Loading...
TC Minutes 06-12-2001MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HELD JUNE 12,2001 A regular meeting of the Town of Avon, Colorado was field in the Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, 'Colorado in the Council Chambers. The meeting was calledto order by Mayor Judy Yoder at 5:30 PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Debbie Buckley, Peter Buckley, Rick.Cuny, and *Mac McDevitt present. Councilor Michael Brown and Mayor Protein Buz Reynolds were absent. Also present were Town Manager Bill Efting, Town Attorney Burt Levin, Assistant Town Manager Larry Brooks,,Town Clerk Iris Nash,-Human Resources Director Jacquie Halburnt, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Public Works Director Bob Reed, Transportation Director Harry Taylor, Asst. Director of Community Development Ruth Borne as well as members of the public. Citizen Input: Real Estate Transfer Tax Appeal, Leo Palmos, Chapel Square, Units 229 and 205. Mr. Don Schaper was present on behalf of the applicants and made his presentation to the Council. Mr. Schaper stated that Units 205, 224 and 226 were purchased by the McLain family in 1999. He stated that two of the units were side by side and the other was at the other end of the hallway. The McClame's requested to transfer unit 205 to unit 229, which is right across the hall from the other two units. Unit 205 is the exact same unit as 229. Mr. Schaper stated that as far as they were concerned it was a modification of the contract and there was no profit motive. They did not realize that they would have to pay a transfer tax on this transaction. Thus, they are before the Council to appeal the decision. Town Attorney Levin stated that our code states that if there is a transfer of ownership then there is a transfer tax owed unless the amount is $500.00 or less. He stated in this instance both properties have value in excess of $500,000. He stated that this transfer is not a gift for $500.00 or less. There is a transfer of unit 205 in exchange for unit 229, which is worth over $200,000. He stated that there is two taxable transfers in this case. The exemption that they are relying on would require that there be a transfer, evidenced by deed made and delivered, without consideration for the purpose of confirming, correcting, modifying, or supplementing a transfer previously, recorded. He also stated there is an exception in the code that they were relying on stating where deed evidence by a deed made and delivered without consideration making minor boundary adjustments, removing clouts, title, granting easements, rights-of-ways, or licenses. He stated that none of that is applicable. The fact that the two properties are related in the same building is irrelevant, as is the fact that two transfers are happening at the same time. He stated that the only thing that is relevant is the transfer of unit 205 is in consideration of the owner to apply receiving property with a, value of $200,000 plus dollars, namely unit 229. Mr. Levin stated that is why he turned down the request for exemption., Councilor Peter Buckley questioned what was transferred since Mr. Levin stated over $200,000 and Mr. Schaper stated $1.00. Mr. Schaper stated that transfer was made for $1.00. There was no compensation, no consideration, and no profit motive. Mr. Levin stated the paperwork submitted by the applicant is based on a contract with units valuing over $200,000. Mr. Schaper stated that the McLaine's bought unit 205 and paid a transfer tax when the unit was purchased, subsequently unit 205 was sold' one month later and a transfer tax was again paid on that unit. He stated that they feel that is more than fair to be enough. Mr. Levin stated that the code'states the tax is on 2% of the consideration for the transferring. Mr. Schaper stated they are considering this to be a modification to the contract. He stated the units are exactly the same, and that they, did this strictly as an accommodation. Mayor Yoder stated that if she wanted to switch units with her neighbor on the other side of her duplex; she would still owe a transfer tax. She felt that this situation would not be any different except that they are a developer still selling units. Mayor Yoder also stated that this has been a year and a half. Councilor Cuny agreed that a year and a half is a long time to modify a contract. Councilor Debbie Buckley motioned to disapprove the appeal of the transfer tax. Councilor Cuny seconded the motion. Mayor Yoder asked for a roll call. The motion carried unanimously. Resolutions: Resolution No. 01-09, Series of 2001, A Resolution Approving Preliminary Subdivision Plan