PZC Minutes 06-11-2012 (2)�V0 N
C O L O R A D O
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 pm.
II. Roll Call
Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
SPECIAL MEETING
Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2012
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street
All commissioners were present.
III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the agenda.
IV. Preliminary PUD Application —CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAERING
Property Location: Mixed -Use Development known as The Village (at Avon)
Applicant/Owner: Harvey Robertson / Traer Creek, LLC
Description: The Applicant is proposing a Preliminary PUD Application with several
amendments to the approved zoning control documents, including but not limited to the
following: extension of Vested Property Rights, Modifications to the location of the dedicated
school site, modifications to development standards and allowed uses, administrative
subdivisions, changes to the DRB Powers, and clarifying exemptions to Town Code
requirements. This application is continued from the Tuesday, June 5, 2012 Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing.
Discussion: Commissioner Green discussed the proposed outline for the discussion and
review for the night's meeting.
Commissioner Anderson questioned how the Public Hearing would be handled.
Commissioner Green stated he planned on opening the Public Hearing and leaving it open as
each item was discussed.
Commissioner Struve questioned if a minority report could be issued by a dissenting voter.
Commissioner Green responded that the Town Council wants to hear any and all comments
received.
Commissioner Minervini questioned which revision we would be reviewing tonight. Matt
Pielsticker responded that it would be Version 9 of the PUD Guide.
Item 1: Vestina riahts discussion
Commissioner Green asked staff to discuss the vesting rights request by the applicant. Matt
Pielsticker stated the vesting request is an additional 6 years and 2 months. Justin Hildreth
stated that he had concerns about how certain processes would react to the end of vesting.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant is accepting with position Justin Hildreth stated
regarding sunset provisions. Munsey Ayres stated that the applicant would not be accepting
of these sunset clauses at this time, however, some sort of sun set could be acceptable.
Commissioner Green questioned the reasoning behind the request for additional vesting.
Munsey Ayres stated it was partially due to the lost time from litigation.
Commissioner Struve questioned the Master Developer concept, specifically if those interests
are transferable or saleable. Munsey Ayres discussed the concept and its relationship to the
Developer Affiliates — as it exists today.
Commissioner Minervini recommended that Town Council approve a 6 year extension to
vested properties rights and the sunset provisions be added. He offered the following findings:
1. The extended vested property rights are included in the settlement term sheet;
2. The extended vested property rights make up for lost development time;
3. The role of the Master Developer in this PUD regarding land use and property rights is
extensive and should also be subject to sunset provisions;
Commissioner Green suggested a 0 finding as follows: The Town Council have a complete
and thorough understanding of vesting and the implications of how the vesting impacts
financial aspects.
Commissioner Minervini accepted the amendment to the recommendation.
Commissioner Prince stated that the settlement term sheet is not a reason to recommend
approval. Commissioner Clancy stated that the inclusion of sunset clauses is a benefit to the
Town, but that the language of the clauses are important.
Commissioner Clancy commented that the Council should clarify and define time frames for
and conditions of the sunset provisions. Comment was added as a condition.
Chris Ekrem questioned the exact date of the vesting expiring. Eric Heil responded that it was
October 2033, and as proposed would be October 2039.
Vote passed 5-2.
Commissioner Prince did not find benefit to the town as to why the extended vesting should be
approved.
Item 2: School Site(s)
Commissioner Green questioned the exact location of the school site/sites in the existing and
proposed PUD. He also questioned if schools were to be allowed in other zone districts.
Munsey Ayres discussed the provisions of the PUD, specifically Planning Area A.
Commissioner Green asked if a future school user would have to purchase land outside of the
dedicated Planning Area E. Eric Heil stated that the Town would not own that land therefore
couldn't speak towards how a school user were to occupy other parcels.
Commissioner Anderson questioned if the Town has ever owned the land for a school site.
Eric Heil stated that this is a point of litigation and the school site has not been dedicated to
the Town. Munsey Ayres overviewed the previous locations of the school site and stated that
the land was never conveyed to the Town in the past. Through this process the land would be
platted and conveyed.
Commissioner Clancy stated the public input received at the previous meetings was important
and that for school purposes it needed to be a contiguous site.
Commissioner Anderson agreed with the previous comments and his prefererence was a
location 'contiguous' somewhere on the valley floor.
Commissioner Prince stated that he also preferred a contiguous site, and that there were
issues with dedicating the land in Planning Area I. He commented on the lack of a
requirement for Charter schools to accept all children.
Commissioner Minervini agreed with the previous Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Struve agreed with a school on the valley floor. He mentioned the previous
amendments discussion and egress requirements for developing a school.
Commissioner Lose asked if there was ever a timeline for dedication with the previous
approval. Eric Heil stated that was a point of litigation. He stated that a charter school is a
public school and the nature of taking on children through a lottery to accept children. He also
stated that he is accepting of the settlement term sheet. Commissioner Losa also stated that
he is not in favor of the proximity to commercial areas or lack of room for potential ball fields.
Commissioner Green stated that he does not feel the location of the school site is adequate for
a school. He stated that a contiguous site is important to him, and the inclusion of gas
facilities in close proximity to Planning Area I is a concern.
Commissioner Green summarized that there was a strong recommendation of denial on this
issue, and recommended the following findings:
1. Split parcel configuration is not acceptable.
2. 7.2 acres based on previous discussion is an acceptable size.
3. Development pattern of the PUD is not known and the location on Lot 1, Filing 1
4. High pressure gas line is an issue of safety and welfare
5. The town will have the task of determining user of school
6. The site needs adequate access to the site.
7. Planning area I doesn't have adequate access at the moment.
8. Timing of the dedication is unknown and needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Prince questioned the position of the Town PZC on what school user could
occupy the site.
Munsey Ayres discussed the language in the current PUD and how it did not stipulate the end
user of the site.
Tom Braun, representing the school district, commented the size; determination to modify the
size of the school site dedication; and the lack of need for endorsement from the PZC due to
approval of the settlement term sheet.
Commissioner Minervini questioned Tom Braun's opinion of the PZC recommendation on this
issue. Mr. Braun responded that he agreed with it.
Commissioner Prince questioned if there were specific requirements that the School District
would like to see. Tom Braun reiterated the requirements of Ordinance 06-17 were
appropriate.
Brian Nolan, resident, discussed the ideas of charter schools. He questioned what has
changed in the application and why. He stated he doesn't understand why this requirement
has to be split into two sites.
Commissioner Minervini questioned Brian Nolan's opinion on the PZC's recommendations.
Brian Nolan responded that he agreed with it.
Sandra Smyser, superintendant of Eagle County School District, stated that there would be
approximately 700 new student created by this development. She further stated that it is
unreasonable to expect 700 new school children to attend schools outside of the town they live
in even though there is the right to choose a school in the District. She questioned why the
voters would agreed to purchase land when the Town didn't request the land. Commissioner
Minervini asked the same question of Sandra Smyser. She responded that she was in favor of
the PZC determination.
After receiving additional public input, Commissioner Anderson suggested a additional finding:
9. The spirit of Ordinance 06-17 regarding the development of a school site on Parcel G is
not being followed and should be followed in the PUD Amendment.
The recommendation passed 7-0.
Item 3: Plannina Area J
Commissioner Anderson stated that what ultimately goes on this site is a Town review issue
not an item in the Settlement Term Sheet.
Commissioner Losa stated his major concern was the removal of park land in this area for the
benefit of developable parcels. He stated that the community park, P3, should be located on
the valley floor not surrounding commercial uses oriented to vehicular traffic.
Commissioner Struve stated that parkland should be a general discussion point and wondered
why it is being discussed at this point. Commissioner Anderson stated that the modification
from Parkland to Commercial uses needs to be addressed and the displaced park needs to be
ratified.
Further discussion on Planning Area J was discontinued in favor of discussing the DRB
expanded powers.
The Commissioners were generally in agreement with commercial on Planning Area J so long
as there were certain DRB limitations, and that the displaced park land be accounted for.
Item 4: DRB Powers
Matt Pielsticker presented the portion of the PUD guide that allows the DRB to modify the
building envelope (i.e. height, setbacks) up to 20%.
Commissioner Minervini questioned if this issue was discussed in the previous staff report.
Matt stated that it was mentioned in the previous report.
Commissioner Anderson questioned if this issue was remedied by the applicant. Munsey
Ayres stated it was being addressed by removing it from the PUD Guide.
Commissioner Clancy questioned if 10(a) was removed and 10(b) were to remain. Kim Martin
responded that it would remain.
Commissioner Green stated that he is concerned about the Town's involvement in the design
of the Village. He stated that if the PUD was being amended to allow the Developer to get
desires of his, he would like the Town to have a greater involvement in the DRB so that it is
not a segregated review authority. Eric Heil responded by reading into the record the current
PZC review
Justin Hildreth stated that section 3.2 of the development agreement stated that there shall not
be a member of the Town on the DRB. Munsey Ayres responded that the DRB referenced
here refers to a DRB that can be established for Planning Area K and RMF -1.
Commissioner Green questioned the make-up of the Village at Avon DRB. Michael Lindholm
responded by overviewing the current members and their professions.
Commissioner Green questioned how the public would have the input on matters that are
presented to the PZC.
Commissioner Losa stated that the PUD Guide as proposed gives the PZC the ability to refer
to the Town Council determinations of the Village at Avon DRB that are contrary to the
guidelines.
Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding the input from the Town to Traer Creek.
Chris Ekrem commented on the potential for future litigation and the lack of urgency for the
Traer Creek DRB to inform the Town
Commissioner Minervini moved to recommend approval of the VAA DRB only with the
following:
1. TOA retains representation on VAA DRB
2. Meeting notices are consistent with TOA DRB Procedures.
3. Section J.10.A a removed
4. TOA oversight and review procedures as stated in Section 1.7 of the original development
agreement (or PUD Guide).
5. The DRB meet at least once a month on a regular basis in a public meeting.
6. Adequate public notice is required.
7. Town Council clarify the referral process.
8. Town Council clarify the enforcement of VAA DRB.
9. Public recording and reporting process to the Town Council.
With the following findings:
1. The proposed use of a gateway entrance and the remainder of the zoning modifications
should
2. The citizens of Avon should be heard on the proposed developments.
The Commissioners were accepting of the separate DRB for Planning Area K and RMF -1 by a
6-1 vote.
Bette Todd, resident, stated that she is concerned that the silence on the representations on
the DRB, and that could cause future issues with the interpretations.
The Commissioners unanimously approved the DRB recommendation with a 7-0 vote.
Item 5: Parkland P1 -P4
Matt Pielsticker overviewed the proposal discussion page 10 of Exhibit G to the Staff Report.
Commissioner Struve questioned the difference between Parkland and Open Space. Larry
Brooks responded that parkland generally requires upkeep and minimal amounts of
development potentially with structures. Open Space generally is kept in a natural state with
no vertical structures.
Commissioner Green questioned the amount of parkland currently approved and proposed in
the PUD guide. Larry Brooks responded that Planning Area K contains a large portion of open
space. Matt Pielsticker stated that in the application the Proposed PUD Plan Map requires
29.9% of PA-K, at a minimum, as open space.
Munsey Ayers stated that there was a comparable amount of Open Space and Parkland in the
revised and approved PUD Guides.
Commissioner Prince stated that this would be better suited to discuss the modification from
park to commercial land uses in Planning Area N-South.
Commissioner Losa stated that he trusts staff has provided accurate numbers. His major
concern is the lack of commitment to usable parkland and unspecified future location in
Planning Area I, J, and/or K. He also commented that P3 is not in an appropriate location, and
that the lack of connection of P1 from PA "B" to usable parkland is an issue.
Commissioner Clancy stated that there is no definition of Parks, but the definition of Open
Space refers to parks.
Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding the best location of parks.
Commissioner Minervini asked if the applicant would be willing to swap Planning Areas P3 and
F. Munsey Ayres stated that the most logical developable areas are Planning Areas J and F
and that P3 would not be suitable for a developable area any time in the future.
