Loading...
TC Minutes 03-09-1993MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING'OF THE TOWN COUNCIL. HELD MARCH 9, 1993 - 7:30 P.M. The regular meeting of the Avon Town Council'of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held in the Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado, in the Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Albert Reynolds at 7:33p.m. A roll call was taken with Councilors-JAck Fawcett, Tom Hines, Celeste Nottingham, and Jim Roof present.. Councilors Jerry Davis and John Hazard were absent. Also present were Town Attorney John Dunn, Town Manager Bill James, Director of Engineering Norm Wood, Director of Municipal Services.-Larry Brooks,-Director of Community Development Rick Pylman, Planner.Tom Allender, Police Chief Art Dalton, Fire Chief'Charlie Moore, Town Clerk Patty Neyhart, as well as members of the press and public. First item under Citizen Input was Ms. Tsu Wolin-Brown representing Head Start. Ms. Wolin-Brown, Head Start Program Coordinator, gave overview of the newly formed child development program for Eagle County. This program operates out of Prater Lane Play School. Components of. Head Start are education; health, including medical, dental, nutrition, and mental health; parent involvement; and social services. Children in the program do have to qualify as low income. The programs are coordinated with the present school calendar. Next item under Citizen Input was Mr. Josh Hall representing Channel #23. Mr: Hall reminded that, on March 31, 1993, Channel #23 will become Channel #5. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 93-1, Series,of 1993, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17.20 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE-TOWN OF AVON TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL PRINTING FACILITY-AS A SPECIAL-REVIEW USE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing. Mr. Rick Pylman informed that representatives of the Vail Daily Newspaper are looking to combine their office and printing facility in Avon. In order to realize that coal, the,Town needs to change the zoning code to create a zone district to allow the printing facility. This Ordinance adds commercial pprinting facility as a special review use in the neighborhood-commercial zone district. There are no changes to the Ordinance from first. reading and Staff recommends approval. There being no further comments or questions, Mayor Reynolds called for a motion. Councilor Fawcett motioned to adopt Ordinance No. 93-1, Series of 1993 on second reading. Councilor Hines seconded the motion. • • With no further discussion, Mayor Reynolds entertained a roll call. Those voting aye were Councilors Celeste Nottingham, Tom Hines, Jack Fawcett, Jim Roof. The motion carried unanimously. First Reading of Ordinance No. 93-2, Series of 1993, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER OF 5.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON RELATING TO LIQUOR LICENSES Town Attorney John Dunn reminded that at the last Council meeting, council directed that an Ordinance be prepared which would adopt-a new provision of the State Liquor Code. This provision would permit the council, in certain circumstances, to impose fines rather than suspend liquor licenses. This Ordinance.provides that whenever a decision suspending a retail license for.14 days or less becomes final, whether by failure of the licensee to appeal or by exhaustion of all appeals of judicial review,-the retail licensee-may, before the operative date of the suspension, petition for permission to pay a fine in lieu of having the license suspended. The Ordinance proceeds to establish the criteria which govern that decision. Councilor Nottingham questioned determination of loss of sales due to suspension. Attorney Dunn responded that the provisions mentioned are from the State Statutes. Attorney Dunn added the burden would be on the licensee to convince the'Courncil that'these criteria are met; perhaps their accountant could make thai,,.` presentation. Councilor Nottingham questioned what fund the collected fines go into. Attorney Dunn responded the General Fund of the Local Licensing Authority; actually the General Fund of the Town, as the .Town is the Local Licensing Authority. Councilor Hines questioned desirability of this Ordinance. Attorney Dunn stated this Ordinance is limited in effect as it .applies only when the suspension is for 14 days or less. Council has the authority to suspend up to six months. Fourteen day's is fairly minor and this offers some flexibility without obligation. Councilor Nottingham questioned required TIPS program. Attorney Dunn stated Council does not have the authority under.the statutes to require,TIPS and to put it in the Ordinance.as a.condition,of allowing, the person to pay. the fine in lieu. Attorney._Dunn- added- council may on a case,by case basis add TIPS training as'a condition. There being no further comments, Mayor Reynolds called for a motion. Councilor Hines motioned to approve Ordinance.No. 93-2, Series of 1993 on first reading. Councilor Nottingham-seconded the motion. With no further discussion, Mayor Reynolds entertained a roll call. Those voting aye were Councilors Jim Roof, Celeste Nottingham, Tom. Hines, Jack Fawcett. Motion carried unanimously. -2- 0 • Resolution No. 93-14, Series of 1993, A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1993 BUDGET Mr. Bill James informed this Resolution is to pay for some of the due diligence expenses to be incurred for.the potential public works facility. Costs will be shared 50/50 with Town of Avon and Vail Associates. Total is $61,000. The Town will pay the total bill and be reimbursed 50% from Vail Associates. Councilor Nottingham motioned to approve Resolution No. 93-14, Series of 1993. Councilor Hines seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. First item under Unfinished Business was an update on Phone Service to Wildridge. Mr. James reminded Council of the 45 Wildridge duplex lots that currently do not have phone service. US West has agreed to install the phone lines if the Town will do,the trenching. Estimated trenching cost from B & B is $32-,000 and is not recoverable, per the phone company. Work could be accomplished this summer. Council directed Mr. James to present a Resolution amending the budget at next meeting. First item under New Business was an Appeal of Planning & Zoning Decision of February 16, 1993 Parking Variance; Lot 12, Block 1,. Benchmark at Beaver Creek. Mr. Tom Allender informed that on February 16, 1993 the Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z), in a 5 to 1 decision, denied Valley Wide Plumbing's request for a variance from a'parking setback. On Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek,.the required.front yard setback is 251. Parking regulations require there'be rio parking in the first 101.from the property line in and this was the variance requested: P & Z's motion for denial-stated-the project lacked the hardship, would create a bad precedent, and P & Z,could not apply the required findings from the Town Ordinance. Those findings were : 1) . that the granting of 'the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and 2) that the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; a) the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of-the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, b) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity, c) the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. The applicant's intent was to pave the lot from the proposed building right up to the property line. And, to mitigate the visual impact, landscaping was proposed for the right-a-way. Some vertical separation is between the parking lot and the road. The applicant has indicated that this parking variance is necessary to maximize the parking area that is needed for 17 vans, employee and customer vehicles. The submitted design shows 41 spaces; the Town Ordinance stipulates a minimum of 29 spaces. Staff has review the design and it may be possible to come up with 39 spaces withouta variance. -3- • i P & Z reviews certain criteria to form their decision and the following are their comments. 1) In response to the relationship of the requested variance to existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity; approval of the variance would allow parking in relative close proximity to traffic on Metcalf Road. Visually this could be mitigated, however, if Metcalf is ever widened, has paved shoulders or a sidewalk added, that buffer would be lost. 2) In response to the degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity; at the P & Z hearing Staff was not aware of any variances in the area for parking setbacks, however after further research the building that Beck & Associates is located in actually received a parking variance setback in the early 80's. This lot is 1/4 mile away from the Beck & Associates building and the lots adjacent to this lot have not requested or received parking variance setbacks. 3) In response to such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the requested variance; lack of hardship on the part of the applicant, the precedent the approval may create, it is possible to come very close to accommodate the amount of parking through design, and this lot is very similar to others in the area that have not required a variance. Staff recommends to uphold the decision of the P & Z. Councilor Fawcett questioned owner of property. Mr. Allender responded that Valley Wide Plumbing is the owner. Mr. Douglas DeChant, architect representing Valley Wide Plumbing, distributed a brief to Council (see attached Exhibit A). Mr. Pylman noted this lot is immediately adjacent to Avon Auto Body; downhill with a shared access and the lot downhill from Avon Auto Body also shares that access. Mr. DeChant discussed the easement with the assistance of a map. Mr. DeChant noted the vertical separation between the street and parking lot is significant and suggested any development such as sidewalks would be necessary on the other side of the road. Councilor Fawcett questioned length of ownership of the