Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PZC Packet 030607
1111' '` f�J«h Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission AMeetingir O tai �Agenda for March 6, 2007 VN Avon Town Council Chambers C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - Work Session Agenda - I. Town Center East - Preferred Alternative Presentation (3:30pm-5:OOpm) Description: Design Workshop, the Town's consultant for the Town Center East master plan, will present and respond to comments and feedback received from the Open House held in January. There will be a presentation of a "preferred alternative' for the Planning District master plan. Open to the Public. it. Council / Commission Presentation concerning Impact Fees (5:OOpm-6.00pm) Description: Tom Pippin from BBC Research will give a presentation to Council and the Commission regarding impact fees. His presentation will focus on the feasibility of impact fees as an alternative source of revenue for the Town to pay for new growth, the legal framework of impact fees in Colorado; how impact fees are calculated and implemented; and potential issues and problems that could arise. Tom is currently working with the Eagle River Fire Protection District on their potential implementation of impact fees. Open to the Public. - Regular Meeting - III. Call to Order (6:00pm) IV. Roll Call V. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda VI. Conflicts of Interest VII. Consent Agenda • Approval of the February 20, 2007 Meeting Minutes VIII. Housing Joint Session - Council / Commission Description: Staff will make a presentation and foster discussion on a policy direction for new workforce housing regulations. Staff will request further input from the Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission on the best policy options for incorporating a workforce - housing requirement into the Zoning Regulations. IX. Minor Project Application - Revised Modifications to Municipal Building Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 400 Benchmark Road Applicant/ Owner. Town of Avon Posted on March 2, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at htto://www.avon.ora,'/ Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Description: The Town has submitted a design application for an expansion to the Municipal Complex building on the edge of Harry Nottingham Park. This expansion would be on the west side of the building between the building and parking lot. The plan was approved at the Commission's November 21, 2006 meeting, and this presentation is of minor modifications to that design for approval. X. Residential Final Design Review - Czarniak Duplex Property Location: Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5178 Longsun Lane Applicant: Scott & Adrienne Czarniak lOwner. Bernard & Lynn White Description: Final Design review to add one additional unit onto an existing Longsun Lane single-family residence to create a duplex residence. There was a Sketch Design review which took place at the January 2, 2007 Commission meeting. The design has changed slightly since first review. XI. Other Business XII. Adjourn Posted on March 2, 2007 at the following public places within the Town of Avon • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at htto://www.avon.orq / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions e Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission VON Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2007 Avon Town Council Chambers C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - SITE TOUR - (12:00pm) Site Tour - 95 Avon Road (12:00pm) Description: Meeting at the Confluence Site to Review the mockup for the Riverfront Lodge. Open to the Public. Follow-up to 10/3/06 review of on-site mockup for Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision, Riverfront Lodge whole ownership Final Design Review. For final approval of materials and colors. - WORK SESSION - (5:00pm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items. - REGULAR MEETING - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. IL Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Lane revealed a conflict of interest with Item VIII, Site Tour Fallow -up, Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision 1 254 Riverfront Lane, and Commissioner Evans disclosed a conflict with Item IX, PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING, Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24. V. Consent Agenda Approval of the February 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Smith motioned to approve the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and motion passed 4 — 0 with Commissioner Foster, Commissioner Green and Commissioner Lane abstained due to their absence at the meeting. VIII. Site Tour Follow-up Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision /254 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Zehren & Associates I Owner: East West Partners Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Riverfront Lodge. The project is comprised of 75 whole ownership units with underground parking garage. This item was first reviewed by the Commission at their May 16, 2006 meeting, and later reviewed and approved at the October 3, 2006 Commission meeting. An on-site mockup review for this agenda item took place at that meeting, but was not formally approved. Action is now required prior to removal of the mockup. Matt Pielsticker noted to the Commission that the only Commissioners present for the Site Tour were Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Struve. The consensus at Work Session was that all the Commissioners should go out there, it would be difficult to move the mock up and plan was to get out there at a later date. It was a condition of final approval that all materials and colors would be accepted as complete once it was reviewed in the field by the Commission. Commissioner Struve revealed the comments from Work Session of the importance that the Commission have access to the mockups as buildings are added in the Confluence site in order to see how compatible they were to one another. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VIII, Site Tour Follow-up, Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 — 0 with Commissioner Lane abstaining. IX. PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC / Owner: Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 -unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The development is titled Madison Partners PUD. The property is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project currently under construction. As proposed, there are three phases to the project with no timeframe for completion. The first phase includes 58 condominium units with underground parking. The second and third phase would each include 27 units respectively. Phase two would include the aforementioned restaurant of at least 3,000 square feet. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission Commissioner Struve questioned the staging acreage for the Gates located next to this site and received a response of a one acre. Commissioner Green questioned the basis of the density and Mr. Pielsticker responded with 4.1 -acres of developable acreage, it would be 40 units per acre based on developable acreage in Tract 1. Michael Neary, project representative, approached the podium to discuss this project and began with historical information of his company. Mr. Neary continued by discussing the project's needs, economics and architecture. Tab Bonidy, architect, approached the podium and began his presentation by commenting on the meetings with staff, density issues on the developable acreage, parking issues, massing of the building, stepping of the fagade, PUD criteria, roof articulation, and the level of detail of the building. Greg Macik, Tab Associates Architects, discussed from the podium use of creating tracts, construct open space and trails up the mountain, number of employees at 27 with a restaurant and 5 employees without the restaurant to deal with employee housing, circulation of trucks on the site, and designing to the topography. Glenn Palmer, Alpine Engineering, approached the podium to comment on access to the site. He continued by revealing that CDOT and the Town of Avon preferred a joint access with the Gates at Beaver Creek project. Commissioner Struve questioned the desire of one access and a shared access. Mr. Palmer responded that full access was desired on the Folson property with a shared at the Gates. Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC, commented from the podium regarding the access and the Gates. Employee housing was next on his agenda and he mentioned that it was not yet determined if a restaurant would be built on the site as of yet. He continued with the public benefit of transfer taxes to the Town of Avon as well as property taxes and excess acreage as either conservation parcel or public space with trails - Glenn Palmer returned to the podium to comment on the site stability and the need for shoring on the site, and debris flow would either be contained on the site as a catch basin or move flow away. Greg Macik continued with the sidewalk issue, bus stop location needed to be determined and wildlife concerns along with landscaping issues. Mike Neary concluded the presentation. Commissioner Green questioned the two phases concept and Mr. Neary answered that the first phase would finance the infrastructure; the phases give greater flexibility in construction, and were dependent on sales demand. Commissioner Green questioned the restaurant and the employee - housing situation with Mr. Neary responding the restaurant would be beneficial to the project. Mr. Neary continued that the restaurant project would be bought by its owners. Commissioner Lane questioned the parking garage height and Mr. Neary responded that the units would have 9 -foot ceilings. Mr. Macik and Mr. Bonidy commented that the design height of the garages was necessary for the heights of garbage trucks, carrier tops on vehicles and the like. Commissioner Lane questioned the Leeds certification attempt and Mr. Vineyard responded with the company's dedication to the concept of Leeds. Commissioner Goulding questioned 240,000 sq ft of sellable space, restaurant size, and responded by Mr. Macik that with parking the square footage reaches 430,000, restaurant 3,000 sq ft with 100 — 110 seats, with whole ownership of the condos. Commissioner Struve questioned if there would be stacked and parking and was an affirmative response. Commissioner Foster asked if this development was intended as a resort project and Mr. Neary commented that he was not certain where the buyers were coming from. Commissioner Smith questioned the in lieu payment for employee housing. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Frank Diasparra, Avon resident, approached the podium and commented on clarification to his letter. Mr. Diasparra read his letter of opposition to the Commission and his concerns for the wildlife, water, and traffic. Chris Todd, Canyon Run resident, approached the podium to comment on the grade of the project, elevations were not shown in reference to Highway 6, and he presented his interpretation of its relevancy, and the height was 50 feet taller than the Gates project, visually demonstrated to the Commission differences of the elevations, and its visibility from everywhere.in Avon. Mr. Todd questioned why parking wasn't underground instead of the first two stories of the building and voiced his concern with noise. He continued with the buildable land for the project, steep slope on Phase three was over 40% grade and drainage to include future rock debris, and he questioned the elevation lines on the maps presented by the applicant. Bette Todd, Canyon Run resident, commented on her letter of opposition to the Commission regarding issues with the lack of enhancement to the Highway 6 Right of Way, the 8 story height of the project was very tall, landscape plan was not adequate, obstructs the hillside and views, cuts into the hillside could exceed'90 feet, and, scale and density of building are not appropriate for the area. Ms. Todd continued with discrepancies of the application submittal, assumptions in the traffic study, geological hazards of the land and its liability, questioned the provisions for bike paths, it was not an enhancement to the entry of the Town of Avon, and the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. Mauri Nottingham, 1910 Hurd Lane resident, commented that the project overwhelms the hillside, taller than the development to the west; building's massiveness makes it all worse. Jonathan Bush, Canyon Run homeowner, commented on his letter to the Commission and the issues with the Comp Plan, the massing was driving the project, voiced his opposition to the size and suggested that the economics doesn't work, the price was wrong. Tom Hicks, President of the Canyon Run Association, began by commenting that it is the wrong project for the site, will create a canyon effect, traffic will be an issue, Gates will put more cars on the highway and cause Hurd Lane to become a bypass road which it was not intended to be, terrain is very steep with very little buildable area, geology as a serious problem for the site and continued with the items that are issues with the Comprehensive Plan. Jeanette Hicks, member of the Avon Historic Committee, note was read into the record regarding the historic ditch on the site. Tim Barton, project manager for the Gates at Beaver Creek, commented from the podium on the joint access for the site does not exist. Mr. Barton continued that the site was one of the most challenging sites, voiced that its impact was a concern and the margins of profit were tight. Carig Snowdon, Eagle -Vail resident, suggested of the developer to fly balloons of the heights to give a feel of the situation as it appears to be a very large project and small scale models and two dimensional models don't portray the project. Harry Taylor, Avon resident, commented on the monetary equation of development in regards to the workers to maintain these types of projects. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Tab Bonidy commented on the model as being accurate to scale of the project, bear issue was created by humans, elk were in Arrowhead, traffic was studied, noise is linear and a noise study would easily be produced, building width is as wide as the property, views are not protected in the State of Colorado, and project is whole ownership. Greg Macik remarked on the name of the project, intention to exceed Town of Avon guidelines, had challenges with grade, and ditch remnants will be reviewed. Commissioner Struve questioned the shuttle and if it would be funded by the Homeowner Association. Commissioner Goulding voiced concern with the PUD process and the high density desired by the applicant, a silver rating with Leeds is difficult and impressive with residential, massing on the road, traffic impacts, employee housing, tie in to the Town of Avon pedestrian friendly, suggested more information on the due diligence for a silver Leeds rating, joint access as a non starter, model did fit the land, study of who will purchase these units, and there are many challenges to be addressed. Commissioner Struve questioned what is developable on the property, height of Phase One was a concern, linear form goes forever, site disturbance was an issue along with the mature trees on the site, would like to hear a response to the Canyon Run residents concerns, like to see having landscaping and trail access on a plan, and performance bond goes without saying. Commissioner Foster remarked on the pro of money for the town, trails, Leeds certification, and on the con side were the massing and height, wildlife concern, slope stability and cutting into the hillside, and price point being more resort directed and an empty building is not wanted, traffic was an issue. Commissioner Lane commented on the quality of the building, the building was huge, neighbor concerns, suggested review of how large the building needs to be and how it fits on the site. Commissioner Green remarked to developer that Leeds certification is granted after its completion, dealing with a massive development and huge density for this project, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, employees need a place to be housed, no formula for employee housing exists, public benefit was noted as extending the sidewalk as the connection to the Town, voiced concern of the deeded land above the property as it may be a liability to the Town, would like to know the storm water management with regard to the Eagle River, and the issues of the neighbors needed to be addressed. Commissioner Smith commented on liability to the Town of the property was a concern. Commissioner Goulding remarked that no one from the public supported this project, new restaurants are great and it impacts traffic, and Leeds certification delivery was after the project completion and a difficult process. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item IX, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24, and Commissioner Green seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion to table passed unanimously. X. Other Business • Jared Barnes commented to the Commission on the lights questioned in the previous meeting. • Christie Lodge garbage enclosure was already there and they are doing maintenance on it. • March 6'h is a joint hearing with Town Council and a preferred alternative for East Avon will be presented. • Timeshare West Final Design is tentatively scheduled for 3/20/07. • Lot 61 would be presented in the near future. • Buck Creek application is being worked on by the applicant. IX. Adjourn Commissioner Struve motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Foster seconded and all Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary Memo To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Norm Wood, Town Engineer Shane Pegram, Engineer II Date: March 1, 2007 Re: Changes to Municipal Building Expansion materials Summar During the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 21, 2006, the commission approved plans for the construction of the Town of Avon's Municipal Building Expansion. Since that time, Town staff has worked with Victor Mark Donaldson Architects in negotiating a Gross Maximum Price with McBoyd Builders. Discussion: Initially our plan was to complete the municipal building addition by using a modular structure that would be built off site and shipped to us for set up on a concrete foundation. Due to several complications with modular builders and establishing a Gross Maximum Price, we have chosen to "stick build" the addition on site. The following items have also been revised as "Value Engineering Items" to reduce costs while still providing an aesthetically appealing and high quality project: 1. The hip roof has been replaced with a flat roof over the stairwell exit to avoid uncovering the existing underlying asbestos roof An EPDM cap has been used on the new flat roof. 2. The shingles have been changed to a high quality asphalt shingle that will be selected to match the existing composite shingles. The existing composite shingles were used in order to cover the original asbestos roof material. 3. The metal spandrels which were originally planned between each window have been removed. This has been done to take advantage of a $12,999 cost savings. 4. The siding has been changed to a high quality cedar that will be stained to match the existing redwood siding. Attachments: Exhibit A Sheet Al. 1, A2.Iand A2.2 C?Documents And Settings\Mptelsticker\Local SettingsU mpotaty Intemet Files%OLK58\PZ Memo.Doc I JJ ti o 0 o f L� O m N c+) CO N ��j N .� IIIIIIIII�IIII ozs�s oaVao1o0 'Nona _ �F w ,,, m L) ~ x o (]VON AIVAHON39 OOb cn m W _N011100d Z r_ to 9NISHN19N3 3Wd Q = m o rn v Li 7 E U w c IIIII��IIIIIII I iG11LL7rIMM M J11G� I _ I --Li I I I I I I I O O N O H O O � m N ch Cfl "� � N U N .ra .sem - \� �Y• • w co E v W= O U rn rn C13 m _ o x — 2 cv Q V w E= � Q � Q o i t 010 OM9 OCI"0-100 'NOAV OVOH AHVNHON38 OOb NORIM 9NIN33NION3 3Wd ABY _ ," � a v Bigg �> Xl �s con 1_� 111 It'll .1111 I �J E •[.) O O N O D O OZM O(IVNO100 'NOAV OVOb NbVV4HON38 OOb N011lddd 9NIb33NION3 3Wd El El 41 R El C' El oo� �m �z o mC=) z w = E O Q � OZM O(IVNO100 'NOAV OVOb NbVV4HON38 OOb N011lddd 9NIb33NION3 3Wd El El 41 R El C' El I � I I I I � I I I i I { I I I� I IS :1u I I I ' I It I I I I DL I � � I I I I C I I I I i � I I I . 1 I I _ I I I I ' I I I ' I � I I 1 ' I I I I � I ,I I I I 1 I I L� I 1. I ri I ,-a A I_i I I L i I ' I 1 I I I r1s, z I, li Ij' I ,I fj Ij I I I I' i jj i�iilj `' I 9 I I —�—I—�- I� I I x I I �z = N 5 000 Q �✓ I � I I I I � I I I i I { I I I� I IS :1u I I I ' I It I I I I DL I � � I I I I C I I I I i � I I I . 1 I I _ I I I I ' I I I ' I � I I 1 ' I I I I � I ,I I I I 1 I I L� I 1. I ri I ,-a A I_i I I L i I ' I 1 I I I r1s, z I, li Ij' I ,I fj Ij I I I I' i jj i�iilj `' I 9 I I —�—I—�- I� I I x I I Staff Report FINAL DESIGN PLAN AVON r, C 0 L O R A D 0 March 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date February 26, 2007 Project type Single Family conversion to Duplex Legal description Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Zoning 2 Units — Residential Duplex Address 5178 Longsun Lane Introduction Scott and Adrienne Czarniak are proposing to add a second dwelling unit adjacent to an existing single-family residence, thereby creating a duplex structure. The property is located on the north (uphill) side of Longsun Lane in the Wildridge Subdivision, and either a single-family or duplex structure is allowed under existing zoning. As proposed, the additional unit would match the existing building with consistent materials (i.e. asphalt shingles, stucco, aluminum clad windows, and Doug Fir columns) and colors. There are minor modifications to the existing structure that would occur during construction, namely moving an existing utility meter to accommodate the connection. A new asphalt driveway area would be installed for access to the new dwelling unit and associated parking. The Town of Avon was approached several months ago by the applicant with the desire to subdivide the property and create a party wall prior to design approval. There was a need to gain ownership of the second development right at that time. It was determined that a subdivision would be difficult due to the uncertainty of a precise design plan for development of the second unit. The applicant was advised at the time that the structure would need to be fully integrated, making a subdivision inappropriate until current design plans are approved and construction begins. The additional unit would be attached on the lower and main levels near a utility meter located at the northwest corner of the existing structure. The connection measures approximately 11', which has been increased from 6' at Sketch Design review. Due to the insubstantial connection of the two dwelling units as presented, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission TABLE this design until a fully integrated design is proposed. Further disturbance to the existing single-family home is likely necessary in order to bring the design into compliance with the Guidelines. r Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Czarniak Final Design ,W March 6, 2007 Planting & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 6 Aft Design History Initial design review for the existing single-family residence took place in 1996, and the project received another Final Design approval in 1999. Shortly after receiving the second design approval construction commenced. Construction was complete in August of 2000. Subsequently, a design for an added dwelling unit was approved on September 21, 2000. That design was attached to the existing unit in a similar location as this current submittal; however, it was only attached at the main level of the home. The design reached further up the hillside towards the northern corner of the lot. After two years that design approval lapsed, triggering the current submittal. A Sketch Design Plan, similar to the current Final Design Submittal, was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the January 2, 2007 regular meeting. At the Sketch Design meeting, discussion comments focused on the nature of the proposed connection. Please see the attached meeting minutes. There were also questions as to whether or not the existing landscaping on site was the approved amount. The Commission advised the applicant to either come back for a revised Sketch Review or to proceed to a Final Design application. Review Considerations According to the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Design Review Guidelines, Section 7, the Commission shall consider the following items when reviewing the design of this project: 1. The conformance with setbacks, massing, access, land use and other provisions of the Town of Avon Zonina Code: • Allowed use: The proposed residential use is permitted given the duplex zoning. • Density. The lot is zoned for 2 units and the density is appropriate. • Lot Coverage: Maximum site coverage allowed for under the Wildridge PUD is 50%. The project is in compliance with the PUD with approximately 25% lot coverage. This coverage ratio is for all proposed impervious surfaces compared to the entire size of the property. • Setbacks: The setbacks for the property are typical for Wildridge with a platted 25' front setback and 10' side yard building setbacks. All building setbacks have been adhered to with this submittal. There is one deck support and two roof overhangs bordering the side yard setback on the west side of the property. An Improvement Location Survey would be required during construction to verify compliance with this zoning requirement if the design is approved. • Easements: Utility and Drainage Easements of 7.5' in width border each side of the property. There is also a 10' Utility and Drainage Easement bordering the Beartrap Road Right -of -Way. There are some trees proposed within the 7.5' Utility/Drainage Easement. Staff does not recommend planting any landscaping in platted easements; however, it would be at the owner's risk. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Czarniak Final Design March 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 6 Y9 N • Building Height: The maximum allowable building height is 35.' This design is in compliance with the applicable zoning with all ridge heights below 32.' • Grading/Drainage: All existing and proposed grades are indicated on the site plan. There are some site design concerns that revolve around the building placement and resulting drainage path. The drainage is proposed to run either west around the future dwelling unit via a graded swale, or east around the existing structure by way of a drain pipe and associated grading. • Parking: This design proposes 2 internal garage parking spaces and 1 open-air space per unit. For a single-family and duplex development the Town Code requires 2 spaces per unit, or 3 spaces per unit for units over 2,500 square feet. The Site Plan indicates 6 functional parking spaces total. Each dwelling unit is over 2,500 square feet. • Snow Storage: Two separate areas are called out on the site plan for snow storage. These areas appear to be functional and the majority of the driveway should benefit from sun exposure. 842 square feet are required and a total of 1,024 square feet of snow storage. The landscape plan is responsive to the snow storage areas. 2. The general conformance with Goals and Policies of the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan, and any sub -area plan which pertains. The project generally complies with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. 3. Whether adequate development rights exist for the proposed improvements. Adequate development rights exist on the property for up to two dwelling units. 4. The Final Design plan is in general conformance with Sub -Sections A through D of the Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Design Guidelines. A. Site Development: o Site Design: The Design Guidelines put emphasis on site layout design and state that structures should blend in with the natural settings, and to limit the need for extensive site grading and/or slope retention. From a 2-dimensional site planning perspective, the existing home was citied such that a future dwelling unit could be attached and placed immediately west of the existing home between the home and the west property line. However, the west side of the existing home is where the garage is accessed and where large windows are located. o Site Access: Site access is through the existing driveway, and the new proposed driveway would branch off into the new garage and an additional parking space on the west property line under a deck. The existing driveway is at approximately 10% grade between the road and the structure. This calculation is based off the provided survey. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 740-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Czamiak Final Design March 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 6 R o Site Grading: As mentioned above, drainage from the hillside above the structure poses some concern to staff. Positive drainage would need to be demonstrated during construction. B. Building Design: o Building Materials and Colors: According to the Residential, Commercial and Industrial Design . Guidelines, "duplex developments must be designed—with the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, massing, detail, roof forms, and landscaping." The addition appropriately proposes to match the existing architecture with similar materials, windows patterns, materials, colors, belly band detail, and roof pitches. The proposed colors are earthtone and are intended to identically match the existing home. A colored elevation drawing and landscape color board of materials will be available at the meeting. The color board is the from original design approval. o Exterior Walls, Roofs, and Architectural Interest: The exterior walls are composed entirely of stucco siding. Cedar siding and Doug Fir wood details are added at the eaves and decking. There is a stucco belly band to add architectural interest. This design plan presents an interesting challenge. On one hand the new building attempts to match the existing structure and appropriately matches materials and architectural details; and on the other hand the existing home would likely not be approved today under the current Design Guidelines which govern the design of all structures built in the Town. By changing too much with the 2nd dwelling unit it would likely take away from the overall cohesive nature of the design. o Outdoor Lighting: There are two light fixtures: 1) Wall mounted incandescent fixture with oxidized finish, and 2) Recessed fixture. Attached to this report are fixture cut sheets. The Site Plan clearly indicates where each type of fixture is located. Both fixtures would have 40 watt output. C. Landscaping: o Design Character: At Sketch Design Review it was noted that the landscaping on the property today appears to be inadequate and possibly in conflict with the original approval. The architect found the currently established landscaping to be short 2 trees based on the original Landscape Plan provided by the owner. That Landscape Plan was minimal at best. The new Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.2) complies with the intent of the Residential Landscaping Guidelines by limiting irrigated areas and using Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Czarniak Final Design �, March 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 6 Alt 1 drought tolerant species. The existing landscaping built upon and some new trees are proposed in front of the motor court to help blend the new landscaping with the old. There are 18 aspen trees and 9 blue spruce trees proposed, and a rain sensor will be used. 5. The compatibility of proposed improvements with site topography, to minimize site disturbance, orient with slope, step building with slope, and minimize benching or other significant alteration of existing topography. The design and building appear to be compatible with the site topography. The structure would be partially dug into the hillside with a portion of the lower level buried on the north elevation. Disturbance to the existing topography appears to have been minimized according to the limits of disturbance proposed. 6. The appearance of proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways, with respect to architectural style, massing, height, orientation to street, quality of materials, and colors. The architectural style and orientation are consistent with the already constructed building. The proposed colors and quality of materials are consistent with existing. It must be determined whether or not the connection of the dwelling units will be perceived as a 'bridged' connection as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways. 7. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in the vicinity that monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired. Staff does not feel that any monetary or aesthetic values will be impaired with the proposed improvements. 8. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon. The project is in general conformance with the Town's adopted policies and is a use by right per the Wildridge Subdivision. The Design Guidelines should be reviewed carefully. Staff Discussion This design application appears to be in conformance with all Zoning Code requirements and a duplex would be an allowed use for the property. As presented the design conflicts with the 'Duplex Development' section of the Town of Avon Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Desiqn Review Guidelines. It is difficult to support this design due to its apparent conflict with the Guidelines. The Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Desiqn Guidelines provide clear direction for what is envisioned to compose a duplex in the Town of Avon, and given the number of single-family residences in the Town that retain the ability to convert to a duplex at some time in the future, staff recommends that the Commission review this design carefully. It must be determined if the duplex connection proposed will be perceived as a 'bridged' connection as contemplated in the Guidelines. Also worthy of discussion is the amount of stucco proposed. While the existing home is entirely stucco, the home would likely not be approved under current design criteria. Tom of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision - Czarmak Final Design March 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6of6 YON The Guidelines require each building to use a minimum of two materials with respect to siding. Perhaps further changes to the existing home are appropriate at this time. Recommended Motion "I move to Table the Final Design plan for a single-family conversion to duplex on Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision due to conflict with the `Duplex Development' Guidelines outlined on page 19 of the Residential. Commercial, and Industrial Design Guidelines. Specifically, "Duplex developments must be designed in a manner that creates an integrated structure on the site. Two single-family residences 'bridged' by a breezeway or other non- structural and non -habitable connection does not meet the intent of a duplex design. Unified design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, massing, detail, roof forms, and landscaping. While mirror image' duplexes are not supported, the design intent should be one that creates a unified structure with enough variety and architectural interest to distinguish a duplex from a single family home." If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please call me at 748-4413, or stop by the Community Development Department. I FV4 Matt Pielstilt', Planner 11 Exhibits: 1. Reduced Plan Set 2. Meeting Minutes 3. Light Fixtures/Photographs of Existing Improvements 4. Aerial Map Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 //Z/a7- P42: /Aj'NWrFs Commissioner Green. Commissioner Goulding questioned the stone frame on the east unit. Commissioner Evans questioned the fireplace chimney and the response was that it was a gas unit. Commissioner Green motioned to approve this design with staff conditions #1 and #2, amend staff condition #3 to include that the applicant must submit a clearly developed and defined landscaping plan that shows all materials and their placement as well as delineating the limits of construction and disturbance on the site and that if, at staffs discretion, the plan may be staff approved or returned to the Commission for final review and approval. The Applicant must resubmit an elevation plan showing what they are doing on the east side, with what materials they choose to use and how they are going to treat it with either a staff approval or a returned to the Commission for final review and approval. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. Commissioner Evans commented that any retaining walls were per C-1 and that the main driveway retaining wall was clarified to be a versalock and not an unfinished or unclad concrete. Condition #4 was also approved in the motion and, at the main height in the retaining wall; there will be increased height in the trees. The motion passed unanimously with a 6 — 0 vote. VII. Residential Sketch Design Review - Czarniak Duplex Property Location: Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision 15178 Longsun Lane Applicant: Scott & Adrienne Czarniak / Owner: Bernard & Lynn White Description: Sketch Design review to add one additional unit onto an existing Longsun Lane single-family residence to create a duplex residence. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Green questioned the history of the lot and if there were subdivision issues and the nature of the prior approvals. Bobbie Ladd, architect for the project, approached the podium and began by describing how the connection was placed and with an attempt to not impact the existing house. Commissioner Struve was concerned with the artificial attachment and not a common wall as required. Commissioner Goulding agreed with Commissioner Struve and questioned if the structure would look as an integrated mass and commented that the detailing needed to be coordinated. Commissioner Green commented that in order for the structure to look as one unit, it would have to impact the existing unit and roof lines needed examination. Commissioner Smith had difficulty with the garage form and agreed about the connection. Bernard White, owner, approached the podium to discuss the location of the utilities and Commissioner Evans replied that it was up to the architect. Commissioner Green commented to Mr. White that the structure needed to resemble a duplex unit and not two single-family units with a connection. Mr. Ladd questioned the landscaping plan for the existing site and Commissioner response was the need to review the original plans and see what plants had survived. VIII. Other Business A. Parking Code Review Matt Pielsticker began the discussion with some historical input, commented on street parking, loading requirements and mixed use criteria, compact car parking, and a need for the entire parking code to be reviewed. Eric Heidemann commented on the need to codify parking requirements. Commission discussion continued with issues regarding a compact car. Commissioner Goulding suggested review of parking uses from different valley towns and the issue with height for underground garages with rooftop carriers. Commissioner Foster mentioned that 20 years ago VAL_ENCI, -\ 9+ VS -7 shown with clear seedy (CS) 4a55 and satin black (BK) metal finish — V.5-- VS -4 VS 11 VS-7NR shown with rain mist (RM) glass and satin 61ack (BK) metal finish LH `.y .,Iw YJ-^* V!,-IINK MOUNTING MOUNTING FRAME WIDTH HEIGHT DEPTH BASE CENTER TO TOP LAMPING UL VP -7 7-1/4" 15-3/8" NIA N/A N/A 1-60W, Medium Incand. Wet VP -9 9-1/4" 19-1/4" N/A N/A N/A 1-100W, Medium Incand. Wet VP -11 11-1/4" 24-3/4" N/A WA N/A 1-100W, Medium Incand. Wet VS -7 7-1/4" 15-5/8" 9-3/8' 4" X 8-1/7 10-13/16' 1-60W, Medium Incand. Wet VS -9 9-1/4" 19-1/4" 11" 4' X 8-1/2" 13-3/8" 1-100W, Medium Incand. Wet VS -11 11-1/4" 23-518" 12-3/4" 5' X 11' 16-3/16" 1-1 DOW, Medium Incand. Wet VS-7NR 5-1/8" 9-1/2" 8-1/4" 4" X 8-1/2" 4-3/4" 1-100W, Medium Incand, Dry VS-9NR 6-1/4" 11-3/4" 9-1/2" 4" X 8-1/2" 5-7/8" 1-100W, Medium Incand. Dry VS -11 NR 7-5/8" 14-1/4" 11" 5" X 11" 7-1/8' 1-100W, Medium Incand. Dry VP -9 shown with rain mist (RM) glass and bronze (BZ) metal finish Vv -n jpN ). 8 2007 ftMLt 1iTV ge METAL 1= jN15HF7- 5 raw copper, mission brown, bronze and verdigis Patina are naturally oxidized finishes. MB - Minion Brown Bz- t5r vP-verdigris Patina Rb - Rustic drown Ali-Antiiiuc AC-Artique cOPPe, P - R,,, ter 5 - slate 15 - Satin black GLASS CD PT I CD N S Gw- Li,Id l\hitc I,Jescend, WO -white Icscent r-rnsstrd es -Clear Opa Seedy RM -Rain M[st Or-04Whn, CR - TN - Tan wi� K GWC- Gold white lndescent and RCC- Red and white Opalescent ae- 56 and white opalescent White Opalescent cem6ination combination wMbirat on Offered in offered in o&,A in Etwle, Glasgow, Kennebec, Glasgow, Saint Clair, elasgav, Saint Clair, Saint Clair. State Street, ttxUt State Street State Street. 8 � MC - amber /.I.. J miry 'flECEIVEC Wei 8 2007 Dwf-' • - Focus Industries - Specialty Lights, SL -37 HOME CONTACT LITERATURE APPLICATIONS SEMINARS TRADESHOWS ABOUTFOCUS �. as Uuri Aai LIGHT FIXTURES Area Directional Fluorescent Path Specialty_ BBQ Llghts'm Flex Lights'"'_._.._. TRANSFORMERS Weatherproof Direct Burial Hard Wire Plug -III Battery ACCESSORIES LIGHT BULBS CABLE SPECIALTY LIGHTS SL -37, Recessed Light SAME AS Page 1 of 3 ORIGINAL Focus products can be ordered through your local supplier. E-mail us for a supplier ne Cent Services — Request Literature, submit & track RGA's and mora. SL-37-MR8 SL-37-MR11 ORDERING INFORMATION CATALOG DESCRIPTION SHIPPING SIL -37 -MRS Recessed Deck Up/Down Light 20W MRS 1 Ib. SL.37-MR11 Recessed Deck Up/Down Light 20W MR11 1 Ib. SL.37-MR1S Recessed Deck Up/Down Light 26W MR16 1 Ib. R. 0 tc 10;_ 17 4.9 7.7 6 9A .. 27 6 1,0 _ 47 4 0.7 104 3,5- - -.157 2 0,4 423 0 4 it. 0 9c 10 . 4.9 7.7 Ft. [fig 8 3.3 12 6 ___ 2.4 21.5 4 1.6 46.5 3.5-..-__. 74.0 2 -_ _ 0.8 999 0 � H SL-37-MR8 Light Distribution SL-37-MR16 RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2001 Community Develapntea http:/hwww.focusindustries.com/sl-37.html 1/18/2007 4- 9 *6 <D E LU > LU aD LIJ cc m ui Ll- V - E E (3 ILI u wo. _n_7� I -rim i Y. 1 Y Y fi- � r ._ .r s k 'r ..�, '., ..y C: r Y1 �� y y; • •::. t ., �. .� ." .�� v ;t R _ �' �. r C .r` , *. .� si �♦ � t t ':' � ''• .�' �. r' �. ., fi ... ;, i' . - ` ►,.� � � � f ,� L. C - _ j ; T t - k' •li ,: ,+ � f 'l j' � � � ' . �� � � �. � � � L �r 20. ed c z 1V o = 0 W ,b mg IL 11 wdolaneQ klunwtto j g ` e 3 LOOT L Z 83A OBAMOSU yggg � i rid., '{ty, �'.rf?.�•l.i��.'�.�t.;-'i.. IJ 3�°SII �A A Ing gHHH. B aim � a0 � roR ai HI 11,1 z c C3 I r V p y I M 11 wdolaneQ klunwtto j g ` e 3 LOOT L Z 83A OBAMOSU yggg � i rid., '{ty, �'.rf?.�•l.i��.'�.�t.;-'i.. IJ 3�°SII �A A Ing gHHH. B aim � a0 � roR ai HI 11,1 z c C3 I e 6 S v FL ^ {e{ F r V � � YY .�pep,ar, -ice• miBw�r�'vdn MYRAO(b �eM 5981 �'O'1 O F �I E TV O N N y O V CL A W -e 3 N esa o Z V O U W Z d e 6 S GAp FL ^ {e{ F r V L i i f gp cqq cm � E TV O N N y O V CL A W -e 3 N esa o V .e-awr-i-W uv°err�'r�n O s W'r W 3 s S _ CC it C C' o °qg P.. iN � CLa fl �� C C g- a� O U � O W W Z I ~ + BMML6'O(b �•'Wtl 5981.90'1 � � d � r F r a v --'e j 3 ��aee3< ii. o Qa3 C 49-20 z i N O mg Z IL ~ + r � � d � p�� O o •� � 0 � C 0 CL r a v --'e j 3 ��aee3< Qa3 A .S,II l.EL N____________�� O W m O Q � Q I I � I I I � I I I I w. I I w O8 8 I I yEr_wZ wQ .EAI } V�row•w-I•W+ uvu•p••i•]'4�•Fi -w mangy O t IL q C .. s r a r O V Q rrl w �Z d A .S,II l.EL N____________�� O W m O Q � Q I I � I I I � I I I I w. I I w O8 8 I I yEr_wZ wQ .EAI } V�row•w-I•W+ uvu•p••i•]'4�•Fi -w mangy O t IL q v»rcuro a mel .. s r r r O y 11 Q _ Tli < e- A .S,II l.EL N____________�� O W m O Q � Q I I � I I I � I I I I w. I I w O8 8 I I yEr_wZ wQ .EAI } met'r q, r ' 1► p �y �� '1rs lyy G. a �_ z V W V � aD r w� D , W QOC n V K 1' • S.II I EDI W 5 w„ U N N V� Zw w 0,8 V) LU LL 3�of W � Z� 3 \\\ V �"P'OP'9^�-I'^�• ]t9lB °P°9T �4�'Pl erfrvice'ote-rwa swlme'o'� �O � a g N O s N V P• a _ _ yo i 300 N C -s � 6a3 � C U O LL W Z O. d w„ U N N V� Zw w 0,8 V) LU LL 3�of W � Z� 3 W a g Q O E N V P• a A R T 300 N -s � 6a3 w„ U N N V� Zw w 0,8 V) LU LL 3�of W � Z� F r mruenm-�wa maaw n� �. W = L V � ` t W ■ r Y M 8 _ 4a3 T O V O V r� O W W Z ag IL F r mruenm-�wa maaw n� �. W = L V � ` t W ■ r Y e W r � � ` M W r R M 1r W y C C CL R 8 _ 4a3 O 9 p 0000000a000fla e c 0 ap cn ce R IL IL CD C" C 0 C4 9 1 Lb OF 0 — S i LU 0 LL Z ML p 0000000a000fla e c 0 ap cn ce R IL IL CD C" C 0 C4 9 1 Lb OF 0 — S i p 0000000a000fla e c 0 ap cn ce R a 0 D C13 10 c LU EP -1 4-1 CD C" C 0 C4 9 1 Lb OF 0 — S i LU a 0 D C13 10 c LU EP -1 4-1 c oil ayi W � Ay M-ry � Y V � yy O F wM swo Ji I �r c p c V O Z° c oil ayi W � Ay M-ry � yy swo p I W F �000000©0000@o c oil ayi W � eg r 4c Z/ IL 1=1 \ i IL k k C4 « A. � $ \ | / t � \ 0 LB CO &L I Mon 1=1 \ i � k k C4 « } | � $ \ | / t � \ LB CO Mon LU 1=1 2 - , } § ;�} k k C4 « LD LB CO LU 1=1 r—, �"1 ^ WML6'Ofb•°�N STRi �9'O"1 X11 IL AL 39 Y ■� O B LL �Z IL �0000aoao�Qoaa I" N � a W m 10 m V. --s ----- W ,a a 8 t Memorandum Design Workshop, Inc Landscape Architecture Land Planning To: Planning and Zoning Commission Urban Design Strategic Services Via: Eric Heidemann From: Rebecca Leonard Date: February 26, 2007 Project Name: Avon East Town Center Project #: 3928 Subject: Post Open House Meeting Approval of the Preferred Alternative Prior to Open House: In July 2006, DW held a five-day charrette in the Council Chambers that involved three days of stakeholder meetings, a public workshop, development of four conceptual plans for the district, and a community open house on'the final evening. In November, DW presented the preliminary results of a market investigation and asked for direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission on a series of plan elements to include in a refined alternate for the open house. Open House Presentation: The refined alternative for the redevelopment of East Town Center was presented at the January 25, 2007 Open House. The meeting was well attended by the representatives of critical properties. Twenty-nine people signed in. Boards with the existing and proposed conditions were on display regarding the following topics: 1. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation 2. Parking 3. Retail Uses 4. Views 5. Built Form 6. Centers 7. Character 8. Land Uses 9. Implementation 10. Charrette Alternatives Response: The general tone of the meeting was of support for the preferred alternative and moving forward with redevelopment. DESIGNWORKSH0P Asheville • Aspen • Denver • Park City • Phoenix • Santa Fe • Tahoe • Sdo Paulo 120 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (tel) 970-925-8354 • (fax) 970-920-1187 www.designworkshop.com C:\Documents and Senmgs\mpielsucker\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK58\072302_ Post Open House Memo.doc • Seven comment cards were returned that night • Five letters/emails were received after the meeting • All but one response is in support of the redevelopment of Avon East Town Center • The letter that does not provide support for the plan states that it is because the proposed plan changes virtually every part of developer's current plans Attendees were asked to provide feedback on the strengths and weakness of the preferred alternative and additional comments. Included in your packet is a summary of all comments received. Action Needed: DW is seeking direction on a "Preferred Alternative". This direction could include either: • Support of the preferred alternative • Support of the preferred alternative with modification • No support and future steps Page 2 Avon East Town Center January 25, 2007 Written Comments Received 29 people signed -in 7 comment Cards returned that night 5 letters/emails received after the meeting All but one response in support of the redevelopment of Avon East Town Center 1 letter not in support (changes virtually every part of developer's current plans) Name (optional): Pedro Campos Val Wolfe Anthony Cassar and Gerrard Mifsud- Beaver Benchmark LLC Orion Development- Pedro Campos VAG Chris Juergens, VMDA (Boat Building) John W. Lundeen III- Chapel Square Ventures L.P. Chris Neurswanger- Macro Financial Group 2. Strengths: Like the low building heights Would increase attractiveness of retail and visits to Avon Creation of a central 'town square' open space with underground parking Creates a better sense of place in East Avon, Warm Feel, Inviting, More prideful environmentally, Pretty everywhere Builds a framework that doesn't exist and eliminates fields of surface parking Promotes walking and public transportation Straightening Benchmark Road into a pedestrian friendly main street with on -street parking Turn movement increased at Avon Road and Benchmark Road Roundabout Facilitates the Main Street extension Anything is better than how it is... I like it! 3. Weaknesses: Representations of buildings may limit the development potential of the property. Currently the shape, mass and height appear to suggest a reduction in existing entitlements under Town center zoning. The representations should show the maximum use -by right. DW shows building shapes in plans simply to illustrate potential. The shapes of buildings could change provided they continue to show a strong retail frontage, pedestrian accessibility, protection of sun pockets on pedestrian areas, and view protection. Once other restrictions such as parking and lot coverage are considered, DW believes the plan does not show a reduction in entitlements. View corridor along Avon Road is maintained but seems under-utilized DW has shown development in the Town's right of way to the extent of current roads. Additional development in the Town's right of way would be a policy direction from the Town. Not enough centralized parking areas, facilities The central parking structure (under the plaza) would allow for 120 with one level underground or 240 spaces with two levels of underground parking. On -street parking around the plaza equals 82 spaces. (The current surface parking lot has 240 spaces) DW feels that 320 centralized spaces is a substantial commitment to parking. De -centralized parking needs "public" parking tower/ facilities to ease frustrations for open opportunities DW supports a strong wayfinding and signage plan for the entire Town Center to ensure that all parking facilities are easily located. Current Retail tenants (Sports Authority, Office Depot etc.) may not be responsive to underground parking Due to increased urban residential uses and scarce urban land, franchise stores are adjusting to underground parking scenarios. Would prefer "perimeter only" traffic DW believes that some level of traffic through the retail areas is important to the viability of the retail spaces. Automobile circulation: Current plan does not fix the problem of unclear network. It is unclear which road is the main street. There should be a road through the District that does not require turning movements East Beaver Creek Boulevard does not require turning movements. Long leases does not allow for easy relocation of tenants • This is a long-term plan, which means the Town can be patient with development. If the Town wishes to speed along portions of the implementation, there are several tools at their disposal. Regulatory and economic incentives as well as partnership potential. Need a more definitive phasing plan to mitigate construction impacts DW will refine the phasing plan based on specific feedback from landowners. As this is a long-term plan, detailed phasing strategies will be out of date quickly. It is a huge project with a long time frame that requires a lot of cooperation DW believes that this is the best way to make a well-built Town Center that meets everyone's needs! 4. Additional Comments: • Jobs and housing need to be balanced DW believes that this should be a consideration in the planning policies of the East Town Center District Plan. • Town of Avon owns a very viable portion of land west of Christy Sports. A portion of this land should be used to create some affordable housing - work with developer and maintain views DW believes that there may be an opportunity to provide some affordable housing on this Town -owned property, but the quality of the living environment, protection of views, and other design principles should be met. • Please do everything to provide more not less parking The parking numbers shown by DW are a worst-case scenario as some underground structures will likely be larger than shown • Enlarge the area for underground parking to the parcel line and beyond DW believes that there is incentive to do this. • A traffic study should be conducted to determine the future traffic impacts of the design Traffic studies were done during the Village at Avon development approvals process. These numbers were used to determine the through traffic. • Plaza Way may be closed upon redevelopment • Has there been an analysis of current TC zoning against proposed? Yes. A rough analysis of the current TC zoning allows for 30 DU per acre, 80 foot height limits, and 50% lot coverage. Parking requirements and other restrictions further limit development potential. • Petite "affordable" retail spaces for "start-up" business? (craft shops, bakeries, limited specialty foods)- to make Avon "different' The market investigation illustrates that there is a large volume of small stores in the upper Eagle Valley. This plan calls for a mix of small and mid-size retailers to allow for more diversity of uses. In addition, DW believes that encouraging condominiumized retail spaces will keep the space more affordable and appealing to small shop owners. • Pre -teen/ early teen activity area/s? DW would encourage uses that help entertain the youth in the community. • Can bridges occur across Main Street? North side as tower to support south side lower development DW believes a bridge across Main Street would obstruct the view to the plaza space from Avon Road. • Reuse materials and build new buildings with energy efficient and renewable energy to stop image of wastefulness associated with tearing down an existing town and building anew. DW believes this would be a good principle to include in the East Town Center District Plan. • Must show compelling reasons to make landowners comply with redevelopment • DW believes that the plan, in concert with the rising market in the area, offers adequate reason to redevelop in time. • Economic incentives are needed for property owners to pay for improvements • DW believes that providing on -street parking for retail, relaxing parking requirements for developers, allowing variances to lot coverage restrictions, and providing certainty in development approvals processes are economic incentives to developers. Any additional economic incentive would be on a case-by-case basis. • We need a fall -back position for the realigned "Main Street' DW recommends showing potential phasing plans and having alternatives to the straight Main Street in the draft plan. • How can we make the plaza happen from a phasing standpoint? DW recommends that surrounding properties redevelop first to allow new space for tenants to move. DW also recommends phasing the building construction first (including underground parking, circulation, and access), before or while the plaza is developed. This would allow for the Town and landowner to renegotiate parking arrangements. W Ow - I F til j �r W T9� j v do Q t F r til �i '16 U z V Rl S \)\7 ! « *\§} Ll jj/2_B \\, uu(�ƒ�)§�/ � y�a _t. JJuy���uyyl'I'jj{e'pp� Y \t � �< f 8 NEW \ f' ;Oo J 0 n1 yry L. R h9 0 O A Q 0 v L L+ v > tl ' u w j u 'e� Q oQ u6-� 3a Ab 0 0 0 w� o� w'+ rc& D Al w of O P per. F p �• W L W � � c Q 7g L Y V O _ r y .+ N N N .n W LLJ C eni � Q N O U Z F p O H W � � C.4440> 4r O � u G O C C C m � V i R .G is GCA i c O A y d G � n C 'C ab •�1 � v v O � Z4 N x G m > � O •� b L - ftl W u � v O > •4 C •� U v vC, u � �❑ C O w 4 u v C �• a v C N v r m d m 4r O � G O -d u m � V i R .G is GCA i c C 'C ab •�1 � v v O � Z4 N x G m > � O •� 72 - ftl W �a w� w • /����.� � it -� .; r yr �f h t e s�. t" a e ■� ■ a r! ■� ■ ;a \ / � i / ! | - � ]{ $) k }\ 4•i /\\ k!! ;a 0 eio b 0 v .� ❑ U L' •r ° C N « L U � U O C x Q b^ G = v u v o r (d A. w> °G a E Ala 0 0 0 0 rwtz -N� ,; �b p p b u C D➢ y "' L 'b •Q N v ro E y .3 v S p 0 .E v U ay_' 1 •• u C G .b Op 3� m JZ tui t5 a❑ u ya 3 o v ''' a. 'c -� u c v a ay ,..' y E � .✓ � ' ° v � u E � � E y, p u° o � Ly a � C^ o .� ❑ U w .� °� a, u 3° '� > u v a ,u, ro y L E u .� $ 'G -o v 4 �•5 `o �s oEv"UuiOa 'aFU a ani' w ro�Q� �sLc:; Y al ° V � h m � U •y � C is � a" iir cF > 'v LOfi b n I A c1 v ••My^ h � L b � ?V, v y w t� O 7 •� v ry tj .� �"v„ c . W °o � G.� � y a � vx ci � A o � o •A u.; � .� a .? �� v v 3 v o -u _ 'd OA v ° �0 y •� b6 c 3 o .0 c` v u v `° •y `o Z•c v � � s $ � °•�° �, � m -o v .`�« E nib .9 � o a. � � p, •� y k L A •�,, u G " �e A as c c G'5 v ° ' o 4 WU u Q a.: •" " A 4E. E u n c ro W v c.c T7 ro u ,O, �� c .� v L " v ate• u a� s o ° .° a - > � E ° " " ° ,o � � � .�.. +' y ;� -o .° " c m a ;; u E E m •7 O X �y co o•U v v ro o .� �° u W r > r u •+ u 0 0 0 :? o. �� a L� c� � m v .� `o � L b y e! h :: c v L D o E v �y° E s°J ani F °ro Q .� �+ «• >y - c ro c o H y y Qww �w4? > �w`om` aw °a ov [' Jp, a v aw �wc W U M• U I Rl \ ; k ! ! §; k I Rl ,J 0 A � b 0 a b E oV �C Cv0 F v E2 u v L=' a " 7j `o m U p y y � x E b y o eu y V a' C'„ u .`�. i •� C v m E C v O :C C 0A - C C v „w 6 Cv >% ¢ ¢5 C .X w p 3F ncGU „ ,J 0 I (� 0 m r 0 a ti 13 N .N a C T 0 E� tu a V i Are ., S ti rN^e � i 0 Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment Work Session March 6, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Joint Session with the Avon Town Council Report Date: March 2, 2007 Project Type: Zoning Text Amendment to Implement Workforce Housing Regulations (work session only) i/r AVON C O L O R A D O Summary: During the January g'" Town Council meeting, staff presented the findings of the 2006 Housing Needs Assessment. Staff was directed by council to begin drafting guidelines, requirements and tools for the provision of diverse housing types with consideration of the comments made during the meeting. The following report identifies five areas of discussion that will shape a Workforce Housing ordinance for the Town of Avon. Background: In June of 2006, the Town of Avon commissioned a study to determine Avon's housing stock and the availability of various types of housing in Avon, as well as the labor force that currently employed within the town's boundaries. A summary of this effort, titled the Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006, Final Draft, is attached to this staff report as Attachment C. The goal of this exercise was to fully understand the housing needs in the town and explore policy options in order to better house it's citizens and in -commuting labor force as Eagle County and its neighboring counties continue to grow over time. In January of 2007, staff reported back with the findings of this study and was received to begin putting together an ordinance to develop workforce -housing regulations. There are a number of tools available for the town to employ in order to achieve Avon's housing goals as stated in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. The approach taken by staff is to propose a first step in the process of implementing a housing program and start out by using one type of tool commonly used in other jurisdictions because it has proven effective. It includes an "Inclusionary" Zoning regulation, payment -in -lieu calculations, and initial sale and resale limitations. We are suggesting this step now as it is the cornerstone of practically every effective housing policy and because it can be implemented without further study. In order to create other forms of housing regulations, such as "Commercial Linkage", a nexus study is necessary in order to justify the creation of various percentages and formulae. Discussion Items: The "workforce' housing regulations will be used to provide housing that is attainable for the numerous segments of the local workforce population (the term workforce is being used for k the time being because it is referenced in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan and may be another topic of discussion). The 2006 Housing Needs Assessment identifies the present shortages identified within the Town of Avon's current housing stock in terns of what types of housing are most lacking in comparison with what is considered "affordable" to local families who comprise a significant part of the existing labor force; and it forecasts how this gap will expand over time given the current trends in housing demand identified in the available data. The Workforce Housing Regulations will set up policies meant to help curb the trend of developing a limited stratification of housing types available in today's local housing market. This report addresses policies that should be included in the regulations and provides for a comparison of how other jurisdictions establish housing policy aimed at developing more diversity in Avon's housing stock. A chart is attached that compares what other jurisdictions use as guidelines or actual codified regulations, and how these compare to what staff is proposing for the Town of Avon (Attachment B). The following discussion topics begin with a proposed Purpose Statement for the subject regulations that is meant to coincide with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Housing Goals and Policies. The suggested language is as follows: The purpose of this code is to set forth 'Inclusionary" Housing requirements, sale and resale procedures for workforce housing, and sale and resale limitations on workforce housing. Through the application of this code, the Town of Avon shall achieve the goals set forth in the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan. These goals are to achieve a diverse range of quality housing options, provide a workforce housing program that incorporates both rental and ownership opportunities for residents that are attractive, safe and integrated with the community and to participate in countywide housing policies and procedures. Another topic of discussion is the Applicability section of the proposed regulations and it will determine the types of development applications to be regulated by this code. Based on the data we have to date, staff recommends a regulation involving only applications for rezoning. The suggested language is as follows: All rezoning applications shall conform to the provisions of this chapter. No building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued, nor any development approval granted, which does not meet the requirements of this chapter. The third discussion item pertains to "Inclusionary" Zoning requirements. In order to provide housing for aforementioned income levels, an "Inclusionary" zoning regulation should be enacted to curb the free market's development of limited and stratified residential units. Numerous mitigation techniques are used by other jurisdictions that require a percentage of new residential units to be available for workforce housing. Staff recommends a tiered regulation that begins at a 20% mitigation rate if all of the required units are built on-site. The mitigation rates would then increase if alternative types of development were used as discussed below. Such a strategy is suggested to create an incentive for the on-site development of required housing. The following language should be considered: All rezoning applications within the incorporated area of the Town of Avon shall include no less than twenty percent (20%) of the total units developed as workforce housing. When required to develop one workforce -housing unit, the developer shall be required to build a two-bedroom unit priced at a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the Eagle Town of Avon Workforce Housing Regulations, March 6, 2007 County AMI. When required to develop more than one unit, the developer shall be required to develop a distribution of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, priced in such a way that the average purchase price does not exceed that required of a two-bedroom unit at eighty percent (80916) of the Eagle County AMI. As verified in Attachment B, the 20% mitigation rate is similar to what other local jurisdictions already have in place in the form of policy guidelines or actual regulations. Only Aspen/Pitkin County and Vail have or are aiming for a higher percentage. The geographic location of housing built for the local workforce is an important aspect of any housing policy or regulation and warrants discussion. The development of on-site housing helps reduce the number of large housing developments built exclusively for middle to low- income households similar to Buffalo Ridge, and increases the efficiency of transportation networks. Most jurisdictions prefer to have their "affordable" units built on-site, and on established public transit routes, due to the synergistic effect of having essential employees residing on-site or being able to access public transit easily. The Town of Avon should provide flexibility in the method used by a developer to fulfill a workforce -housing requirement. There are many examples of mitigation options used in other jurisdictions that have proven effective: off-site development, payment -in -lieu, land dedication, and dedication of existing units. In order to diversify the Town of Avon's housing stock, all of these tools should be considered as options for providing on-site workforce housing in new developments. The following is language that could be used to regulate the physical location of workforce housing units: When required to provide workforce -housing units, the developer is encouraged to provide one hundred percent (1009yo) of the requirement on-site and must provide a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of their requirements on-site. If the developer decides to provide units in another manner, the requirements are as follows: 1. Off-site. ff the developer chooses to provide a portion of their units off site the required mitigation rate is increased from twenty percent (20%) to twenty-five percent (25%). A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of that twenty-five percent (25% must be constructed on-site and the remaining portion may be provided off-site. The options for an off-site workforce housing unit are as follows: a. The developer may construct or contract with a third party to construct the remaining required workforce housing units anywhere in Eagle County,- b. ounty,b. The developer may purchase a market rate unit in Eagle County and deed restrict the unit for permanent affordability; and c. The developer may deed developable land to the Town of Avon and pay a cash -in -lieu contribution to the Town of Avon Workforce Housing Fund in the amount needed for the Town of Avon to contract the construction of the remaining required workforce housing units. This cash -in -lieu contribution shall be set by the Community Development Director or Chief Building Official and shall be based on the cost per square foot to construct a workforce housing unit. 2. Payment -in -Lieu. If the developer chooses to provide a portion of their units with a payment -in -lieu the mitigation rate for the entire requirement is increased from twenty percent (209/6) to thirty percent (3040). Thirty percent (30%) of that thirty percent (3051o) must be constructed on-site and the remaining units may be provided for in accordance with the following calculations: Town of Avon Workforce Housing Regulations, March 6, 2007 a. The payment -in -lieu is calculated