PZC Packet 0618191 Agenda posted on Friday, June 14, 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, June 18, 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. Conflicts of Interest
IV. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
V. Major Subdivision – PUBLIC HEARING
File: SUB19006
Applicant: Jim Telling
Property: Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision
Owner: CRP/EWP Riverfront Avon Owner I, LLC
Summary: Preliminary and Final Plat (combined review) application for resubdivision of Lot 5,
creating 15 residential lots and 4 tracts within the Riverfront Subdivision. The plat
also creates a common driveway named Waterfront Way.
VI. Work Session – Housing in IC Zone District
Summary: Staff is working on a proposal for including residential development as a Special
Review Use in the Light Industrial and Commercial Employment District. The report
highlights various questions to guide staff.
VII. Consent Agenda
A – PZC Meeting Minutes – June 4, 2018 Meeting Minutes
B – Record of Decision – Variance VAR19001 / 2011 Beaver Creek Point
C – Record of Decision – Temporary Use TMP19001 / Filing 3, Village at Avon
VIII. Other Business
Nottingham Park landscape plan
IX. Adjourn
PZC Record of Decision: #VAR19001 Page 1 of 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: June 4, 2019
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
PROPERTY LOCATION: Lot 111C Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision
FILE NUMBER: VAR19001
APPLICANT/ OWNER: Tom Ruemmler
This Record of Decision is made in accordance with the Avon Development Code (“Development Code”) §7.16.110(c):
DECISION: Denial of the variance with the following findings:
FINDINGS: 1. The development application is complete; 2. The development application provides enough information for PZC to determine if the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the procedures and criteria outlined in Code Section 7.16.110; 4. The PZC held a public hearing on June 4, 2019, after providing necessary public notification in accordance with the Code; 5. The Review Criteria in Code Section 7.16.110(c) were reviewed and substantial compliance with the criteria was not demonstrated by the application materials; 6. The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the setback limitations on other properties in the Beaver Creek Point PUD and surrounding community; 7. Granting the variance would be minimally detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 8. The enforcement of the setback/building envelope regulation would not result in practical difficulties inconsistent with the Development Code; and 9. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in vicinity.
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED:
BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson
PZC Record of Decision: #TMP19001 Page 1 of 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION
DATE OF DECISION: June 4, 2019
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Minor Development Plan
PROPERTY LOCATION: Block 3 Avon Landing Subdivision
FILE NUMBER: TMP19001
APPLICANT: Jason Manassee with Xcel Energy
Owner: Traer Creek RP-LLC
This Record of Decision is made in accordance with the Avon Development Code (“Development Code”) §7.16.020:
DECISION: Approval of the development plan with the following findings and conditions:
FINDINGS: 1. The application qualifies as a Temporary Use Permit subject to review according to §7.16.020 of the Development Code; 2. The application is complete; 3. The application provides sufficient information to allow PZC to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 4. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; 5. There is no extra demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current capacity by the application; and 6. The proposal is in a non-residential area of Avon.
CONDITIONS: 1. Helicopter operation is permitted daily between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm; 2. Helicopter fueling may require additional staff approval to ensure safety; 3. The site shall be restored to original grade and vegetation; and 4. The Temporary Use Permit is valid through September 2019.
THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED:
BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson
1 PZC Meeting Minutes for Tuesday, June 4, 2019 PCZ Minutes
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:00pm.
II. Roll Call -All Commissioners were present.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda – There were no additions of amendments to the agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest – No conflicts were disclosed.
V. Temporary Use – PUBLIC HEARING
File: TMP19001
Applicant: Jason Manassee with Xcel Energy
Property: Block 3, Avon Landing / No address - located north of I-70 on Post Boulevard
Owner: Traer Creek RP-LLC
Summary: Temporary construction staging and helicopter operations for power line repair.
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to approve the item with the following findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1. The application qualifies as a Temporary Use Permit subject to review according to
§7.16.020 of the Development Code;
2. The application is complete;
3. The application provides sufficient information to allow PZC to determine that the
application complies with the relevant review criteria;
4. The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive
Plan;
5. There is no extra demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current
capacity by the application; and
6. The proposal is in a non-residential area of Avon.
Conditions:
1. Helicopter operation is permitted daily between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm;
2. Helicopter fueling may require additional staff approval to ensure safety;
3. The site shall be restored to original grade and vegetation; and
4. The Temporary Use Permit is valid through September 2019.
Commissioner Golembiewski seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
VI. Variance – PUBLIC HEARING
File: VAR19001
Applicant/Owner: Tom Ruemmler represented by Pedro Campos
Property: Lot 111C, Block 1, Wildridge / 2011 Beaver Creek Point
Summary: Application for building improvements that would encroach into areas outside the
platted building envelope.
