TC Minutes 04-22-1997•
0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
HELD APRIL 22, 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 5:39 PM.
A roll call was taken with Councilors Richard Carnes, Bob
McIlveen, and Judy Yoder present. Councilors Jim Benson, David
Gilman, and Buz Reynolds, Jr. were absent. Also present were
Town Manager Bill Efting, Assistant Town Manager Larry Brooks,
Town Clerk Patty Lambert, Town Attorney John Dunn, Director of
Recreation Meryl Jacobs, Police Chief Gary Thomas, Director of
Community Development Mike Matzko, Town Planner Karen Griffith,
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
Mr. Steven Grow, owner, distributed a memo to the Town Council,
dated 4/22/97, (see Exhibit A attached) and read it in its
entirety.
Mayor Fawcett noted that Mr. Grow stated it was reviewed and
approved by Norm Wood. Mayor Fawcett asked what would be
approved . . earlier Mr. Grow said Norm Wood sent it back
without comment. Mr. Grow stated it's not a technical issue; Mr.
Grow guessed it's the way the Planning Board accepts Mr. Wood's
comments on.approval or disapproval of the plan. Mr. Grow
guessed Mr. Wood doesn't formally, technically approve 'of or
disapprove of a plan. Mr. Grow thought John or the staff could
h6lp--him out on this." Mr.. Grow understood when Norm Wood has no
comment, that that indicates that the plan has met all technical
requirements and in Mr. Grow's case, the plans as submitted and
reviewed would work on the site. Mayor Fawcett reminded Mr. Grow
that he said technically Norm Wood didn't approve it. Mr. Grow
thought that is a-'technical differentiation that P & Z makes.
Mr.'Grow thought that John or the staff could clarify what no
comment really means. Mr. Grow added he has asked staff in a
formal letter to.acknowledge the approval of the site plan but,
he has not received a formal acknowledgement, from staff, that
the plan was formally approved. Mr. Grow felt a no comment
indicates that Norm Wood had no problem with the site plan and
therefore gets staff's approval. Mayor Fawcett just wanted to
clarify. Mr. Grow thought that was an excellent point and
thought that John might want to discuss that now. Mr. John
Perkins, architect for the project, stated the only people that
have approval power is the Planning Commission. Staff and no one
else has any power to approve or deny anything; it is all in the
hands of the Planning Commission. Mr. Perkins thought that Norm
wood is just part of the review process, as a pair of technical
engineering eyes. Mayor Fawcett thanked Mr. Perkins for his
comments.
Mr. Dennis Vernon, owner of a single family residence on Lot 33
and the neighboring property of Lot 32, stated he had a few
concerns. Mr. Vernon stated some of those concerns are basic,
around the size of the unit. Mr. Vernon took the time last week,
and apologized that he didn't take time sooner, to look at the
project. Mr. Vernon stated the things that struck him were the
size; the fact that it is five bedrooms, per side.
Mr. Vernon noticed it said parking for five for each side and Mr.
Vernon translated that to parking for ten. Mr. Vernon said that
it falls-in the description of a,-duplex but, to him that is an
apartment complex. Mr. Vernon added.it is a lot of traffic for
that road.' You have to assume that there is going to be ten
people there if you have parking for ten. Mr. Vernon stated he
is concerned about snow removal. Currently, the snow storage : .
. the ten foot easement around that cul-de-sac gets used a fair
amount. Because of the angle of the snow easement, frequently
when they are clearing the roads, Mr. Vernon ends up with big
snow balls rolled up against the side of his house. Mr. Vernon
questioned if we have less space to put the snow, is he going to
have more snow balls up against the side of his house. Mr.
Vernon added the guys have a very difficult job but, they don't
have much space to put the snow. Mr. Vernon stated he has a
concern, looking at their lot, if they are plowing it with that
angle, they are going to end up with a lot of snow in the
driveway. Mr. Vernon mentioned a concern of height. Mr. Vernon
mentioned a concern of fire hazard. Mr. Vernon understood that
there has been many units that have been built around that
percentage of their total acreage, as far as total site plan.
Mr. Vernon urged Council to put this to rest. Councilor Carnes
asked for clarification on what issue to put to rest. Mr. Vernon
stated the size of the unit for that lot. Mr. Vernon stated
there is a lot of-square footage, approximately 3,000 square feet
which doesn't include the three car garages on each side.
Councilor Carnes confirmed when Mr. Vernon is saying parking for
ten, he is talking about three in each garage and two bays
outside for each unit. Councilor Yoder asked if Mr. Vernon was
'addressing design review consideration number 5 - the visual
appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from adjacent
and neighboring properties and public ways. Mr. Vernon stated
certainly. Mayor Fawcett mentioned the ten parking places and
asked Mr. Vernon if he felt they might possibly rent out single
,bedrooms. Mr. Vernon responded absolutely. Mr. Vernon stated
there is a multitude of business possibilities and questioned
that someone, who is not from this area, has local concerns at
heart.
Mr. Peter Fontanese wished to reiterate what Mr. Vernon said.
Mr. Fontanese noted he has small children and lives on the
project's street. Mr. Fontanese added he moved there before it
was a high density area. Mr. Fontanese stated what Mr. Vernon
said makes very good sense in as much as a unit with that much -
that many bedrooms - that much availability to support human life
is going to have comeasured parking and parking opportunities .
and-with small children running on that street . . . and there
is-another point Mr. Fontanese wished to make. Mr. Fontanese
stated we don't need more traffic on Long Spur which, as it
exits, is a very small street . . . not very long. Mr. Fontanese
expressed appreciation for the stop sign. Mr. Fontanese would
like to see more enforcement of speed limits, not just on
Wildridge Road going up and down but, on Long Spur in particular.
Mr. Fontanese stated cars rip up and down that street and now we
have a.developer that wants to put ten bedrooms at the end of the
street thus enabling ten more cars to whiz up and down that
street and with small children, Mr. Fontanese expressed concern.
Mr. Fontanese stated that may not speak to P & Z and their
abilities, or lack there of, whatever; it speaks to the safety of
children which, Mr. Fontanese felt is all of our responsibilities
collectively.
Councilor Carnes asked how many unimproved lots are in that area.
Mr. Fontanese answered not too many - maybe four. Councilor
Carnes noted you have to accept the fact there is going to be
more development. Mr. Fontanese stated he can't stop that but,
his concern is the amount of cars. Mr. Fontanese stated let's
face it, these things get rented out; our seasonal helpers come
and our seasonal helpers go.
2
• 0
Councilor Carnes asked if Mr. Fontanese's single biggest concern
is that it is going to bring a lot more traffic . . . Mr.
Fontanese interjected there will be a lot more cars. Councilor
Carnes continued, more traffic than a normal duplex? Mr.
Fontanese interjected, if it were smaller and questioned normal -
Mr. Fontanese added he has seen a lot of abnormality. Councilor,
Yoder asked if Mr. Fontanese's concern would fit under number 7 -
the "general conformance of the proposed improvements with the
adopted goals, policies and programs for the Town of Avon. Mr.
Fontanese stated that sounds correct.
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko stated the main
concern with the project - it uses virtually 100% of the site in
terms-,of disturbance and adds a lot of fill. That is something
that consistently has been discouraged by the Commission. The
building doesn't align with the street or with the site. It's
point really comes to the street. Every other building on that
street runs along the street; it's parallel to the street. It
does not run perpendicular to the slope but, it does not run
parallel to the slope - that increases the perceived height and
again"it increases the amount of site disturbance. It reads as a
very large building. One statement that was made is that the
wings, ate very narrow. The fact is, when you are looking at this
from either side, from the bottom, meaning the, road down below,
on the street, it reads as a very wide structure - 80' on one
side, 100' from the other side and larger than 100' wide from the
bottom, even though the wings are narrow and that is out of scale
in proportion to the adjacent properties. The building, the main
structure, rests upon what appears to be a foundation, which,has
been exaggerated in height. Again, this is inconsistent with the
other type - other structures that have been approved in
Wildridge and in town in general. Matzko stated in Mr. Grow's
letter it mentions that, at the bottom of page 2, it says that
the six roofs have been lowered by 1' each. 'Matzko stated it
actually increased in height and this was accomplished through
adding.fill to the project so the base of the building came up 2'
exaggerating those impacts that the Commission was most concern
about. Through compressing the building, the ridge line only
increased 11. "Matzko wanted to correct that statement - it is
not'a decrease in height, it is an actual increase-in height.
Councilor Carnes clarified, the building went down by one but,
the project went up by two. Matzko stated think of the building
raising and compressing at the same time, so the base came up two
and the top went up one - yes. Matzko continued, staff based its
comments, for the February 4th meeting, on the January 21st site
.plan. All of the review, all of the discussion by staff, that
was reviewed by the Commission, was based on the January 21st
site plan. Staff had not had a chance to review the revised site
plans which were submitted by Mr. Perkins. Matzko appreciated
it's a little cloudy but the fact is basic elements that were a
problem from the beginning continue to be a problem and in fact
have been exaggerated from a design stand point. Councilor
McIllveen thought the primary review of Norm Wood was to look at
the driveway and the grading, not necessarily the whole site.
Matzko stated that is correct, that is to see if the site plan
-works from a technical stand point - can you drive on and off of
it. It is somewhat outside of our guidelines but, it is
important to note that staff doesn't feel that is the primary
consideration - really that design on that site which in a strict
sense really isn't an engineering issue. Mayor Fawcett
questioned, contrary to what Mr. Grow indicated, it was the
January 21st site plans that were used by staff and commission to
evaluate the project. Matzko stated yes. Staff presented its
comments and directed its comments to the January 21st site plan.
Apparently the applicant had revised the site plan, turned in the
reduced copies of what the P & Z gets, had not informed staff
that they had changed, and staff processed through the packet
distribution process assuming they were the same site plan.
Councilor Carnes mentioned so that was a simple communication
error.
3
0 i
Councilor Carnes asked when Norm Wood says no comment, does that
mean he doesn't see anything wrong? Matzko stated in terms of
drainage, grading, slope stability, and so forth, that was
Matzko's understanding - nothing outstanding there. Matzko added
it is important to understand that there is a difference between
that and fitting with our design guidelines.
Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman Jack Hunn mentioned he is
primarily present to answer any questions. Councilor Carnes
asked when P & Z looked at it the second time - as Mr. Grow
continues to talk about and refer back to the four issues that
were the reason that Council sent it back to P & Z in the first
place - how did P & Z address those four issues? Mr. Hunn stated
those issues were grading / driveway grades, landscaping,
materials, and colors. In P & Z's recent review, on the 15th of
April, P & Z touched on all of those issues. Mr. Hunn noted if
Council chooses to overturn P & Z's denial, this evening, there
are no unresolved issues. Councilor Carnes asked when P & Z went
back, they approached it as looking at it for the first time,
correct? Mr. Hunn responded that is correct. Mr. Hunn stated
that was the direction Council gave to the applicant at Council's
last hearing. The question was specifically asked whether they
were going back only to address the four unresolved issues and
the response was no, they would review the entire process.
Councilor Carnes stated it was going back because of the four
unresolved issues, but, it was going to be looked at fresh as a
new project. Mr. Hunn stated correct. Town Attorney John Dunn
stated the motion that was made by Council was to remand the
matter to P & Z for staff review of the revised or modified site
plan and for P & Z's consideration of the modified site plan.
Those four issues were issues but, as you said Councilor Carnes,
this was essentially starting over again with that modified site
plan so the four issues were really only part of it and in view
of the actin of P & Z which was to deny the application those
four issues were not acted upon. If Council reverses P & Z, then
Council would have to act on those four issues. Mr. Hunn stated
P & Z's discussion focused on the revised site plan and any other
changes and then we focused specifically on colors, materials,
and landscaping which were the unresolved issues from the last
meeting. In brief summary, in order to get their driveway grades
to work, not completely in accordance with the Town's guidelines
but, apparently a workable solution according to the Town
Engineer, the entire building had to be raised two feet in
elevation relative to the existing topography. It requires two
additional feet of fill and essentially causes greater concern to
the five commission members that voted to deny this. Councilor
Yoder asked, the denial was based on the same four specific
issues as the previous time? Mr. Hunn responded yes,
compatibility with topography, visual appearance as viewed from
adjacent properties - this house as viewed from some adjacent
properties will appear to be 131' in width which is a very large
structure - dissimilarities to the extent that values, monetary
or aesthetic would be impaired, and conformance of the project
with the goals and policies of the Town. Mr. Hunn thought the
key issue there is the driveway is not in total compliance with
current policy of the town.
