Loading...
PZC Packet 0702191 Agenda posted on Friday, June 28, 2019 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: -Avon Municipal Building, Avon Recreation Center, Avon Public Library, Town of Avon Website www.avon.org Please call 970-748-4023 for questions. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda Tuesday, July 2, 2019 100 Mikaela Way – Avon Municipal Building If you require special accommodation, please contact us in advance and we will assist you. You may call David McWilliams at 970- 748-4023 or email cmcwilliams@avon.org for special requests. I. Call to Order – 5:00pm II. Roll Call III. Conflicts of Interest IV. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda V. Code Text Amendment – PUBLIC HEARING File: CTA19002 Applicant: Town of Avon Properties: Light Industrial and Commercial Employment (IC) District Lots 10 – 39 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek; and Tract Y Filing 3 Mountain Star Subdivision 80-451 Metcalf Road; and 710-850 Nottingham Road Summary: Code Modification allow for residential development at 10 units per acre in the IC district under the Special Review Use process. VI. Consent Agenda A – PZC Meeting Minutes – June 18, 2019 B – Record of Decision – Major Subdivision SUB19006 / Riverfront Subdivision VII. Other Business MNR19008: Roof and Solar Panel application for Lot111C Block 1 Wildridge, 2011 Beaver Creek Point. Staff initially noticed the application for public hearing, and approved the application once substantial compliance with Avon Municipal Code was achieved. TMP19002/TMP19003: Bank Parking for Boy Scout Troops on July 3 VIII. Adjourn PZC Record of Decision: #SUB19006 Page 1 of 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: June 18, 2019 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Major Subdivision (Preliminary and Final combined) PROPERTY LOCATION: Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision FILE NUMBER: SUB19006 APPLICANT: CRP/EWP Riverfront Avon Owner I, LLC – Jim Telling This Record of Decision is made in accordance with the Avon Development Code (“Development Code”) §7.16.080(c): DECISION: Approval of the development plan with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: 1. The application is complete; 2. The application provides enough information to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in Code Section 7.16.020; 4. The PZC held a public hearing on June 18, 2019, after providing necessary public notification in accordance with the Code; 5. The review criteria in Code Sections 7.16.070(e) and 7.16.070(f) were reviewed and substantial compliance with the criteria was found; 6. The application complies with the stated purposes of the Development Code. THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED: BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson 1 PZC Minutes – June 18, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 18, 2019 I. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:03 pm. II. Roll Call – All commissioners were present except Commissioner Howell. III. Conflicts of Interest – No conflicts of interest were disclosed. IV. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda – There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. V. Major Subdivision – PUBLIC HEARING File: SUB19006 Applicant: Jim Telling Property: Lot 5, Riverfront Subdivision Owner: CRP/EWP Riverfront Avon Owner I, LLC Summary: Jim Telling presented the Preliminary and Final Plat (combined review) application for resubdivision of Lot 5, creating 13 residential lots and 4 tracts within the Riverfront Subdivision. The plat also creates a common driveway named Waterfront Way. Action: Commissioner Golembiewski motioned to approve the application with the following findings and conditions: Findings: 1. The application is complete; 2. The application provides enough information to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 3. The application was reviewed in accordance with the general procedures outlined in Code Section 7.16.020; 4. The PZC held a public hearing on June 18, 2019, after providing necessary public notification in accordance with the Code; 5. The review criteria in Code Sections 7.16.070(e) and 7.16.070(f) were reviewed and substantial compliance with the criteria was found; 6. The application complies with the stated purposes of the Development Code. Condition: 1. Final review of technical correctness of the drawings is required before recording. Commissioner Barnes seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0. VI. Work Session – Housing in IC Zone District Action: Staff presented a proposal for including residential development as a Special Review Use in the Light Industrial and Commercial Employment District. Staff solicited answers to various questions for guidance. VII. Consent Agenda A – PZC Meeting Minutes: June 4, 2018 Meeting Minutes B – Record of Decision: Variance VAR19001 / 2011 Beaver Creek Point C – Record of Decision: Temporary Use TMP19001 / Filing 3, Village at Avon Action: Commissioner Nusbaum motioned to approve the meeting minutes. Commissioner Dammeyer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. Other Business - Staff mentioned that the Nottingham Park landscape plan will be coming to PZC soon. 2 PZC Minutes – June 18, 2019 IX. Adjourn – The meeting was adjourned at 6:33 pm. Approved this 2nd Day of July 2019 SIGNED: ___________________________________________ Chairperson July 2 , 2019 Code Text Amendment Public Hearing To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: David McWilliams, Town Planner Meeting Date: July 2 , 2019 Topic: PUBLIC HEARING Code Text Amendment – Community Housing in the IC Zone District INTRODUCTION Staff held a PZC work session on June 18, where staff dove into a Code Text Amendment (CTA) for the Light Industrial and Commercial Employment District (IC) to potentially provide more Community Housing* in the area. Town Council tasked the Community Development department with initiating the CTA process to determine the best way to affect that. In front of PZC is a proposed CTA and some further clarifying information relating to a code change. *Community Housing means residential housing which is subject to a deed restriction that limits use to long-term residential use as a primary residence by qualified persons and which deed restriction may impose other restrictions and limitation and may include terms deemed appropriate in the Town’s discretion, including but not limited to controls on the resale price of such residential property, and which deed restriction is enforceable by the Town. District Height Requirements Building height (limited at 48 feet) has not been the limiting factor to development in the area and only 1/3 of the buildings are even three (3) stories tall. Perhaps the most visually formidable building is the Metcalf Commercial Park at 281 Metcalf Road, which is located on a slope above the road, and approaches the height limit. More buildings of this size would not overpower the surroundings or limit views. Staff feels the height limit is appropriate for the zone district, and encourages more development that approaches the limit. All- residential development