Public Comment: Hough Joyce, Robert Sperberg, Mike Wong, David Scherpf, Adrienne Perer, and Tom
Ruemmler commented on the application.
Action: Commissioner Golembiewski motioned to deny the application with the following
findings:
1. The development application is complete;
2 PZC Meeting Minutes for Tuesday, June 4, 2019 PCZ Minutes
2. The development application provides enough information for PZC to determine if
the application complies with the relevant review criteria;
3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the procedures and criteria outlined
in Code Section 7.16.110;
4. The PZC held a public hearing on June 4, 2019, after providing necessary public
notification in accordance with the Code;
5. The Review Criteria in Code Section 7.16.110(c) were reviewed and substantial
compliance with the criteria was not demonstrated by the application materials;
6. The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the setback limitations on other properties in the Beaver Creek Point PUD and
surrounding community;
7. Granting the variance would be minimally detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
8. The enforcement of the setback/building envelope regulation would not result in
practical difficulties inconsistent with the Development Code; and
9. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in vicinity.
Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
VII. Minor Development Plan – PUBLIC HEARING
File: MNR19008
Applicant/Owner: Tom Ruemmler represented by Pedro Campos
Property: Lot 111C, Block 1, Wildridge / 2011 Beaver Creek Point
Summary: Application for a “garage like” addition to the house, including a deck, and roof
constructed of solar panels.
Public Comment: Tom Rummler commented on the application
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to table the item. Commissioner Howell seconded
the motion and it carried 6-0.
VIII. Consent Agenda
A – PZC Meeting Minutes – May 21, 2019
B – Record of Decision – Reynolds Fence / MNR19004 & AEC19003
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner
Golembiewski seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
IX. Other Business
A – Village at Avon Apartments Comments
Action: Commissioner Barnes motioned to approve the comments referral. Commissioner
Howell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 6-0.
B - Housing in IC District
Action: Members of Planning and Zoning commission gave their opinion of the proposal.
X. Adjourn - The meeting was adjourned at 7:37pm.
Approved this 18th Day of June 2019
SIGNED: ___________________________________________
Chairperson
June 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Major Subdivision #SUB19006– Lot 5 Riverfront 1
Staff Report – Major Subdivision
June 18, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission PUBLIC HEARING
Project file Case #SUB19006
Legal description Lot 5 Riverfront
Owner/Applicant CRP/EWP Riverfront Avon Owner I, LLC – Jim Telling
Address 330 Riverfront Lane
Zoning PUD
Prepared By Matt Pielsticker, Planning Director
Introduction
Before the Planning and Zoning Commission (“PZC”) is a Major Subdivision application for a property
in the Riverfront Subdivision. The application would further subdivide Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision,
into fifteen (15) new residential lots and four (4) tracts: Lots 1-7, 10-15, Tracts 5A, 5B, 5C, and 5D. The
new residential lots correspond to the new building construction in progress. This plat also creates a
common driveway tract named Waterfront Way, which will provide one-way access through the
development. Additional phases and subdivisions are forthcoming for the balance of the townhome units.
Review Procedures
This application follows the general preview procedures set forth in Code Section 7.16.020, General
Procedures and Requirements. As permitted by Code Section 7.16.070(c), Review Procedures, staff
has combined the preliminary and final plat into one application for a combined review. Both mailed
and published notice were provided for the public hearings.
PZC will review the Application and conduct a public hearing on June 18, 2019. After reviewing
the Application materials, staff’s analysis, and considering public input, the PZC will make a
recommendation to Town Council. The final action is by Resolution of the Town Council after
conducting an additional public hearing, tentatively scheduled for June 25, 2019.
Review Criteria
The PZC shall use the following Preliminary Plan review criteria as the basis for a recommendation
on an application:
(1) The proposed subdivision shall comply with all applicable use, density, development and design
standards set forth in this Development Code that have not otherwise been modified or waived pursuant
to this Chapter and that would affect or influence the layout of lots, blocks and streets. Applicants shall
not create lots or patterns of lots in the subdivision that will make compliance with such development
and design standards difficult or infeasible;
Staff Response: The subdivision is in compliance with the use, density, development and design
standards set forth in the Riverfront PUD and Development Code where applicable.
