Loading...
PZC Minutes 04-20-2010Sia Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission avo Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2010 N Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C 0 L 0 R A U 0 Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street JOINT WORK SESSION WITH TOWN COUNCIL (5:00pm) Unified Land Use Code Description: Review of the Commercial Zone Districts, Bonus Density standards, PUDs, and Parking. Discussion: Sally Vecchio overviewed the previous work sessions and outlined the agenda for this work session. Commissioner Goulding asked the group if there were any other items that needed to be discussed tonight in order to get a consensus. Mayor Wolfe asked if Design Standards would be discussed. Sally Vecchio responded by stating that issue will be discussed at the next round of work sessions. Councilman Dantas questioned if parking will need to be discussed and the use of a developer pro forma in order to ensure the Town isn't giving away development bonuses. Councilwoman Ferarro built off of that topic and stated the pro forma could also be used in order to ensure the development bonuses were comparable to ensure one type of bonus isn't overly easy to produce, which will result in an abundance of that public benefit. Larry Brooks and Sally Vecchio outlined internal discussions that have occurred regarding parking requirement, standards, and the execution of those standards. Sally Vecchio discussed the differences between the proposed base density with a development bonus versus the Avon PUD. Commissioner Goulding questioned the group to determine if the Base Density with Development bonus was the proper direction. Mayor Wolfe stated that he has changed his mind from the previous work session and prefers the proposed process. Councilwoman Ferarro also agreed with Mayor Wolfe. She stated that it was nice to have the code be the tough guy instead of the individual council members. Commissioner Roubos also agreed with the comments made by the previous group members. Commissioner Prince questioned how the FAR standards would affect smaller lots. He wanted to ensure that the process provided a fair option for those property owners to develop their lots. Commissioner Green stated that FAR wouldn't be the driver, but parking would be. He stated that maybe the parking standards should provide an opportunity to allow these properties to pay -in -lieu of parking for more of their requirement therefore making developing easier. Commissioner Anderson questioned the location of the public parking garage with respect to the small lots that are not within a reasonable distance. Eric Heil discussed the three arms of this parking problem: standards, district, and financing. Commissioner Lane questioned if a FAR was intended to be an average across multiple lots if they are contiguous and under the same ownership. Eric Heil responded by saying that the FAR could attack this question, but if not and the property is located within the Town Core a PUD could be an option. Discussion ensued regarding the new PUD and how it would function in the future. Commissioner Goulding brought forth the Lionshead example and how they changed the zoning code in order to get the designs approved. Commissioner Goulding summarized comments from the group: likes the base density with a development bonus, but still allow some flexibility for unique projects or cases. Sally Vecchio overviewed the Town Center baseline FAR issue. Commissioners and Council members questioned the definition of FAR. Sally Vecchio responded by stating that the total floor area above grade is figured into the FAR number. There are no exceptions to that area figure. Commissioner Goulding questioned the group on if FAR was the correct way to quantify bulk and mass and what the proper FAR number should be. Councilwoman Phillips questioned what project was 2.7:1. Sally Vecchio responded that it was the Sheraton. Commissioner Roubos questioned what project was 2:1. Sally Vecchio responded that it was Avon Center. Commissioner Anderson questioned if at the last P&Z meeting that the code currently allowed 3:1. Sally Vecchio stated that was true, but the hypothetical presented didn't account for parking. Commissioner Goulding questioned if the code should have a minimum FAR to ensure that a property is developed to the amount the town plans desire. Councilman Dantas questioned if a minimum FAR was a taking. Eric Heil responded that it was not a taking. Consensus from the group was a 2:1 FAR was the proper starting point for the public review draft. Commissioner Anderson stated that 2.25:1 resulted in a maximum of 3:1 with a maximum development bonus. Consensus from the group was also that a minimum FAR of 1.6:1 would be acceptable. Sally Vecchio discussed the Development bonus issue. Commissioner Goulding questioned if the development bonus criteria would allow a use bonus. Eric Heil responded by stating that uses aren't required to abide by a specific use ratio other than required commercial on the ground floor. Councilwoman Philips questioned what an example would be. Commissioner Goulding responded by discussing a use ratio scenario. Commissioner Goulding clarified that his intent was to make sure the group was accepting of the three development bonus areas and didn't desire others. Eric Heil overviewed the Development Bonus regulations highlighting mitigation of impacts, included water. He went through a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the formulas. Mayor Wolfe questioned the accuracy of the costs of the public benefit and the average cost of finished construction. He stated these numbers could be fudged. Larry Brooks responded that an SIA could be undertaken to help verify the costs. Mayor Wolfe questioned when a public plaza becomes a public plaza not just open plaza space required due to design issues. Commissioner Goulding summarized how a developer would attempt to increase DUs, Height or FAR. Eric Heil did comment that DUs/acre can be increased by bringing affordable housing to the table. He did also state that Commissioner Roubos had a good idea that the DUs/acre maximum was a bit low. Group discussion ensued regarding flexibility with an 80 foot maximum to allow for variation in height to allow for quality architecture. Questions also arose regarding promoting that type of design. Councilman Carroll questioned if the affordable housing was the proper public benefit to promote in light of moving market requirements. Councilman Dantas questioned how this process was any different from a PUD. Eric Heil stated that the new process would only allow for certain negotiations and that those items had absolute limits. Mayor Wolfe questioned the vested rights of a development bonus. Commissioner Goulding asked to go around the table and have each person summarize their comments. Councilman Carrol prefers the development bonus over the PUD. He is unsure as to where the multiplier for calculating development bonuses will start. He also thinks the FAR will work out. Councilman Dantas stated that the development bonus process proposed is better than current PUD process, but felt that the P&Z review doesn't give a developer enough surety to move forward with an application. He also desired more prescriptive Design Guidelines or