Loading...
TC Minutes 08-09-1988• MINUTES OF THE REGULAR AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1988 - 8:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, was held in the Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado, in the Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Allan Nottingham at 8:00 p.m. A roll call was taken with Emilie Harrison, Steve Miller, Clint Watkins, Al Connell and Jerry Davis present. Also present were Town Attorney John Dunn, Town Manager Bill James, Engineer Norm Wood, Planning Director Lynn Fritzlen, Town Clerk Patricia J. Doyle, as well as, members of the press and public. The Mayor called for Citizen Input. The Mayor stated that he would defer this item until later on the agenda. Resolution No. 88-15, Series of 1988, A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL REVIEW USE TO ALLOW A DAY CARE CENTER ON`-LOT 1, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, BENCHMARK MOBILE HOME PARK Lynn Fritzlen stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Special Review Use for a Day Care Center for the Benchmark Mobile Home Park in the existing clubhouse facility which is located on Lot 1, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. She stated that this request was approved subject to: 1. Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy be obtained before initiating the use. 2. Day Care Center operation comply with all state and local codes. 3. Day Care use be restricted to park residents ONLY. 4. Granting of Special Review Use is specific to existing clubhouse facility located within the park as designated in the application. 5. Final Design Review. Councilman Davis stated that Day Care Centers are a business, and should not be regulated by municipalities. Ms. Fritzlen stated that Day Care Centers should be written in the zoning. Councilman Miller moved approval of Resolution No. 88-15, Series of 1988 with the inclusion of item No. #5,"Final Design Review". The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Harrison and was unanimously carried. 0 • The Mayor then referred back to Citizen Input. Mr. Jeff Beaver with the Eagle County Sheriff's office approached the Council. He reviewed and discussed the program of the Crimestoppers. He updated the Council with the organization and their activities during the last seven months. The Mayor then thanked Mr. Beavers for his presentation. Next on the agenda was discussion on the 10th Mountain Division Trail Wildridge Access. The alternative chosen loop was a portion of the trail north of I-70 from Avon to Vail in order to avoid critical game habitat in the Grouse Mountain Region. This loop assumes an access from the top of Wildridge and a but at the top of Red and White Mountain.. The majority of huts have a capacity of 20 or more so it would be assumed that the parking required at the trailhead would be between 10 and 15 cars. This access would be through Tract I or Tract J, Wildridge Subdivision. Ms. Fritzlen stated that the staff had the following questions and concerns. 1. Tracts I and J are very steep and it will be difficult to place parking and road improvements on either. 2. Will the Town of Avon be responsible for the maintenance of the drive and parking area? 3. Should the parking area be on Forest Service or Town of Avon land? 4. Will the potential increase traffic and non-residents introduced, be a nusiance to the neighborhood? 5. Could the parking serve a summer use as well as as hiking trail or other recreations? Ms. Fritzlen stated that the trailhead would be an assest to the Town of Avon, and recommended the Town should present its perspective in a written statement to the Forest Service by the appeal date and provide copies to the 10th Mountain Trail Association. Councilwoman McRory moved to support the 10th Mountain Division Trail Wildridge Access and to include the questions and concerns. The motion was seconded by Councilman Connell and was unanimously carried. The Town Manager requested that the report on Special Events Revisions be postponed until the next regular Council Meeting. The Council agreed. -2- 0 Next on the agenda was Commission to deny the Subdivision, 20 units, Subdivision, 24 units. the Appeal decision condominium project, and the condominium 0 by the Planning Lot 3, Block 3, project, Lot 6, and Zoning Wildridge Block 5, Wildridge Ms. Fritzlen stated that the above named project was denied final design review approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the following reasons: 1. Incompatibility with existing and proposed improvements which is one of the approval criteria to be considered in the Administrative Procedures for fractionalization projects. 2. Non-compliance with design guidelines 6.13, 6.14 and 6.15 of the Design Procedures, Rules and Regulations which address site impacts, site topography and visual appearance respectively. She then read her staff report to the Council. She reviewed the brief history of the project up to its present time. She stated that there were four criteria that were incorporated for the public hearing process. They addressed the following: 1. The adequacy of access to the site with respect to the adjacent street, their grades intersection safety visability and entrance into the lot to be developed. 2. The need for the availability of public or private transportation to serve the proposed development. 3. The impact of the proposed project public and private services and facilities serving the area. 4. The compatibility of the proposed unit size and unit mix with existing and potential development in the vicinity. She stated that these were additional criteria that were super imposed on fractionalized projects that were suitable for the neighborhood. Based on the above criteria, there were the following comments: 1. Site Access - Staff had reviewed the site plan and felt that the existing roads would accommodate the total vehicular traffic of the neighborhood. 2. Public Transportation - At present there is no existing or proposed transportation for Wildridge. Easy access to public transportation would be a desirable assest to this project, but the number of potential residents for Wildridge does not easily justify the creation of public transportation system. 3. Availability of public and private facilities - The number of existing residential units in Wildridge is 53. The number of units proposed for Lot 3 and for Lot 6, Block 5, would almost double the number of units existing now in Wildridge. It would have a significant effect on the presently nominal availability of public and private facilities in the area, i.e., parks passive and active recreational area neighborhood, commercial facilities and fire protection. Ms. Fritzlen stated that this impact would be further compounded by three additional factors, which were: a. The project lack of any on-site amenity or useable open space for active or passive recreation. -3- • • b. The remote location from central Wildridge which would continue to isolate the project from future neighborhood facilities and that the probable development of such would be on the opposite side of Metcalf Road. C. The project lack of accommodation for on-site management. She stated that the project would offer a desirable housing type of employees for the Avon/Beaver Creek area. The neighborhood has the potential of becoming an affordable medium density 77esidential district surrounded by ample open space and interesting views. It would be further complimented by the fact that it was an isolated cul-de-sac Block 5, and was zoned for multi-density use. The remote location of Block 5 from Wildridge would isolate from lower density projects on the west side of Metcalf Road, which was a positive planning aspect. Block 5 does not include any designated park land or lots zoned for commercial use. Therefore, it would be important that all developments in block 5 be relatively self sufficient in nature and adequately addressed in remote locations. The site does not easily accommodate the denisty proposed and that a highly engineered solution was necessary. She stated that in the staff recommendations, it was recommended for approval with conditions that they felt addressed the criteria of the fractionalized project. The conditions were not considered as part of the denial. Tom Leroy approached the Council. Mr. Leroy, partner of the project, approached the Council. Mr. Leroy reviewed the history of events that took place which lead up to the appeal. He stated that he welcomed the opportunity to speak to the Council on this matter. After his presentation, he asked that the Council look at what the developer has done, and the procedure that they have been through, which they did under the town's rules and regulations, and tried to do it in a professional manner. He asked for the Council's support, and overturn the denial of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Leroy then offered letters he had received from various people in support of the project. The Mayor opened the meeting for public input. Jack Hunn, property owner in Wildridge for approximately five years, and which resides at 2120 Longspur Road, Wildridge, Unit A, approached the Council. He stated that there was a commitment made to the Wildridge property owners in 1979 when Wildridge was annexed into Avon. The commitment was embodied in the protective covenants. The convenants limits the density and land uses with the subdivision. Therefore, he contended that fractionalization was in violation of the covenants. The covenants adopts Wildridge design guidelines to which the Beaver View Project does not comply. The convenants establishes design criteria having to do with building heights, set backs, floor area limits, specifically, that no unit be less than 1200 square feet, site coverage, being a maximum of 50%, parking requirements, two cars per unit, one of which would be in the garage. He stated that this project does not comply with any of those criteria. The covenants committee assumed that the Town of Avon would enforce these covenants in the course of reviewing any project proposed. -4- 0 • He stated that the project was obviously incompatible. He stated that there was no public transportation solutions, no attempt to comply with the Wildridge guidelines or covenants, there was inadequate parking, and the property would adversely effect property values of Wildridge. He stated that there were remedies available to the Wildridge property owners, which were: 1. That the Council would uphold the denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission of July 19th. 2. That the covenants committee would have an opportunity to take exception to the Council's decision if the Council would decide to overturn the denial, within seven days of this meeting, after which time the applicant would have to deal with the covenants committee. 3. Any individual property owner may enforce the provision of the covenants by instituting demand for injunctive relief in the Eagle County Court System to prevent the violation of these covenants including compensation for damages and attorneys fees. He stated that he would intend to do such that, should it be necessary. He stated that it was his opinion, that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the project. He suggested that the Council take additional action subsequent to the meeting, which was: Adopt the Wildridge covenants and design guidelines into the town ordinances to allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to enforce them in each of their meetings, and 2, to abolish the fractionalization ordinance as it applies to Wildridge. Buz Reynolds, Jr., 4530 Flatpoint Road, Wildridge, approached the Council. He was a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as, a resident of Wildridge. He stated that the Board looked at the guidelines and was one of the members which voted in favor of the project in the preliminary hearing. He stated that now with the final design, he looked at the mas of the building, landscaping, also some of the view corridors, which he had a problem with all three of those concerns. He stated that when the project came in for final design approval, the massing of the building to neighboring properties was not addressed as he had requested. The open space was not useable, no recreational amenities on the property, transportation was not addressed. He stated that the members based the denial on a design criteria, and public input for fractionalization. He stated that he took great offense in that the members did not act professional during that meeting. He stated that they were looking at two different things; the planning part of the project, which was approved, and secondly, the design, which was not approved. He stated that preliminary approval according to the Planning and Zoning Commission rules and regulations does not grant final approval. Again, he felt that each boardmember acted professionally in their role as a Planning and Zoning Commission member. -5- • • Reverend Donald Simonton, 2557 Arosa Drive, Vail, Colorado, approached the Council. Reverend Simonton was concerned of where people would live who serve in the surrounding areas of the valley. It was felt that Avon would be the logical place for them to live. He felt that this project would provide this type of housing that would be affordable to them. Kurt Weiss, resident of Steamboat Springs, Colorado approached the Council. Mr. Weiss was a friend of Mr. Otterman. He stated that the projects that Mr. Otterman has developed were of high quality. He wanted to caution the Council of getting into the issue of the covenants. He did not think it was the Council's role or place. He felt that the Beaver View project was a much needed project. Richard Kessler, resident of 108, Block 1, Wildridge, and who resided at Unit 403, Creekside at Beaver Creek, approached the Council. He stated that he bought Wildridge property in 1979, and has been paying taxes to the Town of Avon all these years. He stated that he bought in a residential community. He asked that the Council not compromise. He stated that the town compromized on the design criteria on some of the buildings in Avon in earlier years which created some kind of an image, and which are now trying to recreate into a more solid image. If Wildwood ever comes into reality, the Wildridge entry may become the logical point of entry to Wildwood. He felt that the project was in the wrong place. He stated that Wildridge, Wildwood, was Avon's true and only residential community, and should not be compromised. Mr. Kessler recommended the Council to deny the request. Michael Ray, 4660 North Point Road, Wildridge, approached the Council. He felt that there was a flaw in the system somewhere. This project.should not have gotten as far as it did. He was totally opposed to this project. If Avon was going to support low income housing, then it should be confined to one area;. the core area. He felt that this project would look like Christie Lodge. He felt that the majority of these units would be bought up by investors and turned around and used for rentals. He suggested that the developer live in these units for a period of five years. Brett Hickman, 2140 Saddleridge Loop, Wildridge, approached the Council. He was concerned of the impact of the wildlife in the proposed area of this project. He stated that there are fifty three units proposed, and could result in fifty three cars, or more. He stated that Wildridge was the one remaining places that there was no high density. It was the one chance for people to go to build a house in a residential area. He asked that the Council affirm the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. He would like to know what compelling reasons this Council would have to over rule the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Buff Arnold, 766 Eagle Crest Road, Lake Creek, approached the Council. He stated that he