Loading...
TC Minutes 01-09-1996Originals of the 1996 Town of Avon Town Council Meeting Minutes were misplaced by the microfilmer and the attached are recreated from the microfiche. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HELD JANUARY 9, 1996 - 5:30 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 J. Reynolds at 5:30PM. 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 Clerk Patty Neyhart, Town Attorney John Dunn, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Police Chief Gary Thomas, Director of Municipal Services Larry Brooks, Director of Community Development Mike Matzko, and Town Planner Karen Griffith, as well as members of the press and public. Citizen Input: Channel #5 Mr. Brendan Gallagher, station manager for Channel #5 announced he is leaving to go back to school. Mr. Gallagher introduced his replacement, Mr. Joe Kraus. Ordinances: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95-24, Series of 1995, AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 45 & 46, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TO PUD, FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND TIMESHARE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing. Director of Community Development Mike Matzko informed that information is included in Council's packet. Mr. Larry Doll, President of Points of Colorado, informed he has been associated with Points of Colorado since 3986 when they took over from Columbia Savings; when with the Town's approval they converted a vacant condo building into a 58 unit timeshare project. Currently, there are 2,500 owners. The management contract was just renewed for another five years. The project holds the Interval. International's Five Star Award of Distinction among timeshare projects; awarded to less than 150 out of 1500 resorts. The last five years, Falcon Point has also received a Distinguished Service Award for Interval. International, based upon customer satisfaction. Mr. Doll stressed they are committed to the future, as they have been in the past. Before approaching this project, they consulted with the ownership base and requested a written vote of approval in order to expand, because the plans require demolition of the club house building on common elements and it is a legal necessity to have their approval.. The vote came in with 2,280 votes in favor of the project expansion. Mr. Doll noted the growth in timeshare developments and mentioned Christie Lodge, Marriott, Disney, and Hilton. Product and marketing has changed dramatically. Mr. Doll felt, in conversations with Council, Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z), and Staff, there seems to be a positive attitude about timeshare, about vacation ownership. Mr. Doll presented some statistics from the American Resort Development Association and Falcon Point's actual profit/loss, on a percentage basis. Mr'. Doll informed of the potential economic impact of Falcon Point, Phase II. Mr. Doll focused on the Design-Review Process. First, Lot 45 and 46, at one point, were together. The intention was to build two buildings exactly like Falcon Point I. Lot 46 was zoned for 31 units; Falcon Point I has 58,000 square feet. They were meant-to be "sister" buildings with a health club in the center. In late 1993, the Lakeside Terrace Townhomes purchased the property with the intent of building duplexes. Their plan was to build two duplexes directly bE!hind Falcon Point I's club house and four duplexes down the side. In early 1995, after they had commenced construction on the first duplex, Falcon Point I and Lakeside Terrace discussed a mutually beneficial coordinated project. Thus, they moved on to evolution number 2. Points of Colorado proposed to purchase a piece of ground and build 23-2S timeshare units, and Lakeside Terrace Condominium group would continue to build their four units. Evolution number 2 was the first plan reviewed with P & Z in a-conceptual review in May, 1995. Working through the summer, no one was too thrilled about how it laid out and the congestion that they felt was there. Largely as a result of discussions with Staff, they came up with evolution number 3. Evolution 3 proposed to demolish the existing club house and move the building forward to create a court yard between Falcon Point I, Falcon Point II, Lakeside Terrace Townhomes, and Beaver Creek West. Evolution 3 is currently in Council's packets for this evenings consideration. Mr. Doll stated, after discussions with several. council members, staff, and reviewing recommendations that had been there for two months, they came up with evolution 4. Mr. Doll thought that evolution 4 meets all the requirements that they have been given thus far. Evolution 4 features underground parking of 30 units, provides for 25' landscaping area in addition to a 5' sidewalk, eliminates parking directly in front of the resort, puts in a 30' landscaping area, provides for all the snow storage that they need and at the same time makes for what they feel is a better project. The concerns that they heard, about underground parking, were two fold. one was with a 7% grade requiring 142' of ramp going down 10' and the fact they don't own the ground for 1421. staff indicated that with a heated ramp, they could go up to a 10% grade, which accommodated the limited space. Mr. Doll focused on the staff report dated 12/5. The recommendation was conditional approval based upon; 1.) underground parking, 2.) a landscaping berm, 3.) additional landscaping between the two properties, 4.) more landscaping on the north side of the building, and. 5.) a sidewalk access. In the 12/15 report, Staff recommended conditional approval based upon underground parking, enlarged landscaping berm on the north, and a landscaping berm between lots 1 and 2. Mr. Doll felt they have accomplished many of the reques"s that they have been given over the last eight months and hoped the Council would seriously consider the project. Mayor Reynolds asked if P & Z had seen evolution number 4. Mr. Dull questioned has P & Z seen the underground parking? Mayor Reynolds responded yes. Mr. Doll stated no they have not. Councilor Hines added, plus the other revisions you have added - has P & Z seen those? Mr. Doll stated only staff and the Town Manager. Evolution number 3'was the last plan seen by P & Z. Mr. Doll thought there was one other issue to address as he felt it would certainly come up this evening. That issue is views and views obstruction. Mr. Doll mentioned the book of pictures that were put together by Beaver Creek Management. Council has not seen those pictures. Mr. Doll stated, they showed pictures from certain units and then a pink slip across showed the view obstruction. Mr. Doll felt this created an emotional issue with P & Z. Mr. Doll presented computer generated photos of a line of site study. This study used USGA altitude figures to show what in effect you are going to be able to see. Mayor Reynolds interjected, have people frorn Beaver Creek West seen the photos? Mr. Doll responded, no. Mr. Doll explained the photos. 2 Councilor Carnes asked if you build under current zoning, would the views be worse than what you want to build? Mr. Doll stated yes, in one direction, looking into Beaver Creek Resort. Mr. Doll noted the photos do not show a complete black out of the horizon. It is not as good a view as it is today. But, this is an infill piece of property and anything that gets built will affect some views. The photos offered two options, one with flat roofs on the two side elements reducing the height and the other option with hip roof=s. Option two's overall height of the building is 54', with hip roofs. Mr. Doll presented a site plan of Beaver Creek West and stated only 23 (out of 124) units' views would be affected by Falcon Point II. Mr. Doll felt as few as eight units will be negatively impacted by Falcon II, versus what has already been approved. Mr. Doll summarized by stating they have tried for the last nine months to address as; many suggestions as they possibly could and still maintain the economic feasibility of the project. Mr. Doll hoped Council would consider approval of the project, subject to staff's acceptance and review. Councilor Hines questioned number of parking spaces. Mr. Doll stated there are 34 underground parking spaces. There is a net increase of 2, because they have taken them all off,the surface to sacrifice putting in the additional landscaping; the 25' berm on the north side and the landscaping and snow storage areas in front of the resort. Mayor Reynolds asked what is the total number of parking spaces as of right now. Mr. Doll stated total number is 100 and - another gentleman answered away from the microphone and unable to transcribe. Mr. Doll wanted to refer back to the parking chart. Mr. Doll stated just the new building - there are - again the gentleman answered away from the microphone but, he did say the chart was not available. Mr. Doll stated there are 1.5 parking spaces to 1 unit; so we have 36 X 1.5. Councilor Nottingham asked so you are adding 54 spaces and 34 are underground? Mr. Doll stated 34 are underground, the balance are on top. Councilor Benson asked so only 20 are on top? Mr. Doll questioned, I am sorry? Councilor Benson asked how many total parking spaces in all? Mr. Doll stated let me find the exact number. Too many people speaking at once. Mr. Doll stated there are 66 existing spaces. Underground is 35. The new project will have 69 parking spaces, with 34 underground. But, you have to take off of that 69, 11 are committed to Lakeside Townhomes. So, start with 69, go down to 58, 58 is what you have. Councilor Fawcett thought the economic impact statement was very helpful. Councilor Fawcett thought that P & Z must revisit and determine whether Mr. Doll is meeting some of the criteria that they set up, as well as•our own planning staff. Councilor Yoder questioned the height of the building - actual height is 541? Mr. Doll stated yes. Councilor Yoder asked by zoning, isn't it 60'? Matzko replied yes. Councilor Benson asked if the footprint was within the requirements. Matzko replied yes. Mayor Reynolds asked if the parking is adequate. Matzko replied yes, it does meet the requirements. Councilor Carnes asked about evolution 2 - it came last may. Last May,. did it have underground parking? Mr. Doll stated yes it dial. Councilor Carnes asked if that one required a PUD? Mr. Doll stated yes - a PUD is required strictly because of timeshare sales. The timeshare sales require special use permit. PUD is the only zoning that allows for that special use permit. 3 Councilor Benson asked if P & Z approved the color schemes of the buildings. Matzko replied there were a number of comments about the color and materials and Matzko stated he would have to get back to Council on that. P & Z's primary focus was on the mass, parking, landscaping, etc. Councilor Hines referred to P & Z's December 20th meeting. Part of their recommendation was based on certain criteria, some of which Mr. Doll has addressed tonight. One of the things that has not been touched on is the proposed density. P & Z felt density was too high for that area. Councilor Hines mentioned grandfather rights and questioned with the change in zoning does that not supersede the grandfathered rights- in essence do away with those grandfathered rights? Matzko stated with the change in zoning, particularly going to PUD, the development rights - the units that were assigned to that project would not necessarily follow. Councilor Hines questioned, if that were the case, then being the current zoning is RHD; under what standards would we be looking at this project in terms of what would normally be required density? would it revert back to the 20 units, per? Matzko stated if you wanted to use the base line of the RHD zone district, yes, it would be 20 units per acre, along with the height, etc. Because it is a PUD, you do have the opportunity to alter those requirements in the specific case, provided you feel it has been adequately mitigated. Councilor Hines asked what the relationship of those grandfathered rights would be with the application for a PUD - which I understand the applicant is constrained to but, through this process does that not remove those grandfathered rights? Town Attorney John Dunn stated I think that is correct - what's not conforming to this project? Matzko asked, relative to the underlining zone district? There is apparently about a net difference of 9 units, between what the approved number of development units and the proposed number of units are. In terms of set backs and so forth - those elements, there is a 2 1/2' interior lot line set back on the east side. Other than that the building is within yard and bulk requirements - it's density - approximately 40 units per acre. Attorney Dunn stated but this is a rezoning, so we are essentially starting over again. Matzko stated that is correct. Councilor Hines stated currently zoning for even in the town core area is a maximum 30 units per acre - correct? Matzko believed it to be 20 - Councilor Hines corrected and believed it to be 30. Councilor Hines mentioned RHD is 20. Matzko confirmed RHD is 20. Councilor Yoder asked, so if you went by the 20 units per acre or 30, how many units would fit on this? What is the acreage? Matzko replied the proposed density is 40 per acre. Councilor Benson asked, so they are within the guidelines then? Councilor Hines stated., no. Matzko thought it important to remember that at one point they were approved, for this site, for a larger than normal number of units. Councilor Yoder asked, it is true that is grandfathered in? Attorney Dunn stated it is a rezoning so it is essentially starting over again. Councilor Yoder asked but if they were not going to rezone it, would you still be allow those units? Attorney Dunn stated they have what they have and if rezoning does not occur, as I understand it, they have rights with respect to the previous approvals, which are non-conforming. Councilor Carnes asked for clarification - so if they don't get a PUD then they can have a higher density then they are asking for? Councilor Nottingham stated, no - they can not have timeshare. Mr. Doll stated they are combining lots 45 and 46 into a new PUD. That. was at the advice of staff. They were trying to take the portions of the lot and include it. with the PUD that had already been approved for Falcon Point. This is the most liberal numbers - Falcon Point is approved for 60 units - we have 58. Lot 46 is approved for 31 units or a total of 91. The project they are proposing is 100 - an increase of 9. 4 Mayor Reynolds asked what is the total acreage? Matzko stated lots 45 and 46 combined are 2.41 acres. Councilor Nottingham felt this to be a first hearing - this plan has substantially different components and factors that influence it as compared to what was viewed at the first hearing. We are back to square one - we are looking at a new product today that we have never seen before and our P & Z has not seen. As far as the grandfathering provisions, we understand that when they go for application for a PUD - PUD meaning basically you create you own rules for the project that you want to do on a certain piece of land. You make your own rules. So, when they say they comply with a PUD, basically they're complying with the rules they made for themselves. Councilor Nottingham stated we have to acknowledge they have no rights to do a timeshare. If they are doing timeshare, they have to get a PUD. So if they are going PUD and creating their own rules, be it density, parking, height, landscaping - they are making a whole new plan that suits their purpose - hopefully it will benefit our Town's purpose. That's where Council & P & Z come into play. They are creating a PUD - we can make it ideal for them - ideal for us. Perhaps the requirements or limitations or opportunities they have put in the rules of this PUD need to be altered a bit for the good of our Town for 20-30 years out. Councilor Fawcett stated that Mr.. Doll and his compatriots are looking at Council to get an idea of where Council might stand. Councilor Fawcett stated he does not stand anywhere until he gets clarification or recommendation from P & Z or the town staff. If this developer goes back to what was grandfathered and built the 91 units and placed them in areas that he wished to and was allowed to and did not build underground parking and did not do some of the other things that our P & Z has recommended or requested he do, I think the project would be substantially of poor quality that what he's proposed. On the view corridor aspect, unfortunately that comes up in front of P & Z all the time. People realize there are lots in front of them and realize that someday there might be something built on them and that view might be lessened or in some cases eradicated. This doesn't seem to be the case here - at least not from the computer projections, etc. It is a matter that P & Z should address again and come back with further recommendation to Council. Mayor Reynolds thought the controversy was between Falcon Point and Beaver Creek West and asked Mr. Mike Bennett if he would like to speak on behalf of Beaver Creek West. Mr. Bennett, General Manager at Beaver Creek West Condominiums, mentioned there are several people here that want to address this issue. It is a difficult issue. Beaver Creek West and Falcon Point have had a good relationship for a number of years and have worked together on numerous issues of common interest. It is the view corridor issue and it is an economic impact issue to Beaver Creek West ownera. Mr. Bennett felt granting an increase in density, with a PUD process, to the further detriment of the Beaver Creek West owners is plain wrong and encouraged Council not to grant the request. Councilor Hines asked how the increase in density is a detriment to the Beaver Creek Homeowners. Mr. Bennett mentioned the letter from Eagle County Assessor's Office and Valuation Consultants explaining there is a definite loss of value when the views are obstructed. Beaver Creek West will lore value to their units - on the units that are directly impacted. And, the value of those units will drag down the value of the other units in the project, that may not be directly impacted. Councilor Hines stated to some extent you as a neighboring property owner had some expectation of what would be built on that property. Mr. Bennett agreed. Councilor Hines continued, it being zoned as it is - the building that is proposed is not substantially different from, what could be built on that property, under standard zoning as it applies to that property - not look at it in terms of the PUD. Mr. Bennett stated Beaver Creek West is getting the worst of both. Beaver Creek West did not argue the Lakeside Terrace proposal. It left a view corridor and no objection was voiced as a group. Now there are three duplexes on the end blocking it off and Falcon Point is wanting to build this very large building running substantially east to west creating a curtain effect for all of the owners that are in that vicinity. Contrary to what the computer effects show in the green book, Mr. Bennett welcomed the Council to visit Beaver Creek West to personally view what is being proposed. Mr. Bennett mentioned the still photos that were given to P & Z, that showed the view obstruction. Mr. Bennett did not bring a copy for Council as he was not sure what was going to be dealt with this evening. Mr. Bennett assured, if Council visits the site, it looks substantially different than the computer effects look. You can't see the mountain once that building goes up - it won't be there. Councilor Benson stated they have the right to build a building. Mr. Bennett agreed. Councilor Benson stated it's going to block the views in some regards anyway. Mr. Bennett agreed. Mr. Bennett guessed the question to be, should they be granted a PUD and an increase in density to Beaver Creek West's further detriment? Mr. Bennett reiterated Beaver Creek West didn't argue about the duplexes at all - it left a view corridor- - it was a reasonable scheme. The original. plan for Falcon Point, which is out the window or it was Phase III of Beaver Creek West, which was originally called Avon Lake Villas had a twin building. It had the square footage but, it was neighborly. If left room for people to see out, rather than just creating a curtain across; walling in the park and walling out the neighborhood. Mayor Reynolds asked, in other words it went north and south? Mr. Bennett answered using the display model and showing how the buildings were situated. Mr. Bennett stated that he and Mr. Doll discussed this plan back in May. At that time Mr. Bennett informed Mr. Doll that if Mr. Doll continued with this curtain effect type building, there would be substantial opposition. Beaver Creek West just couldn't sit back and let it happen. It may happen anyway but, Beaver Creek Nest just couldn't sit back and let it happen. Mayor Reynolds stated Beaver Creek West must have realized that at some point in time, somebody was going to build something on this thing. Mr. Bennett realized they were going to build. When Lakeside Terrace came in with their duplex project, P & Z didn't hear from Beaver Creek West. Mr. Bennett met with Joel Farcus, who put that plan together, and dial not object at all it left a corridor. The side line studies before you that talk about views to Beaver Creek - these units don't have views to Beaver Creek anyway. They have views to Bachelor's Gulch. Councilor Fawcett asked if Mr. Bennett was representing the Condo owners or himself? Mr. Bennett replied he was asked by the Board of Directors of the Condominium Association. Councilor Fawcett asked if the primary or sole reason for objecting to this project is the view corridor issue, what would be others? Mr. Bennett stated density is an issue; the general size of the building, and orientation of the building. Councilor Fawcett asked, in terms of density, is it the 91 units being increased to 100 - additional 9 units? Mr. Bennett questioned why additional units are needed over and above the existing zoning. Councilor Fawcett referred to the letter from Valuation Consultants and thought no one would argue that loss of views coincide with loss of value, Councilor Fawcett questioned if an argument can be used by either Council or P & Z to legally deny a project solely on view. Attorney Dunn did not think there was any property night to a view. For that reason, it would be a questionable basis for denial of the application. Mr. Bennett mentioned there will. be other people that might be more informed and wish to speak on this issue. 6 Councilor Fawcett stated, if this developer falls back on the original grandfathered scheme, which is the 91 units, as opposed to the 100 units, and following along with the zoning regulations at that time, it seems that that project might be more detrimental to Beaver Creek West, in terms of view and other aspects, than what is proposed now. Mr. Bennett stated, it may be and added he hasn't seen that. Mr. Bennett noted this is like a moving target - every time he comes in, there is a whole other set and he doesn't know what to prepare for two weeks later. Councilor Benson asked Mr. Bennett if he knew about the parking and landscaping? Mr. Bennett stated, no. Councilor Benson asked Mr. Bennett what his initial reaction to that is? Mr. Bennett thought those are all improvements to the project but, the view still has to be dealt with. Councilor Benson asked, if Council has no legal justification for denial based on view, how can Council deny them? Mr. Bennett didn't know. The issue, concerned with view, is really an economic impact issue to the neighborhood as it relates to granting the PUD. And, a view creates a negative economic impact for the neighborhood, than that may or may not be justification. That may be the direction Council needs to look. Councilor Carnes referred to the 23 units affected by views and asked Mr. Bennett if he agreed with Falcon Points findings. Mr. Bennett stated, no. The issue is they are all affected. If it drags the value of 215-30 units down in this project, when it is time for appraisals of other units in the project and comparable sales of other units in the project, it's going to drag down the value of all the units. Mr. Bennett asked for clarification. It was asked earlier if the 54' height is within the zoning. What zoning is that within? Is that within the RHD or PUD? Matzko thought the question was, if this was zoned like the adjacent property which is RHD, what would be the height limit and that would be bo'. Mr. Bennett noted that Mr. Doll stated the PUD was only needed for the timeshare. Mr. Bennett asked if that other lot was zoned for 32 units and they built 6? Mr. Bennett expressed confusion on the number of units they can build. It seems like they need the PUD to build more than 26 more units. Mr. Bennett felt there is more than just the timeshare issue involved. They are trying to get the PUD to increase the density and the bigger building blocks the views, which causes economic impact. Councilor Fawcett understood they could build 91 and they are going up to 100. Councilor Nottingham stated a PUD would be effective to get there because under the current situation, even though it does not allow timeshare, you couldn't go up to 100 on those two lots, so you need a PUD. Mr. Bennett asked if the Town transfers development rights anymore. Mayor Reynolds stated, no. Councilor Fawcett added they are grandfathered. Too many people talking at once. Councilor Hines stated we are looking at a whole new ball game. Councilor Dines expressed his opinion in that it may have been an expectation at one point in time, but that went away when the previous proposal was approved by P & Z and the process was started with the building of the first duplex. Councilor Hines asked Mr.. Lynn Weas how many units in Christie Lodge. Mr. Weas replied 280. Councilor dines asked how many acres does Christie Lodge sit on? Mr. Weas replied 6.5. Quick calculation produced over 40 units per acre. Councilor Nottingham interjected Christie Lodge is zoned town core. Councilor Hines stated RHD, outside town core, is zoned for 20 units per acre. Councilor Hines noted Council is looking at town core zoning moving outside the zone district, even though it borders. 7 Mr. Doll added Falcon Point projects are first class, 1995 projects- These units are selling for $350,000 each. Building costs and selling price will be in excess of $225,000 each. Mr. Doll mentioned there is always a trade-off. The Town may lose something for views, but when an upscale development is built nearby, the upscale development brings the whole area up. Mayor Reynolds open the meeting for public hearing. Mayor Reynolds asked that all individuals speak into the microphone and identify themselves. Mr. Brett Heckman, attorney for Beaver Creek West, expanded on some points that Mr. Bennett spoke of. Mr. Heckman noted he was not fully prepared aS there is a whole new project being presented this evening. Mr. Heckman understood a PUD is a negotiating tool, a tool of flexibility allowing Council and P & Z to allow variances, increases in density, allow setback variances, etc. A PUD is a give and take process. Parking meets the bare minimum requirement. There is total obstruction of a view corridor. Mr. Heckman questioned the accuracy of the computer generated view photos and noted they do not show you what you lose. Mr. Heckman questioned Council's ability to weigh all the new information presented this evening. The function of P & Z is to review all this information. Certain criteria is set forth to be followed when looking at a PUD proposal. The code mentions the preservation of scenic views in sub-section i, and mentions conserving the value of people's investments, in section o. Mr. Heckman stated Council can't deny this project because of the view corridor, but Council can look at that as a factor. Mr. Heckman asked Council to considered or acknowledge the evidence that was submitted at: P & Z; the photo album, the video tape, and Ms. Bergland's letter. Attorney Dunn suggested that if Mr. Heckman wanted the Council to see evidence, then someone should present it to Council at a public meeting. Mr. Heckman noted that Beaver Creek West didn't say that all the views, from all the units were affected; 25-30 units were affected. According to Ms. Bergland's letter that results in a devaluation of 10-15%. Mr. Heckman stated that it was expected that this property would eventually be built on. However, the previously approved projects, there was not one solid four to five story building bordered by the current buildings. Beaver Creek West doesn't expect Council to protect their views 100%, they expect the provisions of the code to be considered and followed. Mr. Heckman thought the previous design was 20' shorter and segmented; not one broad building. Mr. Heckman thought it interesting that P & Z suggested Falcon Point go to Beaver Creek West and discuss the project and mitigate this view corridor problem. Mr. Heckman stated that was not done. Even though some P & Z issues have been dealt with, the view corridor issue has been ignored. Mr. Heckman stated nothing has been done with the set back variance. Mr. Heckman summarized we are left with a project today, that has been improved which still deprives Beaver Creek West of their views, which ignores sections d, o, and i of the Code with regard to PUD approval, and which ignores the entire negotiating process which PUD is founded on. Councilor Fawcett asked Mr. Heckman if he were suggesting this be tabled and referred back to P & Z for further consideration. Councilor Fawcett asked Mr. Heckman's opinion on the statement of an upscale project increasing the values of the neighborhood. Mr, Heckman agreed that the matter at hand should be tabled and referred back to P & Z. Mr. Heckman stated it would take a better lawyer than anyone he has met to convince him that blocking out your entire southwest view will increase property value. Councilor Fawcett asked Mr. Heckman what he thought if the Taj Mahal were built next door, would it increase property values. Mr. Heckman did not know. Councilor Fawcett reiterated that Mr. Heckman's opinion is that blocking a view will reduce the value. Mr. Heckman interjected there is evidence. 8 Councilor Fawcett thought this to be an issue for P & Z because of all the changes that have been presented this evening. Mr. Heckman agreed. Mr. Jack Garland, resident of the Town for approximately 15 years and an owner of a Beaver Creek West unit for approximately 9 years, informed he is not in one of the units that will be affected directly by the cutting off of the views. Councilor Benson asked what unit Mr. Garland occupies. Mr. Garland stated he lives in unit C3. Mr. Garland stated he enjoys walking within the Town of Avon and felt this proposed building is a monstrosity. Mr. Garland was surprised that Lakeside Terrace property owners would allow Falcon Point to go in. Mr. Garland felt- there is an economic hardship and that is the reason Lakeside Terrace is working with Falcon Point to get this through. Mr. Garland referred to the statement that Lakeside Terrace units are selling for $350,000 and thought, the accurate statement should be, they are not selling for $350,000. Mr. Garland thought, if those units were owned by individual owners, those owners would be against this. Mr. Garland expressed his personal opinion against timeshare. Mr. Garland felt he has a little more invested in the Town than someone who just comes in for a couple of weeks a year. Mr. Garland would rather see whole ownership residences. Mr. Garland requested Council to think about the timeshare and the building bordering the park. Councilor Nottingham told Mr. Garland that some of his views are shared by some other residents regarding the massing and blocking in of the park. Councilor Nottingham mentioned the economic viability and reminded that Avon has gone after the short term economic carrot only -to find it not exactly being the wonderful carrot. Time went by, and the economic short term profit that the 'T'own made, Council ended up reversing; basically Councilor Nottingham was referring to the fractionalization. Councilor Nottingham's goal is to look at the long term products, so the immediate economic increase should not be what moves Council. Mr. Harvey Deutsch, one of the owners of the Lakeside Terrace, stated his partner, Mr. Joel Farkas was also in attendance this evening. Mr. Deutsch noted he is an attorney in Denver and did not wish to address any legal issues. Mr. Deutsch wanted to talk about the aesthetic questions. Mr. Deutsch informed when he acquired the property, it was zoned for 31 units. Mr. Deutsch stated his company is not timeshare or condominium high rise developers, they develop duplexes and singla family homes. Mr. Deutsch's plan was for twelve, 2,000 square feet duplex units; 36' wide and about 40' in height. After commencing construction, Mr. Deutsch discovered the Town was working on the recreation center and the library, so there was a major construction project right adjacent to and behind Lakeside. Thus, construction slowed down because it was difficult to bring people in; roads were being vacated; parking lots were being constructed; Lakeside traffic was being diverted; and Mr. Deutsch just decided to put the project on hold for a while, At that point in time, Mr. Doll approached Lakeside Terrace, due in part, because the road along the southern boundary of the property was being vacated, where the parking lot is. In discussions with Mr. Doll about the new road network and Lakeside and Falcon Point sharing the road, the discussion focused on tying these parcels together. Lakeside Terrace had townhomes, Falcon Point had an existing building with a swimming pool; the Town was building a swimming pool, It was a hodge podge of different kinds of structures. Mr. Deutsch showed the plan that evolved with the use of the model. Mr. Deutsch felt the plan looks like you are entering a world class resort. Lakeside Terrace and Falcon Point have agreed to share landscaping, parking easements and access easements, and Lakeside plans to revise the materials on their buildings to make them compatible with Falcon Point's. Mr. Deutsch stated, in terms of views, they did take it into account and concluded some views would be affected. 9 Mr. Deutsch thought the quality of construction and architectural design, would create an enhancement in value. Mr. Deutsch noted he and his partner have purchased units in Lakeside Terrace's first building. Mr. Deutsch stated he is the owner of the "A" side of the first building. Mr. Deutsch's partner, Joel, bought the other unit. The rest of the units have been put on hold because, if this project takes place, they will now have a construction project right in front of the units. Mr. Deutsch stated this is not a distressed project. The land is being sold to Falcon Point for exactly the value Mr. Deutsch would have gotten if he just built the duplexes. Mr. Deutsch noted they are fairly low risk; they build one building at a time. When those two units are sold, they build another building, until the project is developed. Mr. Deutsch mentioned he did have a problem with the contractor and the project got delayed but they have a new contract and they are spending a lot of time up here. Mr. Deutsch is very satisfied with the progress of the development. Mr. Deutsch stressed he is making a significant investment in. Avon, in that unit and felt this is a wonderful project. Mr. Deutsch reminded that P & Z recommended underground parking. The developer felt underground parking was expensive and fairly difficult to do. After further discussions with P & Z and staff', the developer determined they could do underground parking. The developer, economically feels that to do the underground parking they can't afford to lose any units. Mr. Deutsch stated when he bought the project, it had 31. What's going to happen over-all is, between our buildings and the new building and the existing Falcon Point, on the entire 2.5 acre site, there will be a 9 unit increase. Mr. Deutsch felt that the value increase at Beaver Creek West was not created by anything at Beaver Creek West, it was created by all of the things the city has done. As the Town continues to approve good projects those values are going to go up. Councilor Nottingham reminded Mr. Deutsch that the town core is the most dense area the Town allows. This property is not town core and has always been thought of as less dense. Yet, it is being proposed that the density for this be