Loading...
PZC Minutes 112106 (2)Town of Avon Planning 8& Zoning Commission A14 '/J; Meeting Minutes for November 21, 2006 VON Avon Town Council Chambers C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road Work Session — East Avon Design Alternatives Description: Design Workshop to make presentation of four development alternatives produced for East Avon Master Plan project. Review of a draft Market Investigation Report. Stakeholders have been invited and this is a Work Session open to the public. Matt Pielsticker introduced himself as the Project Manager for this job and gave background on the project to date. Mr. Pielsticker introduced the team from Design Workshop and Rebecca Leonard began her presentation with the "Process to Date" and the items to be completed; residential, commercial and retail concerns, parking and traffic issues and projected numbers of vehicles, the impact of the Riverfront project along with the West Avon and the East Avon projects. Ms. Leonard continued by presenting the four Alternatives of the Development Concept Diagram. Commissioner Evans asked Ms. Leonard what benefit the Christie Lodge receives for changes to their property and Ms. Leonard responded that she believed they felt being closer to "Main Street" was beneficial. John Perkins, president of the Christie Lodge Board, voiced that his HOA charter has a drop dead date when the HOA would dissolve. Mr. Perkins remarked that they would be looking for greater density and height. Ms. Leonard mentioned that placing a frontage road behind the Christie Lodge would give them a buffer and better access for and to the Town. She continued that properties within East Avon were under utilized and incentive for redevelopment would be the increase in residential in the area. Open discussion questioned parking issues in Chapel Square, availability of underground parking, some Town Right of Way parking, concerns with trucks and delivery vehicles, and pedestrian access. The presentation continued with "Successful Community Design": - coordination and cohesiveness with neighboring districts, mix of land uses, pedestrian environment, circulation and transportation parking, streetscape improvements, massing and form, and architectural character, and; "Successful Retail": -easy access by cars and people, .continuous retail experience, complementary building layout, strong anchors, central orientation elements, parking availability, and visibility. Items to determine a conclusion are: Access - number of access points to and through the district? 2 are encouraged by Design Workshop Commissioner response was varied with preferred Alternatives. - On street parking? Slows traffic down, buffer from pedestrians and cars, provides views of streets and streetlights and good for retail. - De -centralized parking garages? People like to get as close to their uses. 2 Retail Character mzns me x1515 .. - - K With Town Center West having small retailers, mid box retailers would draw and support other retailers and the practical aspect of 200,000 sq ft or 250,000 sq ft requires a lot of small retailers and there is currently available space unused. Discussion included mid box national chains are not what visitors come for but small private stores like those currently in Edwards, others felt that the future visitors would expect such retailers to be here as the population increases, mix of style and appeal of the mid box needs consideration and respect of the smaller retailers. How pedestrian friendly? The term "mid -box" is misleading, and Ms. Leonard recommended "mid- sized". Municipal Involvement - Straightening of'main street'? Affirmative by some. - Park/Plaza? More view corridors by connection of views. Design Workshop will refine preferred alternative plan for the Open .House in January 2007 as the next step with a draft District Plan and a final District Plan to follow. Further conversation determined that another work session was warranted. Site Tour - Village at Avon - CANCELLED Description: People mover to pick up Planning and Zoning Commission and staff for site tour related to Item VIII - Village at Avon Planned Unit Development Amendment. On-site review of parcels. - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. it. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Goulding. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Site tour for the VAA was cancelled due to time constraints. Under the "Other Business", review of Walkin the Dog parameters. Item VII, A, Final Design Plan — Residential, Duplex at Beartrap & Old Trail, Property Location: Lot 49, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2610 Beartrap Rd., moved to Consent Agenda. Item IX, A, Master Sign Programs, Chapel Square Amendment, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 240 Chapel Place, moved to Consent Agenda Item X, A., Minor Projects Application, Municipal Building Design Modifications, Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 400 Benchmark Road, moved to Consent Agenda. Item X, B., Minor Projects Application, CenturyTel Radio Dish, Property Location: Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision / 1060 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Smith revealed a letter sent to the Secretary of State regarding a 'Disclosure of Possible Conflict of Interest" concerning an amendment to the Planned Unit Development of Traer Creek/Village at Avon. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the October 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes • Approval of Item 9A, Master Sign Programs, Chapel Square Amendment, Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 240 Chapel Place • Approval of Item 10A, Minor Projects Application, Municipal Building Design Modifications, Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 400 Benchmark Road • Approval of Item IX A - Chapel Square Master Sign Program Amendment • Approval of Item X B - CenturyTel Communication Dish Commissioner Green motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. VI. Transit Center Snowmelt— CONTINUED Properly Location: Benchmark Court, Avon Transit Center Applicant. Design Workshop /Owner. • Town of Avon Description: Follow up to condition of approval by Planning and Zoning Commission to provide snowmelt at the new Avon Transit Center location. Steven Spears, Design Workshop, approached the podium to discuss the Transit Center snowmelt as directed by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and agreed by Town Council to pursue. Mr. Spears began by displaying the approved design by Planning and Zoning along with three snowmelt alternatives. Commissioner Evans remarked that the approval by Planning & Zoning was contingent on the Transit Center being snow melted as one design implied no snow melt. Transit Center Snowmelt — Seven Criteria: - Should be located on Town property (with the applicable sub -surface rights) - Should be located to minimize existing underground utilities or drainage systems. - Should be located to allow for easy access by the public works dept. - Should be located where automobiles/transit will not be driving. - Should be located in a place where hardscape occurs, minimizing additiona construction costs. Should not be located in an area where pedestrians will congregate (i.e immediately next to a bus stop, or in proximity to retail or residential units.) Should not be located in the sight distance triangle. The seven criteria generated 12 alternatives with four options presented. Each option would not be beneath the roadway; stacks would be nine feet tall. Commissioner Evans questioned why the snowmelt vault was not being used to heat the Transit Center and Mr. Spears remarked that there are too numerous utility lines under the Transit Center for the vault. The mechanical vault needs 450 sq ft. The anticipated schedule would have construction of the Transit Center beginning April 1, 2007. Commissioner discussion revolved around mechanical engineer's design with Mr. Spears unable to respond to specific engineering questions. Commissioner Green motioned to table Item VI, Transit Center Snowmelt, Property Location: Benchmark Court, Avon Transit Center, with Commissioner Smith seconding the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The motion passed unanimously. VII. Final Design Plan — Residential A. Duplex at Beartrap & Old Trail Property Location: Lot 49, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision / 2610 Beartrap Rd. Applicant. Michael Pukas, MPP Design Shop /Owner. Matsen Enterprises Description: Design review for a "mountain ranch" style duplex at the comer of Beartrap and Old Trail roads. The building is comprised of stucco, horizontal and vertical wood siding, moss rock stone veneer, asphalt shingles, and cor-ten rusted corrugated metal roofing. Sketch review took place at the Commission's August 15'h, 2006 meeting. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. Michaud Duplex Property Location: Lot 9, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5750 Wildridge Road East Applicant: Courtney Giphart /Owner Roger Michaud Description: Final Design review for a duplex on Wildridge Road East near the top of the Wildridge Subdivision. A variety of high quality materials are being proposed. Sketch review took place at the Commission's October 17, 2006 meeting. At sketch review, the Commission requested the applicant return with a revised sketch application prior to proceeding to final design. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Roger Michaud, property owner, approached the podium to discuss his project and gain Commission understanding and direction. Mr. Michaud provided the Commissioners with pictures of neighboring sites and stated that his team had exhausted all ideas of how to site the building. Commissioner Struve questioned the driveway and the amount of the lot being paved was to be minimized. Commissioner concerns were the massing, color charts and materials weren't submitted (handed out during the session), roof ridge was one long shot, setbacks are an issue, and all colors were not reviewed and those presented were inconsistent with renderings. Commissioner Struve mentioned that this was turning into a sketch review of a final design. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VII B, Michaud Duplex, Property Location: Lot 9, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5750 Wildridge Road East. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with all Commissioners in favor, VIII. PUD Amendment— PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Village at Avon PUD Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG /Owner. Traer Creek Description: The applicant is proposing to amend the Village at Avon PUD. The proposed amendments to the PUD are focused primarily on relocating Planning Area G, which is and will remain designated for a school to be operated by the Eagle County School District; Planning Area D, which is to be adjusted to allow the school to be located within its existing boundaries; and Planning Area N, which is to now accommodate two separate facilities for the Eagle County Health Services District and the Eagle River Fire Protection District. Matt Gennett presented the Staff Report and began that all correspondence received was not in the package circulated last week but has been distributed to the Commission. The material included a letter from Eagle County Schools dated January 3`d, 2006; a letter from Eagle River Fire Protection District dated November 17, 2006; and a letter from Often, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti dated November 21, 2006. Mr. Gennett proceeded to reveal one error in the report that Resolution No. 17 was for denial and Resolution No. 18 was for conditional approval for the emergency facilities. Mr. Gennett continued that the applicants are proposing to amend the Village at Avon PUD and read the particulars as outlined in Staffs report. Staff does recommend, in Resolution 06-17, the denial to the request to relocate Planning Area G pursuant to the review of the criteria found in the PUD Design criteria section of the Staff Report and second, Resolution No. 06-18, staff recommends conditional approval of the request to allow emergency services within Area N with the following conditions; 1. Emergency Service uses shall be housed in a combined facility limited to Tract "E", located within Filing 3 of the Village at Avon Subdivision; 2. The development agreement language is amended to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney; and 3. Except as otherwise modified by this permit approval, all material representations made by the applicant or applicant representative(s) in this application and in public hearing(s) shall be adhered to and considered binding conditions of approval and with the criteria found in the criteria section of the staff report. Commissioner Evans remarked that this is a Public Hearing and the Applicant will be first allowed to make his presentation, answers to any specific questions that may arise, and then the Public Hearing will be opened. Public comment was requested to be short and to the point. Commissioner Evans than questioned if a member of the School District was present as there would be specific questions directed to them as well to Mr. Moore from the Fire District and the Ambulance District. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group representing Traer Creek, the Applicant, introduced Magnus Lindholm, Dan Leary, Inga Causey and Munsey Ayers from Often, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti whose firm provided a letter to the Commission. Mr. Mauriello revealed another letter that was not in the original package and was just found this week, tried to email it to Matt on Friday and was not received but he does have a copy now. It was a couple of letters that Mr. Mauriello would be referencing in his presentation. Mr. Mauriello continued that he would be responding to the some of the comments made by Staff and hoped it would not be interpreted as attacking as they are trying to keep it about the facts and not to go down a negative road. Mr. Mauriello continued that the purpose of this evening, as Matt had pointed out, would be talking about relocating of the School District and some emergency service facilities. Mr. Mauriello began by stating he would be giving a little bit of background on the Village at Avon, remarked that there was a pretty good summary of amendments that have occurred in the Staff Memorandum and he would be going through a more graphical approach to that and then he would go through some of the comments they have with respect to the recommendations. The ambulance district would be giving their power point presentation, per Mr. Mauriello, at the end of his presentation. Mr. Mauriello began that they are relocating the school site "G" back to the south of Interstate 70 where it was originally in the original PUD. So, it was not that they were moving it drastically from where it was originally approved. Mr. Mauriello commented that he would get into it later. Commissioner Struve interrupted Mr. Mauriello to ask if "the original PUD" mentioned was approved. Mr. Mauriello responded that it was approved and that he would be going though that. Mr. Mauriello continued that the other amendment, as they had proposed it, may be something different than maybe where they would end up at the end of the evening. But, what they proposed to do was simply to allow public uses or emergency service uses as a Special Review Use in Area "N". The reason they did that was so that the Planning Commission to review the specific site-ing and location of where those facilities would go so there would be a little bit more review criteria, if you will, that the district would have to go through when they came through with specific planning. They have a different idea now if they want to go down a different route but that is the route they were going down. Mr. Mauriello presented an aerial of the property taken from the Eagle County website and commented that it didn't look great here. He proceeded to describe the map to the Commission with the proposed locations as well as an approved water tank location and a road that was not contemplated in the original PUD. Mr. Mauriello discussed the original PUD that was approved when the property was annexed to the Town and when it was annexed, it had the map presented, a PUD Guide and an Annexation Agreement. Mr. Mauriello stated that these documents provided the rules by which this was going to be reviewed into the future. And, in many cases, it has special requirements that are different than the Town Code has, has different processes than the Town Code, and so when you look at this project, you almost have to look at the PUD Guide and the Annexation Agreement as the zoning of the property much more so than you do the Town Code. Mr. Mauriello revealed that he would be referring to the PUD Guide and the Annexation Agreement for the record of this project and for reference. Mr. Mauriello continued by showing a corner of a map where it talked about PUD Development Plan/Sketch Plan, this document was really a sketch plan type document, not an engineered document and it shows, as Matt pointed out, RMF 1 in its original configuration, Area N which was a park area with no roads cutting through the middle and Mr. Mauriello pointed out Area G, a school district site in the original PUD and Area D which has changed over time. Mr. Mauriello continued by stating that it was really a sketch plan, more like zoning or a future land use map, guides the development on the property and not an engineered document, none of the roads were engineering in the original plan, it was a simple guiding tool to show. The school site originally was south of 1-70. The Annexation Agreement that was adopted in the first amendment to the Annexation Agreement documents specifically required that a fire district site be provided within the PUD. Commissioner Green questioned "required" as elsewhere was stated contemplate. Mr. Mauriello responded with requires absolutely. Mr. Mauriello continued that the original plan the Public Works facility on Tract L, and he would show it in a moment, was going to be a joint Public Works — Fire District facility and in the First Amendment what happened was the Town wanted to have the Public Works facility by itself on Tract L where the Charter School is this year. So what happened was, when they did that amendment, the Town was able to get Tract L, or planning area L, and the fire district then was allocated an acre of land to be provided, and he would address in a minute what that language said and where it was located. The Annexation Agreement did not contemplate an ambulance district site. The ambulance district was being proposed more to meet a community need rather than being an obligation of the Annexation Agreement. He continued that both of these uses were provided sites on the Village at Avon Filing 3 Plat that was approved just two years ago. Mr. Mauriello proceeded to demonstrate on the Plat the locations of Swift Gulch Road, Tract F, Tract G between this and the water area, and Tract E which was originally thought to be the Fire District site and the ambulance site and was basically what was being proposed today. Mr. Mauriello continued that there was a statement in staffs memo that this was not an approval of those uses and that was correct but what will be seen, in the two letters distributed by Mr. Mauriello, the first letter authored by the Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Health Services District and will be referenced as the Ambulance District and the Fire District as the agencies being talked about. In the letter, it is clearly pointed out that they were in approval or agreement that Tract F should be for the ambulance district site and Tract E should be for the Eagle River Fire Protection site. This was a letter preceded the approval of that plat, talked about these parcels and that there was a subsequent letter from Charlie Moore to the Town Manager basically saying the same thing. Mr. Mauriello commented that it was interesting that these were dug out of the Town's files a couple of days ago when trying to find out what was the story on these parcels as we didn't have a clear picture on what had occurred and there has been a lot of players on the applicant's side that have come and gone and that there is a lot of staff that has come and gone leaving holes to fill. Interestingly enough, continued Mr. Mauriello, there was a sticky note that said, "Do we need a PUD Amendment to allow these uses in the park?" and routed to several members of the Town's staff. Commissioner Struve questioned who wrote the note and Mr. Mauriello responded that he didn't know. The point, per Mr. Mauriello, was that these parcels were created for a reason and he thought that when they did it at that time they decided to go back and amend the PUD to allow those uses and it was clear that was what these uses were going to be. Commissioner Evans questioned the clarity, besides the two letters, that those are the intended uses of E and F? Mr. Mauriello responded that these were the only things that could be found in the Town's files and he didn't know why he couldn't find more information but he thought it clearly showed the intent. Commissioner Evans continued if there was anything on the plat that denoted uses of Tract E and F. Mr. Mauriello answered "no" and what it said was to refer to the PUD plat. Commissioner Green asked the designation for Tract G. Mr. Mauriello responded to Commissioner Green that he did not know and that Tract G was there because it was a parcel bifurcated by Tract F and so it had to have some kind of designation put on it. Mr. Mauriello continued his presentation by showing the original plat and a build out plan scenario for what it might look like if it was developed. He began with Chapel Square, some of the housing, and proposed school site. Commissioner Evans questioned a bridge in the presentation and was responded that it was for a pedestrian bridge and would be addressed later. Mr. Mauriello addressed the road and its changes, showed the road, park, tennis courts and soccer fields. He then showed the current PUD, demonstrated Area G and showed how the road was realigned and how Area K got substantially larger, which occurred when both Wal Mart and Home Depot came back and wanted substantially bigger facilities, asked for help on the site as they did not want to go down to Gypsum. An Administrative Amendment, which means staff approval, moved Area G from one location to another, bubbles were modified. Commissioner Green clarified the issue of G was originally where J was and got moved over to the RMF 1 designation and Mr. Mauriello added that the road used to come here and G was not directly on the thoroughfare, it was back behind J and J was a different shaped bubble and so was I and so was H. Commissioner Struve questioned how this happened and Mr. Mauriello answered 'by Administrative Amendment'. There is a provision in the PUD Guide and the Annexation Agreement for there to be an allowance for an Administrative Amendment. That Amendment was approved by the Town to allow the school to go into that area. There was also discussed moving it to D, and it was located there without correspondence or discussion with the School District; it was just sort of moved there. Commissioner Struve asked of staff what an Administrative Approval was. Eric Heidemann responded that it was a process by which the Community Development Director could draft up a letter and approve an amendment at an administrative level or staff level. Mr. Mauriello continued to discuss his map and presentation. It was Mr. Mauriello's understanding that current location was always understood that it was a temporary move, no one actually anticipated that the school would be put in a busy intersection and it needed to be put somewhere. As a consequence, the School District did not approve of the location and still agree that it is not a good spot. The presentation continued with the proposed Amendment map submitted that was being asked for approval. Roads, roundabouts, Tract N (park area), RMF 1 and Area G were pointed out along with Parcel G, health services districts and engineering plans were submitted to show that it could meet some of the School District criteria that it could be graded to a relatively flat slope and that the road was capable of climbing up to this facility. Mr. Mauriello continued that as Matt pointed out earlier, the relocation of G from RMF 1 back to D resulted in an overall decrease of density of 87 dwelling units. Depending of your perspective, it could be a positive thing or a negative one. RMF 1 allowed 6 dwelling units per acre and D allowed 18 and that was why there