based on the difference between the market rate cost of a unit and the cost of a workforce -housing unit priced on income eligibility. A fifteen percent (15%) administration fee will be added to the payment. In most instances, when a developer chooses to build required workforce housing off-site, the mitigation rate is increased. As shown in Attachment B, Steamboat Springs increases the number of required units by 25% if these units are built off-site. Eagle County increases the mitigation rate from 20% to 25% if the units are built off-site. By using this type of restrictive policy tool, an incentive is created for the on-site development of workforce housing units. Developers typically choose a payment in -lieu option, if one is available, for satisfying workforce -housing requirements imposed by a local government. Many jurisdictions calculate the appropriate payment -in -lieu by calculating the difference between the cost of a market rate unit, and the amount of money a household making a certain percentage of the AMI can afford for a unit. This difference is the cost per unit to make a payment instead of building a unit. The total amount is then assessed an additional fee to cover the costs of administration, which is typically 15% of the total payment in -lieu amount. Another alternative in the payment -in -lieu methodology is to allow land dedications commensurate in value with the calculated payment -in -lieu amount. Another discussion topic pertains to qualifying a buyer and resale of deed -restricted units. The town currently uses language in section four below in many of its restricted deeds. When a resale occurs, many jurisdictions limit the annual appreciation of an "affordable' unit and impose caps on real estate commissions and capital improvements. Most other jurisdictions cap growth rates at between 3% and 6% depending on the average appreciation of property values in the local market. The Eagle County Guidelines use this type of tool to ensure the property will not appreciate less than 3% or more than 6%. The county guidelines and proposed Town of Avon programs also strive toward limiting capital improvements to a maximum of 10% of the initial purchase price over each 10 -year period. Aspen/Pitkin County likewise restricts the improvements at 10% for each unit but does not impose a time limitation. Boulder also regulates capital improvements and does not guarantee such improvements will help grow the resale price. Aspen/Pitkin County and Eagle County both charge a 2% sales fee to cover the costs of administration. All of these were referenced to help shape the language used for this section of the proposed regulations, proposed as follows: 1. Maximum Initial Sales Price for Workforce Housino unit. a. The maximum initial sales once for a workforce housino unit is based on, the AMI for Eaole Countv. Unit once shall not exceed the oercentaoes of the AMI for the income cateaorv: very low-, low-. and moderate -income: it is intended to serve. 2. Annroved Initial Purchaser for Workforce Housino Units. a. A developer may select a oualified buver for a unit. The buver must seek approval from the Town of Avon's housina administrator before executing the purchase. 3. Resale Price for Workforce Housino Units. a. The resale once of anv workforce housina unit shall not exceed the purchase price oaid by the owner of that unit with the followina Town of Avon Workforce Housing Regulations, March 6, 2007 f J exceptions: i. ADoreciation rate of three oercent (3%) Der vear from the date of initial purchase lororated at the rate of one-ouarter Dercent ( 25%) ner whole month). ii. Customary closina costs and costs of sale: iii. Costs of real estate commissions Daid by the seller if a licensed real estate aaent is emoloved not to exceed one percent (I% J: iv. Permanent capital imorovements installed by the seller not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the initial listed purchase once set forth in deed restriction for an initial ten vear Denod. For every ten vear period subsequent an additional ten percent (10%) of the initial purchase once may be added: and 4. Qualified Buver. a. To oain apnroval from the Town of Avon's housina administrator, the buyer must meet the fallowina criteria: i. An owner must occuov the unit as his or her Drimary residence: ii. An owner must be either a full time emDtovee workina at least thirty (30) hours oer week in Avon or Eaole County or a retired Derson who has been a full time emolovee in Avon or Eaole Countv a minimum of four nears immediately prior to his or her retirement or a oerson havina a medical disability who has been a full time emolovee in Avon or Eaole Countv a minimum of two vears immediatelv Drior to his or her determination of disability, or the spouse or deoendent of anv such persons who resides with the N. An owner whose household income does not exceed the Dercent of AMI that the owner is attemotina to aualifv for: and iv. An owner whose total current family net assets are not in excess of $225.000.00 ($337.500.00 for a retired person) or whose total current family net assets have not been in excess of $225, 000.00 ($337.500.00 for a retired person) dunna the two nears orecedina if the same were transferred or disoosed of to confer elioibilihr hereunder. A lottery system should also be considered for implementation to give qualified buyers a fair chance to purchase "affordable' housing products. Such a system would determine who has a chance to buy if more than one qualified buyer were to bid on the same property. Currently, the town uses a first come -first served method. A lottery system would create a hierarchy of qualified buyers who bid on a unit and have the right of first refusal. Staff Recommendation: Staff is not seeking formal action at this time, as this is only a work session, however, direction is needed on how to proceed with an ordinance, For instance, staff is seeking specific input an whether the "Inclusionary" zoning method as a first step for creating workforce -housing requirements is acceptable, and comments on the refinement of setting percentages and formulae for payment -in -lieu calculations. Town of Avon Workforce Housing Regulations, March 6, 2007 Respectfully Sub 'tted, Matt Gennett, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: A. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element B. Affordable Housing Regulation Matrix C. 2006 Housing Needs Assessment Summary Town of Avon Workforce Housing Regulations, March 6, 2007 EXHIBIT A Goals and Policies capitalize on an overall community image rather than a single venue or event. Policy E.3.13: Encourage collaborative approaches between the various community stakeholders, such as but not limited to the Eagle County, Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau, Beaver Creek Resort Company, Vail Resorts, Eagle County School District, Town of Avon Parks and Recreation Department, and Eagle County Library District to enhance Avon's overall guest potential. Policy E.3.14: Achieve greater use of existing natural assets and facilities in the community with an expanded schedule of events to strengthen the Town's year- round guest potential and to provide an amenity for local residents. F. Housing Goal F.1: Achieve a diverse range of quality fiduiing "j options to serve diverse segments of the m population.___,�_�__ _s Policy F.1.1: Establish policies and programs that would address housing needs identified in a periodic housing needs assessment. Policy F.1.2: Encourage private development to include a diversity of housing types, sizes, architectural styles, and prices. Goal F.2: Provide a workforce housing program that i incorporates both rental and ownership_m opportunities for-residenis that are ? attractive, safe and integrated with the community. e Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan R V 0 N Page 52 Goals and Policies Policy F.2.1: Require that development, annexations, and major redevelopment includes or otherwise provides for workforce housing. Policy F.2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than separated from, the rest of the community. Policy F.2.3: Require workforce housing to be close to existing development, serviced by transit, and close to schools/child care. Policy F.2.4: Establish a definitive dwelling unit size and quality standards for required workforce housing as part of any development or redevelopment agreements. Policy F.2.5: Adhere to the principle of"no net loss" to workforce housing. Goal F3:'P`a'rticipate in'c`ountywiile Housingpolicies __- and procedures.,-_,__,_„_:__�TI-- Policy F.3.1 Policy F.3.2: G. Transportation Participate in countywide down - payment assistance program. Collaborate on joint housing studies and strategies to avoid jurisdictional shopping. Goal G.7: Create an integiatetl transit system that " minimizes dependence on automobile travel; within the Town by making it easier and s more inviting to use transit, walk, ride I bicycles, and utilize other non -motorized vehicles. " Policy G.1.1 Connect pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation systems with regional transit (including Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Page 53 "VO On-site preferred, May bank housing 4+ Dwelling Units credits for future Inclusionary Zoni ig Matrix requirements, may establish a supply of housing Jurisdiction Intent Applicability Incentives Inclusionary Reqs Location Occupancy Pavment in lieu Allowed but mitigation rate Comply with Comp Plan Goals increased to 30%. Based and policies: diverse housing on difference between range, program that market rate cost per unit incorporates rentals and On-site preferred, and maximum initial ownership opportunities, and off-site allowed purchase price for a participate in countywide but mitigation Earn between 60- workforce housing unit housing policies and 20% of total units built rate increased to 120% of AMI with base on AMI + 15% Avon procedures. All rezoning applications due to a rezoning 25% average of 80 administration fee DUs restricted by convenants not counted toward density, as long as density of project </_ Summit County 105% of permited Mitigate impact of free market housing construction; prevent Required for all new zoning regs applicable to development that New developments residential development from contains 3+ residential with 3+ additional excluding housing that meets units including Negotiated with City units; 15% in On-site, off-site Based on difference needs all economic groups; annexations, Council when subdivisions, 15-25% allowed if 25% between market rate cost encourage delevopers to development plans, final community housing in multi -faro units more units built Earn between 60- per unit and initial pruchase construct on-site community development plans, units are above and depending on unit sq than required on- 120% of AMI with price for affordable unit + Steamboat Springs housing prelim and final plats beyond min reqs It site average of 90 up to 15% admin fee Implement housing goals of Boulder Valley Comp Plan; 2006 figures: detached - promote construction of lesser of $113,367.35 for housing affordable to permanently affordable workforce; retain opps for ($22,673.47 per market people that work in city to live rate unit) or $94.47 x 20% there; maintain balanced 5 or more Dwelling of total floor area of community that provides Units - 20% required unrestricted units; attached housing for all income levels; on-site; 4 or less $101,747.37 ($20,349.47) insure that housing options Dwelling Units - Minimum of 1/2 or $84.79 x 20% of TFA of continue to be available for Negotiated with City include 1 unit on-site of total Very low-, low- and unrestricted unit. Figures very low-, low-, and moderate- Required for all new Council and City or off-site, dedicate requirements be moderate -income updated annually based on Boulder income levels developments manager land, or cash -in -lieu built on-site levels median sale prices On-site preferred, May bank housing 4+ Dwelling Units credits for future Goal is directed at helping requirements, may establish a supply of housing New residential and non- deed subdivided land that is affordable to those who residential development to accommodate a live and/or work in Eagle to provide local resident minimum of 150% of Eagle County County housing required units On-site preferred, Unit Types Resale Growth off-site allowed 4+ Dwelling Units but mitigation must include 20% for rate increased to Affordable Housing 25% Unit Types Resale Growth Min of 500 sq It with average of 900 sq ft None Detached units minimum of 48% of average floor area of non -affordable; Inflationary factor or attached units 80%, shared appreciation with maximum of 1200 factor is determined sq ft for both Allowed instead of construction but mitigation rate increased to 30%; 15% Range of 1-3 Very low-, low- and administration fee is added bedrooms with moderate -income to cover cost of turning average of 2 bedroom levels money into development priced at 80% AMI by the city manager 3 to 6% resale growth per year based on Department of Labor and Employment; 2% sales fee to County; max of 10% capital improvements of initial purchase price over each 10 year period; 3% resale growth per If one unit built it is a 2• year + 10% of initial bd at 80% of AMI. purchase price growth More than one, mix of for capital 1-3 bd units priced improvements over that they average a 2- each 10 year period + bd unit at 80% of AMI 2% resale fee Min of 500 sq It with average of 900 sq ft None Detached units minimum of 48% of average floor area of non -affordable; Inflationary factor or attached units 80%, shared appreciation with maximum of 1200 factor is determined sq ft for both Allowed instead of construction but mitigation rate increased to 30%; 15% Range of 1-3 Very low-, low- and administration fee is added bedrooms with moderate -income to cover cost of turning average of 2 bedroom levels money into development priced at 80% AMI by the city manager 3 to 6% resale growth per year based on Department of Labor and Employment; 2% sales fee to County; max of 10% capital improvements of initial purchase price over each 10 year period; Breckenridge Provides help through Summit Housing Authority for down payments and loans; Review land use applications; establish employee rental rates; establish employee sales prices; establish criteria for qualifications and occupancy; develop and prioritize current and long range housing programs; provide information and a process for developing Aspen/Pikin County employee housing New residential development 60% total units and 30% total floor area or 70% total units and 40% total floor area of all new residential developments 80-120+% of AMI Based on income, type of affordable unit, and number of adults in the household based on type of unit provided. Range from $124,307 to $252,244 Developments average household incomes of units at 100% AMI All types: studios, 1-3 bedrooms, SF detached The greater of 3% or the annual change in AMI, SHA charges 2% fee for posting service 2% sales fee and listing fee; 10% capital improvements for each new owner; purchase price + 3% or CPI appreciation which ever is less per year EXHIBIT C Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A primary goal of this housing needs assessment was to look at trends in the local economy, local housing needs and the housing market to identify local Town of Avon housing needs. This information sets a context from which to determine where housing programs should best be focused as the Town of Avon looks forward to providing housing to maintain and shape their community, assist their economy and understand their needs in the regional context of Eagle County as a whole. To understand housing need and market trends, a thorough review of resident household demographics; projected increase in employment, current workforce residency and employer needs and concerns; current housing inventory and ownership; and housing sales and rental patterns was conducted. This section summarizes the key findings from this research and the primary housing needs identified for Avon residents and employees. Summary of Housing Trends In general, market rate housing continues to be largely unaffordable to the local workforce and local residents. Existing deed -restricted housing has helped many employees and residents stay within the community; however, more affordable units are needed to ensure current residents can slay within the Town and that sufficient housing choices are available to assist local employers in attracting and retaining employees in the area. • Democraohics and Cost -burdened: About 52.7 percent of Avon households were renters and 47.3 percent were owners in 2000. The average household size was about 2.79 persons in 2004 (down from 2.81 in 2000), with owner households (2.64 persons) being slightly smaller than renter households (2.95 persons) in 2000 (in part related to seasonal worker renter households and overcrowding). About 28 percent of owners and 48 percent of renters reported being cost -burdened (paying over 30 percent of household income for rent/mortgage) in 2000. Emolovment and Commutinq: About 29 percent of workers in Avon also lived in Avon in 2000; meaning that 71 percent of the workforce commuted into Avon for employment. About 11 percent of the workforce reported living outside of Eagle County, primarily in Lake County and Garfield County (3 percent each). It was noted through employer interviews that workers from Garfield County have largely left their Avon employment to work closer to home (due to the high availability of jobs and competitive, if not higher, wages in Garfield County). This has increased the labor shortage in Avon and the difficulty for employers that relied on Garfield County to fill jobs. By increasing the affordability of housing in Avon to local workers, employers will be less reliant on outside labor markets for workers and be less subject to fluctuations in other area economies with respect to filling jobs. About 38 percent of Avon residents that are employed reported working in Avon in 2000. Another 24 percent worked in Vail, indicating the extent to which Avon helps house workers in Vail. Very few of employed Avon residents reported working outside of Eagle County (about 4 percent). Housing Affordabilitv: The median sale prices of homes in 2000 was $237,000; this increased 81.4 percent in 2006 to $430,000. In comparison, median family incomes (as reported by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Eagle County) increased only 17.5 percent during this period, from $68,100 in 2000 to $80,000 in 2006. Further, the typical household can afford a home priced about 3 -times higher than their income, whereas the median sale value of homes in 2006 was over 5 -times higher than the median family income. Home prices have been outpacing local incomes by a large margin. Trends between the 1990 and 2000 Census indicate that decreased affordability of homes in Avon has been occurring for quite some time, where household incomes increased 61 percent during this time compared to a 102 percent increase in owner housing values. Further, affordability compared to the state of Colorado as a whole in 2000 shows that: RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 — The median value of single-family homes in Avon in 2000 ($373,000) was about 2.3 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($160,100); — The median rent in Avon ($954) was 1.6 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($611) in 2000; and — The median household income of Avon residents ($56,291) was only 1.2 times higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($47,203). The median family income in Avon ($52,339) was lower than in the state of Colorado as a whole ($55,883). — Based on the above figures, it is not surprising the percentage of costburdened households in Avon (42 percent) is much higher than in the state of Colorado as a whole (29 percent). Residency of Owners: Analysis of the Eagle County Assessor data of property ownership in Avon indicates that about 44 percent of owners have a local Town of Avon address and another 18 percent have addresses in other parts of Eagle County. This has remained fairly consistent since 2001. The largest change is seen in the percentage of owners from other parts of Colorado (primarily the Front Range), where about 2 percent of properties in 2001 were owned by this group versus a much higher 9 percent in 2006. Increased competition for housing units from Front Range buyers was noted by a few realtors, who stated that this group purchases units in a more affordable price range than out-of-state second homebuyers, competing more directly with local residents for housing. Current Deed -Restricted Units: The Town presently has 63 deed -restricted units available for ownership, although 15 of those units are presently retained as rental units to employees in Eagle County earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. All units are valued under $200,000 and provide units at prices that are largely unavailable through the general housing market. This includes 8 3 -bedroom units valued under $147,000. All units are condominiums with a few townhomes. A few of these units turn -over to new owners each year. However, the number of units available does not meet local demand for ownership housing. The Town also has several affordable rental units: 244 in Buffalo Ridge affordable to households earning less than 80 percent AMI (built in 2003) and 72 Section 8 apartments at River View. The Town of Avon also has rooms available for rent for bus drivers and City Market has 18 1 -bedroom units available to employees at below-market rates. Rentals in Town are full and many have waiting lists. Property managers indicated they have very few units turnover each year. Despite the number of year-round rentals in Town, local need for units continues to be higher than the supply. Mulliole Listino Service: Of the 129 homes available for sale on the Multiple Listing Service on October 13, 2006, only 26 (about 20 percent) were priced below $400,000. Only three of the lower priced units had 3 - bedrooms and most (17 total) had 2 -bedrooms. About 11 of the units were in 'The Gates," which are condominium units with little storage and not generally suited to year-round occupancy by locals. The average size of units was 790 square feet and all were condominiums. In other words, there are an insufficient number of units provided on the market that may be affordable to and suited to local year-round ownership and occupancy, particularly families. Realtor Observations: Realtors noted that the availability of housing in Avon is not currently meeting the needs of residents and local workers, with a shortage of housing across all needed price -points (from first time homebuyers through move -up housing). A few felt that competition for affordable units, generally between $300,000 and $400,000, is very high and that many locals looking to purchase cannot find a unit in this price range. A couple noted that affordability is becoming even more of an issue since the new Gondola was planned, with increased speculation and interest from second homebuyers, particularly on the west side of town. Specifically, all of the realtors noted that units priced under $500,000 are in high demand. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 • Emolover Observations: Employers encountered slightly different issues with employee recruitment and retention depending on the industry of employment, with all experiencing issues with employee turnover and difficulty attracting and keeping new workers as a result of housing costs in the area, When asked about priorities that employers see in the area for housing in terms of recruiting and retaining employees, the full spectrum of locally affordable housing options were mentioned, including: — Rentals for new hireeslrecruits from outside the area. Vacancies are extremely low during the winter months and there is high competition for affordable rentals in the county. One exception was the school district, which noted that their new hires can usually find rentals; although more rentals for new single teachers would help. FirsMime homeownership opportunities to keep employees. It was noted that Miller Ranch was a successful and much needed project. A couple employers offered examples of new hires (one an engineer and one a co -manager) that owned homes in their previous communities and, upon moving to Avon, had difficulty locating housing to rent. Despite eaming in excess of $60,000 per year, neither can find homes to purchase that they can afford. This was also noted by the school district to be a problem in retaining employees over time and they indicated that about 75 percent of their turnover last year was due to employees moving out of the valley to purchase homes. They find that they can attract young teachers out of college given the "glamorous" location, but when they decide to start a family, they often move out of the valley to afford a home. — Along similar lines, more expensive, move -up housing affordable for higher paid positions, new recruits that owned homes in their previous communities so have some equity to apply toward a home and growing families (e.g., need more than a 600 square foot condominium) are also needed to retain employees, Realtor interviews and current listings for sale on the MLS indicate a large shortage of homes priced under $500,000 in the Town of Avon that would meet the needs of these households. Summary of Housing Catch -Up and Keep -Up Needs Despite the existing deed -restricted housing in Town and the large number of rentals in the area, continued need for housing from residents, in -commuters, new employees and seasonal workers is significant. Catch-up housing needs (housing units needed to address current deficiencies in housing) and keep -up housing needs (housing units needed to keep up with future demand for housing) are summarized below. Catch-up housing needs evaluated resident households with housing problems (cosEt urdened, overcrowded or in substandard units) and in -commuters that would likely prefer to live in Avon if affordable and suitable housing was available. Keep -up housing needs focused on new housing units needed as a result of job growth in the town and new employees filling those jobs. Housina Continuum When evaluating where to target housing programs and development options, the Housing Continuum, illustrated below, can be helpful in moving from aggregate estimates of housing units needed to specific programs and policies that target the housing needs within the community. The Continuum shows the percentage and number of households in Avon that fall into each AMI category, based on 2006 household estimates, along with a spectrum of housing that is affordable and most likely to be sought out by households in each AMI group. The Housing Continuum depicts what may be ideal for most communities — the availability of housing that is affordable to all households and options for changing life circumstances. What is key in this approach is that there are opportunities for households to buy or rent at different economic levels, thus supporting an economically balanced community. RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Source: 2000 US Census (CHAS); The Housing Collaborative, LLC; RRC Associates, Inc. The following table takes the Housing Continuum one step further and identifies the maximum affordable rents and purchase prices of homes within each income category, the estimated catch-up need (or current deficiency in housing to serve residents and in -commuters) and the estimated keep -up need through 2010 and 2015 (or the number of units needed to maintain the current ratio of workers residing in Town as new jobs are added —about 29 percent) is presented for both rental and ownership units by AMI range. The needs identified encompass units needed within the AMI groups that are not currently being served by the market (housing "gaps"), meaning that the needs identified will need to be targeted with local housing programs to help households obtain housing in the community. Finally, a description of different employment industries and job positions that pay wages within each respective AMI group is also provided to understand more about who will be served at different price points. In summary: Rental Units As summarized in the table below, residents with housing problems and in -commuters that may prefer to live in Avon if suitable and affordable housing was available need between 333 to 602 rental units priced below $1,340 per month for a 3 -person household in Avon (e.g., the average size of Avon households). These would be units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. The majority of this need (328 to 511 units) should be priced for households earning less than 50 percent AMI (or rents under $900 per month for a 3 -person household). The estimated need takes into account Buffalo Ridge units, which were constructed since the 2000 Census, and provided 244 units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. Keep -up units needed include an additional 129 units by 2010 and 132 units between 2010 and 2015. Interviews with long-term rental housing properties in Avon indicate properties are full and most have waitilists. It was noted that during the winter season this is typical for the area. However, vacancy rates in the County as a whole during the non -peak employment season (July through September 2005) were around 5 percent, which is generally the lowest vacancy desired in terms of ensuring adequate housing opportunities and choices for renters. Local Avon rentals indicated that they tend to have only a handful of units turnover each year, with Buffalo Ridge being RRC Associates, Inc. Housing Continuum 2006 $53,651- $86,100 Middle Income 80-120%AM $34001453,650 742 M1/29.8%HH Lowlncome 100% 110% 50.80%AW 800/0 A AI AMI 353HH/14.2%HH AMI - 120% AMI $ Over U6,401 First Time Entry Above Middle Income $21,601-$34660 50% AMI Home Level +120%AMI veryLowlncome Market Buyers Market 811 W1326% HH 30-50%AMI Rentals Housing 341 Mi/13.7%HH Step Up 30% AMI Income pilmenl Market Restricted vo+�eop $04211600 1801/6 AMI Under 30% 0-30%AMI Emergency l Broad Renter Market 2451111/9.9%HH Subsidized High End Market Source: 2000 US Census (CHAS); The Housing Collaborative, LLC; RRC Associates, Inc. The following table takes the Housing Continuum one step further and identifies the maximum affordable rents and purchase prices of homes within each income category, the estimated catch-up need (or current deficiency in housing to serve residents and in -commuters) and the estimated keep -up need through 2010 and 2015 (or the number of units needed to maintain the current ratio of workers residing in Town as new jobs are added —about 29 percent) is presented for both rental and ownership units by AMI range. The needs identified encompass units needed within the AMI groups that are not currently being served by the market (housing "gaps"), meaning that the needs identified will need to be targeted with local housing programs to help households obtain housing in the community. Finally, a description of different employment industries and job positions that pay wages within each respective AMI group is also provided to understand more about who will be served at different price points. In summary: Rental Units As summarized in the table below, residents with housing problems and in -commuters that may prefer to live in Avon if suitable and affordable housing was available need between 333 to 602 rental units priced below $1,340 per month for a 3 -person household in Avon (e.g., the average size of Avon households). These would be units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. The majority of this need (328 to 511 units) should be priced for households earning less than 50 percent AMI (or rents under $900 per month for a 3 -person household). The estimated need takes into account Buffalo Ridge units, which were constructed since the 2000 Census, and provided 244 units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI. Keep -up units needed include an additional 129 units by 2010 and 132 units between 2010 and 2015. Interviews with long-term rental housing properties in Avon indicate properties are full and most have waitilists. It was noted that during the winter season this is typical for the area. However, vacancy rates in the County as a whole during the non -peak employment season (July through September 2005) were around 5 percent, which is generally the lowest vacancy desired in terms of ensuring adequate housing opportunities and choices for renters. Local Avon rentals indicated that they tend to have only a handful of units turnover each year, with Buffalo Ridge being RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 somewhat dependent on the construction activity in the area. The majority of employers interviewed indicated that the low availability of long-term rentals affects their ability to recruit employees, particularly in the winter months. Although seasonal winter workers were cited as a primary reason for the low availability of rentals during winter, most employers were more impacted by the unavailability of long-term rentals rather than seasonal rentals. Seasonal units are not necessarily as significant a need as year-round rentals, but seasonal needs should continue to be monitored as "ski front" development (e.g.. Gondola, accommodations, etc.) occurs in Avon. As more winter visitors are attracted to Town, this will most likely change the picture of seasonal worker needs among businesses in Avon in the future. Ownership Units As summarized in the table below, residents with housing problems and in -commuters that may prefer to live in Avon if suitable and affordable housing was available need between 301 and 502 ownership units priced between about $137, to $320,000 for a 3 -person household in Avon (e.g., the average size of Avon households)', This figure takes into account the current number