for the Village (at Avon) Filing 1, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado Town Engineer Norm Wood stated that the subdivision process is a lengthy process. He stated that the agreement addressed a lot of conditions for going forward with the development. One condition' was that 40% of the site could be developed prior to the construction of the I-70 interchange and the connecting road to Highway 6. He stated Regular Council Meeting June 12, 2001 that the current preliminary plan has some amendments. The developer is currently proposing to build the I-70 interchange/Highway 6 connections as the first phase of development. There is also proposed amendment to the previous development and annexation agreement with regards to some of the conditions. He stated there is also a minor amendment to the PUD sketch plan that makes adjustments for the development area on the east end of the site in conjunction with the I-70 interchange/Highway 6 connection. From this, their conditions recommend approval of the preliminary plan. Then the next step would be the final plat step, a subdivision improvements agreement, and finally the actual building permit process. Assistant Director of Community Development Ruth Bome stated that Traer Creek has submitted a subdivision application for the preliminary plan for The Village (at Avon) Filing 1. The submittal includes a request for a variance for a cul-de-sac having a length greater than 1,000 feet and a variance to allow a permit for over lot grading'to be issued prior to approval of a final subdivision plat. She stated that the PUD has been revised to evidence the changes to the road alignments and planning areas. Copies of the plan were submitted to the Colorado Department of Transportation, Eagle County Engineer's Office, Eagle River Fire Protection District, and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. She stated that most of their comments have been incorporated into the resolution. She added that staff has also incorporated responses received by the public at previous meetings. She stated that the proposed changes are: 1.) Temporary Construction Access: The Stonebridge Drive access may only be used as an alternative for construction access in the event that both the I-70 ramps and the Nottingham Ranch Road bridge are not available. The road maybe only be used for six consecutive months and must be restored to previously condition or better. A traffic control plan will also be implement. 2.) Dust Control: This will include an Air Quality Monitoring and Control Plan as approved by the Town. A grading permit and security deposit will be required prior to commencement of over lot grading. The developer will also put a berm in front of the rock crusher, which will now be located approximately 900 feet away from any properties. 3.)- Subdivision Improvements Agreement: This must be approved by the Town along with corresponding security to ensure compliance with construction of roads and infrastructure improvements. 4.) Dedication of Lot 5, Public Works Site: The Village will be required to dedicate and transfer title of Filing 1, Lot 5 for use as a public works site. Ms. Borne stated that in the event the Council does not act on the preliminary plan at this meeting, the plan is conditionally approved in accordance with the Town code. She stated that staff recommends approval of this resolution. Mayor Yoder summarized letters received by citizens that are made a part of these minutes. She also stated that, she received a telephone call from Ms. Lolita Higby who objects to the Stonebridge access. Mr. Roger Wilkinson, resident at 4422 Eaglebend ;Drive, stated that the Stonebridge Drive access is unacceptable to the homeowners and requests the Town Council to allow the developer to use the existing E: Beaver Creek Blvd. as their backup access and repeal Regular Council Meeting June 12, 2001 Ordinance 98-13, which prohibits construction vehicles currently from that road. His second concern is the increase of traffic on Eaglebend 'brive. 