Loading...
PZC Minutes 08-07-2012 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes for August 7, 2012 Avon Town Council Chambers VON � Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street L u 1 o a % u u Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:02 pm. II. Roll Call All commissioners were present, with the exception of Commissioner Clancy. III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. Commissioner Green recommended that Item IV be moved to consent agenda. Mark Donaldson expressed his appreciation for the planning, engineering, and building department's time and efforts on the project. All commissioners were in favor of consent for Item IV and the consent agenda passed 6-0. IV. Major Design and Development Plan — CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 46, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 420 Nottingham Road Applicant: Mark Donaldson, VMD Architects I Owner. Chamberlin Townhomes HOA Description: A reconstruction of the 4-plex townhome structure that was destroyed by fire in May of 2012. The reconstruction is subject to the Development Code as well as the Non - Conforming Uses and Structure section of the Development Code. This application was continued from the July 17, 2012 PZC meeting. Action: Approved on consent agenda. V. Preliminary PUD Application — PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lot 1, Brookside Park, Eaglewood Subdivision / 37347 Highway 6 & 24 Applicant. Rick Pylman, Pylman & Associates I Owner. Riverview Park Associates Description: Application requesting a modification to the permitted uses for the Brookside Park PUD, Lot 1, to allow up to twenty-four (24) residential dwelling units in place of existing office uses. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented the application and all previous PUD Amendments for the Brookside Park PUD. He presented the proposed change in use, and the resulting reduction in parking requirements and increase in water rights requirements. Jared Barnes discussed the existing public benefits and how they relate to the public benefit review criteria. Commissioner Struve asked if there would be any lost garage parking spaces if the use was converted to residential. Jared Barnes responded that it was not specified in the provided plans. 1IPage Commissioner Anderson asked if the proposed units were in the "Brookside Condos" on conceptual map. Jared Barnes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Green asked about the water rights requirement and if timing was at PZC or Town Council. Jared Barnes responded that the Comprehensive Plan is not regulatory and more of a guiding document, therefore strict adherence or digression from the document would not set any precedent if proper findings were made. Jim Wear, partner of the Sherman & Howard Law Firm, representing the applicant and owner, presented to the Council and highlighted the merits of the application. Commissioner Green asked if there needed to be a clarification in the proposed PUD Guide with the Dwelling Units, listed in the Development Standards. He stated it should read 78 units instead of 54 units. Jared Barnes responded that he was correct. Public Comment period opened and closed with no members of the public present. Commissioner Anderson was struggling with the public benefit criteria seeing that the applicant was not planning on converting the units any time soon. Commissioner Prince generally supportive of the application and understands why the owner would request the right to convert. He did comment that the Applicant needs to further define the public benefit. Commissioner Minervini was also concerned with the timing of the request since the office is 90 percent occupied. Commissioner Struve commented that the commercial use in this building has no exposure to other businesses (i.e. park once shop many concept). Allowing the conversion could offer several strategic benefits, by allowing the commercial area to be located in the Town Core. He stated the bike path is used heavily, and tearing up parking and replacing with a park is a good thing. Commissioner Losa stated that timing and financial impact are not a concern or basis for PZC judgment. He was concerned with the phasing options: 1) commercial, 2) ground commercial, and 3) all residential. He further commented that parking is only shown in one plan, but the remaining conceptual options are not fully flushed out. He stated a reduction in traffic is a public benefit, but felt that enhancing the pedestrian experience is not covered in the staff report; otherwise this is a good proposal. Commissioner Green said that whether or not there are issues with leases, it is not the Commission's purview. He stated the conversion of parking to park is only a benefit to the residents on-site and not necessarily for the "public". He agreed with Commissioner Losa that the pedestrian experience along Highway 6 frontage should be addressed. He further commented that the regional path is a huge benefit in the back of the project and an additional benefit may not be warranted in this instance given the nature, character, and quality of what was put in. Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding allowed Dwelling unit per acres in various zone districts. Jared Barnes responded by dictating what was allowed in NC, RLD, and RMD. Action: Commissioner Prince moved to table the application. Commissioner Anderson 2"d the motion and it passed 6-0. 