of housing units available on the MLS as well as deed -restricted development that has occurred since the 2000 Census that would be affordable to these households. Realtors indicated that units priced up to $400,000 were in demand from locals and are generally not available, which would result in additional units needed for catch-up purposes. Keep -up needs would require another 92 units by 2010 in this price range and 96 by 2015. More specifically: • Ownershio units oriced between $137.000 and $170.000 (3 -person 60 to 80% AMI households). The current level of production and availability of units within this price category is below the current needs of residents and in -commuters (34 to 59 units). Keep -up will need to produce about 10 units by 2010 and another 10 units by 2015 to meet new employee household needs. These households represent the entry-level ownership market. Ownership units oriced between $170.000 and $230.000 f3 -person 80 to 100% AMI households). This group shows the second largest gap in needs compared to supply, where catch-up programs will be needed to meet resident and in -commuter needs of between 91 and 158 units depending on whether needs of 25 percent or 50 percent of in -commuters are addressed. Keep -up will need to produce an average of about 30 units by 2010 and another 30 by 2015 to meet new employee household demand (or about 6 units per year on average). These households also represent the entry-level ownership market. Ownership units priced between $230.000 and $275.000 f3 -person 100 to 120% AMI households). This represents the largest gap in housing compared to resident and in -commuter needs. Compared to existing supply, there is a deficit of between about 120 to 194 catch-up units for households in this AMI range. Keep -up needs represent another 34 units by 2010 and about 35 units by 2015 (or about 7 units per year). These households include both entry-level owners and potentially some move -up owners that presently own homes, but are looking for a larger or different home to accommodate changing life circumstances (growing families, etc.). • Ownership units priced between $275.000 and $320.000 13-nerson 120 to 140% AMI households). Interviews with realtors exposed that they have noticed a gap in the market for units for locals priced generally below $400,000. Comparing housing needs of the higher income households to market provision of units indicates a gap in supply of units in this range — equating to a minimum of about 60 to 95 units of catch-up. It is expected that resident owner households looking to purchase a different home would create additional resident need for this product beyond that shown in the below table. Keep -up needs would require another 16 units by 2010 and A 3 -person household would need a two -to three-bedroom home (assuming no more than 1.5 persons per bedroom to avoid overcrowding), with option for some 4 -bedroom units in comparison, a 1 -person household earning between 60 and 140%AMI could afford homes priced between about $100,000 to $250,000 (would include 1 -and 2 -bedroom units) and a 2 -person household earning between 60 and 140% AMI could afford homes priced between about $120,000 to $285,000 (range of 1, 2- and some 3 -bedroom units). RRC Associates, Inc. Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 17 units by 2015 to maintain pace with employee household growth over the next decade. This income group largely represents move -up owners. Provision of housing for the higher AMI ranges should be explored, particularly if entry-level home purchase opportunities increase in Town, given that purchasers of entry-level homes largely comprise the future market for larger, more expensive units. These units will also accommodate needs of new employees recruited to fill higher -paying positions (upper management, etc.) that may have owned a home in their previous community and are looking for comparable housing in Avon. RRC Associates, Inc 16 D t- F o O n i o 0 E9 rn m E o 'c m a v . o m co c+� chi E E ui w o v Vi v X a L 00 E— Q E4 U 0 N D L 2 c p o aE�9 L c Eby;) h a W c0 .� Q LU E d ✓y1 yn fG e m p} K W 9 cii 1 p G d N ro� W a C � � U N ca Elml V 1 > paa H o� Q W � N [_ C pWN, F o O n i o 0 E9 rn m GQ m vie, egi- `O o w' OO .-Ip 12 .9 E G y g y ui C1 44TT oi 00 E— Q E4 U 0 N D L 2 c p o aE�9 L Sw O U L� NQS Si QQ n' ry fG e m p} K W 9 1 p G d N ro� W a C � � U ca Elml V 1 > paa H o� Q W O n i o 0 O GQ L vie, egi- `O o w' OO .-Ip 12 .9 E G y g y ui 44TT oi 00 E— Q g y p o p 'r w rn QQ d{ Si QQ n' w ca H pG �Q y O l0 a} pWN, a i M Z z Z N O J ad u E .✓ " Epp d moo-' y � y O 'y6 C7+, N N N d N Op yN L Y1 m z z c� o $_ O z Z z > > Z C O O Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Next Steps The Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment identifies the range of housing needed by current and future residents and employees in the Town of Avon that is currently not being supplied by the housing market. This includes catch-up gaps (or current units that would be needed to help relieve cost -burden and provide more housing options for local residents and current in -commuters) and keep -up gaps (or units that would be needed in the future to accommodate new employees needed to fill new jobs in the Town of Avon). Ideally, the Town of Avon would be able to address resident and employee needs in full; however, in actuality, due to limited financial resources, land capacity and other factors, communities must often identify a segment of the households in need to target with housing programs until additional resources can be acquired to broaden housing programs and availability. In other words, the Town of Avon should evaluate their resident and employee housing needs in conjunction with the opportunities and constraints in the Town, and set priorities and goals for local housing programs. This would include: Goal/Priority Settinq. As the Town of Avon continues to develop and land becomes less available, it becomes increasingly more important to ensure that this growth accommodates all segments of the population. This has important considerations with respect to any desired resident housing goals in the area. The relationship between commercial development and local resident housing for workers becomes a more critical part of the equation as available land and capacities decline. The extent to which employee housing is a priority in the Town of Avon needs to be determined, as well as identification of potential locations for that housing, households to target and workable programs to produce housing. Some key measures that many communities consider in setting goals include: o Residential occupancy - as of the 2000 Census, about 26 percent of housing units in Avon were owned by second homeowners and used for vacation units. Is this an acceptable mix of resident - occupied units compared to vacation units or should a different mix be the target? How does this compare with recent/new development in Town - is the market developing units such that 74 percent will be occupied by locals? Residential Occupancy Vacation homesl vacant 260/6 Owner -occupied ' 36% ' z , Renter -occupied 39% Source: 2000 Census c Employee residency - as of the 2000 Census, about 29 percent of persons employed in the Town of Avon also lived in the Town of Avon. As of 2006, this means that about 1,240 local employees live in town and 3,100 commute into town for work. Is this an appropriate percentage of workers housed in Avon. or should goals target a different percentage? o Income distribution - presently about 28 percent of Avon residents earn less than 80 percent of the AMI, 26 percent between 80 and 140 percent AMI and 20 percent earn over 140 percent AMI. RRC Associates, Inc. 12 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 What is the desirable mix of incomes and unit occupancy that Town housing programs should strive to achieve? Income Distribution 140A % or more 20% Vacation homeowners/ visitors 26% 80 to 140% AMI 26% +a <80% AMI 28% Source: 2000 Census By knowing how much housing is needed and which segments to target, the Town can identify the mix of programs that can produce the type of housing needed and in sufficient volume to meet Town goals. In setting goals, it is important not to focus on one need over the long term at the exclusion of other housing needs. Although this can be done in the near term to ensure some successes of implementation and broaden resources in the community, long-term goals should be focused on targeting all housing needs. The goal of any housing program should be to provide a range of housing in the community that is affordable and likely to be sought out by households in different income groups and at different life stages. Targeting programs across a wide range of affordability levels and housing needs will ensure that residents have a selection of housing to meet their requirements at different stages of their life (entering the workforce, starting a family, refining, etc.), thus supporting an economically and demographically balanced community. Plan For Residential GrowthlDemand. About 3,400 jobs are projected to be added in Avon by 20152. With the addition of the Gondola and associated increased focus on resort -side development and tourism, many of these jobs will likely be related to the lower and mid -wage range industries, including retail, lodging and service industries. These jobs will create additional demand for affordable rental and entry -levet buyer housing over the next ten years; whereas the convenient ski access is expected to increase second homeowner interest and speculation, It will be important for the Town to plan for, encourage and support more affordable housing development as a result of this demand. Inventory Resources. In conjunction with the above, the Town of Avon also needs to take inventory of their existing land, funds available, redevelopment areas/ opportunities, current planned growth and desired future direction for growth to determine existing and desired opportunities for locating new housing to be produced through programs. The Town also needs to explore the range of program opportunities and options available to them, including which programs the Town itself can implement as well as partnership opportunities with the private market, nonprofits and other public agencies. A complete inventory of available resources coupled with different housing programs is important to understand which type of programs will be most effective in providing housing for the area and to ensure housing for residents is planned as an essential part of the growth of the community. 2 Source: Department of Local Affairs (DOLA): US Census Bureau ZIP Code Business Patterns; RRC Associates, Inc. RRC Associates, Inc. 13 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2006 Program Opportunities and Recommendations Several program options are available to help address housing needs. The below housing program matrix is intended to summarize a range of alternatives for consideration by the Town of Avon and provides a definition/description for each program, potential funding sources where applicable and opportunities and constraints for the Town to consider for each program. The matrix may not be fully inclusive of programs in Eagle County and it is encouraged that Town do additional research on local availability of other programs (e.g,, through local non -profits, Eagle County Housing Department, etc.). At a minimum, we recommend that the Town consider the following: Permanently Affordable Ownership Units. We recommend any affordable units created be "permanently affordable" particularly in light of recent surges in housing prices, the Gondola development and other projects that will increase the "skimside" attractiveness of Avon to o4of-area buyers and result in continued escalation of prices beyond local affordability and the limited land capacity in the Avon area for housing development. The advantage to this product is that it offers units at below market prices for income -qualified (and often employment -qualified) buyers, allowing them to purchase homes that would not normally be available to them in the free-market. The trade-off is that appreciation of these homes is limited to ensure permanent affordability upon turnover of the unit to a new qualified buyer, thereby creating a supply of permanently affordable ownership units in the Town. Units produced as permanently affordable should, therefore, target price points not available on the free market in Avon, which generally includes ownership units suitable for year-round occupancy for locals (singles, couples, families and seniors) priced under about $350,000 to $400,000. In line with permanently affordable units, it is recommended that the Town adopt and implement standard deed - restriction language that will maintain affordability of units over time. By using consistent language and requirements, this will simplify implementation and management of the deed restrictions as well as improve public understanding of the program (e.g. if different units have different qualification steps and requirements, this can be difficult and frustrating for the public and add to confusion over the program). • Zoning. Evaluate areas where higher densities would be appropriate. This would include areas that could support multi -family and/or small lot single-family housing. Consider mixed-use zoning that would support both residential and non-residential development. Consider PUD ordinances that allow flexibility in densities and lot requirements (lot size, setbacks, etc.), particularly for developments proposing some locally affordable units. Consider regulations that require contributions to (or development of) affordable housing as a component of the development (inclusionary zoning, impact fees, commercial linkage, etc.). The mitigation rates and program requirements of inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage will vary depending upon Town goals for meeting housing needs, target price points for housing, the development capacity of the Town (e.g., new subdivisions or primarily redevelopment and changes of use) and Town goals with respect to "balancing" commercial and residential development. • Land Banking: Identify key sites for future housing development that are either currently publicly owned or that could/should be purchased for future housing development. Develop workable designs for future housing projects on these properties when needed. This approach permits incorporation of affordable housing into community development plans, but often requires continued public education about intended development plans and uses for sites. Land banking works well in combination with partnership opportunities to provide housing. Partnerships. Encourage public/private partnerships as a means to achieve identified housing goals. Through such partnerships, housing that is more affordable can be achieved with enhanced financing options, assuring that a portion of the housing that is created will be affordable and provided to residents of Avon. In other words, units can be introduced into the area that will retain affordability over time without on-going financial resources. RRC Associates, Inc . 14 Town of Avon Housing Needs Assessment 2008 The Eagle County Housing Department can also be a significant resource in broadening financing capabilities and researching housing opportunities. • Rentals. Low-income rentals (priced for households eaming less than 50 percent AMI) are in short supply for Avon residents and employees. The Town can encourage developers to pursue tax credit and other options for low-income rentals through expedited application processes, assistance with state agency applications for grants/funding and deferred fees, for example. Mixed -income developments will mitigate the perception of Iow- income" housing projects and will increase options for low-income residents. RRC Associates, Inc 15 Memorandum Design Workshop. Inc. Landscape Architecture Land Planning To: Planning and Zoning Commission Urban Design Strategic services Via: Eric Heidemann From: Rebecca Leonard Date: February 26. 2007 Project Name: Avon East Town Center Project #: 3928 Subject: Post Open House Meeting Approval of the Preferred Alternative Prior to Open House: In July 2006, DW held a five-day charrette in the Council Chambers that involved three days of stakeholder meetings, a public workshop, development of four conceptual plans for the district, and a community open house on the final evening. In November, DW presented the preliminary results of a market investigation and asked for direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission on a series of plan elements to include in a refined alternate for the open house. Open House Presentation: The refined alternative for the redevelopment of East Town Center was presented at the January 25, 2007 Open House. The meeting was well attended by the representatives of critical properties. Twenty-nine people signed in. Boards with the existing and proposed conditions were on display regarding the following topics: 1. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation 2. Parking 3. Retail Uses 4. Views 5. Built Form 6, Centers 7. Character 8. Land Uses 9. Implementation 10. Charrette Alternatives Response: The general tone of the meeting was of support for the preferred alternative and moving forward with redevelopment. DESIGNWORKSH0P Asheville • Aspen • Denver • Park City • Phoenix • Santa Fe • Tahoe • Sao Paulo 120 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (tel) 970-925-8354 • (fax) 970-920-1387 www. des ignworkshop.com C.\Documents and Settings\mpielsticker\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Ides\OLK58\072302_ Post Open House Memo doc • Seven comment cards were returned that night • Five letters/emails were received after the meeting • All but one response is in support of the redevelopment of Avon East Town Center • The letter that does not provide support for the plan states that it is because the proposed plan changes virtually every part of developer's current plans Attendees were asked to provide feedback on the strengths and weakness of the preferred alternative and additional comments. Included in your packet is a summary of all comments received. Action Needed: DW is seeking direction on a "Preferred Alternative". This direction could include either: • Support of the preferred alternative • Support of the preferred alternative with modification • No support and future steps Page 2 Avon East Town Center January 25, 2007 Written Comments Received 29 people signed -in 7 comment Cards returned that night 5 letters/emails received after the meeting All but one response in support of the redevelopment of Avon East Town Center 1 letter not in support (changes virtually every part of developer's current plans) Name (optional): Pedro Campos Val Wolfe • Anthony Cassar and Gerrard Mifsud- Beaver Benchmark LLC Orion Development- Pedro Campos VAG Chris Juergens, VMDA (Boat Building) John W. Lundeen III- Chapel Square Ventures L.P. Chris Neurswanger- Macro Financial Group 2. Strengths: Like the low building heights Would increase attractiveness of retail and visits to Avon Creation of a central 'town square' open space with underground parking Creates a better sense of place in East Avon, Warm Feel, Inviting, More prideful environmentally, Pretty everywhere Builds a framework that doesn't exist and eliminates fields of surface parking Promotes walking and public transportation Straightening Benchmark Road into a pedestrian friendly main street with on -street parking Turn movement increased at Avon Road and Benchmark Road Roundabout Facilitates the Main Street extension Anything is better than how it is... I like it! 3. Weaknesses: Representations of buildings may limit the development potential of the property. Currently the shape, mass and height appear to suggest a reduction in existing entitlements under Town center zoning. The representations should show the maximum use -by right. • DW shows building shapes in plans simply to illustrate potential. The shapes of buildings could change provided they continue to show a strong retail frontage, pedestrian accessibility, protection of sun pockets on pedestrian areas, and view protection. Once other restrictions such as parking and lot coverage are considered, DW believes the plan does not show a reduction in entitlements. View corridor along Avon Road is maintained but seems under-utilized • DW has shown development in the Town's right of way to the extent of current roads. Additional development in the Town's right of way would be a policy direction from the Town. Not enough centralized parking areas, facilities The central parking structure (under the plaza) would allow for 120 with one level underground or 240 spaces with two levels of underground parking. On-street parking around the plaza equals 82 spaces. (The current surface parking lot has 240 spaces) DW feels that 320 centralized spaces is a substantial commitment to parking. • De-centralized parking needs "public' parking tower/ facilities to ease frustrations for open opportunities • DW supports a strong wayfinding and signage plan for the entire Town Center to ensure that all parking facilities are easily located. Current Retail tenants (Sports Authority, Office Depot etc.) may not be responsive to underground parking • Due to increased urban residential uses and scarce urban land, franchise stores are adjusting to underground parking scenarios. Would prefer "perimeter only" traffic • DW believes that some level of traffic through the retail areas is important to the viability of the retail spaces. Automobile circulation: Current plan does not fix the problem of unclear network. It is unclear which road is the main street. There should be a road through the District that does not require turning movements East Beaver Creek Boulevard does not require turning movements. Long leases does not allow for easy relocation of tenants This is a long-term plan, which means the Town can be patient with development. If the Town wishes to speed along portions of the implementation, there are several tools at their disposal. Regulatory and economic incentives as well as partnership potential. • Need a more definitive phasing plan to mitigate construction impacts DW will refine the phasing plan based on specific feedback from landowners. As this is a long-term plan, detailed phasing strategies will be out of date quickly. It is a huge project with a long time frame that requires a lot of cooperation • DW believes that this is the best way to make a well-built Town Center that meets everyone's needs! 4. Additional Comments: • Jobs and housing need to be balanced DW believes that this should be a consideration in the planning policies of the East Town Center District Plan. • Town of Avon owns a very viable portion of land west of Christy Sports. A portion of this land should be used to create some affordable housing - work with developer and maintain views • DW believes that there maybe an opportunity to provide some affordable housing on this Town -owned property, but the quality of the living environment, protection of views, and other design principles should be met. • Please do everything to provide more not less parking The parking numbers shown by DW are a worst-case scenario as some underground structures will likely be larger than shown. ' • Enlarge the area for underground parking to the parcel line and beyond DW believes that there is incentive to do this. • A traffic study should be conducted to determine the future traffic impacts of the design Traffic studies were done during the Village at Avon development approvals process. These numbers were used to determine the through traffic. • Plaza Way may be closed upon redevelopment • Has there been an analysis of current TC zoning against proposed? • Yes. A rough analysis of the current TC zoning allows for 30 DU per acre, 80 foot height limits, and 50% lot coverage. Parking requirements and other restrictions further limit development potential. • Petite "affordable" retail spaces for "start-up" business? (craft shops, bakeries, limited specialty foods)- to make Avon "different' The market investigation illustrates that there is a large volume of small stores in the upper Eagle Valley. This plan calls for a mix of small and mid-size retailers to allow for more diversity of uses. In addition, DW believes that encouraging condominiumized retail spaces will keep the space more affordable and appealing to small shop owners. • Pre-teen/ early teen activity area/s? DW would encourage uses that help entertain the youth in the community. • Can bridges occur across Main Street? North side as tower to support south side lower development DW believes a bridge across Main Street would obstruct the view to the plaza space from Avon Road. • Reuse materials and build new buildings with energy efficient and renewable energy to stop image of wastefulness associated with tearing down an existing town and building anew. • DW believes this would be a good principle to include in the East Town Center District Plan. • Must show compelling reasons to make landowners comply with redevelopment • DW believes that the plan, in concert with the rising market in the area, offers adequate reason to redevelop in time. • Economic incentives are needed for property owners to pay for improvements DW believes that providing on-street parking for retail, relaxing parking requirements for developers, allowing variances to lot coverage restrictions, and providing certainty in development approvals processes are economic incentives to developers. Any additional economic incentive would be on a case-by-case basis. • We need a fall-back position for the realigned "Main Street' • DW recommends showing potential phasing pians and having alternatives to the straight Main Street in the draft plan. • How can we make the plaza happen from a phasing standpoint? DW recommends that surrounding properties redevelop first to allow new space for tenants to move. DW also recommends phasing the building construction first (including underground parking, circulation, and access), before or while the plaza is developed. This would allow for the Town and landowner to renegotiate parking arrangements. i. M r� ) � \ ) � 0 / 7)± f§() ] a)>f co \\\\\\ !§}$\\ \\\\\\ J�32g; (di36§§ \\\\\\\ � 0 0 LI���1L .! 0 r! `o .V d 'moi c G G J v � Ev Uv V L b V � lV! b 0 N y u h ` V � G U h C ! y U eL u C w i pU-a—" pC r. O U w G Q v L u .; n2 � �C O 7VL a. � .'. ; v vis I y= aC G L y uv V r! `o .V d 'moi c G G J v � Ev Uv V L b V � lV! b 0 N y u h ` V � G U h C ! y U eL u C w i pU-a—" pC r. O U w G Q | am ON 6. L E O C ?] o C C C F9 ll'"'' 3 0.l '• � G. i f° k A u � qA C ` :u biD a � o u E ulg v au v •L+ � i 1 y c U i -; � •� L^ 2 F O G' S 9 G G� .-. G O G. C Is] ..O C.i Q 3 p' �.•1i ON z .N ■ i i ■ % d - ! ! ] ) \ ! } )/ ) � � 0 li id p s G 2 •.Vyi � �.. 4 y .y N ,� •� E C ��+ U u G R �+ 7 � �• p y a� . Y' L N � Y .. G ^ 'b tt :C •� w s' 'i. L c o cq � N O� ti y ♦+ Q td = t � fr � � _ v ,p o f y tO� .6D kto �o.. 0 C _ 6 2C ~ iH x < r�_ 3 Z Gb 'ti �r � 3 �. � u A aG'• � F g � � «. - J c °. a w° -� o q C $ °' Leos — 3� c,'� ' v u _� 7_ '� u y y c -'o c o• v E ° 2 `° k q y •w cn o -o c' � v v �, � �, 3 F° •'y = c G c � � 'II etl C E= c m � a b c o � � o, � > � .R uj � av+ 3 ,�.� .c N y _ •LU ro q O itl � •17 ❑ v � L 'O a J J � *�/ LI w ap ci L �iK. ' '� (Uy' O G pG � O ifuiyEy L• C 'a• y" ,_ C i ° 'o °' c s v m v = b 7 ,= :� •fir+ � � v C m y o u J u C u o . O W ^ bA C � ❑ ❑ o � .e � c m o. — v. O C r •OA � y F ac c > u s W ,� u � r ^ `u -9 S m � •C � u T cc L �+ U ryj � t; E fd ,�. 04U N y _ '� (Uy' O G pG � O ifuiyEy L• C •jyr .[ ,_ — y v = � 'd 7 ,= :� •fir+ v C m y o u J u C w Q u a z h I E E 9_ � u _ Po n 'o V 9 3 g O r x 4ZL,= v 59 W I K w. •M 70 � � b "0 � 0➢ .. � R _y L a, u a U oj V 0 C G O wE .uj . . r. 424 W�W ) f\ n N » & \ G m N � a I I ME :C 0 a� 1 _ i f� I I ME :C 0 a� GENERAL COMMENTS: r r ---This is a vital legislative consideration ---Our considerations must be careful, encompassing and driven by values and vision ---We should not confine'our objective narrowly to low income workers , ---We should not frame this legislation to relieve the private sector of their obligations , c _ " ' • ' • ---We should not delude ourselves into believing that this is an economic development program. Our economy is bi-modal consisting of resorts and second - homes and the low -waged jobs that they create. Our small successful middleclass is being squeezed out of our community. If we do nothing to guide the community the economy will simply get bigger but it will not get better. ---Just what is this legislation?:It is a tool that strategically guides the evolution of'... Avon In a way that is consistent with our adopted vision and based on our stated values. It is a community planning and development tool. ; --.This tool of inclusionary zoning must be designed to respect and protect current land -use entitlements while guiding housing development over and above these rights. „s:• i;, ---Staff has opened this legislative process with what we have heard today. I have . some specific, perhaps aggressive, comments. -,_ - '}.' r•.I h .. . _ !, nil X1.5 .. F COMMENTS ON "WORKFORCE HOUSING REGULATIONS" TITLE: Overly constraining and evokes a negative connotation of a.government subsidized low-income housing effort.."IndusionaryHousing Regulations"i encompasses the strategic visionand emphasizes a broader community planning objective. All wording should strike the use of workforce and be replaced by phrasing conveying inclusionary, strategic, diverse and balanced'housing distributions by location', size, type and price -points to support achievement of our vision and consistent with our values. I • . • .. I :11. .. AREA: Definition required;, is it TOA or the Eagle River Region which is our, interrelated area of jobs and housing? The draft legislation calculation of payment -'in - lieu uses Eagle County data.,, I h:,, •,1..;, • FAMILY: Definition required; is it the average family or the median sized family? MITIGATION %: If it is accepted that the purpose of this inclusionary zoning is to be a strategic community planning tool a minimum % should be established with an upside of 100% of the:up-zoning being"inclusionary." Based on Eagle County work the minimum should.be 30% of the total project. ' * r:: • . UNIT PRICE: (1).Statement is incorrectly phrased: Unit is not"priced at 80% AMI" it should be "priced to be affordable by X earning 80% of the AMI." Again, Area is a definition requiring definition and justification; "X" also requires reasoning and definition as a family to be targeted. As stated below, 100% AMI is a better target. (2) Since this legislation is a strategic community planning effort, impacts and buy-outs and impact -fee type calculations are based on averages of averages and medians of data, the target here should be a median/average family earning 100% of the AMI. (3) Suggest that you introduce the concept of "directed development" meaning the distribution of units determined to be needed by TOA and consistent with the character, location, and type of project that is "directed" to be built such that the actual aggregate sales cost equals the calculated aggregate sales cost of the Inclusionary housing obligation. See comments below on defining the target unit. ON-SITE/OFF-SITE; (1) Off-site construction and payment -in -lieu should be more strongly discouraged by changing the language to: Off-site. construction and payment -in -lieu are highly undesirable. Consistent with effective land use and community planning, the Town of Avon may consider alternatives of partial off-site provision of units and/or payment -in -lieu." • (2) Percentages and penalties are too low and do not escalate aggressively enough. F ` PAYMENT -IN -LIEU: This calculation has many deeply Important aspects that will require logic and justification. The method proposed in the draft legislation Is based on a nexus and proportionality study for whatever the "region" is defined to be. You used County data. The opening of this document incorrectly states that a new study is not needed; the nexus and proportionality linkages used come from the County study ... which may or may not include Avon. The housing unit (size, type, price) from which the affordability gap is calculated must have a strong, rational and effective basis of justification and demonstration of livability/adequacy. RF!STRICTIONS: (1) Maximum sales price range should encompass up to 200% AMI so that we can use this as•a community planning tool. (2) If a Regional Housing Authority is created it can take on the qualifying responsibility for all'communitles. (3) Real estate commissions must be addressed. Our housing authority or a regional one should become qualified as a broker and do marketing and sales at an "at cost" basis and not the usually 6% of selling price. This will minimizer cost escalation with every resale. (4) Appreciation caps should be more extensively explored. Are they really necessary if ownership is tightly constrained to waged individuals, or linked to regional wage increases? (5) Capital improvements should be allowed up to the actual value for - - defined, pre -qualified and approved work. (6) Rather than hours employed it is better to use as a qualifier of the percentage of income that is earned and earned in the Region. For example to qualify a person/family total reported income must consist of at least 90% earned income (as opposed to investment, etc.) and of that at least 95% must have been earned in the area/region and this must be the case in the preceding 5 or• more years if the purchaser is a retiree., • 1 (7) Net asset caps may not be a good idea when you consider a family moving up the housing chain. If they own a restricted unit exceeding the cap they will not be able to sell and buy another unit. Since we are community building more than we are providing low income housing, the entire idea of an equity cap'does not seem to be good or needed. . RCW 3/4/07