TC Minutes 02-25-19970
0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1997 - 5:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon,
Colorado was held in the Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road,
Avon, Colorado, in the Council Chambers.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jack Fawcett at 5:30 PM.
A roll call was taken with Councilors Jim Benson, Richard Carnes,
David Gilman, Bob McIlveen, Buz Reynolds, Jr. and Judy Yoder
present. Also present were Town Manager Bill Efting, Town Clerk
Patty Lambert, Town Attorney John Dunn, Director of Municipal
Services Larry Brooks, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Police Chief Gary
Thomas, Director of Recreation Meryl Jacobs, Fire Chief Charlie
Moore, Director of Community Development Mike Matzko, and
Administrative Assistant Jacquie Halburnt, as well as members of
the press and public.
Citizen Input:
Appeal of Planning & Zoning Final Design Review Denial / Lot 32,
Block 1, Wildridge
Councilor Buz Reynolds cited a conflict of interest, stepped down
from his seat, and left the Council Chambers.
Mr. John Perkins, architect for the project, presented a model of
the duplex for Council to review.
Mayor Fawcett confirmed the address to be 2180 Long Spur.
Steven M. Grow, owner, distributed a memo to Council dated
February 24, 1997 (see Exhibit A attached). Mr. Grow read the
memo in its entirety.
Mr. Perkins highlighted the 31 changes suggested by P & Z and
made to the project. Mr. Perkins thought Staff had a lot of
trouble with the proportion of the building. Mr. Perkins thought
that to be an opinion of design. Mr. Perkins noted the site will
be totally re-vegetated and landscaped. Mr. Perkins compared the
mass of Lots 31 and 32 with regard to site disturbance, total
square feet, maximum height, and overall length. Mr. Perkins
added the driveway issues were agreed by all parties to be
resolvable. Mr. Perkins mentioned the slope of Lot 32 is 1716
down the center of the site. The steep slope guidelines do not
click in until 20% to 30%. Mr. Perkins stated, in the spirit of
steep slope guidelines, he has conformed in every way he could.
Mr. Grow felt Staff's recommendations were slanted from the very
beginning. Mr. Grow thought staff felt the design approach was
improper. Mr. Grow thought that staff felt he took a building
and made it work on the site, as opposed, in their minds,
traditionally taking the site and making it work. No one is to
say that you have to always follow traditional means to an end.
The object is to get to the end in a reasonable manner. Follow
the rules and guidelines. Adhere to all the codes. Follow
zoning and get to the point. Mr. Grow stated he optimized the
site for views. Staff's memos acknowledge he met all the
guidelines, all the concerns. But, the approach is what Staff
had a problem with. Mr. Grow thought that is the subjective
nature of this business.
Mayor Fawcett asked for any further input. Hearing none, Mayor
Fawcett asked if Council would like to take some action.
Councilor Yoder felt that P & Z and Staff' do not deny projects
lightly. A lot of time is spent on their 'review.
Councilor Yoder motioned to uphold the Planning & Zoning
Commission denial of the final design approval for the duplex on
Lot 32, Block l' in Wildridge as presented by the plans January
21, 1997, based on finding that the commission made the proper
finding relative to the Town of Avon's design review
considerations. Due to lack of a second, the motion died.
Planner George Harrison summarized Staff's position. Staff had a
fundamental problem with the structure fitting on the site.
Staff felt that a project perpendicularly to the slope, not
parallel, would have been a better response to the topography of,
the site. The structured design was brought to the'site and then
they tried to mitigate, thru corrections, to make the structure'
more-compatible with the site. Staff felt, from the beginning,
the design approach was not the correct response to the site.
Planner Harrison noted, whether it's a modular or stick built
construction is irrelevant; it's the finished product that
matters.
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko questioned'if it-
was reasonable to assume, by the applicant, that if they did all
suggested changes, that that constituted approval. Matzko agreed
with the statement, in Exhibit A attached;, obviously there is a
major communication problem with this project., Staff •tries,to
let the applicant know up front what the issues are going to be;
and a person does have a right to proceed, against Staff
recommendations. Matzko felt that neither the R& Z or Staff
made the statement to the applicant that if you do these changes,
this project will work.
Councilor McIlveen asked if there is anything that could-be done
that would solve this problem in Staff's and P_& Z's mind? Are
we just totally at a stand still with this particular building,
on this particular lot? There is no way to solve the problem?
Planner Harrison stated, with 31 modifications to the,design,
Staff still felt the project was not working for this site, They
tried to mitigate the initial design decision and ultimately
Staff and P & Z felt the design was not the appropriate one for
the site.
Councilor Benson asked about the drive grade. Planner Harrison
stated the latest site plan submittal is still not to Town'
standards. If P & Z approved the design, Staff would have.
recommended a condition that grading be worked out with Staff.
Councilor Carnes asked what we can do in the future to avoid this
subjective nature. Planner Harrison suggested giving a stronger
initial impression, of Staff's feelings, on a project. Councilor
Gilman noted that it appears Staff was very consistent from the
beginning.
Mr: Grow asked, assuming you meet all the technical guidelines,
what is left other than subjective opinion? Mr. Grow reiterated-
they made 31 changes. Mr. Grow read from Staff reports and
highlighted the technical guidelines conform. Mr. Grow felt the
whole point of this is subjective.
Mayor Fawcett asked if all Mr. Grow's arguments were made to the
P & Z. Mr. Grow stated absolutely. Mr. Grow added they heard
more technical review.
Councilor Carnes asked if there was anything, besides putting
this model on the floor and stepping on it . . . is there
anything you can do with this design? Planner Harrison thought
this project was taken as far as it could have gone, meaning no.
Mr. Perkins reiterated the mass comparison of Lot 31 and 32.
2
• •
Matzko informed he spent a fair amount of time on this review as
there was a lot of agonizing over this. Matzko reviewed the
steep slope guidelines. Matzko stated there is no argument there
is a certain amount of subjectivity and asked to see a design
review process that doesn't have it. Staff looked at this
project just as any other. Matzko added it is very unusual to
have 31 corrections made by the applicant. Typically, the
message gets through much sooner. It is very unusual to go this
length. Matzko appreciated there is a difference of opinion
here.
Mr. Grow reiterated his arguments.
Councilor McIlveen stated he has a fundamental problem with going
against staff and P & Z. Councilor McIlveen expressed concern
that this problem has come this far. Councilor McIlveen added he
did not quite understand how it got to this point and why it
wasn't approved. Councilor Carnes concurred.
Matzko suggested one option . . . to remand this back to P & Z
for consideration with no comment on the outcome of P & Z's
decision but, rather to re-review and re-look at the facts. Mr.
Grow vehemently rejected the suggestion that it be remanded back
to P & Z. Mr. Grow asked Council to act upon this now. Mr. Grow
reiterated his concerns . . . tell us from day one, hey, it's too
big; the footprint is no good; we're not going to approve it
after you make a thousand changes; tell us that on day one.
Maybe this was implied but that's not the role. The role is not
implication, the role is guidelines; adherence to guidelines and
that is what the applicant did . . . 31 changes suggested by P &
Z and Staff.
Mayor Fawcett interjected, we have heard a lot of this before and
time is growing short. Mayor Fawcett commented he can't vote
unless there is a tie. Mayor Fawcett mentioned two concerns; one
is that this is a subjective issue and P & Z has the full right
to be subjective under the Town's regulations. So, the decision
they made was made as a matter of right. And, two, all of the
arguments put forth, you put forth to P & Z with nothing new
presented this evening. It is difficult to overturn a decision
when they have spent so much time on the review.
Mr. Grow informed he was not allowed to present any information
that was not given to P & Z at the time of the denial. Mr.
Perkins added the appeal has to be based on the material that was
submitted and denied. Mayor Fawcett clarified he was not
talking about information that existed at the time. Mr. Perkins
noted Council received a more detailed comparison of Lot 31,
which was not presented to P & Z.
Councilor Benson motioned to approve Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge
with some technical corrections from the Staff. Town Attorney
Dunn suggested an appropriate motion to make would be to reverse
the decision of the Commission and to grant design review.
Mayor Fawcett announced Councilor Yoder's motion failed due to
lack of a second.
Councilor Benson motioned to grant the appeal of the Planning &
Zoning final design. Councilor Carnes seconded the motion.
Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call vote.
With Councilor Reynolds abstaining and Councilor Yoder opposed,
the motion carried.
3
0
Citizen Input:
0
Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau Funding Request
Frank Johnson, president of the Tourism and Convention Bureau and
on behalf of Vail Associates, requested financial support for an
April marketing program. Mr. Johnson reviewed the program. This
joint program, between Vail Associates and the lodging community,
is hoping to add business in April. With Easter being the end of
March and typically signaling the end of ski season and spring
break being early, it was thought April skiing needed some extra
marketing. Total marketing dollars equal $30,000. 50% will come
from participating lodges, 25% from Vail Associates, 25% from the
communities served; Town of Vail, Town of Avon, and Beaver Creek
Resort. Mr. Johnson asked for $2,500 from the Town of Avon.
Discussion followed.
Councilor Gilman motioned to approve $2,500 to assist with the
April promotion marketing plan. Councilor Benson seconded the
motion and the motion carried unanimously.
Citizen Input:
Appeal of Denial / Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption
Annamarie Daane stated she is fully eligible for the transfer tax
exemption. She received the application, had her signature
notarized, and delivered it to the title company. When the title
company submitted a check to the Town for taxes due, it was
considered late or inappropriately filled out. The exemption
submitted to the title company had not been approved by the Town.
Christie Banowitz, from First American Heritage Title Company,
informed the form was received by the title company, the lender,
and the realtor prior to closing. They all made the same mistake
. . . saw the form in the file but, no one noticed it was not
signed by the Town prior to closing. It was an honest mistake;
the signature for Town approval was simply overlooked. No money
was escrowed, at the time of closing, as the form was in the
file. The town is now asking for the $1,600 exemption money.
Director of Finance Scott Wright informed staff will take a look
at the form itself, as well as some introductory statements and
explanations about the process to eliminate this in the future.
Councilor Reynolds motioned to grant the appeal for the denial of
the exemption. Councilor McIlveen seconded the motion and the
motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Fawcett announced the Town has an Ordinance that we have to
follow and in the last few months Council has granted two
exemptions that didn't technically follow the Ordinance. Mayor
Fawcett felt that Council needs to put an end to exemptions.
Citizen Input:
Mr. Tom Hines voiced his irritations regarding Monday's Vail
Daily article on the past council election.
Mr. Hines asked if the bids come in too high, regarding the
roundabouts, what are the ramifications, having the bonds already
issued, of delaying the project? Director of Finance Scott
Wright thought none, it wouldn't effect the bond proceeds.
4
0 •
There might be an issue of arbitrage on the interest that the
Town is earning on those proceeds and that would need to be
confirmed with bond counsel.
Mr. Hines volunteered his services for the citizen committee
regarding the roundabouts.
Mr. Hines expressed his disappointment with the County not
helping to fund the roundabouts.
Ordinances:
First Reading of Ordinance No. 97-3, Series of 1997, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE BROOKSIDE PUD, LOT 1, EAGLEWOOD SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF
AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko reviewed the
Ordinance. This is an amendment to the PUD, with an increase of
eight units, minor site modifications, and general design issues.
Councilor Benson motioned to approve on first reading Ordinance
No. 97-3, Series of 1997. Councilor Gilman seconded the motion.
Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Resolutions:
Resolution No. 97-18, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT OF SWIFT GULCH ADDITION, TOWN OF
AVON, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
Mayor Fawcett announced this is a public hearing.
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko reviewed the
Resolution. This is an application by the town, on town owned
property. Essentially, it is moving a right of way to the south
edge of the property to allow the site to be used more
effectively.
Mr. Peter Jamar, representing EMD the property owner to the east,
reminded that Council agreed to table this Resolution for two
weeks so that his civil engineers could review the proposed
reconfigured roadway. This will shift the two lane road
approximately 15' to the south. The new right of way obliterates
the easement that exists for the Nottingham and Puder Ditch. The
ditch would need to be piped. Mr. Jamar asked for some type of
commitment that, if the town is to maintain the ditch, the town
would pay the cost of piping. Piping would consist of
approximately 150 linear feet of 2411 pipe at an approximate cost
of $6,000. Mr. Jamar mentioned this area was to be utilized for
berming and landscaping to conceal partially the bus barn
facility. By moving the road over, it will be pretty hard to
berm, unless the road is elevated approximately 101, at a
considerable expense. Mr. Jamar noted he will anticipate the
road being at the 75/40 level, which won't allow for berming.
Mr. Jamar asked for a condition, in the Resolution that says; at
such point in time, that the road is extended to the east, in
order to maintain the easement for the Town's irrigation ditch,
the Town would be piping the ditch; so that it is clearly not
someone else's obligation.
Town Manager Bill Efting thought it to be a fair request.
5
•
Town Manager Efting added he would rather look at it with a
letter of agreement, when staff can take the time and check
figures so that the town is not getting itself into something
that is not $6,000, it's $16,000. Mr. Jamar agreed, so long as
the Town agrees, the piping of the ditch is the Town's obligation
if and when the road is extended.
Director of Municipal Services Larry Brooks noted the original or
draft plat referred to vacating the easement for the ditch. That
won't occur. They will get stacked to provide more room. In
that regard, Mr. Jamar's request seems fair, sensible, and it's
reasonable.
Council directed Town Manager Efting to work out a neighborly
agreement with Mr. Jamar.
Councilor Yoder motioned to
of 1997. Councilor Benson
carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
approve Resolution No. 97-18, Series
seconded the motion and the motion
a.) Approval of the February 11, 1997 Council Meeting Minutes
b.) Resolution No. 97-19, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 84-23, APPROVING CERTAIN RULES AND
REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACTIVITIES WITHIN AND AROUND TOWN
OWNED PROPERTIES
c.) Resolution No. 97-20, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
THE REVISED WATER LINE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS DATES
JANUARY, 1997
d.) Award Contract for Nottingham Park / Lot 16 to G.H. Daniels
and Associates
e.) Approval of Avon Road Roundabouts Construction Management
Proposal to MK Centennial
f.) Resolution No. 97-22, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 23, BLOCK 3,
WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
g.) Resolution No. 97-23, Series of 1997, A RESOLU'T'ION APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 38, BLOCK 2,
BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT NO. 4,
SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 55, RANGE 82W OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN OF
AVON, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
h.) Resolution No. 97-24, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 49, BLOCK 3,
WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
i.) Financial Matters
Mayor Fawcett announced item C is pulled from the Consent Agenda.
Councilor Gilman motioned to approve the Consent Agenda, with the
exception of Item C, which is withdrawn. Councilor Yoder
seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor
Fawcett called for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Benson moved
to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor Yoder. The
meeting was adjourned by Mayor Fawcett at 7:44 PM.
CTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty Lambe CMC
Town Clerk
6
0
AP
• E X H I B I T A 0
Date: February 24, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
From: Steven M. Grow, Owner
Subject: COMMENTS TO AVON TOWN COUNCIL- MEETING 2/24/97
If one assumes the purpose of the process is to air everyones' concerns about the project,
and that after three different public meetings, after a number of less formal discussions
with P & Z Staff, and with the incorporation of a minimum of 31 design changes which
were suggested by P & Z, one would acknowledge that we rigorously went through the
process for approval. We did everything asked of us to mitigate the "massing problem"
that the Board insists we have. In fact, we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that
we no longer have a "site problem." Obviously there is a major communications
problem with this project.
Take any project that undergoes a review process. If there are initial concerns about the
project and various suggestions are made to enhance and improve the project, one would
assume, that with the incorporation of all suggestions, that everyones' concerns should be
satisfied, otherwise, there would have been more suggestions made. One would also
assume that once all the suggestions are incorporated, which purpose is to improve and
enhance the project, then everyone should be happy with the project because their
concerns are satisfied, and then they would be able to accept the project At least thirty
one suggestions were incorporated into the original design of this project and the Board
has failed to give us approval. Again, something is very wrong here. We assumed the
Board made all the suggestions they felt would be required for approval of this project.
