TC Minutes 06-13-19950 W
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE-TOWN Council
HELD JUNE 13, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.
A 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 Albert Reynolds at
7:33PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Jim Benson,
Richard Carnes, Jack Fawcett, Tom Hines, Celeste C. Nottingham,
and Judy Yoder present. Also present were Town Manager Bill
James, Town Attorney John Dunn, Town Clerk Patty Neyhart, Town
Engineer Norm Wood, Director of Municipal Services Larry Brooks,
Director of Community Development Mike-Matzko, Director of
Recreation Meryl Jacobs, as well as members of the press and
public.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95-9, Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDEFINE
THE BOUNDARY OF THE PUD TO EXCLUDE TRACT AA, FILING 2, MOUNTAIN
STAR SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Town Manager Bill James stated these two Ordinances (No. 95-9 and
No. 95-10) are amending the two PUDs we have, so that we are able
to transfer the property within the relative PUDs, between the
two pieces.
Councilor Hines motioned adoption on second reading of Ordinance
No. 95-9, Series of 1995. Councilor Nottingham seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95-10, Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDED PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDEFINE
-,THE BOUNDARY OF THE PUD TO INCORPORATE AN ADDITIONAL PARCEL OF
-PROPERTY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS TRACT AA, FILING 2, MOUNTAIN STAR-
PUD, INTO THE SWIFT GULCH PUD, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
Councilor Hines motioned adoption on second reading of Ordinance
No. 95-10, Series of 1995. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 95-34, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE AVON VILLAGE
ANNEXATION.
Mayor,Reynolds announced this is a public hearing.
Town Manager James stated the Town has received a petition for
annexation of approximately 1,800 acres and a proposed
development currently of approximately 2,000 residential units
and 950,000 square feet of commercial. Council has a Resolution
tonight finding certain facts and determinations regarding the
Avon Village Annexation. Town Manager James then turn it over to
Town Attorney John Dunn.
Town Attorney Dunn stated the annexation process is three part.
Council has already accomplished the first step, which was a
finding that the petitions presented complied with the statute.
That was done on May 9th. The second step of the process is a
public hearing, which is about to occur this evening.
And, following the public hearing, an appropriate possible action
is to find that the area proposed for annexation is eligible for
annexation.
This is similar to the finding of May 9th, however that was a
threshold finding. The finding tonight, if it is made, will be
based upon the evidence which is presented to Council, in the
course of the public hearing. The third step, in the process, is
the adoption of the annexation Ordinance. Town Attorney Dunn
reviewed his memorandum. The statute does permit any person to
appear at the hearing and to present evidence upon any matter
which is to be determined by the Council. The same section also
requires that the hearings be recorded and Town Attorney Dunn
introduced Ms. Candace Stutson as the court reporter, who will do
the transcript of this hearing. Essentially, the Council must
determine that the area proposed to be annexed is eligible for
annexation. The Council must also determine that there are no
limitations contained in the statute, which would apply to this
annexation. The Council must also determine whether an election
is required and whether additional terms and conditions are to be
imposed. If the Council were to impose additional terms and
conditions without the consent of the petitioner, that then would
throw the matter into an election. The assumption is that that
particular provision is not applicable to this annexation. The
requirements of the statute, Section 104 of the Statute, which
the Council may consider evidence on in this hearing are first
that there is one/sixth contiguity of the two areas to be annexed
with the town. Second, that there is a community of interest
between the area to be annexed and the annexing municipality.
Third, that the area to be annexed is urban or is capable of
being urbanized in the near future. Fourth, that the area to be
annexed is integrated with, or is capable of being intergrated
with the Town of Avon. Part of that same section of the statute
actually says that if the Council finds that there is one/sixth
contiguity that that sort of automatically amounts to a finding
of what I just reviewed for you. Unless, evidence is presented
to the Council that less than 50% of the adult residences of the
area proposed to be annexed make use of the Town's public
facilities and less than 25% of the adult residences are employed
in the municipality. Of course, since there are no residences of
the area proposed for annexation, that particular standard is not
applicable. The second finding that the Council could make, to
preclude annexation, would be a finding that one/half or more of
the land in the area proposed to be annexed is agriculture and
the land owners expressed an intention to devote the area to
agriculture use for at least five years. Third, that it is not
physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be
annexed the urban services which are provided by the town. To
summarize those, once the Council finds one/sixth contiguity,
that-really is all the Council needs-to-find to proceed then to
determine that there is eligibility for annexation, unless it is
shown to the Council that the area is agriculture and that urban
services can not be extended to the area proposed to be annexed.
There are Icertain limitations contained in Section 105 and the
Council will have to make finding that those limitations do not
apply. None of those limitations are actually applicable to this
annexation. They relate to.prohibition against dividing up
commonly.owned parcels which have a value of more than $200,000
without the consent of the owner of the parcel, competing
annexations where more than one municipality is attempting to
annex, detachment of areas from a school district or annexation
of an area which with certain exceptions extends more than three
miles from the town. None of those particular concerns exist so
we get back to the Council - once it finds one/sixth contiguity -
may then proceed to find eligibility unless there is a
demonstration before the Council of the agriculture nature of the
area and the inability of the town to extend urban services. In
addition to finding those requirements, the Council must find
that an election is not required if in fact, no election is to be
held. An election is not required if two findings are made.