Bette Todd commented that the park areas should be located within proximity to the dense
residential areas, specifically Planning Area D.
Commissioner Anderson commented that there were great locations of pocket parks in the
approved plan on the valley floor that are being removed by the proposed plan.
Harvey Robertson discussed the topography of the parklands.
Commissioner Clancy discussed the sentiment from the Commission that the "typical highway
development" is not want should be located on Planning Area J. He stated that the
massiveness of the commercial blocks lend itself to the "typical highway development".
Commissioner Struve questioned the use of parkland.
Commissioner Anderson again commented on the loss in "valley floor" parkland. He further
stated that an additional 3 acres of pocket parks,''/2 acre in size, would be more attractive for
the development.
Eric Heil suggested that the PZC fold in the requirements of the Municipal Code in helping
select sites for parkland that is proposed to be undetermined in its location.
Harvey Robertson discussed the topography of the areas adjacent to parkland and that the
steepness will likely dictate potential for development.
Commissioner Green overviewed the comments received from the Commission.
Commissioner Green motioned to recommend approval of the parkland with the following
Conditions:
1. 5.8 acres moved from I, J, and K be specified to A, C, D and E
2. The definitions need to be clarified.
3. The park land characteristics outlined in AMC are not exempt
4. Question demand for large parks; linear or pocket parks are a more attractive
option in this development
5. Accepting of N -south changing to commercial uses.
6. Planning Area K recommends trails in -lieu of parks consistent with Wildlife Plans.
Finding:
1. As proposed, there are less parks on the valley floor west of post boulevard.
2. Nottingham park and planning area B serve as destination and large parks in the
Town
3. There is a net loss of one-half acre in total park area
4. Further defining the 5 acres for A, C, D, and E will help address further litigation
The Motion and findings passed unanimously.
Commissioner Green mentioned the remaining time in the meeting and the need to forward a
recommendation to Town Council.
Commissioner Anderson stated that the larger issues are being addressed, and the PZC are
working their way through the remaining issues.
Commissioner Struve stated that the remaining issues can be dealt with. Commissioner
Clancy echoed that comment.
Commissioner Prince stated that the school site is a significant issue and needs to be
addressed prior to a recommendation. He stated that there is a process to review this
proposal, but it is taking substantial time.
Commissioner Minervini stated that the PUD can be approved, but with conditions and with a
lengthy timeframe.
Commissioner Struve stated that this can be a positive review, but that PZC needs to address
more issues, specifically with Eaglebend subdivision.
Commissioner Losa stated that the PZC gave substantial comments, but it is up to the
applicant to address these comments to determine if it works for them.
Bette Todd discussed the proposed modifications to the height requirements and other zoning
standards.
Whitney Goulding asked if the non -discussed issues would be addressed in the future.
Bette Todd questioned the lack of discussion on the specified density to lack of density cap in
many planning areas.
The Public Comment period was closed.
Commissioner Green questioned the ability to get approval, and stated the PZC is willing to
look at and evaluate the proposal and provide positive feedback. He stated although these
• are recommendations and there is no assurance these recommendations will be addressed.
He stated his message to Council would be a good faith effort has been made by PZC, but
there is a lack of discussion on design guidelines and other review of zoning. Commissioner
Green stated that additional review is necessary in order to make a solid recommendation to
the Town Council.
Action: Commissioner Minervini stated that PZC is unable to recommend overall approval of
the preliminary PUD amendment application dated 5/30/2012. PZC worked through a number
of items through 2 meetings in which some items were recommended for approval with
conditions, and one item recommended for denial.
PZC will require additional documentation and significantly more time during the next review.
Phil Struve seconded the motion.
Eric Heil requested that the PZC direct Staff to formally write up the recommendations and
findings with review and approval from the PZC. The motioner and second agreed with the
motion.
The motion passed 7-0.
V. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 11:08pm.
APPROVED on this 13th Day of August, 2012
SIGNED:
ro- M
ATTEST:
Chris Green, Chair Scott Prince, Secretary