TC Minutes 08-22-19950
•
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
HELD AUGUST 22, 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
7:32PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Jim Benson,
Richard Carnes, Tom Hines, Celeste C. Nottingham, and Judy Yoder
present. Councilor Jack Fawcett was absent. Also present were
Town Manager Bill James, Town Clerk Patty Neyhart, Town Attorney
John Dunn, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Police Chief Gary Thomas,
Director of Recreation Meryl Jacobs, Director of Community
Development Mike Matzko, and Town Planner Karen Griffith, as well
as members of the press and public.
Avon Village Annexation Presentation and Public Input
Town Manager Bill James informed there are four matters before
Council this evening. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to get
these matters before-Council and the public. The initial
application was received April 14, 1995. Since that time, there
have been 25 meetings, with only 3 in executive session for
negotiations. There is still quite a bit of work to do to
finalize the items before Council this evening. Council is still
negotiating, with the landowner,. the- annexation' agreement and
zoning. Council is asked 'to refer the .zoning-,ordinance to P & Z
so that they may hold another public hearing on September 5th.
These matters will then come back to-the Council on September
12th for another public hearing.-, We are trying to get as much as
possible in final-form. There will be an election oil November 7,
1995 and there is an ordinance tonight that will certify the
election questions regarding the sharing of revenue. Town
Manager James stated the applicant will give,a presentation this
evening, followed by the town's presentation, then public
comment. After public comment is received, Council needs to act
on the matters before them this evening.
Mr. Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, introduced Mr. Bill
Post, representing the owner; Arnie Ullevig, traffic and
transportation consultant; Rick Thompson, wildlife biologist; and
Tom Braun, planner. Mr. Jamar gave an overview of the project by
presenting a slide show. The Avon Village is an 1,800 acre
parcel with .176 acres on the south side of I-70 and 1,614 on the
north side of I-70.
Mr. Rick Thompson, wildlife biologist with Western Eco Systems,
noted he has been working on wildlife studies in the valley since
1977. Mr. Thompson stated, with the exception of the deer and
elk migration, there are no wildlife issues associated with the
Avon Village property, that aren't part of any other large
subdivision in this area. Mr. Thompson noted there are several
hundred deer that pass through the property, at least twice a
year. Mr. Thompson had the task of determining the wildlife
routes through the property. The width of the wildlife corridors
was discussed. The major corridor needs to be defined and
preserved. There was.a bottle neck in that corridor that was
around 6001. Lots will be arranged or off-set. Building
envelopes in that area will vary between 840' and 9001. Winter
range was discussed. Mr. Thompson stated he is unaware of any
Division of Wildlife (DOW) mapping that maps any property on Avon
Village as more than just winter range. There is a small pocket
of severe winter range further to the west, in the Buck Creek
area. But, there is no mapped severe winter range on Avon
Village.
Mr. Thompson stated currently Avon Village'is-,private property.
There is very little hunting.pressure on Avon Village. As the
elk population tends to increase, and if there is an .increase in
hunting pressure, there is going to be more elk coming down-onto
Avon Village than what they are right now. To a certain extent,
there is going to be "x" number,of acres of present winter range
on Avon Village that is going to be developed in the form of
homes, roads, etc. We are now in the conceptual discussion stage
with the DOW to off-set those winter range losses.
Mr. Jamar mentioned that Mr. Bill Andree will be at the next
meeting. Mr. Andree should be able to describe the conclusion of
the meetings, with the property representatives, on the deer
migration corridor.
Mr. Arnie Ullevig, transportation and-traffic consultant,
discussed the traffic impacts and transportation plan of the
project. Mr. Ullevig compared the transporation master plan to
the Avon Village proposal. Th basic trip demand of Avon Village
is very similar to what is he transporation master plan. The
transporation plan allowed for approximately 5,300 vehicle trips
in the peak design hour. Avon Village, at build out, generates
approximately 5,200•trips in the peak design hour. The roadway
requirements were next compared. The two key roadway or access
improvements required to serve the kinds of development being
looked at in the sketch plan are; 1.) a new access to Highway 6 -
a new crossing of the railroad tracks and the river and, 2.) and
a new interchange with I-70. The question remains, what are the
phasing requirements? How to phase between now and build out?
Mr. Ullevig discussed phasing scenarios. Upgrades to the
existing road systems in Avon provide,a relatively small increase
in capacity, such that probably up to 20% of the sketch plan
could be built out under those improvements. The other 80%, plus
or minus, requires the access connection to U.S. 6 and-the I-70
interchange. If and when a new access is provided to U.S. 6,
fully signalized with auxiliary turn-lanes and all those kinds of-
improvement-bridge over the,railroad track-bridge over the river,
then up to approximately 70t, plus or minus, of the sketch plan-,
could be accommodated with that kind of improvement. .That
includes internal connections, extension of East Beaver Creek
Blvd., etc. The real key is the intersection itself, at U.S. 6.
Then, at that level, from about 7001 on up, the next increment of
improvement identified has been a new interchange at I-70. That
really provides a whole system level of capacity. It allows the
sketch plan to fully develop, but it also provides other kinds of
improvements to the system in Avon. For example, it will have a
tendency to divert traffic from Avon Road. So, it is hard to
calculate a percent increase relative.to development, but we
estimate that approximately 1,500 vehicle trips per hour would be
available to the general system, as well as accommodating 100°s of
the build out - but, only with the interchange at I-70 completed.
Mr. Ullevig suggested the development be monitored consistent
with the improvements so, that at certain levels, each increment
of roadway, capacity improvement, would be initiated.
Town Manager James introduced Town Attorney John Dunn; Special
Counsel Dick Scheurer; Bond and Amendment #1 Counsel Dee Wisor;
Transportation-Master:Plan updater Ben Herman; Traffic impact
advisor Rick,Endsdorf; Business Development Advisor Arnie Ray,
and Financial Consultant Stan Bernstein.
Town Attorney John,Dunn discussed the annexing ordinance. This
is only the-first reading,bf the ordinance'annexing the Avon
Village property to the Town. An ordinance before the town is
heard on first and second reading. If adopted this, evening, upon
first-readirig,°it will'be scheduled for second,reading and public
hearing: At this -time, th_e •Courici,l'is -looking .at -this ordinance
preliminarily. There are certain contingencies that must be
satisfied before the property is actually annexed to the Town.
2
0 •
Community Development Director Mike-Matzko discussed the zoning
ordinance. Mr. Matzko stated this zoning ordinance is on first
reading. This ordinance would adopt.a planned unit development.
This will designate the uses, density, and so forth that this
property would be allowed to be developed with, subsequent to
annexation. All of the Town's master plans refer to this
particular annexation and some form of development of this land.
This ordinance will hopefully be referred to the P & Z for
another public hearing on September 5th. For any specific
questions, Mr. Matzko referred those questions to Town Planner
Karen Griffith who has been taking a lead role in the annexation
process.