(2) The subdivision application shall comply with the purposes of this Development Code;
Staff Response: This subdivision complies with the applicable purpose statements in the
Development Code by providing “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.”
June 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Major Subdivision #SUB19006– Lot 5 Riverfront 2
(3) The subdivision application shall be consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan and other
community planning documents;
Staff Response: Staff finds no conflicts with the Avon Comprehensive Plan, or subarea plans.
(4) The land shall be physically suitable for the proposed development or subdivision;
Staff Response: The land is suitable and in compliance with the corresponding construction
approvals.
(5) The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with surrounding land uses;
Staff Response: Compatibility was demonstrated with the Riverfront PUD review process.
(6) There are adequate public facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal,
electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools,
police, fire protection and emergency medical services;
Staff Response: Adequate facilities are in place for the entirety of the subdivision.
(7) The proposed utility and road extensions are consistent with the utility's service plan and are
consistent with the Avon Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan;
Staff Response: The road tract created by the subdivision is for a private driveway. Tie ins for
utilities and the private driveway to Riverfront Lane were reviewed at Development Plan stage.
(8) The utility lines are sized to serve the ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land
disruption to upgrade under-sized lines;
Staff Response: All utilities and capacity were verified during Development Plan review and
approval.
(9) The subdivision is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not
adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area;
Staff Response: No inherent changes to the area’s character will be experience with this subdivision.
(10) A proposed subdivision for an existing PUD shall be consistent with the relevant PUD Master
Plan as reflected in the approval of that PUD;
Staff Response: This development was reviewed with a PUD amendment and corresponding
development plan in 2017 and 2018.
(11) Appropriate utilities, including water, sewer, electric, gas and telephone utilities, shall provide a
"conditional capacity to serve" letter for the proposed subdivision;
Staff Response: Capacity letters were received during development review. Final acceptance will be
required accordingly.
(12) That the general layout of lots, roads, driveways, utilities, drainage facilities and other services
within the proposed subdivision shall be designed in a way that minimizes the amount of land
disturbance, minimize inefficiencies in the development of services, maximizes the amount of open
space in the development, preserves existing trees/vegetation and riparian areas, protects critical
wildlife habitat and otherwise accomplishes the purposes of this Development Code;
Staff Response: The layout of lots and the private driveway conform to the Riverfront PUD. There
are no changes to the river setback or subsequent amount of open space for the project.
(13) Evidence that provision has been made for a public sewage disposal system or, if other methods
June 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Major Subdivision #SUB19006– Lot 5 Riverfront 3
of sewage disposal are proposed, adequate evidence that such system shall comply with state and local
laws and regulations;
Staff Response: The sewage disposal plans were accommodated by the Eagle River Water and
Sanitation District during Development Plan review.
(14) Evidence that all areas of the proposed subdivision that may involve soil or topographical
conditions presenting hazards or requiring special precautions have been identified by the applicant
and that the proposed use of these areas are compatible with such conditions or that adequate mitigation
is proposed;
Staff Response: Not applicable.
(15) The subdivision application addresses the responsibility for maintaining all roads, open spaces and
other public and common facilities in the subdivision and that the Town can afford any proposed
responsibilities to be assumed by the Town;
Staff Response: Common facilities are addressed with this subdivision.
(16) If applicable, the declarations and owners' association are established in accordance with the law
and are structured to provide adequate assurance that any site design standards required by thi s
Development Code or conditions of approval for the proposed subdivision will be maintained or
performed in a manner which is enforceable by the Town; and
Staff Response: In addition to a pre-existing master declaration for the Riverfront Subdivision, these
Townhomes will be subject to their own set of requirements created by a new set of declarations and
owners’ association recorded with this subdivision. There will be no obligations assigned to the Town.
(17) As applicable, the proposed phasing for development of the subdivision is rational in terms of
available infrastructure capacity and financing.
Staff Response: This is Phase I of a multi-phase project.
In addition to the preliminary plan review criteria above, the following criteria shall apply to review of
this final plat subdivision:
(1) The Town Engineer shall compare the legal description of the subject property with the County
records to determine that:
(i) The property described contains all contiguous single ownership and does not create a new or
remaining unrecognized parcel of less than thirty-five (35) acres in size,
(ii) The lots and parcels have descriptions that both close and contain the area indicated, and
(iii) The plat is correct in accordance with surveying and platting standards of the State;
Staff Response: Closure data has been provided for the lots and tracts, and the file has been reviewed
by the Town Engineer.
