Loading...
PZC Minutes 010609Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for January 6, 2009 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C o. o R A D o Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) I. Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Il. Western Sage PUD Monument Sign Approval — Questions from the Applicant Discussion: George Ruther and Jay Peterson, separate owners of property in the Western Sage PUD, asked for a clarification on the condition of approval made at the previous Commission meeting since they were not able to attend. Mr. Peterson explained the rationale for why they want something indicating their road is private and that nothing in the sign regulations and design guidelines gives them jurisdiction to regulate content. Commissioner Evans told the applicants that if they are not happy about the Commission's decision they could go appeal it to Council. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. 11. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. George Ruther asked if there were any criteria or findings to go with Item VI from the meeting minutes being reviewed for the December 16, 2008 meeting minutes, which are to be acted upon during the consent agenda. Commissioner Struve's recollection of this item was that there were no other similar properties with the wording "Private Drive." Commissioner Green recalled that since the sign expressed the project name and address numbers, the design of the sign was in compliance with the Guidelines. Green citied the finding that there was concern for exclusivity instead of the inclusionary nature of the Wildridge subdivision. Commissioner Green also stated that the sign area is a visual cue that distinguished this enclave of properties from others. Commissioner Goulding highlighted the fact that the applicant's representative did not oppose the decision at the meeting on December 16`", and the applicant was directed to work with Staff to put the numbers back in the sign design. This was to be a Staff reviewable design modification not subject to Commission review. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest. V. Consent Agenda Approval of the December 16, 2008 Meeting Minutes — with modifications raised by Commissioner Struve. ® Resolution No. 08-09, A Resolution Recommending Approval of the Swift Gulch Rezoning Application — as heard on December 16, 2008 Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the Consent Agenda, and Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. It was approved with a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Roubos abstained from voting due to her absence at the December 16, 2008 meeting. VI. PUD & Preliminary Subdivision: Red House Annexation Parcel — (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING) Property Location: Lots 1-2, Red House Exemption Plat / 38361 Highway 6 Applicant: Rick Pylman, Pylman and Associates /Owner, Vail Corporation Description: The applicant and property owner, the Vail Corporation, represented by Rick Pylman of Pylman and Associates, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a development site currently located in unincorporated Eagle County and zoned Commercial Limited (CL) under the County's zoning regulations. After review and comments from the Commission, this item was tabled from the December 16, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Discussion: Rick Pylman made a presentation highlighting the outstanding issues from the last meeting. The widening of the bridge was explored by the applicant and the Town Engineer, but was found to be infeasible at present. The building envelope will be highlighted on the PUD Development Plan; essentially, the front setbacks and stream setbacks will form the building envelope. Rick Pylman continued by exploring the housing options which resulted from the employee demand created by the project. Brandt Marott explained that the average household income for Avon as $94K, and median income for Avon is $65K. He then highlighted the housing needs assessment stating that 63% of renters would purchase a deed restricted home if it were available. The largest deficit, or gap, found in the Avon housing stock is for homes affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Brandt presented the owners revised proposal, which is to purchase and re -sell two units to be priced from 120% to 140% of the AMI. Commissioner Evans requested clarification as to what range of AMI affordability the units would be purchased from. Brandt responded that the units would be purchased from the 160%-180% AMI price bracket, and then "bought down". Mr. Marott continued with the sustainability strategies, including: energy conservation, water conservation, material resources, and river ecology. The team is concentrated on these four focus areas, however, the owner is placing emphasis on the river ecology as the focus for moving forward. More information and detail will be provided in the future. Gary Brooks, Alpine Engineering, approached the Commission to discuss crosswalk materiality. He explained that the Avon Road and Highway 6 crossings would be constructed identical to the existing Avon Road crosswalks in both materials and design. Gary mentioned that the Highway 6 crosswalk is subject to CDOT approval, and as such, may be hindered by snow removal operations. If CDOT does not approve the raised crosswalks, the applicant remains committed to the original striping and signage proposal. Mr. Brooks explained the rationale for widening the river path connecting the kayak put -in and take-out from 3 feet to 3.5 feet. It was mentioned that it will be further widened where possible, with a 3.5 foot minimum width, and it will be a fill project instead of cutting into the riprap under the bridge. With respect to the architectural style of the project, Rick Pylman explained that the OZ sketch was made part of the record at the last meeting and after speaking with Staff this could be considered binding. Matthew Gennett reaffirmed that the design sketch would be encapsulated within recommended condition #6 of Staff's report. Rick continued by highlighting the benefits of the project, including: annexation into the Town; 2% Real Estate Transfer Tax (REIT), which should equate to approximately $400,000; improved pedestrian connectivity across Highway 6 and Avon Road; mitigating greater than 100% of the employee housing demand; and, the improved kayak park access for boaters. Commissioner Goulding questioned the sustainability aspect of the project and how the desire of the Commission from the last meeting was for a simple formula or measurable way to look at the reduced energy use of the buildings. A larger discussion continued