Loading...
PZC Minutes 08-21-2012 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission +'Minutes for August 21, 2012 Regular Meeting �� Avon Town Council Chambers kvo Meetings are open to the public N Avon Municipal Building I One Lake Street C o L 0 R A 0 0 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:04 pm II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Clancy. 111. Consent Agenda • August 7, 2012 Meeting Minutes The revised meeting minutes were unanimously approved. IV. Preliminary PUD Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lot 1, Brookside Park, Eaglewood Subdivision 137347 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. Continued from the August 7, 2012 meeting Rick Pylman, applicant, presented to the Commission and highlighted the background of the project and its history. He mentioned that the office building was honored with LEED certification for existing buildings (LEED-EB) in 2010. He continued to discuss the Prelim/Final process and how this is a conceptual level and at Final PUD specific details would be presented including fixture counts, elevations, etc. Mr. Pylman discussed the history of the path connection to W. Beaver Creek Boulevard and how it was originally worked out with Norm Wood, Town Engineer at the time. Commissioner Prince asked staff about public benefit and if it was required. MattPielsticker detailed how Public Benefit is an eligibility requirement for a PUD, and Staffs recommended Findings acknowledge that the PUD is established and public benefits were provided during the original PUD approval with the path and deed restricted housing. Sean Primer, Sunridge Condominium Association, was asked if the path is maintained. He said that it had not been maintained in 8 years, and the bus stop is used but there is no guardrail for the majority of the Sunridge property. He explained how the path effectively acts as snow storage in the winter. Sean Primer requested a legitimate bus stop and guardrail be installed if there were any improvements to the area. Commissioner Struve asked Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer, if the path needs to be plowed. Justin Hildreth stated that the Town maintains a map of approved sidewalks that the Town is held responsible to keep clear of snow; however, this is not technically in the town boundary and therefore does not need to be plowed. Pagel of 8 Commissioner Losa asked if the path meets standards for asphalt paths. Justin Hildreth responded by saying that it may meet standards and would need to be 4' wide at a minimum. Commissioner Struve continued to question the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) designation in the Comp Plan. He felt that it doesn't work with the Town Center Plan. Commissioner Green called for a motion. Commissioner Losa disagreed with Staff and felt that whenever a PUD comes in, we need to find compliance with the Public Benefit and other criteria. With that said, he did find benefits such as a reduction in traffic, and increase in green space. Commissioner Losa asked that a trip generation study be provided at Final. Rick Pylman explained that a study was provided. Commissioner Prince moved to approve the Preliminary PUD with staff recommended findings, and the addition of the finding that PZC found a public benefit with lessened impact on the community than existing commercial land use. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. The vote passed with a 5-1 vote. V. Final PUD Application —CONTINUED PUBLIC NEARING Property Location: Mixed -Use Development known as The Village (at Avon) Applicant/Owner. Harvey Robertson / 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. Road Access to Planning Area I B. School Site C. Hotel Design Standards D. East Beaver Creek Boulevard E. Drainage Master Plan — Johnson Study F. Administrative Subdivision Approval G. Planning Area by Planning Area Analysis Commissioner Green started by opening the Public Hearing for the night to allow comments as they were deemed appropriate. Commissioner Prince asked about the status report, and asked the Town Attorney how the PZC is following the guidelines in relation to the settlement term sheet ("STS"). Eric Heil, Town Attorney, reaffirmed that the PZC is an independent review body, and should focus on what would provide the most benefit in terms of review material for Council. Tamara Underwood, Resident, provided comments on the process and criteria. She stated that the PZC role is to do best thorough review of the Final PUD application. She explained that per the direction of Chris Evans, Town Council Member, PZC is to review a pared down version of the PUD guide only implementing the STS. Tamra Underwood found that the PZC could not make the required findings to recommend approval of the application as submitted. She highlighted the letter from Laurie Adler and the various reasons the application was not in compliance with the review criteria. She wanted to make sure it was noted that PZC had not been afforded the time necessary to review the application in its entirety and that due process is essential. Page 2 of 8 Item A. Road Access to Planning Area I Harvey Robertson, consultant to the Applicant, presented the conceptual design study for access to Planning Area ("PA") I (Old PA -M). He explained the "preliminary" nature of the study and how it was produced in 2008. He explained the purpose of the study and that no