(2) The final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plan and incorporates all recommended
changes, modifications and conditions attached to the approval of the preliminary plan;
Staff Response: Not applicable as this is a combined review.
(3) The final plat conforms to all preliminary plan criteria;
Staff Response: Not applicable as this is a combined review.
(4) The development will substantially comply with all sections of the Development Code;
Staff Response: This subdivision complies with the applicable purpose statements in the
Development Code. Specifically, the application complies with Section 7.04.030(a), by dividing the
June 18, 2019 Planning and Zoning Meeting
Major Subdivision #SUB19006– Lot 5 Riverfront 4
parcel into lots that correspond to the location of buildings on the property.
(5) The final plat complies with all applicable technical standards adopted by the Town; and
Staff Response: Staff recommends adding a condition to require final review of technical correctness
of the drawings before recording.
(6) Appropriate utilities shall provide an ability to serve letters, including but not limited to water,
sewer, electric, gas and telecommunication facilities.
Staff Response: As noted, utility verifications have been documented throughout the development
review process. Final acceptance will be required for some utilities.
Options for PZC Action:
1. Recommend approval of the Application.
2. Recommend denial of the Application.
3. Continue the Application to July 2, 2019.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to recommend that the Avon Town Council approve Case #SUB19006, an application for a
Major Subdivision of Lot 5 Riverfront Subdivision, with the findings of fact and condition as listed in the
staff report.”
Recommended Findings:
Findings:
1. The application is complete;
2. The application provides enough information to determine that the application complies with the
relevant review criteria;
3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in Code
Section 7.16.020 ;
4. The PZC held a public hearing on June 18, 2019, after providing necessary public notification in
accordance with the Code;
5. The review criteria in Code Sections 7.16.070(e) and 7.16.070(f) were reviewed and substantial
compliance with the criteria was found;
6. The application complies with the stated purposes of the Development Code.
Optional Findings for Denial Recommendation:
1. The application is complete;
2. The application provides enough information to determine that the application does not comply
with the relevant review criteria;
3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in Code
Section 7.16.020 ;
4. The PZC held a public hearing on June 18, 2019, after providing necessary public notification in
accordance with the Code;
5. The review criteria in Code Sections 7.16.070(e) and 7.16.070(f) were reviewed and substantial
compliance with the criteria was not found;
6. The application does not comply with the stated purposes of the Development Code.
Attachment:
A. Final Plat, Riverfront Townhomes Phase I
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 1
MEMO
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Date: June 18, 2019
Prepared By:
Agenda Topic:
David McWilliams, AICP, Town Planner
IC Zone District Work Session
Introduction
During the last PZC meeting, staff introduced the topic
of a Code Text Amendment (CTA) for the Light
Industrial and Commercial Employment District (IC) to
potentially provide more *Community Housing in the
area. Town Council had tasked the Community
Development department with initiating the CTA
process to determine the best way to affect that. In
front of PZC is a collection of statics relating to a code
change, ideas for the best outcome, and questions for
further exploration. This work session will help staff to
finalize language for this CTA process, and get ready
for a public hearing in July.
Background
The IC zone district originated in 1974 as part of the
Benchmark subdivision, before Avon was a town.
Wildridge had yet to be conceived, so the district was
isolated and at a dead-end. As Avon grew around it,
the IC district developed and by 1999, all the current
buildings had been completed. While the uses and
businesses have come and gone, the district itself is
best described as mature or fully developed, with few
vacant lots remaining.
Five (5) of the properties have Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) within them, for a total of 12 units. In
various iterations of the municipal code, they seemed
to be by-right; now they all are subject to the Special
Review Use (SRU) process. Code allows up to four
(4) ADUs per property, and two (2) are at that limit. In
some senses this speaks to the amount of demand for
commercial space and the inherent complexity of
retrofitting existing buildings and combining the uses
where various owners or tenants are already
established. Staff is unaware of any covenants that
prohibit housing in the area, but it would not be surprising if some properties had such
provisions. Some of the properties were originally built with the unit(s), while others had
commercial space retrofitted to allow for housing. One of the more recent buildings, the vet
hospital, was planned and constructed with all four (4) units as the top floor of the project.
*Community Housing means residential housing which is subject to a deed restriction that limits use to long-term residential use as a primary
residence by qualified persons and which deed restriction may impose other restrictions and limitation and may include terms deemed appropriate in
the Town’s discretion, including but not limited to controls on the resale price of such residential property, and which deed restriction is enforceable by
the Town.
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 2
Currently there are four (4) vacant lots within the zone district – three (3) are somewhat
physically isolated from the heart of the district and all of them have constraints to construction.
Staff reviewed the uses and created the table below to illustrate the existing conditions in the
area. Staff does not guarantee the accuracy of any individual piece of the information in the
table but presents it as a tableau of the area in general.
Snapshot of Avon
Demographic analysis from the 2017? Comprehensive Plan update provides the best
understanding of where Avon is today. Below are some graphs from the report and some
additional contextualization for this CTA process.
Address Lot Size (acres)
Size of
Buildings
(sf)Floors Primary Use Has ADU
Total
number
of DUs
Proposed
DU total
220 Metca 10 3.3 --Energy Facility No 25
451 Metca 11 0.96 6480 2 Commercial No 7
431 Metca 12 0.592 7734 2 Storage Yes 4 4
411 Metca 13 1.047 5150 1 Commercial No 8
371 Metca 14 / 15 2.82 55200 3 Commercial yes 2 21
311/331 M 16 / 17 3.276 19211 3 Commercial no 25
281 Metca 18 / 19 2.76 44586 3 Storage / Commercial no 21
111 Metca 20 / 21 2.04 --Vacant / Dog Run No 15
77 Metcalf 22 0.89 13882 3 Commercial No 7
810 Nottin 23 0.574 12056 1 Commercial No 4
830 Nottin 24 0.656 10335 1 Commercial No 5
850 Nottin 25 1.409 41640 2 Storage Yes 1 11
910 / 930 N 26 - 28 2.29 65817 3 Storage / Commercial yes 1 17
950 Nottin 29 1.454 13300 1 Commercial No 11
710 Nottin 30 0.537 --Vacant No 4
730 Nottin 31 0.576 14000 3 Vet Office Yes 4 4
780 Nottin 32 / 33 0.997 14480 1 Commercial No 7
80 Metcalf 34 0.642 10000 2 Commercial No 5
90 Metcalf 35 0.536 7750 1 Storage / Commercial No 4
120 Metca 36 0.328 2746 2 Commercial No 2
140 Metca 37 0.763 14080 1 Storage / Commercial No 6
240 Metca 39 2.81 --Vacant (TOA Property)No 21
NA Tract Y 7.232 --Vacant No 54
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 3
Source: Colorado State Demographer, 2014
The graph above illustrates that the largest employment sectors for residents of Avon are arts,
entertainment, recreation, accommodation & food; construction; education, health care & social
assistance; and finance and insurance, and real estate (FIRE). Avon has very little
representation in the manufacturing; transportation, warehousing, and utilities; or information
industries. Of course, providing a venue for any profession does not necessarily mean that any
of the resulting employees will be residents of Avon. Data from the 2017 American Community
Survey (ACS) indicate that approximately 44% of Avon’s working population work in Avon and
there is a 0% unemployment rate.
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 4
Source: Colorado State Demographer, 2014
Avon’s income distribution skews lower than in Eagle County as a whole, and almost 1/3 of
household earns between $35,000 and $49,999.
Source: Colorado State Demographer, 2014
Compared to surrounding communities, Avon has a higher level of people living below the
poverty line, and a high level of families living below the poverty line.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Less than
$10,000
$10,000
to
$14,999
$15,000
to
$24,999
$25,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,999
$150,000
to
$199,999
$200,000
or more
Income Distribution
Avon Eagle County
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Avon Basalt Eagle Edwards Gypsum Minturn Red Cliff Vail Eagle County
Percent of Individuals & Families Below Poverty
People Below Poverty Families below poverty
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 5
Source: US Census Bureau, 2014
Males constitute a larger proportion than females in almost every age group in Avon, and the
population skews young.
Source: CIA World Factbook
The United States has a much different profile, which staff pulled from off the web for
comparison. Certainly, the Baby Boomer and Millennial generations can be seen in this
representation.
9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9
0-4 yrs.5-9 yrs.10-14 yrs.
15-19 yrs.20-24 yrs25-29 yrs
30-34 yrs.35-39 yrs.40-44 yrs.