around the sustainability strategy, and possible ways to condition the sustainable intention of the applicant. If the property were entitled and sold, the Commission would like the assurances that the project will truly live -up to what the applicant is representing. Commissioner Evans opened the hearing for public comment. Brian Judge, 90 Benchmark Road, commented on the application. From his understanding of the application and annexation, the Commission may want to explore the differences or additional impacts this project would bring if it was going through the County process, as opposed to coming through the Town process. Mr. Judge explained that the river setbacks would be 75 feet with the County, a less intensive use, and the housing impacts would be different through the County as well. Additionally, the Town has less stringent attainable housing requirements when compared to the County. He would like to see that the Town require a similar number and type of units that would be required if the project was brought before the County. With no other input, the public comment period was closed by Commissioner Evans. Commissioner Roubos stated that it would be nice to require an applicant to meet or beat "ECO -build" standards, but she is unaware of what that would entail. Commissioners Lane and Evans outlined some of the details of ECO -build, and some of the apparent shortfalls with that program. For example, an applicant could effectively buy-out themselves out of all the requirements. Eric Heidemann suggested that the sustainability issue be brought back to the Commission to meet their satisfaction at the time of Sketch Plan review. Commissioner Roubos continued by stating that she felt the project is too dense for the property. She stated that the majority of the public benefits are commendable, but stated that the pedestrian crosswalks are necessary and shouldn't be viewed as a public benefit. Commissioner Struve appreciated the progress and the responses to Commissioner concerns. He still doesn't understand all of the Public Benefits and their relation to what the necessary improvements are and what actual benefits are. Commissioner Goulding was disappointed that the Town Staff did not do more to encourage the applicant to embark on a feasibility study for the widening of the bridge to connect this project to Avon. He likes the sustainability condition as suggested by Staff, and the Attainable Housing mitigation is satisfactory. Commissioner Struve questioned the sidewalks as depicted on the landscape plan. Rick Pylman stated that the image was incorrect and that the sidewalks would be setback from the roadway as presented earlier. Commissioner Prince did not feel that the kayak park access needed to be widened more than the 3.5 feet proposed. He went on further to state that a pedestrian bridge would be the most ideal pedestrian access to the rest of the Town. He did feel that the pedestrian connection is necessary and feels that this applicant should have been involved in the feasibility of this concept. Eric Heidemann explained the workings of the URA and how this property would not realistically be a part of the District. He also stated that improved connectivity is important to the Town, but Staff determined that it is not the sole responsibility of this developer. Commissioner Prince asked if the Town was receiving ample space to better the pedestrian connectivity surrounding the bridge. Staff answered Commissioner Prince's question in the affirmative. Commissioner Prince stated that he had concerns that a $50,000 buy down would do enough to make units Attainable to the AMI ranges that were proposed. He wanted to see a greater buy -down per unit to ensure attainability. Commissioner Lane stated that he was happy with the Attainable Housing mitigation plan as proposed. He also was comfortable with the pedestrian access, but would like to see the specifics of the sustainability at the Sketch Design phase of this project. Commissioner Green questioned the number of units on the property. Rick Pylman stated that they were proposing 15 dwelling units. Commissioner Green stated that approximately 13% of the proposed units were being mitigated by the Attainable Housing program. Commissioner Evans stated that the footprints and design intent were acceptable. He stated that the 6 or 7 items that needed to be addressed were addressed. He would prefer that the Attainable Housing program brought the units into the 100% to 120% AMI range. He stated that this is a small project, and therefore, the public benefits are adequate. He also commented that one of the public benefits not discussed was the conveyance of the riverfront land to the Town of Avon at the Town's request. Commissioner Goulding apologized to Staff for misinterpreting the comments made by the applicant with regard to the possible feasibility of a pedestrian connection across the bridge. Action: Commissioner Goulding made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council with the following conditions: Condition #1: as written, with additional language stating a minimum width of 3.5 feet and wider in areas for passing will be provided. Condition #2: as written Condition #3 The two attainable units to be provided by the applicant shall be placed on the market at the 120% to 140% AMI selling range, and be bought from the 160% to 180% buying range; and, the idea is not to buy from the 160% AMI range then sell at 140% of the AMI — the bare minimum buy -down should not be used. Conditions #4, #5, and #6 as written. Condition #7 — The new planned crosswalk improvements are to match the Hurd Lane crosswalk design, at a minimum. Condition #8 - The applicant will provide detail of significant improvement in Energy Conservation, Water Conservation, Material Resources, River Ecology over standard building practices at the Sketch Review phase of this project. Matthew Gennett suggested adding the finding that the application substantially complies with the twelve (12) applicable PUD Design Criteria (17.20.110(h)). All Commissioners were in agreement. Commissioner Green seconded the motion with Staff's added finding. Commissioner Green asked if the findings outside of the 12 PUD criteria are also met, including the 13% of units proposed to Attainable Housing proposed. Commissioner Goulding agreed to the modifications to the motion. The motion passed unanimously. l O . ® ZAC members —meeting near the end of January to review the Diagnostic. ® There will be an update concerning the "Tract B Wildridge Joint Work Session" at the January 27 Council meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 PM. Approved on January 20, 2009: Chris Evans Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary