Loading...
PZC Minutes 082712I. Call to Order (5:OOpm) Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes for SPECIAL MEETING Agenda Monday, August 27, 2012 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street The meeting was called to order at 5:07 pm II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Approval of Meeting Minutes • August 13, 2012 Meeting Minutes • August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Action: The Commission approved the August 13th, 2012 meeting minutes and tabled the August 21St, 2012 meeting minutes. IV. Final PUD Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 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. This public hearing was continued from the August 21, 2012 regular meeting. Discussion: Commissioner Green discussed the remaining items for discussion. Matt Pielsticker included the subdivision review item. Commissioner Green read into the record the Public Input received from each person and how the input was received. The Public Comment portion of the meeting was opened. Commissioner Green asked if there was additional information from Staff. Matt Pielsticker stated that there was a Draft Recommendation and Findings of Fact. He discussed the color coding of the document, stating the black was the redrafting of the PZC actions, while the green items are outstanding items and are solely staff recommended findings. He also stated that the red items were carried over from the Preliminary PUD review. Commissioner Clancy questioned if the PZC will be able to address the application as a whole, and the other items not addressed in the STS. Commissioner Green stated that if there is time and the PZC is amenable then the answer would be yes. Commissioner Struve clarified that the PZC only recommends, but does not vote on the application. Page 1 of 10 Tamra Underwood, Resident, discussed the process and the amount of Public who have shown up to this meeting. She stated that a recommendation to the Town Council should be on the entire document and she further stated that there is no way a recommendation of approval could be achieved. She also discussed the approval criteria stated in the Municipal Code and stated that the PZC needs to address these items prior to making a recommendation. She also requested that the PZC outline the items that were not reviewed by the board. She discussed each review criteria and stated her opinion. Paul Maloney, Resident, stated that the developer held a meeting he attended, but that the developer could not produce any information regarding what will be developed on the property. Item 1: East Beaver Creek Blvd ("EBCB") Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer, overviewed the lack of development allowed until the road is constructed and the need to phase the road. The Commissioners questioned the plat note that limited the ability to issue building permits and what the trigger would be. Justin Hildreth stated that the note clearly identifies that the entire cross section of the road would need to be built. Eric Heil, Town Attorney, responded that a new Plat could be approved and the note could be removed. Commissioner Green questioned the process of approval of a Plat. Eric Heil stated that it would be processed subject to the Minor Subdivision process and would require a minimum of a single review and approval by the Town Council. Commissioner Minervini brought up the previous recommendation from Commissioner Losa that suggested moving a note from the PUD map to the Annexation and Development Agreement. Eric Heil requested the note be read into the record. Discussion ensued over the intent of the note being included on the PUD Map. Commissioner Green questioned the proposed Final Plat that would include a road alignment. Eric Heil responded that the PUD Map would be proposed. Commissioner Green requested that the Plat be shown on the projector. Commissioner Green commented that the proposed plat shows EBCB in a different location that the PUD Map shows Main Street. Commissioner Anderson questioned if staff felt the cross sections were adequate. Justin Hildreth responded that he felt Main Street was adequate, but has determined that EBCB needs to have pedestrian connectivity. Commissioner Clancy questioned if the PZC was being asked to approve road alignments that are subject to change should the entire PUD not be approved. Commissioner Anderson stated that the PZC is being asked to approve road cross sections, not road alignments. Commissioner Green asked for clarification on which road is being asked for approval in the STS. Eric Heil discussed the language of the STS. Paul Maloney, Resident, questioned the meeting with the Developer that discussed the type of development that would occur on the area north of the railroad track and how the current proposal didn't mandate style of that development. Commissioner Anderson questioned if there were traffic reports to support the need for certain road sections. Justin Hildreth stated that they were not provided and that the application delays this requirement until Subdivision review. Page 2 of 10 Commissioner Green requested the cross sections be shown on the projector and discussed. Commissioner Losa asked about the various options for each section of Main Street. Laurie Alder, Resident, clarified Paul Maloney's comments stated that at the subject meeting the Architect showed a plan that indicated the area south of Main Street was shown as 100% Residential. Bette Todd, Resident, further commented that the currently approved PUD had a requirement for 90% residential and a maximum of 10% commercial, now the PUD allows for the potential of 100% commercial. She discussed the section of the PUD that states the PUD allows the Guide to rule over the Transportation Master Plan. She further stated that the PUD needs to be denied because of the myriad of issues in the PUD Guide that have yet to be vetted. Kimberly Martin responded that the existing PUD Guide allows the road alignments to be modified through a formal or administrative process depending on whether they are material and substantial. Kimberly further stated the update clarifies what "material and substantial" are. Kimberly also commented that the referenced Transportation Master Plan, is the Town of Avon version. Commissioner Struve questioned why the changes to uses in Planning Area ("PA") A and D are not contemplated in the STS. Eric Heil stated that a change to Planning Area lettering was a collaborative effort to assist future use of the PUD Guide. He further stated the only use change contemplated was the Hotel north of 1-70, but the existing PUD Guide doesn't elaborate on the uses that meet the term Commercial. Commissioner Minervini asked about the language of the STS and if it guided the discussion on Cross Sections or alignments. Commissioner Green read the language of the STS. Commissioner Clancy questioned if the approval of the road alignments would alter the road cross sections. Laurie Alder, Resident, challenged the desire to phase roads, but wondered why they did not also phase uses. Larry Brooks, Town Advisor, discussed the history of the 80 foot ROW requirement and the request to reduce the size of the ROW and the inclusion of a second east -west roadway. Commissioner Struve overviewed the discussions during West and East Town Center planning and the barrier of Avon Road with raised landscaping islands. Commissioner Anderson questioned the process that would occur to go from an 80 foot ROW to a 50 foot ROW. Justin Hildreth responded that as proposed the process would be an administrative amendment. Kimberly Martin stated that the road pattern will have to support the type of development that occurs on the property. Commissioner Green questioned the number of roadway profiles and the inclusion of on - street parking versus landscaping. He further commented that the need for landscaping and 2 lanes are good ideas, but he isn't sold on reducing the width of the profile. Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding support or lack of support for each road profile. Commissioner Losa stated that the STS doesn't specify the size of the "narrower" cross section for Main Street. Page 3of10 Harvey Robertson discussed the consistency of the density in these planning areas to the Town Center (TC) zone district. He also discussed the need for reduced road cross sections especially in sections where there were zero lot line setbacks. Commissioner Anderson suggested requiring minimum 6 foot wide landscape strip/snow storage on either side of the roadway. He also commented that the phasing was acceptable. Commissioner Clancy stated he was accepting phasing of the roadway. He also felt a finding that discusses the similarity of the terms "EBCB" and "Main Street" and that they referred to the same road. He stated that 80 foot cross sections may be too much, but 50 feet may not be large enough. Commissioner Prince stated he would generally agree with the previous two commissioners. He stated that a lack of a traffic study makes it difficult to determine the exact need. He stated that leaving some open leeway would be helpful. Commissioner Minerevini agreed with the previous comments and had nothing further to add. Commissioner Struve questioned the road sections for East Town Center plan and if they included landscaping. Staff responded that they didn't have specific sizes, but did include landscaping and on -street parking. He stated that he had no further comments. Commissioner Losa also agreed with the fellow commissioners and suggested a minimum landscaped area of 6 feet. Commissioner Green stated that the street cross sections should be performance based not prescriptive based. He stated that an 80 foot maximum and 50 foot minimum would allow Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the narrowing of the ROW not approving the exact cross sections in the proposed PUG Guide, but instead proposing the following requirements subject to traffic studies: a. Minimum ROW width of 50 feet; b. Minimum center island of landscaping 6 feet wide, or 6 foot side landscaping strips on either side of the roadway c. Minimum continuous attached or detached sidewalk width of 5 feet. d. The turn lanes and parking left to applicant and verified by Town Staff. e. Including the 2 Staff Recommended motions. In addition, phased construction of Main Street should be approved as proposed. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. Commissioner Green stated that he is not in favor of center landscaping due to the lack of shelter it provides pedestrians. Margaret Langstaff, Resident, requested to speak about the entire PUD application. Commissioner Green stated that at this moment only comments on this specific item will be allowed, but her comments would be accepted later on tonight. Tyler Kennedy, Resident, requested information on how a roadway can be designed for the entire project without knowing what would be developed. Commissioner Prince responded that a Traffic Study would be required prior to approving any certain road development. Page 4 of 10 Bette Todd, Resident, questioned the minimum ROW size and how it would accommodate two traffic lanes, landscaping, sidewalks, and a turn lane. The Commissioner Anderson responded that the traffic study will dictate the need for a turn lane and sizing the roadway properly. Paul Maloney, Resident, requested the motion be tabled and further studies be undertaken to ensure the design is right from the outset. The motion passed 6-1. Commissioner Green stated that he opposed the vote due to the inclusion of a center landscape strip. Item 2: Drainage Master Plan Justin Hildreth discussed the study that was undertaken years ago that surveyed run-off and the amount of vegetative cover and its impact on drainage. He stated that staff would like to review the document to verify the David Johnson study has correct assumptions. Commissioner Green inquired about the study and where it is located. Justin Hildreth stated that it primarily serves the area north of 1-70 and that it captures the run-off from all areas on and around Red and White Mountain. Commissioner Minervini asked about the typical process for reviewing drainage master plans. Justin Hildreth responded that it would be reviewed at a Staff level and incorporated into a drainage study. Commissioner Struve questioned if the study captured all of the drainages into the Town of Avon. Justin Hildreth responded affirmatively. Commissioner Green stated that he felt the issue was a Town Council issue related to funding and not a PZC issue. Commissioner Prince questioned the applicant's opinion of PZC review of this issue. Harvey Robertson stated that the applicant would like this new data incorporated and isn't concerned with a recommendation from PZC. Commissioner Anderson recommended that the PZC has no objection to the applicant's request to incorporate this study and the Town Council review the financial implications of the David Johnson Study, with the noted condition in the Staff recommendation. Commissioner Clancy stated that this study was less restrictive than the current Town plan and a future Town Plan that would be less restrictive could supersede this plan. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1. Item 3: Administrative Subdivision Justin Hildreth discussed the modifications of the proposed administrative subdivision process as proposed. He highlighted the lack of Town review criteria and the inclusion of Page 5of10 additional Administrative Subdivision types. He stated that the inclusion of ROW platting exemption would be problematic. Commissioner Prince questioned if the applicant could simply state the roadways meet health and safety and the Town Staff would have no input. Justin Hildreth responded affirmatively. Commissioner Green questioned if the roadways could be designed and built to a subpar status and the Town would have to accept the roadway without input or review. He further questioned if there would be a warranty period on these types of subdivisions. Justin Hildreth responded that warranties are typically included in a Public Improvements agreement and that step could be avoided with this process. Eric Heil stated that the Town Staff suggested language would have generally followed the Town Municipal Code with the list exception. He read the language into the record. Commissioner Losa questioned the requirements of Sketch Plan subdivision. Eric Heil responded that the Development Code only has a Preliminary/Final subdivision process. Kimberly Martin disagreed with Staff by stating that there is no intention of the roadways within this project to not meet the Municipal Code standards for engineering and design and construction. Commissioner Anderson questioned why the Applicant wants to avoid public hearings before the Town Council. Kimberly Martin responded that it would be a more efficient process as well as having already occurred on the valley floor properties. Commissioner Anderson questioned if the public hearing would dictate allowed uses on a subject property. Kimberly Martin responded that the land use is not dictated by a subdivision plat. Commissioner Anderson questioned Staffs concerns with the proposed language. Justin Hildreth responded by discussing the lack of ability to amend the process from time to time and the limitation of submittal requirements and how they would respond to each different subdivision request. Commissioner Minervini questioned the footnote on the Town Staff suggested language Eric Heil read into the record. Eric Heil responded by discussing the appeal process. Commissioner Green discussed the proposed issue and the language in the STS. He questioned the language proposed and the intent of the applicant to allow the Municipal Code to regulation construction standards. Tamra Underwood, Resident, discussed the need for a public subdivision review and agreed with the Town Engineer's comments. Commissioner Losa questioned if the Administrative Subdivision process is limited to the planning areas listed in the STS. Eric Heil responded affirmatively. Commissioner Losa stated that he had concern with the lack of subdivision review when coupled with Note 4 of the PUD Master Plan. He stated that the PUD allows for 10% change to planning area and it appears that there is limited to no oversight on the development. He commented on the lack of typical application. Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Struve stated that he would not support any language that varies from the Staff recommended language with the only change that an appeal goes before the Town Council prior to court. Commissioner Minervini agreed with Commissioners Losa and Struve in supporting the Town Staff recommended language. He also felt that language implements the STS. Commissioner Prince stated that he is uncomfortable with the differing opinions from Town Staff, Legal Council, and the applicant. Commissioner Clancy agreed with Commissioner Prince and further stated that the intent needs to be further specified within the language. Commissioner Anderson agreed with Commissioners Prince and Clancy. He also stated that he needs to support staff and is not in approval of this item. Commissioner Green stated that if agrees with the Town Engineer and if the Town Engineer is uncomfortable with the language as proposed then the Commissioners should also be wary. Munsey Ayres questioned Town Engineer's concern with one section of the subdivision language and if the applicant could work with the Town Engineer on that issue if a condition could be crafted. Commissioner Green responded that it was not a one issue deal and that the Town Engineer has more concerns than the one issue. Munsey Ayres discussed the Town oversight in an Administrative process. He also discussed the minor differences in review criteria and submittal requirements. Commissioner Prince questioned why the applicant would not want a public review for subdivisions. Justin Hildreth responded by supporting the language in the Town Staff recommended language as discussed previously. Eric Heil further commented that the language narrowly implemented the STS. Commissioner Anderson stated that he needs to know that the Town Staff supports the language, but he does support administrative subdivision review. Commissioner Struve agreed with Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Anderson moved to deny the application for Administrative Subdivision as presented, but the PZC is in agreement with Administrative Subdivision process and that the applicant work with Town Staff and Town Legal Council. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. Commissioner Anderson also added the three findings in the Staff recommended motion. Commissioner Minervini questioned the third finding in Staff's draft. Justin Hildreth responded by overviewing the idea and acknowledged that the wording could be improved. The second agrees with the motion amendment. Page 7 of 10 The motionee accepted the changes discussed by Commissioner Minervini. Commissioner Clancy suggested adding another finding that discussed the need for public review for subdivisions. Finding #4: Public Hearings are a necessary part of development and should not be bypassed. The motion passed 7-0. Paul Maloney, Resident, stated that one thing he heard loud and clear is that something is not right and the applicant knows what is needed to be done before the Town Council. Munsey Ayres responded that this is the first time in his career he has seen a denial with conditions. The Commissioners agreed to not discuss any additional items not listed on the STS. Matt Pielsticker overviewed the PZC recommendation on each STS item. Commissioner Minervini suggested modifying the language regarding the upper road access to PA -I. Commissioner Clancy discussed the mandatory review criteria. He stated that the proposal confers a benefit and detriment to the Town. He also commented that the proposed PUD likely will have adverse impacts on neighboring properties. He stated that throughout the document the intention of the applicant is not clearly stated and at times it conflicts with the language written. He stated that maximizing public input is a good inclusion. He also discussed the lack of clarity with regard to school site dedication and parkland dedication. Commissioner Prince stated that he does not believe the application complies with the review criteria. He stated that the PZC has not had sufficient time to review the documents. He stated the lack of limitation on commercial square footage on the valley floor is a detriment. He also commented on the changes to the school site. He commented on the details on some of the dedications and the lack of "developable-ness" of the properties. Commissioner Minervini stated that the PZC has approved with conditions 9 of the 11 STS items that the Town Council asked PZC to focus upon; therefore the PZC should recommend approval of the 9 STS items with 2 STS items deleted or denied. Commissioner Struve discussed the amount of time Town Staff and the PZC have spent on this proposal. He stated the that PZC is not approving or denying anything, but solely recommending that the Town Council take one of these two steps. Commissioner Losa commented that development needs to pay its way and should not be a burden on the Town. He commented that many of the areas proposed where dedications may be satisfied are not developable parcels. He expressed the lack of PZC review on how each item in the STS fit together in the larger scheme of the project. He commented on many of the public benefits are being pushed further down the road and only delaying the potential of realizing some or all of the benefits. He commented that the only real public benefit is avoiding a lawsuit. Page 8 of 10 Commissioner Anderson stated that the PZC has come a long way and with more time the PZC could work towards a recommendation of approval. He cited many issues that he feels needs more discussion and dissecting in order to approve the proposed PUD Guide. He again stated the need for additional time. Commissioner Green discussed the mandate to address STS items. He stated that he is comfortable with the recommendations made by the PZC on each STS item. He stated that anything beyond the items discussed in the STS, he is not ready to approve. He discussed the inter -relationships between items that were not addressed and the lack of clarity with streets, densities, and uses within the Planning Areas. Laurie Adler, Resident, thanked the PZC for their time and recommended that the PZC recommend denial to the Town Council. She also read into the record a letter from Jamilya Kovacik, Resident. Margaret Langstaff, Resident, thanks the PZC for their time in reviewing the PUD amendment, but expressed the need to deny the request. Bette Todd, Resident, she discussed the multitude of issues with the proposed PUD and lack of time for the PZC to review each one. She commented that many of the issues could take an entire public hearing for each one. She stated that the proposed PUD does not meet the review criteria. She discussed the need for comprehensive plans and other municipal code sections apply as modified from time to time. Joe Walker, Resident, discussed the input and reasoning from various involved parties at various meetings. He commented that the proposed PUD does not have the level of details that Town Staff, PZC, Town Council, and Public have requested to support the proposed amendment. He further commented that there is a lack of definition to many facets of the proposal. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Green thanked the Public for showing up the meeting. Commissioner Anderson commented that there was a lack of input from Residents in the Chapel Square development, and that adverse impact of the PUD changes need to be limited for the Chapel Square project. Commissioner Struve was in favor of tabling the PUD and sending the STS recommendations up to the Town Council. Commissioner Minervini agreed with Commissioner Struve's comments. Eric Heil commented on the recommendation to Town Council. Commissioner Struve moved to table the PUD and move the Term Sheet items to the Town Council. Commissioner Minervini seconded the motion. Commissioner Prince stated that he is not going to support the motion and would prefer to deny the PUD and move the STS items up to Council. Commissioner Losa stated that there are minor changes to the PUD from preliminary to final and that the applicant has not shown the intent to address concerns cited by the PZC and Town Council. Page 9of10 Commissioner Minervini stated that the tabling can be construed as a positive instead of a negative that denial would carry. Eric Heil stated that PZC should document the items not addressed and state that overall approval cannot be met in their recommendation. Commissioner Prince questioned if the applicant would prefer a tabling of the application or a decision. Munsey Ayres responded that the schedule would not afford additional time to table the application and that a recommendation is necessary. The motion failed 5-2. Commissioner Prince moved to recommended that the Town Council deny the proposed PUD amendment and that the findings be revised to recap the 11 items addressed in the STS; that a finding be added that lists the issues that were not addressed; that a finding be added that the 2011 Design Guidelines are not in the STS, but were addressed by the PZC; that the PZC recommendation is in compliance with the 35 day review timeframe; because the lack of time they are unable to recommend overall approval of the PUD. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. Commissioner Losa suggested adding findings related to the review criteria. The Commissioners were in agreement. Eric Heil suggested allowing Staff to draft recommended findings that would be reviewed at the September 4t', 2012 PZC meeting. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner Struve abstaining. V. Other Business VI. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 pm. APPROVED on this 4t' Day of September, 2012 SIGNED: Phil Struve, Chair ATTEST: Scott Prince, Secretary Page 10 of 10