Loading...
TC Council Packet 04-27-2004n r FINANCIAL MATTERS April 27, 2004 1. YTD Building Revenue Report Actual vs Budget - March 2004 2. Detail-Real Estate Transfer Taxes - March 2004 3. Accomodations Tax Worksheet Actual vs Budget - February 2004 4. Sales Tax Worksheet Actual vs Budget'- February 2004 \q Mme.-??o OrnMN r-i H q.7 NMOC M 00 [- W OD H m . . . . . . . ?-+ 00NMO OhNm M M N ct• v' M M ?' .-I N N H W t7 W NNNa) r-I OOH O O a MlOwC) OOOCO m m a ?q W ?U o r<ro m<r nCo m co az nNh n I Nmm cr O? M N v' lD ? [? O? d• v? FC N 'J FC CO h H h h to cv cT FC GA Ln u7 r h N m m H 1-? m o W LC)0000-I moOm o 0 N H 0) mNO 1-1 H H IT Q , ?n q m .n Ln M O n Lo 1-1 H = vt- N a' N h O O Ln u) O W f-1 ?-1 N Ln r-i OD N N h h ' H N MMMm Ntf1hH O O 0 a'? W N N r1 M to lO N F? > ?r W W H O (N v' U) 0000 0000 O O In w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O v H > O H N W W N a, U N W - LZ H p: M O O 04 N W N z cz Ln 0 - CO u-) I- h m -1 u) o klo LO to > co H U-) -V v O ko o rn m m ?n a H H H f? lD l0 O H M O In In Ln W Q O W N M M O <H (1) OH N U Om mm Hlo tncn N N co N W z ?n tw 3 W -4 1-1 H N M M O n Hz w a w a 4-J a 0 U H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O U W o 0 0 o O O O o O O t6 T . . • . C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O >4 0000 0000 O O f 3) L L 1 O L n L n O N O O (,j N N b Q1 Nhf-[-? mMtnN N Ln I m m U-) O i to to to ? H N N N b C O U) H I W - W I W C I U) U) g U) co 4-I I U) co H H H W U El E, co > H w C I HHww Ww > cr CT rrxWW Wt4 ai o N W a Oxa,W 44 WW \ 0 a W W z H U) M H a,waq .Y.O•J q H ?CZ UHWa z H U` CDu wU) 0:0 FC 7 zzH xH [:, q H LL H H 2,. U) U z z w F Q w H W a I ; x z g W fZ H H 'D z ? GQ Cn ( D W i r a ; Z a., )( W M W U W U ) Cl E - u z H x x Q'. z a ° z 0 z a aH 0 w w o ff H a H C7 a \z H r+ z N U i LD H M C a H N M a a a N O W q O 0 0 CD O o CD \ U a z u N N N H N N N H H H cU W O U NNNO ? rnv'0 O 0 (D < U) Cu < Ln Ln In H un u) Ln H H H Town of Avon Real Estate Transfer Tax Calendar Year 2004 Purchaser Name Property Amount Received February Balance Forward $ 197,050.94 Holiday Transfer Christie Lodge Timeshare 3.00 Title Comp of Rockies Christie Lodge Timeshare 120.00 Title Comp of Rockies Christie Lodge Timeshare 170.00 Title Comp of Rockies Christie Lodge Timeshare 80.00 Holiday Transfer Falcon Pointe 224.20 Holiday Transfer Falcon Pointe 38.00 Title Comp of Rockies Mtn. Vista # 04-07 7,148.30 Title Comp of Rockies Mtn. Vista # 04-08 10,253.54 Title Comp of Rockies Mtn. Vista # 04-09 8,247.90 Title Comp of Rockies Mtn. Vista # 04-10 6,968.20 Title Comp of Rockies Mtn. Vista # 04-11 7,669.00 Title Comp of Rockies Lakeside Terrace 264.90. Monroe Associates Lakeside Terrace 300.00 Charles W. & Mary Ann Goodin Lakeside Terrace 7,780.00 Fred & William Ebert & Kurt Lemme 111 Swift Gulch Road #202 6,800.00 Deborah A. & Brian R. Gallen 5297 Eaglebend Dr 5,600.00 Elizabeth Peterson & Daniel Torgerson Avon Crossing #3309 1,075.00 Sunrise Management Corp Sunridge D-307 3,120.00 Rhonda R. & James G. Owen Avon Lake Villas K-2 4,940.00 Michael, Nancy & Stuart Seller/Nancy Mast Avon Lake Villas X-2 5,240.00 David A. Burgess Chapel Square B-210 6,860.00 Antonio Roig Ferre Metcalf Commercial Park 3,200.00 Robert J. Alexander & Ellen E. Bellandi Lot 66 Mtn. Star 71,200.00 James Kercher Lot 52 A, Blk 1 Wildridge 6,700.00 Sandra L. & Michael P. Horning Lot 107B, Blk 1 Wildridge 10,380.00 Matt & Jane Ivy & David Liscio Lot 34, Blk 4 Wildridge 7,600.00 Arnold & Anne Menconi Lot 103A, Blk 1 Wildridge 6,400.00 Total March Revenue 188,382.04 Total YTD Revenue 385,432.98 Total 2004 Budget 1,350,000.00 Variance, Favorable (Unfavorable) $ (964,567.02) 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 0 0 0 0 yo D) o ~ r- O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N m O 6 C\i O O O O O O O O O V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E o 0 w 0 ti a (D (D LLI W cf) NY Ix p a ?m Z0 OQ V OQ U V Q N C O O O O U N 0) c) O m N M O O N N O N O, O U'N Y6 U Q O O O N O O O N N U N ti co N .1 co 69 69 r' r-- LO (D h O N O N 69 v c+? ao O cD cD oo M cD (*? Oo (n O O O N st cM N N O M 'V' r (?7 IT M I'- M 000 N M ?t N O 7 u ti 00 07 N fD (n Ld C6 ('J V ( c O O (D O O 'd' N ?- O N W O ((y cl? M W N m O r M ((f !? O (? 00 m 0 0 i? O M et 1? O ((7 "It h N O O 1- 2 (D N V< OLr 0 0 0 a ? I to O O O M O (+) } (D ?^ O O (h V Cn N 1? N N N V (O O h M N O M m m w M I N M to ? M? <t O O Wn ? N C-1 M fl n (O M O Or*-: m 0O N M (`') h (n N O O? M O In N O V- n (D 0 W O O LO M ? M .N- (D - C N V - cr? - n !, 69 NO O N_ h h O?2 O O O 00 N (D (D (f) 't U! M W (17 (D N O 6 (•i O 6 (h 6 (n O (D h M e- t? (D O 0p N m N M NV - M O O N N (r) 69 ? O N 7 ( N- 00 (D 0 m 0 N N u) 0 0- OO O N O O O (D O 00 O N U) O O O O O (D 0) O ?t M N OO (p ? M VN ? O r N CD O n n N N 69 N M 1L'J O ti r 00 N N co O 69 O O O O O O M pV. M O O N CO 0 N 00 00 O N 69 N N N V7 0Y) N 69 O N _(3i 04 N 69 O C1 N 2 m a E E CC -0 C 0) u a) U- Q, Q (!! O Z O A J.. Ct3 ?.r w O v O U O F-? O O N M O 0 N N O N f.. Rt 0 O N 0 0 N a T a O O O O O O ? O O O O O O ON d0 O O 69 69 r. S f/4 69 69 0 f- W W Z N Mry? a ? Q W p 2Z 7 0O w v J Q a m M C O L N 0 E 0 0 o U C f4 .C m N C O O O O U N r) N C) O O 'a O N co M O O N N O O N a O O U O N t0 U Q O O O N m m m \0 \0 \ \0 \ \0 \0 \0 \e 0 0 0 0\0 0 \0 0 \o 0 0 0 0 0 o e d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 C0 0 0 r- O et 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t- 6 O O O O O O C), 6 CD, 6 O O O O O C. O O O O m m ? m I I II 03 V> 1 -11 (D U7 W s- M (MD tN O) N M <t V) O O th 0 (D I-- M m Ir- W N (!) W m t- W r- M m W (6 of N O rl- h h (C) * m 0 I.- m m 0 m U') O W N r- m m ct to O M U) W r-N N N m m U N O (mo ? tO?}} m 0_0 (D N M, a m co co co M M M M U' 69 O D ( . N (D (D ( W D M O U Nv W W (D N .t w m N w 6 O ti O 0 M (p m V' M (o ?t O N (D (V m o M 0 W Cot MY m co M -It N O m ?t r ?t M;: N M M M M m N V3 O W N I*-m.- N N r- WW M W? (D CO co co U') O co U7 N N (O .- 't Ci Cl ((D O O co O 0p C) 00 00 0) LO 0) L,31 V V d N N M M M M M M (?D 69 LO co 0 h `' m (o h _N W rt U) 00 M O M (mD W C\(J O 0o co (n O ?_ mri cD MM O O N (o G d' ct n co co V 'IT co M (`M (D VI). W M It M (D M N O O M W W U7 m v m W U') W m O m U) F N C C 00 m OWO 0 O m P, O r' ? h r h m I'- N I- W W U.) O (o O 0), N U) m (o M W M O h N N O co co co N co <t rt co co co (0 V) (D O M (WD M (ND N co M N M cD O U W co M M rm M m W I r` m (D It to M W W m r O (D m 0) (WD 1 a C04 M M `t m N M M M M N M LO 69 N .OC) a 7 2 U- N N 0 0) 0 m C .0 C m a > U n 11 a) a) 0 a) Q n n Q U) 0 Z n O 06 N 69 O O N N (D d' V) M W U ti U) a V) C CD 69 U? r 0 °) W V 69 m U7 I` W U) co U7 ?P V! N n W LO 'ct 69 39 STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF EAGLE ) SS TOWN OF AVON 1 114v I moo- 10 ntMr-UT UlVtN I HAT A WORK SESSION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, WILL BE HELD APRIL 27, 2004, AT 2:00 PM AT THE AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 400 BENCHMARK ROAD, AVON, COLORADO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING: 2:00 PM - 3:15 PM 1) Planning & Zoning Commission Interviews Applicants include: Chris Evans, Joseph Forish, Ron Neville, Tim Savage, Terry smith, Phil Struve, Robert Seuferer 3:15 PM - 4:15 PM 2) Council Committee Updates -Council members are assigned to several committees and update their progress. Miscellaneous Topics - (Mayor Reynolds) Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District and Open Space Advisory Committee Update (Councilor Wolfe) 4:15 PM - 4:45 PM 3) Public Service Franchise Agreement Discussion - (Scott Wright & Wade Haerle) - Continued discussion regarding the renewal of a proposed 20 year lease with Public Service Company of Colorado 4:45 PM - 5:30 PM 4) Staff Updates a. Recreation Center Updates - July 4th sponsorships (Meryl Jacobs) b. Community Development Updates (Tambi Katieb) c. Village at Avon Material Update (Larry Brooks & John Dunn) Consent Agenda Questions AND SUCH OTHER BUSINESS AS MAY COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL. THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO BY: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Estimated times are shown for informational purposes only, subject to change without notice. Comments from the public are welcome. POSTED AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON ON APRIL 23, 2004: ? Avon Municipal Building, Main Lobby ? Alpine Bank, Main Lobby ? Avon Recreation Center, Main Lobby ? City Market, Main Lobby Avon Council Meeting. 04.04.27 Town of Avon Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Tbru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager(( From: Scott Wright, Finance Directoh Date: April 16, 2004 Re: Gas Franchise Term Extension, Ordinance No. 04-06 Summary: At the last Town Council meeting Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance extending the existing gas franchise agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado for a short period of time. Staff is presenting an extension of 3 months which should be plenty of time to research and resolve the issues that Council presented at the last meeting. Wade Haerle from Public Service Company is scheduled to be present at the Tuesday worksession to discuss the franchise agreement and address these issues. Town Mana er Comments: /Z e.;q ell L , a ?s IVq/ 31,Z-10 y Attachments: A - Ordinance No. 04-06 Memo To: Honorable Mayor & Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Meryl Jacobs, Recreation Director Date: April 22, 2004 Re: Staff updates Summary: Staff will be present at the April 27t" work session to discuss the 0' of July fireworks contract and sponsorship update. Direction will be requested from council on how to proceed, given the status of sponsorship dollars to date. Town Manager Comments: Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager Fran: Tambi Katieb, Community Develop Norman Wood, Town Engineer Date: April 22, 2004 Re: Community Development Update VON C O L O R A D O Community Development will be providing you all with a brief update on various projects at your work session, including: ¦ Geneva Crown Club, project and permit status update (Lot 2, Chateau St. Claire Subdivision) ¦ Avon Express Carwash, project and permit status update (Lot 30, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision) ¦ Comprehensive Plan project status update AVO ?• -.? C O L O R A D O TOM of' Awn P.O. BCD(975 4W Baxttmrk Road Awn, Cobracb8162D 970-798.9005 Office of the Town Manager To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council From: Larry Brooks, Town Manager Date: April 22, 2004 Regarding: Village at Avon Update The Village districts held their monthly meeting this past Wednesday, and Val attended in Scott's absence. The attached document was part of the packet. This document was discussed in executive session, so we don't know the potential direction or use to which the board may be opting to take this information. John and I will review this information, and provide you with any additional material we might gather regarding this matter. Scott will also be available to answer any questions you might have regarding any of the calculations in the attached material. ¦ ¦ April 9, 2004 Traer Creek Metropolitan District i cal. ui Johnson, Holscher & Company, P.C. Certified Public Accountants via fax: 303 987 2032 Deborah McCoy, Traer Creek Metropolitan District 970 748 8900 Dave Kautz, Traer Creek LLC 303 592 4385 Darlene Sisneros, McGeady Sisneros, P.C. 303 825 6525 Munsey Ayers, Otten, Johnson, Neff& Ragonetti, P.C. In re: Status of Calculation of Police Services, The Village at Avon, for 2004 The process and status of the work on the above project is as follows: • Two days were spent with Scott Wright, Finance Director of Avon. His calculation of police service costs and how an equitable formula could be devised were reviewed. In addition, the Police Chief, Jeff Layman, was interviewed relative to the accumulation of data and policing goals. Scott and Jeff were very cooperative and provided information requested and their insight on policing at Avon was helpful. Exhibit A is the September 12, 2003, calculation of police protection based upon 7.6 mills times the assessed valuation. This amount calculates to an amount due of $44,708. • Exhibit B is the January 5, 2004 revised estimated cost of police services for 2004. This formula basis was total budgeted police services multiplied by proportional factors between the Town and the Village. These factors were percent of commercial space, residential units and lane miles patrolled. These factors were given an equal factor of one third and the calculation is on Exhibit B. The amount calculated showed an amount due of $279,705. This formula was reviewed and found to be correctly prepared. The theory of the formula was discussed and attempt to find a better allocation method based upon more direct measurements was agreed to be developed. • On April 8, 2004, this revised formula as discussed and calculated by Scott Wright was received. The total cost for police services is shown as $210,794. This formula allocates direct patrol costs times the percent spent patrolling streets times a weighted factor of village lane miles to total lane miles, The second factor was direct patrol and investigation and dispatch services times percent of time spent responding to calls times a weighted factor of village calls to total calls. This calculation is shown as Exhibit C. Exhibit D is my revision of Exhibit C and calculates an amount due of $113,427. The revisions to the formula are the total lane miles are calculated as 16.33 percent as opposed to 19.51 percent reducing this category of cost from $82,111 to $68,722. The service call factor in part two was reduced from 10 percent to 2.65 percent based upon all incidents as reported in Exhibit E. This reduced this category of cost from $83,819 to $22,188. The third Mcmbcr ofthe Amen= Irwitwe ofCertiSed Public Accountants Member of the Primwo Companies Pmc6rc Section E-Mail: jhandoo@ ridnct.arcnot 5975 Ctaeu"od Plaza Blvd., Suite 140 Greenwood Villa t6CO 80111 3)694.2727 Fax (303)694-3112 factor of indirect cost was being allocated based upon Village Patrol Factor as a percent of total direct costs. This bases of distribution was changed to the percent of residents in the Village to the total residents. The reason for this was indirect costs should be allocated based upon a equal cost per resident. This reduced this allocation from $44,843 to $22,516. Please note Exhibit D has not been discussed with Scott yet pending your approval of this approach. Other observations: The Town has no way to really determine the time spent in the Village as there is no route schedule for police officers or time spent based upon location in the payroll reporting system. To date the Town has not budgeted to increase Police Department costs due to the additional work at the Village The budgeted Police Department costs were: 2004 $1,637,976 2003 1,621:256 2002 1,557,949 2001 1,696,219 2000 1,536,220 1999 1,264,317 I look forward to your comment and direction on the above. Sincerely, Dean H. Johnson, C.P.A. TOWN OF AVON MUNICIPAL SERVICES ESTIMATE FOR THE YEAR 2004 Roads & Streets - $251,648.64 Per attached worksheet Transportation Services -- 0 Police Protection - $441707.53 7.6 mills X 5,882,570 Assessed Valuation = 44,707,532 divided by 1,000 = $44,707,53 Munlclpal Surcharge - $22,226.71 $296,356.17 X 7.5% = $22,226.71 Capital Expenses - $10,268.38 Per attached worksheet Town of Avon Property Tax Revenue from the Village - $52,684.30 8.956 mills X 5,882,570 = 52,684,296,92 divided by 1,000 = $52,664.30 Total Charges -- $ 328,851.26 Total Property Tax Revenue -- (52,684.30) Estimated Billing for 2004 $276,166.96 9/11/03 o34i-o4 vJ 1735 VvFi mKTTEN JOHNSON ROSINSON NEFF & RAGONETTI 303 825 0525 JAN. 9,2004 12:37PM TRAER CREEK 4 Ucaladu of Pabcs Semce$ The tree sit Avon 2004 Aged January 5, 2004 T-180 P.009/009 F-8T3 NO, 088 P. 5/9 TOM ofAvon Statktiea - 2003 Eatimzted Paocj=ted Cast dPolicc Sn-V-14= - 2003 S I,Q1,256 TVW coamwmw 9qu= Fad - 2003 1397,809 Taal gzgid?,DWFmg Units • 2003 3..512 TOW WOW Average Lasso Mw 2003 44.94 Par Cos ==W Sggate Foot Cass - 2003 $ 1.16 Per RUMM W Dwoft unit colt - 2003 5 459,02 ?=L,=eMile Cost -2003 S 36,076.D4 Calculation of ulicr Se vicm - 2004 98 imm Coss:rnaai?Fadw Per Squa Few VM? 307,809 qusamFoot Cosm si lb I18 Fuue Tow Co=ntrdw Coat 8 lFcmr Pstimatzd Residential Duenjog t7aft Via Per R addenatial Dwel ing Time Cast Factor Tani Bumaot3al coat L=* CiPPAgdar 8861"at'l-'d Wcitbl,dAv, Lane bMes Village PorL= AMC Cost Factm Tow Lase M31c Cast Total ESdm*W Cost ,Poore Services - 2004 S 3S7,OSE.44 x 33m% $ 1]9„00758 244 x $ 459.02 $ 112,00458 33.33% S 37,329.89 10.26 x 3 36x076.04 S 370.140.17 x.- 3333°16 S 123„367.72 S 27970519 e Apt- '- uU 4 U lm i pm -t r m- l own ur Avon erua WOU Calculation of Police Services Calendar Year 2004 March 30, 2004 Tuwn of Avoa Statistics Total Town Lane Miles - 12/31103 Total Village Lane Miles - 12/31/03 Ratio of village/Town Lane Miles -12J31 103 Total Town Calls for Service - 2003 Total Village Calls for Service - 2003 Ratio of VIDage/Town Calls for Setvtce - 2003 I-14s r.uu4tuut r-i4G 47.66 930 19.51% 1,000.00 100.00 10.00% Calcul2tjap of Police Services - 2004 EAimotr patrol Factor Calculation Direct Costs - 2004: g 917,726 personnel Costs - Patrol lacement Charges - Patrol & Fleet Re t M Fl 128,488 p ., atu eet Gas. 156,367 VallDispatcb_Scrvlcts 1,20 ,581 % Direct Titre Involved to Patroiluig Streets 00% 35 and Sclf-tnitiated Calls for Service . x 430,903 Rauo of Village Lane Miles to Total Lanz Miles x 19.51% S 82,132 Total Parrol Factor Service Cau Factor Calculation Dtrect COSTS - 2004: $ 917,726 p?rsoruscl Costs - Patrol 75,356 P'?rsonucl Costs - Invesaga.ttons & Fleet Replacement Charges - Patrol Fleet Main. Gas 135,488 , , Ges, Fled Main,,, & Fleet Replacement Charges - Invest. 11,587 156.367 Vail Dispatch Semccs j-,299,524 u/° Direct Time involved in Responding to 65 00% Calls for Scrvice . x 838,191 Rano of village/Town Calls for Service x 10.00% Total Calls for Service Factor S 83,819 .Preparedness, AdMinistration & Support Factor Indirect Costs - 2004 g 265 145.00 Administration Budget , 79,339 Indirect Patrol Costs ,968 Indirect Investigations Costs 346,452 Village Patrol Factor and Calls for Service Factor as a % of'Toml Direct Costs x 12.87% Total Preparedn=, Administration 4 Support Factor S 44,843 Total Police Services Cost - 2004 $ 210,794 1"Ir (t-CJ7-GCJrJ-+ vu• u? Calculation of Police Services CatendarYear 2004 April 8, 2004 Town of Avon Statistics Total Town Lane Miles - 12131/03 47.66 Total Village Lane Mlles -12/31103 9.30 Ratio of Village/Total Lane Miles -12/31/03 16.33% Total Calls for Service All Incidents -12/31/03 19,565 Total Village Calls for ServiceAll Incidents -12131/03 532 Ratio of Village Calls/Total Calls for Service All Incidents - 12131/03 2.65% Total Residential Dwelling Units - 12131/03 3,532 Village Residential D"Illing Units -12/34/03 244 Ratio of Village/Total Residential Units - 12/31/03 6.46% Calculation of Police Services - 2004 Estimate Patrol Factor Calculation Direct Costs - 2004: Personnel Costs - Patrol $ 917,726 Gas, Fleet Maint, & Fleet Replacement Charges - Patrol 128,488 Vail Dispatch Services 156,367 1,202,551 % Direct Time Involved in Patrolling Streets and Self-initiated Calls for Service x 35.00% 420,903 Ratio of Village Lane Miles to Total Lane Miles x 16.33% Total Patrol Factor $ 68,722 Service Call Factor Calculation Direct Costs - 2004: Personnel Costs - Patrol $ 917,726 Personnel Costs - Investigation $ 75,356 Gas, Fleet Maint., & Fleet Replacement Charges - Patrol 128,488 Gas, Fleet Maint., & Fleet Replacement Charges - Investigation 11,587 Vail Dispatch Services 156,367 1,289, 524 % Direct Time Involved in Patrolling Streets and Self-Initiated Calls for Servlce x 65.00% 838,191 Ratio of Village/Town Calls for Service x 2.65% Total Patrol Factor $ __22;180 Preparedness, Administration & Support Factor Indirect Costs - 2004: Administrative Budget $ 265,145 Indirect Patrol Costs 79,339 Indirect Investigation sCosts 3,968 348,452 Ratio of Village ResidentwTotal Residents x 6.46% 22,516 Total Village Share of Police Service Coat - 2004 $ 113,427 VG-VL-Y'/ II •VV ri VRII-VI IGII 4VI111~I n, VIIIJVII nrrr A MWIY6111 VVV VLV V.LV I IVY 1 VV•.r rrr , riV _• Internal Memorandum C ; • ,?.? ?-z 4 'IC Date_ Febnmry4, 2004 (recQ,ye,c 7~3 From: Scott Wright, Finance Director To: John Dtmn, Town Attorney CC: Larry Brooks, Town Manager Jeff Layman, Police Chief Subject: Police Calls for Service (Incidents) -Village at Avon You have passed on a request from representatives of the Village regarding the Town providing statistics of calls for service, or incidents. The Police Chief has given me these statistics as compiled for him by the Vail Public Safery Communications Center (Vail Dispatch). As a practical matter, these statistics represent only 7 months of public acccss and traffic at the Village. Village at Avon vs. All Incidents Incidents 51 vs. 819 Citations 46 vs. 862 Accidents 15 vs. 270 Dispatched Calls 109 vs. 5,105 Self-Initiated 311 vs. 12,508 It should be noted that there maybe some overlap in these figures, i.e. a selfinitiated call may also involve a citation. \3 Staff Memo 2004-003.doe Cee c L,? /1-7 T'11- I,-, t TOTAL P.07 TOWN OF AVON REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 27, 2004 - 5:30 PM MEETING TO BE HELD AT AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD, AVON, CO Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Citizen Input a. Carolyn Bradford, Community Cleanup Event 3. Ordinances First Reading a. Ordinance No. 04-06, Series of 2004, An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 83-20, Series of 1983, Granting a Franchise to Public Service Company of Colorado (Scott Wright) - An Ordinance extending the existing gas franchise agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado for 3 months 4. Resolutions Public Hearing a. Resolution No. 04-13, Series of 2004, Resolution Denying the Rezoning from Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage (old) to Residential Medium Density (RMD) for the 40 Acres Parcel known as West Avon, Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (Ruth Borne) - -- A proposal to rezone a 40-acre parcel from "Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage" (OLD) to "Residential Medium Density" (RMD) by the Vail Corporation. The subject property is located directly west of the end of Nottingham Road, and the rezoning application is part of the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange b. Resolution No. 04-14, Series of 2004, A Resolution Denying Subdivision Sketch Plan approval for the Subdivision of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest % of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (Norm Wood) -- A subdivision sketch plan application to verify suitability of the land for subdivision in conjunction with the proposed zoning application. The subject property is located directly west of the end of Nottingham Road, and the rezoning application is part of the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange Public Hearing c. Resolution No. 04-15, Series of 2004, A Resolution to approve the Village at Avon, Filing 3, Preliminary Subdivision Application (Norm Wood) -- The Village (at Avon) Filing 3 Subdivision is for the purpose of creating road rights- of-way for the extension of Swift Gulch Road from Buffalo Ridge Apartments to its intersection with Post Boulevard and for Post Boulevard to the existing right-of-way at the 1-70 Interchange. Proposed public improvements include construction of roadways and utilities in the proposed rights-of-way. 5. New Business a. Appeal of Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 04-10, approving a parking variance for Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Town of Avon (John Dunn) b. Appointment of Planning & Zoning Commission Members (Ruth Borne) c. Service Agreement with Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District (Larry Brooks) - Consideration of a long-term service agreement between the Town and Bachelor Gulch Metro District for vehicle maintenance Avon Council Meeting. 04.04.27 TOWN OF AVON REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 27, 2004 - 5:30 PM --Page 2-- 6. Other Business 7. Unfinished Business 8. Town Manager Report 9. Town Attorney Report 10. Mayor Report 11. Consent Agenda a. Approval of the April 13, 2004 Regular Council Meeting Minutes b. Western Enterprise, Inc. Contract (Meryl Jacobs) - Contract for the production of the Town's fireworks display to be held July 4m c. CJ Chenier Band Contract - (Meryl Jacobs) - contract for July 4th concerts d. Resolution No. 04-12, A Resolution approving the Final Plat, A Resubdivision of Lot 11, Block 1 Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 1, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (4500 W and 4500 E Eaglebend Drive) (Norm Wood) 12. Adjournment Avon Council Meeting. 04.04.27 To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From; Scott Wright, Finance Directo .r- Date: April 16, 2004 Re: Gas Franchise Term Extension, Ordinance No. 04-06 Summary: At the last Town Council meeting Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance extending the existing gas franchise agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado for a short period of time. Staff is presenting an extension of 3 months which should be plenty of time to research and resolve the issues that Council presented at the last meeting. Wade Haerle from Public Service Company is scheduled to be present at the Tuesday worksession to discuss the franchise agreement and address these issues. Town Manager Comments: e, f, /V 3, z.10 y ?' ? '?t w /r..Sl '?rea n rali?lf .? c E is Attachments: A - Ordinance No. 04-06 ORDINANCE NO. 04-06 SERIES OF 2004 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 83-20, SERIES OF 1983, GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 3 of Article VI of Ordinance No. 83-20, Series of 1983, is amended to provide as follows: "Section 3. Term-Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, as required by law, and the terms, conditions and covenants hereof shall remain in full force and effect through August 31, 2004." INTRODUCED, APPROVED, PASSED ON FIRST READING AND ORDERED POSTED the 27th day of April, 2004, at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny. Town Clerk Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council C O L O R A D O Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development Date: April 21, 2004 Re: Resolution 04-13, A Resolution Denying the Rezoning from Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage (OLD) to Residential Medium Density (RMD) for the 40 acre parcel known as West Avon, Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B, Town of Avon PUBLIC HEARING Summary Vail Corporation is requesting RMD (residential medium density) -15 dwelling units per acre on the lower portion of the West Avon property as required by the terms and conditions of the Exchange Agreement and the Environmental Assessment between the Forest Service and the applicant for the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange. The background of this application is set forth in the Planning and Zoning Staff Report attached hereto as Exhibit "C" along with the agency referrals and the summary application On April 20, 2004 the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously approved Resolution 04-12 denying the rezoning application on the West Avon Parcel. Alternative motions: 1. Hold the public hearing, and adopt Resolution 04-13 denying the rezoning application. 2. Hold the public hearing, deny Resolution 04-13 tabling the application and directing staff to prepare an Ordinance for adoption of the rezoning. Recommended Motion: Follow recommendation of the PI nning & Zoning Commission, and adopt Resolution 04-13 denying the rezoning application fc the West Avon parcel. West Avon Rezoning - April 27, 2004 Council Memo Page 1 of 2 Manager Comments: Attachments: A - Council Resolution 04-13 B - Planning & Zoning Resolution 04-12 C - P&Z Staff Report dated April 20, 2004 D- West Avon application submitted by the Vail Corporation E- ERFPD comments on West Avon F- Colorado Geological Survey geologic hazards review West Avon Rezoning - April 27, 2004 Council Memo Page 2 of 2 Z TOWN OF AVON RESOLUTION NO. 04-13 SERIES OF 2004 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REZONING FROM OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE (OLD) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) FOR THE 40 ACRES PARCEL KNOWN AS WEST AVON, FOREST SERVICE ANNEXATION- PARCEL B, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Vail Corporation Inc., has applied for a rezoning from OLD to RMD for the lower 40-acre portion of the parcel known as "West Avon", Forest Service Annexation- Parcel B as described in the application dated March 8, 2004, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, after notices required by law, a public hearing on said application was held by the Planning & Zoning Commission and unanimously recommended denial in Resolution 04-12 on April 20, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the application failed to comply with the rezoning criteria as set forth in Section 17.28.080, which include the following: A. Is the proposed rezoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned? B. Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan? C. Is the proposed use(s) compatible with the surrounding area or uses? D. Are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Avon Town Council hereby denies the application for a rezoning from OLD to RMD for the lower 40-acre portion of the parcel known as "West Avon", Forest Service Annexation-Parcel B as described in the application dated March 8, 2004, based upon the following the failure to comply with the rezoning criteria set forth in Section 17.28.080: A. The proposed rezoning is not justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned. 1. The proposed rezoning is not justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the West Avon parcel. 2. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan because it fails to comply with the following goals and policies: Goal A2 Ensure that annexed land and adjacent uses are compatible with the community. Policy A2.1 Parcels of land to be annexed will be master planned in conformance with the Land Use Plan and design standards, and clearly show physical, visual and functional connections with the existing Town. Goal A3 Maintain a compact urban form that respects and preserves the natural beauty of the valley, river and surrounding mountains, and maintains distinct physical and visual separations between Avon and surrounding communities. Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated and preserved as open space wherever possible. Goal C2 Provide for affordable housing for permanent and seasonal residents that is safe, attractive and integrated with the community. Policy C2.2 Wherever possible, affordable housing will be integrated with, rather than separate from, the rest of the community. Policy D1.2 New development should only occur where it can be adequately served by public facilities and services. Policy E1.1 Streets should, to the extent possible, effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of transportation. Goal F1 Make Avon's unique natural setting and its open space system central elements to its identity and structure. Policy Fl.l Future development and redevelopment shall minimize degradation to the environment, particularly in sensitive natural areas. Policy F1.2 Development shall not be allowed on steep hillside areas vulnerable to environmental and visual degradation. Goal G 1 Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the year-round leisure time needs of area residents and visitors. C. The proposed use(s) are not compatible with the surrounding area or uses. D. Adequate facilities, including water and legal access, are not available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF APRIL, 2004. TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk F:ACouncil\Resolutions\2004\Res 04-14 WstAvonRezoningDenial.doc 6 TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-12 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REZONING FROM OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE (OLD) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) FOR THE 40 ACRES PARCEL KNOWN AS WEST AVON, FOREST SERVICE ANNEXATION-PARCEL B, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO W HEREAS, Vail Corporation Inc., has applied for a rezoning from OLD to RMD for the lower 40-acre portion of the parcel known as "West Avon", Forest Service Annexation-Parcel B as described in the application dated March 8, 2004, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Rezoning application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered the following: A. Is the proposed rezoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned? B. Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan? C. Is the proposed use(s) compatible with the surrounding area or uses? VA D. Are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado, hereby denies the Rezoning application from OLD to RMD for the lower 40-acres of the West Avon Parcel, Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B, as described in the application dated March 8, 2004, as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed rezoning is not justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the West Avon parcel. 2. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan because it fails to comply with the following goals and policies: Goal A2 Ensure that annexed land and adjacent uses are compatible with the community. Policy A2.1 Parcels of land to be annexed will be master planned in conformance with the Land Use Plan and design standards, and clearly show physical, visual and functional connections with the existing Town. Goal A3 Maintain a compact urban form that respects and preserves the natural beauty of the valley, river and surrounding mountains, and maintains distinct physical and visual separations between Avon and surrounding communities. Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated and preserved as open space wherever possible. Goal C2 Provide for affordable housing for permanent and seasonal residents that is safe, attractive and integrated with the community. Policy C2.2 Wherever possible, affordable housing will be integrated with, rather than separate from, the rest of the community. Policy D1.2 New development should only occur where it can be adequately served by public facilities and services. Policy E1.1 Streets should, to the extent possible, effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of transportation. Goal F 1 Make Avon's unique natural setting and its open space system central elements to its identity and structure. Policy F1.1 Future development and redevelopment shall minimize degradation to the environment, particularly in sensitive natural areas. 4 Policy F1.2 Development shall not be allowed on steep hillside areas vulnerable to environmental and visual degradation. Goal G1 Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the year-round leisure time needs of area residents and visitors. 3. The proposed use as RMD is incompatible with the surrounding area and uses. 4. There are not adequate facilities available to serve this development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone. Adopted this 20`x' day of April, 2004 Signed: c,f Date: Chris Evans, Chairman Attest: Date: 20 O Terry Smith, S retary F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2003\Res 03-07 L13 B1 BMBC SRU Fiasco.doc 01 Staff Report ?. ?rI ZONING CHANGE VON C 0 L 0 R A D d April 20, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date April 13, 2004 Legal description Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B Current zoning OLD - Open space, Landscaping, and Drainage Proposed zoning RMD - Residential Medium Density Address Lower 40 acres of the Forest Service Parcel known as Parcel B - West Avon Introduction The Vail Corporation has submitted a re-zoning application for the lower 40-acres (southern portion) of the Forest Service Property - Parcel B, also known as the "West Avon Parcel" and part of the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange. The area'sought to be re-zoned actually consists of 22-acres of developable area for RMD, multi-family dwellings at a density not to exceed fifteen dwelling units per acre. Accompanying the rezoning is a sketch plan subdivision application. Comments on the subdivision application prepared by Norm Wood, Town Engineer are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" The Forest Service has cooperated in submitting this application to comply with the terms and conditions of the Environmental Assessment and Exchange Agreement for the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange. On June 20, 2000, the Avon Town Council passed Resolution 00-31, which endorsed the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange specifically with regard to developing 40 acres of the West Avon parcel (478-acres) with 300 affordable housing units on the lower portion, and the remainder of the property as dedicated open space to be retained in a conservation easement by the Eagle Valley Land Trust. In 2002, the Town Council allocated $300,000.00 from the capital improvements budget to complete the land exchange. Last summer, Vail Corporation brought up the land exchange issue under citizen input with the Town Council at a regularly scheduled meeting held in Wildridge. Several citizens supported the exchange along with representatives from the Forest Service, Western Land Group, and Eagle Valley Land Trust. The Council again endorsed the land exchange and appropriated $300K in the 2003 budget with the following recommendations: ¦ Limit the development to 250 for-sale units Minimize traffic impacts. Provide road improvements to ensure that service levels will be maintained at "D" or better. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 West Avon Rezoning April 20, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 6 ¦ Address the transit issue To date, there have been no land exchanges in whole or in part for Vassar Meadows. The re- zoning application complies with the terms of the Exchange Agreement to obtain zoning for the West Avon Parcel for affordable housing units as contemplated in the Environmental Assessment. The Exchange Agreement may be terminated in the event that zoning for West Avon does not occur. The Vassar Meadows Land Exchange may still occur in another form as suggested by some community members such as preserving the entire 478-acre West Avon parcel as open space or some other land exchange configuration. What is imperative is that the zoning be pursued with the Town of Avon. Therefore, Vail Corporation has submitted an application for rezoning the property for 300-affordable housing units. Rezone Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Municipal Code, Section 17.28.080, the following evaluations shall be made in reviewing rezone applications: 1. Is the proposed rezoning justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned? There are significant changing conditions related to this application. When the concept of affordable housing on West Avon was initiated in 2000, the Town was anxious to continue to provide affordable housing with the rate of development activity and overall growth. Since that time, several projects have been built throughout Eagle County (Eagle Ranch, Miller Ranch, Chatfield Corners, etc) to address the needs of affordable housing, including Buffalo Ridge with 244-rental apartments without any transit service accessing the Town. In spite of Council's recommendations last summer, Vail Corporation is not limiting this project to for- sale units and is seeking to preserve flexibility for the RMD housing product. Currently, there is no justification to support more affordable housing of this type, and the application is contrary to the existing goals of preserving open space. 2. Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan? Goal A2 Ensure that annexed land and adjacent uses are compatible with the community. When the Forest Service parcel was annexed into the Town of Avon in 1991, the parcel was contemplated as open space and has continued to provide a rare amenity in the Town and the community for accessible open space. In addition, the concept of having residential development immediately adjacent to industrial commercial land uses is not compatible and flies in the face of effective planning for the Town's future. The approval of the Barrancas PUD evidenced this conflict with affordable housing. Policy A2.1 Parcels of land to be annexed will be master planned in conformance with the Land Use Plan and design standards, and clearly show physical, visual and functional connections with the existing Town. There are no physical or functional connections with the Town contained in this application. Nottingham Road does not directly access this parcel Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 11/ West Avon Rezoning April 20, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 6 and has to cross two properties, one of which would require rezoning to obtain access because it is also zoned OLD, which does not contemplate streets and roads as a use by right. Goal A3 Maintain a compact urban form that respects and preserves the natural beauty of the valley, river and surrounding mountains, and maintains distinct physical and visual separations between Avon and surrounding communities. The concept of developing 300-housing units on the lower bench of the existing open space does not respect the natural separation between Singletree and the Town. The current visual separation is an asset of the Town and should be preserved. Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated and preserved as open space wherever possible. The geologic hazards on this site and debris flows identified by Koechlin Consulting Engineers and Church & Associates-Engineers and Geologists further support preserving the parcel as OLD. Goal C2 Provide for affordable housing for permanent and seasonal residents that is safe, attractive and integrated with the community. This proposal does not integrate affordable housing with the community. There is no access, transit, recreational amenities, or bike trails proposed in this application. The project will be isolated from the rest of Town and immediately adjacent to an industrial zone district with commercial traffic and intensity of uses. Policy C2.2 Wherever possible, affordable housing will be integrated with, rather than separate from, the rest of the community. Again, this project is not integrated into the community and is isolated from the rest of Town. Policy D1.2 New development should only occur where it can be adequately served by public facilities and services. The impact of no transit and lack of other services and amenities for low- income housing is not served by this application. Policy E1.1 Streets should, to the extent possible, effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of transportation. There is no real access or other modes of transportation or pedestrian access addressed in this application. Goal Fl Make Avon's unique natural setting and its open space system central elements to its identity and structure. It is imperative Avon preserve this natural setting for open space central to the community. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 IN West Avon Rezoning April 20, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 6 Policy FLI Future development and redevelopment shall minimize degradation to the environment, particularly in sensitive natural areas. West Avon is a sensitive area with migration impacts to wildlife and the existing geologic hazards. This proposal will not minimize degradation to the environment both visually and physically. Policy F1.2 Development shall not be allowed on steep hillside areas vulnerable to environmental and visual degradation. Again, there are steep slopes with existing geologic hazards for an existing area contemplated as open space, not residential development at 15 dwelling units per acre. Goal GI Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the year-round leisure time needs of area residents and visitors. This application does not address locating new residents to an isolated area of Town without parks and trails. There does not appear to be any consideration to the existing amenity of open space and continuing to provide access to it for the residents. 3. Is the proposed use(s) compatible with the surrounding area or uses? The surrounding uses are industrial-commercial with large truck traffic and limited amenities for residential development. The proposed use of 300-affordable housing units is incompatible with this area of Town. 4. Are adequate facilities available to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone? As outlined above, there is no viable access presented in this application, and the intensity of low-income housing is not served by rezoning to RMD in this portion of Town. Additionally, in December 2002 we prepared a memo outlining the proposed impacts of the West Avon parcel on municipal services for the Town based upon 350 multi-family units. A copy of the memo is attached hereto for your review as Exhibit "B" . The memo addresses road maintenance, traffic, transit impacts and police services for a total costs to the Town of $472,214.61. The memo does not address other financial impacts associated with more affordable housing in the Town with an occupancy of approximately 60%, initial capital costs as well as ongoing operational implications. Although not a requirement for rezoning, the application does not present any offsets to these impacts to the costs of services to the Town. The infrastructure may be provided if the subdivision process were to proceed, there are no water rights for this development. This issue is outlined in the Environmental Assessment, previous staff correspondence, and the Town Engineer's comments (Exhibit "A"). With the current profile of housing in the Town combined with the lack of compliance with the provisions of the Town Comprehensive Plan, we would be remiss in recommending approval of this application. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 West Avon Rezoning April 20, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 6 Staff Recommendation Although the initial concept of creating affordable housing on West Avon received support, after careful review and consideration of the rezoning criteria, staff recommends denial of the application. The application does not meet any of the rezoning criteria and is not in the long- term interest of the Town for areas dedicated to affordable housing. Recommended Motion "I recommend approval of Resolution 04-12 recommending denial of the rezoning application dated March 8, 2004 for the West Avon parcel from OLD to RMD based upon the following criteria: 1. The proposed rezoning is not justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of West Avon. 2. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan because it fails to comply with the following goals and policies: I Goal A2 Ensure that annexed land and adjacent uses are compatible with the community. Policy A2.1 Parcels of land to be annexed will be master planned in conformance with the Land Use Plan and design standards, and clearly show physical, visual and functional connections with the existing Town. Goal A3 Maintain a compact urban form that respects and preserves the natural beauty of the valley, river and surrounding mountains, and maintains distinct physical and visual separations between Avon and surrounding communities. Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated and preserved as open space wherever possible. Goal C2 Provide for affordable housing for permanent and seasonal residents that is safe, attractive and integrated with the community. Policy C2.2 Wherever possible, affordable housing will be integrated with, rather than separate from, the rest of the community. Policy D1.2 New development should only occur where it can be adequately served by public facilities and services. Policy E1.1 Streets should, to the extent possible, effectively accommodate transit, pedestrian, bicycle and other modes of transportation. Goal F1 Make Avon's unique natural setting and its open space system central elements to its identity and structure. Policy F 1.1 Future development and redevelopment shall minimize degradation to the environment, particularly in sensitive natural areas. Policy F1.2 Development shall not be allowed on steep hillside areas vulnerable to environmental and visual degradation. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 1l-,) West Avon Rezoning April 20, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 6 Goal G1 Provide an exceptional system of parks, trails, and recreational programs to serve the year-round leisure time needs of area residents and visitors. 3. The proposed use as RMD is incompatible with the surrounding area and uses. 4. There are not adequate facilities available to serve this development for the type and scope suggested by the proposed zone. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748.4030 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, R2hGO. Bo e, Director Community Development Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 Xt v MEMORANDUM To: Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development Cc: Larry Brooks, Town Manager Tambi Katieb, Town Planner From: Norm Wood, Town Engineer Date: April 12, 2004 Re: West Avon Re-Zoning and Subdivision Sketch Plan Application COMMENTS: The Town's Subdivision Regulations state that the following factors shall be considered in the review of a subdivision sketch plan: A. Conformance with the master plan, policies, guidelines, zoning and other applicable regulations; B. Suitability of the land for subdivision; C. Reports and studies of significant hazards, areas or activities of local interest. We have been identified the following issues as being related to these factors in the course of our review of the West Avon Re-Zoning and Sketch Plan Applications as submitted March 8, 2004. 1. Subdivision Plat - The Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Applications must include the entire land trade area or as a minimum, the applicable section aliquot lines that define the area being subdivided to create the proposed platted area. The area outside the proposed platted area should be zoned OLD per current zoning designation. 2. Access - The application documentation includes the following information related to access: a. There currently is no legal access to West Avon. The identified potential point of access will be from Nottingham Road. This access location will require access across two privately owned parcels. One parcel is zoned IC and will require relocation of the existing parking, circulation and storage areas and the second parcel is zoned OLD. The second parcel will require a zone change to allow the construction associated with the proposed access. b. The proposed zoning and development will require a subdivision variance from road standards to allow a cul-de-sac with a length greater than 1000 feet and serving more than 20 residential units. The proposed cul-de-sac would extend approximately 4000 feet beyond the Metcalf Road intersection and would serve approximately 300 residential units per the proposed zoning. L'Engineering\Land Trade%Sketch Plan-Memo I.Doc ?' l 3. Water & Sewer - The application documentation assumes that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Avon Metropolitan District will provide water and sewer service to the site. The documentation makes no reference to the acquisition or dedication of water rights required to serve the development allowed by the proposed zoning. It must be substantiated through the subdivision process, that sufficient water rights are available to serve the development allowed by the proposed zoning. 4. Geologic Hazards - Various geologic constraints including subsidence potential, hydrocompactive soils, areas of debris flow, areas of very active debris fans and areas with potentially corrosive and expansive soils are noted as present on the West Avon parcel. These constraints must be fully identified and measures implemented through the subdivision process to mitigate associated potential hazards to development allowed by proposed zoning. 5. Traffic - A traffic impact analysis prepared by TDA Colorado was submitted with the application documentation. The traffic impact analysis indicates that Nottingham Road intersections will perform at a satisfactory level of service with some relatively minor modifications at the Metcalf Road intersection in conjunction with improvements included in the town's current capital improvement program. The analysis indicates that Tract Y, Mountain Star should participate in the cost of the Metcalf Road intersection improvements. These improvements will be addressed in the subdivision process and it is not anticipated that Tract Y will be required to participate in the cost so long as the proposed development is within allowed uses in the current zoning. 6. Impact on Public Facilities: a. Public Parks and Recreation - The Sketch Plan does not identify a commitment of land or financial resources to the impacts of development associated with proposed zoning on existing town resources. b. Transportation - The submittal does not address impacts of the subdivision and potential development associated with the proposed zoning on the town's municipal transportation system. C. Bikepaths - The submittal does not address the potential extension of the existing Nottingham Road Bikepath to serve the proposed subdivision. All of the above issues should be considered in the review of the proposed zoning application and must be addressed in the completion of the subdivision process. L\Engineering\Land Trade\Sketch Plan-Memol.Doc Q Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager Fran: Ruth Borne - Community Development, Harry Taylor -Transportation Jeff Layman - Police, and Norman Wood - Engineering Dale December 20, 2002 Re: Proposed Impacts of Land Swap Parcel In response to recommendations made at the Council Retreat held on December 17, staff has compiled a summary on the proposed impact of the Land Swap property on basic public services for your review. The projections are based upon the following assumption: • 350 multi-family units with a maximum occupancy of 1,400 persons Additionally, occupancy rates are low at the moment in the market (around 60% at the moment) for employee housing, though this figure fluctuates and potential public service impacts should be estimated on 100% occupancy. Based on our currently existing employee housing projects, the most significant impacts may be on mass transit since most employees rely heavily on local public transportation. This summary does not include any initial capital investments associated with the improvements nor does it include the proposed impacts on: Eagle River Fire Protection District, Library District, Avon Recreation Center and its associated parks, and pedestrian access and circulation. Potential Traffic Impact The traffic impacts are two-fold, and include maintenance and overall increased traffic. The approximate increase in impact to each area is specified below, and the potential average daily trips (ADT) may be referenced in the traffic analysis of Nottingham Road as prepared by the Town Engineer: Maintenance • Road extension of 4000 feet of two-lane sections; • Road maintenance cost is $33,722,44/lane mile/year, which is from the HUTF Report filed with CDOT for 2001 costs and includes all maintenance and snow removal costs; 4000ft x 2 lane sections x $33,722.44 / 5280 = $52,094.61 = Potential cost of $52,094.61 year. Increased Traffic • Traffic Trips ADT (Average Daily Trips): 6 trips / residential unit/ day (consistent with the ITE trip generation manual and actual counts for the Wildridge area) 350 x 6 = 2100 Potential ADT Memo to Town Council, December 20, 2002 Re: Potential Impacts of Land Swap Property on basic public services Page 1 of 3 tot Potential Public Transit Impact While traffic is an important element to any new high-density seasonal employee residential project, transit costs will have the most overwhelming impact. Based upon our current understanding of seasonal employees, many of whom do not own vehicles and rely heavily on local transportation for work as well as recreation. The proposed expense for this project on transit is as follows: Hours of operation: 7:00 am to 11:45 pm daily 365 days/year. Service Hours required: 19 hours per day x 365 days/year = 6,935 service hours annually Operating Cost per Hour Repair & Maintenance Cost/ Hour Vehicle Replacement Cost/ Hour Total Cost/Hour $35.87 x 6,935 = $248,758 $11.06 x 6,935 = $76,701 5.00 x 6,935 = $34,67 5 $51.93 = $360,134 Effective Annual Cost: 6,935 annual service hours x $52.00 (total operating cost per hour) _ $360,620 The effect on mass transportation from this project would require an additional $325,459 in annual expenses to the Transportation budget (operating, repair, and maintenance costs only). We have purchased buses separately through grant programs to defray the full capital costs, which include vehicle replacement costs per hour. Should the grant program not be available at the time a project such as this is constructed, we would absorb the additional replacement cost of $34,675. Potential Police Service Impact Finally, the impact of police services is another critical element in evaluating a seasonal employee housing project. • Based upon service call request at River's Edge, a 300 bed seasonal housing project owned/operated by Vail Associates located on Highway 6 adjacent to Beaver Creek Subdivision; there were 70 calls in 2002-approximately 20% were multiple officer response calls. • The average length for each call = 1 hour @ a cost of $142/hr. • Annual availability of each police officer is approximately 1700 hours • The project will generate 326 service call per year - 93 of the call will require multiple-officer response for a total of 419 total officer responses • 419 hours constitutes 24% of one officer's time • 419 hours x $142/hr = $59,500.00. The effect on Avon Police service is potentially $59,500 per year to provide the current level of service to this type of project. While the occupancy rate of River's Edge in 2002 was approximately 60%, actual police service costs should be assumed at 100% occupancy for any large project of this type. At 100% capacity, potential service costs would be approximately $99,166. Memo to Town Council, December 20, 2002 Re: Potential Impacts of Land Swap Property on basic public services Page 2 of 3 .t? Summary In overview, there are significant public service costs associated with approval of a seasonal employee housing project in the Town that should be specifically evaluated prior to vesting the property with any land use approvals. We have summarized only transit, traffic and police protection. There are additional financial impacts we have not documented to arrive at an actual cost of public services for this type of project. Additionally, initial capital costs should be evaluated as well as ongoing operational implications. The projected costs we have provided are $52,094.61 for road maintenance with an increase of traffic of 2,100 average trips a day. Transit costs are an additional $360,620.00 per year. The increase of police protection services will be approximately $59,500 for a total cost to the Town of $472,214.61. Town Manager Comments Memo to Town Council, December 20, 2002 Re: Potential Impacts of Land Swap Property on basic public services Page 3 01 3 n l WEST AVON RECEIVED Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Subdivision Application app -1 5 2004 1. INTRODUCTION Community Development This report outlines the proposed re-zoning and sketch plan subdivision that will result in the development of approximately 22-acres of land commonly referred to as "West Avon". While West Avon is currently owned by the United States the Department of Agriculture and administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS), the property is subject to a pending land exchange that when completed will convey the property to The Vail Corporation (VR). VR is the applicant of both the re-zoning and subdivision applications. Material submitted provided for these applications includes the following: 1. Sketch plan subdivision map in accordance with requirements set for in section 16.16.050 of the Municipal Code, 2. A certified zoning map of the area proposed for re-zoning in accordance with section 17.28.070 of the Municipal Code, 3. Applicable application forms, fees, adjacent property owner's list, etc. as required by the two sections cited above. The balance of this report has been prepared in conformance with requirements of sections 16.16.050 and 17.28.070 for written statements pertaining to both the proposed re-zoning and sketch plan subdivision. As outlined in the town's development review procedures for re-zonings and subdivisions, an environmental impact report may be required if deemed necessary by the zoning administrator. It is assumed that this staff determination will be made following an initial review of this application. If an environmental impact report is necessary, it will be submitted under separate cover in the next seven to ten days. West Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND West Avon is an element of the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange project. This exchange involves a number of parcels and a number of participants. The most prominent lands involved are the 440-acre Vassar Meadows property located south of Eagle, Colorado and the 478-acre West Avon parcel. In June of 2000 the Town of Avon approved a resolution endorsing the proposed exchange. In December of 2001 the USFS approved the land exchange and shortly thereafter the parties involved executed a formal exchange agreement. The land exchange contemplated future development on a portion of the 478-acre West Avon parcel. As presented to the community during public comment periods and as evaluated by USFS environmental assessments, the development concept for the property involves the construction of approximately 300 affordable housing units. The development site is located at the southernmost portion of the parcel and as evident by correspondence from the land exchange would range in size from 30 to 40 acres. The land exchange also contemplates a conservation easement being placed on the remaining portion of the West Avon parcel that would restrict future development - essentially preserving this area as an open space parcel. These re-zoning and sketch plan subdivision applications represent an initial step in the Town's development review process and have been submitted in order to begin the implementation of these provisions of the land exchange. 3. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The entire 478-acre West Avon parcel was annexed to the Town in 1991 as a part of an annexation that included a number of other USFS parcels. The entire property is currently zoned OLD-Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage and extends from the I-70 corridor on the south to the Wildridge Subdivision on the north. It is bordered by the Singletree Subdivision on the west and the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision on the east. west Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications 20 The portion of the West Avon parcel subject to this re-zoning and sketch plan subdivision application is located at the southern end of the property along a terrace overlooking the Eagle River Valley. Land uses immediately surrounding West Avon include the I-70 corridor to the south, USFS lands to the north and west (as contemplated by the land exchange, these lands will be restricted as open space by a conservation easement), and a portion of tract land in the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision on the east (this parcel is currently zoned OLD). West Avon is situated on a predominantly south-facing hillside of the Eagle River Valley and includes a number of intermittent drainage channels. Topography ranges from quite flat on southern portions of the site to very steep along the drainages on the northern portions of the site. Vegetation is sparse and comprised primarily of sage, pinyon and juniper habitat. The property is undeveloped with the exception of an overhead power line and informal trails. A more detailed description of the physical characteristics of West Avon is provided in various reports found in the appendix. Refer to the West Avon Parcel Vicinity Map for a depiction of the West Avon parcel and its relationship to the surrounding area. West Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications _5? rir !i - fi`y-) ?j11X err l-. , i= 1 ??? 1? rl + t'? * f 15 l ??4 '? T- ??.1 ?1V?-„???``,• ? i?' A?? ' ??? ?t?, ?? 1. :, II ? a'r :Ji+ 1'?????( ? :Ir'r"'f ?, f 5 .t ?All .A?/ ? }I \'? M1+ Ali J I f _ 1 I , s I ( _ '?? ? ILII a t ?r r' 1 t -7- ')j`,?i ._ -, _??„ , ( iti. 7 Its ?.,?„ I?'?,"r' ?? ti?? I :? ?y?, ?. _ .} +( 777 Irk, 'Ilk IJ < r a ;, ?'' ???I r ? ??s ?1? 'y I -,i? CI ? \? f ?e ? ! •i 1?1 ??' - ^4: 17- ? { f t ?,'? _ ?. f`ir'. ? ! ?r?` ? - • ' .'\ , - a c ?h i . a Ct• at( us i D1 T / 8 s. 'rl 1 r % yam- -- j77 = ll Jl , L.. t 1(y J} ? L r "? . f? I I} I' 1 4 , S?l '' , l( 1 i / 4 = }lM r K ^ 7600 •"?',,•?-' T? . ' = 7-11 yam` ? _. " . = M . L ?? ?-;y d I l 1 7-Z LEGEND A(kFAGl: 1'1'1\CPV'T I'rol- d ()pen S}lace I ircel ,S 91 6°„ Propv?,cd A1101 11,1111C I100sin[; 111 8, (R(''-Lfllle' hl RNID) I,N 1(10°„ PROPOSED WEST AVON RE-ZONING/SKETCH PLAN 1115 l 11'(lV 1'Il IV l il' \i;AP Y All, \t ll?, I I 4. SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION Subdivision approval will be necessary prior to the development of West Avon. A sketch plan application has been submitted as the initial step in this process. While the proposed sketch plan subdivision includes a 40-acre parcel, the three development areas depicted on the sketch plan comprise only 22 acres. It is assumed that the balance of the West Avon exchange parcel (approximately 438 acres) will remain unplatted. Written information required for a sketch plan subdivision is similar in nature to information required for the re-zoning request. To avoid redundancies some information required for subdivision review is found below in the re-zoning section of this report. A copy of the proposed West Avon Sketch Plan is attached. Road System As required by town code, the West Avon Sketch Plan depicts future development areas and proposed road systems (including approximate road grades and widths). As is typical of the "sketch plan level" of design, these aspects of the plan are conceptual in nature. It can be expected that refinements to this plan will be made as more detailed information is developed during the preliminary plan design process. The road system is designed to provide access to three different development areas. The design of these roads has been influenced primarily by the topography of the parcel. West Avon is confined by the I-70 corridor on the south and open space parcels on the east, north and west. These existing land uses coupled with topographical constraints result in a road system with only one possible point of access. This possible point of access will be from Nottingham Road. Town regulations limit cul de sacs, or dead-end streets to no more than 1,000 feet in length. As such, as a part of this subdivision application a variance to this road standard is also requested. Cul de sacs or other suitable "turn-around alternatives will be provided at the end of these two dead-end roads. West Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications "t West Avon abuts the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, however, the property does not abut a town right-of-way. It is assumed that when the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision was platted there was no requirement to extend a right-of-way to the westernmost portion of the subdivision because the adjoining property was owned by the USFS. As such, West Avon does not currently have legal access to town roads. Two privately-owned parcels would be impacted by the extension of the town's Nottingham Road right-of-way to West Avon. Immediately adjacent to West Avon is Tract A of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek subdivision. This tract is currently an open space parcel. The second parcel is currently developed and used for industrial/warehouse purposes. In order to facilitate access to West Avon and to maintain existing uses on this industrial/warehouse parcel, it will be necessary to re-locate existing parking, circulation and storage areas. The only possible location for these uses is within Tract A. Tract A is zoned OLD and it is assumed that the introduction of these uses will necessitate re-zoning a portion of this tract. While efforts have been made to secure this access, there currently is no legal access to West Avon. Development Areas The three proposed development parcels depicted by the sketch plan comprise a total of approximate 22 acres. Coupled with the proposed RMD zoning (see below), these development parcels have been designed to achieve the approximately 300 units of affordable housing as contemplated by the land exchange. Exclusive of land used for road rights-of-way, it is anticipated that the remaining 18 acres of West Avon will be left as open space. A slope analysis of the area to be subdivided is also attached. Source of Domestic Water and Sewer Service It is assumed that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Avon Metropolitan District will provide water and sewer service to the site. The method of distribution is described in the West Avon Conceptual Utility Analysis (see attached). West Avon 6 Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications tiD S Ii 8 AREA 2 12 ACRES RESIDENTIAL p U v 4 O n . -..-.. -..-.. --. -..-..-..-..-..-.. -.. -..? I 40 TOTAL ACRES 1 SKETCH PLAN W EST i j ------------------------- I. I AVON i POSSIBLE ACCESS I? T srn= r-iw v LA LEGEND PROPOSED WEST AVON RE-ZONING/SKETCH PLAN s3 v dCi l Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council AVO N C O L O R A D O Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Tambi Katieb, AICP, Community Development Date April 22, 2004 Re: Appeal to Town Council of Planning and Zoning Commission Approval of Parking Variance for Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision Summary On April 6, 2004 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variance application for a determination on parking standards for the Tract Y project. The variance was approved through Resolution 04-10, and applied only to the portion of this project that is proposed as self-storage use. The remainder of the project is parked per the Town Code standards. The Tract Y property is located at 0910 Metcalf Road and is a parcel in the Mountain Star Subdivision. T.J. Conners, a noticed property owner and operator of the AAA mini storage and Warehouse Facility on Metcalf Road, has appealed the Commission's decision to Town Council. According to Section 17.36.050 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission made the following written findings before granting this variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Memo to Town Council, April 22, 2004 Page 1 of 2 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, variance Appeal Town Council must review and consider the same criteria in choosing one of the alternatives for this appeal request. A copy of the staff report and findings is attached for your reference, and staff will be available to answer any questions that you may have on this matter. Council Alternatives • Uphold Planning and Zoning Commission decision • Overturn Planning and Zoning Commission decision • Remand decision to Planning and Zoning Commission for further review Town Manager Comments mss,. Staff Recommendation Uphold Planning and Zoning Commission decision, thereby denying the appeal. The decision was made after significant deliberation and based on both the documentation provided by staff, the applicant, public comment (including T.J. Connors) and in consideration of the staff recommended and adopted conditions of approval as stated in Resolution 04-10. Attachments: A. Staff Report for Variance Application dated March 30, 2004 B. Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 04-10 C. Minutes from April 22, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting D. Appeal Request from T.J. Connors dated April 23, 2004 E. E-Mails Establishing Appeal date of April 13, 2004 F. Letter from Mark Donaldson (applicant) dated April 22, 2004 G. Memo Re: Process: John Dunn / Norman Wood Memo to Town Council, April 22, 2004 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Variance Appeal Page 2 of 2 i--- Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: John Dunn, Town Attorney Norman Wood, Town Engineer Date: April 23, 2004 Re: Tract Y, Mountain Star - 0910 Metcalf Road Parking Variance Appeal Summary: John Dunn has supplied the following with respect to questions regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission Approval of a Parking Requirement Variance for proposed development on Tract Y, Mountain Star. We believe this addresses questions related to the validity of the appeal based on the time of filing. It is in no way intended to establish validity for the basis of the appeal related to the criteria for consideration of a variance approval or corresponding appeal. Avon Municipal Code § 17.36.080 provides that any interested person may appeal to the Town Council a decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission, granting or denying a variance, provided that a notice of appeal is filed with the Town Council within seven days after transmittal of the decision to the applicant and the Town Council. The decision of the Commission now being appealed to the Council was made by the Commission at their meeting on April 6. T.J. Connors was an interested party in proceedings before the commission in that he owns property within 300 feet of the property for which the variance was granted. As you can see from the copies of a-mails in your packet, on April 13 Connors inquired as to his appeal rights but was advised by the Director of Community Development on April 14 that the decision was final and could not be appealed. That error was compounded by confusion over two issues, the first whether the time for appeal was as stated above or whether it was thirty days from the decision of the Commission. As is indicated above, the time for appeal of a decision granting or denying a variance is seven days after transmittal of the decision while AMC § 2.16.160(c) provides that the time for appeal is thirty days "unless otherwise specifically provided in this Code." The decision being appealed by Mr. Connors consisted of both granting a variance and other issues. It has been concluded that, since Mr. Connors is appealing only the variance, § 17.36.080 applies. The second issue was whether Mr. Connors has standing. Initially it was thought that he did not. Further review of the record revealed that he was provided notice as an adjacent property owner. The fact that he was designated to receive notice is conclusive and he does have standing. J:Vounal\MEM )S\2004\TW Y NMR Appeal Supplenxi tDoc z The confusion with respect to those issues is regrettable, but the important point is that Mr. Connors made every effort to bring his appeal within the time provided. The fact that he did not fully perfect it until after the deadline can only be attributed to staff error. Therefore as a matter of fairness arid, legally speaking, equitable estoppel, the Town ought to treat the appeal as timely filed on April 13. Town Manager Comments: • Page 2 D(? 5. PROPOSED RE-ZONING The land exchange contemplates the development of 300 employee/affordable units on West Avon. The Residential Medium Density-RMD zone district is proposed for the parcel in order to allow for this level of development. A 40-acre parcel is proposed for this new zone designation. This parcel size was determined by evaluating the site and potential development areas (as depicted on the sketch plan). While a total of 40-acres are proposed to be re-zoned, only 300 units will be developed. As described above, it is anticipated that approximately half of the West Avon parcel will remain undeveloped. In accordance with the town code, the following addresses the seven points to be described in a re-zoning request. Need for re-zoning The proposed re-zoning is necessary in order to implement the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange and to create sites for the construction of more affordable/employee housing within the Town of Avon. The land exchange contemplated future development on a portion of the land to be acquired by VR (the West Avon parcel). As presented to the community during public comment periods, as evaluated by the environmental assessments, and as articulated in correspondence from the USFS, the development concept for the property involved the "future construction of approximately 300 affordable housing units on approximately 40 acres of land". Impacts on adjacent zone districts uses physical character of surrounding area The future development of this parcel will impact the uses and physical character of adjacent zone districts and properties. Potential biotic impacts from the development of West Avon have been assessed in the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange Environmental Assessment. These future impacts could most directly affect elk habitat and to a lesser degree mule deer habitat. A copy of relevant sections of this assessment is found in the appendix of this report. West Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications 9 _n i (14 1z O I- Q w U) VA, INC. \ BOOK 626, PAGE 450 UNPLATTED 3 LAND USE. OPEN SPACE ,U) ZONING: RESOURCE W .z N'01'30"E 00 En ?8 3.2?' I? POINT OF BEGINNING LAND DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado. Said parcel being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2 from which the Southwest corner of said Section 2 bears S00'01'30"W, 736.82'; thence along said West line N00'01'30"E, a distance of 83.27 feet; thence departing said West line S89'04'27"E, a distance of 2692.80 feet to intersect the East line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2; thence along said East line S00'23'29"E, a distance of 634.92 feet to intersect the northerly line of the Interstate 70 right-of-way, thence along said right-of-way line the following two (2) courses and distances 1) S74'20'57"W, 584.58 feet; 2) S73'59'36"W, 63.35 feet to intersect the South line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 2; thence along said South line N89'04'27"W, a distance of 940.93 feet to intersect said northerly line of the Interstate 70 right-of-way, thence along said right-of-way line the following two (2) courses and distances; 1) N57'42'56"W, 424.65 feet; 2) N55'39'24 W, 936.47 feet to the Point of Beginning. The above described parcel contains 1,742,384 square feet or 40.000 acres of land more or less. Bearings contained herein are based on an assumed bearing of N89'04'27"W, 2698.77' between the South 1/4 comer and the Southwest corner of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, both found BLM brass caps. Dana B. Spigener State of Colorado PLS No. 33655 Date S89'04'27"E 2692.80' DESCRIBED PARCEL 1,742,384 SQUARE FEET 40.000 ACRES PROPOSED RE-ZONING: R.M.D. LI O M.OD Co L OI O z SOUTHWEST CORNER SECTION 2 FOUND BLM BRASS CAP Srq -o N89'04'27"W 1132.69' NOTICE: According to Colorado Law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this exhibit within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this exhibit be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. _ , _... _....... SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2 T5S, R82W OF THE 6th PM U.S. FOREST SERVICE UNPLATTED LAND USE: OPEN SPACE ZONING: O.L.D. U.S. FOREST SERVICE UNPLATTED LAND USE: OPEN SPACE ZONING: O.L.D. AVON RANCH CO. BOOK 332, PAGE 416 4o BOOK 333, PAGE 177 S73'59'3g"W ?. VAIL/ARROWHEAD, INC. n ZONING: O.L.D. 63.35 S(2 BOOK 626, PAGE 450 m oi S6 ZONING: O.L.D. SOUTH LINE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2 ?2?65 N89'04'27"W 940.93' 216.69 v1 774'2,C' 1?