engineering was conducted. The purpose was to find out generally where possible access points would go and for Council to consider which way could be a better solution for access to PA -I. Harvey Robertson stated that the road would likely have a detached path to lessen the visual impacts. Commissioner Anderson asked why they would not cross the river instead of run across the mountain side. Harvey Robertson responded that there are lot of options depending on possible tenants and cooperation with the community and that a bridge was not being ruled out. Harvey Robertson completed his presentation of the different road cuts. To address Commissioner Anderson's question, Harvey Robertson showed how a potential conceptual road is indicated on the PUD Master Plan to cross the Over somewhere near the state land board property. Commissioner Green asked if PA -1 was the only area to allow future school sites in addition to PA -E. Munsey Ayers clarified for the record that PA -E and -1 will satisfy the 7.3 acres as originally required. Munsey Ayers noted that some of the other planning areas also allowed educational use. Commissioner Minervini brought up the Preliminary PUD review and commented that the two road concepts demonstrated by Harvey Robertson were daunting at best. Commissioner Green asked Munsey Ayres what the financial trigger for commercial would be to make a road feasible to PA -I. Munsey Ayres explained from his point of view that there was an infinitely greater probability that areas A, C, D, F and J would stand a much better chance for development in a shorter time frame than any commercial development on PA -l. Commissioner Losa wanted to focus on the task at hand; specifically reviewing the road to PA- I as stipulated in the STS. He was in agreement with showing the potential access to PA -1 as drawn on the PUD Master Plan. Commissioner Minervini recommended that Council approve amendments to the PUD Master Plan to depict road access to PA -I, with two findings: 1. Road access across the current USFS property is preferred; and 2. PZC is not approving any uses within PA -I. Commissioner Green mentioned that a bridge is his preference over road access through USFS and that he wasn't in agreement with finding number 1. Commissioner Minervini clarified the motion with the help of Commissioner Prince. Commissioner Prince suggested language to the effect that a bridge is preferred, and the lower road is the only option instead of road access from the mountain side. The motion was amended to read that bridge(s) is preferred to the lower mountain road access. Road over top of mountain is not acceptable. Page 3 of 8 The revised motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. The motion was approved with a 4-2 vote; Commissioners Green and Anderson did not support the motion. Item B School Site Matt Pielsticker discussed the Town's request for an updated Eagle County School District ("ECSD") needs analysis, and how it was the outcome of meetings with school district representatives. Tom Braun, representing the ECSD, highlighted the history of the school site in the VAA, and how Ordinance 06-17 is the governing Ordinance currently which dictates 7.3 acre site. Tom Braun mentioned that the Wolcott PUD project has bounced back to approximately 500 units and therefore would not support a school site and ultimately force more students towards Edwards from that development. Tom Braun presented the methodology used to arrive at the impact of the VAA project. He discussed the varying student yield projections and that they averaged the BMHS and Vail averages. It would result in approximately 645 potential students, with limited other potential projects in the upper valley. Tom Braun explained there is indeed capacity at all current facilities to handle the potential future students; but clearly not enough for any other development in the valley. Tom Braun summarized with some requests: provide a single 7.3 acre site; 80% of the school site would have 10% slope or less and remaining area be less than 20% slope; road and utilities must be provided to the site; adequate buffers from surrounding uses needs to be ensured; and the site should be provided commensurate with development. Phil Onofrio, CFO of ECSD, addressed the PZC on how the ECSD arrives at the capacity numbers: functional vs. stressed. The "stressed' capacity reflects the maximum students/per square foot allowed by the law, and "functional" number is approximately 80% of the stressed capacity numbers. Commissioner Minervini asked the ECSD what they would build on PA -E of the VAA property. Tom Braun stated that it would most likely be an elementary school. Commissioner Minervini asked staff what the ECSD did not provide in the revised analysis. Matt Pielsticker stated that the Town requested updated demographic information from census and the outstanding debt and listed amounts owed. Phil Onofrio responded that in his opinion the updated census numbers were less accurate. He stated that school districts are allowed to issue $400 million in school bond debt, and that ECSD has issued $50 million of bond debt thus far. Commissioner Struve asked about growth projections and how the growth rate for the ECSD has looked over time. Phil Onofrio responded that historically about 200 kids per year are added to the district and there are currently about 6,000 students. There was one dip in enrollment numbers from a previous