more than Council ever envisioned for town core. Councilor Nottingham asked Mr. Deutsch, being a neighbor, to justify the density proposal. Mr. Deutsch stated if the property is not in the town core, it is really in the peripheral of it.. The property receives the same services and the property abuts the parking lot of the recreation center. The property is adjacent to the library and city hall. The property has all the attributes of being in the town center, although it is right on the edge of the town center. The difference in units is only 9 units on 2.5 acres. Mr. Deutsch felt the density is ok, in light of the fact that the amenities and conveniences are provided within walking distance. Mr. Deutsch did not see this as significantly distinguishing itself f rom the town core. Mr. John Shehan, owner of unit 4, which is one of the units that will have view obstruction, registered his objection to the proposed project. Mr. Shehan felt the duplexes are much more appealing. Ms. Laurie Coopersmith, homeowner at Beaver Creek West and a full time resident in unit S2, stated that her unit is marked on the map indicating no loss of view. Ms. Coopersmith objected to that and felt her view would be obstructed by the proposed project. one of the duplexes is right in front of her now, thus the view to Bachelor Gulch has been altered. With the new building that is proposed, with the height and density, her unit would lose views to Bachelor Gulch and most of the view of the lake. Ms. Coopersmith thought the building doesn't have to be a curtain effect. Ms. Coopersmith expressed concern of traffic created by the size of the proposed project and density. Ms. Coopersmith did not want the neighborhood feeling to be lost to a resort feeling. 10 Ms. Cary Shesler, 4th floor homeowner at Beaver Creek West, stated she will look right over the top of the proposed building. Ms. Shesler noted it won't really affect her view, but that is all she will see from her front door. Ms. Shesler felt the proposed building will affect her property value. Ms. Shesler felt the back side of the building will look horrible from the park. Ms. Shesler expressed concern with the density and parking. Mr. Lynn Weas, managing director of the Christie Lodge, stated he is for this project, done in a proper manner. Mr. Weas noted his credibility in the industry. Mr. Weas sees a first class developer and project. Mr. Weas noted Mr. Doll should be addressed as Dr. Doll as he has a PhD. Dr. Doll has spent an incredible amount of time and energy trying to please the world. Mr. Weas felt Dr. Doll has made one hell of an effort. Mr. Weas felt empathy for all comments heard here. Mr. Weas stated the economics are important to the Town, but one should not blindly accept economics. Mr. Weas felt Avon is full of decisions made on pure economics. Mr. Weas found it interesting that someone would go to the expense and spend the energy to do a scientific view, engineered v,ew study and yet, individuals can simply say it will block my view when they don't even know what the building is going to look like. Mr. Weas operates a timeshare with 13,000 plus owners. Christie Lodge does not find two and three families coming to one timeshare in the summer. The parking usually gees down in the summer. Mr. Weas stated, if someone built a $300,000 house next to a $100,000 cabin, you bet, that cabin would be worth more the next day. Mr. Weas questioned what other hoops can be jumped through relative to this project. Mr. Weas stated West Beaver Creek Blvd. is already dense and this project is not going to ruin the neighborhood. Everyone is comfortable about having that lot vacant. However, the old adage goes, if you want to be on the beach, buy beach front property. This is not a.huge project - it is 36 units. In viewing this project, Mr. Weas asked Council to put things in proper perspective. Mayor Reynolds felt that this should be turned right back to P & Z, since they haven't seen the proposed project presented this evening. Mr. Doll addressed the give and take process. Mr. Doll felt they have tried to participate in the give and take. The give and take is tearing down a club house . . putting in a new first class recreation facility . . it's an agreement to put in underground parking, which costs another $400,000 for 36 spaces, to be spread over 36 units. Mr. Doll submitted to Council, and requested it be on the record, that he thinks, through the nine month process, of meeting with staff - he thought ten different times, meeting with P & Z in, three different conceptual reviews; two formal hearings, they have certainly made every effort to participate in that give and take. However, there is a point when you no,longer have room to move in a give and take. Because, you can't, as a developer, go into a project that you don't feel reasonably comfortable that you have a chance of success. Mr. Doll stated he has seen too many examples in the past, whether it be the Peregrine or the old Falcon Point, where grandiose feelings created problems that had to be overcome, over years. Mr. Doll stated they did make a significant change. That significant change was putting in the underground parking. Councilor Hines asked about the two roof wings. they were presented to P & Z, Mayor Reynolds noted landscaping was an issue. there is an increase in landscaping as a result underground parking - this has not been seen by Reynolds stated that is P & Z's job. Mr. Doll Mr. Doll stated Mr. Doll stated of the P & Z. Mayor agreed. 11 Councilor Fawcett asked if Mr. Doll had any objections if Council decided to table this and refer it back to P & Z to review the items they have not :seen. Mr.. Doll responded the difficulty, they are getting into, is the contract to purchase the ground is expiring and they do not have another ninety days to have any chance of building this year. Mr. Doll questioned the timing of returning to P & Z and then again Council. They are running out of inventory and will have to look at other options. Councilor Fawcett asked for a time table for P & Z and Council to review. Matzko informed that P & Z could review next week and, the Ordinance could then return to Council in two weeks. Councilor Nottingham asked how Mr. Doll felt that P & Z's recommendation was basically that Mr. Doll's density is flat out just too high and Mr. Doll hasn't change one bit of density. Mr. Doll stated there were two different options open. First of all, P & Z vote was 3 to 7., not unanimous. Secondly, there were four members present instead of seven, two of which spoke favorably on the meeting of the 5t.h. Those two were not present on the 19th. There have been two different suggestions. One being the underground parking. The second suggestion being the reduction of units. Mr. Doll's general feeling, from staff, and Council, and individual members of P & Z, was underground parking was more important. Mr. Doll stated he can not do both. Mr. Doll stated that if Council wants, him to take two units off both sides, Mr. Bennett told him that. wouldn't be enough. But, if Council wants Mr. Doll.'to take four units off, and not do the underground parking, Mr. Doll staLted they can still do the project. Mr. Doll stated he can not do both. At that point, Mr. Doll stated he has no where else to go. Mr. Doll added, if they can go back to P & Z and come back to Council