Loading...
PZC Minutes 060512,, Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission iJ t Meeting Minutes for June 5, 2012 Avon Town Council Chambers AVO N Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street COI: OR > 0!, I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:02 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Green stated he had a previous relationship with Stone Creek Charter School, but that relationship has since expired and it would have no impact on his ability to review Item VII. The fellow Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Green's point of view. V. Consent Agenda a. May 15, 2012 Meeting Minutes b. Major Design & Development Plan: Lot 115, Block 1, Wildridge (2090 Beaver Creek Point) C. Minor Design & Development Plan: Lot 78, Block 4, Wildridge (5691 B E. Wildridge Road) Discussion: Commissioner Struve questioned if the roof overhangs on Item V.B were a minimum of 1.5' and if the duplex owner approved Item V.C. Jared Barnes responded affirmatively to both items. Action: The Chairman called a vote and the consent agenda passed 7-0. VI. Minor Design & Development Plan Northside Coffee and Kitchen Property Location: Lot 4, Buck Creek PUD / 14 Nottingham Road Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG / Owner. Millmore, LLC Description: Installation of a parking area for 7 additional parking spaces. Other improvements include extension of a retaining wall to the north side of the property, moving of the existing trash enclosure for the Northside Coffee and Kitchen, removal of existing landscaping and installation of new landscaping. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. He highlighted the moving of the dumpster enclosure, the removal of the existing landscaping that was approved and planted with the Final Design approval, and the AEC request for limited perimeter landscaping. Dominic Mauriello further explained the proposal, responded to the existing code violations and explained the AEC request. He also discussed the removal of existing landscaping that Staff brought up in their report. He stated that the plantings were relatively recently planted and could be replanted with relative success. Commissioner Green stated the dumpster location was not ideal. Dominic Mauriello responded that it is the intent of the owner of Lot 67 to have a rollout dumpster that can be brought to an acceptable location for truck to pick-up. Commissioner Anderson stated that he is comfortable with the proposed parking lot and existing landscaping request brought forward by the Applicant be moved or replaced. Commissioner Clancy was not comfortable with the AEC due to lack of a specific related plan. Commissioner Prince was comfortable with the changes and felt that the AEC was the underlying issue. He agreed that the landscaping requirement for parking lot perimeters was excessive in this instance. Commissioner Minervini favors tabling this item. He stated the AEC request should be in writing. He would prefer Staff help address the AEC with a recommended resolution. Commissioner Struve was appreciative of the great business and felt that it improves the neighborhood. He was in general agreement with Commissioner Anderson's comments, but felt that trees should be 10-12 feet in height not 8-10 feet. Commissioner Losa disagreed with the comment made that the west side of the building is the front. He would like to see the landscape plan further defined and addressed. Commissioner Green agreed with Commissioner Losa and stated that he was concerned with the Landscaping Plan as well. Commissioner Anderson moved to table the application. Commissioner Minervini seconded the motion and it passed 7-0 vote. VII. Preliminary PUD Application — PUBLIC HEAERING Property Location: Mixed -Use Development known as The Village (at Avon) Applicant/Owner. Harvey Robertson / Traer Creek, LLC Description: The Applicant is proposing a Preliminary PUD Application in order to implement certain provisions of the Settlement Term Sheet — made and entered on October 7, 2011 by and between the Town, Traer Creek LLC, Traer Creek-RP,LLC, Traer Creek Plaza LLC, EMD Limited Liability, Traer Creek -HD, LLC, Traer Creek -WMT, LLC, BNP Paribas and Traer Creek Metropolitan District. The Application proposes several amendments to the approved zoning control documents, including but not limited to the following: extension of Vested Property Rights, Modifications to the location of the dedicated School Sites, modifications to development standards and allowed uses, administrative subdivisions, changes to the DRB Powers, and clarifying exemptions to Town Code requirements. Discussion: Chris Green overviewed the process that will be undertaken during the meeting. He highlighted that special meetings may be necessary and an executive session may also be necessary. Harvey Robertson overviewed the proposed development. He discussed the Comprehensive Plan, Sub -area plans and the existing site conditions. He also discussed the reorganization of the existing roadway plans. Harvey Robertson also presented the existing VAA PUD development plan and the proposed VAA PUD development plan. Harvey Robertson specifically discussed the potential design of Planning Area B and the strong connection to Main Street. He further discussed the school site, Planning Area E. 21 P i ge Harvey Robertson further discussed the Settlement Term Sheet and how the PUD Guide addresses each issue contained within the Settlement Term Sheet. Commissioner Minervini questioned what the anticipated preference to development phasing would be. Harvey Robertson responded that it would be what the market would bear and what would create a successful project. Harvey explained that he would expect commercial development in the nearest future to take place in Planning Area F. Commissioner Struve followed up the question by stating that the preference would be for valley floor development first and hillside development following that. Harvey Robertson stated that could be the case as there is a general market for mid box retail stores. Matt Pielsticker discussed the timeline of the PUD process that will occur. He also discussed the process that occurred in compliance with Title 7 of the Municipal Code to satisfy completeness, referrals, and public notices to name a few. Mr. Pielsticker presented the PUD amendment's addressing of the items discussed in the Settlement Term Sheet, highlighting Planning Area B, the School Site (Planning Area E), Administrative and Subdivision process amendments. He also presented the items proposed in the PUD Guide that are not outlined in the Settlement Term Sheet. Eric Heil, Town Attorney, discussed the removal of the density caps in certain planning areas. He discussed the Town Center zoning and its similarity of Planning Area A. Commissioner Minervini questioned if the Town Council has signed off on any issue outside of the Settlement Term Sheet that is being addressed with PUD Guide. Eric Heil responded that the Town Council has not addressed these issues, but with the public process the Town Council will weigh in on these issues. Matt Pielsticker further discussed the expanded powers of the Village at Avon DRB, exemptions of the Town Code, and conflicts with the Village Development Standards and Town Municipal Code. Commissioner Clancy questioned the Kimberly Martin, Often Johnson representing applicant, memo and whether the Colorado Department of Wildlife had agreed that their concerns had been adequately addressed with the revisions of Version 10. The Commission took a 10 minute break. Commissioner dialogue ensued regarding the process of gaining commissioner agreement on portions or all of the requested PUD amendment. The Public Hearing was opened. Tom Braun, representing the Eagle County School District, discussed the School District's opinion of this proposal. He voiced concern with the process and comments regarding items within the Settlement Term Sheet since those issues are to be discussed and decided upon in a public hearing setting not behind closed doors. Tom Braun discussed the school site dedication from the 1998 approval and 2006 formal amendment. In each iteration the documents specified that the 7.3 acre parcel would be for the Eagle County School District. In each case he stated that the school site would be 31l'� guaranteed certain site characteristics such as a maximum slope, provision of utilities, buffering from commercial, and phasing would be established. Mr. Braun stated that the District's demographer predicted that the PUD could create over 1,000 students, and given the lack of specificity with what type of units would be constructed it is difficult to fully analyze the impacts. He continued by discussing the modification regarding the school site dedication language and requirement from the currently approved 2006 version of the PUD to the proposed PUD. Commissioner Losa asked for more information on what a 7.3 acre site could handle with regard to a school. Tom Braun responded that Edwards elementary school was built on 8 acres, while Miller Ranch elementary school is located on approximately 9 acres. In Gypsum it was a 10 acre site. Commissioner Prince questioned what type of school could be built on the school site sizes discussed in this proposal. Phil Onofrio, Eagle County Schools, stated that 3.5 acres is roughly the size of Red Canyon elementary which can house approximately 100 kids. Ron Wolfe, resident and president of Stone Creek Charter Schools, stated that there is an overwhelming amount of information included in this plan that was not included in the Term Sheet. He also stated that as proposed, the Town Council and PZC will have as much input on the Village as they have in Eagle -Vail. He discussed the characteristics of the site and the impacts of easements on potential development. He suggested modifications to language to regarding school site dedications and a lack of "Plan B". Bette Todd, resident, stated that Planning Area A has extremely broad uses that could abut the residential areas to the south. She commented that the lack of public review and limited SRU review criteria that would impact uses such as Light Industrial and Heliports. She also commented that a 65,000 square foot store could be placed to the south of Planning Area A and could turn its back Hurd Lane and the residential areas. She commented that Planning Area A has no setback further impacting the residential areas. Tamra Underwood, resident, discussed the urgent manner of this application and review timeline. She discussed the 58% reduction in park land, increase in density and lack of caps, extraordinary list of allowed uses, J and I (formerly Q and M) are being proposed as was defeated in 2003. She further stated that the hotel use on planning area J is proposed as typical highway interchange development. She commented that a road cut on the Forest Service parcel would change the character of the upper valley. She commented on the exceptions to the municipal code, and expanded DRB powers to limit public and Town review. She commented on the Interim Uses and the ability for all planning areas to allow a gravel pit. Walter Dandy, resident, is very distressed to see the intensity of use in Planning Area D in commercial, allowance for a heliport, and increased heights. Whitney Goulding, resident, stated that the government has a responsibility to watch out for residents of the Town whether they attend the meeting or not. Chris Ekrem, resident, commented that the notice was too small and not encompassing enough to inform the public of the proposed changes. She commented that the proposed changes north of Hurd lane and Eaglebend drive are negative impacts. She commented that the Traer Creek group should revise the proposal to address the concerns outlined in the Staff Report and from the Citizens. 4 111 4i ,e Roger Wilkerson, resident, commented on the lack of caps for density, DRBs ability to increase zoning standards by 20%, and the limiting of public and Town input. He commented that Eagle County Schools are getting the short end of the stick in the deal. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Losa questioned the Settlement Term Sheet and Stone Creek Charter school's involvement. Eric Heil responded that the Settlement Term Sheet was an agreement of intent between the parties, but Stone Creek Charter school has no legal rights regarding terms of the school sites. Commissioner Losa has concerns on the lack of limitation on the commercial density. He stated it has impacts on the attainable housing units. He also commented that there should be a residential cap due to the impact it has on exactions like parks and open space. He further commented that Stone Creek does a good job at educating children. He commented that the site is in the wrong location and should be close to parks and residential areas. Commissioner Losa stated that there are general increases to density and height throughout the project, and finds that hard to accept. He stated that people purchase property with certain expectations on what can be developed on adjacent properties and the 20% increases allowed by the DRB can greatly impact properties. Commissioner Losa stated that the Wildlife Mitigation is an important issue to him that is not addressed with this proposal. Commissioner Struve stated that he likes the valley floor road patterns, but there was limited attempt to protect the people to the south of Areas A and D. He commented that the design standards of the hotel use will be important because it will have the potential to develop high level architecture. He isn't convinced that Planning Area B should be a lake given the size and proximity of Nottingham Lake and a second lake is not necessary. Other recreational activities would be better suited there. He commented that Planning Area P-3 would be a better location for the school site and the current site is not acceptable. Commissioner Minervini commented that the entire Preliminary PUD application is too much information to handle in the time the PZC was given. He proposed that only Planning Area J be discussed at this time and the rest of the items be reviewed at a future time. Commissioner Prince commented that the proposal is substantially out of compliance with the review criteria. He stated that the school site is a substantial issue to him that needs to be addressed, and would prefer the applicant respond to Matt Pielsticker's concerns as listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Clancy stated that he would prefer to discuss Planning Areas A and D because of the overwhelming public input. He commented that the unlimited density is an issue as well as the school site dedication. He commented on the frustration of how the school site evolved and lack of consideration to the parties that were impacted. Commissioner Anderson stated that he has agreement with the Staff Report on most of the issues and also agrees with the comments of Commissioner Prince in how the proposal is substantially out of compliance with the review criteria. Commissioner Anderson stated that he didn't care which entity got the school site so long as local education needs are met; he preferred to require a single unified site. Commissioner Anderson explained that naming the entity in control of the school was not necessarily a 5 1 i> 4i g PZC issue. He also commented that the proximity to a park was a good planning principal and near residential would create a positive impact. Commissioner Anderson commented that Planning Area K needs to address the wildlife related comments. He also commented the that parcels adjacent to Chapel Square, Hurd Lane, and Eaglebend drive have taken steps backwards with regards to setbacks, building heights, and uses. He would like to see more care given to the existing residential areas. Commissioner Anderson needed more information on Planning Area I to better evaluate the potential of development there. He commented that there is a lack of park area on the valley floor and P3 moving to the north side of 1-70 is a negative. He commented that small pocket parks would be a good way to address this and a large 17 acre parcel isn't necessary. Commissioner Anderson stated that Planning Area J brought forth some issues on how the development responds to Town of Avon standards and characteristics. He originally felt that the uses were appropriate, but agreed with Tamra Underwood's comments on lack of "place making" feel. Commissioner Green stated that the PZC routinely commented that the Town wants to be involved with the development and would like to have assurances that development occurs like the concepts Harvey Robertson sketched up. He stated that by giving the VAA DRB ultimate control it removes the Town's ability to help make the project better. He compared the proposal to other reviewed PUD's that had specific road alignments and density among other things. Commissioner Green commented that the school site is inadequate and overly encumbered by utility easements and lines. He believes the PZC should address the items in the Settlement Term Sheet. Commissioner Minervini asked the applicant if they wanted to withdraw the application given the number of concerns expressed by the PZC members and public. Munsey Ayres responded that the applicant does not want to withdrawal their application and would ultimately like to see vote from the PZC. They are willing to hear specific issues and consider modifying those specific points. There was a discussion on the plan to schedule another hearing. Expectations such as what would be reviewed at the next meeting (i.e. version 8 or version 9) were discussed. Commissioner Green suggested a clear concise agenda to make a productive next step in the review. He requested any new information to be provided by 5:OOpm on the Friday before packets are due, and Thursday if at all possible. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to continue the public hearing to a special meeting at 5:00 pm on Monday, June 11th. Commissioner Minervini seconded the motion and it was approved 7-0. VIII. Other Business IX. Adjourn Meeting was adjourned at 9:38 pm. 61i't APPROVED on this 17th Day of July, 2012 SIGNED: (20-- 2s::� - - Chris Green, Chair ATTEST: i Scott Prince, Secretary 7111a g e