Town Attorney Dunn discussed the resolution certifying the
election ballot. A requirement of Amendment #1 is that the Town
not enter into any multi fiscal year obligations without having
an election. An election, to consider an issue of this sort, may
only be held at the regular election in November. The resolution
before the Council would submit two matters to the voters. The
first proposal would be to "De-Bruce" the revenues coming from
the additional taxes created by this development. The second
proposal would be to permit the payment, to the special district,
for the property, of 2516 of the sales tax revenues generated by
the development, for a period of twenty years, for the
reimbursement of public roads within the development. This is
the last meeting that Council may consider certification of the
ballot, before'the deadline,-to certify to the County Clerk and
Recorder. It is the`,.schedule of the election that:is driving the
schedule for consideration of the project, at this point. The
ballot questions may be_withdrawn for a period of an additional
thirty days or-by September.22nd.-
Financial Consultant Stan Bernstein discussed the cost recovery
for developers.. Mr. Bernstein surveyed various towns and cities
of their reimbursement agreements to developers. Lakewood,
Commerce City, and Castle Rock each reimbursed 25k of'sales tax
revenue and,Georgetown reimbursed 50k of sales tax revenues. No
cities were found to reimburse other incremental revenue sources
such as property taxes or other taxes - it is primarily sales
taxes.
Mr. Arnie Ray stated his real focus has been on valid and viable
public improvements for cost recovery based on history in the
Town of Avon and in other communities. Which public improvements
are appropriate for public fund recovery? The use of public fund
recovery is fairly common for large commercial development where
there are substantial infrastructure costs. The developer fronts
the money and takes the risk-and the town establishes an enhanced
tax recovery program. The advantage is that there is no bonding,
there is no financial risk to the town. Those funds are
typically and specifically earmarked to public improvements, such
as transportation, water and-sewer, etc. But, the use of those
funds is specifically defined. The formula is fairly common;
typically a term of 20-25 years against a defined cap - what the
use of the funds are - and typically.a share of sales tax
revenues. In most cases it'is 25k of the sales tax revenues.
Special Counsel Dick Scheurer discussed the terms and conditions
of an annexation agreement. With the scope and size of Avon
Village and annexations which particularly are going to occur
over a longer period of time, it is customary and is almost
always found, that an annexation agreement is utilized by the
municipality, as well as the annexor. The municipality_has an
opportunity to identify what it sees will be the immediate and
long term impacts of the annexation - what demands are going to
be made upon public facilities,,as well as municipal services,
and to'provide up front, as best they can, to assure those
services and those facilities are available when they are needed.
The land owner is also making a major commitment in terms of
resources, time, and money.
3
i •
The annexation agreement is in the process of being negotiated.
The term provides for fifty years. That is the time period, we
assume is safe, that will encompass all of the phases of
development and still be governed by-the agreement. A key issue
is the vesting of rights that accrue to the annexor. Rights that
will be vested will be those rights which are conferred by the
PUD and generally pertains to the use of the property, density,
maximum height, bulk of a building, general location of roads and
trails. It is the PUD in general. It gives the land owner the
certainty that what they are bargaining for right now and what
they are planning for in financing will be given to them. And,
they can, in fact, develop in accordance with that plan. The
agreement also identifies the Town's principal needs; some
immediately and some as the development occurs, in order to
assure the proper public infrastructure, as well as municipal
services necessary to serve the development. Basically, the
topics are the I-70 interchange and those terms of construction,,
park land dedication, bike paths, trail dedications, road
dedications, school land dedications, fire station site,
affordable housing, public works and municipal facility sites.
The agreement addresses revenue sharing, as discussed previously.
The agreement contemplates an election. There is no final
agreement - we are still in the negotiation process.
Councilor Nottingham reiterated that the 25% of sales tax
revenues will go back to pay for development and payment of
public streets. Anything that may turn out to bea gated-
community, no portion of the 25% of sales tax revenues will pay
for that - public streets versus all of the streets.
Councilor'Nottingham asked will P & Z determine the sites for
public works and the municipal facility? Mr. Scheurer'stated P &
Z will have a role but, at this point it is a pretty open issue.
Council is involved in that process as well.
Councilor Nottingham mentioned the four acre lake and asked, who
will determine the locations of the park land? Councilor
Nottingham voiced concerned about'the'transportation system and,
the I-70 interchange.
Mayor Reynolds opened,the meeting for public,input. Mayor
Reynolds asked that each individual give their name and place of
residency. Also, each citizen will be limited to five minutes.
Mr. Dick Dixon, resident of Avon, voiced concern about the
traffic - the approach to the project from across the existing
bridge going into the batch plant at Nottingham in the Eagle-Vail
area. Has anybody talked to the folks in that area to find out
what they feel about the impact, the increased traffic? It is
our development and we are dumping all this excess traffic
overflow into their lap. Mr. Bill Post, representing the owner,
stated McGrady Acres, Lots 2, 3; 4, & 5, where "Baby Bob" bridge
will come across, has been purchased. Mr. Post informed the
church property owners, located across from that property, have
been informed. Initial plans are designed so that it will not
impinge on the church's property. Jeanette Nottingham, a
neighboring property owner, has filed with the County'asking for
rezoning of her property because of the-impending change. That
leaves Lot 6 and the only effect is perhaps his entrance-way and
where the grading will be done.
Mr. Dick Dixon stated I guess my question was not understood.
It's how the people in Eagle-Vail, not the land owners where the
bridge is going to go, but, how those folks feel about the
increase in traffic - that was my question. It's not so much
where the bridge is going or whose property it's going across,, it
is how - all the folks, up in Eagle-Vail, feel about that increased
traffic - the multitudes of cars that are going to be in there
over the next five, ten, fifteen years, before they get the I-70
interchange - that is my question.
4
Mr. Bill Post stated they did meet, several months ago, with the
homeowners association in Eagle-Vail. The'entire'plan was
presented. This is'something.like the twenty-fifth meeting. We
have not received any feed back at all, particularly from Eagle=
Vail, about this one way.or-another - and including not at any of
the public meetings.'
Ms. Janielle Bryant, resident and worker in the Town of Avon,
voiced concern about traffic.` This Beaver Creek Blvd.
intersection is,going to ;filter through 5,000 more cars than it
is now. -As a resident here, I know,,there is traffic flow
problems that already exist here and I am concern that we are not
taking the time to look at how this is going to affect our
traffic even more. So, I think we need to kind of slow this
process down and make sure that we are approaching it and taking
care of the traffic flow problems that are here already. And, I-
am not opposed to development. I think we need development here.
But, we need to stand back and make sure that we are addressing
the traffic problems that exist and what this commercial project
is going to add.