_ .dwg, 3/17120041:46:35 PM, XFILES - 455.56--___.._ INTERSTATE 70 NORTH LINE 1-70 RIGHT-OF-WAY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS - PROJECT No. 1-70-2 (9) N89'04'27"W 625.15 1"=200' N ?I ?I N I 71 a m TRACT A BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK LAND USE: OPEN SPACE ZONING: O.L.D. 0) W Tn OD SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 2 FOUND SLM BRASS CAP ED WARDS BUSINESS CENTER P.O. BOX 97 • EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 t (970) 926-3373 FAX (9701 926-3390 MAP OF Pl?'?+CaP+C E? 1W-zCVyr40 OAF WE'BT AVON Access to the West Avon site will impact existing uses on Lot 29, Benchmark Subdivision. The extension of Nottingham Road through this lot, if it happens, will require the redesign and construction of new parking and truck loading areas for the existing user. This will require significant grading and the construction of extensive retaining walls in order to be accomplished. New parking and truck loading areas for Lot 29 will likely need to be located on Tract A of the Benchmark Subdivision. This land is currently zoned Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage. A change to this zoning will likely be required in order to introduce this "industrial" use to this open space parcel. Geologic constraints are also present on the West Avon parcel. These include areas of the site with subsidence potential and hydrocompactive soils, areas of debris flow, areas of very active debris fans and areas with potentially corrosive and expansive soils. In some cases it is suggested that these hazards be avoided (i.e. do not develop in debris flow channels), in other cases mitigation is possible (i.e. construct detention basins to contain debris flows). Potential future impacts on adjacent property should be minimized by on-site geo-hazard mitigation. A copy of this report and a report summarizing geotechnical field observations is attached. Impact on area accesses and traffic patterns It is assumed that site traffic generated by West Avon will outlet to Nottingham Road. A traffic impact analysis has been prepared by TDA Colorado, a copy of which is found in the appendix of this report. The conclusion of this analysis is that with improvements to Nottingham Road both the intersections and roadway will perform at an acceptable level of service. Availability of utilities The West Avon Conceptual Utility Analysis has been completed by Alpine Engineering and is found in the appendix of this report. This analysis assumes shallow utilities can be extended from Nottingham Road to West Avon. The same is true of water service. Two West Avon 11 Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications 95?) alternatives are available for sewer service, either extending lines to Nottingham Road or boring under I-70 to existing lines south of the interstate. The selection of final alternatives and capacity evaluations of existing systems will be completed as part of the preliminary plan process. Impacts on public facilities and services (fire police roads water, sanitation parks schools, transit) It is anticipated that the development of West Avon will impact fire and police and the town's park systems. The degree of impact will be consistent with the level of service typically required or associated with employee/affordable residential projects. It is assumed that some level of on-site recreation facilities may be provided on-site. School impacts of residential development are typically quantified by the town's school dedication requirements. The 300 units proposed by this development are assessed at a rate of .002676 per unit. This equates to .8028 acres of land or cash in lieu of land. It is assumed that as a referral agency the School District will provide comment on how they prefer this dedication requirement be satisfied. Impacts to roads, water and sanitation are outlined in reports found in the appendix. Relationship to comprehensive plan This project's relationship to the Avon Comprehensive Plan is best expressed in terms of how it conforms with the goals and policies, the land use plan and sub-area design guidelines. ¦ Goals and Policies The following goals and policies are most relevant to this project: Policy Al. 6 Land for open space should be preserved throughout the community, particularly on steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas. West Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications 12 3`? Policy A3.4 The Town should provide for the acquisition and maintenance of available federal and state lands adjacent to the Town as open space and for other public purposes. Policy A3.7 Steep slopes in and around the community should be designated and preserved as open space wherever possible. Policy A3.9 The Town shall work to facilitate trades of U.S. Forest Service land that are in the best interest of the community, while being sensitive to potential impacts on existing neighborhoods. Goal C2.1 New development, annexations, and major redevelopment shall include or otherwise provide for affordable housing. ¦ Land Use Plan The Town of Avon Overall Land Use Plan designates the entire 478-acre West Avon parcel as Open Space. As such, the portion of the parcel to be preserved as open space is entirely consistent with the Land Use Plan. However, the 45-acre West Avon parcel proposed to be re-zoned to RMD is not consistent with the Land Use Plan. ¦ Sub-Area Design Guidelines There are no sub-area design guidelines specific to this parcel. Public benefits arising from project The proposed re-zoning and sketch plan subdivision are the first steps toward the development of West Avon and also represent the implementation of the Vassar Meadows Land Exchange. Public benefits from this project include: ¦ An increase to the supply of affordable housing units, and ¦ The implementation of the land exchange will result in the preservation (via conservation easement restricting future development) of approximately 433 acres of land as open space. West Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications 13 36 6. APPENDIX Conceptual Utility Report Geo Hazard Report Geotechnical Observations/Report USFS Vassar Meadows Land Exchange Environmental Assessment Traffic Impact Report West Avon Re-zoning and Sketch Plan Applications 14 3? To: Ruth Borne, Director of Planning, TOA From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 4/7/2004 Re: West Avon Parcel, Rezoning The above project was reviewed for fire department concerns with the following comments: - Access to the property is proposed via Nottingham Road through an adjoining property. This is the only access to the project. In the event of an evacuation, residents and emergency vehicles would traveling in conflicting directions compromising emergency response. A variance request on the Town's limit to 1000' on dead end roads has been identified with alternative turn-arounds proposed. Turn-arounds shown on the sketch plan would not be acceptable for emergency vehicles without further research. Roads, grades, turning radii and building access would have to accommodate the needs of Ladder 130. - It is assumed water would be supplied by Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. The water analysis indicates adequate water supply for domestic uses. Additional information on building size and type construction is needed to analyze fire sprinkler system requirements and demands. A wildfire threat analysis is required to evaluate potential and emergency response needs. If there are any other questions, please give me a call at 970-748-4741. 3? STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY EA-04-0009 Legal: SW '/4, Sec. 2, T5S, R82W April 16, 2004 Ms. Ruth Borne Town of Avon Community Development Department PO Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 RE: West Avon Parcel Rezoning and Sketch Sub. geologic hazards review Dear Ms. Borne: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Thank you for the submittal of the West Avon Rezoning and Sketch Plan application submittal. At your request the Colorado Geological Survey is providing a technical review of the geologic hazards and geologic conditions that may impact the proposed development. Included with your submittal was a GBC-bound application by the applicant dated March 8, 2004 that included, pertainable to this review, a geologic hazards assessment by Church and Associates, Inc. dated October 29, 2003 and Geotechnical Observations letter from Koechlein Consulting Engineering, Inc. dated October 8, 2003. The development plan shown in figure 5 of the Church report does not match that shown in the application sketch plan. Also, the areas enumerated in the Church report were not indexed to a site map and do not match the sketch plan. The CGS conducted a site inspection of the property on April 7, 2004. Please consider the following observations and recommendations as you review this land-use development plan. This site is on the north side of the Eagle Rive valley and north of Interstate 70. The parcel is 478 acres, of which most will remain open space except for the southern 40 acres (that borders the I-70 easement), which is being proposed for re-zoning and sketch plan residential subdivision. This review will focus on the lower 40 acre tract that is proposed for development. In this tract the east side is characterized by bedrock hillsides and high-slope pediment surfaces where the toe of the slope has been excavated for the highway alignment. The west area is at the base of the hillside in a low area where a tributary valley and ephemeral stream enters. This low area appears to be a major corridor for elk and mule deer. A recently killed elk carcass was off the shoulder of the westbound lanes at the time of the CGS inspection. Other older carcasses and bone sets were observed around this main western drainageway in what is shown as Area 1 in the Sketch Plan. The application shows a conceptual site plan with three residential areas. Area 1 in the west portion that is located as the base of the hillside in lower areas near the major drainage outlet. Area 2 is 3% the center area higher on an old pediment surface, and Area 3 is a much steeper area on the east side. Access is proposed from the east via Nottingham Road. We generally concur with the assessments in the application report concerning the geologic hazards and conditions for the site. Debris flows, erodible soils, hydrocompactive soils, and potential subsidence by evaporite dissolution are the major geologic hazards that will impact this development. A major ephemeral stream outlets into Area 1 so a drainage/debris flow mitigation plan is needed before any further planning commences. Steep bedrock exposures exist in the eastern portion of Area 3. As shown in the Sketch Plan, significant areas of it should be removed from proposed developable areas. The steep slopes and tight constraints for Nottingham road alignment will lead to significant geotechnical design and construction issues. Expect significant and costly cuts, fills, and ground retention system to facilitate this road alignment. Area 2 of the Sketch Plan that sits on an old pediment surface is the most problem-free of the areas, but still may have problematic soils, such as hydrocompactive, erodible, and corrosive soils that will require careful geotechnical engineering. A major ravine bisects area 2 and small debris fans currently exist in the highway shoulder at the mouth of the ravine. This area should be avoided, and care in grading and drainage made so that no increase in peak discharge to the ravine is caused by development. Because of the direct impact to Interstate 70, a drainage plan is needed for this ravine and basins that do, or will, flow to it. In closing, area 2 of the sketch plan appears adequate for future planning but development will likely need to be split to each side of the major ravine there. Area 1 may have significant flooding risk and should be further evaluated before any future planning commences. Area 3 is very steep and much of it should be taken out of development consideration. Further investigations are needed for this proposal before a preliminary plan can be submitted, and we would recommend they be submitted to CGS for further review. If you have any questions about the content of this review please call (303) 866-3551 or e-mail: jonathan.white(c?,state.co.us Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Engineering Geologist S\ Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer Date: April 21, 2004 Re: The Vail Corporation - Subdivision Sketch Plan Application Resolution No. 04-14 - Denying Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest'/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado Summary: The Vail Corporation has submitted application for Subdivision Sketch Plan approval in conjunction with an application for re-zoning of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest 1l/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. The proposed re-zoning would convert the Parcel from Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage (OLD) to Residential Medium Density (RMD). The Subdivision Sketch Plan Application shows a schematic layout of building areas and a possible extension of Nottingham Road to the Parcel and assumes that water and sewer service will be provided by the Avon Metropolitan District and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The purpose of the review is to determine suitability of the sketch plan and establish guidelines and conditions for proceeding to preliminary plan, or provide reasons for not proceeding to preliminary plan. Per Section 16.16.030 of the Avon Municipal Code, the factors to be considered in the review of a subdivision sketch plan are: A. Conformance with the master plan, policies, guidelines, zoning and other applicable regulations; B. Suitability of the land for subdivision; C. Reports and studies of significant hazards, areas or activities of local interest. 1AEngineeringTand Trade4Sketch Res Memo.Doc We have identified the following issues as being related to these factors in the course of our review of the West Avon Re-Zoning and Sketch Plan Applications as submitted March 8, 2004. 1. Subdivision Plat - The Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat Applications must include the entire land trade area or as a minimum, the applicable section aliquot lines that define the area being subdivided to create the proposed platted area. The area outside the proposed platted area should be zoned OLD per current zoning designation. 2. Access - The application documentation includes the following information related to access: a. There currently is no legal access to West Avon. The identified potential point of access will be from Nottingham Road. This access location will require access across two privately owned parcels. One parcel is zoned IC and will require relocation of the existing parking, circulation and storage areas and the second parcel is zoned OLD. The second parcel will require a zone change to allow the construction associated with the proposed access. b. The proposed zoning and development will require a subdivision variance from road standards to allow a cul-de-sac with a length greater than 1000 feet and serving more than 20 residential units. The proposed cul-de-sac would extend approximately 4000 feet beyond the Metcalf Road intersection and would serve approximately 300 residential units per the proposed zoning. 3. Water & Sewer - The application documentation assumes that the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Avon Metropolitan District will provide water and sewer service to the site. The documentation makes no reference to the acquisition or dedication of water rights required to serve the development allowed by the proposed zoning. It must be substantiated through the subdivision process, that sufficient water rights are available to serve the development allowed by the proposed zoning. 4. Geologic Hazards - Various geologic constraints including subsidence potential, hydrocompactive soils, areas of debris flow, areas of very active debris fans and areas with potentially corrosive and expansive soils are noted as present on the West Avon parcel. These constraints must be fully identified and measures implemented through the subdivision process to mitigate associated potential hazards to development allowed by proposed zoning. 5. Traffic - A traffic impact analysis prepared by TDA Colorado was submitted with the application documentation. The traffic impact analysis indicates that Nottingham Road intersections will perform at a satisfactory level of service with some relatively minor modifications at the Metcalf Road intersection in conjunction with improvements included in the town's current capital improvement program. The analysis indicates that Tract Y, Mountain Star should participate in the cost of the Metcalf Road intersection improvements. These improvements will be addressed in the subdivision process and it is not anticipated that 13EngineeringTand TradeA.Sketch Res Memo.Doc 2 Tract Y will be required to participate in the cost so long as the proposed development is within allowed uses in the current zoning. 6. Impact on Public Facilities: a. Public Parks and Recreation - The Sketch Plan does not identify a commitment of land or financial resources to the impacts of development associated with proposed zoning on existing town resources. b. Transportation - The submittal does not address impacts of the subdivision and potential development associated with the proposed zoning on the town's municipal transportation system. c. Bikepaths - The submittal does not address the potential extension of the existing Nottingham Road Bikepath to serve the proposed subdivision. All of the above issues should be considered in the review of the proposed zoning application and must be addressed in the completion of the subdivision process. If Resolution No. 04-13 denying the proposed re-zoning, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission is approved, approval of attached Resolution No. 04-14, Series of 2004, A Resolution Denying Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest'/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado is recommended. If Resolution No. 04-13 is not approved, we recommend tabling of Resolution No. 04-14 pending further action on the proposed corresponding re-zoning application. Recommendation: Alternate No. 1- Resolution 04-13 Denying the proposed re-zoning application is approved. Approve Resolution No. 04-14, Series of 2004, A Resolution Denying Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest t/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. Alternate No. 2 - Resolution 04-13 Denying the proposed re-zoning application is not approved. Table Resolution No. 04-14, Series of 2004, A Resolution Denying Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest t/4 of Section 2, 1:\Engineering\Land Ttade\Sketch Res Memo.Doc Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. Proposed Motion: Alternate No. 1- Resolution 04-13 Denying the proposed re-zoning application is approved. I move to approve Resolution No. 04-14, Series of 2004, A Resolution Denying Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest '/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. Alternate No. 2 - Resolution 04-13 Denying the proposed re-zoning application is not approved. I move to table Resolution No. 04-14, Series of 2004, A Resolution Denying Subdivision Sketch Plan Approval for Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. Town Manager Comments: hEngineenngTand Tradev.Sketch Res Memo.Doc TOWN OF AVON RESOLUTION NO. 04-14 Series of 2004 A RESOLUTION DENYING SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST'/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 82 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINICIPAL MERIDIAN (FOREST SERVICE ANNEXATION - PARCEL B), TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, The Vail Corporation has applied for Subdivision Sketch Plan approval for the Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest t/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, said Application was submitted in conjunction with an application for the re-zoning of said Parcel from Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage (OLD) to Residential Medium Density (RMD); and WHEREAS, said application for re-zoning was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing and said review of the proposed re-zoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Town Council denial of the proposed zone change from OLD to RMD; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing and review of the proposed re-zoning, the Town Council has confirmed the recommendation for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission and has denied the proposed zone change from OLD to RMD; and WHEREAS, said Application for Subdivision Sketch Plan approval is based upon a subdivision conforming to the proposed zone change from OLD to RMD; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan is not in conformance with current OLD Zone District. I:AEngineering\Land TradeASketch Res 04-14.Doc NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, that the Town hereby finds and determines that the Proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan for the Subdivision of a Parcel of Land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the 6th Principal Meridian (Forest Service Annexation - Parcel B), Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado is not suitable for proceeding to Preliminary Plan and Sketch Plan approval is hereby denied for the following reasons: A) Sketch Plan does not conform to current OLD Zone District B) Land is not suitable for subdivision per the proposed Subdivision Sketch Plan C) Reports and Studies submitted with the Subdivision Sketch Plan Application indicate areas of significant hazards ADOPTED THIS DAY OF April, 2004. TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk L\Engineering\Land TradeASketch Res 04-14.Doc Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer Date: April 22, 2004 Re: Resolution No. 0415, A Resolution Approving Preliminary Subdivision Plan for The Village (at Avon) Filing 3, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (Public Hearing) Summary: Traer Creek RP LLC has submitted a subdivision application for Preliminary Plan Approval for "The Village (at Avon) Filing 3. This is a subdivision of a parcel of land located in the Southeast'/4 of Section 7 and in the West '/z of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6t" Principal Meridian in the Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. This area includes all or portions of the P.U.D. Planning areas OS-5, N, G and RMF-l. The submittal includes construction plans for the extension of Swift Gulch Road and corresponding Bike Path from Buffalo Ridge (Filing 2) to Post Boulevard north of the new I-70 Interchange. The Preliminary Plans have been forwarded to Eagle County Engineering Department, US Forest Service, Colorado Department of Transportation, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Eagle County School District and Eagle River Fire Protection District for review and comment. These agencies have until Monday, April 26, 2004 to respond with comments. No response has been received from any of these agencies at this time. If no comments are received from these agencies during this time the application is deemed to be approved by the agency per town code. If comments are received prior to the Public Hearing, they will be made a part of the record and should be considered in the review process. The Preliminary Plan has been reviewed for conformance to Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Annexation and Development Agreement and the P.U.D. Development / Sketch Plan for The Village (at Avon) and was found to be in conformance with these documents, subject to conditions specified in Resolution No. 04-15, Series of 2004. Based upon this review, we recommend approval of Resolution No. 04-15, Series of 2004, A Resolution Approving Preliminary Subdivision Plan for The Village (at Avon) Filing 3, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. lAEngineering\Avon Village\4.0 Filing 3W.4 Preliminary Plan\4.4.4 Preliminary Plat\Apprvl Res 04-15 klemo.Doc Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 04-15, Series of 2004, A Resolution Approving Preliminary Subdivision Plan for The Village (at Avon) Filing 3, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. Proposed Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. 04-15, Series of 2004, A Resolution Approving Preliminary Subdivision Plan for The Village (at Avon) Filing 3, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. Town Manager Comments: 0 Page 2 TOWN OF AVON RESOLUTION NO. 04-15 SERIES OF 2004 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE (at Avon) FILING 3, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Traer Creek RP LLC, the owner of the applicable portion of The Village (at Avon) has filed a subdivision application for The Village (at Avon) Filing 3, Preliminary Plan approval in accordance with Chapter 16.20 of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, The Preliminary Plan is subject to the terms and conditions of the Annexation and Development Agreement dated October 13, 1998 and any amendments or modifications thereto; and WHEREAS, The Preliminary Plan is subject to the terms and conditions of the P.U.D. Development / Sketch Plan dated October 13, 1998 and any amendments or modifications thereto; and WHEREAS, The Town has provided public notice in accordance with Section 16.20.070 to all owners within three hundred feet of The Village (at Avon) Filing 3 and posted notices of the time and date at which Town Council considered the preliminary subdivision application; and WHEREAS, The Town held a public hearing at which it received evidence and testimony concerning the Preliminary Plan, at the conclusion of which the Town Council considered such evidence and testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, that the Town hereby finds and determines that the Preliminary Plan for The Village (at Avon) Filing 3 is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare, conforms to the Annexation and Development Agreement dated October 13, 1998, the terms of the P.U.D. Development / Sketch Plan dated October 13, 1998 and all subsequent amendments and modifications, and other applicable development laws, regulations and policies of the Town of Avon and hereby approves the same subject to the following conditions that must be addressed prior to Final Plat approval: Emergency access and fire hydrant spacing must be approved by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. 2. Plans for all water and sewer facilities must be approved by Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. Other Jurisdictional Approvals Required: a. Eagle County approval is required for the section of Swift Gulch Road improvements located on US Forest Service Property that is outside the Town Boundary. b. The design and construction of the portion of Swift Gulch Road situated on US Forest Service right-of-way shall conform with plans, specifications and written stipulations approved by the Forest Supervisor. 4. Plans for Storm Water Management and Pollution Control Facilities within the Town must be approved by the Town of Avon. Approval of construction plans for all utility services including but not limited to water, sewer, electric, natural gas, phone and cable must be provided by the appropriate entities to the Town of Avon. 6. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement must be approved by the Town and the corresponding security must be provided to assure compliance with the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. 7. Revision of the Land Use Summary to incorporate the existing Zoning Land Use classifications from the approved Planned Unit Development map. Revision of the Land Use Summary by removal of the commercial use on Tract H and add School to the designated uses on Tract H. 9. Addition of a general note that references the PUD designations and approved acreages consistent with the vested zoning approvals and approved PUD plan. 10. Completion of technical corrections identified by staff, including but not limited to those in letter of March 17, 2004 regarding Swift Gulch Road Extension-Preliminary Construction Plan Review. 11. Revegetation and Landscape Plans must be submitted with plans for public improvements and be included in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement and corresponding security provided to the Town. 2 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF April, 2004. TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager k From: Fraidy Aber, Meryl Jacobs Date: 4-22-04 Re: C.J. Chenier Contract Summary: We are recommending C.J. Chenier and the Red Hot Louisiana Band as the headliner for Salute festivities. The contract is attached. The contract has been reviewed by Kelly Milukas (booking agent for Beaver Creek Resorts - and for this band for salute) and by our Town Attorney, John Dunn. All comments are included in the contract. The contract provisions are standard for the industry. Financial Implications: The contract amount is for $7500; the performers will supply back line ($1000 value). Town Manger Comments: J Attachments: C.J. Chenier Contract PFM PROFESSIONAL F A C I L I T I E S M A N A G E M E N T Professional Facilities Management Loew's Theatre Building 220 Weybosset Street Providence, RI 02903-3783 Telephone: 401-421-2997 • Facsimile: 401-421-5767 March 24, 2004 Fraidy Abner P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Fraidy, Please sign the attached contracts for the JuV-,'?004 engagement of C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISIANA BAND in Avon, CO. Please forward the signed contracts to Mike Leahy at Concerted Efforts. Contact me if you hive any questions. SAerel K DEnc. RSK/ SETTING THE STAGE FOR SUCCESS. PFM P R O F E S 516 N AL F A C I E I T I E S MA N A G E M E N T Professional Facilities Management Laew's Theatre Building 220 Weybosset Street Providence, RI 02903-3783 Telephone: 401-421-2997 • Facsimile: 401-421-5767 March 24, 2004 Mike Leahy Concerted Efforts P.O. Box 600099 Newtonville, MA 02460 Dear Mike, Enclosed are the signed contracts for the July 3, 2004 engagement of C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISIANA BAND in Avon, CO. Please forward a countersigned copy of the contract to Fraidy Ab&r in Avon, CO. Enc. SETTING THE STAGE FOR SUCCESS. Contact me if you have any questions. Ccertttttt?• ? • P.O. Box 600099 • Newlonville, MA 02460 USA Telephone (617) 969-0810 FAX # (617) 969-6761 American F stanof Musicians of the United States and Canada (HEREIN CALLED "FEDERATION") Contract Number: 024201 CONTRACT AND ANY APPLICABLE DEPOSIT MUST BE RECEIVED BY DATEIS) CONTRACT SPECIFIED BELOW OR ARTIST HAS RIGHT TO VOID CONTRACT Whenever the term "the Local Union" is used in this Contract, it shall mean the Local Union of the Federation with jurisdiction over the territory in which the engagement covered by this Contract is to be performed. This Contract for the personal services of musicians on the engagement described below between the undersigned purchaser of music (herein called "Purchaser"I and the undersigned musician or musicians is made this day of Number of Musicians March 17, 2004 1 Name and Address of Place of Engagement ti?0171 NIH I",tv1 P"lCK-_ AVON CO Name of Band or Group C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISIANA BAND 2 Detretsl, Starting and Finishing Time of Engagement Sat July 3, 2004 ONE SEVENTY-FIVE TO NINETY MINUTE SET START TIME 8PM 3 Type of Engagement U?GIc??? J ?uKil Cki Capacity: 1400 P q Ticket Scale: N/A Max. Gross Potential: N/A art?j 4 Compensation Agreed Upon $7,500.00 (SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED USD) FLAT GUARANTEE SOUND, LIGHTS, AND LODGING (3 DOUBLE ROOMS AND 2 SINGLE ROOMS FOR TWO NIGHTS EACH) TO BE PROVIDED BY PURCHASER. 5 Purchaser Will Make Payments As Follows CONTRACT AND DEPOSIT DUE TO CONCERTED EFFORTS UPON RECEIPT OF CONTRACT J, 2c? DEPOSIT: $3750.00 USD, PAYABLE BY CERTIFIED CHECK TO CONCERTED EFFORTS V C- EIALANCE: $3750.00 USD, PAYABLE IN CASH ONLY TO: ZYDECO EXPRESS C/O C.J. CHENIER BALANCE DUE PRIOR TO PERFORMANCE IT No Mrfarmanu on taw aagagemem shall be recorded, reproduced or tansmined from the place of performance. in any manner or by any me ens whatsoever, in the absence of a specific wrinea agreement with the Federation relating to eml permuting such recording, reproduction or transmission. This prohibition shall not be subject to the arbitration provisions set forth in 7 below and the Fade ration may enforce this prohibition in any court of competent jurisdiction. i anach of Compact - Arbitration of Claims: to h is a>.pressly understood by the Purchaser and the musicienls) who are parties to this contract that neither the Federation nor the Local Union are parties to this contract is any capacity except as expressly provided in 6 above and, therefore, that neither the Federation nor the Local Union shall be liable for the perormance or breach of any provision hereof. b This contact, and the be rms and conditions contained herein, may be enforced by the purchaser and by each musician who is a party to this contract or whose name appears on the contract or who has, in loci, performed the engagement contracted for (herein called 'participating musician(s)"L and by the agent or silence) of each participating musician, including the Local Union. c All claims and disputes which may arise between the Purchaser and the participating muncomisl regarding the application or interpretation of any of the terms or conditions of this contact. including by disputes between the parties as a their respective obligations and responsibilities hereunder, shall be refereed exclusively to binding arbitration. ll a claim or disport involves participating musictarmsl who era all members of the Local thinner, than such claim or dispute shall be related to the Execuuvo Board of the Local Union. All other claims or disputes arising under this contract b tarn- the Purchaser and participating musicianfal shell be taloned to me Imematienet Execwive Board (herein Called "IEB"I of the Federation for arbitration and determination, in Work, The IEB shall decide any question of whether r or the Local Upb r Executive Board has jurisdiction over a particular claim or dispute. or This contrack and all arbitration proceedings conducted hereuMec,shall be governed by a under Ihe 1-1 0 IM Ssaw-eWar.ygrl notwithstanding the forum or lurisdicron in been an action concerning this contract may be brought All arbitration proceedings conducted hereunder Lr P'shill be conducted according to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the IEB which may from time to hare, be in affect. AN arbitrafion proceedings conduced by the Local Uruon shall be cw icce,' ti +copied by the Local Union. A copy of the IEB Rules of Puctice and Procedure may be obtained from the Secretary- Traasurerof the Federation Up NeorltlrlrChyr/awv.Ytyy"Aco o the lulls o M, ?? • oburned 1mm the Secretary o1 the Local Union. AN ruhngs and awartls made by the IEB in nuhronare remainder shall be final and binding upon the Purchaser and participating i curilsl e Except awards o1 the HER made on appeal a provided 'n 1 betow, o Pure agent of any pan c poi g musician, may b nag an action to confirm or to reduce to judgment an arbitabi n award of the IEB Write the coons of the ,ono musicianlsl agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts of the Stals_0 rowYak Iw that purpose. Should a court of competent join a fiction in New-York' from or dpta g he IEB. the Purchaser and participating muicianlsl uspressly agree that the prev dare pony b the arhivabon awudshall be additionally entitled to judgment for heasonahlF,aaetre,, for Alodgment confirming an IEB arbitration award, for anorneyi leas, and for costs ally ul ogle' ray jurisdiction is which a piny to this contract either asides or maintains an office or puce of business. I Au rulings and awards made by the Local Unnin in arbitration he a V rmgy r g y any party he was a participant therein. Appeals from such proceedings shaft be perfected In the marines provided in the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the IEB. All ulirya anf er.1 r Union b arbitration which au not appealed to the IEB shag be final and binding upon the Purchaser and parucipst rig musician(sl Any pony to an erbirgro ore proceeding'y.s -. • .iuation appasI to the IEB may bring an action to confirm or onlorce a final determination and award of the Local Union or, if appealed. of the IEB b the courts of the jurisdiction it; wr•, . . r r ?.on is locaed. and the Purchaser and participating musicians) agree to submit to the jursidie ion of such coot or coons for that purpose. Should s court of competent jurisdieugnoerfµ„' -free of the Local Union is located confirm or enter judgment upon an award of the Local union, or of Nee IEB made on appeal, th n rap silt ??6a-asDasauamawertrshsttge°a r idd'F'bnaflyentiNett[o n ing Na p Notices, metarials, paper or process which may be required to money o ch3sw are jyewicipating musicienls) 0 the pendency of a claim or dispute or to initiate a court action to confirm, enter judgment upon, or enlo¢e an arbitration award rendered by the IEB or the Local Union fwcmwe (tpardsAall be served on the Purchaser anWOr participating musu;ianlsl by certified mall, return renipt requested, washout necessity d Us $Una( servme or other farm of notice. An other notices, materials, papers or proteu which maybe required to conduct arbitration proceedings under this contract may be served by regular (rest class mad, ARTIST RIDER ATTACHED HERETO IS MADE A PART HEREOF In witness whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto set their names and seals on the day and year first above written. K @AR??AAA8a9F (0 A3_QQ-?)Lii '41 no II rU ZYDECO EXPRESS C/O C.J. CHENIER f-#"h I"0 a 'AVU TV Purchasers Full and Correct Name Signature of Purchaser lot Agent thereof) ET 3 P1GY1uyr'ru?IC?Qf? Name of Signatory Musician X Rome Locaf Union No. Signature of Signatory Musician FED. ID. #72-1326207 P eJ, cl Gki -7qi' 1/632 /KELLYMILUKAS 401 421 2997 X3101/ FAX 401 421 5767/KMILUKAS@PPACRI.ORG ? ? M LIP) ?v'?N+Cv `? ?i92? C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISI?NN ?I D THIS RIDER SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE ATTACHED CONTRACT AND NEITHER CONTRACT NOR RIDER SHALL BE BINDING UNTIL SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES HEREUNTO. 