Loading...
PZC Minutes 04-06-2010AV 0 N C O L O R A D O REGULAR MEETING I. Call to Order (R V Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for April 6, 2010 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street The meeting was called to order at 5:10 pm Roll Call All commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Lane, Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Anderson had a conflict of interest on item VI. Consent Agenda • Approval of the March 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes • Approval of Resolution No. 10-01, Approving an Amendment to the Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Plan Action: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the modified consent agenda. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. DESIGN REVIEW VI. Work Single -Family Residence Property Location: Lot 35, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5075 Wildridge Road Applicant: Jeff Manley, Martin -Manley Architects / Owner: Brian and Jackie Work Description: Review of a sketch design application Discussion: Matt Gennett outlined the proposal and highlighted some of the site difficulties the applicant has to deal with. Commissioner Struve questioned if any portion of the building extended beyond the 35 foot height limit? Jeff Manley responded negatively. Jeff Manley discussed the design of the building, highlighting the stepping that has occurred in the design. He provided comments related to the engineering comments in the staff report. Commissioner Struve questioned if the existing berm was intended to stay. Mike Dantas informed the commission that the berm is actually located on the adjacent property. Commissioner Struve questioned if the driveway would be snow melted. The applicant stated that a portion of the driveway could be snowmelted, but those details would be discussed later, before a building permit submittal. Commissioner Prince questioned if a guardrail will be necessary. Jeff Manley responded that they did not intend to have guardrails. Commissioner Roubos stated that the boulder retaining walls are too large and long. She would prefer to see a wall that blends into the landscape better and is also broken up to reduce the negative aesthetic impacts. Commissioner Struve stated that he did like the house design and siting and agreed with Commissioner Roubos on her comments regarding the massiveness of the boulder walls. Commissioner Green questioned the architectural relationship of the additional garage to the rest of the building. He also questioned the note on the plans that stated the temporary irrigation was to be abandoned after installation of landscaping. He stated his preference would be to remove the non-functioning temporary irrigation lines. He also commented on the massiveness of the southwest elevation (downhill). He commented that the design appeared to be a bunch of parts that were not homogenous with one another. Commissioner Prince felt the design addressed the design guidelines. He did have difficulty will the extra garage door and its lack of compatibility. He would like to see how the site would look with the boulder walls broken up, but wasn't sure if it was the best solution. Commissioner Goulding stated that the articulation and breaking up of massing was good. He did have concerns over the boulder walls. He felt the cumulative effect of the design will create a massive appearance on the downhill side of the building. Commissioner Roubos questioned the SFE comment that Matt Gannett made. Matt Gannett recapped the comments by stating that the 6,000 square foot area was a cumulative total for two SFEs which are allocated for this site. He stated the proposed design exceeds this number and that the extra square footage would require payment during the building permit phase. Action: No action is required for sketch design. WORK SESSION VII. Unified Land Use Code Description: Review of the Commercial Zone Districts, Bonus Density standards, PUDs, and Parking. Staff will lead a discussion and Powerpoint Presentation on the new draft regulations. Discussion: Commissioner Goulding left the meeting after the presentation and during the early portion of the discussion. Sally Vecchio discussed the Avon Development Code. She highlighted the major proposed changes to the Avon Development Code, specifically those related to commercial zoning districts. Commissioner Green wanted to know how much development could occur under the proposed TC district with the parking as the driving factor. Commissioner Prince questioned the amount of development that could occur on the property and commented that it was 3 times the current developed level. Commissioner Green questioned if a parking district was created is the type of development that would be experienced the type of built form the town is envisioning. Commissioner Roubos questioned the potential size of the residential units when the FAR is nearly triple the current size. Eric Heil discussed the history of FAR in Avon and how the design scenarios have evolved. He also commented on how the current PUDs operate in Avon. Sally Vecchio discussed the Seasons scenario. Commissioner Roubos stated that she wanted to ensure that this code was not a taking from any particular property owner. Commissioner Struve stated that he would prefer to see more density in Avon therefore he can justify the need for a "giving". Commissioner Anderson questioned if there were parking issues for each one of these design scenarios. Sally Vecchio stated that these parking standards are very common. She also stated that the parking works today because of the abundance of surface parking and the underdevelopment of Avon. Sally Vecchio discussed the Chapel Square Building B scenario. Commissioner Anderson questioned the parking areas that were included in this example Commissioner Green discussed the parking scenarios and how deficient each scenario is Commissioner Anderson questioned if the town could actually build a parking structure to satisfy the need. Eric Heil discussed the current parking district language in the Municipal Code. Commissioner Struve questioned if the payment -in -lieu funds could be used for alternative uses instead of a parking structure. Commissioner Green asked for further clarification on the comments just made by Eric Heil. Sally Vecchio