2
i •
First, that the petitions are signed by 100% of the area proposed
to be annexed and secondly that the requirements of the '
Poundstone Amendment are met - which is that the petition for
annexation is signed by more than 5096 of the landowners in the
area proposed to be annexed. Since the petitions have been
signed by all of the owners of the land, those requirements are
not a concern. They have obviously been met.
Councilor Hines stated that since it has been signed by all the
landowners- basically"all'we get is-a signature from Mr. Post as
manager 'for all of the"different entities." Is there a difference
between? Town Attorney Dunn stated no. Councilor Hines added,
so as their'tepresentative,,,that signature'is all. Town Attorney
Dunn stated-yes, the petitioner is fully qualified with both
requirements. We have the signatures of 100% of the area
proposed to be annexed.as well as 5015, well 100% of the
landowners to.be annexed. Councilor Hines asked do you
understand"- on,the document we have Mr. Posy's signature, as a
representative of all. We don't have signatures of each and
every individual. Town Attorney Dunn stated that is correct.
The property is owned by four limited liability companies. Bill
Post has provided, and it will be in the record in the town's
file, copies of the filings with the Secretary of State for each
of those limited liability companies showing Mr. Post to be a
manager and to have the authority to deal on behalf of those
limited liability companies. So, we do have the evidence
requested of his authority. Mr. Post has also provided me today
with title commitments indicating the ownership of the property
by those four limited liability companies.
Councilor Fawcett stated the Council would like to know, at some
point in the future, who the owners of the limited liability
companies are - the specific individuals. Attorney Dunn stated
he would pass that on to Mr. Bill Post for his response.
Attorney Dunn stated at the conclusion of the hearing, the
Council will have three options. Option one would be to close
the public hearing and by Resolution define that the area
proposed for annexation does not comply with the applicable
provisions and that would terminate the annexation proceedings.
The second option is to close the public hearing and by
Resolution find that the area proposed to be annexed does meet
the statutory provisions. The third option is to continue the
public hearing to another date - and I have suggested pending
negotiation of the annexation agreement - it could be for any
other reason - the only qualification of that section is that
there must have been on hour of testimony, which is what statute
says, before you can continue the hearing. It is my understand
that the preference of the applicants, through Mr. Post, is that
the annexation resolution be adopted this evening and that the
matter than be brought before the Council again in the future by
the annexation ordinance. If that is the action that is taken by
the Council, the Council will only have determined eligibility
for annexation. I have reviewed the matter with Dick Shyer, who
is serving as special counsel on this matter, and Dick and I are
very comfortable that that would not obligate the Council to any
other future action, that if the determination should be made in
the future that the annexation can not proceed because an
annexation agreement can not be reached, the Council would be
fully empowered and free to simply terminate the matter and not
adopt an annexation ordinance. Dick'and"I have also reviewed
that with Tom Ragonnetti, counsel to the applicants, and he is in
agreement that that is a correct statement of the law - that the
finding of eligibility for annexation will impose no obligations
on the town or it's Council.
Mayor Reynolds stated it is still a public hearing and asked if
anyone else would like to be heard.
3
• ~s
Ms. Rhoda Schneiderman, resident of the Town of Avon and member
of the Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z), stated I take it
we're talking about annexation? Mayor Reynolds stated yes. Ms.
Schneiderman stated she is sorry to be late. Ms. Schneiderman
wished to express her views since she.will•not be available at
the next public hearing. Ms. Schneiderman stated she is opposed
to it in the most vehement terms she could possibly come up with.
Ms. Schneiderman stated the only reason the Town should annex is
if Vail has a true interest. Avon doesn't need it and if the
residents were polled they probably wouldn't want it. Ms.
Schneiderman express concern of costs and liveability. Ms.
Schneiderman wanted to know what the true requirements for
annexation are - does there have to be any contiguous land to
where you what to be annexed to or whether or not you have to be
within a certain distance.in order to annex. I think that
therein lies the key to the whole process. Wildridge is not even
50% built out so it is not as if we are really at a premium for
expanding our residential base. I think our traffic is going to
be - it is bad enough now - we are really a year round community
in Avon because we are basically residents of the whole valley as
opposed to strictly tourist based and people rely totally on
their cars who live here and I don't think that no matter what
you do as far as a public transportation system - because so many
of them work in Vail - unless you provide bus service like Vail
does - every ten minutes - around the clock for the most part. I
don't think you are going to get people to take their cars off
the streets. And, just overall I think the density on the south
side of the highway - the project is just incredible. It will;
as you all are aware, going to double the size of the town. If-
the real estate market stays strong, for the next five years,
which it may or may not, I don't know - it could be detrimental
in both ways - if it stays strong, we•get built out - that whole
project gets built out so quickly that our infrastructure can no
way keep up with it. If it doesn't get built out - if we have
another recession - we are•going to be looking at possibly alot
of empty-lots - we are going to be looking at roads, having been
built and there is nothing around-them•- it is a major view
corridor from I-70 which is so tourist based and that is what
they are going to.be looking at. One way'or another, I don't
think it is advantage to the'City. I think there are other ways
of encouraging growth, both retail and commercial here. I mean,
we certainly have done a good job of getting office space built
here, you know - which provides it for the whole valley. And, I
think .with some incentives there are ways to get•both employee
housing built here as well as retail and restaurants - but it
takes a little bit more work than maybe some people have-been'
willing to put in - its been real easy to be pro-developer all
these years and to just give carte-blanche to all these people
who want to come in and max out sites,- our master plan I think
was ill conceived - it didn't envision any transitions from
residential to commercial and_town core. It basically went from
build a 6-7 story building to have a duplex. •And, I think that
the people who now make this town their home will not be happy
when all those things come to fruition if the-town lets them. I
think if in the towns folly it finds a reason - a good reason to
approve this annexation, it needs to scale it way down and create
less of an impact both environmentally and liveability wise for
this town. And, I certainly hope that - I don't know legally -
does this have to come to a referendum? Town Manager James
stated if someone wanted to initiate the referendum process. Ms.
