Loading...
PZC Minutes 02-02-2010m Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission V0 Meeting Minutes for February 2, 2010 V O Avon Town Council Chambers JJJ ��l Meetings are open to the public C 0 L-0 R A D 0 Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Sally Vecchio presented an update to the Commission regarding the Unified Land Use Code and its progress to date. She explained the major changes to the regulations. The final draft was almost done and will be reviewed by the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) prior to heading to the Commission for review. Commissioner Struve felt that when the Town first began this process with Clarion and associates it was made clear that form -based zoning was not the way the Town was going to head. Commissioner Goulding asked if we were headed in the FAR direction, because at last ZAC meeting there was resistance to this type of zoning format. Sally responded that form -based is the direction from the Council, Staff, and the Comprehensive Plan calls for this new direction. The role of PUDs and PUD amendments and the difference between major and unique projects and standard zone district reviews was highlighted. Updated zone district and subdivision regulations are being added, including but not limited to: steep slope, floodplain, roadway, wildfire, and wildlife habitat sections. REGULAR MEETING Call to Order The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 5:38pm Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Green. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda The update on the code has moved out of other business and was discussed during Work Session. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to discuss. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the January 19, 2010 Meeting Minutes Discussion: Commissioner Goulding went through the Work Session portion of the minutes and felt that they might be missing some of the main points during the Timeshare East discussion after the discussion of the east elevation. All of the other bullet items were discussed but not quite reflected in the minutes. He questioned if the applicant could use the minutes, in essence, against the Commission as a reliance on what was being discussed. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and it was passed 5-0 with Commissioner Lane abstaining due to his absence from the January 19"', 2009 meeting. VI. Courtyard Villas Color Change Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4121 Little Point Applicant: David Forenza, Forenza Contracting / Owner: Advanced Home Technologies Description: Minor Project review of two (2) new stucco colors proposed to replace the approved two stucco colors on this duplex structure. An on-site mockup is available for review. The color samples will also be available for review at the meeting. Discussion: The applicant's representative, Rick Irving from Forenza Contracting, presented the material/color boards for the Commission's review and explained that the "peachy" looking existing colors were the already approved colors. He then presented the revised colors to the Commission for review, highlighting that the lighter color would remain as the base color and the darker color would replace the "peachy" color. Commissioner Prince had difficulty with the application of the colors and exactly what the entire complex would look like with this color change. Commissioner Goulding echoed Mr. Prince's concerns and stressed that the compatibility of the two structures was the issue at hand. A further discussion ensued regarding the two properties and how they interact with each other. It was determined that not enough information was presented to determine exactly where the two colors were to be applied. The Commission felt that the two buildings act like one project and they must be compatible. Commissioner Lane felt that an on-site visit would benefit the review. The other Commissioners were in general agreed with the need to review on-site for contextual purposes. Action: Commissioner Anderson moved to table the application in order to view an on-site visit at the next possible meeting. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion, and without further discussion the vote carried with a 5-1 vote. VII. Wildstar Final Design Review Property Location: Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Applicant: Jeffrey Manley, Martin Manley Architects/ Owner. • Wildavon Enterprises, LLC Description: Review of a Final Design application for three (3) single-family homes with shared driveway access off Wildwood Road. At the Commission's July 7'", 2009 meeting the applicant received Final Design approval for two (2) four-plex structures and a detached garage; however, after submitting for a building permit, the owner decided to explore alternative development opportunities and configurations. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented Staffs report and started by going through the background of the property and previous design approvals. The Commission made the determination that the Wildridge zoning did not specify a building type; rather, a maximum unit designation for properties. This took place at a November 3'", 2009 Commission meeting. Jared Barnes then highlighted the rationale for the recommendation for denial and the inconsistencies between the preliminary plan for subdivision and the Town's standard regulations for single-family type subdivisions. Jared Barnes presented the general site characteristics and the development constraints with developing the property, including a Slope Maintenance Easement, overhead Utilities easement, typical building setbacks and easements bordering the property, the Water and Sanitation District property, and the sloping topography. The Comprehensive Plan policies pertinent to this property were highlighted. The Plan calls for varying buildings sizes along the street frontage, and general