Ms. Sharon Kamen, owner of Mountain Man Fruit and Nut in the Wal-
Mart Shopping Center, stated she has a number of concerns and
questions. Ms. Kamen stated first from a retail standpoint, are
there use restrictions in the PUD such as fast food, bingo
parlors, massage parlors, etc.? Are there use restrictions that
have already been dealt with? What uses have been approved for
retail development and what uses are restricted? Ms. Kamen
stated she understood that you can't have a cross access easement
through the Wal-Mart Shopping Center and,in order to get to this
property, you are going to have to go around. I feel that very
significant emphasis needs to go; that there be a cross access
agreement developed as part of this PUD, that says that there
will be cross access agreement, if the present Wal-Mart Shopping
Center does not exist in the form that it presently exists in,
and that that be part of the deal. And, the developer of both of
those grounds be required to have a cross access agreement that
will allow the flow of traffic through the existing Wal-Mart
Center onto this property so that all the existing retail that is
there now is not isolated from this entire development. While
you sit and you look at this development - and I'm not against
development either - and I'll make my decision as to whether I
belong in the new shopping center or do I belong in the old
shopping or do I go to somebody else's shopping center. And,
I'll make an informed decision when that-time comes. But, if you
do this development and you have no cross access agreement, than
an enormous amount of traffic is not going to go past our .
shopping center. Couple that with the fact that Wal-Mart may or
may not join this new development, you're really leaving your
existing retail, which was with you in the very beginning when
you didn't have a retail shopping center in all of Avon. And, I
think to turn your back on that kind of retail without - I mean,,
right now, we are you're sales tax dollars. And, I agree, you
need to look at where your future revenue is coming from, so you
can build new schools, you can have new roads, and you can have
another fire department, you can have a beautiful lake, but we
are_the people right now that are generating the sales tax
dollars and we are definitely going to suffer from this
development if we don't have some kind of cross access agreement
that allows that future development to be one big development
instead of leaving the Annex and our shopping center sitting
there by ourselves when you bring all the rest of the stuff in.
And,_if you have an I-70 interchange, and you've got a Route 6
interchange, they will never come down further. They'll go to
Beaver Creek, down the main road, and they'll go to this other
shopping center or the Wal-Mart shopping center or other things
from the back and they won't _come .around us. And,-even if the
developer of Wai-Mart Shopping Center is able to replace the
existing 50,000 square foot building with some other uses, which
is always questionable in this market -
5
0 •
I mean, we have a lot of retail out there right now and there are
only so many big box users out there and there is not a
population - we are not going to have a circuit city. We are not
going to have the development that you-spoke about in Lakewood
where we don't have a population base that is going to bring
those people and those users to our market, for a very long time.
It may not even be the development that you want to have those
kinds of uses. When you talk about building 900,000 square feet
of mixed use retail, you have to understand the market and who is
going to fill up.that 900,000 square-feet project. So, you bring
in a Safeway, an Albertson's - so then we have City Market,
Safeway, and Albertson's - it's great for your tax dollar, but
what is it doing to your retail? And, is that what you really
want? Is that really going to be the kind of retail that are
going to bring the tourists, that are going to make Beaver Creek
and Avon the same kind of tourist area, and the world class
resort, that everybody is working so hard to develop here. And,
I think you-need to really think about that. And, I feel
strongly that you need to include in this agreement a cross
access agreement that-makes the developer, as part of your PUD,
if that ground isn't there, that you include it. It was glossed
over somewhat -the little strip of land behind the Wal-Mart
Center. Well, my understanding is they're going to tear down the
Wal-Mart Shopping Center. They're going to turn it around.
They're going to build something else and open that up. Well,
maybe these two developers don't like each other. Maybe this
developer is not going to give Leo Palmer his cross access
agreement. Maybe Leo Palmer is going to build a fence. Those
are both of those developers' rights. Unless, you, as a city
council, control that, and tell them you must have cross access
between the two. And, if it isn't in this agreement, then
they'll be fighting about it. It won't happen.
Mr. John Railton, resident of Eaglebend Drive, stated he is very
interested in the project. I think it, is a-very positive thing.
But, there are just two things that I think we ought to clarify.
One is that there is a distinction in my mind between private
open space and public open space and that distinction, in terms
of the percentages, isn't something that I have a good grasp of,
because it is a broad number. And, I think that that"is a
distinction that we ought to kind of focus on. I think that
public open space, in my mind, is open space that you get to use.
Whereas, private open space is really space that you get in the
city. The other comment I want to make is, I really am ignorant
about what is the right density for this. I have thought about
it a lot and I suppose when I think of Avon being 2/3 again as
big as it now is, that's kind of appalling to me in terms of the
traffic that it generates. And, I think that that concern is one
that has to do with access to the project and how that's handled.
And, I hope we are sort of coming-to-some conclusions about that,
that have to do with-not trying to:impact the existing traffic
anymore than we- haveAnd," therefore-in my mind,.that means
producing an access road right from the very beginning that sort
of leads this project being constructed..-But, if we.do come to
some resolve about the.density.being,right,, as it is proposed or
that it should be less or even more than that, then I think my
thoughts are that I'd rather see that density handled by keeping
the project. as dense ,as . possible where it is' used and. therefore
maximizing"the"amount of public open "space'to the greatest
degree. I"'see that as being the best"-kind of town that"we can
have in terms of it being compact and not scattered. I think
that puts some pressure upon the way in which it's developed -
get as much car parking under ground. If I have a visual image
of this thing, I sort of see trying to group together and force
the building,to be as tight as possible to the point of making
that viable and pedestrian and lively and very intergrated in-a-
very urban manner. And, as a result of that, trying to maximize
the amount of public open space we'd have. And, that is just the
comment I'd like to make about that.
6
0 •
I also would like to know, if in fact there is a number right now
that gives us the percentages of the public open space as
distinct from the private open space.
Mr. Peter Jamar agreed that it should be very tightly compacted
and urban, in the urban parts of the project. Open space, the
total is - out of the total acreage, 1,790, of privately owned
land - 1,347'acres are open space or a total of 75.21k of the
total land area and 484 acres Are common open space or public
open space. 865 acres are private open space. That is primarily
made up of open space on privately owned lots. I know that Bill
Andre is very strongly,,supportive that we-restrict those areas
that we have,put into private--open space,'because much of that is
to be preserved in its natural open space for wildlife habitat.
And, very strongly restrict it, in terms of,periods of use and
different times of the year,. and what',can,or.can't happen in
those areas.' 64°sis privately designated open space and 35.90
would be commonly owned. Again, it is a total of 75k of the
total land area that would be undeveloped.
Mr. Robert Doyle', resident of Eagle-Vail', .'stat'ed I have been
canvassing the neighborhood with my good neighbor from Mountain
Nut. I agree with a lot of things that she has said. From my
canvassing of the neighborhood, I've collected a thought that as
business owners or residents of the Town of Avon or neighboring
Eagle-Vail, we have some serious concerns regarding the proposed
Avon Village development, including the speed which the plans for
this development seem to be moving, access for the development,
talk of an I-70 interchange. The fact that a new development is
not linked with the existing Avon and'most importantly, the
spector of this development will double the size of Avon. It is
our position that a number of these problems need to be
addressed.- -I think a lot of these concerns are being addressed
tonight. As a.group, however, we want to emphasize that we are
in favor - and when I say a group, I am speaking for probably 7
or 8 residents that I talked to, some from Eagle-Vail and some
from Avon and probably 10 or 11 business owners in my
neighborhood of Bob's Place. Our goal is to become part of this
solution, work with the Town of Avon and helping with your input
sessions, and the developers as partners in ensuring that the
plans for the Avon Village do not negatively impact the existing,
businesses in Avon or the quality of life of the existing
residents of Eagle-Vail and Avon as they are now. I have some
concerns and I think our biggest concern was also kind of sluffed
over in the beginning of this meeting, when we speak about that
little sliver of land, that little triangle piece of land-behind
Wal-Mart and my place, Bob's Place right now. I agree., I don't
see how this project can go forward without some sort of common
access that is going to be incorporated in this plan that will
involve that existing piece of land, simply because when Peter
mentioned earlier tonight that there will be three access points
in here, it seems silly that there aren't four. And, the fourth
access point is our biggest concern. The fourth access point is
the one where your existing businesses are now - your existing
sales tax revenue base is now. And, we don't want to become
either a ghost town or we don't want to become isolated from this
new village. And, we would like to see something - some sort of
coherent plan - some sort of forced mechanism that would make the
developers sit down, talk this thing out, somewhere working with
the town council where there is a triggering mechanism that this
is all incorporated in one great plan together. I also feel that
if these things can be worked out, I don't think you should even
let a surveyor - which obviously they have been on there - I say
that tongue and cheek - that you should even let anybody on this
property without a separated grade crossing up in Mobile Pre-Mix
site that we are going to call "Little Bob".
7
0 •
And, I think another access point should be equally - I envision
this Little Bob to be a real good access point, but I think that
one at City Market should have to be a very good access point and
then I think this sliver of land that we are talking about should
also have a good access point. Other than that we are just going
to have a major, major traffic problem and we are going to - it's
just going to be a nightmare to get this thing built. And, it
doesn't have to be that way. This can be built as a quality
project - it can be built and every thing can be tied together.
But, I think the traffic problem has to be solved and settled
right now. And, Peter has mentioned earlier tonight, or
something from his group, that, you know, you are talking about a
20% build-out - then we're going to do this, and then we're going
to do that. You know, numbers can fly around real easily. If I
looked at his slides correctly, if you talk about 20% build out
you saw 17% retail and 3t public roads. That is an awful lot of
building to be done. That is basically the heart of your
project. That is the majority of your project. That 20s build-
out ,can also be turned around and looked at from somebody else
like my point of view, like that is 90% of your project. And, I
think there should be some guidelines like what is the 20°s build-
out - is it 20% of the big homes going to be built up in the
hill? Is it going to be 20% - is it going to be all your retail?
And, how is it going to be done? I think that we mentioned
earlier tonight that you are going to have public lands and
public parks inside of here - where are they going to be located?
Are we going to have any input - are they going to stick them
over inside the hill or are they going to put them along the
river? And, who is going to have the input and where are they
going to be located? Are we going to put an X on the map right
now where this lake is being shown? - and that's the lake? Or,
is the lake going to be moved later? I think this I-70
interchange that we're talking about will probably happen. It
will probably be a good thing. But, none of us understand the
trigger mechanism of it. This could be explained to us. But, it
seems that - to me it seems that it is going to take five years
to even get the federal government to commit to say they are
going to do it. That's something I don't know - you can explain
to me, because you are talking about a federal highway, not just
a county road and I don't know how long a process like that
takes. So, what if they say OK, at 70% build-out we are going to
build the I-70 and then they go apply for a permit and the
federal government says OK eleven more years, you can have your
road? Those are the concerns - we don't know if they are true or
not - but those are our concerns. I personally have a concern as
an Eagle-Vail-resident-and'Mr. Post here made a very good point
if he was speaking-correctly and I believe he.was.= that he went
to the Eagle-Vail homeowners association and hasn't gotten any
feed back. I.-went to two people on the board and I asked them if
anyone was going to come,to this meeting and speak for us. But,
I am a resident'of Eagle-Vail and I don't know what this road is
going to do to the quality of my life as a resident of Eagle-
Vail. My~house ib about 1/2 mile away from-this-Little-Bob that
they are going-to'be building. And, the question there would be
- I first of.all believe that"-you shouldn't event start.this
project until Little Bob is built and then this one traffic
engineer could tell me - is there going to be a streetlight
there? And, if there isn't going to be a streetlight, there is
no'mechanism to say if we all decide that there should be a
streetlight, but there is no mechanism to get a streetlight - I
mean, we-have all kinds of bicycle traffic that goes through
there now, before the bicycle path ever gets built. These are
problems that I think just need to be addressed. I feel by
walking through the community that a lot of people are saying,
well slow it down, slow it down - that sort of thing. What they
really mean is-like, whoa, this is a huge project and it really
is hitting us. You say we are going to build a new library -
everybody goes wow - that's one thing. But, you are building a
whole new city.
8
And, that is why peoples' concern is all of a sudden coming in
late and their input is coming in late cause they are just
starting to catch on - like a million square feet - how big'is
that - I said to my wife, how big is a million square feet - she
said, well, I'm not really sure - I said well it's bigger than
all that's in Avon right now. It took them 17 years:to build
what's in Avon right now and now in some period of a few years
they want to double the size. So, now that is why you are
getting late input into this thing. Now, I personally am one to
apologize for coming in so late, but it's like whoa, wait a
minute - you are going to build all this over there - and two
weeks, last week even - not even two weeks ago, you,like well, we
are going to do this and we are going to go right behind City
Market. And, you think like, whoa,,how are you going to do that
- go behind City Market and get this two streetlights out here at
5 o'clock in the afternoon - we can't get out now - and we'll
dump everything over into Eagle-Vail. Those are our concerns.
our biggest concern, I want to reiterate, I don't think anything
should be done unless you get an agreement between the two
developers to get some sort of access so you have a fourth access
to this piece of property. I think it will help this project
immensely. And, it certainly won't isolate people who have the
retail businesses there now.
Mr. Guss Nicholson, resident of Minturn and Eagle-County, stated
I would like to add my voice to Robert and Sharon and probably
some other people who maybe are just beginning to understand the
full impact of a town that is about to"double in size. I would
just like to add my voice and suggest that you slow down and
think about what you are going to do. I think you don't have
enough access now and that as the plan is currently presented,
the center of gravity of Avon is-,going to shift to the new town
and in effect abandon the old town. I think you really need to
think about that. I would like'you to know that even though I am
not going to have a vote on this,.it effects me because Avon is
currently and is about to become the commercial center of Eagle
County. As such, it has a wonderful opportunity to be a culture
center for the County, it has an opportunity to maintain its pre-
eminence as a commercial center and it has an opportunity to be a
far more liveable place than it is currently. And, it isn't all
that liveable right now.
Ms. Patti Dixon, property owner and business owner and previous
Planning and Zoning (P & Z) Commissioner, stated she has a
question and a concern. I was wondering if it is their intention
to continue the architecture in general between the two towns or
is it going to be more of a different type of architecture and
two difference towns? I was just wondering what the connection
might be. I know they plan on improving, but I wonder how
different it will be. Mr. Bill Post stated that is a'relatively
simply answer. The way the PUD ordinance is now set up, there
will be similar design guidelines. And, when I say similar only
similar in their-complexity like,what Beaver Creek has done -
where everything will be set out in guidelines as to,what is to
be approved and not approved. Those guidelines will then come
back and have to be approved by the council-as to what is going
to be designed there. And, I have to be truthful with you, what
I would see is hopefully the following, that it is a little bit
better than what-has been,built before,in Avon. And,,I would
hope that what is adjoining to it would.somehow be upgraded to
match it versus us having to have the same thing that we are
backing up against there now. But, the design guidelines of what
will happen-there will come back through the council and everyone
will have their input as to how it should be developed. Ms.
Dixon stated because I was on P & Z, we had issues,of enough
parking and I would just.like to reiterate that I'think parking -
and parking reduction, I know, has been proposed for this - I
would be vehemently-against that and I think underground parking
should be thought about.
9
If it is going to be so dense and this is going to be such a
quality project, underground parking is more expensive but, I
don't think is necessary to have a sea of parking lot. in the
commercial areas. So, I think that would be something that we
might possibly request the developer to pursue. The other thing
is with the - I know with the PUD the process is that they would
go ahead and state their particular design review guidelines
ahead of time and then the existing P & Z would not be privy to
suggestions or be responsible along the way - they would be up
front and then after that it wouldn't be - as I understand - I
think that is the way that they want to put this through the PUD
- is that correct? Mr. Post stated that was the consensus, not
only because we requested that but, that was the consensus of
dealing with the town. But, we're also in agreement to put in a
mechanism that if they are not being enforced, or if they are
substantially being ignored or changed then the council can have
some input or to come back in and take the code off. Ms. Dixon
stated my thought on that is it would be a little bit like the
box garden chickens, down the line and I think P & Z because they
have experience in doing that, I think that they would be
instrumental in holding true whatever caliber-that they set out
to do for P & Z.'-,
Mr. Leo Palmos, resident of Boulder and owner of Wal-Mart
Shopping Center,,,stated he.developed the - shopping center about
eight years ago: . And, ; I do want to see -Avon Village happen. I
think it is going to be a great project, only if it is done
right. I do have a number of concerns. Avon Village is an
opportunity; once in a lifetime. Ie is a very unique project
which again, if'it'is done right, we, can all-be proud of. Let's
proceed slowly so-we can do it'right.- We have-the chance to
build a jewel that would set the standard for modern communities,
because this is one of the biggest projects - could be one of the.
biggest - in the history of Eagle County, let's take our time and
make sure that what is existing - people living here and business
so-we-can unite the city - the town - and not divide it. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Michael Barry, resident of Eagle-Vail, stated I agree with -
base anyway what Leo talks about in terms of taking time and
doing this right. I think it could be a great project, so long
as everyone is able to coordinate and make this thing fly whether
it's the transportation, the amount of square footage in terms of
retail development, whatever it might be, so long as it is done
well. But, I had a question. Recently they talked a little
about the changing use of the railroad track. I'm just wondering
if there is any thought as to how they might incorporate it? If
there is going to be a change or if those tracks are abandoned
for instance, is there any plan or-potential plan that there
might be some light rail or something like that used. Mr. Post
stated we'd love to see either of those options (unable to
transcribe as Mr. Post continued away from microphone) - it would
be the best thing we,think that could happen for the valley and
for the town and for our project. Mr. Barry stated I think that
is a pretty good point and - but it also means we have to look at
this thing in a bigger light and need to take a little bit more
time to make sure it's done right. And, things like this might
just crop up along the road and I'd hate to exclude things like
that just because we've made some hasty decisions. Suddenly, we
couldn't go backwards and say we should have done this. So, it
kind of goes along with the timing I think.
Hearing no other citizens, the Mayor closed the public input
session.
Councilor Hines questioned traffic and factoring in the new load
onto Highway 6 with the new Baby Bob. Mr. Ullevig stated-part of
the capacity-analysis is to include the background traffic as
well as the site generated traffic and put'-the two together, then
size the roadway facilities that are required to accommodate it.
10
0 0
That is why there is a limit on that.-,number.- Even with the U.S.
6 access provided, you can't'do 10016 of the sketch plan numbers.
If there is a new access to U.S. 6, and there also was a question
- would it be signalized - yes, clearly. If you put in Baby Bob,
the bridge, the intersection, auxiliary turn lanes, signalize it,
make the connections through the site if ,you- do all of that and
you account for existing traffic volumes and growth in existing
traffic volumes, you still can not do 100% of,,the sketch plan as
proposed. That-was-the calculation•we'did -,is _how much of the
proposed development 'could'be developed-accounting for all these
factors. That number is like 7011. It does presume that there
will be turn lanes'at the intersection acccel-/ decel -lanes all
of that as'well::•70%-."is a maximum_ It.is a sliding scale. Our
task was kind of. iii reserve because the 'sketch .'plan 'is very
general, it is a concept plan. Basically what we were doing was
trying to calculate the size of the bucket - how big a bucket do
we have here and then existing traffic already builds up some of
that bucket and so how much is left over to allow development of
Avon Village. And, that said you could get up to about 70% and
then your bucket would be full.
Councilor Hines questioned the 5200 trips per hour, is that based
only on your trip generation per square foot? Mr. Ullevig stated
yes. And, a lot of assumptions about housing and commercial -
you can have some single family housing, apartments, patio homes
- there is a variety of housing types which each have their own
trip generation rate. You can have shopping type commercial or
office, etc. and they all have different trip generation rates.
So, working with Peter we worked out a set of assumptions that we
thought were reasonable and calculated a trip generation quantity
at build-out. And, that is what the 5200 is - is at build-out.
