TC Minutes 03-25-1997MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF. THE TOWN COUNCIL
HELD MARCH 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 5:32 PM.
A roll call was taken with Councilors Jim Benson, Richard Carnes;
Bob McIlveen, and Judy Yoder present. Councilors David Gilman
and.Buz,Reynolds, Jr. were absent. Also present were Town
Manager Bill Efting, Deputy Town Clerk Linda Donnellon,.Town
Attorney John Dunn, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Fire Chief Charlie
Moore, Special Events Coordinator Dana Maurer, Planner George
Harrison, Director of Community Development Mike Matzko, and
Administrative Assistant Jacquie Halburnt, as well as members-of
the press and public.
Citizen Input:
Appeal of P & Z - Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko reminded,'two weeks
ago, Council was asked by Planning Zoning Commission (P & Z)
Chairman Jack Hunn to reconsider a reversal of a decision by P &
Z,made two weeks prior to that meeting. Based on Chairman Hunn's
request, the matter appears tonight on the Agenda under Citizen
Input. Matzko acknowledged both Chairman Hunn's and the
applicant, Mr. Steven Grow's presence. Matzko stated staff's
perspective is that they are focusing on this as a process issue,.
primarily, and not really addressing the substance of the design.
Staff is -requesting that the process, because of the way it was
conducted, be remanded to the P & Z.
Mayor Fawcett asked where did the process fail or go afoul, if
that is the issue? Matzko stated it is hard to identify one
single point but, the key issue is probably the information, that
Council was presented with, by the applicant,-'in the hearing on
February 25th, was different. The site plan and the model were
different than the information that P & Z used to base their
decision on February 4th.
Mr. Steven Grow, applicant, handed out a five page document
dated 3/25/97, and attached as Exhibit A.
Mayor Fawcett thought the issue before Councilois whether or not
there were matters presented to the Council that were not
presented to.'P & Z. Mayor Fawcett suggested Mr. Grow stress that
issue. Mr. Grow thought that was exactly the issue.
Mr. Grow read the 5 page document, in it's entirety.
Mayor Fawcett asked for any questions from Council. No questions
from Council at this time.
P & Z Chairman Jack Hunn reminded why he requested Council
reconsider this decision. Mr. Hunn informed, at P .&-Z's meeting,
P & Z was presented with reduced copies-of plans, that had'been .
submitted two weeks prior to the meeting, together with the staff
report indicating their findings and their recommendation for
denial. That was the information P & Z was instructed to
consider.
0 0
During the meeting, at the meeting, the applicant presented a
model that staff had not seen prior to the meeting; and a new
site plan that had not been reviewed by staff, any member of the
Commission, or the Town Engineer. Staff was very careful to
point out, that while this site plan appeared to resolve some of
their concerns, they had not had time to review it. The
underlying intent of staff was that we should not consider that
site plan until it had been reviewed-by the Town Engineer and
Staff. As one commission member, Mr. Hunn made comments that
indicated the new site plan raised the building approximately 2'
and that that would further exacerbate his concern regarding the
project being too high off of the-existing grade. Mr. Hunn
stated his purpose, in approaching Council two weeks ago and
requesting Council reconsider the decision, was primarily
procedural. Specifically, Mr. Hunn felt that in overturning P &
Z's decision, Council left the matter of the Town Engineer's
review of the site plan unresolved. Council left the matter of
final selection of colors and materials, which were discussed at
P & Z's meeting, unresolved. Council left the matter of
landscaping; additional landscaping, that was discussed to help
mitigate the concerns of the Commission, unresolved. It is for.
that-reason that Mr. Hunn asked that the matter be reconsidered.
Ms. Karen Cross, citizen of Avon, asked what P & Z is, what are
they trying to build; it is really unclear, as obviously they
have talked about this before. Ms. Cross asked if anyone could
reintroduce what P & Z is, what they are trying to build, and
what the problem was. Ms. Cross stated this was the first time
she has been here and that she had no idea what was going on.
Mayor Fawcett informed P & Z is the Planning & Zoning Commission
of the Town of Avon. What Council is doing is considering or
reconsidering a presentation made by a developer to build a
particular- project in Avon, in an area called Wildridge.
Councilor Carnes gave Ms. Cross a memo to update her.
Mr. Grow stated he heard what Chairman Hunn just said. Mr. Grow
stated we have again a major, major communication problem. Mr..
Grow stated Mr. Hunn said their underlying basis 'was the,site
plan that was presented to them, prior -to'. the site, plan acid model
of that evening. Mr. Grow believed that staff, the day before,
had the opportunity to look at and review it. .In essence, the 11
X 17s, that Mr. Hunn is talking about, which were in the packet,
were preliminary reviewed the prior day; not a thorough review.
