The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 0115191 Agenda posted on Friday, January 11, 2019 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: -Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org Please call 970-748-4023 for questions. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 15, 2019 100 Mikaela Way – Avon Municipal Building If you require special accommodation, please contact us in advance and we will assist you. You may call David McWilliams at 970- 748-4023 or email cmcwilliams@avon.org for special requests. I. Call to Order – 5:00pm II. Roll Call III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Work Session – Hahnewald Barn Recommendation Summary: PZC and the Historic Committee (Hahnewald Barn Subcommittee) shall view design materials to formulate a recommendation to Town Council for final alternatives. VI. Major Design Review –PUBLIC HEARING File: MJR18011 Applicant: Jeff Manley, Martin Manley Architects Property: Lot 27, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2613 Bear Trap Owner: Dana Del Gizzi Summary: Proposed phased addition to the home. VII. Work Session - Code Text Amendments Summary: Code amendment are proposed for the following items: Alternative Design (formerly Alternative Equivalent Compliance); Inclusionary Zoning; Development Bonus; and Short-term Rentals. The Commission is encouraged to bring questions, comments, and concerns to the meeting for discussion. VIII. Consent Agenda A – December 18, 2018 Meeting Minutes IX. Staff Updates X. Adjourn Hahnewald Barn – Final Alternatives 1 MEMO To: Hahnewald Barn Subcommittee Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Prepared By: Agenda Topic: Matt Pielsticker, AICP, Planning Director Hahnewald Barn Subcommittee Meeting Summary Anderson Hallas Architects will be presenting the final Hahnewald Barn design materials on Tuesday evening. Members of the Avon Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (AHPAC) will be attending. The plans have been updated based upon feedback received at the last Subcommittee meeting, as well as Town Council meetings. The purpose of the work session will be to formulate a recommendation to the Town Council on the final alternatives (Exhibit A). The Town Council is set to review the recommendation on January 22, 2019. In addition to the final design, the Town Council will review alternative strategies to move and preserve the Hahnewald Barn. Those additional strategies are also highlighted within this report for your information. Scheme B and Scheme D Since the last Subcommittee Meeting the design has been refined based on comments and direction received. The revised “final” Scheme B alternatives include a phased approach for moving the structure: 1) first to a new foundation; 2) partial finish out of lower level out with additional restrooms, and 3) complete finish of the main level event space and balance of the lower level support uses. At the direction of the Subcommittee and Council, the main level is presented as open as possible for maximum flexibility. External landscaping provides thoughtful tributes to Avon’s agrarian past, also with phased options. Scheme D is included in the packet as a lower cost preservation option. This alternative demonstrates that the Barn structure footprint can fit on the same location as the existing parks garage. However, staff believes this is not economically efficient or fiscally responsible because it would require demolishing a functional storage building with electrical, plumbing and heating improvements to replace it with a non-improved storage barn. Additionally, the parks garage and immediate surrounding area is heavily programmed with park support uses, therefore, temporary displacement would be disruptive to park operations. Council Update Over the last two months several discussions have taken place at the Town Council hearings, most recently on January 8, 2019. Those packet materials are attached (Exhibit B). Council has received significant public comment on the anticipated costs associated with a project to re-use and remodel the Barn structure as community building space. The January 8, 2019 Council materials include a list of other potential alternative strategies to preserve the Barn structure without the substantial cost of a complete rebuild. E-mailed public comments are attached as Exhibit C. The Hahnewald Barn Subcommittee should be aware that Council expressed consensus in considering a “least cost-preservation only” option, which would involve simply moving the Hahnewald Barn to a location on Tract G and placing on a permanent foundation. This option would not involve any reuse or public access, it would be a least cost option move for the Hahnewald Barn to prevent demolition and preserve the structure “as is”. Attached to this memorandum (Exhibit D) are diagrams depicting the Barn structure on the lower play fields and Hahnewald Barn – Final Alternatives 2 on the old Town Hall property. At this time, the cost estimates to simply move the Barn structure and place on a permanent foundation (i.e. without full basement) is anticipated at $1,000,000. The Hahnewald Barn Subcommittee has been tasked with reviewing the designs prepared by Anderson Hallas and providing a recommendation to the Council. Understanding that the scope and objectives of a preservation project for the Hahnewald Barn may be evolving at the Council level, staff requests the Hahnewald Barn Subcommittee to provide a recommendation on Scheme B to the extent that Scheme B is an appropriate design and location for a re-use and rebuild project to create a multi-use community space. More Info Additional information here: www.avon.org/barn. Exhibits Exhibit A: Hahnewald Barn Final Design, dated January 15, 2019, Anderson Hallas Architects Exhibit B: Town Council Memorandum, with attachments, dated January 8, 2019 Exhibit C: E-mail Comments (January 1, 2019 – January 10, 2019) Exhibit D: Other Options for relocation to Tract G HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT SITE STUDY - SCHEME A MAIN STREET VENDOR MARKETLOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE +7435 ENTRY PLAZA HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7435’ 2ND = 7448’) CREVICE GARDEN AND GRAND TERRACE STEPS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL TREE (ALLOW VIEW FROM DECK) RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE +7435 +7436 +7435 +7433 +7435 7435+ 7434+7448+ INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY AVON HAHNEWALD BARN FINAL ALTERNATIVES • JANUARY 15, 2019 AVON HAHNEWALD BARN FINAL ALTERNATIVES • JANUARY 15, 2019 PACKET INCLUDES: SCHEME A – NOT DEVELOPED FURTHER – BASED ON FEEDBACK SCHEME B – DEVELOPED INTO 3 PHASES B-1: MOVE AND PLACE ONTO NEW FOUNDATION B-2: FINISH OUT RESTROOMS ON LOWER LEVEL FOR PARK USE B-3: COMPLETE ENTIRE BUILDING FOR EVENT USE SCHEME C – NOT DEVELOPED FURTHER – BASED ON FEEDBACK SCHEME D – NEW OPTION – DEMO AND REPLACE PARKS GARAGE WITH BARN HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT SITE STUDY - SCHEME A MAIN STREET VENDOR MARKETLOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE +7435 ENTRY PLAZA HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7435’ 2ND = 7448’) CREVICE GARDEN AND GRAND TERRACE STEPS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL TREE (ALLOW VIEW FROM DECK) RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE +7435 +7436 +7435 +7433 +7435 7435+ 7434+7448+ INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY AVON HAHNEWALD BARN FINAL ALTERNATIVES • JANUARY 15, 2019 HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT SITE STUDY - SCHEME A MAIN STREET VENDOR MARKETLOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE +7435 ENTRY PLAZA HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7435’ 2ND = 7448’) CREVICE GARDEN AND GRAND TERRACE STEPS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL TREE (ALLOW VIEW FROM DECK) RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE +7435 +7436 +7435 +7433 +7435 7435+ 7434+7448+ INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY SCHEME B - PHASING DIAGRAM MAIN LEVEL MAIN LEVEL MAIN LEVEL LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL PHASE I MOVE BARN TO NEW FOUNDATION – NOT USABLE EXCEPT FOR LIMITED STORAGE (AND AWAIT FUTURE PHASES) PHASE II PROVIDE PUBLIC RESTROOMS IN A PORTION OF LOWER LEVEL ONLY; UPPER LEVEL NOT USABLE EXCEPT FOR LIMITED STORAGE, IMPROVE EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION TO PROTECT INTERIOR FROM WEATHER PHASE III COMPLETE FINISH OUT OF UPPER LEVEL AND EVENT SUPPORT SPACES ON THE LOWER LEVEL. CONCEPTUAL SCHEME B - UPDATED UPUP DNDN Scale Project Number Date Drawn by Checked by Anderson HallasArchitects, PC ARCHITECTURE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COPYRIGHT 2018 ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF:ANDERSON HALLAS ARCHITECTS, P.C. PLANNING Issue 715 FOURTEENTH STREET GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 (303) 278-4378 FAX (303) 278-0521 1/8" = 1'-0"1/4/2019 1:07:42 PMA1.0 AVON BARN 2018440AVON HAHNEWALD BARNRELOCATION ANDRE-PURPOSING950 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Avon, CO12/19/2018 LWB ACAVON ~ COLORADONEW BARN SCHEME B No. Description Date 1/8" = 1'-0"1 GROUND LEVEL SCHEME B 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL SCHEME B NUPUPDNDN Scale Project Number Date Drawn by Checked by Anderson HallasArchitects, PCARCHITECTUREHISTORIC PRESERVATIONCOPYRIGHT 2018ANY UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF:ANDERSON HALLAS ARCHITECTS, P.C.PLANNING Issue 715 FOURTEENTH STREETGOLDEN, COLORADO 80401(303) 278-4378FAX (303) 278-0521 1/8" = 1'-0"1/4/2019 1:07:42 PMA1.0 AVON BARN 2018440AVON HAHNEWALD BARNRELOCATION ANDRE-PURPOSING950 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Avon, CO12/19/2018 LWB ACAVON ~ COLORADONEW BARN SCHEME B No. Description Date 1/8" = 1'-0"1 GROUND LEVEL SCHEME B 1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL SCHEME B N HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT SITE STUDY - SCHEME A MAIN STREET VENDOR MARKETLOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE +7435 ENTRY PLAZA HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7435’ 2ND = 7448’) CREVICE GARDEN AND GRAND TERRACE STEPS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL TREE (ALLOW VIEW FROM DECK) RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE +7435 +7436 +7435 +7433 +7435 7435+ 7434+7448+ INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY MAIN LEVEL GROUND LEVEL SCALE:1/16”=1’-0” AVON HAHNEWALD BARN FINAL ALTERNATIVES • JANUARY 15, 2019 UP UP DN DN Scale Project Number Date Drawn by Checked by Anderson Hallas Architects, PC ARCHITECTUR E HISTORIC PRE S E R V A T I O N COPYRIGHT 20 1 8 ANY UNAUTHO R I Z E D U S E O F T H E S E D O C U M E N T S I S PROHIBITED W I T H O U T T H E W R I T T E N C O N S E N T O F : ANDERSON HA L L A S A R C H I T E C T S , P . C . PLANNING Issue 715 FOURTEEN T H S T R E E T GOLDEN, COLO R A D O 8 0 4 0 1 (303) 278-4378FAX (303) 278-0 5 2 1 1/8" = 1'-0"10/11/2018 12:33:10 PMA1.0 AVON BARN 2018440AVON HAHNEWALD BARNRELOCATION ANDRE-PURPOSING950 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Avon, CO09/30/2018 LWB AC AVON ~ COLORADONEW BARN SC H E M E A No. D e s c r i p t i o n D a t e 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 GROUND LEVE L S C H E M E A 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 MAIN LEVEL S C H E M E A N CONCEPTUAL SCHEME B - UPDATED HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT SITE STUDY - SCHEME A MAIN STREET VENDOR MARKETLOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE +7435 ENTRY PLAZA HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7435’ 2ND = 7448’) CREVICE GARDEN AND GRAND TERRACE STEPS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL TREE (ALLOW VIEW FROM DECK) RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE +7435 +7436 +7435 +7433 +7435 7435+ 7434+7448+ INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY AVON HAHNEWALD BARN FINAL ALTERNATIVES • JANUARY 15, 2019 INTERIOR EVENT SPACE SKETCH HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO Decemeber 18, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT PLAN OPTION B - PHASING DIAGRAM LOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK DECK +7435 +7434 +7433 +7433 7447+ 7434+ ENTRY PLAZA WITH 4’X6’ MONUMENT SIGN ENTRY PLAZA DROP OFF / ARRIVAL INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7434’ 2ND = 7447’) CREVICE GARDEN AND DUAL GRAND STAIRS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE MAIN STREET EXTENSION W/ VENDOR ALCOVES FOR MARKET & FESTIVALS EXPAND DEMONSTRATION GARDENS PARK PLAYING FIELD PHASE 3 IMPROVEMENTS 7434++7434FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE CONCEPTUAL SCHEME B - UPDATED HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT SITE STUDY - SCHEME A MAIN STREET VENDOR MARKETLOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE +7435 ENTRY PLAZA HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7435’ 2ND = 7448’) CREVICE GARDEN AND GRAND TERRACE STEPS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL TREE (ALLOW VIEW FROM DECK) RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE +7435 +7436 +7435 +7433 +7435 7435+ 7434+7448+ INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY AVON HAHNEWALD BARN FINAL ALTERNATIVES • JANUARY 15, 2019 AVON HAHNEWALD BARN FINAL ALTERNATIVES • JANUARY 15, 2019 HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT SITE STUDY - SCHEME A MAIN STREET VENDOR MARKETLOADING PLAZA PARK MAINTENANCE PARKING AND SERVICE ACCESS LAKE STREET PLAZA DECK FILL THIS SECTION OF ROAD WITH CUT FROM BARN SITE +7435 ENTRY PLAZA HAHNEWALD BARN (1ST = 7435’ 2ND = 7448’) CREVICE GARDEN AND GRAND TERRACE STEPS MULTI-USE LAWN (ICE RINK PLACEHOLDER) HOMAGE TO AGRICULTURE AND EDIBLE LANDSCAPE ORNAMENTAL TREE (ALLOW VIEW FROM DECK) RETAINING WALL REQUIRED HERE +7435 +7436 +7435 +7433 +7435 7435+ 7434+7448+ INTERPRETIVE BARN DISPLAY CONCEPTUAL SCHEME D HAHNEWALD BARN - AVON, CO Decemeber 18, 2018 HAHNEWALD BARN - CONCEPT PLAN OPTION D NOTTINGHAM LAKE AMPHITHEATER TOWN HALL APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK EXISTING TREES TO DEMO EXISTING LOG STRUCTURE PROPERTY LINE HAHNEWALD BARN EXISTING MAINTENANCE YARD EXISTING FENCING (TYP.) SCHEME D: “STORAGE SCHEME” • DEMOLISHES EXISTING PARKS GARAGE ON SITE • MINIMIZE COSTS TO SAVE THE BARN • PRESERVES THE BARN IN TACT • GIVES THE TOWN TIME TO RESOLVE THE FUTURE OF THE BARN • INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING (NON-HISTORIC) LOG STRUCTURE • BARN WOULD PROVIDE STORAGE TOWN COUNCIL REPORT To: Honorable Mayor Sarah Smith Hymes and Avon Town Council From: Eric Heil, Town Attorney; Matt Pielsticker, Planning Director; Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer Meeting Date: January 8, 2019 Topic: Work Session and Review of Options for Hahnewald Barn SUMMARY: A Work Session has been scheduled for Staff to provide an update and overview of the status of the design work on the Hahnewald Barn, and to allow Council the opportunity for questions and discussion on this project prior to the January 22, 2019 Council meeting. Council will be asked to make a decision on January 22, 2019 with regard to the Hahnewald Barn project. This m emorandum summarizes the status of the project and potential options for the project. WORK SESSION AGENDA • Presentation • Council Questions • Public Comments* • Council Discussion and Direction *An initial three (3) minute limit allowed to each person wishing to speak. Speaker may request more time at the end of the three (3) minutes, which may be approved by a majority of the Council. BACKGROUND: With the knowledge that the Hahnewald Barn represents the only remaining historic structure in Town, the Avon Historic Preservation Advisory Committee commissioned a Historical Field Analysis of the structure in 2012. The 2012 report was limited in scope due to the contractor’s inability to enter the property during the analysis. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (“ERWSD”) indicated its plans for a waste water plant expansion in 2012, which expansion will require the removal of the historic Hahnewald Barn structure from the site. This information prompted the Town to re-engage the historian who performed the 2012 study to conduct a more comprehensive study. The updated study, dated May 2016, is attached to this Report for your information as Attachment 1. During the Town-Owned Properties Master Plan process in 2017, advocates for the relocation of the Barn, with positive recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, brought the Barn into the final plan as a possible multi-use structure in the corner of Nottingham Park. Relevant excerpts from the adopted Town Owned Properties plan are attached hereto as Attachment 2.  Page 2 In late summer last year, Council contracted with Anderson Hallas Architects, PC., (“Anderson Hallas”) for architectural and engineering services to prepare a pre-design and feasibility study and estimated pricing to relocate the Hahnewald Barn. Preliminary programming and site planning alternatives were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council in October and November of last year. The preliminary design and alternatives can be found at www.avon.org/barn. Anderson Hallas has been working to pursue the next level of detail and design for final PZC and Council meetings. On January 15, 2019 the Steering Committee (PZC with Historic Preservation Advisory Committee) will review the final work products, which include more detailed cost estimates. The Steering Committee will then provide a recommendation to the Town Council for review and consideration on January 22, 2019. This will conclude Anderson Hallas’ design work and contract. It is anticipated that the total cost of a project to relocate the Barn to the Town Hall site, remodel the structure to create two levels of interior building space, and repurpose for various community uses will exceed $7 million. If Council desires to proceed with the Hahnewald Barn project as contemplated in the Town Owned Properties Plan, the next step would be to retain Mammoth Movers to move the Barn to the old Town Hall parking lot with a moving cost estimate of $400,000. The next step in the design process would be to prepare construction drawings and go out to bid for firm construction costs. The construction drawing design phase is estimated to cost $500,000 to $700,000. Currently, there is $1,900,000 set aside for To wn Owned Properties (which is potentially available for any project on any Town owned property). Staff provided a memorandum for the December 11, 2018 Council meeting which outlined the process for a special election on March 5, 2019, which would requi re Council to take action at the January 22, 2019 Council meeting. The estimate cost for a special election, including all direct costs and staff costs is $11,000 to $14,000. Mammoth Movers indicated that they are able to enter into a contract to move th e Barn as late as early March, 2019. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: As part of the design and feasibility work conducted by Anderson Hallas, we have a better understanding of the range of costs and feasib ility and challenges of alternative options. Council members have asked for information on other potential options to assist with the decision making process on this project. Other options are listed and described as follows. 1. Dismantle Structure and Store the Wood for Future Historic Reconstruction: The Town obtained bids to dismantle the Barn structure and store the wood. The estimated cost is $100,000-$200,000 (which includes detailed inventorying and numbering of each piece of lumber to allow for accurate re - assembly). This option would require a Request for Proposal for professional historic preservation company with experience documenting disassembly of historic structures. The Town physically has room on the north side of the Swift Gulch property to store the wood. It is estimated that the wood could be stored for 2-3 years without additional deterioration. Anderson Hallas estimates that approximately 20-25% of the lumber would be damaged during the dismantling and could not be reused. It is also expected that the structural integrity of the Barn would be compromised with dismantling such that any re-assembly would require an interior or exterior structure to hold the historic Barn wood together. It may be possible that a smaller (i.e. less length) historic representation version of the Barn could be created with the salvaged wood and the location for reconstruction is much more flexible. The estimated cost for this approach assuming that Town owned land used is $5 to $8 million depending upon the final size of the reconstructed barn and whether a basement is included. No design work has been pursued for this option so costs estimates are speculative.  Page 3 2. Dismantle Structure and Store Wood for Salvage: It is possible that the Town may be able to have the Barn dismantled for less cost without inventorying and numbering each piece of lumber and then the Barn wood could be available as salvage barn wood for other projects or for sale. Salvage of barn wood is not a traditional Town activity. 3. Move to Town Owned Property at the Village (at Avon): Town owns two tracts of land on Lot 1, Village (at Avon), including Planning Area B (approximately 4 acres) and Planning Area E (approximately 2 acres). The long length of the Barn makes it very difficult or not feasible to move the entire structure further east on Town roads through roundabouts and the Barn structure is too tall to move under the overpasses in Avon. The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way narrows to only 2 rail tracks on the rail bridge over Avon Blvd. bridge overpass. Staff does not know if Union Pacific Railroad would permit the actual use of its rail tracks and if there is equipment that can fit on the rail track that is suitable for carrying and transporting the Barn structure down the track. It is anticipated that it may be possible but is lik ely to be greater cost due to the complexity of using separate equipment to transport on the rail tracks. 4. Move the Barn to Re-Use as a “Covered Barn” Recreation Bridge: A suggested use is to move the Barn to the former bridge crossing on the Eagle River just west of the ERWSD waste water plant. No engineering design and feasibility work has been performed for this option. This option would involve a minimal distance move; however, the move would be on the recreation trail and across a river rather than on existing roads and driveways. Re-use as a recreation path bridge would not require construction of a basement or extensive interior finishing, but would require the construction of a steel bridge structure to physically hold the Barn. Currently, there is no public sideway or path on south side of the Eagle River. Any cost estimate for this option is speculative, but is likely to exceed $2 or $3 million. The timeframe to perform engineering design work for this option and to obtain permits to build a n ew bridge across the Eagle River would be difficult, if not impossible, to complete in 2019. It may be possible to pursue this project with dismantling and re-assembling the Barn lumber (see options 1 and 2). 5. Move Barn Structure to Existing Parks Storage Structure: This option would involve demolishing the existing storage structure on the old Town Hall site and moving and re-using the Hahnewald Barn structure as to be re-used as a storage structure. This option is likely the least cost preservation option because (1) it involves moving the entire existing structure a short distance, (2) would be placed on a slab on grade foundation without a basement, and (3) would require only minimal interior improvements. The existing storage structure on the old Town Hall site is functional and has heat, plumbing and electricity. The estimated cost of this option is anticipated to exceed $2 million; however, the cost estimate is speculative and no design or feasibility work has been conducted on this option . 6. No Action: Council has the option of determining to take no further action and inform ERWSD. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 – Historical Field Analysis, May 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 – Town Owned Properties Plan excerpts Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Historical Documentation and Field Analysis HAHNEWALD BARN Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant 950 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Avon, Colorado completed by Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, CO 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 12 May 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 1909 Fort Collins, CO 80522 tatanka@verinet.com 970.221.1095 www.facebook.com/tatankahistoricalassociates 12 May 2016 Eagle River Water & Sanitation District 846 Forest Road Vail, CO 81657 Town of Avon P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Subject: Historical Documentation & Field Analysis Hahnewald Barn, Avon, Colorado Dear Clients, In response to your recent request, I have completed the updated historical documentation and field analysis of the Hahnewald Barn. This large agricultural building, more than a century old, is now located on the property of the Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant in Avon, Colorado. I first took a look at the Hahnewald Barn six years ago, although at that time I was not able to enter the property. The building had to be documented from adjacent areas that offered views, which resulted in a limited degree of architectural description and analysis. This time I was provided with full access to the barn. In addition, I have completed additional archival research on its history that was not possible due to previous cost constraints. The results of my more comprehensive documentation and analysis are presented below. Sincerely, Ron Sladek President ATTACHMENT 1 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life TABLE OF CONTENTS Location, Setting, Use & Ownership 1 Figure 1: Site Location Map 2 Figure 2: Satellite Image of the Barn and its Surroundings 2 Description of the Hahnewald Barn 3 Photo 1: North Side of the Barn 4 Photo 2: East Side of the Barn 4 Photo 3: South Side of the Barn 5 Photo 4: West Side of the Barn 6 Photo 5: Lower Level of the Barn 7 Photo 6: Upper Level of the Barn 7 Photo 7: Roof Framing System 8 Alterations to the Barn 9 History of the Hahnewald Barn 10 Figure 3: Map of the 1890 & 1893 Metcalf Land Patents 10 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph of the Avon Area, 1970 15 Photo 8: West Side of the Barn, early 1970s 16 Photo 9: Upper Level Interior, early 1970s 16 Figure 5: Plat of Benchmark at Beaver Creek, 1976 17 Comments on Historical and Architectural Significance 18 Comments on Condition and Preservation 20 Bibliography 22 Appendix A: Photos of the Hay Rail and Carrier 26 ATTACHMENT 1 1 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Hahnewald Barn Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant 950 W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Avon, Colorado Location, Setting, Use & Ownership The Hahnewald Barn is located in the Town of Avon on the grounds of the Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant. This fenced complex is owned and operated by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, which launched development of the facility in the late 1960s. Access to the restricted site is by way of a narrow dead-end street known as Millie’s Lane that extends toward the southeast from W. Beaver Creek Blvd. After passing the LiftView Condominiums, the street ends at the entrance to the wastewater treatment plant. The barn is located in the southwest corner of the wastewater treatment plant complex. This specific location correlates to the SE¼ of the SE¼ of the NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 82 West. To the north, northeast and east are the buildings, parking lots, yards and landscaped areas that make up the wastewater treatment plant. Beyond the plant to the north are the historic Denver & Rio Grande Railroad corridor and Nottingham Lake. Constructed in 1887, the rail line remained in operation for over a century until it was placed out of use about twenty years ago. (see Figure 1: Site Location Map, on page 2) The Eagle River corridor occupies the areas to the southeast, south and southwest of the barn. This provides the barn with what little remains of its original rural, sparsely developed setting. Running parallel to the river’s north bank and located just outside the wastewater treatment plant’s south fence line is the Eagle Valley Trail, a popular route for walking, running and biking. To the west and northwest of the barn are the LiftView Condominiums. (see Figure 2: Satellite Image of the Barn and its Surroundings, on page 2) The Hahnewald Barn had a long history of use throughout much of the twentieth century as an agricultural building associated with the management of livestock. However, this use began to change by the early 1970s as the Avon area came under development and the adjacent wastewater treatment plant began to expand. For more than forty years, the plant’s managers and staff have used the building as a storage facility. It continues to serve this purpose today. ATTACHMENT 1 2 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Figure 1: Site Location Map USGS Edwards 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle 1962 (revised 1987) Figure 2: Satellite Image of the Barn and its Surroundings ATTACHMENT 1 3 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Description of the Barn This large two-story, concrete and wood frame building rests upon a concrete foundation. Its rectangular footprint’s dimensions measure approximately 30’ from north to south x 125’ from east to west. While the building may first appear to be a bank barn, it is actually above ground on all four sides. The walls enclosing the main floor (lower level) are constructed of board-formed concrete that rises to a height of at least 6’ above grade. The rough concrete that was most likely mixed on site includes cobbles and sand that were probably collected from the adjacent grounds along the river. Above the concrete, the upper walls are framed with dimensional lumber and finished on the exterior with unpainted, weathered board-and-batten siding. All of the small windows on the building seem to have originally been four-light windows with wood frames. A long gabled roof covers the building. This terminates with a large hip on the east and a smaller clipped gable on the west. The roof has been finished with metal standing-seam paneling that was installed in more recent decades to replace the original wood shakes. Open eaves with exposed rafter ends are present along the entire perimeter. Each rafter tail was finished with a curved lower edge for ornamentation. Three rectangular, boxed ventilators rise from the ridgeline. These are constructed of wood framing with board and batten siding on the east and west, and wood louvers on the north and south. Each ventilator has a gabled roof that is also finished with metal paneling. North Side: The north side of the barn is both physically and visually impacted by the fact that the higher ground to the north slopes distinctly downward as it gets close to the building. This appears to be a non-historic grading modification to the site and is discussed below in relation to the building’s condition. The narrow space between the lower concrete wall and embankment was filled with snow during the current fieldwork, obscuring much of the wall from outside the building. Because of this, the features there had to be observed from the inside, where the storage of numerous items also obscured some areas from view. What is apparent is that a pedestrian entrance in the lower level has long been out of use because it is inaccessible from the steep slope outside the building. This entry holds a deteriorated wood plank door with bracing on the inside. Also along the wall are three or four window openings that no longer hold the original windows but retain their wood surrounds. A single entrance is located on the barn’s upper level near its northwest corner. This is reached by way of a dirt ramp that fills the steep slope below. In the entry is a large vertical wood plank sliding door that is hung from a metal rail inside the building. The wood threshold is deteriorated and the header above the entrance is arched. Two small window openings are present on the north wall. While the windows are gone and they are boarded closed, they retain their wood surrounds. Also present just below the eaves are six horizontal boards with bolts in the middle that retain the six internal tie rods that run through the building. ATTACHMENT 1 4 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Photo 1: North Side of the Barn East Side: The east side of the barn is fully exposed to view and holds a single entry into the lower level. This is centered in the concrete wall and contains a pair of wood plank swinging doors, with the planks set on a diagonal. Flanking the entrance are two small window spaces that have been boarded closed but retain their wood surrounds. The tops of the concrete walls on either side of the entry are angled downward toward the corners of the building. Photo 2: East Side of the Barn ATTACHMENT 1 5 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life South Side: The south side of the barn is fully exposed to view but holds no entries. In the lower concrete wall are three window openings that have been boarded closed but retain their wood surrounds. Areas of the wall are deteriorated, with some sections entirely missing (more about this below in the condition section). It appears that there may have been a fourth window that is now gone. The upper wall has two small window spaces that are also boarded closed. Along the upper board-and-batten wall are a few additional features. Several horizontal boards that run the length of the building mark where the roofs of wood frame shed additions were once attached. Just below the eaves are six short horizontal boards with bolts in the middle. As on the north side, these retain the six internal tie rods that run through the building. Toward the upper southwest corner is a horizontal board with a metal rail attached to the top. Hanging from this is a vertical board with a metal wheel at the top. Just below the horizontal board, the vertical board is bolted into the building, rendering it stationary. What this feature was used for is currently unclear. Photo 3: South Side of the Barn West Side: The west side of the barn is fully exposed to view and holds an entry into the lower level. This contains a pair of wood-plank swinging doors with horizontal planks and wood surrounds. A large non-historic wooden handicap access symbol has been attached to one of the doors. As on the east side, the concrete wall flanking the entry angles downward toward the building’s corners. On either side of the entrance are two small window spaces that are set into the concrete wall. While both of these are boarded closed, a modern fuse box and electric meter are mounted to the window near the southwest corner. Electrical conduit rises upward from this meter, piercing the wall at a point just below the eave. This provides power to the non-historic electric lights within the building. ATTACHMENT 1 6 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life The upper wall on this side of the building holds a large centered hayloft door that is constructed of vertical wood planks. This is braced with additional planking on the interior. Centered directly above the hayloft door is the end of the hay carrier rail, which projects from the roof’s clipped gable. This was constructed with a horizontal wood plank that supports the metal rail below. The Louden hay carrier, patented 1894, along with a 14’ section of rail from inside the building are now in the possession of Tamra Nottingham Underwood. (see photos in Appendix A) Two small windows are present in the upper wall of the barn. One holds the deteriorated frame of a four-light window and the other is boarded closed. Photo 4: West Side of the Barn Interior Features: The building’s lower level features a center aisle that runs the length of the barn. On either side of this to the north and south, the long spaces there may have originally been divided into livestock stalls or for other uses. Today these contain equipment and supplies stored by the wastewater treatment plant. Once cleared, closer inspection of the floor, walls and ceiling may reveal physical evidence of historic features and uses that are not currently apparent. Steel framing was installed in recent years in both the northern and southern areas to shore up the floor above and to address the deterioration of several segments of the exterior concrete wall along the south side of the building. The lower level floor is of poured concrete, at least along the central aisle, and the flanking north and south areas appear to be dirt. Around fourteen heavy squared timber posts, many with chamfered vertical corners, flank the central aisle and run the length of the building. Horizontal timber beams rest atop the posts, and these support the upper floor joists above. Diagonal timbers placed at periodic intervals provide lateral support to the posts and beam system. These run from the beams down to the bases of the outer concrete walls. The ceiling in the lower level is relatively low and consists solely of the upper floor’s open joists. Graffiti is found on some of the posts, beams and doors toward the east end. ATTACHMENT 1 7 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Photo 5: Lower Level of the Barn The barn’s upper level is an expansive open room that runs from wall to wall and from the floor to the roof. With its unfinished walls and no ceiling, the building’s dimensional lumber framing is fully exposed to view. This area is used to store equipment and supplies associated with the adjacent wastewater treatment plant. The only modern intrusions include metal and wood shelving and a small area along the north wall where a couple of minimally framed rooms are located. Photo 6: Upper Level of the Barn ATTACHMENT 1 8 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life The upper level floor consists of its original wood planks. A simple rectangular pattern of widely spaced studs connected by two horizontal bands of short boards, together with sill and roof plates, forms the simple framing system along the walls. Horizontal wood plank tie beams formerly ran between the upper north and south walls, providing additional structural stability to the building. These have been cut off and replaced with six horizontal metal tie rods with turnbuckles. The rods are mounted to the walls with the wood planks that are visible along the exterior just below the eaves. Toward the middle of the interior, metal rod hangers suspended from the roof structure support the tie rods from above. The barn’s roof structure is light and without trusses, leaving the height of the space open for stacking hay. While the metal hayrail remains in place for a distance of about 5’ inside the west loft door, it terminates at that location. Presumably, the hay carrier once ran the entire length of the building. The roof rests upon the north and south exterior walls and is primarily formed of numerous rafters that meet at the gable peak with no ridge beam. Wood planks running the length of the building are attached to the outsides of the rafters to form the roof decking. These are clad on the exterior with the standing seam metal panels that are visible from outside the barn. A series of diagonal wood plank braces provide stability to the roof. These rest upon the roof plates at the tops of the north and south walls. From there they extend upward at a steep angle, attaching to the rafters at about their midpoint. Short horizontal boards with a slight incline connect the braces to the lower ends of the rafters just above the roof plates. Horizontal wood plank collar ties connect the upper lengths of the rafters to one another below the ridgeline, spanning the space from north to south. These are strengthened with a single band of horizontal boards that run the length of the building atop the collar ties. Vertical boards also connect every other collar tie to the upper rafter ends at the ridgeline above. Photo 7: Roof Framing System ATTACHMENT 1 9 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Grounds Around the Building: Unpaved grounds of varying dimensions surround the barn in all directions. To the north the ground slopes steeply upward from the long base of the building to the paved parking lot above. This narrow area is landscaped with grass, rocks, and several Aspen trees. The deep space at the base of the slope is filled with snow throughout the winter months. A short dirt ramp is present outside the barn’s north entrance near its northwest corner. This connects the parking lot to the barn’s upper level, and appears to be original to the building, suggesting that a ramp has always been located there. Beyond these features to the north are the paved parking lot and driveway, along with the wastewater treatment plant to the northeast. The ground just east of the building is at the level of the lower entrance. Two modern stacked concrete block walls with metal fencing on top rise a few yards to the east, one above the other. These run from north to south and form a terrace that encloses the small area outside the barn. Above the walls, the higher ground to the east is occupied by a gassed yard and a building associated with the wastewater treatment plant. The yard area south of the barn is unpaved and partially filled with piles of sand and gravel that are located against the building’s concrete wall. This area is bordered on the south by a dirt drive, a band of landscaping, and the chain link fence that runs along the perimeter of the property. The area west of the barn is narrow and consists solely of the dirt drive and chain link perimeter fence. Alterations to the Barn The barn is largely intact from its original date of construction and its period of agricultural use prior to the early 1970s, with few substantial alterations noted. (see early 1970s photos on page 16) The most obvious non-historic change has involved replacement of the wood shingle roof with the standing seam metal roof that remains there today. The south loafing shed addition has also been removed. These changes were completed during the past few decades. Most of the building’s small windows have been boarded closed and the frames and glass panes are now absent. However, the historic photograph from the early 1970s and limited physical evidence that remains on the barn show that these were primarily four-light windows with wood frames. The wood plank door on the lower west wall is not original, but is a replacement that dates from the past several decades. The original door there consisted of a pair of swinging doors with vertical planks rather than the current horizontal ones. The early 1970s photograph of the barn’s interior shows that the overhead north- south beams described above had already been cut by that time and the metal tie rods were in place. The hay carrier and a length of rail about 14’ in length have been removed and are in the possession of Tamra Nottingham Underwood. (see photos in Appendix A) ATTACHMENT 1 10 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Historical Background Prior to the 1880s, the entire Eagle River Valley existed in a state of undisturbed nature, with the river, open valleys, and forested slopes above supporting wildlife and generations of the Ute Indians. The State of Colorado had been established in 1876 and over the following years Euro-Americans moved ever closer to the Eagle River Valley. In the mountains to the east they established ranches and mining camps. Trappers visited the Eagle River Valley for years, however it wasn’t until the early 1880s that the first settlers arrived to establish ranches and communities there. Among the first to venture into the area was John C. Metcalf. The Metcalf/Metherd Era: John Conard Metcalf was born in Ohio in 1851 and by the time he was five years old both of his parents had died. He remained in Ohio throughout his childhood and was raised by an aunt. In 1879, John headed west to Colorado Springs, Colorado. What drew him there was his ailing older brother Ornan, a Civil War veteran who was struggling with tuberculosis. Ornan died that September and just over two months later John married Elizabeth Love. Known as Lizzie, she was the daughter of El Paso County livestock dealer John W. Love and was a decade younger than her husband.1 The 1880 federal census listed John and Lizzie as residing in the South Park area of Park County, in the mountains west and northwest of Colorado Springs. He had gained work as a ranchman, probably on a property owned by his father- in-law. By that time, Lizzie’s parents had moved to the mining town of Breckenridge, where John Love operated a feed stable. In 1881, John Metcalf and a small party of men, some of them members of his wife’s family, traveled from Breckenridge to Leadville and then down the Eagle River to the unsettled area that would soon come to be known as Avon. They found the land there so appealing that in May of 1882 John brought Lizzie and their infant son Wilbur to the locale. Lizzie’s parents resettled nearby, on a cattle ranch they established along Brush Creek near the town of Eagle. Over the following years, the Metcalfs and Loves became prominent in the Eagle River Valley community and both men served as early county commissioners. Upon their arrival, John built a log cabin on the open flats north of the river and the Metcalfs settled in to raise children and build their ranch. According to a memoir written years later by their daughter, Amy Metcalf Bowen, the cabin measured about 20’x 20’ and was built of unpeeled logs with a sod roof, single window, and a wood plank door. According to her estimate, it was located approximately 200’ from the river and about four-fifths of a mile west of where the Avon railroad station would soon be built. This placed the historic site of the cabin just north of where W. Beaver Creek Blvd. now crosses the Eagle River.2 1 Metcalf Family History, Unpublished Manuscript Posted on Ancestry.com; US Census Records for Lizzie Love, El Paso County, CO (1870). 