We did everything they asked us to do. We have been examined like a specimen under a
microscope. There must be some underlying issue that can't be quantified because the
Board certainly has had the opportunity to express all their concerns to us. During all of
the meetings, our entire team had the impression that as long as we incorporated the
Board and staff suggestions, then each member would be;satisfied with the project. Only
Jack Hunn, who is also a neighbor on the same road, at the conceptual review meeting
of January 7, 1997, said that even if we incorporate all of the changes that "he may not
approve the project." No other member expressed similar sentiments. We only assumed
at that point if there were additional concerns, they would have been expressed at that
time. As a matter-of -fact, most of the members of the Board seemed very positive about
the changes and the design of the project. Jack Hunn also said in our first formal
meeting on November 2, 1996, that our neighbor on block 31 is not as imposing as
viewed from below. I have viewed that project from Wildridge Rd. and Old Trail Rd.,
and I can only say that if Jack Hunn and the P & Z staff feel that structure is not massive
and does not impose itself on that site, I think we should all take a trip and look at that
project. John Perkins will give you some specific information later about that. site which
you should think about when considering our project At the final P & Z meeting earlier
this month, only two Board members were satisfied with the outcome of the project At
no time, with the exception of Jack Hunn, did we get this' feeling from the remainder of
the Board members.
• •
I reviewed my neighbor's P & Z files (Block 31). He is currently under construction.
There are three pages of comments-- each page with 1 paragraph of p & Z staff
comments. This applicant must have undergone the same microscopic review as we have
since his project is of similar scale, size, scope, and his lot is of similar slope, and he
certainly faced similar design problems as we have- Only Three paragraphs of
comments! Something is again wrong here! By anyones, standards this is a massive
project. You must agree the level of intense review we received is not consistent with
that of our neighbor who was recently approved by this Board, but whose project is so
similar in scale to ours.
All applicants should be following the same set of guide lines and have them applied
equally and evenly. Please review final Staff comments and see that we meet all the
technical requirements- zoning compliance, site compatibility, etc. What they are not
saying is that in their "subjective opinion", and in spite of the thirty one changes that have
been incorporated, and two months of intense meetings, they still do not like the project
and feel it does not work with the site. From day one, the overall foot print of the project
has not changed Everyone was aware of this, but the process still went forward and
changes were suggested and implemented If the Board was so focused on this issue,
they should have just said to us at the beginning of the process "that even though you
incorporate all of our suggestions, we are still not going to approve you." This is not
what happened.
We have not been treated fairly and consistently with the P & Z Board. The final
comments as prepared by the staff were ready on the Friday, January 31, 1997, five days
prior to the final meeting of February 4, 1997. Not until we called George Harrison on
that Tuesday of the meeting day, did we receive that final staff report three hours prior to
the meeting. They had it in their possession for six days and never told us it was ready
for our review. Is this fair? Norm Woods presented to George Harrison on January 26,
1997, his review of the site plan in your packet . Our scheduled P & Z meeting was
February 4th. Do you think it may have been helpful for us to have his comments prior to
that meeting? We received his comments today, and only after we had requested it.
These comments have been in the staff office since January 26, almost one month. Is this
fair?
The basic underlying P & Z staff opinion regarding the inclusion of the "Steep Slope"
guidelines and their application is incorrect. All the design changes we made, knowing
they were not required because the steep slope guidelines did not apply to us, were
made in order to accommodate the suggestions of the staff and the Board in hopes of
mitigating their concerns pertaining to this issue. We felt had we incorporated these
changes then we would receive P & Z approval. Based upon the actual slope of this site
and the incorrect information the board was consistently given by the staff throughout the
process, even down to their final report and recommendations, it was impossible for the
Board to make a correct and informed decision. They never had accurate and correct
information in order to make a proper decision. John Perkins will site example after
example to support my contention.
We ask that you reverse P & Z's denial based upon the merits of this project and the true
facts as they exist. Everything we have discussed is based upon hard objective facts, not
innuendo nor subjective opinion. There are several ways to design an acceptable project,
unfortunately, P & Z feels that their opinions and subjective evaluations are the only
acceptable approach to project design.
Thank you for your time and consideration.