compatibility with neighborhood. Jared Barnes went through some of the conflicts with the Design Guidelines. He spoke to the site layout guidelines and stated that improvements shall consider active and passive solar use. He stated that the 3 proposed dwelling units do provide windows on the southern elevations, but as proposed the units do lack solar exposure that is expected with typical single-family home construction due to the close proximity of the structures. The site access was highlighted, and one single point of access from Wildwood road is provided in the appropriate location. Staffs concern with the lack of parking was pointed out, and the need for 'no parking' signage in the fire truck turnaround hammerhead area would be required if the plan is approved. Jared Barnes continued by stating that the future phase two buildout drainage and snow storage must be demonstrated at this time in order to ensure a workable development plan. Additionally, snow storage and the possibility of pushing snow onto the Lot 10 (south) property needs to be addressed. Jared Barnes went through additional conflicts with the Design Guidelines. The Guidelines require a minimum of two building materials for each building elevation in a substantial manner. In order to meet this concern with materials that was also brought up at sketch review, this must be addressed prior to final design approval Additional conflicts with the Guidelines were presented, including the requirement that no single wall plane can be more than 70% of any one elevation. The proposed designs for lot 1 and lot 3 do not comply. Lot one has approximately 74% and lot 3 approximately 85%. These East elevations must be revised to ensure compliance. The retaining wall design lacks an abundance of lansdscaping between and in front of the retaining walls, as required by the Design Guidelines. Jared Barnes stated that this design plan creates more site disturbance as experienced with the 4plex option. Three single -family homes exhibit more disturbance as would be experienced at build out. The entire "developable° area is either disturbed during construction or includes impervious surfaces as proposed. Furthermore, there is a limited amount of space for revegetation and open landscaped area at full build out. Greater variety of building materials and distance between buildings as proposed. Foxx4 was a PUD that down-zoned to a two duplex scenario. Staffs rationale for the recommendation for denial was described as it relates to the review criteria. Jared Barnes directed the Commission to the findings section of the report. He explained that any future submittal should demonstrate compliance with engineering standards at full build out. The primary issues with the development as shown on the drawings were: site planning as it relates to proximity of structures, drainage, snow storage, grading, and access, and also the architectural issues rose in staffs report. Commissioner Roubos questioned the issues with the driveway as we had discussed issues with the driveway at sketch design review. Jared Barnes highlighted the issues with the width being less than 20' for the entirety of the length, snow storage standards, and the possible impacts with the site planning if the driveway widening will impact Phase two. Commissioner Struve questioned when a driveway is required to be 20 feet in width. The Town Engineer, Justin Hildreth, explained that any project 3 units or more would need to meet this requirement. Commissioner Goulding questioned the type of legal subdivision and asked if there are any other projects in the Town with the same lot configuration for a subdivision (i.e. condominium for single -family). Jared Barnes highlighted other similar types of projects in terms of lot configuration, but none of which utilized this type of subdivision measure. Commissioner Goulding used the word "patio home" subdivision and it was clarified that this type of subdivision was, in essence, a condominium subdivision and not defined in the code. Commissioner Goulding asked staff how the Building code and Fire code requirements impacted this development. Jared Barnes responded that the units would need to be fire- rated, including the windows, due to their close proximity. Dominic Mauriello went through the background of the project, including the 4-plex approval, the Planning Commission determination made on Nov 3'"; and the November 17th Planning and Zoning review of a sketch plan. Dominic Mauriello presented the 4plex scenario where there was even more pavement in front of the structures. The fourplex does not necessarily have direct solar access on any of the units, only 3 sides of two of the units and two sides of the middle two units have direct access. The two fourplex approval was highlighted in detail with the unit sizes and the driveway area, including the building footprint areas. The bulk and 2-3 story mass was shown on building elevations for the fourplex scenario. There was also a driveway structure located near the hammerhead portion of the driveway. The hypothetical nature of the phase two improvements were discussed, and the fire concerns that Carol Moulson had had with the final units were minimized due to the fact that a fire truck does not necessarily need to access the phase two homes by truck. Solar access and distinction being drawn that there is less solar access, when in fact there is room between buildings with single-family structures. Commissioner Roubos stated that the snow and ice issues were more of the issue than the simple sun access into each of the units. Dominic Mauriello went through the build out analysis compared with existing fourplex scenario showing the driveway area, footprint area, and walls of building with light and air demonstrated. He expanded on the unit type and the compatibility of single-family homes with multi -family residences in the area. Other examples of single-family development near