Schneiderman stated so it is not something that has to be done -
the town does not have to vote on it? Town Manager James stated
that is correct. Ms. Schneiderman stated-well I think it would
be in everyone's best interest and all of your best interests if
you want to see yourselves reelected that you,do bring it to a
vote. This is the single biggest thing this town will ever see
and if you - no matter how smart or wise anybody thinks they are
- this is not something that should be decided by seven people -
it is something that the whole town should have stake in and
should be allowed to vote on.
4
Ms. Schneiderman continued, and,
mandatory, in order to do really
you. .
I think that would be absolutely
what's best for the town. Thank
Mayor Reynolds noted there will be quite a few public hearings on
this annexation. This is not something that will be decided by
seven people - we are going to listen to the citizens of this
town. Ms. Schneiderman stated I think you all realize, based on
the time you spent on the Town Council that people have a way of
not voicing their opinions until it is too late - unless it is
something that can be voted on. We have a fairly good voter turn
out - record, I think, in this town. And, I don't think those
same people who vote will turn up at a public hearing
necessarily. I think that it is short sited to think that
everybody who shows up to voice an opinion, is the opinion of the
town. Voting is the only way - true democratic way to get that
true feel of what the town wants. And, as.I said, this is just
too big an issue for seven people to decide - it is the fate of
our town. I think it would be fool hardy to not take part in
that democratic process.
Councilor Fawcett reiterated Mayor Reynolds comment - there will
be several public hearings - we hope to hear from a large number
of constituents. Councilor Fawcett appreciated Ms.
Schneiderman's comments and hoped we have-50, 60, 100 or more
come-to other public hearings. Councilor Fawcett stated
unfortunately, this property - one way or the other - and you
obviously appear to be against the development of the property,
perhaps at all - but it is going to be developed presumably by
some group, whether it be the County or whether it be Avon or
someone else. And, you,bei,ng on the P & Z, I think would have a
high stake in perhaps.watdhing and seeing it developed with some
control by being on the P & Z and which could only come about if
we did annex. Ms., Schneiderman stated I don't disagree with you
as,far as that -`that'statement'goes - however I think that if
the town rejects an'annexation plan-based on the impact - the,
overall impact that is going to be had on the town - I think the
Eagle County Commissioners would be hard pressed to go against
the town and'create a big enemy by approving the same density
that is being proposed with this annexation. I just don't see it
happening. And, I don't think - I think the Eagle County
Commissioners are probably more circumspect than sometimes are
town council is in relationship to development. And, I think
they listen to the people more - sometimes - than - and I won't
not include myself as a P & Z member _ I mean I personally have
been not anti-development but anti-developer. I think there is a
difference. And, I don't believe in giving developers carte
blanche to do pretty much what ever they want, because we.happen
to,be in an expansion mode.. I think that they have to be held
more responsible to the town for doing the right thing than your
individual building a house of his dreams up in Wildridge does.
And, I think sometimes we switch those two roles around. And I
have never made a secret of my views and I just feel that it is
time to really look at the future and see where all this is
taking us and whether the quality of life - you're going to lose
a lot of our best residences - our residences are going to go
down valley because they won't be happy with the way the town is
preceding and turning out. And, I may join them right along -
get right in line there. If that answers your point.
Councilor Fawcett stated I hope I get a lot of answers over the
next few months. Ms. Schneiderman stated right - I just don't
think - I M'ean'realistically in what's happened in the past - I
just don't think a hundred people turning out with a basic town
population of - I don't even know what we have, it is certainly
over 3,000 - is. hardly a majority and or a consensus. And, I
just.don't think that that is the way to do it with this size
project.
5
- ,r
•
Ms. Schneiderman continued, I think_,you,have to be responsible
ultimately to the people and basically tell the developers to go
to hell - they'll wait until this town is-ready for it and you're
sure that the town wants it.