That is how Mr. Harrison was able to make his comments a number
of times - they are not reviewed however-- based upon a
preliminary review, they appear to work. No one commented,
during the evening, that they couldn't review it; could not
consider any comments.- Everything went on just as if nothing
happened. Everyone was fully aware of what they were looking at.
From the town's perspective, it wasn't totally reviewed but, Mr.
Grow didn't hear anybody come forth and say I am sorry, we can't
have presentation this evening. Mr. Grow spent an hour and
half at P & Z. Everybody asked questions. They looked at the
model. They had a major discussion about all'the features, the
color board.. Where was the communication from the board saying
that their underlying belief was that they can not take that
information into consideration? Tell me where the communication
breakdown is. Mr. Grow reiterated he spent-an entire night
discussing that model, that site plan, even though it was not
formally reviewed; and the comments were, by Mr. Harrison, that
it looked like they could work. Mr. Grow did not hear anybody'-s
comment saying, how do you know it's going to,work; what makes
you think it's going to work. There - was no direct questioning
regarding the ability of that site to work or not work.' P &'Z
didn't express concern that they were looking at something that
the town staff had not looked at.
2
0 0
Mr. Grow stated he would have loved to have heard any one
individual, that night, say,,I am sorry, we really can't look at
your model, we can't look.at,your new-site plan, because staff
didn't review it prior to that. There was no big mystery with
this product. It hadn't changed substantially over the prior
products they were looking at. Yes, it changed but, obviously;
the board had a thorough understanding of the changes. It wasn't
so difficult a project to comprehend at that point - staff level.
And, Mr. Grow stated,. that is what he-'didn't understand. Mr.,
Grow stated Mr.,Hunn'made certain assertions,-tonight; he made
certain statements tonight; he made them at'prior-comments to
you, which Mr. Grow refuted and felt there is still a
communication problem. Mr. Grow just didn't understand where the
board can come off and say they looked at different information
than Council was presented. They looked at the identical
information. Mr. Grow agreed it wasn't formally approved with
Staff but, that entire night it was identical information, the
identical model,.the identical facts,-the identical figures.
They made the same decision that night based on the information
that they had before them, as Council made the following two
weeks with the information before Council; identical information.
Mr. Grow stated this is a subterfuge, folks. That is all this
is.'''They'need something to hang their hat on and Mr. Grow-stated
he-will not accept a subterfuge cause it's not based on fact.
Matzko stated, from.staff's perspective, he would like to clarify
a couple of comments. Matzko stated when he started working here
certain practices were in place. Because of the level of
activity we have been getting, we, as a staff, have worked with
the commission to get clearer on our staff comments so that we
can present the issues more clearly. And, when the commission-is
taking an action, it is very specific. An example of that is,
well, in this particular one, the motion that was made by the
commission was very specific as to which plan it was denying
approval for. The date', Matzko thought, was the 21st of January.
The reason we do that is.exactly for this reason; so it is
absolutely clear in everybody's mind which plan we are reviewing
and which plan we are deciding upon. Without that, I think you
can understand it would be very difficult to know which plan we
were talking about. So, at the end of the discussion', the
commission all understood, read, and repeated that motion which
specified that plan. At the beginning of the hearing, Mr.
Harrison made the statement - not once but at least twice'- this
plan has just been received; we haven't had a chance to review
it. The commission had the opportunity to either review that
plan at a later date, after staff had a chance to review it or to
rule on the plan that was before them, which was the one dated
January 21st. Based on the applicant's feelings, expressed at
that time, the commission proceeded and made the ruling.
Councilor 'Carnes interjected and asked if Matzko was talking
about the ruling of February 4th. Matzko replied yes. January
21 was the date of the plan set that the commission reviewed and
made their decision upon. The plan set that Mr. Grow is
referring to, and the model, are based on a revised site plan.
The planning commission did not have the benefit of full staff
review; did not have-the benefit of discussion of that; they'did
have the applicant handing it out to them, at the meeting.
Matzko continued, if you look at our common practice for the.P &
Z, the commission is reluctant to make a decision based on
information that they get at that point. It is just simply not
done. Why they would make an exception in this case is beyond
me. So, I appreciate it may be confusing to the applicant but,
we were trying to be very clear that they were not reviewing or
deciding upon that revised site plan.
Mayor Fawcett asked, so you are saying the decision was based on
the January 21st site plan? Matzko replied exactly and the
record reflects that.
3
0 •
Councilor Carnes asked if Council has ever seen the January 21st
site plan. Matzko stated it was attached in Council's packet
however, the presentation was based on the model and the
discussion centered on the revised site plan.
Councilor Benson asked if Matzko had a chance to look at the
revised site plan - him or the Town Engineer - in the last couple
of weeks. Matzko replied we've had a chance to look at it. We
still have some concerns but, pending this action here, we did
not feel it was appropriate to go ahead and do a full staff
review. Councilor Benson asked, so basically you have to have it
referred back to staff and P & Z to review that site plan and
make sure this new site plan does work properly in terms of
engineering. Matzko stated staff's preference would be that the
design be remanded to the P & Z; the applicant have a chance to
properly present and have the commission review that revised site
plan and then take whatever action the commission feels is
appropriate. And, if the applicant is not satisfied with that
outcome, whatever it might be, then they would again have the
opportunity to appeal to Council. But, at least then we would
understand that the Council would be reviewing the same
information that the commission made it's decision based upon.
Councilor Carnes asked if the January 21st site plan was full of
flaws and was that why they came up with a revised one? Matzko
stated it's not that it was full of flaws, it's that the design
it showed was not - did not - fit within the guidelines
established by the town. Councilor Carnes asked so they were
having to do this revised site plan no matter what. Matzko
stated yes.
Councilor Benson noted we received their revised site plan on
February 11th. Matzko added, and the model which is based on the
revised site plan; although it is at a different scale than the
site plan. It is a minor point but, from a procedure standpoint
it has fairly large implications.
Councilor Carnes stated so when we were asking those questions -
when we overturned - and when we were asking, is this the exact
same thing that P & Z looked at and you were saying yes, because
it was. Matzko stated P & Z made their decision based on the
January 21st site plan. And, the model and the revised site plan
were not what P & Z had formally reviewed. The applicant showed
them to the P & Z but, if you look at a grading plan, of any
type, it's pretty difficult to make a decision - have a good
understanding of that - in the short period of time that you have
before you at a meeting. Typically the commission has at least a
weekend to review those sorts of things.
Councilor Yoder asked, so if you were doing this again, in hind
site of course, would you have just waited until the following
meeting so you had a chance to review it, before it went to P &
Z, so this wouldn't have happened. Matzko stated that would have
been his recommendation. As Matzko recalled, he suggested that.
However, the applicant wanted to proceed - get a decision at that
point - right then and there. In hind site, Matzko thought it
may have been an unfortunate decision.
Councilor Carnes understood and confirmed that on February 4th
they didn't deny the revised site plan, they denied the original
site plan. Matzko stated correct; that was why we put the
specific date of the site plan in the motion so there was no
question in anybody's mind what site plan was reviewed.
Ms. Cross asked why does this gentleman want to build a duplex in
Wildridge, when he can build a duplex anywhere else in Colorado?
4
• •
Mr. John Perkins, architect for the applicant, thought part of
the problem is a timing problem. When the Town Engineer's
comments come back to staff and then when they get back to me,
we're starting to approach meeting date and in a lot of cases
there is not time to change anything. The changes that we made
to the site plan were to improve; we made them to improve,the way
this building worked on the site.. Two or three days before the
meeting - that would be the meeting of February 4th, the denial
meeting - George and I sat down and went over the site plan of
January 21st and we'went over the Town Engineer's comments and we
walked out of there. I made some red line marks on a full size
24 X 36 sheet of that site plan and we made some comments and-we
both thought what we had was a workable solution and those
changes got made and ended up in the reduced packet; we didn't
resubmit the big sheets - you submit the copies of the 24 X 36 on
the deadline date. And, I think the way it is intended to work
is that staff makes comments and maybe those comments can get
corrected and they go in on the reduced copies which you submit
to staff sometime later. And so, that is why, in the packet,
there was a site plan in there that was altered and reviewed as
agreed on between myself and staff, as a workable site plan.
And, then the model - then I built the model just a few days
before the meeting - and the model was based on that latest
improved site plan. In no way did we change anything between
that meeting and what you saw.
Councilor Benson asked, did P & Z have a chance to see that-model
that you brought to our meeting a month ago. Mr. Perkins replied
yes but, it came to the meeting, I think George said he wanted
that model over here at 6:30pm the night before. The other key
thing that everybody may be missing - the model was completely
voluntary on our part. It is in no way required. We prepared
the model because we knew we were having a ,hard time
communicating this building to the P & Z. So, we prepared that
at the owner's expense and we got it over here as soon as we had
it. There was never a deadline that you have to have a model -
you don't have to have a model.
Mr. Grow wanted to clarify the whole issue about the,packet. Mr.
Grow stated the purpose of the packet is that the board has an
opportunity to review the information that is going to be.
discussed in the following few days. Mr. Grow found it hard to
believe that the board members actually, if•they were looking at
that packet prior to coming to that meeting, really recognized
that that site plan, in that packet, was any different than the
site plan of January'21st. They had in their packet - and if
they had reviewed that packet - the only thing that they were
looking at - the only thing they possibly could have made a
determination on was the information in that packet. They
weren't aware, until that actual meeting,--`that the information in
that packet - that revised site plan, that new site plan - they
weren't aware that that was-a new site plan until they came to
the actual meeting. They had it'in their possession for
certainly, probably through the weekend,~I would guess, I'm not
quite sure. But, they had it in their packet. And, what they .
reviewed theoretically was the revised-site plan. "We never,'-,
alluded to the January site plan. We only discussed;the "site'
plan that was in their packet. Mr. Grow continued, there-is no
way that anything that they were looking at that evening - and
that was discussed that evening - referred to anything other than
what was in their packet and what they theoretically would have
reviewed and listened to and had comments about that entire
evening. Mr. Grow stated he does not deny that staff didn't have
the appropriate amount of time to review the technical issues -
all the technical issues. George Harrison had a little bit of
time - Mr. Grow recognized that. But, we also recognized that we
were going to work with staff - we said it a number of times
staff said that they would work with us to resolve those few
issues.
5
Mr. Grow continued, those weren't critical issues to the
discussion that evening. They were critical, I understand, to P
& Z's perspective but, we discussed everything else under the sun
relating to that project aside from the actual real nitty gritty
of their real concerns. Again, nobody on the board said, by the
way, why are we looking at this site plan tonight? That's not
the January site plan. Why didn't any board commissioner make a
comment at the beginning of the meeting - oh, by the way folks,
that is not the site plan we really have to look at and consider;
there was no comment about that. As far as anybody on that,
board, as far as I'm concerned, they recognized that the site
plan in their packet was the identical site plan that we were
discussing that entire night and they could have cared less,
otherwise the comment, I would imagine, would have been made
about that January site plan because what was relevant was the
improved site plan - not the old site,plan. 'What' is relevant to
the process is getting the project through and getting as.good a
site plan as we can get and as good a project as we can get so
'that we don't rehash old material. I'm sure the board wasn't
even considering that because, had-they considered it, a comment,
at some point in an hour and a half, would have come up - not at
closing, not at opening, not at the middle, not during Mr. Hunn's
conversations. Mr: Hunn's.staff was there.' I did not;hear--one-
staff member say, by the.way, don't consider that site-plan,'itvs'
a new site plan - we didn't have a chance to.review it. They
said they didn't have a chance to review it but, they never said
don't consider it. I can not truly believe that staff or Mr.
Hunn truly believed that the decision that night was based upon
the January plan. It was never discussed - it was never in their
packet - why would they even think about that.site plan - it was
history - it was old information.
Councilor Carnes stated we are spending a lot of time debating
which site plan was approved and so on and which site plan was
denied and so on - when can you start building the house? Mr.
Grow replied as'soon as I get approval. Councilor Carnes '.asked
if Mr. Grow has any other problems besides this. Mr.'Grow stated
no., Councilor Carnes questioned if-everything was settled-here,
you could start building the house tomorrow? Mr. Grow stated
theoretically - not tomorrow but within a reasonable period 'of
time. Councilor Carnes asked if this whole issue went back, with
the site plan we are-talking about - the February 4th site plan -
if that went back to P & Z, next Tuesday, with those other four
issues - colors, landscaping, final materials, and grading -
could you put it first on the agenda next Tuesday, you guys look
at the new site plan theoretically, could'it-all just be solved
next Tuesday and he could start building next Wednesday? If
everything passed, of course.
Town Attorney John Dunn thought of no reason why the matter could
not go'back before P & Z on Tuesday of next week but, that is
certainly no guarantee that it would be approved. It could be
back in Council's lap in a few weeks.
Mr. Grow asked, why can't we just go back to staff, which was
:originally agreed to - the original agreement between Mike,
George, myself, John Perkins, all the people involved in the
process. Mr. Grow asked, why can't it be resolved at staff level
- why does it have to appear before the board? We don't think-it
is necessary to take up the board's time.to talk about-four
issues - color, landscaping, site plan of which most of it is
worked out and agreed to by George; I'm not talking about major,
issues. All the major issues have been resolved. We are-talking
about cosmetic, for the most part, issues.
6
•
Mayor Fawcett stated the problem is that we obviously aren't that
familiar but, we do have certain issues that we have to deal
with. At this point in time, it is up to this board or this
Council to determine whether they want to take some action, no
action, whatever. But, it is really up to my colleagues to
determine what to do.