property. Mr. DeChant responded the property was purchased August, 15, 1992. Councilor Fawcett questioned existence of property. Mr. David Svabik, owner of Beaver Creek Automotive on Lot 13, responded since the Town of Avon inception; these three lots were owned together with the easements. Valley Wide Plumbing is proposing a new building on Lot 12. Mr. Allender added that Valley Wide Plumbing came before P & Z with a requested package consisting of a conceptual design review and this variance. Councilor Hines questioned possible design change to accommodate 39 spaces. Mr. DeChant has not seen this possible idea and added that 2 spaces are critical; vehicle intensive operation and needs all possible spaces. Councilor Roof questioned snow removal. Mr. DeChant responded the street snow would still land in the buffer area between the pavement and property line and Tom D'Agostino, owner of Valley Wide Plumbing & Heating, plans to snowmelt the parking lot. Mayor Reynolds questioned size of buffer zone. Mr. Pylman responded the road does not follow the curve of the property line resulting in a varied buffer zone from 15' to up to 351. -4- • 0 Mayor Reynolds questioned ability of widening road if this variance is granted. Mr. Pylman answered widening of road has not been designed and is questionable if/why. Mr. Pylman noted reasons to keep parking 10' back from property lines 1s aesthetic, provide for snow storage, and the ability to provide sidewalks or road cuts or road widening if it is ever necessary. Mr. DeChant stated it would be difficult to put road improvements on this side of the road due to pitch of property line down to road. Mr. Pylman noted the main concern for denial was hardship of the applicant and the Staff did not really observe one as there is the possibility to come very close to accommodating the requested spaces. Mr. DeChant added that the Municipal Code states practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship and mentioned lack of definition of hardship. Mr. DeChant stated this easement has placed a difficulty on this site. Councilor Fawcett questioned any new arguments presented to Council that were not presented to Staff or P & Z. Mr. DeChant added research has been more thorough. Mr. DeChant noted the building that Beck is in set the precedent and this item surfaced after the P & Z meeting. Mr. DeChant noted difficulty in defining hardship. Councilor Fawcett agreed the easement could be a hardship, however the easement existed prior to Mr. D'Agostino acquiring the property. Councilor Nottingham mentioned comments from property owners in Wildridge concerned with the aesthetics of the entrance to their properties. Mr. DeChant noted the horizontal separation of this lot and that Mr. D'Agostino is willing to landscape the buffer area. Mr. Allender commented that there is a feasibility problem with the street snow landing on the landscaped buffer area. Mr. Tom D'Agostino stated Valley Wide Plumbing & Heating employs over 32 workers, each driving to work. In addition, Valley Wide Plumbing has several trucks. With regard to landscaping, this would not be at street level but rather up on the steep part. The building has been placed on the back of the lot to maximize the parking lot. Currently, Mountain Center (where Valley Wide Plumbing is presently located) is double and triple.parked from 7am-5:30pm. This site was designed for service business and Valley Wide Plumbing plans to grow. Mr. David Svabik, owner of Beaver Creek Automotive and owner of lot right next to Mr. D'Agostino, expressed agreement with the design and parking variance request of Mr. D'Agostino. Mr. Mike Eatem, construction manager, because of the great buffer area, felt this to be a judgement call. Councilor Nottingham voiced concern of this not being an ideal spot for growth as the moment they move in they will be out of space. Mr. D'Agostino commented that as many employees carpool as possible and reiterated that the parking lot snow will be melted. Councilor Nottingham motioned to don't uphold the decision of the Planning & Zoning regarding Lot 12, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek on February 16, 1993 parking variance. -5- • Councilor Nottingham voiced her reasonings as findings required that the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the vicinity. Councilor Nottingham continued by thinking of the difference in the curve of the road and the natural berm or variance that you have in the verticalness of the street versus the property. And, another thing because you and everybody has found out that there has been precedent set with Beck & Associates which we have all very much gotten use to I suppose that number 3, the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specific regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. Councilor Hines seconded the motion. Councilor Roof clarified decision of the Planning Councilor Fawcett voiced Fawcett noted that P & Z indication is that other presented with any new ii motion; the motion is to reverse the & Zoning Commission. his opposition to the motion. Councilor voted against this 5 to 1. The than the Beck property, we have not been iformation. Mr. DeChant commented the Council has a better knowledge of facts than the P & Z. With no further comments, Mayor Reynolds called for the vote. Motion failed with Councilors Fawcett, Hines, and Roof opposed. Mayor Reynolds announced Mr. D'Agostino's request has been denied. Next item under New Business was Nottingham Lake Sediment Pond / Landscape Architectural Services. Mr. Norm Wood informed that the Avon Metro District through Intermountain Engineering is preparing a design for a sedimentation pond to be built at the entrance to the Lake. The proposal from Land Designs by Ellison addresses the landscaping around the proposed sedimentation pond. This proposal is for a fee not to exceed $6,900.00 and includes final design for landscaping to conform with the current budget of $68,000. Staff recommends approval of this proposal. Councilor Fawcett motioned to approve the contract submitted by Norman Wood, Town Engineer, relative to the Nottingham Lake Sedimentation Pond proposal for landscape / architectural services. Councilor Nottingham seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Next item under New Business was the Proposal for Engineering Services / Metcalf - Nottingham Overlay. Mr. Wood informed this proposal is from Intermountain Engineering to provide engineering services related to the asphalt overlay on Nottingham, Metcalf, and West Wildwood Road that is a part of the Mountain Star Subdivision Development. -6- In the Improvements Agreement, Mountain the cost of the overlay on this section $300,000. This engineering proposal is the $300,000) and covers engineering se: bid documents, contract administration, asphalt overlay. E Star has agreed to cover of the road for up to for a total of $18,040 (of rvices necessary to prepare and quality control for an Councilor Hines motioned to approve the proposal dated March 2nd from Intermountain Engineering. Councilor Fawcett seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. The Financial Matters were next presented to Council. Councilor Nottingham motioned to receive items #1 through #6 and approve items #7 through #8. The motion was seconded by Councilor Roof and was unanimously carried. Next presented to Council were the Council Meeting Minutes. Councilor Hines motioned approval of the February 23, 1993 Regular Council Meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilor Roof and the motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Reynolds called for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Hines moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor Nottingham. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Reynolds at 8:54pm. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Ney rt, own clerk -7- EXHIBIT A March 9, 1993 TO: Avon Town Council Members FROM: Douglas M. DeChant, on behalf of Tom D'Agostino, Valley Wide Plumbing & Heating RE: PARKING VARIANCE, LOT 12, BLOCK 1, METCALF ROAD PROPOSED VALLEY WIDE PLUMBING & HEATING FACILITY The Town of Avon Zoning ordinance does not permit parking in the front ten feet of the required front yard. The Planning & Zoning Commission denied a parking setback variance based upon their response to the Zoning ordinance, Chapter 17, "Variances", Paragraphs 17.36.050, A, B, Cl, C2, C3. A copy of this regulation is attached for your information. In this appeal, we respectfully request the Town Council to consider the following: GENERAL: The nature of Valley Wide's operation is vehicle intensive. All field service and contracting employees arrive at work via personal transportation, park, load and organize service vehicles and leave for various work sites in the service vehicles. During transition times, the site must accommodate not only employee vehicles, but the service fleet as well. Thus, vehicle density in this type of operation is greater than standard industrial operations wherein the work is accomplished strictly on site and parking is primarily required only for personal employee vehicles. Accordingly, we have taken every step possible to maximize on-site parking. The zoning and siting of the subject property was established prior to current ownership, at a time when the Town was being planned and subdivided. Part of this siting process resulted in an access easement across the property to serve the two adjacent properties. This easement was necessary to make the transition between the street and rather steeply pitched sites. Basically, the easement responds to unique characteristics of this site, and therefore places distinct limitations on the property which do not exist for the majority of properties in Avon. The effect is to limit the manner in which the property can be developed. Significant in this request is the original intent of the setback regulation. We believe the intent is to insure some amount of aesthetic, safety and snow storage buffer between the pavement and front property line. The location of existing street paving in front of this site, combined with the steep grade in the easement virtually assure a good buffer here. The front property line ranges from ten to forty feet from existing pavement, averaging over twenty-five feet. We believe this is a good buffer, more than often available on other sites in compliance with the setback requirement. Further, if the street is ever to be widened, it would likely be widened on the opposite side, on gentler terrain. 0 i To approve this variance request, the Council must respond favorably to the requirements of Paragraph 17.36.050 of the Zoning ordinance: PARAGRAPH 17.36.050, A: This paragraph seeks to assure that granting the variance will not constitute granting of "...special privilege..." to this property. On the surface it may appear to be a privilege to grant this variance, however, any advantage would go no further than to offset the limitation created by the easement. PARAGRAPH 17.36.050. B: This paragraph seeks to assure the public health, safety and welfare. Our response is that this requirement is satisfied, possibly even improved upon by granting the variance. Without the variance, we will likely locate the access lane directly on the front property line, creating a, tight turning radius for vehicles exiting the property from the south. Given-the variance, we, will place a twenty foot row of parking stalls along the property line, shifting the access lane inboard by twenty feet, and thereby increasing the resulting entry/exit turning radius. This will improve approach and vision of vehicles exiting the site from the south. PARAGRAPH 17.36.050. C1. C2. C3: These paragraphs seek to find justification for the variance based upon certain criteria. To be approved, only one of these justifications need be found applicable. We believe such justification can be found as follows: PARAGRAPH C l: This requirement states that the variance could be warranted due to "...practical difficulty or physical hardship...". The emphasis of the P&Z commission was upon failure to demonstrate hardship. Unfortunately, hardship is not defined in the Zoning ordinance, nor was it defined in the hearing. Also, the other choice of "practical difficulty" was not discussed. It is our contention that the limitation imposed by the easement is a practical difficulty, and could also be considered a hardship. This difficulty, or hardship, is compounded by the need to maximize parking for the proposed operations. 0 PARAGRAPH C2: • This requirement seeks to find "...exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions..." not applicable to other similar properties that could warrant granting the variance. Again, we contend that.the*presence of the easement alone renders this site different from other similar sites. Site development, and specifically parking are constrained by the easement. PARAGRAPH C3: This requirement seeks to avoid depriving a property owner of privileges *enjoyed by similar properties. The effect of the access easement is to deprive the owner of flexibility and full use 'in development of his property. A further matter not governed by the Zoning ordinance, but used by the P&Z commission in denial of the request, is the risk of precedent. We believe that risk to be negligible given that the commission still retains power to approve or deny similar requests. 0 17.36.050-171.36'_.08_0_ C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; D. Such other factors and criteria as the commission_ deems applicable to the proposed variance. (Ord.. 91-10 §1(part)). 17.36.050 Findings required. The.- planning and zoning commission shall make the following written findings before granting a variance: A. That the granting of the,variance will not consti- tute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; B. That the granting of the variance will not be--det= rimental to the public health, safety, or-wel.fare, or mate- rially injurious to properties or improvements in the vi- cinity; C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 1. The strict, literal interpretation and enforce- ment of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent,. with the objectives of this title, 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to'the site of the vari_- ance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, forcemeat of Thehesspeciftrictiredlregulatiiteral and en- applicant of privileges ould deprive the enjoy ed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (Ord. 91-i0 §1(part)). 17:36.060 Conditional ranting. The granting,of a variance may be conditioned on action by the applicant. (Ord. 91-10 §1(part)). 17.36.070 the time of the its receipt by construction is of issuance and 91-10 §1(part)) Fees--Term. Variance fees shall be paid at application for the variance and prior to the applicant. The variance shall lapse if not-commenced within one year of the date diligently pursued to completion. (Ord. 17.36.080 Council action. Within seven days follcw- ing action by the planning and zoning commission, written findings and decision shall be transmitted to the applicant and to the town council. Such decision shall be final, 214-24 (Avon 8/91)