Councilor Benson requested explanation of the level of traffic
lights - what-level would this be - would you consider this an A,
B, C, D level? Mr. Ullevig stated at build-out, with
interchanges, Baby Bob - the separated grade crossing - well
there is a level of service that exists at the intersection of
Avon Road and East Beaver Creek Blvd. There is another level of
service that would exist at'Benchmark and Avon Road. There would
be a level of service over at the new interchange - at each of
its ramp terminals. And, there would be a level of service-at
U.S. 6. So, there are many levels of service. Basically, in our
analysis, when we were filling the bucket, we took level service
D as a limit and then went on and added more capacity by assuming
an interchange and so on. Level of service is measured in
average delay per vehicle, in terms of seconds per vehicle on
average that wait at an intersection, for example, or that wait
at-the end of a ramp terminal.. Typically, in this kind of
environment you will be talking about levels of service at
intersections. There is a level of service along Highway 6, too,
but, typically the constraints are at the intersections.
Councilor Hines asked how does a traffic engineer determine what
the level of service is on arterial road - talking 6. How do you
determine what a service level is? Since, you don't gauge it
based upon intersections and basically we can't pre-determine an
intersection until we actually put one in there if signalization
is done. In your looking at 6 and what your load factor is, what
you would be dumping onto it - how do you determine what the
existing service level is? Mr. Ullevig stated'by doing it at
intersections. That is where the constraint is - that's where
the capacity is minimal. Councilor Hines asked if Centennial did
a traffic count at 6 and Avon Road and what was the level of
service at that intersection? Someone (unable to clearly
distinguish voice as answer was away from microphone) responded
level C.
Councilor Nottingham stated I am concerned about this level of
service, too. You talked about when it hit D and whatever.
11
I wonder if you mean that you would realize that there was
another need. Are you talking about you're coming from C, which
is a faster, higher quality level of service and you don't wait
as long. And, so then you hit D, and that kicks in the need for
other accesses or do you have to go-through D and hit E to
realize when you Mr. Ullevig stated this is analytically done
of course on pencil and paper. And,'when we hit D, we stop and
say, OK time for a new interchange or you can't add anymore
square footage.
Mr. Bill Post stated I think your traffic-people, our traffic
people are in agreement with the way that they're designing the
system. They are both in the C level and trying to keep the
system in the C level, which is what your people recommended that
we do also.
Councilor Hines stated in the annexation agreement, Section 4.3
which dealt with the.I-70 interchange - the language stipulated
that at 70% of either/or - so, I'm still trying get a handle on
this language. It - said either/or - 70% of residential or 70% of
commercial. I am trying to understand why that - is that
justifiable? Mr. Post stated he (Mr. Ullevig) hasn't seen that
proposal - that came out of the annexation agreement. Mr.,
Ullevig stated usually I deal with trips.
Councilor Carnes stated 70% is the maximum. Some of the duration
- it could take at least five years to get an interchange through
the state and the federal level, and so on - that at the 70%
level, if we waited until that point then we would be at 80t -
who knows where we'd be by the time it actually got built - there
ought to be some kind of mechanism;.- I don't -know at what
percentage, `35, 401' 45 something like ,:that.' Mr:-~ Post stated we
have to-stop development; period, if we get to the point. Mr.
Post stated we are already in the process. Mr. Ullevig noted the
issue is getting the approvals.;,Without belaboring the process,
because it is"detailed,'and complex,- you have .to basically get
permission from federal highway administration in Washington to
get an-access.on the interstate system-That is why,at this
point, 'a -lot' of the ;work that is: required., a" systems level
feasibility,'study' , a_ project level fees, ability. .study,, and an EA
to determine if you need an EIS is very key because that can
extend the time very much. EA is an environmental access to
determine if there are potential significant impacts that would
require an EIS, environmental impact statement to be done.
Timing - that is.why a lot of that is being done now - to see if
there are any alligators in the pond, if you will, because, that
will clearly effect the timing. If all those steps are completed
and you finally-get the permission to build,on the interstate,
system, then the scheduling is much more secure, much more
predictable. Then you can kind of plan in as you say, three to
four years, or five years, you can count on cutting the ribbon.
Mr. Ullevig stated it could be built, I would guess, in two
construction seasons; maybe faster.
Councilor Hines stated the 7016 - you basically stated that
everything you work with is trip generation. When you get to
that 700i, is that,based on your perception of having achieved a
service level B within the confines of the property. Is that
what predetermines your 70%? Mr. Ullevig stated I think the
answer is yes. Councilor Hines stated what I'm getting at is
basically, why do we-have to ride it out then, at 70%? Why don't
we say that when service levels reach D, if that would be the
perimeter, because you may reach D before - I mean we see trends,
we see changes - we certainly,want to make everything within both
areas as accessible and continuous, to facilitate movement. You
know, maybe it's better to put in - I'm just thinking because the
70%-is the kicker for me - I'm trying to find something that may
work - that maybe you attach it to the service level instead of a
percentage of development with regards to that issue and then if
you-hit that service level before you reach 70% then maybe -
12
Because that is the actual trigger, it is not the 70t. There is
a projection that says we will reach this service level at 70%-.
Mr. Ullevig stated that is exactly correct. We're in the
forecasting business and we'reItrying to predict conditions in
the future and we are very good at it.- But, it's part science,
part art, as Rick will tell you. So, the other alternative as
you correctly indicate would be to count volume every - probably
annually. Just count volume and measure the widths of lanes.
And, each year staff would turn in a report with'a calculation
that would say that the level of service at these intersections
is, whatever it is. Too many people talking at once. Discussion
centered around yearly or probably every five years for counts to
measure level of service. Mr. Ullevig stated the advantage is
that it is fixed - it is not a moving target - each year you
count, because then it might creep up to 85t, as well, or be 50t.
Councilor Carnes noted so we have two triggers and which ever
happens first. Mr. Ullevig stated that could be an option. But,
back to the estimate procedure, there is going to be traffic
developed by developing the Stolport. We have never tried to
under estimate that number. There is going to be traffic
generated. We estimate about 5,200, maybe it's 5,100, maybe it's
5,300 vehicles per hour - that's an estimate, a calculation.
And, the real task has been to identify what kind of road network
improvements are needed to basically keep up with that number as
it grows from zero to 5,200. The existing system has some
capacity in it. But, as indicated earlier, in order to do
anything in a significant way, the access to U.S. 6 or the access
to I-70 or both is what will really open that up for 70-80-90-
100% of the plan. A little bit can be done, 10, 15, 20t, but the
real thing is to identify when those accesses occur.
Councilor Nottingham stated basically we are looking at an
annexation agreement. At this time, we had to have some place to
start. Basically whether you say 70% of the developable units or
the commercial space has to reach that, than that would kick in -
that would be the formula used to kick in the I-70 interchange.
And yet, on a practical application level whether the Stolport is
ever to be annexed, or not, or if it sits there for another two
decades, we all know what we live with right now, with traffic..
And, the part I want to tie it into is the fact that, I don't
care how many developable units we give these folks, if we do -
or commercial space, square footage, that we give them - we can
look around at many other developments in Eagle County and know
that perhaps that whatever magical number they were allowed or
could have been allowed to develop to be 5,000, 3,000, 1000, -
you know units - that many of them don't develop to that point.