is proposed to be allowed at 38 feet, to perhaps limit the pressure on the district. Setbacks Some of the smaller parcels in the zone district have nonconforming setbacks and are built too close to the road. Many of these are old structures. Further up Metcalf, the lots are larger, and the buildings are up to 90 feet away from the right of way, well past the 25-foot setback. This speaks to another issue in the area: a lack of parking. While the lots are large, they abut steep hillsides and the amount of development is limited. Staff warns that redevelopment may be hindered by enforcement of the current setbacks on smaller lots with old development, and on larger lots, redevelopment is limited by steep terrain. Any change in the use types of the district needs to grapple with these fundamental limitations. The Special Review Use process will enable the July 2 , 2019 Code Text Amendment Public Hearing Planning and Zoning Commission the ability to weigh these limitations against the benefit of increased Community Housing potential. Residential Density In the work session, staff proposed a density of 7.5 units per acre as a potentially appropriate density in the district. Staff used the zoning (Residential-Low Density) from the Nottingham Road area to inform the potential density in the IC district. Staff found that the as-built density is closer to 10 units per acre along Nottingham and decided that this density may be more appropriate for the zone district. Using this logic to produce the right density in the district may not be the right strategy. The four (4) undeveloped properties within the zone district all have severe limitations on potential development. The proposal of allowing 10 dwelling units per acre may still not be enough incentive to overcome these barriers. It is possible that property owners would still need to apply for rezoning (i.e. to Residential High Density) to accomplish a viable project on their lots. Staff suggests a debate as to whether the additional SRU criteria limit the sites available so much that the density (and height) limitation can be altered or eliminated without suffering the consequences of “flipping” the zone district to all residential. Fiscal Impact Staff estimates that approximately $208,000, or 2.5% of the town’s overall sales tax collection in a given year, is collected in the IC zone district. Staff did not estimate the impact of the 2% transfer tax collected by the town as a way to recoup some of the potential losses because the units would be deed restricted and therefore exempt from the transfer tax. Amending the Comprehensive Plan or other parts of Avon Municipal Code While there are possible underlying discrepancies within the foundational documents as noted in the June 18 work session memo (attached), staff is only preparing an update to the IC zone district purpose statement in this process. Increased ADUs allowed in the IC District Staff proposes that the 4 ADUs currently allowed in the IC District be a staff-reviewed plan, and that an additional 4 ADUs are allowed on a given parcel, subject to the SRU process. This may achieve the purpose statement of this CTA, found in the work session memo. The updated ADU language requires ADUs in the IC district to be deed restricted Community Housing. CTA LANGUAGE [redline represents new or deleted text] 7.20.080- Mixed-use and commercial districts purpose statements. (g) Light Industrial and Commercial (IC). This district is intended to provide for a variety of businesses, including warehouses, research and development firms, repair shops, wholesale distributors, light manufacturing, and housing where appropriate. This district may include supporting office and commercial uses where appropriate. Uses permitted in this district are intended to serve community and regional needs. This district is intended to be located away from low and medium density inappropriate residential development. The IC district implements the light industrial commercial and employment classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located along an arterial roadway. July 2 , 2019 Code Text Amendment Public Hearing Table 7.20-13 Dimensions for the Light Industrial and Commercial Employment District USE TYPE Min. Lot Size (acres or sq. ft.) Min. Lot Width (feet) Max. Lot Coverage (%) Min. Landscape Area (%) Min. Front Setback (feet) Min. Side Setback (feet) Min. Rear Setback (feet) Max. Building Height (feet) Max. Density Residential Normal IC 21,780 sq. ft. 100 50 20 25 7.5 10 48 48 accessory units [12] Mixed- Use[1] IC 21,780 sq. ft. 100 50 20 25 7.5 10 48 10 du/acre [2] All Residential 21,780 sq. ft. 100 50 20 25 7.5 10 48 10 du/acre [2] [1] Accessory dwelling units are permitted as a special review use pursuant to Section 7.16.100. At least 50% of the ground floor area is designated for commercial or industrial uses; or the first floor(s) of the development are devoted to commercial or industrial uses. [2] Residential densities above 4 units per property are permitted as a special review use pursuant to Section 7.16.100 and additional review criteria in Section 7.24.060(c). 7.24.040 - Table of allowed uses. Table 7.24-1 Allowed Uses Use Category Use Type P - Permitted Use S = Special Review Use Districts in GREY are retired and not available for rezoning. Use- Specific Regulation s Residential Nonresidential R D R L R M R H RH -C N C M C T C S C P P F IC OL D Residential Uses Househol d Living Dwelling, Single- Family Detached P P S Dwelling, Two- P P P S July 2 , 2019 Code Text Amendment Public Hearing Family/ Duplex Dwelling, Townhous e P P P P P P S Dwelling, Multi- Family P [1] P P P P P S S [2] [1] Limited to 8 units per building in RM [2] 7.24.060(c) Dwelling, live/ work S S S S S S P S Accessory DU S S S S P/ S [1] 7.24.070(e) [1] 4 units are allowed by right; up to 8 units per building are allowed by SRU 7.24.060 - Special review uses. (c) Residential uses in the IC zone district - Additional review criteria. The PZC shall use the following review criteria as the basis for decisions on applications for residential densities over four (4) units per property in the IC zone district: 1. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; 2. Whether the proposed development is justified by changed or changing conditions in the area proposed to be developed; 3. Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development of the type and scope suggested by the proposal compared to the existing use allowances, while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development; 4. That, compared to the existing zoning, the development is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; July 2 , 2019 Code Text Amendment Public Hearing 5. The fiscal loss associated with net loss in commercial space due to the proposal is mitigated by the community’s need for housing; 6. The property is underutilized or underdeveloped and would function better as Community Housing; 7. That all of the housing provided will be deed restricted as Community Housing. 8. Architecture that responds to the sensitive site conditions and raises the standard of design for the rest of Town are being provided; and 9. The application provides an appropriate environment for housing. 