1. ARTIST will receive 100% exclusive headline billing, or festival billing where appropriate in any and all publicity releases and paid advertisements. 2. Any additions to the show must be approved by ARTIST'S management. 3. All payment provided hereunder sliall be made in U.S. currency. 4. PURCHASER guarantees that contracted amount represents actual amount to be paid to ARTIST. PURCHASER assumes all financial responsibility for liens, taxes, withholding, border broker, work visas, baggage overage charges and all ter fees above contracted figure. 5. PURCHASER aaSt? td make fl en (15) complimentary tickets available to ARTIST or ARTIST'S management,?the unused portion of which may be placed on sale the day of the show with the permission of ARTISTor ARTIST'S management. PURCHASER agrees to give out not more than 2% of the house in complimentary tickets without written consent from ARTIST or ARTIST'S management. 6. PURCHASER agrees to provide at no cost to ARTIST a. One clean, lockable dressing room with chairs for 7-9 people, mirror, 110 volt electrical outlet, heat or air conditioning. Ten clean cotton towels PURCHASER agrees to be solely responsible for the security of all items in the room area, and shall keep unauthorized personnel from entering said area. b. Deli tray including assorted fresh fruits, low fat cheeses, whole grain bread or crackers, (choose two: tuna fish, turkey, chicken, egg salad, lean roast beef), and fresh vegetab1e6`.1Pik §4r99b must provide a hot meal on day of show or a $20 buyout per member of touring party. c. Also liquids including soft drinks, coffee, Coke and juices. One case of bottled beer. These items and all utensils, plates, and glasses shall be made available at least two hours prior to performance. 7. Purchaser agrees to provide at his sole cost and expense a first class professional quality sound and lighting system appropriate to the venue size. PURCHASER MUST PROVIDED SOUND TECHNICIAN FOR SOUND CHECK AND DURING ENTIRE PERFORMANCE. PURCHASER must have sound system ready and functional with sound technicians on stage, at time of load-in and sound check or ARTIST is under no responsibility to perform said sound check. Sound requirements: 8. HOTEL: If PURCHASER agrees to provide lodging as indicated on the face of the contract, it must be in a P?st_class hotel. All rooms must have TV, telephone and shower/bathroom. Please arrange for early check-in. If the purchaser does not provide accommodations, he must refer the band to a local affordable accommodation. HOTEL RECOMMENDATION: j t( . t ?I?ti1C;O 0?1'A?R TRAV PURCHASER is ro ' ing international/intern air avel, flights must be on a major tier/reg larly heduled flight. NO CH TER FLIGHTS! A ocal rep sentative of the promoter must me t the ncoming flight and tort the gro to the dep ing flight. A ground transportation will be pro ded and will c sist of minimum of a -seat acity bus with ple room for luggage arid instrt e t cases. AR T r erves the right to app light itinerary before tic ing. V_I P._checkin. 10. Any television, radio or press interviews and appearance must be cleared through ARTISTS management. 11. ARTIST reserves the ri ht to cancel this contract if it conflicts with a bonafide offePr ,{6Qj Da s 9 f ? rha3or theatrical or television motion picture appearance or soundtrack, a network or major cable television appearance, or a foreign or major national tour. Notification shall be made not less than-a6-oec s prior to engagement contracted herein, and all deposits shall be returned. ARTIST'S representative and PROMOTER shall negotiate in good faith for and early mutually agreeable replay date. DOCUMENTED IT-NUE OUT OF POCKET 3, __ -?-- --? EXPENSES TO BE PAID 12. Provided that ARTIST is ready, willing and able to perform pursuant to the terms hereof, payment of any guaranteed compensation hereunder shall be made to ARTIST notwithstanding that inclement weather may render a performance impossible or infeasible. 11 PURCHASER agrees to-report box office figures to Pollstar and Performance if ticket sales are 80% of capacity, or greater. -?' ?I-fy` S5 DOCUMENTED VFNi OUT OF POCKET .-EXPENSES i v 3E PAID 12. FORCE MAJURE: If any member of Artist's party shall became ill or incapacitated or if Artist shall be unable for any reason9utside of his control to attend the em?agemenT'Artist shall not be required to perform, in which instance, any moneys paid by Purchaser shall be returned and neither party to this agreement shall be under any further obligation to each other. In the event of a civil disorder, the likes of which could result in damage to life or property, Artist, in his udgm °nt shall have the rght to terminate this agreement at any time without liability. y1'LC{'k?w( C' ?Z., Page 1 of 2 Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Jacquie Halbumt ' Date: April 22, 2004 Re: Service Agreement with Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District Background: The Town of Avon operates fleet maintenance out of its Swift Gulch facility located at 500 Swift Gulch Road. We have several annual maintenance contracts with neighboring districts. One of our goals is to secure more third party revenue to help reduce the subsidy of our operation. We signed a short-term agreement with Bachelor Gulch last November. Since then, we have been working toward mutually agreeable terms to maintain their vehicles on a long-term basis. Discussion: Attached is a long-term service agreement between the Town and Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District for vehicle maintenance. The agreement is valid for twenty years unless cancelled under the provisions of the agreement. It is considered an Intergovernmental Agreement and according to our Town Charter, 16.2, it must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the Town Council. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the long-term service agreement with Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District. Town Manager Comments: SERVICE AGREEMENT This agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2004 by and between Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District whose address is P.O. Box 600, Edwards Colorado, 81632 (hereafter know as "BGMD") and the Town of Avon whose address is P.O. Box 1726, 500 Swift Gulch Road, Avon, Colorado, 81620 (hereafter designated as "Contractor"). RECITALS In consideration of the obligation of BGMD to pay the Contractor as herein provided and in consideration of the other terms and conditions hereof, the parties agree as follows: Contractor Services: Contractor will, during the term of this Agreement, provide: (a) Routine maintenance and preventive maintenance ("Routine Maintenance") of the BGMD vehicles and equipment. Service will be performed on approximately 9 vehicles and equipment set forth in Exhibit C and adjusted from time-to-time, although the number of vehicles and equipment serviced may be increased or decreased in BGMD's sole discretion; provided, the combined number of vehicles and equipment shall not exceed 20 without the approval of Contractor. Routine Maintenance will be performed at least every 3,000 miles or 250 hours of use. Routine Maintenance shall consist of those services outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto. (b) Repair and replacement work as requested by BGMD ("Repair and Replacement"). No payment for any Repair and Replacement shall be due unless BGMD has approved of such charges. Services may be commenced with verbal approval by BGMD of a written estimate submitted by Contractor. Repair and Replacement includes, without limitation, transmissions repairs, engine repairs, rear end repairs and any other work or repairs exceeding 25 times the hourly rate. BGMD acknowledges that subcontractors will perform certain repair work. Contractor shall be responsible for assuring that all such subcontracted work will be performed promptly and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 2. Facilities: Contractor represents that its facilities are in good repair and adequately equipped and that it has a sufficient staff to perform all work in a timely manner. All Routine Maintenance shall be completed within 24 hours of any vehicle being brought to Contractor's facility, unless other arrangements are approved by BGMD. 3. Compensation: In consideration of Contractor's services during the term of this Agreement, BGMD will pay Contractor an annually adjusted shop rate for Routine Maintenance and Repair and Replacement. The actual cost will be calculated in the manner demonstrated in Exhibit B, Fleet Maintenance Breakdown of Labor Billings by Hourly Rate. The annual rate will be finalized by the Avon Town Council in conjunction with the adoption of its annual budget and in no case will exceed Contractor's actual costs. The 2004 shop rate is $80/hour. The 2004 total actual cost is projected to be $106.61 per hour. Materials and sublet work shall be charged at cost plus ten percent. Invoice shall be issued by the 10'h of each month for services performed the previous month. Payment shall be remitted within twenty (20) days of receipt of invoice. Contractor's Fueling Facilities may be used by BGMD. The cost of Unleaded Gasoline and Diesel Fuel will be at the Contractor's cost plus ten percent. Contractor's Vehicle Wash facility May be used by BGMD. The cost per wash will be 11.25% of the shop rate for small vehicles, 18.75% of the shop rate for medium vehicles, and 43.75% of the shop rate for large vehicles. 4. Terms and Termination: The Initial term of this Agreement will be effective as of December 1, 2004 and will end on December 31, 2024. This Agreement will continue until cancelled as provided herein or until either party fails to substantially perform the duties and obligations in accordance herewith and fails to remedy any such default within the time provided. In the event of default of the terms of this Agreement, the other party may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice of default to that party, unless that party cures the breach within the sixty (60) day remedy period. The initial term of this Agreement shall be for twenty (20) years, subject to annual appropriations by BGMD, unless sooner terminated as provided herein. At the end of the twenty (20) year term, this Agreement shall be automatically renewed for consecutive five (5) year terms subject to annual appropriation by BGMD. Either party may serve upon the other, written notice of cancellation of this Agreement at least two (2) years prior to the date of termination. In the event of a new successor district, this Agreement shall continue to be binding upon the parties until such time as the successor district and Contractor agree to become bound by, and assume, the obligations of this Agreement in writing. 5. Relationships and Taxes: The relationship between the parties is that of independent contracting parties, and nothing herein shall be deemed or construed by the parties hereto or by any third party as creating a relationship of principal and agent or partnership, or of a joint venture between the parties. Contractor shall be solely responsible for any tax, withholding or contribution levied by the Federal Social Security Act. Contractor is not entitled to unemployment compensation or other employment related benefits, which are otherwise made available by BGMD to its employees. Contractor shall provide BGMD an original of its Form W-9 (Request for Taxpayer Identification Number of Certification). 6. Warranty: Contractor shall perform all Services in a prompt, efficient and workmanlike manner. Contractor shall promptly correct any defective work. This warranty shall be in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. Contractor's sole liability hereunder, whether in tort or in contract, is expressly limited to the warranty provided for herein. 7. Assignment: Contractor's duties hereunder requires particular expertise and skills, and may not be assigned to any third parry without the expressed written consent of BGMD, and any attempt to do so, at the sole option of BGMD, shall render this Agreement null and void and no effect as respects the assignee (s) and shall constitute an event of default by Contractor. 8. Waiver: Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants, and/ or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any right or power hereunder at any time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such right or power at any other time or times. 9. Benefit: The terms, provisions, and covenants contained in this Agreement shall apply to, inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors in interest, and legal representatives except as otherwise herein expressly provided. 10. Situs and Severability: The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the interpretation, validity, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby. 11. Notices: Any notice, demand or communication which either party may desire or be required to give to the other, shall be in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given or rendered if delivered personally or sent by first class mail, certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, as follows: If to BGMD: Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District c/o Robertson & Marchetti 28 Second Street, Suite 213 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Telecopier: (970) 926-6040 Telephone: (970) 926-6060 With copy to: Paul Jardis P.O. Box 3320 Avon, Colorado 81620 Telecopier: (970) 748-1551 With copy to: Jim Collins Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C. 390 Union Blvd, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80228 Telecopier: (303) 986-1755 If to Contractor. Town of Avon c/o Larry Brooks P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 Telecopier: (970) 12. Indemnification: To the extent permitted by law and subject to all of the immunities, defenses and protections afforded to that party by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, which Act's protections are not waived in any way by this provision, each party shall indemnify and hold harmless, the other party, its officers, directors, employees and agents from and against any claims, liens, demands, actions and causes of action whatsoever arising out of or related to any loss, costs, damage or injury, including death, of any person or damage to property of any kind including attorneys fees, arising out of the negligent or intentional acts, errors or omissions of the officers, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, agents or any person directly or indirectly employed by the indemnifying party and rising out of the performance of services under this Agreement. 13. Insurance: Each party shall, at its own expense, keep in full force and effect during the Term of this Agreement, insurance as follows: a) Comprehensive and liability coverage in the initial amount of $150,000/$600,000, and thereafter in such amounts as are required pursuant to §24-10-114 C.R.S., commonly known as the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, protecting the other party, its officers, directors and employees, against any loss, liability or expense whatsoever from personal injury, death, property damage or otherwise arising from, or in any way connected with provision of services, management, administration and operation of the Fire Protection Services and facilities, which are the subject of this Agreement. Such coverage shall insure the common inclusions of premise operations, products/completed operations, contractual liability, independent contractors, broad form property damage and personal injury. b) And any workman's' compensation insurance, pension, disability and unemployment insurance for the employees, and other personnel supplied by that party directly or indirectly pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Agreement, as required by any law of the State of Colorado or the federal government and will, upon request, exhibit evidence thereof to the other parry. 14. Force Majeure: No Party shall be liable for any failure to perform as required by this Agreement to the extent such failure to perform is caused by any reason beyond the control of that Party or by reason of any of the following occurrences: strikes, labor disturbances or labor disputes of any character, unavailability of labor or materials, accidents, riots, civil disorders or commotions, war, acts of aggression, floods, earthquakes, extraordinary weather conditions, fire, Acts of God, explosion or similar occurrences (each, a "Force Majeure Event"); provided, such Party shall exercise its best efforts to provide the best possible alternative performance and to prevent a Force Majeure Event from obstructing full performance. Any Force Majeure Event shall extend the time of performance as otherwise required by this Agreement for so long as such Force Majeure Event shall exist, but no Force Majeure Event shall terminate this Agreement nor shall affect this Agreement except as provided in this Section. In no event shall lack of funds necessary for performance constitute a Force Majeure Event. 15. Instruments of Further Assurance: The Parties hereto each covenant that they will do, execute, acknowledge, and deliver or cause to be done, executed, acknowledged, and delivered, such acts, instruments, and transfers as may reasonably be required for the performance of their obligations hereunder. 16. Modification: This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties, and no agreement shall be effective to change, modify, or terminate in whole or in part unless such agreement is in writing and duly signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change, modification, or termination is sought. EXECUTED this day of , 2004 Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District By: EXECUTED this day of , 2004. TOWN OF AVON By: BGMD Service Agreement EXHIBIT A WORK FREQUENCY 2004 RATE "A" PM 3,000 miles or $80.00 hr. Preventive Maintenance 250 hours Plus parts & Inspection sublet "Annual" every 12months $80.00 hr. Preventive Maintenance Plus parts & Inspection sublet BGMD Service Agreement EXHIBIT B Fleet Maintenance Breakdown of Labor Billings by Hourly Rate 2004 Fiscal Year Total Billed Labor Hours 9,591 Personnel Costs - Fixed (1) Personnel Costs - Variable (1) Other Fixed Costs (2) Capital Costs (3) Total Calculated Net Subsidy (4) Actual Hourly Cost Actual Costs Associated With Labor $118,719 420,797 61,643 166,112 767,271 216,876 Per Labor Hour $12.38 43.87 6.43 17.32 80.00 22.61 $102.61 (1) Personnel costs include all full-and part-time wages, overtime, and benefits. Fixed costs include the fleet maintenance supervisor and accounting assistant. Variable costs represent the fleet maintenance mechanics who bill out their time at an $80 hourly rate. (2) Other Fixed Costs represent expenses not associated with job costing such as utilities and telephone, insurance, training, etc... (3) Capital Costs represent principal and interest on the Certificates of Participation that were used to finance the construction of the fleet maintenance facility, and a capital lease payment for a shop truck. The COPs were issued in 1998 with a 20-year maturity. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the total amount issued is allocated to the fleet maintenance facility, the remaining 25% is allocated to the General Fund and was used for financing general site improvements, utilities, etc... (4) Calculated Net Subsidy represents the amount that actual costs for the fleet maintenance program exceeds billing. Bachelor Gulch Metro District Exhibit "C" Equipment Listing for TOA Service Agreement As of April 2004 Unit # Year Make Model Type Vin. # 778 1993 CASE 580 BACHHOE JJG0175164 7750 1996 CATERPILLER 950 LOADER 5SK02297 759 1997 INTERNATIONAL 5000 4X4 DUMP/PLOW 2HTTNAHT6VC019562 793 1998 INTERNATIONAL 5000 4X4 DUMP/PLOW 1 HTTEAHNOWJ000123 797 1999 INTERNATIONAL 5000 4X4 DUMP/PLOW 1HTTEAHN9XJ002017 941 1999 FORD CREW CAB 4X4 F450 1 FDXW47FXXEA84948 943 1999 FORD 550 DUMP/PLOW 1 FDAF57F8XEA98584 205 2002 FORD F250 1 FTSF31 F72EA82116 2002 Holder Tractor C9800 DUMP/PLOW 52410104 2002 CATERPILLER 305 Mini Excavator DSA00217 2002 Tempco Sweeper 1 FVAB38V23DK44212 317 2003 Chevrolet Silverado Pick UP/Snowplow 1 GCHK24183E280124 2003 CATERPILLER 277 CNCO1752 2004 INTERNATIONAL 56004X4 DUMP/PLOW 1HTXEAHR44JO17752 2000 Kawasaki Mule JKlAFDAlXYB502378 2002 Kawasaki Mule JKIAFDA152B507396 Memo To: Thru: Fran: INC. Re: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Larry Brooks, Town Manager Tambi Katieb, AICP, Community Development April 22, 2004 AVON C O L O R A D O Appeal to Town Council of Planning and Zoning Commission Approval of Parking Variance for Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision Summary On April 6, 2004 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a variance application for a determination on parking standards for the Tract Y project. The variance was approved through Resolution 04-10, and applied only to the portion of this project that is proposed as self-storage use. The remainder of the project is parked per the Town Code standards. The Tract Y property is located at 0910 Metcalf Road and is a parcel in the Mountain Star Subdivision. T.J. Conners, a noticed property owner and operator of the AAA mini storage and Warehouse Facility on Metcalf Road, has appealed the Commission's decision to Town Council. According to Section 17.36.050 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission made the following written findings before granting this variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Memo to Town Council, April 22, 2004 Page 1 of 2 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Variance Appeal Town Council must review and consider the same criteria in choosing one of the alternatives for this appeal request. A copy of the staff report and findings is attached for your reference, and staff will be available to answer any questions that you may have on this matter. Council Alternatives • Uphold Planning and Zoning Commission decision • Overturn Planning and Zoning Commission decision • Remand decision to Planning and Zoning Commission for further review Town Manager Comments ter. Staff Recommendation Uphold Planning and Zoning Commission decision, thereby denying the appeal. The decision was made after significant deliberation and based on both the documentation provided by staff, the applicant, public comment (including T.J. Connors) and in consideration of the staff recommended and adopted conditions of approval as stated in Resolution 04-10. Attachments: A. Staff Report for Variance Application dated March 30, 2004 B. Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution No. 04-10 C. Minutes from April 22, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting D. Appeal Request from T.J. Connors dated April 23, 2004 E. E-Mails Establishing Appeal date of April 13, 2004 F. Letter from Mark Donaldson (applicant) dated April 22, 2004 G. Memo Re: Process: John Dunn / Norman Wood Memo to Town Council, April 22, 2004 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Variance Appeal dyc I- vi 4 Staff Report VARIANCE VON C O L O R A D O April 6,2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date March 30, 2004 Variance type Create parking standard specifically for self-storage use not currently enumerated under "Industrial Land Use" parking standards as listed in 17.24.020 (c) Legal description Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision Zoning Industrial Commercial (IC) Address 0230 Metcalf Road Introduction The applicant, Victor Mark Donaldson ("VMD") originally submitted a sketch plan application for a business and storage facility consisting of 141,130 sq.ft. located on Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision referred to as the Wildridge Business Park & Storage Facility in the application dated October 1, 2003 and plans dated November 18, 2003. Those plans featured three (3) buildings proposed, which included 88,065 sq. of self- storage/warehouse on the upper floors and 53,065 sq.ft. of office space on the ground floors. That application was heard at your January 6, 2004 meeting where concerns regarding the inclusion of one building in particular were noted to the applicant, along with the need to apply for a variance that specifically tied the reduced parking standards for self-storage to the use. The applicant tabled that application and has submitted a revised application dated March 17, 2004 that you are reviewing for this meeting. The highlights of this revision include: ¦ Deletion of Building 3 which included self-storage and industrial/commercial space. ¦ Reduction of total gross floor area from 141,130 square feet to 131,630 square feet. • Submittal of a variance application, which specifically requests a determination of parking standards for self-storage that can be applied to this project. • Clarification of the proposed 2-acre building envelope that conforms to the plat restriction requirement of the Mountain Star Subdivision. Accompanying this application is a Special Review Use application for a caretaker unit on-site. Also, as determined by staff and the Planning Commission, the applicant has submitted a variance application for determination of a parking standard exclusively for the self-storage use proposed on site. This variance proposes a requirement of 1 parking space per 5,000 square feet Town of Avon Community Development (970) 949-4280 Fax (970) 949-5749 3 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Self Storage Parking Variance April 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 7 of gross floor area for self-storage area, and includes a package of case study research as submitted by the applicant. The remainder of the project will be parked at the "Industrial Land Use" standard of 1 space per 800 square feet of gross floor area. The project itself is comprised of two large flat-roofed buildings that house both self-storage and warehouse uses. Building One is along the frontage of Metcalf Road, and Building Two is along the toe of the slope behind and parallel to Building One. The breakdown of proposed uses for each building is as follows: Building One Basement Level Self Stora e Use 11,470 sf GFA Level One I/C Land Use 12,195 sf GFA Level Two 11C Land Use 15,980 sf GFA Level Three Self Storage Use 19,765 sf GFA Buildina Two Level One UC Land Use* 14,935 sf GFA Level Two' Self Storage Use 19,095 sf GFA Level Three Self Storage Use 19,095 sf GFA Level Four Self Storage Use 1 19,095 sf GFA Level One contains Self Storage office and limited self-storage use, all parked at I/C standards 'Level Two proposes inclusion of a caretaker unit. The project proposes the use of precast concrete panels, tube steel trusses, aluminum doors and windows, and prefinished metal roller doors. Roofing is proposed as a black unballasted single- ply membrane. Additionally, the retaining walls are proposed to be a prefabricated block wall of earth tone color (no pattern). History of Tract Y During the planning and approval process of the Mountain Star PUD, the Mountain Star Limited Liability Company initiated a land exchange with the United States Forest Service. This land trade resulted in the acquisition of 619.75 acres of land adjacent to the Mountain Star PUD, including a 7.232 acres site intended for a Town of Avon public works facility to be located along lower Metcalf Road in the midst of the Industrial/Commercial zone district area. This 7.232 acres site is now described as: Tract Y, Mountain Star Filing No.3. A PUD Amendment approved by the Town of Avon on April 12, 1994 resulted in the incorporation of 612.56 of the 619.75 acres into the Mountain Star PUD. The PUD Amendment approved zoning for six residential lots, the Ranch Central operation, an equestrian center and 567 acres of dedicated open space. The remaining acreage, a 7.232-acre parcel, identified as the public works facility site, was specifically excluded from this rezoning action. In 1996, Tract Y remained designated as Open Space, Landscape, and Drainage (OLD) and was re-zoned to Industrial/Commercial ("IC") by the approval of Ordinance 96-11. On September 17,1998 a final design application for Mountain Star Commercial Center was approved, which included 48,240 sq.ft. of office and warehouse space. A building permit was issued on July 6, 1998 and expired on February 17, 2000. The Mountain Star Commercial Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 ` Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Self Storage Parking Variance April 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 7 Center was approved as IC zoning in accordance with the parking requirements set forth in the Avon Municipal Code, Section 17. 24.020. There were no modifications, concessions, or variances from either the 3 parking spaces per/1,000 sq.ft. of office space or 1 parking space per/800 sq.ft. of warehouse space. The buildings were well sited to allow access and turning movements for delivery trucks and provide for adequate drainage. In a letter dated December 22, 1999, Mike Matzko, Zoning Administrator confirmed that a commercial storage facility was consistent with the IC zone district as permitted by Section 17.20.020 B (1), Avon Municipal Code to determine additional uses consistent with IC zoning. A copy of this letter is attached hereto for your review as Exhibit "A". On February 14, 2000, Karen Griffith, Town Planner prepared a letter providing parking requirements for uses not specifically enumerated as permitted by Section 17.24.030(7) for self- storage and mixed-use industrial development on Tract Y. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". The letter does not reference any plans for this parking determination and recommended 4 parking spaces for self-storage and 2 parking spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. for mixed- use industrial uses. On June 13, 2003, Mark Donaldson requested Community Development confirm the previous parking determination made by Karen Griffith on February 14, 2000. On June 23, 2003 staff provided a written parking determination on Tract Y, which stated the following: 1 parking space per/1,500 sq.ft. of self-storage or 1 parking space per/every 3 self-storage units. The applicant and staff were unable to reach consensus on this parking determination. On August 4, 2003, the applicant submitted a well-documented request for 1 parking space per 5,000/GFA for self-storage. The supporting documentation included information by a self- storage industry expert, Buzz Victor of United Stor-All. Buzz Victor has developed self-storage in over 12 states; he is the founder of the Self-Service Storage Association, the first self-storage trade association, and has authored books on the self-storage industry. The documentation supporting the parking reduction for self-storage submitted by the applicant is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Several meetings took place with the applicant and staff, including the Town Manager, Larry Brooks discussing options and process. The staff was impressed by the proposal presented by the applicant and his expert, Buzz Victor. Staff remained reluctant to make additional parking reductions without requiring a public process and having an application submitted. The following public processes were proposed to address the parking reductions for self-storage: parking variance (similar to the warehouse/storage facilities with parking variances on Mountain Center and Vail/Avon Commercial Park); special review use (which created issues with length and conditions of the approval); and PUD. The applicant did not avail itself to any of the public processes proposed by staff and proceeded to submit a sketch plan application on October 1, 2003. The plans for Wildridge Business Park and Storage Facility were revised and re-submitted on November 18, 2003. Based upon input from both staff and the Planning Commission at your January 6, 2004 hearing, the applicant has submitted this variance application for a revised project. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 r-ax laiul `J4`.1-oi4a 6 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Self Storage Parking Variance April 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 7 Variance Criteria According to the Section 17.36.040, the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Findings Required According to Section 17.36.050 of the Avon Municipal Code, the Planning & Zoning Commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; Staff Finding: Several adjacent properties have received parking variances for self storage, most notably the operations in the immediate vicinity (Avon Self Storage and AAA Mini Storage). The granting of this variance is more restrictive since it proposes to tie the parking standard to the use for the life of the project. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the vicinity; Staff Finding: Granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety of welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The project is required to comply with the Town parking standards for all other uses proposed. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the property has several practical difficulties to consider, specifically there exists a major drainage and debris flow consideration, a prevalence of steep Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Self Storage Parking Variance April 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 7 slopes, and a 2-acre platted building envelope that create significant considerations and inherent limitations to the development of this property. In light of these circumstances, the creation of a parking standard specifically tied to the proposed self-storage use is warranted. Staff Comments The supporting documentation makes a compelling case to assign a different standard to all portions of the project specifically designated as self-storage use. The variety and lack of a `common standard' for self-storage areas is common, and acknowledged by staff. In fact, staff research also indicates that there does not appear any rational method to determining parking standards for self-storage, and the most common of standards appears to be based on parking for the self-storage office (management) facility as well as requiring a fixed number of spaces for residential quarters and/or employees. The primary concern of staff is that the term "self-storage" is misleading and unenforceable should the interior walls (which are not shown at this time on the companion sketch application) of these areas actually accommodate more than the typical self-storage unit as proposed, and include electrical outlets and rough plumbing. Our experience has been that these areas quickly become contractor storage, and if provided with electrical and plumbing, contractor `production' areas. To ensure this is not the case, the applicant will be required to submit full floor plans indicating interior walls as well as a full electrical plan at building permit to demonstrate that there is no rough electrical to any of the proposed units. Self-storage units are permitted an interior light fixture only, and to do otherwise would jeopardize the premise of this approval. The applicant has proposed a standard of 1 parking space per 5,000 square feet of gross floor area for the self-storage portion of this project (a total of 88,520 square feet). This would result in a required parking dedication of 18 spaces. There are also 2 spaces additionally dedicated to the caretaker unit on the property. While the applicant is requesting one of the most lenient of standards by their own material submission (as demonstrated in the "Self Storage Standards and the Modern Community" article attached in Exhibit C), the standard appears adequate only under the following conditions of approval: ¦ The parking standard is specifically for this project only, and shall apply to all areas labeled as self storage square footage- which will be finally calculated at building permit based on construction documentation. ¦ The parking standard will not be waived in the future should a tenant wish to `convert' self-storage space into another type of Industrial/Commercial land use. A new variance will need to be applied for at that time, or, additional parking that meets code requirements for "Industrial Land Use" shall be applied and constructed on site. ¦ All areas not specifically identified as self-storage shall continue to be required to comply with the "Industrial Land Use" parking standard of 1 parking space per 800 square feet of Gross Floor Area. ¦ A full electrical plan for all levels labeled as "Self Storage" in both Building One (Basement, Level Three) and Building Two(Level Two, Level Three, Level Four) will be submitted at building permit indicating no rough electrical or electrical outlet(s) to any Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Y1 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Self Storage Parking Variance April 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 7 individual self storage units proposed. Self-storage units are permitted an interior light fixture only. No rough plumbing to any of the proposed self-storage units is permitted under the terms of this approval. Provided these conditions can be complied with, staff would support and recommend approval of the variance request as specifically described in the application for Tract Y dated February 17, 2004. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the parking variance for self-storage floor area parking standards on Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision (File V-Z02004-2) with the following conditions: 1. The parking standard is specifically limited to the approval for the Wildridge Business Park (Tract Y) and shall apply to all areas labeled as self storage square footage on plans dated March 17, 2004. Parking dedication will be finally calculated at building permit based on compliance with the design review approval. 2. The parking standard will not be waived in the future should a tenant wish to `convert' self-storage space into another type of Industrial/Commercial land use. A new variance must be applied for at that time, or additional parking created on-site that meets code requirements for "Industrial Land Use". 3. All areas not specifically identified as self-storage shall continue to comply with the required "Industrial Land Use" parking standard of 1 parking space per 800 square feet of Gross Floor Area as indicated on plans dated March 17, 2004. 4.. A full electrical plan for all levels labeled as "Self Storage" in both Building One (Basement, Level Three) and Building Two(Level Two, Level Three, Level Four) will be submitted at building permit indicating no rough electrical or electrical outlet(s) to any individual self storage units proposed. Self-storage units are permitted an interior light fixture only. 5. No rough plumbing to any of the proposed self-storage units is permitted under the terms of this approval. 6. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. Recommended Motion "I motion to approve Resolution 04-10 with the following conditions: 1. The parking standard is specifically limited to the approval for the Wildridge Business Park (Tract Y) and shall apply to all areas labeled as self storage square footage on plans dated March 17, 2004. Parking dedication will be finally calculated at building permit based on compliance with the design review approval. 2. The parking standard will not be waived in the future should a tenant wish to `convert' self-storage space into another type of Industrial/Commercial land use. A new variance Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 rax (aiu) v4.)-oi4u 0 Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Self Storage Parking Variance April 6, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 7 must be applied for at that time, or additional parking created on-site that meets code requirements for "Industrial Land Use". 3. All areas not specifically identified as self-storage shall continue to comply with the required "Industrial Land Use" parking standard of 1 parking space per 800 square feet of Gross Floor Area as indicated on plans dated March 17, 2004. 4. A full electrical plan for all levels labeled as "Self Storage" in both Building One (Basement, Level Three) and Building Two(Level Two, Level Three, Level Four) will be submitted at building permit indicating no rough electrical or electrical outlet(s) to any individual self storage units proposed. Self-storage units are permitted an interior light fixture only. Compliance with these conditions must be verified at issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. 5. No rough plumbing to any of the proposed self-storage units is permitted under the terms of this approval. 6. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. If you have any questions regarding this or any other project or community development issue, please call me at 748.4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Tambi Katieb, AICP Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 9 C O L O R A D O December 22, 1999 Mr. Joe Dobosh VIA FAX: (941) 584-9535 EXHIBIT A RE: Filing 3, Tract Y, Mountainstar Subdivision Wildridge Commercial Center Dear Mr. Dobosh: This letter is intended to clarify the zoning status of the above-referenced property within the Town of Avon, and confirm the prospective use for a commercial storage facility. The property is currently zoned Industrial and Commercial (IC) under the Avon Municipal Code, Chapter 17.20, Zone District Regulations, Section 17.20.010. Although, a commercial storage facility is not specifically enume.-aced under the IC zone district; Section 17.20.010 13(1) authorizes additional uses, which are determined to be similar in accordance with the intent of the zone district. Based upon the relevant portions of the Code, my interpretation is `.1at a commercial storage facility is consistent with an IC zone district, because it i?: very similar to a warehouse, wholesale outlet, and/or industrial/comme?cial C1fice. I have attached the relevant portion of the Avon Municipal Code, Section 17.20. 010 for your review. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 748-4009. Post Office Box 975 400 Benchmark fwd Land Title Avon, Colorado 81620 970-748-4000 970-949-9139 Fax 970-845-7708 TTY C O L O R A D O February 14, 2000 EXHIBIT B Victor Mark Donaldson Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, P.C. Box 5300 Avon, CO 81620 Re: Tract Y parking requirements Dear Mar. Donaldson; 1177 This purpose of this letter is to establish the. parking requirements for- self-storage and a mixed- use industrial development comprised of allowed uses in conformance with the IC-Zone District (Section 17.20.0.10). i As you know, the Zoning Code does not specifically enumerate these uses- However, Section 17.24.030 (7) provides for the zoning administrator to determine the parking requirements for those uses that are not specifically enumerated. We have determined that the requirements for the self-storage will be a total of four parking spaces, with a minimum aisle width of 30 feet between the storage buildings, and a rninimUL-1 of 13'6" vertical clearance. The parking requirements for the mixed-use industrial uses will be 2 spaces per 1000 square feet of GLFA, gross leaseable floor area. This does not include parking spaces for any special review uses (SRUs) that might be proposed for the property. The parking requirements for SRU's would be reviewed in conjunction with special review use applications. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Karen Griffith, AICP Town Planner cc: Michael Matzko, Community Development Director Post Office Box 975 400 Benchmark Road Avon, Colorado 81620 970-748-4000 970-949-9139 Fax 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Tambi, EXHIBIT C August 4, 2003 Tambi Katieb, AICP Community Development Town of Avon - Avon, Colorado 81620 RE: Parking Requirements for Self-Storage Use on Tract Y 0048 E BEAVER CREEK "BLvt SUITE 207 Box 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970.949.520C vmdo@vmda.corr FAx•949.5205 Thank you and Ruth for your research and assistance in managing the various zoning issues we have discussed to date for our Tract Y development. In addition to the Self-Storage parking information you provided, we have obtained a variety of supporting information for your consideration. It is clear that there is not a "standard" for Self-Storage Use. A recent survey from the Self Storage Association, Inc. states "It may also mean that some cities see Self-Storage as a unique type of warehousing, but with a different customer base and fewer employees and they simply do not know what standards to use." We propose a reduced parking requirement of 1 parking space per 5,000 Gross Floor Area of Self-Storage Use. We believe this to be a solid and reasonable parking requirement for this Use. Additionally, our clients and consultants believe that this will provide more than adequate parking for this development in concert with the other I/C Uses proposed. This Reduced Parking Proposal is based on the following documented infon-nation: ' I . Case Studies from like industry user groups, 2. Recommendations by the Self Storage Association, Inc. and consultation with Buzz Victor, a leader and prominent investor and consultant in the Self Storage industry, ' 3. Self Storage Projects which currently function in the Town of Avon, and 4. Historical and pragmatic issues. ' 1. Case Studies / Self-Storage Association, Inc Survey: (Supporting documentation attached). Mesa, Arizona: 4 spaces plus two for onsite Management Operations. ' Santa Clarita: 1 space per /2000 net sq. ft. of Self-Storage. SWNAS: I Space per employee plus 1 per 5,000 GSF, plus vehicle maneuvering space next to each leased ' Self-Storage space having exterior loading access. Lakewood, Colorado .35 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of GFA. Denver, Colorado: A parking area equal to 1/10`h of the Gross Square Footage of the Use. ' Steamboat Springs: 1 space per 20 Self-Storage units. Eagle, Colorado: I space per full time employee on duty, plus vehicular movement areas sufficient to allow on-site loading and unloading. ARCHITECTS 1 ' In a study conducted by the Self Storage Association, Inc, it found that 41.2 % of the respondents used Floor Area as its means of calculating parking requirements for Self Storage. In cases where spaces were ' based upon number of storage units, these requirements were 1/10 Self-Storage units to 1/30 Self-Storage units. ' The same study found that more than 50% of the respondents to the survey on parking requirements had requirements equal to or more than 1 / 5,000 GFA. Some of the requirements were as minimal as none and ranged up to over 1/20,000 GFA of Self-Storage Use. Many of the respondents had a variable scale, which ' would allow for a minimum parking requirement for a fixed number of GFA and additional spaces as the number increased on a graduated scale. For example 1 space / 5,000 GFA for the first 100,000 GFA and then I space / 10,000 GFA for any space above 100,000 GFA. We conclude that the Town ofA von would not be deviating from the norm b applying a y parking requirement of 1/ S, 000 GFA or 1/10, 000 GFA for that matter. ' 2. Recommendations of Buzz Victor ' Mr. Victor's comments are based on over 25 years experience in the development, planning, and operating of self-storage units. ' Please review the attached letter and qualifications from Mr. Victor. ' We conclude that Mr. Victor's experience provides an expertise and oversight in this field of development and his opinion and direction are the most conclusive of all the information that was reviewed. ' 3. Self Storaee Proiects in Avon Although there are no specific parking standards for Self-Storage Use within the Town of Avon. there are ' two projects with significant and similar Self-Storage Uses. These two projects are similar to Tract Y by the fact that a self-storage user will use an elevator or stairs to access their stored items. ' In the case of Avon Self Storage there are fewer than 8 dedicated parking spaces (none of which are striped). and it appears that this 44,000 sq.ft. project functions well. ' In the case of AAA Mini Storage there are less than 6 spaces dedicated to the Use of Self Storage. Again. the Self Storage Use within this development functions well. It is our understanding that the Town records do not show any spaces dedicated to the Self-Storage Use, but a visual inspection revealed the above ' information. 1I e conclude that by providing I parking space 15000 GFA on the Tract Ydevelopment surpasses parking provided /or these Uses on these two projects which are currently successfully operating within the Town's jurisdiction. 1 ?9 4. Historical and Pragmatic Issues ' The Owner intends to manage this development long term It simply does not make economic sense for the ' Owner to develop buildings and invest large sums of money into a project that is not adequately parked. In Self Storage Standards and the Modern Community published by The Self Storage Association, Inc., it states "more and more cities are coming to recognize Self-Storage facility developers are not going to build ' facilities with inadequate unit access." We conclude that the owner of this project intends to create a successful project and it is not in the best ' interest of the owner to provide inadequate parking for this project, in any fashion. Based on the above four criteria, we propose a parking requirement for the Self-Storage Use on the Tract Y parcel to be I space / 5000 GF9 of Self-Storage Us& We look forward to your concurrence on this issue, and would like the opportunity to clarify anything that ' is unclear as you make your decision. ' Sincerely, v ' Chris Jue ens, DA. CC: Ruth Borne, Director Community Development Mark Donaldson, VMDA ' Chad Lund. Vice President Lund Capital Group 239-213-1940 Buzz Victor, United Stor-All 303-290-1886 Attachments: Misc. Parking requirements for self-storage. ' Buzz Victor Letter and experience. Excerpts from Self-Storage Standards and the Modern Community, 2002. *GFA= Gross Floor Area 1 n I ill CASE STUDIES ' Mesa, AZ Santa Clarita, CA S WNAS ' Lakewood, CO Denver, CO ' Steamboat Springs, CO Eagle, CO 1 1 1 a $ F ' CHAPTER 16 ON-SITE PARKING AND LOADING REGULATIONS 11-16-1 Pumose and Intent: 1 The purpose of the On-Site Parking and Loading Regulations is to provide standards for parking and loading facilities to accommodate the various land uses permitted by this Ordinance. It is the intent of this Chapter to require the minimum number of on- site parking and loading spaces with maneuvering areas, driveways and surface materials for the efficient movement of vehicular traffic. ' 11-16-2 General Regulations and Standards: (A) The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to any building, structure, enlargement or addition, and to a change in use of land of an existing building or ' lot. The parking and loading requirements and standards of this Chapter shall be complied with for the entire building or use, except that off-street parking and loading requirements, as specified in this Chapter, may be modified pursuant to ' Mesa Town Center Area provisions. (B) All required parking and loading spaces and maneuvering areas shall be located on the lot upon which the use served is located, except that parking spaces may ' also be located upon a contiguous lot incorporated into the development site. (C) Parking spaces and maneuvering areas shall not be located within the required front yard in any Single Residence District nor in an re i d d , y qu re yar or landscaped area in any other zoning district. Where the end of a parking space abuts a required landscape area the minimum width of such area shall be ' increased by two feet (2'). (D) The keeping or storage of any commercial vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) exceeding thirteen-thousand (13,000) pounds or having dual rear ' wheels exceeding seventeen (17) inches in diameter on any residential lot shall be deemed a commercial use and is prohibited. (E) The following standards shall apply to required on-site parking and loading spaces, maneuvering areas and access: 1 1. Required parking and loading spaces, maneuvering areas, and driveways shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, paving stone or masonry to a sufficient thickness to withstand repeated vehicular traffic, except in single residence ' and agricultural uses. 2. A required parking space shall be rectangular with a minimum width of nine feet (9') and a minimum length of eighteen feet (18') and shall have i d ' n ependent access from an aisle or driveway. fl 1 16-1 ,a ' 3. A required loading space shall be rectangular with a minimum width of ten feet (10') and a minimum length of thirty feet (30') and shall have independent access from a driveway or alley. ' Designated loading spaces shall not encroach into any fire lane. ' 4. Required parking spaces shall be permanently marked and shall be accessible from a street or alley by a driveway or aisle such that all vehicles shall approach the street or alley in forward motion; except in single residence and agricultural uses. 11 1 1 1 16-2 I NO ' (F) Required stall and aisle design: The following diagrams specify the required stall and aisle dimensions for the ' situations depicted. Alternate configurations may be authorized by the Planning Director or his authorized representative. C o F J I 1 \ q K ?D 1 . 4. E ?? H A c E_ D Z K or J F 22' 27 22' V 4 9' Min. Aisle: fie lane - 20 one wey -12 min. two way - 20' min. PARALLEL PARKNG vehicle 18' 24' l it ' 7 _ 4' 9' I l h-ft s S Handicap stal may be located one side or both sides of ramp ' S' yep end aisle ramp 1:10 90 degree parldog ' L A B C D E F G H I J K L M C I ONE TWO ONE WAY WAY WAY AISLE AISLE AISLE 30 16.8 18.0 4.5 7.8 9.0 15.6 25.8 12.9 26.7 11.1 45.6 53.6 12.0 ' 45 19.1 12.7 6.4 6.4 12.7 12.7 31.8 15.9 19.1 6.4 51.2 62.2 13.0 60 20.1 10.4 7.8 4.5 15.6 9.0 35.7 17.85 10.2 1.2 58.2 64.2 18.0 16-3 M N O P TWO ONE TWO WAY WAY WAY AISLE AISLE AISLE 20.0 37.8 45.8 24.0 44.8 55.8 24.0 53.7 59.7 )-k 11 16 3 - - On-Site Parking and Loading Requirements: ' (A) The On-site Parking Requirements Schedule specified in this Section is based on gross floor area unless specified otherwise. ' (B) In the case of mixed uses, the total requirements for off-street parking spaces shall be the sum of the re uirem t f q en s o the various uses computed separately as specified in this Section; and the off-street parking space for one (1) use shall not ' be considered as providing the required off-street parking for any other use. C I ( ) n case of fractional results in calculating parking requirements from the chart below, the required number shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number if ' the fraction is 0.5 or greater. (D) Accessible parking spaces shall be provided and maintained pursuant to Section 4-1-3 of the Mesa City Code pertaining to the Arizonans with Disabilities Act of 1992. (E) Covered parking spaces shall be provided as follows: ' 1 M lti l . u p e residence projects shall provide one covered parking space per unit. ' 2. Office use developments shall provide one covered parking space per office or suite. ' (F) All uses, except single residences, shall provide at least four (4) on-site parking spaces. ' (G) The following chart specifies the minimum parking spaces required for each permitted use: 1 h 16-4 ' USE MINIMUM STANDARDS ' 1. Residential: Single Residence Detached or attached: 2 spaces per dwelling Multiple Residence: Efficiencies, studios 1 space per dwelling unit ' One bedroom unit 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit Two + bedroom units 2 spaces per dwelling unit All Multiple Residence developments with 5 or more units shall also provide: Guest parking 1 space additional per 10 ' (or fraction thereof) dwelling units ' PAD's including condominiums, 2 spaces per unit plus 1 townhomes, patio homes, etc. guest space for each additional 10 (or ' fraction thereof) dwelling units Boarding house or similar facility 1 space per each 2 guest rooms plus 2 spaces for the dwelling unit ' Assisted living facility 1 space per dwelling unit (or same as boarding house) ' 2. Public Assembly and Schools: Theaters, auditoriums, assembly 1 space for each 75 s.f. halls, churches, clubs, lodges and fraternal bldgs, funeral of G.F.A. used for public assembly homes, community centers, libraries ' Swap meets and farmer's markets 1 space per 100 s.f. of gross public sales area Schools, kindergarten through 1 space per 600 s.f., ' ninth grade G.F.A. 1 16-5 11 1 1 1 1 u USE MINIMUM STANDARDS High schools, academies, colleges, 1 space per 200 s.f., universities, trade or G.F.A. vocational schools 3. Health Care: Medical or dental offices and 1 space per 200 s.f., Outpatient clinics G.F.A. Hospitals and nursing and 1 space per 400. s.f., convalescent homes G.F.A. Day Care center/nurseries 1 space per 375 s.f., G.F.A. 4. Group Commercial Developments: Group Commercial Developments (Shell buildings, no specified uses) 5. Independent Commercial Buildings and Uses: General Offices/retail and services General Auto Repair - garage, service station, car wash and drive-through lubrication shops Hotel and Motel Restaurant, Bar Restaurants with drive-through facilities Outdoor Sales and Service Areas, (car lots, plant nurseries, building supplies, etc.) 16-6 1 space per 300 s.f., G.F.A. 1 space per 375 s.f., G.F.A. 1 space per 375 s.f., G.F.A., including service bays, wash tunnels, and retail areas 1 space per room or suite of rooms with individual exits plus ancillary use requirements 1 space per 75 s.f., G.F.A. and outdoor seating area 1 space per 100 s.f. G.F.A. 1 space per 375 s.f., G.F.A., of sales and service building, but not less than 4 spaces per use I a? USE MINIMUM STANDARDS ' 6. Recreation: Bowling Centers 5 spaces per lane plus lf G ancillary use requirements Course o 1 space per 2 practice tees in driving range plus 4 spaces per green ' plus ancillary use requirements ' Golf Driving Range 1 space per tee plus ancillary use requirements Miniature golf, amusement parks, 1 space per 500 s.f., batting ranges, and water of outdoor recreation area ' slides plus ancillary indoor uses Health spas/clubs, gyms and 1 space per 100 s.f. tennis, handball, racquet- G.F.A., excluding ' ball courts/clubs courts, which require 2 spaces per court ' Skating rinks, dance halls 1 space per 75 s.f. G.F.A. used for recreational activities and ancillary use ' requirements 7. Group Industrial Buildings and Uses: (Shell buildings, no specific use) 1 space per 500 s.f., G.F.A. ' 8. Independent Industrial Buildings and Uses: Mini-storage (dead storage only) 4 spaces plus 2 for manager's quarters Warehouses 1 space per 900 s.f., G.FA. f M i ng anu actur 1 space per 600 s.f., G.F.A. 9. All uses not specifically designated above, or similar to the above, shall have ' parking space requirements determined by the Zoning Administrator. ' (H) On-site loading space shall be required as follows: ' 16-7 11 ' 1. All nonresidential uses shall provide space for loading and unloading of commercial vehicles on site. ' 2. Off-street loading spaces shall be paved and beat least ten feet (10') by thirty feet (30'), exclusive of access aisles and maneuvering space. r n 16-8 r 1 E UU,ZJ/U3 14:[1 YAX 601 258 8125 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Q 001/00J 17.19.130 USE NI TER OF REQUIRED -SPACES Medical/dental offices Eve:-.-y medical and dental office use shall provide a minimum of one parking space per each' 200 square feet of floor area of any building or structure so used Motels Every motel shall have, on the same lot or parcel of land; 1.1 parr Jng spae:.s for each guest room and two fully enclosed parking spa es for each dwelling unit Racquetball and tennis courts EvE,y racquetball, tennis or similar court shall provide two parking spaces per eouri in addition to* the parking requirements for the remainder of the facility. Industrial Uses Scrap metal processing, auto- mobile dismantling, and junk ' and salvage yards 1 r ' Self storage facilities In connection with any industrial use; parking spaces shall be provided for all vehicles used directly in the conducting of such use and, in addition, not less than one automobile parking space for each two persons employed or intended to be employed on the shift having the largest number of employees, or each 500 square feet of floor aria ofthe building used for such use, whichever is the larger. One parking space shall be provided for each 1,000 square feet of war,?house use, one parking space for each 500 square feet of manufacturing use. I pr_-ling space for each 7,000 sq. fL of yard area or fraction thertot up to the first 42,000 square feet. 1 parldng space for each 20,000 sq. ft: of yard area or fraction thereof, in excess of 42,000 square feet. Regardless ofsize ofthe yard area, a minimum of3 parking spaces sball be provided. The parking spaces required herein shall not be used for the parking of vehicles used directly in the conducting of such use or of renovated, repaired or reassembled vehicles which are owned, operated or in the possession of the proprietor of the yard. The addition of automobile parking spaces on an adjacent lot or parcel ofland for purposes of complying with the parking requirements of this section s:aall not be considered an expansion of the use for purposes of Chapter 17.05. All required parking areas and drive- ways shall be developed in accordance with this section. 1 parking space for every 2,000 sq. ft. of storage space =. P 9 _ J u G Table of Parking Requirements SWNAS A r" PRINCIPAL USE' MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES' Residential Uses Single family residence 2 Per dwe&V unit senior residence community 12 Per dwelling unit Continuing care community 1 Per dwelling unit or 0.5 per bed (as applicable) Nursing hone/rest home 025 Per bed !w 0.5 per employee Other residential As needed' Institutional Uses Religious uses Educational uses Homeless shelter Medical Uses Hospitals 6 medical centers Medical dinkalperarnbulatDry care fwAities Other medical uses 1 per 6 sew in largest assembly area, 2k@ 1 Per dMxd - Mat I, 2k# 1 Per two employees 1 Per WOfessionaVadminisftbve employee, plus 1 Per three classrooms, 210(6 there Is assembly space) 1 per 10 seats110 persons based on bLWCktg OOM4)aw1 capedty per Massadsisees Building Code or Fire Code As needed' 0.5 per bed, AD 0-75 per employee on peek shift, 1"us 1 per 500 SF of emergency nmw. V was or patent wmbng area in WWwkkoi doctor orGees (if applicable) 3 per attending physician, Qb& 1 per each oher employee As needed' Recreational Uses Parks and outdoor recreation As n11111ded• Golf courses 3 per hole, 2LO 1 Par employee, 003 1 Par 200 SF of pubic eating or nwe" space Sports spectator facility, public assembly Whichever is higher: 1 per 6 see" Persons based on building occupancy capacity per Matctachusatls Building Code or Fire Code, or 1 per 100 GSF Health fitness clubs 1 Per 600 GSF, Q?gb 1 per employee Private club As needed Notes GSF Square botage of Gross floor area For uses rrot Mated or for whim staled requ.enwit is -as needed.' sw . K,, ter of required PW" spaces shall be deterTmnetl by the Zomg EnforTaen ant officer 6asaE on ft best avubbie bdorrnmbm. / pa?r.?JMT.aa FI'ICf:llt 11/19/1999 Page 1 ti? ' Table of Parking Requirements SWNAS Area ¦ PRINCIPAL USE' MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES- 11 Business Uses Office (other than medical) Medical office Bank Business & Professional services Child day care facility ()1 principal use) Funeral home 1 per 250 GSF 1 Per 200 GSF 1 Per 200 GSF of ground floor Mg curb mer service area, pie 1 per 250 GSF d otter fbas 1 Per 250 GSF 1 Per employee, Plus adequate space for vdkM drop A of children 1 Dar sect company vehicle. Pitts one for every 3 seats in the meeting rooms Research and Development Uses 1 per 100 GSF Conwnercial Uses Shopping Center 1 per 250 GSF on gramd floor. RCtd11 sales 2k& 1 per SW GSF on otter floors Depertmemni store 1 per 300 GSF on ground floor 2M 1 per 1.000 GSF on otter Was Supermarket or convenience store 1 per 200 GSF on ground Wor. 2RM 1 per 1.000 GSF on outer floors Video store (d Pnrnapal use) i per 200 GSF Gerteral feel and at other fetal 1 per 250 GSF on ground floor. (irdodkq nrBred Pelee 1°° derelai-wit speoaily tor" etc) Rha 1 Per SW GSF on otter floors Consumer & product services Wholesale business 1 per two employees, Ids 1 Per OW SF of officalcustomer service area, 2ka 1 per business vehide stored on site 1 Per every Iwo employees plin 1 per @00 SF of of siaaianar seKVbe area, pkis 1 per buirnaee vehicle stored on silo 1 per room, Mu s 1 per 200 SF of public eating or assembly space Hotel/motel Restaurants, ealing/drinking establishments Sit-down festauant ' (ruse foods bew*ape s prirreily .r.lded b be awwwred an to prernss) Fast-foodrtake.otA restaurant 1 Whichever is greater: 1 Per 3 aeats (based on seating capacity per Stale &WdnV Code) Or 1 Per 100 GSF 1 per 2 -V" m on peak atilt, PILIS 1 Per 75 SF in dining arsacaratomar walling area Commercial entevtammentfamusememt uses Bowling aley 1 per alley, pt-e 1 Per employee "hiclb 1 per two ernpbyses, Qlyln 1 per 4 persue faced on tytdrrll o=Wen y aapeor, pw MaMadneeas Bukk Code ate F. Code Movie thaeter/clnema 1 per 3 sesW3 persons based on building ooapancy capacity Per AYasdaarsb auldilp Coda or Fire Code N other commercial uses t per 250 GSF or as d&Mmwnsd by the Zoning Commission Not" GSF So ore Udage of pas Now am For oats nd feted or is Nrridr elated regmerrsnl is 's waded,' are nunbs of repf.ed pod*q sp was trap be delemsed by the Zoning Erdsoenem Offiam hued on ere best mailable Womm on. ' Y•?agMrrTAaLER4J[IS ¦ 11/19/1999 Page 2 a°` ' Table of Parking Requirements Page 3 SWNAS Area 1 1 1 1 PRINCIPAL USE* MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES* industrial Uses Whichever is greater: 1 per 1,500 GSF or 0.75 per wnpioyee on peak shill. QW 1 per tMainees vehicle shred on site Transportation & Motor-Vehicle Related Uses Transportation teminals/services Warehouse/Distribution Uses Warehouse/distribution Communications and Utility Uses Television or radio studs Public Infrastnx:bjre Uses 0.5 per employee on peak shirt, A& 1 per 1.000 SF of o>siortver servioaN-dlM arses. 211A 1 per tHSinmi; vd*b stored on sit Whichever is greater. 1 per 3,000 GSF or 0.75 per empk"s on peek still; pkis 1 per taeinass vehicle stored on Bile 1 Per employee, 2kM 1 par 5.000 GSF, IM vrtids miners sktq 9Mw nee fo anh kaosd fksage spew Miq W* Widusi as. nd krdrp ems 1 per 250 GSF, 2%M 1 per s seals in any studio audbrice saeirg area As needed Notes GSF Spuam foalape d Woes floor use For uses "f7ated a ft r ~ so regwemsn n'as roaded,' es numbs of rsgiisd parting spsoss shah be dalem?kred by eb Zor*V Ergav mai Of hoer based an fro bmt avsYSble nlorrnsfort. I -??T?MfMI; \I S 11/19/1999 1 1 1 II TABLE 9-4 REQUIRED PARKING RATIOS HOTEUMCYM WrrH coNvgMoN P g P 9 AREA OR ANCIUARY SER1lfCES roorrrs, rewtmuwanb? sleopft bum", ffw" HOTEtJMOTEI. faa? >i "M? eras INDUSTRIAL UGHT, PARK MANUFACTURIM OR JUNK YARD STORAGE ANO OR DISMANTLING OF VEMq.ES OR MARKET (Convenience) MARKET (Supemrarket) MORTUARY NURSERIES?GREENHOUSE Govenwmm or Medoal Post Office A mbc of facues for ugm kKkm rlei, m6sawh, service and wont Ouse tacifiies Fadiias for the sales br o ft Facilow for the keeping of actin ols 1.5 spaowft m 1.0 spaceshoom 1.5 specun,000 s.f. of Boss floor area 4.0 sPa=W1,0o0 s.f. of gross Door area 20 spomm.000 s t. of gross floor Madm fto10f s w h ? customer 7.Q sparars/100p s.f. Of itrmover O15 b 24 hocss/day, !1 furor area ~-term Ma*W iacifor sales d a ca Vmft 5.0 speomh.ow s.t of gross floor aasortr wn ood and food arse RMparallon ns Fadfilies for seeV ? Pn%)ara rr and?cr 4.0 spumW1,000 s.f. of gross ft m arse Pius Facilities for ft sale of sawn and garden sWofies knk 1.0 spacee/t,ooo s.f. of ditpiay area m v, ?.... Fsc>ffldw fOr Qeneral Office work 4.0 spooeery,000 s.f. of gross leasable Door area F cftft#W hoots cjjy. sb* mv3ty 4.0 spw"M,000 s f. of gross ioor l agendas or, Dies trot area PmV?de daQrroeflc and out patent care FaMty for rrtai df libWon and Pk kw 6.0 spaceeJ1,000 s.f. Of gross floor RESTAURANT (Fast food, family. Nigh fEzong rr9nts vW h bnnover tumay" leas RESTAURANT (Full service, low ? wflh t?mmw turnover) ver 1 how Lakewood ?.owing Ordinawco January 10, 2002 10.0 spacesti,000 s.f. of gross floor 12.5 specss/1.000 s.f. of grass ft= arms 9-15 3? TABLE 9-4 REQUIRED PARKING RATIOS ' Continued NOW r !I SCt4=2 (Pubk or Prm") Facildes for Grades K to 8 e/sso ' Faa7ftlee for grades g to 12 above 12 Faci6des for grades es/seat i.a SHOPPING CENTERS An ifftp bsd group of oortsnerdel 4.0 spoess/1,000 s.f. of grass leasable eetabfistxnerrle planted, deraioped, floor area awned or nunaged as a unit SPORTS CENTERS Health ckdn oM ig a variety of flings adlvflhs 4.0 spe0e0/1.000 31 of gross floor r kKbm firing ranges a ea 1.5 spaos v idng stag Roller or ice skating facMd" 4.0 spaces/1,000 s.f. of gross floor Twwft or; , i It efaciliffes alga 4.0 spaces/1,000 s.L of gross floor alga VETERINARIAN FediSes rovidin health care for 3A /1 000 fl f f p g arm spaces oor , gross s . . o area ' WAREHOUSE Facill0as devoted to the storage of various rruderials 1.0 spaoesM.000 st of gross floor area A&WHmaretiotnes or self-storage 0.35 spacesJ1.000 s.f. of gross floor facoldes arse ' Lakewood Zomng Ordinance 9-16 January 10, 2002 3?" L'I v cr uvL all I- Search Advanced Search ' Document ' Previous Document Next Document ' Previous Document Match Next Document Match ' Contents Where am i? Search Results Clear Search Options r Frames 1 Printable Format Help rage i of -,? Sec. 59-588. Off-street parking classes. Double asterisks following a use by right indicate special requirements contained in section 59-586. (a) Class one: (1) Dwelling, multiple unit; (2) Older adults residence. (b) Class two: (1) Bed and breakfast; (2) Chill care center; (3) Historic structures use exception; office, art gallery; (4) Hospital (not animal); (5) Hotel; (6) Library; (7) Motel; (8) Museums, other special purpose cultural (9) Nursing home, hospice; (10) Residence for consuls or clergy, monastery, convent, similar institution of religious training; (11) Studio, professional; (12) University or college. (c) Class three: (1) Aquaculture facility; (2) Church, religious institution; (3) Community or senior center or recreational facility; (4) Recreation services, outdoor. (d) Class four. (1) Adult establishment; (2) Automobile wash, laundry and/or polishing shop; (3) Body art establishment; (4) Bookstore; (5) Brew Pub; (6) Conference center, meeting hall; . http://Iivepublish.municode.com/3/Ipext.dlI/Infobase8/l/6812/836&83ce?f=templates&fn=... 07/29/2003 *3J JAVCruuii511 Page 2 of 5 (7) Eating place; ' (8) Food sales or market, large; (9) Food sales or market, small; ' (10) Garden supply store; ' (11) Home building materials and supplies, sales or rental; (12) Liquor store; ' (13) Mortuary; (14) Pawn shop; (15) Recreation services, indoor, (16) Retail, service, repair, consumer, large ' (17) Retail, service, repair, consumer, medium scale; (18) Retail, service, repair, consumer, small scale; (19) Retail, service, repair, consumer, special; ' (20) Theatre, indoor. (e) Class five: ' (1) Assembly, without fabrication; (2) Communications service; ' (3) Contractors, special trade, general; (4) Fire station; ' (5) Food preparation and sales, commercial; (6) Junkyard; ' (7) Laboratory, research, development, technological service; (8) Manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly, custom; ' (9) Manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly, general; ' (10) Manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly heavy; (11) Manufacturing, fabrication, and assembly, light; ' (12) Printing service, publishing, business support; (13) Railroad facilities; ' (14) Recycling center, facility; (15) Recycling collection station; ' (16) Service, repair, commercial; http://livepublish.municode.com/3/lpext.dll/Infobase8/1/6812/836e/83ce?f=templates&fn=....07/29/2003?? Ll v? ...,..?.? rage s or ' (17) Sports and/or entertainment facility; (18) Terminal freight, air courier services; ' (19) Terminal, public transportation, local; (20) Terminal and service facility for bus system; (21) Utility, major impact; (22) Utility, minor impact; ' (23) Vehicle storage, commercial; (24) Wholesale trade, light, of nontoxic, nonhazardous materials; (storage is class 6); ' (25) Wholesale trade, general, of toxic and/or hazardous materials; (storage is class 6). ' (f) Class six: (1) Artist studio; ' (2) Contractors, special trade, heavy, contractor yard; (3) =Storage.oftrantoxic;_rmnhazardous-materials; ' (4) Storage of toxic and/or hazardous materials. (g) Class seven: ' (1) School, vocational or professional; (2) School, elementary, secondary. ' (h) Class eight. (1) Ambulance service; ' (2) Animal care, kennel cattery; ' (3) Animal sales, service, care, household pets only; (4) Auto gasoline filling station, emissions inspection; ' (5) Auto pawn lot, auctioneer for automobiles, large vehicles or heavy equipment; (6) Automobile, motorcycle, light truck sales, leasing, ' rental; (7) Automobile repair garage; (8) Bank and financial services; (9) Club or lodge; ' (10) Nursery, plant; (11) Police station; ' (12) Postal facility, neighborhood; http://Iivepublish.municode.com/3Apext.dll/fnfobase8/l/6812/836e/83ce?f-templates&fn=... 07/29/2003 36 L1vuruUIIJ!! 11 r. Page 4 of S (13) Rooming and/or boarding house; (14) Vehicle, equipment sales, leasing, service, rental. (i) Class nine: (1) Clinic, dental or medical; (2) Furniture furnishings, retail sale, large scale; (3) Office, non-dental, non-medical. CHART 1. OFF-STREET PARKING For other than 90-degree parking, the minimum aisle width for two-way traffic shall be twenty (20) feet If a public alley is used as the aisle or access to adjoining parking spaces, the spaces or projection must be lengthened as necessary to provide a total alley or aisle width of twenty (20) feet for 0-degree through 75-degree angle parking and twenty-three 3 feet for 90-degree angle parking. This requirement shall apply to a new uses an deve o except single unit dwellings and duplexes. Parking angles between 0 and 30 degrees or between 75 and 90 degrees are not allowed. Other angles between 30 and 75 degrees are allowed and the dimensions for those angles shall be determined through interpolation. Off-Street Parking ' The dimensions from this chart shall be used only in controlled situations as approved by the zoning administrator. Such approval shall only be given where the owner/manager is able to: limit parking to employees or residents; ' determine which employee or resident, and what type of vehicle shall be allowed to park in specific parking spaces, and can enforce such restrictions. Small car stalls shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the total stalls provided. ' http://livepubIish.municode.com/3/lpext.dI l/ Infobase8/1/6812/836e/83ce?f=templates&fn=... 07/29/2003 Part A: Parking Lot Dimensions-Universal Sized Stall (8.5 feet x 17.5 feet) TABLE INSET: 1 ¦ i werumisn TABLE INSET: Previous Doc j Next Doc Page 5 of 5 http://livepublish.municode.com/3/lpext.dll/lnfobase8/l/6812/836e/83ce?f=templates&fn=... 07/29/2003 3? La ?' ?l uaA a aaa tYage 1 or L J Search I Advanced Search Document I?J Previous Document Next Document Previous Document Match Next Document Match Contents 1 Where am 1? Search Results Clear Search Options ( Frames Printable Format Help Sec. 59-586. Required off-street parking. At least the following amounts of off-street parking space shall be provided. All off-street parking spaces hereinafter required under this chapter shall be designed in accordance with the dimensions set out in chart no. 1, off-street parking, (following section 59-595). The following parking classes shall apply to all uses by right or authorized use exceptions. If for any reason the classification of any such use cannot be determined for the purpose of establishing the amount or number of off-street parking spaces to be provided, the parking class of such use shall be fixed by the zoning administrator. Upon compliance with the provisions of article IV (affordable housing), chapter 27 (housing), of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, a twenty (20) percent reduction in the total number of required parking spaces shall be granted. This shall be calculated by first calculating the number of parking spaces otherwise required, multiplying that figure by eight-tenths (.8) and rounding up to the nearest whole number. (1) Parking class one, being composed of all uses by right which are enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: a. There shall be one and one-half (1 1/2) off-street parking spaces provided for each dwelling unit in a multiple unit dwelling; provided, however, that for a multiple unit dwelling located in a B4, R-4-X or B-8-G district there shall be provided one (1) off-street parking space for each dwelling unit; and provided, further, that for a multiple unit dwelling whose occupancy is restricted entirely to individuals sixty (60) years or more of age, there shall be provided one (1) off-street parking space for each three (3) dwelling units. b. There shall be one (1) off-street parking space provided for each three (3) dwelling units and/or rental rooms in a residence for older adults. (2) Parking class two, being composed of all uses by right and authorized use exceptions which are enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: There shall be one (1) off-street parking space provided for each six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure or structures containing any use by right: provided, however, that for each habitable unit in a motel there need be provided not more than one (1) off-street parking space. (3) Parking class three, being composed of all uses by which are enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: Parking shall be provided in an amount equal to one-fourth ( 1/4) of the area of the zone lot on which the use by right is located; provided, however, a community recreational facility or tennis club which restricts its membership to persons living in a specific geographical area shall provide at least ten (10) percent of the area of its zone lot for off- street parking; and provided further, however, an aquaculture facility shall provide one (1) off-street parking space for each employee on the largest shift. (4) Parking class four, being composed of all uses by right which are enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: There shall be one (1) off-street parking space provided for each two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure containing a use by right. I http://livepubIish.municode.com/3Apext.diI/Infobase8/l/6812/836e/83ad?f=templates&fn=... 