Councilor Carnes asked, in terms of policy, if there is something
the town or P & Z could do to prevent something like this from
ever happening again - an issue like this or is this just take
each one as it comes? Mr. Hunn stated part of the problem on
this application was re-submittal of certain site plans just
prior to meetings that didn't get approved and so - Mr. Hunn
thought one of the things procedurally that we might try to do as
a town - and this would be beneficial to the applicant, as well
as the staff - is to have a cut off date after which time no
additional information is submitted so the staff has an
opportunity to write their staff report and make their
recommendations based on something that is a fixed plan that
isn't changing right up until the last minute.
4
0 0
Mr. Hunn continued, the commission could take action on that,
give direction and modifications could be made after that
decision was made. Mr. Hunn thought that in the interest of
assisting applicants and being expeditious, the staff is allowing
some information to come in perhaps without enough time to fully
evaluate it. That might be one of the most significant problems
we have had with this project in terms of communication. P & Z
struggled at their last meeting on the 15th to make sure they had
a complete application and that all understood which version of
the plans was reviewed.
Councilor Carnes asked are there any zoning changes we should
consider? Mr. Hunn stated there are a number of policy and
zoning changes that the Commission would like to propose, with
staff's assistance, to Council but, this is probably not a
discussion for this evening. Councilor Carnes noted he was
probably getting off the subject but, hoped for something
positive to come out of this.
Mr. Hunn reiterated the best thing we could do is to have a clear
set of guidelines so that an applicant can understand what is
expected, what the rules are. And, the staff and the Commission
also know what those rules are so that everybody is on the same
page. Councilor Carnes added obviously that's how we thought
it's always been and we haven't not been that way on purpose.
Mayor Fawcett asked Councilor McIlveen if he had any questions.
Councilor McIlveen mentioned he was concerned that Mr. Hunn's
name was being used a lot. Councilor McIlveen wanted Mr. Hunn to
have an opportunity to address, if there was something that was
out of line or not out of line. Councilor McIlveen noted he
understood the problems and added this has been a long process.
Mr. Hunn thought he and the other commission members are trying
very hard to look at this project on its merit and not get bogged
down in personalities or some of the other things that you have
been listening to along the way about smoke screens and devious
behavior. Mr. Hunn stated it's about a house and Council should
make its judgement based on the merits of this house relative to
the guidelines in our town ordinances.
Mr. Mike Combs, a seven year resident of Wildridge and a
consultant on this project since its inception, stated his
biggest concern is what we have basically done here, by micro-
scoping this project, we have added about $20,000 to the cost and
like it or not that will be passed on to the consumer. Mr. Combs
added we have enough problems in the Valley already with costs.
other things aside, Mr. Combs would challenge anybody to look at
this model and tell him that if it was built next door to them
that it would in any way devalue their property. These units are
scheduled to sell in the $450,000 range. Mr. Combs challenged
any one to tell him how he could pay $450,000 for half a duplex
and rent out bedrooms and make an economic deal - they
obliviously know a heck of a lot more than Mr. Combs. Mr. Combs
stated it is impossible - you have to rent the bedrooms for $900
a month - that's a fact - that's not subjective. Mr. Combs
continued, as far as this being an apartment complex that is the
most absurd statement Mr. Combs has ever heard. Mr. Combs noted
there are houses in Wildridge where bedrooms are rented. Mr.
Combs stated he has a complete project, in front of his house, of
four bedroom townhomes that is 1001i rental of bedrooms. Mr.
Combs doesn't have any problems with the tenants. Yes, there are
a lot of cars there but, Mr. Combs doesn't feel in any way that
project impacts his values. Mr. Combs defied any one who lives
in Wildridge to look at this project and say if that project were
next door to me that my property values would come down. Mr.
Combs stated he would hope and pray that someone would build this
next door to him as he paid $200,000 for his house and this comes
next door at $450,000. Mr. Combs doesn't care that it doesn't
traverse the lot properly.
5
s 0
Mr. Combs doesn't care that it's a little high out of the ground
when it's actually 7' under the recommendation of what he could
build. Mr. Combs stated he is happy about that - he is 7' under
the house next door. The house next door you required to rip off
the roof because they were 5' over; he is within inches of the
maximum. This is 7' under. Mr. Combs stated, in all his twenty
years in this building business, this is one of the most absurd
things he has ever witnessed.
Mr: Grow stated the first thing he would like to do is address
his potential neighbor's concerns about being a five bedroom
unit. Mr. Grow didn't know where his neighbor's information came
from but, in all the plans, the lower level is to be developed
unfinished. Mr. Grow stated the project has never been perceived
to be a five bedroom / ten bedroom total unit. This was just a
suggested layout - if someone chose, after they purchased the
unit to,develop it on their own, to increase their square footage
of the home, for their own use - we were not proposing an
apartment-house - we never proposed an apartment house - it was
never generated - it was never expressed as an apartment house.
Mr. Grow-stated he can'trsay what the buyer will do with it. Mr.
Grow reiterated he did'not design it to be an apartment house.
Mr. Grow added, obliviously everybody knows and recognizes that
certain homes are being improperly utilized. Mr. Grow thought
that.to be.another issue.. Mr. Grow stated, as a developer, he
can not address what happens to his building, after it is sold.
Mr.' Grow reiterated, as Mr. Combs mentioned, with the price
ranges we are in, it is unlikely someone is going to turn this
into an apartment house. That is the reality. What someone
actually does, Mr. Grow stated, he can't explain it. Mr. Grow
mentioned the height and stated Mr. Perkins will get into more
technical details. Mr. Grow mentioned traffic. Mr. Grow stated
I can't talk too much about traffic - I can't control the number
of cars that are in a household. If there are three adults
living'in the house, I suppose potentially three adults could
have cars. It could also have one adult having a car - two
.people not'. Unfortunately, when you choose to live in an
environment where you happen to have a lot of potential
development, one thing you can't control, unless you want to
legislate it, is the number of cars allowed per family on a '
building site. Mr. Grow stated that is not his concern. He,is
not',there to develop the property to maximize the number of cars
on the road; he is there to develop the lot in conformity with
the way the lot has been zoned. Mr. Grow stated, that is a
duplex lot and that is the only thing he is concerned about - is
a duplex lot. Mr. Grow added he is sorry that his neighbors are
concerned about the extra traffic that is going to be - potential
traffic that is going to be on the road, but Mr. Grow stated he
can't control that. Obliviously, with the other undeveloped
-lots,.Mr. Grow noted, we can all expect additional traffic. Mr.