7.24.070 – Accessory Uses and Structures. (e)Additional Standards for Specific Accessory Uses and Structures. (1) Accessory Dwelling Units. An accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted as a Special Review Use subject to the following standards: (i) Districts Allowed. Accessory dwelling units shall be allowed as accessory uses to principal residential uses in the following districts: IC, PF, RL, RD and RM. (ii) Where Permitted on Lot. A permitted accessory dwelling unit shall comply with all applicable site and building design, access and other standards for principal uses dwelling units in the zoning district in which the accessory dwelling unit will be located. Accessory dwelling units may be a separate structure from the principal structure or be attached to and part of the principal structure. Recreational vehicles, travel trailers and any other wheeled or transportable structure shall not be used as accessory dwelling units. (iii) Requirements in the RL, RD and RM zone district: (A) Size of Accessory Dwelling Unit. No accessory dwelling unit shall exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the size of the habitable floor area of the principal unit or six hundred (600) square feet, whichever is less. An accessory dwelling unit shall contain private sanitary facilities with hot and cold running water and cooking and food storage facilities. (iv)(B) Limit on Number. There shall be no more than one (1) accessory dwelling unit on a lot in addition to the principal single-family dwelling. (v)(C) Off-Street Parking. At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each accessory dwelling unit. (iv) Requirements in the IC zone district: (A) All accessory dwelling units shall be deed restricted as Community Housing. (B) Off-Street Parking. Parking allocation is subject to Section 7.28.020. (C) Up to eight (8) accessory dwelling units are permitted on each lot. Four (4) units are permitted by-right and an additional four (4) units are permitted through the Special Review Use process. Code Text Amendment Review Criteria The review procedures for this application are governed by the Development Code. According to the AMC §7.16.040(c), Review Criteria, the PZC and Town Council shall use the following review criteria as the basis for recommendations and decisions on applications to amend the text of the Development Code: July 2 , 2019 Code Text Amendment Public Hearing (1) The text amendment promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the Avon community; (2) The text amendment promotes or implements the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; (3) The text amendment promotes or implements the purposes stated in this Development Code; or (4) The text amendment is necessary or desirable to respond to changed conditions, new planning concepts or other social or economic conditions. Staff Response: Staff worked hard to balance the proposal, so it responds to changed conditions while maintaining the general welfare of the Avon community by preserving the job base in the district. Goal B.5 in the Comprehensive Plan states: Encourage revitalization of existing light industrial and manufacturing uses. Policy B.5.1: Ensure infrastructure improvements include sidewalks, utilities, and controlled access from collector roads, like Nottingham Road. Policy B.5.2: Encourage effective screening of industrial uses from adjacent uses and vehicular access and circulation separate from public roads. Policy B.5.3: Review accessory residential uses in association with light industrial commercial development when compatible. The application balances reusing light industrial and manufacturing uses against the revitalization of the district by potentially allowing redevelopment in appropriate areas. The Community Housing Plan, as part of the Comprehensive Plan, states the following goals: • Achieve a diverse range of housing densities, styles, and types, including rental and for sale, to serve all segments of the population. • Focus on increasing deed restricted homeownership opportunities for households making equivalent of 140% or less of the Area Median Income - $430,000 for a household of three people in 2018. • Grow the inventory of homeownership and “missing middle” inventory, in place of additional rental housing stock, to create a more balanced portfolio with a long-term goal of 50% rental, 50% ownership. • Seek to add deed restricted units to the inventory in the short term. Select purposes of the Development Code state: (a) Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot areas; regulate and determine the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings; establish building lines and locations of buildings designed for specified industrial, commercial, residential and other uses within such areas; establish standards to which buildings or structures shall conform; establish standards for use of areas adjoining such buildings or structures; July 2 , 2019 Code Text Amendment Public Hearing (n) Achieve a diverse range of attainable housing which meets the housing needs created by jobs in the Town, provides a range of housing types and price points to serve a complete range of life stages and promotes a balanced, diverse and stable full time residential community which is balanced with the visitor economy; While different zone districts have allowances of mixed use, the IC zone district has stricter parameters limiting that mix than the others. For example, the Mixed-Use Commercial (MC) zone district allows for 100% commercial or 100% residential. Staff is not opposed to the addition of mixed use in this district but warns that eliminating IC uses is a worrying outcome of a more liberal approach to the CTA. No housing is affordable without a living wage and removing a jobs base from Town may produce that result. Therefore, this CTA takes a narrow approach at increasing housing in this zone district, which staff suggests is the right way to strike a balance between more housing units and preservation of existing jobs. AVAILABLE ACTIONS 1. Continue the Public Hearing pending additional information. 2. Approve Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council approve the application. 