2 US Census Records for John and Lizzie Metcalf, Park County, CO (1880); US Census Records for John W. Love, Breckenridge, Summit County, CO (1880) and Eagle County, CO (1885); Amy Metcalf Bowen, “Memories of Eagle County in the 1880s.” ATTACHMENT 1 11 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life In 1887, John sold a strip of land 100’ wide through his land to the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad (D&RGRR). This served as the right-of-way that the railroad used to construct its main line through the valley. The following year, he secured a water appropriation from the Eagle River and used it to construct the Metcalf Ditch (this was adjudicated years later in 1901). A ditch statement filed with the State of Colorado in 1894 showed that the ditch’s owners were John C. Metcalf (3/7), George A. Townsend (1/7), and Nottingham & Company (3/7). It was two miles in length and just three feet deep. Today the ditch is completely erased from the landscape in the vicinity of the Town of Avon.3 Although the Metcalfs had settled on the land, they did not actually own the property for a number of years. To address this, in early June 1890 John purchased 160 acres from the United States government that consisted of the N½ of the NE¼ of Section 11 and the adjoining N½ of the NW¼ of Section 12. The boundaries of his acquisition included much of the land that eventually came to be occupied by the Town of Avon. Several years later, in July 1893, he filed a homestead claim to an additional 80 acres that made up the S½ of the SE¼ of Section 2. This parcel was located just north of the acreage that he had acquired three years earlier.4 Figure 3: Map of the 1890 and 1893 Metcalf Land Patents 3 Warranty Deed, John C. Metcalf to the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, 10 January 1887; Statement of Claim to Water Right, Metcalf Ditch, Eagle County, Colorado, Water District No. 37, 16 August 1894. 4 Resume of Applications and Amended Applications, Colorado Water Division 5, August 1999; Cash Patent, USA to John C. Metcalf, 2 June 1890 for the N ½ of the NE¼ of Section 11 and the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 82 West; Homestead Patent, USA to John C. Metcalf, 18 July 1893 for the S½ of the SE¼ of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West. ATTACHMENT 1 12 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Three years later, in December 1896, John transferred legal ownership of the 160 acres in Sections 2 and 11 to Lizzie (he may have already sold off the remaining 80 acres in Section 12 by that time). Why he did this appears to be related to the fact that the Klondike Gold Rush had started in August of that year. John left for the Yukon Territory, where he joined the estimated 100,000 prospectors who flooded the region in search of wealth. However, according to family history he disappeared there in 1898 and was presumed dead.5 Following the loss of their husband and father, Lizzie and the children moved to her parents’ ranch near Eagle, where they shared the home with a boarder named Charles Curry. Although he was seven years younger than Lizzie, the two struck up a relationship and were soon married. In April 1905, Lizzie and Charles Curry sold the acreage in Avon to Joseph Metherd for $3,700. The sale excluded the strip of land already transferred to the D&RGRR, but included their share in the Metcalf Ditch.6 Joseph Henry Metherd was born in Dayton, Ohio around 1870 and as a child moved with his family to Cass County, Indiana. After growing up on the family farm, he moved west to Denver, Colorado and in 1899 married Luella Burns there. They initially settled in Breckenridge but relocated to the Avon area by early 1902 with their growing family. According to a local newspaper article about the 1905 land purchase, the Metherds were residing at the time on a leased property known as the McCoy Ranch and had no immediate plans to settle on the Metcalf property. In addition, the Metcalf Ranch was already leased to another party. In any case, Joseph Metherd owned the acreage for just a few years before selling it to Paul Hahnewald in July 1908 for $10,000 (more than $250,000 in today’s currency value). Following the sale, Joseph and Luella left the Eagle River Valley for good and moved with their children first to Idaho and from there to Nevada and California.7 The Hahnewald Era: Paul Hahnewald not only acquired the acreage from Joseph Metherd in 1908, but on the same date as the land transfer he paid Metherd an additional $10,000 for a substantial number of items related to the ranching operation. These included about eight horses, sixty-four head of cattle, wagons, a buggy, a mower, a hay stacker, sleds, harnesses, plows, harrows, cultivators and other equipment. The deal included a blacksmith shop, complete with anvils, bellows and tools. A few weeks later, Paul spent another $1,125 on additional items from I. Fedor Schlaepfer. Among these were horses and cows, 5 Warranty Deed, John C. Metcalf to Lizzie Metcalf, 21 December 1896 for the S½ of the SE¼ of Section 2 and the N ½ of the NE¼ of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 82 West; Amy Metcalf Bowen, “Memories of Eagle County in the 1880s”; Records for John C. Metcalf on ancestry.com. 6 US Census Records for Lizzie Metcalf and Charles Curry, Eagle County, CO (1900); Warranty Deed, Lizzie Metcalf Curry and Charles A. Curry to Joseph H. Metherd, 29 April 1905. 7 Warranty Deed, Joseph H. Metherd to Paul Hahnewald, 17 July 1908; United States Census Records for Joseph H. Metherd, Cass County, OH (1880) and Kilsap County, WA (1910); Eagle County Blade, “Local Paragraphs,” Notes Related to Metherd Purchase, 4 May 1905; Eagle Valley Enterprise, Local Notes Regarding the Metcalf Family, 29 October 1943. ATTACHMENT 1 13 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life along with a buggy, bobsleds, a wagon, three plows, log chains, yokes, a sled, and loading equipment consisting of a block, tackle and beam.8 Despite the large sum of money that Paul Hahnewald spent to acquire the property at Avon, he did not hold onto it for very long. In November 1908, just four months after he purchased the land, he sold it for $9,000 to his brother Albert.9 Born in Saxony, Germany in 1867, Albert immigrated to the United States in 1881. His wife Frances was from Fredricksburg, Texas, a German immigrant town in the hill country where the couple evidently met and married. They had three children, with just one son named Albert Jr.10 By the mid-1890s, Albert and Frances had moved to Leadville, where he acquired the popular Turner Hall bar. He also served two terms as a town alderman. Albert and his brothers Paul, August, Robert and Otto were engaged in mining and ranching. Together they discovered a rich lode of ore in Leadville during the late 1890s. In addition, they owned the Colorado Bakery, which sold baked goods, groceries, produce and confections.11 Following his purchase of the land at Avon in late 1908, Albert resettled his family there. He appears to have been the person who constructed the large barn that remains on the site today. Once it was completed, the building formed the nucleus of the ranchstead where Albert spent the following years raising livestock and growing feed crops such as grains and hay. Before long, he acquired 900 acres of ranchland close to Edwards, where he eventually ran 1,000 head of cattle, along with horses and hogs. It appears that this larger property became the family’s home ranch where they primarily lived. The ranch’s range extended from Red Canyon on the west to Gore Creek on the east.12 In addition to their mountain properties, the Hahnewald family maintained a home on Albion Street in Denver. After 1915, Albert divided his time between Eagle County and the Denver house. Albert Jr. joined him in managing the ranch, which operated as the Hahnewald Land & Livestock Co., although he was away for some time serving in the American Army during World War I. Three years later, following a December 1918 cattle-selling trip to Kansas City, Albert Sr. returned to Denver with a case of influenza. This occurred during the epidemic that was sweeping the nation. By the end of the month, he had succumbed to pneumonia and was buried in Fairmount Cemetery at the age of fifty-one.13 8 Bill of Sale, Joseph H. Metherd to Paul Hahnewald, 17 July 1908; Bill of Sale, I. Fedor Schlaepfer to Paul Hahnewald, 3 August 1908 (Schlaepfer appears to have been part of a family of Swiss immigrants whose members resided in Leadville). 9 Warranty Deed, Paul Hahnewald to Albert Hahnewald, 24 November 1908. 10 Carbonate Chronicle, “Business Man Suddenly Called,” 30 December 1918, p. 1; Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Frances Hahnewald Buried in Denver,” 16 March 1950, p. 1. 11 Carbonate Chronicle, “Business Man Suddenly Called,” 30 December 1918, p. 1 and “Albert Hahnewald,” obituary, 30 December 1918, p. 3; Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Paul Hahnewald Dies,” 12 November 1937, p. 1; Leadville Daily Chronicle, “The Colorado Bakery,” 26 May 1894, p. 3. 12 Carbonate Chronicle, “Business Man Suddenly Called,” 30 December 1918, p. 1. 13 Ibid. ATTACHMENT 1 14 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life The Kroelling Era: In November 1915, Albert Hahnewald sold the Avon property, which included the large barn, to Paul Kroelling for $15,000. Paul Frederick Kroelling was born in Germany in 1864 and immigrated to the United States in 1889. He settled in Leadville, where he operated a slaughterhouse and meat market. Paul also served as a member of the volunteer fire department. In 1892 he married Anna Winters, who was also a native of Germany. They had two children, one of whom (Frederick) lived to adulthood. The family remained in Leadville until 1915, when they moved down the Eagle River to Avon.14 In the fall of 1917, the Kroellings were busy harvesting ninety acres that they had planted with crops. This included twelve acres of potatoes producing two hundred sacks to an acre, thirty acres of oats, and the remainder in hay at four tons to the acre. The hay was used to feed their cattle and would have been stored in the barn’s large upper floor hayloft. The family’s cattle and sheep were pastured on the property as well as along the Piney Divide. In 1921, Paul Kroelling was elected vice-president of the newly formed Avon Stockgrowers’ Association. During the 1920s, the Kroellings added head lettuce to the crops grown on their ranch.15 Paul died in 1938 on his Avon ranch and was buried in Leadville, and following the death of her husband Anna moved back there. She and their son Fred inherited the Avon property in 1940 through the settlement of Paul’s estate. In May 1948, they sold it and Fred moved to Carbondale, where he became a longtime resident. Anna died in Leadville in 1950 and was buried next to her husband.16 The Nottingham Era: On 1 May 1948, Harry A. Nottingham, a local rancher and member of the prominent family that had settled much of this area of the Eagle River Valley in the early 1880s, purchased the former Hahnewald Ranch at Avon. One month later, a public sale was held on the property to dispose of the Kroellings’ cattle, horses, machinery, household goods, tools and other miscellaneous items. Harry added the property to his extensive ranch holdings in the vicinity and held onto it until March 1955, when he transferred it to his oldest son Arnold (Harry A. Nottingham Jr.) together with several nearby parcels.17 14 Warranty Deed, Albert Hahnewald to Paul F. Kroelling, 1 November 1915; United States Census Records for Paul F. Kroelling, Leadville, CO (1900 & 1910); Carbonate Chronicle, “The officers elected are as follows…,” 22 April 1901, p. 2; “Paul Kroelling,” (death notice) 22 July 1938, p. 1. 15 Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Eagle County Farmers Are Still Busy,” 19 October 1917, p. 1; Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Stockgrowers of Avon District Form Association,” 25 March 1921, p. 4; Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Paul Kroelling one of the most progressive young ranchers…,” 24 February 1922, p. 5. 16 Eagle Valley Enterprise, “P. F. Kroelling Dies,” 13 July 1938; Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Paul Kroelling,” (death notice) 22 July 1938, p. 1; Warranty Deed to Joint Tenants, Estate of Paul F. Kroelling to Anna Kroelling and Fred Kroelling, 11 March 1940; Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Anna Kroelling,” 27 July 1950, p. 1. 17 Warranty Deed, Anna Kroelling and Fred Kroelling to Harry A. Nottingham, 1 May 1948; Eagle Valley Enterprise, “Public Sale!,” (advertisement) 4 June 1948, p. 4; Warranty Deed, Harry A. Nottingham to Harry A. Nottingham, Jr., 31 March 1955. ATTACHMENT 1 15 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life After Arnold acquired the property, his brother Allan became a co-owner. From 1948 on, they ran sheep there and used the large barn’s lower level for livestock shelter and lambing. This area of the building held a number of pens that housed the ewes and their lambs. The upper level served as a hayloft. Off the barn’s south wall, the long loafing shed that once stood there also sheltered the sheep. In 1966, Allan moved into the log home on the property with his wife Linda and their children. This may have been the same log cabin built by John Metcalf in 1882, although by that time it had been improved and expanded with a kitchen and dining room.18 Figure 4: Aerial Photograph of the Avon Area View to the Southeast, 9 October 1970 The Nottinghams remained on the ranch for six years until December 1972, when Arnold and Allen sold a number of their area lands to Benchmark-Avon Properties. At that time, Benchmark was in the process of assembling acreage for development of the town of Avon, and the Nottingham parcels were key to their plan. The Town of Avon was incorporated in 1978 and Allan not only served on its first town council but was also mayor for twelve years. This decade marked the end of the area’s history as a ranching center and the beginning of its development in association with the nearby Beaver Creek Ski Resort.19 18 Allan Nottingham Interview, 2 May 2016 19 Ibid.; Warranty Deed to Corporation, H. Arnold Nottingham and Allan R. Nottingham to Benchmark-Avon Properties, 27 December 1972. ATTACHMENT 1 16 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Photo 8: West End of the Barn, early 1970s note the loafing shed addition to the south (courtesy of Tamra Nottingham Underwood) Photo 9: Upper Level Interior, early 1970s (courtesy of Tamra Nottingham Underwood) ATTACHMENT 1 17 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life As Benchmark subdivided the former Metcalf-Hahnewald-Kroelling-Nottingham lands during the 1970s, the parcel containing the Hahnewald Barn became Tract O of Block 3 and was reduced to a size of 1.06 acres. To the north and east is Tract N, a 5.883-acre parcel acquired in 1969 that immediately became the location of the Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant. (see Figure 5) Figure 5: Plat of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Revised Final Plat, Sheet 2 of 3 9 August 1976 In 1977, Benchmark at Beaver Creek sold the parcel containing the barn to Alameda National Bank in Lakewood, Colorado for $83,112. Five years later, the bank sold it to the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District for $98,119. Finally, in 1996 it was transferred one last time to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, which continues to own the barn today. During the late 1960s and 1970s, the areas to the north, east and west of the barn were cleared for redevelopment. This included moving the historic log cabin to Nottingham Park. Construction of the Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant began in 1969, the LiftView Condominums emerged to the west, and the Eagle Valley Trail was developed to the south along the river. Despite these changes and the passage of time, the Hahnewald Barn has remained in its original location for over a century.20 20 Warranty Deed, Benchmark at Beaver Creek to Alameda National Bank, 28 December 1977; Special Warranty Deed, Alameda National Bank to Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District, 16 December 1982; Warranty Deed, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, 1 July 1996. ATTACHMENT 1 18 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Comments on Historical & Architectural Significance Based upon the extensive field documentation and archival research that were completed for this project and are presented above, the following text provides information and analysis about the resulting historical and architectural significance of the Hahnewald Barn. Also addressed is the question of its architectural integrity from a preservation standpoint. Although the land where the Hahnewald Barn sits was first settled in 1882 and was used for ranching over the following ninety years, it wasn’t until around 1910 that the building was constructed. Over the decades between 1910 and 1972, it was integral to ranching operations that were conducted by three successive families, the Hahnewalds (1910-1915), the Kroellings (1915-1948), and the Nottinghams (1948-1972). During this long period, the building was used to shelter livestock and store hay. Since its agricultural use came to an end forty- four years ago, it has served as a storage facility associated with the adjacent Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant. In relation to its sixty-two years of historic agricultural use, the barn may be viewed as associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of the history of Avon during the twentieth century. As described in the historical section above, it conveys much about the role it played in area agriculture. The barn also conveys the story of three prominent families who initially settled in Leadville before making their way to the Eagle River Valley and successfully reestablishing themselves there as ranchers. In doing so, they followed an important pattern of settlement that was associated with the decades that came after the mining era. Today the barn is a very rare remnant of Avon’s agricultural heritage, most of which has disappeared in recent decades. The Hahnewald Barn is also of interest from an architectural standpoint. In light of the various styles of historic barns that exist across the United States, it may be classified in a few different ways, all of which are simply descriptive of the building’s form and style. It can be called a gable entrance barn, a transverse- crib barn, or a basement barn. These all refer to a building that has a short lower level where livestock were housed, and a much taller upper level that served as a hayloft. Its lower level entrances are situated directly across from each other on the gable ends of the building and are connected by a long central alley that was flanked by long spaces that were used to house the animals. This style of barn originated in New England and upstate New York during the middle years of the nineteenth century. It then became popular in the Midwest as the nation expanded in that direction. During the settlement era of the late 1800s and early 1900s, migrants brought the style to the West, including Colorado, where it appeared in various locations. It proved to be a very functional style that worked well in ranch settings and for dairy operations. ATTACHMENT 1 19 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Based upon its style and details, the Hahnewald Barn embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and method of construction that are present in its architecture. In other words, the building continues to convey the important elements of this particular style and the methods that were employed in its construction. Consequently, it is a locally rare example of early 1900s agricultural architecture, little of which is left standing in the Avon area today. Regarding the question of architectural integrity (this is different from condition), the barn has changed little since it was constructed over a century ago. Seven aspects of integrity have been defined by the National Park Service and are used throughout the country to analyze historic buildings, structures and sites. These are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The precise definitions of these terms can be found in National Park Service Bulletin 15 at www.nps.gov/Nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15. In general, the aspects of location, design, workmanship, feeling and association all appear to be very intact on this building. Anyone who views the Hahnewald Barn today can easily see that it is quite old and is associated with the area’s ranching heritage. The most obvious change in recent decades has involved replacement of the original wood shingle roof with metal panels. While this utilitarian solution to an aging roof is not ideal and detracts somewhat from its historic appearance, this has become a common approach to replacing wooden roofs on historic agricultural buildings and primarily impacts the aspect of materials. However, this is viewed as a moderate alteration to the barn’s integrity since it did not change the form of the roof and the remaining historic materials are largely intact. The other non-historic alterations to the barn that are described above are less obvious and have done little to diminish its architectural integrity. The building retains its original size and form, its lower concrete walls, its board and batten siding, its window and door locations, its hayrail projecting from the roof, and its rooftop ventilators. The interior also exhibits the original structure of the building, with its heavy lower level post and beams, and the upper level’s wood floor and lighter wall and roof framing. Changes that have occurred to the setting around the barn are more distinct. These have involved the disappearance over the past several decades of the associated ranch buildings and the rural landscape as a whole, except for the river corridor to the south. Due to these changes, this aspect of integrity is more substantially diminished than any of the others. This raises a question of whether the loss of setting is impactful enough to have damaged the barn’s overall integrity. The answer probably rests in the fact that for a building to exhibit a good degree of architectural integrity, only a predominance of the aspects of integrity must exist. How local and state officials completing formal review of the property might interpret this remains uncertain. ATTACHMENT 1 20 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Comments on Condition and Preservation Finally, the author of this study was asked to comment on the condition of the Hahnewald Barn and practical options for its preservation. However, it must be understood that the following observations and statements are provided from the perspective of an experienced historic preservation professional and not a licensed engineer or architect. After more than a century of use and exposure to the elements, the Hahnewald Barn is in need of a number of repairs. The structure of the building appears to be quite good overall, with most of the concrete, woodwork and architectural details intact and little changed from its original construction. Most obvious is the deterioration that has occurred along the lower concrete walls, much of it related to moisture damage. The ground outside the north wall slopes steeply down to the building and is filled with snow for half the year. This results in a situation where melting snow and rainfall do not drain properly away from the building. Not only has this impacted the concrete wall, but the lower door and windows along this side of the barn are also damaged. It is likely that the deterioration found along the south concrete wall, which is the most severely damaged area of the building, started decades ago when the loafing shed was still there. Over the years this probably filled with a deep layer of manure that rested against the concrete wall and launched its deterioration. After the loafing shed was removed, the storage of sand and gravel piles in the same location appears to have accelerated the damage. Today the south concrete wall is structurally compromised by the fact that a large area is completely missing. Together with the adjacent deteriorated areas, about one- third of the south wall is compromised and in need of attention. Steel beams and scaffolding have been placed inside the lower level of the building to shore up these areas and prevent it from collapsing. This is a temporary solution that needs to be addressed in the near future. If the barn were to remain where it is, new segments of the concrete walls will need to be constructed, but only where these materials are damaged and missing. In addition, there is a need to address moisture and drainage problems so that future damage is avoided. Because the concrete walls are so important to the integrity and structural stability of the building, work on the damaged areas should be done with the guidance of a preservation architect or engineer. It is not advisable to just turn it over to a concrete contractor. Another structural item that should be inspected by a preservation architect or engineer involves the removal of the north-south horizontal beams that were located within the upper level hayloft. These were severed decades ago, sometime prior to the early 1970s, and the stability of the long north and south walls has been dependent since then upon the six tie bars that remain in place. ATTACHMENT 1 21 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life These appear to have done their job and the walls do not seem to be bowing outward. However, this should be inspected more closely to ensure that the loss of the beams has not resulted in a building that is structurally compromised. In addition, the tie bars may need to be adjusted from time to time, and it is not known if that has ever been done. The only other features on the barn that need attention are some of its smaller architectural details. For example, deterioration of the doors and windows should be addressed to ensure that they are restored and working as intended. The north door on the lower level is being pushed inward by the snow and is deteriorating due to drainage problems outside the building. As the windows all over the barn deteriorated, they were simply boarded closed rather than being fixed. These should be replaced with windows that are fabricated to match the originals. The historic photograph on page 16, together with remnants that remain on the building, should serve as guides for their fabrication. The lower level doors on the west and possibly east may need to be reconstructed, since at least one of these is non-historic. On the upper level, the board and batten siding seems to be functioning well, but may need some attention to make sure that it is secured to the building. The threshold at the large entry on the upper north side has been damaged and needs to be repaired. This damage has also exposed the lower level below to water infiltration. Finally, the ventilators atop the roof look like they require some repairs. While the discussion above addresses condition issues and preservation recommendations, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District has determined that the barn must be removed to make room for expansion of the Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant. There are two possible methods of accomplishing this. One of these is demolition and the other is to have the building moved to a new site. Demolition will obviously result in total loss of the barn, one of the last historic buildings in its original location in Avon that is directly related to its agricultural heritage. On the other hand, moving the barn will allow it to survive. Where the barn is moved to may make some difference to the community. A privately owned property is one possibility. An ideal public location might be Nottingham Park across the rail corridor to the north. There it would rest upon land that was also associated with the ranch from its beginnings in the late 1800s. In addition, this would place the barn closer to the relocated log cabin that formerly stood to its west. In Nottingham Park, the barn could be repurposed to serve the community, making it more accessible to the public than it has been for many years. Wherever it might end up, if the barn is to be moved it will require new concrete lower walls that should essentially replicate the ones there today. The woodwork throughout the building will need to be carefully disassembled, moved, and then reassembled on the new site. Interpretive signage placed outside the building could provide the public with information about its history, along with discussion of the fact that it was moved and saved for the benefit of the community. ATTACHMENT 1 22 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Bibliography Aerial Photograph of the Avon Area, View to the Southeast, 9 October 1970. Bill of Sale, Joseph H. Metherd to Paul Hahnewald, 17 July 1908, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 50, Page 540. Bill of Sale, I. Fedor Schlaepfer to Paul Hahnewald, 3 August 1908, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 50, Page 541. Bowen, Amy Metcalf. “Memories of Eagle County in the 1880s.” Unpublished manuscript in the historical collection of the Eagle Valley Library District, Eagle, Colorado, no date. (Bowen mentioned that the cabin built by her father in 1882 was still standing at the time she wrote this material, which was no earlier than the 1930s.) Carbonate Chronicle (Leadville) “The officers elected are as follows…,” 22 April 1901, p. 2. “Society,” 4 September 1911, p. 6. “Business Man Suddenly Called,” 30 December 1918, p. 1. “Albert Hahnewald,” (obituary) 30 December 1918, p. 3. Cash Patent, USA to John C. Metcalf, 2 June 1890. Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, Book 48, Page 272. General Land Office, Certificate No. 581 for the N½ of the NE¼ of Section 11 and the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 82 West. Decree of Final Settlement, Estate of Paul F. Kroelling, 11 March 1940, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 124, Page 524. Eagle County Blade (Eagle) “Local Paragraphs,” Notes Related to Metherd Purchase, 4 May 1905, p. 1 Eagle Valley Enterprise (Eagle) “Brand Directory,” 18 August 1916, p. 4 “Brand Directory,” 1 March 1918, p. 4 “Albert Hahnewald was down from the ranch,” 28 January 1921, p. 5 “Stockgrowers of Avon District Form Association,” 25 March 1921, p. 4 “Obbie Hahnewald Commits Suicide,” 20 August 1926, p. 1 “Frances Hahnewald Buried in Denver,” 16 March 1950, p. 1 “Eagle County Farmers Are Still Busy,” 19 October 1917, p. 1 “One of the really old settlers…, 29 October 1943, p. 5 “John W. Love…John C. Metcalf...,” 5 August 1921, p. 1 “Paul Hahnewald Dies,” 12 November 1937, p. 1 “Paul Kroelling one of the…,” 24 February 1922, p. 5 “P. F. Kroelling Dies,” 13 July 1938 “Paul Kroelling,” (death notice) 22 July 1938, p. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 23 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life “Anna Kroelling,” 27 July 1950, p. 1 “Public Sale!,” (advertisement) 4 June 1948, p. 4 Edwards 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle Map, United States Geological Survey, 1962 (revised 1987). Endersby, Elric, Alexander Greenwood and David Larkin. Barn: The Art of a Working Building. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992. Hart, Bobby. Bob-O’s Turn in Avon, Colorado. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2005. Historic Photographs of the Hahnewald Barn, From the Collection of Tamra Nottingham Underwood, early 1970s. Homestead Patent, USA to John C. Metcalf, 18 July 1893. Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, Book 48, Page 508. General Land Office, Certificate No. 410 for the S½ of the SE¼ of Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 82 West. Leadville Daily Chronicle “The Colorado Bakery,” (advertisement) 26 May 1894, p. 3 “The Exciting Adventure of Two Young Men Who Went to the Woods,” 23 December 1897, p. 4 Metcalf Family History, Unpublished Manuscript Posted on Ancestry.com. Nottingham, Allan. Interviewed by Ron Sladek of Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. on 2 May 2016. Plat of the Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Revised Final Plat, Reception No. 134061, Sheet 2 of 3, 9 August 1976, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 247, Page 989. Property Record Card, Parcel 2105-111-01-010, Eagle County Assessor. Receipt for Inheritance Tax, Estate of Paul F. Kroelling, 25 January 1939, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 124, Page 318. Resume of Applications and Amended Applications, Colorado Water Division 5, August 1999. Special Warranty Deed, Alameda National Bank to Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District, 16 December 1982, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 351, Page 372. Statement of Claim to Water Right, Metcalf Ditch, Eagle County, Colorado, Water District No. 37, 16 August 1894. ATTACHMENT 1 24 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life United States Census Records for Elizabeth “Lizzie” Love, El Paso County, CO (1870). United States Census Records for John and Lizzie Metcalf, Park County, CO (1880). United States Census Records for John W. Love, Breckenridge, Summit County, CO (1880) and Eagle County, CO (1885). United States Census Records for John W. Love, Elizabeth Metcalf and Charles Curry, Eagle County, CO (1900). United States Census Records for Joseph H. Metherd, Cass County, OH (1880), Kilsap County, WA (1910). United States Census Records for Paul F. Kroelling, Leadville, CO (1900 & 1910) and Avon, CO (1920). United States Census Records for the family of Harry and Marie Nottingham, Avon, CO (1940). Vlach, John Michael. Barns. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2003. Warranty Deed, John C. Metcalf to the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, 10 January 1887, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 19, Page 586. Warranty Deed, John C. Metcalf to Lizzie Metcalf, 21 December 1896, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 47, Page 218. Warranty Deed, Lizzie Metcalf Curry and Charles A. Curry to Joseph H. Metherd, 29 April 1905, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 72, Page 66. Warranty Deed, Joseph H. Metherd to Paul Hahnewald, 17 July 1908, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 72, Page 422. Warranty Deed, Paul Hahnewald to Albert Hahnewald, 24 November 1908, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 72, Page 449. Warranty Deed, Albert Hahnewald to Paul F. Kroelling, 1 November 1915, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 87, Page 63. Warranty Deed, Anna Kroelling and Fred Kroelling to Harry A. Nottingham, 1 May 1948, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 131, Page 353. Warranty Deed, Harry A. Nottingham to Harry A. Nottingham, Jr., 31 March 1955, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 148, Page 9. ATTACHMENT 1 25 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Warranty Deed, Benchmark at Beaver Creek to Alameda National Bank, 28 December 1977, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 264, Page 94. Warranty Deed, Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, 1 July 1996, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 708, Page 212. Warranty Deed to Corporation, H. Arnold Nottingham and Allan R. Nottingham to Benchmark-Avon Properties, 27 December 1972, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 227, Page 253. Warranty Deed to Joint Tenants, Estate of Paul F. Kroelling to Anna Kroelling and Fred Kroelling, 11 March 1940, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, Book 127, Page 126. Welch, Shirley and the Eagle County Historical Society. The Eagle River Valley. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, Images of America Series, 2008. ATTACHMENT 1 26 Tatanka Historical Associates Inc. Bringing the Past to Life Appendix A Photos of the Hay Rail and Carrier in the Possession of Tamra Nottingham Underwood The rail shown here extends beyond the photo and is 14’ in length. (photograph by Allan R. Nottingham) The Louden Hay Carrier, Patented 1894 and Manufactured by the Louden Machinery Company of Fairfield, Iowa. ATTACHMENT 1 17 TRACT G Image credit: Town of Avon ATTACHMENT 2 18 | Tract G OVERVIEW CURRENT USES - FACILITY AREA The existing facilities within Tract G includes the Avon Recreation Center, the Avon Library, Old Town Hall, 351 Benchmark Property (former fire station), and Main Street Pedestrian Mall. Town municipal services will be moved to the New Town Hall in 2018. Relocation of municipal services, and essential services moving to the Joint Public Facility in 2017, provides an opportunity to create other uses in this critical core parcel. CURRENT USES - HARRY A. NOTTINGHAM PARK The park is valued by the community for its open green space. The amenities within the park currently include: • Open space • Nottingham Lake for fishing, swimming, and stand-up paddle boarding • Two athletic fields • Children’s playground • Beach and swim area • Picnic tables • Barbecue grills • Recreational paths • Three tennis courts on the west end of the park CURRENT ZONING: facility and park AREA OF FACILITY: 46.88 acres TRACT G EXISTING CONDITIONS Avon Performance Pavilion Old Town Hall • Two basketball courts on the west end of the park • Four pickleball courts • Softball field on the west end of the park • Two sand volleyball courts • Renovated restroom facility • Avon Performance Pavilion that includes a 25’x 45’ stage, a large deck over the lake, and a green room available for rental • Early morning hour dog park SITE DESCRIPTION Tract G represents the civic core of the Town of Avon. The topography at the site is mostly level with no natural steep slope areas. Great views towards Beaver Creek Resort are found throughout the park site. Nottingham Lake allows recreational access and a beach area. Nearby, at the Avon Waste Water Treatment Plant, the historic Hahnewald Barn is slated to be demolished by the spring of 2019. The Hahnewald Barn was fully evaluated during the planning process, including various opportunities for relocating the structure onto town -owned properties. It is being evaluated for relocation to Tract G. Image credit: Town of Avon Image credit: Design Workshop ATTACHMENT 2 19 VILLAGENOTTINGHAM RD CHIMING B E L L SMOUNTAIN S A G E DOGWOODDRPOSTBLVDAVONRDUSHWY6 U S HWY 6 ROWELDR WI LLI SPLINT ERS TATE70ACCESS RD EBEAVERCREEKBLVD DEER BLVD B E A V E R C R E E K PLAVONRDOLDTRAILRD W BEAVER CREEK BLVD T R O U T POND LN KAYAK CTBEAR CTSHOOTINGSTAR B E A V E R RDEAGLE RD LITTLE PTJUNE PT RIVERFRONTL N NOTTINGHAM RANCH RD D E E R RUNBENCHMARK R D YODERAVE CHAPARRALRD RIVERSIDE C T SAWATCH DR ST.ANDREWS PL CHAPEL PL 781 SPURBACHELORRIDGELUPINE LNNORTH PTP H E A S A N T CTJUNECREEKTRLS U N R D FOXLN BACHELOR GULCH RD LARKS P U R L NDRAWSPURMILLIESLNBLUEFLAX LIFT RDCOYOTE RIDGE INTE R S T A T E 7 0 BENC H MARK RDLAKES TJUNECRLONGSPUR EAGLEBEND D R USHWY6 INTE R S T A T E 7 0 HORIZON BENCHMARKRDSWIFTGULCHRD INTERSTATE70 A C C E S S R DWWILDWOODRDWOODRUSHJUNECREEKSPUR W ALKINGM O UNTAINSLNLONGSUNLN IN T E R S TAT E70ACCESSRD PIEC E- O- C A K E IN T E R S T AT E 70ACCESS RD EHURD LNWILDRIDGERDDEADBUCKRESERVOIR D A Y BREAKRIDGERDWILDWOODRD ELK H O RNPIECE-O-CAKERED&WHITEMOUNTAINAVONRDWILLIAMJ.P O S T B L V D V I L L A GE RDVILLAGERDC O T T O N WO O D R DO’NEALSPURKNUDSONRANCHRDMETCALFRDMETCALFRDCASTLEPEAKGATE STO N E C R E E K D RJUNECREEKRD E A G L E D REAGLED R SADDLERIDGELOOP BA C H E L O R G U L C H TR L BACHELO R GULCHTRLBEARPA WPEAKVIEWEWILDRIDGERD EWILDRIDGERDBEAVERCREEKDRGROUNDPLUM HOLDENRDHOL DENRDFLATPT GOLDENROD RIVERBEND D R CAS T L E PEA KCLO S E C O Y O T E CI RFAWCETTRDCOLUMBI N E CIRWWILDRIDGERDGROUSECTDE E R B L V D DEER BLVDBEAVERCREEKPTWILDROSEPAINTBRUSHPAINTBRUSH PRA T E R R D NFAIRWAYDRWAYNECREEKR DSFAI RWAYD R ELK LN D A Y B R E A K R ID G E R D TALLTIMBER HUMMINGB IRDBEARTRAPRDMETCALFCREEK D A V O SDAVOSBUFFEHRBUFFEHRMOUNTAINSTARDRMOUNTAINSTARDR SAWATCHDR OTAPARK CHIMINGBE L L S KAYAK CTB U C K CREEKRD SHEPHERD RIDGE DOE CTRIVERSIDE RDDAKOTA PARKGREENWAYE CIRKNUDSONRANCHPLACG O P H E R RD TROUT CTGROUNDPLUMCOYOTE CTKEDSPURLARK CTDEER CT JASMINE VILLAGERDN E A G L E CT INTERSTATE70ACCESSRD GOSHAWKROSECROWNFERRETLN EAGLE-VAIL RDC H A P E L PLSKY W ATC HCT W ILLIAM J.P O S TB L V D W ILLIAMJ.POSTBLVDRI VERBENDCTBUCKHORNLN RABBITBRUSHPRIMROSEWOODVIOLET P T A R M I G A N CTWILLIAMJ.POSTBLVD H IG H LIN EDRSTONEBRIDGEDRSINGLETREERD INTERSTATE70A C C E S S R D INTERSTATE70AC CES SRD I N T E R S T A T E 70 A C C E S S R D IN T E R S T A T E 70 A C C E S S RDI N T E R S T A T E 7 0 ACCESSRDPO S T SHOOTING M O U N T A I N SAGEINTERSTATE70 ACCESSRDA V O N BLUEJASMINE PRIMROSEGOLDENRODWILDWOODRUSH AVONRDWOODVIOLET W ILLIA MJ.INTERSTATE70ACCESSRDTAM AR AC KRDGR E E N W A Y E WILLIAM J. WILLIAMJ.P O S TB L V DAVONW IL LIA MJ. Eagle River Nottingham Lake Eagl e R i v e r Eagle River Town of Avon Zoning DistrictsResidential DuplexResidential Low DensityResidential Medium DensityResidential High DensityResidential High Density Commercial (retired)Neighborhood CommercialShopping Center (retired)Mixed Use CommercialTown CenterLight Industrial and CommercialPublic FacilityParkOpen Space, Landscaping and DrainagePlanned Unit DevelopmentShort Term Rental OverlayAvon Town BoundaryRoadsRailroadI-70Rivers and Lakes This map was produced by the Community Development Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only. Town of Avon does not warrant the accuracy of the data contained herein.Phone - 970-748-4030Fax - 970-949-5749http://www.avon.org/communitydevelopment01,000 2,000500FeetTOWN OF AVON ZONING MAPAdopted January 9, 2017 Ordinance 17-19 TRACT G ZONING Park area Public facility area ATTACHMENT 2 20 | Tract G EXISTING CONDITIONS 0’N 100’200’400’ I-70 NOTTINGHAM LAKE EAGLE R I V E R TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS BASKETBALL COURTS BASEBALL DIAMOND HAHNEWALD BARN PLAYING FIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIBRARY RECREATION CENTER SHERATON HOTEL NEW TOWN HALL (2018) AVON PERFORMANCE PAVILION RAIL R O A D RIGH T - O F - W A Y POST OFFICE COMFORT INN AVON CENTER BASKETBALL COURT BEACH SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT SOCCER FIELD OLD TOWN HALL PUBLIC WORKS TENNIS COURTS 351 BENCHMARK PROPERTY ATTACHMENT 2 21 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT The Tract G site can accommodate a mix of cultural, recreational and new economic activities and facilities. CULTURAL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CIVIC FACILITIES Tract G offers the potential to infuse cultural and new economic opportunities through mixed use facility development. Mixed uses are possible through the re- purposing of the 351 Benchmark Property and Cabin, relocation or re-purposing of the Public Works garage, and potential relocation of the Hahnewald Barn. The 351 Benchmark Property can be renovated, expanded or replaced with a larger cultural, educational and entrepreneurial facility. The Hahnewald Barn will be considered as a facility to house the full spectrum of recreational, cultural and economic development uses to be developed on Tract G, in conjunction with the 351 Benchmark Property, Recreation Center expansion and Performance Pavilion. The Old Town Hall will be demolished to accommodate future uses, including the potential for relocating the Hahnewald Barn. The geographic area for these facilities is recognized as a high value location, with unmatched views and proximity to the Eagle River, Nottingham Park, the lake and the many lodging properties. The Town Council has adopted a goal to become one of Colorado’s Creative Districts. A certified Creative District delineates a defined area to attract artists and creative entrepreneurs, which then is attractive to residents, visitors and private businesses. Envisioned uses planned among the facilities include a combination of spaces from working studios, learning center, educational classrooms, including but not limited to culinary, master classes, business start-ups, in-residence housing, indoor performance space, private event space, such as for weddings, and support for the Avon Performance Pavilion, including additional green room space. The affiliated needs for additional restrooms, a small parks equipment storage space, and interface onto the adjoining soccer field will be planned. The next steps require continued public input to determine the demand for the spaces and placement of the various uses among the facilities, including the degree of flexibility in multi-use development. Discussion with the Library Board, including the potential for expansion south of the existing structure and interface with multi-use facility development should be pursued. Expansion of the Recreation Center, described below, should be included in the facilities mixed- uses determinations. ATTACHMENT 2 22 | Tract G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PROGRAM OF USES AND FACILITIES Existing Basketball/ Tennis Courts Multi-Purpose Field Beach/Sand Volleyball Playground Performance Pavilion Old Town Hall Area: Multi-Use Facility; New Surface Parking; Restrooms Park Landscape Improvements Recreation Center Expansion Landscape Learning Area Cultural/Economic Development Planning Area: Multi-Use Building(s); Library Expansion; New Surface Parking; Cultural/ Economic Development Facility(s) / Public Open Space RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT HARRY A. NOTTINGHAM PARK Beginning with the existing park environment, Harry A. Nottingham Park will maintain much of its current use patterns, such as passive recreational trails, lake access, playground, beach, field/court facilities and more. Future improvements will include park upgrades including improved landscaping, additional restrooms and more surface parking. It is important in the future to activate and attract residents from the southwest corner of the park. A multi-use field can continue to be accommodated on the south west portion of the site. Interim uses can be accommodated on the site, including parking or expanded lawn space. Providing for an expanded skating rink, to meet the interests of various skaters, and to extend the skating season, a chilled outdoor ice skating rink can be located in proximity to the facilities planned. The ice rink can support a game plaza, gathering space or area for festival tents and vendors, during warmer months. RECREATION CENTER EXPANSION A proposal brought forward in 2014, identified the program needs for expansion of the Recreation Center. From the program needs work, the Recreation Center benefited from upgrades and renovations to accommodate the growing user demands. As the Recreation Center reaches capacity, primary for building expansion is the need for indoor sports areas and a multi-use community spaces for activities such as basketball, yoga and fitness classes, increased room for cardio/weights, and multi-use space for special events, such as birthday parties. The feasibility of the inclusion of a regulation-size swimming pool, with an indoor/outdoor relationship requires more study. The recreation expansion plan also includes the concept of a splash pad or water play facility. This is located in the front of the recreation center, activating the space between the Recreation Center and the park, while consolidating management and operations/maintenance of the facility. During off-seasons, the space can function as an activity plaza. Recreation Center Splash Pad Image credit: Design Workshop Image credit: landscap.cn ATTACHMENT 2 23 PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN 76 Sp a c e s 116 S p a c e s EAGLE RIVER 70 S p a c e s35 Spaces14 Sp a c e s 14 Spaces37 Spaces Propos e d Hi g h A m e nit y Bicycle/ P e d e st ri a n F a cilit y I-70 NOTTINGHAM LAKE 2 2 1 3 8 9 6 7 4 5 22 Spaces On-St r e e t P a r k i n g ATTACHMENT 2 24 | Tract G PHASING AND FUNDING PHASE 1 Facility Planning In 2018, the planning of the 351 Benchmark Property, Hahnewald Barn, Recreation Center Expansion, the outdoor skating/game plaza, Mikaela Way and interface to the Main Street Mall will be planned, including the identification of multi-uses and schematic to construction documents. With strong civic engagement outreach, the integration of recreational, cultural and economic development in this important geographical area in the Town of Avon can be maximized for a unique “center” in the Vail Valley. Old Town Hall Demolition Demolition of the Old Town Hall will allow for future uses and buildings, including the potential relocation of the Hahnewald Barn. Depending on the timing, the demolition can be delayed. Interim uses of the building, in that event, can be considered, with limited to no investment by the Town. Beach Restrooms A concrete pad located near the Harry A. Nottingham Park beach will serve as a stable landing area for temporary restroom facilities. In future phases, this concrete surface will be enhanced with permanent facilities. High-Voltage Hook Ups and Performer Coach Parking To accommodate visiting performers, high-voltage hook ups and coach parking will provide adequate greenroom space for artists traveling with large coaches. Additional Parking Additional surface parking will be designed along West Benchmark Road with preference for permeable pavers or similar treatment. Landscape Enhancements Park landscape enhancements are intended to improve the qualities of the existing park through more defined planting, user amenities and art. Landscape learning areas that utilize native landscaping for educational purposes are an untapped opportunity. PHASE 2 Finalization of facility development costs and prioritization of facility phased development. FUNDING The adopted 2018 Capital Project Fund has $2,500,000 in reserve for the development of the Town- Owned Properties, upon adoption of the Development Strategies. These monies are available for planning and project development. Additional monies may be appropriated by the Town Council. Urban Renewal Fund surpluses, if any, may also be considered through the term of the current District Plan. Bonding for major capital construction will be required for project costs beyond this reserve. ATTACHMENT 2 25 PARKING PARKING The Old Town Hall could incur a net loss of parking spaces with the reuse of the site, however, the current use of the site will also relocate. Adding parking to West Benchmark Road, between Lake Street and Avon Station, could add new parking spaces to the West Town Center Core. Over time, it is proposed to relocate the parking that exists between the Recreation Center and the 351 Benchmark Property in order to strengthen the pedestrian connection, vitality, form and place-making of the mall and its connection to Harry A. Nottingham Park. Parking should be relocated incrementally during adjacent development activities. The Recreation Center expansion will occur in the location of the existing parking lot. Harry A. Nottingham Park will continue to be served by surrounding parking. The existing lot of 19 spaces to the north of the park has been supplemented with on-street parking during the summer season of 2017. In addition, 72 spaces are available at Avon Elementary School on weekends and non-peak school times. Special event parking will require continued coordination with individual private property owners through shuttling from locations such as Traer Creek Plaza, to allowing parking during non-business hours at establishments like US Bank, First Bank, Beaver Creek Bear Lots (overflow), and more. ATTACHMENT 2 Exhibit C Exhibit C From: Kristi Ferraro <kristi@kristiferraro.com> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 4:25 PM To: Avon Council Web <avoncouncilweb@avon.org> Subject: Hahnewald Barn Dear Avon Town Council, I would like to voice my support for saving Avon’s historic Hahnewald Barn. Moving and re-purposing Avon’s Hahnewald Barn is a step toward helping Avon regain its uniqueness and authenticity. It will re-purpose a historic building to serve as an iconic image from the past, and also to serve as an invaluable community gathering place that is sorely needed in Avon. Many of our fellow communities have been able to save historic structures and create community gathering places, and these have become treasured community assets. I strongly believe that Avon can and should save this last, best vestige of its agrarian history. Although it’s often difficult to justify the costs of these grand projects at this conceptual stage, twenty years from now, the citizens of Avon will be glad that you did. I have often heard the story of how controversial it was for Vail to spend the funds necessary to purchase and develop Ford Park. Now, we can’t imagine Vail without it. I feel the same about our Harry A. Nottingham Park, Avon’s precious community asset. Let’s now honor that irreplaceable asset by preserving another beautiful asset and slice of Avon’s history – the Hahnewald Barn. If the Town of Avon will continue to take steps toward saving the barn, I am confident that we can raise a variety of funding sources, large and small, to make this unusual project succeed. This is not the type of decision that should be made by the voters. The voters of Avon elected you to do the necessary deep dive into issues like this. It would be a mistake and would establish a terrible precedent to cede your responsibilities as the elected decision-makers for the Town in this way. I urge you not to throw the Hahnewald Barn onto the trash heap. Re-purposing Avon’s Hahnewald Barn will enrich the lives of Avon citizens and visitors who will enjoy this exceptional building both inside and out, for years to come. Respectfully, Kristi Ferraro Citizen of Avon Exhibit C From: Kimberly Langmaid <kimberly.langmaid@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 8:35 PM To: Avon Council Web <avoncouncilweb@avon.org> Subject: Historical Assets = Unique Experiences Dear Avon Town Council, Avon is the only place in the world where the Hahnewald Barn exists. This storied historical asset offers many possibilities for you to create unique iconic experiences that will make Avon stand out among all Colorado mountain communities. Protecting and celebrating historical cultural heritage is one of the four pillars in creating sustainable destinations. The world is quickly loosing much of its cultural heritage. The Hahnewald Barn is diamond in the rough, waiting to be rediscovered and brought to life. The price tag for restoration of the barn must be daunting. At the same time, there are many potential partners from state government, to private foundations, to local philanthropists, who all place strong values and investments in protecting Colorado's disappearing cultural heritage. There can be a financial "win" for Avon if the right partners are brought in to the project. Please consider your important role at this moment in our valley's history, where we have so few remaining opportunities to save real, tangible, iconic cultural assets like the Hahnewald Barn. Current and future generations of Avon residents will be grateful for your foresight in protecting our valley's unique sense of place. Thank you for your leadership and consideration. Kim Langmaid & Peter Casabonne 2953 Bellflower Drive, Vail, CO (We live in Vail and we love all of the Eagle Valley) Exhibit C From: Kim Nottingham <kimn1960@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 10:57 AM To: Avon Council Web <avoncouncilweb@avon.org> Cc: Kim Nottingham <kimn1960@gmail.com> Subject: Hahnewald Barn Restoration Dear Avon Town Council, As a community we stand at a crossroads; we can choose to embrace and celebrate the history of Avon by saving the Hahnewald Barn, or we can lose forever the last remembrance of our pioneering history. Avon is in a unique position to have such a historic landmark within the town in the first place and now to be able to relocate and repurpose the barn structure is a defining moment for our future. When the barn was built by hand in 1908, Avon was a ranching community where people worked hard for everything they had. The fact the barn is still standing and functional over 100 years later is a testament to the fortitude and resilience of the people who built and maintained the barn all of these years. Avon did not become a town when it was incorporated in the 1970's, Avon has been a community since the late 1800's. Our history did not begin with the I‐70 corridor or with the opening of Beaver Creek, Avon history goes back to the first settlers who staked a claim on a homestead here. The Hahnewald Barn is our last link to this story of Avon, please do not let this story end now. Please look at the future value you will be adding to the Avon Community by creating a space that will be a focal point for the town and the valley. I realize there is a cost to the relocation and restoration of the barn and I believe the return on the investment will be good for the economy of Avon. This is critical decision that cannot be made purely for financial reasons. This is a once in lifetime opportunity to preserve an important piece of our history and to add to the future story Avon. This building can become a priceless symbol of the heart and soul of the Town of Avon. Thank you for your time! Kim Nottingham e: KimN1960@gmail.com Exhibit C From: RICH CARROLL <richcarroll4@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 11:45 AM To: Avon Council Web <avoncouncilweb@avon.org> Cc: Rich Carroll <richcarroll4@comcast.net> Subject: Hahnewald Barn Dear Avon Town Council; This email is to address the Hahnewald Barn situation. Unfortunately family commitments will prevent me from attending tonight’s, 1/8/2019, Council meeting. When the Hahnewald Barn first came to the surface my initial reaction was Boy that is a lot of money for a barn. Over time my opinion has changed. A barn is now The Barn. Big decisions that are larger dollar amounts, that have the potential to be iconic, are visionary, and truly impact in a positive manner the fabric of our community, are rarely cheap nor easy. I strongly encourage the Council to continue to evaluate all the possible alternatives including more modest options as well as potential grants and partnerships. When The Barn is gone it is gone. It will not come back. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that is worthy of making sure that all the options are completely and thoroughly investigated. If The Barn is developed correctly it has the potential to be a superb place-making Landmark that further develops Avon’s sense of community. Years from now we will wonder why The Barn was such a difficult decision. When the dollar amounts of a project are large there are always people that will be against the project. And this is a good thing as it should drive Council to make sure the project is developed as well as it can possibly be and all options are vetted. It is all too easy to look at a spreadsheet or a dollar value and say “No”. It is much more difficult to look at the heart and soul of The Barn, image all it can be, and see that vision to fruition. It is easy to say this project is controversial so… “Let’s put it to the voters”. It is difficult to embrace the controversy, Vote on this as you are elected to do, and see The Barn to its place 10 years from now as integral to Avon. Each of you are elected to make decisions; especially the difficult decisions. There are many high dollar and tough decisions that Council has made in the past such as the work on West Beaver Creek Boulevard, The Westin, the roundabouts, and the heat recovery project. Citizens have the Referendum process for decisions with which they disagree. Exhibit C It is your job and your duty to Vote on The Barn after all options are thoroughly explored and vetted. This what you are elected to do. You have the breadth and depth of knowledge to make tough decisions. There is a phrase for passing the buck that is best not placed in an email. Please excuse my bluntness on this subject but it is something I feel passionate about. I encourage Council to thoroughly explore and vet all the options for The Barn. Then after this process Vote on The Barn to make it an iconic part of Avon. Thank you Rich Carroll Avon Resident Cell # available upon request Have Fun Out There Exhibit C From: Richard Wheelock <richcardow@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 3:53 PM To: Avon Council Web <avoncouncilweb@avon.org> Subject: Barn As a Avon business owner and resident for over 15 years i am in favor of keeping buildings of character and interest --especially in a town that has little to show of a historical nature--- But over $7M is extreme to say the least--- to spend that amount of money on the historical barn is a serious overspending of taxpayer dollars--- I'm sure we can buiild a reproduction of the barn for 1/3 of the projected cost and nobody will really be able to tell the difference Richard Wheelock Owner Agave Wildridge resident Exhibit C From: russell andrade <rja0479@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 4:13 PM To: Avon Council Web <avoncouncilweb@avon.org> Subject: Barn I am going to attempt to attend the meeting this evening, but just wanted to drop a quick note on the barn issue. Let me start by being clear, I have nothing against the barn. I just want to be sure that all options are being explored. The 7 million plus price tag seems crazy for a town that has more pressing needs. As a small business owner in town, it seems as if the council is out of touch with the local business community. Those 15 or so parking spots that will be gone for two years are extremely important to the local businesses. I also feel the 7 million could be used to solve actual problems. The rental crisis is killing the small businesses. I had to personally risk 42000 of my business money to rent the old fire house for employee housing. If that fails, 42000 is enough to put a business my size out of business. I just feel that the funds needed to relocate to the old town hall site could be better used. Thank you. Russell j Andrade. Exhibit C 1 From: Kathy Ryan <kathyryan@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 10:40 PM To: Mayor,Council,Atty & Admin Subject: The barn Imho: this is a Nottingham family issue. It shouldn’t take up non‐family time nor public funds. The Nottingham family should raise the funds on their own. They sold the land off, for profit. I would have preferred the sheep in my neighborhood. Kathy Ryan "Even broken crayons color" ... Unknown Exhibit C 1 From: Micheal Smith <smithvail@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 1:51 PM To: Mayor,Council,Atty & Admin Subject: AGAINST BARN relocation As a 24 year resident homeowner of Avon, I would like the council to understand that I think spending $7.9 million dollars to relocate the BARN is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money that could be used to improve the daily lives of Avon residents instead. Look to less expensive alternative….Take a picture of the barn and hang it in the library…. Repurpose the wood into modern projects….but DON’T waste $7.9 million taxpayer money relocating the BARN. I don’t understand how we don’t have money for proper bus services (like starting the skier shuttle NOV 15 when the slopes open instead of Dec 15, starting the skier shuttle before to deliver guests and workers to Beaver Creek BY 8am), but we have $7.9 mil miraculously to relocate a BARN that has historical relevancy but no purpose to improve the lives of residents of AVON? VOTE NO! Sincerely, Micheal Smith Greenbrier #4 Avon, CO smithvail@hotmail.co m Exhibit C Exhibit D Lower Field Preservation Concept Old Town Hall Railroad Frontage January 15, 2019 PZC Hearing – 2613 Bear Trap 1 Staff Report – Major Development Plan January 15, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Case #MJR18011 Project type Major Development Plan Public Hearing Required Legal Description Lot 27 Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision Zoning Planned Unit Development (PUD) Address 2613 Beartrap Road Prepared By David McWilliams, Town Planner Staff Report Overview This staff report contains one application for consideration by the PZC: Major Development Plan with Design Review for a proposed addition and modification to a duplex house. Summary of Request Jeff Manley (the Applicant) proposes phased additions on Lot 27, with modifications to the existing house. The application achieves a more modern aesthetic - phase I: a new garage and master bedroom on the east unit; phase II: a new main level and dining room on the west unit; and phase III: addition over the existing garage bay on the west unit. In total 1,526 sf of additional space is proposed. The structure’s materials and colors will remain largely unchanged, with the exception of the decks. While the application is proposed as a phased project (which is not guaranteed to be given building permit approval within the two (2) year approval timeframe) staff feels that any single phase complies with the review criteria as detailed below. Public Notice Notice of the public hearing was published in the January 4 edition of the Vail Daily in accordance with Sec. 7.16.020(d) of the Avon Development Code. Mailed notice is not required for this application type. Property Description Lot 27 is .46 acres located on Bear Trap Road near the O’Neal dog park. It is zoned PUD. The duplex home was approved for construction in 1995. The former owner of the property amended the subdivision to be a single-family house instead of a duplex. While the new owner intends to re- subdivide the house to a duplex, this process is not related to the design review. However, issues with water provision have been raised for this property. Planning Analysis Lot Coverage, Setback and Easements: Lot 27 has traditional Wildridge building envelope and easements: Building Height: The maximum building height permitted on this property is thirty-five feet (35’) 25’ 7.5’ 10’ 10’ on each side Front Side Back Drainage Easement Satellite image of the property. January 15, 2019 PZC Hearing – 2613 Bear Trap 2 and the applicant is proposing additions with a maximum height of 26’- 7” on the phase III addition (Attachment A, A2.2). Water: Currently, the property only has one water tap coming from the street. Tug Birk, Development Review Coordinator with the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District states, “ If the property will be re- platted to be 2 lots, if the residence will have 2 separate owners, or if the addition to the property occurs, the units will both be required to have separate water and sewer service lines…The project would also trigger additional tap fees.” Staff has included this requirement as a condition of approval, to be achieved before any TCO or CO will be issued for the additions. Design Standards Analysis Landscaping & Irrigation: While this application expands onto the current landscaping, staff determined that the proposal does not substantially alter the site, and therefore traditional Landscaping standards do not apply to this application. Three (3) trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed phase I design behind the current driveway. (Attachment A, A1.1). Staff is comfortable that the addition settles well into the remaining landscaping and therefore, replacement trees are not required. On the far west side of the property is a greenhouse that is built outside of the allowed building envelope. Likewise, the existing deck near phase II was built outside of the building envelope. Staff’s review does not show when the nonconforming structures were installed but they are assumed to have been present for a long time. Sec. 7.28.010(b) states, “Any modification to an existing development that is nonconforming to the regulations of this Chapter which results in an addition or removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of the development shall require the entire development to come into compliance.” Because the deck is being resurfaced and not expanded, the application is compliant with the AMC. Building Design, Building Materials, and Colors: The proposed exterior building materials are cement fiber (colored “Smart Siding Khaki”), wood timbers (colored to match existing), and stucco (colored to match existing). All additional materials and colors are proposed to match the existing (Attachment A, A0.0). Colors were reviewed for conformance with Sec. 7.28.090 (j)(4)(viii), Building Materials, and determined to comply with the design standards and Light Reflective Value. All materials are of high quality and compliment Avon’s built landscape. Roof Material, Pitch, and Overhang: The roof material and pitch were reviewed for compliance with Sec. 7.28.090(d)(3) Roofs. The material is proposed as corten and asphalt shingles to match the existing color. For new roof forms the applicant is proposing 4:12 roof pitches for asphalt and a small 2 :12 pitch on phase I, which is found to be consistent with the architectural style of the building, and therefore compliant with Sec. 7.28.090(d)(3) regarding flat roofs. Exterior Lighting: The proposed lighting consists of seven (7) Forte Lighting Fixtures and two (2) recessed can fixtures that are Dark Sky compliant. Four-Sided Design: AMC states, “All sides of a residential building shall display a similar level of quality and architectural detailing. Architectural features and treatments shall not be restricted to a single facade.” While the north elevation does not have much interest, staff finds that it is largely unchanged and therefore should not be held to this standard. The additions enhance the architectural interest in the building and meet the Photo showing the trees to be removed for the installation of phase I January 15, 2019 PZC Hearing – 2613 Bear Trap 3 above criteria. Major Development Plan & Design Review - Review Criteria § 7.16.080(f), Development Plan 1. Evidence of substantial compliance with the purpose of the Development Code as specified in §7.04.030, Purposes; Staff Response: The Application is compliant with the applicable purposes outlined in the Development Code. Purpose (f) states, “Provide a planned and orderly use of land, protection of the environment and preservation of viability, all to conserve the value of the investments of the people of the Avon community and encourage a high quality of life and the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality” 2. Evidence of substantial compliance with §7.16.090, Design Review; Staff Response: This Major Design and Development Plan Application should be assessed for compliance with the Design Review criteria of the Development Code. The Design Review section seeks quality development and structures that are visually harmonious with the site and the surrounding vicinity. Conformance with this code section is discussed below and in Planning Analysis. 3. Consistency with the Avon Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response: The site is located in the Northern Residential District (District 11 of the Comprehensive Plan), which states, “Due to the limited number of existing trees and shrubs and the open character of the property, special care should be taken to ensure that all structures are compatible with one another and in harmony with the natural surroundings.” This district includes Planning Principles that encourage open space preservation, sidewalks, and to, “encourage and support development that: Prohibits significant alteration of natural environment as well as ridgeline and steep slope development. This area should be highly sensitive to visual impacts of improvements, wildlife preservation, and lighting.” This Application generally proposes a design that is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan, including, “Policy G.2.1: Identify and avoid development in environmentally sensitive areas or steep hillsides.” 4. Consistency with any previously approved and not revoked subdivision plat, planned development, or any other precedent plan or land use approval for the property as applicable; Staff Response: The application is in conformance with the accompanying requirements of the PUD zoning and the Development Code. 5. Compliance with all applicable development and design standards set forth in this Code, including but not limited to the provisions in Chapter 7.20, Zone Districts and Official Zoning Map, Chapter 7.24, Use Regulations, and Chapter 7.28, Development Standards; and Staff Response: The analysis contained in this staff report addresses all applicable Development Code standards. 6. That the development can be adequately served by city services including but not limited to roads, water, wastewater, fire protection, and emergency medical services. Staff Response: All special services are well established in the subdivision. The provision of a new tap is included in the recommended conditions to approval. §7.16.090(f), Design Review 1. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community; or, where redevelopment is anticipated, relates the development to the character of Avon as a whole; January 15, 2019 PZC Hearing – 2613 Bear Trap 4 Staff Response: The Application proposes a design that relates to the character of the surrounding community. 2. The design meets the development and design standards established in this Development Code; and Staff Response: The application is compliant with the development and design standards contained in the Development Code. 3. The design reflects the long- range goals and design criteria from the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plan documents. Staff Response: Applicable adopted plans include the Avon Comprehensive Plan and provisions of the Development Code. The design has been evaluated for conformance with these plans and staff has determined the proposal meets the requirements. Staff Recommendation for MJR18011 Major Design & Development Plan: Staff recommends approving the Major Development Plan application for Lot 27 Block 2 Wildridge with the following findings and condition: Findings: 1. The application is complete; 2. The application provides sufficient information to allow the PZC to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 3. The proposed application was reviewed pursuant to §7.16.080(f), Development Plan, §7.16.090(f), Design Review. The design meets the development and design standards established in the Avon Development Code; 4. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; 5. The extra demand for public services is met by the application; and 6. The design relates the development to the character of the surrounding community. Conditions: 1. All disturbed areas will be reseeded with the originally approved native mix grass or sod; 2. Temporary irrigation systems must be above-ground and shall be removed upon sufficient vegetation establishment, which shall not exceed one (1) year for ground cover, two (2) years for shrubs or three (3) years for trees; and 3. The units shall both have separate water and sewer service lines, and the property will be in good standing with the Wagle River Water and Sanitation District before any TCO or CO will be issued for the additions. Motion to Approve the Application: “I move to approve Case #MJR18011, an application for Major Design and Development Plan for Lot 27 Block 2 Wildridge Subdivision together with the findings of fact outlined by Staff.” Attachments (A) Design & Development Plans (B) Email Correspondence with Tug Birk, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Date: 12-05-2018 RE: 2613 Beartrap Road renovation and addition Town of Avon Planning staff and P & Z Board Martin Manley architects renovations and additions to the Duplex residential project at the location of 2613 Beartrap Rd, Subdivision: Wildridge Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 27, in Avon, Colorado. The existing residence is designed like a duplex, but the dividing property line has been removed by amendment to the plat by the previous owner. The current Owner Dana and Linda Del Gizzi are the owners of the entire residence/both sides of the duplex. The Project will be constructed in 3 phases. We are asking to have the project reviewed for approval as a Whole or Master Plan design be reviewed with this application. The Major Development Application scope is divided into Phases with the goal to be completed in the next 2 years. Phase I: A new garage to be dedicated to the east half of duplex was created. A new master suite is located above the new garage. The master suite is located to take advantage of the views to the south is be connected to the upper level of the east duplex unit. The roof pitch matched the existing unit’s roof pitch and shall have asphalt shingle that match the existing building. There is a small dormer over the tub that has a 2:12 pitched standing seam roof. Phase II: The west half of the duplex is to receive new main level south facing living room windows and a new addition of a dining room. The upper level is to add a new master bedroom suite. The roof pitch matched the existing unit’s roof pitch and shall have asphalt shingle that match the existing building. There is a small dormer over the living room that has a 2:12 pitched standing seam roof. Phase III: The west half has an entry that has a snow shedding issue. The Entry roof is to be redesigned and a new office is added above the existing garage bay. We look forward to presenting the project for review. Thank you, Jeffrey P Manley AIA Martin Manley Architects 970-328-1299 (direct) 970-688-0326 (cell) www.martinmanleyarchitects.com Attachment A Zoning: Duplex lot Lot 27, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision 2613 Beartrap Road, Avon Colorado 81620 Zoning: Duplex lot, presently has a Duplex Residence without dividing property line Lot size: 0.465 acres = 20,255.4 s.f. Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed = 50% of Lot Area 20,255.4= 10,127.7 s.f. Minimum Landscape Area Allowed = 25% of Lot Area 20,255.4= 5,063.9 s.f. Proposed Building Height= existing 21'-7" Proposed PHASE I =26'-7 1/4" (<35'-0" allowed) Existing Livable Area= West Side Unit = 2216.2 s.f. East Side Unit = 2076.6 s.f. total = 4292.8 s.f. Proposed Livable Area proposed with additions = West Side Unit = 2983.5 s.f. (767.3 s.f. OF ADDITION) East Side Unit = 2673.2 s.f. (759.1 s.f. OF ADDITION) total = 5656.7 s.f. (1326.4 s.f. OF ADDITION) Garage Area = Existing West Side Unit = 592.8 s.f. Addition East Side Unit = 693.6 s.f. Existing + Proposed Lot coverage by building/footprint = 4,491.3 s.f. (22 % of LOT) Proposed Impervious area (Building ) 4,491.3 s.f. + (1,670 drive on property+ 700 walks+ terrace= 2,370 s.f.) = 6,861.3 s.f. total (33.9%) Proposed Landscape area (Lot area= 20,255.4 s.f.)-(imperv. 6,861.3 s.f.) = 13,394.1 s.f. Landscape area ( 66%) Parking Requirements: 3 spaces required EACH side of duplex Snow Storage: 20 % of 2,500 s.f. Drive (includes drive to street beyond property line) = 500 s.f. of snow storage 20% of 1670 s.f. is the portion of drive on property = 334 s.f. Exterior Lighting: Existing, new to be darksky compliant Owner: DEL GIZZI, DANA MATTHEW & LINDA JEAN 73 RANCHERO RD BELL CANYON, CA 91307-1032 Location: 002613 BEARTRAP RD Subdivision: WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION Block: 2 Lot: 27 Parcel Number 1943-353-02-075 Architect:Martin Manley Architect Jeffrey P Manley AIA PO Box 1587 Eagle, CO 81631 970.328.5151 jeff@martinmanleyarchitects.com General Contractor: TBD Parcel Number:1943-353-02-075 Location: 002613 BEARTRAP RD Wildridge Subdivision: Filing __ Block: 2 Lot: 27 Class of Work: Renovation/addition Type of Construction: Type V-B Type of Occupancy: R3 (Duplex with dividing property line deleted) Levels: 2-story Fire Sprinklers: No Monitored alarm system: No Heating: electric base board Furnace/boiler: NA 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) including Appendix F & G THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC BASIC SERVICES REQUESTED BY THE OWNER CONTEMPLATING CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT, SELECTIONS AND DECISION MAKING BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OWNER THROUGH COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. THESE DOCUMENTS INDICATE THE SCOPE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPTS APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND INCLUDE DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING, THE TYPES OF STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND AN OUTLINE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION. THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PROVIDE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES AS OUTLINED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AND THEREFORE DO NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE OR DESCRIBE ALL MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR FULL PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION OF THE WORK. IT IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER THAT THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL WORK REQUIRED FOR PROPER COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND THAT THE WORK SHALL BE OF SOUND AND QUALITY CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND ALL MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, AND WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, SHALL PREPARE FOR OWNER REVIEW A REALISTIC BUDGET WITH A LATITUDE OF PRICES BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS OF SCOPE OF WORK AND OWNER PRODUCT SELECTIONS. CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIELD VERIFYING ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, STRUCTURAL DOCUMENTS, MUNICIPAL AND/OR COUNTY ZONING CODES, PERTINENT IRC 2015 CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, DESIGN, SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND APPROVAL BY OWNER AND ARCHITECT. Roofing: MATCH EXISTING with 50 -Year Asphalt shingle Verify existing as Elk-Gaf, Prestique High Def, Weathered Wood Flashing and Gutters: MATCH EXISTING Paint lock aluminum Color: dark bronze Decks: REPLACE OR NEW Synthetic Gray Terraces: EXISTING PAVERS -RESET Drive: Asphalt drive Windows:Aluminum Clad windows and doors Color: MATCH EXISTING Siding, 8" Cement Fiber Color: Match LP Smart Siding Khaki on new wall elements Color: Match existing where repair and at Phase III garage office Timbers, and fascia:Color: Match existing Cement Stucco: match existing at patch work/repair of chimneys 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject No.:DateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:16 PMA0.0COVER1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620Del Gizzi Residence PLANNING AND ZONING SET Renovation and Addition 2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620 12-03-18 12" = 1'-0" ZONING SUMMARY SHEET LIST Sheet # Sheet Name A0.0 COVER A2.0 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A2.1 UPPER LEVEL PLAN A2.2 ROOF PLAN A3.0 EXISTING EXT. ELEVATIONS A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.0 BUILDING SECTIONS A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS PROJECT TEAM 12" = 1'-0" GENERAL NOTES 12" = 1'-0" VICINITY MAP 12" = 1'-0" COLORBOARD 5 3D View(BACK) PHASES I-II 1 3D View FROM FRONT (HIGH) PHASE I -III 2 3D View FROM FRONT (HIGH) PHASE I -II 3 3D View FROM FRONT (HIGH) PHASE I No.DescriptionDateAttachment A DN REF.DWWD DN UP DN 1442.5 SF EAST MAIN LEVEL EXISTING 693.6 SF NEW EAST GARAGE ADDITION 1573.2 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL EXISTING 140.2 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL DINING ADDITION 592.8 SF WEST GARAGE EXISTING 49 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL STAIR ADDITION 634.1 SF EAST UPPER LEVEL EXISTING 596.6 SF EAST UPPER LEVEL ADDITION 643 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL EXISTING 207.7 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL MASTER ADDITION 362.2 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL OFFICE ADDITION Zoning: Duplex lot Lot 27, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision 2613 Beartrap Road, Avon Colorado 81620 Zoning: Duplex lot, presently has a Duplex Residence without dividing property line Lot size: 0.465 acres = 20,255.4 s.f. Maximum Lot Coverage Allowed = 50% of Lot Area 20,255.4= 10,127.7 s.f. Minimum Landscape Area Allowed = 25% of Lot Area 20,255.4= 5,063.9 s.f. Proposed Building Height= existing 21'-7" Proposed PHASE I =26'-7 1/4" (<35'-0" allowed) Existing Livable Area= West Side Unit = 2216.2 s.f. East Side Unit = 2076.6 s.f. total = 4292.8 s.f. Proposed Livable Area proposed with additions = West Side Unit = 2983.5 s.f. (767.3 s.f. OF ADDITION) East Side Unit = 2673.2 s.f. (759.1 s.f. OF ADDITION) total = 5656.7 s.f. (1326.4 s.f. OF ADDITION) Garage Area = Existing West Side Unit = 592.8 s.f. Addition East Side Unit = 693.6 s.f. Existing + Proposed Lot coverage by building/footprint = 4,491.3 s.f. (22 % of LOT) Proposed Impervious area (Building ) 4,491.3 s.f. + (1,670 drive on property+ 700 walks+ terrace= 2,370 s.f.) = 6,861.3 s.f. total (33.9%) Proposed Landscape area (Lot area= 20,255.4 s.f.)-(imperv. 6,861.3 s.f.) = 13,394.1 s.f. Landscape area ( 66%) Parking Requirements: 3 spaces required EACH side of duplex Snow Storage: 20 % of 2,500 s.f. Drive (includes drive to street beyond property line) = 500 s.f. of snow storage 20% of 1670 s.f. is the portion of drive on property = 334 s.f. Exterior Lighting: Existing, new to be darksky compliant 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:18 PMA0.1AREA CALCULATIONS1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/8" = 1'-0"1 A1.0 MAIN LVL 1/8" = 1'-0"2 A2.0 UPPER LEVEL Area Schedule (EAST ADDITION HABITABLE... Name Area EAST UPPER LEVEL ADDITION 596.6 SF Grand total: 1 596.6 SF Area Schedule (EAST EXISTING HABITABLE... Name Area EAST MAIN LEVEL EXISTING 1442.5 SF EAST UPPER LEVEL EXISTING 634.1 SF Grand total: 2 2076.6 SF Area Schedule (EAST NEW GARAGE) Name Area NEW EAST GARAGE ADDITION 693.6 SF Grand total: 1 693.6 SF Area Schedule (WEST EXISTING HABITABLE AREA) Name Area WEST MAIN LEVEL EXISTING 1573.2 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL EXISTING 643 SF Grand total: 2 2216.2 SF Area Schedule (WEST ADDITION HABITABLE AREA) Name Area WEST MAIN LEVEL DINING ADDITION 140.2 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL STAIR ADDITION 49 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL MASTER ADDITION 207.7 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL OFFICE ADDITION 362.2 SF Grand total: 4 759.1 SF Area Schedule (WEST EXISTING GARAGE) Name Area WEST GARAGE EXISTING 592.8 SF Grand total: 1 592.8 SF Area Schedule (WEST TOTAL HABITABLE AREA) Name Area WEST MAIN LEVEL DINING ADDITION 140.2 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL EXISTING 1573.2 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL STAIR ADDITION 49 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL EXISTING 643 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL MASTER ADDITION 207.7 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL OFFICE ADDITION 362.2 SF Grand total: 6 2975.3 SF Area Schedule (EAST TOTAL HABITABLE... Name Area EAST MAIN LEVEL EXISTING 1442.5 SF EAST UPPER LEVEL ADDITION 596.6 SF EAST UPPER LEVEL EXISTING 634.1 SF Grand total: 3 2673.2 SF Area Schedule (TOTAL HABITABLE AREA OF ADDITION) Name Area EAST UPPER LEVEL ADDITION 596.6 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL DINING ADDITION 140.2 SF WEST MAIN LEVEL STAIR ADDITION 49 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL MASTER ADDITION 207.7 SF WEST UPPER LEVEL OFFICE ADDITION 362.2 SF Grand total: 5 1355.7 SF Attachment A UP DN X B.O.S. 8163.1' E.O.P. 8162.4 D E C K 8 1 6 4.6' X X B .O.S. 8 1 5 6.0' X B .O.S. 8 1 5 8.0' D E C K 8 1 5 7.5' X P E A K 8 1 7 6.5 X P E A K 8 1 8 1.6 X X F F 8 1 6 4.0 F F 8 1 5 6.6 X F F 8 1 5 8.5 X X F F 8 1 6 3.4 BEART RAP ROAD (R.O.W. VARI ES) R E L O C A T E E X I S T I N G S H E D T O B E O U T O F S E T B A C K T.O. W . 