So, many of them never get to the 70t, 80t, whatever percent you-
want to put, which is - that is why the necessity for more of a
use formula that you've just been speaking about -I think is
much more practical application than this number of units or
square footage that has been developed because there is
absolutely no time line on that and some of these developments
never reach that and therefore we would never have the teeth to
kick in the situation. And, that is my point.
Mr. Post stated one of the things we talked about in the work
session that goes with this - I understand where Arnie is coming
from cause we have had this same discussion. The two things that
you have to remember that we need out of this is some idea of
what it is with standards that we can work with, so we are.not
dealing with unknowns. The second one is in determining this
thing of trip generations is great, but it depends - are we going
to look at trip generations outside of all the other areas if all
of a sudden - yea, we've got the'trip generations but we didn't
create them - it is because everyone' wants, to. go there and this
is what we talked about, Tom, that creates problems for us,
because we may not have created those trip generations. We may
have moved t_hem.and-it may be that now you're in B level on Avon
Road and we hit D level'afnd we have to build an interchange.
13,
• •
Mr. Post continued, I think that the bottom line of this is -
what we need-to do, again, because you are uncomfortable with the
7001 as a fixed, we need to sit down with the other 27 issues that
we have, including our engineers and yours, and figure out
something that will make us both comfortable, so you are
protected then. As we said before, we don't want grid lock in
the middle of that any more than you do'. There has to be some
system where we have some degree of comfort that it's not that
we're building everything ahead of time for something we didn't
do. But, we have to be - at the same time you feel comfortable -
if we have created a problem there, we have to take care of it.
Councilor Nottingham stated our traffic has to ensure, if I could
go forward with it, quality of life for this community for all of
us. Mr. Post stated we are trying to design,the standards of it
exactly the way that your own engineers have said that it should
be, and that's-in the class C level.
Councilor Benson stated I want to reiterated a couple of things I
heard Bob Doyle mention - we seem to make sure a meshing of the
two towns - that it is not just two towns, that it is one big-
town. We are all one community, we don't have everybody going
through behind City Market. I've talked with Leo and the people
with him and I'd like to see some kind of a - I don't mean the
tearing of building which I hate to see, but I think we need some
kind of a point of.access to keep our town as one big happy
family. We all mesh together so there are people going to Wal-
Mart now and the other be it a furniture store or sporting goods
store down the road, that people can go there and Wal-Mart is
around the corner. You can drive over there without having to go
all the way back around City Market and back down into the
proposed annexed area. Mr. Post stated we have absolutely no
problem with connecting the two. I do have a problem, in the
sense, that it's going to come with all the other issues that we
have going, where we have public roads coming in and another one
- I don't control any of those properties. I don't control
tearing down buildings. If someone wants to do it, we are glad
to work with it so it can provide an access and easement so we
can join the properties. But, at this point, I don't need
another issue right in the middle of this for me to have to
condemn strips and-tear buildings down to put another access in
there. We don't need it from a traffic standpoint. If the
people that are involved want to bring that in there, they want
to tear the buildings down, run a road in there, we are glad to
help and meet with them and design the system so they can put a
road right through everyone of their buildings so that they can
have access and people coming through. I mean it's one of these
things I hear in one sense, we are saying to much traffic, but
then in another sense they're saying whoa, wait a minute, make
sure you run this traffic by our building. So, we are happy on
the latter sense if-they want to do that, that they have to
cooperate, pitch-in, in some of that economic cost - do not put
that all on us, because they want to make sure that the new
traffic goes by their stores.
Councilor Benson stated I am not saying that it's your
responsibility to do that, nor should it be, because you don't
own that property. In terms of what we heard today, from our
consultants on the traffic report, basically we're outlining what
your folks have said, which actually takes a lot of my concerns
away, in terms of the traffic. My only concern is making sure
the two properties mesh - how do we come to a resolution or terms
or agreements on that. And, right now, I know Leo is in
negotiations with trying to buy that parcel, that triangle shape
piece of land - he does not own it as of today. And, two months
from now I think he is planning on closing on it - it that right,
Leo? Mr. Palmos stated yes, sir.
14
Councilor Benson stated -I mean, if he closes on that, then he can
go forward and say, hey; this is what I'm going to do, I've got
all my tenants in this building, they're prepared to move -
that's what I want to see and I want to make sure that the
annexation property owners are really wanting to work with the-.
Mr. Post interjected, we're glad-to,coordinate.so anything they
want to build to come through there can access directly on - we
can coordinate so it works as one town. We are absolutely in
agreement with that.
Councilor Hines stated there was one person that got up - Sharon
Kamen, I think it was - that asked about the uses on the
property. She didn't get a response and maybe it would be good
to have someone step up and say that, yes, it is - there are
designated uses. Mr. Post stated I promise no massage parlors.
Most of those are controlled already in the PUD guide. They'll
also be controlled, to some extent, with design guidelines and
the protective covenants, whereby the design guidelines come into
effect, will cover all of those things. We don't intend, with
what we see for the project, as having any of those kind of
activities that she was worried about. I think that all of those
are controlled in the PUD guide already.
Councilor Hines stated-I did have a question for staff, under
allowed uses, under the PUD, and in reading through that in
several of the planning areas, an allowed use, lakes, ponds,
reservoirs, and irrigation ditches, and pipelines - I am just
wondering if that should not be a special review use, instead of
just an allowed use. -I think that the applicants have outlined
basically what they wish to do with the property, in terms of
placement of lake - there has been discussions between the
applicant and AMD with regards to the-irrigation ditches. I am
just wondering, long term, is it normal procedure to allow -,that
that be an allowed use instead of a special review use. I' would
like staff to respond, if possible. Town Manager James stated we
are going to have a staff report prepared on all that. We got
this back - we kind of drafted - they gave us a draft of a PUD
regulation, we gave them back our suggestions. I think our
suggestions - we gave them back suggestions that that be under
special review use and then they sent us back a,new draft and
that was - we-got,'that back late aft-ernoon on Thursday. So, what
we are planning on doing.is.getting together with the P & Z-and
Council next-Tuesday and going through this Ordinance in detail.
We really haven't had a chance,to sit down and discuss all those
issues. Hopefully.,"a staff report, will•be available by that
meeting.
Hearing no further discussion; the mayor called a recess.
Council recessed at•10:05pm and reconvened at 10:12pm:
Councilor Nottingham left the meeting at 10:05pm.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 95-16, Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE, ANNEXING TO THE TOWN OF AVON A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED
IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 82•WEST OF THE 6TH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, AND 7, 8,-9, & 17,
TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED HERETO
AND MADE-A PART HEREOF
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve, on first reading, Ordinance
No. 95-16, Series of 1995. Councilor Benson seconded the motion.
Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
15
First Reading of Ordinance No. 95-19, Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE ANNEXING TO THE TOWN OF AVON OF A PARCEL OF LAND
LOCATED SECTIONS 8, 9, & 10, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 WEST OF
THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, DESCRIBED.ON
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
Councilor Benson motioned to approve, on first reading,,Ordinance
No. 95-19, Series of 1995. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion.
Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
First Reading of Ordinance'No. 95-17, Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESIGN REGULATIONS FOR AVON VILLAGE, TOWN OF
AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Councilor Yoder:.motioned to approve., on first reading, Ordinance
No. 95-17, Series of 1995 'and •to refer -this to •'the 'Planning &
Zoning Commission for a public hearing on September 5, 1995.
Councilor Benson seconded the motion.
Mayor Reynolds ca-fled'-for,a roll call vote.
The motion,.carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 95-41, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE
ELECTION BALLOT
Councilor Hines motioned to approve Resolution,No. 95-41, Series
of 1995 with an amendment in the second ballot question to
include the word "public" in the sentence, "to pay the costs to
acquire and construct public street improvements within all".
Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the_ motion carried
unanimously.
Annexation & Development Agreement:
Town Manager James stated there is no action to be taken on this
tonight. It is,not in final form, yet. Town Manager James.
suggested to refer this to the next meeting. Council concurred.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95-14,.Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE UNIFORM ELECTION CODE-OF 1992 IN LIEU OF
THE COLORADO MUNICIPAL CODE OF 1965 WHEN PARTICIPATING IN A
COORDINATED ELECTION IN EAGLE COUNTY CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY
CLERK AND RECORDER
Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing.
Councilor Hines motioned to approve, on second-reading, Ordinance
No. 95-14, Series of 1995. Councilor Benson seconded the motion.
Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
16
i i
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95-15, Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A GROUND
LEASE AGREEMENT AND A MAINTENANCE FACILITY LEASE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING A MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR
THE TOWN AND RELATED INCIDENTALS AND APPURTENANCES; PROVIDING FOR
THE REGISTRATION OF SAID LEASE; CREATING CERTAIN FUNDS RELATED
THERETO; RATIFYING CERTAIN ACTIONS,HERETOFORE TAKEN; REPEALING
ANY ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN IN CONFLICT HEREWI'T'H; AND PROVIDING
OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO
Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing.
Councilor Hines motioned to approve, on second reading, Ordinance
No. 95-15, Series of 1995. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion.
Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 95-18, Series of 1995, AN
ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 15.08.180 OF TITLE 15
OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL CODE
Town Engineer Norm Wood-stated Section 15.08.180 of Title 15 of
the.Municipal Code is a portion of'the Code related to the
adoption of the Uniform Building Code and amendments that were
included with the adoption of that Code. This particular
amendment applied to an-amendment, that was. added this year, that
required a continuous or waterfall footing, related to
foundations, etc. In the implementation of this particular
requirement, it seems that there are other more workable-
solutions that are more efficient. This requirement is really
not required within the Code'. This Ordinance will repeal that
particular section and return the Code to what we had prior the
adoption of the 1994 Building Code. Staff recommends adoption of
Ordinance No. 95-18.
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve, on first reading, Ordinance
No. 95-18, Series of 1995. Councilor Benson seconded the motion
Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 95-40, Series of 1995, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
1995'BUDGET
Town Manager•James-informed this-Resolution s'for additional
funding to purchase a new police vehicle for the police
department at a cost, of $23,714 and-,computer-equipment and- a
copier for community development_at a.cost of $17,186.
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve Resolution No. 95-40, Series
of 1995. Councilor Benson seconded the motion:and the motion
carried unanimously:
Unfinished Business: Certificate of Compliance & Relief from
Conservation Easement (Lot 91, Mountain Star, Filing No. 2, First
Amendment., formerly known as Lots 91 & 92, Mountain Star Filing
No. 2)
17
Councilor Hines motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the
certification of compliance in relief from conservation easement
Lot 91, Mountain Star, Filing No. 2, First Amendment, pending the
completion of report from David Johnson'of Western Resource
Management. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion and the motion
carried unanimously.
New Business: Coordinated Election Intergovernmental Agreement
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve the coordinated election
intergovernmental-agreement. 'Councilor Hines seconded the motion
and the motion carried unanimously.
New Business: Admin.Dept./Council Budget Retreat Contract
Councilor Yoder'-..motioned to authorize the-Mayor"to sign the
contract with Hotel,Colorado for Council's budget retreat set for
October 13 through 15. Councilor Hines seconded the motion and
the motion carried unanimously.
New Business: Cops,Fast Grant'Application-
Councilor Yoder motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the Cops
Fast Grant Application. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and
the motion carried unanimously.
New Business: Rec. Dept. / Winter Carnival Proposal
Councilor Yoder motioned to authorize the staff to incorporate
the snow sculpting and winter carnival activities with the
traditional Christmas Party in the Park for 1995. Councilor
Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
New Business: Rec. Dept. / Change Order #9
Councilor Benson motioned to approve Change Order #9. Councilor
Yoder seconded the motion. Councilors Carnes and Hines opposed.
The motion carried with the Mayor voting aye.
New Business: Rec. Dept. / Pre-Opening Pass Sales
Councilor Benson motioned to direct the recreation department of
selling pre-opening passes with the annual pass with a one month
extension, six month'pass with two week extension and one month
pass with a one week extension. Councilor Yoder seconded the
motion.
Councilor Benson amended the motion to include the employees as
well as the general public - all passes. Councilor Yoder
seconded the amendment.
The motion and the amendment carried unanimously.
18
0 •
New Business: Public Works / Camera Equipment Maintenance
Agreement
Councilor Hines motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the
agreement for the camera equipment maintenance. Councilor Benson
seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.,.
New Business: Public Works / Maintenance Facility Rental
Agreement
Councilor Hines motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the
extension of .the lease agreement for the transit maintenance
facility.. Councilor.Yoder seconded the motion. 'The motion
carried with Councilor Carnes opposed.
Mayor Report:
Mayor Reynolds announced that he and Councilor Yoder attended the
CAST meeting in Grand Lake.
Mayor Reynolds mentioned the Legislative Tour has been cancelled
due to lack of interest by the legislators.
Mayor Reynolds asked for a volunteer to be-appointed to the CML
Policy Committee. Councilor Hines volunteered for'the
appointment.
Other Business:.
Councilor-Benson announced the Wildridge Public Forum "`is
.scheduled for September 5, 1995 at 5:30pm in the Avon Municipal
Building.
Councilor Carnes announced a press conference for the ABCRA on
Monday in the Avon Municipal Building.
Consent Agenda:
a.) Approval of the August 8, 1995 Council Meeting Minutes
b.) Financial Matters
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve the Consent Agenda.
Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
Adjourn:
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 11:08PM.
19
0 !
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty Ney
Town Cler
20