Standards. He commented that the development bonus should have specific calculations that staff can administer and the P&Z approve to remove the amount of negotiation that will occur. He finished his comments by stating he needs to become more familiar with the multiplier concept in order to make a decision. Commissioner Prince commented that the development bonus is a better process than the PUD process. He agreed with Councilman Dantas as to needing to better understand the multiplier concept. He also believes the negotiation is too lenient and the Town could be more creative in the concept. Commissioner Anderson felt the development bonus process is good. He would prefer to remove the P&Z out of preliminary negotiations and allow Town Council to approve development bonuses. He also preferred that the PZC's role should be reduced to zoning and design review. He stated that both FAR and DU/ac could be allowed to go above the current 35% maximum so long as additional public benefits are provided. He felt the multiplier should be between 50% and 85%. Commissioner Roubos stated that the development bonus process will make the entire town review process more transparent. She stated that the FAR concept will help reduce the amount of overbuilding on a property. She likes the standardization of the development bonus process, but reiterated her desires to remove the maximum DUs/acre so long additional units are mitigated properly. She wanted a more thorough analysis from Staff on the multipliers. Mayor Wolfe was comfortable with the changes proposed. He feels the new process will be an approval versus a negotiation. He agreed with Commissioner Roubos's idea about no cap on Dus/acre. Commissioner Green understands the issues with council negotiation and feels the proposed process does reduce the amount of negotiation. He did state he was in favor of both the development bonus and multiplier concepts. Councilwoman Phillips wanted the Town to produce a list of desires that is updated regularly so developers are more knowledgeable about what they need to bring to the table. She stated C., e� that the maximum DUs/acre could be higher. She also felt that a minimum FAR of 1.6:1 is a good starting point. Councilwoman Ferraro agreed that development bonus is a good idea. She also agreed with her fellow Commissioners and Councilors about the proposed minimum and maximum FARs. She felt the maximum height should be allowed to go taller if a developer is not using all of the allowed FAR. She preferred diversity of the public benefits versus setting up a system that promoted a single type of public benefit over all others. Commissioner Lane was okay with proposed changes. He did comment that there is a direct correlation between density, massing and design and those items cannot be separated. He also didn't think height should be an absolute since it has a direct impact on design. He would prefer quality designs over designs that are "lipstick on a mass." Commissioner Goulding felt the proposed code provided enough flexibility. He wanted to ensure the process helped to protect against lousy applications. He commented that FAR was a good addition and that the development bonus concept could use work to ensure comparable public benefits to impacts. He would like to discuss the process more to ensure the P8Z doesn't get left behind. He thinks the PZC's role should have more zoning and design review, while Town Council focuses on larger town wide issues. REGULAR MEETING II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:50pm. III. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Struve. IV. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no amendments to the agenda. V. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Anderson has a conflict of interest on Item VII. VI. Consent Agenda • Approval of the April 6, 2010 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Prince moved to approve the modified consent agenda. Commissioner Green seconded the motion and it passed 5-0 with Commissioner Lane abstaining due to his absence. DESIGN REVIEW VII. Timeshare East Final Design Property Location: Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision / 42 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet, Studio OS / Owner. Starwood Vacation Ownership Description: Review of a revised Final Design submittal, most recently reviewed at the January 19, 2010 Planning and Zoning Work Session. The site and building design of the Project are consistent with the building placements and forms approved with the Riverfront PUD. Further changes to the east building elevations have been provided. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker gave a brief overview of the proposal. He went through the design standards and showed how the project complied with the standards. 13 Commissioner Goulding questioned the proposed colors and materials to ensure that they are identical to Timeshare West. Commissioner Goulding questioned Staffs condition 1 and wanted clarification from the applicant that they accept this condition. Commissioner Prince questioned why the light fixture is non-compliant. Matt Pielsticker stated that the fixture produced more than 1000 lumens, was not full cut-off and the source of illumination is visible from outside the fixture. Alexander Sheyket overviewed the comments made from the previous meeting and how the design was changed. Commissioner Roubos questioned where the plans encroached into the setbacks. Alexander Sheyket showed the plans and the areas of encroachment. Commissioner Prince questioned how far above grade the planter was. Alexander Sheyket stated that they do not have specific designs, but did state it would be very close to the walking grade. Commissioner Prince questioned if the color palette was a mirror match to the Timeshare West. Alexander Shey - 5 -Page 5 of 5ket stated that the colors were identical, but Timeshare East used Cedar versus Hardy Board. Commissioner Goulding questioned if the applicant has any issues with the engineering report. Joe Gamb stated that they were comfortable with the comments. Commissioner Goulding questioned why stone was brought into the east elevation. Joe Gamb stated that they heard there was too much siding on that elevation therefore they saw an opportunity to bring stone into the elevation. Commissioner Goulding asked if the applicant had looked at using a separate material instead of stone. Joe Gamb responded that he felt an additional material would make the elevation too busy. Commissioner Lane likes the direction the design went. He felt the issues were addressed. Commissioner Green commented that the design did meet the requirements of the Riverfront Design Guidelines. Commissioner Prince stated that the design addressed the design guidelines. Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to approve the design with the conditions and findings listed in Staffs Report. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Commissioner Prince wanted the landscaping to be revised to remove all bear attracting plantings. Commissioners Roubos and Lane accepted the modification and the motion passed 4-1. VIII. Other Business • April 27, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Appointments IX. Adjourn was W. Todd Goulding Chairperson Secretary