Mr. Grow suggested Council position themselves to say that
they'll stay with their course however, prior to obtaining a
building permit, we will have to work out and receive the
approvals from staff to mitigate all their concerns regarding
site.
Mayor Fawcett thought it might be easier to remand. Mr. Grow
added to remand to staff, not before the board.
Councilor Yoder felt there are enough unresolved issues that it
needs to go back to the P & Z.
Councilor Benson motioned to remand the final design of the
proposed duplex for Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision to the
Planning and Zoning Commission with the direction to review and
rule upon the revised design as submitted by the applicant.
Councilor Yoder seconded the motion.
Mayor Fawcett asked for further comment.
Councilor Carnes asked if it is something that could be handled
just at the staff level; not to debate whether or not it was
discussed two weeks; but can it be? Matzko stated in his opinion
it would not be appropriate to resolve these issues at the staff
level. Councilor Benson asked why. Matzko stated the grading
plan in this particular project has such an impact on the
placement of the building that to say that we could resolve this,
that this is a minor change; I am not confident making that
statement. If anything, the site plan, as revised, may
exacerbate the problem that the commission was concerned with in
the first place. Councilor Benson asked building mass? Matzko
stated building mass relative to the site and it's placement on
the site relative to the slope. Matzko felt this to be a very
important issue. Councilor Benson commented that a month ago
when he looked at the model, from what Mr. Hunn shared with
Council, by raising the building up the 2' it is going to
increase that massive looking size of a block feature. Councilor
Benson stated he was not aware of that. Councilor Benson thought
it needed to return to P & Z for approval.
Councilor Carnes asked if this did go back to P & Z, next
Tuesday, and P & Z denied it, everything could start all over
again, correct; in terms of the appeal process? Mr. Hunn stated
yes. Councilor Carnes thought so two weeks from now, we could be
sitting here with an appeal on the new site plan being denied.
Mr. Hunn understood that if it is remanded back to P & Z next
Tuesday, and P & Z again denies it, the applicant has the right
to appeal to the Council. Mr. Hunn noted the record of what P &
Z denied, what was presented and denied, will be clear. And,
that is the reason why we are sending it back. If I am
understanding the motion, it is to consider it on the new
information.
Mr. Grow wished to clarify. First of all, staff didn't comment
whether they think that - even if we decided and we agreed to
get - all the revised site plan; the four issues that they were
raising - to them, we have only a few days until next meeting.
If we got that to them, as quickly as we could, would they have
the opportunity to properly review it, make their report, get the
information to P & Z, for them to make an informed decision,
based upon our time frame? I don't think that was ever answered.
That's one.
7
• •
Mr. Grow continued, the second question is we are not talking
about the issues four, five, six, or five, six, seven - that P &
Z referred to when they denied us. We went through the whole
scenario - they approve, they approve, they approve - but there
was four, five, and six, I don't remember exactly which issues
they were; those issues were denied once. They felt obviously -
we were turned down because we didn't meet the same design
criteria. Are we going to have to appear before that board and
prove again that we have to meet those same, excuse me four,
five, six, or five, six, seven, whatever they are; that they
mentioned in their denial? or is it just - are we going to
discuss the four issues remaining - site, landscape, color,
roofing, whatever the last one was. I mean I want to be real
clear what we will be discussing at that meeting and not having
to go through and open up the entire process again to discuss
what we have been discussing for several months. There is a big
difference between talking about four issues that Mr. Hunn came
before you about and discussing the entire process and every
single issue of that project. I would like clarification as to
the scope of that meeting, if you decide that we will go before
the board.
Councilor Yoder stated it is remanding the final design back to P
& Z. Councilor Benson stated he added in Lot 32, Block 1,
Wildridge. Councilor Carnes added, to review and rule upon the
revised design as submitted by the applicant.
Councilor Carnes asked Mr. Grow if he was suggesting to include
in the motion those four items. Mr. Grow stated the four items
raised by Mr. Hunn, two weeks ago, which is why we are here
tonight; not the entire process; no other issues with the
exception of those four issues. Councilor Benson stated he would
say no to revising the motion based on the fact of what if they
come up with other issues. You may come up with something else.
And, then you are limited; you have the right to say, no, this
was not an issue; we can't discuss that. I want to keep it open
so that the staff has the opportunity - has the latitude to make
sure you are including'everything in that.
Councilor Yoder called the question.
Councilor Carnes asked is next Tuesday enough time for staff to
thoroughly research everything. Matzko stated it would be a push
to do that. Normally we wouldn't do it that quickly. We will do
everything that we can. Councilor Carnes asked if we fast track
it, is it fair to the applicant? Matzko felt the fairest thing
to the applicant would be to give them a thorough review so that
we can resolve these issues and that is what we want to do. The
other side of this is, we do not want to engage in this any
longer than the applicant does because, this is diverting
resources that we could otherwise put in other projects. We are
not interested in prolonging it. We will do our best to get it
on and thoroughly reviewed by next meeting.
Councilor Yoder again called the question.
Mayor Fawcett stated we have a motion and a second and requested
a roll call vote.
The motion carried with Councilors Jim Benson, Bob McIlveen, and
Judy Yoder in favor and Councilor Carnes opposed.
Mayor Fawcett announced the motion passes. It will be remanded
to P & Z.
8
Citizen Input:
Ms. Dee Combs, resident of Wildridge, thanked the-Police
Department for directing traffic during the 5:00 PM rush hour.
Ms. Combs also thanked the guys for doing such a good job in
keeping the roads cleaned and cindered this winter, going up.to
Wildridge.
Ordinances:
Second 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
Mayor Fawcett announced this is a public hearing.
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko informed the
request is to table this Ordinance indefinitely. They still have
not closed on the property.
Councilor Benson motioned to table indefinitely Ordinance No. 97-
3, Series of 1997. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion.
Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda:
a.) Approval of the March.li, 1997 Council Meeting Minutes-
b.) Approval of Fireworks Production Contract with Western.
Enterprises, Inc:
c.) Approval of Festival, of Nations Contract with Sumeo Vahine
Alii, the Polynesian fire dancers
d.) Resolution No. 97-26, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE 1997 BUDGET
e.) Approval of proposal from Public Service Company / Extension
of gas line in Avon Road
f.) Approval-of Benchmark (Nottingham) Lake Maintenance Costs /
Regional Water Authority Agreement
g.) Approval of Maintenance Agreement for'Breathing Air
Compressor
h.) Financial Matters
Councilor Benson motioned to approve the Consent Agenda.
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'6:34 PM.
RESPMTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty LambeAt. CMC
Town Clerk
9
•
10
•
0 E X H I B I T po
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 3/25/97
My response to the council meeting of 3/11/97, in which Jack Hunn requested
further review of the Council's decision to reverse P & Z's denial:
Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. Please allow me to read
this statement, so that I may stay focused on the relevant issues at hand this
evening.
First, I would like to say that I am at a loss as to why I had to come from
New Jersey to formally appear before you, when the issues raised by Mr.
Hunn could have easily been worked out at staff level, and they would
have been on my project. At the conclusion of the Council meeting in
which the P & Z denial was overturned, Mike Matzko and my group all
discussed that there were a few open issues left to resolve and it was
agreed then that they could be resolved at staff level. Mike Matzko
agreed, and we assumed this was the path to be taken. The following day
George Harrison, Mike Matzko and I, met in their offices and we again
expressed the same spirit of cooperation and communication between all
of us, in the resolution of the open issues. We never so much as received
either a phone cal! or a letter from any member of staff indicating that any
other approach was to be taken. It was never our attempt to avoid
resolving the open issues and we made this very clear to the staff. So
much for "improved communications."
1 would like to next discuss Jack Hunn's comments to you on March 11, in
which you agreed to further review your decision to reverse P & Z's denial
for final design review. Mr. Hunn suggested that Council made their
decision on the basis of different information than P & Z had available to
them when P & Z made their decision to deny. This is blatantly untrue.
Let's review some of the actual comments taken from the official tape
recordings of the P & Z meeting of February 4, 1997. The opening .
comments by George Harrison indicated that the model and the new sight
plan included in their packet had not been formally reviewed- by staff or the
Town engineer, but based upon staffs' preliminary review, "we achieved
appropriate grades and it appeared the new grading plan would work."
John Perkins, during his presentation, says a short time later- "Look at the
model- it includes revised gradings that Norm Wood requested. Also
included are the revised 11 x 17's in your packet." Again, a short time
later, John Perkins says that "all comments from the prior Board meeting
have been addressed, including the roof product." George Harrison then
comments about the "back side of the staff report containing a materials
table." Later on during Mr. Perkins' presentation, he again comments that
"the site plan in the Council's packet reflect changes and the model clearly
reflects the retainage issue." George Harrison then comments "that at a
• i
glance, the sight plan should work even though it has not been formally
reviewed by staff." Later on, Commissioner Evans asks directly "if this is
an updated sight plan." John Perkins responds "yes!" Commissioner
Karow says he would approve the project subject to Town Engineers
approval. Mr. Perkins responds "we will do that." Chairman Hunn then
begins to discuss driveway detail and mentions the revised grading plan.
George Harrison's final comment was that "the sight plan in packet was
not reviewed by Town Engineer." Commissioner Karow moves to
"approve project subject to grading plan approval by the Town Engineer."
