West project. Both the District and Eagle County have Eagle Park Reservoir water to dedicate for these projects, and the board was asked to approve such
dedications. The dedication amounts were calculated at 100% of the anticipated project demand, per a recent policy approved by the board. Jason reminded the
Board that such calculation method is intended to incentivize water efficient design and comes with enforcement mechanisms and measurement capabilities, as well
as water service agreements, all of which are detailed in the PUD guides for each development. The board unanimously approved the water dedications for the
Stillwater and 6 West developments of 1.68789 and 12.56024 acre-feet, respectively.
Restore the Gore Presentation Pete Wadden, town of Vail Watershed Education Coordinator, presented
information on the town’s Restore the Gore campaign. The campaign is part of an
effort to improve the health of Gore Creek, which has been adversely impacted by urbanization, pesticide use near the creek, and an increase in impervious surfaces.
Pete has reached out to landscapers, homeowners, and the community at large to increase awareness of the need to protect and improve the health of the creek.
Water Demand Management Update Maureen Mulcahy, the District’s water demand management coordinator, presented an update on water demand management efforts of the Authority and District from
the past few years. She also noted completion of a draft of the regional water efficiency plan for the Authority and District. Such a plan is now a statutory
requirement, and a grant was received from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to assist with plan costs. Maureen outlined a schedule for plan adoption and
hopes to bring the final plan to the board in July for consideration and approval.
General Manager
Report
Diane Johnson, who was acting GM in Linn Brooks’ absence, noted Eric Kuhn’s
official retirement as General Manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Staff and counsel met with the new River District GM, Andy Mueller, to
provide background on the Authority and District and their relationship with the River District. Ms. Johnson noted meeting with Andy will continue to ensure an
ongoing strong relationship with the River District as items of mutual concern continue to be addressed.
Summary of Authority’s January 25, 2018, Board Meeting Page 2 of 2
Colorado Basin
Roundtable Update
Diane Johnson discussed the history of the basin roundtables, which were
established by state legislation following the 2002 drought. House Bill 1177 created
the nine roundtables in 2005, and the roundtables began meeting in 2006. The Authority and District have had a roundtable presence at the monthly meetings since inception. Diane also discussed funding that the roundtables can provide for
various water-related projects, as well as recommend such projects for statewide
funding. Statewide funding has decreased in recent years due to declining severance taxes as well as a settlement with BP, by which the state must repay BP
a large sum of money.
Waters of the US (WOTUS) Update Diane Johnson updated the board on recent developments regarding the WOTUS legislation. The Obama administration introduced a WOTUS update in 2015 to
replace 2006 legislation. The 2015 legislation resulted in lawsuits filed against the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 23 states, including Colorado. The Supreme Court recently ruled that any challenge should be heard by federal district
court, not the appellate courts.
Continental Divide Recreation,
Wilderness, and Camp Hale Legacy
Act
Diane Johnson said Sen. Bennet and Rep. Polis introduced wilderness legislation
the previous day. She and Linn Brooks received assurance from Sen. Bennet’s aide, Noah Koerper, that the bill did include the agreed-upon language requested
by the Authority and District in the bill’s previous iteration. Glenn Porzak said one addition to the new legislation included recognition of the non-wilderness status of Bolts Ditch in Minturn, which was mistakenly included in the Holy Cross wilderness
boundary when the maps were drawn in 1980. Glenn would also like to include language that Bolts Ditch could be used to fill Bolts Lake.
Finance Report Highlights Diane Johnson discussed the finance report in James Wilkins’ absence. She called
attention to the development impact fees, which for the Authority and Vail water subdistricts and Vail sewer subdistrict, exceeded projections by nearly $800,000. Diane noted payments generally were made for a variety of smaller projects paying
tap fees at year end, not one or two large projects. She also reminded directors that
in 2018, water sales would be presented quarterly instead of monthly.
Proposed Avon Developments Jason Cowles said the town of Avon received notice of a proposed development in
Traer Creek, east of Chapel Square in Avon. It is unlikely that the Kansas City-based developer will meet the intended groundbreaking in summer 2018. Jason also received a referral from the town of Avon for a development on the Folsom
parcel, east of the Ascent. He said such development would reduce the Authority’s
unallocated water pool, though lacking any specifics, he was unable to estimate the impact further. Avon does not have sufficient water to allocate to either project.
Traer Creek Update Jim Collins said the Authority has not received Traer Creek’s tank repair plan. Litigators are working to extend the stay of litigation for a fourth time. A late February mediation date is expected.