in two weeks, they are still in a time frame that allows the possibility of construction this year. Mr. Doll noted he would not object to that time frame, as long as there was the understanding that we could get back as quickly as possible. Councilor Nottingham asked what the neighborhood zone, adjacent to the town core, is called. Matzko stated Residential High Density. Councilor Nottingham stated the RHD has certain criteria, as far as density and set backs. Matzko replied that is correct. Councilor Nottingham noted that timeshare is not allowed in RHD. Councilor Nottingham reminded that this neighborhood, originally, was never envisioned to be a timeshare. Because of an economic adversity, Council went from condominiums to timeshare to create an economic success. Yet, everybody else in the area, which is RHD, has other requirements upon them, such as set back, density. Councilor Nottingham questioned, philosophically, the fairness of adding more time share to an area that was never intended to be timeshare. Councilor Nottingham asked what the set backs are for RHD, especially the set backs from the Lake. Councilor Hines responded 15 from the front 7.5 on the sides. Councilor Nottingham asked what is typical. Matzko stated typically it is between 15-20' as a rear yard set back. Matzko interjected this particular parcel may have been zoned a related zone district, which is Residential Nigh Density Commercial. Matzko believed the set backs are identical. Councilor Nottingham stated Council needs to know, to compare. Matzko stated the yard and bulk requirements appear to be the same. The heights are 601, 25' front set back, side yard 7 1/21, and rear is 101. Matzko noted from the rear, Mr. Doll is 12' from the property line. They are within that dimension. Matzko believed the side yard set back, on the east, to be as little as 51, with a set back requirement of 7 1/2'. So, they are somewhat less. Councilor. Nottingham so this would be a variance. Matzko stated, yes. Technically a variance is something you ask for in a context, usually of a zone distract. Since this is a PUD, it wouldn't technically be a variance. 12 ,1-11=3k Councilor Nottingham stated she is looking for what is a PUD, the rules they've made that work for them - how does it vary, other than timeshare not being allowed. Matzko stated there is very little change in terms of physical variance. The use is clearly a variance. Councilor Nottingham motioned to deny, on second reading, ordinance No. 95-24, Series of 1995. The motion failed due to lack of a second. Councilor Fawcett motioned to table, on second reading, Ordinance No. 95-24, Series of 1995 and continue the public hearing to the. next meeting. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion. Councilor Hines voiced concerns with the process - first reading, then referred to P & Z, with new information and changes coming back to Council on second reading. Councilor Hines stated there are two big issues that are still before Dr. Doll. One is that P & Z recommended underground parking, which Dr. Doll did address. There is still an issue of proposed density. Councilor Hines added that P & Z may still deny. Councilor Fawcett asked for clarification. Dr. Doll stated earlier there were only four Commissioners present at the P & Z meeting. Dr. Doll confirmed that statement. Councilor Hines thought Councilor Nottingham's motion was well based. Councilor Hines thought Council was extending quite a bit to Dr. Doll, as an applicant, in reflection upon the fact that Dr. Doll presented new information this evening. If the decision was based on the original presentation, Councilor Hines stated he probably would have seconded Councilor Nottingham's motion. P & Z Chairman Jack Hunn assumed procedurally that Council wants P & Z to review this one week from tonight and questioned whether staff is going to have time to adequately prepare for P & Z's packets, which are distributed in less than one week. Chairman Hunn voiced concern that P & Z will be faced, next Tuesday, with the same challenge Council had this evening . . seeing all this new information without adequate preparation. Chairman Hunn questioned whether the public hearing with P & Z needs to be republished. Councilor Fawcett suggested P & Z watch this portion of the Council meeting on television. Councilor Hines thought it would only be fair if Council reviewed the pictures that Beaver Creek West presented to P & Z and the video. Councilor Hines suggested Council walk the property as well. Councilor Nottingham also questioned the process. P & Z and Council are back to square one with looking at a new proposal. Different proposals were received between first and second readings of the Ordinance. Councilor Nottingham stressed she did not want anyone to assume that things that haven't been addressed are ok. We need to look at all aspects again. New factors change things. Attorney Dunn stated the matter is before Council pursuant to notice. At this time, the matter is being tabled with direction that the P & Z look again at the issue. This is a deferral to the P & Z for further consideration and recommendation back to the Council.. The matter is before the Council and it stays before the Council. 13 Councilor Nottingham wanted P & Z to look at this as if it were new. Councilor Hines; added the reasonings, why P & Z voted it down last time, still. exists. The motion carried with Councilor Nottingham opposed. Council recessed at 7:58pm and reconvened at 8:05pm. Ordinances: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95-26, Series of 1995, AN ORDINANCE REZONING FROM "OLD" (OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE) TO "GPEH" (GOVERNMENT, PARKS AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING) A PARCEL OF LAND KNOWN AS TRACT Y, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing. Town Manager James noted this parcel is approximately 2 1/5 acres. The Town is planning on the possibility of the county building an annex, as, well as office space for the local Chamber of Commerce. P & Z was asked to consider changing the zoning from open space (OLD), to government, parks, and employee housing (GPEH) to allow building. P & Z's recommendation to Council is to not allow that zoning change. P & Z recommended a PUD. Town Manager James noted the Town is trying to give a comfort level to the County that they will have an opportunity to build a building over there. The County would still have to go through the P & Z process with building design and site plan, just like any other applicant. The Council will have ultimate control of what will actually take place over there via a lease agreement between the Town and the County. Councilor Yoder asked about parking. If the Ordinance passes this evening and this zoning has one parking space for 2501, are we bound by that. Town Manager James responded yes. Councilor Yoder stated she would not vote for that. Councilor Yoder added we need at least one parking space for 1501. Councilor Yoder estimated the County would need 28 parking spaces and the Chamber of Commerce,/ visitor's center would need about 28 parking spaces. Matzko believed there was some latitude with site specific plans. Town Manager James asked if the requirement of parking spaces could be put in the lease agreement. Attorney Dunn stated you could adopt the Ordinance