stated that the Town should be taking a proactive approach to create parking districts. Eric Heil further clarified that the parking structures should be intended to provide parking for commercial uses, not residential uses. Sally Vecchio discussed Avon Center and the Sheraton scenarios. Commissioner Green questioned what the "sweet spot" was in the FAR ratio. Eric Heil built on Commissioner Green's comments by stating that the P&Z should also provide information on the max development bonus. Commissioner Anderson questioned how Avon 21 could be approved under the new code. Matt Gennett responded that the development could be approved under a Town Center zoning with maximum development bonuses with the exception of density and parking. Commissioner Green questioned how the DU bonus is achieved. Eric Heil described the development bonus structure. Commissioner Prince questioned the goal of Avon to be the Heart of the Valley yet we are reducing the number of dwelling units. Eric Heil discussed the reason we only allow 30 DUs/acre and the associated water rights. Commissioner Green elaborated on the need to reconcile water with each development. Commissioner Anderson suggested a solution that we increase the max bonus density to allow developers to get to the necessary DUs to make their proformas work. Commissioner Struve mentioned that the reason Avon 21 came in for a PUD is because they knew that they wanted more than the current Town Center zoning even when they purchased the properties. Commissioner Green and Struve felt that a 2.5:1 was an appropriate FAR for the Town Center zone district, a "sweet spot". They also question if a developer could come in to build within the proposed parameters and make a return on their investment. Sally Vecchio explained why every developer has come in for a PUD, and it appeared to be because of parking, lot coverage and more flexibility on the site; not because they were coming close to the hypothetical FAR numbers. Commissioner Roubos commented that the numbers don't seem quite right for development bonuses. She specified that she was not in favor of a higher height bonus, but felt that 35% is too small for a density (DUs/acre) bonus. r Commissioner Anderson felt the FAR ratio should be 3:1. He was curious to learn more of what Connect Avon now is going to entail and the future of Avon with regards to parking. He felt the key to this zoning code is if we can building parking structures, developers will come to the town and buy into a parking district. As he stated in his above comments he felt parking is the key issue and we need to figure out how to make that work. He agreed with Commissioner Roubos that dwelling units are needed and raising the ceiling on the maximum 35% increase seems logical. He elaborated that if the developer pays for the impacts of housing they should be able to build more. He stressed that Avon needs to be a developer friendly town, while still having limitations. Commissioner Anderson questioned the P&Z's role in reviews and how limiting they were to developers. He liked staffs proposed direction of limiting P&Z's roles to design review and reducing their comments on zoning. He also felt the code as proposed was easier to understand and helped the Commission make black and white decisions, ultimately getting the developer to Council for a final determination quickly. Commissioner Prince felt the direction of FAR is right way to go, but he was not ready to give a number yet. He also commented that the Development Bonus program laid out by staff is a great idea and ensures tradeoffs are fair on separate applications. Commissioner Roubos commented that the Town should be stringent with parking requirements. She is also comfortable with FAR as a bulk and mass calculation. She did question what current developable or redevelopable lots would look like with the current regulations. She disagreed with Commissioner Anderson by stating it is not the P&Z's problem to make the process developer friendly, one way to address is change the density allocations. Commissioner Roubos also commented that since lot coverage was increased in the new regulations, Staff should consider lowering some of the heights concurrently to compensate for the additional development. Commissioner Struve commented that the current PUD process will not achieve the desires of the Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to see more information on public benefits that relate to public plazas to ensure that the town gets the desired plazas the approved district plans call for. He commented that once the new code is in place it will be fairly easy for a developer to put together an algorithm and find out if a property is developable. Commissioner Struve commented that selling price per square foot is going to go up after the recession. He also felt an FAR of 2.5:1 is a good baseline to start with. Commissioner Green would like to Town to focus on publicly financed parking structure. He believes the structures are a good idea, but has concerns with timing and what the outcome will be if it does not come to fruition. He commented on how FAR is a methodology to create a development scenario, but we really need to look at what we want to see in the Town Core. He questioned if the only public benefit the town would receive for Development Bonuses was public housing? He asked for more clarification on what the menu is and what criteria the P&Z will have for review of future applications? He questioned some of the design issues related to FAR and asked his fellow commissioners if it is bad to have a thin 8 story building so long as the design functions? He also commented that form based codes are good so long as they are not overly prescriptive that we are precluding great mountain architecture in this Town. Commisisoner Roubos commented that if we increase the allowable site coverage and still allow the 8 stories are we going to be stuck with the same design throughout the whole Town. Action: No formal action. VIII. Other Business • Unified Land Use Code meeting Schedule —April 20'" Joint Session with Town Council • Fishing Pier Design — MEMO ONLY (item was discussed prior to the Avon Development Code) IX. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at Approved on April 20, 2010/ W. Todd Goulding Chairperson n, Phil Struve Secretary nately