3. Approve a modified Findings of Fact and Record of Decision recommending that the Town Council deny the application. RECOMMENDED MOTION “I move to recommend that the Avon Town Council approve Case #CTA19002, an application to amend and update the Avon Municipal Code, with the findings and fact and record of recommendation attached as Attachment B to Staff’s report.” ATTACHMENTS A. June 18 PZC Work Session B. CTA 19002 Findings of Fact and Recommendation to Town Council LINKS Avon Comprehensive Plan: https://www.avon.org/DocumentCenter/View/83/Comprehensive-Plan?bidId= Avon Community Housing Plan http://www.avonrec.org/DocumentCenter/View/18728/Avon-Housing-Plan Attachment B PZC Recommendations: #CTA19002 Page 1 of 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL DATE OF DECISION: July 2, 2019 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Code Text Amendments PROPERTY LOCATION: Town of Avon FILE NUMBER: #CTA19002 APPLICANT: Town of Avon These recommendations are made in accordance with the Avon Development Code (“Development Code”) §7.16.040: DECISION: Recommendation to approve the Title 7: Development Code Text Amendments. FINDINGS: 1. The application is complete; 2. The application provides sufficient information to allow the reviewing authority to determine that the development application complies with the relevant review criteria; 3. The text amendments were reviewed with the criteria listed in Avon Municipal Code Section 7.16.040(c), Review Criteria, and are found to be in substantial compliance as outlined in the staff report for the July 2, 2019 public hearing; 4. The text amendments promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the Avon Community by allowing residential development in appropriate locations within the IC zone district; 5. The text amendments promote and implement the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan, specifically Goal B.5; 6. The text amendments implement the Avon Community Housing Plan by providing additional housing options in the IC zone district; 7. The text amendments promote and implement the purposes stated in the Development Code, including Section 7.04.030 (a) and (n), by promoting development of attainable housing in appropriate areas of the IC zone district; and 8. The text amendments are necessary and desirable to respond to changed conditions and new planning concepts. THESE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECORD OF DECISION ARE HEREBY APPROVED: BY:______________________________________ DATE: ___________________ PZC Chairperson Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 1 MEMO To: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Date: June 18, 2019 Prepared By: Agenda Topic: David McWilliams, AICP, Town Planner IC Zone District Work Session Introduction During the last PZC meeting, staff introduced the topic of a Code Text Amendment (CTA) for the Light Industrial and Commercial Employment District (IC) to potentially provide more *Community Housing in the area. Town Council had tasked the Community Development department with initiating the CTA process to determine the best way to affect that. In front of PZC is a collection of statics relating to a code change, ideas for the best outcome, and questions for further exploration. This work session will help staff to finalize language for this CTA process, and get ready for a public hearing in July. Background The IC zone district originated in 1974 as part of the Benchmark subdivision, before Avon was a town. Wildridge had yet to be conceived, so the district was isolated and at a dead-end. As Avon grew around it, the IC district developed and by 1999, all the current buildings had been completed. While the uses and businesses have come and gone, the district itself is best described as mature or fully developed, with few vacant lots remaining. Five (5) of the properties have Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) within them, for a total of 12 units. In various iterations of the municipal code, they seemed to be by-right; now they all are subject to the Special Review Use (SRU) process. Code allows up to four (4) ADUs per property, and two (2) are at that limit. In some senses this speaks to the amount of demand for commercial space and the inherent complexity of retrofitting existing buildings and combining the uses where various owners or tenants are already established. Staff is unaware of any covenants that prohibit housing in the area, but it would not be surprising if some properties had such provisions. Some of the properties were originally built with the unit(s), while others had commercial space retrofitted to allow for housing. One of the more recent buildings, the vet hospital, was planned and constructed with all four (4) units as the top floor of the project. *Community Housing means residential housing which is subject to a deed restriction that limits use to long-term residential use as a primary residence by qualified persons and which deed restriction may impose other restrictions and limitation and may include terms deemed appropriate in the Town’s discretion, including but not limited to controls on the resale price of such residential property, and which deed restriction is enforceable by the Town. Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 2 Currently there are four (4) vacant lots within the zone district – three (3) are somewhat physically isolated from the heart of the district and all of them have constraints to construction. Staff reviewed the uses and created the table below to illustrate the existing conditions in the area. Staff does not guarantee the accuracy of any individual piece of the information in the table but presents it as a tableau of the area in general. Snapshot of Avon Demographic analysis from the 2017 Comprehensive Plan update provides the best understanding of where Avon is today. Below are some graphs from the report and some additional contextualization for this CTA process. Address Lot Size (acres) Size of Buildings (sf)Floors Primary Use Has ADU Total number of DUs Proposed DU total 220 Metca 10 3.3 --Energy Facility No 25 451 Metca 11 0.96 6480 2 Commercial No 7 431 Metca 12 0.592 7734 2 Storage Yes 4 4 411 Metca 13 1.047 5150 1 Commercial No 8 371 Metca 14 / 15 2.82 55200 3 Commercial yes 2 21 311/331 M 16 / 17 3.276 19211 3 Commercial no 25 281 Metca 18 / 19 2.76 44586 3 Storage / Commercial no 21 111 Metca 20 / 21 2.04 --Vacant / Dog Run No 15 77 Metcalf 22 0.89 13882 3 Commercial No 7 810 Nottin 23 0.574 12056 1 Commercial No 4 830 Nottin 24 0.656 10335 1 Commercial No 5 850 Nottin 25 1.409 41640 2 Storage Yes 1 11 910 / 930 N 26 - 28 2.29 65817 3 Storage / Commercial yes 1 17 950 Nottin 29 1.454 13300 1 Commercial No 11 710 Nottin 30 0.537 --Vacant No 4 730 Nottin 31 0.576 14000 3 Vet Office Yes 4 4 780 Nottin 32 / 33 0.997 14480 1 Commercial No 7 80 Metcalf 34 0.642 10000 2 Commercial No 5 90 Metcalf 35 0.536 7750 1 Storage / Commercial No 4 120 Metca 36 0.328 2746 2 Commercial No 2 140 Metca 37 0.763 14080 1 Storage / Commercial No 6 240 Metca 39 2.81 --Vacant (TOA Property)No 21 NA Tract Y 7.232 --Vacant No 54 Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 3 Source: Colorado State Demographer, 2014 The graph above illustrates that the largest employment sectors for residents of Avon are arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation & food; construction; education, health care & social assistance; and finance and insurance, and real estate (FIRE). Avon has very little representation in the manufacturing; transportation, warehousing, and utilities; or information industries. Of course, providing a venue for any profession does not necessarily mean that any of the resulting employees will be residents of Avon. Data from the 2017 American Community Survey (ACS) indicate that approximately 44% of Avon’s working population work in Avon and there is a 0% unemployment rate. Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 4 Source: Colorado State Demographer, 2014 Avon’s income distribution skews lower than in Eagle County as a whole, and almost 1/3 of household earns between $35,000 and $49,999. Source: Colorado State Demographer, 2014 Compared to surrounding communities, Avon has a higher level of people living below the poverty line, and a high level of families living below the poverty line. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Income Distribution Avon Eagle County 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Avon Basalt Eagle Edwards Gypsum Minturn Red Cliff Vail Eagle County Percent of Individuals & Families Below Poverty People Below Poverty Families below poverty Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 5 Source: US Census Bureau, 2014 Males constitute a larger proportion than females in almost every age group in Avon, and the population skews young. Source: CIA World Factbook The United States has a much different profile, which staff pulled from off the web for comparison. Certainly, the Baby Boomer and Millennial generations can be seen in this representation. 9 7 5 3 1 1 3 5 7 9 0-4 yrs.5-9 yrs.10-14 yrs. 15-19 yrs.20-24 yrs25-29 yrs 30-34 yrs.35-39 yrs.40-44 yrs. 45-49 yrs.50-54 yrs.55-59 yrs. 60-64 yrs.65-69 yrs.70-74 yrs. 75-79 yrs.80-84 yrs.85+ yrs. Avon Gender by Age Males(%)Females(%) Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 6 Staff Questions Purpose of CTA From interactions with Town Council, staff has gleaned a potential purpose statement for the CTA process, and wants to confirm it before moving forward with any proposed language. It reads as follows: To codify a process that allows quality Community Housing in the Light Industrial and Commercial Employment District on underutilized or otherwise suitable locations, through the SRU process. From here, staff would create a SRU process to narrowly define the desired outcomes within the district. However, staff is unsure if the SRU process could support development only in the desirable areas, and not in the undesirable areas. Is this the purpose supportable by PZC, or is there something else specifically to propose? Would the housing offered in the area be the type of housing to fill the gaps that the demographic data above display? SRU Rough Proposal to Consider A three-tiered approach to the IC district may be the best approach for the inclusion of residential in a SRU process. This would codify a preference in use in the district through limiting the height and lot coverage of exclusively residential projects to limit impacts to and from the other IC typified uses. Below is a very hypothetical table that defines the desired characteristics according to the use: Many variables still need to be worked out, like what the cutoff of “Mixed Use IC” is, or if the limitation is enough to dissuade developers from building all residential at the density and height that would be allowed. This is the least developed part of the whole report and more direction if this is the right approach is needed from PZC. SRU Review Criteria Code requires the PZC to use the below criteria on all SRU applications. Those criteria are below with staff’s responses to how they would be treated: 1) The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable provisions of this Development Code and applicable state and federal regulations; Staff Response: The Comprehensive Plan states: USE TYPE Min. Lot Size (acres or sq. ft.) Min. Lot Width (feet) Max. Lot Coverage (%) Min. Landscape Area (%) Min. Front Setback (feet) Min. Side Setback (feet) Min. Rear Setback (feet) Max. Building Height (feet) Max. Density Residential Normal IC 21,780 sq. ft.100 50 20 25 7.5 10 48 4 ADU Mixed Use IC 21,780 sq. ft.100 50 20 25 7.5 10 48 7.5/acre All Residential 21,780 sq. ft.100 50 20 25 7.5 10 38 7.5/acre Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 7 [Current] uses provide an important component to Avon’s overall economic health… Existing uses on Nottingham and Metcalf Roads are intensely developed with large buildings and need improved landscaping, access, and screening. The Town should work towards improved traffic safety and aesthetics. Live/ work development opportunities in the Light Industrial and Commercial zone district that do not possess significant conflicts with surrounding land uses should be encouraged. The Planning Principle section states: “Accommodate residential development that supports primary industrial or employment land uses.” Staff is concerned that the Comprehensive plan prioritizes the current (or perhaps denser) scale of ADUs but not a wholesale conversion of existing uses to residential. The undeveloped parcels in the IC zone district would not raise the same concerns as the rest, but perhaps this is a case to be made for the Rezoning process of these parcels and not a SRU. The Community Housing Plan (part of the Comprehensive Plan) gives strong but general support for Community Housing. It lacks specific guidance with where the housing should be focused other than a few specific properties. Staff feels that the proposal deviates from the area specific language. Would PZC be in favor of a Comprehensive Plan revision that better addresses the SRU process? 2) The proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district in which it is located and any applicable use-specific standards in the Development Code; Staff Response: Staff is concerned that this review criterium is expressly in opposition to the purpose statement, and therefore should not be applicable. Should staff work to change the purpose statement so it is more congruent with the type of application proposed in the CTA? For example, the revised IC district purpose may state: This district is intended to provide for a variety of businesses, including warehouses, research and development firms, repair shops, wholesale distributors, light manufacturing, and housing where appropriate. This district may include supporting office and commercial uses where appropriate. Uses permitted in this district are intended to serve community and regional needs. This district is intended to be located away from low and medium density inappropriate residential development. The IC district implements the light industrial commercial and employment classification of the Avon Future Land Use Plan and should be located along an arterial roadway. 3) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design and operating characteristics; Staff Response: Staff does not feel strongly that, all things being equal, residents need to be protected or segregated from the majority of uses in the IC zone or vice-versa. However, the district is well established, located in a physically isolated section of town, away from parks, schools, transportation, etc. and in many ways is not conducive to a large residential Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 8 development. Likewise, residential near these uses can put pressure on them to redevelop, thereby losing the jobs (and tax base) present. 