45-49 yrs.50-54 yrs.55-59 yrs.
60-64 yrs.65-69 yrs.70-74 yrs.
75-79 yrs.80-84 yrs.85+ yrs.
Avon Gender by Age
Males(%)Females(%)
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 6
Staff Questions
Purpose of CTA
From interactions with Town Council, staff has gleaned a potential purpose statement for the
CTA process, and wants to confirm it before moving forward with any proposed language. It
reads as follows: To codify a process that allows quality Community Housing in the Light
Industrial and Commercial Employment District on underutilized or otherwise suitable locations,
through the SRU process.
From here, staff would create a SRU process to narrowly define the desired outcomes within the
district. However, staff is unsure if the SRU process could support development only in the
desirable areas, and not in the undesirable areas. Is this the purpose supportable by PZC, or is
there something else specifically to propose? Would the housing offered in the area be the type
of housing to fill the gaps that the demographic data above display?
SRU Rough Proposal to Consider
A three-tiered approach to the IC district may be the best approach for the inclusion of
residential in a SRU process. This would codify a preference in use in the district through
limiting the height and lot coverage of exclusively residential projects to limit impacts to and from
the other IC typified uses. Below is a very hypothetical table that defines the desired
characteristics according to the use:
Many variables still need to be worked out, like what the cutoff of “Mixed Use IC” is, or if the
limitation is enough to dissuade developers from building all residential at the density and height
that would be allowed. This is the least developed part of the whole report and more direction if
this is the right approach is needed from PZC.
SRU Review Criteria
Code requires the PZC to use the below criteria on all SRU applications. Those criteria are
below with staff’s responses to how they would be treated:
1) The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable
provisions of this Development Code and applicable state and federal regulations;
Staff Response: The Comprehensive Plan states:
USE TYPE
Min. Lot Size
(acres or sq.
ft.)
Min. Lot
Width
(feet)
Max. Lot
Coverage
(%)
Min.
Landscape
Area (%)
Min.
Front
Setback
(feet)
Min. Side
Setback
(feet)
Min.
Rear
Setback
(feet)
Max.
Building
Height
(feet)
Max.
Density
Residential
Normal IC 21,780 sq. ft.100 50 20 25 7.5 10 48 4 ADU
Mixed Use
IC 21,780 sq. ft.100 50 20 25 7.5 10 48 7.5/acre
All
Residential 21,780 sq. ft.100 50 20 25 7.5 10 38 7.5/acre
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 7
[Current] uses provide an important component to Avon’s overall economic health…
Existing uses on Nottingham and Metcalf Roads are intensely developed with large
buildings and need improved landscaping, access, and screening. The Town should work
towards improved traffic safety and aesthetics. Live/ work development opportunities in the
Light Industrial and Commercial zone district that do not possess significant conflicts with
surrounding land uses should be encouraged.
The Planning Principle section states: “Accommodate residential development that supports
primary industrial or employment land uses.”
Staff is concerned that the Comprehensive plan prioritizes the current (or perhaps denser) scale
of ADUs but not a wholesale conversion of existing uses to residential. The undeveloped
parcels in the IC zone district would not raise the same concerns as the rest, but perhaps this is
a case to be made for the Rezoning process of these parcels and not a SRU.
The Community Housing Plan (part of the Comprehensive Plan) gives strong but general
support for Community Housing. It lacks specific guidance with where the housing should be
focused other than a few specific properties. Staff feels that the proposal deviates from the area
specific language. Would PZC be in favor of a Comprehensive Plan revision that better
addresses the SRU process?
2) The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district
in which it is located and any applicable use-specific standards in the
Development Code;
Staff Response: Staff is concerned that this review criterium is expressly in opposition to the
purpose statement, and therefore should not be applicable. Should staff work to change the
purpose statement so it is more congruent with the type of application proposed in the CTA?
For example, the revised IC district purpose may state:
This district is intended to provide for a variety of businesses, including warehouses,
research and development firms, repair shops, wholesale distributors, light
manufacturing, and housing where appropriate. This district may include supporting
office and commercial uses where appropriate. Uses permitted in this district are
intended to serve community and regional needs. This district is intended to be located
away from low and medium density inappropriate residential development. The IC
district implements the light industrial commercial and employment classification of the
Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located along an arterial roadway.
3) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design
and operating characteristics;
Staff Response: Staff does not feel strongly that, all things being equal, residents need to be
protected or segregated from the majority of uses in the IC zone or vice-versa. However, the
district is well established, located in a physically isolated section of town, away from parks,
schools, transportation, etc. and in many ways is not conducive to a large residential
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 8
development. Likewise, residential near these uses can put pressure on them to redevelop,
thereby losing the jobs (and tax base) present.
4) Any significant adverse impacts (including but not limited to hours of operation,
traffic generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust and other external impacts)
anticipated to result from the use will be mitigated or offset to the maximum
extent practicable;
Staff Response: There are mobility and transportation concerns that a proposed change would
bring. Placing Community Housing away from the Town Core raises concerns about how
workers are expected to get around, and how the road network can handle the increased traffic
in a relatively isolated corner of town. Basic amenities such as sidewalks and streetlights are
not provided currently. Staff would expect an applicant to detail how their project would mitigate
these concerns but is doubtful they will be assuaged.
5) Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas,
electricity, police and fire protection and roads and transportation, as applicable)
will be available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of
service for existing development; and
Staff Response: Fiscal impacts to the town and the region may also be reason for judicious
review of this proposal. While this work session does not take a deep dive into this impact, it is
worth mentioning that the lifeblood of municipal coffers is sales tax and eliminating businesses
in town would result in a lower tax base. More services may be required with a smaller sales
tax base to draw from. Would PZC require a report of the current state of the area’s financial
impact to town before going forward with language suggestions?
6) Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided.
Staff Response: The concerns are the same as above.
Additional SRU Criteria
Different SRU applications also contain distinct criteria on which to judge their merits. Staff
imagines the potential application to be somewhere between the current SRU process and the
Rezoning process and is keen on limiting the eligibility (and therefore potential loss of existing
commercial space) for a given parcel. Included below is adapted language from the Rezoning
review criteria for consideration as additional criteria for a Community Housing SRU proposal:
• Compatibility with surrounding land uses;
• Whether the proposed development is justified by changed or changing conditions in the
character of the area proposed to be rezoned;
• Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development of the type and
scope suggested by the proposal compared to the existing use allowances, while
maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development;
• That, compared to the existing zoning, the development is not likely to result in
significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 9
Staff brainstormed additional potential criteria:
• The property is underutilized or underdeveloped and would function better as a reserve
of Community Housing;
• That 70% or more of the housing provided will be deemed Community Housing and
subject to deed restrictions;
• Heightened architectural standards that raise the standard of design for the rest of town
are being provided;
• The fiscal loss associated with net loss in commercial space due to the proposal is
mitigated by the community’s need for housing;
• The application provides an appropriate environment for housing;
Staff encourages a discussion on these points and any additional specific suggestions that
could be incorporated in a robust code section.
SRU Duration and Expiration
According to code:
Special review use approvals shall expire pursuant to this Section. The PZC may approve a
SRU permit in perpetuity, but may assign a shorter time as deemed necessary. At least
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration, the holder of the special review use approval may
apply for a review hearing before the PZC. The PZC shall review the use against the criteria
in Subsection (e) above to determine whether the special review use will be allowed to
continue.
(1) Developments and uses granted by a special review use permit shall be
developed or established in accordance with an approved development schedule
or within two (2) years of the date of approval if no development schedule is
established. Failure to develop or establish such development or uses in
accordance with the time period approved on the permit shall result in the
expiration of the permit.
(2) If an approved use ceases operation for any reason for a period of one (1) year,
the special review use permit shall be deemed expired. If the conditions of a
permit become the responsibility of a person or entity other than the applicant, the
Director shall be notified in writing, identifying the new person or entity responsible
for maintaining the conditions of the approval/permit. Until such notice is received,
the applicant shall remain responsible. Such notice shall be attached to the permit
on file at the Town.
(3) If conditions of approval are not maintained, it shall be considered a violation of
this Code and subject to revocation proceedings.
Staff would like to confirm that this language is sufficient for any expected potential that may
come from the new SRU type. It is unlikely that any applicant for a Community Housing Project
would request anything less than perpetuity.
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 10
Code Text Amendment Review Criteria
(1) The text amendment promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the Avon
community;
(2) The text amendment promotes or implements the goals and policies of the Avon
Comprehensive Plan;
(3) The text amendment promotes or implements the purposes stated in this Development
Code; or
(4) The text amendment is necessary or desirable to respond to changed conditions, new
planning concepts or other social or economic conditions.
Staff Response: The proposal certainly responded to changed conditions, but it may do so to
the detriment of the general welfare of the Avon community by removing an important job base.
Goal B.5 in the comprehensive plan states:
Encourage revitalization of existing light industrial and manufacturing uses.
Policy B.5.1: Ensure infrastructure improvements include sidewalks, utilities, and
controlled access from collector roads, like Nottingham Road.
Policy B.5.2: Encourage effective screening of industrial uses from adjacent uses and
vehicular access and circulation separate from public roads.
Policy B.5.3: Review accessory residential uses in association with light industrial
commercial development when compatible.
These policies are incongruent with the application in that the application may eliminate light
industrial and manufacturing uses and does not revitalize the district, but may put more
redevelopment pressure on it.
One purpose of the Development Code states:
(a) Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection,
construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for
trade, industry, residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot
areas; regulate and determine the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings;
establish building lines and locations of buildings designed for specified industrial,
commercial, residential and other uses within such areas; establish standards to which
buildings or structures shall conform; establish standards for use of areas adjoining such
buildings or structures;
While different zone districts have allowances of mixed use, the IC zone district currently has
very strict parameters limiting that mix. Staff is not opposed to any addition of mixed use in this
district, but the proposal may eliminate IC uses altogether.
Impact of change
Creation of individual housing complexes within the IC zone district may create conflict for both
the commercial spaces and the residents. While no issues from the small number of current
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 11
residents within the commercial complexes have been shared with staff, the potential scale of
development is concerning. The area is not particularly attractive but still maintains a sense of
unity across itself; combining large residential projects to this formula seems noncongruent.
Many of the businesses within the zone district function year-around as opposed to the
seasonal nature of other employment centers in the mountain resort area. Other businesses aid
in the area’s seasonality by providing storage and efficient expansion of activity at peak times.
The loss of either category of use would push jobs and people further down valley to the likely
detriment of Avon’s economy. The IC zone district serves as a place where people without
formal education can make a decent living, own businesses, and learn new skills in a trade.
The potential slow degradation of this through the Special Review Use process is concerning.
Rezoning
Respecting that Town Council initiated a revision of the SRU process, staff would be remiss to
not include its take on rezoning. Rezoning specific properties that are underutilized may lead to
private development. Whether rezoning serves a town need by achieving Community Housing
is less clear. Certainly, a “straight-zoned” property is required to provide deed restricted
housing under the new Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, but any gains after that are subject to
political and capital considerations that are outside of the scope of this CTA. The question to
PZC is whether it supports the notion of rezoning. Staff may be able to support the change due
to the unique considerations of the underdeveloped properties, including their unsuitability to be
developed as commercial properties.
Other mechanisms of increasing dwelling units
Perhaps achieving Community Housing in the zone district could be achieved through additional
ADUs in the area. This strategy would not likely lead to different forms of development but
could result in more of the current space being converted to residential over the years. Only two
(2) properties have the maximum four (4) ADUs, so the change would not be likely to create
units immediately. An increase in the number of “live-work” units from four (4) per property to
eight (8) may incentivize some space to make a more organic transition to residential than the
potential for a large-scale residential project. Staff has concerns (such as parking management)
for this potential approach, but it is worth discussion and consideration.
Another strategy would be a CTA that allows residential as a use-by-right on the third floor of
this zone district. Again, this would not provide any known immediate benefit, but would be
another tool in the redevelopment belt of these properties and would potentially mitigate some
of the impacts that residential-only properties may bring.
Conclusion
The SRU process may be an expedient way to open a given parcel up for residential
development, but the provision of Community Housing needs to be carefully considered. That
the remaining sites are difficult to build on means perhaps the developer would be glad to
provide lots of Community Housing – so long as Avon were a financial participant in the project.
The dual role of gatekeeper to approvals and purse holder of funds may be concerning,
IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 12
especially when conducted in rapid succession. The densities proposed by staff seem lower
than what private development would be able to support without significant cost sharing.
Ultimately, increased competition of uses might raise land prices and may eliminate the
currently vibrant IC zone. With the overarching premise that no housing is affordable without a
living wage, staff suggests careful review of the proposal in this work session and a broad vision
of the impacts of any change. The overarching question to PZC is: Can this Code Text
Amendment reach a point whereby the above concerns are alleviated, and the purpose is still
achieved?