Loading...
PZC Minutes 070709Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for July 7, 2009 Avon Town Council Chambers VW06 N Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building 1 One Lake Street JOINT WORK SESSION WITH TOWN COUNCIL (5:OOpm — 6:OOpm) Conceptual Review Folson Annexation Property Development Concept Property Location: Folson Annexation Property 1 Highway 6 (no address assigned) Applicant: Brownfield Redevelopment, LLC /Owner. Craig C. Folson Description: A conceptual proposal for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the subject property. Discussion: Eric Heidemann presented a brief Staff review of the property and previous applications. Doug Elenowitz presented the project. He highlighted the project's ability to fill a housing gap, provide high quality units, and diversify the mix of housing units. The development proposes 3 buildings with 180 rental units mixed between studio, one -bedroom, and two-bedroom units, target the 80 to 140% of the AMI. Councilman Dantas asked what would happen when this project would become a for -sale product. Doug responded that this is strictly a rental property and the applicants are not envisioning converting to for -sale units. Councilman Sipes asked how this proposal would be structured so that the units are only rentable to full time locals. Doug Elenowitz responded that they would be open to options that would incentivize full time residents. Commissioner Anderson offered his comments as a local landlord, specifically he commented on the current abundance of rental properties and the lower rental rates when compared to the proposed figures. Councilman Sipes asked if there is going to be an amenities package. Skip Ahern responded affirmatively. Morgan Landers passed out documents that better depicted the proposal. Doug Elenowitz presented the proposed site planning and architectural styles. Commissioner Green felt that the target market was appropriate and the applicant had challenges on the operational front. He was not in favor of a two building design instead of three. He also stated that the applicant did a good job of staggering the building footprints. He also commented positively on the height differential instead of a continuous height for all of the proposed buildings. Commissioner Green stated that he would not like to see all buildings designed with the same architectural style, but he also commented that we would not support a design that proposed radically different architecture as depicted in the renderings presented. His final comment regarded the lack of architectural interest on the front elevation and the lack of connectivity to Town Center. Commissioner Struve questioned the number of deed restricted units provided be the Village at Avon parcel. He stated that he also preferred the idea of three buildings instead of two and the ability to vary heights and architecture. He commented that the Sheraton Mountain Vista was a poor example of architecture and preferred the design of The Westin and Bel Lago. He also had concerns about potential phasing, but he did like setbacks and articulation of the buildings. Commissioner Roubos agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Green. She commented that she doesn't prefer the urban architecture styles proposed. She also commented on the need for roof line articulation and height variation. Commissioner Prince questioned the target AMI ranges and tenants. He also stated that he wanted to ensure the architecture would have varied faces. He stressed connectivity to the Town Center. Commissioner Anderson also appreciated the concept of rental properties and also agreed with the connectivity issue brought up by other Commissioners. He commented on his preference for stepping the buildings up toward the Gates project and preferred the three building option. He asked if there is any commercial envisioned on the project. Doug Elenowitz responded negatively. Councilman Reynolds questioned the site planning with future plans for Highway 6. He wasn't concerned about the number of buildings, but preferred stepping of the buildings into the hillside. Councilman Sipes asked that applications be brought forth in context with The Gates project. He commented on his unwillingness to support a design that is taller than The Gates. He also stated that his opinion was that the Gates was too tall. One of the important issues to Councilman Sipes was massing. He stated that if designed correctly two buildings could be a better option than three especially if the designs are more articulated. He stated that pedestrian connections to the Town are paramount and that the increase in units could drive up the need for an expansion of Highway 6. Councilman Carroll questioned the financial impact on the Town budget. He stated his desire that the project doesn't become less than expected in terms of overpopulation. Councilman Dantas prefers the design of the project to use mountain architecture. He also commented on his preference for three buildings instead of two. He would prefer to see ownership units in the project and would prefer to see phasing so that 180 units don't flood the market. Councilwoman Phillips wanted to know more about the management portion of the project. She also wanted to ensure that proper connectivity to bus stops and into the Town were provided. Commissioner Goulding asked to review the data to back up the proposed product. He stated that the proposal seemed intensive in terms of use and density. He summarized the comments made by all of the Council and Commission members. REGULAR MEETING (6:00pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:40. II, Roll Call All commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Lane. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item VII. Wildstar Residences Design Change was moved to the consent agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the June 2, 2009 Meeting Minutes - Revised • Approval of the June 16, 2009 Meeting Minutes Item VII. Wildstar Residences Design Change Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the consent agenda and Commissioner Green seconded the motion. It passed with a 6-0 vote. DESIGN REVIEW VI. Final Design Public Works Facilities Property Location: Lots 1A & 1 B, Swift Gulch Addition Applicant: Jennifer Strehler, Director of Public Works and /Owner. Town of Avon Description: A proposal for new Public Works facilities on the Swift Gulch site. The proposed buildings include a new storage structure for buses, an administration building, a shops building, and a covered cinder storage structure. The proposed buildings will be predominately finished with stone, wood siding, and standing seem metal. The Sketch Design for this project took place at the May 19, 2009 Commission meeting. Discussion: Jennifer Strehler presented the project. She explained the current portion of the project and the future steps for a design -build process. Commissioner Struve questioned if the Final Design was the final approval for the proposal or if it would come back for a final review once the designs were completed. Commissioner and Staff discussions ensued and it was determined that unless significant changes were made this would be the final review for the Commission. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the Final Design. Commissioner Green seconded the motion with discussion commencing. Commissioner Prince questioned the motion, specifically if the word significant was to remain. Commissioner Green explained his rationale. He stated that the need for the term significant was due to the level of Design Guidelines specificity. Commissioner Green suggested that additional findings, as follows, be added to the motion. 1. That the proposal is an industrial -commercial project; 2. That the proposal is located within a GPEH zone district; 3. That the proposal is subject to provisions of Title 12; and 4. That due to the unique funding structure there will be a greater benefit the town on this specific project. Commissioner Goulding suggested that condition 5 be: All submitted documents have been approved with the understanding that they will be updated to match the design character as represented on sheets SK1.01 through SK1.04. Commissioners Struve and Green accepted the amendments to the motion and it passed 6-0. VII. Minor Projects A. Wildstar Residences Design Change Property Location: Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Applicant., Jeffrey Manley, Martin Manley Architects/ Owner Wildavon Enterprises, LLC Description: A modified proposal to change the final design approval that was granted at the Commission's May 5, 2009 Meeting. A partially buried dual bay, four -car garage is being proposed. The original commission review for this design change took place at the Commission's June 16, 2009 meeting, where the item was tabled to allow time for the applicant to make further modifications to the design per the comments from the Commission. Discusion: Item was moved to the Consent Agenda. Vill. Other Business Commissioners asked about removing their contributions to the retirement fund. IX. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:20 Approved on July 21, 2009: 11 W. Todd Goulding Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary