Loading...
TC Minutes 03-22-1994MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HELD MARCH 22, 1994 - 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 J. Reynolds at 7:30PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Jack Fawcett, John Hazard, Celeste C. Nottingham, Jim Roof and Judy Yoder present. Councilor Tom Hines was absent. Also present were Town Manager Bill James, Town Attorney John Dunn, Director of Community Development Steve Amsbaugh, Superintendent of'Recreation Meryl Jacobs, Director of'Municipal Services Larry Brooks, Fire Marshall Carol Gil-Mulson, Transportation Director Harry Taylor, Police Chief Art Dalton, Lieutenant Gary Thomas, Town Clerk Patty Neyhart, as well as members of the press and public. First item on the Agenda was Citizen Input and included updates on the Post Office, VVMB Measuring Criteria, and Colo. Travel & Tourism Authority. Ms. Kate Collins stated she received a response from the Post office and included it in Council's packet as information only. The Post office informed funding for new facilities has been put on hold. Ms. Collins mentioned signage for this summer's construction such as "Please excuse our Progress". Ms. Collins asked for Council's input on the Vail Valley Marketing Board measurability / accountability,criteria. Council's consensus was' satisfaction with Sections 1 and.2; Conversion Study and Local Hotel/Lodge Database Analysis. Council did not see the benefit of Section 3; ,In-Market Data Review and felt another accountability criteria would-be more credible. Council suggested that Dave Reece from the ad agency come before Council for discussion. Ms. Collins informed a VVMB meeting is scheduled for tomorrow and invited all to attend. Ms. Collins requested Council to write a letter of support for the proposed Colorado Travel & Tourism Authority. Council's consensus was not to-support this proposed state regulated authority. Council felt this voluntary contribution should be collected independent'of the state and support should come from private enterprise. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 94-9, Series of 1994,,AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON AS IT RELATES TO QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing. Town Attorney John Dunn stated there are two changes from first reading, at the request of Council. Changes are in section 1 and section 2. In both locations, the word "qualified electors" has been changed to "registered electors". Councilor Yoder motioned to adopt Ordinance No. 94-9, Series of 1994 on second reading. Councilor Hazard seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 94-10, Series of 1994, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF LOT 3, BLOCK 3, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION FROM RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED THERETO Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing. Mr. Steve Amsbaugh stated this matter is before Council on second reading and is a public hearing. This rezoning-to PUD will allow the applicant to construct an approximately 15,000 square feet two story retail office building on this property. Maps were displayed.on the wall. There is one change from first reading. Condition B was deleted, which related to the applicants future participation in improvements along West Beaver Creek Road. And, a new Condition B was added. Condition B now reads the applicant will provide adequate pedestrian access to the property. Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. Councilor Nottingham motioned to approve Ordinance No. 94-10, Series of 1994 on second reading. Councilor Fawcett seconded the motion. The motion carried with Councilor Yoder abstaining. First Reading of Ordinance No. 94-11, Series.of 1994, AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF A REZONING 619.75 ACRES OF LAND CURRENTLY ZONED OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND DRAINAGE, TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMEND THE MOUNTAIN STAR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE THIS PROPERTY Mr. Amsbaugh informed the Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z) reviewed and recommended approval, with conditions, of this planned unit development (PUD) rezoning application on March 1, 1994. The existing PUD was approved on Jan.'12, 1993 and includes 88 single family residences with care taker units. Total acreage of the existing PUD is 683.94. In October, 1993, the US Forest Service issued a decision notice that resulted in conveyance of another 626.94 acres of National Forest Land to Mountain Star Limited Liability Company. This land exchange included detailed wildlife mitigation agreements and conservation easements to protect sensitive plants and animals. As a result of this land exchange, Mountain Star has submitted an application requesting an amendment to the existing Mountain Star PUD. The amendment would include the incorporation of this new 619.75 .acres into the existing Mountain Star PUD complex with the following specific uses. First, it would include six additional residential lots; secondly, a new location of ranch central on Tract X; and, thirdly, 567.34 acres designated open space. The remaining 7.19 acre tract, Tract Y, which is against Metcalf Road, will be dedicated to the Town of Avon. This dedication will occur at the subdivision process, which will be upcoming on this property: Mr. Amsbaugh highlighted some of the ingredients of the request, however they are incorporated in the existing Mountain Star PUD. Avon Metropolitan District will need to annex this area, as the area is n, shall allow a summer--use on recommends that the Council acres from OLD to PUD and ai incorporating the additiona following findings and cond justified due to the changi: rezoning is consistent with 3.) The proposed use is co- surrounding area and uses. Mountain Star PUD will be i. Star PUD. Subdivision of t Mountain Star Filing Number )t currently in the uisr-rict. -l-ract w .y equestrian center-. Staff approve the rezoning of the 619.75 tend the existing Mountain Star PUD by 619.75 acres into the PUD, with the .tions. Findings:, 1.) The rezoning is ig character of the area. '2.) The the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan. tpatible and complimentary to the Conditions: 1.) The amendment to the icorporated into the existing Mountain its land will be identified as 2. 2 9 0 2.) The PUD Plan and PUD Guidelines and standards (including allowed uses, site access and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for this parcel of land. 3.) The property be annexed into the Avon Metropolitan Water District. 4.) Access to the proposed equestrian area must be shown on the PUD Plan. 5.) Public trails and related parking areas must be shown on the PUD plan. Mr. Rick Pylman, representing Mountain Star development, described the 619.75 acres with the assistance of maps.' This does not change the Town boundaries at all. There is a total request of six lots / six homesites on this 619.75 acres. Ranch central will be moved down at the intersection of Mountain Star Drive and Wildwood Road. A summer time only equestrian center and 570 acres of open space are proposed. This Ordinance will incorporate all of this into the existing PUD, so it is one development, controlled by one single set of documents. The agreement with the Forest Service allows this development. Any fencing that is put up for the equestrian center has to be of the put up and lay down version; the center is strictly summer only and the fence must come down during the winter. An eight to ten horse stable, tack room and perhaps a small building to store feed; a very small center is planned. This will not be visible from the Valley floor; you can see it coming up Mountain Star Drive. Conservation easement covers approximately 100 acres and is basically put in place to protect the Harrington Penstemon wildflower.- Councilor Hazard motioned to approve Ordinance No. 94-11, Series of 1994 on first reading. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion., The motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 94-11, Series of 1994, A RESOLUTION DESIGNATED PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1994 TO COUGHLIN & CO., INC.; PROVIDING FOR THE INTEREST RATES FOR EACH MATURITY OF THE BONDS; APPROVING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING THE.EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Mr. James recommended this matter be deferred to the next meeting. Councilor Nottingham motioned to table Resolution No. 94-11, Series of 1994 till the next meeting. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Next on the Agenda under Unfinished Business was the 1994 Summer Air Service Contribution Commitment Agreement with Vail Associates. Attorney Dunn stated this agreement provides for a voluntary contribution by the Town. That being the case, Attorney Dunn recommended that Paragraph 4 be deleted. Paragraph 4 provides for interest on any late payments and also for reimbursement of Vail Associates for any attorney fees incurred in the collection of this voluntary contribution. Also, the amount of the commitment does not reflect the authorization of the Council. Councilor Fawcett suggested getting a copy of the Agreement between the Airline and Vail Associates as Paragraph 3 discusses shortfalls / reimbursements. Councilor Yoder motioned to table the 1994 Summer Air Service Contribution Commitment Agreement with Vail Associates. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fawcett and carried unanimously. 3 9 i Next on the Agenda under Unfinished Business was the Grant of Easement / Anointed Christian Church. Mr. Amsbaugh stated Anointed Christian Fellowship Church has requested a temporary construction easement and a permanent access easement across Tract B. These easements would allow the construction and access to Lot 45, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek. This parcel is located along Nottingham Road, to the West of Chambertin Townhomes. The P & Z reviewed and granted Final Design Review approval for the church, parsonage and parking on Lot 45 with site access on Tract B. The topography of Lot 45 requires the driveway location to be on Tract B to safely and adequately access their property. P & Z reviewed alternative access points last May; this was deemed the safest and most appropriate. Chambertin Townhomes has a similar, non-exclusive, access easement in the same location on Tract B. In other words, their paved driveway exits Nottingham Road, crosses Tract B and enters their property. This is in the form of an easement that was granted by Benchmark in 1980. The Church and Chambertin Townhomes, in this case, would then share a common entrance on Nottingham Road. Required retaining walls, revegetation and landscaping would be provided by the Church. Staff recommends approval of the temporary construction easement and permanent access easement subject to two conditions: 1.) Compliance with all Town of Avon regulations and standards related to proposed improvements - meeting road, paving, and construction standards normally required. 2.) Compliance with Final Design Review approval conditions. Attorney Dunn distributed a letter from Attorney Larry Eskwith, representing Chambertin Condominium Homeowner's Association. Attorney Dunn commented that Attorney Eskwith states that, although the easement granted to Chambertin was not an exclusive easement, in his view that does not give the Town the right to grant additional easements in the same easement area to other grantees. Attorney Dunn does not agree with Attorney Eskwith's interpretation. Attorney Dunn felt that'when a non-exclusive easement is granted, which is the case here, an easement may likewise be granted to others as long as the same does not unreasonably interfere with the easement already granted. This easement was originally granted by Benchmark and not actually granted by the Town. The Town came into title of the property, obviously subject to the easement previously granted by Benchmark to Chambertin. The second point raised by Attorney Eskwith is Chambertin, at considerable expense, has paved the right of way. In addition, the easement which has been granted requires the Association to maintain and repair the easement. The easement which the Town proposes to grant to the Church makes no provision for the Church to reimburse any portion of the expense of paving, nor does it obligate the Church to contribute to that expense. Finally, although the proposed easement agreement provides that the Church will indemnify the Town, it does not provide for indemnification of Chambertin. Attorney Dunn added those points are well taken and should be taken into consideration with action by the Council. Attorney Dunn's recommendation, to Council, is that the easement be agreed to by motion provided that the terms of,the easement are renegotiated and agreed to by Chambertin and Anointed Christian Fellowship along the lines asked for in Attorney Eskwith's letter in particular paragraph 2. Mr. Bill Fleisher, owner of two units at Chambertin, informed Chambertin originally had two accesses; one from the east and one from the west. The east side has since been eliminated and now Chambertin has only the west'side access. Mr. Fleisher voiced his concern for the safety of the children. The children play where it is level and it is level near the driveway. 4 9 Mr. Fleisher reiterated concern of the lack of maintenance costs included in the proposed,Church easement. Mr. Fleisher asked if it is possible for the church to come in from the west side. Mr. Fleisher stated there are a total of 12 units ranging from 2,500 to 3,200 square feet and most of the units have 3-4 cars per unit. Mr. Fleisher had no problem with a church being built next door, as long as it is a pretty church. Mr. Fleisher is concerned about all the traffic. Mr. Fleisher stated he had no notice for design review approval that occurred on 5/4/93. Councilor Roof questioned what happened to the east entrance of Chambertin. Mr. Fleisher stated the fire department asked that that lane always be open. That has never happened. Mr. Fleisher mentioned the cement foundation to the east; another very dangerous situation. Mr. Fleisher noted that we have one dangerous situation on the east and we do not want to create another dangerous situation on the west. Mr. Fleisher would like to see this tabled for further study. Mr. Fleisher suggested widening the access, perhaps another 101. Mayor Reynolds noted that the cement foundation at one time was part of Chambertin. Mr. Fleisher concurred; that was the fourth building that never got built. The bank took it, sold it off and it got separated. Mr. James commented there was some controversy whether Chambertin actually had access through the property; somehow through that controversy the previous property owners blocked off that east driveway. Mr. James added that the Town required the owners of the foundation to complete certain improvements and thought they had done everything the Town requested. Mr. Fleisher stated the last he heard the fire department was requiring that whatever got built there they were required to keep the fire lane open. It was fractionalized and then the owners could never get funding for the development. Chambertin offered them 10% on their money, right after they bought it, and this was turned down. Councilor Nottingham questioned how many units are in Chambertin. Mr: Fleisher stated 12 units. Councilor Nottingham figured approximately 36 to 48 cars in / out daily. Mr. Fleisher added there is very heavy traffic and it is because the units are so big. A lot are occupied and the 2-3 that are not are people from Chicago that have kids in college that come up on the weekends. Councilor Fawcett asked if there are enough parking spaces for each car. Mr. Fleisher stated there is; the units have double car garages and carports. Mr. Fleisher stated the fire department came up and worked with the owners; we had some parking problems and we did some lines and some diagonals and we have not had a ,problem since them. Councilor Nottingham suggested the Town look into acquiring or opening the east entrance. Mayor Reynolds suggested widening the west entrance to accommodate the joint entrance. Mr. Harry Masakee, past president of the Chambertin Homeowners Association as of the 9th of March, informed he is an immediate abutter to the property on the east. Mr. Masakee informed that to discuss opening the east, the owners would have to pave it due to drainage problems. Mr. Masakee noted that to the west the driveway slopes down into Nottingham Road. Many cars have come down that driveway and slid onto Nottingham Road. Mr. Masakee reiterated Mr. Fleisher's concerns of safety. Mr. Masakee stated Chambertin had a problem of property slipping and they have spent roughly $1,000,000 buffering that all up so the buildings are stable and voiced concern of drainage. Mr. Masakee noted the plans for the church adds another 42 cars. Mr. Masakee felt a church makes a good neighbor, but we need to look at this access. Mr. Masakee stated he was not notified and was completely surprised of the church's development. Mr. Amsbaugh stated Final Design Review probably went by just in the normal routine of Design Review process. Mr. Amsbaugh added that, when the building permit was reviewed and this issue was noticed, dialog started approximately eight months ago. 5 Mr. Amsbaugh stated steepness and drainage issues have been addressed in the engineering drawings. Mr. Amsbaugh noted this is an access issue. Staff has addressed grade, drainage, landscaping, retaining walls; all have been certified by the applicant's engineer. Mr. Amsbaugh added the grade will be 9%; the Town requires a run out of 4% at the bottom for the last 20' before entering Nottingham Road. Councilor Fawcett asked who drafted the responded that the applicant's attorney worked with the Attorney John Dunn over months. Attorney Dunn stated the issue or not the Town will grant an easement. owner, not as a government. The matter Council. But, the reason Chambertin is they should have notice of it, even thou required. easement. Mr. Amsbaugh drafted the easement and the last couple of this evening is whether You are acting as a land needed to come before here is that Staff felt igh no notice was Mr. Ken'Shapiro,-speaker'on behalf of Anointed Christian Fellowship, believed that some statements from Chambertin owners were misstatements of the facts. For example, Mr. Shapiro's recollection was that the use of this property:as a church was not a use by right, but'a permitted use: And, it required a special permission of the Council and P & Z to grant this special use. So, because it,was a.special review use, there was the extended notice,requirements;. it required notification to all contiguous property owners. Those notices were sent out prior to the hearing. Although there are elements of this current discussion that may not have been part of that notice requirement, the actual special use permission for the building of the church in a residential neighbor; that did go through as an extensive notice requirement. Mr. Shapiro mentioned the statements made that the driveway is unsafe and that drainage issues have not been addressed . . . those comments may be sincere concerns, but they are inflammatory and inaccurate. Part of the application process requires the applicant to hire a licensed Colorado civil engineer to design the road and address all the drainage issues and Alpine Engineering was used. Mr. Shapiro added that the applicant brought a plan to P & Z that showed access directly off the front of the property onto Nottingham Road. The P & Z approved that access. However, P & Z recommended that the applicant get with the Town Staff and see if an alternative access could be worked out on the contiguous Lot B. The applicant met with Staff. The applicant hired the engineer again and completely redesigned the access to comply with the request. Then, when the applicant approached the Town for a building permit, Staff informed an easement was necessary for access through Lot B. The applicant hired Attorney Kevin Lindahl to consult with the Town's attorney to work out the appropriate language for that easement. Two drafts later, the applicant understood this to be an acceptable agreement. However, the applicant is sensitive to the concerns raised by the attorney for Chambertin. The applicant is willing to add to the easement those reasonable requests that the attorney has made on behalf of the applicant, that is; shared maintenance responsibility and extension of the indemnity agreement to the shared easement. The applicant requests that Council not ask the applicant to,work out details with Chambertin as this puts Chambertin in the position to just never agree. Mr. Shapiro asked Council to make specific recommendations for the altering or modification of the easement such that the applicant will make those changes.with the hope that Council grant the easement whether Chambertin wants to agree to.those changes or not. The applicant is willing to make any reasonable changes to the easement that would make it fair to Chambertin in terms of cost maintenance and liability. Attorney Dunn interjected that this is what he was trying to say when he made the recommendation. Council should approve the easement with the changes requested by Chambertin in Attorney Eskwith's letter. 