4) Any significant adverse impacts (including but not limited to hours of operation, traffic generation, lighting, noise, odor, dust and other external impacts) anticipated to result from the use will be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent practicable; Staff Response: There are mobility and transportation concerns that a proposed change would bring. Placing Community Housing away from the Town Core raises concerns about how workers are expected to get around, and how the road network can handle the increased traffic in a relatively isolated corner of town. Basic amenities such as sidewalks and streetlights are not provided currently. Staff would expect an applicant to detail how their project would mitigate these concerns but is doubtful they will be assuaged. 5) Facilities and services (including sewage and waste disposal, water, gas, electricity, police and fire protection and roads and transportation, as applicable) will be available to serve the subject property while maintaining adequate levels of service for existing development; and Staff Response: Fiscal impacts to the town and the region may also be reason for judicious review of this proposal. While this work session does not take a deep dive into this impact, it is worth mentioning that the lifeblood of municipal coffers is sales tax and eliminating businesses in town would result in a lower tax base. More services may be required with a smaller sales tax base to draw from. Would PZC require a report of the current state of the area’s financial impact to town before going forward with language suggestions? 6) Adequate assurances of continuing maintenance have been provided. Staff Response: The concerns are the same as above. Additional SRU Criteria Different SRU applications also contain distinct criteria on which to judge their merits. Staff imagines the potential application to be somewhere between the current SRU process and the Rezoning process and is keen on limiting the eligibility (and therefore potential loss of existing commercial space) for a given parcel. Included below is adapted language from the Rezoning review criteria for consideration as additional criteria for a Community Housing SRU proposal: • Compatibility with surrounding land uses; • Whether the proposed development is justified by changed or changing conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned; • Whether there are adequate facilities available to serve development of the type and scope suggested by the proposal compared to the existing use allowances, while maintaining adequate levels of service to existing development; • That, compared to the existing zoning, the development is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject tract; Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 9 Staff brainstormed additional potential criteria: • The property is underutilized or underdeveloped and would function better as a reserve of Community Housing; • That 70% or more of the housing provided will be deemed Community Housing and subject to deed restrictions; • Heightened architectural standards that raise the standard of design for the rest of town are being provided; • The fiscal loss associated with net loss in commercial space due to the proposal is mitigated by the community’s need for housing; • The application provides an appropriate environment for housing; Staff encourages a discussion on these points and any additional specific suggestions that could be incorporated in a robust code section. SRU Duration and Expiration According to code: Special review use approvals shall expire pursuant to this Section. The PZC may approve a SRU permit in perpetuity, but may assign a shorter time as deemed necessary. At least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration, the holder of the special review use approval may apply for a review hearing before the PZC. The PZC shall review the use against the criteria in Subsection (e) above to determine whether the special review use will be allowed to continue. (1) Developments and uses granted by a special review use permit shall be developed or established in accordance with an approved development schedule or within two (2) years of the date of approval if no development schedule is established. Failure to develop or establish such development or uses in accordance with the time period approved on the permit shall result in the expiration of the permit. (2) If an approved use ceases operation for any reason for a period of one (1) year, the special review use permit shall be deemed expired. If the conditions of a permit become the responsibility of a person or entity other than the applicant, the Director shall be notified in writing, identifying the new person or entity responsible for maintaining the conditions of the approval/permit. Until such notice is received, the applicant shall remain responsible. Such notice shall be attached to the permit on file at the Town. (3) If conditions of approval are not maintained, it shall be considered a violation of this Code and subject to revocation proceedings. Staff would like to confirm that this language is sufficient for any expected potential that may come from the new SRU type. It is unlikely that any applicant for a Community Housing Project would request anything less than perpetuity. Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 10 Code Text Amendment Review Criteria (1) The text amendment promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the Avon community; (2) The text amendment promotes or implements the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; (3) The text amendment promotes or implements the purposes stated in this Development Code; or (4) The text amendment is necessary or desirable to respond to changed conditions, new planning concepts or other social or economic conditions. Staff Response: The proposal certainly responded to changed conditions, but it may do so to the detriment of the general welfare of the Avon community by removing an important job base. Goal B.5 in the comprehensive plan states: Encourage revitalization of existing light industrial and manufacturing uses. Policy B.5.1: Ensure infrastructure improvements include sidewalks, utilities, and controlled access from collector roads, like Nottingham Road. Policy B.5.2: Encourage effective screening of industrial uses from adjacent uses and vehicular access and circulation separate from public roads. Policy B.5.3: Review accessory residential uses in association with light industrial commercial development when compatible. These policies are incongruent with the application in that the application may eliminate light industrial and manufacturing uses and does not revitalize the district, but may put more redevelopment pressure on it. One purpose of the Development Code states: (a) Divide the Town into zones, restricting and requiring therein the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence and other specified uses; regulate the intensity of the use of lot areas; regulate and determine the area of open spaces surrounding such buildings; establish building lines and locations of buildings designed for specified industrial, commercial, residential and other uses within such areas; establish standards to which buildings or structures shall conform; establish standards for use of areas adjoining such buildings or structures; While different zone districts have allowances of mixed use, the IC zone district currently has very strict parameters limiting that mix. Staff is not opposed to any addition