TC Minutes 03-26-1996
MINUTES OF' THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
HELD MARCH 26, 1996 - 5:30 P.M.
A 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 celled to order by Mayor Albert J. Reynolds at
5:32PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Jim Benson,
Richard Carnes, Jack Fawcett, Tom Hines, and Judy Yoder present.
Councilor Celeste C. Nottingham arrived at 5:35PM. Also present
were Town Manager Bill James, Town Clerk Patty Neyhart, Town
Attorney John Dunn, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Police Chief Gary
Thomas, Director of Municipal Services Larry Brooks, Fire Chief
Charlie Moore, Director of Community Development Mike Matzko, and
Planner Karen Griffith, as well as members of the press and
public.
Citizen Input: Dr. Doug Bryant, representing Avon Pet Center /
Request to excavate on Town property
Dr. Bryant asked permission from Council to over excavate and
grade on town property. Town Manager Bill James informed a
variance was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission (P &
Z). Dr. Bryant does not have his detailed plans prepared. Once
plans are prepared and approved by staff, Dr. Bryant is
requesting authorization to go onto town property to help him get
the excavation done on his property. There may be some
excavation done on town property, but will be back filled and
restored. Dr. Bryant hopes to pull a building permit next week
and start excavation. Town Manager James said an agreement will
need to be developed to allow Dr. Bryant to excavate on town
property. Dr. Bryant still needs to develop the plans and get
staff's approval.
Councilor Fawcett understood time is of the essence. Councilor
Fawcett requested that in the future, he.would like to see more
than just an oral application.
Councilor Fawcett motioned that the application of Dr. Doug
Bryant for the construction of Centennial Centers be given
permission to excavate on town property behind the building once
approved by our town staff. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion
and the motion carried unanimously.
Citizen Input: Mr. George Roussos, Eagle County engineer /
Regarding railroad abandonment
Mr. George Roussos, Eagle County engineer, asked Council to
support the Verified Statement of George A. Gates, Chairman of
Eagle County Board of County Commissioners regarding the merger
of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads. The
Verified Statement endorses the merger and expresses intent to
make an offer to purchase the Tennessee Pass line upon its
abandonment.
Discussions followed on time schedule, Rails to Trails Act,
corridor through Avon with/without tracks, on-grade crossings in
Avon, state's endorsement of the merger by Governor Romer, the
Verified Statement, and Council's position and options.
Town Attorney Dunn thought the Verified Statement does not
obligate or preclude anybody from doing, or to do, anything .
it is an intent to make an offer, which is pretty meaningless.
Town Attorney Dunn understood it to place the parties in the
position of being able to continue negotiations. Town Attorney
Dunn suggested Council approve the commitment expressed in the
Statement contingent upon Town Attorney Dunn's confirmation with
Fritz Conn that that is in essence the purpose of the Verified
Statement not to obligate the town, but to maintain the
parties in the position of being able to negotiate.
Councilor Nottingham motioned to support the Verified Statement
of George A. Gates,. Chairman, Eagle County Board of County
Commissioners, Eag-le County, State of Colorado with the .
suggestions that our Town Attorney John Dunn made as to his
verifying some of the statements and concerns that we had.
Councilor Hines seconded the motion.
Councilor Fawcett asked Town Attorney Dunn to check into Rails to
Trails, too.
The motion carried unanimously.
Ordinances:
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 96-3, Series of 1996, AN
ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 45 & 46, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER
CREEK SUBDIVISION, TO PUD, FOR DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL AND TIMESHARE
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko reiterated that
Ordinance No. 96-3 is an Ordinance rezoning Lots 45 and 46, which
are just to the north of the municipal building, across the park,
to include both lots within one PUD. Currently there is the
Falcon Point PUD on Lot 45 and a portion of Lot 46 and then the
remaining portion of Lot 46 is the Lakeside Townhomes. Criteria
that was used to evaluate this proposed rezoning came out of the
zoning code . . . section 17.28.080; the PUD design criteria came
out of chapter 17, section 17.2.110, subsection H. The applicant
is here this evening to present the project in its revised form.
It originally started out with approximately 31 units and now we
are'down to 16 units, with underground parking.
Mayor Reynolds asked if the architectural concerns of P & Z
Commissioner Jack Hunn are reflected in the Ordinance. Matzko
stated the Ordinance contains a number of conditions. Condition
number 7, addresses that . . . that a final design be approved in
accordance with town regulations prior to application for
building permit.