multi -family properties in the subdivision were presented, including the 6 unit project near Old Trail Road. Other examples, including the Victorians were shown in the Power Point presentation. Jeff Manley presented the final building elevations and the massing of the individual structures. He demonstrated the difference in height and differentiation between the units. Commissioner Roubos questioned the length of the roofline of Unit 2. Jeff Manley responded that the length of this ridge is approximately 27'. Mike Dantas approached the podium to discuss his recollections from previous meeting. He felt that staff has hammered the applicant. He continued to discuss the staff comments with respect to the abundance of stucco siding. Mike Dantas felt that the durability of stucco is superior and he demonstrated why they are proposing to utilize super insulated roof for ice damning, durability, etc. He felt that if it comes down to adding wood siding that there can be wood siding added but that doesn't seem to be the issue. Mike Dantas also talked about the building separation issue. Commissioner Lane wanted to know what the applicant wanted, if it was approval for all three structures, and asked if they would be three separate approvals. Dominic Mauriello asked that each structure be approved individually, or they could take one or two of the structures. Phase one access was being requested for approval with at least one of the structures. Commissioner Goulding questioned the benching and the difference between staff and the applicants interpretation of this comment. Commissioner Anderson felt that its a great project and there is public benefit inherent with the design. He thought that creating jobs and affordable housing are benefits to the project. Additionally, this adds value to the project. The density fits in with the surrounding neighborhood as the applicant pointed out. Commissioner Anderson discussed that In Wildridge, there is a lot of density compatible with this project, and he reviewed a similar project in Edwards that project had similar 6' separation between overhangs and 10' between buildings. After reviewing that project he was more comfortable with this design, partially given the elevation difference between eaves with this design; however, additional separation would benefit the design if possible. He also felt that the orientation of buildings at 45 degrees did not work to fit into the hillside, however this does maximize the views. Commissioner Lane thinks that the site design works as presented, especially because this is not a flat lot and there is grade separation to help the massing. He agrees with the driveway comments for phase two that this needs to be demonstrated at this time. In terms of building design, Commissioner Lane felt that there is enough differentiation, but prefers some kind of differentiation in materials be pursued. Commissioner Prince stated that the applicant has demonstrated that the market is looking for this type of product. In may be the fact that thirty years ago a multi -family may have been the building preference type, but that development of single -families clearly is the need in the community. Solar access is clearly better in the case of three single -families, as with fourplexes. This is demonstrated with thirty-two window sides as opposed to twenty. Overall, this design lends to a better support for increasing values in the neighborhood. In terms of site access the he felt that the designer did a good job, and it is yet to be seen for Phase two. Commissioner Prince's overall impression is that he likes it. Commissioner Roubos felt that Staff did a good job in the report. She feels that the lack of solar exposure between the homes could be an issue but as they are directly south facing it may not be as much of an issue. Commissioner Roubos explained to the applicant that it would behoove them to design the entire site plan, and that the design should be complete at this time in order to make sure it works. She thinks that the buildings are still almost identical. Commissioner Roubos pointed to the slide with fourplex above the three single -families and she felt that that slide demonstrates that additional variation is warranted to break up the buildings. The long unbroken rooflines make Commissioner Roubos weary, especially on the first building. Commissioner Struve agreed that the 14' driveway and the snow storage runoff needs to be addressed. On three asking approval there is a more acceptable situation than with four plexes. Commissioner Struve stressed that the buildings should be 10' apart as opposed to 6 or 7' apart. He felt that the general comment of the buildings looking too similar it just fine. Commissioner Struve pointed out that Western Sage is a good example of similar structures work well with each other. All stucco is acceptable and there is no lack of interest. He feels that the fact that party walls are a perception issue and a people issue, and not a functional issue. Commissioner Struve expressed his liking of the project and that this is the highest and best use of the property. Commisisoner Goulding wanted to clarify that at the November 3`0 meeting it was made clear that the 8 dwelling units maximum density allowance only expressed an 8 unit density and not a type of structure. This is a different type of subdivision and a new product for the Town. The question now is how up to 8 units can be effectively sited on the property. Commissioner Goulding felt that it was a thorough analysis provided by Staff. He thinks that this is a new and different project, and its only fair that this be reviewed in additional detail. Unfortunately, the public benefits are not a review criteria since this is not a PUD amendment. Chairman Goulding had questions related to the applicants comparison of driveways that went down from 17,600 to 14,000 square feet and agrees that this may get impacted if the driveway gets