Grow reiterated, he can't control that. Mr. Grow stated that is
a concern of his but, there is only so much Mr. Grow can do as a
developer to mitigate certain things. Mr. Grow thought that -
does any body else have any comments regarding that? - Mr. Grow
stated I wish I could make you feel more comfortable but, I am
not doing anything to hurt your values - as Mr. Combs said, I
don't think anybody on that block - lot values are going to be
adversely affected by this project. Mr. Grow thought most people
would say it is a nice project in spite of the technical
differences that he may have with the board as to the building
side of the project. Mr. Grow asked for any other comments. Mr.
Grow stated he wanted to talk next about some of the technical
issues that have been raised in the memo that Council received
from Matzko if there are no other general issues to discuss.
Mayor-Fawcett stated he guessed not and suggested if Mr. Grow has
more, to continue. Mr. Grow stated the staff has made, during
this entire six and a half month review process, certain
technical observations and drawn very specific conclusions based
upon a plan submitted to them.
6
s •
Mr. Grow requested each of the individuals' technical
qualifications and backgrounds that allows them to draw the
various conclusions they made. Mr. Grow stated their
observations and conclusions must have their beginnings and
specific technical knowledge - knowledge of standard and
acceptable technical practices and applications whether it be
architectural, engineering, or other technical specialties in
order for them to make these specific observations and
recommendations they made. If short of this specific technical
background knowledge, in order to make these conclusions, Mr.
Grow assumed that staff went to outside consultants or to other
experts in the field in order to help assist in the technical
review process and make the recommendations they did. Mr. Grow
asked, did staff use outside consultants to supplant their lack
of technical expertise on a given subject? Mr. Grow stated,
Norm Wood, the town engineer, a civil engineer, has been the only
individual able to make objective observations and draw objective
conclusions based upon his objective review during this entire
process. The balance of the comments from staff has been nothing
more than subjective opinions. John Perkins, on the other hand;
has been a practicing architect for twenty five years - has been
approved and completed well over 100 projects - has been chairman
of your DRB for three years and a member for an additional two
years - as a past member of the Vail DRB and is currently
consultant to Singletree DRB. Mr. Grow asked why is he telling
Council all of this. Mr. Grow assured Mr. Perkins is not looking
for a job and he has not asked Mr. Grow to submit his resume for
Council's consideration. Mr. Grow stated he is saying that Mr.
Perkins is eminently qualified to design a project that will work
on this site and can be constructed successfully. The design
review process to date certainly questions his ability to design
a successful project. Mr. Grow continued, if you would like to
hear about.his technical qualifications and expertise, Mr. Grow
was sure. Mr. Perkins would be glad to talk to Council about his
qualifications. Mr. Grow stated, who knows, he might even get a
job offer. Mr. Grow suggested, lets talk specifically about the
memo which Council has in their packets from Matzko because those
are_the issues that are at hand tonight, #4, #5, #6, and #7 which
tho.Board feels is the reason for their denial. Let's talk about
100% site disturbance. Mr. Grow asked has any one from the Board
or staff driven around Wildridge lately to observe-the lots
currently under construction or development, which I assume has
.been recently approved by P & Z. Let's talk about those lots
that "are in the relative vicinity of Lot 32. Councilor Yoder
,questioned what any of this has to do with what Council is voting
on., • Mayor Fawcett questioned the relevancy also. Mr. Grow
thought the relevancy is that staff has presented to Council a
memo indicating the reason for their denial. Mr. Grow wants to
,explain:to Council, because Council is basing, Mr. Grow assumed,
some:of•their decision, this evening-, whether to reverse their
deiiial','based upon technical information that is being presented
to Council and what Mr. Grow is suggesting . . . Councilor Yoder
interjected part of that technical information is the background
of our,planning & zoning members? Mr. Grow stated it is
rhetorical to just say to you folks, these folks are making very
technical observations and drawing very technical conclusions and
Mr. Grow suggested, are they over stepping their bounds in their
technical abilities. Mr. Grow commented he doesn't know the
answer'to that. Mayor Fawcett asked then why discuss it. Mr.
Grow stated he is just raising the issue - Mr. Grow stated he is
not discussing it. Mayor Fawcett suggested addressing relevant
issues. Mr. Perkins stated he was going to speak specifically to
size of this project. Mr. Perkins did bring photographs of sites
that are visible from Lot 32 that reflect far more site
disturbance and issues like that. Mayor Fawcett stated we are
not addressing those other lots; we are addressing just Mr.
Grow's lot. Mayor Fawcett mentioned in other words, you could
bring something from California, Florida, who knows where but,
Mayor Fawcett did not see that as relevant. Mayor Fawcett would
"rather address the issues of this lot.
7
Mr. Perkins reviewed
Perkins stated their
Perkins compared the
well. Mayor Fawcett
Perkins stated yes.
site is larger, by a
is very, very close.
only at Lot 32.
Lot 32 with assistance of a map. Mr.
site disturbance is 80t, calculated. Mr.
neighboring lot's site disturbance as 80o as
clarified, site disturbance is 800? Mr.
Mr. Perkins stated even though the neighbors
third, the site disturbance on the two sites
Mayor Fawcett reminded, Council is looking
Mr. Grow stated he is just going to talk about the issues that
are in Council's memo from Matzko. Mayor Fawcett requested
clarification of which memo. Mr. Grow stated the memo - the
latest memo in Council's packet. Mayor Fawcett asked April 17th?
Mr. Grow and Mr. Perkins stated the April 17th memo. Mr. Grow
reminded the first issue has been discuss - 100% site
disturbance. Mayor Fawcett noted it says'.nearly 1008. Mr. Grow
stated he is just clarifying - we don't know what nearly means.
Mayor Fawcett stated it means 80°i - it could be interpreted as
that. Mr. Grow stated you could interpret nearly any way you
like and stated he is here to get specific because communication
has been a problem in-the past and Mr. Grow would just like to
clarify so everybody understands exactly what the actual figures
are as,opposed to being presumptuous. Mr. Grow mentioned the
building does not align with the street or the slope. This is a
new observation.. This comment first appears in George Harrison's
memo to the'Board on April 11th. Mr. Grow noticed they dropped a
few other prior observations so they must have felt compelled to
replace old issues with new comments even though it is a
meaningless statement that is not relevant to this - project or any
design considerations. Mr. Grow stated he does not remember
seeing this as a required design consideration'or regulation or
requirement of Title 17. Mr. Perkins commented--he knows of many
other properties that don't align with their 'street or their
topography and it is not a requirement; it's really not an,issue.
Mr. Grow commented the building reads as an unusually large
building. Mr. Grow asked what are you comparing us to as
unusually large - you must have other specific structures in mind
to make this comparison - what buildings are they - let's compare
our building to the building next door currently approved and
under-construction. Mr. Perkins questioned i,f that was-,an
acceptable thing to do here but, thought it very,relevant,,to the_
height issue. Mr. Perkins displayed pictures of surrounding
sites and compared heights of adjacent buildings. Mr. Grow
mentioned the foundation appears out of scale with the main-
structure and that it appears disproportionately tall. Mr. Grow
stated if this building appears out of scale, then you must have'
used some technical criteria for measuring this and drawing this
conclusion. If this is out of scale, then what are your
parameters for being in scale? If it appears disproportionately
tall, what technical criteria are you-using to draw this
conclusion? If it is disproportionately tall, then what would
your criteria be for proportionately tall? Mr.. Perkins commented
he did not think staff was referring to the actual concrete
foundation that would be under this building, but if they were,
that portion would stop at grade all the way around - it would-
step'along grade like any traditional foundation construction
would work. Mr. Perkins thought they were talking about the
lower floor portion of the building and it's in that section of
the building that the one foot has been removed, that was
mentioned earlier. We have been able to come up with a framing
detail that allows the upper floors to be built above the lower
floor and remove a foot of that construction which - even though
we talk ridge heights, from the first floor to the ridge height
that proportion stays the same and the foot - actually you can
slice a foot out of the middle of this model all the way around.
Mr. Grow mentioned narrow-projecting wings visually exaggerate
the height of the structure viewed from the public road north of
the lot. Mr. Grow asked what is your technical definition of
narrow versus wide.
8
• !
Mr. Grow asked what is the minimum distance one has to be in
order to observe changes in various elevations, heights, angles,
pitches, or general observations regarding the structure? How
far away is the public road north of the lot? Mr. Grow stated
they went,to Old Trail Road and:Saddle Ridge and made their own
-observations. -Mr. Grow asked Mr. Perkins'to comment on what they
saw: Mayor-Fawcett stated Mr. Grow continues to bring up things
that don't relate specifically to this project. Mr. Perkins
thought the narrowness is perceived to be the 90 degree elements.
Mr. Perkins stated those elements are going to be perceived from
below - the narrowness - in fact, this building is 2614" wide but
it's height is 281. That is only 318" taller than it is wide.
Mr. Grow thought the purpose-of this discussion was to show that
the observations and conclusions that staff has made are not
entirely accurate and secondly Mr. Grow questioned what
information they used to draw these conclusions. Mr. Grow would
like to have staff tonight address his questions that he has just
proposed relative to this project to prove to Council and to him
that their concerns - the reasons they denied are factually
based. They have information - objective information -
.quantifiable information that they could present to Council as
Mr. Grow has presented - quantifiable information other than
subjective opinion - disproportionately tall - overly this -
overly that - those are subjective opinions - not quantifiable.
Mr. Grow stated he has presented quantifiable evidence to refute
everyone of their concerns. Mr. Grow stated he has never gotten
one bit of quantifiable, technical, objective data to support one
of their contentions - not one. As a matter of fact, when they
-have given technical data they have been proven to be inaccurate.
Mr. Grow stated tonight would be a very appropriate time for
staff to present their technical basis for their technical
observations; why they were able to draw the conclusions they
did.
Councilor Yoder asked is that the staff's requirement? Town
Attorney Dunn stated-no,-this is an appeal from the decision of
"the-Planning & Zoning Commission. This is not an appeal from the.
recommendation of staff. You have staff's recommendation; you
can accept it or disregard it as you wish. But, you are required
to determine the appeal based upon the evidence that is presented
to you and the recommendations and to consider the decision of
the Planning & Zoning Commission. Town Attorney Dunn thought it
inappropriate for someone to appear here and to ask staff to
defend themselves. Obviously, Matzko is entitled to respond as
he wishes but, he is under no obligation to answer the questions-
that are profounded here this evening.
Councilor Yoder stated, with all due respect to the applicant,
she really didn't see anything different now from what Council
has seen before. The same four issues are still there. It is
still the.-same recommendation. And, with that Councilor Yoder
motioned to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission's denial of
the final -design approval for Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge,'as
presented by,the plans dated April 4, 1997, based upon the
finding that the Commission followed due process and made proper
findings relative to the Town of Avon's Planning Zoning
Commission procedures, rules, and regulations. Councilor Carnes
seconded the motion.
Councilor Carnes stated he just hates the fact that we have had
to go through this whole process and obviously, the applicant
does too. Councilor Carnes stated his mind is made up.
Councilor Carnes wants to change the process, whether we need to
do some type of zoning change or whatever. It has been an
incredibly unfair - to the applicant and every body involved - to
go through this for six and a half months. Councilor Carnes
stated he supports staff and P & Z and this is an issue with P &
Z. not staff.
.9
Councilor Carnes continued, Mr. Grow makes a very good point - I
don't know if there is such a word as subjective adjectives but,
we keep using - instead of being quantifiable or whatever the
term is you used - we keep using words like "nearly" and
"unusually large" and "appears out of scale", "visually
exaggerates" and so on, as opposed to just being very specific
and say you can't do it because of this - it doesn't fit this -
it doesn't fit that. Again, it is such a shame that everybody,
especially the applicant, has had to go through this process. It
is apparent that changes need to be made on our end but, it also
is apparent - I want to support P & Z this time because I think
what they have done is they have gone through and they have
looked at the project as presented and that is the only thing
that they have had to look at. All of the personality issues are
taken out. Councilor Carnes stated he respects Mr. Hunn a great
deal for handling himself the way he has. Councilor Carnes
stressed he hopes we can make some changes very soon instead of
dragging our feet and waiting for this to happen to us again.
Councilor McIlveen echoed Councilor Carnes and added he has been
kind of annoyed with the whole process - how this has come about.
At the same time, Councilor McIlveen felt we have gone back twice
to P & Z with the help of staff - we need to support the staff
and P & Z Commission or there is no reason to have it. Councilor
McIlveen felt that if he were seeing people coming forward in
herds with problems with P & Z or not being approved by P & Z,
then we really have a problem. Councilor McIlveen thought there
definitely needs to be more specific terms to deal with this
issue of height and site coverage, etc. Councilor McIlveen hoped
those changes would come fairly soon.
Councilor Carnes stated Mr. Grow has every right to build a house
on this lot - you have every right to impact it within zoning and
so on and so forth. Councilor Carnes stated he sincerely hopes
that Mr. Grow will build something on his lot.
Mayor Fawcett stated this was a design review which is obviously
subjective and not objective overall. There are some terms that
may be very objective, others obviously relating to being in the
eyes of the beholder. That is one of those problems that Mayor
Fawcett thought we will always have in terms of getting various
projects passed through any number of P & Zs throughout the
country. Whether or not we can improve our design review
regulations, something Mayor Fawcett thought staff and the
Planning & Zoning Commission will address and perhaps come up
with some improvement. Mayor Fawcett felt the Commission
followed the regulations, followed the guidelines and did what
they had to do.
Mr. Perkins volunteered to help should P & Z and staff review the
processes. Mr. Perkins mentioned he has a few ideas where he
felt it could have worked better.
Mr. Grow reminded Council that if Ms. Yoder's comments are
accurate, as she feels they are, that this is the exact project
that you saw that was presented last time to P & Z and denied - I
just want to remind you folks - based upon the same criteria -
you have reversed P & Z's decision for denial and if what you are
saying tonight is that the criteria are the same or you haven't
seen anything new tonight, you will be reversing in essence what
you did on February 4th - whatever date you reversed P & Z the
first time based upon the identical information, the identical
plans as you understand it. And, I just wanted to let you know
you are reversing yourselves in what you have originally done if
you choose not to reverse again this evening. Councilor Carnes
stated we reversed on those four specific issues . . . based on
those four specific issues and those four specific issues were
dealt with in the entirely new package, the second time.
10
0 •
Mr. Grow stated he is suggesting the project that is submitted to
you tonight as submitted to P & Z last week, which was denied
again for reasons #4, #5, #6, and #7 were the identical reasons
#4, #5, #6, and #7 you reversed their denial the first time
around, two months ago. Mayor Fawcett stated there is a
different project that has been submitted so the reversal could
relate to the different project.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call
vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Citizen Input:
C & S Productions
Cyndi Kirkland, with C & S Productions, asked if Council received
a letter from her. Mayor Fawcett responded yes. (see Exhibit B
attached). Ms. Kirkland expressed her concern as a citizen and a
business person - Ms. Kirkland felt the Town is not supporting
her. Ms. Kirkland submitted a bid for the Salute, Summerfest,
and Festival of Nations. Ms. Kirkland felt the bidding process
should go back to bid so that it comes in within budget. Also,
Ms. Kirkland requested Council consider a local company versus an
out of state company.
Mayor Fawcett stated Council has read Ms. Kirkland's letter and
her points were well taken. Mayor Fawcett informed this very
issue has been scheduled for discussion at a Council work session
in the next couple of weeks and invited Ms. Kirkland to attend.
Mayor Fawcett assured Ms. Kirkland Council has a great deal of
respect for Avon's business people.
Discussion followed on the bidding process.
Mayor Fawcett thanked Ms. Kirkland and again invited her input
when Council discusses a procurement policy for buying locally.
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.
Town Planner Karen Griffith reviewed the revised Ordinance No.
97-3, after distributing.
Discussion focused on the deed restricted units.
Councilor Yoder stated we are changing this tonight yet, the
public hearing has been set for the previous issue. It seems odd
that Council passes an Ordinance, sets it for public hearing, and
we don't tell the public what we are going to do until the next
time. Town Attorney Dunn stated Council may amend an Ordinance
on second reading as stated in the Code. Councilor Yoder stated
it is odd that all these changes could be made that affect the
public and yet the public wouldn't know unless they came to every
public hearing. Councilor Yoder stated she is talking more
about the policy of maybe not waiting until the last minute to
make a change so the public could come in and pick up a copy of
the PUD and see what the change would be. Mayor Fawcett stated
this is what Jack Hunn discussed earlier, in terms of cut off
dates for submittals, etc.
11
• 0
Discussion continued on the deed restricted units. Mayor Fawcett
felt "the separate agreement outlining the restrictions will be
executed" should be more/less finalized with the developer so
Council knows what is agreed to. Mayor Fawcett voiced concern as
it is important how these units are passed on in the future, etc.
Planner Griffith thought staff would negotiate a separate
agreement with the applicant and it would come back to Council
for approval before they receive their building permit.
Councilor Yoder mentioned it wouldn't invalidate the PUD, it
would still be there. Planner Griffith stated yes and it would
be a matter of agreeing on both. Town Attorney Dunn added he
reads this "separate agreement" as a condition of the Ordinance.
Mayor Fawcett asked if Council doesn't agree to the separate
agreement then this PUD doesn't become effective. Town Attorney
Dunn stated that is correct. Mayor Fawcett requested the
agreement come back before Council.
Mayor Fawcett asked if anyone else would like to be heard.
Mr. Bill Armstead, with Resort Concepts and the Lodge at
Brookside, informed as a gesture on their part they offered to
bring forth three of their units for the affordable housing
issue. At that time, the program was only a conceptual stage.
There were no requirements laid out; there were some general
parameters discussed. Mr. Armstead expected those units to be in
the $200,000 range, so density was increased. Mr. Armstead
stated the prices on the three units have been reduced
approximately $65,000 total from what the published prices were.
Mr. Armstead informed there was a lot of resistance during pre-
marketing regarding the 396 cap. Mr. Armstead questioned why the
buyer should be punished with that 3% cap. Mr. Armstead noted to
keep the affordable housing in perpetuity the 3% cap perhaps does
make sense. Mr. Armstead reiterated they are hitting sales
resistance on the 3% cap. Mr. Armstead stated they are willing
to work with the town and on future projects they will have to
deal with this; it is a good learning experience so they will
know what to go through next time. Mr. Armstead informed one of
the comments he has heard is why is the cost of these units so
high to which Mr. Armstead compared tap fees in Dallas at $250
and in Avon they are $8,000. Mr. Armstead informed the bike path
cost approximately $900 per unit. Building permit fees are
approximately $2,000 per unit. Mr. Armstead considered
essentially 8% of the price of the unit as soft cost. Mr.
Armstead mentioned his marketing plans for the units are geared
towards mid-level management people. Mr. Armstead asked Council
for the higher price on the units.
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve, on second reading, Ordinance
No. 97-3, Series of 1997, an Ordinance amending the Brookside
PUD, Lot 1, Eaglewood Subdivision with the modification on number
six that says must be purchased by permanent, full time residents
whose income does not exceed 150% of annual median household
income for Eagle County with tiered priorities. Councilor
McIlveen seconded the motion.
Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Council recessed at 7:45pm and reconvened at 7:50pm.
Ordinances:
12
0 0
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97-4, Series of 1997, AN
ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE APPROVAL PERIOD FOR A TEMPORARY GARDEN
CENTER ON LOT 1, AND NURSERY MATERIAL STORAGE ON LOT 2, WILDWOOD
RESORT PUD, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO (COLORADO
ALPINES) THROUGH JUNE, 1998
Mayor Fawcett announced this is a public hearing.
Planner Griffith informed this is the fourth request. The first
was in 1995 for Christmas tree sales. In April, 1996 they
requested establishment of the garden center. In October, 1996
they requested extension of the nursery and Christmas tree sales
through April, 1997. Planner Griffith distributed a revised
Ordinance with changes / additions of Items 8 and 9 and reviewed
such.
Mayor Fawcett noted this is the fourth application; it is always
called "temporary". Mayor Fawcett asked, is this it? Applicant
Marty Jones stated he is making progress and he does not
anticipate being here again.
Hearing no further public input, Mayor Fawcett asked Council for
any action they would like to take.
Councilor McIlveen motioned to approve, on second reading,
Ordinance No. 97-4, Series of 1997. Councilor Yoder seconded the
motion.
Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Fawcett mentioned he has never seen a Town Manager Report
and suggested to include a Manager Report on the Council's
Agenda. Town Manager Efting thought that would be great. Town
Manager Efting had nothing to report at this meeting but warned
he will be ready next time.
Consent Agenda:
a.) Approval of the April 8, 1997 Council Meeting Minutes
b.) Approval of Contract with Avalanche Productions
c.) Approval of USA Sanctioning Agreement for High Country
Triathlon
d.) Approval of Bid - Stage, Light and Sound reinforcement for
Festival of Nations, Salute, and Summerfest
e.) Approval of Denver Taiko Drummers Contract
f.) Approval of Contract for nutritional counseling
g.) Approval of Right of Entry Agreement with The Denver and Rio
Grande Western Railroad Company
h.) Award Contract to TEK Consulting, Inc. / Telecommunications
Consultants
i.) Approval of West Beaver Creek Blvd. Railroad Crossing
Roadway Approach Construction Agreement
j.) Financial Matters
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve the Consent Agenda.
Councilor Carnes seconded the motion and the motion carried.
There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor
Fawcett called for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Yoder moved to
adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor McIlveen. The
meeting was adjourned by Mayor Fawcett at 8:05 PM.
13
PECTFULLY'SUBMITTED:
Patty Lambent, CMC
Town Clerk \
14
E X H I B I T A
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING- 4122/97
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 it should be of no surprise to anyone this evening
that we are appearing before you because the P & Z Board on April 15, 1997,
again denied our final design. I would like to keep my comments this evening
short and to the point (I am sure you are all happy to hear that).
When I appeared before you on March 25, 1997, the Council, based upon
testimony from Mr. Hunn and P & Z Staff, convinced you that the testimony,
plans, site plans, and model, we presented to you on February 25,1997, was
different than the testimony.we presented to the P & Z Board on February 4,
1997, in which they denied final design approval. On February 25th, in spite of
our assertions that the testimony was identical, but due to a technical issue, Mr.
Hunn was able to say that the P & Z Board did not base their decision to deny
our project on the 1 1/2 hour presentation which they heard that evening, did
not base their decision on the revised sight plan they had in their packet, and
presumably reviewed prior to the start of the meeting, but based their decision
on a plan set dated January 21,1997, that the Board members never actually
saw. The Board, never reviewed the January 21 plan because it was revised
by John Perkins days before the meeting of February 4, based upon a review
and discussions with George Harrison and Norm Wood. The January 21 plans
only existed to the extent that staff had the opportunity to review them, but
never presented them to the P & Z Board for their review. The January 21
plans never appeared in the Board's packet for their review. Mr. Hunn,
therefore, would have you believe that the Board was able to make a conscious
decision on plans they never saw, but disregarded an entire evening's
presentation of the revised site plan. Common sense tells you this is
impossible, which leads me back to my original statements that Council and the
Board heard the exact testimony and based their respective decisions on the
On page 2 of the official Council minutes of March 25, 1997, which is attached,
Mr. Hunn clearly states "the purpose in approaching Council and requesting
Council reconsider the decision, was primarily procedural." He then goes on to
state the four unresolved issues left open because of the reversal. He then
states "it is for that reason ("unresolved issues") that the matter be
reconsidered.' Ladies and gentlemen this is the reason he gave you for
remanding the final decision back to P & Z. Because we were not present and
not notified of his appearance to protest, we never had the opportunity to
contest his assertions. Was this an example of open communication and an
expression of a desire to work together and resolve open issues?
• I il"K-CG-177 ( 1:>013 r= KFK i M-ZUZ=M HMt-M. r-. We_
•
Let's discuss what happened between March 25 and-this evening.
On Mare 26, the following day, we received a letter from George Harrison
indicating we had to have a complete submittal by 8:30 AM, March 27, in order
for staff to have adequate time to review the plans for the April 1, P & Z meeting.
That same day John Perkins tells George we will be unable to comply with this
deadline,. but we would like to appear at the April 15th meeting. George then
informs John Perkins that complete plans must be submitted by April 8th. On
April 4th new plans were presented to staff incorporating all prior discussions
hold-With either staff and the Board. On April 7th the site plan goes to Norm
Wood for his review and on April 10th he informs Karen Griffith that he had no
comments regarding his review. On April 11th, George Harrison prepares a
memorandum for the Commission, based upon staff and Norm Wood's review of
the plans submitted April 4, 1997, and recommends denial based upon
considerations 4,5,6,7. John Perkins will discuss the staff memorandum later.