2 1 P a g e VI. Final PUD Application — PUBLIC HEAERING Property Location: Mixed -Use Development known as The Village (at Avon) Applicant/Owner. Harvey Robertson I Traer Creek, LLC Description: The Applicant is proposing a Final PUD Application, following the approval of a Preliminary PUD application at the July 10, 2012 Town Council Meeting. The Application proposes several amendments to the approved zoning control documents, including but not limited to the following amendments: A. Extension to Vested Property Rights B. School Site Dedication C. Planning Area N South (Park to Commercial including Hotel Use) D. Hotel Use for RMF -1 (Proposed J) E. OS -9 and OS -10 F. Road Access to M (Proposed 1) G. Hillside Density H. Dedication of Planning Areas B & C I. East Beaver Creek Boulevard J. Drainage Master Plan K. Administrative Subdivision Approval Discussion: Matt Pielsticker discussed the binder and documents presented to the staff. He passed out a letter of public input received from Tamra Nottingham Underwood and the Preliminary PUD Record of Decision. Commissioner Minervini asked for clarification on the colors and how they related to stricken, moved, or added language. Matt Pielsticker discussed the Preliminary PUD amendment approval from the Town Council. Commissioner Green clarified that the Town Council stated at that meeting that the PZC should focus on the items in the Settlement Term Sheet (STS) and only begin looking at additional items as time permits if they are proven to be a benefit to the town. He further clarified that the burden of proof would be placed on the applicant. Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding the various versions of the proposed PUD and which sets of comments were regarding which version of the PUD Guide. Matt Pielsticker discussed the final exhibits to the packet and suggested the order of the meeting. Munsey Ayres discussed the document history and their desired discussion topic process. The Public Hearing was opened. Commissioner Green stated that the public are allowed to comment on any topic, and the Chairman will acknowledge any person wanting to comment. Item A: Extension to Vested ProDertv Riahts Commission Minervini questioned the need to review this issue since the language remained unchanged from the Preliminary Review. Eric Heil stated that the language was located within both the CARADA and the PUD Guide and Staff recommended that the language be located within a single location, the CARADA. Eric Heil stated that PUD Guide simply refers to the CARADA, but the requested 6 year term is remaining as previously proposed. 31Page Commissioner Green questioned the language and the PZCs previous comments regarding sunset provisions. Kimberly Martin, Otten Johnson, responded that it was located within section H of the PUD guide. Eric Heil clarified the specific section of the code. Commissioner Green questioned if the term "Master Developer" is replacing the existing PUD guide's term "Owner". Kimberly Martin discussed the changes between the definitions. Commissioner Anderson questioned if there were any sunset provisions added to the Master Developer. Kimberly Martin responded that they were not added, but the applicant is receptive to adding language to this effect. Eric Heil further discussed the different types provisions and how staff has recommended they apply to the PUD amendment. Commissioner Green questioned the need for sunset provisions. Eric Heil discussed Vested Property Rights. The Commissioners suggested a recommendation to keep the recommendation from the Preliminary PUD and move it forward. Munsey Ayres requested that Staff read that recommendation into the record. Matt Pielsticker read the language into the record. Commissioner Green clarified that Finding #3 should be revised to sunset the Master Developer's control of zoning and not the ownership in the land. Munsey Ayres stated that the applicant has already provided sunsetting provisions and would request that the PZC remove this condition. Eric Heil agreed with the applicant that the language of the Master Developer has been updated to address this issue. Commissioner Anderson suggested striking all of the proposed conditions and adding a forth finding. Instead of adding a fourth finding, the motion from the Preliminary PUD was amended to change finding number 3 to acknowledge that the condition from Preliminary PUD had been adequately addressed in Section HA (b) by the applicant with this PUD submittal. Item 2: School Site Dedication Commissioner Green discussed the previous review of this issue Eric Heil stated that the Eagle County School District has an issue with this topic. The District met with staff and the applicant and was directed to present information to the PZC and Town Council. The Commissioner stated they were comfortable with deferring this issue to a later meeting and asked if the applicant was comfortable with the deferral. Munsey Ayres responded that they were accepting of a deferred discussion. Walter Dandy, Resident, discussed the impact a school could have on the Eaglebend neighborhood through drop-off and pick-up at the cul-de-sac on Eaglebend drive. Munsey Ayres clarified his previous comment by stating that he was not accepting of an overarching discussion from the school district on general needs and building types, but only favored a discussion that reacted to the STS. Commissioners stated they were in favor of discussing pertinent issues to the STS and PUD Guide. 