Commissioner Railton seconds the motion subject to working out
landscaping and grading. Mr. Perkins comments that "we will agree to
these conditions.' Do these comments and responses sound like
comments from a Board who did not know what they were looking at or
what information was being presented to them?? Do our responses and
comments sound to you like we were not cooperative and that we would
also continue to be cooperative in the resolution of any unresolved issues.
I will let you be the judge.
The Board and Chairman Hunn, from the very beginning of that meeting of
February 4,1997, were well aware that the entire discussion that evening
was based upon the model presented and the new site plan that was in
their packet. As you heard at various times during the meeting, George
Harrison reminded the Board that the plans and model were not formally
reviewed by staff, but included recent changes suggested by staff that
appeared to work. There was no misrepresentation nor misunderstanding
as to what our presentation represented. The Board was looking at the
project as it was perceived at that point. At no time did the Board say they
would not hear the presentation because the staff had not formally
reviewed the model or the new sight plan being presented. Chairman
Hunn's assertion that the P & Z Board did not consider the new sight plan
discussed that evening in making their determination to deny final design
review approval is ludicrous. That new sight plan and that model were the
only items discussed that entire evening and everyone was aware of that,
including Mr. Hunn. I am not sure what Chairman Hunn's motive or
agenda is, but it certainly was not presenting true and accurate information
to this Council on March 11, 1997.
The presentation and information given to council on February 25,1997,
contained exactly the same information as was presented to the P & Z Board on
February 4, 1997. Mike Matzko and George Harrison were both at the council
meeting of February 25th, and I am sure had they heard anything contrary to
what was presented to P & Z, they would have commented. They spoke a
number of times during the Council meeting but never mentioned there was
conflicting information presented to Council! Mr. Hunn also suggested there were
"significant" differences between the sight plans. I am not sure what Mr. Hunn
means by "significant." But again, if this was fact, I would assume the staff
2
0 s
present would have commented about the apparent discrepancy. There were no
comments from the staff because there were no differences or new information
presented to Council.
Let's review some of the specifics from Mr. Hunn's comments of March 11th.
Mr. Hunn mentions four unresolved issues:
1. Sight plan- Retaining walls, encroachments, etc. I do not know what issues
Mr. Hunn includes in the "Etc." category, however, based upon my memory, these
issues were resolved long ago; 2. Final Materials-Roof material and siding;
3. Colors; and 4. Landscaping. As to roof materials and colors, these were
discussed at the Board meeting of February 4th, and were presented to the
Board on a comprehensive color board and passed around to the Council. I do
not recall any member expressing any confusion as to the actual materials being
used, as each had the color board in front of them for their review. This included
the actual roof material and actual siding being used. If there was any confusion
on any Board members' part relative to the materials being used, it was not
expressed during that meeting, nor was it mentioned in the minutes of that
meeting. George Harrison even commented that "the submitted `materials' list
was attached to the back side of the staff report." There was some concern
relative to the actual colors being presented and landscaping was discussed at
length at the time. Mr. Hunn suggests these "open-issues fell through the
cracks." I am not sure what or whose cracks, sort to speak, he meant by this, but
as far as we are concerned, they were not forgotten by us, and were always
intended to be resolved by us with staff prior to securing the building permit. In
fact, some issues have already been discussed with staff.
Council Member Carnes asked Mr. Hunn "if the Council's decision to reverse was
based upon 'incorrect' information presented to them." Mr. Hunn's response was
"not incorrect necessarily, but perhaps 'different information' than P & Z was
shown." Council Member Gillman asked "if the model shown to Council was not
representative of the new construction proposed." Mr. Hunn's response was that
"he could not say for certain which site plan the model represented, but that
Council made their decision relying upon the model as the primary element of
information, but the Board was looking at a very different site plan at their
meeting." Is Mr. Hunn suggesting we purposely prepared a different model
specifically for Council to review, as opposed to presenting the same model the
Board reviewed? Ladies and gentlemen, there is only one set of facts and one
model- the same model and same set of facts that P & Z and the Council were
presented and reviewed and commented upon. Mr. Hunn also unilaterally states
"that if Council had seen the same information that P & Z had seen, then Council
may have arrived at a different conclusion." Ladies and gentlemen, you had
exactly the same information as was presented to P & Z. Council member
Carnes asked "if we were aware of the four open issues." Mr. Hunn's response
was that "it was reflected in the minutes and he understands the applicant has a
copy of them." I believe the intent of Mr. Cames' question was whether the Board
or staff had directly communicated their concerns regarding the four unresolved
3
0
issues to the applicant. Is this correct Mr. Carries? Obviously Mr. Hunn feels the
minutes are sufficient notification and communication, but I do not believe
information appearing in the minutes is the same as direct communication. Do
You?? Please notice the precise selection of expressions Chairman Hunn uses
in his responses- "Perhaps", "Could not say for certain", and "He understands."
Do you notice a language pattern? Possibly a bit ambiguous or cautious in his
choice of wording. What could be his rationale for selecting such vague
expressions? By the way, I never had a copy of the minutes prior to me picking
them up this past Friday, March 21 st. In fact, not only did we not receive
notification of the four outstanding issues, but I was not informed of Mr. Hunn's
appearance before you on March 11, 1997, nor did we receive oral notification of
this evening's meeting, as was suggested by Town Attorney Dunn. To Mr. Hunn's
credit however, he did acknowledge that "we were not contacted or asked to be
present at the Council meeting."
May I suggest that Mr. Hunn was so confidant that Council would not overturn
"his" Boards' decision, that he did not even bother to show up at the Council
meeting of February 25,1997. Had Mr. Hunn been there, our appearance tonight
would not have been necessary, as Mr. Hunn would have heard the discussion
first hand, and would have realized that the information given to you was identical
to that given to "his" Board. Certainly, at a minimum, if Mr. Hunn had any
concems, he would have had the opportunity to express them, were he at that
meeting.
In reviewing the official Council tape recording of February 25, 1997, 1 found a
minimum of six occasions where we or the Council discussed and used
expressions like the "finished project" or "final presentation." Additionally, the
Mayor specifically asked me if all the arguments presented that evening were
made to P & Z . And I responded "absolutely- there was not one thing here
tonight that they (P & Z) did not hear during this entire process, as we did not
hear anything new tonight from them (P & Z)." They had the model at their
meeting (of February 4, 1997).
Mr. Mayor, in summerizing the evenings discussions, you made the following
comments: "All of the arguments you put forth to Council you said you put forth
to P & Z. If we came to Council with something new that P & Z had not heard,
then I would say 'my God,' they did not have the advantage of having that-
perhaps we should reverse and approve your appeal. Because P & Z has
more knowledge and has dealt with this for several months, I can't reverse unless
there is a rule of law, which I don't believe you have, or unless you have new
material that you are providing us with, which you already said you have not. I
can't vote but just wanted Council to know my opinion." My response to you, Mr.
Mayor, was "that we were told we are not allowed to present to you any new
information that we (may) have that was not given to P & Z Board at the time of
denial. We definitely have other information that would soften the approach, but
we are not allowed to discuss that with you, unless you bring up the issue. This
4
0 •
stance was based upon George Harrison's comments to me that we could not
discuss anything other than (that) was discussed (at P& Z) because you are here
to rule on the denial, which they had the benefit of "x° information." John Perkins
further commented that "the appeal has to be based on the material that was
submitted and denied." George Harrison said to us this is not the forum for new
information...."
Councilman Benson made a motion to approve the project with some technical
corrections from the staff. After some discussion regarding the language of the
motion, a new motion was presented and seconded.
Councilman Benson's final remark after the motion was passed was "thank you
for bringing this model- it helped me out a lot."
Ladies and gentlemen, if you recall the last time I appeared before you, I
complained about the major lack of communication, and possibly even possible
deception, between staff and this applicant- obviously this has not changed and
continues. Even though Chairman Hunn may not have been required by law to
provide us with notice of his intent to appear before Council on March 11, in the
spirit of cooperation and fairness, which staff says they are trying to maintain, and
which we have tried so hard to maintain, I believe we should have been given the
courtesy and had the opportunity to appear before you on March 11, 1997, to
discuss the issues raised by Chairman Hunn. It is quite obvious that you were
given false, or at best, misleading information by Mr. Hunn, Chairman of the P &
Z Planning Commission, as the basis for your decision to review your
determination. I will say again, had staff even communicated with us on a
minimum level, we would not be here tonight; wasting Council's time with areas of
discussion that should have been, and could have been, easily resolved at staff
level. I will also say again that we are still being examined and being held
accountable beyond any degree of reasonableness. The proceedings tonight for
which I had to come from NJ to appear before you, the proceedings of March 11,
and the continuing microscopic staff review we are encountering, only further
supports our contention there is some hidden agenda, either personal or more
wide spread, that we are experiencing, in an attempt to prevent us from
proceeding with this project. We will not allow individual personalities or personal
agendas to prevent this project from moving forward.
I would like the Council to stand by its original decision of the reversal of the P &
Z denial and allow us to continue our dialog with staff and resolve all the
outstanding issues that we originally agreed to resolve a month ago.
Thank you for time, continued cooperation and understanding.
CounciQ
5