of mixed use in this district, but the proposal may eliminate IC uses altogether. Impact of change Creation of individual housing complexes within the IC zone district may create conflict for both the commercial spaces and the residents. While no issues from the small number of current Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 11 residents within the commercial complexes have been shared with staff, the potential scale of development is concerning. The area is not particularly attractive but still maintains a sense of unity across itself; combining large residential projects to this formula seems noncongruent. Many of the businesses within the zone district function year-around as opposed to the seasonal nature of other employment centers in the mountain resort area. Other businesses aid in the area’s seasonality by providing storage and efficient expansion of activity at peak times. The loss of either category of use would push jobs and people further down valley to the likely detriment of Avon’s economy. The IC zone district serves as a place where people without formal education can make a decent living, own businesses, and learn new skills in a trade. The potential slow degradation of this through the Special Review Use process is concerning. Rezoning Respecting that Town Council initiated a revision of the SRU process, staff would be remiss to not include its take on rezoning. Rezoning specific properties that are underutilized may lead to private development. Whether rezoning serves a town need by achieving Community Housing is less clear. Certainly, a “straight-zoned” property is required to provide deed restricted housing under the new Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, but any gains after that are subject to political and capital considerations that are outside of the scope of this CTA. The question to PZC is whether it supports the notion of rezoning. Staff may be able to support the change due to the unique considerations of the underdeveloped properties, including their unsuitability to be developed as commercial properties. Other mechanisms of increasing dwelling units Perhaps achieving Community Housing in the zone district could be achieved through additional ADUs in the area. This strategy would not likely lead to different forms of development but could result in more of the current space being converted to residential over the years. Only two (2) properties have the maximum four (4) ADUs, so the change would not be likely to create units immediately. An increase in the number of “live-work” units from four (4) per property to eight (8) may incentivize some space to make a more organic transition to residential than the potential for a large-scale residential project. Staff has concerns (such as parking management) for this potential approach, but it is worth discussion and consideration. Another strategy would be a CTA that allows residential as a use-by-right on the third floor of this zone district. Again, this would not provide any known immediate benefit, but would be another tool in the redevelopment belt of these properties and would potentially mitigate some of the impacts that residential-only properties may bring. Conclusion The SRU process may be an expedient way to open a given parcel up for residential development, but the provision of Community Housing needs to be carefully considered. That the remaining sites are difficult to build on means perhaps the developer would be glad to provide lots of Community Housing – so long as Avon were a financial participant in the project. The dual role of gatekeeper to approvals and purse holder of funds may be concerning, Attachment A IC Zone District Modifications – Work Session 12 especially when conducted in rapid succession. The densities proposed by staff seem lower than what private development would be able to support without significant cost sharing. Ultimately, increased competition of uses might raise land prices and may eliminate the currently vibrant IC zone. With the overarching premise that no housing is affordable without a living wage, staff suggests careful review of the proposal in this work session and a broad vision of the impacts of any change. The overarching question to PZC is: Can this Code Text Amendment reach a point whereby the above concerns are alleviated, and the purpose is still achieved? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT  ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION  APPLICATION TYPE: Minor Development Plan  FILE NUMBER:  MNR19008  LOCATION:     Lot 111C, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision  ADDRESS:        2011 Beaver Creek Point   APPLICANT:Tom Ruemmler  SUMMARY:   Application for new 7:12 pitch roof over approved deck and storage addition.  All  materials, colors, and design details to match existing construction.  Rooftop solar  panels are proposed on top of roof addition.  AVON MUNICIPAL CODE REVIEW STANDARDS:   §7.16.080  Development Plan   §7.28      Design Standards   §7.28.100  Alternative Energy System Standards  STAFF DECISION:  Approved with the following findings and conditions.  FINDINGS:  1.The roof addition and solar installation qualify as a Minor Development Plan pursuant to §7.16.080(b)(2) of the Development Code;   2.The application is complete; 3.This file was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission, after notices required by the Development Code, at the June 4, 2019 meeting; 4.Planning and Zoning tabled the application with the understanding the design must be modified in response to denial of a corresponding setback variance application; 5.The Director is authorized to review and render a decision on a Minor Development Plans; 6.The updated application narrative and plans provide enough information to allow staff to determine that the application complies with the relevant review criteria; 7.The application is found to comply with the purpose statements of the Development Code, including to “promote architectural design which is compatible, functional, practical and complimentary to Avon’s sub‐ alpine environment” and “achieving innovation and advancement in design of the built environment to improve efficiency, reduce energy consumption, reduce emission of pollutants”; 8.The application complies with the goals and policies of the Avon Comprehensive Plan; and 9.There is no extra demand for public services or infrastructure exceeding current capacity by the Application. CONDITIONS:  1.This approval and corresponding improvements must be permitted concurrently or after construction related to land use file MNR18014; permit(s) for construction will not be permitted prior to permit for  improvements related to land use file MNR18014.  2.Building permit(s) submittal and plans must demonstrate conformance with Roof‐Mounted Solar Collection System standards in the Development Code, as well as all colors, materials, and design details  matching existing construction.  3.Improvement Location Certificates will be provided within fourteen (14) days of foundation and framing inspections to ensure compliance with building setbacks requirements.  