41 Page Commissioner Losa requested information on when the easements were placed on this property and how Stone Creek Charter School became a third party in this topic. Commissioner Struve requested more information on what type of utilities are within the easements, specifically the gas line. Commissioner Minervini questioned if there were any changes to the proposed PUD with regard to the school site dedication. Munsey Ayres responded that the school site is addressed in accordance with the STS as previously proposed. Commissioner Losa requested a Slope Analysis of Planning Area E. Item 3: Plannina Area N -South Eric Heil stated the applicant has not proposed any modifications. Commissioner Anderson read into the record the previous decision of the PZC and highlighted the need for design standards that are reviewed by the PZC. Commissioner Green discussed the need for Avon PZC to have significant input on the design of the buildings in this area. Eric Heil stated that the language in the PUD Guide requires a minimum standard of design. Matt Pielsticker further stated that the current PUD affords the Avon PZC no approval authority, but does allow the Avon PZC to comment on designs. Commissioner Green discussed the parallel conversation about the Village DRB. He read into the record the conditions of the previous action. The dialogue morphed into Item 4: Hotel Use. Commissioner Prince said that the conditions have little teeth for enforcement. Commissioner Losa discussed the direction from the STS and stated that the design standards in the PUD Guide are not enforceable, adequate, nor do they reflect any level of standard the Town would want for a gateway project. Munsey Ayres further discussed the history of Design Guidelines and the language of the PUD Guide as stipulated in the STS. He stated that the applicant is willing to add parameters to the Village DRB and how the meetings are noticed, but they are unwilling to fundamentally change how the Village DRB operates. Dialogue ensued regarding which design guidelines were in play for Planning Area J (former N -South). Commissioner Prince stated that he proposes two options: (1) require this area to comply with the Town of Avon's Design Standards; or, (2) have the Avon PZC have review authority over the Village at Avon for this part of Town. Munsey Ayres responded that the discussed minimum design standards (A -G) are intended to respond to the STS. 5 1 P a g e Eric Heil discussed potential options that staff and the applicant can work together to update these requirements. Commissioner Green summarized the conversation, highlighting the desire of the PZC to utilize the Town's Design Standards. Commissioner Prince questioned why the applicant won't incorporate the most recent design guidelines. Munsey Ayres stated that including the most recent version of the design guidelines could be included, but they do not want to be forced into a PUD amendment if the DRB desires to change the Design Guidelines in the future. Commissioner Prince suggested that the 2011 Design Guidelines become the new minimum standard for design guidelines. Item will be further discussed at the next meeting. Item 3: Plannino Area N -South (Revisited) The commission discussed striking the last sentence of the Preliminary PUD recommendation for this area, but forwarding the remaining portion. Commissioner Losa discussed the concern he has over the size of a park due to the remaining amount of land. Commissioner Anderson stated this size is similar pocket parks in Eagle -Vail and they function adequately. Commissioner Losa discussed the remoteness of P3 and lack of critical mass within walking distance. He further discussed the need for driving and parking to use this space. He stated that the viability of P3 directly relates to the change in use from parkland of N -south to commercial. Eric Heil stated that language exists at the end of the PUD Guide that mimics the Town Code and the provided parkland is similar to what the Town's formula would require. He further stated that the Town Code requires the parkland to have 100% of its area usable, but the PUD Guide limits that to 50%. Commissioner Minervini questioned where the parkland would be located. Munsey Ayres responded that they were not sure of the specific location, but that it would be provided in accordance with the STS. Dialogue ensued regarding the language of the STS and how the PUD Guide responded to it. Larry Brooks stated that there was a certain amount of development that could occur on the parkland that was contiguous, by bifurcating the land it is entirely reasonable for the PZC to better understand what can occur on the remaining land and how that could function. Discussion ensued regarding the language of the STS and where the parkland could ultimately end up and what size. Commissioner Losa stated that at the time of the STS there wasn't enough time to figure out where the parkland would be relocated to, therefore it was left open. He further commented 61Pagc that the proposed PUD amendment has had enough time to review this issue, but the area is not shown. Laurie Adler, Resident, stated that the Avon Town Council directed the PZC to look at the STS, but also other items that can be a benefit to the Town. PZC recommends approval with condition that replacement sites be detailed by the applicant and materially equal to the usability