disagreed with some of the comments that were being made. He felt that the architecture of the project was not a bad design., in fact, he felt it was quite compatible. It was a project that real people could afford to buy, and it did comply with the design guidelines of Avon. He was in support of the project. -6- Denise Hill, 5580 Coyote Ridge Road, Wildridge and member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, approached the Council. She stated that she took great offense of the comments that were made in regard to the Board's behavior. She stated that this project lacks architecture design or imagination. It does not provide any useable green space for Beaver View east or west. There was no cable television provided to block 5 area, there was no recreational facilities, no laundry facilities, no convenient stores within walking distance, it was isolated from police protection, and has no on-site manager. She stated that the building was totally maximized and negligent of the use of buildable space. She stated that there were drainage problems. Young adults do not want to live in dormitories. She stated that if the Council should approve this design and gross abuse of unnecessary development which does not create positive harmony with the community or the environment, it would create an injustice to the existing community and set undue presidence to future development in a growing family oriented environment. Greg Amston, 203 Howard Street, Eagle, Colorado. Mr. Amston disagreed with Denise Hill's comments. He stated that the Board gave the developer preliminary approval, coached them through the whole process and then, at final design, denied the project. He stated that this procedure just discourages developers from coming into the area. The housing need is here and will get worse. He felt that Avon needed this project. Ellen Ganter, 2140 Saddleridge Road, Wildridge. She stated that she had just bought a second home in April of this year for an investment and was anticipating making it her permenant residence. She stated that had she been aware that low income housing were present, she probably would have seeked elsewhere. She felt it would effect her investment future. Gary Hill, 5580 Saddleridge Road, Wildridge. He had hoped that the Council would look at the past and present buyers of Wildridge. He stated that to turn their backs on the people that have already started an investment in Wildridge, was not fair. He was concerned of the grandfathering of this project. John Singleton, resident of the Benchmark Condos located at West Beaver Creek Boulevard, approached the Council. He stated that the Benchmark Condos were originally employee housing. He stated that the Condo Association took it upon themselves to make improvements to the building. He was in favor of this project. At that point the Council recessed at 10:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. Barbara Harrison, 4560 Faltpoint Road, Wildridge approached the Council. She stated that those who live in Wildridge were greatly opposed to the proposed project. -7- • 0 John Hazard, 2381 Fox Lane, Wildridge, approached the Council. He stated that he had built his retirement home in Wildridge. He would like to see other homes built in Wildridge of the same statue. Mrs. Leroy, approached the Council. She was the wife of Tom Leroy. They reside at 5042 Snowshoe Lane, East Vail. She wanted it clarified that this project was not low income housing, but condominiums. The lot was zoned for multi-family housing. She stated that if there was enough people moving into Wildridge, then cablevision would come into the Block 5 area. Larry Goad, 5684 Wildridge Road, east, Wildridge, approached the Council. Mr. Goad was one of the directors of the Covenants Committee for Wildridge. He stated that it was not the job of the Town Council to enforce and get involved in private covenants. He was concerned of the fact that six Boardmembers voted against the project. He felt that something was wrong with the project. He stated that he was pro-development and pro-growth, and again the project needed to be done in a proper way. There being no further input, the Mayor closed the public hearing. The Mayor granted Mr. Leroy rebuttal time. Mr. Leroy stated that the massing of Lot 3 and of Lot 6 has a building mass size of just one half the size of the Gosshawk project. He stated that the parking requirements have been met. He stated that they were told, at the hearing, that the roofs of the project were fine and gave approval at the preliminary hearing. Again, it was not low income property. He stated that they were to install oak trim in the units, tile floorings. He stated that there were two buildings, 20 unit building, and a 24 unit building, not a 44 unit complex. Mr. Leroy was asking Council to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. The Mayor then opened the meeting for Council input. Councilwoman McRory asked about the laundry facilities. Mr. Leroy stated that there would be laundry facilities in each complex. Councilman Davis asked about the building costs, excluding the land costs. Mr. Leroy could not answer, other than, there were major excavation costs and major concrete costs. Mr. Leroy stated that they had addressed open space at the first meeting. He stated that the project