07/29/2003 i.ivoruvi??ii Page 2 of 2 ' (5) Parking class five, being composed of all uses by right which are enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: An area equal to one-fourth ( 1/4) the gross floor ar i ea n all structures containing the use by right. (6) Parking class six, being composed of all uses right which are ' enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: There shall be a parking area equal to one-tenth the gross flo or area in all structures containing the use by right; provided, however, that one (1) additional parking space shall be ' provided for each artist studio containing a dwelling unit. (7) Parking class seven, being composed of all uses by right which are enumerated in the schedule h ' ereinafter provided: a Each el t . emen ary or grade school or junior high school shall provide ten (10) off-street parking spaces plus one (1) off-street parking space for each cla ssroom; b. Each senior high school shall provide one 1 off-street parking space for each teacher and l emp oyee plus one (1) off-street parking space for each six (6) students based on ' design capacity for such senior high school; C. Any school not an elementary or grade school, junior high school or senior high school sh ll 1 a provide an area equal to one-half ( 1/2) the gross floor area occupied by the use by right in a structure or structures. d. Senior centers located in a church or school in an R-2 district need provide n ff o o -street parking area beyond that which is or was provided by the church or school. (8) Parking class eight, being composed of all uses by right which ar e enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: There shall be one (1) off-street parking s ace i p prov ded for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure. (9) Parking class nine, being composed of all uses by right which ar Previous Doc j Next Doc e enumerated in the schedule hereinafter provided: There shall be one (1) off-street parking s ace i ' p prov ded for each five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area contained in any structure. u http://livepublish.municode.com/3Apext.dllllnfobase8/1/6812/836e/83ad?f-templates&fn=... 07/29/200; f STEAMBOAT SPRINGS REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE (7) Required parking spaces. Each use shall provide at least the number of parking spaces shown below, unless a different standard is specifically stated elsewhere in this CDC or is modified through the approval of a development plan variation or PUD. Special parking regulations applicable to specific zone districts shall take precedence over required standards in this section. Where fractional requirements result from the application of this schedule, the fraction shall be raised to the next whole number. No additional parking requirements shall be ti ' os imposed as a result of the construction of outdoor decks or patios so long as such decks or pa do not displace existing parking facilities. The director shall have authority to determine the type of use and the parking requirement for each use or combination of uses, subject to the provisions of this section. Required parking for uses not specifically listed below shall also be determined by ' the director based on the characteristics of the use and consideration of the parking requirements for other uses with similar characteristics: service : _ . -. - a facility Z.:orsge facility. 1/20 units, with a minimum of five (5) spaces required for any service -.. -.. facility Office: One free hundred (300) s.f. net floor area Residential units: As required by this subsection i 1 a10 r u t 1 ¦ OwJ J 4.07.050 4. Use Category - Industrial Uses oO EA o I.E a. Industrial, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale Business: 1 • 1 per 1,000 square feet of floor area used or designed for storage, warehousing, distribution, wholesale sales, or a combination thereof, Plus I per 350 square feet of floor area used or designed for manufacturing assembly, parking, preparation, research facilities, experimental or 4.07.050 testing laboratories,' or other such uses, Plus I per 300 square feet of floor area used or designed for retail sales or office use. Self-storage, Mini-warehousing Establishment - 1 per full-time employee on duty, plus vehicular movement areas sufficient to allow on-site loading and unloading Other Uses For uses not specifically listed herein, the use classification for purposes of parking requirements shall be determined by the Town Planner, based on similarity of the proposed use to the listed use classification. If the Town Planner determines that a proposed use is not comparable to any use listed herein, he shall request the Planning Commission to determine off-street parking requirements for the proposed use at a regular Commission meeting. The Planning Commission-shall make such determination based on the following criteria: the similarity of the use to those uses listed herein. the zone district of the property, the need for off-street parking in the area where the property is located, the nature and extent of use of the property by the public, the number of employees who will work on the subject property, and the use capacity. Uses Not Known For unknown commercial space for which all or part of the space has no use designated the parking requirement shall be as follows: parkins spaces shall be provided at the rate of one per 225 square feet for the first floor and one per 275 square feet for all other floor area. except that an indoor restaurant, bar or tavern may occupy no more than 25% of the floor area without providing for additional spaces. 41 Buzz Victor Experience and Recommendation 1 ICJ 11 11 UNITED- STOR-ALL 5650 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard Suite 143 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 ' 303-290-9100 303-290-1886 Fax---- July 30, 2003 Mr. Mark Donaldson Victor Mark Donaldson Architects 0048 Beaver Creek Blvd. Suite 207 Box 5300 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Mark: ' You have asked that I comment on the requirements for parking a self-storage facility. I P 8 have attached information regarding my qualifications to make such comments. Historically, there has ' always been confusion about how self-storage differs from other forms of warehousing. As a concept, self-storage began in earnest in the 1970's. In those days, zoning codes made no mention of self-storage, and the closest category seemed to be warehousing. As time went on and , experience with self-storage increased, cities and other authorities grew more cognizant of the fact that self-storage and warehouses bore little relationship to each other. New assessments were made about parking requirements. In virtually all cases, parking requirements were reduced. It became clear that there were three separate requirements for self-storage "parking." The first of these was for individuals who were interacting with the property manager. These people were renting a unit for the first time, paving a bill, or notifying the manager of their move-out. These customers required parking near the facility, office. Generally three to five spaces were required for such transactions. The second requirement was for the manager/assistant manager. Two spaces were generally required for this use. Finally, came the requirement of the self-storage user who was moving-in, moving-out or simply accessing his goods in storage. There was no requirement for formal parking spaces for these customers. They were pulling up to the building near where their rental unit was located. Depending on building design, that could mean directly in front of their rental unit door, in front of the door that opened into the hallway leading to their rental unit, or in front of the door leading to the elevator that accessed the floor on which their unit was located. Often questions were asked about frequency of self-storage usage. What was the likelihood that ' there would be users requiring access to the same entry points at the same time? Traffic analvsis provided the answer. Numerous entities have looked at traffic at self-storage facilities. Two studies have been most widely used. One was by Economic Consulting Associates of Tempe, AZ. ' The other was by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Ranges in round-trips per hour in the studies were approximately 7 to 15. That is, in any given hour, 3.5 to 7.5 vehicles might be at a self-storage facility. Because length of stay at the facility is generally less than an hour, vehicle count at any given moment will be less than that. Further, in your specific case, where a large Ll "2 ¦ fl u t 0 r, 1 number of storage unit rentals are seasonal in nature, and where customers will not even be in Avon or the Vail valley for months at a time, the above mentioned generation rates are likely to be high. In my own experience, having developed and operated more than thirty self-storage projects in eighteen states, even where we have had limited land and parking opportunity, small numbers of parking spaces have been adequate. By way of a specific example: The photo on the left shows the parking and loading area for our eight-story conversion located in Denver (2100 E. Colfax Ave.) The building contains over 600 rental units and is served by one loading dock (the door on the right surrounded by red paint). At the time the photo was taken, my office was located in this building along with my staff of three. That accounts for four of the cars shown. In addition, the site manager's car was also parked in the area. You can see that no one is actively loading; that there are several other cars in the lot belonging to customers, and that we are storing one of our rental trucks in the same parking and loading area. This building has been operating successfully for more than twenty-five years as a self-storage facility with this limited parking and loading area. Given that you have three separate buildings, each providing self-storage units, and collectively containing approximately the same number of units as the building above, it is probable that there will rarely be more than one vehicle near the elevator access points at any given moment. Certainly there is no justification for formal parking spaces beyond those mentioned above. I hope that this addresses your needs. Please let me know if I can answer additional questions. Sincerley, bv t Buzz Victor - managing partner of Minibrook Partnership ("Minibrook'), is a pioneer in the self-storage field. ' He has developed twenty-five mini-storage facilities located in twelve states since building his fast project in Omaha, Nebraska in 1973. These properties, containing more than more than 2.5 million square feet of rentable space, are located in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Michigan, New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, ' Virginia, Tennessee, California and Florida. Additionally, he has acted in the capacity of contract manager for projects located in Vermont, Colorado, Virginia, Pennsylvania, California and North Carolina. ' Mr. Victor was a founder of the Self-Service Storage Association, the industry's first trade association and served as President for two terms. He has served on the board of the International Storage and Transport Association and acted as that group's Chairman in 1993. Widely regarded as an industry expert, Victor is the co-author of Self-Service Storage: The Handbook for Investors and Managers, a publication of the Institute of Real Estate Management. This book continues to be the best general source of information regarding the industry. He has published many articles in magazines, journals and newspapers as diverse as The Chicago Tribune and the Mini- , Storage Messenger. He has been quoted in the Kiplig= Letter, Real Estate Today, and a number of technical journals including that of the American Society of Planing Officials. He is often called upon to lecture before investment and real estate groups. ' As a consultant, Victor has served more than three hundred companies and individuals in the United States, Canada, Europe, South America, and Australia, helping them to enter the self-storage industry. His jifini- ' Storage Seminars, acknowledged to be the finest educational programs ever presented regarding the industry, have been presented to more than two thousand individuals. Many of these have entered the industry and are now leaders in there own right. Victor has acted as an "expert witness" in several cases involving self-storage valuation and operation. ' Victor founded Mini-Storage Alarm Company now ( Sentinel Systems Corporation) in the mid_ 1970 s. That ' business designed the first security systems and property management software available to the industry. Its products are in use at more than 2,500 self-storage projects in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and South Africa. Victor sold that company to its current management in 1991. ' Victor was general partner of United Storage Associates, a public limited partnership vehicle, which raised more than $7.5 million and developed non-leveraged self-storage properties. Victor successfully managed the partnerships' properties until 1995 when they were sold. He served as general partner in a private limited ' partnership, which converted four buildings in New York City into self-storage. The project was sold in 1998. In 1994, operating as United Stor-All Centers, Inc. ("United") Victor and a partner amalgamated a group of 36 ' self-storage facilities located throughout the United States and negotiated their sale in 1995, to Storage USA, then a publicly traded New York Stock Exchange Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT"). Beginning in 1996, United, in partnership with Storage USA, developed fourteen properties located in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Most recently, Minibrook is a partner in an entity that just opened an eight-hundred-unit self-storage facility in ' Oakland. California. Buzz has been active in various community organizations, and is immediate past chair of the board of Colorado ' Public Radio. He and his wife, George Ann have been married for 27 years and have two children. ? ah t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Self Storage Standards and the Modern Community v t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ¦ Aug. 4. 2003 8:59AM LUNG CAPITAL GR-VlUP No.2083 P. 2 SELF STORAGE STANDARDS- AND THE MODERN COMMUNITY Published by. SSA The Self Storage Assor-L don, Inc. 650E r.r,s-4.le F.o:.i, Suite X15 Springfield, Virginia 22150 ,0 Aus +. X003 8:59AM LUND CAPITAL GROUP N o . 2 0 8 3 P. 3 r 1 saF AMIAGE _a7 ' ! AWE Copyright ® 2002, All rights rese ved. Sr >f Storage Association, ' Inc., 6506 Loisdale Roar?, 5p7in fiela, irginia 22150. This material (including bur not limited to the text and images), individually and collectively, may not be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the express consent of the SSA. Modification of the ' Materials or use of the Materials for any other purpose is a violation of SSA's or such other sources' copyright, trademark and other proprietary rghts_ This material is designed to provide authoritative information :z ' regard to the subject matter being covered. It is provided as a general guide and should not be construed as rendering legal, accounting, or other professional advice. 1 I I- --- F1 Jun-24. 2003 4:46PM LUNG CAPITAL GROUP No-1537 P. 3? - Self Storage and the Modern Community '_'he number of parking spaces required based on an < )solute is reasonable ranging from two to five. San :;rnardino, CA has a requirement for seven parking aces, but this includes the office, resident manager ..id customers visiting units. Greensboro, NC i _ quires five spaces for the entire facility. 1. _ our 1989 survey, we fotmd several cities establish W, r_ :;e parking requirements in part, based the number L units. None of our responding cities in the 2000 . ady did so. ARKING FOR CUSTOMERS `_ISING UNITS . ie most popular standard for parking requirements f..: customers using their storage units continues to b gross floor area (gfa). As shown in Table 10, 41.2 % c. all respondents utilizes this standard, versus 38.0 in 1989. What is very gratifying to see is that in c .-r 2000 survey, 33.8 % of respondent cities have no p...rking requirements contrasted with only 16.7% i-.. 1989. We believe this reflects more and more cities a. ; coming to recognize selfstorage facility developers a not going to build facilities with inadequate unit a.. ess. It may also mean that some cities see self s-: irage as a unique type of warehousing, but with a d: _femnt cmstomer base and fewer employees and they s:.aply don't know what standards to use. T tBLE 10 n..ETHODS FOR DETERMINING F ARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR C JSTOMERS USING UNITS NUMsen PERCENT G. osS Floor Area 33 41.2 N. -,mber of Storage Units 16 20..0 N . nc Required 27 33.8 .. e • -I., .. , t a. ?... ..... ?a.y . ,•••i-.. ate.- 12 ' NT. tuber of Warehouse E.:ployees 3 3.8 L C,.3tomcr parking requirements based on gfa of ' u..:.ts ranges from one space per 250 square feet to on.e pc: 20,000 square feet. The range of requirements is sh-)wn in Table 11. I1te central tendency was 1./1,000 N TABLE 1 I PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON GROSS FLOOR AREA OF STORAGE UNITS NUMBER PERCENT 1/250 gfa 1 3.0 1/,500 gfa 1 3.0 I/ I..()00 gfa 8 24.2 1/2,000 gfa ' a 5 15.2 1/5,ti00 gfu S 15.2 1/10,000 gfa 3 91 1/20.000 gfa 1 3.0 Variable gfa 5 15.2 Other gfa 4 12.1 33 responding ciries base their requirements on grass floor a? a Albany, NY, and Newport News, `'A, have respective standards of 1 per 250 and 1 per -400 square feet of gfa of : tozage space. Simi Valley, CA requires 1 per 20,000 with a minimtnn of three spacxs. Simi Valley also requires one parking space for every 50 boats or vehicles parked.. Jackson, MS requires 1 parking space for every 10,000 square feet of climate controlled space, otherwise a total of five spaces. Charlotte, NC, standard is 0.25 Parking space per 1,000 gfa, Anaheim, CA's is 0.27 space per 1,000 gfa and Lakewood. CO requires 0.35 space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area- Of the 1.6 responding cities which require parking based on number of units, 1.2 have standards ranging from one space per 10 tttdts to one space per 30 units. Springfield, MO requires a parking space for every unit with a door which opens on a driveway. Moreno Valley requires one space per 100 emits.. RESIDENT MANAGER Increasingly, owners/operators of self storage facilities are moving away from having resident managers. Primary reasons for this are cost servings (labor and space required for office parking), enhanced. automated operational and security systems and manager burnout Ironically, a higher vo P. %)un.c't. 4UUJ 4-*urm LUnU UAVIIAL UKUUP in 1989 nearly 60 % of the respondents gave us ' responses in specific square footages. This year 57.1 % gave the response "varies with zone," and of the remaining 42-8 %,18 or 23.4 % permitted sign faces ' with between 101 and 400 square feet The rcAini?, 13, or 16.9 %, restricted signage to 100 square feet or less. These arc shown below ' Santa Rosa, CAS -100 Plano, TX -100 Fontana,CA -100 Independence,MO -100 Livonia, LA -100 (wall sign only) Boise, ID -80 Peoria,11, -70 G G 1 n 1 TABLE S METHODS OF DETERMINING OFF-STREET OFFICE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Self Storage and the.Modern Community PARKING We didn't find any degree of universality of parking standards in our 1989 survey. The results are unchanged in our 2000 survey. We continue to find that some cities have parking standards based on number of employees, minimum number of :,paces, E=d number of spaces, separate standards for the office and storage units, etc. These are shown in '1 able s. PARKING FOR OFFICE The central tendency was to base office parting on square feet of office space to determine oft=street parking requirements. This is not surprising, considering use of grass floor area (gfa) is a very common method for calculating parking requirements. Itequirements based on square feet of office space, plus a fixed number of spaces for the resident manager's quarters or square feet of office plus number of employees, are similarly to be expected- No .1537 P. 2-i-- - NUMBER PERCENT Square Feet of Office Space 26 32.5 Absolute MWimuxn 10 12.5 Not Designed Separately 10 12.5 Number of Employees 7 8.8 Number of Employees Pius Square Feet of Office 3 3.8 Manager Quarters Plus Square Feet of Office 11 13.8 None Required 2 2.5 Other Methods 11 13.8 Based on SO responses The range of standards imposed by the 42 responding cities which use square feet of office in determining parking requirements is interesting. As Table 9 shows, the standard ranges from 1 space per 200 feet gfa of office to 1 space per 5,000 feet gfa_ TABLE 9 PARKING STANDARDS BASED ON GROSS SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE NumaER PERCENT 1/200 gfa 6 14.3 1/250 gfa 12 286 1/300 gfa 9 21.4 1/375 gfa 1 2..4 1/400 gfa 8 19,0 11500 gfa 3 7.1 1/1,000 gfa 1 2.4 1/5,000 gfa 2 4.8 4-1-04 To - Planning and Zoning Dept, Town of Avon From - T.J. Conners, Owner -Developer AAA Mini Storage and Vail-Avon Commercial Park Subject - Tract Y Parking Variance, Metcalf Rd Gentlemen, It is our opinion that a parking variance is really another way to get bigger buildings approved and built. We therefore have the following concerns with a variance on Tract Y. 1) Due to the extremely dangerous blind curve, 10% grade, 35 mph speed limit, and automobile snow - slide and crash problems where the Tract Y access - egress drive will be located, it is in the public's best interest (especially the residents of Wildridge) to attempt to limit the size of the proposed buildings in order to have less traffic entering and exiting the subject property. Given these problems, the site does not lend itself to any variance in parking. 2) The Vail-Avon Commercial Park (exact same concept as Tract Y) has 58 spaces for 55,200 sq. ft. and parking is our number one problem. If the proposed Tract Y Project is held to the same criteria that we were, they would be required to have 138 spaces for the proposed 131,650 sq. ft, and they will still have parking problems. 3) Concerning the 88,000 plus sq. ft. of Self Storage, the parking is very much dependent on which type and size of units are proposed. Given the huge size of this facility, it is probable that the developer will have larger units (10 by 30 and even 20 by 40) which will then appal to sub contractors and small business owners. This, in turn, will require more parking than typical self storage and a variance would go the wrong way toward solving this problem in the future. If anything, more parking should be required for the Self Storage segment because this is certainly not typical self storage. 4) We have had our parking problems made worse because of the tendency of some tenants to run retail operations out of our Warehouse Building. This will also happen at the Tract Y site so once again it would be better to "go with caution" on any variance as complaints will almost certainly become the Town's problem. 5) Finally, we see tremendous site disturbance because cf 30 foot retainnig walls in plain sight and almost adjacent to Metcalf Rd. We teel that a smaller project without any parking variances would be more appropriate and would mitigate some of these unsightly retaining walls. Thank You RECEIVED APR 01 2004 Community Development 6\ Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, Colorado 81620 (303) 949-4280 July 16, 1993 Mr. T. J. Conners P.O. Box 548 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Height and Parking Variance Request, Public Hearing. Dear Mr. Conners: Thank you for your presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 6, 1993. The Commission granted approval to the variance request for the required parking and for the requested height variance, citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons. i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; and iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Cz'? Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary Copy/File h") STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 6, 1993 Page 1 Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek T. J. Conners Variance From Required Parking and Maximum allowed Height Public Hearing INTRODUCTION: T. J. Conners and Karl Bell, architect, are requesting variance from required parking and maximum allowed height. The requests relate to proposed 57600 square foot commercial/industrial building on Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. These lots are located on the west side of Metcalf Road. They are approximately 2.79 acres in total area, the lots slope to the east toward Metcalf Road. The zoning is IC- Industrial/Commercial. The lots have a 25 foot roadway easement and a 110 foot utility easement along the front of the lot. The back 160 feet of the lot is too steep to be usable. The proposed building is four stories high. The top two floors of each building would contain self storage mini warehouse spaces, the bottom two levels would contain spaces for service commercial offices/warehouses. As proposed, the two buildings exceed the maximum allowed height by four feet at the front facade and from four to zero feet on the south east corner of the roofs of each building. The applicant is also seeking a variance from the required parking for the self storage units. This Commission has granted a similar variance in this area in the past. Staff has not heard of any problems with the parking at the location of the previous variance. The total building area is 57,600 square feet. At the required I parking space per 800 square feet of building area, the required parking would be 72 spaces. The parking provided - 5' aces for a variance of 14 parking spaces. The building square footage is split, 28,600 to warehouse and 28,800 to mini storage. The warehouse space at I per 800 requires 36 parking spaces, leaving 22 spaces for the mini storage portion of the building. STAFF COMMENTS: APPROVAL CRITERIA: Before acting on a variance request, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following factors: 61? STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 6, 1993 Page 2 Lot 14/15, block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek T. J. Conners Variance from Requires Parking and Maximum Allowed Height Public Hearing a. The relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. COMMENT: Metcalf Road in this area is dominated by warehouse type uses. Staff feels that this request would have little effect on the existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. b. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. COMMENTS: Relief from the parking setback requirements is necessary to achieve uniformity or treatment among sites in the vicinity of Lot 14/15, a similar variance was granted on Lot 25. Due to the easements on the front of the lot and the steep terrain on the rear of the lot, this leaves little usable space, for this reason a height variance is necessary to achieve uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. c. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. COMMENT: The requested variance would have little effect on the above conditions or facilities other than the potential visual impact on Metcalf Road. d. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance. COMMENT: Staff has not identified other factors or criteria. 0 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 6, 1993 Page 3 Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek T. J. Conners Variance from Required Parking and Maximum Allowed Height Public Hearing FINDINGS REQUIRED: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance. A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. that the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, ii. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; iii. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity.- STAFF RECOMIIZENDATION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommendation is for approval of the variances and would apply findings from Section 17.36.050 A, B, Ci, Cii, and Ciii. 6°` STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 6, 1993 Page 4 Lot 14/15, Block I. Benchmark at Beaver Creek T. J. Conners Variance from Required Parking and Maximum Allowed Height Public Hearing RECOMNIENDED ACTION: 1. Introduce Application 2. Applicant Presentation 3. Open Public Hearing 4. Close Public Hearing 5. Commission Review 6. Commission Action Respectfully submitted Rick Pylman U? STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 6, 1993 Page 5 Lot 14/15, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek T. J. Conners Variance from Required Parking and Maximum Allowed Height PLANNING AND ZONING ACTION: Approved as submitted (,? Approved with recommended conditions ( ) Approved with modified conditions ( ) Continued ( ) Denied ( ) Withdrawn'( ) Conceptual, No Action ( ) Date Railton, Secretary of 6 The Cor?nission granted approval to the variance request for the required parking and for the requested height variance, citing the following findings: A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant ofhspvcial B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health the vicinity. C. That the variance is warrented'for the followingrreasons: i. The strict or literal inter retation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; and of-the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other Properties in t-pe u? AAA SELF STORAGE 371- Metcalf Rd - P.O.Box 1643, Avon, CO. 970-845-5000 To -AVON PLANNING AND ZONING - PRESENTATION APRIL 6TH, 2004 My name is T.J. Conners and I am the developer - owner of the AAA Mini Storage and Warehouse building on lots 14 and 15 immediately across the street from the Tract Y project. Mr. Donaldson and Mr Lund have submitted a preliminary plan to you that is conceptually an exact duplicate of what I built some 10 years ago - only a lot larger. WHILE IMITATION MAY BE A FORM OF FLATTERY, MY CONCLUSION IS THAT I MIGHT BE THE RESIDENT EXPERT ON THIS PROPOSED TRACT Y DEVELOPMENT AS I HAVE MANAGED AAA STORAGE AND BEEN ON THE ASSOCIATION BOARD FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS. I CAN STATE ABSOLUTELY THAT PARKING AT OUR PROJECT IS OUR NUMBER ONE PROBLEM. Consider that the Tract Y Project will more than double all self storage now existing in Avon, It is 3 times larger than the Metcalf Business Park, and 2.5 times larger than the AAA Mini /Storage Building - all on a site that was once designated open space and all of it adding more traffic, more accidents, and more danger to an already congested lower Metcalf Rd. The AAA building has 55,200 sq ft - the proposal for Tract Y includes 131,630 sq. ft. The AAA building has 300 storage spaces for 27,600 gross sq. ft. Using the same ratios, the Tract Y project will have approximately 950 storage spaces for 88,560 gross sq. ft. - 615 or so of which will be in the rear building. 1) Mr. Donaldson and his experts offeredeseveral case studies on self storage parking from all over the Country dated August 4 . As staff referred to this submittal as a "well documented request" in which they are basing their recommendation for the proposed variance, I thought it would be in the best interest of all to take a hard look at this documentation. See Exhibit C in your packet, reference item 1 titled Case Studies and I quote: a) Mesa, Az 4 spaces plus two for onsight manager - my comment is this makes no sense b).Santa Clarita 1 space per 2000 net sq. ft. means Tract Y (at 86x, gross to net rentable sq. ft. ) would need 37 spaces and the proposal is for 18. c) SWNAS states 1 per 5000 plus vehicle maneuvering space next to each leased storage space having individual external loading access. The plan submitted for Tract Y has one elevator or one individual external loading access for approximately 615 units in the rear building and little or no " maneuvering room near the elevator for this number of units. d) Lakewood at 3 spaces per 3000 sq. ft of GFA would indicate Tract Y needs 88 spacesthor the self storage portion, not 18 e) Denver at 1/10 of the Gross Floor Area is 8800 sq. ft at 144 sq. ft. per space (8 by 18) dictates 61 spaces, not 18. f) Steamboat at 1 space per 20 units given that the project will have 88,560 sq. ft and a total of 950 units would require 48 spaces, not 18. g) Eagle - the real number per page is 1 space for 1000 sq. ft. of floor area or 88 spaces, not 18. h) Self Storage and the Modem Community states that only 27% of the self storages surveyed have standards of 1 space per 5000 sq. ft or greater. That means that 73% have more parking than is being proposed for Tract Y and they are not located in snow belts. 2) AAA Mini Storage received a variance for parking and we have 58 spaces for 55,200 sq, ft. of building, If Tract Y is held to our variance parameters, they would need 138 total spaces, not 78 as proposed. NOT ONE OF SUBMITTED CASE- STUDIES SUPPORTS A VARIANCE- IN FACT THEY ARGUE AGAINST IT. m 3) On February 14, 2000 Town planner Karen Griffith wrote that the mixed industrial or industrial - commercial use on tract Y would be 2 spaces per 1000 sq. ft which would mean the I/C should have 86 spaces. As the proposal for Tract Y I/C has only 54 spaces, it appears that a variance is needed on the VC portion as well. See Exhibit B in your packet. Consider the following in lieu of the above information: 1.). The grade at the entry to Tract Y on Metcalf Rd is in excess of 10% (according to the Town of Avon Planning Department). 2) The Town has put up two minors to allow those exiting AAA Mini Storage Warehouse and Metcalf Business Park to have a chance to see the uphill traffic because of two blind curves. 3) The speed limit is 35 miles per hour at the Tract Y entry point with no bail out lane for downhill traffic. 4) Snow and mud slide problems make all of the above issues that much more compelling. To say that that section of road is now stressed beyond its infrastructure would be kind - to attempt to add 131,000 sq. ft. of additional warehouse with an exit onto this most perilous road section would be dangerous for the residents of Wildridge, the users / owners of the Vail Avon Commercial Park, AAA Mini Storage, the Metcalf Business Park, and the general public. On the self storage segment, the parking is dependent on how many of each type of unit is proposed. Obviously, if they allow businesses to run warehousing out of units that are 10 by 30 or 10 by 40 they are going to have a lot more parking needs than if the units are smaller. Additionally, some type of control - deed restriction needs to be implemented if the VC units can be sold as owners will run office, retail, manufacturing -just about anything they can get away with and this puts additional stress on parking for the entire Project. I would conclude that the parking variance as proposed is really a license to put up bigger buildings and, given the inherent dangers of the site, should be denied. I think it is evident that we do not need bigger as more traffic to and from this site will only make a current problem that much worse, Sincerely, T.J. Conners PRESIDENT - AAA MINI STORAGE INC SECRETARY - VAIL-AVON COMMERCIAL PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TOWN OF AVON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-10 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PARKING VARIANCE DETERMINATION FOR SELF STORAGE USES ON TRACT Y, MOUNTAIN STAR SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO WHEREAS, Victor Mark Donaldson Architects ("VMDA Inc."), representing ARI of Avon, LLC, has applied for a parking variance in order to create a reduced parking standard for self-storage uses proposed on Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, as described in the application dated October 1, 2004 and design plans dated March 17, 2004 as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, pursuant to notices required by law, at which time the applicant and the public were given an opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the proposed Variance application; and WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon has considered the following: A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; and B. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcements of a specified regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; and C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; and D. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed Variance. F21anning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions120WRes 04-10 TractY MTSTR SeltStorageParking Variance.doc 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon, Colorado hereby approves a Variance for Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision as described in the application dated October 1, 2003 and design plans dated March 17, 2004 as stipulated in Title 17, of the Avon Municipal Code; and based upon the following findings: 1. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; and 2. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the Variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; and a. The strict literal, interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the Variance that do not apply generally to other properties in that same zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. This application is approved with the following conditions: 1. The parking standard is specifically limited to the approval for the Wildridge Business Park (Tract Y) and shall apply to all areas labeled as self storage square footage on plans dated March 17, 2004. Parking dedication will be finally calculated at building permit based on compliance with the design review approval. 2. The parking standard will not be waived in the future should a tenant wish to `convert' self- storage space into another type of Industrial/Commercial land use. A new variance must be applied for at that time, or additional parking created on-site that meets code requirements for "Industrial Land Use". 3. All areas not specifically identified as self-storage shall continue to comply with the required "Industrial Land Use" parking standard of 1 parking space per 800 square feet of Gross Floor Area as indicated on plans dated March 17, 2004. 4. A full electrical plan for all levels labeled as "Self Storage" in both Building One (Basement, Level Three) and Building Two(Level Two, Level Three, Level Four) will be submitted at building permit indicating no rough electrical or electrical outlet(s) to any individual self storage units proposed. Compliance with these conditions must be verified at issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy. 5. No rough plumbing to any of the proposed self-storage units is permitted under the terms of this approval. FAPlanning & Zoning Comm ission\Resolutions\2004\Res 04-10 TractY MTSTR SelfStorageParking Variance.doc -/\10 6. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval. ADOPTED THIS 6th DAY OF April, 2004 Sign Date: D Chris Evans, Chair Attest: d'tu'7 ? Date: Sf ?.d©c Terry Smith, Secretary PTIanning & Zoning Commission\Resolutions\2004\Res 04-10 TractY MTSTR SelfStorageParking Variance.doc Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission April 6, 2004 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There is one amendment to the agenda. Item X, Final Design Plan, Lot 42B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5107 Longsun Lane, Applicant: Greg Macik, TAB Associates, Inc., has been moved to the Consent Agenda. There were no additions to the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Evans disclosed a conflict of interest with Item VII, Sketch Design Plan, Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Metcalf Road (address not assigned), Applicant: Mark Donaldson; Item VIII, Special Review Use Application, Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Metcalf Road (address not assigned), Resolution No. 04-09, Applicant/Architect: Mark Donaldson and Item IX, Variance Applications, Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Metcalf Road (address not assigned), Resolution No. 04-10, Applicant/Architect: Mark Donaldson. V. Consent Agenda Commissioner Karow motioned for the approval of the Meeting Minutes from the March 16, 2004, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting and Item X, Final Design Plan, Lot 42B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5107 Longsun Lane, Applicant: Greg Macik, TAB Associates, Inc., on the Consent Agenda, be approved. Commissioner Didier seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Him abstaining due to his absence at the last meeting. VI. Comprehensive Plan Update and Public Input The public is invited to attend and submit oral and written comments on what issues they consider important to address in the Comprehensive Plan update. The Commission will review the information submitted by the consultant team to date, as well as discuss a proposal by staff for holding several 'neighborhood' meetings in an effort to collect public input. FAPIanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page 1 of 10 10 Tambi Katieb presented the update. The second Steering Committee meeting had just adjourned prior to the start of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Phase One part of this project is under way. Some of the economic and build-out analyses are being drafted. The Steering Committee is being asked questions on issue identification and forming of the vision. Mr. Katieb urged the public to fill out the available comment cards and to visit the town's website for information. Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Smith are both on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. Commissioner Evans encouraged public input so that the plan will be the consensus of the Town of Avon's residents. Tamara Underwood, Hurd Lane, expressed her vision for Avon as the gateway to Beaver Creek. She feels that to attract this visitor group to Avon would be beneficial as Beaver Creek is an internationally known entity. She believed the Big Box and commercial direction for Avon is not an attraction to the Beaver Creek visitor. She felt an important feature of the Town of Avon was the preservation of the historical aspects and believed that Open Space should be maintained as parkland. Commissioner Didier asked what sites would Ms. Underwood like saved. Her response was the water wheel behind Canyon Run and the barn by the red house on the Eagle River as well as the Water and Sanitation barn. Kristi Ferraro, Eaglebend resident, approached the podium in agreement with Ms. Underwood. She thought Avon should have more of a resort feel. She believed there should be no commercial sites north of 1-70 and Post Blvd, greater usage of the Eagle River feature, and was concerned about dust mitigation. Commissioner Evans suggested that she contact Town Council, with her dust concerns. Dave Svabik, Metcalf Road business owner, approached the podium. He asked that the Planning and Zoning Commission encourage prospective business owners to open businesses in Avon and felt Avon needs entertainment in the evening. He felt the Steering Committee for the Comprehensive Plan was doing a good job. Commissioner Evans noticed Amy Phillips in the audience and advised the public that she was on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee. Chris Ekrum, Eaglebend Drive resident, was concerned with the planning and coordination of the Village at Avon with the Town of Avon. She would like to see more cooperation in this development between the two entities. Commissioner Evans brought to the attention of the public that this section would be discussed at the beginning of each Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. FAPlanning & Zoning CommissionNinutes12004\040604.doc Page 2 of 10 \ VII. Sketch Design Plan A. Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision Metcalf Road (address not assigned) Applicant: Mark Donaldson The applicant, Victor Mark Donaldson ("VMD") has submitted a sketch plan application for a business and storage facility consisting located on Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision referred to as the "Wildridge Business Park & Storage Facility" in the application dated October 1, 2003 and plans dated March 17, 2004. There are two (2) buildings proposed, which include 88,065 esq. of self- storage/warehouse and 43,110 sq. ft. of industrial/commercial space. Accompanying the Sketch Design are a Special Review Use permit application for a caretaker unit and also a parking variance application for the self-storage. The applications being presented were a change from the original project by the deletion of the third building, reduction of total gross floor area of roughly 10,000 square feet and the submittal of the variance application for a specific determination for parking standards for self storage that could be applied to this project. Tambi Katieb presented the Staff Reports for the Sketch Design Plan, Special Review Use and Variance Applications for Tract Y. It was agreed that all three applications would be presented together and it was concurred by the applicant as acceptable. Staff requested that the Sketch Design Application be approved as presented with stated conditions. Special Review Use as presented in the Staff Report with its two conditions is acceptable to staff and approval is recommended. Staff has found that there was not a common parking standard through research with PAS and other municipalities for self-storage facilities, as will be reviewed in detail in the companion variance application. Staff is requesting approval of Resolution 04- 10. Commissioner Karow questioned the 8% grade for the access driveway and it is allowable according to staff, and asked about the requirements for employee housing. He continued with asking how many parking spaces are required according to Town Code. Mr. Katieb responded that it is one parking space per 800 sq. ft. and there is a total of 78 spaces are projected. With the square footage proposed, there should be 164 spaces provided. VIII. Special Review Use Application - PUBLIC HEARING A. Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision Metcalf Road (address not assigned) Resolution No. 04-09 Applicant/Architect: Mark Donaldson F TIanning & Zoning CommissionWinutes\2004\040604.doc Page 3 of 10 e\1) The applicant is requesting a Special Review Use permit for a caretaker unit on Tract Y, Mountain Star. The request is consistent with the I/C zone district and a caretaker unit is encouraged throughout the governing rules, regulations, and Comprehensive Plan for the Town. IX. Variance Applications - PUBLIC HEARING A. Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision Metcalf Road (address not assigned) Resolution No. 04-10 Applicant/Architect: Mark Donaldson The requested variance is intended to allow fewer parking spaces than is currently specified for the self-storage portion of the project only. All other uses are parked as required by the Town code for "Industrial Land Uses". Mr. Katieb reviewed in detail the extensive background of the project and the rationale behind assigning a specific standard and tying the use to self-storage space. The majority of standards appear related to providing a space or two to caretaker or management unit, with no parking provided except in the aisles. Chris Juergens, of Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, approached the podium and introduced the members of his team. PUBLIC HEARING OPENS Michael Walter, manager of Metcalf Commercial Park Homeowner's Association, approached the podium. He presented his concern for the parking equation of one parking space for 800 sq. ft. and found it, in his experience, to be grossly inadequate. He was concerned with the issue of offices that could be rented and there would be a lack of parking available. It is a "market can handle" situation and if there isn't sufficient parking, it will be detrimental to the project. He also voiced his concern regarding traffic on the road. Barbara Richardson, assistant manager of Avon Self Storage, approached the podium with a question regarding if light bulbs are installed in the storage units. She mentioned that it has been her experience that people use these units as living quarters and child care locations since there is power available inside each of the units. Herb Richardson, Avon Self Storage, approached the podium and questioned the necessity for additional self-storage units. He mentioned that they are greatly discounting due to lack of interest and with more units in town, no one will be able to make a living. TJ Connors approached the podium as owner and developer of AAA Self Storage, which is directly across from this proposed project. He does not have lights in his storage units. He has 55,200 sq ft with 58 parking spaces and he feels parking is his number one problem. He stated that this new project would FAPJanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page 4 of 10 require at least 132 parking spaces for their square footage. He said the market is mediocre at best and that this proposed project would double the amount of units in the Town of Avon. Mr. Connors distributed a hand out and proceeded to explain Exhibit C of this project. Dave Svabik approached the podium, owner of Lot 13 across from the project, felt that if the parking requirement cannot be met, it should not be built. He stated that Mr. Connors has a problem with semi trucks getting into his site, and if this project is approved, it should accommodate truck loading off the street. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Smith is concerned with traffic and believes that parking for self- storage is different that an office building. Commissioner Neville and Commissioner Smith are both concerned that the project would change its basic concept and create a huge parking issue. Commissioner Him was concerned with the parking space allocation as well as the traffic and semi truck access to the site. Commissioner Didier thinks the use is good, he thought the project was too big for the site, the retaining walls are too big and to make the buildings smaller would assist to resolve the parking dilemma. Mark Donaldson approached the podium with concerns of the distrust being exhibited on this project. Concerns were voiced regarding heating and electric availability in each of the units. Commissioner Trueblood was concerned with the parking situation and thought Building #2 would be a fine location for an office building but the parking would be inappropriate. Commissioner Karow began his comments with the Special Review Use and that the manager's unit is appropriate, he felt the parking issue makes the project less valuable in the long run, he was concerned with the electrical fixtures in storage units, and felt the Sketch Plan would benefit from a model to judge the road access. Mr. Donaldson stated light would be accessible from the hallways and sprinkler systems. All units would be tempered to approximately 60 degrees. Commissioner Trueblood questioned the number of cages and their size. Ms. Richardson approached the podium again to discuss a site in Westminster that is similar to this proposed project. She mentioned that the cage situation is not a workable situation since wire cutters would be all that is required to enter another's unit. Rob Wagner, president of the association since 1983, voiced traffic and congestion concerns. He stated that parking is an issue with the lack of space currently in the area and that this project would have even less parking spaces. He was concerned with the definitions of retail versus warehouse. He remarked F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page S of 10 4\? that entry onto the road with its blind spots is an issue and would like something done before anyone is injured. Tambi Katieb proceeded to read the Town Code regarding Industrial/ Commercial uses. Commissioner Trueblood questioned why staff was unaware of the interior design of the project such as the walls and the cages. The plans submitted by the applicant did not reveal lights or cages for the project. Commissioner Trueblood continued with requesting the number of cages and their types. Mr. Donaldson responded with 42 cage types with a total of 578 cages based on the preliminary layout to date and on a market study. Commissioner Neville made motion to approve the Sketch Design Plan Application, Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Metcalf Road (address not assigned), Applicant: Mark Donaldson, with the staff recommendations and with a change in #2 eliminating the self storage units recommending an interior light fixture. Commissioner Him seconded the motion. Commissioner Karow requested that a model of the site be available at Final Design along with a model of the retaining wall. Chris Juergen approached the commissioners with a computer picture design to simulate a model. The motion was approved unanimously with all staff recommendations and conditions; and the model to be presented one week prior to Final Design for review. Commissioner Him made motion to approve Special Review Use Application, Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Metcalf Road (address not assigned), Resolution No. 04-09, for a caretaker unit. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion with recommendations as presented in the staff report. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Neville made motion for approval of the Variance Application, Tract Y, Mountain Star Subdivision, Metcalf Road (address not assigned), Resolution No. 04-10, with staff recommendations. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. First motion to approve ended in a tie vote. Discussion continued between the commissioners and included staff input that the number of parking spaces for this project based on square footage standardized basis, but instead, should be tied directly to the use. Commissioner Neville motioned for approval with staff recommendations and Commissioner Smith seconded. The motioned carried 5 to 1 for approval. X. Final Design Plan A. Lot 42B, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5107 Longsun Lane Applicant: Greg Macik, TAB Associates, Inc. Greg Macik is proposing a Final Design Plan for a duplex at 5107 Longsun Lane. The duplex totals 9,420 square feet in size. Materials proposed include: stucco, wood lap siding, board and batten wood siding, cultured stone, asphalt shingles, F:\Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page 6 of 10 Z?% and wood clad windows. A duplex on the lot to the west (Lot 42C) has recently been completed, and the lot to the east (Lot 42A) has a final design approval but no building permit. The Sketch Design for this duplex was approved at the March 16, 2004 Commission meeting. Moved to Consent Agenda. XI. Variance Application - PUBLIC HEARING B. Lot 58, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5170 Longsun Lane Resolution No. 04-11 Applicant: Robert Moehring The applicant is requesting a Variance for the placement of a structured retaining wall and a boulder retaining wall within the front 25-foot setback. Due to difficulty with the existing grades of the site, the proposed site design allows driveway access while keeping the house closer to the street. Matt Pielsticker presented staff report and requested the Variance and Sketch Design Applications be presented in unison similar to tonight's earlier presentation of Tract Y above. Staff requested approval. Robert Moehring approached the podium to present his project. Ruth Borne requested that the boulder wall become a structural wall and was listed as one of the conditions in the staff report to have less impact on the site. PUBLIC HEARING OPENS Ruth Borne offered clarification regarding staff recommendation concerning the retaining wall. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner deliberation began with Commissioner Neville's comments of comfort with the variance. Commissioner Smith agrees with comments on North Elevation difficulties and variance. Commissioner Him would like a third dimension on the roofline. Commissioner Karow agrees with staff recommendation. Commissioner Didier agreed with staff recommendation, however, has a concern with parking in driveways. Applicant says that there is ample room for a three-point turn with cars parked in front of either unit. Commission reviewed the driveway with applicant. Commissioner Trueblood had no comments. Chairman Evans voiced concern that the 2003 UBC was used for this project and it has not yet been adopted and to beware of the height of this structure. FAPlanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page 7 of 10 XII. Sketch Design Plan A. Lot 58, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 5170 Longsun Lane Applicant/Architect: Lynn Fritzlen Lynn Fritzlen is proposing a duplex residence on Longsun Lane. The building comprises a total of 9,636 square feet. A switchback driveway design gains access to the site in an attempt to maximize the mountain views. This application is being reviewed in conjunction with a Variance application to allow walls to encroach into the front (25 foot) setback. Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report. Conditions must be met prior to final design. Commissioner review began with Commissioner Evans discussing with the applicant elevations and its visual impact. Commissioner Him questioned the type of door to be installed and the amount of stone presented. Commissioner Smith motioned for approval of the Variance Application, Lot 58, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5170 Longsun Lane, Resolution No. 04-11with the 3 staff conditions with amendment to Condition #1 that it should be a structured wall engineered to standard. Commissioner Karow seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Commissioner Smith motioned for approval of the Sketch Design Plan, Lot 58, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, 5170 Longsun Lane with 12 conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Karow seconded the motion with Condition 10 removed. The motion is approved 6-1 with a negative vote from Commissioner Didier. XIII. Revised Sketch/Final Design Plan B. Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision 4791 Wildridge Road East Applicant: Dave Dantas The applicant, Dave Dantas, is proposing a revised Final Design Plan for his property on Wildridge Road East. A Final Design Plan has been approved for this lot, and a building permit has been issued for construction. The site plan for this application (including driveway design and tiered retaining walls) has changed little from the original approval. However, the floor plans and elevations have been modified since the original approval. The application is proposed as a `fast-track' of both sketch and final design review. Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report. Staff is comfortable with approval providing all 8 conditions are met prior to building permit submittal. Commissioner Neville questioned Condition 4 from the staff report. Condition 5 had a typographical error. Commissioner Didier questioned drainage. FAPlanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page 8 of 10 V Commissioner Neville moved for approval of Revised Sketch/Final Design Plan, Lot 47, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision, 4791 Wildridge Road East, with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. XIV. Other Business A. Minor Project Approvals: 1. Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision 4500 Eaglebend Drive Material Change Applicant: Chris Jenkins Staff approved a change in building materials for a duplex on Eaglebend Drive. In place of "English Ledgestone" the home will utilize a moss rock as one of the building materials. The duplex is currently under construction. 2. Lot 18, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision 330 Beaver Creek Boulevard Material Change Applicant: Carolyn Christ Staff approval for a change in roofing material on the Beaver Creek Boulevard Town homes. The application replaced the existing (wood) shingles on the south side of the building with the same material (asphalt) as the shingles on the north side of the building. B. Planning and Zoning Commissioner Terms Town Council will do the appointments for Planning and Zoning Commissioner at the April 27, 2004, Town Council Meeting. XV. Lighting Ordinance Town Tour Staff and the Commission conducted a nighttime tour with a light meter to better understand site lighting issues before reviewing recommended lighting ordinance regulations. XVI. Other Business Ruth Borne mentioned the advertisement in the newspaper of 4 vacancies on the Planning and Zoning Commission with an April 15th deadline. Town Council will make the appointments at the April 27, 2004, Town Council meeting in order for new members to be seated by the first Planning and Zoning Commission in May. Ruth Borne continued with the items for the next meeting of West Avon for land swap parcel, Jay Peterson and his 11 development rights in Block 4 of Wildridge, and final design for Mountain Center. XVII. Adjourn Commissioners, Staff members Tambi Katieb and Matt Pielsticker, and public citizens, Chris Ekrum and Dave Kautz, proceeded to tour the Sheraton Mountain FAPIanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page 9 of 10 0\ Vista, 1St Bank of Avon, Canyon Run Apartments, Eaglebend Apartments, Home Depot, Wal Mart, Avon Crossing, Phillips 66, Metcalf Industrial Properties and the Barrancas Apartments with a light meter to better understand lighting issues. The meeting adjourned at 9:01 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman i Terry Smith Secretary FAPlanning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\2004\040604.doc Page 10 of 10 %I FROM :AAA STORAGE FAX NO. :9704762255 Apr. 23 2004 oe:07AM P1 4-23-04 To - Avon Town Council From - T.J. Conners, representing himself Neil Movitz, Attorney representing the Vail- Avon Commercial Park Subject - Reasons for an Appeal to the 't'ract Y Parking Variance Mr. Conners will be appealing the parking variance on Tract Y because the variance allows for less parking and larger buildings than would normally be the case. Mr. Conners believes that larger buildings with more traffic and congestion presents a dangerous situation to an already overly congested lower Metcalf Rd and that the Planning and Zoning Board violated Section 1736.0-50 of the Avon Muncipal Code which states `That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties of improvements in the Vicinity." Mr. Movitz will be challenging the arbitrary and capricious manner in which the Planning and Zoning Board granted the variance. Norman Wood From: John Dunn email Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 1:16 PM To: Norman Wood Subject: RE: Tract Y Appeal I would fax him the e-mail but I don't have it. -----Original Message----- From: Norman Wood [mailto:NWood@avon.org] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 12:02 PM To: John Dunn Cc: Larry Brooks; Tambi Katieb Subject: FW: Tract Y Appeal John: Will you respond to this? Norm -----Original Message----- From: Mark Donaldson [mailto:markd@vmda.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:23 AM To: Norman Wood Cc: Larry Brooks Subject: Tract Y Appeal Norm, Is there some reason that the alleged appeal cannot just be faxed to my office? Mark Donaldson This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** 1 Norman Wood From: John Dunn email Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:47 AM To: Larry Brooks; John Dunn; Norman Wood Subject: RE: Appeal of Tract Y? Mark, To reply to your e-mail, you are welcome to review the Town's file in connection with this matter. Ruth Borne received an e-mail inquiry from T.J. Connors on the seventh day as to the time for filing an appeal. The Town did not respond to that inquiry on the same day but is nevertheless treating the e-mail as sufficient to invoke Connor's appellate right as an interested party. By Town Code, the appeal must be heard at the first meeting following the filing of the appeal. Since that requirement is for the protection of the applicant, you may waive it. We need to know AS SOON AS POSSIBLE if you wish to schedule the appeal at a later meeting. Council packets are being finalized at this very moment. John -----Original Message----- From: Larry Brooks [mailto:LBrooks@avon.org) Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 9:02 AM To: John Dunn; Norman Wood Subject: FW: Appeal of Tract Y? You two can take care of this if you would. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Donaldson [mailto:markd@vmda.com) Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:08 AM To: Larry Brooks Cc: Tambi Katieb; Chad@LundCapital.com; Bob@PreeoSilv.com; Joan@LundCapital.com; Christ@vmda.com Subject: Appeal of Tract Y? Good Morning Larry, I received a voice message this morning from Tambi informing me that an appeal has been filed for Tract Y. Will you please, at your earliest convenience, provide a copy of that appeal and all supporting documentation affirming that it is properly and timely filed? If the appeal is indeed proper, please provide the possible dates that may be available for placement on the Town Coucil Agenda as our client, legal counsel and experts reside out of our area and will need to arrange their schedules to provide a complete response to this potential action. Thank you and we look forward to receiving your written responses. Repsectfully submitted, Mark Donaldson, Director of Design VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS 1 (::V Norman Wood From: Larry Brooks Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:56 AM To: 'markd@vmda.com' Cc: Norman Wood; John Dunn Subject: RE: Appeal of Tract Y? I will copy this to John and Norm so they are informed, and ask that they respond to you as soon as is functionally possible -----Original Message----- From: Mark Donaldson [mailto:markd@vmda.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:28 AM To: 'Mark Donaldson'; Larry Brooks Cc: Chad@LundCapital.com; Bob@PreeoSilv.com; Joan@LundCapital.com; Chrisj@vmda.com Subject: RE: Appeal of Tract Y? -----Original Message----- From: Mark Donaldson [mailto:markd@vmda.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:27 AM To: 'Larry Brooks' Cc: 'Chad@LundCapital.com'; 'Bob@PreeoSilv.com'; 'Joan@LundCapital.com'; 'Chrisj@vmda.com' Subject: RE: Appeal of Tract Y? Thank you Larry. Do you know when we may expect to have our request fulfilled? Mark Donaldson -----Original Message----- From: Larry Brooks [mailto:LBrooks@avon.org] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:07 AM To: markd@vmda.com Subject: RE: Appeal of Tract Y? Mark, I have forwarded you request to Norm Wood and John Dunn, as these two individuals are addressing this issue. I have deferred the Town's position on this matter to these two gentlemen, since John has had the discussions with Mr. Conners and Norm will be providing the staff report for this matter. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Donaldson [mailto:markd@vmda.com] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:08 AM To: Larry Brooks Cc: Tambi Katieb; Chad@LundCapital.com; Bob@Preeosilv.com; Joan@LundCapital.com; Chris)@vmda.com Subject: Appeal of Tract Y? Good Morning Larry, I received a voice message this morning from Tambi informing me that an appeal has been filed for Tract Y. Will you please, at your earliest convenience, provide a copy of that appeal and all supporting documentation affirming that it is properly and timely filed? If the appeal is indeed proper, please provide the possible dates that may be available for placement on the Town Coucil Agenda as our client, legal 1 (q? counsel and experts reside out of our area and will need to arrange their schedules to provide a complete response to this potential action. Thank you and we look forward to receiving your written responses. Repsectfully submitted, Mark Donaldson, Director of Design VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** 2 Message Norman Wood From: Larry Brooks Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:47 AM To: Norman Wood Subject: FW: [Fwd: variance] Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message----- From: John Dunn email Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:02 AM To: Larry Brooks Cc: Ruth Borne Subject: RE: [Fwd: variance] Isn't there an appeal pursuant to 17.36.080? -----Original Message----- From: Larry Brooks [maitto:LBrooks@avon.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:30 AM To: Ruth Borne Cc: John Dunn Subject: RE: [Fwd: variance] Page 1 of 2 I think he asking you to so you should go ahead and complete his education in this regard. Please remember that many of our citizens find the code book to be confusing, so don't take anything for granted. Looks like something that John may want to review before it goes out. The two of you should confer and be happy with our response before you hit the send button. -----Original Message----- From: Ruth Borne Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:22 AM To: Larry Brooks; John Dunn Subject: FW: [Fwd: variance] I think someone needs to straighten him out! I will be happy to just let me know!! -----Original Message----- From: TJ Conners [mailto:storage@vail.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:24 AM To: Ruth Borne Subject: Re: [Fwd: variance] Hey Ruth, Thanks for the reply - I checked 17.28.050 on the Amendments to Zoning Code and District Map and I find that " the recommendations of the P and Z shall be scheduled for a public hearing before the Town Council in accordance with section 17.12.100" and further "that the hearing shall be held no later than 30 days following the planning and zoning action" Looks like April 27th at the Town Council chambers and I want another shot at this so we have conflicting info and I am going to make an issue out 4/22/2004 %C*\ Jymbbagc of this one. Please advise ASAP- T.J Ruth Borne wrote: ragu G ut /. The variance does not go to the Town. The approval on the variance by P&Z is final. Tract Y still needs to complete the final design review process then they may proceed with full working drawings to building permit. -----Original Message----- From: T7 Conners [mailto:storaae@vaii.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:51 AM To: Ruth Borne Subject: [Fwd: variance] Hello Ruth, Still looking for an answer on this one and can you include my rights concerning an appeal. T.J. Original Message ------- Subjectwariance Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:14:20 -0600 From:TJ Conners <storage awail.net> Twrborne avon.org Hello Ruth, Can you tell me if Mr. Donaldson now needs to go before the Council for his final parking variance approval on Tract Y a sequence - approximate time table would be to do so if indee necessary. As an example, does he need a full set of working any engineering, a model etc etc for this final approval. I thank you for your reply. Sincerely, T.J Conners ****************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mi mesweeper. com ****************************************************************** ********************************************************************** This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by NIIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** 4/22/2004 0\Q Norman Wood From: Ruth Borne Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:16 PM To: Norman Wood Subject: FW: Tract Y -----Original Message----- From: Ron Wolfe email Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 11:22 AM To: Ruth Borne; Tambi Katieb; JOHN DUNN Cc: Larry Brooks Subject: RE: Tract Y Thanks for the info... it does help. Since no appeal has been filed that I know of, I do not believe that I have to do anything other than disclose my response to TJ. I will not further communicate with TJ until the deadline for appeal has passed and no appeal has been made. To John Dunn.... the entire correspondence is below. Am I correct in my opinion on disclosure only. Also does TJ have any standing in this matter to allow him to appeal? Ron -----Original Message----- From: Ruth Borne [mailto:RBorne@avon.org) Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:14 AM To: Ron Wolfe Subject: FW: Tract Y Hope this helps! -----Original Message----- From: Tambi Katieb Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:42 AM To: Ruth Borne Subject: RE: Tract Y 78 spaces total provided, 74 required: *18 to self storage. *54 to IC (all at 1/800). *Caretaker unit parked with 2 spaces. I suppose if an appeal is possibly in the works, then Ron may have to recuse himself from hearing the appeal at this point b/c of the ex-parte contact. Thanks Tambi Katieb, AICP Senior Planner Town of Avon Community Development P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Phone: 970.748.4002 Fax: 970.949.5749 -----Original Message----- 1 q? From: Ruth Borne Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:36 AM To: Tambi Katieb Subject: FW: Tract Y Can you please clarify this for me--thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Ron Wolfe email Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:02 AM To: Ruth Borne Cc: Larry Brooks Subject: RE: Tract Y First of all, my best wishes for your "new life" whatever it will be. Thanks for your work on behalf of the TOA! Regarding Tract Y: What are the total parking spaces, the number of spaces attributed to the self storage with the balance, I assume attributable to the IC space at one per 800 sq. ft.? Thanks. Ron -----Original Message----- From: Ruth Borne [mailto:RBorne@avon.org] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 8:27 AM To: Ron Wolfe email Subject: RE: Tract Y TJ is referencing the APA research service we evaluated for the self-storage parking determination. The point we tried to establish was that the parking requirements are very inconsistent throughout the country and varied dramatically. Therefore, we relied upon Buzz Victor's testimony and the industry standards for self-storage. -----Original Message----- From: Ron Wolfe email Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 4:49 PM To: Larry Brooks; Ruth Borne Subject: FW: Tract Y What is TJ talking about? Ron -----Original Message----- From: TJ Conners [mailto:storage@vail.net] Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 6:51 AM To: rcwolfe@vail.net Subject: Re: Tract Y Hello Ron - thanks for the prompt reply - no crying over spilt milk - if its a dead issue then so be it - my problem was and still is that the studies that Tambi and staff relied on , when analyzed in detail, actually proposed at a minimum twice as many spaces than were allocated(by the variance) all the way to to 5 times more than were allocated. Love to show it to you over lunch sometime. T.J. RON WOLFE wrote: >Hi "TJ." Yes the variance granted by P&Z is final. I've copied Larry Brooks >and Ruth Borne on this and your e-mail and suggest that you contact Ruth to 2 O?? >get a copy of the staff analysis and report on the Tract "Y" project and >reasoning for the variance. I will recount my understanding of the project >and the reasoning but may be off in some of the fine points. >The biggest concern and risk to successful functioning of the site and >project is the possible use of the self-storage space for something other >than self storage. The project was approved with requirements that the >storage area will have only general overhead whole-area lighting, the >storage units will have no solid wall but rather will be cages, no >electrical roughing or service will be allowed to or within the units and >the same will be true for plumbing. Therefore an alternate and non-approved >use will not be possible without extensive modifications requiring a >building permit. The parking variance applies only to the continuance of a >self-storage use. All of these provisions are intended to keep the use as >approved and make any attempt to change the use difficult and easily >detected by Avon. >If it is indeed correct that 18 spaces are attributed to the self storage (I >don't know the count and don't know the total number of spaces for the >entire site), this may be more that experts testified to be needed for the >use. I understand that testimony was given that actual nationwide data show >that very few spaces are needed to support user access. The rest of the >project is IC and parked according to Town Code requirements without any >variance. We, the Town, will have to monitor the uses in the building to >make sure that none are illegally converted to a retail use that will >violate the parking provisions, etc. >I hope that this all helps and that you contact Ruth or Larry to sort out >any other info needs that you have. >Ron >-----Original Message----- >From: TJ Conners [mailto:storage@vail.net] >Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 6:32 AM >To: rwolfe@avon.org >Subject: Tract Y >Hello Ron, >As you may know, the Planning and Zoning group gave a parking variance >to the 131,000 sq. ft. Tract Y Project on lower Metcalf Rd. They >approved 18 parking spaces for 88,000 sq. ft. of self storage , and >we(directly across the street) are vehemently opposed to this as it >will make lower Metcalf more of a problem than it already is. My >question is simple enough - are we dead in the water on this one or do >they need Town Council approval for the variance or the project. I do >not think it is a PUD. Also, if they do need Council approval, any >idea if they need anything else to get it and any type of timetable. In >advance thanks for your reply. Sincerely , T.J. Conners Secretary Vail >Avon Commercial Park and Owner AAA Mini Storage. > > > 3 ON Apri123, 2004 0048 E BEAVER CREEK BLVD SUITE 207 Box 5300 AVON, CO 81620 Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 9 7 0.9 4 9.5 2 0 0 vmda@vmda.com Larry Brooks, Town Manager Fax 0 9 4 9* 5 2 0 5 John Dunn, Esq., Town Attorney Mayor Buz Reynolds Town Council Members Norm Wood, P.E., Acting Director of Community Development Tambi Katieb, Senior Town Planner Town of Avon Re: Alleged Appeal of Tract Y Applications Hand Delivered Ladies and Gentlemen: It is under protest and with duress that I file this response mandated by John Dunn, Esq. As the Applicant, we have not been privy to the alleged e-mail appeal, allegedly received on April 13, 2004. It has not been provided to my office and we still have no idea what the appeal is for, if it was filed timely, if the fee was paid or if the Town Clerk has seen it. Even with the email copies I was given yesterday, there was no appeal included. Why? I accept next Tuesday April 27"' as the date of appeal before the Avon Town Council and will continue to wait for a copy of the Appeal itself, Staff Report and Meeting Agenda, ostensibly without continued delay. Further, Victor Mark Donaldson Architects will stand up for the project approvals thus far and defend what ever it is that is being allowed to be appealed, for