Councilor Benson asked at what point will the town be ready for
it. Ms. Schneiderman responded, I am not sure with our
infrastructure agenda that it ever will. I think that we grossly
under estimated, no matter how many studies were done, I think
they were done based on a formula that can be applied any where
in the country. And, as far as services and or traffic goes -
and I don't think that the people in this town - at least from
all the=people I've spoken to - I mean all I hear is bitching and
moaning about the traffic even in off season. Oh my god - you
know - I had to wait twice to get the stop light at Avon Road -
what do they think its going to be when this.town doubles in size
and we still have a two lane road on Beaver Creek Blvd. leading,-
as being a main access into this annexation. Anybody who thinks
that most people are going to head out,onto Highway 6 and drive
five miles to come around and go do their shopping at City Market
is really living in a dream world. They are going to take the
shortest route. And, I firmly feel they're going to use their
cars and that's our enemy - that type of development as opposed
to hotels or convention centers - those types of things which
bring in'the tourists which - I agree with Tom - you know - more
than likely going to leave their cars in the parking lot and take
the bus up to Beaver Creek and where ever. So, I don't think our
infrastructure has been planned to handle that type of
development.- I don't think its been planned to handle the
development - build out in Wildridge. You got a one - you know -
two lane road basically going up into an area that at build out
is going to be a nightmare. One in, one out. One way in, one
way out. And, people were so excited here to get that
development on the books and to get it into Avon - nobody really
sat and thought, well, this is easy - the developer did an easy
thing - he just took this one way in - he didn't plan any other -
you know - just a small road - he really has no option of
widening it in some spots - you know, the terrain is not good for
it - what are you going to do - its a done deal. So, I kinda
like to step back so that we don't have anymore done deals that
we have to look back on with regret and go Oh, my god what have
we done. I think that more thought and more input has to be done
before you can decide one way or the other. If the people of
this town want it vote on it hey, I'll live with it. I live with
alot of things that the majority decides on that I may not agree
with, but that is why I am here and that's why I'm not in
Yugoslavia or whatever.
Mr. Tom Ragonnetti, special counsel to the applicant on
annexation and land'use matters, stated I will not pretend to
answer the lady's points because as John Dunn said the hearing
tonight is not about the substance of whether this property
should be annexed or not. And, I wanted to go on record to
indicate that the applicant is in agreement with what Mr.;Dunn
said. "The purpose 'of,tonight,'s hearing is, for the limited
purpose of finding compliance with two"'very technical statutory
requirements. And, by finding compliance with those requirements
you are not annexing.the property. You have reserved the right
to annex,or not annex the property in the future. And, we are
prepared for the hearing that will be held as part of that and to
answer the points that have been raised. Thank you.
Mr. Tom Braun, of:Peter.Jamar'& Associates,,- planning consultants
of the project, stated Mr. Ragonnetti's point is-a very good one
- that we are here to focus on the determination of eligibility
for the annexation of the project. There is nothing binding
tonight that would compel you to annex this project or property
in the future. But, rather there are four key elements that need
to be considered and evaluated and found by the Council to move
the process along procedurally.
6
The first of these is contiguity. We have proposed two
annexations. We are required to have one/sixth contiguity with
the area that is being annexed with the current Town of Avon
boundaries. The first portion - Avon Village Map No. 1 -
contiguity with the current Town of Avon boundary is 8,075 feet.
That allows us to have an area of our first annexation of 48,452
feet - this annexation is 47,734 feet. Our next annexation -
Avon Village Map No. 2 - we have a common boundary line of 8,484
square feet.. That would allow us to have-a perimeter area within
our second annexation'of just'over,55;000 square feet and we are
at 35,000 square feet. I'think your staff has reviewed this and
as far.as the contiguity and technical aspects of the annexation,
we are'in compliance with the state statutes. The other- three
aspects concern more qualitative standards. The first finding is
that if a community interest exists with the annexing area and
the municipality. We can point to the Avon Comprehensive Plan as
a clear statement of the-community interest.' First of all, the
goals and.objectives section of your master plan encourages
adjoining properties to annex to the town. Secondly, the
implementation section of the comprehensive plan specifically
references this property as a key element to be annexed and I
believe it uses the term, "as soon as possible" to the Town of
Avon. And, finally your comprehensive plan, your town core plan,
your transportation and circulation plan, urban design plan all
relate to specific elements related to the development of this
property and how it relates to the Town of Avon.. The third
criteria is that the area is urban or will be urbanized in the'
future. With some of the uses that have taken place in the
Stolport, clearly the area has been urbanized already. Gravel
operations, concrete plants, airports, are urban activities that
are already occurring on the property. The property is
strategically located, surrounded by urbanized areas - Eagle-
Vail,'unincorporated Eagle County, and the Town of Avon. It is a
key site both to the Town of Avon and Eagle County. And, clearly
it will be urbanized in the future; whether through the Town of
Avon or other means. Finally, the area is capable of being
intergrated with the annexation municipality. Again, Avon
Village is contiguous with the Town of Avon. It is surrounded by-
urbanized area that provides for a natural extension of the
communities boundaries. As we learned this.afternoon, with our
fiscal impact report, from a service standpoint our indications
are that the community is capable, of revenue coming out of the
project, to providing the services necessary and typically
associated with municipal services for the property. From our
standpoint, clearly, the annexation of this property is
consistent with each one of the four criteria you need to define
to move this process along, and find us eligible for annexation.
With no one else wishing to be heard, Mayor Reynolds closed the
public hearing.
Councilor Fawcett motioned approval of Resolution No. 95-34,
Series of 1995. Councilor Nottingham seconded the motion and the
motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 95-32, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR FALCON TOWNHOMES, A RESUBDIVISION
OF LOT 18, BLOCK _1, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE
COUNTY, COLORADO
Town Engineer Norm Wood stated an application for preliminary and
final plat approval for Falcon Townhomes has been submitted,
which is a resubdivision of Lot 18, Block 1, Wildridge. The
design review has been approved by P & Z. The project is under
construction and nearing completion. In that this is a four
townhome unit, with a fifth common lot, it exceeds the minimum
for consideration as a minor subdivision, so it does require a
preliminary plat approval.
7
The preliminary plat approval requires a public hearing. Notices
have been mailed and posted for the,public,hearing for the
preliminary plat. Resolution No. 95-32 concurrently will approve
both preliminary and final plat. Staff recommends approval of
Resolution No. 95-32, Series of 1995.
Mayor Reynolds announced this is a,public hearing and asked for
any input.
Councilor Carnes questioned the only reason we have to go,through
this is for the fifth unit? Mr. Wood stated because of the fifth
lot. A subdivision plat can be considered as a minor subdivision-
up to a maximum of four lots. But, the four units and a fifth is
a common lot - that creates five parcels that requires a public
hearing and a preliminary plat.
Councilor Nottingham stated these are townhouses and there are
only going to be four townhouses? Councilor Benson stated.there
are four units and they are subdividing it up to create five lots
- the fifth lot is'a common lot.- Mr. Wood added it was,one
fourplex lot.
Councilor Hines motioned,approval of Resolution No. 95732, Series
of 1995: Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion
carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 95-33, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
FINAL PLAT AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR NOTTINGHAM
STATION PUD AMENDMENT NO. 2, A RESUBDIVISIION OF LOT 3, NOTTINGHAM
STATION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,- COLORADO
Mr. Wood stated-Canyon Run Limited Liability Company and Avon .
Crossing Limited Liability Company have submitted a final plat
and subdivision improvements agreement for the Nottingham Station,
PUD Amendment No. 2, which is a resubdivision of Lot 3,
Nottingham Station. A planned unit development, plan and
standards were approved for Lot 3 by Ordinance No. 95-7. A
preliminary plat for the subdivision for Lot 3 was approved by
Resolution No. 95-18. This is the final subdivision plat and
they have also submitted a Subdivision Improvements Agreement to
cover provisions for constructing the public improvements on-the
property, providing for collateral and other various items
related to the subdivision. Staff has reviewed and recommends
approval of Resolution No. 95-33. One addition to the Resolution
relates to the dedication of the access to the river, whether it
be an easement-or deed. Mr. Wood noted- 'the applicants do not
care whether Council chooses an easement'or a-deed.
Councilor Hines, Nottingham, and Carnes voiced concerns and
questioned the drainage report. Mr. Wood,and Mr. Jeff Spanel
discussed and answered those questions.
Councilor Fawcett motioned approval of Resolution No. 95-33;
Series of 1995. Councilor Benson seconded the motion. 'The
motion carried with Councilors Hines and Nottingham opposed.
River easement or deed was discussed next. Town Manager James
stated staff and the Town Attorney still prefer ownership.
Councilor Nottingham thought by taking an easement that could
save the town future financial liability in case the development
of the site created degradation of-the river habitat. Councilor
Nottingham suggested to take the deed, but add that the developer
would be responsible for repairs to Tract C, which is the parcel
the town would get, determined by the town, as created by the
site development. Mr. Jeff Spanel was not in agreement with
perpetual liability. Mr. Spanel added he is prepared to keep the
property and give the town a recreational easement.
8
0
Councilor Nottingham stated I'd like'to move that the Council
come to terms on their concern - voice it-as to whether they are
concerned about the liability to Tract C because of improvements
made that are not there right now for.-this development and see
where we stand. One of the options is just tabling the thing
until we have time, but maybe we can just, deal with it,this way.
Basically, I wanted to see if there was an opportunity to protect
us better and that would be part of the deed.. I didn't want to
go to making the amendment or amending it prior to knowing how my
peers feel.
Councilor Hines voiced support of ownership.
Councilor Benson voiced support of ownership.
Councilor,Yoder voiced support of ownership.
Councilor-Carnes-voiced support of ownership.
Councilor Fawcett motioned that the town acquire ownership.
Councilor Benson seconded the motion annd'the motion carried
unanimously.'
Resolution No. 95-35, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY TO EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
RE50J
Attorney Dunn stated in 1988 the town entered into an agreement
with Eagle County School District, with,respect to a portion of
Tract G. The town agreed, when that agreement was terminated, to
deliver to the school district a deed or bill of sale quit
claiming to the school district the town's right, title, and
interest to the facilities constructed on the portion of Tract G
described in the agreement. The agreement has been terminated
and it is now necessary for the town to.take action to convey
it's interest to the school district.
Councilor Yoder motioned approval of Resolution No. 95-35, Series
of 1995. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion
carried unanimously.
Unfinished Business: Update on Research of River Setbacks
Town Manager James reminded that this afternoon Council viewed
various setbacks on Nottingham Station. Presently the town's
standard is 30' from the mean annual high water line. Stakes
were place on site at 301, 50' and 75' from the mean annual high
water line and 25' from top of bank. Town Manager James stated
staff is open to suggestions.