year, but they have continually grown. Tom Braun reiterated the need for joint cooperation between the ECSD, developer, and Town. Phil Onofrio stated that the ECSD cannot operate a split school dedication in isolation without co-habitating with a park site. Page 4 of 8 Eric Heil clarified that the current 2,400 dwelling units includes a hotel; PA -M shows residential density on the current PUD and that density is included in the 2,400 units. Brandee Caswell, Legal Counsel for BNP Paribas, addressed the PZC school site from her perspective. She mentioned that the 1998 agreement was to obligate to Avon 7.3 acres — as calculated by Avon. She explained that the development agreement required a site when a demonstrated need exists. Commissioner Minervini started to walk through the PZC findings from Preliminary PUD regarding school site. He asked Tom Braun if he agreed with PZC's findings related to School Site from Preliminary PUD review and if he still supported that motion. Tom Braun clarified that Council, not PZC, will ultimately approve any changes to the PUD. Tom Braun mentioned that the ECSD received an offer recently for a co-habitated site on PA -1 with a park, but it would still be predicated on platting. The lack of assurance did not make the ECSD comfortable. Commissioner Minervini asked if the proposed PA -E was acceptable to the ECSD. Tom Braun responded that it was not adequate. Commissioner Losa asked when the easements were recorded. Eric Heil acknowledged that the easements must be fully understood, and that they were recorded previous to the execution of the STS. He said there may be additional encumbrances recorded since that time. Walter Dandy, Resident, requested a careful examination of the parking situation for a charter school. He could not understand how that would take place on this site given the unique characteristics of a Charter school and with no buses. Walter Dandy did not feel that the proposal was near acceptable at this time. Munsey Ayers stated that the developer's obligation is to convey 7.3 acres to the Town. The developer would like for that to end up with a school and be done discussing possible future school sites, and finalize the agreement today. He explained that in 2006 he felt that the ECSD wanted money, and that the Town wanted something other than a school site. Commissioner Losa detailed his personal experience with the previous Stone Creek Charter School site on 4 acres east of Home Depot. He then compared the previous site with the proposed PA -E and its reduced size. Commissioner Losa was bothered by the applicant's reluctance to identify a site and analyze grades and connections to other planning areas. He explained that combining the school and park sites would total 9.8 acres and would truly be good planning. Commissioner Losa mentioned Ron Wolfe's letter and how SCCS tends to use public facilities creatively. He was not in agreement with putting the added burden on public facilities such as the rec center, and recommended adding conditions such the school and park be contiguous. There were no current standards for school site written into the agreements. Commissioner Struve felt that this was a problem to be worked out between the Town Council, applicant, and ECSD. In his opinion it was unfair for PZC to be involved. Commissioner Struve felt that the development, regardless of SCCS, would produce at least 400 students and he appreciated the ECCS presentation made this evening. Commissioner Prince appreciated the presentation made by Tom Braun. He reiterated the PZC's role to implement the term sheet, while at the same time providing an independent review as directed. He said that nothing has changed since PZC's original recommendation, and that the demand for school site(s) has not been met as proposed. With respect to the Page 5 of 8 school site requirement from the STS, he finds that it is not met because the new PA -1 and the ability to access that particular site is not a sufficient solution. Commissioner Prince felt that there would need to be specific language requiring that the road would be provided prior to development. Additionally, he felt that the SCCS site was not entirely acceptable as presented. Commissioner Anderson thought that the 7.3 acres being adjacent to other open space acreage would be the ideal situation if starting from scratch. After hearing that PA -E might be acceptable to SCCS, and ECSD could take remaining area if adjacent to park land then that might bean acceptable solution. Commissioner Anderson said that PA -1 is not guaranteed to be developed therefore it is not an acceptable solution for the remaining acreage. He urged that a recommendation of a site other than PA -1 and contiguous with park land be made. Also, he explained that if it was a co -site with a park then the park land would need to be larger than the minimum requirements proposed for '% acre sites. Commissioner Minervini explained how he stands closest with Commissioner Struve, particularly when dealing with the end user of the site. He agrees that PA -1 is essentially un - useable. Commissioner Green explained his research and how he contacted the PUC to explore concerns with the gas transmission line within PA -E. He found a document on the best planning practices for developing of sites adjacent to gas lines which was cited in the Austin, TX land use code. The code states that primary education facilities that require "evacuation