8 1 6 4.0' B .O. W . 8 1 6 0.0' T.O. W . 8 1 6 3.3' B .O. W . 8 1 6 2.4' 2 3.1' 2 3.6' 2 5.7' T R A S H E N C L O S U R E R A I L R O A D T I E P L A N T E R 81 608 1 6 58160CONCRETE W A L L 8170 8 1 6 58165 8 1 5 5 8 1 6 0 8155 5 2 .2 '1 8 " C M P 8 1 6 3 .9 9 f f 2 s i l l 8 1 6 3 .4 2 f f s i l l 8 1 5 8 .5 3 f f s i l l 8 1 5 6 .5 8 f f s i l l 2 0 0 5 8 1 5 7 .5 0 d e c k e c o n n e c t 2 0 0 6 8 1 5 7 .3 2 d e c k 2 0 0 7 8 1 5 7 .3 0 d e c k b 2 0 0 8 8 1 5 7 .4 4 d e c k OC 2 0 1 0 8 1 5 7 .3 0 p a v e r s 2 e 2 0 1 1 8 1 5 7 .3 9 p a v e r s 2 s -t e p2012 8 1 5 7 .4 7 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 3 8 1 5 7 .4 4 p a v e r s 22014 8 1 5 7 .3 6 p a v e r s 22015 8 1 5 7 .2 7 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 6 8 1 5 7 .1 3 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 7 8 1 5 7 .0 9 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 8 8 1 5 7 .2 6 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 9 8 1 5 7 .1 6 p a v e r s 2 b 2 0 2 0 8 1 5 5 .2 0 p a v e r s e 2 0 2 1 8 1 5 5 .1 1 p a v e r s 2 0 2 2 8 1 5 5 .0 0 p a v e r s 2 0 2 3 8 1 5 5 .1 1 p a v e r s b T 2 0 2 8 8 1 6 8 .1 3 o h e 2 2 0 2 9 8 1 7 0 .0 2 o h e 2 2 0 3 3 8 1 6 5 .9 0 o h e 2 b 2 0 3 5 8 1 6 0 .5 5 p i p e 1 1 8 " c m p f -l 2 0 3 6 8 1 5 8 .1 9 p i p e 1 b 1 8 " c m p f -l OSWT E C O N C R E T E W A L L W O O D P L A N T E R I R R I G A T I O N C O N T R O L I C V S H E D G R E E N H O U S E D E C K B R I C K B R I C K D E C K G A S M E T E R A P P R O X I M A T E L A N D S C A P E L I M I T S L O T 2 7 2 0 ,2 6 7 S .F . 0 .4 6 5 A C R E S L O T 2 6 B S C O T T L . A N D M A R I E T T E H . B L A C K E T T (R E C . N O . 6 9 3 4 5 8 ) L O T 2 8 A L O R R A I N E D U G O F F & W I L L I A M D . S C H L A F F (R E C . N O . 0 2 3 0 8 4 ) 1 2 " 4 " 6 " 6 " 6 " 8 " 1 2 " 6 " 6 " 6 " 6 " 4 " 6 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 2 4 "1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 "1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 1 8 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 "1 2 " 1 2 "1 8 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 1 2 " 6 " 4 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 4 "" 8 " 6 " UP UP 8181' - 5 1/16" PROPERTY 25' FRONT SETBACK LINE REMOVE EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE 8164 8163 8162 8161 8160 8159 8158 8157 8156 8155 8154 8157 8156 8155 8154 8158 8159 8160 8161 8162 8161'-6 8161 8160 8159 8158 8157 8156 8163 8164 8155 8154 8156' - 6" elev of existing terrace 8156' - 1 1/4" PROVIDE NEW BOLLARDS TO PROTECT EXISTING GAS METER LINE OF EXISTING HAMMER HEAD NEW HOT TUB DECK PLATFORM 8159' - 6" NEW DECK AND WALK WAY 8162' - 0" REMOVE EXISTING TREES 8162 8161' - 8" 8161 8161'-6 8161'-6 DRIVE AREA -2500 S.F. SNOW STORAGE -20%= 500 S.F. SHOWN AS POCHE WITH DIAGONAL 8161'-0 EXISTING DECK WITH NEW SYNTHETIC DECKING REWORK EXISTING STEPS 8156'-0" 8154'-0" TOP OF WALL BTM OF WALL 2' HAND SET BOULDER RETAINING WALL AT EDGE OF TERRAGE OR REGRADE AT MAX SLOPE OF 2:1 PHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE PHASE III PHASE II NEW WEST LIVING, DINING AND MASTER SUITE STAIR TO HOT TUB True North Project North 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:19 PMA1.1SITE PLAN1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 816201/8" = 1'-0"1 A0.0 SITE PLAN No.DescriptionDateAttachment A BEART RAP ROAD (R.O.W. VARI ES) R E L O C A T E E X I S T I N G S H E D T O B E O U T O F S E T B A C K 81 608 1 6 581608170 8 1 6 58165 8 1 5 5 8 1 6 0 8 1 6 3 .9 9 f f 2 s i l l 8 1 6 3 .4 2 f f s i l l 8 1 5 8 .5 3 f f s i l l 8 1 5 6 .5 8 f f s i l l OC T 2 0 2 8 8 1 6 8 .1 3 o h e 2 2 0 2 9 8 1 7 0 .0 2 o h e 2 2 0 3 3 8 1 6 5 .9 0 o h e 2 b 2 0 3 5 8 1 6 0 .5 5 p i p e 1 1 8 " c m p f -l 2 0 3 6 8 1 5 8 .1 9 p i p e 1 b 1 8 " c m p f -l OSWT E C O N C R E T E W A L L W O O D P L A N T E R I R R I G A T I O N C O N T R O L I C V S H E D G R E E N H O U S E G A S M E T E R A P P R O X I M A T E L A N D S C A P E L I M I T S 1 2 " 4 " 6 " 6 " 6 " 8 " 1 2 " 6 " 6 " 6 " 6 " 4 " 6 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 2 4 "1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 "1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 1 8 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 "1 2 " 1 2 "1 8 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 1 2 " 6 " 4 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 4 "" 8 " 6 " True North Project North EXISTING GAS METER WITH NEW BOLLARDS TO PROTECT PHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE PHASE III PHASE II NEW WEST LIVING, DINING AND MASTER SUITE EXISTING SEWER LINE EXTENDS EAST TO STREET. NEW SEWER TO CONNECT TO EXISTING LINE DUMSTER JOB SIGN MATERIAL STORAGE AND STAGING TO BE WITHIN GARAGE OR ON DRIVE IN FRONT OF GARAGES EXISTING ELEC METERS PHASE I FENCING PHASE I FENCING 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:20 PMA1.3CONSTRUCT. MGMT1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/8" = 1'-0"1 A0.0 SITE CONSTRUCTION MGMT PLAN Attachment A DN UP DN UP X B.O.S. 8163.1' E.O.P. 8162.4 D E C K 8 1 6 4.6' X X B .O.S. 8 1 5 6.0' X B . O.S. 8 1 5 8.0' D E C K 8 1 5 7.5' X P E A K 8 1 7 6.5 X P E A K 8 1 8 1.6 X X F F 8 1 6 4.0 F F 8 1 5 6.6 X F F 8 1 5 8.5 X X F F 8 1 6 3.4 T.O. W . 8 1 6 4.0' B .O. W . 8 1 6 0.0' T. O. W . 8 1 6 3.3' B . O. W . 8 1 6 2.4' 2 3.1' 2 5.7' R A I L R O A D T I E P L A N T E R C O N C R E T E W A L L 8 1 5 5 8 1 6 0 8 1 6 3 .9 9 f f 2 s i l l 8 1 6 3 .4 2 f f s i l l 8 1 5 8 .5 3 f f s i l l 8 1 5 6 .5 8 f f s i l l 2 0 0 5 8 1 5 7 .5 0 d e c k e c o n n e c t 2 0 0 6 8 1 5 7 .3 2 d e c k 2 0 0 7 8 1 5 7 .3 0 d e c k b 2 0 0 8 8 1 5 7 .4 4 d e c k OC 2 0 1 0 8 1 5 7 .3 0 p a v e r s 2 e 2 0 1 1 8 1 5 7 .3 9 p a v e r s 2 s -t e p2012 8 1 5 7 .4 7 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 3 8 1 5 7 .4 4 p a v e r s 22014 8 1 5 7 .3 6 p a v e r s 22015 8 1 5 7 .2 7 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 6 8 1 5 7 .1 3 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 7 8 1 5 7 .0 9 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 8 8 1 5 7 .2 6 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 9 8 1 5 7 .1 6 p a v e r s 2 b 2 0 2 0 8 1 5 5 .2 0 p a v e r s e 2 0 2 1 8 1 5 5 .1 1 p a v e r s 2 0 2 2 8 1 5 5 .0 0 p a v e r s 2 0 2 3 8 1 5 5 .1 1 p a v e r s b C O N C R E T E W A L L W O O D P L A N T E R I R R I G A T I O N C O N T R O L I C V S H E D D E C K B R I C K B R I C K D E C K G A S ME T E R LOT 2 7 2 0 ,2 6 7 S .F . 0 .4 6 5 A C R E S 6 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 2 4 "1 2 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 1 8 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 "1 2 " 1 2 "1 8 " 1 2 " 4 "" 8 " 6 " REF.DWWD UP UP True North Project North A3.1 A3.22 1 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 12' - 0 3/4"2' - 1"10' - 8 7/8"3' - 6"5' - 8"15' - 7 1/4" 22' - 7"13' - 0 3/4"17' - 10 9/16"5' - 9 1/8" 6' - 1" 3 A4.0 5' - 10"4 3/4"12' - 9 7/8"5 1/2"2' - 0 3/8"1 A4.1 3 A4.1 4 A4.1 REF8158' - 6" 8158' - 6" UP UP 2' - 0"8' - 5 3/4"4' - 7"11' - 0"10' - 10 5/16"8162' - 4"A3.0 1 A3.03 8' - 6"3' - 4"2' - 0"micro 4' - 6"4' - 0" RAISE FLOOR TO MAIL LEVEL ELEVATION 11' - 4"12' - 6" 11' - 11 7/8"11' - 4"5' - 8 3/4"2' - 3"8' - 0"2' - 3"8' - 0"4' - 0" 11' - 0"9' - 6"4' - 0"5' - 1 1/2"17' - 6"4' - 5"5' - 0"STORAGE UNDER STAIR OR NOSE OF CAR TO STICK UNDER 8156' - 6" 8156' - 5 5/8" 8158' - 0"22' - 5 1/2"5' - 0"27' - 5 1/2"4' - 7 11/16"7' - 8"PROVIDE OPENINGS WITHIN EXISTING WALL AS LARGE AS PRACTICAL FOR COST EFFECTIVE STRUCTURAL DESIGN COORDINATE WITH EXISTING WINDOWS LOCATION PHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE 4' - 6" REMOVE EXISTING COLUMNS AND ADD NEW BEAM TO CARRY SPAN ACROSS LIVING AND KITCHEN PHASE II NEW WEST MASTER SUITE AND DINING ROOM PHASE III REMOVE EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE NEW DECK AND HOT TUB LOCATION 8161' - 8"970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:21 PMA2.0MAIN LEVEL PLAN1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 A1.0 MAIN LVL Attachment A DN DN DN DN DN True North Project North A3.22 A3.2 1 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 +3' 12' - 2" 5' - 10 1/8" 3 A4.0 15' - 4 7/16"1 A4.1 3 A4.1 4 A4.1 8168' - 7 3/4" 12' - 10 1/2"5 1/2"3' - 11 1/8"14' - 0 7/16"A3.03 15' - 11 1/4"12' - 8"2' - 8 1/2"8' - 0"3' - 2"4' - 5 9/16"5' - 6"4' - 11"8' - 6"4' - 0"3' - 3 1/2"4' - 0 1/2" STAIR TO HOT TUB 8' - 0"4' - 5"5' - 0"10' - 11 1/2"9' - 6"4' - 0 1/2" 12' - 8 1/2"14' - 5"13' - 6"4' - 1 1/2"3' - 10 3/4"16' - 9 1/4"width of garage below12' - 2"existing garage depth 23' - 7 1/4"4' - 0"3' - 2 1/2" WALL OVER EXISTING COLUMNS BELOW R @ 7 11/16"16 NEW WEST MASTER BEDROOM SUITE NEW WEST OFFICE NEW OFFICE ABOVE GARAGE PHASE III REVIEW LOCATION TO SEE IF REUSED WINDOW CAN BE INSTALLED REVIEW SKYLIGHT LOCATION WITH NEW ROOF VALLEY PHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE NEW EAST MASTER BEDROOM SUITE NEW EGRESS WINDOW 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:22 PMA2.1UPPER LEVEL PLAN1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 A2.0 UPPER LEVEL Attachment A X B.O.S. 8163.1' E.O.P. 8162.4 D E C K 8 1 6 4.6' X X B .O.S. 8 1 5 6.0' X B .O.S. 8 1 5 8.0' D E C K 8 1 5 7.5' X F F 8 1 5 6.6 X F F 8 1 5 8.5 X R E L O C A T E E X I S T I N G S H E D T O B E O U T O F S E T B A C K T.O. W . 8 1 6 3.3' B . O. W . 8 1 6 2.4' 2 3.1' 2 5.7' R A I L R O A D T I E P L A N T E R 8160C O N C R E T E W A L L 8 1 5 5 8 1 5 8 .5 3 f f s i l l 8 1 5 6 .5 8 f f s i l l 2 0 0 5 8 1 5 7 .5 0 d e c k e c o n n e c t 2 0 0 6 8 1 5 7 .3 2 d e c k 2 0 0 7 8 1 5 7 .3 0 d e c k b 2 0 0 8 8 1 5 7 .4 4 d e c k OC 2 0 1 0 8 1 5 7 .3 0 p a v e r s 2 e 2 0 1 1 8 1 5 7 .3 9 p a v e r s 2 s -t e p2012 8 1 5 7 .4 7 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 3 8 1 5 7 .4 4 p a v e r s 22014 8 1 5 7 .3 6 p a v e r s 22015 8 1 5 7 .2 7 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 6 8 1 5 7 .1 3 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 7 8 1 5 7 .0 9 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 8 8 1 5 7 .2 6 p a v e r s 2 2 0 1 9 8 1 5 7 .1 6 p a v e r s 2 b 2 0 2 0 8 1 5 5 .2 0 p a v e r s e 2 0 2 1 8 1 5 5 .1 1 p a v e r s 2 0 2 2 8 1 5 5 .0 0 p a v e r s 2 0 2 3 8 1 5 5 .1 1 p a v e r s b C O N C R E T E W A L L W O O D P L A N T E R I R R I G A T I O N C O N T R O L I C V S H E D D E C K B R I C K B R I C K D E C K G A S M E T E R L O T 2 7 2 0 ,2 6 7 S .F . 0 .4 6 5 A C R E S 1 2 "6 " 6 " 6 " 4 " 6 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 2 4 "1 2 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 1 8 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 1 2 "1 2 " 1 2 "1 8 " 1 2 " 1 8 " 1 2 " 1 2 " 4 "" A3.1 A3.1 A3.22 A3.2 1 2 1 8181' - 5 1/16" NORTH ROOF OVERHANG INSIDE SETBACK 4:12 4:12 4:12 A3.0 1 A3.0 2 A3.03 4:12 2:12 2:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:124:12SOUTH ROOF OVERHANG INSIDE SETBACK4:124:12 4:12 PROVIDE NEW CLOSURE WALL AT GABLE EXTEND EXISTING GABLE TO NEW RIDGE. NEW RIDGE OF WEST UNIT SHOULD MATCH RIDGE OF EXISTING EAST UNIT GENERAL NOTE: 1. ALL ROOF PLANES CALLED OUT AS 4:12 ARE MATCHING EXISTING ROOF PITCHES. NOTIFY ARCHITECT, CONFIRMING ROOF PITCH 2. EAVES OVER PEDESTRIAN OF VEHICLE AREAS ARE TO HAVE GUTTER THAT EXTEND TO AN UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM. UNDERDRAN SYSTEM SHALL EXITEND TO DAYLIGHT 3. ROOF BRAKES SHALL BE EVALUATED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND PLACED AS DEEMED REQUIRED AFTER THE FIRST YEAR EVALUATION. 4. ROOFING MATERIAL SHALL BE ASPHALT SHINGLE MATCHING THE EXISTING COLOR AND DIMENSION. ALL NEW SHINGLES SHALL BE OVER FULL COVERAGE WATER PROOF MEMBRANE ICE AND WATER SHIELD. 5. ROOF VENDING OF ALL RIDGES SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENTS. fEEDING FROM SOFFIT VENTS. 6. ALL EAVES ARE TO 1'-6" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE REVIEW SKYLIGHT LOCATION WITH NEW ROOF VALLEY 4:124:124:12 4:122:12 REWORK EXISTING ROOF CRICKET TO MORE POSITIVLY DRAIN BETWEEN BUILDINGS (PROVIDE GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT TO EAVE OVER ENTRY DOOR. DOWNSPOUT TO BE COLLECTED IN UNDER DRAIN SYSTEM EXTENDING TO DAYLIGHT)4:124:12 ROOF CRICKET TO MORE POSITIVLY DRAIN BETWEEN BUILDINGS (PROVIDE GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT TO EAVE. DOWNSPOUT TO BE COLLECTED IN UNDER DRAIN SYSTEM EXTENDING TO DAYLIGHT) GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT (EXTEND TO UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM) GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT (EXTEND TO UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM) 8178' - 7 5/16" 8163 8162 8161 8160 8159 8158 8157 8156 8155 8154 8157 8156 8155 8154 8158 8159 8160 8161 8162 8162 8161 8160 8159 8158 8157 8156 8163 8164 8155 8154 8184' - 0 1/4" +8162.4' (existing asphalt) existing GRADE =8162'-4 3/4" RIDGE ELEV RIDGE HT.=21'-8 1/2" existing GRADE =8157'-7 1/4" RIDGE ELEV RIDGE HT.=21'-0" existing GRADE =8158'-9" NEW GRADE = 8160'-0" RIDGE ELEV RIDGE HT.=26'-7 1/4" 8185' - 4 1/4" 8162' - 0" True North Project North 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:23 PMA2.2ROOF PLAN1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate3/16" = 1'-0" 1 A4.0 ROOF PLAN Attachment A A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 A1.5 MAIN EAST 8158' -6" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" 3 A4.0 1 A4.1 A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4"10' - 1 3/4"8181' - 5 1/16" PHASE I PHASE II NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE NEW WEST MASTER SUITE AND DINING ROOM A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 A.5 GARAGE 8162' -4" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" 3 A4.0 1 A4.1 A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4" A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A.5 GARAGE 8162' -4" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4" 8181' - 5 1/16" NEW OFFICE ABOVE GARAGE PHASE IIIPHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE REMOVE THIS EXISTING WINDOW UNIT AND REPLACE WITH EGRESS CASEMENT WINDOW 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:26 PMA3.0EXISTING EXT. ELEVATIONS1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 .SOUTH ELEVATION (EXISTING) 1/4" = 1'-0"2 .NORTH ELEVATION (EXISTING) 1/4" = 1'-0"3 .EAST ELEVATION (EXISTING) Attachment A A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 A.2 LANDING 8161' -0"10' - 1 3/4"A1.5 MAIN EAST 8158' -6" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" 3 A4.0 1 A4.1 8181' - 5 1/16" A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4" PHASE I PHASE II NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE NEW WEST MASTER SUITE AND DINING ROOM 4 :1 2 2:12 4:12 4:12 ANGLED WALL OF EXISTING TO BE REMOVED AND THE LIVING ROOM IS TO BE SQUARED UP NEW WINDOWS (LARGER OPENING) ON SOUTH WALL OF THIS BEDROOM WEST UNIT EAST UNIT A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 A.5 GARAGE 8162' -4" A1.5 MAIN EAST 8158' -6" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" 3 A4.0 1 A4.1 A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4" PHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE NEW OFFICE ABOVE GARAGE PHASE III 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:30 PMA3.1EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 .SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 .NORTH ELEVATION Attachment A A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" A.5 GARAGE 8162' -4"2' - 0"5' - 0"3 A4.1 4 A4.1 A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4" NEW OFFICE ABOVE GARAGE PHASE III PHASE II NEW WEST MASTER SUITE AND DINING ROOM PHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE 4:124:122:12 4:124:124:124:124 :1 2 4:12 A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6"10' - 1 3/4"A.5 GARAGE 8162' -4" A1.5 MAIN EAST 8158' -6" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" 3 A4.1 4 A4.1 A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4" 8181' - 5 1/16"ALIGN WITH EXISTING WINDOWS6' - 8"PHASE I NEW EAST GARAGE AND NEW EAST MASTER SUITE NEW OFFICE ABOVE GARAGE PHASE III 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:34 PMA3.2EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 .WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 .EAST ELEVATION Attachment A A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6"10"3 A4.1 4 A4.1 10' - 1 3/4"coordinate height to 8'-1"7' - 5 1/16"coordinate for garage door track9' - 0"maximize8' - 1"NEW LINTEL TO SUPPORT EXISTING ROOF. TRIM EAVE OFF WITHIN ROOM. FRAME ROOF OVER THE TOP OF EXISTING WITH MASTER RIDGE MATCHING EXISTING EAST RIDGE PROVIDE NEW CLOSURE WALL AT GABLE REWORK EXISTING ROOF CRICKET TO MORE POSITIVLY DRAIN BETWEEN BUILDINGS (PROVIDE GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT TO EAVE OVER ENTRY DOOR. DOWNSPOUT TO BE COLLECTED IN UNDER DRAIN SYSTEM EXTENDING TO DAYLIGHT)6' - 8"A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" A.2 LANDING 8161' -0" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" 3 A4.1 4 A4.1 3' - 7" A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4"7' - 7 5/8"8181' - 6 1/8"9' - 3"5' - 6 15/16" A1.5 MAIN EAST 8158' -6" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4"7' - 9 11/16"3 A4.1 4 A4.1 A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4"970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:35 PMA4.0BUILDING SECTIONS1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"1 Section 1 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Section 2 1/4" = 1'-0"3 Section 5 Attachment A A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 A.2 LANDING 8161' -0" A1.5 MAIN EAST 8158' -6" A.2.3 UPPER EAST 8168' -7 3/4" 3 A4.0 1 A4.1 A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" 1 A4.0 2 A4.0 A.5 GARAGE 8162' -4" A.2 LANDING 8161' -0" A1.5 MAIN EAST 8158' -6" 3 A4.01 A4.1 A2.5 NEW EAST MASTER 8171' -9 3/4"1' - 2"7' - 7 3/4"8' - 1"8179' - 10 3/4" 3 :1 2 4 :1 2 1' - 2"A2.0 UPPER WEST 8166' -7 3/4" A1.0 MAIN WEST 8156' -6" 3 A4.1 4 A4.1 9' - 3"5' - 6 1/8"7' - 0"PROVIDE FACE HANGER A AT ROOF RAFTERS OFF CONTINOUS HEADER AT SHED ROOF SQUARE OFF ANGLE AT LIVING ROOM (FOUNDATION WALL ALREADY IS SQUARE AND FOLLOWS DESIRED NEW WALL LOCATION)NEW STEEL BEAM TO SPAN LIVING AND KITCHEN 2' - 6" INFILL DEPRESSED FLOOR 970.328.5151 OFFICEPO Box 1587, Eagle, CO 81631www.martinmanleyarchitects.comProject numberDateREVISIONSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12/3/2018 5:49:36 PMA4.1BUILDING SECTIONS1805Del Gizzi ResidencePLANNING AND ZONING SET12-03-18Renovation and Addition2613 BEAR TRAP AVON, CO 81620No.DescriptionDate1/4" = 1'-0"3 Section 6 1/4" = 1'-0"4 Section 7 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Section 4 Attachment A David, If the property will be re-platted to be 2 lots, if the residence will have 2 separate owners, or if the addition to the property occurs, the units will both be required to have separate water and sewer service lines. ERWSD does not allow separate water and sewer service lines per the current Rules and Regulations. The project would also trigger additional tap fees. Please direct the owner or owners representative to the ERWSD website to fill out a Connection Application so that we can get this project into our system. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Tug Birk Development Review Coordinator Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Direct: 970-477-5449 Cell: 846 Forest Road, Vail, CO 81657 http://www.erwsd.org Clean Water. Quality Life.™ From: David McWilliams <cmcwilliams@avon.org> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 8:27 AM To: Tug Birk <dbirk@erwsd.org> Cc: Jeff Manley MMA <jeff@martinmanleyarchitects.com> Subject: 2613 Bear Trap Hi Tug, We have been mulling over this application for a while in the office - Justin thought I should contact you for your take. This is an application to add 1500 sf to a house. It is currently subdivided as a single family, but is built as a duplex. To the best of my knowledge, there is one tap for the houses and it is split in the garage. The current owner may re-divide the property to be two separate lots, but that is not guaranteed at this point. What is the district’s take on the expansion and the single tap? When, if ever, should the trigger be to require the second tap? Thanks, David McWilliams, AICP Town Planner Town of Avon 970.748.4023 www.avon.org Attachment B January 15, 2019 Code Text Amendment Work Session To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: David McWilliams, Town Planner Meeting Date: January 15, 2019 Topic: Code Text Amendment Work Session SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS Staff has several Code Text Amendment proposals for a work session. Included within them are: • Alternative Design (Attachment D, page 1). Staff was directed through the Strategic Plan to tie the AEC process back to more tangible public benefits. Question for PZC: Currently, Sign code is not included in Alternative design. Should it be included? • Employee Housing Mitigation (Attachment D, page 3). Staff was directed, through the Employee Housing Plan, to determine an approach for Inclusionary Zoning. Many communities in the valley and the state have inclusionary zoning programs. Included as Attachment B are a list of practices from other communities. Attachment A includes selections from the Housing Plan that staff used to inform the process. Below is a list of some of the properties that staff imagines may be subject to the inclusionary zoning requirements in the foreseeable future. It would not apply to properties with vested rights (like the Riverfront or Village at Avon). • A list of properties that may be subject to Inclusionary Zoning policies. Building or complex name Address Acres Square Feet Benchmark Shopping Center 82 Beaver Creek Boulevard 2.13 92782.8 1st Bank 11 West Beaver Creek Boulevard 1.714 74661.84 Christy Sports 182 Avon Road 0.928 40423.68 Annex 142 Benchmark 1.496 65165.76 Nottingham Commercial Lots 121 - 111 Nottingham Road 1.067 46478.52 Avon Center Lot C 160 West Beaver Creek Boulevard 2.28 99316.8 0.583 25395.48 Nottingham Ranch 68-95 Post Boulevard 3.8 165528 Chapel Square parcels 92 Benchmark 2 87120 140 Benchmark 2.864 124755.8 230 Benchmark 1.08 47044.8 Avon Plaza 150 East Beaver Creek Boulevard 1.33 57934.8 North-71 91 Beaver Creek Place 0.57 24829.2 ANB 71 Beaver Creek Place 0.76 33105.6 51 Beaver Creek Place 0.59 25700.4 January 15, 2019 Code Text Amendment Work Session • Development Bonus (Attachment D, page 7). The Development Bonus section was originally proposed in 2009 as part of the Municipal Code overhaul. Staff decided to include this section with edits as a possible appropriate method to gain additional employee housing or other public benefits when applicants need relief or additions from the Avon Municipal Code. This is a likely alternative to the PUD process (of negotiated zoning) but should still combine public benefit with appropriate design. Since that time, staff has updated the language to Question for PZC: are the zone district limitation appropriate? • Short-term Rentals (Attachment D, page 11). Staff was directed to determine new regulations that would create a more formal application and compliance process for homeowners. Since the first work session, staff edited the complaint / violation process as well as the list of required items to present for licensing. Staff include health / safety standards within the requirements, but expects that others will be added and removed as policy. While these documents are not very different from the ones presented a few weeks ago at PZC work session, staff encourages a deeper dive into these proposals than at the previous meeting. ATTACHMENTS (A) Sections from Avon Housing Plan (B) Summary of Inclusionary Zoning Practices in Colorado Communities – Chafee County (C) Sections from CAST Vacation Home Rentals Report (D) Code Text Amendments for review Attachment A The Comprehensive Plan: • Achieve a diverse range of housing densities, styles, and types, including rental and for sale, to serve all segments of the population. • Coordinate with neighboring communities to provide an attainable housing program that incorporates both rental and ownership opportunities, affordable for local working families. Goals and Objectives of this Housing Plan are as follows: • Focus on increasing deed restricted homeownership opportunities for households making equivalent of 140% or less of the Area Median Income - $430,000 for a household of three people in 2018. • Grow the inventory of homeownership and “missing middle” inventory, in place of additional rental housing stock, to create a more balanced portfolio with a long- term goal of 50% rental, 50% ownership. • When considering new rental housing, prioritize price point, quality and amenities attractive to “step up” renters and seniors looking to downsize, focusing on the 80- 120% AMI level. • Stabilize or increase the percentage of year-round residents; currently 55% of all dwelling units in Avon are occupied by year-round residents. • Stabilize or increase the percentage of Eagle County working residents Avon. • Seek to add at deed restricted units to the inventory in the short term. • Strengthen regional partnerships with other communities and entities (i.e. Habitat for Humanity, other municipalities, Eagle County) to make projects happen. • As sites redevelop, strive for “no net loss” of units in the 80-120% AMI range, and when possible, increase housing serving the local year-round population. • Re-evaluate goals and objectives on an annual basis, including the ongoing monitoring of new projects and housing stock in the mid-valley; appendices may be updated by Resolution. Strengths and Assets • An inventory of 670 price-controlled housing units, 63 of which are deed restricted for sale units that were a result of successful PUD negotiations; Policy • Update mitigation/linkage policies to be more proactive in addressing housing needs. Current policies are limited to very narrowly defined locations and development requests, and the current mitigation rate is low compared with peer communities. • Consider implementing an inclusionary housing policy. Inclusionary housing was considered in the 2010 code update, but was not adopted at that time. Inclusionary housing is a tool to create housing affordable to locals. It is recommended to look at inclusionary housing and mitigation/linkage at the same time, to better understand how the two tools complement each other, support policy goals, and maintain a level playing field for commercial and residential development. Inclusionary Housing A percentage of residential units in new subdivisions/PUDs are workforce housing. Market homes support workforce units. Only effective if new subdivisions/PUDs are developed/ redeveloped. Carbondale, Eagle, Eagle County, San Miguel County Linkage/Mitigation Requiring new residential and/or commercial development to contribute to workforce housing relative to demand generated by the new construction. For residential, mitigation rate often increases with house size, and deed restricted units are typically exempt. Fees in lieu provides revenue stream that fluctuates with building activity. Documented relationship between fee and impact required. Telluride, Aspen, Mt. Crested Butte Summary of Inclusionary Zoning Practices in Colorado Communities Basalt Glenwood Springs Boulder Longmont Carbondale Pitkin County & Aspen Denver San Miguel County Eagle County Telluride Basalt Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: Required for all new residential and nonresidential developments (Section 16-411). Minimum project size (# of units): All new developments must submit a plan for location, mixture of affordable unit type and size, and number of units to the town council for review and approval. The Town Council will determine how much mitigation is needed according to the impact of the development and the current housing needs of the town of Basalt. As decided by the town council the requirement to provide affordable housing may be solely or partially fulfilled by a dedication of land to the Town or affordable housing provider, or a payment-in-lieu (Section16-415). The basic requirements state that at least 20% of the dwelling units and 15% of the bedrooms of all new residential developments over 5 units must be dedicated as affordable (Section 16-416). All new commercial development must pay the Town a mitigation fee of $.50 cents per sq. ft. and also must provide affordable housing for a maximum of 20% of the full-time employees generated by the development (Section 16-417). Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments: Affordable housing units should be transit-friendly and should work towards being a “zero energy footprint,” or energy efficient (Section 16-411). The affordable housing requirement may be fulfilled either on-site or off- site. Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): Guidelines are set for lower and median incomes, making it possible for them to acquire housing for not more than 28-36% of their total household income (Section 16-411). Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): NA Attachment B, 1 June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 4 Executive Summary Overview of the VHR Industry Vacation Home Rentals are BIG Business. The industry is large and rapidly growing, capturing an increasing share of the travel/lodging market. New hosting sites like Vacasa are continually popping up, trying to capture a share of the large profits being generated. In 2014 there were over 2.1 million rentals listed on the top three hosting sites: x HomeAway, which includes VRBO and roughly 60 other hosting sites, has more than 1 million listings in 190 countries. x Airbnb offers over 800,000 listings in more than 34,000 cities worldwide. x FlipKey offers 300,000 properties in 179 countries. In comparison, the Marriot family of hotels, which has 19 different brands (from Ritz Carlton to the Courtyard), are located in 4,000 destinations in 78 counties – only 40% of the countries served by HomeAway and 12% of the cities serviced by Airbnb. Part of this fast rise in VHR activity has been assisted by the unequal taxing structure in its early years when compared to traditional lodging businesses. “When you tax one thing and don't tax another, it's not shocking that one grows faster,” as stated by William F. Fox, University of Tennessee economics professor, in an interview with Bloomberg BNA. This is also part of the reason electronic commerce developed as rapidly as it did 15 years ago. VHR’s in the “Sharing Economy” The industry, for which no single term has emerged, is considered part of the “sharing economy”, which is described on Wikipedia as: A sharing economy takes a variety of forms, often leveraging information technology to empower individuals, corporations, non-profits and government with information that enables distribution, sharing and reuse of excess capacity in goods and services. A common premise is that when information about goods is shared (typically via an online marketplace), the value of those goods may increase, for the business, for individuals, and for the community. The industry has grown far beyond its original status within the “sharing economy.” It is no longer just using “excess capacity” -- a spare bedroom or two, the home a family would otherwise leave empty while on vacation, or the second home that owners visit only a few times a year. Many units now listed on these hosting sites previously housed members of the workforce. They were once homes for families, but are now tourist accommodations. They were occupied by their owners or rented long term but are now investor owned and rented for the highest rates achievable as frequently as possible for maximum profits. The business model is very distinct from the traditional lodging industry, which also uses online advertising and booking systems. The difference is that most online hosting sites function as brokers, taking a percentage of rent charged but leaving compliance with local laws to the individual Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 5 owner/manager and guest. Unlike hotels and other commercial lodging accommodations, online hosting sites do not ensure that residences meet quality or minimum safety standards, generally do not collect sales and lodging taxes, and are not limited to locations within commercial zones where the use may be more compatible or expected. VHR’s Presence in Mountain Towns VHR’s are a significant resource in Rocky Mountain towns, providing visitors an alternative to traditional lodging offered in these tourism-based economies. The growth in the number of residential units listed on hosting sites in these communities is outpacing much of the rest of the country and growth in visitor utilization of these sites is also up. HomeAway reported in 2014 that Park City and Winter Park made their list of top 10 destinations for the largest increase in new vacation rental listings. Crested Butte was one of the top 10 in terms of destinations, showing the largest increase in traveler demand. VHR’s now equal between 1% and 52% of total residential units among the participating CAST communities. In most towns, VHR numbers have been growing during a time when the recession brought construction to a halt and new housing starts have just started to recover. VHR’s Compared to Housing Units Total Housing Units 2014 Estimates VHR Listings 2014 Percent of Units Listed Breckenridge 7,187 2,911 41% Crested Butte 1,098 170 15% Durango 7,234 73 1% Estes Park 4,176 301 7% Frisco 3,167* 184 6% Jackson 4,736 N/A N/A Mt. Crested Butte 1,575 819 52% Ouray 802 97 12% Park City 9,471* 2,547 27% Steamboat Springs 9,991 696 7% *2000 Census figures; 2014 estimates for other towns from Colorado State Demographer. Community Concerns From large cities to small resort towns, the proliferation of VHR’s is raising concerns. The National League of Cities reported that common elements among communities of all sizes are the issues of ensuring that safety, regulation and licensing systems are up to par, along with proper taxing procedures given the revenue development potential. Issues related to the tight and expensive housing markets, preservation of resident neighborhoods and character, and ensuring a fair playing field with other lodging businesses in terms of tax payment and regulations are the top concerns among participating CAST communities. The top five issues of concern, in order, are: x Loss of free-market rental housing previously rented to the workforce on a long-term basis; Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 6 x Collection of lodging/sales tax; x Community character; x Neighborhood change; and x Vision/plans for the future. The use of housing restricted for occupancy only by members of the workforce as a VHR was of less concern than the loss of market rentals; this report will show it happens infrequently. Safety is a moderate concern but one that might increase over time if accidents and injuries occur. Source: Survey of elected officials and staff in 10 participating CAST communities; 34 responses received. Several other concerns that were not as prominent deserve mention given their unique ties to these communities. Visitor Experience – The potential negative impacts of VHR’s on visitor experience, through low quality or unsafe accommodations for example, received a relatively low rating overall. Park City, however, rated this issue significantly higher (3.7 average). The resort prides itself on its reputation for offering a paramount visitor experience and is concerned that a largely unregulated industry could adversely impact this experience. Over time, concerns about negative visitor experiences may increase from: 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.9 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 NEW CONSTRUCTION OF LODGING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE PROPERTY TAXATION OVERCROWDING IMPACTS ON LODGING OCCUPANCY RATES SAFETY POTENTIAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SHORT TERM RENTALS NOISE PARKING EQUITY/FAIRNESS COMPARED TO LODGING USE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS VISION/PLANS FOR THE FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE COMMUNITY CHARACTER COLLECTION OF LODGING/SALES TAX LOSS OF LONG-TERM RENTAL HOUSING 1 = Minor Concern; 5 = Major Concern Perceptions about Community Concerns Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 7 x Publicized incidents of visitors who are endangered, hurt or even killed by unsafe VHR’s that are not up to lodging codes; x Dissatisfaction among visitors who want to “live like locals” and experience the “real” community they are visiting, yet discover that the increased number of VHR’s have displaced locals and turned neighborhoods into lodging districts. In many resort communities, surveys sponsored by Chambers of Commerce, the ski resort companies, the municipalities or other entities could be a source for better understanding visitor experience and determining if steps should be taken to help experiences be positive. Questions about how lodging reservations are made are standard in these surveys. In some towns including Breckenridge, analysis of existing surveys could be very insightful about visitor experience. New Lodging Construction – Most communities do not appear to be concerned that the increased availability of VHR’s through online hosting sites may be a factor in reduced hotel and lodging development. Of the 10 CAST participants, the only one with major lodging projects under construction is Breckenridge. Equity/Fairness With Lodging – Communities are concerned about VHR’s being treated equitably with existing commercial lodging. The term “level playing field” was used by many of the town officials interviewed. Potential Prohibitions Against Short-Term Rentals – This is a concern of many community members, including but not limited to: x Local residents who want to occasionally rent their homes or spare bedrooms short term to help pay mortgages. x Realtors with listings they want to be allowed to sell to investors or second homeowners who want to rent their units short term. x Public officials who recognize the contributions that VHR’s make to their bed base and tax revenue. Contrary to community concerns about potential prohibitions, most communities have been moving to legalize VHR’s where they were previously prohibited. Matrix of Best Practices The following matrix summarizes the Best Practices described in this report. The Best and Potential Practices are listed in the column on the left. The report section within which each practice is discussed and recommended appears across the top row. An “X” indicates each section within which the recommended practice is discussed. This serves both as a summary of practice recommendations that was derived from this research, as well as a map for the report so that communities interested in a particular practice can easily locate each section of the report with relevant information. Some practices are applicable to multiple issues as indicated by an “X” under more than one category. CAST could have a significant role in the implementation of Best Practices, taking on responsibilities for state initiatives in revisions to state statutes on property and sales taxes, negotiating agreements with hosting sites and developing efficient tracking systems. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 8 Best and Potential Practices Tracking Regulations Licensing Permits Taxing Staffing Neighborhood Impacts Workforce Housing Post information within the VHR X X X Require local manager/emergency contact X X X Coordinate with jurisdictions in region X X X Create website on VHR’s X X X Require property inspections X X Negotiate Airbnb agreement X X Require license numbers to be on all listings X X Give neighbors notice X X Map licensed/permitted VHR’s X X Establish fee to cover management costs X X Coordinate tracking across departments X X Publish VHR requirements in newspapers X X Work with code enforcement on complaints X Post local VHR regulations on Airbnb X Restrict VHR concentration X Implement more restrictive regulations where impacts are higher X Give owners unique rights to short-term their homes X Permit bedroom rentals w/owners present X Create separate categories for VHR’s depending on time rented X Dedicate/hire staff for license compliance X Educate realtors about requirements X Link complaints to legal vs illegal VHR’s X Establish enforcement procedures and use them X Revoke licenses/permits for violations X Increase license fees to mitigate workforce housing impacts X Collect VHR details on license or permit applications X Educate visitors that listings must have license numbers X Initiate state action to address 30-day limit on sale taxation X Initiate state action to address how properties are classified for property taxes Assign community development lead responsibility for VHR’s X Coordinate VHR’s w/ economic development X Add staff specialist X Hold stakeholder roundtables X Impose occupancy limits X Impose visitor limits X Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 9 Best and Potential Practices continued Tracking Regulations Licensing Permits Taxing Staffing Neighborhood Impacts Workforce Housing Limit outdoor parties X Manage trash X Address parking X Have general nuisance provision X Use real estate database to track conversion of housing into VHR’s X Create housing census X Prohibit use of workforce housing for VHR’s X Require check for workforce compliance when licensing VHR’s X Allocate VHR revenue to housing X Replace lost housing units X Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 10 I. Tracking Issues and Emerging Trends The ability to track and collect information on Vacation Home Rentals advertised on hosting sites is in turmoil. Local governments have been struggling with finding and identifying VHR owners and property managers since this issue arose in the mid-2000’s. CAST communities are not the only communities struggling with collecting the information that they need to ensure VHR’s are operating as legal licensed and tax paying entities. The general consensus is that more cooperation from the hosting sites is needed to improve tracking and VHR compliance. Current litigation and legislative efforts are largely aimed at this purpose. Progress Made on Hosting Site Compliance Both Airbnb and HomeAway (and its subsidiaries), the two primary hosting sites, provide information on their websites and in their user agreements that alert VHR owners that they may be subject to and must comply with permitting, licensing and tax laws in their jurisdiction. Airbnb has a “Responsible Hosting” webpage, which includes notifying owners to check their community’s regulations with respect to taxing, permits and other regulations, with links provided to several city websites explaining these requirements. Airbnb has negotiated agreements with several cities to collect taxes on behalf of VHR’s that are hosted on their website. San Francisco was also able to collect back-taxes owed. These agreements may contain additional provisions, such as requiring permit numbers to be posted on advertisements. Part of Portland’s agreement will allow VHR hosts to receive free smoke and carbon monoxide detectors upon request and Airbnb will assist Portland's tourism board to promote the city and its attractions. Tracking Units Has Become Harder Despite these advances, collecting information on VHR’s advertised on these sites has gotten more difficult. The experience of CAST community participants has not been unlike that of cities and counties throughout the nation. CAST communities noted that: x Exact address and owner contact information is not available on Airbnb and limited on other sites; x Listings are inconsistent, with some providing street addresses and unit numbers and others not; and x VRBO no longer lists properties in the same order, meaning that new listings are harder to find. Communities Use Subpoenas to Obtain Information Several communities facing the same frustrations have issued subpoenas with some success to procure ownership and rental information from Airbnb and other hosting sites. VHR owners have sued Airbnb to preserve the privacy of their information. Pursuant to Airbnb’s user agreement, subpoenas protect them Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 11 against legal action from VHR owners/managers. Subpoenas are, therefore, one method through which detail on owners and bookings may be received from some hosting sites. Data Mining Barriers Adding complication, HomeAway’s user agreement for visitors to its website prohibits data mining of information on VRBO and its other sites without its written permission. Governments seeking information to ensure VHR license and tax compliance have not been issued such permission. Program scripts to collect data from Airbnb are available online, but are of limited utility for tracking units given the impreciseness of property location and lack of address and owner information provided. Cities Requiring Hosting Sites to Provide VHR Data The lack of accessible data has resulted in some communities instituting or considering ordinances requiring names and addresses to be provided by hosting sites. For example, Portland has struggled to increase its license participation rate above 10 percent. The City’s inability to identify violators or receive cooperation from Airbnb in ensuring compliance or providing needed information led the City to pass a new ordinance effective this year. As of February 20, 2015, VHR hosting websites are required to provide the VHR location and names and addresses of VHR owners/managers so the City can verify that properties are operating pursuant to city requirements. This information has yet to be released by the hosting sites. San Francisco began licensing short-term rentals in February of this year. In March, only a few dozen residents had registered, while about 5,000 rooms and units are listed on short-term rental sites. A city board member has proposed revisions to require Airbnb to share data about rentals, including length of time rented and unit information. State Initiatives Surfacing Dueling state initiatives have also been making their way into the legislature. For example, in California, SB 593 would require online vacation rental companies to disclose VHR information to cities and counties. A competing bill, AB 1220, sought to prohibit local governments from collecting Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) for short-term residential rentals, but has since been withdrawn by its author. CAST Survey Findings When Communities Began Tracking Most participating CAST communities began tracking VHR’s advertised on various hosting sites between five and ten years ago. Tax collection was the primary motivation. Durango is the exception, having started tracking in 2014 in response to neighborhood impacts and citizen concerns. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 12 Hosting Sites Tracked All track VRBO and Airbnb and most also track HomeAway and Craigslist. Local property manager sites and the local newspaper are alternative sources that some communities scour. Only three communities track rooms for rent in addition to complete units. Frequency of Tracking Communities may pull data monthly, quarterly, yearly, or a few times each year. Durango, Breckenridge and Steamboat are a few communities that track VHR’s on a regular basis. Several other communities track properties “as time allows.” Information Collected All communities face challenges collecting VHR data. The information available varies by hosting site. Airbnb does not provide addresses, owner contact information, nor exact locations of units and other sites have varying pieces of information available. While condo complex names, bedrooms available for rent, and rental terms (daily, weekly, monthly) may be pulled from various sites, this information is inconsistent in its availability. Understanding Owner Occupancy of VHR’s Only Frisco noted that they are able to identify the time that owners occupy their units. This is typically checked only when units are listed by both a property manager and the owner. They have found that owner occupancy may be reported on the listings calendar on some hosting sites. For units managed by a management company for part of the year, some may be able to report the number of weeks for which the owner occupies the unit or is responsible for bookings. Approach/Methodology Each community pulls data manually and conducts a record-by-record search. While VHR addresses can eventually be identified, the process is time-consuming and can be frustrating. VHR information is stored in MS Excel or Access and new listings are manually compared to existing files. In communities with licensing and permitting requirements, listed VHR’s are cross-checked with licensing/permitting records to check compliance. If addresses are not found through the hosting sites, communities use a combination of photos, online maps, condominium complex names, owner names and/or property management names to locate a property. If an owner or property manager is known, they can be contacted for an address. Maps may provide the general location, and photos make it possible to identify the property upon driving to the area or comparing to ArcGIS and Google map street views. Some conducting property searches are very familiar with the communities and can recognize most properties from the photos while sitting at their desks. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 13 Durango and Steamboat Springs both tried creating accounts on Airbnb to notify owners of their need to comply with regulations. Both accounts were promptly canceled for violation of user agreements. Frisco has had some success contacting owners through the hosting sites without incident – the small number of properties in this community (under 30) may not have drawn the attention of the hosting sites. Duplication of Effort In most CAST communities, different entities parse the same data to identify only those properties within their respective jurisdictions. Better communication and coordination of resources could improve the tracking process and investment for all entities. Estes Park is unique because it also manages legal VHR’s in unincorporated areas of the county defined as the “Estes Valley” (this is discussed in more detail in the Permitting section of this report). Therefore, the role of monitoring units located both within and outside town limits within the Estes Valley is conducted by only one jurisdictional office. Assistance From Complaints Ouray and Estes Park reported that neighbor complaints regarding noise, parking, parties or other nuisance issues can call their attention to units that are VHR’s. Durango provides an online map of all permitted VHR’s with the ability for visitors to submit complaints directly to the community development department, which can be useful for tracking VHR activity. It also informs neighbors of the existence (or not) of VHR’s in their area. Best Practices Optimally, hosting sites would be required to provide needed information to communities upon request to track VHR’s. Communities can monitor the progress of Portland’s new ordinance and state legislation, such as California’s SB 593, in achieving local and statewide compliance. Communities could also lobby for similar initiatives on a statewide basis. Since taxation is largely controlled by state statutes, cooperative initiatives are needed. Until hosting sites start providing this information, communities should consider several options: Negotiate Airbnb agreement – Portland, Malibu x Can go beyond tax collection and require permit numbers to be on ads and VHR information to be provided upon request. x Most individual communities may be too small, but cooperative agreements encompassing multiple communities, entire counties, or the CAST organization may have some success. Post local VHR regulations on Airbnb – Truckee, Snowmass x Have your community added to the list of cities for which Airbnb provides direct links to your VHR requirements at https://www.airbnb.com/support/responsible-hosting Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 14 Require license numbers to be displayed on all advertising – Durango, Steamboat x Greatly assists with identifying non-compliant properties and new listings. Coordinate VHR tracking across departments – Steamboat x When collecting information on the CAST survey for this study, several communities needed to pass the survey to various departments to collect the needed information, with inconsistent results. Steamboat has a system where planning staff provides VHR data to finance, who then provides legal VHR listings to police/compliance – the departments were in communication. Various city departments with an interest in tracking VHR’s need to coordinate to share information and avoid duplication of effort. Work with Code Enforcement on Complaints – Ouray, Estes Park x Communication with code compliance, planning, police or other departments that enforce VHR’s and nuisance regulations can call attention to properties that may be illegal VHR’s. Map VHR’s – Durango and Crested Butte x This educates the public regarding VHR’s in the community and can provide a resource through which complaints can be logged, helping to locate illegal VHR’s. x It provides elected officials and staff the information needed to quickly understand changes in their communities and to revise policies and codes as appropriate. The following maps of VHR’s in Crested Butte illustrate how powerful mapping can be. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 15 Coordinate VHR tracking with other jurisdictions in the region – Estes Park x When searching on the hosting sites for VHR’s in a specified location, rentals located both within and outside of city or town limits are shown. Rather than have both city/town staff and county staff parse the same properties to identify those that are within and outside of the jurisdiction, sharing the responsibility could be much more efficient. Potential Practice CAST Initiative – Development of Tracking System and Database x Develop a system that captures data on units for sharing by multiple departments and that could be replicated by towns and counties. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 24 III. Licensing and Permitting Issues and Emerging Trends License requirements evolved along with regulations to ensure responsible maintenance and leasing of VHR’s. License and permit applications typically require safety inspections and the background information necessary to ensure VHR’s are operated in accordance with local regulations. This may include insurance requirements, designating a 24/7 emergency contact to handle problems and complaints, requiring license and permit numbers to be displayed on all advertising, providing “good neighbor” information to renters, and notifying neighbors of units being rented and VHR manager contact information. Yearly renewal ensures communities remain up-to-date on VHR changes and permit revocation procedures help ensure continuous VHR owner compliance. A challenge for some communities has been getting VHR owners to acquire necessary permits and licenses. While education of owners and property managers regarding the licensing process has been instituted by most communities, this has been more effective when paired with good enforcement. Licenses and Permits Often Have Safety, Advertising, Notice and Renewal Requirements Permits and licenses typically record necessary information regarding the VHR, such as number of bedrooms, owner information, property manager or emergency contact information, use or occupancy restrictions, among other requirements. In addition, to receive a permit or license, many communities require the following: x Safety inspection: Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Santa Fe; x Proof of adequate property insurance coverage: Austin, San Francisco, Santa Fe; and x Permit or license number to be displayed on all advertising: Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Sonoma County, Bend, Oregon. Neighbors may also need to be notified as part of the permit process. For example: x Austin requires notice be given to neighbors for public comment as part of the permit approval process, similar to other land use applications. x Many communities require notice to be sent to neighbors upon permit issuance. Notice may provide neighbors with the address; terms of rental use or permit; contact information for a property manager, owner or emergency contact in the event of problems; and the process for reporting violations or complaints to the community’s enforcement office. This can be an effective tool to help neighbors know about and police VHR activity in their area. Portland, Oregon, and Petaluma, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma County in California require neighbor notice. Most of the above communities also require annual renewal of permits or licenses. Yearly renewal maintains a current list of active vacation rentals and contact information. Renewals may also be withheld if VHR regulations have been violated, too many complaints have been received, applicable Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 25 taxes have not been paid, or if there are health and safety issues on the property. As an exception, Portland requires renewal every two years, with a new inspection required every six years, barring a change in owner, bedrooms rented, or cause for safety or violation concern. License and Permit Fees Most communities have modest license and permit fees for VHR’s – in some cases insufficient to cover paperwork processing, tax collection, property inspections and monitoring. x Portland charges $178 for the initial license and $62 for each renewal year in which an inspection is not required. For inspection years, $178 is charged. x Austin charges $285 for an initial permit and $235 for renewals. A budget of $350,000 has been established to cover the hiring of three staff members to register and inspect VHR’s. Fees for an estimated 1,500 VHR’s are intended to fund this budget. x In Napa, fees were initially set to cover all application processing, inspections and monitoring of VHR permits such that no costs were borne by the general public. In 2009, owners paid $1,075 per year; the permit fee has since decreased to $197 per year. Fewer complaints than expected were received from neighbors. As a result, the City reduced their allocation of code enforcement staff to VHR’s and, with it, permit fees. Enforcement of Licensing and Permitting Requirements Getting properties to receive required permits and licenses can be a challenge. Generally, communities with active tracking and identification of illegal rental properties, paired with resident, property manager and visitor education and strong enforcement ability have been the most successful. In larger cities in particular, this means dedicating staff or hiring new positions to address illegal VHR’s, taking a proactive approach in notifying owners of permit and licensing requirements, and following up with non-responsive owners. Portland has a license compliance rate of less than 10%. At the other end of the spectrum, Austin has a compliance rate of about 72%. While other factors are involved, enforcement has played a role in this difference. x In Portland, permit issuance was initially centered in the Bureau of Development Services office, which admittedly is reactive. The office only acts to enforce city rules when a complaint is received; they do not take an active role in locating or citing illegal VHR’s. A new city ordinance adopted this year places enforcement with the Revenue Bureau, which takes a more proactive approach. The Bureau is issuing letters to hosting sites to advise them of the requirement that permit numbers must be posted on all VHR advertising. Companies can be fined up to $500 per non-compliant property. Responses are pending. x In Austin, permit fees are higher than Portland, yet compliance rates are much higher. The City’s Code Compliance Department hired additional staff specifically to investigate illegal short-term rental activity and advertised such to the public. The city can also fine VHR operators up to $2,000 per day of non-compliance. When 1,089 properties were notified that they needed licenses, 72 Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 26 percent came into compliance by either delisting or getting licenses. Code Compliance and the City’s criminal prosecution are working together to follow up with the other 300 properties to ensure everyone is playing by the same rules. Education can also play an important role. Public information campaigns through newspaper articles and website postings have been widely used education tools. Less prominent are visitor education campaigns regarding the importance of renting units that display permit numbers in their advertisements. Units displaying valid permit numbers let visitors know that they are renting a legal unit (as opposed to a scam) and that units meet safety and VHR operational requirements. Visitor education can work from the demand side of the equation. Revocation of Licenses or Permits Most communities have the ability to revoke licenses or permits in the event that VHR regulations are violated or taxes are not paid. Some have a purely discretionary process, whereas others may establish mandatory thresholds for revocation. For example: x The City of Santa Fe documents all alleged regulation violations for VHR’s and pursues enforcement through the municipal court if warranted. Upon conviction of a third violation by the municipal court, the city shall revoke the permit. x Portland has a more discretionary revocation procedure, but once a permit is revoked, it may not be renewed for two years. CAST Survey Findings Who Requires Licenses and Permits x All participating communities except Ouray require a business license for VHR’s. All communities require a sales tax license number. x Five communities also require a permit to ensure compliance with land use regulations. x All require licenses to be renewed once per year. Breckenridge assumes that owners are renewing their licenses unless the town is informed otherwise. The town will issue an automatic renewal and charge yearly fees. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 27 License and Permit Requirements Business License Permit Yearly Renewal Breckenridge X X Crested Butte X X Durango X X X Estes Park X X X Frisco X X Jackson X X X Mt. Crested Butte X X Ouray Park City X X X Steamboat Springs X X X For communities requiring permits: x Estes Park is unique because it also manages legal VHR’s in unincorporated areas of the county, defined as the “Estes Valley.” Business licenses are required for VHR’s within city limits only. VHR’s in the county must get an operating permit. x Jackson permits VHR’s only in the Lodging Overlay District and the Snow King Master Plan. A one-time basic land use permit must be received for VHR’s in these zones. x Steamboat requires single-family homes and duplexes outside of the Resort Residential districts to apply for a VHR license through the community development department. This application is reviewed the same as an application for approval of a Use with Criteria. Condominiums are not required to have this license. x Durango requires a Limited Use Permit be received for VHR uses. A Conditional Use Permit may be applied for if general land use permit criteria are not met. x Park City requires that the VHR’s be located within a zone and subzone allowing VHR’s. A Conditional Use Permit may be required in some zones. Permit and License Fees Fees are applied either on a flat-rate basis each year or scaled based on the number of bedrooms, sleeping rooms (which includes rooms with a pullout couch bed), or pillows. Fees overall are relatively modest. x Breckenridge charges a base fee of $75 for a studio unit, plus $25 per additional bedroom, not to exceed $175. x Estes Park charges $150 for renewal of a VHR business license for town properties; renewal of the county operating permit has no fee. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 28 x Park City charges a $17 administrative fee, plus $28.74 per bedroom. Fees for permits range between $500 and $750, imposed as a one-time application fee. Durango also has a one-time lodgers tax fee ($25) in addition to the below. Cost of Permits Permit Application Yearly Renewal Breckenridge - $75 studio, $25 additional bedrooms, $175 max Crested Butte - $10/pillow Durango $750 $50 (license) Estes Park $0 $150 (license) Frisco - $75 Jackson $500 N/A Mt. Crested Butte - $10/pillow Ouray - N/A Park City $1,100 (if CUP needed) $17 admin plus $28.74/bedroom Steamboat Springs $500 $50 per sleeping room (permit) License and Permit Requirements License applications collect varying information within the CAST participating communities. x The most common items are VHR addresses and property manager or emergency contact information. x None of the CAST participating communities requires evidence of insurance suitable for short- term rental use. Nor are times or dates on which the unit will be rented obtained. x Only two communities require license or permit numbers to be on VHR advertising. Requiring these numbers has been reported to greatly assist with compliance verification when tracking units. In Durango all advertisements for an approved vacation rental unit must clearly display the permit number issued for the stated purpose of enhancing enforcement of illegal VHR. Failure to display the permit number is grounds for revocation of the permit. x Fire and safety inspections are required by three communities upon license or permit application. Inspections are not required as part of the license or permit renewal process. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 29 Information Required on Licenses/Permits Unit Address Unit Type Manager Contact Information Inspection License Number on Advertising Breckenridge X X X Crested Butte X X Durango X X X X X Estes Park X X Frisco X X Jackson Mt. Crested Butte X X Ouray Park City X X X Steamboat Springs X X X X Notice to neighbors of rental activity in the neighborhood is required by only one community. x Durango requires notice to be sent to neighbors when a permit is pending to solicit public comment prior to approval. After approval, notice indicating the terms of the VHR and contact information in case of complaints or problems, is not required as is the case in many California communities. Has a map on its website of all permitted VHR’s. This allows the public to see VHR activity in their neighborhood and know whether a permitted VHR is next door. Posting of license and permit numbers, along with terms of responsible VHR’s and contact information, within the unit can be beneficial to visitors. x Breckenridge requires single-family VHR’s to post “Special Conditions of License” in a “conspicuous location” in the VHR for the benefit of visitors. It outlines parking requirements; trash, noise and nuisance information; emergency contact requirements; and town contact information. Enforcement of Licensing and Permitting Requirements CAST participating communities tend to have higher compliance with license and tax requirements than larger cities. Of listed properties, those with a valid license range from 99% in Breckenridge down to about 50% in Estes Park. This is in part due to the smaller VHR pool and local knowledge of properties by those tracking listings – photos are often easy to recognize. The most successful communities combine dedicated staff time to locate illegal VHR’s, education of the public and owners of VHR requirements, and enforcement procedures backed by a willingness to enforce. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 30 x Breckenridge: o Has one of the more proactive owner outreach programs. Education begins when the Town Clerk sends all new owners an introductory letter and application form for VHR’s, explaining the licensing program. A reminder letter on VHR requirements is sent every four years. o Has an estimated 99% compliance rate from existing owners, in part due to a dedicated investigative search for illegal rentals several years ago. Listed units were compared with the license database and “nice” letters were sent to owners regarding requirements. Non- respondents received a “mean” letter letting them know they needed to respond or they would be sent to court. For the few that still did not respond, the town’s lawyer sent a certified letter to the owner, at which time everyone complied. o Publicized licensing requirements in a newspaper article which made a “big deal” over unlicensed VHR’s and notified owners that the Town was ramping up enforcement. o Achieved on-going compliance. About 2,750 units were in compliance in 2011. Only 15 units listed in 2012 were found not licensed and roughly about five non-compliant units since that time have been identified each year. x Steamboat Springs: o Has an estimated 75% compliance rate with existing VHR license requirements. The City did a similar push as Breckenridge in 2009 to get existing owners to license VHR properties. A total of 440 letters were sent to owners without required tax licenses, resulting in 110 new licenses within a couple of months. o Sends notice of violation letters to owners if they are advertising without proper licenses. Violators have 15 days from receipt of the notice of violation letter to submit an application or remove their advertising. Should they fail to do this they are issued a citation into municipal court with fines of up to $999 per day, jail time of up to 180 days, or both. o Relies on complaints from neighbors to locate violators. The finance department keeps a list of licensed properties, including VHR permitted properties from the community development department. Monthly updates to this list are provided to the police department, who responds to complaints. The police department can then notify the respective departments if a call involves either a legal (or illegal) VHR. x Mt. Crested Butte has also noticed a difference with consistent tracking of VHR listings. When research was done every quarter, compliance was near 95%; when research was done “when available,” compliance dropped to near 85%. When non-compliant properties are found, two letters may be sent. The first threatens a lien on their property if they do not respond. The second is a certified letter which includes the intent to lien. If that is ignored, then a lien is filed with the county based on estimated sales tax. x Ouray often finds properties through the neighbor complaint process. Owners are educated about VHR requirements in an attachment sent out periodically with customer utility bills. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 31 x Some communities have also instituted property manager and realtor seminars regarding VHR requirements. New owners have approached some communities seeking to short-term rent their new home in zone where they may not be permitted based on erroneous realtor information. Education of the real estate community can help with misconceptions. Revocation of Licenses or Permits Licenses or permits may be revoked in several CAST participating communities. x In Park City, violation of the noise ordinance, occupancy loads, failure to use designated off- street parking, illegal conduct, or any other abuse, which violates any law regarding use or occupancy of the premises is grounds for revocation. Failure to collect and deposit sales tax is also a violation of the license and grounds for revocation. x In Estes Park, the Town Code Compliance Officer manages enforcement efforts of vacation home regulations. Once a violation is verified, the officer generally attempts to work with the property owner to address the issues without formal enforcement action. Formal enforcement efforts can eventually lead to town properties having their license revoked and/or a hearing at the Estes Park Municipal Court. Violations may occur due to parking, illegal renting of an ADU, occupancy limit violations, among other violations. The town has only had one revocation, which was in part due to the unit operating as an illegal bed-and-breakfast as opposed to a VHR. x Steamboat has a three-strikes policy. If a VHR receives three violations in one year, then the VHR permit can be revoked for up to two years. Best Practices License requirements Establish License Safety/Inspection, Property Manager/Contact, Advertising, Notice Requirements x Require property inspection – Breckenridge, Durango, Park City x Require local Property Manager/Emergency contact – Breckenridge, Park City x Require permit/license numbers on all advertising – Durango x Require notice to neighbors of permitted VHR’s – Sonoma County, Petaluma (proposed) Written notice to neighbors after VHR approval. Provide the terms of the VHR and owner/manager contact information in case of complaints or problems. x Post VHR contact information and requirements in VHR unit – Breckenridge Educates visitors on any parking requirements; trash, noise and nuisance information; emergency contact requirements; and town contact information. Fees Establish fees to cover costs of VHR management – Austin, Napa x Communities need to develop a targeted system for managing VHR’s and take firm inventory of staff time and costs required for VHR monitoring, processing and management. This will allow Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 32 communities to develop a budget for VHR oversight and establish fees sufficient to cover the program. Explore Variation in Fees Based on Use and/or Unit Type – Santa Fe x While additional analysis of Colorado statutes is recommended, fee systems similar to Santa Fe’s could provide for variation in fees for year-round VHR’s compared with residences that are normally occupied by their owners and only rented short term for two periods per year. There are no fees for the latter, whereas fees for year-round VHR’s range from $175 for an accessory dwelling to $350 for a single-family home. Compliance: Investigation, Education, Enforcement Dedicate or hire staff to track and manage license compliance – Park City, Austin Mail new homeowners VHR regulations and license application – Breckenridge, Mt. Crested Butte x Breckenridge also follows up with a reminder letter every four years. Publish VHR requirements in newspaper, websites – Breckenridge, Durango Seminars and education outreach to real estate professionals – Estes Park, Park City x Can help educate realtors and property managers regarding VHR’s so they can properly inform their clients as to VHR legality and regulations. Link complaints to legal and illegal VHR’s - Steamboat x Have Code Enforcement communicate with VHR tracking departments (planning, finance). Can help find illegal VHR’s and monitor permitted VHR’s for regulation compliance. Establish license/permitting enforcement procedures and threaten or use them when necessary – Breckenridge, Mt. Crested Butte, Austin Revocation Make permits/licenses revocable if non-compliant – Steamboat, Estes Park, Santa Fe x Steamboat has a three-strikes permit policy – three violations in one year and the permit may be revoked for up to 2 years. Three-strikes gives some certainty to owners and clarity to the city for enforcement. x Santa Fe makes revocation mandatory after three-strikes. x Estes Park has a discretionary revocation policy in the event of a violation. Potential practices Increase license fees to mitigate workforce housing impacts. x No quantification has been done to date to determine the specific impacts VHR’s have on workforce housing. A nexus study may be required to quantify the link between the impacts on housing and the fees charged. Collect VHR unit operating detail on permit/license application Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 33 x Depending upon the complexity of regulations and VHR rental term requirements, license/permit applications can capture number of bedrooms rented, unit type, times of the year rented, when owner occupied, etc. to assist with monitoring and evaluate the appropriateness of potential revisions to regulations. Educate visitors that VHR’s not showing permit numbers are illegal x As more communities require permit and license numbers to be shown on all advertising, a visitor education campaign could help spur compliance from the demand side. Inform visitors that units not showing a permit number may not meet safety standards and/or may be a scam. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 44 VI. Neighborhood Impacts Issues and Emerging Trends The impacts of VHR’s are widespread. Communities have become alarmed about changes in the character of their residential neighborhoods as they transition into lodging districts. Familiar faces are being replaced by transient populations. In many cities, neighbors are outraged and leading the fight against the proliferation of the industry. In mountain towns where visitors are the mainstay of the economy, residents and community officials are also concerned about changes in community character as well as specific disruptions including noise, parking violations, overcrowding and garbage. Metro Areas React to Neighborhood Concerns In urban areas, concerns about neighborhood impacts were generally first to get significant attention. Short-term rentals were often prohibited in residential zones and were thus illegal uses that could not be licensed and taxed. Boulder is a prime example. When the issue of taxing short-term rentals was raised several years ago, the City chose not to take action at that time. When complaints lodged by neighbors in 2014 increased in number and volume, the City’s initial response was to issue 20 cease and desist letters to known violators of zoning prohibitions. The letters were quickly rescinded when the magnitude of the violations became better understood. Comprehensive solutions responsive to neighborhood concerns are now under investigation. Neighborhoods Organize Across the Country Neighborhoods are consolidating into organizations with a voice, establishing unified positions on issues that primarily impact neighborhoods. Citizen-initiated referendums that might prohibit or severely limiting VHR’s are starting to appear in communities of all sizes. Examples of neighbor groups include: x Asheville: Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods x Los Angeles: Keep Neighborhoods x New York, San Francisco: ShareBetter x New York: Westside Neighborhood Alliance National Group(s) Form to Deal with Issues At the national level, Neighbors for Overnight Oversight is an online coalition of residents, community leaders and businesses seeking to protect neighborhoods by supporting regulations and oversight for the short-term rental market. They work on measures to ensure that VHR’s comply with basic safety measures to protect consumers and neighbors. They offer an advocacy tool kit and spread the word about situations when things go wrong. Similar groups may form; change happens quickly in this industry. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 45 Hosting Sites Cooperatively Defend Rights As referenced in the Regulations section of this report, hosting sites have reacted quickly to initiatives by citizen groups to place limits on their operations and demand accountability. They are doing so in a well- funded, cooperative manner. Each of the top hosting sites is a powerhouse in its own right; together they are formidable and will make initiatives at the metropolitan, state and federal level a hard fight. The extent to which they may attempt to influence neighborhood protection efforts in smaller towns is uncertain. Code Enforcement and Local Property Managers Effective Tools in Mountain Towns Local governments that permit VHR’s have found a code enforcement approach effective at dealing with nuisance conditions, such as excessive noise, parking and trash. In some towns like Breckenridge, nuisance control regulations that have been part of the municipal code for years are being dusted off and used increasingly to mitigate adverse impacts on neighborhoods resulting from VHR’s. In other towns like Durango, new codes have been created to specifically address VHR’s in neighborhoods. A tool adopted by many towns already and under consideration in others is requiring that VHR’s have a local property manager/contact on call to respond to neighborhood complaints (see Regulations section for details). CAST Survey Findings Concerns About Neighborhoods While most mountain towns first directed their VHR efforts on tax collection and licensing, neighborhood impacts have come to the forefront of policy and operational considerations. Among the 10 CAST study participants, Durango was the exception to this trend, focusing first on neighborhood impacts then designing regulations and licensing requirements aimed at preserving their residential areas. Concern is higher for impacts on community character and neighborhood change than on specific nuisances although parking and noise are not far behind. Neighborhood Concern Ratings 1 = minor concern; 5 = major concern Concern Avg. Rating Community character 3.6 Neighborhood change 3.6 Parking 3.1 Noise 3.0 Safety 2.9 Overcrowding 2.7 Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 46 Complaints On average, 8.5 complaints were received last year by the six CAST participants that reported on complaints. Four of the 10 did not report any complaints in the past year, due at least in part to the lack of a standard complaint processing system. Parking is the chief complaint followed by noise. Parking is particularly problematic in towns like Mt. Crested Butte where on street parking is not allowed. Complaints about VHR’s where they are not allowed topped the list in Durango. Exterior lights being left on overnight and for long periods were also mentioned. VHR-Related Complaints Received Nature of Complaints Parking 22% Noise 19% Too many occupants 15% Garbage 12% Other: Illegal rentals, exterior lights left on 47% Total* 115% *Total exceeds 100% since multiple reasons sometimes cited. How complaints are received and handled varies widely. In terms of receiving complaints: x Town staff receives all or most complaints in Jackson, Mt. Crested Butte, Ouray and Park City; x Elected officials have been contacted most often in Durango; x Law enforcement usually gets the calls in Steamboat. Towns learn of zoning/ordinance violations and other causes for complaint through: x Neighbors -- the main source of complaints; x Patrolling/observation is done by three of the 10 towns; x Websites: “Overnight Oversight” or similar neighborhood watch has been a source in a couple of the communities; x Facebook – While not noted as a source for complaints about VHR’s in CAST towns, Facebook has been a forum for community interaction on related issues. In the small community of Pitkin, Colorado (about 70 residents) Facebook is the place where heated debates have occurred. x Property managers who handle legal short-term rentals are a source of complaints about VHR’s where they are not allowed. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 47 Best Practices Practices related to neighborhood impacts are grouped into two categories: Outreach/Education and Nuisance Mitigation. Outreach and Education Website – Durango x Page on City’s website covers regulations, history, recent news and opportunities for input with a link to map showing permitted VHR’s. Mapping of Permitted VHR’s – Durango x A map of all the permitted VHR’s in the City that can be viewed by citizens with complaints submitted directly to community development staff via the website. Neighbor Notices – Sonoma County and Petaluma (proposed) x Letters notifying that a permit has been issued and containing contact information on mandatory property manager located within a 1-hour drive and on call 24/7 given to all neighbors within 100 feet of a VHR. Stakeholder Roundtables – Durango x Two discussions supported by informative PowerPoint presentations with realtors, property owners, vacation rental managers, neighborhood advocates, code enforcement staff, downtown HOA representatives, and lodging industry representatives. Chamber Outreach – Breckenridge x Meetings held for education about rules and procedures. Newspaper Notices and Articles – Breckenridge x Published notices in the newspaper to educate public/property owners about what is allowed. Community Engagement – Durango x A community meeting held on neighborhood issues publicized through multiple outlets including traditional media, social media, the City website and City e-mail listservs. Comments became extensive; Durango’s staff recommends developing a system for organizing comments from the outset of any public education process. Complaint Handling Process – Durango x Website and other forms of public outreach channel comments/inquiries/complaints through to a designated planner; one person handles/routes complaints other than those needing immediate police response. Educate Visitors – Breckenridge x Create a brochure on the Town’s noise, parking, occupant, visitor and garbage regulations associated with VHR’s and require that it be posted in all VHR units. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 48 Nuisance Mitigation Occupancy Limits x Estes Park: A maximum of two persons per bedroom plus two persons with an 8-person maximum. Children under 3 exempted. x Sonoma County: Two persons per bedroom plus two up to a 12-person maximum subject to design load of septic system or as allowed through granting of a Use Permit. x Steamboat Springs: 1 person per 200 SF. Visitor Limits – Sonoma County x A maximum of 6 visitors are allowed in addition to the maximum permitted, which equals up to 18 persons in homes with 5 or more bedrooms. Exceptions are allowed on the national holidays of Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas. Outdoor Party Limits x Steamboat Springs: Outdoor activities are prohibited at which more than twice the number of allowed occupants are in attendance, which equates to a maximum of 16 guests staying in the unit and no more than 32 persons at an outdoor party. x Sonoma County: Special events, outdoor events, lawn parties, weddings and similar activities are not allowed at any time at VHR’s in Rural Residential and Urban Residential zones. Trash Management – Grand Lake x The Pay as You Throw (PAYT) program involves the Town offering plastic bags for $3.00 (25 Gal.) and $4.00 (40 Gal.) that can be thrown in 5 animal-resistant dumpsters located by the Public Works Department shop in town. Parking x Sonoma County: 1 space minimum for up to 2 bedrooms; 2 spaces for 3 or 4 bedrooms and at least 3 spaces for larger units, which must demonstrate adequate parking. x Breckenridge and Grand Lake: No motor vehicles can be parked on the lawn or landscaped areas or in the public street or right-of-way adjacent to the accommodation unit, and no person can stay overnight in any motor vehicle which is parked at an accommodation unit. x Santa Fe: No recreational vehicles can be parked on the site or on the street. x Steamboat Springs: Maximum of 4 cars outside of a garage. Noise Limits x Palm Springs: No outdoor amplified sound is permitted at any time when short-term rented. x Sonoma County: Outdoor amplified sound is not permitted at any time unless through a Cultural or Special Event Permit or Use Permit. General Nuisance x Lake Tahoe Basin: All-encompassing but vague “Occupants cannot create unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct or violate provisions of state law regarding noise, overcrowding, alcohol or drugs.” Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 49 VII. Workforce Housing Issues and Emerging Trends Concerns have increased within the last year over the impacts that VHR’s are having on workforce housing, particularly its availability and cost. Communities have not done much to date to quantify the impacts but seem to be increasingly interested in options they might pursue to preserve and provide affordable housing for their workforce. Loss of Long-Term Rentals The conversion of rental units that have historically housed employees has become a major concern in mountain towns. Availability of workforce rental housing in all inter-mountain resort communities became very scarce in 2014. In 2014, apartment vacancy rates were extremely low -- less than 1% in many areas. In some towns like Jackson, the lack of rental housing has been called a crisis. Conversion of long-term rentals occupied by locals into VHR’s has often been anecdotally cited as the reason for such a dramatic shift in rental availability. Rent Increases The economic principles of supply and demand have been functioning well in mountain towns. With the decrease in the rental supply, due at least in part to conversion into VHR’s, rents have been rising. At one apartment complex near Vail, rents increased by over $500/month in 2014. In response to the steep jump in rents in many Colorado mountain communities efforts are underway to develop additional apartments in Buena Vista, Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Edwards, Eagle, Mountain Village, Telluride, Salida and Steamboat Springs. Large Cities Also Concerned The concern about loss of long-term rentals is not isolated to mountain resort communities. A March 2015 report titled Airbnb, Rising Rents and the Housing Shortage in Los Angeles by LAANE, a group that supports “a new economy for all” cited the loss of over 7,300 long-term rental units. This estimate has been widely quoted in publications throughout the country, reflecting the growing concern over this issue. Using Workforce Housing as Vacation Home Rentals Some residents of deed-restricted workforce housing have rented their homes or spare bedrooms through online hosting sites. These scattered incidents have typically been reported by neighbors who also live in nearby homes with deed restrictions prohibiting the practice. In Aspen, some community officials are in favor of allowing residents of restricted workforce housing to use their homes as vacation rentals, advertising through hosting sites and producing much needed extra income. The housing authority’s guidelines and deed restrictions explicitly prohibit such use because, as the housing authority director explained, “it undermines the spirit and intent of the workforce housing program.” The housing authority’s outside legal counsel has strongly advised against permitting this Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 50 activity. Aspen is the only mountain town identified to date in which changes to regulations prohibiting the use of workforce housing as vacation home rentals may be considered. Quantifying the Situation While concerns over the impacts that the proliferation of VHR’s has had on housing for the workforce, few attempts have been made to quantify the impacts. Evidence is anecdotal but many communities feel loss of units is significant since, as the town manager of Estes Park indicated, “It is so easy to have vacation rentals and the profits are substantial, that many people are choosing to utilize their properties as vacation rentals, thereby taking at least a portion of these off of the long term rental market.” (sic) Impacts on Accessory Units One impact that is particularly hard to track is the use of accessory units at VHR’s. Construction of deed restricted accessory dwelling units are often encouraged by municipalities though incentives such as density bonuses and fee waivers/reductions. The units can provide housing for the workforce, retirees and family members as their needs change. Petaluma is one community concerned about their ADU’s or “granny flats” becoming VHR’s. CAST Survey Findings Loss of Long-Term Rentals The loss of housing previously rented by members of the local workforce on a long-term basis has become the top concern in participating CAST communities, edging out tax collection. Communities rated this an average of 3.9 (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being “major concern”). Concern about conversion of long-term rentals that housed employees into short-term vacation home rentals is particularly high in Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Frisco, Jackson and Park City. Steamboat Springs is the only town surveyed where concern about this issue is low. Tracking Conversion from Long-Term to Short-Term Rentals While the concern is widespread, only two of the 10 CAST towns surveyed have tracked or attempted to identify residential units that were occupied by local residents but are now short-termed. x Breckenridge maintains a property database used primarily for its RETT that classifies each residential unit according to its primary use. Long-term rentals have held steady at 9% to 10% of the inventory, despite fluctuations due to new construction and conversion into VHR’s. x Durango gains knowledge about the past use of units through its VHR permitting system. While the system has been in place for less than a year, staff estimates roughly half are out-of-town owners or professional property managers. The other half are local homeowners who travel and want the option to rent the house while gone, have a 2nd unit on their property that they want to rent, or want to short-term rent a room in the house. This system does not track change in use. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 51 Using Deed Restricted Workforce Housing as VHR’s Incidents where illegal use of deed restricted workforce housing as VHR’s has been very limited. Only Jackson and Frisco reported known incidents. None of the 10 towns reported requests by residents of restricted workforce housing for permission to rent their homes or spare bedrooms short term. Despite few reported incidents, concern about the potential use of workforce housing as VHR’s is relatively high, ranking 6th out of 16 issues tested in the CAST survey. While staff are aware of the concern, most feel compliance with prohibitions will not be problematic because neighbors will report violations and annual compliance monitoring will detect unauthorized rental of units. Best Practices Tracking Conversion of Employee Housing Into VHR’s Real Estate Database – Breckenridge x The finance department maintains a database developed for tracking real estate transfer tax (RETT). New owners are contacted when units are sold to determine change in use. Housing Census – Crested Butte x The Town Planner has historically conducted a census on the use/occupancy of every residential unit in the community. This tool has been helpful on many tasks related to workforce housing and could be used to track loss of employee housing. It has documented that short-term rentals have increased from 5.1% of total housing units in 2000 to 15.8% in 2015, with a growth rate – times faster than the growth in housing. Prohibiting Use of Workforce Housing as VHR’s Deed Restriction Provisions – Breckenridge x Only “qualified occupants” who are employed in Summit County can reside in units, which prohibits renting the unit or individual bedrooms to visitors. Non-paying guests are allowed. Renting to roommates who are employed in Summit County is also allowed. Web Site Notice - Aspen x The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority web site has in bold, red typeface, “Under NO circumstances are you allowed to rent your deed restricted home or room out through VRBO, Airbnb or equivalent.” Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 52 Potential Practices License Check for Housing Compliance x Require sign off by housing agency/department in charge of administering workforce housing on VHR’s license/permit applications. Tracking System Crosscheck x Provide addresses and photos of restricted workforce housing to staff who license and track VHR’s. Allocate VHR Revenue to Housing x To fund replacement housing and units needed by growing workforce, allocate tax revenues into an affordable housing fund. A proposal to do this in under consideration in Nashville. Replace Lost Housing Units x Develop goals and plans for workforce housing development that take into account loss of housing through conversion into VHR’s. Attachment C Agency or entity responsible for managing or monitoring the program: Basalt Town Council For more information: This ordinance can be found on the Basalt Planning Department Web site Once at the web site, follow this path for the ordinance. Basalt Municipal Code > “Zoning” > Article XIX “Housing Mitigation”, pages 121-126 Boulder Inclusionary Zoning Required or Voluntary participation of new developments: All new developments are required to participate unless they fulfill the requirement through cash-in-lieu, land dedication, or off-site dedication. Cash-in-Lieu requirements: For each unrestricted detached unit the contribution will be the lesser of $13,200.00 or $55.00 multiplied by 20% of the total floor area of the unit. For each attached unrestricted unit the contribution will be the lesser of $12,000.00 or $50.00 multiplied by 20% of the total floor area of the unit. These rates can be adjusted annually by the city manager to reflect changes in the median sale price for detached and attached housing. An affordable housing fund established by the city manager will receive and manage all money collected by cash-in-lieu contributions. This money will be used solely for the construction, purchase, and maintenance of affordable housing and for the costs of administering programs related to Inclusionary Zoning codes (Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 9-6.5-6). Minimum project size (# of Units): Developments of 5 or more units are required to include at least 20% of the total number of units as permanently affordable units. Developments of four or less may include one permanently affordable unit by dedicating an off-site affordable unit, dedicating land that meets requirements set forth in “Off-Site Inclusionary Zoning Option” Section 9-6.5-7, or by providing a cash-in-lieu contribution to the city’s affordable housing fund. (Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 9-6.5-5). Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments : Off-site vs. on-site: In developments that require more than one affordable unit, there must be a minimum of half affordable units built on-site, unless the city manager determines that building these units off-site would provide additional benefits for the city or if zoning, environmental, or legal restrictions make on-site compliance unfeasible. The off-site obligation may be fulfilled through a cash-in-lieu contribution, land dedication, or dedication of existing units. Minimum sizes for permanently affordable units: The average floor area of detached affordable units is a minimum of 48% of the average floor area of the units that are part of the same development (up to a max. average size of 1,200 sq. ft.). The average floor area of attached affordable units is a minimum of 80% the average floor area of the units that are part of the same development (up to a max. average size of 1,200 sq. ft.). Design Flexibility: There is a permit for the decrease in size of finished floor area by the city manager if the unit is increased in size by 2 sq. ft. of unfinished, potentially habitable space for each finished sq. ft. of floor area that is decreased (up to a max. of 400 unfinished sq. ft.). This potentially habitable space will be Attachment B, 2 determined in consideration of an adequate foundation, sound structural components, floor to ceiling heights, weather resistant roofs, appropriate exits, and window placement. (Boulder Revised Code, Chapter 9-6.5-5) Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): Very low, low, and moderate incomes determined by the asset limitations in the Boulder Revised Code. Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing) : No unit can sell, lease, or rent an affordable unit to people above the eligible income level. Those qualified to rent or purchase permanently affordable units must have a fair chance to become informed about the availability and the owner or seller must submit a public advertising plan, “Good Faith Marketing”, to the city manager for approval. (Boulder Revised Code, 9-6.5-10). Agency or entity responsible for managing or monitoring the program: City Manager and City Council members. For more information: Text of the ordinance can be found on the Boulder web site. In order to access the text click the link and follow the following path. Go to Quick Links, scroll down to “Codes and Regulations” > Boulder Revised Code, 1981 > Title 9 “Land Use Regulation” > Chapter 9-6.5 “Inclusionary Zoning” Carbondale Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: Required as a condition of approval for all residential development and any building permit application for a development with 5 or more units (Section 15.25.030). The Board of Trustees has the authority to grant variances to the affordable housing ordinance, but only if the variance is in the best interest of the community and furthers the overall goal of promoting affordable housing for Carbondale citizens. These variances include incentives provided by the developer instead of required units, or voluntary restrictions on housing units by the developer (Section 15.25.100). Minimum project size (#of units): Developments of 5-20 units must set-aside 15% of all lots to be deed-restricted as affordable and available to families within 150% of AMI. For developments of 20 or more units, 15% must be deed-restricted, and available to families within 65% to 150% AMI. Developments resulting in a fraction of a required unit must pay a cash-in-lieu fee (Section 15.25.050). Community housing must be deed-restricted to people that live and work in Carbondale or the project developer (Section 15.25.070). Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments: Attachment B, 3 On-site housing is preferred, but off-site housing within the town of Carbondale and outside of the Town limits, but within the Town’s Urban Growth Boundary are given consideration with regard to proximity of the units to schools, public transportation, and shopping. Otherwise, cash-in-lieu fee required (Section 15.25.060). Units must be developed in accordance to the size, design, and occupancy standards established in the Carbondale Community Housing Guidelines. Occupancy of affordable units must be available at the same time as market-rate units (Section 15.25.070). Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): Must be in the low to moderate income level, with 65% to 150% of AMI (Section 15.25.050). Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): Follows according to the deed restriction (Section 15.25.070). Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program: The Carbondale Planning Director, local Housing Authorities, and the Board of Trustees of the Town of Carbondale For more information: Carbondale Ordinance No. 27, hardcopy only. Denver Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: Required participation of all new developments and also existing buildings that are being substantially rehabilitated or remodeled to provide dwelling units (Section 27-104). Applications for building permits must include a Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) plan otherwise they will not be approved by the City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development Agency (CPDA) (Section 27-106). Alternatives to providing MPDUs include building more MPDUs at one or more other sites in the same or adjoining statistical neighborhood, or a contribution to the special revenue fund that is equal to 50% of the price per MPDU that is not provided. The prices are determined by CPDA and their table of current maximum sales prices (Section 27-106). Developers also receive incentives for building MPDUs as a reimbursement of $5,000 per unit built, up to 50% of the total units in a development, and $10,000 per MPDU built that is affordable for households earning no more than 60% AMI, up to 50% total units built. However, the reimbursement amount is limited to the amount available in the special revenue fund, and is awarded by the director of CPDA (Section 27-107). Supplemental incentives include density bonuses of up to 10% if one unit is MPDU, parking requirement reduction of up to 20% if one MPDU is built for every 10 spaces reduced, and expedited processing of building plans if all MPDU requirements are met in plan (Section 27-108). Minimum project size (#of units): Developments with a total of 30 or more units are required to provide 10% MPDUs, which are affordable to households earning no more than 80% of AMI. Developments with 3 or more stories, elevators, and 60% structured parking, must also provide 10% of total units as MPDUs, which are affordable for households Attachment B, 4 earning no more than 95% AMI. Maximum purchase prices for MPDUs is determined by the CPDA and is adjusted according to number of bedrooms with a maximum down payment of 5% (Section 27-105). Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments: MPDUs are required to be indistinguishable from market-rate units and depending on the size of the development they must be dispersed in two or more locations throughout the development. In single-family developments MPDUs must have 2 or more bedrooms, and in multi-family dwelling units the ratio of one bedroom units must not exceed that of the market-rate units (Section 27-106). Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): Eligibility is determined by AMI calculation adjusted for household size, low and moderate household income are targeted with incomes no more than 80% or 95% AMI depending on the development. Unit must also be the primary residence of eligible household (Section 27-110). Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): Governmental agencies or non-profit organizations designated by the director of CPDA are eligible buyers of for sale MPDUs as well as households with low or moderate incomes. CPDA must be notified 30 days before an initial offering of and MPDU and then the unit must be marketed to eligible households. Eligible households must be verified by CPDA before sale of unit (Section 27-110). Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program: City and County of Denver Community Planning and Development Agency For more information: Text of the ordinance can be found on the Denver Municipal Code Web site In order to access the text click the link and follow the following path Go to Chapter 27 “Preservation of Affordable Housing”, Article III “Preservation of Affordable Housing” and IV “Affordable Housing”. Eagle County Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: All new residential developments are required to participate with either Inclusionary Housing or Employee/Housing Linkage (each defined in “Limits”) (Section 3-100). Minimum project size (#of Units): All Inclusionary Housing developments of 4 or more units within Eagle County must include up to 20% of total housing unit need generated by the particular development’s employees for qualified moderate to low income units developed as affordable housing (Section 3-110). All Employee/Housing Linkage should provide 20% of the total housing unit need generated by the development’s employee that are qualified low income and very low income (Section 3-120). Developers may choose to satisfy their requirement with a payment in-lieu fee at 30% mitigation rate to the Eagle County Housing Fund or other qualified Local Resident Housing Developer (Section 3-140). Attachment B, 5 Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments: If the developer is only required to develop one affordable housing unit it must be designated as a two- bedroom unit. If the developer is required to develop more than one unit, the units should be distributed as one, two, and three bedroom units (Section 3-110). Other requirements include: • Location outside of potential geologic hazards associated with development (high flood risk, etc.), • Site is a slope of less than 20%, • public infrastructure is available to site, • Housing conforms to the County Master Plan and Sub-Area Community Plans, • Has suitable drainage and soils, not adjacent to nuisances, located within an appropriate zone district (Section 3-130). • Unit should meet all building codes and built in a standard to enhance durability over time (Section 3-170). Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable housing units (AMI range): Two Types of requirements: Inclusionary Housing targeted for development of moderate income housing with 80% and 100% of AMI or Employee/Housing Linkage targeted for development of low income housing with 60% and 80% of AMI (Section 3-100). The residence must be the primary residence and the applicant must be a qualified employee, working at least 30 hours a week for 8 of the past 12 months in Eagle County (Section 4-100). Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): The initial maximum purchase price shall not exceed 30% of the targeted income group (Section 3-160). The unit may only be sold to qualified purchasers and cannot exceed the maximum purchase price, which is the owner’s purchase price plus the percentage increase for each year of the average wage for Eagle County as determined by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, not exceeding 6% (Section 5-100). Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program: Eagle County For more information : Eagle County Housing Ordinance Scroll down and go to “Local Resident Housing Guidelines” Glenwood Springs Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: Applicants for all new residential development permits are subject to the inclusionary requirements. Minimum project size (# of units): Attachment B, 6 All residential developments of 3 or more units must provide at least 15% as affordable housing units. New developments of single-family lots and multi-family housing projects must be deed restricted for the average sales price of 80% AMI as determined by HUD for Garfield County (Section IV). Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments: All units must be on-site, distributed within the development, unless approved otherwise. Off-site housing is approved only if the developer can demonstrate that off-site housing would be of greater benefit to the community. A cash-in-lieu fee can be collected only if the development is small and results in a fraction (Section IV, A). Units must also meet minimum square footage guidelines for studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three- bedroom, and single family detached (Section IV, C). Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): Eligible households must be employed full-time in Glenwood Springs, a retired person who has been a full- time employee in Glenwood Springs for a minimum of 4 years prior to retirement, or a disabled person also employed in Glenwood Springs for 2 years prior to their disability (Section III, A). They must also meet income guidelines of low (category 1, 60% of AMI), moderate (category 2 & 3, 80 to 100% AMI), or middle income (category 4, 100 to 120% AMI) and also they must be certified in these categories by the Garfield County Housing Authority (Section III, D). Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): All affordable housing units are deed restricted with resale restrictions and future buyers are bound by the restrictions as well. There is also an appreciation cap on all deed restricted affordable housing of 3% annually (Section III, H). Maximum sales price is determined by the program administrator, and a lottery is held for eligible buyers (Section III, J). Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program: Garfield County Housing Authority For more information: Ordinance No. 24, hardcopy only and Resolution No. 2001-16, Glenwood Springs Community Housing Guidelines, hardcopy only. Longmont Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: Every residential development is required to participate through an annexation agreement and can meet the affordable housing requirement by constructing affordable units or paying an in-lieu fee (Section C). Payment in-lieu must pay for the number of affordable units, or partial units, that are required. For single- family detached housing, $108,423 for each unit, for multi-family rental housing, $48,797 for each high- density unit or $63,188 for each medium density unit, and for owner-occupied town homes or condos, $62, 312 per unit (Section C, 3). Attachment B, 7 Depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, the duration of the deed restrictions, the potential demand for affordable housing and the design and quality of affordable housing, density bonuses may be granted to the developers (Section F). Minimum project size (# of units): At least 10% of the total units developed must be affordable units. These units can be on-site or off-site if determined acceptable by City Council (Section C, 2). Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments: Affordable housing in a residential development must be mixed-in and not segregated from market-rate units in any way (Section E, 4). Affordable units must also be similar in exterior appearance to market-rate units and they must comply with applicable dimensional standards (Section E, 5& 6). Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): The City Manager is in charge of determining rules and regulations for eligibility, including household size, makeup, and income and must be compatible with HUD’s Section 8 Program Income Eligibility Determination Guidelines, or CHFA’s rent limits (Section E, 3). Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): Affordable rental housing units must be rented for a period of at least 20 years to eligible income groups unless otherwise approved by City Council. Affordable homes for sale must be deed-restricted to assure affordability for at least 10 years unless otherwise approved by City Council (Section E, 2). Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program: City Council and the City Manager For more information: Land Development Code, Chapter 15.05 Development Standards, 15.05.220 Affordable Housing, hardcopy only. Pitkin County and Aspen Inclusionary Zoning Pitkin County Inclusionary Zoning: All new developments and redevelopments requiring a building permit, within unincorporated Pitkin County, are subject to “Fair Share Requirements”, which are the requirements put on developments to pay for a share of the impacts generated by the development, unless somehow exempt under requirements (Section 11-100). Right now, the code includes requirements for public roads, but does not yet include affordable housing requirements. Section 10-120 is reserved for affordable housing requirements. Go to Title 8, Article 10 “Fair Share Requirements” Aspen Inclusionary Zoning: At this time, Aspen’s Land Use Code includes a section for affordable housing. As determined by Aspen City Council, if a proposed development constitutes an affordable housing project, the City Council can exempt Attachment B, 8 the development from the required impact fees. The impact fees include park development impact and school land dedication (Title 26, part 600). Go to: Departments, “Zoning Information” > Land Use Code > Title 26, part 600 “Impact Fees and Dedications” However, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority puts out guidelines for development of, admission to, and occupancy of deed restricted employee-housing units in Aspen and Pitkin County. These guidelines do not overrule the county or city’s Land Use Codes, but are annually reviewed and approved by the Housing Board and City Council. For more information: Aspen Housing Office San Miguel County Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: Impact mitigation, or inclusionary zoning, is required as a condition of approval for new developments of office, restaurant, and retail, hotel, ski-area, and residential (San Miguel County Land Use Code, Section 5- 1303). Deed restriction is imposed on each real property designated as Affordable Housing (Section 5- 1304). Minimum project size (# of units): An office, restaurant or retail development has been found to generate 3 employees per 1,000 gross square feet, and therefore must mitigate 15% of this impact by building deed-restricted housing for one employee for every 2,250 gross sq. ft. (Section 5-1303 A.) Hotel and residential developments are also required to mitigate 15% of impact. Hotel developments must provide mitigation for .225 employees per unit created (Section 5-1303 B.). Residential mitigation is required for all developments larger than seven lots/units with one of every 7 lots/units being deed-restricted (Section 5-1303 C.). Each ski area development that creates new facilities must provide housing for 15% of employees during all seasons, and for each new ski lift added, the ski are must provide housing for 2 employees (Section 5-1303 D.). Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): Must be a qualified employee who’s primary and sole residence is in San Miguel, Montrose, Ouray, or Dolores Counties (Section 5-1304). Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): Properties must be sold, transferred and/or conveyed in compliance with guidelines for the San Miguel Land Use Code. The restrictions on ownership, use, and occupancy runs for 50 years from the date of recordation, and can be extended another period of 50 years by the Board of County Commissioners after public hearing (Section 5-1304). No affordable housing can be sold or rented without submission of written notice to the Housing Authority, and it can only be sold to qualified employees of the county (Section 5-1305 F.). Further restrictions are extensively laid out in the Land Use Code, Section 5-1305. Agency or entity responsible for managing or monitoring the program: San Miguel County Board of Commissioners and the Housing Authority Attachment B, 9 For more information: www.sanmiguelcounty.org Telluride Inclusionary Zoning Required or voluntary participation of new developments: Affordable Housing Requirements apply to all residential and non-residential new developments, with exception to those that are determined to be exempt (laid out in Section 7-730) (Affordable Housing Requirements, Section 3-720). Minimum project size (# of units): Developers are required to provide a minimum square footage of affordable housing based upon the impact of their development. This minimum is determined by the number of employees generated by the proposed development multiplied by 40%. For commercial/public developments the minimum is 4.5 employees per 1,000 sq. ft.; hotels and residential developments the minimum is .33 employees per lodging unit Pending the Telluride Housing Authorities approval, alternate forms of providing required affordable housing include purchasing a unit on the open market and placing a deed restriction on it or construction of dormitory/shared family units to provide square footage to meet affordable housing requirement (Affordable Housing Guidelines, Section 11). Additionally, a payment in lieu will be accepted based on per-square foot rate of $90.00, but not exceeding 15% of the total minimum affordable housing requirement. This money is only to be used for planning, subsidizing or developing affordable and employee housing. Fees collected may be returned to the present owner if they have not been spent within 7 years of collection (Telluride Affordable Housing Requirements, Section 3-750.C.). Guidelines for location and design of affordable housing within market-rate developments: Location: Construction of affordable housing units can be within or outside of the town of Telluride (but within San Miguel County) provided that such development has not previously been deed-restricted to affordable housing or employees. The Developer must provide Telluride Housing Authority with a Housing Mitigation Plan as part of the development application for approval. The Unit Size Standards for the affordable housing requirement are defined in the Guidelines and are as follows: • One bedroom units have a min. sq. ft. of 350 and max. of 550; • Two bedroom units have a min. sq. ft. of 650 and max. of 875; • Three bedroom units have a min. sq. ft. of 850 and max. of 1,200. • Units larger than the 3-bedroom maximum will still be credited against the affordable housing requirement the same as a 3-bedroom unit. • All newly constructed deed restricted units must comply with the Uniform Building Code, and must have a fully equipped kitchen and full bathroom, areas for living and sleeping, and designated areas for storage (Affordable Housing Guidelines, Section 9). Limits to determine household eligibility for affordable units (AMI range): Units created under the Affordable Housing Guidelines are targeted for people of middle income based upon affordability at the 45th percentile of individual income for employees within the town of Telluride, upper limit Attachment B, 10 equal to the 90 th percentile individual income. Affordability Standard: $2,083 per month per bedroom, Upper Limit: $5,000 per month per bedroom. The monthly household income limits are adjusted annually pursuant to the average annul wage in San Miguel County. The eligibility of employees must be approved by the Telluride Housing Authority (Affordable Housing Guidelines, Section 5). Income, asset, rental, and ownership qualifications are further laid out in Section 5 of Affordable Housing Guidelines. Period of controlled resale or rental prices (to maintain supply of affordable housing): All affordable housing units are required to be deed restricted to rental or sales terms and occupancy limitations that comply with the Telluride Affordable Housing Guidelines (Telluride Affordable Housing Requirements, Section 3-750.A.). Agency or entity responsible for managing and monitoring the program: Telluride Housing Authority, the housing authority reviews the Affordable Housing Guidelines at least every two years and reports back to the Town Council regarding their effectiveness. For more information, Go to the Town of Telluride web site and follow this path: Your Government > Planning and Building Department > Planning Division > Land Use Code > Article 3: Zone District Regulations, Division 7 Affordable Housing Requirements and The San Miguel Regional Housing Authority Follow this path: Programs > Telluride Affordable Housing > Telluride Affordable Housing Guidelines Hat tip to the Division of Housing's Summer intern, Tayler Canjar for her research on these ordinances. Attachment B, 11 June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 4 Executive Summary Overview of the VHR Industry Vacation Home Rentals are BIG Business. The industry is large and rapidly growing, capturing an increasing share of the travel/lodging market. New hosting sites like Vacasa are continually popping up, trying to capture a share of the large profits being generated. In 2014 there were over 2.1 million rentals listed on the top three hosting sites: x HomeAway, which includes VRBO and roughly 60 other hosting sites, has more than 1 million listings in 190 countries. x Airbnb offers over 800,000 listings in more than 34,000 cities worldwide. x FlipKey offers 300,000 properties in 179 countries. In comparison, the Marriot family of hotels, which has 19 different brands (from Ritz Carlton to the Courtyard), are located in 4,000 destinations in 78 counties – only 40% of the countries served by HomeAway and 12% of the cities serviced by Airbnb. Part of this fast rise in VHR activity has been assisted by the unequal taxing structure in its early years when compared to traditional lodging businesses. “When you tax one thing and don't tax another, it's not shocking that one grows faster,” as stated by William F. Fox, University of Tennessee economics professor, in an interview with Bloomberg BNA. This is also part of the reason electronic commerce developed as rapidly as it did 15 years ago. VHR’s in the “Sharing Economy” The industry, for which no single term has emerged, is considered part of the “sharing economy”, which is described on Wikipedia as: A sharing economy takes a variety of forms, often leveraging information technology to empower individuals, corporations, non-profits and government with information that enables distribution, sharing and reuse of excess capacity in goods and services. A common premise is that when information about goods is shared (typically via an online marketplace), the value of those goods may increase, for the business, for individuals, and for the community. The industry has grown far beyond its original status within the “sharing economy.” It is no longer just using “excess capacity” -- a spare bedroom or two, the home a family would otherwise leave empty while on vacation, or the second home that owners visit only a few times a year. Many units now listed on these hosting sites previously housed members of the workforce. They were once homes for families, but are now tourist accommodations. They were occupied by their owners or rented long term but are now investor owned and rented for the highest rates achievable as frequently as possible for maximum profits. The business model is very distinct from the traditional lodging industry, which also uses online advertising and booking systems. The difference is that most online hosting sites function as brokers, taking a percentage of rent charged but leaving compliance with local laws to the individual Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 5 owner/manager and guest. Unlike hotels and other commercial lodging accommodations, online hosting sites do not ensure that residences meet quality or minimum safety standards, generally do not collect sales and lodging taxes, and are not limited to locations within commercial zones where the use may be more compatible or expected. VHR’s Presence in Mountain Towns VHR’s are a significant resource in Rocky Mountain towns, providing visitors an alternative to traditional lodging offered in these tourism-based economies. The growth in the number of residential units listed on hosting sites in these communities is outpacing much of the rest of the country and growth in visitor utilization of these sites is also up. HomeAway reported in 2014 that Park City and Winter Park made their list of top 10 destinations for the largest increase in new vacation rental listings. Crested Butte was one of the top 10 in terms of destinations, showing the largest increase in traveler demand. VHR’s now equal between 1% and 52% of total residential units among the participating CAST communities. In most towns, VHR numbers have been growing during a time when the recession brought construction to a halt and new housing starts have just started to recover. VHR’s Compared to Housing Units Total Housing Units 2014 Estimates VHR Listings 2014 Percent of Units Listed Breckenridge 7,187 2,911 41% Crested Butte 1,098 170 15% Durango 7,234 73 1% Estes Park 4,176 301 7% Frisco 3,167* 184 6% Jackson 4,736 N/A N/A Mt. Crested Butte 1,575 819 52% Ouray 802 97 12% Park City 9,471* 2,547 27% Steamboat Springs 9,991 696 7% *2000 Census figures; 2014 estimates for other towns from Colorado State Demographer. Community Concerns From large cities to small resort towns, the proliferation of VHR’s is raising concerns. The National League of Cities reported that common elements among communities of all sizes are the issues of ensuring that safety, regulation and licensing systems are up to par, along with proper taxing procedures given the revenue development potential. Issues related to the tight and expensive housing markets, preservation of resident neighborhoods and character, and ensuring a fair playing field with other lodging businesses in terms of tax payment and regulations are the top concerns among participating CAST communities. The top five issues of concern, in order, are: x Loss of free-market rental housing previously rented to the workforce on a long-term basis; Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 6 x Collection of lodging/sales tax; x Community character; x Neighborhood change; and x Vision/plans for the future. The use of housing restricted for occupancy only by members of the workforce as a VHR was of less concern than the loss of market rentals; this report will show it happens infrequently. Safety is a moderate concern but one that might increase over time if accidents and injuries occur. Source: Survey of elected officials and staff in 10 participating CAST communities; 34 responses received. Several other concerns that were not as prominent deserve mention given their unique ties to these communities. Visitor Experience – The potential negative impacts of VHR’s on visitor experience, through low quality or unsafe accommodations for example, received a relatively low rating overall. Park City, however, rated this issue significantly higher (3.7 average). The resort prides itself on its reputation for offering a paramount visitor experience and is concerned that a largely unregulated industry could adversely impact this experience. Over time, concerns about negative visitor experiences may increase from: 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.9 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 NEW CONSTRUCTION OF LODGING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE PROPERTY TAXATION OVERCROWDING IMPACTS ON LODGING OCCUPANCY RATES SAFETY POTENTIAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SHORT TERM RENTALS NOISE PARKING EQUITY/FAIRNESS COMPARED TO LODGING USE OF WORKFORCE HOUSING AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS VISION/PLANS FOR THE FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE COMMUNITY CHARACTER COLLECTION OF LODGING/SALES TAX LOSS OF LONG-TERM RENTAL HOUSING 1 = Minor Concern; 5 = Major Concern Perceptions about Community Concerns Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 7 x Publicized incidents of visitors who are endangered, hurt or even killed by unsafe VHR’s that are not up to lodging codes; x Dissatisfaction among visitors who want to “live like locals” and experience the “real” community they are visiting, yet discover that the increased number of VHR’s have displaced locals and turned neighborhoods into lodging districts. In many resort communities, surveys sponsored by Chambers of Commerce, the ski resort companies, the municipalities or other entities could be a source for better understanding visitor experience and determining if steps should be taken to help experiences be positive. Questions about how lodging reservations are made are standard in these surveys. In some towns including Breckenridge, analysis of existing surveys could be very insightful about visitor experience. New Lodging Construction – Most communities do not appear to be concerned that the increased availability of VHR’s through online hosting sites may be a factor in reduced hotel and lodging development. Of the 10 CAST participants, the only one with major lodging projects under construction is Breckenridge. Equity/Fairness With Lodging – Communities are concerned about VHR’s being treated equitably with existing commercial lodging. The term “level playing field” was used by many of the town officials interviewed. Potential Prohibitions Against Short-Term Rentals – This is a concern of many community members, including but not limited to: x Local residents who want to occasionally rent their homes or spare bedrooms short term to help pay mortgages. x Realtors with listings they want to be allowed to sell to investors or second homeowners who want to rent their units short term. x Public officials who recognize the contributions that VHR’s make to their bed base and tax revenue. Contrary to community concerns about potential prohibitions, most communities have been moving to legalize VHR’s where they were previously prohibited. Matrix of Best Practices The following matrix summarizes the Best Practices described in this report. The Best and Potential Practices are listed in the column on the left. The report section within which each practice is discussed and recommended appears across the top row. An “X” indicates each section within which the recommended practice is discussed. This serves both as a summary of practice recommendations that was derived from this research, as well as a map for the report so that communities interested in a particular practice can easily locate each section of the report with relevant information. Some practices are applicable to multiple issues as indicated by an “X” under more than one category. CAST could have a significant role in the implementation of Best Practices, taking on responsibilities for state initiatives in revisions to state statutes on property and sales taxes, negotiating agreements with hosting sites and developing efficient tracking systems. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 8 Best and Potential Practices Tracking Regulations Licensing Permits Taxing Staffing Neighborhood Impacts Workforce Housing Post information within the VHR X X X Require local manager/emergency contact X X X Coordinate with jurisdictions in region X X X Create website on VHR’s X X X Require property inspections X X Negotiate Airbnb agreement X X Require license numbers to be on all listings X X Give neighbors notice X X Map licensed/permitted VHR’s X X Establish fee to cover management costs X X Coordinate tracking across departments X X Publish VHR requirements in newspapers X X Work with code enforcement on complaints X Post local VHR regulations on Airbnb X Restrict VHR concentration X Implement more restrictive regulations where impacts are higher X Give owners unique rights to short-term their homes X Permit bedroom rentals w/owners present X Create separate categories for VHR’s depending on time rented X Dedicate/hire staff for license compliance X Educate realtors about requirements X Link complaints to legal vs illegal VHR’s X Establish enforcement procedures and use them X Revoke licenses/permits for violations X Increase license fees to mitigate workforce housing impacts X Collect VHR details on license or permit applications X Educate visitors that listings must have license numbers X Initiate state action to address 30-day limit on sale taxation X Initiate state action to address how properties are classified for property taxes Assign community development lead responsibility for VHR’s X Coordinate VHR’s w/ economic development X Add staff specialist X Hold stakeholder roundtables X Impose occupancy limits X Impose visitor limits X Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 9 Best and Potential Practices continued Tracking Regulations Licensing Permits Taxing Staffing Neighborhood Impacts Workforce Housing Limit outdoor parties X Manage trash X Address parking X Have general nuisance provision X Use real estate database to track conversion of housing into VHR’s X Create housing census X Prohibit use of workforce housing for VHR’s X Require check for workforce compliance when licensing VHR’s X Allocate VHR revenue to housing X Replace lost housing units X Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 10 I. Tracking Issues and Emerging Trends The ability to track and collect information on Vacation Home Rentals advertised on hosting sites is in turmoil. Local governments have been struggling with finding and identifying VHR owners and property managers since this issue arose in the mid-2000’s. CAST communities are not the only communities struggling with collecting the information that they need to ensure VHR’s are operating as legal licensed and tax paying entities. The general consensus is that more cooperation from the hosting sites is needed to improve tracking and VHR compliance. Current litigation and legislative efforts are largely aimed at this purpose. Progress Made on Hosting Site Compliance Both Airbnb and HomeAway (and its subsidiaries), the two primary hosting sites, provide information on their websites and in their user agreements that alert VHR owners that they may be subject to and must comply with permitting, licensing and tax laws in their jurisdiction. Airbnb has a “Responsible Hosting” webpage, which includes notifying owners to check their community’s regulations with respect to taxing, permits and other regulations, with links provided to several city websites explaining these requirements. Airbnb has negotiated agreements with several cities to collect taxes on behalf of VHR’s that are hosted on their website. San Francisco was also able to collect back-taxes owed. These agreements may contain additional provisions, such as requiring permit numbers to be posted on advertisements. Part of Portland’s agreement will allow VHR hosts to receive free smoke and carbon monoxide detectors upon request and Airbnb will assist Portland's tourism board to promote the city and its attractions. Tracking Units Has Become Harder Despite these advances, collecting information on VHR’s advertised on these sites has gotten more difficult. The experience of CAST community participants has not been unlike that of cities and counties throughout the nation. CAST communities noted that: x Exact address and owner contact information is not available on Airbnb and limited on other sites; x Listings are inconsistent, with some providing street addresses and unit numbers and others not; and x VRBO no longer lists properties in the same order, meaning that new listings are harder to find. Communities Use Subpoenas to Obtain Information Several communities facing the same frustrations have issued subpoenas with some success to procure ownership and rental information from Airbnb and other hosting sites. VHR owners have sued Airbnb to preserve the privacy of their information. Pursuant to Airbnb’s user agreement, subpoenas protect them Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 11 against legal action from VHR owners/managers. Subpoenas are, therefore, one method through which detail on owners and bookings may be received from some hosting sites. Data Mining Barriers Adding complication, HomeAway’s user agreement for visitors to its website prohibits data mining of information on VRBO and its other sites without its written permission. Governments seeking information to ensure VHR license and tax compliance have not been issued such permission. Program scripts to collect data from Airbnb are available online, but are of limited utility for tracking units given the impreciseness of property location and lack of address and owner information provided. Cities Requiring Hosting Sites to Provide VHR Data The lack of accessible data has resulted in some communities instituting or considering ordinances requiring names and addresses to be provided by hosting sites. For example, Portland has struggled to increase its license participation rate above 10 percent. The City’s inability to identify violators or receive cooperation from Airbnb in ensuring compliance or providing needed information led the City to pass a new ordinance effective this year. As of February 20, 2015, VHR hosting websites are required to provide the VHR location and names and addresses of VHR owners/managers so the City can verify that properties are operating pursuant to city requirements. This information has yet to be released by the hosting sites. San Francisco began licensing short-term rentals in February of this year. In March, only a few dozen residents had registered, while about 5,000 rooms and units are listed on short-term rental sites. A city board member has proposed revisions to require Airbnb to share data about rentals, including length of time rented and unit information. State Initiatives Surfacing Dueling state initiatives have also been making their way into the legislature. For example, in California, SB 593 would require online vacation rental companies to disclose VHR information to cities and counties. A competing bill, AB 1220, sought to prohibit local governments from collecting Transient Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) for short-term residential rentals, but has since been withdrawn by its author. CAST Survey Findings When Communities Began Tracking Most participating CAST communities began tracking VHR’s advertised on various hosting sites between five and ten years ago. Tax collection was the primary motivation. Durango is the exception, having started tracking in 2014 in response to neighborhood impacts and citizen concerns. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 12 Hosting Sites Tracked All track VRBO and Airbnb and most also track HomeAway and Craigslist. Local property manager sites and the local newspaper are alternative sources that some communities scour. Only three communities track rooms for rent in addition to complete units. Frequency of Tracking Communities may pull data monthly, quarterly, yearly, or a few times each year. Durango, Breckenridge and Steamboat are a few communities that track VHR’s on a regular basis. Several other communities track properties “as time allows.” Information Collected All communities face challenges collecting VHR data. The information available varies by hosting site. Airbnb does not provide addresses, owner contact information, nor exact locations of units and other sites have varying pieces of information available. While condo complex names, bedrooms available for rent, and rental terms (daily, weekly, monthly) may be pulled from various sites, this information is inconsistent in its availability. Understanding Owner Occupancy of VHR’s Only Frisco noted that they are able to identify the time that owners occupy their units. This is typically checked only when units are listed by both a property manager and the owner. They have found that owner occupancy may be reported on the listings calendar on some hosting sites. For units managed by a management company for part of the year, some may be able to report the number of weeks for which the owner occupies the unit or is responsible for bookings. Approach/Methodology Each community pulls data manually and conducts a record-by-record search. While VHR addresses can eventually be identified, the process is time-consuming and can be frustrating. VHR information is stored in MS Excel or Access and new listings are manually compared to existing files. In communities with licensing and permitting requirements, listed VHR’s are cross-checked with licensing/permitting records to check compliance. If addresses are not found through the hosting sites, communities use a combination of photos, online maps, condominium complex names, owner names and/or property management names to locate a property. If an owner or property manager is known, they can be contacted for an address. Maps may provide the general location, and photos make it possible to identify the property upon driving to the area or comparing to ArcGIS and Google map street views. Some conducting property searches are very familiar with the communities and can recognize most properties from the photos while sitting at their desks. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 13 Durango and Steamboat Springs both tried creating accounts on Airbnb to notify owners of their need to comply with regulations. Both accounts were promptly canceled for violation of user agreements. Frisco has had some success contacting owners through the hosting sites without incident – the small number of properties in this community (under 30) may not have drawn the attention of the hosting sites. Duplication of Effort In most CAST communities, different entities parse the same data to identify only those properties within their respective jurisdictions. Better communication and coordination of resources could improve the tracking process and investment for all entities. Estes Park is unique because it also manages legal VHR’s in unincorporated areas of the county defined as the “Estes Valley” (this is discussed in more detail in the Permitting section of this report). Therefore, the role of monitoring units located both within and outside town limits within the Estes Valley is conducted by only one jurisdictional office. Assistance From Complaints Ouray and Estes Park reported that neighbor complaints regarding noise, parking, parties or other nuisance issues can call their attention to units that are VHR’s. Durango provides an online map of all permitted VHR’s with the ability for visitors to submit complaints directly to the community development department, which can be useful for tracking VHR activity. It also informs neighbors of the existence (or not) of VHR’s in their area. Best Practices Optimally, hosting sites would be required to provide needed information to communities upon request to track VHR’s. Communities can monitor the progress of Portland’s new ordinance and state legislation, such as California’s SB 593, in achieving local and statewide compliance. Communities could also lobby for similar initiatives on a statewide basis. Since taxation is largely controlled by state statutes, cooperative initiatives are needed. Until hosting sites start providing this information, communities should consider several options: Negotiate Airbnb agreement – Portland, Malibu x Can go beyond tax collection and require permit numbers to be on ads and VHR information to be provided upon request. x Most individual communities may be too small, but cooperative agreements encompassing multiple communities, entire counties, or the CAST organization may have some success. Post local VHR regulations on Airbnb – Truckee, Snowmass x Have your community added to the list of cities for which Airbnb provides direct links to your VHR requirements at https://www.airbnb.com/support/responsible-hosting Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 14 Require license numbers to be displayed on all advertising – Durango, Steamboat x Greatly assists with identifying non-compliant properties and new listings. Coordinate VHR tracking across departments – Steamboat x When collecting information on the CAST survey for this study, several communities needed to pass the survey to various departments to collect the needed information, with inconsistent results. Steamboat has a system where planning staff provides VHR data to finance, who then provides legal VHR listings to police/compliance – the departments were in communication. Various city departments with an interest in tracking VHR’s need to coordinate to share information and avoid duplication of effort. Work with Code Enforcement on Complaints – Ouray, Estes Park x Communication with code compliance, planning, police or other departments that enforce VHR’s and nuisance regulations can call attention to properties that may be illegal VHR’s. Map VHR’s – Durango and Crested Butte x This educates the public regarding VHR’s in the community and can provide a resource through which complaints can be logged, helping to locate illegal VHR’s. x It provides elected officials and staff the information needed to quickly understand changes in their communities and to revise policies and codes as appropriate. The following maps of VHR’s in Crested Butte illustrate how powerful mapping can be. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 15 Coordinate VHR tracking with other jurisdictions in the region – Estes Park x When searching on the hosting sites for VHR’s in a specified location, rentals located both within and outside of city or town limits are shown. Rather than have both city/town staff and county staff parse the same properties to identify those that are within and outside of the jurisdiction, sharing the responsibility could be much more efficient. Potential Practice CAST Initiative – Development of Tracking System and Database x Develop a system that captures data on units for sharing by multiple departments and that could be replicated by towns and counties. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 24 III. Licensing and Permitting Issues and Emerging Trends License requirements evolved along with regulations to ensure responsible maintenance and leasing of VHR’s. License and permit applications typically require safety inspections and the background information necessary to ensure VHR’s are operated in accordance with local regulations. This may include insurance requirements, designating a 24/7 emergency contact to handle problems and complaints, requiring license and permit numbers to be displayed on all advertising, providing “good neighbor” information to renters, and notifying neighbors of units being rented and VHR manager contact information. Yearly renewal ensures communities remain up-to-date on VHR changes and permit revocation procedures help ensure continuous VHR owner compliance. A challenge for some communities has been getting VHR owners to acquire necessary permits and licenses. While education of owners and property managers regarding the licensing process has been instituted by most communities, this has been more effective when paired with good enforcement. Licenses and Permits Often Have Safety, Advertising, Notice and Renewal Requirements Permits and licenses typically record necessary information regarding the VHR, such as number of bedrooms, owner information, property manager or emergency contact information, use or occupancy restrictions, among other requirements. In addition, to receive a permit or license, many communities require the following: x Safety inspection: Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago, Santa Fe; x Proof of adequate property insurance coverage: Austin, San Francisco, Santa Fe; and x Permit or license number to be displayed on all advertising: Austin, Portland, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Sonoma County, Bend, Oregon. Neighbors may also need to be notified as part of the permit process. For example: x Austin requires notice be given to neighbors for public comment as part of the permit approval process, similar to other land use applications. x Many communities require notice to be sent to neighbors upon permit issuance. Notice may provide neighbors with the address; terms of rental use or permit; contact information for a property manager, owner or emergency contact in the event of problems; and the process for reporting violations or complaints to the community’s enforcement office. This can be an effective tool to help neighbors know about and police VHR activity in their area. Portland, Oregon, and Petaluma, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma County in California require neighbor notice. Most of the above communities also require annual renewal of permits or licenses. Yearly renewal maintains a current list of active vacation rentals and contact information. Renewals may also be withheld if VHR regulations have been violated, too many complaints have been received, applicable Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 25 taxes have not been paid, or if there are health and safety issues on the property. As an exception, Portland requires renewal every two years, with a new inspection required every six years, barring a change in owner, bedrooms rented, or cause for safety or violation concern. License and Permit Fees Most communities have modest license and permit fees for VHR’s – in some cases insufficient to cover paperwork processing, tax collection, property inspections and monitoring. x Portland charges $178 for the initial license and $62 for each renewal year in which an inspection is not required. For inspection years, $178 is charged. x Austin charges $285 for an initial permit and $235 for renewals. A budget of $350,000 has been established to cover the hiring of three staff members to register and inspect VHR’s. Fees for an estimated 1,500 VHR’s are intended to fund this budget. x In Napa, fees were initially set to cover all application processing, inspections and monitoring of VHR permits such that no costs were borne by the general public. In 2009, owners paid $1,075 per year; the permit fee has since decreased to $197 per year. Fewer complaints than expected were received from neighbors. As a result, the City reduced their allocation of code enforcement staff to VHR’s and, with it, permit fees. Enforcement of Licensing and Permitting Requirements Getting properties to receive required permits and licenses can be a challenge. Generally, communities with active tracking and identification of illegal rental properties, paired with resident, property manager and visitor education and strong enforcement ability have been the most successful. In larger cities in particular, this means dedicating staff or hiring new positions to address illegal VHR’s, taking a proactive approach in notifying owners of permit and licensing requirements, and following up with non-responsive owners. Portland has a license compliance rate of less than 10%. At the other end of the spectrum, Austin has a compliance rate of about 72%. While other factors are involved, enforcement has played a role in this difference. x In Portland, permit issuance was initially centered in the Bureau of Development Services office, which admittedly is reactive. The office only acts to enforce city rules when a complaint is received; they do not take an active role in locating or citing illegal VHR’s. A new city ordinance adopted this year places enforcement with the Revenue Bureau, which takes a more proactive approach. The Bureau is issuing letters to hosting sites to advise them of the requirement that permit numbers must be posted on all VHR advertising. Companies can be fined up to $500 per non-compliant property. Responses are pending. x In Austin, permit fees are higher than Portland, yet compliance rates are much higher. The City’s Code Compliance Department hired additional staff specifically to investigate illegal short-term rental activity and advertised such to the public. The city can also fine VHR operators up to $2,000 per day of non-compliance. When 1,089 properties were notified that they needed licenses, 72 Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 26 percent came into compliance by either delisting or getting licenses. Code Compliance and the City’s criminal prosecution are working together to follow up with the other 300 properties to ensure everyone is playing by the same rules. Education can also play an important role. Public information campaigns through newspaper articles and website postings have been widely used education tools. Less prominent are visitor education campaigns regarding the importance of renting units that display permit numbers in their advertisements. Units displaying valid permit numbers let visitors know that they are renting a legal unit (as opposed to a scam) and that units meet safety and VHR operational requirements. Visitor education can work from the demand side of the equation. Revocation of Licenses or Permits Most communities have the ability to revoke licenses or permits in the event that VHR regulations are violated or taxes are not paid. Some have a purely discretionary process, whereas others may establish mandatory thresholds for revocation. For example: x The City of Santa Fe documents all alleged regulation violations for VHR’s and pursues enforcement through the municipal court if warranted. Upon conviction of a third violation by the municipal court, the city shall revoke the permit. x Portland has a more discretionary revocation procedure, but once a permit is revoked, it may not be renewed for two years. CAST Survey Findings Who Requires Licenses and Permits x All participating communities except Ouray require a business license for VHR’s. All communities require a sales tax license number. x Five communities also require a permit to ensure compliance with land use regulations. x All require licenses to be renewed once per year. Breckenridge assumes that owners are renewing their licenses unless the town is informed otherwise. The town will issue an automatic renewal and charge yearly fees. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 27 License and Permit Requirements Business License Permit Yearly Renewal Breckenridge X X Crested Butte X X Durango X X X Estes Park X X X Frisco X X Jackson X X X Mt. Crested Butte X X Ouray Park City X X X Steamboat Springs X X X For communities requiring permits: x Estes Park is unique because it also manages legal VHR’s in unincorporated areas of the county, defined as the “Estes Valley.” Business licenses are required for VHR’s within city limits only. VHR’s in the county must get an operating permit. x Jackson permits VHR’s only in the Lodging Overlay District and the Snow King Master Plan. A one-time basic land use permit must be received for VHR’s in these zones. x Steamboat requires single-family homes and duplexes outside of the Resort Residential districts to apply for a VHR license through the community development department. This application is reviewed the same as an application for approval of a Use with Criteria. Condominiums are not required to have this license. x Durango requires a Limited Use Permit be received for VHR uses. A Conditional Use Permit may be applied for if general land use permit criteria are not met. x Park City requires that the VHR’s be located within a zone and subzone allowing VHR’s. A Conditional Use Permit may be required in some zones. Permit and License Fees Fees are applied either on a flat-rate basis each year or scaled based on the number of bedrooms, sleeping rooms (which includes rooms with a pullout couch bed), or pillows. Fees overall are relatively modest. x Breckenridge charges a base fee of $75 for a studio unit, plus $25 per additional bedroom, not to exceed $175. x Estes Park charges $150 for renewal of a VHR business license for town properties; renewal of the county operating permit has no fee. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 28 x Park City charges a $17 administrative fee, plus $28.74 per bedroom. Fees for permits range between $500 and $750, imposed as a one-time application fee. Durango also has a one-time lodgers tax fee ($25) in addition to the below. Cost of Permits Permit Application Yearly Renewal Breckenridge - $75 studio, $25 additional bedrooms, $175 max Crested Butte - $10/pillow Durango $750 $50 (license) Estes Park $0 $150 (license) Frisco - $75 Jackson $500 N/A Mt. Crested Butte - $10/pillow Ouray - N/A Park City $1,100 (if CUP needed) $17 admin plus $28.74/bedroom Steamboat Springs $500 $50 per sleeping room (permit) License and Permit Requirements License applications collect varying information within the CAST participating communities. x The most common items are VHR addresses and property manager or emergency contact information. x None of the CAST participating communities requires evidence of insurance suitable for short- term rental use. Nor are times or dates on which the unit will be rented obtained. x Only two communities require license or permit numbers to be on VHR advertising. Requiring these numbers has been reported to greatly assist with compliance verification when tracking units. In Durango all advertisements for an approved vacation rental unit must clearly display the permit number issued for the stated purpose of enhancing enforcement of illegal VHR. Failure to display the permit number is grounds for revocation of the permit. x Fire and safety inspections are required by three communities upon license or permit application. Inspections are not required as part of the license or permit renewal process. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 29 Information Required on Licenses/Permits Unit Address Unit Type Manager Contact Information Inspection License Number on Advertising Breckenridge X X X Crested Butte X X Durango X X X X X Estes Park X X Frisco X X Jackson Mt. Crested Butte X X Ouray Park City X X X Steamboat Springs X X X X Notice to neighbors of rental activity in the neighborhood is required by only one community. x Durango requires notice to be sent to neighbors when a permit is pending to solicit public comment prior to approval. After approval, notice indicating the terms of the VHR and contact information in case of complaints or problems, is not required as is the case in many California communities. Has a map on its website of all permitted VHR’s. This allows the public to see VHR activity in their neighborhood and know whether a permitted VHR is next door. Posting of license and permit numbers, along with terms of responsible VHR’s and contact information, within the unit can be beneficial to visitors. x Breckenridge requires single-family VHR’s to post “Special Conditions of License” in a “conspicuous location” in the VHR for the benefit of visitors. It outlines parking requirements; trash, noise and nuisance information; emergency contact requirements; and town contact information. Enforcement of Licensing and Permitting Requirements CAST participating communities tend to have higher compliance with license and tax requirements than larger cities. Of listed properties, those with a valid license range from 99% in Breckenridge down to about 50% in Estes Park. This is in part due to the smaller VHR pool and local knowledge of properties by those tracking listings – photos are often easy to recognize. The most successful communities combine dedicated staff time to locate illegal VHR’s, education of the public and owners of VHR requirements, and enforcement procedures backed by a willingness to enforce. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 30 x Breckenridge: o Has one of the more proactive owner outreach programs. Education begins when the Town Clerk sends all new owners an introductory letter and application form for VHR’s, explaining the licensing program. A reminder letter on VHR requirements is sent every four years. o Has an estimated 99% compliance rate from existing owners, in part due to a dedicated investigative search for illegal rentals several years ago. Listed units were compared with the license database and “nice” letters were sent to owners regarding requirements. Non- respondents received a “mean” letter letting them know they needed to respond or they would be sent to court. For the few that still did not respond, the town’s lawyer sent a certified letter to the owner, at which time everyone complied. o Publicized licensing requirements in a newspaper article which made a “big deal” over unlicensed VHR’s and notified owners that the Town was ramping up enforcement. o Achieved on-going compliance. About 2,750 units were in compliance in 2011. Only 15 units listed in 2012 were found not licensed and roughly about five non-compliant units since that time have been identified each year. x Steamboat Springs: o Has an estimated 75% compliance rate with existing VHR license requirements. The City did a similar push as Breckenridge in 2009 to get existing owners to license VHR properties. A total of 440 letters were sent to owners without required tax licenses, resulting in 110 new licenses within a couple of months. o Sends notice of violation letters to owners if they are advertising without proper licenses. Violators have 15 days from receipt of the notice of violation letter to submit an application or remove their advertising. Should they fail to do this they are issued a citation into municipal court with fines of up to $999 per day, jail time of up to 180 days, or both. o Relies on complaints from neighbors to locate violators. The finance department keeps a list of licensed properties, including VHR permitted properties from the community development department. Monthly updates to this list are provided to the police department, who responds to complaints. The police department can then notify the respective departments if a call involves either a legal (or illegal) VHR. x Mt. Crested Butte has also noticed a difference with consistent tracking of VHR listings. When research was done every quarter, compliance was near 95%; when research was done “when available,” compliance dropped to near 85%. When non-compliant properties are found, two letters may be sent. The first threatens a lien on their property if they do not respond. The second is a certified letter which includes the intent to lien. If that is ignored, then a lien is filed with the county based on estimated sales tax. x Ouray often finds properties through the neighbor complaint process. Owners are educated about VHR requirements in an attachment sent out periodically with customer utility bills. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 31 x Some communities have also instituted property manager and realtor seminars regarding VHR requirements. New owners have approached some communities seeking to short-term rent their new home in zone where they may not be permitted based on erroneous realtor information. Education of the real estate community can help with misconceptions. Revocation of Licenses or Permits Licenses or permits may be revoked in several CAST participating communities. x In Park City, violation of the noise ordinance, occupancy loads, failure to use designated off- street parking, illegal conduct, or any other abuse, which violates any law regarding use or occupancy of the premises is grounds for revocation. Failure to collect and deposit sales tax is also a violation of the license and grounds for revocation. x In Estes Park, the Town Code Compliance Officer manages enforcement efforts of vacation home regulations. Once a violation is verified, the officer generally attempts to work with the property owner to address the issues without formal enforcement action. Formal enforcement efforts can eventually lead to town properties having their license revoked and/or a hearing at the Estes Park Municipal Court. Violations may occur due to parking, illegal renting of an ADU, occupancy limit violations, among other violations. The town has only had one revocation, which was in part due to the unit operating as an illegal bed-and-breakfast as opposed to a VHR. x Steamboat has a three-strikes policy. If a VHR receives three violations in one year, then the VHR permit can be revoked for up to two years. Best Practices License requirements Establish License Safety/Inspection, Property Manager/Contact, Advertising, Notice Requirements x Require property inspection – Breckenridge, Durango, Park City x Require local Property Manager/Emergency contact – Breckenridge, Park City x Require permit/license numbers on all advertising – Durango x Require notice to neighbors of permitted VHR’s – Sonoma County, Petaluma (proposed) Written notice to neighbors after VHR approval. Provide the terms of the VHR and owner/manager contact information in case of complaints or problems. x Post VHR contact information and requirements in VHR unit – Breckenridge Educates visitors on any parking requirements; trash, noise and nuisance information; emergency contact requirements; and town contact information. Fees Establish fees to cover costs of VHR management – Austin, Napa x Communities need to develop a targeted system for managing VHR’s and take firm inventory of staff time and costs required for VHR monitoring, processing and management. This will allow Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 32 communities to develop a budget for VHR oversight and establish fees sufficient to cover the program. Explore Variation in Fees Based on Use and/or Unit Type – Santa Fe x While additional analysis of Colorado statutes is recommended, fee systems similar to Santa Fe’s could provide for variation in fees for year-round VHR’s compared with residences that are normally occupied by their owners and only rented short term for two periods per year. There are no fees for the latter, whereas fees for year-round VHR’s range from $175 for an accessory dwelling to $350 for a single-family home. Compliance: Investigation, Education, Enforcement Dedicate or hire staff to track and manage license compliance – Park City, Austin Mail new homeowners VHR regulations and license application – Breckenridge, Mt. Crested Butte x Breckenridge also follows up with a reminder letter every four years. Publish VHR requirements in newspaper, websites – Breckenridge, Durango Seminars and education outreach to real estate professionals – Estes Park, Park City x Can help educate realtors and property managers regarding VHR’s so they can properly inform their clients as to VHR legality and regulations. Link complaints to legal and illegal VHR’s - Steamboat x Have Code Enforcement communicate with VHR tracking departments (planning, finance). Can help find illegal VHR’s and monitor permitted VHR’s for regulation compliance. Establish license/permitting enforcement procedures and threaten or use them when necessary – Breckenridge, Mt. Crested Butte, Austin Revocation Make permits/licenses revocable if non-compliant – Steamboat, Estes Park, Santa Fe x Steamboat has a three-strikes permit policy – three violations in one year and the permit may be revoked for up to 2 years. Three-strikes gives some certainty to owners and clarity to the city for enforcement. x Santa Fe makes revocation mandatory after three-strikes. x Estes Park has a discretionary revocation policy in the event of a violation. Potential practices Increase license fees to mitigate workforce housing impacts. x No quantification has been done to date to determine the specific impacts VHR’s have on workforce housing. A nexus study may be required to quantify the link between the impacts on housing and the fees charged. Collect VHR unit operating detail on permit/license application Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 33 x Depending upon the complexity of regulations and VHR rental term requirements, license/permit applications can capture number of bedrooms rented, unit type, times of the year rented, when owner occupied, etc. to assist with monitoring and evaluate the appropriateness of potential revisions to regulations. Educate visitors that VHR’s not showing permit numbers are illegal x As more communities require permit and license numbers to be shown on all advertising, a visitor education campaign could help spur compliance from the demand side. Inform visitors that units not showing a permit number may not meet safety standards and/or may be a scam. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 44 VI. Neighborhood Impacts Issues and Emerging Trends The impacts of VHR’s are widespread. Communities have become alarmed about changes in the character of their residential neighborhoods as they transition into lodging districts. Familiar faces are being replaced by transient populations. In many cities, neighbors are outraged and leading the fight against the proliferation of the industry. In mountain towns where visitors are the mainstay of the economy, residents and community officials are also concerned about changes in community character as well as specific disruptions including noise, parking violations, overcrowding and garbage. Metro Areas React to Neighborhood Concerns In urban areas, concerns about neighborhood impacts were generally first to get significant attention. Short-term rentals were often prohibited in residential zones and were thus illegal uses that could not be licensed and taxed. Boulder is a prime example. When the issue of taxing short-term rentals was raised several years ago, the City chose not to take action at that time. When complaints lodged by neighbors in 2014 increased in number and volume, the City’s initial response was to issue 20 cease and desist letters to known violators of zoning prohibitions. The letters were quickly rescinded when the magnitude of the violations became better understood. Comprehensive solutions responsive to neighborhood concerns are now under investigation. Neighborhoods Organize Across the Country Neighborhoods are consolidating into organizations with a voice, establishing unified positions on issues that primarily impact neighborhoods. Citizen-initiated referendums that might prohibit or severely limiting VHR’s are starting to appear in communities of all sizes. Examples of neighbor groups include: x Asheville: Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods x Los Angeles: Keep Neighborhoods x New York, San Francisco: ShareBetter x New York: Westside Neighborhood Alliance National Group(s) Form to Deal with Issues At the national level, Neighbors for Overnight Oversight is an online coalition of residents, community leaders and businesses seeking to protect neighborhoods by supporting regulations and oversight for the short-term rental market. They work on measures to ensure that VHR’s comply with basic safety measures to protect consumers and neighbors. They offer an advocacy tool kit and spread the word about situations when things go wrong. Similar groups may form; change happens quickly in this industry. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 45 Hosting Sites Cooperatively Defend Rights As referenced in the Regulations section of this report, hosting sites have reacted quickly to initiatives by citizen groups to place limits on their operations and demand accountability. They are doing so in a well- funded, cooperative manner. Each of the top hosting sites is a powerhouse in its own right; together they are formidable and will make initiatives at the metropolitan, state and federal level a hard fight. The extent to which they may attempt to influence neighborhood protection efforts in smaller towns is uncertain. Code Enforcement and Local Property Managers Effective Tools in Mountain Towns Local governments that permit VHR’s have found a code enforcement approach effective at dealing with nuisance conditions, such as excessive noise, parking and trash. In some towns like Breckenridge, nuisance control regulations that have been part of the municipal code for years are being dusted off and used increasingly to mitigate adverse impacts on neighborhoods resulting from VHR’s. In other towns like Durango, new codes have been created to specifically address VHR’s in neighborhoods. A tool adopted by many towns already and under consideration in others is requiring that VHR’s have a local property manager/contact on call to respond to neighborhood complaints (see Regulations section for details). CAST Survey Findings Concerns About Neighborhoods While most mountain towns first directed their VHR efforts on tax collection and licensing, neighborhood impacts have come to the forefront of policy and operational considerations. Among the 10 CAST study participants, Durango was the exception to this trend, focusing first on neighborhood impacts then designing regulations and licensing requirements aimed at preserving their residential areas. Concern is higher for impacts on community character and neighborhood change than on specific nuisances although parking and noise are not far behind. Neighborhood Concern Ratings 1 = minor concern; 5 = major concern Concern Avg. Rating Community character 3.6 Neighborhood change 3.6 Parking 3.1 Noise 3.0 Safety 2.9 Overcrowding 2.7 Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 46 Complaints On average, 8.5 complaints were received last year by the six CAST participants that reported on complaints. Four of the 10 did not report any complaints in the past year, due at least in part to the lack of a standard complaint processing system. Parking is the chief complaint followed by noise. Parking is particularly problematic in towns like Mt. Crested Butte where on street parking is not allowed. Complaints about VHR’s where they are not allowed topped the list in Durango. Exterior lights being left on overnight and for long periods were also mentioned. VHR-Related Complaints Received Nature of Complaints Parking 22% Noise 19% Too many occupants 15% Garbage 12% Other: Illegal rentals, exterior lights left on 47% Total* 115% *Total exceeds 100% since multiple reasons sometimes cited. How complaints are received and handled varies widely. In terms of receiving complaints: x Town staff receives all or most complaints in Jackson, Mt. Crested Butte, Ouray and Park City; x Elected officials have been contacted most often in Durango; x Law enforcement usually gets the calls in Steamboat. Towns learn of zoning/ordinance violations and other causes for complaint through: x Neighbors -- the main source of complaints; x Patrolling/observation is done by three of the 10 towns; x Websites: “Overnight Oversight” or similar neighborhood watch has been a source in a couple of the communities; x Facebook – While not noted as a source for complaints about VHR’s in CAST towns, Facebook has been a forum for community interaction on related issues. In the small community of Pitkin, Colorado (about 70 residents) Facebook is the place where heated debates have occurred. x Property managers who handle legal short-term rentals are a source of complaints about VHR’s where they are not allowed. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 47 Best Practices Practices related to neighborhood impacts are grouped into two categories: Outreach/Education and Nuisance Mitigation. Outreach and Education Website – Durango x Page on City’s website covers regulations, history, recent news and opportunities for input with a link to map showing permitted VHR’s. Mapping of Permitted VHR’s – Durango x A map of all the permitted VHR’s in the City that can be viewed by citizens with complaints submitted directly to community development staff via the website. Neighbor Notices – Sonoma County and Petaluma (proposed) x Letters notifying that a permit has been issued and containing contact information on mandatory property manager located within a 1-hour drive and on call 24/7 given to all neighbors within 100 feet of a VHR. Stakeholder Roundtables – Durango x Two discussions supported by informative PowerPoint presentations with realtors, property owners, vacation rental managers, neighborhood advocates, code enforcement staff, downtown HOA representatives, and lodging industry representatives. Chamber Outreach – Breckenridge x Meetings held for education about rules and procedures. Newspaper Notices and Articles – Breckenridge x Published notices in the newspaper to educate public/property owners about what is allowed. Community Engagement – Durango x A community meeting held on neighborhood issues publicized through multiple outlets including traditional media, social media, the City website and City e-mail listservs. Comments became extensive; Durango’s staff recommends developing a system for organizing comments from the outset of any public education process. Complaint Handling Process – Durango x Website and other forms of public outreach channel comments/inquiries/complaints through to a designated planner; one person handles/routes complaints other than those needing immediate police response. Educate Visitors – Breckenridge x Create a brochure on the Town’s noise, parking, occupant, visitor and garbage regulations associated with VHR’s and require that it be posted in all VHR units. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 48 Nuisance Mitigation Occupancy Limits x Estes Park: A maximum of two persons per bedroom plus two persons with an 8-person maximum. Children under 3 exempted. x Sonoma County: Two persons per bedroom plus two up to a 12-person maximum subject to design load of septic system or as allowed through granting of a Use Permit. x Steamboat Springs: 1 person per 200 SF. Visitor Limits – Sonoma County x A maximum of 6 visitors are allowed in addition to the maximum permitted, which equals up to 18 persons in homes with 5 or more bedrooms. Exceptions are allowed on the national holidays of Easter, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas. Outdoor Party Limits x Steamboat Springs: Outdoor activities are prohibited at which more than twice the number of allowed occupants are in attendance, which equates to a maximum of 16 guests staying in the unit and no more than 32 persons at an outdoor party. x Sonoma County: Special events, outdoor events, lawn parties, weddings and similar activities are not allowed at any time at VHR’s in Rural Residential and Urban Residential zones. Trash Management – Grand Lake x The Pay as You Throw (PAYT) program involves the Town offering plastic bags for $3.00 (25 Gal.) and $4.00 (40 Gal.) that can be thrown in 5 animal-resistant dumpsters located by the Public Works Department shop in town. Parking x Sonoma County: 1 space minimum for up to 2 bedrooms; 2 spaces for 3 or 4 bedrooms and at least 3 spaces for larger units, which must demonstrate adequate parking. x Breckenridge and Grand Lake: No motor vehicles can be parked on the lawn or landscaped areas or in the public street or right-of-way adjacent to the accommodation unit, and no person can stay overnight in any motor vehicle which is parked at an accommodation unit. x Santa Fe: No recreational vehicles can be parked on the site or on the street. x Steamboat Springs: Maximum of 4 cars outside of a garage. Noise Limits x Palm Springs: No outdoor amplified sound is permitted at any time when short-term rented. x Sonoma County: Outdoor amplified sound is not permitted at any time unless through a Cultural or Special Event Permit or Use Permit. General Nuisance x Lake Tahoe Basin: All-encompassing but vague “Occupants cannot create unreasonable noise or disturbances, engage in disorderly conduct or violate provisions of state law regarding noise, overcrowding, alcohol or drugs.” Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 49 VII. Workforce Housing Issues and Emerging Trends Concerns have increased within the last year over the impacts that VHR’s are having on workforce housing, particularly its availability and cost. Communities have not done much to date to quantify the impacts but seem to be increasingly interested in options they might pursue to preserve and provide affordable housing for their workforce. Loss of Long-Term Rentals The conversion of rental units that have historically housed employees has become a major concern in mountain towns. Availability of workforce rental housing in all inter-mountain resort communities became very scarce in 2014. In 2014, apartment vacancy rates were extremely low -- less than 1% in many areas. In some towns like Jackson, the lack of rental housing has been called a crisis. Conversion of long-term rentals occupied by locals into VHR’s has often been anecdotally cited as the reason for such a dramatic shift in rental availability. Rent Increases The economic principles of supply and demand have been functioning well in mountain towns. With the decrease in the rental supply, due at least in part to conversion into VHR’s, rents have been rising. At one apartment complex near Vail, rents increased by over $500/month in 2014. In response to the steep jump in rents in many Colorado mountain communities efforts are underway to develop additional apartments in Buena Vista, Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Edwards, Eagle, Mountain Village, Telluride, Salida and Steamboat Springs. Large Cities Also Concerned The concern about loss of long-term rentals is not isolated to mountain resort communities. A March 2015 report titled Airbnb, Rising Rents and the Housing Shortage in Los Angeles by LAANE, a group that supports “a new economy for all” cited the loss of over 7,300 long-term rental units. This estimate has been widely quoted in publications throughout the country, reflecting the growing concern over this issue. Using Workforce Housing as Vacation Home Rentals Some residents of deed-restricted workforce housing have rented their homes or spare bedrooms through online hosting sites. These scattered incidents have typically been reported by neighbors who also live in nearby homes with deed restrictions prohibiting the practice. In Aspen, some community officials are in favor of allowing residents of restricted workforce housing to use their homes as vacation rentals, advertising through hosting sites and producing much needed extra income. The housing authority’s guidelines and deed restrictions explicitly prohibit such use because, as the housing authority director explained, “it undermines the spirit and intent of the workforce housing program.” The housing authority’s outside legal counsel has strongly advised against permitting this Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 50 activity. Aspen is the only mountain town identified to date in which changes to regulations prohibiting the use of workforce housing as vacation home rentals may be considered. Quantifying the Situation While concerns over the impacts that the proliferation of VHR’s has had on housing for the workforce, few attempts have been made to quantify the impacts. Evidence is anecdotal but many communities feel loss of units is significant since, as the town manager of Estes Park indicated, “It is so easy to have vacation rentals and the profits are substantial, that many people are choosing to utilize their properties as vacation rentals, thereby taking at least a portion of these off of the long term rental market.” (sic) Impacts on Accessory Units One impact that is particularly hard to track is the use of accessory units at VHR’s. Construction of deed restricted accessory dwelling units are often encouraged by municipalities though incentives such as density bonuses and fee waivers/reductions. The units can provide housing for the workforce, retirees and family members as their needs change. Petaluma is one community concerned about their ADU’s or “granny flats” becoming VHR’s. CAST Survey Findings Loss of Long-Term Rentals The loss of housing previously rented by members of the local workforce on a long-term basis has become the top concern in participating CAST communities, edging out tax collection. Communities rated this an average of 3.9 (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being “major concern”). Concern about conversion of long-term rentals that housed employees into short-term vacation home rentals is particularly high in Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Frisco, Jackson and Park City. Steamboat Springs is the only town surveyed where concern about this issue is low. Tracking Conversion from Long-Term to Short-Term Rentals While the concern is widespread, only two of the 10 CAST towns surveyed have tracked or attempted to identify residential units that were occupied by local residents but are now short-termed. x Breckenridge maintains a property database used primarily for its RETT that classifies each residential unit according to its primary use. Long-term rentals have held steady at 9% to 10% of the inventory, despite fluctuations due to new construction and conversion into VHR’s. x Durango gains knowledge about the past use of units through its VHR permitting system. While the system has been in place for less than a year, staff estimates roughly half are out-of-town owners or professional property managers. The other half are local homeowners who travel and want the option to rent the house while gone, have a 2nd unit on their property that they want to rent, or want to short-term rent a room in the house. This system does not track change in use. Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 51 Using Deed Restricted Workforce Housing as VHR’s Incidents where illegal use of deed restricted workforce housing as VHR’s has been very limited. Only Jackson and Frisco reported known incidents. None of the 10 towns reported requests by residents of restricted workforce housing for permission to rent their homes or spare bedrooms short term. Despite few reported incidents, concern about the potential use of workforce housing as VHR’s is relatively high, ranking 6th out of 16 issues tested in the CAST survey. While staff are aware of the concern, most feel compliance with prohibitions will not be problematic because neighbors will report violations and annual compliance monitoring will detect unauthorized rental of units. Best Practices Tracking Conversion of Employee Housing Into VHR’s Real Estate Database – Breckenridge x The finance department maintains a database developed for tracking real estate transfer tax (RETT). New owners are contacted when units are sold to determine change in use. Housing Census – Crested Butte x The Town Planner has historically conducted a census on the use/occupancy of every residential unit in the community. This tool has been helpful on many tasks related to workforce housing and could be used to track loss of employee housing. It has documented that short-term rentals have increased from 5.1% of total housing units in 2000 to 15.8% in 2015, with a growth rate – times faster than the growth in housing. Prohibiting Use of Workforce Housing as VHR’s Deed Restriction Provisions – Breckenridge x Only “qualified occupants” who are employed in Summit County can reside in units, which prohibits renting the unit or individual bedrooms to visitors. Non-paying guests are allowed. Renting to roommates who are employed in Summit County is also allowed. Web Site Notice - Aspen x The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority web site has in bold, red typeface, “Under NO circumstances are you allowed to rent your deed restricted home or room out through VRBO, Airbnb or equivalent.” Attachment C June 2015 Rees/WSW/RRC 52 Potential Practices License Check for Housing Compliance x Require sign off by housing agency/department in charge of administering workforce housing on VHR’s license/permit applications. Tracking System Crosscheck x Provide addresses and photos of restricted workforce housing to staff who license and track VHR’s. Allocate VHR Revenue to Housing x To fund replacement housing and units needed by growing workforce, allocate tax revenues into an affordable housing fund. A proposal to do this in under consideration in Nashville. Replace Lost Housing Units x Develop goals and plans for workforce housing development that take into account loss of housing through conversion into VHR’s. Attachment C Attachment D, 1 7.16.120 - Alternative designequivalent compliance. Alternative designequivalent compliance is a procedure that encourages creative and original design where the site conditions or proposed use prevent strict compliance with allows development to meet the intent of the design-related provisions of this Chapterthrough an alternative design. It is not a general waiver or weakening of regulations; rather, this application procedure permits a site-specific plan that is equal to or better than the strict application of a design standard specified in this Development Code. This procedure is not intended as a substitute for a variance or administrative modification or a vehicle for relief from standards in this Chapter. Alternative designcompliance shall apply only to the specific site for which it is requested and does not establish a precedent for assured approval of other requests. (a) Applicability. A request for alternative designequivalent compliance shall be made concurrently with a site-specific application for a procedure identified in this Chapter. The alternative designequivalent compliance procedure shall be available only for the following sections of this Development Code: (1) Section 7.20.100, Employee Housing Mitigation; 7.28.020 Parking and Loading (2) Section 7.28.040, Mobility and Connectivity; (3) Section 7.28.050, Landscaping; (4) Section 7.28.060, Screening; (5) Section 7.28.070, Retaining Walls; (6) Section 7.28.080, Fences; (7) Section 7.28.090, Design Standards; and (8) Section 7.32.040, Paved Trail Design. (b) Review AD Procedures. Applications for alternative designequivalent compliance shall be processed concurrently with the underlying development application for which alternative designequivalent compliance with the applicable design standards is desired and shall follow the procedures for such underlying development application. Applicants are generally required to define the AEC element(s), show a concept plan with the proposed deviation and a design that would be allowed by code, and respond to the review criteria, below. Applications for alternative equivalent compliance may be initiated by the owner of property for which alternative equivalent compliance is desired. (c) Review Authority. The review authority shall be the review authority as set forth for the underlying development application. The PZC shall review all alternative designequivalent compliance applications that have a concurrent minor development plan application. (d) Review Criteria. The review authority shall use the following review criteria as the basis for a decision on an application for alternative designequivalent compliance: (1) The proposed alternative achieves the intent of the subject design or development standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard; (2) The proposed alternative achieves the Goals, and Policies, and District Planning Principles of the Avon Comprehensive Plan to the same or better degree than the subject standard; (3) The proposed alternative design will not negatively impact public health and safety; (3) The proposed alternative results in benefits to the community that are equivalent to or better than compliance with the subject standard; and (4) The proposed alternative imposes no greater impacts on adjacent properties than would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of this Title.; and (5) The proposed alternative results in one or more of the following public benefits that exceed the requirements of the subject standards in this Code and any other local, state, or federal laws and is sufficient to compensate for the requested deviation from standards: Attachment D, 2 i. Deed-restricted workforce and/or affordable housing; ii. Redevelopment of a brownfield site; iii. Permanent conservation of natural areas, riparian areas, lands, or existing trees; iv. Protection against flood damage; v. Cultural or historic facilities deeded to the Town, or qualified not-for-profit agencies, or otherwise preserved; vi. Dedication of land for transportation facilities; vii. Protection of streams by providing higher water quality standards or additional riparian buffers; viii. Planting of trees, and other landscape improvements onsite or other suitable sites, as determined by the PZC; ix. Creation of rain gardens and other natural site-specific landscape practices designed to capture and reduce polluted runoff using natural filtration processes; x. Reduction in outdoor water use; xi. Support for the implementation of the Avon Climate Action Plan; and xii. Other benefits approved by the PZC. (e) Conditions. The reviewing authority may recommend or impose conditions on an approval for alternative designequivalent compliance provided that such conditions are related to ensuring the performance of the alternative designequivalent compliance to meet or exceed the subject standard. Such conditions may include performance guarantees, required timeframes or the ability to revoke an approval for alternative designequivalent compliance. (f) Effect of Approval. Alternative designequivalent compliance shall apply only to the specific site for which it is requested and shall not establish a precedent for approval of other requests. Attachment D, 3 7.20.100 - Employee housing mitigation. (a) Applicability. The standards of this Section shall apply to new multi-family (3 or more units), commercial, accommodation units, and other non-residential development within the Town of Avon. Governmental and non-profit entities must also adhere to these standards. (b) Exemptions. (1) Redevelopment of Pre-Existing Use and Change in Use. Redevelopment or remodeling of an existing use or the change from one use to another is exempt from the requirements of this Section, provided such activity does not create additional employment generation as determined by Table 7.20-14, below. Only the uses and floor areas that existed prior to the redevelopment or remodeling shall be exempt from the requirements of this Section. Any new floor area or unit or any change in use which creates additional employee generation as determined by Table 7.20-14 shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. (2) Vested Property Rights are exempted from the provisions of this Section. (c) When applicable, employee housing mitigation shall be provided in accordance with these standards: To determine the number of employee housing units that must be provided, the following formulas shall be used: Table 7.20-14 Employee Housing Mitigation Formulas Factor Calculation Commercial Size of development Leasable square feet Jobs generated 2.8 per 1,000 sq. ft. Rate x sq. ft./1,000 Employees generated 1.2 jobs per employee Jobs generated/1.2 Households generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/1.8 Units required 10% mitigation Households generated x 10% Lodging and Property Management Size of development # of rooms or # of units Jobs generated Lodge/hotel - # of rooms x 0.8 0.8/ room; Prop. management - # of units x 0.4 0.4/ unit Employees generated 1.2 jobs per employee Jobs generated/ 1.2 Households generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/ 1.8 Units required 10% mitigation Households generated x 10% Residential Size of development # of Dwelling Units Attachment D, 4 Jobs generated .33 per dwelling unit # of units x 0.33 Employees generated 1.2 jobs per employee Jobs generated/1.2 Households generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/1.8 Units required 10% mitigation Households generated x 10% Note: The required employee housing mitigation shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. (d) Methods of Housing Mitigation. General Requirements. All units shall be placed under a deed restriction, administered by the Valley Home Store, that limits occupancy or ownership of units to Eagle County residents or workers. For any of the following Housing Mitigation Methods, all proposed unit(s) shall comply with the minimum size requirements shown in table 7.20-15, and all applicable design requirements. TABLE 7.20-15 Minimum Size of Housing Units Type Minimum Size Of Unit (SF) Number Of Employees Housed Studio 500 1.25 1 bedroom 613 1.75 2 bedroom 788 2.25 3 or more bedroom 1,225 3.5 No Credit Given: If the gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the proposed unit(s) is in excess of the minimum required gross residential floor area (GRFA), the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall not be eligible for use as any form of future credit or for the commercial linkage or inclusionary zoning employee housing mitigation. (1) Construction of unit(s) on the site on which the development is proposed. (2) Construction of deed restricted unit(s) within the Town of Avon, provided such land, site or structure has not been previously deed-restricted to employee or affordable housing by any party. (3) Construction of unit(s) outside the Town of Avon but within the Eagle Valley, provided such land, site or structure has not been previously deed-restricted to employee or affordable housing by any party. Prior to construction of such unit(s), consent of the relevant jurisdiction or homeowner’s association (if required) to placement of a deed restriction on the unit(s) must be obtained, in addition to any required land use approvals. (4) Deed restricting existing free market unit(s) within the Town or the Eagle Valley. i. As a condition of approval when the deed restriction of existing free market unit(s) is proposed, Applicants must obtain the approval of The Town for the specific unit(s) to be deed restricted. Applicants must demonstrate to the satisfaction of The Town that (a) the long-term affordability of the proposed unit(s) is adequately protected, considering issues including but not limited to long term maintenance and homeowner’s assessments; and (b) the affected property does not prohibit the type of housing proposed. The Town may request additional information about the proposed unit(s) as reasonable to make such a Attachment D, 5 determination. Such approval may contain provisions to ensure that any unit(s) so restricted meets long term standards for maintenance and affordability. ii. Units outside of the Town of Avon must satisfy the 80% AMI restriction, as defined by the Avon Community Housing Plan, within the Up or Mid Valley, as defined by the Eagle River Valley Housing Needs and Solutions plan. iii. Prior to deed restriction of such unit(s) when located outside the Town, consent of the relevant jurisdiction or homeowner’s association (if required) to placement of a deed restriction on the unit(s) must be obtained, in addition to any required land use approvals. (5) Fees in lieu as defined by Town Council resolution updated every two years, not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the total affordable housing requirement, subject to the following requirements: i. Time of Payment and Use of Funds. Payment of the in-lieu fee shall be made to the Town prior to the issuance of any building permits for the free market portion of the development. ii. Interest Bearing Account. The Town shall transfer the funds to an interest-bearing account. iii. Authorized Uses of Fees. The funds, and any interest accrued, shall be used only for the purpose of planning for, subsidizing or developing affordable and employee housing. iv. Refund of Fees. (A) Seven Year Limit. Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present owner or property for which a fee was paid, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the Town Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the Town Council may extend the time period by up to three (3) more years. (B) Written Request. To obtain the refund, the present owner must submit a written request to the Director within one (1) year following the end of the seventh (7th) year from the date payment was received. (C) Payments Determined. For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis that the first payment shall be the first payment out. (e) Housing Mitigation Plan Required. The Housing Mitigation Plan shall include the following: (1) Calculation and Method. The calculation of, and method by which housing is to be provided, in compliance with Table 7.20-14 and Section 7.20.100(d). (2) Unit Descriptions. If deed restricted housing units are to be developed, a site plan and building floor plans (if applicable), illustrating the number of units proposed, their location, the number of bedrooms, Gross Floor Area of each unit, and the rental/sale mix of the development. (3) Timing of Review/Amendments. The Housing Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director prior to, or concurrent with, application to the Town for the free market portion of the initial development plan. Review and approval of plans by the Town for construction of affordable housing shall be prior to, or concurrent with, the free market portion of the development plan. Any amendment to the Housing Mitigation Plan shall require Director approval. Attachment D, 6 (f) Certification of Action. The Director, or its designee, shall certify the approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Housing Mitigation Plan, or of an amendment thereto. Such approval, approval with conditions, or denial shall be based on compliance with the provisions of this Division, unless an exception is granted by variance. (g) Appeal. Upon final approval or denial of the Housing Mitigation Plan by the Director an appeal to Town Council may be filed pursuant to Section 7.16.160 - Appeal. (2) Employee housing units shall be located on-site. The applicant may propose alternatives to on- site employee housing mitigation in accordance with the alternative equivalent compliance process set forth in Section 7.16.120. When considering proposals for off-site employee housing, preference shall be given to locations closer to the applicant's property, locations in the Town and locations which are served by mass transit. (3) Employee housing units shall be owned by the owner of the commercial space for which the employee housing units serve and shall be used exclusively by employees of such commercial space; or employee housing units shall be offered for sale subject to a deed restriction that restricts the appreciation of price and which restricts eligible buyers and renters in accordance with the form of price controlled housing deed restriction adopted by the Town. Applicants may voluntarily propose to meet the employee housing units with rent controlled units through the alternative equivalent compliance process. (4) Employee housing mitigation shall be satisfied by providing one (1) residential studio unit, one (1) bedroom in a residential unit or any combination thereof, for each required employee housing unit of mitigation. The minimum size for a studio unit shall be five hundred (500) square feet and the minimum size for a one-bedroom residential unit shall be seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. Attachment D, 7 7.20.110 Development Bonus. Definitions. For this section: Development Bonus means an incentive-based tool that permits a project increased density, lot coverage (for the Town Center District), building height, reduced parking minimums, reduced building permit fees, reduced landscape area, or landscape unit requirements; in exchange for helping the community achieve the public policy goals as defined below. Development Bonus Type means the offer provided by the proposal for consideration by the review authority that corresponds to one of the listed in section (e), below. (a) Purpose. Development Bonuses may be awarded for proposed development projects in the Town Center, Mixed-Use Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Residential High-Density zone districts where the application meets Town goals and complies with minimum development standards and requirements. A Development Bonus may be allowed where the negative impacts of such allowance on the public or on adjacent property owners do not outweigh the benefits to the public. The public benefits identified in this section are related to promoting the viability and functionality of higher density and more intense site development. Development bonuses that provide housing are preferred. (b) Procedures. An application for a Development Bonus shall be submitted concurrently with the principle application for development of the property and shall follow the review procedures, notice requirements, and hearing requirements of the underlying development application. A public hearing and recommendation by PZC, followed by a public hearing by Town Council is required before the Town Council takes action on any application for a Development Bonus. A Development Bonus shall only be effective and binding on the Town if stated in a Development Agreement which contains provisions stating that the Development Bonus is contingent upon the performance and completion by the applicant property owner of any public facilities, public improvements and/or conveyance of a property interest for public facilities or improvements offered for the Development Bonus. (c) Criteria. The following criteria for specific public benefits shall be considered when evaluating Development Bonuses: (1) General Criteria. (i) Absolute Maximum. The absolute cumulative maximum potential Development Bonus shall be a variation of 20% from the standard required in the development code. (ii) A reduction of building fees of up to 20% may be allowed. (iii) Cumulative Development Bonuses. Subject to the absolute maximum for Development Bonuses stated in sub-sections (i.) and (ii.) above, multiple Development Bonuses may be awarded by the Town Council and may be applied cumulatively to a property. (iv) Additional Water Rights Dedication. Additional water rights shall be dedicated for any Development Bonus which increases the water consumption for the property and such additional water rights dedication shall not be considered as a dedication of surplus water right as defined in Development Review Type 6, below. (v) Council Review and Approval. Approval of a Development Bonus, if any, shall be determined by Town Council in the Town Council’s discretion after considering the Review Criteria. Approval of a Development Bonus shall be by ordinance and shall be documented in a development agreement. Attachment D, 8 (2) Review Criteria. The PZC and Town Council shall consider the following criteria as the basis for a recommendation or decision for a Development Bonus proposal. (i) Exceed Minimum Standards of one or more of the Development Bonus Types. A Development Bonus may only be considered and awarded where the Development Bonus Type exceeds the minimum requirements established elsewhere in the Town Code for a development. (ii) Promote Town Goals and Policies. The public benefits proposed by the Development Bonus Type shall generally promote or implement the goals or policies of the Comprehensive Plan and purposes stated in this Development Code. (iii) Payment-in-Lieu. For all Development Bonus Types, where an on-site contribution or land dedication is not practical or appropriate, the Town Council may consider a cash contribution towards such facility or improvement by a payment-in-lieu of dedication. The amount of the payment-in-lieu shall be calculated by considering current and projected real estate values and construction costs. The amount of a payment-in-lieu should be the equivalent value of an on-site dedication considering the additional administrative, transaction, financing and timeframe costs associated with properly utilizing cash proceeds. (iv) Mitigation of Impacts. The reviewing authority may require an analysis and may require mitigation of the additional impacts of a Development Bonus on all public facilities, infrastructure, and services which serve the property, including but not limited to public infrastructure, streets, additional water rights required to serve the development, fire protection, ambulance services, schools, parks, and recreation. In addition, where a Development Bonus may result in negative impacts to adjacent or nearby properties or impacts to the general public, the Town may require mitigation of such impacts as a condition to granting the Development Bonus. (v) Location and Design. The location and design of any contribution towards public parking, transit, pedestrian enhancement, streetscape improvement or civic facility shall be in conformance with the Town of Avon’s Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans and regulations of the Town, shall be acceptable to the Town taking into consideration functionality, current and projected demand, and long term maintenance and operation costs, and shall include such legal documents as are deemed necessary and acceptable to the Town. (d) Development Bonus Types (1) Housing. A Development Bonus may be awarded where affordable or deed restricted housing is proposed that meets the following criteria: (i) At least 50% of residential density shall include for-sale residential units with a deed restriction limiting the use and ownership of the property to full-time residential use as the principal residence of the owner and without restriction on the price of the initial sale or subsequent resale; or, (ii) At least 25% of residential density shall include for-sale residential units limiting the use and ownership of the property to full-time residential use, restricting the appreciation on resale price of the residence, and requiring an initial sales price which is affordable for a qualified buyer earning up to 140% of area median income; or, (iii) Payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing based upon existing real estate values, market conditions, market trends, the anticipated timeframe to utilize funds to secure and Attachment D, 9 provide housing, transactional costs and administrative costs for the Town to secure and providing housing, as such amounts are determined by the Town; or, (iv) Any combination of standards i, ii and iii. (2) LEED Certification or similar certification demonstrating high building efficiency performance. A Development Bonus of may be awarded for certification. (3) Public Parking or Transit Contribution. A Development Bonus may be awarded for contributions towards public parking and/or transit. (4) Pedestrian Enhancement. The following criteria shall be considered for Development Bonuses for pedestrian enhancements: (i) Off-site pedestrian enhancements shall be no further than 2,500 feet (as measured by the most direct existing or planned pedestrian routes) from the property boundary of the development. (ii) On-site pedestrian enhancements shall be open to the general public and shall be owned and maintained by the property owner or an owners’ association. (5) Streetscape Enhancement. A Development Bonus may be awarded for streetscape enhancements. Streetscape enhancements may include plazas, courtyards, fountains, public art, benches, tables, kiosks, pocket parks, play areas and other enhancements to public pedestrian areas. The following criteria shall be considered for Development Bonuses for Streetscape Enhancements: (i) Streetscape enhancement shall be no further away than 1,500 feet from the property boundary. (ii) On-site streetscape enhancements shall be open to the general public and shall be owned and maintained by the property owner or an owners’ association. (iii) Civic Facility. A Development Bonus may be awarded for the provision of land or improvements for civic facilities. Civic facilities may include a library, health clinic, municipal facilities, performing arts venues, or other facilities which are open to the general public and promote the health, safety, welfare or culture of the Avon community. The civic facility shall be located on-site or, if off-site, shall be within a reasonable proximity of the property to benefit the property. (6) Water Rights Dedication. A Development Bonus may be awarded for the provision of surplus water rights which exceeds the water rights dedication required to serve the property. Attachment D, 10 7.20.090 - Overlay districts. (a) Short Term Rental Overlay - STRO. (1) Intention. The Short Term Rental Overlay (STRO) zone district is intended to allow short term rentals of properties, including but not limited to accommodation, apartments, bed and breakfast, condominium, hotel, lodge, motel and residential properties for periods fewer than thirty (30) days subject to the provisions of this Chapter. The STRO zone district shall be an overlay zone district which shall apply to allow short term rentals of properties. Properties in the STRO zone district shall otherwise be subject to all requirements of the underlying zone district. (2) Allowed Use. The following uses shall be permitted in the STRO District: (i) The uses permitted in the underlying zone district or planned unit development (PUD). (ii) Short term rental, except that short term rental use shall not be permitted for any residential unit which is deed restricted for affordable housing, long term residential use, primary residential use or full time residential use. (3) Short Term Rental. For the purpose of this Chapter, short term rental shall mean the rental of property for a total continuous duration of less than thirty (30) days. (43) Development Standards. The developments standards within this overlay zone district are regulated by the underlying zone district. (b4) Planned Unit Development. All PUD zone districts shall comply to the dimensional and development standards as well as the review processes and criteria outlined in Section 7.16.060, Planned Unit Developments. (5) Sales and Public Accommodations Tax Licenseing. Any property owner who leases or rents property in the STRO District shall obtain a sales tax license in accordance with Chapter 3.08 and a public accommodations tax short-term rental license in accordance with Chapter 3.28. The failure to obtain proper licensing a sales tax license or public accommodations tax license prior to using property for short term rental in the STRO shall be a violation and subject to penalties as described in Title 3. (6) This chapter shall not supersede or affect any private conditions, covenants or restrictions applicable to a short-term rental property. Attachment D, 11 Chapter 7.24.050 – Use-specific regulations. (e) Short-Term rental. A short-term rental must comply with the following limitations and conditions: (1) No license shall be issued without an affidavit, signed by the owner or designee under penalty of perjury, certifying that the short-term rental property is in habitable condition and complies with the health and safety standards set forth in this chapter. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete application for a short-term rental license, if the Director finds that the application complies with this chapter, the Director shall issue a short-term rental license. The license shall be issued in the name of the owner or designee, and shall not be transferable. (2) Local Agent Required. Each owner shall appoint a natural person or property management firm located within a sixty (60) minute distance of the short-term rental property that is available at all times for the duration of rental occupation, to serve as the local agent for the short-term rental property. The owner shall notify the Finance Director or designee in writing of the appointment of a local agent within five (5) days of such appointment or modification of any such appointment. (3) If the proposed short-term rental property is located within a duplex, the application shall include a copy of a written notice provided to the last known address of the record owner of the adjoining residential dwelling unit. The written notice shall include a copy of the completed application, and shall be sent by first-class United States mail at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the application. (4) Notice. Any notice required by this chapter to be given to an owner is sufficient if sent by first- class mail to the address provided by the owner on the most recent license or renewal application. Notice given to the local agent, by first-class mail to the address provided by the owner, shall also be sufficient to satisfy any required notice to the owner under this chapter. (5) Health and Safety Standards. Buildings, structures or rooms shall not be used for purposes other than those for which they were designed or intended. (i) Roofs, floors, walls, foundations, ceilings, stairs, handrails, guardrails, doors, porches, all other structural components, and all appurtenances thereto shall be capable of resisting any and all forces and loads to which they may be normally subjected, and shall be kept in sound condition and in good repair. (ii) Smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers shall be installed and operable, and all wood-burning fireplaces and stoves shall be cleaned on an annual basis. (iii) An operable toilet, sink, and either a bathtub or shower shall be located within the same building, and every room containing a toilet or bathtub/shower shall be completely enclosed by walls, doors, or windows that will afford sufficient privacy. (6) Infractions. (i) If an infraction is found to have occurred during the routine compliance operations of town staff, a formal complaint shall be sent to the owner and describe in detail the violation(s) of this chapter alleged to have occurred on the short-term rental property within three (3) business days. (ii) If there are three (3) or more infractions issued for the same short-term rental property within any consecutive twelve-month period, the Town Manager or designee may fine the licensee for that short-term rental property upon written notice to the owner. Fine for first infraction: $500; second $1,500; third $2,500. Attachment D, 12 (7) Revocation. The Town Manager or designee shall revoke any short-term rental license that was issued in error or the recipient of multiple violations. The Town shall notify an owner, in writing, of any revocation and the reasons therefor. The owner may appeal any revocation by filing a written appeal with the Town Manager or designee within ten (10) days of the date of the revocation notice. In the written appeal, the owner shall describe the reason for the appeal, and may request a hearing before the Town Manager or designee. The hearing shall be informal, and may be conducted in person or by telephone, at the discretion of the Town Manager or designee. At the hearing, the owner shall have the opportunity to be heard on the revocation. Within ten (10) days of the hearing, the Town Manager or designee shall either uphold or reverse the revocation, in writing. The decision of the Town Manager or designee shall be final. (8) Violation and Penalty. (i) It is unlawful for any owner, local agent or occupant of a short-term rental property to violate any provision of this chapter or any other applicable provision of this Code. (ii) Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the penalties contained in Chapter 1.09 of this Municipal Code. Any remedies provided for in this Section shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. The imposition of any penalty under this Code shall not preclude the Town or affected property owner from instituting any appropriate action or proceeding to require compliance with the provisions of this Code.