6 i r Mr. Shapiro commented, on the comment of potential danger because of children playing in the easement area, there is no language in Chambertin's easement that ever contemplated that being a play area or an area for Chambertin to use for recreation or anything like that. Neither Chambertin or the Church should be allowing children or anyone to play.in that area;' that acces's,easement. That was not the-intent, it was purely for pedestrian and vehicular access to the property. Mayor Reynolds asked if the Church's intention was to widen the driveway. Mr. Shapiro stated it was not their current intention only because under the traffic criteria that Alpine Engineering used to design the driveway; they did not think the traffic counts necessitated widening it; had they, it would have been in our proposal. The Church is not adverse to widening the driveway, but feel that any widening of the driveway should be decided by someone like Alpine Engineering or the Town Staff familiar with traffic issues and not just by laymen's concerns that the driveway is not adequate. Alpine Engineering has not indicated that it is inadequate. Mayor Reynolds questioned schedule of services. Mr. Shapiro informed currently the Church has services one time on Sunday morning with approximate attendance of 90 people; typical car 'count is about 30 cars. The current parking plan allows for 42 'spaces. In the approval process for the special use, one condition was that if the demand for services ever exceeded the number of parking spaces permitted, the pastor agreed to multiple :services, spaced sufficiently to allow no more than the necessary cars that parking would permit. In addition to Sunday morning ,service, about once per month we typically have special Sunday evening services for guest speakers. Occasionally they may be held on Monday or Tuesday evenings. On Tuesdays or Wednesdays, we typically have-bible study with attendance probably in the 10- 15 car range. Mayor Reynolds asked if this is a National or International fellowship. Mr. Shapiro answered it is a non-denominational Christian, Church who is under the direction of the Faith Christian Fellowship out of Tulsa. Mayor Reynolds asked that if anything happen to the minister, would there be somebody to replace him. Mr. Shapiro stated yes, the congregation would seek a new minister through one of the hierarchy of order that the Church is under. Pastor Vanduesen is under Pastor Jeff Corsan in a fellowship in Northglen. He is under a pastor back in Tulsa. There is a hierarchy, it is not exactly the same as a more defined denomination, but there is a hierarchy to replace ministers and service the needs of the assemblage. Mr. Shapiro reiterated that the applicant is willing to do anything reasonable not to put the neighbor in any type of safety or liability position or impose any type of cost or on going maintenance expense on him that should properly be shared by both parties. We would like the Town to stipulate that, and then if we comply, grant us the easement; as opposed to asking us to work it out with the other party that at the moment doesn't wish to work it out.. Councilor Yoder asked if they would consider it reasonable to widen the entry. Mr. Shapiro responded they would consider it reasonable if an engineer says it is necessary. Councilor Roof asked if the first plan could be looked at again; the access in the front of the Church. Mr. Shapiro stated it is definitely possible. In the spirit of fairness, if we are asked to abandon the plan that was requested of us by Town Staff and pursue this plan, and we have spent considerable money abandoning the plan to pursue what we were asked to pursue, it borders on unfair. 7 It seems unfair for the Town to say now go.back and repursue the other plan when it was'Staff's'recommendation.that this was a better plan. The concerns were fire related, in that there was even a steeper drive; I believe that drive was 10% in order to make that grade. It created an access on the far west end of the sight and there was opposition from that neighbor saying that access was too close to their property. Although it was not joint access, they felt the cuing of cars both turning in and turning out was going to create a traffic problem for their access. This is on the property that is west of the church property. The fire department representative at that hearing felt the access to make the grade in such a short distance was more difficult for fire purposes. There was a long list of reasons why the west access was a greater safety issue. Another concern was they felt the traffic count was going to increase on Nottingham and did not want to create a situation where cuing to turn into that space was more difficult. The way the access was shown, you would be, turning a 180 degree. This was truly 180; right now you turn left and then 180 into Chambertin. Councilor Nottingham voiced concern of all agreeing to share expense; how can we address the timeliness and need of maintenance and costs. Mr. Shapiro suggested stipulating in an agreement to have the parties agree to an immediate arbitration 'to be bound by the arbitration and to give the prevailing lien rights against the other parties real party for enforcement and collection of the decision of the arbitrator. This does not typically have to be done, because just the threat of having to go through the process is a tremendous impedance for the parties to just agree and get on with it. Mr. Larry Eskwith wondered if it is fair for the Town of Avon to take"a legal right, which Chambertin has, which is a right to utilize that easement, and it is a legal right which Chambertin has expended significant funds on, then, basically change that right. Although the easement is not an exclusive easement, case law seems to infer when the court talks about an exclusive or non-exclusive easement what they are really talking about is not the ability of the grantor to give the easement the identical easement to another grantee, but rather the ability of the grantor to use the easement himself. Once you interpret the law to allow the grantor, you guys to give as many easements over this property as you may want, it causes all kinds of problems with my clients property rights. Why should my client subject himself'to binding arbitration. Why should he enter into any agreement regarding the repair of the road. I don't think he should be forced to. From a strictly legal standpoint, I question whether the Town has the right to impose these obligations on Chambertin. From a practical standpoint, I am not as familiar with the site as I could be. But, isn't there any option besides sharing this easement with Chambertin. Mayor Reynolds recalled they brought in trucks in the center of the property. Mr. Shapiro stated the truck was doing soil tests. Attorney Eskwith felt it might make sense to study this issue a little bit more to see whether a more reasonable approach might be available. Maybe we could all work around this legal and practical nature by trying to find a better access point. Mr. Tim Kehoe, present in behalf of the Anointed Christian Fellowship, asked who owns the road that is the driveway up in the property now. Mayor Reynolds stated the Town. Mr. Kehoe asked how wide is it. Mr. Amsbaugh stated approximately 22' wide. Mr. Kehoe asked is the easement itself 22' wide or does the easement'go beyond that. What I am leading up to is if in fact the road were widened, would it be widened within the easement or would it go on to one or the other particular property owners at this time. Mayor Reynolds thought it would all be within the easement. 8 Mr. Kehoe commented the access into the parking area for the church is right near the road; I do not see where the vehicles that would be going into or out of the parking lot are actually going into the Chambertin parking lot. So, if the children issue has been resolved and the engineer drawings can handle the steepness and the drainage have been resolved; and if in fact it was widening of the road what other real impacts is it having on the residents of Chambertin. Mr. Fleisher stated heis probably the only homeowner that has been around there for a long time. Mr. Fleisher reiterated it is a dangerous situation. Children . . . you can't tell them where to play. If we weren't here tonight, quite frankly, Chambertin got shafted. Even if the Town Attorney helped draft that, and no offense, before I came here tonight, we were supposed to do the snow plowing at our expense for their driveway. I can't understand that. We were supposed to re-black-top that surface for their trucks that came in, before we walked in here tonight. I am trying to tell you that is just a minor part of the problem. We lost the whole east end of our entrance. But, when that easement was given to us, you say there is nothing about children that are supposed to play there and we didn't really have a traffic problem, and I agree. But, we had two accesses, in and out, back then. Since then, everything has changed. You got a real problem. I think probably when the Town looked at it back then, and none of those people are probably part of the P & Z at this time, they should have looked harder at the access up the front. I think you need to go,back and take a hard look of right up the front, unless you can really widen that. I hope that if they are building a church, they are building a church to take care of this community. And, if they are, that means that church is going to grow. And, it isn't going to be just the Wednesday night or one service like he said; I am sure their goal is to get as many members as possible. So, to look at that traffic pattern as it is today, it isn't what it will be ten years from now. Please give more consideration than tonight. Those units started at $435,000 each. We put millions of dollars of'renewal in that; new roofs, new outside, new fronts, and they can't give the units away because of that lot to the east. We come here and we beg for help from the Town. I can't tell you how many times we came across regarding that concrete problem. If we can't get any help on that side, how is Chambertin homeowners going to get any help on the other side. And, that is what I am afraid about. We might grant it, but between the two we can't get along or we can't solve that issue. I am asking you to give it more consideration than just pass this thing tonight. Councilor Roof felt we need to look at other remedies before passing this. Councilor Roof mentioned Attorney Eskwith's letter whereby it states as long as it doesn't interfere; it seems like there is definite concern here that it does interfere with their granted easement. Councilor Roof stated he can not support this approval as it is now. Councilor Fawcett echoed Councilor Roof's concern. Councilor Fawcett thought P Z is the first resort and should here these concerns. Councilor Fawcett,noted both attorneys are disagreeing whether or not the Town can grant the easement. Finally, at some point our P & Z indicated that another route into the property was proper. However, they suggested the church talk with Town Staff, for a more appropriate area. Now,, if it turns out that the Chambertin entrance is the most appropriate, with no doubts in our minds, then perhaps adding aspects of paragraph,2 of Attorney Eskwith's letter. as well as widening the driveway, I am just throwing out thoughts, not specifying as necessary. Then, the Town would grant the easement because most parties would be happy. But, following along Councilor Roof's line, we need to explore this further. 9 Mayor Reynolds felt this should be returned back to the P & Z; have them review it again and explore a solution to the problem. Councilor Nottingham mentioned her sensitivity of the rights of property owners; these are both property owners. And, the town owns the property right between both of them. We should reach out and allow them to use it so they can use their property to the potential they want to, within our safety and zoning. Councilor Nottingham felt a little guilty because our system, that they have gone through faithfully, has made victims out of them. If we have given them the OK and they have jumped through the hoops twice, I would hate to see them have to go through it again. Perhaps some of us have other situations we can relate to, where you get to be the first one on the block and you are kind of used to this and it is a big shock to your system when somebody comes in next to you and changes it. There may be a little bit of this going on in this situation. Because that is Town property, the use should be equal to the property owners on both sides, as long as we haven't given a restrictive easement. I would perhaps like to see the opportunity of it being a little bit wider and an agreement that would bind the maintenance and repair of it, and indemnifying the Town. This is a little bit unfair to make them go through this process again when they have gone through it already and they are not asking for an easement across a private parties land; it's our land and it is non- restrictive. Mayor Reynolds questioned the 9% grade. Mayor Reynolds informed I live on Nottingham Road and I know exactly what you people were talking about as far as sliding out onto the road. I have done it many times myself. And, if you get a head start on a 9t grade you are going to be rolling. One gentleman said something about you got to know what you are doing. Even when you know what you are doing, you go anyway. Councilor Roof responded to Councilor Nottingham's concern of it being unfair for the Church to jump through all the hoops. Councilor Roof stated he hates the idea of making them feel we are treating them unfairly but at the same time, I find it difficult to proceed on what I would feel is a bad decision based on just that concern of well, we've already led them on to a bad decision, we are going to go ahead and support a bad decision. I think it is important we re-look at this and hopefully come up with a better remedy than what I think we are headed for with this dual easement. I feel it is possible they were given some bad recommendations, but it doesn't mean we should continue down the wrong path. Councilor Yoder thought a shared easement is not the wrong path. Some of these issues need to be address, either by a motion tonight or by sending it back to P & Z. One way or the other, we should make a decision. Councilor Hazard stated send it back to P & Z. Councilor Nottingham wondered how many design review plans have been approved that aren't totally through-the process and, because we have either new or different Staff and riew. members on either Council or P & Z, there is a different thought process. Councilor Nottingham stated she has to trust that the people that approved it at the time knew what they were doing and_.in,their best interest and that good decisions were made. We can't change or reverse decisions every time our Staff or membership changes. Mr. James recalled that when P & Z took action, there was a requirement they obtain an easement from the Town. When they recently came in for their building permit, they discovered the need to finalize that easement. So, that has been setting out there for some time. 10 Mr. James felt all the alternatives were looked at when P & Z reached_ the shared easement conclusion. Mr. James stated these people relied on'that and the,only~way the Town can grant an easement is that it has'to-come before Council. It has been a cumbersome process to bring them to this point and everyone agreed that this was the best approach in terms of a road. Mayor Reynolds asked Mr. Shapiro if he recalled if an easement was required when they were approved. Mr. Shapiro stated when P & Z gave the approval and recommended we make the alternative access arrangement, we asked what is the process to do that. And, we were told we needed to work it out with Staff and get a positive Staff endorsement. When Erwin, the architect, was hired he met with Rick Pylman. Rick Pylman didn't say we needed to look at this alternative. Rick said we are going to go through the Town property; that is what P & Z wants to do; you have to redo your plan to do it. And, so you do not get a mis- understanding, we are not at design review level drawings. The Church construction documents are done. They are ready to break ground; the Church is completely designed. We are ready to break ground based on this plan. We came in to get the building permit and they said wait a second, where is the easement. We said what easement; it has already been approved. Staff stated we understand it has been approved, but the actual execution of the easement is a step that has to take place before you start going across that property. So, we weren't thinking that this meeting tonight was, are we on the right track. We were just getting the document executed that we have been told needs to be forth coming for a year's worth of work. Mr. James stated the impression was they went through the P & Z process; they said use the Town property for access to your property. They were approving your plans through this access. You were given the impression that this was a formality, to come before Council, since P & Z has already approved it. Mr.-James added there are other issues surrounding it that need to be dealt with. Mr. Shapiro stated any requirements that are reasonably put on us for having an improved shared access that mitigates liability addresses the neighbors' reasonable concerns. To say at this point, wait, we are going to reconsider the whole concept, I don't think it is slightly unfair, I think it is grossly unfair. Unless you, Mr. Eskwith have been told there is no way we are doing this and to fight tooth and nail, having worked with Mr. Eskwith in the past, I would be surprised why we can't work out an amenable solution to address all these concerns. Too many conversations at one time to transcribe. Mr. Shapiro stated we would be willing to voluntarily table this if mt. Shapiro and Mr. Eskwith could agree and try to work out what-it would take to make it acceptable to both parties. Then, if we can't reach agreement, come back to the Town for action. Mr.- Eskwith responded they would be more than happy to discuss this further and see what our differences are and see whether they can be resolved. Councilor Yoder motioned to table this subject to them coming to an agreement. Councilor Hazard seconded the motion. Mr. Shapiro asked when is the next time we could-come back to Council. Council Nottingham responded three weeks, April 12th. Mr. Erwin Bachrach, architect for Anointed Christian Fellowship, stated the matter of access was already passed at the time the building construction,. the depign,:was being worked on. Mr. Bachrach was at all the meetings with regards to the Church. The driveway to the west was not acceptable to the fire department. This is why it was sifted to.the east. Also,.the driveway from the church to the street impinges,on the driveway of the Chambertin avery small amount. It is just a confluence. 11 • • Mayor Reynolds stated you would know whether that was going to be wide enough. Mr. Bachrach stated no, that would be Alpine Engineering. Councilor Fawcett questioned why does it have to impinge even that little bit; couldn't it just be widened going east. Mr. Bachrach stated the Town property is only a certain width there, it is very narrow at that point. Mr. Shapiro stated that during the original hearings when P & Z was hearing this, there was an issue raised when we had the driveway at the far west. It was P & Z's opinion that having two driveways right next to each other, as opposed to combining them was an inferior solution. They believed that every time you have an entrance onto a collector street you create a potential traffic risk. It was their opinion that consolidating those was an improvement. So, we weren't led to believe we should try and have a parallel entrance right next to Chambertin. We were specifically told to combine them. If you look at the drawing, it is a very small area that is joint. The concept was to minimize the number of entry points on this collector street. Mayor Reynolds stated he has a We could discuss this all night Mr. Eskwith and Mr. Shapiro get them all the luck-in the world. don't come to an agreement, we same dilemma. motion and a second on the floor. long, but I think the solution is together. Mayor Reynolds wished Mr. Shapiro added that if we will be back here with the exact The motion carried unanimously. Next on the Agenda under New Business was the Recreation Center / Part 2 Agreement. Councilor Yoder motioned to table the Recreation Center Part 2 Agreement. Councilor Hazard seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Next on the Agenda was the Mayor's Report. Mayor Reynolds complimented the Avon Recreation Center on the Cripple Creek trip. Everybody involved enjoyed themselves. Next on the Agenda was Other Business. Councilor Fawcett announced that the Eagle Valley Recreation Authority / Berrycreek will be meeting Thursday night in the Vail Town Council Chambers at 7:00pm. .Agenda items are the school district and the Hobby Horse contract. Pulled from the Consent Agenda and discussed were the,Financial Matters. e.) Financial Matters - questions and answers Councilor Roof motioned to receive items #1 through #6 and approve items #7 through #8 with the condition that we withhold $76,577 payment to'A & P. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fawcett. The motion carried with Councilors Hazard and Yoder abstaining. 12 Next on the Agenda was the Consent Agenda: a.) Resolution No. 94-12, Series of 1994, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 1, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO b.) Resolution No. 94-13, Series of 1994, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, FOXX 4 SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO c.) Resolution No. 94-14, Series of 1994, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT FOR THE FALCON POINTE CONDOMINIUMS, LOT 45, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO d.) Capital Purchases; Fax'Machine, Floor Safe, & Computer Equipment. f.) Approval of the March 8, 1994 Council Meeting Minutes. Councilor Yoder motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilor Roof seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Reynolds called for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Roof moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor Fawcett. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Reynolds at 10:02PM RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 17~) Al~- N~X~ Patty Ne Art, r"11111 Clerk 13