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