Loading...
PZC Minutes 02-20-2007 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2007 AVONAvon Town Council Chambers C o L o k A U 5 Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - SITE TOUR - (12:OOpm) Site Tour - 95 Avon Road (12:OOpm) Description: Meeting at the Confluence Site to Review the mockup for the Riverfront Lodge. Open to the Public. Follow-up to 10/3/06 review of on-site mockup for Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision, Riverfront Lodge whole ownership Final Design Review. For final approval of materials and colors. - WORK SESSION - (S:OOpm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items. - REGULAR MEETING - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Lane revealed a conflict of interest with Item VIII, Site Tour Follow-up, Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision 1254 Riverfront Lane, and Commissioner Evans disclosed a conflict with Item IX, PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING, Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the February 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Smith motioned to approve the Consent Agenda and Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and motion passed 4 — 0 with Commissioner Foster, Commissioner Green and Commissioner Lane abstained due to their absence at the meeting. VIII. Site Tour Follow-up Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane Applicant. Zehren & Associates / Owner. • East West Partners Description: Follow-up to Final Design approval condition for the Riverfront Lodge. The project is comprised of 75 whole ownership units with underground parking garage. This item was first reviewed by the Commission at their May 16, 2006 meeting, and later reviewed and approved at the October 3, 2006 Commission meeting. An on-site mockup°review for this agenda item took place at that meeting, but was not formally approved. Action is now required prior to removal of the mockup. Matt Pielsticker noted to the Commission that the only Commissioners present for the Site Tour were Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Struve. The consensus at Work Session was that all the Commissioners should go out there, it would be difficult to move the mock up and plan was to get out there at a later date. It was a condition of final approval that all materials and colors would be accepted as complete once it was reviewed in the field by the Commission. Commissioner Struve revealed the comments from Work Session of the importance that the Commission have access to the mockups as buildings are added in the Confluence site in order to see how compatible they were to one another. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VIII, Site Tour Follow-up, Property Location: Lot 4, Riverfront Subdivision / 254 Riverfront Lane. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 — 0 with Commissioner Lane abstaining. IX. PUD Amendment — NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC / Owner: Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a phased 112 -unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. The development is titled Madison Partners PUD. The property is immediately east of the 49 unit Gates on Beaver Creek condominium project currently under construction. As proposed, there are three phases to the project with no timeframe for, completion. The first phase includes 58 condominium units with underground parking. The second and third phase would each include 27 units respectively. Phase two would include the aforementioned restaurant of at least 3,000 square feet. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. . Commissioner Struve questioned the staging acreage for the Gates located next to this site and received a response of a one acre. Commissioner Green questioned the basis of the density and Mr. Pielsticker responded with 4.1 -acres of developable acreage, it would be 40 units per acre based on developable acreage in Tract 1. Michael Neary, project representative, approached the podium to discuss this project and began with historical information of his company. Mr. Neary continued by discussing the project's needs, economics and architecture. Tab Bonidy, architect, approached the podium and began his presentation by commenting on the meetings with staff, density issues on the developable acreage, parking issues, massing of the building, stepping of the fagade, PUD criteria, roof articulation, and the level of detail of the building. Greg Macik, Tab Associates Architects, discussed from the podium use of creating tracts, construct open space and trails up the mountain, number of employees at 27 with a restaurant and 5 employees without the restaurant to deal with employee housing, circulation of trucks on the site, and designing to the topography. Glenn Palmer, Alpine Engineering, approached the podium to comment on access to the site. He continued by revealing that CDOT and the Town of Avon preferred a joint access with the Gates at Beaver Creek project. Commissioner Struve questioned the desire of one access and a shared access. Mr. Palmer responded that full access was desired on the Folson property with a shared at the Gates. Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC, commented from the podium regarding the access and the Gates. Employee housing was next on his agenda and he mentioned that it was not yet determined if a restaurant would be built on the site as of yet. He continued with the public benefit of transfer taxes to the Town of Avon as well as property taxes and excess acreage as either conservation parcel or public space with trails. Glenn Palmer returned to the podium to comment on the site stability and the need for shoring on the site, and debris flow would either be contained on the site as a catch basin or move flow away. Greg Macik continued with the sidewalk issue, bus stop location needed to be determined and wildlife concerns along with landscaping issues. Mike Neary concluded the presentation. Commissioner Green questioned the two phases concept and Mr. Neary answered that the first phase would finance the infrastructure; the phases give greater flexibility in construction, and were dependent on sales demand. Commissioner Green questioned the restaurant and the employee - housing situation with Mr. Neary responding the restaurant would be beneficial to the project. Mr. Neary continued that the restaurant project would be bought by its owners. Commissioner Lane questioned the parking garage height and Mr. Neary responded that the units would have 9 -foot ceilings. Mr. Macik and Mr. Bonidy commented that the design height of the garages was necessary for the heights of garbage trucks, carrier tops on vehicles and the like. Commissioner Lane questioned the Leeds certification attempt and Mr. Vineyard responded with the company's dedication to the concept of Leeds. Commissioner Goulding questioned 240,000 sq ft of sellable space, restaurant size, and responded by Mr. Macik that with parking the square footage reaches 430,000, restaurant 3,000 sq ft with 100 — 110 seats, with whole ownership of the condos. Commissioner Struve questioned if there would be stacked and parking and was an affirmative response. Commissioner Foster asked if this development was intended as a resort project and Mr. Neary commented that he was not certain where the buyers were coming from. Commissioner Smith questioned the in lieu payment for employee housing. •C I1���I�II� WREffT-f►Le3 Frank Diasparra, Avon resident, approached the podium and commented on clarification to his letter. Mr. Diasparra read his letter of opposition to the Commission and his concerns for the wildlife, water, and traffic. Chris Todd, Canyon Run resident, approached the podium to comment on the grade of the project, elevations were not shown in -reference to Highway 6, and he presented his interpretation of its relevancy, and the height was 50 feet taller than the Gates project, visually demonstrated to the Commission differences of the elevations, and its visibility from everywhere in Avon. Mr. Todd questioned why parking wasn't underground instead of the first two stories of the building and voiced his concern with noise. He continued with the buildable land for the project, steep slope on Phase three was over 40% grade and drainage to include future rock debris, and he questioned the elevation lines on the maps presented by the applicant. Bette Todd, Canyon Run resident, commented on her letter of opposition to the Commission regarding issues with the lack of enhancement to the Highway 6 Right of Way, the 8 story height of the project was very tall, landscape plan was not adequate, obstructs the hillside and views, cuts into the hillside could exceed 90 feet, and, scale and density of building are not appropriate for the area. Ms. Todd continued with discrepancies of the application submittal, assumptions in the traffic study, geological hazards of the land and its liability, questioned the provisions for bike paths, it was not an enhancement to the entry of the Town of Avon, and the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan. Mauri Nottingham, 1910 Hurd Lane resident, commented that the project overwhelms the hillside, taller than the development to the west; building's massiveness makes it all worse. Jonathan Bush, Canyon Run homeowner, commented on his letter to the Commission and the issues with the Comp Plan, the massing was driving the project, voiced his opposition to the size and suggested that the economics doesn't work, the price was wrong. Tom Hicks, President of the Canyon Run Association, began by commenting that it is the wrong project for the site, will create a canyon effect, traffic will be an issue, Gates will put more cars on the highway and cause Hurd Lane to become a bypass road which it was not intended to be, terrain is very steep with very little buildable area, geology as a serious problem for the site and continued with the items that are issues with the Comprehensive Plan. Jeanette Hicks, member of the Avon Historic Committee, note was read into the record regarding the historic ditch on the site. Tim Barton, project manager for the Gates at Beaver Creek, commented from the podium on the joint access for the site does not exist. Mr. Barton continued that the site was one of the most challenging sites, voiced that its impact was a concern and the margins of profit were tight. Cadg Snowdon, Eagle -Vail resident, suggested of the developer to fly balloons of the heights to give a feel of the situation as it appears to be a very large project and small scale models and two dimensional models don't portray the project. Harry Taylor, Avon resident, commented on the monetary equation of development in regards to the workers to maintain these types of projects. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Tab Bonidy commented on the model as being accurate to scale of the project, bear issue was created by humans, elk were in Arrowhead, traffic was studied, noise is linear and a noise study would easily be produced, building width is as wide as the property, views are not protected in the State of Colorado, and project is whole ownership. Greg Macik remarked on the name of the project, intention to exceed Town of Avon guidelines, had challenges with grade, and ditch remnants will be reviewed. Commissioner Struve questioned the shuttle and if it would be funded by the Homeowner Association. Commissioner Goulding voiced concern with the PUD process and the high density desired by the applicant, a silver rating with Leeds is difficult and impressive with residential, massing on the road, traffic impacts, employee housing, tie in to the Town of Avon pedestrian friendly, suggested more information on the due diligence for a silver Leeds rating, joint access as a non starter, model did fit the land, study of who will purchase these units, and there are many challenges to be addressed. Commissioner Struve questioned what is developable on the property, height of Phase One was a concern, linear form goes forever, site disturbance was an issue along with the mature trees on the site, would like to hear a response to the Canyon Run residents concerns, like to see having landscaping and trail access on a plan, and performance bond goes without saying. Commissioner Foster remarked on the pro of money for the town, trails, Leeds certification, and on the con side were the massing and height, wildlife concern, slope stability and cutting into the hillside, and price point being more resort directed and an empty building is not wanted, traffic was an issue. Commissioner Lane commented on the quality of the building, the building was huge, neighbor concerns, suggested review of how large the building needs to be and how it fits on the site. Commissioner Green remarked to developer that Leeds certification is granted after its completion, dealing with a massive development and huge density for this project, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, employees need a place to be housed, no formula for employee housing exists, public benefit was noted as extending the sidewalk as the connection to the Town, voiced concern of the deeded land above the property as it may be a liability to the Town, would like to know the storm water management with regard to the Eagle River, and the issues of :the neighbors needed to be addressed. Commissioner Smith commented on liability to the Town of the property was a concern. Commissioner Goulding remarked that no one from the public supported this project, new restaurants GENERAL. COMMENTS: ---This is a vital legislative consideration ---Our considerations must be careful, encompassing and driven by values and vision ---We should not confine our objectiveo narrowly to low income workers - - ." x ---We should not frame this legislation to relieve the private sector of their obligations ---We should not delude ourselves into believing that this is an economic development program. Our economy is bl-modal consisting of resorts and second - homes and the low -waged jobs that they create. Our small successful middleclass is being squeezed out of our community. If we do nothing to guide the community the economy will simply get bigger but it will not get better. ---Just what is this legislation?°It is a tool that strategically guides the evolution of Avon in a way that is consistent with our adopted vision and based on our stated. values. It is a community planning and development tool. ---This tool of inclusionary zoning must)be designed to respect and protect current land -use entitlements while guiding housing development over and above these rights. ---Staff has opened.thls legislative process with what we have heard today. I have some specific, perhaps aggressive, comments. - COMMENTS ON "WORKFORCE HOUSING REGULATIONS" TITLE: Overly constraining and evokes a negative connotation of a government - subsidized tow -income housing. effort. "Inclusionary Housing Regulations encompasses the strategic vision.and emphasizes a broader community planning objective. All wording should strike the use of workforce,and be -replaced by phrasing conveying inclusionary, strategic, diverse and balanced housing • - distributions by location, size, type and price -points to support. achievement. of our vision and consistent,with.our values. - AREA: Definition required;: is itTOAor the Eagle River Region which is our interrelated area of jobs and housing? The draft legislation calculation of payment -in - lieu uses Eagle. County data. FAMILY: Definition required; is it the average family,or the median sized family? MITIGATION %: If it is accepted that the purpose of this inclusionary zoning is to be a strategic community planning tool a minimum % should be established with an upside of 100% ofthe'up-zoning being "inclusionary." Based on Eagle County work the minimum should be 30% of the total project. UNIT:PRICE: (1),Statement Is incorrectly phrased: Unit is not "priced at 80% AMI" It should be "priced to be affordable by X earning 80% of the AMI." Again, Area is a definition requiring definition and justification; "X" also requires reasoning and definition as a family to be targeted. As stated below, 100% AMI is a better target. (2) Since this legislation is a strategic community planning effort, Impacts and buy-outs and impact -fee type calculations are based on averages of averages and medians of data, the target here should be a median/average family earning 100% of the AMI. (3) Suggest that you introduce the concept of "directed development" meaning the distribution of units determined to be needed by TOA and consistent with the character, location, and type of project that is "directed" to be built such, Y � . that the actual aggregate sales cost equals the calculated aggregate sales,.cost of -the inclusionary housing obligation. See comments below on defining the target unit. ON-SITE/OFF-SITE: (1) Off-site constructionand.payment-ln-lieu should be more strongly discouraged by changing the language.to: "Off-site, construction and: payment -in -lieu are highly undesirable. Consistent with effective land use and community planning, the Town of Avon may consider alternatives of partial off-site provision of units and/orpayment-in-lieu." (2) Percentages and penalties are too low and do not escalate aggressively enough. PAYMENT -IN -LIEU: This calculation has many deeply important aspects that will require -logic and justification. The method proposed in the draft legislation is based on a nexus and proportionality study for whatever the "region" is defined to be. You used County data. The opening of this document incorrectly states that a new study is not needed; the nexus and proportionality linkages used come from the County r study ... which may or may not include Avon. The housing unit (size, type, price) from which the affordability gap is calculated must have a strong,, rational and effective basis of justification and demonstration of livability/adequacy. RESTRICTIONS: (1) Maximum sales price range should encompass up to 200% AMI so that we can use this as a, community, planning tool..r; (2) If a Regional Housing Authority is created it can take on the qualifying responsibility for all communities. + (3) Real estate commissions must be addressed: Our housing authority or a regional one should become qualified as a broker and do marketing and sales at an "at cost" basis and not the usually 6% of selling price. This will minimize cost escalation with every resale. (4) Appreciation caps should be more extensively explored. Are they really necessary if ownership is tightly constrained to waged individuals, or linked to regional wage increases? (5) Capital improvements should be allowed up to the actual value for defined, pre -qualified -and approved work. (6) Rather than hours employed it is better to use as a qualifier of the percentage of Income that Is earned and earned in the Region. For example to qualify a person/family total reported income must consist of at least 90% earned - income (as opposed to investment, etc.) and of that at least 95% must have been earned in the area/region and this must be the casein the preceding 5 or more years if the purchaser Is a retiree. • (7) Net asset caps may not be a good idea when you consider a family . moving up the housing chain. If they own a restricted unit exceeding the cap they will not be able to sell and buy another unit. Since we are community building more than we are providing low income housing, the entire idea of an equity cap does not seem to be good or needed: RCW 3/4/07 , are great and it impacts traffic, and Leeds certification delivery was after the project completion and a difficult process. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item IX, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Madison Partners PUD / Highway 6 & 24, and Commissioner Green seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion to table passed unanimously. X. Other Business • Jared Barnes commented to the Commission on the lights questioned in the previous meeting. • Christie Lodge garbage enclosure was already there and they are doing maintenance on it. • March 6th is a joint hearing with Town Council and a preferred alternative for East Avon will be presented. • Timeshare West Final Design is tentatively scheduled for 3/20/07. • Lot 61 would be presented in the near future. • Buck Creek application is being worked on by the applicant. IX. Adjourn Commissioner Struve motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Foster seconded and all Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary