TC Minutes 05-26-1992• 9
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
HELD MAY 26, 1992 - 7:30 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Avon 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 Jerry Davis at 7:40p.m.
A roll call was taken with Councilors Charlie Gersbach, John
Hazard, Tom Hines, Celeste Nottingham, Derek Pysher, and Albert
Reynolds present. Also present were Town Attorney John Dunn, Town
Manager- Bill James, Director of Engineering Norm,Wood, Director,of
Municipal Services Larry Brooks, Director of Community Development
Rick Pylman, Planner Jim Curnutte, Police Chief Art Dalton, Fire
Marshall Carol Gil-Mulson, Public Relations officer Teresa
Albertson, Town Clerk Patty Neyhart, as well as members of the
press and public..-
First item on the Agenda was Citizen Input.
There being no one wishing to be heard,'Mayor.Davis directed the
meeting to the second item on the Agenda.
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 92-13, Series"of 1992; AN ORDINANCE
PROVIDING TOR THE AMENDMENT OF A PORTION OF-THE EAGLEBEND SPA
(TRACT B, BLOCK 2, FILING 2); ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT.PLAN AND
ITS CONTENT AND ESTABLISHING DETAILS RELATING THERETO.
Mr. Rick Pylman informed Mr. Jeff Spanel;-representing the
applicant, has requested in writing to table the second reading of
this Ordinance for two weeks. Mr: Pylman informed the applicant
has been going through the design review process concurrently with
the PUD process to ensure design review approval for the houses so
as to meet his pricing structure.: The applicant does not want to
commit to this PUD'plan until the Planning and Zoning Commission's
design review approvals are secured.
Mayor Davis called for a motion.
Councilor Hines motioned to table Ordinance No. 92-13, Series of
1992. Councilor Pysher seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
Second Reading, Ordinance No. 92-14, Series of 1992, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON
RELATING TO CONTROL OF UNDESIRABLE PLANTS; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES
FOR THE VIOLATION HEREOF.
Mr. Larry Brooks stated this Ordinance will help the Town of Avon
comply with the Colorado Weed Management Act. The laws passed by
the State of Colorado basically require the Town to adopt an
undesirable plant management plan for all lands within the limits-
of the Town.
• a
The existing Ordinance accommodates the control.of weeds in all
areas of the Town, with the exception of Wil'dwood, Wildridge, and
Forest Service lands. Ordinance No. 92-14 includes those lands.
The Ordinance specifies several species of plants which'are'.
dictated by the Colorado Weed Management Act and Staff recommends
Canada Thistle and Musk Thistle to be additionally included.
Councilor Reynolds questioned concerns of chemical processes. Mr.
Brooks informed the Town is required to have a certified
applicator for all chemicals and that Mr. Brooks as'well as
several Staff members are certified applicators. If/when support
is needed the Extension Service in Eagle County and Colorado State
University offer help and information.
Councilor Nottingham questioned time frame. Mr. Brooks responded
it is an.on-going process to meet with the property owners, l
discuss solutions, and carry out the program.
Mayor Davis opened the meeting for a public hearing. With no one
wishing to be heard, Mayor Davis closed that portion of'the
meeting.
Mayor Davis called for a motion.
Councilor Reynolds motioned to approve Ordinance No. 92-14,1-
Series of 1992. Councilor Gersbach seconded the motion.
With no further discussion, Mayor Davis entertained a,roll call.
Those Councilors voting aye were Charlie Gersbach., John Hazard;
Tom Hines, Celeste Nottingham, Derek Pysher,-Albert Reynolds.
Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 92-17, Series of 1992, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
FINAL RESUBDIVISION PLAT OF LOT 29, BLOCK 3,..WILDRIDGE
SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Mr. Pylman informed this is a simple duplex subdivision. The
building permit was issued approximately one.year ago; there is-a
duplex building on the lot; and the owner is now requesting
completion of the subdivision to create separate title to each
unit. Staff recommends approval of this Resolution with technical
corrections.
Mayor Davis called for a motion.
Councilor Pysher motioned approval of Resolution No. 92-17,
Series of 1992. Councilor Hines'seconded the,mgtion and the
motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 92-18, Series of 1992, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE
HOUSING MASTER PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF AVON
Mr. Pylman reminded the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989
with several elements identified for further study. The
Transportation Master Plan and the Recreation Master Plan are
examples of those elements of further-study completed. As another
element, the Housing Plan is now being presented to Council.
-2-
• 0
The consulting firm of Rosall, Remmen, and Cares has been
instrumental in assisting Staff through the Housing Master Plan.
Detailed presentations have been discussed with Council at past
Worksess.ions and the final Housing Master Plan is now being
submitted for Council approval.
Councilor Hines stated the Housing Master Plan is'a general
guideline and does not preclude previous zoning. Mr. Pylman
confirmed Councilor Hines statement and added the Housing Master
Plan, is a document to help encourage the type of development the
Town would like see.
Councilor- Hines motioned approval 'of~Resolution No. -92-18, Series
of'i§92. Councilor Nottingham seconded the motion and the motion
carried unanimously.
Resolution.No. 92-19, Series of,1992, A RESOLUTION DIRECTING
CERTAIN CHANGES TO.THE 1992 IMPROVEMENTS.TO EAST BEAVER CREEK
BOULEVARD
Attorney John Dunn read the Resolution in its entirety.
Councilor Hines questioned access paragraph. Attorney Dunn
informed consultations with Mr. Jeff Spanel and Mr. Malcolm.
Murray confirmed understanding and are in agreement of section #2
regarding safety access issues.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Davis called for a
motion.
Councilor Reynolds motioned approval of Resolution No. 92-19,
Series of 1992. Councilor Nottingham seconded the motion and the
motion carried unanimously.
Next was Unfinished Business.
Four-Man Pro Beach Volleyball was discussed by Mr. Bill James.
Mr. -James informed that Mr. Larry Brooks and Mr. Don Orrell had
a very successful Phoenix trip. Mr. Brooks and Mr. Orrell agree
that the Town of Avon and the Avon-Beaver Creek Resort Association
can successfully produce the event in Avon. Mr. James
recommended funding the event in the amount of $18,000 to build a
new-volleyball court and pay for bleachers. Mr. James added that
once.-the facility is built, it will be less expensive in coming
years; only the cost of the bleachers (bleachers will be rented).
Councilor Hazard suggested building a contingency and adding
$2,000 to the $18,000 requested for incidentals.
Mayor Davis questioned if the Town could get a guarantee for this
to be an annual :eveht. Mr. Orrell responded the he and Mr.
Brooks were assured that if the Volleyballers come to Avon they
want to come-back. Their contract requires-them to increase the
size of the event from 10 events to 12 and 3 out of the 7 areas
they are not returning to next year. They need 3 more next year
and then-2 more on top of that. They have a three year contract
with Budweiser-to do these events. They are not going back to
those 3 areas due to inadequate facilities.
• o
Councilor Hines questioned number of_spectators. Mr. Orrell
answered approximately 3-5,000 people; bleachers (15.rows high,
90' long) were full with standing room only.
Councilor Nottingham questioned determination of the two dates in
August. Mr. Orrell informed it is still questionable; CBS will
make determination.
Councilor Nottingham questioned what accounts the $18,000; now
$20,000 will come from. Mr. James responded $6,069 will come
from fund balance reserves carried over from last year.
Mayor Davis suggested, before approving the money and building the
facility, the Town should get some guarantee of this being an
annual event and funding should be considered for the next few
years.
With no further discussion, mayor Davis called for a motion.
Councilor Pysher motioned to authorize the'Town Manager to amend
the General Fund Special Events Budget in the amount of $18,000 to
finance 4-Man Pro'Beach Volleyball Event in August with the
conditions that--we have a commitment that they will come-and that
we have a three year agreement from them. Councilor Hazard
seconded the motion.
Councilor Nottingham questioned-the mot-ion's condition of the
three year agreement; if three years are not secured does that
mean we do not get the event this year. Mr.' James noted that if
a 3 year contract is not'agreeable;-the offer will be brought back
to Council for further discussion and decision.
Discussion followed relating to time frame and latest possible
date-enabling production of the event.
The motion carried unanimously.
Next item under Unfinished Business was the Rio Grande Train.
Mr.- James stated that the Denver Rio Grande, in its proposal,-
agreed to bring the train on round trips to Avon from-Denver and a
day trip to Leadville on Sunday of the Labor Day Weekend for a
guarantee of $30,000. Anything above $30,000 and up to $40,000
would be split with the Avon'Group and anything above the $40,000
would be the Avon Group's. They suggested setting a certain
amount of ticket.sales and if that certain amount is not met,
cancel the trip.: Mr..'James.recommends Council;-to set aside
$5,000 to :,be used for marketing: and/or, -to offset. ,the cost of the
train to help bring it-to the-Valley. Mr James-noted it will
take the marketing and organizational efforts of the Vail Valley-
Marketing Board, the Vail Resort Association, and the Avon-Beaver
Creek Resort.Association to have a viable program.;.
Mayor Davis mentioned discussions with the Vail Valley Marketing
Board; they thought it to be a worthwhile project, but not
necessarily a mass-market appeal.; Ideas-mentioned were charity
event-or fund-raiser:-`'The Vail. Vailey,Marketing Board agreed that
it does take organizing money; someone has to put it together and
run it.
-4-
Councilor Hazard suggested tabling the Train issue until next
Council meeting, as the Vail Valley Marketing Board will meet next
Thursday. This will allow the Marketing Board to further discuss
who will organize the program.
Mr. James noted the timing schedule involved to produce the
program for Labor Day weekend.
Councilor Hines questioned if Leadville is interested in helping.
Mr. James responded he just recently received word from the Rio
Grande that they would consider the Leadville day trip.
Councilor Nottingham questioned number of people to be brought up
on the train; amount of cars versus number of passengers with
regards to the comfortableness of the passengers.
Councilor Hines questioned price of ticket and if special packages
would be offered to include lodging. Mayor Davis mentioned the
Vail Resort Association expressed interest in doing packages that
include lodging.
Mr. James mentioned that when the trip was offered to Glenwood
Springs their concerns were they did not have a good marketing arm
that exists in this Valley (the Vail Valley Marketing Board, the
Vail Resort Association, and Avon-Beaver Creek Resort
Association). Without this marketing arm, they had to cancel the
trip as no one really promoted and organized the program.
Councilor Hines motioned to table the Train issue until there has
been a meeting of the Vail Valley Marketing Board and Council can
have discussion of their meeting at Council's next meeting. The
motion was seconded by Council Pysher and the motion carried
unanimously.
Next item under Unfinished Business was Acceptance of Road /
Streetscape Bid.
Mr. James stated the bids received, for the total project, were
50% more than what was originally estimated: Duckel's
Construction Inc. bid was $2,029,218.72, B & B Excavating bid was
$2,415,227.19; with Budget Estimate of $1,157,224. SaBells' bid
was only for landscaping improvements in connection with the
separated grade crossing at $191,441.58; with Budget Estimate of
$169,000.00. Mr. James recommended Council to reject all bids
and for Staff to further negotiate closer budget figures with the
bidders and bring back to Council on June 9th. Mr. James added
an analysis showed that everybody was at fault and offered
examples; some of the engineers and planners estimates were
incorrect, Staff and Council changes and expansion of the project,
and the tight time frame involved. Also some of the bids were
off-the-wall such as the light fixture budget was $2,500 and the
bid was for $4,360; Wildflower sod bid was $3.68 and budget was
.90 per square foot, which we may need to consider seed instead of
sod.
After reviewing bids and negotiating with bidders, Staff will come
back to Council and present recommendation in terms of the budget
versus project. Priorities will be to finish the railroad project
landscaping and the needed road improvements (everything East of
Avon Road) first. Then, with any remaining balance, Staff will
recommend further improvements.
-5-
• •
Councilor Reynolds motioned to reject the bids received.
Councilor Hines seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
Next item under Unfinished Business was the Vertiport / Heliport
Update.
Mr. James reminded Council that Mr. Ed McManus presented an idea
of utilizing.approximately 10-15 acres of the Stolport for a new
concept-,in aviation of a Vertiport. This is a fixed wing aircraft
with engines on the end of the wings,with capabilities of tilting
up and acting more as a helicopter. Federal funds from the FAA
were thought to be available to do a feasibility study fora
vertiport. With further research from Advance Aviation Concepts,
Inc., funds for vertiport studies are not available, only funds
for heliport studies. With Council more interested in the
vertiport, Mr. James recommended that the Town not pursue this
project any further at this time.
Councilor Reynolds motioned to table the vertiport issue until the
future'of vertiports.. Councilor Hines seconded the motion and the
motion carried unanimously.
Next was New Business.
First item under New Business was Sunridge at Avon, Phase I Appeal
of Planning & Zoning Commission decision of April 7, 1992.
Mr. Pylman informed that a letter was received this afternoon,
from Mr.. Tom Casteel of Vail Management Company, requesting a
tabling of two weeks for this request of appeal. Mr. Pylman
questioned Attorney Dunn regarding a statement in the zoning code
that states Council must hear appeals within-30 days or it be
deemed approved if no action is taken. Mr-. Pylman informed we
are running out of time, however this request of tabling came from
the applicant. -Attorney Dunn responded that if there is
continuance with the consent of the applicant then the time is
extended.
Based-on the applicant-'making the request, Mayor Davis called for
a motion.
Councilor Hines motioned-to table this-request,of appeal to the
next meeting. Councilor Reynolds seconded the motion and the
motion carried unanimously.
Next item,under New Business was KSO Development Company Appeal of
Planning & Zoning Commission decision May 19, 1992.
Mr. Jim Curnutte gave background of the Design Review Board
denial of this 4=plex building on Lot 17, Block 1, Wildridge; a
4-plex zoned lot. The applicants did come through with conceptual
design review.
-6-
• •
Mr. Curnutte informed that at the conceptual design review,
suggestions offered, to the applicant, were: improve window
fenestration especially along O1d'Trail Old; consider different
site orientation to improve views; consider poss,ible'material
change such as adding stucco; some repetitiousness of the plan was
a concern; vertical stepping of the building; consider asphalt
shingles in a different color than proposed; automatic irrigation
system instead of hand watering; reduce amount of overall asphalt;
project sign be located. The applicant took those suggestions and
incorporated a majority of those comments into their design and
came back to the Design Review Board (DRB) on May 19th. 'At that
meeting, the DRB denied (by a 5-2 vote) that application for final-
design review based on the following: not compatible of the -
design to minimize site impacts to adjacent properties; visual
appearance as viewed from adjacent properties and public ways was
not acceptable; repetitious design characteristics are
discouraged.
Councilor Reynolds questioned what suggestions, from the
conceptual review, the applicant did not follow through with for
final.design review. Mr. Curnutte responded the vertical
stepping of the foundation, due to substantial financial impact,
was not incorporated. Mr. Curnutte added hand watering was still
proposed and not the automatic irrigation.
Councilor Gersbach questioned Staff recommendations. Mr. Curnutte
answered that Staff recommended approval as submitted.
Mr. Dan Karzen, partner in KSO Development,.distributed a
pamphlet to Council and discussed in detail each page. (See
Attachment A, first 6 pages of the pamphlet; the other pages were
Planning & Zoning minutes of May 5th and May 19th meetings). May
5th.was the Conceptual Design Review with May 19th being the Final
Design Review. Mr. Karzen informed that changes from the
Conceptual Design Review incorporated for Final Design Review were
as follows: window fenestration and variety had been changed.in
18 instances particularly on the Old Trail Side; placement of
building was rotated 2' to better orient toward the view of Beaver
Creek, which was the limit to stay within set backs; stucco-was
introduced an all sides of the building; at least 38 changes were
made from Lot 46, Block 2 which responded to the issue of
repetition; asphalt shingle color was changed to weathered wood as
suggested. Mr. Karzen added that vertical stepping was not
incorporated due to an estimated cost of $30-$35,000 and noted the
present plan is designed to fit the natural slope of the lot. Mr.
Karzen commented that an irrigation system would be installed to
the extent possible and added that an independent study shows an
irrigation system is not advisable due to expansive soil that
could impact the foundation. Mr. Karzen stated asphalt has been
reduced; landscaping has been increased; the color of the,building
is different from Lot 46. Mr. Karzen noted that the DRB denied
Final Design Review due to it being repetitious to Lot 46 and that
the building should be vertical stepped. Mr. Karzen reminded
that the DRB denied this on a 5-2 vote with Staff recommending
approval as presented.
Discussion centered on the vertical stepping versus cost/
affordable housing on the high end.. Each three bedroom + loft
unit of the four-plex is to be offered around $150,000, with
approximately 3 contracts in process.
-7-
• •
Ms. Rhoda Schneiderman, Planning & Zoning Commissioner, voiced
her opposition of the project. Ms. Schneiderman's concerns were:
the repetitiousness to.Lot 46; landscaping was inadequate; and-
automatic irrigation was not considered. Ms. Schneiderman
requested Council to uphold the Planning & Zoning decision and
suggested that should Council overturn the Planning & .toning
decision to make it contingent upon additional landscaping and
some sort of irrigation.
Discussion centered on landscaping and automatic irrigation. Mr.
Kar"zen noted-additional landscaping has been suggested and that an
irrigation system will be installed as long as'it does not
endanger the foundation as the soil tests indicate. Mr. Skip
Organ-presented a previously existing.soils.report from
Intermountain Engineering which noted sprinkler systems are not
recommended for this site. Mr. Rick Rosen commented on a drip
irr-igation.system for specific trees/shrubbery and that irrigation
problems have arisen in the Wildridge area in the past. Mr. Jeff
Spanel, of Intermountain Engineering, confirmed-the report that
Mr.. Organ presented and added that if irrigation is installed, it
be field a considerable distance from the house.
Attorney Dunn informed Council of their options: approve the
action of the Planning Commission or disapprove the action of the
Planning Commission. If Council disapproves, findings need to be
stated.
Mr. Karzen displayed diagrams of Lot 46 and Lot 17 for Council's
comparison. Council's consensus was the diagrams were quite
different.
Councilor'Pysher expressed support for the Planning,& Zoning
Commission and affirmed the decision of the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Councilor Hines`expressed the applicant has adequately addressed
considerations ind`had no reason for denial..
Councilor Gersbach mentioned Staff's approval and sympathizes with
a developer that'makes,all the suggested changes and then gets
denied.
Councilor Reynolds:expressed he does not want to
similar to this; however Lot 17 is 1/2 mile away
feels.this time the Planning & Zoning decision sl
overturned.
Councilor Nottingham expressed, with information
and in dealing with the suggested changes, to go
project.
see any more
from Lot 46 and
zould be
presented tonight
forward with this
With no further comments, Mayor Davis called for a motion.
Councilor Nottingham motioned to overturn the Planning & Zoning
Commission decision for the KSO Development Company on May 19,
1992. Motion, was seconded by Councilor-Gersbach. The motion
-carried with Councilors Hazard and Pysher opposing.
Councilor- Gersbach motioned to amend the motion to include the
request on the part of Planning & Zoning to expand-the landscaping
issue that was brought'up by Rhoda. Councilor Nottingham seconded
the motion. The motion carried with Councilors Hazard and Pysher
opposing.
-8-
Mr. Karzen requested the-amendment of additional.landscaping be
subject to Staff review rather than Planning & Zoning due to the
time frame involved,- with Planning & Zoning's,overview. Mr.
Curnutte informed building permits are issued with the applicant
submitting a landscaping-'plan :.shortly after starting construction.
It was agreed, the :landscaping plan will be ,submitted to the
Planning & Zoning Commission sometime within°the,.next month.
Next item under New Business was Shamrock Appeal of Planning &
Zoning Commission decision April 7, 1992.
Mr. Pylman gave background of Shamrock's process. Mr. Pylman
informed that on March 3, 1992, the Planning & Zoning Commission
denied-a request by Diamond Shamrock Corp. for a Special Review
Use to locate a gasoline service station on Lot 1 and part of Lot
2, Nottingham Station Subdivision. Diamond Shamrock reapplied
with essentially the same project and on May 19th the Planning &
Zoning Commission again voted unanimously to deny that request.-
Planning & Zoning Commission motion for denial stated that the
request fails to meet the 3 criteria established by the Town
Ordinance and specifically is in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan in the following specific areas: the proposal did not ensure
a-quality visual image of the Town on the proposed site; it does
not minimize adequately the degradation of the environment in
.particularly sensitive natural areas; it does not adequately
enhance and protect the water quality of the Eagle River; and it
potentially causes traffic problems.
Councilor Nottingham requested to step down from her position due
to perceived relationship, a cousin by marriage and a
brother-in-law either of which could financially benefit by way of
vote. Discussion followed on policy/procedures. Attorney Dunn
read from the Charter, "every member when present must vote upon
Ordinances, Resolutions, and Motions, except he shall be excused
from voting on matters involving the consideration of his`own
official conduct or when his personal or financial interest is
involved". Councilor Nottingham then stepped down from her
position abstaining her vote.
Mr. Curnutte noted that the Staff Report presented was presented
on two occasions; May 19th is the date on the Staff Report because
between the first and second presentations the Staff did not
change the report one word; a simple memo was attached explaining
such. Mr. Curnutte displayed all relative plans of the project
and mentioned a newly revised drawing that the applicant has
brought this evening that the applicant may with to introduce
tonight. Mr. Curnutte presented a set of responses to the design
criteria that was specifically addressed at the Design Review
Meeting. Mr. Curnutte informed that Diamond Shamrock is
requesting Council to overturn the Planning & Zoning Commission
denial of a special use permit. The permit request was for an
automobile service station on Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, Nottingham
Station Subdivision which is a 3 lot subdivision, which their-
proposal would involve a minor subdivision of the lot and"move a
lot line to get sufficient space.
-9-
•
Mr. Curnutte informed the property is currently zoned
neighborhood commercial and this zone district's intention is, "to
provide sites for commercial facilities and services for the
principal benefit of residents of the comet- unity and also highway.
oriented convenience commercial needs". Automobile service
station is not listed as an allowed use specifically,in that
district and is listed in special review use. The reason for
listing under the special review use was to allow the Planning &
Zoning commission and the Council if necessary-to impose
additional performance standards on the request to mitigate some
concerns as they relate to the three criteria'mentioned earlier.
The proposal was for 1,500 square feet of retail space with 104' X
49' canopy over the building and fuel dispensing pumps. The
proposal included three 12,000 gallon underground fuel storage
tanks and one 8,000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank.- Signage.was
..to be included on the canopy and building, with an additional
monument sign. Mr. Curnutte added-that there were actually two
applications before the Planning & Zoning Commission;. Special
Review Use Request and Final Design Review. The Final Design
Review deals with more detailed design issues. Mr.. Curnutte
discussed the three important criteria and staff comments detailed
on Staff Report pages-2 and 3 that were submitted in the packet.
Staff's biggest concerns were protection of the Eagle River and
providing an*acceptable level of lighting-'as viewed from adjacent
properties. The applicant has made several adjustments to
accommodate lighting concerns such as foot candle lighting and
-recessed lighting, with some exceptions such as the sign lighting.
With regards to probably the most important concern, possible
.contamination of ground water and the Eagle River, the applicant
has suggested state-of-the-art secondary containment fuel product
equipment and an extensive drainage plan. With the changes, Staff
recommended approval of the special review.use on this property
for an automobile service station. Mr. Curnutte noted letters
received; 4 in support and 3 in opposition as-well as public input
at the Planning & Zoning Meeting. Mr. Curnutte informed the
Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously denied the request.
Councilor Hines mentioned the potential traffic problem with,
regards to a tanker trying to turn into the turn lane,'in terms of
potential increase in traffic. Mr. Curnutte responded the
traffic study has been reviewed and Staff has no problems with
this.
Mr. Hugh Green, Corporate Representative for Diamond Shamrock,
address is 520 East 56th Avenue, Denver perceived a wide.gap
between meeting the requirements of the City Staff and the actions
of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. "Green respects the
members of the Planning & Zoning Commission-and has reviewed the
minutes: of May 19th to try.to address concerns of the Commission.
'Mr..:-'Green then introduced his associates; David Galloway,
. Consulting Engineer'of Galloway, Romero &~Associates, Mr. Dan
Lamb, Division Engineer for Diamond- Shamrock, Mr. Marty Klohen,
Corporate Real-Estate Manager for Diamond Shamrock, and Mr.
George Petre°of.Petre-& Petre representing the property owner.
-10-
Mr. George Petre, Attorney from Glenwood'Springs representing the
property owners, informed Council that the owner at one time owned
an acre and 3/10 that encompassed the road., Lot 1 and a tract of
land between the road and the center of the river. To fit in with
the overall plans-of the Town of Avon, the property was annexed-
into the Town with the understanding that Hurd Lane would be
dedicated as'a public road, that the tract of land below the road
would be committed to public use or not developed, and that only
about 1/3 of the land would be used for'developinent purposes
because.it would be developed for commercial purposes. At that
time, the problem of traffic was addressed and that was-before the
bridge and owners built an excel and decel lane for Hurd lane at a
cost of $40,000 to accommodate the traffic that would be generated
by the development of the property for commercial purposes. Mr.
Petre hopes that the special use permitted is granted.
Mr. David W. Galloway, address is 14202 East Evans Avenue,
Aurora, Colorado, consulting engineer for Diamond Shamrock
mentioned four points of the Planning & Zoning Commission that
need further discussion. The first issue is "the proposal does
not ensure a high quality visual image of the Town on the proposed
site". Shamrock proposed increased landscape set back from 40' to
601. Numerous trees are included in the proposed landscaping.
Mr.- Galloway offered to work with the Planning & Zoning
Commission, Staff, and Council for a high quality visual image and
tonight suggested another option such as the overlay of the
initial mad offering different architecture. Mr. Galloway added
the retaining wall along the railroad will add to the visual
quality. The lighting has been limited and special lighting
effects will be used. The next items "does not minimize
adequately the.degradation of the environment in particularly
sensitive natural areas" and "does not adequately enhance and
protect the water quality of the Eagle River" were discussed by
Mr. Galloway. Mr. Galloway noted Shamrock's proposal of the
double-walled underground fuel tank storage and tonight suggested
another option of an additional level of containment, a third
plastic liner. Mr. Galloway mentioned treating the water runoff
for environmental protection. The last item was the potential of
,traffic problems. Mr. Galloway informed a traffic study was
,presented by a nationally known expert who says there are no
problems. Mr. Galloway feels Shamrock has'met all three
criteria.