of the current site. Commissioner Struve stated that a date or trigger point needs to be added to the recommendation. Commissioner Minervini stated that the motion would have to be met prior to approval. Motion passed 6-1. Munsey Ayres stated that the applicant is unable to comply with this requirement. Item 5: OS -9 and OS -10 Commissioner Green questioned what other documents are in play or are referenced with the STS on this issue. Eric Heil responded that the STS and the PUD Guide are the only documents. Matt Pielsticker stated that OS -5 and OS -6 now include the uses dictated in the STS. Commissioner Struve questioned the railroad ROW. Lary Brooks responded that in this area it is typically 100', but in some instances it increases to 200'. Commissioner Minervini questioned if Eric Heil responded to this in his response. Commissioner Prince questioned if a bike path could be allowed. Justin Hildreth responded that the grades would be extremely prohibitive. Eric Heil further commented that a bike path would be an allowed use. All Commissioners were in favor of the proposed changes. Item 6: Road Access to Plannino Area M Commissioner Anderson questioned which road access was discussed with this section. Munsey Ayres clarified the east -west road through the "Land Exchange Parcel". Commissioner Anderson questioned the platform width and how that relates to the bike path. Commissioner Green discussed the impact of the road width on retaining walls. Bette Todd, Resident, questioned if the road standards within this PUD Guide meet Town Standards and how that would impact the Town's ability to serve this area. Justin Hildreth stated that the Town's road standards would apply, but these were a guide to what type of road would be built. Commissioner Anderson stated that this section would still allow a 29' tall wall and that he has experience with walls that tall that have failed after 3 years. He further commented that he would hate to see that happen to the Town. ' 71Page Commissioner Green questioned the process for Town of Avon (non-VAA roads) road construction and how that altered from the VAA roads. Justin Hildreth responded by outlining the typical process undertaken in each instance. Commissioner Struve questioned if the Town has received substandard roads that have required extra maintenance. Both Larry Brooks and Justin Hildreth responded that they are not aware of any instances other than Metcalf Road which predated both of them. Larry Brooks highlighted the Mountain Star instance. Harvey Robertson discussed the preliminary road diagrams done by Alpine Engineering and the two proposed options. He stated the lower route was the less impactful, thus chosen by the Town Council as the more desirable of the two routes. Commissioner Green requested this information be presented at the next meeting. It was agreed upon. Commissioner Anderson requested a site visit. Commissioner Prince moved to defer this item to August 21, 2012 to coincide with School Site evaluation. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. Item 7: Hillside Development Eric Heil discussed the changes to the PUD, highlighting the Primary/Secondary counting as a single dwelling unit instead of two, and the modification to the ratio for Primary/Secondary from 75/25 to 60/40. Commissioner Green questioned if the road entering Planning Area K was considered a cul- de-sac regardless of the spur roads. Staff responded that it was considered a cul-de-sac. Bette Todd, Resident, questioned how this requests benefits the town. Munsey Ayres stated that it provides housing options for the Town, increase in assessment values, additional building fees. Commissioner Minervini questioned the public input from the Department of Wildlife and if those issues have been addressed. Bette Todd, Resident on Eaglebend Drive, further questioned the benefit to the town of increasing the density and how this increase is not discussed in the STS. Commissioner Anderson questioned the math and how the approved PUD and proposed PUD compared. Eric Heil went through the allowable density on each lot in each example. Commissioner Prince questioned why the applicant requested the increase in dwelling units. Harvey Robertson discussed the desire to have lock -off units/caretaker units within large estate style lots. Commissioner Anderson asked how many kitchens could be constructed in this area. Harvey stated that up to 560 kitchens could be constructed. Commissioner Minervini questioned the difference between dwelling units and kitchens. Commissioner Struve stated the wording needs to be revised to reflect the intent of the applicant. 811'age Commissioner Green summarized the conversation of the PZC on this issue. Munsey Ayres discussed the definition of the Primary/Secondary. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was closed. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to continue the application and continue the public hearing to the SPECIAL MEETING on August 13t°, 2012. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed 6-0. VII. Approval of Meeting Minutes • June 11, 2012 Meeting Minutes • June 25, 2012 Meeting Minutes • July 17, 2012 Meeting Minutes This item was continued to the August 13, 2012 meeting. VIII. Other Business None IX. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05pm. APPROVED on this 21" Day of August, 2012 SIGNED: `--o --, Chris Green, Chair ATTEST: , — Scott Prince, Secretary 91Page