4.This development approval shall expire and become void two (2) years if a building permit has not been  issued prior to the expiration date. DATE:  6/26/2019  BY: Matt Pielsticker, Planning Director  ATTACHMENTS: Application Narrative Plans: West Elevation (3 May 2018), Elevation-Rear (13 Feb 2019), Elevation-South (3 May 2018), Site Plan (3 May 2018) Narrative The proposal before you is one design of many alternatives that were examined. It is for a smaller gable roof structure than many other alternatives examined. It will be built entirely within our approved building envelope and over our approved deck and garage-like storage area. It harmonizes and mimics the existing architecture and the existing roof lines in the PUD. The materials and colors will be similar to the existing materials and colors. The following will be consistent will the architecture in the PUD;  Roof pitch   Roof material – cedar shake   Fascia detail and thickness   Gable Detail   Exposed ridge beam detail at top of gable form   Deck support beam material and color   All other colors, including flashing, etc  When completed it will look like original construction. Snow will self-shed off the proposed gable solar roof and on to our property. The area that will accumulate the snow has never been used for snow storage and there are no easements of any kind were the snow will accumulate. The snow will not fall on the ingress and egress easement. The roof will also provide protection from the elements including the cancer causing sun rays and make the deck more useable. The design is much less intrusive than roof mounted panels facing the street and scattered on the existing roof that has 9 dormers. As is typical in any residential development, each of the five single family homes in the PUD has views of neighbors’ roofs and decks. Our roof is not adding an alien or foreign element to the PUD. Aspen and pine trees in the yard of our neighbor to the southwest (2019 Beaver Creek Pt.) will obscure his view of the roof as well as that of people driving north on Beaver Creek Point. Those trees will not shade the solar panels. From the street passersby will see only the narrow edge of the new roof. The solar system will allow us to reduce our carbon footprint and do our part to combat climate change. If this proposal is approved, 2019 Beaver Creek Pt. will be more than 50’ away from 2011 Beaver Creek Pt. Other homes in the PUD have 10 foot side yards and are about 20 feet apart. Unfortunately our side yard was mistakenly drawn as 15 feet from our property line on the plat map. It would have been nice to be able to build like are neighbors to within 10 feet of the property line as this would accommodate more solar panels and make the garage-like structure and deck more useable. Our annual electrical consumption is approximately 13,500kWh. This 5.4 kWh system using 360 KW panels is proposed because the Avon PZC rejected designs that could accommodate more panels. 360 KW panels are the most productive however using 300 kWh panels may be more cost effective. It is not an option to mount a solar array in our back yard because it faces the Beaver Creek Point street. Avon does not permit ground mounted solar installations to face the street. Existing Roof Installation Is Not Viable Installing solar panels on an 18 year old shake roof is not a viable alternative for numerous reasons. There would be about 72 roof penetrations that would be problematic to keep the roof water tight for a properly sized solar system. Shake roofs do not shed snow and wind drifter snow coupled with the nine dormers result in snow accumulating on the panels that could easily render many panels ineffective a large part of the time. Nine Dormers, roof vents and the Fire Department’s requirement for 3’ of clearance around solar panels installed over occupied space and shading combine to limit the number of panels that can actually be installed on the existing roof. Every professional that has carefully analyzed the solar project recommended against installing on the existing roof. We have previously submitted letters from Active Energies Solar and Sunsense Solar representatives that also advised against installing the solar array on the existing roof. If an existing roof installation was required, it would add considerable cost to this project because it would only be feasible if the roof was first replaced before installing the panels. According to a contractor used in the past by the HOA (Sunlight Roofing Inc.), we would have to spend between $26K and $58K to replace an existing roof that may last another 10 years if untouched. Sunlight Roofing also does not advise that solar panels be installed over the existing roof. Furthermore, replacing the roof would further delay the project while our uncooperative HOA approved a new roofing material. That process would most likely go beyond the end of the year and solar credits currently available would be lost. They are scheduled to expire at the end of 2019. Background On August 21, 2018 an Avon Planning and Zoning Committee finding stated “the design of the garage-like storage addition and deck relates the development to the character of the surrounding community which is composed of steep gabled roof forms with shake shingles….” and approved phases 1 and 2 of our 3 phase solar project to be built entirely within our PUD building envelope that was approved in 1999. Phase 1 is a deck; phase 2 is a garage-like storage area under the deck and phase 3 is a rake style roof with solar panels attached to the roofing structure. After appealing the PZC’s rejection of phase 3 to the Avon Town Council, it was ruled that we could reapply with a gable roof design supporting the solar panels. Approved applications for other solar installations in Avon and in the Wildridge neighborhood were included with our prior application as evidence and precedent that other solar installations received approval. Unfortunately our various other designs were denied. So far our residential solar proposal is the only residential solar proposal that I have ever heard of being denied. I have been involved with solar for over 45 years. DEVELOPMENT CASE FILE: MNR19008 ATTACHMENTS TO JULY 2, 2019 STAFF APPROVAL A – Proposed “Phase 3” Gable Roof: Plans submitted on June 18, 2019: - West Elevation deck only - Elevation-Rear Sheet A4.1 - Elevation-South-deck-ONLY - Site plan Letter from Tom Doucette, FCB Homes, dated May 28, 2019 Note: Roof will be built over Phase 1 and Phase 2, constructed out of solar panels within the building envelope. B – Approved “Phase 1” Deck and “Phase 2” garage like storage addition PZC Record of Decision Plans - West Elevation A4.0 - Elevation Rear A4.1 - South Elevation A4.2 - Site Plan A1.0 Notes: All materials and colors to match existing garage doors in the Beaver Creek Point PUD. Deck railing details and materials also to match existing. C – Denied “Phase 3” Shed Roof Constructed out of Solar Town Council Record of Decision for Appeal, Plans - West Elevation A4.0 - Elevation Rear A4.1 - South Elevation A4.2 - Site Plan A1.0 Notes: Town Council upheld PZC’s decision and adopted their own findings of fact stating that the shed roof form would be an “unprecedented roof addition design in Point View PUD.”