Mr. Larry Doll, President and CEO of Points of Colorado, reminded
that he has been working, with staff, P & Z, and Council, for the
last year on this project. Mr. Doll thanked staff and Council
for taking a site visit this afternoon. Mr. Doll informed Falcon
Point has over 2,200 owners and over 1,800 of those owners
approved this project starting back in September of last year.
Mr. Doll reiterated some of the features of the project. The
project at the front elevation is 47 1/2'. It provides for 100%
underground parking. There is a landscaped area of 25' in front
of the building. There are provisions for a 6' sidewalk to
provide pedestrian access for both Falcon. Point residents and
Beaver Creek West residents. That sidewalk will connect across
the duplex property and provide access to the bus stop. Mr. Doll
felt that he has taken many of the suggestions of staff, P & Z,
and the Council in this final attempt to have the project
approved.
Councilor Carnes asked about the lot line on the north side . . .
is it in the middle of the street or the edge of the street? Mr.
Doll responded the building footprint is 42' from the lot line.
2
Mr. Doll added the actual building is 50' back from the lot line
. . the lot line starts about 2/3 of the way of the paved area.
There is a 25' easement, with an additional 25' before you hit
the building. At the stairs, it's 35'. Councilor Nottingham
asked from the road edge to the building, how many feet? Mr.
Doll stated 251, counting the stairwell . . . so there will be
19' of landscaping and a 6' sidewalk.
Councilor Carnes asked what could be built on Lot 46 under
current zoning. Mr. Doll responded Lot 46 has 31 zoning rights.
Under the present configuration, that could include 8 units and
23 additional units and could be built up to 60' high. It would
have to meet the design criteria. The 31 units could not be
timeshare, without the PUD.
Councilor Nottingham asked if the 31 units could physically,
actually be built on Lot 46, within the setbacks, parking
requirements and height. Mr. Doll noted he is not the owner of
the lot unless its a timeshare project. Mr. Doll suggested
examples of what you could do, by showing on the displayed model.
Mr. Doll added that. you do have to meet coverage, snow,
landscaping requirements, etc., which probably creatively could
be done within the 60'.
Councilor Hines wished to stay focused on what is at hand, not
guessing.what could be. Councilor Hines asked how much of the
building crosses over the lot line between Lots 45 and 46. Mr.
Doll stated 12' of the actual structure, plus 7' for the stair
tower, and the one story entry. Mr. Doll added the 12' is to
accommodate the underground parking. The 12' equals 4 parking
spaces. Mr. Doll mentioned the stair tower, as well as the entry
could be moved around on the front. That should go to P & Z as
part of their architecture review process.
Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing and opened the
meeting for public input.
Attorney Brett Heckman, representing Beaver Creek West Homeowners
Association, expressed dissatisfaction of the way this process
has gone. Attorney Heckman stated he has property owners that
have submitted in excess of 50 letters. Attorney Heckman
objected to the project. There are two Lots, 45 & 46, which are
next to each other. The applicant, having ownership interest at
least by an option contract in both, is asking the Council to
allow them to build a massive building across the two lots. This
results in the problems with the view corridor. Attorney
Heckman, with the help of visual aids, reiterated his objection
of building across the two lots. There were two square lots,
side by side. In 1985, Ordinance 85-22, the lots were
reconfigured. Falcon Point was built on Lot 45. There is no
indication on any site development plan that any further building
was to take place, on Lot 45. Lot 45 has taken on an "L" shape,
as has Lot 46. Currently, a duplex sits on Lot 46, with approval
of 5 additional duplexes on Lot 46. Beaver Creek West buildings
are all to the north of this requested PUD. Attorney Heckman
discussed view corridors. Points has proposed to build a
building across the lot line of 45 and 46 as they now exist. By
encroaching on Lot 45, Falcon Point is enjoying 7.5' of setback,
plus 121, plus 7' as additional building space. What this does
is curtain off the view of Beaver Creek West units. The issue
before Council is simply whether this PUD should be approved.
Attorney Heckman stated a PUD is a zone district intended to
provide flexibility in the development of land in order to
promote its most appropriate use.
3
Attorney Heckman noted Councilor Hines' mention of this being a
policy decision. Attorney Heckman thought the nolicv decision is
Council considering and weighing countervailing interests, such
as the interest of the town in raising its tax revenue and the
revenue for town businesses against the interest of the adjacent
property owners, the preservation of scenic views and the
preservation of property values. Attorney Heckman gave reasons
why the application should be denied. Attorney Heckman stated
the proposed PUD and the building of Falcon Point II will
negatively impact the views and property values of adjacent
property owners. Attorney Heckman presented Mayor Reynolds with
a letter from Valuation Consultants, signed by Jeff Maddox and a
letter from the Eagle County Assessor stating that obstructive
views, such as Falcon Point II, will result in a 55o to 10%
property value loss. Attorney Heckman turned to the zoning code.
The code is intended to ensure the preservation of scenic views.
The code provides that Council is to conserve the value of the
investment of the people in the community and to encourage the
most appropriate use of land in the town. Attorney Heckman
submitted to Council., can you really find a deviation, from
zoning and redrawing lot lines for the second time, in the face
of protest, is the most appropriate use of this land. Attorney
Heckman suggested the damages to the views and to the property
values could be mitigated in part, certainly if the building
wasn't as high as it is, and secondly if the building did not
extend across the Lot 46 set back and further onto Lot 45.
Everyone had to expect that something was going to built on this
lot. But, no one should have expected that another PUD, or
modification of the PUD, would come before Council resulting in a
massive, singular building crossing those lot lines. Crossing
the lot lines is contrary to any persons expectations. Perhaps,
if Falcon Point II stayed within the set backs, did not encroach
71, then 121, then 7' more, Beaver Creek West owners wouldn't
have that much of a problem. Attorney Heckman noted state
statutes allow zoning to PUD. It is appropriate under favorable
circumstances. Points would not have to be here arguing, asking,
and revising, if they did not configure Lot 45 the way they did
back in 1985. It is a result of Points' own folly. They're the
ones who developed the "L" shaped lot. They're the ones who
restricted their ability to build on Lot 46. We all have to live
with the consequences of our own actions. And, we shouldn't
expect to be relieved from those consequences, at the expense and
to the damages of others. Attorney Heckman asked if a PUD is to
bail out a developer and suggested not . . . not at the expense
and damage of other people. Denial of this application will not
result in any unfairness to the applicant. Points benefitted
greatly from the short lived fractionalization process. There
are 58 units at Falcon Point I due to fractionalization, which is
no longer with us. The lot was zoned for 31 development rights.
Under RHD zoning it would be zoned for 20 development rights.
Regarding Lot 46, even though Lot 46 was decreased in size by
roughly 1/4, Lot 46 retained 31 development rights. For whatever
reason, who ever owns Lot 46 still enjoys the right to
development, within design review criteria, up to the 31
development rights. If you look at these lots together, you have
58 and 31, that is approximately 90 units that these people can
develop . there is no hardship here. Attorney Heckman
questioned the written consent of owners of all the property.
Timeshare owners own real property and as a requirement, before a
PUD is granted, the written consent of all owners is required.
Attorney Heckman added that Mr. Doll commented 1,800 have signed
off and Attorney Heckman understood there to be 3,000 owners.
And, if owners were signing off in September, they were signing
off to a,plan that didn't exist, as this plan didn't exist till a
month ago. Attorney Heckman understood a development plan was
required, which wasn't done very well in 1985, so you don't run
into a double dipping situation . . . you get one variance and
you come back for another.
4
Attorney Heckman questioned the development plan; the owners
haven't consented to the PUD, which includes the development plan
because it doesn't exist and is the PUD application in compliance
with the Ordinance because they haven't submitted the development
plan. Attorney Heckman stated the state statutes gives the
municipality the authority to grant PUDs. The state statute
provides some special provisions for the amendment of PUDs.
Attorney Heckman questioned whether this was a modification of a
PUD or a new PUD. Attorney Heckman read the state statute, "that
no substantial modification, removal or release of the plan shall
be permitted except upon a finding by the county or municipality
following a public hearing called and held in the provisions of
the statute that the modification, removal, or release is
consistent with the efficient development of the entire planned
unit development and does not affect in a substantially adverse
manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the
street from the planned unit development." This is different
than the town's statute. For Council to consider a modification
of PUD, criteria is considered and all the interest is weighed.
According to the state statute, if that modification adversely
affects adjoining property owners, no modification is allowed.
Attorney Heckman thought Council should pay attention to this
statute, even if they believe this is a new PUD. Attorney
Heckman submitted this is a modification of a PUD. Attorney
Heckman submitted, if 'this is a modification of a PUD, Avon's
zoning code does not provide for the same safe guards as the
state statute, therefore Avon's provision is unconstitutional and
the state statute would prevail. Attorney Heckman added none of
Beaver Creek West owners received notice. The PUD ordinance says
that'all owners within 300' of a PUD are to be mailed notice .
.only Mr. Mike Bennett received notice. Attorney Heckman read
excerpts from some of the 52 letters he had in his file. Those
letters were from the following Beaver Creek West homeowners;
John Sheahin, Robert Lantern, John & Marilyn Carson, Ben Hayton,
Thomas Carpenite, Charles & Patricia Swanson, Janet Havis & David
Finley, Bettye Thompson, Ronald Lundell, James Fitzpatrick, J.
Howard Mock, Gary Thornton, Martin J. Helig, Terry Watson, Lois &
Karl Rammler, Deborah Devoy, Mary & Robert Hamilton, and Tom
Falin. All of those letters expressed opposition to Falcon
Point's proposed development.
Councilor Fawcett asked for clarification; is this a modification
or new PUD. Attorney Heckman responded there is no definition in
the statute as to what constitutes a modification as opposed to a
new PUD. There are different standards, from the state's point
of view, on the approval of an amended or a new PUD. The
developers have presented their application as a new PUD. It is
easier to get through a new PUD as opposed to a modified. If it
is an amended PUD, it can not be approved if it substantially
creates an adverse impact on adjacent property owners, per state
statute. Attorney Heckman stated Avon's code does not provide
something consistent with state statute. Attorney Heckman argued
that the state statute would supersede the code on that
inconsistency. Attorney Heckman stated this is an amended PUD as
this is the same piece of property, the same developer, and the
same building.
Councilor Fawcett asked for clarification; notification to the
property owners. obviously, they have notice now as they are all
responding. Attorney Heckman stated they aren't all responding .
. . there are 124 of them and they all haven't responded and they
all haven't received notice. Councilor Fawcett asked if notice
went to their agent, could you assume notice went to them. Mike
Bennett would seem to be the agent.
Councilor Fawcett stated the view corridor is the issue. Let's
assume this is not a PUD and assume the developers are coming
forward and developing under the grandfathered clauses and
putting in their 90 units.
5
Councilor Fawcett continued, isn't it true there will be views
blocked by that building? Is this blockage of a view a taking of
a property right that can be enforced in court? Attorney Heckman
stated it is very tough to answer that question on a speculative
basis. Councilor Fawcett asked Attorney Heckman if he considers
a blocked view a taking that is enforceable in court under this
PUD. Attorney Heckman thought that if this PUD was granted that
it could be challenged successfully in court.
Councilor Fawcett questioned the consent of all the property
owners. Attorney Heckman responded it says written consent of
all owners of all property to be included within the PUD. And,
the development plan is required, so even if there was consent of
the owners in September . . . (unable to transcribe remaining
comments, too many people speaking at one time).
Councilor Fawcett questioned the policy decision of the Council.
Attorney Heckman stated that is what Council said. Any decision
Council makes could be considered a policy decision. But,
Council needs to weigh interest . . . the interest of the
developer and the interest of the property owners.
Councilor Hines interjected that he would like to clarify his
statement regarding policy decision. Councilor Hines requested a
recessed and noted he would respond when Council reconvenes.
Council recessed at 7:28pm and reconvened at 7:35pm.
Ordinance No. 96-3, Series of 1996 CONTINUED
Councilor Yoder stated that all of the letters received have been
read and reviewed. Mayor Reynolds echoed Councilor Yoder's
comments regarding the letters. Councilor Benson added people
have phoned council members, as well as write.
Attorney Heckman mentioned that Falcon Point's declaration, which
is a recorded instrument, requires the approval of 67s of the
owners and 510 of the lenders to amend th%! declaration on the
condominium map. Attorney Heckman hasn't seen any evidence in
the record. Town Attorney Dunn thought Falcon Point would have
to respond to that.
Town Attorney Dunn reminded Council that Avon is a home rule
municipality and that it's governed by its ordinances with
respect to zoning and not by state statutes. With respect to
notification, the ordinance provides that if a property requiring
notification is a condominium project, notice may be mailed to
the managing agent, registered agent, or any member of the board
of directors thereof. With respect to the consent of all of the
time share owners, it would be impractical to require that the
consent of all of the time share owners be in the record. Town
Attorney Dunn understood that Mr. Doll has authority from the
association and the consent of the association would suffice.
Discussions followed on home rule, state statutes, and the
constitution.
Attorney Mike Claddis, representing Po'.nts of Colorado, rebutted
comments made by Attorney Heckman. Attorney Claddis stated he is
in receipt of the amendment to the Falcon Point condominium
documents that has been approved by the requisite majority of
owners and lenders. Attorney Claddis stated there are 1,800
originally executed consents, to this project, in a box he
displayed.
6
Attorney Claddis added he has certified this to the title
company. The only reason he hasn't recorded them is they do not
own the property and it is very costly to record.
Mr. Jack Garland, Beaver Creek West resident and a resident of
the valley for approximately 18 years, was surprised Council
overruled P & Z's decision. Mr. Garland asked Council to look
very carefully at any changes regarding zoning. Mr. Garland was
opposed to any more timeshare in the area. Mr. Garland asked
Council to deny the request.
Ms. Chrissy Masland, Beaver Creek West resident, agreed with
every letter that was submitted this evening. Ms. Masland
stressed it's not just views, it's the quality of life. Ms.
Masland expressed concerns of traffic. Ms. Masland thought long
term residents seem to take more care of their surroundings. Ms.
Masland asked Council to leave the lot lines and not allow the
building to be built in this manner.
Mr. David Masland, Beaver Creek West resident and Chrissy's
husband, informed he is a licensed real estate broker and realtor
with the Vail Board of Realtors. Mr. Masland expressed concerns
of open space. Mr. Masland received notification from Mr.
Bennett. Mr. Masland went out seeking signatures and presented a
petition with 74 signatures on it, to Mayor Reynolds. Mr.
Masland, as a realtor, mentioned to potential purchasers that
they would not be able to purchase a condominium on Nottingham
Park as it will be private, timeshare use. Mr. Masland stated
it's not right, it's not right for those owners, to take away
their views, it's not right for all of the locals . . . the Buck
Creek owners, the Stone Creek owners . . all of these owners that
have full ownership in their properties.
Mr. Joel Farkas, owner of Lakeside Terrace, expressed support of
the Points of Colorado plan.
Mr. George Byer, 5 year owner of Falcon Point, stated he is very
proud of his ownership at Falcon Point. Mr. Byer felt Mr. Doll
has been real cooperative in working with the Town to get this
project agreeable for all parties.
Mr. Jim Osterly, Beaver Creek West owner. felt this is a
modification of the PUD and requested Council to follow the law.
It appears mistakes have been made and now someone is trying to
recover from those mistakes. Mr. Osterly requested Council
reject their previous approval.
Ms. Carrie Schlessler, .Beaver Creek West owner, informed she has
owned property there since 1982. She has bought five different
condos through the years. Sometimes she bought high and sold low
and sometimes she bought low and sold high, but that was her own
choice and because of the market. Now, because of changing the
laws, Council is making her property value go down. Ms.
Schlessler did not think that was right. Mr. Schlessler thought
Council should think about how and why you are changing the laws
and who it is going to affect.
Mr. Charles Swanson, Beaver Creek West owner, thought this
project is a privilege . . . we have lots and the lots should be
followed. Lot 45 has been developed . . . it's done. Mr.
Swanson hopes to retire in Avon. Mr. Swanson hoped Council would
respect the current property owners and requested Council to
oppose this application.
Mr. Terry Cammon, Beaver Creek West owner, stated he purchased
his unit in 1993 and has already skied over 55 times this year.
Mr. Cammon asked whose ox is actually being gored . . . and, it
is the people in Beaver Creek West. Mr. Cammon opposed this
change.
7
Mr. Harvey Deutsch, owner of Lakeside Terrace, stated the issue
is building or no ]wilding . . . a large building or duplexes.
The fact is that there is a right to build 31 units. There is a
right, all within :he property line to build five stories high,
up to 20+ units, without underground parking. Mr. Deutsch stated
the real issue is do you like this proposal better and do you
want to exercise your discretion to allow some variances in order
to obtain underground parking and four story building. Mr.
Deutsch stated he is very aware that Beaver Creek West is really
operated as a hotel, short term rentals. The representations to
Council about ownership and benefits of ownership at Beaver Creek
West versus time share are really not accurate. Mr. Deutsch
requested Council examine whether in fact what is going on at
Beaver Creek West is really the operation of a hotel, without the
benefit of a commercial zone. Mr. Deutsch felt when people come
in here and talk about obeying the law, they should obey the law.
And obeying the law does not mean running a hotel in an area that
does not permit that operation. That would require commercial
zoning. That is what they are doing . . . short term rentals and
bus loads of people. Mr. Deutsch believed that is in violation
of the town's ordinances and he intends to pursue that, and to
ask that they go through a rezoning, if they wish to continue
that kind of an investment rental pool operation. Mr. Deutsch
stated the PUD plan that is submitted, includes the balance of
the property, which is exactly what is shown on the model. Mr.
Deutsch will build 4 buildings and 8 units. What Council would
be approving represents full development of both lots.
Councilor Hines interjected every body keeps throwing in what can
and can not be done on this property under present guidelines.
Yes, you have the right . . . you could come in and build a
building ye high, a building with so many dwelling units .
you have that right. You also are bound by the constraints of
Code. And, you would have to go through a process. Mr. Deutsch
reiterated what the property is currently zoned as and what could
be developed.
Mr. Masland added a quick point . . . just as growing up, my
brother taught me a hard lesson about making threats and Mr.
Masland thought he just heard a threat. Mr. Masland's brother
simply slapped him down until he quit doing that. Mr. Masland
learned how to communicate appropriately and make things happen
appropriately. A very simple way of growing up.
Mr. Mike Bennett, representing Beaver Creek West, stated Mr. Doll
was asked what could be built if this building wasn't approved.
,Mr. Bennett reminded Mr. Doll stated 31 units; 8 duplexes, plus
23 others. What wasn't made clear is that this particular
building is 12' over the line, plus 7' for the elevator shaft,
plus the entry of 20' of which it sticks out, plus the setback of
7 1/2'. Also, we have an east set back variance of 2 1/2'. We
are looking at 49' to wide. It is almost twice as wide as what
would be allowed under current RHD zoning, given current lot
lines and current set backs. That is the curtain effect that
Beaver Creek West owners are complaining about. Mr. Bennett
thought that what had been proposed to Council is it made you
feel you were walking down a dark alley in the wrong part of a
large city and the first guy that jumped out at you has a knife
and you just kind of give in and say stab me cause I'm just sure
that next guy has got a gun. Don't be afraid of the dark . . .
Council still has control over the development.
Mr. Doll stated a lot has been said about this project. Mr. Doll
stated he is presenting the town records of the accommodation tax
paid by Beaver Creek West. Town Manager James interjected that
information is confidential and questioned how Mr. Doll got that
information. Mr. Doll stated lets forget this information.
8
Mr. Doll stated we have seen all winter long, busses pull up. We
have seen ski clubs unload. We have seen tremendous traffic
walking down the street. Mr. Doll resents the fact that it's
implied that it's the timeshare people. Mr. Doll stated Falcon
Point has very strict occupancy levels. Mr. Doll asked do you
really think this gentleman or the other owners that we have do
not take care of the property, as well as a ski club. Mr. Doll
noted he has rented to ski clubs before. The last one he did was
two years ago at Eagle Point, in Vail. He required a $5,000
damage deposit before he ever let them check in. Mr. Doll
submitted the ownership of his units is at least the quality of
the short term renters that come into Beaver Creek West.
Councilor Nottingham interjected that blasting the person to your
right or left is not what this is about. Mr. Doll stated his
point is, when the character of the project is evaluated,
consider time share ownership and the quality of owners that come
in who happen to be timeshare owners. Councilor Nottingham asked
is that the only way that you can do that, by poking at some one
else. Mr. Doll thought he had been poked at for six months. Mr.
Doll referenced a letter of Attorney Heckman's who called
timeshare owners squatters, renters not owners, like we are.some
lower form. Councilor Nottingham noted she is a timeshare owner.
Ms. Masland suggested moving the building north/south instead of
east/west.
Mr. Carol Byer, owner at Falcon Point, informed she pays property
taxes, she bought groceries this week, she went to the eye glass
shop today, she went to the post office today, she bought a pair
of ski boots this week, she has eaten in restaurants this week,
she used the recreation center this afternoon. Ms. Byer stated
she is proud to be an owner at Falcon Point, even though it's
just one week.
Hearing no one else, Mayor Reynolds closed the public hearing.
Councilor Nottingham motioned to deny, on second reading,
Ordinance No. 96-3, Series of 1996. Councilor Hines seconded the
motion.
Councilor Hines noted he is a timeshare owner and enjoys the
community in which he owns his timeshare. Councilor Hines
clarified his policy statement. In 1991, Council established a
zoning plat for the town. It set forth a clear direction in
terms of community expectations. Councilor Hines thought people
have a right to understand and base decisions upon that direction
that was set forth by the town. What is being requested here is
certainly a special exception. A use is being asked for, that
was approved in the past, and is being requested again.
Councilor Hines understood timeshare has not been allowed outside
the town core area since 1991. That certainly relates to policy
. if the town, in the form of this Council, decides to
approve this PUD, Councilor Hines was concerned about the message
that that might send. Councilor Hines considered the economic
benefit that a project of this nature would bring to the town.
Councilor Hines believed Falcon Point I and Christie Lodge are
assets to the community. Councilor Hines mentioned 17.28.080
. is the proposed rezoning justified by change or changing
conditions in the character of the area proposed to be rezoned.
Councilor Hines thought Mr. Deutsch felt that to be true. But,
that area is currently zoned residential. Mr. Farcas and Mr.
Deutsch have the ability to build a residential product. For
some reason the law differentiates between residential and time
share. Councilor Hines questioned if the town has reached a
stage where the town needs to put forth a sweeping zoning change.
Councilor Hines did not feel there was anything that necessitates
that change at this time.
9
Councilor Hines asked if the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the comprehensive plan. Councilor Hines felt time share units
are already done . . . we're talking about additional time share
units. Councilor Hines asked are adequate facilities available
to serve development for the type and scope suggested by the
proposed zone. Councilor Hines stated that leads him into design
criteria 17.20.110, 1-1, item #10 . . . adequacy of public services
such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems, roads,
parks, and police and fire protection. Councilor Hines voiced
concern as to the additional load to be carried by the
transportation system. Councilor Hines thought Council is being
asked to change the :zoning on the property to vacate lot lines.
Councilor Hines thought, if you add up the set back variance that
is requested, the 121, plus the 7', plus the 7 1/2', a lot is
being asked. On tha-: basis, Councilor Hines would support the
motion.
Councilor Fawcett agreed this is a policy decision and did not
believe there are any legal arguments that could be made that
would preclude Council from making a decision.
Councilor Yoder stated she spoke to several out of town owners
who called her regarding this matter. Councilor Yoder informed
when she asked questions, they did not know the answers. When
Councilor Yoder asked do you realize at this point you have a 16
unit time share building and 8 duplexes, for a total of 24 units,
by having 12' more across the lot line. And, instead of that,
they could build a 60' high building that would have 23 units,
plus the 8 duplex units for a total of 31 units, without
exception, those people said no, I didn't know that. That did
not make them.happy. They commented they just wished nothing
would go on the lot. Councilor Yoder stated something is going
to go on the lot. Councilor Yoder mentioned following the law.
The Town Attorney stated Council is following the law. Councilor
Yoder heard someone say we are not going to have something
agreeable to every body. They are absolutely right. Councilor
Yoder felt it would be more beneficial to the Beaver Creek owners
to have this project than it would to have another project that
would move 12' and be 12' higher.
Councilor Benson was in agreement with Councilor Yoder.
Councilor Benson's biggest concern was G building goes up and
they pull it back within their set back boundaries and they go to
a 60' height. Councilor Benson stated if he were an owner at
Beaver- Creek West, he would want the shortest building possible.
Councilor Benson's concern is for the best case scenario for all
parties involved and felt this project is the best scenario.
Councilor Nottingham asked Mr. Doll if he would be willing to
indemnify the Town of Avon against any law suits if Council were
to approved this project. Mr. Doll stated no. Councilor Fawcett
thought it would be quite detrimental to Council's position if
they were the object of a lawsuit to have entered into any
agreement of that nature. Councilor Nottingham stated that was a
questioned entertained in one of the letters received.
Councilor Nottingham stated she is trying to focus on this
project . . . she didn't want to hear about what happened with
the guy next door or what they could do next year . . . this is
what we are supposed to be looking at . . . end of story.
Councilor Nottingham thought the time share is a commercial
enterprise in an RHD zone. RHD assumes 20 units per acre.
Councilor Nottingham questioned employees, where they park, how
they get there, where they live. Other commercial projects
coming to the community are asked what they are doing for their
employees, i.e. affordable housing, as that is a big impact.
Councilor Nottingham referenced City Market, with their employee
housing. Councilor Nottingham thought the density is too much
for residential high density.
10
Councilor Nottingham felt the need to listen'to the people who
are property owners and who have addressed her here. Councilor
Nottingham thought a PUD is a privilege, but by granting this PUD
she would be abusing other people's rights.
Councilor Carnes did not think it was a time share issue, a short
term rental issue, or a property value issue. Councilor Carnes
stated he has been here twelve years and has owned a house for
seven. Councilor Carnes mentioned he has always wanted his
property value to go down, to keep taxes low. Councilor Carnes
stated he takes offense when he hears the Council has the issue
as simple as money versus views. Councilor Carnes stated he does
not like to be threatened. Councilor Carnes felt he has not seen
the best project and the locals majority has spoken.
Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote.
With Councilors Benson, Fawcett, and Yoder voting against, the
motion tied.
The motion carried with Mayor Reynolds voting in favor.
Councilor Hines motioned that the previous motion which was
passed, further explanation being, is based upon the criteria
that P & Z put forth in,denial of this application, moving than
to approve the recommendation of P & Z. Councilor Nottingham
seconded the motion.- With Councilors Benson, Fawcett, and Yoder
voting against, the motion tied. The motion carried with Mayor
Reynolds voting in favor.
Ordinance No. 96-5, Series of 1996, AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND
REENACTING SECTION 10.04.060 OF TITLE 10 OF THE AVON MUNICIPAL
CODE
Town Attorney Dunn informed this is a housekeeping measure to
make the municipal node consistent with the model traffic code.
Councilor Yoder motioned to adopt, on first reading, Ordinance
No. 96-5, Series of 1996. Councilor Hines seconded the motion.
Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried unanimously.
Resolution:
Resolution No. 96-5, Series of 1996, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL CONDOMINIUM MAPS OF THE
GREENBRIER CONDOMINIUMS, PHASE I, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
Mayor Reynolds announced this is a public hearing.
Director of Community Development Mike Matzko stated this is a
Resolution approving a preliminary and final condominium plat for
the Greenbrier project, on West Beaver Creel{ Blvd. It is another
building'in addition to the existing structure. This is the
second of four anticipated buildings.
Councilor Nottingham noted they usually do these Resolutions when
they are about to sell one unit. Councilor Nottingham added it
did tot look done to her. Matzko thought they were actually
trying to anticipate and give themselves a.little time.
11
f~ M1,
Councilor Hines motioned to approve Resolution No. 96-5, Series
of 1996. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion
carried unanimously.
Mayor Report:
Mayor Reynolds congratulated ski racer Councilor Carnes.and ski
racer Councilor Hines for their efforts in the American Ski
Classic.
Consent Agenda:
a.) Approval of the February 27, 1996 Council Meeting Minutes
b.) Financial Matters
c.) Resolution No. 96-6, Series of 1996, A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE 1996 BUDGET (Fire Department)
d.) Resolution No. 96-7, Series of 1996, A RESOLUTION AMENDING
THE 1996 BUDGET (Recreation Department)
e.) Darren Edwards Photographic Services for 1996 Special Events
f.) Fireworks Production Contract with Western Enterprise
g.) World Ski Directory Marketing Agreement
h.) Contract for Terms of Service / InterNetWorks
i.) Expiration of terms for P & Z Members
j.) Proposal for Financial Services from Stan Bernstein for
Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Fire Protection District
X.) Proposal for Cost Analysis for Consolidated Fire Facility
1.) First Bank of Avon's Corporate Resolution for new savings
account for water utility payments
m.) First Bank of Avon's Corporate Facsimile Signature
Resolution for facsimile of Town Manager Bill James'
signature
Councilor Yoder motioned to approve the consent Agenda.
Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried
unanimously.
Other Business:
Councilor Carnes commended the Avon Police.Department on the
front cover picture and article in the Colorado Law Enforcement
Officer magazine Winter, 1996 edition.
Adjourn:
There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor
Reynolds called for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Nottingham
moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor Hines.
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Reynolds at 9:10'PM.
"'RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty Ney rt','CMC
Town Clerk
12
f -l ,
APPROVED: `
13