'He would like to see the east end of that road be made a cul-de-sac/dead end road. He also thanked the developer for relocating the rock crusher, which will now have minimal effect to the residents on Eaglebend Drive. Mayor Yoder requested a petition from all effected on Eaglebend Drive if they wish to have their street turned into a dead end street. Mr. Bobby Bank, resident of Eaglebend Drive, stated that he is concerned with the Stonebridge Drive access and that it makes much more sense to run the trucks through E. Beaver Creek Blvd.,where there is already commercial traffic. He would also like to see Eaglebend Drive become a dead end. Mr. Paul Miller, resident of Eaglebend Drive, is concerned that the temporary road would become a permanent-road through the life of the development. He felt it was crazy to run construction traffic through a residential neighborhood when there is a perfectly good commercial road already. Mr. Bill Post, representing Traer Creek, LLC, stated that the purpose of the Stonebridge Drive access is a third backup so that if anything happens to the two planned routes, there will be a way to access their property. He stated that they hope to never have to build this access; the cost is $125,000 to $150,000. Mr. Walter Dandy, resident of Eaglebend Drive, questioned if Councilor Cuny should recuse himself from voting on this resolution since he is a business owner on E. Beaver Creek Blvd. and is effected by the traffic. Mr. Cuny stated he would probably step down if the Council decided to turn over the existing ordinance regarding the use of E. Beaver Creek Blvd. Mr. Dandy felt traffic should run through E. Beaver Creek Blvd because it is already commercial.. There are too many children on Stonebridge Drive and in that neighborhood. Mr. Dandy proposes a gate be installed on Eaglebend Drive for the residents. Ms. Nancy Bruen, community manager of Eaglebend Apartments, stated that her biggest concern is safety and that Eaglebend Apartments is not prepared to deal with a safety _ issue because there are so many children at the complex and the developer is proposing to run construction trucks through their neighborhood. Mr. Post stated that they could install a fence around the playground, or put a guard out, or set'hours that construction traffic could run through. Mr. Bruce Drumm, resident of 4570 Eaglebend Drive, passed out a map that has been made a part of these minutes. He questioned why the Swift Gulch access could not still be used. Town Engineer Wood stated that since the I-70 interchange would now begin construction earlier than planned, it does not allow construction traffic to run under the interstate during construction of the interchange. Mr. Drumm stated that the most Regular Council Meeting June 12, 2001 0 • important concern of his is the Stonebridge Drive access. He asked the Council to not allow Stonebridge Drive to be used as any access whatsoever. He added that there are too many children in the neighborhood. He asked the Council to reconsider using E. Beaver Creek Blvd. He also requested that Eaglebend Drive be limited by either a 'gate or a dead end. Ms. Christie Ferraro, resident of Eaglebend Drive, felt that the Town is not being very good neighbors to the surrounding communities by having traffic come down Highway 6 from Minturn, and that everyone will be more affected by that than if the traffic went through the roundabouts. Ms. Jill Johnson, resident of Eaglebend Drive, confirmed that the Stonebridge Drive access could only be used for 6 contiguous months, and questioned if they could renew that 6 months later. Mr. Levin stated that in this resolution it states only 6 months, but that does not preclude the Council, at a later date, allowing for another 6 months. They would have to come back and ask the Council for that permission. Mr. Post stated that they are not going to touch the Lafarge bridge until they are in a position to rebuild it and also build the interchange so that they will both happen simultaneously. That will happen after final subdivision approval He stated that this access would only happen in the event that they have no other access. Mr. John LaRue, resident of Eaglebend Drive, questioned if the Council would consider the use E. Beaver Creek Blvd. since it will only be in the event of an emergency. He stated that his other concern is the traffic on Eaglebend Drive after the Lafarge bridge is built. He would like to see that road a dead end. Ms. Chris Ekrem, resident of 4130 Eaglebend Drive, stated the Council should approve the resolution with the deletion of the portion dealing with the Stonebridge Drive access until the issue can be solved to everyone's satisfaction. Ms. Ekrem stated that the developer should provide a topographical model. She also requested the Town engineering department look at the elevations of the interchange. Ms. Ekrem also felt that the Swift Gulch road could be installed and the access could be under the interstate where there is currently now an access, behind the old Nottingham home. Mr. Post stated that he was not aware of such an access, but would investigate it. Ms Ekrem stated that the turning- radius'on the Stonebridge Drive access is not large enough for the big trucks. Mr. Kent Krien, engineer for the