Mr. Marty Klohen expressed Shamrock is striving for an answer and
would very much like to be a part of the Community. Mr. Klohen
perceives a need in Avon and feels this is the only location for
this commercial operation in Avon. Shamrock is an environmentally
conscience Company and will build what the Council feels is right.
Mr. Klohen realizes the river may be a very emotional issue and
thanked Council for the opportunity to discuss this matter.
Mr. Green informed this completes Shamrock's formal presentation.
Councilor Hines questioned considerations of Special Review Use
and Design Review. Mr. Curnutte responded that two applications
came before the Design Review Board; the first one being the
Special Review Use. Since the Special Review Use was denied, the
Board did not have a'reason to discuss further the Design Review
Application. Should Council overturn the Planning & Zoning
Commission's decision and approve the Special Review Use the next
step would be to have the Diamond Shamrock people go to the Design
Review Board for Final Design Review Approval.
-11-
0
•
Councilor Hines questioned why this came before Planning &Zoning
Commission twice with the exact plans and tonight Council is being
presented with additional/optional plans and whether this is
appropriate.
Councilor Gersbach questioned present-traffic and future traffic
concerns when Hurd Lane runs down-to Eaglebend. 'Mr. Cdrhutte .
mentioned the Transportation Master'Plan doe's address-this present
and future scenario. The Transportation Master Plan does call for
a traffic signal on Hurd Lane in the future. Mr-. Galloway stated
that a traffic engineer of Shamrock actually came out on a
Saturday in April and counted traffic. Mr. Galloway informed
that traffic engineer calculated 709 cars per day per peak hour on
Avon Road: -The traffic engineer then consulted a standard traffic
book; reviewed gas stations with 16 hoses to determine how,man"y
vehicles in,the'peak hour will be generated; that-nuinber was
determined to be 54 :per, hour. :Even after--the .54 cars. traveling.
Hurd Lane, Hurd Lane still has the capacity for.:West bound,of.
handling'48 cars per hour for a left turn, 78 cars straight
through per hour,,,and 717 cars per hour to-,take a right,
Councilor Hines reiterated question of turn lane versus tanker
truck. Mr. Galloway informed the transport can not exceed,65';-
question still remains how long the turn.lane actually is. Mr.
Galloway,suggested'stipulating;,hours of delivery for transports. to
alleviate any concerns of the turn lane
Councilor Reynolds questioned truck stop status. Mr. Galloway
did not think this would become a truck,stop. Mr., Green stated
the facility will not handle trucks. It is Shamrock's intentions.
to, appeal to cars using diesel fuel only. Mr. Green added diesel
will not be advertised and once a truck negotiates to get to the
pump, he will simple do it once due to difficulty. Mr. Galloway
added the dispenser for trucks is much different than for cars
since the-truck fuel dispenser flows more fuel faster.
Councilor Gersbach mentioned location is important in all real
estate-ventures. Councilor Gersbach stated that the way to
protect the-River is not to put the gas station there. As,hard as
Shamrock is trying, that does not sell. When the people,'talk
about they do not want the gateway to have a service station, you
could design a Taj Mahal there and the people who don't want a,
service station still don't want a service station. Councilor
Gersbach questioned car wash and automotive service-to which Mr.
Galloway responded no. Councilor Reynolds question an all night .
station to which Mr. Galloway responded yes, 24 hours.
Mayor Davis opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Steve Miller referenced participation on the Avon Council
from 1984 to 1988, at which time, he informed he was presented-a
similar task as,presented tonight. At that time, Council did not
think this the place for a gas station. Mr. Miller questioned
what could happen if someone drives off with the nozzle still in
the -tank. Mr. Miller is still concerned about the, River and'does
not feel this location is suitable for a gas station.
-12-
i •
Mr. Mauri Nottingham, resident on Hurd Lane, expressed opposition
to the gas station. Those items of opposition were that the gas,
station is an environmental hazard and a visual impact. Mr.
Nottingham mentioned surface water collection and questioned how
it works and fails. Councilor Reynolds questioned who-owned
adjacent property and what is planned for that. Mr. Nottingham
answered he owns the land adjacent to this property'and,is planned
for development as soon as it is sold; zoned SPA 20 units per
acre.
Ms. Helen Weiss, resident of Edwards, voiced environmental
concerns at past meetings in person and with letters. Ms Weiss
mentioned a large barge leak recently, in the Mississippi River-;
floating down river threatening New Orleans. Ms.. Weiss mentioned
stopping behind Alpine Standard Gas Station in Vail discussing
ground water problems with a worker making checks at the Station.