was a discrepancy. Mr. Mauriello believed that the proposed school site was more consistent with the original location and, in fact, the School District went through a whole community process to determine which would be the more favorable location and the proposed site was the result of their meetings and the favored location. If the access issue across Forest Service land would have been resolved, they would have preferred to be on M. Commissioner Green asked about RMF 1 and the switching Area G from the RMF 1, how many dwelling units are being picked up by moving G to the new location in the RMF 1 zone? Mr. Mauriello replied it was restoring it back to the way it was before to its original condition of 6 dwelling units per acre and by administrative position. Commissioner Green questioned the number of dwelling units lost in the RMF zone. Mr. Gennett responded that on Page 6 of the Staff Report, it is demonstrated that the density goes from a maximum of - 369 units to a potential of 238 and RMF 1 increased from 142 to 183, so about 41. Mr. Mauriello stated that the overall net decrease was 87 dwelling units per acre and commented that in this PUD, there is no minimum density and obligation to develop any of it. Mr. Mauriello continued that the proposed RMF 1 was restored back to the way it was, same acreage; Area G moved to the west in Area D. He showed how a road alignment changed and Parcel K really grew. Commissioner Struve commented on the huge climb from the south side to get to the bridge level and across. Mr. Mauriello responded to the pedestrian bridge and that it was shown on the original plans and in these plans and it was never an obligation. It was more like the tennis courts and basketball courts. Commissioner Struve commented that was the reason it was taken out of the Comprehensive Plan because it was not practical. Mr. Mauriello then presented a conceptual build out that was recently updated to give the Commission an idea of the school site, regional commercial center, fire district building and how it might look like and the small building for the ambulance district. RMF 1, as it develops, the road up to the water tank and what the park uses might look like once they are developed. In terms of the PUD criteria, Mr. Mauriello believed what they were proposing was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives to the extent that they are applicable to this project. The proposal was consistent with the original concept plan and the original sketch plan and, therefore, since the original plan was found to be consistent, they don't believe they were varying significantly from it despite the loss of density. In terms of the public benefit criteria, Mr. Mauriello could not think of any other application that meets this criteria more than what was being proposed to do. Sites are being provided for emergency services facilities that obviously has a public benefit, moving a school parcel back to an area that was more safe and away from traffic. There is improved life safety to the community at large, to school children. Mr. Mauriello had the strongest reaction to the Staff Memo regarding the comment that emergency facilities are inconsistent with park uses. It is Mr. Maudello's belief that it is a benefit to be in a park setting especially where there is active recreation because if someone is injured on the spot it would provide a great advantage. Mr. Mauriello continued that the Staff Report talks about the responsibility of the Town with respect to the school district use and they somehow have a liability or some kind of responsibility for it. In fact, Mr. Mauriello doesn't think that they do and the PUD Guide was very clear on this point if you look at the Annexation and Development Agreement. 4.3F states clearly that the conveyance shall be in compliance with the Town's requirements in effective as of the date of this agreement. That was specifically put in the agreement for a reason, not a mistake. In Section 16.50.20A, at the time the conveyance was occurred, it says very specifically, that conveyance occurs directly to Eagle County School District RE50J and not to the Town. There were also in there that there were no referral comments which were an absolutely true comment but he wanted to reveal that there were letters that had been provided earlier in the year. He continued that the Memo suggests that perhaps the change in density was actually a negative or unacceptable thing occurring in D. Again, RMF 1 was just being restored to the way it was, Area D was being reduced in area and that is the reason for the decline in density. They didn't seek to add that density as they thought it would be viewed as opportunistic on the part of the developer. They just assumed lose that density in a dwelling per acre standpoint than try to maximize it. It doesn't effect the overall density that was allowed on the property of the 2400 unit. However, if there were a concern by that body, it could obviously have a condition of approval that recommends we increase that density to 28 units per acre. Mr. Mauriello continued that there was no obligation to develop any of the residential and there was no minimum density required of any development area in the PUD. The report talked about the existing fill that has been placed in the area where the School District would be located. This level of detail was not something to get into at this level of sketch plan specifically with this proposal. There was not a site specific geological study for any other parcels on there. In fact, Area D today was proposed at 18 dwelling units per acre and there is no geological study required today. Since the conveyance of this parcel goes directly to the School District, they are going to have assured the School District that it was suitable for development. But before the site can be conveyed to the School District, they will have to plat it. Mr. Mauriello continued that they would have to go through a process where they do a preliminary plat and a final plat. At that time, the Commission will have that data. So, it was not a situation that the information would not be provided, it is about the time and the process when they would get into looking at the specific