on final reading subject to that condition. Mayor Reynolds suggested leaving the parking issue open to what ever is needed. Too many people discussing at one time. Councilor Hines asked why P & Z thought the GPEH was too permissive. P &Z Chairman Jack Hunn stated the majority of P & Z felt this site is an important first impression and should be maintain as substantially natural site. Most felt it did not preclude the development of some relatively small buildings that would have some very good architectural design to present a very good first impression of Avon. Councilor Hines questioned small. Mr. Hunn mentioned the steepness of the site and the mature cottonwood trees. When you look at what is actually developable on the site, it is a relatively small site. P & Z thought small, low scale buildings might be appropriate on the site. P & Z is nervous about the opportunity, with the GPEH zone district, of what is permitted and that might be taken literally . . for example, the 60' tall buildings, minimal set backs, inadequate parking . . uses that are not proposed today but would be allowed under that zone district. Without shutting the door on the idea, P & Z felt that maybe those uses would fit on the site, but wanted to understand the total proposal through a PUD process, to custom design some zoning that fits the use. 14 -r. Mr. Hunn mentioned P & Z's concern of traffic. The proposed two uses generate a lot of traffic. It may be appropriate to study the traffic impacts. Discussion focused on zoning restrictions, lease agreement, PUD versus GPEH and time tables for both, and the design review process. Councilor Hines motioned to deny, on second reading, Ordinance No. 95-26, Series of 1995. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion. Ms. Kate Collins stated P & Z will still have the final say on what has to go on the site. It is an ideal location for the County Annex and the Chamber. There are very few locations. Ms. Collins did not want to see Council get bogged down on the details as we are talking about making a resource for this area for years to come. The County and the Town need to make an agreement perhaps to include parking, square footage, building height, etc. And, the County and the Chamber need to make an agreement. August 31, 1996, the Chamber needs to be out of their current location. At this point there are 410 members, which is an increase from 275 in 1995. The Chamber is in a tremendous growth mode and there is a lot of momentum, and an exciting time. Ms. Collins cautioned Council to slow it down over details. Ms. Collins agreed, it is the entry way to Avon and the Chamber wants to do something that is fitting with an image that says welcome. Everybody is in agreement to keep the trees. Traffic is a reality for all of us from East Vail to Eagle. The traffic issue, the timeliness issue, those are big challenges but Ms. Collins did not see 'those as being impediments to making this work. Councilor Fawcett asked, if this ordinance passes and the zoning changes from OLD to GPEH, can the owner of the property - Town of Avon - ask for a PUD. Attorney Dunn replied yes. More discussion focused on zoning restrictions, lease agreement, PUD versus GPEH and time tables for both, and the design review process. Mr. Hunn stated the goal is to evaluate this property to see if it is appropriate for these uses. That can be done through the PUD process, which would be the most appropriate, normal procedure. Or, Council can do it by putting the wrong zoning on the site and then try to control it with the lease. Council needs to think about the conditions of the lease. Mr. Hunn suggested a time frame, after which the zoning is taken off that property. Mr. Hunn thought it is important not to put the wrong zoning on this site and leave it forever. So, put a time frame on the zoning, so that if it doesn't work out, the zoning goes back. And, perhaps deed restrict the rest of the site, what ever is.not deemed appropriate for development, to open space use. Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote. The motion tied with Councilors Benson, Carnes, and Fawcett voting against. The motion failed with Mayor Reynolds voting against the motion. Councilor Benson motioned to approve, on second reading, Ordinance No. 95-26, Series of 1995. Councilor Fawcett seconded the motion. Councilor Benson amended the motion that it's one year from today's date. Councilor Carnes seconded the amendment. Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote on the amendment to the main motion. The amendment carried with Councilors Hines and Yoder opposed. 15 iM 'A Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote on the main motion. The motion tied with Councilors Hines, Nottingham and Yoder opposed. The main motion carried with Mayor Reynolds voting in favor. Unfinished Business: T.C.I. Cablevisi.on / Franchise Extension Councilor Yoder motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement to extend the franchise extension for sixty days with TCI. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. New Business: The Chamber of Commerce 1996 Agreement Councilor Yoder motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the Chamber of Commerce 1996 Agreement. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. New Business: Railroad abandonment attorney contract / Bastianelli, Brown, Touhey & Kelly Councilor Benson motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Bastianelli, Brown, Touhey & Kelly. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. New Business: Health Insurance / Brokerage Servi~,is, Inc. Councilor Yoder motioned to allow the Mayor to execute the policy acceptance form for the insurance. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. New Business: Request to Waive CIRSA Membership Notification Councilor dines motioned to authorize the Mayor to execute CIRSA's notice to waive membership notification. Councilor. Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. New Business: Authorization for Retirement Plans with Norwest Bank Councilor Hines motioned to authorize the Mayor to execute the authorization forms for Norwest Bank of Denver. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. New Business: Recreation Center / Otis Elevator Maintenance Contract Councilor Benson motioned to authorize the mayor to sign the maintenance contract with Otis Elevator for $178.50 per month. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. 16 m"II k New Business: Recreation Center / Sound System Development & Assessment for 4th of July Salute Councilor Hines motioned to table the RFQ for Salute sound. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Report: Mayor Reynolds commended the Public Works Department on doing a "class act" of snow plowing and sanding. Other Business: Councilor Hines requested Council to review the process, of a request to change zoning, when the applicant presents substantially new and different proposals. Discussions followed. Consent Agenda: a.) Approval of th,e December 12, 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 Hines moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor Benson. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Reynolds at 9:16PM. R.ESPZPTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Neyhart~ CMC Town Clerk APPR.COVED : °_J 5^ i-A AA 4r n 17