Ground-water-was struck 251-30' and mixing with gasoline. Ms..
Weiss stated Shamrock has done the best they can, however they
have missed the point. The point being, a gas station is not
wanted in that-location. Ms. Weiss voiced doubts of technology
and the human factor. Ms. Weiss read an excerpt from the New
England Conservation Law Foundation, printed in 1984 in Boston,''.
Page 12, December 1982.
Mr. Rick Rosen, legal Counsel for the Beaver Creek Property
Owners Association and business owner in the Town of Avon, voiced
several concerns. Those concerns were: environmental issues and
questioned the money spent to develope this location might be less
expensive and better used at another location; traffic concerns of
a count taken on a Saturday morning in April and present traffic
congestion; visual pollution; and questioned the legality'of right
of this appeal. Mr. Rosen requested Council to turn this down.
Mr. 'Curnutte informed letters received against were from John
Hazard, Andrew Daly of Vail Associates, Bob.McIllveen of Beaver
Creek Resort Company, and at the first meeting a letter from
Martin & Helen Weiss.
Mr. Martin Weiss, resident of Edwards, reminded this is at.the
base of Beaver- Creek. Mr. Weiss mentioned possible traffic
problems, possible environment problems, aesthetics of building
and questioned Council if they want to be known for approving a-24
hour gas station on the Eagle River.
Mr. Pylman interjected the traffic count was taken during peak
hour traffic on a Saturday in December.
Mr. Galloway rebutted Mr. Miller's mention of a car pulling away
with the nozzle still in the tank and spilling gas over the
driveway. Mr. Galloway informed there is a break-a-way device on
every pump.to prevent this scenario of happening. Mr. Galloway
rebutted Mr. Nottingham's mention of the separator by stating it
was discussed in,detail.at a previous meeting with Mr. Nottingham
present and Mr.''Galloway informed he is--prepared,to give that
presentation if necessary tonight. Mr. Galloway stated the
traffic situation has already been discussed. Mr. Galloway
s Weiss regarding the' human ,factor .:and-, mentioned
agreed with Ms. .
the reason'behind-such protections. Any technical discussions-
prior to 1988 has been superseded by the regulations that are put
in place now. Mr.. Galloway rebutted,Mr., Rosen's mention of the,
traffic study with the traffic engineer. `studies and legality
issues were directed-to the Town Attorney.
i •
Mr. Klohen read a'complimentary letter to Shamrock from the-
Chamber of Commerce in Possum Kingdom Lake, Texas referencing an
oil spill on the Brasses River.
Councilor Reynolds expressed concerns of traffic problems and
environmental concerns of it being so close to an already troubled
river. It is not appropriate for the gateway to the Town.
Councilor Hines expressed concerns of potential spills,"traffic
problems, and visual impact and is in opposition of this special
review use.-
Councilor Hazard expressed his views of listening to the people.
Councilor Hazard tallied his unofficial survey: 34 people were
interviewed;•2 were for and'32 against. Councilor Hazard-
questioned _reasons for opposition which included environmental
concerns; }location,•reasons we have heard tonight-. Councilor
Hazard stated he=rs listenifig•to the people and',will not support
the gas station at this'location.
Councilor Pysher expressed;his affirmation,to..the Planning &
Zoning Commission. Councilor Pysher.Would ,vote rio.
Mr Klohen stated he is not surprised of Council's opinions and
knows Council will rule justly,. -Mr.-• Klohen complemented Staff on
their efforts. and assistance.
Mr. Green stated, whatever the vote, the process is respected.
Mr. Green complemented Planning & Zoning Commissions and Council
for their service.
Councilor Reynolds motioned to uphold the decision of the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Councilor Gersbach seconded the motion and
the motion carried unanimously with Councilor Nottingham,
abstaining.
Councilor Nottingham returned to her seat.
The Financial Matters were next presented to Council.
Councilor Hines moved to.receive items #1 thru #3 and approve
items #4 thru #6. The motion was seconded by Councilor Hazard and
was unanimously carried.
Next presented to Council were the Council Meeting Minutes.
Councilor Reynolds moved-approval of the May 12th Regular Council
Meeting minutes as presented.- The motion was seconded by-
Councilor Nottingham and was unanimously carried.
There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor
Davis called for ,a motion to adjourn. 'Councilor Hines moved to
adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor,Reynolds. The
meeting was adjourned by'Mayor Davis at 12:07am.
-14-
•
E
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty Neyha , To Clerk
-15-