Councilor Hines suggested a variable setback with a minimum 50'
from the mean annual high water line and maximum of 75' mean
annual high water line, as conditions warrant. Discussion
focused on this'suggestion regarding property owners and location
and definition and enforcement. Community Development Director
Mike Matzko noted there are some communities working with
variable setbacks, but that it is more typical to have fixed
setbacks. Councilor Fawcett mentioned that if we are to make any
changes, we should give those land owners a chance to respond.
Ms. Mary Holden suggested, in her dealings with the Eagle River
Management Plan, an overlay zone or a sensitive zone district.
You can go piece by piece, down the river and establish the topo
and establish the setback. The overlay could be staff time or
you could bring in a consultant; in any case it is time consuming
and will require some money. Mayor Reynolds suggested Mr. Matzko
look into this and report back to council.
9
• •
Councilor Nottingham noted that a guideline that was written.in
1979 deserves to be revisited and requested Council's commitment
to revisit old guidelines and update them.
Town Manager James asked Council for a specific recommendation
for staff to pursue. Councilor Hines asked does this Council
feel that this is an issue that needs to be pursued? If so, then
we need to establish some sort of direction so that we can start
to hold public hearings, so that we-can define our position with
this-issue. This council needs to take a step - we have been
here on this same issue and basically all we ever say is, "well,
I'd like to have a little more on this". At some point in time,
we need to establish a direction.
Ms. Rhoda Schneiderman informed that the Brookside Piece,
formerly Miller Ranch, is for sale presently. A huge development
has already been approved by P & Z with the current setback
requirements. It is entirely possible somebody will purchase
that land with changes of incorporating their own plans and new
setbacks could apply to, it if they were put in place. Ms.
Schneiderman mentioned the possibility of a moratorium, should
new development be requested, prior to approval of new setbacks.
Councilor Nottingham asked if public hearings are required on
guidelines. Attorney Dunn stated public hearings are not
necessary on the adoption of guidelines. After much discussion
regarding public hearings, Attorney Dunn clarified setbacks are
law. Setbacks are part of the zoning laws. These would have to
be changed by ordinance, with a public hearing.
Councilor Hines motioned that staff pursue changing the general
zoning code to amend the rivet setback•ftom the existing 30' from
mean annual high water line to 50' with the variable being 75'
minimum-based upon topographic constraints to be defined later.
Councilor Nottingham seconded the motion. Those opposed were
Councilors-,Benson,1 Fawcett, and Yoder.' Mayor Reynolds broke the
tie vote by opposing. Motion failed.
Councilor'Nottingham motioned that we'have our town staff develop
an Ordinance that meets-the intent of the river setbacks for
improving the setback from the 301. Councilor Carnes seconded
the motion. Town Manager James asked for a,minimum. Councilor
Nottingham stated 501. Town Manager James suggested creating the
ordinance and distributing it to.the affected'land owners (Frank
Doll, Mauri Nottingham, etc.) for notice of public hearing to get
their input. Councilor Nottingham stated that is my motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
New Business: Recreation Center Update & Change Order #7
Mr. Gary Meredith gave an update on the progress of construction
of the Recreation Center. The schedule still remains, with the
TCO as August 30th and the CO as September 13th. Mr. Meredith
stated the design review items, including pool features discussed
at last meeting, will be provided for the $10,000 cap amount.
Mr. Meredith reviewed the pricing in Change Order V. Three
items, on Change Order #7, total $33,712. Those items are 1.)
snowmelt system to service ramp, 2.) coiling grille prep work,
and 3.) misc. millwork & design fees.
Councilor Nottingham motioned approval of Change order #7 for the
amount of $33,712. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion. The
motion carried with Councilor Carnes opposed.
Mr. Meredith stated Change Order #8 will be forthcoming due to
the zone paging / music receiver of $3,268.
10
Town Manager James interjected the Public Works Budget stands
currently with a fund balance at the end of 1995 of $254,419.
Mr. Meredith gave recap of the blood drive. The goal was to have
62 participants and they had 81 participants. Mayor Reynolds
thanked Mr. Meredith, Ms. Carol Gil-Mulson and the Community on
behalf of the event.
New Business: Review Bids 1.),Air Conditioning 2.) Swift
Gulch 3.) Streetscape 4.) Tennis Courts
1.) Air Conditioning: Director of Municipal Services Larry
Brooks informed both bids came in over budget regarding the air
conditioning. Mr. David Yoder, of Yoder Engineering, designer
for air conditioning unit, recommended the bid from Robinson
Mechanical Company, even though they are higher, due to a more
complete bid. Mr. Yoder noted there is a potential deduct -
disconnecting power of the municipal building for approximately 8
hours could save $5,000. Mr. Yoder also recommended accepting
alternates #4 and #5 and adding to the base bid. Mr. Brooks
stated base bid is $95,184, plus bid alternate #4 of $82,5 and bid
alternate #5 at $5,250, plus engineering costs of $9,000 making
total bid approximately $110,000 to a budget of $78,000.
Town Manager James stated this additional amount would come from
the $250,000 public works fund balance.