What happened to the comments regarding the unresolved issues and the
`reason' we, were to go before the Board??
At the Board meeting, we made our presentation discussing the four unresolved
issues Mr. Hunn was concerned about when the denial was reversed by
Council. After all, according to Mr. Hunn, "the purpose in approaching Council
Was primarily procedural" and "it was for that reason that Mr. Hunn asked that
the matter be reconsidered." This was the purpose of our presentation- to
resolve the previously unresolved issues left open by the denial. What
happened during our presentation, however, was minimal discussion regarding
the four open issues. The only real open issue that caused any discussion was
the review and approval (No Comment) by Norm Wood of -the site plan. It was
clearly. pointed out that the revised site plan met all the technical requirements
and. would therefore work on the site. At this point we all felt we had adequately
addressed the Council's and Mr. Hunn's concerns regarding the four unresolved
issues. The balance of the meeting was redirected to discussing the reasons
for again denying the project- considerations 4,5,6, and 7.. The entire Board
expressed their concerns regarding the project and ultimately again
recommended denial of the final design. This is exactly the plane where Mr.
Hunn wanted to be- to have the opportunity to again deny the entire project. His
above concerns of resolving open issues expressed to council were only a
smoke screen to get us back to P &,Z so he could prove to the, entire community
that-he and the Board were right in their decision a second time. Mr. Hunn
knew from the very beginning that resolving the four previously unresolved
issues meant nothing because the project would be denied because he knew at
the Council meeting of March 25th that the overall plan would not change
significantly from prior, submissions. So here we are tonight in the exact same
position we were on February 25th, two months ago. I stand corrected, tonight
you have before you plans that have again been microscopically reviewed by
P &.Z and staff and have been reviewed and approved by Norm Wood. • in
addition, four of the six roofs have been lowered one foot each to lessen the
perceived impact of a structure already six feet below allowed maximum height.
2
Hh'K-~-l7y'f ID; 13 I'tKK I M-IVUJW=K HKUn. r.IOJ
0 - 0
All comments, both Board and Staff, have been discussed and reviewed, and
as far as we are concerned, been accepted, otherwise additional comments and
concerns would have been raised at the Board meeting of April 15th.
Ladies and gentlemen, the project you have before you is so very similar to the_
project you based your decision on to reverse the denial two months ago. The
only important difference is we improved the project since that time, took into
consideration all comments by the Board and the staff and have presented the
revised plan to the Board. As expected, P & Z again denied the project after, at
the latest count, 40 plan changes. The decision is now up to you to stop this
madness and return sanity to the design review approval process. This project
has been under microscopic review for 6112 months. We want to end this
review this evening with your reversal of the denial of final design approval.
Ee:. for yo r attention and consideration.
or
3
Mf'R-G4-177 ( 1Z) • 14
OVEMBER to 1996
MARY 7,1997
EBRUARY 4, 1997
f BRUARY 25,1997
1"CKK 1 IVY-DUDCR 1-IRt,I'1. TIME LINE
P & Z CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
P & Z CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
P & Z DENIES FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL .
TOWN COUNCIL REVERSES PA Z DENIAL
MARCH 11, 1997 -TOWN COUNCIL REVERSES THEIR DECISION
TO REVERSE P &Z. JACK HUNk APPEARS
RARCH 26, 1997 TOWN COUNCIL REMANDS APPLICANT BAC K TO P & Z
&RIL 15,1997 P & Z AGAIN DENIES FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL
MRIL 221 1997 COUNCIL AGAIN HEARS APPLICANTS APPEAL TO
REVERSE P & Z DENIAL
DESIGN'CONSIDIERATIONS
#4. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with the site topography.
#50 The visual appearance of any proposed improvement as viewed from
adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways.
#6. The objective that no improvement be so similar or dissimilar to others in
the vicinity that values, monetary or aesthetic will be impaired.
#7. The general conformance of the,proposed improvements with the adopted
goals, policies, and programs for the Town of Avon.
na13
4
11. {74
E: X H I B I T B
C 8a S PRODUCTIONS
CYND[ & SCOTT KIRKLAND
P. O. BOX 684
AVON, COLORADO 81620
PHONE 970-949-4753
FAX 970-949-6594
Dear Town Co u ciL•
1 am writing this letter to ask you to think about a decision you are about to make, regarding the
awartting of the sound/lighang & stage contract for thus summer's events Please keep these fors in mind
before you make your docision.
C & S Productions is owned and operated in Avon. Cyndi & Scott Kirkland have lived in Avon
since 1979.They have four children. two is Avon Elementary and one child in Battle Mountain High.
C&S Pr+odttctions subriurted a bid for, Festival of Nations Salute to America and Suinmerfbm
We know we put to together the bst package to fit the needs of all events. Meryl called us and said we
had the best price andwstan !or theW". They west trying to split things up beptise everyone was aver
budget She wanted w-lmw u we would provide our services an just the 4yk We were reluctant for we
thought it was. a package deal. However are agreed. keeping in mind the town of Avon's budget. She said
-with Town Councd approval you have the bid for Salute.' Unfortunately for us a business from
AlbuqWqm New Mexico did not share the same views. They told Meryl it was aft or notbunti,. At this
time we feel that the bids should have been resubmitted to find a package that met the Town of Avon's
budget
C dt S Productions is asking you to compare: size of systems. watts, number of speakers. safety
featurm price and last but not lent. do you support Colorado and a business lor-rted in your own town.
We have and continue to be willing to negotiate
Asir your self these questions:
Is it just the bottom line or does quality count?
Do you value and support local businesses?
Which company pays taxes in Avon & Colo?
Do they or their employees donate to and support community events?
Do Avon merchants Profit ftorq their pauanage?
Has the won company ever supported the town of Avon.
C & S family and enrployces all vote, shop. baalt; pay taxes. donate to the town and community
C $ S has donated to the town of Avon a lies squad system to The Big Wbeel Rally and Easter Egg
Hunt for apprmamatety the last 10 years. a value of about 52000. C & S has since solid the town a sound
system at profs msional prices. We have tramped town emplyees and comune to train them as needed on
how the system opemru s at no charge.
Thank You for your turn.
Scott & Cyndi Kiritland
APR 21 1997
TGWN OF ~`•J:Ji