assistance" should not be located within 500' of hazardous pipelines. Based on his research, he cannot support location of site adjacent or in such close proximity to a gas transmission line such as the one existing. Commissioner Green agreed with other comments about the fracturing of the property, and uncertainty with how or when PA -1 would ever be developed. Commissioner Minervini started to walk through the Preliminary PUD findings to see if they could be updated. Commissioner Losa was willing to make a motion that the dedication of the school site onto parcel E and relocation of remaining 3.6 acres to I could be appropriate if the applicant were to identify a site on I meeting the requirements of the ECSD; that a 4 acre site be identified; and clarification of existing easements and existing improvements that may be in or outside of the easements. Discussion continued with respect to PA -E and the conditions to put on the split site. Queuing for vehicles was added to the findings, as was the need for some kind of trigger point for a school and 06-17 reference. Commissioner Green reread and made the motion, including the following proposed findings: 1 School site needs to be at least 7.3 acres contiguous to parkland 2 School site should not be located within 500' of gas utility transmission lines per best planning practices 3 Proposed planning area E does not have adequate traffic queuing 4 Installation of utilities, infrastructure and improvements should be installed in residential areas as the trigger prior to the start of development of a school 5 Town Council needs to identify and clarify the trigger for development of the school site 6 Town Council shall have the responsibility of determining the school use of the proposed school site Page 6 of 8 7 The final approved development plan shall either identify a school site complying with Eagle County School District standards or have language identifying those standards and complying with the conditions noted above; and, 8 The spirit of ordinance 06-17 is not being followed (same language as previously written in preliminary findings) Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and all were in favor. The recommendation passed unanimously. Item C. — Hotel Desian Standards Commissioner Anderson had no comments on the standards but asked what DRB guidelines were being referenced in the opening paragraph. Commissioner Prince stated that they were the 1998 guidelines. Commissioner Prince was agreeable to the proposed guidelines, and reiterated his desire for the 2011 guidelines to be the baseline minimum standards. Commissioner Struve moved to recommend approval of supplemental design standards for PA -J as restated by the applicant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Losa. Commissioner Prince said he would not support the motion based on the fact that the 1998 guidelines are not detailed enough, and there have been significant changes since original approval. Motion failed with a 3-3 split vote. Munsey Ayers addressed Commissioner Prince's request for the 2011 guidelines to apply. He restated that the goal of the STS was to provide objective standards for PA -J only, and the scale of imposing the 2011 on the development is not accurate. Commissioner Struve made a formal recommendation that the Town Council explore, with applicant, adopting the 2011 VAA DRB guidelines. He recommended that the 2011 guidelines be the new Exhibit E. Commissioner Green clarified that the recommendation was to explore with applicant the implementation of the 2011 guidelines as new Exhibit E as the minimum design guidelines for VAA. The recommendation was seconded by Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Losa disagreed with the motion since the 2011 guidelines were indeed current and applicable. The motion passed with a 5-1 vote. Commissioner Prince was the dissenting vote. Bette Todd, Resident, expressed concern with the removal of the earth tone color requirement as made part of the hotel standards. Munsey Ayres asked the commission what "earth tone" means. Chris Green responded that it is impossible to have 100% objective standards when dealing with design review. Commissioner Green asked Harvey Robertson if the 2011 guidelines address colors. Harvey Robertson said that they do address colors but in a subjective way. Commissioner Prince read a section of the 2011 guidelines into the record. He also read the similar section of the 1998 design guidelines. Commissioner Struve recommended approval of the standards, as submitted by the applicant, with an addition to section a(2) regarding earth tone colors and have a minimum LRV color of sixty or less. Page 7 of 8 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Minervini. Commissioner Green requested that Commissioner Struve entertain a slight modification to section d(2) by adding the language "architectural element" instead of "window". Munsey Ayers stated that the applicant was accepting of the modified language. The motion was passed with a 5-1 vote — Commissioner Prince opposed. Commissioner Green closed the public hearing for the evening. Commissioner Struve motioned to continue the Final PUD Application to Monday, August 27t°, 2012. Motion was approved. VII. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:30pm. APPROVED on this 4`" Day of September, 2012 SIGNED: �.W 1 (L4 Phil Struve, Chair ATTEST: 6AV� i6cott Prince, Secretary Page 8 of 8