Mr. Yoder explained why the bid was so far.off. When you
estimate for construction, particularly remodel, it really is a
gamble. Quite frankly the only major issue that we could see,
which we hadn't anticipated, was the electrical service
requirement which was approximately $13-14,000. When we put the
bid documents together we anticipated a slow down in
construction. Mr. Yoder added this project was bid as a remodel
- this is & hard cost - each bidder was required to tour the
building'to anticipate, as much as possible, any additional
expenses. There is a possibility of a change order, but we were
very clear in the contract documents that this project has no
contingency and the contractor had to allow for any contingencies
that may happen. Mr. Yoder mentioned we could ask for a T & M
(time and material bid) and once Robinson Mechanical is selected
we will continue to negotiate with them any areas that may be
reduced without reducing the value. Mr. Yoder mentioned the
operating cost could be as high as $300-$400 in electrical costs
per month and features relatively noiseless use and zone cooling
on a timer.
Councilor Nottingham motioned to accept the.bid from Robinson
Mechanical Company with alternates #4 and #5 as suggested.
Councilor Fawcett seconded the motion. The'motion carried with
Councilor Carnes opposed.
Council recessed at 9:50PM and reconvened at'10:00PM.
2.) Swift Gulch: Mr. Brooks stated Intermountain Engineering
put together a bid package for partial development of Swift
Gulch. The project-included putting in the infrastructure -
bringing utilities;to it, grading parking lot' area and general
grading to accommodate exterior outside parking of buses,
equipment, and cinders, - and the development of a building to
house operations of public works and the transporation operation.
Two bids were received; 1.) Continental West amounted to $434,307
and 2.) B & B Excavating amounted to $459,961.35.
11
The total project cost, if Continental West, bid is accepted,
would be $759;750 (vs. budget of $721,160), split by Beaver Creek
Resort Company (1/2 = $379,875), less 1995 budgeted amount of
$108,817, brings amount to be financed to $271,058.. Mr. Bob
McIllveen & Mr. Bill Simmons of Beaver Creek Resort Company were
in attendance. Town Manager James stated he would look to
finance (lease/purchase) the entire project. Town Manager James
noted a financial agreement would need to be'development between
the Town of Avon and Beaver Creek Resort Company. Mr. McIllveen;
Director of the Beaver Creek Resort Company,'voiced his agreement
to the proposal and suggested to move quickly.
Councilor Nottingham motioned to award the bid to Continental
West subject to an agreement being developed between the Town of
Avon and Beaver Creek Resort Company. Councilor Yoder seconded
the motion and the motion carried unanimously."
3.) Streetscape: Mr. Brooks reminded the-.Town budgeted money to
develop the streetscape on the newly built Benchmark Road, as it
goes past the recreation center and the library. Budget was
$195,500. -Bids received were over budget. Mr. Brooks negotiated
with the low bidder, B & B Excavating, and came up with three
items to consider for reducing the bid. The three items were 1.)
eliminate traffic control by closing road sections as necessary
to perform work = $20,000, 2.) Town of Avon to place order 'and
purchase directly the light fixtures = $17,000, and 3.) signage
of $22,000. Total deducts = $59,000, making B & B's revised bid
at $239,987.50, with a budget shortage of $44,48.7.75. Mr. Brooks
recommends proceeding with this project, as additional funds are
available.in the Public Works fund balance. Town Manager James
noted that Lot C's share ($56,366) may be recouped via the
subdivision agreement but, there are no guarantees. Mr. Brooks
explained reasons for going over budget - last time lights were
approximately $4,000 and now they are $5,300 (approximately 40
lights on this project) and electrical costs were a surprise.
Mr. Brooks noted he will be looking into alternate lights.
Councilor Nottingham motioned to award this streetscape project
bid to B & B Excavating in the amount of $239,987.50 with Larry
Brooks' attempts to bring that price in lower in any way.
Councilor Hines seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
4.) Tennis Courts: Mr. Brooks reminded Council-of work on the
tennis courts on Tract P. The Project Manager, Intermountain
Engineering, informed Mr. Brooks of a dispute regarding material
quantities that amounted to $13,095 for additional screened rock.
Mr. Jeff Spanel, of Intermountain Engineering, met with Elam
Construction Company. Elam has corrected it's overage. The
overage is now 300 tons, rather than 930 tons, with an amount of
$4,500, rather than $13,000+. A change order will follow to
cover this amount. Town Manager James informed the $4,500 would
come from the Public Works fund balance.
Councilor Hines motioned to approve conceptually the approval of
change order to the tennis court project in the amount, not to
exceed, $4,500. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion and the
motion carried unanimously.
New Business: Master Plan Update / Contract of Services
Town Manager James presented a scope of services for the
Comprehensive Master Plan update. We estimated to have the
Comprehensive Plan.' and Transportation Plan updates completed for
approximately.$50, 000. The Comp plan cost is $47,050 and the.
Traffic Plan is $21,500. Amount short is $18,550. Town Manager
James felt the amount, of public meetings to be held for the
updates, is'the main reason for being over budgeted.
12
-Councilor Nottingham stated -we need, to- get on -the stick with
short term'and long:to-rm goal setting sessions, Town Manager
James mentioned we-have used the Coinprehensive Master Plan to
help us establish those goals. The Recreation Center and
streetscape were products of those broader goals.
Council voiced concerns of the amount for the Comprehensive
Master Plan. The Comp Plan is critical for completion of the
Traffic Plan and public input is needed.