engineering of each of the different parcels. Concern was expressed about the traffic and about the cul-de-sac length with respect to the development of the school. The road that leads to Area G was actually in Area D and in the PUD Guide, Section 1 has specific requirements for cul-de-sacs regarding how long the cul-de-sac can be, how many units it can serve, allows cul-de-sacs to exceed the normal standard of 1,000 feet. The presentation continued with the fire and ambulance uses are inconsistent with a community park and they should be collocated. The Annexation Agreement required the fire district facility and it could be placedanywhere in Planning Area N, Community Park, and any area labeled OS which is Open Space and any parcel that was labeled parkland. The location can be picked at the applicant's discretion was the specific statement. Mr. Mauriello's point of view was that the Town already went down the road of saying these are compatible uses with those Annexation Agreement that already says a Fire District facility in those areas so they have to be considered harmonious and workable with Planning Area N and he didn't think the ambulance district was any different from the Fire District Facility. He continued that the compatibility of the uses has already been made. Just two years ago, 2004, the Filing 3 Plat that created those two parcels that were contemplated for the Fire District and the Ambulance District. Again, clearly showing that they were consistent and workable with the Town's Plan. This was the area that Mr. Mauriello had the most disagreement. Mr. Mauriello continued with discussing the recommendations and proposed conditions and how they believed things should occur here. They believe that emergency service facility should be able to be approved on Tract E and F, as they were contemplated on the Plat. They don't think they should be collocated. There are two different districts with two different ideas on how they may operate in the future. They believed it should be approved the way it is shown on the Plat. They were agreeable to a condition that would limit those uses to only Tract E and F so that it doesn't open up other areas of the park and consideration for this direction to allow them on Tract E and F only, why not make it a permitted use rather than a special review use in those areas. They don't care either way but it just seemed that if they were going to go down that road it would make it simpler for those districts to obtain approvals and go though that process. They don't believe a need exists to amend the Annexation Agreement at all to do what they are proposing to do. Approval for Area G was recommended as submitted. They would be required to provide a site specific geological investigation upon their application for preliminary plat and they are fine with this condition. It was stated that they would provide the land for the School District and when it is reasonably necessary to serve the proposed subdivision and the future residents thereof. Until they have a residential population to generate a need for that school, there would not be a need within the next six months to build a school out there. It was mentioned that this site was designated as an Elementary School site, not a high school site based on the size of the parcel. Commissioner Struve questioned who decides when the time was right for the school. Mr. Mauriello responded that he believed that the School District would decide and he thought it would be a mutual agreement between the applicant and the School District as to when that occurs. A condition was placed that a pedestrian bridge should be built. It was stated that there was absolutely no obligation to do that anywhere in any of the documents even though it shows conceptually and it was asked that it not be included. At preliminary plat, they would provided whatever traffic analysis required. Commissioner Evans questioned, in the interest of time, given that the location of ambulance and fire parcels, what was it that was going to be presented that was material to the PUD Application on the table? Mr. Mauriello answered the specific location and its ability to serve the community. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Fred Morrison, General Manager of the Ambulance District, approached the podium to talk about a mid -valley ambulance facility. The ambulance district began in the 60's as a department of the Vail Valley Medical Center. A health care crisis in the 80's caused near bankruptcy at the hospital and they needed out of the ambulance business. The fire departments were not interested and neither was the western portion of the Eagle County. So, Mr. Collins formed a special district in 1982 and went to a special vote and got there. Today, there are 26 paramedics and 23 EMT's. There are 53 total staff members, 7 vehicles with three to five of them staffed at any moment, some support vehicles and some trailers to help with searches. This was the district that was formed. Mr. Morrison described his map and coverage. There are currently facilities in Vail and Edwards. The Vail facility was built in 1982 and the Edwards facility in 1991. The proposed facility in Traer Creek was right in between the two. In reference for future planning, they are looking in Wolcott and the Ginn property out of Minturn. These are on the radar and not necessarily in the planning stages. Western Eagle County Ambulance District has facilities in Eagle and they are punching a hole in the ground in the Spring for a facility in Gypsum and they are certainly having discussions on what might happen in the Dotsero area. Mr. Morrison continued with the calls they do, and in 2005 roughly 3,300 calls with only 400 of those being trips to the mountain, 220 to Denver. Fifty percent of their calls are east of Dowd and 50 percent are west of Dowd. He commented that it wasn't always this way. A lot of time used to be spent in the Vail area and as people have moved west, the calls have followed. An important factor is how long a call takes. The hospital is at one end of the response area, that's where the sick people go. A call at the eastern end of the district is thirty minutes to an hour and that is if