being proposed as mostly single adults, were not thinking of playgrounds, but could use the town's facilities. He stated that possibly they could do some things, such as, a basketball hoop, horseshoes. Councilwoman McRory asked about the option on the property. Mr. Leroy stated that their full intention was to continue with the project. He stated that it would be foolish to drop the project now. Councilwoman Harrison stated that Avon needed a project such as this, and that it could only add to Avon. Councilman Miller stated that this was a project that would hopefully allow a bus system, cable television, recreation facilities and in fact, increase the attention to Wildridge as well.as, to the Town of Avon. He stated that he has reviewed the project site and felt that it would work. -8- Councilman Watkins stated that there were not any conflicts with the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission explaining their decisions and concerns of the project to the Town Council. He stated that Council was looking.at an appeal of a Planning and zoning decision, and what the Council's been shown was just a simple chronology of history of what had happened. He stated that there had been no attempt on the part of the developer to show the reasons why the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the project. He stated that if someone was to appeal a decision, that they ought to give some compelling reasons to overturn the decision, and he did not hear any reasons during these discussions. Councilman Davis felt that these units were needed in Avon. He stated that Council should not be responsible for private covenants and he would consider overturning the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. Councilman Watkins moved to deny the project. The motion died due to a lack of a second on the motion. Councilwoman McRory moved approval of the project. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller. Councilman Davis suggested that Council look at some of the suggestions and concerns such as, open space, drainage problems, amenties. Mr. Dunn stated that the ordinance provided that any decision by the Council which resulted in disapproval of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall specifically describe the reasons for disapproval. He stated that the motion was to disapprove the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Dunn also pointed out that the Council had 30 days following the appeal to review the action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Dunn recommended that Council table the matter so that the Council could establish their direction, and prepare a resolution to the effect. Councilman Connell so moved. The motion was seconded by Councilman Davis and was carried with Councilman Watkins opposing. Next on the agenda was the discussion of the TV Translators and the assignment of such. Let it be noted that Councilman Connell stepped down because of a potential conflict of interest. Cal Thomas was requesting that the Council assign the five TV Translator licenses over to them after all the requirements were met. The Council had concerns of this request. Lengthy discussion followed. The Council suggested that possibly contracting with a firm rather than assigning the licenses to them. Councilman Davis moved to deny the request for the approval of the resolution at this time. The motion was died due to a lack of a second. Councilman Miller suggested that Council and staff follow through on some of the concerns, clean them up, and return with more information. Councilman Connell stated that the reason the resolution was prepared and was needed was that it was necessary for the document to be delivered to the bank for their financing. -9- Councilman Davis moved to continue this matter until the next regular Council Meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman Miller and was carried with Councilman Watkins opposing. The Financial matters were next presented to the Council. Councilman Miller moved to receive items #1 through #10. The motion was seconded by Councilman Watkins and was unanimously carried. Councilman Miller moved approval of the General Fund of Accounts Payable for August 9, 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilman Watkins and was unanimously carried. Councilman Miller moved approval of the Reconciliation Sheet of Accounts Payable for. August 9, 1988. The motion was seconded by Councilman Watkins and was unanimously carried. The minutes of the July 26, 1988 Council Meeting was next presented to the Council. Councilman Miller moved approval of the July 26th Council Meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Harrison and was carried with Councilman Miller abstaining. The report on the Charter revision was requested to be continued until the next regular Council Meeting. The Council agreed. The Town Manager requested that the Council schedule a work session for Tuesday, August 16, 1988 at 11:30 a.m. at the Board Room of the Charter. The Council agreed. -10- • There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilman Watkins moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman McRory. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Nottingham at 11:50 p.m. SPECTFULLY SUBMIT APPROVED: -11- atricia J. (Doyle; %Qwri Clerk