Councilor Fawcett stated in connection with the scope of work -
comprehensive plan update - I would recommend approval of
authorizing the town manager to execute-the scope of work letter
and prepare the necessary budget amendments. Councilor Hines
seconded the motion.
Councilor Carnes questioned the need for hiring outside
consultants.
The motion carried with Councilor Carnes opposed.
New Business: Agreement with EMD / Reimbursement of Expenses
Town Manager James-stated this agreement is for EMD to reimburse
the Town for expenses related to the annexation of the Stolport
property and the property to the north of the interstate. Town
Attorney Dunn has drafted the agreement and with Council's
approval, this will be forward to Mr. Bill Post for his .
signature.
Councilor Nottingham motioned to authorize the Town Manager to
execute the agreement between EMD and the Town with the change in
#3 strike the second word "amount" and insert $25,000. Any time
that $25,000 is used up, there is another $25,000. Councilor
Yoder seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
Town Attorney Report: Update on Research'of Liquor Requirements
in Public Places
Town Attorney Dunn informed that there are two separate statutes,
one dealing with alcoholic beverages, wine, and malt beverage and
a separate 3.216 statute. The 3.2% beer law does not contain an
open container restriction, except persons under the age of 21
may not be in possession of malt beverage in a public place.
Therefore, it seems to be consistent with state statutes to allow
3.2% beer in the-park. Town Attorney Dunn's recommendation is
that the Recreation Department issue a facility use permit'to
provide some control,-- but then there would just be a policy that
only 3.2% beer is permitted in the park, so the town really is
not getting into the business of liquor licensing either from the
department of revenue concern or from a liability concern. Town
Attorney Dunn stated Meryl Jacob's memo and Gary Thomas's memo
are a little bit in conflict with each other. In terms of Gary
wanting the facility permit to.be specific to indicate 3.2% beer
was the'only alcohol allowed with,the permit.- This seems to me
it gets'us back a-little bit into-the-licensing of 3.2% beer.
And, then from Meryl, we still have a concern with respect to the
potential liability,of°the Town, although-as I have addressed I
personally don't feel that the diability'is great. Town Attorney
Dunn recommended that the town really get out of the licensing
business, as far as the alcohol or the beer is concerned, and
simply.-license'use of the.park and then.have a policy. What is
, open beverage
necessary to implement this is an amendmeint to
ordinance to'-narrow that down so''that in'the park 3.2% is
permitted as an exception to the open container law.
13
0 9
Discussion followed on licensing the park and without that
license you can not have 3.2% beer. Questions were raised again
about the licensing and CIRSA liability. Town Attorney Dunn
suggested he will contact CIRSA and make sure they understand
what we are trying to do.
Council's consensus was to make the park user friendly and allow
3.29.- in the park.
Town Attorney Dunn will
container chapter in the
comments.
Mayor Report:
bring an Ordinance to amend the open
municipal code, along with CIRSA's
Mayor Reynolds informed he attended .a Leadership Coalition
meeting last week. There'is"another meeting (date questioned) to
finalize ballot issues.
Mayor Reynolds'ment.oned a letter he received from mayor Peggy
Osterfoss, Town of Vail, requesting funds for the Dowd Junction-
Bike Path. All Council members received-a copy of the letter.
Mayor Reynolds requested to discuss this~further.with council at
a work session, next Tuesday if possible or in.the not so distant
future.
Other Business: Council Committee Reports & Misc.
Councilor Nottingham announced-a blood drive June 29th as a Boy
Scout / Eagle project.-
Councilor Nottingham requested the Boy Scouts be exempt from
vendor fees. Councilor Nottingham noted that if the Boy Scout
Troop has this one healthy fund raiser (July 4th selling glow
loops) they will not have to'be looking for donations.
Discussions followed on exempting vendor fees for all non-
profits, limiting non-profits, and limiting duplication of
vendors. Town Manager James suggested the policy of exempting
all non-profit organizations from the vendor fees, limit non-
profit organizations to ones that are located in the Town of
Avon. Those out of Avon non-profit organizations wanting to pay
the vendor fee will not be allowed to participate.- And,
duplication of types of vendors will be limited to produce a nice
mix of,product. Council agreed with Town Manager James'
suggestions.
Consent Agenda:
a.) Approval of the May 23, 1995 Council Meeting Minutes
b.) Resolution No. 95-27, Series of 1995; A RESOLUTION
CANCELLING A REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AND
SCHEDULING A SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
c.) Resolution No. 95-28, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE 1995 BUDGET
d.) Resolution NO. 95-29, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT FOR A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 24, BLOCK 1,
WILDRIDGE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
e.) Resolution No. 95-30, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT FOR A RESUB DIVISION OF LOT 20, BLOCK 1,
WILDRIDGE, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
14
0 9
f.) Resolution No. 95-31, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT-FOR SECOND AMENDMENT, MOUNTAIN STAR FILING
NO. 2, A RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT V, MOUNTAIN,-STAR FILING NO.
2, TOWN OF AVON,'EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
g.) Financial Matters
Councilor Fawcett motioned to approve the Consent Agenda.
Councilor-Nottingham seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
Adj ourn :
There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor
Reynolds called for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Benson moved
to adjourn. The-motion was seconded by Councilor,Yoder. The
meeting was adjourned by Mayor Reynolds at 11:25PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty Neyh
Town clerk
15