what ever reason, no matter the timing, payment of fees or the legitimacy thereof. As to duress, this wholly improper late notice of an alleged appeal now delays our project and the elements set in motion for this $ I OMM development. We remain cooperative with Dunn's need to satiate his need for the public to have yet one more attempt to de o roject. We will never object to public input, but we all know that Mr. 4, >nnors ' well versed in these matters and has already had his input. p' Respe lly submitted, Its Tonaldson, Director of Design VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS CC: Thomas "Chad" Lund, Vice President Lund Capital Group Robert Preeo, Esq. Preeo, Silverman, Green & Egle, P.C. 0? ARCHITECTS Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: John Dunn, Town Attorney Norman Wood, Town Engineer Date: April 23, 2004 Re: Tract Y, Mountain Star - 0910 Metcalf Road Parking Variance Appeal Summary: John Dunn has supplied the following with respect to questions regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission Approval of a Parking Requirement Variance for proposed development on Tract Y, Mountain Star. We believe this addresses questions related to the validity of the appeal based on the time of filing. It is in no way intended to establish validity for the basis of the appeal related to the criteria for consideration of a variance approval or corresponding appeal. Avon Municipal Code § 17.36.080 provides that any interested person may appeal to the Town Council a decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission, granting or denying a variance, provided that a notice of appeal is filed with the Town Council within seven days after transmittal of the decision to the applicant and the Town Council. The decision of the Commission now being appealed to the Council was made by the Commission at their meeting on April 6. T.J. Connors was an interested party in proceedings before the commission in that he owns property within 300 feet of the property for which the variance was granted. As you can see from the copies of a-mails in your packet, on April 13 Connors inquired as to his appeal rights but was advised by the Director of Community Development on April 14 that the decision was final and could not be appealed. That error was compounded by confusion over two issues, the first whether the time for appeal was as stated above or whether it was thirty days from the decision of the Commission. As is indicated above, the time for appeal of a decision granting or denying a variance is seven days after transmittal of the decision while AMC § 2.16.160(c) provides that the time for appeal is thirty days "unless otherwise specifically provided in this Code." The decision being appealed by Mr. Connors consisted of both granting a variance and other issues. It has been concluded that, since Mr. Connors is appealing only the variance, § 17.36.080 applies. The second issue was whether Mr. Connors has standing. Initially it was thought that he did not Further review of the record revealed that he was provided notice as an adjacent property owner. The fact that he was designated to receive notice is conclusive and he does have standing. J:Vouwff v MOS\2M4\TW Y MTSR Appeal Supp1mmtDw z The confusion with respect to those issues is regrettable, but the important point is that Mr. Connors made every effort to bring his appeal within the time provided. The fact that he did not fully perfect it until after the deadline can only be attributed to staff error. Therefore as a matter of faimess and, legally speaking, equitable estoppel, the Town ought to treat the appeal as timely filed on April 13. Town Manager Comments: • Page 2 0(? MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL HELD APRIL 13, 2004 A regular meeting of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held at 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado in the Council Chambers. Mayor Buz Reynolds called the meeting to order at 5:40 PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Michael Brown, Debbie Buckley, Peter Buckley, Brian Sipes, Ron Wolfe and Mayor Pro Tern Mac McDevitt present. Also present were Town Manager Larry Brooks, Town Attorney John Dunn, Assistant Town Manager Jacquie Halburnt, Town Clerk Patty McKenny, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Finance Director Scott Wright, Community Development Director Ruth Borne, Police Chief Jeff Layman, Public Works / Transit Director Bob Reed, Recreation Director Meryl Jacobs as well as members of the press and public. Citizen Input Town Planner Tambi Katieb presented an update to the Avon Comprehensive Planning process currently underway. He highlighted several avenues that the community can become involved, including surveys shown on the town's website. Michael Cacioppo, Speakout owner, made some suggestions to improving the physical setting of the Council room to include the general public more favorable, i.e. speak at the main podium for both work session and regular meeting as well as televise the work session meetings on television. He spent a few minutes describing the County's new live stream video project that is being launched. After some further discussion, Council indicated that the work session would be held at the main podium, meetings would begin at 3 PM, and Councilor Brown would check with Channel 5 about taping & televising the council work sessions. Ordinances Town Attorney John Dunn presented Ordinance No. 04-05, Series Of 2004, on second reading, An Ordinance Of The Town Of Avon, Adopting By Reference And Reenacting The Municipal Code For The Town Of Avon; Providing For The Repeal Of Certain Ordinances Not Included Therein; Providing A Penalty For The Violation Thereof; Providing For The Manner Of Amending Such Code; And Providing When Such Code And This Ordinance Shall Become Effective. He noted that Council authorized the selection of a new codifier to reprint the Avon Municipal Code and that according to Colorado Statutes it was necessary to readopt all codes in the existing book (including codes by reference) as well the penalty provisions of each section. Dunn noted that revisions were made to the "penalty sections" of the Code Book. Mayor Reyonlds opened the public hearing, no comments were made, and the public hearing was closed. Councilor D. Buckley moved to adopt Ordinance No. 04-05, Series Of 2004, on second reading, An Ordinance Of The Town Of Avon, Adopting By Reference And Reenacting The Municipal Code For The Town Of Avon; Providing For The Repeal Of Certain Ordinances Not Included Therein; Providing A Penalty For The Violation Thereof; Providing For The Manner Of Amending Such Code; And Providing When Such Code And This Ordinance Shall Become Effective, including the revisions. Councilor Brown seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with a roll call vote. Finance Director Scott Wright presented Ordinance No. 04-06, Series of 2004, An Ordinance of the Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, Granting by Franchise to Public Service Company of Colorado, its affiliates, successors and assigns, the right to use the Streets within the Town to furnish, sell, transport and distribute gas to the Town and to all Residents of the town, granting the right to acquire, construct, install, located, maintain, operate and extend into, within and through the Town all facilities reasonably necessary to furnish, sell, transport, and distribute gas within and through the Town; and fixing the Terms and conditions thereof. He noted that this ordinance would adopt a franchise agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado ("PSCo")and in summary it conveys the right to PSCo to provide public utility service (in this case natural gas) within the Town of Avon boundaries and allow the use of Town rights-of-way for the location of utility facilities and equipment, in exchange for the payment of a franchise fee. He explained that the rights are non-exclusive and the Town reserves the right to make or grant a similar franchise to any other company. The terms proposed is twenty years and the franchise fee proposed is equal to three percent (3%) of revenues. Revenues generated by this fee in 2003 were $47,404. He noted that Wade Haerle, representative of the Company would be at the next meeting to answer questions. Several council members had concerns with the following items: 1) Length of term of agreement at 20 years discourages competition, 2) the impact of complete de-regulation. After some further discussion, a motion was made by Councilor P. Buckley to table the Ordinance. Councilor D. Buckley seconded the motion and it was tabled with the following roll call vote: Brown, D. Buckley, P. Buckley, Wolfe - yea; Sipes - nay; McDevitt - abstain. Council directed staff to return at the next meeting with another ordinance that would extend the current agreement for a period of 3 months. Resolutions Finance Director Scott Wright presented the following Resolutions: ¦ Resolution No. 04-09, Series of 2004, A Resolution Authorizing the Town of Avon to Pay the Purchase Option Price in order to Purchase Sherwood Meadows Condominium Units ¦ Resolution No. 04-10, Series of 2004, A Resolution to Amend the 2004 Town of Avon Budget ¦ Resolution No. 04-11, Series of 2004, A Resolution Authorizing the Town of Avon to sell ten Sherwood Meadows Condominium Units He noted that action on the three resolutions would authorize the Town to exercise and pay the purchase option in order to acquire the Sherwood Meadows condominium units as well as amend the Town of Avon Finance Authority and Sherwood Meadows Enterprise Fund budgets to reflect the pay-off of the Certificates of Participations and the sale of ten condo units and finally allow for the sale of the units. He informed the Council that the Town would save approximately $165K annually by not having to subsidize this fund anymore. Council thanked staff involved in helping them accomplish this goal and obtain the savings. The following motions were made: Councilor Wolfe moved to approve Resolution No. 04-09, Series of 2004, A Resolution Authorizing the Town of Avon to Pay the Purchase Option Price in order to Purchase Sherwood Meadows Condominium Units. Councilor Sipes seconded the motion and the Resolution passed unanimously. Councilor Sipes moved to approve Resolution No. 04-10, Series of 2004, A Resolution to Amend the 2004 Town of Avon Budget. Mayor Pro Tern McDevitt seconded the motion and the Resolution passed unanimously. Councilor Wolfe moved to approved Resolution No. 04-11, Series of 2004, A Resolution Authorizing the Town of Avon to sell ten Sherwood Meadows Condominium Units. Councilor Brown seconded the motion and the Resolution passed unanimously. New Business Town Engineer Norm Wood presented information related to the Town's water rights, water consumption and corresponding development. Included were 2 memos from Leonard Rice Engineers, Ind. Dated 4/5 and 4/8 2004. He listed a number of issues that will require further Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 3 April 13, 2004 clarification (items were identified in the memo to Council). Reconciling the number of SFE's is the primary goal of the research. He noted that meetings would be held in the near future to try resolve the discrepancies that exist between the two analysis and then the group will try to develop a method to address development proposals that may exceed current projections. Some discussion ensued about the costs of the new event, Movies in the Park, presented by the Special Events staff. It was agreed to give the Recreation Department more time to recruit sponsors for the event. Town Attorney Report Town Attorney John Dunn reported that after an extensive hearing in Eagle County District Court last week on Avon Center's application for preliminary injunction on the development of Lot 61, the motion was denied by Judge Moore. He noted that the litigation remains pending at this time. Consent Agenda Mayor Reynolds asked for a motion on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Pro Tern McDevitt asked that item (e) Western Enterprise, Inc. Contract be removed from the agenda and then moved to adopt the consent agenda. Councilor D. Buckley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. a. Approval of the March 23, 2004 Regular Council Meeting Minutes b. Approval of the February 24, 2004 Avon Liquor Licensing Authority Board Meeting Minutes c. Renewal of Hotel Restaurant Liquor License for Outback/Denver I Limited Partnership d/b/a Outback Steakhouse #0623, 240 Chapel Place, Bldg B, Lamar Gentry Manager. d. Renewal of 3.2% Beer Retail License (Off Premises) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Wal-Mart Supercenter #1199, 171 Yoder Avenue, Jeff Crump Manager. e. American Crown Circus Contract f. Intergovernmental Agreement regarding 1-70 Central Mountain Corridor Coalition There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 7 PM. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk APPROVED: Michael Brown Debbie Buckley Peter Buckley Mac McDevitt Buz Reynolds Brian Sipes Ron Wolfe Regular Council Meeting April 13, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Fraidy Aber, Meryl Jacobs Date: 4-22-04 Re: Western Fireworks Contract Summary: We are recommending working with Western Fireworks for our 2004 salute. We have amended the contract since last council meeting to include council comments. (In case of fireworks cancellation, the fireworks can be rescheduled within the calendar year, OR a %30 penalty of the total contract amount would apply). The original contract's penalty was set at %50. In terms of selling the fireworks to another entity, the Town would not be able to act as a selling agent, there was a great deal of legal issues that prohibit this. But, in case of cancellation Western is willing to work with the Town to sell the fireworks and enter into a new contract with the new entity. We are submitting the revised contract for approval, Financial Implications: The contract amount is for $48,700; the Town will receive a %5 discount (2,435.00) if payment is made by May 1 st. Town Manger Comments: IV Attachments: Western Contract FIREWORKS PRODUCTION CONTRACT 1 of 3 1. This Contract is entered into this day of , 20 by and between WESTERN ENTERPRISES, INC., designated herein as the "SELLER", and TOWN OF AVON, designated herein as the "PURCHASER" for a fireworks production to be held on JULY 3, 2004. 2. SELLER will secure, prepare and deliver said fireworks as outlined, or will make necessary substitutions of equal or greater value. SELLER will include the services of a Pyrotechnic Operator to take charge of, set up and fire the display, along with such help as he deems necessary to perform the fireworks display safely, and in accordance with such Federal, State or Local laws that might be applicable. 3. SELLER agrees that the Operator and Assistant(s) are to check the display area after the presentation of the fireworks display for any "duds" or other material which might not have ignited. Any such material found by any person other than the Operator shall be turned over to the Operator, or the proper authority having jurisdiction, for safe keeping or disposal of said material. 4. PURCHASER will furnish a secured area with minimum safety distances established by the SELLER after an on-site inspection of the proposed firing location. PURCHASER will provide adequate police protection and/or other adequate security to maintain these distances. PURCHASER also agrees to have a fire truck available on location during the display. 5. No Purchaser Liability. In carrying out any of the provisions of this Contract or in exercising any power or authority thereby, there shall be no personal liability of the PURCHASER, its officers, staff, consultants, officials, attorneys, representatives, agents, or employees. 6. Indemnification. The SELLER agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the PURCHASER and its officers, attorneys, agents, employees, representatives, insurers, and self-insurance pool from and against all liability, claims, and demands on account of injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss, or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever which arises out of or is in any manner connected with this Contract or the work, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole in or part by , the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the SELLER, any subcontractor of the SELLER, or which arises out of any workers' compensation claim of any employee of the SELLER or of any employee of any subcontractor of the SELLER. The SELLER agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against any such liability, claims, or demands at the expense of the SELLER. The SELLER also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorneys' fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. 7. Insurance. a. General. The SELLER shall not commence work under this Contract until it has obtained all insurance required herein and such insurance has been approved by the PURCHASER. The SELLER shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on this project until all similar insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained and approved. For the duration of this Contract, the SELLER must maintain the insurance coverage required in this section. b. Insurance. (1) The SELLER agrees to procure and maintain, at its own cost, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the SELLER pursuant to this Contract. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this Contract or by law. The SELLER shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed by this Contract by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of it failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. FIREWORKS DISPLAY CONTRACT 2 of 3 (2) SELLER shall procure and maintain, and shall cause each subcontractor of the SELLER to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverage listed below. Such coverage shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurers acceptable to the PURCHASER. All coverage shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the SELLER herein. In the case of any claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (a) Workers' compensation insurance to cover obligation imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this Contract, and employers liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) disease policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the workers' compensation requirements of this paragraph. (b) General liability insurance with minimum, combined single limits of FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) each occurrence and FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage, personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall also include coverage for explosion and shall contain a severability of interests provision. (c) Comprehensive automobile liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate with respect to each of SELLER'S owned, hired, or non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the services. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (3) The policy required by paragraph (2) (b) above and by paragraph (2) (c) above shall be endorsed to include the PURCHASER and its officers, agents, officials, and employees as additional insured. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the PURCHASER, its officers, or its employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the PURCHASER shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by SELLER. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required by paragraph (2) (a) above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The SELLER shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required by the PURCHASER. (4) The Certificate of Insurance provided to the PURCHASER shall be completed by the Contractor's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the PURCHASER prior to commencement of the Contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The Certificate of Insurance shall identify this Contract and shall provide that the coverage afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated, or materially changed until at least 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the PURCHASER. The completed Certificate of Insurance shall be submitted to the PURCHASER'S Recreation Director. (5) Failure on the parry of the SELLER to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which the PURCHASER may immediately terminate this Contract, or at its discretion, the PURCHASER may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith as a cost of this project. All monies so paid by the PURCHASER shall be repaid by SELLER to the PURCHASER upon demand, or the PURCHASER may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to SELLER from the PURCHASER. (6) The PURCHASER reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. FIREWORKS PRODUCTION CONTRACT 3 of 3 (7) The parties hereto understand and agree that the PURCHASER is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Contract, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, 24-10-141 at sea., 10 C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the Purchaser, its officers, or employees. 8. It is agreed and understood that the PURCHASER will pay to the SELLER the sum of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS & NO/100 ($48,700.00) to be paid within fifteen (15) days after the date of the display. HOWEVER, if payment is made in full by May 1, 2004, a five percent (5%) discount will apply. That discount can either be deducted from the total contract price, or the PURCHASER may elect to receive that amount of extra pyrotechnic product in lieu of the discount. Unpaid accounts are subject to one percent (1%) interest charge per month after fifteen days. 9. In the event of inclement weather or other adverse conditions, so as to cause postponement of the display, it is agreed and understood that PURCHASER will notify SELLER regarding the postponement date, normally the following night, or at some future date within the calendar year. If the PURCHASER will not re-schedule the display within the calendar year, or completely cancels the display, the PURCHASER agrees to pay to the SELLER Thirty percent (30%) of the cost of the display ($14,610.00). If prepayment option has been exercised, SELLER will refund to PURCHASER the total amount paid, less the 30% mentioned above. 10. Witness whereof, we have caused our signatures to be affixed to this Document, on this day of ,20 WESTERN ENTERPRISES, INC. SELLER TOWN OF AVON PURCHASER BY authorized agent BY: authorized agent I Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Fraidy Aber, Meryl Jacobs Date: 4-22-04 Re: C.J. Cherier Contract Summary: We are recommending C.J. Chenier and the Red Hot Louisiana Band as the headliner for Salute festivities. The contract is attached. The contract has been reviewed by Kelly Milukas (booking agent for Beaver Creek Resorts - and for this band for salute) and by our Town Attorney, John Dunn. All comments are included in the contract. The contract provisions are standard for the industry. Financial Implications: The contract amount is for $7500; the performers will supply back line ($1000 value). Town Manger Comments: Attachments: C.J. Chenier Contract e t P?®4FM PROFESSIONAL F A C I L I T I E S M A N A G E M E N T Professional Facilities Management Loew`s Theatre Building 220 Weybosset Street Providence, RI 02903-3783 Telephone: 401-42I-2997 • Facsimile: 401-421-5767 March 24, 2004 Fraidy Abner P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Fraidy, 3 Please sign the attached contracts for the JuIy,4-,'?004 engagement of C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISIANA BAND in Avon, CO. Please forward the signed contracts to Mike Leahy at Concerted Efforts. Contact me if you have any questions. SAerel K DEnc. RSK/ SETTING THE STAGE FOR SUCCESS. LM4 1c fi_y. c-, PFM P R0 F E SS I0 N A L F A C I L I T I E S M A N A G E M E N T Professional Facilities Management Loew's Theatre Building 220 Weybosset Street Providence, RI 02903-3783 Telephone: 401-421-2997 • Facsimile: 401-421-5767 March 24, 2004 Mike Leahy Concerted Efforts P.O. Box 600099 Newtonville, MA 02460 Dear Mike, Enclosed are the signed contracts for the July 3, 2004 engagement of C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISIANA BAND in Avon, CO. Please forward a countersigned copy of the contract to Fraidy Aber in Avon, CO. Enc. SETTING THE STAGE FOR SUCCESS. Contact me if you have any questions. (Conceratr-To fa r P.O. Box 600099 • Newtornflle, MA 02460 USA Telephone (617) 969-0810 FAX If (617) 969-6761 musicians of A e UniteF n of qF the United Stotes tates a and Canada nada (HEREIN CALLED -FEDERATION") Contract Number: 024201 CONTRACT AND ANY APPLICABLE DEPOSIT MUST BE RECEIVED BY DAMS) CONTRACT SPECIFIED BELOW OR ARTIST HAS RIGHT TO VOID CONTRACT Whenever the term "the Local Union" is used in this Contract, it shall mean the Local Union of the Federation with jurisdiction over the territory in which the engagement covered by this Contract is to be performed. This Contract for the personal services of musicians on the engagement described below between the undersigned purchaser of music (herein called "Purchaser") and the undersigned musician or musicians is made this day of Number of Musicians March 17, 2004 Name and Address of Place of Engagement 1W17'f N61 Nfvi ??rc(c AVON CO Name of Band or Group C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISIANA BAND 2 Dalu(s), Starling and Finishing Time of Engagement Sat July 3, 2004 ONE SEVENTY-FIVE TO NINETY MINUTE SET START TIME BPM r? 10 ? Arts (?{{- 3 Type of Engagement UV?oT l l 0.?? X?tt U?w?? BUJ Capacity: 1400 Ticket Scale: N/A J Max. Gross Potential: N/A 8??Z 4 Compensation Agreed Upon $7,500.00 (SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED USD) FLAT GUARANTEE SOUND, LIGHTS, AND LODGING (3 DOUBLE ROOMS AND 2 SINGLE ROOMS FOR TWO NIGHTS EACH) TO BE PROVIDED BY PURCHASER. 5 Purchaser Will Make Payments As Follows CONTRACT AND DEPOSIT DUE TO CONCERTED EFFORTS UPON RECEIPT OF CONTRACT DEPOSIT: $3750.00 USD, PAYABLE BY CERTIFIED CHECK TO CONCERTED EFFORTS O 6- BALANCE: $3750.00 USD, PAYABLE IN CASH ONLY TO: ZYDECO EXPRESS C/O C.J. CHENIER BALANCE DUE PRIOR TO PERFORMANCE 6 Ne perlarereaco on, de eeoapearanl shall as recorded, reproduced or uammined from the place Of performance, m any manner .,by any means wheuoever. io in. absence of a specific wrin.n agreement with the Federation relatmq to and permitting such recording, reproduction or gersomsslon. This prohibition shag not be subject to the arbitration provisions sat forth in 1 below and she Fedauuon may enforce this prohibition any court of competent:rsdiction. 1 itraasa of Cwract - MinatlofOil- • his txprissly understood by the Puichaur and she musiciaMs1 who are parties to this contras that neither she Fad-tm nor in. Local Union are parties to this contract in any capacity except as expty proyided .6. boys and, th-f lm that neither the Fed.letion nor the Loch Union shag be liable for the performance or bleach of and provision hereof. a This contract. and he terms and conditions contained herein, may be intoned by the Purchaser and by each rim ician who is a perry to this contract or who,. name epip-, on the contract or who has, in fact, performed the engagement contracted for Iherem caged 'participating musc'aMs)1 and by the agent or ogmds) of each participating musician, including she Local Union, I AN claims and dispues which may ante between the Purcha and the participating tunic, .nma) legarEing the application e u i lotion d any of the terms o conditions of INS contract. including any disputes between the parties as to their rsspectiva obligation, and responsibilities hereunder shell be refined exclusively to binding .rbnrianim II a claim or dispute inwlw, participating musicum(,f who are ag members of the Local Union, than such claim or dispute shall be reterred to she Executive Board of the local Union. All other claims or disputes ansmg under titan contract ba"on the Purchaser and priminp ong musician(.) shall be 'started tome Intunauonal Exacnlw 8oerd torero called'IEB-) of the Fail .otion for erbaraon and determination N! wMrMewled.. The IE8 shall decide any question of wh h., n or the Local Union E ecuny. Bond has juri,d f own a particular claim or dispute. d This contract and all a*bn almn proceedings conducted forsundet shag be governed by 0-10 a urMn the lows of the c.:a"440%-1ius` notwithstanding the forum or ju 'st icton in which on action concerning this contrecl may be brought Ag erbgletion procasMnpr conducted MrewNer shag be conducted according to the Pules W Practice and Procedure of the IEB which may from nine to timu be in effect All arberatim p o asdings conducted by the Local Union shag be co col adopted by the Local Union. A copy of the HIS Rules of Practice and Procedure may be obtained from the secresary- Treasurerof the Federation in Nnrltir ?Arto o the Roger W If `• burned from the S.crete(y at the Local Union AN rulings and awards made by the IEB in aroteon h.leunder ,hag be final and binding upon the Purchaser and participating musncuinls). ?_ I bow, a Pear 7 `1(- again o onY W 1 C rating musician may bring on action to confirm or to wduce to judgment an Except awards of the IEB made on appeal a provided in al erbd,.,- award al the IEB only in Ne courts of the and .?-?? musiciaM,) ague to s bmo to the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts o/ the Su of N yallarNn .in. or apt t dg the IEB, the Purchaser end participating mueicianle) expressly agree that the prmdine pony in the purpose. Should.wl d coapeleM junsdiction io N .,bit,-awardshagbaaddiorm. marled to pdpmmtler reuomblkeadF 1Y Iges ,?:- - for Ajudgment M.- n ...f rming in Ila erlim.w. award, lot ano-yof leer, and for cost. mgy6d wf F,4 in dye coy any jonsdiction m which, party to In., emuact either nsidas or maintains an office er piece of borings. I AN rutmgs and awards made by the Local U o in.rbnntw M V*f tr a, a ,! L .? by any party who wt.. p sic Pmt N.aein. Appeals from such proceedings shag be perfected io the manner provided'm W flutes of Pncuu and Procedure or the IE8 All uhny ate,, d 3 •L ; i Union in arbitration w1h ch rte not appealed to the IEB hag be final and binding upon the Purchase, and participating rims-artist Any party to an arbitration proceeding I, 1. 1 ? » 'Vila roll appeal to the IE8 may bring an action to confirm or enforce a final deurminnion and award of the Local Union of g.pPasled. Of me IEB in the count d the jurisdbtron t a,M,% lei 4 14 i;wn it located, and Ne porch.... and pertlc Ohmill mualciontsf agree to submit to the jursiditnon of such court or Pourrs for Nat purpose. Should a coup at -patent jurisGCt pnoy tF,e Nf? s, 4rla,.di ri -oaier of the Local Union is bond conform in inter judgment upon an award of Ne Local Union, ar of me IEB made pre apPool. th P W ?gta87eat? A?f?yatf gale goad S Non-, mounials, papers or process which may be niquir.d to notify a chases er 4-alGipung musician(s) of the Pendency of a clan Or dispute or to iniliau a court action to confirm, enter judgment upon, or mlorce m arbitletion award rendered by me IEB or the Loral Union Eeeci ud ?pnd,5aa11 Os Bernd on Ne Purchaser anMOr p.rt¢ipalNp muatcionl,t by nrtilied mm, leswn receipt repueated, without mcersiry al personal aarwGe n timer W. al rmncs. AN athar nwius, mauruls, papers a praeu which may be required to conduct arbitration proceedings under this contract may be served by regular first class mad. ARTIST RIDER ATTACHED HERETO IS MADE A PART HEREOF In witness whereof, the parties hereto have hereunto set their names and seals on the day and year first above written. _.{.. (?(1) ASO0- ?} tVLj riot cb ZYDECO EXPRESS C/O C.J. CHENIER fopplili lawn a Avow Purchasers Full and Correct Name NNayame of Signatory Musician Homo Local Union No. gnature of Purchaser (or Agent thereon ` Signature of Signatory Musician r?rr-N$V64 44rS ICI IU vL ,,?_j?_?/C?? ?l) F Q_? I f) F 71?+n-? ET ,3 &V1aV•6XLV FED. ID.#72-1326207 L ; 220 P 3 +?, C'C` f3(io2-V Q D- -7qY, q039 ?.t7r XJ? ??J /KELLYMILUKAS 401 421 2997 X31011 FAX 401 421 5767/KMILUKAS@PPACRI.ORG ? fir CC) j? C.J. CHENIER & THE RED HOT LOUISIQkIAAN,D THIS RIDER SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE ATTACHED CONTRACT AND NEITHER CONTRACT NOR RIDER SHALL BE BINDING UNTIL SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES HEREUNTO. 1. ARTIST will receive 100% exclusive headline billing, or festival billing where appropriate in any and all publicity releases and paid advertisements. 2. Any additions to the show must be approved by ARTIST'S management. 3. All payment provided hereunder shall be made in U.S. currency. 4. PURCHASER guarantees that contracted amount represents actual amount to be paid to ARTIST. PURCHASER assumes all financial responsibility for liens, taxes, withholding, border broker, work visas, baggage overage charges and all ter fees above contracted figure. 5. PURCHASER es td make fl en (15) complimentary tickets available to ARTIST or ARTIST'S management, e unused portion of which may be placed on sale the day of the show with the permission of ARTIS-i* or ARTIST'S management. PURCHASER agrees to give out not more than 2% of the house in complimentary tickets without written consent from ARTIST or ARTIST'S management. 6. PURCHASER agrees to provide at no cost to ARTIST a. One clean, lockable dressing room with chairs for 7-9 people, mirror, 110 volt electrical outlet, heat or air conditioning. Ten clean cotton towels PURCHASER agrees to be solely responsible for the security of all items in the room area, and shall keep unauthorized personnel from entering said area. b. Deli tray including assorted fresh fruits, low fat cheeses, whole grain bread or crackers, (choose two: tuna fish, turkey, chicken, egg salad, lean roast beef), and fresh vegetables. Ptlr64t 6f X60 must provide a hot meal on day of show or a $20 buyout per member of touring party. c. Also liquids including soft drinks, coffee, Coke and juices. One case of bottled beer. These items and all utensils, plates, and glasses shall be made available at least two hours prior to performance. 7. Purchaser agrees to provide at his sole cost and expense a first class professional quality sound and lighting system appropriate to the venue size. PURCHASER MUST PROVIDED SOUND TECHNICIAN FOR SOUND CHECK AND DURING ENTIRE PERFORMANCE. PURCHASER must have sound system ready and functional with sound technicians on stage, at time of load-in and sound check or ARTIST is under no responsibility to perform said sound check. Sound requirements: 8. HOTEL: If PURCHASER agrees to provide lodging as indicated on the face of the contract, it must be in a P*V-class hotel. All rooms must have TV, telephone and shower/bathroom. Please arrange for early check-in. If the purchaser does not provide accommodations, he must refer the band to a local affordable accommodation. I< HOTEL RECOMMENDATION: 9. ASR TR 'V PURCHASER is pro ing international/intern air avel, flights must be on a major (ier/reg larly heduled flight . NO CH TER FLIGHTS! A ocal rep sentative of the promoter must me t the ncomit flight and cort the gro to the dep ing flight. A ground transportation will be pro 'ded and will c sist of minimum of a -seat c acity bus with ple room for luggage and instrt e t cases. ARNT r erves the right to app light itinerary before tic n . V.I -in. 10. Any television, radio or press interviews and appearance must be cleared through ARTISTS management. S xty.M) Dus 11. ARTIST reserves the right to cancel this contract if it conflicts with a bonafide offer or, afor the trical or television motion picture appearance or soundtrack, a network or major cable tele ision appearance, or a foreign or major national tour. Notification shall be made not less than-Q8-4"s prior to engagement contracted herein, and all deposits shall be returned. ARTIST'S representative and PROMOTER shall negotiate in good faith for and early mutually agreeable replay date. D??UMENTED+`rNUE OUT OF POCKET 3 EXPENSES TO BE PAIR 12. Provided that ARTIST is ready, willing and able to perform pursuant to the terms hereof, payment of any guaranteed compensation hereunder shall be made to ARTIST notwithstanding that inclement weather may render a performance impossible or infeasible. 13_ PURCHASER agrees tp-report ox office figures to Pollstar and Performance if ticket sales are 80% of capacity, or greater. ? re e 1 .tvy g? ? DOCUMENTED VFNI JF OUT OF POCKET EXPENSES I 3E PAID 12. FORCE MAJURE: If any member of Artist's party shall become ill or incapacitated or if Artist shall be unable for any reason outside of his control to attend the engagemen?'Artist shall not be required to perform, in which instance, any moneys paid by Purchaser shall be returned and neither party to this agreement shall be under any further obligation to each other. In the event of a civil disorder, the likes of which could result in damage to life or property, Artist, in his udgm nt shall have the r'ght to terminate this agreement at any time without liability. Page 1 of 2 Memo To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Norman Wood, Town Engineer Anne Martens, Assistant Town Engineer Date: April 22, 2004 Re: Resolution No. 04 - 12, Approving the Final Plat, A Resubdivision of Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 1, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado (4500W and 4500E Eaglebend Drive) Summary: William R. Varecha, owner of Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 1, has submitted a Final Plat to resubdivide Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 1, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado. This is a Duplex Subdivision of a developed lot, creating Duplex lots 11 W and 11 E. The Subdivision is in conformance with the Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code, Subdivisions. Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 04 -12, Series of 2004, A Resolution Approving the Final Plat, a Resubdivision of Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 1, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, subject to completion of technical corrections to be approved by staff. Town Manager Comments: I:\Engineering\Subdivision\Other\L11 B1 F1 EB.doc TOWN OF AVON RESOLUTION NO. 04 -12 Series of 2004 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, A RE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 11, BLOCK 1, EAGLEBEND SUBDIVISION, FILING 1, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, William R. Varecha has submitted a Final Plat for a Resubdivision of Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 1, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Final Plat has been reviewed by the Town Staff, and WHEREAS, the Final Plat was found to be substantially in conformance with Title 16 of the Avon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements for consideration as a Final Plat. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, that the Final Plat for a Resubdivision of Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision, Filing 1, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, is hereby approved by the Town of Avon subject to: The completion of technical corrections as identified by Town Staff. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 2004. TOWN COUNCIL TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO Albert D. Reynolds, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 1:AEngineering\Subdivision\Other\LI 1 BIF I EBRes0412.doc