developer, stated that they have done studies and that trucks can make it. He stated in terms of geometry, it is awkward. Regular Council Meeting June 12, 2001 Mr. Bruce Drumm stated that he also asked for a topographical map. He also stated that the access on E. Beaver Creek Blvd. would be no cost to the developer. He stated the money saved on using E. Beaver Creek Blvd: could be used to develop a topographical map. Mr. Post stated that they do plan on creating models in phase two when they start doing the residential and commercial, layouts. Councilor Curry questioned the procedure for vacating or overturning an ordinance. Mr. Levin stated repeal the, ordinance. Mr. Curry stated that he is sympathetic to the resident's concern. He was:'Wore the Council in 1998 when 100% of the traffic was to come down E. Beaver Creek Blvd. Mr. Curry stated that, on behalf of himself, he could live with the Council allowing the traffic going down E. Beaver Creek Blvd. for six months. He did state that they could not decide that tonight without first notifying the business owners on E. Beaver Creek Blvd. Mr. Post stated that he does not care which way the Council decides to go but asked the Council to pass the resolution so that they would know they have the access. Then they would be happy to have more meetings and revoke the Stonebridge access without any challenge if the Council decides they would rather have them come in on E. Beaver Creek Blvd. That way they will know they have a backup plan in place. He stated that on the record, they would agree, if the Council decides they want them to go down E. Beaver Creek Blvd. after they hold hearings, then they will agree to take out the use of the Stonebridge Drive access but use the E. Beaver Creek Blvd. access. Ms. Carol Kreuger, resident of Eaglebend Drive, stated the developer did a good job in their request for information and proposing alternatives. She supports not using the Stonebridge access. She is also in favor of maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood whether by cul-de-sac or other. There being no further public from the comments, Mayor Yoder asked for comments from the Council. Councilor McDevitt questioned how the construction traffic accessed Chapel Square. He was told by E. Beaver Creek Blvd. He felt if they used that street, he did not see a problem for that to be a third potential here. Mayor Yoder felt the circumstance has changed since the original agreement, because then they thought all the construction traffic was going to come through E. Beaver Creek Blvd. Councilor Debbie Buckley stated that she did not have a problem changing it to E. Beaver Creek Blvd., but another public session should be held so' people are aware of this. She suggested they pass the resolution tonight with amendment and hold another public meeting. Regular Council Meeting June 12, 2001 Mr. Levin stated that the Council could pass the resolution with amendment. Mr. Post suggested that the resolution be passed stating that they get to use Stonebridge Drive or E. Beaver Creek Blvd., which will be determined by the Town Council within 90 days. Council felt that wag acceptable. Councilor McDevitt motioned to amend the resolution in the Temporary Construction Access paragraph to state the access will be either by Stonebridge Drive or E. Beaver Creek Blvd, and the Council will determine that within 90 days. Councilor Curly seconded the motion. Town Engineer Norm Wood suggested an amendment under the, Permit for Work Within Public Right of Way paragraph. He suggested adding number 3 to that item stating a temporary access permit may be issued by the Town for the use of E. Beaver' Creek Blvd. in lieu of the Stonebridge Drive access at the sole discretion of the Town.. Such decision will be made within 90 days of this approval. He stated this would track right with the resolution. Ms. Ferraro stated that she felt the first motion is better because Mr. Wood's sounds like they can do it if they feel like it. The motion states that you will do it within 90 days. The Council decided to vote on the motion made by Councilor McDevitt. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Levin stated that the Council has voted on the amendment to the resolution, now they need to vote on the amended resolution. Councilor Cuny motioned to approve Resolution No: 01-09, Series .of 2001, as amended. Councilor Debbie Buckley seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mayor Report: Mayor Yoder stated that she would be absent from the June 26, 2001 Council Meeting and that Mayor Protem Reynolds would be in charge. Consent Agenda: a.) Approval of the May 22, 2001 Council Meeting Minutes b.) Agreement with Poor, Boy- Productions for Avon Summerfest c.) Contract with A Great Time DJ's for Holiday Party d.) Contract with The Robing Lange Stage Hypnosis Show for Holiday Parry e.) Contract with ThyssenKrupp Elevator for Elevator Maintenance Regular Council Meeting 7 June 12, 2001 0 0 Councilor Debbie Buckley motioned approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilor McDevitt seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilor Debbie Buckley motioned to adjourn the meeting. Councilor McDevitt seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 7:17 PM. Y SUBMITTED: Nash, Town Clerk APPROVED: Michael Brown Debbie Buckley Peter Buckley Rick Cuny Mac McDevitt Buz Reynolds Judy Yoder Regular Council Meeting June 12, 2001 Jura. 11. 4UU1 4:~Urx unxlalin LUIJtrr, rqu. Liyi r. L Bill Efting Town of Avon City Manager Avon, CO 81620 June 11, 2001 RE: Avon Village Construction Dear Bill, Recently it has come to my attention that there is a renewed effort to divert on going construction traffic for the above referenced project, to utilize the existing city streets of Avon. I am herein reiterating my rhWt extreme opposition to any such consideration. If you recall during public hearings for this project, there were many objections. but perhaps the most vehement was that of dealing with construction traffic for 10 plus years, perhaps longer. This letter will serve to reemphasize the strongest opposition to this premise, by the Christie Lodge and its many thousands of owners. We can in no accept the construction traffic of such volume and expect the "ouiei ErijoymeW of our owners in regard to the real estate they own. Secondarily, it makes no sense to finally elevate to Town of Avon to its present level of beautiful esthetics and let it be destroyed for some one. else's multi-million dollar profit motive. it is my contention that any such consideration is in fact a reconsideration of the master agreement approved by the counsel for the entirety of the Village Project. My objections and problems with this project are well known by you, nothing has changed that opinion. If in fact we are revisiting this agreement, then 1 see no other way except to revisit those procedures, which call for considerable public input. If construction traffic is allowed to freely move on East Beaver Creek Boulevard, i as the registered agent for this Home Owners Association, will absolutely have no choice but to oppose it by any means available to us. However, at this time I have full confidence*in the city counsels ability to recognize the total negative ramifications relative to Construction traffic and the.existing final agreement. Aside from that, I very much appreciate, over the past months and years, your 'input and respect for this Home Owners Association's opinions and, input, and your always-willing ear on various civic subjects. If 1 can be of any further service on this or other issues please be reassured i will try to make a positive contribution. 1g Director Lodge P.O. Box 1196 0 Awn, CO 81 Q0-1196 • (970) 949-7M YV/lr/Vl 141i 1r~~V ' }~o1r~,ccJlol~z YYk -'S: ~t o,n a a~ r1v vur vuru 1ao aovva. vv.~ J .p vva • to , a.ab ~ Yv~c~,p t c~.v~d VVO•~ Ctrl)* cLA ~rna~v,~. r5 cj,yw~, vna)ot- A s,~ o.~-C A o,•,-T-•,,oY, Co~r+v;l --'~J oy. 'SiV-4- 12-- , 2ooi ua two, i,~.e eq,,feSS o CV Cg v sac f Gv►.C\ ~1C C c~ t) l~y.C S~ S ko- v~•tc.r -j s Tj Vl~ •rv, o~ $io -~9- A,3 44,c> `t vf- a\, a s1 > CDvLS~/Y+v tlho r Cd/v~G~ 1S C O,) A "t W i Ik ~e c oc~,,.~z~: ~e s~.~- ~ ~e s 1d5 f'nx~ a ~ l• . VA ytc, .t cu t few d t s \La 4 ~ .'T MLS CS ()?*Xa n a,,~'s ,t$erC ~o ~&s G65,W, 61 4 r ~F i r covYsj:~.- Qk CA'PGA, 4 l f o Lo, CCC~ ss ~'`b s , k oie- o!R- Covk4~j 13 7L". I I CJQC ocz~ ~vr-{-eye ~r- re co rd~ ~ S ~l\fis cYeje.d riW c [ Or. stow. oJeX C cv~ ~-d c~~ o f ounce ss Cam( TT ! Q ie 5 ~ANMj a OC~e SS ~yOen S W tO 1_~ Jv-4eA 0 t c~,,~ ~ 1~ vr.~~- oY. ~c~tpb~d ~,r ; ~ L tis ~ ~ ~-t c~,•' e,,~.t, ` AA II t _ '~2` ~~I"6•It S~a,i~5 ~ -~G~~ C: nS ~'~.'T'U ft~ OY` 1~E'C~ ~ D'~._ G.JIt O 0-A S^ 1tC~ , Wf AT , Ce-~k GWOJeJ coe j ('O1M1 tk~-tOr- 44Jttt-t. ~D1 , UD/ 1G/ U1 LUL' 14;44 rAA 4AU U04 0440 11W ffil:til'Citl"y qy Uvl. {~QStt` Ok -~cJon , 1kL~vs~v~e. ~F C~S-~ 4 ~S ~cNG~~~-fps 0 'eC~ ~ ~ vs S~~e + OJT ~'uG.\~ ~ O~ t■\ "ice G.,t~ ~r e Se..1-e 6 a- 'eo d, v~ o,.. a f- W4 + &0-1 mod, like UJ2 lte~(~ Ac TJV Dv~ l1:, 41+NL o~.'~T'Ou?r COJ C.:` "-0 SO ~<s s~ Ar GAA6 d o;,,S lea - D~ feCOrCGV- G ~va.~~~ , s W•~~ < 1 ass~~rr- CtCC.t~.t,.~z.Ib;~-~ , Sunti.~vx.~ v~~.-o woY ~-s ~v.r ~~'o~,~,r• ~,.d vi,e- GA unc-~ cror cbn"-..oA 4-0 (1kolz a r4lve: C,~ J a o~ 1 v~ T { I&D, ~ > Ia 1i Q~ 1 d , W x 1 u' 3 3