everything goes smoothly. Commissioner Struve questioned the start to finish as being from the time the call is received to the time the person is in the hospital? Mr. Morrison responded that it included the time the vehicle was road ready again. Mr. Morrison proceeded to describe a map of the area serviced. Eighty percent of all calls are within West Edwards and East Vail. If a bisection of the oval was done, it falls at the Traer Creek site. Mr. Morrison continued that they try to put ambulances where they are needed. In Squaretown, USA, they put an ambulance in the center and they radiate out. The valley has a cigar shaped response area. Traer Creek was at the -center of the response area. It would make the response times better. Eaglebend Drive and Stonbridge, the response time would be 3 minutes and 15 seconds faster from the Traer Creek station than Edwards. The heart of town would be 3 minutes and 10 seconds. Beaver Creek Roundabout was 2.5 minutes. When talking about everything from Traer Creek to the East, Eagle -Vail, Minturn, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, a whopping 5.5 minute improvement in response time. These are improvement numbers from Edwards. "They' need this now. There are equipment and crews hired and this location is a great benefit to the citizens of Avon, Eagle -Vail, Wildridge, everything and it helps to improve their service. In hind sight, 20 years ago, they should have bought some of the sheep pasture like everyone else. Commissioner Evans questioned the opposition to collocation. Mr. Morrison responded that there wasn't an opposition to collocation but there was an issue of timing. The ambulance district needs their building now and the fire district has a different time horizon. Commissioner Struve questioned if this would become a "home office" location. Mr. Morrison responded with a no, it would be a satellite facility and the Edwards would be the headquarters as an expansion and remodel was just done providing more than enough space. Commissioner Green questioned the estimate size of the vehicles and staffing for the site. Mr. Morrison was proposing an ambulance crew, three to four bays, a supervisor in the middle where they can be of benefit to the whole response area. He continued that they are planning that if the calls load demands and density demands, we could locate 2 to 3 crews at this facility. People would be there 24/7. Commissioner Struve asked how many people drive to you. Mr. Morrison responded with 3 or 4 but not a significant amount but a park might be a bigger draw. Commissioner Struve questioned the percentage of incidents off of 1-70 versus by residence. The response was that 1-70 accounted for 40 to 50% of the calls. Commissioner Evans addressed to Dr. Larry Brooks that on behalf of everyone on the Commission that there seems to be this consensus that the Planning and Zoning Commission was against the ambulance facility in Avon and that there needed to be this hard sell approach as to why it is necessary. Commissioner Evans continued that it was not the case. He didn't think that anybody here questioned the need for an ambulance facility and the •rational for it. The only question was where it goes. Dr. Larry Brooks, president of the Ambulance District, approached the podium. He was also the ER physician that started the Emergency Room and the Ambulance service in 1980. Dr. Brooks has been involved in the access to healthcare in Eagle County since 1977. He was also the original person to push the new Avon Medical Center which hopefully soon will be an Urgent Care Center rather than a "full emergency room" as it would get a better use at a better price. Dr. Brooks encouraged the hospital to put the urgent care there because without the fancy graph that Fred had, he knew that Avon was in the middle of the area of need and was not serviced medically very well. Dr. Brooks continued that they have been looking for property in this area for 10 years and only until a couple of years ago when Traer Creek made an offer, were there any hopes of getting this property and they have been pursuing it since then. They are looking at a 3.5 minute of saving time. The district was offered a lot, they are willing to take the lot, it can work for us and they need help from the community. In today's market, health care, time is heart and time is brain. When someone is hurt badly, time is all they have. Dr. Brooks continued that Highway 70 which is going to double in the next 10 to 15 years has a level of trauma that is the highest in the State of Colorado for a level 3 hospital. Dominic Mauriello commented that no one was opposed to collocation and mentioned that getting the two parties to agree was not a simple task. Mr. Mauriello continued that he was obligated in the Annexation Agreement to give an acre of land to the Fire District. If they go down the road of collocation on here, they are going to need to amend that requirement and have the Fire District agree to that. Then, the parcel will have to be bifurcated that parcel so that each owner has their own ability to move forward with the project on their own time schedule. Chuck Moore, Eagle River Fire Prevention District, approached the podium to discuss the sites proposed. Commissioner Struve asked if Mr. Moore preferred to be closer to the interstate and the response was affirmative. Commissioner Green questioned if the site proposed was to be a satellite station and the answer was yes. Jaime Fitzpatrick, Corum Real Estate Group, voiced from the podium concerns with Traer Creek and a $2,000,000 debt that related to Buffalo Ridge Housing project remained unpaid. Mary Ann Stavney, Eagle County School District, voiced her concern with the school site, stated it was for an elementary school, the School Board's position that a parcel on the north side of the highway was inappropriate for a school site and the Board desired the site on the valley floor. Magnus Lindholm remarked at the podium if the ambulance could get .73 acre instead of the 1.24 acres for both services so that the ambulance service can begin construction immediately. Commissioner Green asked about the ambulance flying out of the driveway and thru a park as an unsafe situation. Commission discussion continued with alternative sites and timing for amending the Plat. Norm Wood, Town of Avon Engineer, commented that a minor subdivision plat could address the site issue and be taken directly to Town Council. Both the ambulance and fire districts were fine with the alternative plan as presented by the Commissioners. Commissioner Evans asked Elizabeth Pierce -Durance, Prosecuting Attorney for the Town of Avon Municipal Court, and Larry Brooks, Town Manager for the Town of Avon, for their input. Ms. Pierce -Durance read from the Agreement regarding the land for the Fire Protection District. Munsey Ayers, Traer Creek Attorney, voiced that a formal agreement would need to be drawn and executed for the dedication of the land. Mr. Ayers mentioned that there was an obligation to provide land for the fire district but not for the ambulance district. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green motioned to approve Resolution No. 06-18, A Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions, of a PUD Amendment Application Amending the Village at Avon PUD, Filing 3, the Village at Avon Subdivision, as More Specifically Described in the Application Dated September 6, 2006, with the following modifications: Condition One be revised to read, "Emergency Service uses shall be housed in a combined campus of approximately 1.5 acres, allowing separate fire and ambulance district structures utilizing a Minor Subdivision Plat immediately adjacent to Swift Gulch Road and Tract G located in Filing 3. Condition Two: Remain as presented. Condition Three: Remain as presented. Condition Four: This would be then allowed as a permitted use. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. School Site: Commissioner Evans approved of the location and agreed with staff on due diligence to make sure the site was viable for a school by a soils report within a reasonable span of time. Commissioner Green was concerned with access to the site with only one way in and one way out. Ms. Stavney remarked that there are other schools with a similar access situation such as Meadow Mountain Elementary and Battle Mountain High School and suspects it would not be an issue with the School District. Commissioners continued with further discussion of the fill on the site, acquisition of the soils report, options if the site is inappropriate for a school and the review process for the transfer of property. Commissioner Struve moved to approve Resolution No. 06-17, recommending to Town Council approval of a PUD Application amending the Village at Avon PUD Filing 1 Application dated September 6, 2006, with the first two 'WHEREAS's' remain, third 'WHEREAS' struck, fourth WHEREAS' — the applicant must comply within twelve months to the following additional PUD review criteria Oust conditional) and the final 'WHEREAS' will provide evidence of compliance with the public purpose provisions as outlined in Section 17.28.085 of the Municipal Code. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion and all Commissioners were in favor. The motion passed 6 to 0. IX. Master Sign Programs A. Chapel Square Amendment Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 240 Chapel Place Applicant/Owner. Frances Rolater, Property Manager Description: Sign program amendment application to permit two signs for Unit 109 in Building B in Chapel Square instead of the currently allowed one cabinet sign. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. Riverfront Village Property Location: Riverfront Subdivision Applicant/Owner. Andy Gunion, East West Partners Description: This sign program includes project identification signage, building identification signage, as well as directional signs that serve both vehicles and pedestrians. Submittal of this sign program was a condition of final design approval for both the Riverfront Lodge and Westin Hotel. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Andy Gunion, East West Resorts, discussed the submittal to the Commissioners. The height of the signs, lighting, light bases, delivery sign and scale was discussed. Commissioner Green moved to approve Item IX, B. Riverfront Village Sign Program, Property Location: Riverfront Subdivision, with the following conditions: that 'wimpy' sign bases are not allowed and need to be reviewed by staff, any sign with a stone base needs to be architectural review, light caps in the front lanterns need to be zinc, no exposed concrete. Struve seconded, all in favor Andy Gunion requested the Commission to consider banners on the elevator shafts to advise what is going on. The Commission approved the display from December, 2006 until March, 2007. X. Minor Projects Applications A. Municipal Building Design Modifications Property Location: Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark Subdivision / 400 Benchmark Road Applicant / Owner. Town of Avon Description: The -Town has submitted a design application for an expansion to the Municipal Complex building on the edge of Harry Nottingham Park. This expansion would be on the west side of the building between the building and parking lot. Moved to Consent Agenda. B. CenturyTel Radio Dish Property Location: Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark Subdivision / 1060 W. Beaver Creek Boulevard Applicant/Owner. Greg Jaramillo, CenturyTel Description: Proposal for the installation of one rooftop communication device on the Westgate Building. The device is a 2' diameter radio dish for transmission and a temporary dish has already been installed on top of the parapet roof above Agave's space. Moved to Consent Agenda. XI. Other Business A. Update of Various Projects 1. Walkin the Dog: Matt Pielsticker presented the approved plans to the Commission and a different design was built. 2. Town Council is requesting a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission to be on the Village of Avon Design Review Board. Commissioner Evans nominated Commissioner Green. Commissioner Green accepted the nomination. Commissioner Smith seconded the nomination and it passed unanimously. B. Town Center West Design Guidelines XII. Adjourn Commissioner Smith motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairman Phil Struve Secretary