larger. Unfortunately, the building footprint and roof area goes the other way. He explained that there is a massive area of asphalt shingles. The massing of four buildings actually grew, and on the second tier it expanded as well. Commissioner Goulding asked if the applicant could provide that type of information to better understand how the roof area is impacted with the shift to separate structures. Commissioner Goulding had concerns over the phasing and felt that there is limited control over phase two. If phase two never happened, the impact of three single-family homes sitting on one large lot, the appearance of 3 single -families on large lots may not be compatible. Staffs comments on phase two are the applicant's responsibility, and would rather see the entire development to fully understand the build out. Commissioner Goulding questioned if the light fixtures were called out clearly on the plans. The architect stated that there were 6 per building. He continued by reiterating that the driveway width is an issue that needs to be resolved prior to approval. Mike Dantas requested further clarification on what the lighting issue was. Commissioner Goulding requested further information on the differentiation of colors. Jeff Manley presented the color board and explained how the main stucco color would be the same and the main difference in color for buildings 1 and 3 and building 2 is only for the upper levels. Commissioner Goulding stated that the Guidelines require two materials. He is concerned with the level of fire code compliance and what would happen if the fire code required a different building treatment for fire ratings. Mike Dantas stated that you can use wood on upper levels if you put drywall on the inside to comply. Commissioner Goulding felt that the windows might change, glazing, and this might come back in the future as an issue due to the proximity of the structures. He asked if the East elevations on buildings 1 and 3 could meet enough variation. The amount of structure (i.e. retaining walls) is increased with this proposal as compared to a multifamily structure that might retain the hillside itself. To summarize, Commissioner Goulding explained that the concept is appropriate and the footprints have grown and the end appearance is the primary concern. Jeff Manley explained that the difference is that the height is reduced with this proposal with adding ground level space and a bedroom. Dominic Mauriello readdressed the desire of the applicants tonight for least one structure if not approval of both buildings 1 and 3. Matt Gennett addressed the Commission and explained what was possibly at stake with approving any or all of the phase I construction. Most of if the other SF scenarios are PUD amendments in which at least 1 dwelling unit is lost. It is predicated upon approval of a maximum of 8 units. Sally Vechio responded to the request for a preliminary subdivision. Due to the uniqueness of the project, the applicant brought a subdivision showing individual lots that would not meet the Town's requirements. The applicant is advised that a common interest community would be required and it was not out of staffs legal realm to require additional information to make sure that the entire project functions. Commissioner Roubos agreed that the entire development plan needs to be brought forth before a potential approval. Commissioner Goulding again went through 'why are we here tonight' and what brought us here. He again explained that the direction was appropriate, but the execution was not quite there yet. Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to table to the next meeting. The motion failed with no second. Commissioner Prince wanted to address phasing, and if they build 3 and nothing else wanted to know what happens. He did not feel that only 3 would negatively impact the neighborhood. Mike Dantas felt that there was a philosophical issue with what staff wants to see, and wanted to get down to the details. Mike Dantas wanted to know what we need to see if 8 units is a go. Commissioner Goulding felt that Staff might still not agree with the plan as it relates to the guidelines, but the commission may have a different interpretation of these same guidelines as they are applied to this design. Commissioner Anderson asked how staff still wanted to see the plat changed. Jared Barnes responded that if the final location of the structures is agreed upon then yes, the subdivision would need to accurately reflect the new location. New Motion: Commissioner Struve moved to table. There was a second to the motion by Commissioner Lane. The motion was discussed and what needed to be included on a revised submittal. Commissioner Struve stated that the items to be considered are what Commissioner Goulding outlined. The items to be considered include the materials, separation, and articulation. The East side of buildings 1 and 3 needed to be changed. Commissioner Anderson added that the future phase two driveway width must be demonstrated including snow storage and drainage. Commissioner Struve did not want to accept the need to change the east side of the buildings because the east side of building 1 is not seen. Mr. Struve did accept that portion of the motion. Commissioner Anderson added that the material differentiation needs to be addressed, and he added that plat be broken up into 8 different lots as directed by Staff. Commissioner Anderson asked if there should be a minimum number put on the separation between the buildings. Commissioner Struve responded that 10 feet seemed appropriate. There was no further discussion on the motion. A vote was called and the motion carried 6-0. VIII. Other Business • Update on Unified Land Use Code — Presented during Work Session. • P&Z discussion on P&Z Questionnaire IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:55pm Approved on February W. Todd Goulding Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary