Loading...
TC Minutes 02-25-19970 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1997 - 5:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the 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 Jack Fawcett at 5:30 PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Jim Benson, Richard Carnes, David Gilman, Bob McIlveen, Buz Reynolds, Jr. and Judy Yoder present. Also present were Town Manager Bill Efting, Town Clerk Patty Lambert, Town Attorney John Dunn, Director of Municipal Services Larry Brooks, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Police Chief Gary Thomas, Director of Recreation Meryl Jacobs, Fire Chief Charlie Moore, Director of Community Development Mike Matzko, and Administrative Assistant Jacquie Halburnt, as well as members of the press and public. Citizen Input: Appeal of Planning & Zoning Final Design Review Denial / Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge Councilor Buz Reynolds cited a conflict of interest, stepped down from his seat, and left the Council Chambers. Mr. John Perkins, architect for the project, presented a model of the duplex for Council to review. Mayor Fawcett confirmed the address to be 2180 Long Spur. Steven M. Grow, owner, distributed a memo to Council dated February 24, 1997 (see Exhibit A attached). Mr. Grow read the memo in its entirety. Mr. Perkins highlighted the 31 changes suggested by P & Z and made to the project. Mr. Perkins thought Staff had a lot of trouble with the proportion of the building. Mr. Perkins thought that to be an opinion of design. Mr. Perkins noted the site will be totally re-vegetated and landscaped. Mr. Perkins compared the mass of Lots 31 and 32 with regard to site disturbance, total square feet, maximum height, and overall length. Mr. Perkins added the driveway issues were agreed by all parties to be resolvable. Mr. Perkins mentioned the slope of Lot 32 is 1716 down the center of the site. The steep slope guidelines do not click in until 20% to 30%. Mr. Perkins stated, in the spirit of steep slope guidelines, he has conformed in every way he could. Mr. Grow felt Staff's recommendations were slanted from the very beginning. Mr. Grow thought staff felt the design approach was improper. Mr. Grow thought that staff felt he took a building and made it work on the site, as opposed, in their minds, traditionally taking the site and making it work. No one is to say that you have to always follow traditional means to an end. The object is to get to the end in a reasonable manner. Follow the rules and guidelines. Adhere to all the codes. Follow zoning and get to the point. Mr. Grow stated he optimized the site for views. Staff's memos acknowledge he met all the guidelines, all the concerns. But, the approach is what Staff had a problem with. Mr. Grow thought that is the subjective nature of this business. Mayor Fawcett asked for any further input. Hearing none, Mayor Fawcett asked if Council would like to take some action. Councilor Yoder felt that P & Z and Staff' do not deny projects lightly. A lot of time is spent on their 'review. Councilor Yoder motioned to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission denial of the final design approval for the duplex on Lot 32, Block l' in Wildridge as presented by the plans January 21, 1997, based on finding that the commission made the proper finding relative to the Town of Avon's design review considerations. Due to lack of a second, the motion died. Planner George Harrison summarized Staff's position. Staff had a fundamental problem with the structure fitting on the site. Staff felt that a project perpendicularly to the slope, not parallel, would have been a better response to the topography of, the site. The structured design was brought to the'site and then they tried to mitigate, thru corrections, to make the structure' more-compatible with the site. Staff felt, from the beginning, the design approach was not the correct response to the site. Planner Harrison noted, whether it's a modular or stick built construction is irrelevant; it's the finished product that matters. Director of Community Development Mike Matzko questioned'if it- was reasonable to assume, by the applicant, that if they did all suggested changes, that that constituted approval. Matzko agreed with the statement, in Exhibit A attached;, obviously there is a major communication problem with this project., Staff •tries,to let the applicant know up front what the issues are going to be; and a person does have a right to proceed, against Staff recommendations. Matzko felt that neither the R& Z or Staff made the statement to the applicant that if you do these changes, this project will work. Councilor McIlveen asked if there is anything that could-be done that would solve this problem in Staff's and P_& Z's mind? Are we just totally at a stand still with this particular building, on this particular lot? There is no way to solve the problem? Planner Harrison stated, with 31 modifications to the,design, Staff still felt the project was not working for this site, They tried to mitigate the initial design decision and ultimately Staff and P & Z felt the design was not the appropriate one for the site. Councilor Benson asked about the drive grade. Planner Harrison stated the latest site plan submittal is still not to Town' standards. If P & Z approved the design, Staff would have. recommended a condition that grading be worked out with Staff. Councilor Carnes asked what we can do in the future to avoid this subjective nature. Planner Harrison suggested giving a stronger initial impression, of Staff's feelings, on a project. Councilor Gilman noted that it appears Staff was very consistent from the beginning. Mr: Grow asked, assuming you meet all the technical guidelines, what is left other than subjective opinion? Mr. Grow reiterated- they made 31 changes. Mr. Grow read from Staff reports and highlighted the technical guidelines conform. Mr. Grow felt the whole point of this is subjective. Mayor Fawcett asked if all Mr. Grow's arguments were made to the P & Z. Mr. Grow stated absolutely. Mr. Grow added they heard more technical review. Councilor Carnes asked if there was anything, besides putting this model on the floor and stepping on it . . . is there anything you can do with this design? Planner Harrison thought this project was taken as far as it could have gone, meaning no. Mr. Perkins reiterated the mass comparison of Lot 31 and 32. 2 • • Matzko informed he spent a fair amount of time on this review as there was a lot of agonizing over this. Matzko reviewed the steep slope guidelines. Matzko stated there is no argument there is a certain amount of subjectivity and asked to see a design review process that doesn't have it. Staff looked at this project just as any other. Matzko added it is very unusual to have 31 corrections made by the applicant. Typically, the message gets through much sooner. It is very unusual to go this length. Matzko appreciated there is a difference of opinion here. Mr. Grow reiterated his arguments. Councilor McIlveen stated he has a fundamental problem with going against staff and P & Z. Councilor McIlveen expressed concern that this problem has come this far. Councilor McIlveen added he did not quite understand how it got to this point and why it wasn't approved. Councilor Carnes concurred. Matzko suggested one option . . . to remand this back to P & Z for consideration with no comment on the outcome of P & Z's decision but, rather to re-review and re-look at the facts. Mr. Grow vehemently rejected the suggestion that it be remanded back to P & Z. Mr. Grow asked Council to act upon this now. Mr. Grow reiterated his concerns . . . tell us from day one, hey, it's too big; the footprint is no good; we're not going to approve it after you make a thousand changes; tell us that on day one. Maybe this was implied but that's not the role. The role is not implication, the role is guidelines; adherence to guidelines and that is what the applicant did . . . 31 changes suggested by P & Z and Staff. Mayor Fawcett interjected, we have heard a lot of this before and time is growing short. Mayor Fawcett commented he can't vote unless there is a tie. Mayor Fawcett mentioned two concerns; one is that this is a subjective issue and P & Z has the full right to be subjective under the Town's regulations. So, the decision they made was made as a matter of right. And, two, all of the arguments put forth, you put forth to P & Z with nothing new presented this evening. It is difficult to overturn a decision when they have spent so much time on the review. Mr. Grow informed he was not allowed to present any information that was not given to P & Z at the time of the denial. Mr. Perkins added the appeal has to be based on the material that was submitted and denied. Mayor Fawcett clarified he was not talking about information that existed at the time. Mr. Perkins noted Council received a more detailed comparison of Lot 31, which was not presented to P & Z. Councilor Benson motioned to approve Lot 32, Block 1, Wildridge with some technical corrections from the Staff. Town Attorney Dunn suggested an appropriate motion to make would be to reverse the decision of the Commission and to grant design review. Mayor Fawcett announced Councilor Yoder's motion failed due to lack of a second. Councilor Benson motioned to grant the appeal of the Planning & Zoning final design. Councilor Carnes seconded the motion. Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call vote. With Councilor Reynolds abstaining and Councilor Yoder opposed, the motion carried. 3 0 Citizen Input: 0 Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau Funding Request Frank Johnson, president of the Tourism and Convention Bureau and on behalf of Vail Associates, requested financial support for an April marketing program. Mr. Johnson reviewed the program. This joint program, between Vail Associates and the lodging community, is hoping to add business in April. With Easter being the end of March and typically signaling the end of ski season and spring break being early, it was thought April skiing needed some extra marketing. Total marketing dollars equal $30,000. 50% will come from participating lodges, 25% from Vail Associates, 25% from the communities served; Town of Vail, Town of Avon, and Beaver Creek Resort. Mr. Johnson asked for $2,500 from the Town of Avon. Discussion followed. Councilor Gilman motioned to approve $2,500 to assist with the April promotion marketing plan. Councilor Benson seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Citizen Input: Appeal of Denial / Real Estate Transfer Tax Exemption Annamarie Daane stated she is fully eligible for the transfer tax exemption. She received the application, had her signature notarized, and delivered it to the title company. When the title company submitted a check to the Town for taxes due, it was considered late or inappropriately filled out. The exemption submitted to the title company had not been approved by the Town. Christie Banowitz, from First American Heritage Title Company, informed the form was received by the title company, the lender, and the realtor prior to closing. They all made the same mistake . . . saw the form in the file but, no one noticed it was not signed by the Town prior to closing. It was an honest mistake; the signature for Town approval was simply overlooked. No money was escrowed, at the time of closing, as the form was in the file. The town is now asking for the $1,600 exemption money. Director of Finance Scott Wright informed staff will take a look at the form itself, as well as some introductory statements and explanations about the process to eliminate this in the future. Councilor Reynolds motioned to grant the appeal for the denial of the exemption. Councilor McIlveen seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Fawcett announced the Town has an Ordinance that we have to follow and in the last few months Council has granted two exemptions that didn't technically follow the Ordinance. Mayor Fawcett felt that Council needs to put an end to exemptions. Citizen Input: Mr. Tom Hines voiced his irritations regarding Monday's Vail Daily article on the past council election. Mr. Hines asked if the bids come in too high, regarding the roundabouts, what are the ramifications, having the bonds already issued, of delaying the project? Director of Finance Scott Wright thought none, it wouldn't effect the bond proceeds. 4 0 • There might be an issue of arbitrage on the interest that the Town is earning on those proceeds and that would need to be confirmed with bond counsel. Mr. Hines volunteered his services for the citizen committee regarding the roundabouts. Mr. Hines expressed his disappointment with the County not helping to fund the roundabouts. Ordinances: First Reading of Ordinance No. 97-3, Series of 1997, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BROOKSIDE PUD, LOT 1, EAGLEWOOD SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Director of Community Development Mike Matzko reviewed the Ordinance. This is an amendment to the PUD, with an increase of eight units, minor site modifications, and general design issues. Councilor Benson motioned to approve on first reading Ordinance No. 97-3, Series of 1997. Councilor Gilman seconded the motion. Mayor Fawcett called for a roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. Resolutions: Resolution No. 97-18, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT OF SWIFT GULCH ADDITION, TOWN OF AVON, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO Mayor Fawcett announced this is a public hearing. Director of Community Development Mike Matzko reviewed the Resolution. This is an application by the town, on town owned property. Essentially, it is moving a right of way to the south edge of the property to allow the site to be used more effectively. Mr. Peter Jamar, representing EMD the property owner to the east, reminded that Council agreed to table this Resolution for two weeks so that his civil engineers could review the proposed reconfigured roadway. This will shift the two lane road approximately 15' to the south. The new right of way obliterates the easement that exists for the Nottingham and Puder Ditch. The ditch would need to be piped. Mr. Jamar asked for some type of commitment that, if the town is to maintain the ditch, the town would pay the cost of piping. Piping would consist of approximately 150 linear feet of 2411 pipe at an approximate cost of $6,000. Mr. Jamar mentioned this area was to be utilized for berming and landscaping to conceal partially the bus barn facility. By moving the road over, it will be pretty hard to berm, unless the road is elevated approximately 101, at a considerable expense. Mr. Jamar noted he will anticipate the road being at the 75/40 level, which won't allow for berming. Mr. Jamar asked for a condition, in the Resolution that says; at such point in time, that the road is extended to the east, in order to maintain the easement for the Town's irrigation ditch, the Town would be piping the ditch; so that it is clearly not someone else's obligation. Town Manager Bill Efting thought it to be a fair request. 5 • Town Manager Efting added he would rather look at it with a letter of agreement, when staff can take the time and check figures so that the town is not getting itself into something that is not $6,000, it's $16,000. Mr. Jamar agreed, so long as the Town agrees, the piping of the ditch is the Town's obligation if and when the road is extended. Director of Municipal Services Larry Brooks noted the original or draft plat referred to vacating the easement for the ditch. That won't occur. They will get stacked to provide more room. In that regard, Mr. Jamar's request seems fair, sensible, and it's reasonable. Council directed Town Manager Efting to work out a neighborly agreement with Mr. Jamar. Councilor Yoder motioned to of 1997. Councilor Benson carried unanimously. Consent Agenda: approve Resolution No. 97-18, Series seconded the motion and the motion a.) Approval of the February 11, 1997 Council Meeting Minutes b.) Resolution No. 97-19, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84-23, APPROVING CERTAIN RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING ACTIVITIES WITHIN AND AROUND TOWN OWNED PROPERTIES c.) Resolution No. 97-20, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REVISED WATER LINE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS DATES JANUARY, 1997 d.) Award Contract for Nottingham Park / Lot 16 to G.H. Daniels and Associates e.) Approval of Avon Road Roundabouts Construction Management Proposal to MK Centennial f.) Resolution No. 97-22, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 23, BLOCK 3, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO g.) Resolution No. 97-23, Series of 1997, A RESOLU'T'ION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 38, BLOCK 2, BENCHMARK AT BEAVER CREEK SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT NO. 4, SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 55, RANGE 82W OF THE 6TH P.M., TOWN OF AVON, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO h.) Resolution No. 97-24, Series of 1997, A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 49, BLOCK 3, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO i.) Financial Matters Mayor Fawcett announced item C is pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilor Gilman motioned to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Item C, which is withdrawn. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Fawcett called for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Benson moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilor Yoder. The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Fawcett at 7:44 PM. CTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Lambe CMC Town Clerk 6 0 AP • E X H I B I T A 0 Date: February 24, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council From: Steven M. Grow, Owner Subject: COMMENTS TO AVON TOWN COUNCIL- MEETING 2/24/97 If one assumes the purpose of the process is to air everyones' concerns about the project, and that after three different public meetings, after a number of less formal discussions with P & Z Staff, and with the incorporation of a minimum of 31 design changes which were suggested by P & Z, one would acknowledge that we rigorously went through the process for approval. We did everything asked of us to mitigate the "massing problem" that the Board insists we have. In fact, we have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that we no longer have a "site problem." Obviously there is a major communications problem with this project. Take any project that undergoes a review process. If there are initial concerns about the project and various suggestions are made to enhance and improve the project, one would assume, that with the incorporation of all suggestions, that everyones' concerns should be satisfied, otherwise, there would have been more suggestions made. One would also assume that once all the suggestions are incorporated, which purpose is to improve and enhance the project, then everyone should be happy with the project because their concerns are satisfied, and then they would be able to accept the project At least thirty one suggestions were incorporated into the original design of this project and the Board has failed to give us approval. Again, something is very wrong here. We assumed the Board made all the suggestions they felt would be required for approval of this project. We did everything they asked us to do. We have been examined like a specimen under a microscope. There must be some underlying issue that can't be quantified because the Board certainly has had the opportunity to express all their concerns to us. During all of the meetings, our entire team had the impression that as long as we incorporated the Board and staff suggestions, then each member would be;satisfied with the project. Only Jack Hunn, who is also a neighbor on the same road, at the conceptual review meeting of January 7, 1997, said that even if we incorporate all of the changes that "he may not approve the project." No other member expressed similar sentiments. We only assumed at that point if there were additional concerns, they would have been expressed at that time. As a matter-of -fact, most of the members of the Board seemed very positive about the changes and the design of the project. Jack Hunn also said in our first formal meeting on November 2, 1996, that our neighbor on block 31 is not as imposing as viewed from below. I have viewed that project from Wildridge Rd. and Old Trail Rd., and I can only say that if Jack Hunn and the P & Z staff feel that structure is not massive and does not impose itself on that site, I think we should all take a trip and look at that project. John Perkins will give you some specific information later about that. site which you should think about when considering our project At the final P & Z meeting earlier this month, only two Board members were satisfied with the outcome of the project At no time, with the exception of Jack Hunn, did we get this' feeling from the remainder of the Board members. • • I reviewed my neighbor's P & Z files (Block 31). He is currently under construction. There are three pages of comments-- each page with 1 paragraph of p & Z staff comments. This applicant must have undergone the same microscopic review as we have since his project is of similar scale, size, scope, and his lot is of similar slope, and he certainly faced similar design problems as we have- Only Three paragraphs of comments! Something is again wrong here! By anyones, standards this is a massive project. You must agree the level of intense review we received is not consistent with that of our neighbor who was recently approved by this Board, but whose project is so similar in scale to ours. All applicants should be following the same set of guide lines and have them applied equally and evenly. Please review final Staff comments and see that we meet all the technical requirements- zoning compliance, site compatibility, etc. What they are not saying is that in their "subjective opinion", and in spite of the thirty one changes that have been incorporated, and two months of intense meetings, they still do not like the project and feel it does not work with the site. From day one, the overall foot print of the project has not changed Everyone was aware of this, but the process still went forward and changes were suggested and implemented If the Board was so focused on this issue, they should have just said to us at the beginning of the process "that even though you incorporate all of our suggestions, we are still not going to approve you." This is not what happened. We have not been treated fairly and consistently with the P & Z Board. The final comments as prepared by the staff were ready on the Friday, January 31, 1997, five days prior to the final meeting of February 4, 1997. Not until we called George Harrison on that Tuesday of the meeting day, did we receive that final staff report three hours prior to the meeting. They had it in their possession for six days and never told us it was ready for our review. Is this fair? Norm Woods presented to George Harrison on January 26, 1997, his review of the site plan in your packet . Our scheduled P & Z meeting was February 4th. Do you think it may have been helpful for us to have his comments prior to that meeting? We received his comments today, and only after we had requested it. These comments have been in the staff office since January 26, almost one month. Is this fair? The basic underlying P & Z staff opinion regarding the inclusion of the "Steep Slope" guidelines and their application is incorrect. All the design changes we made, knowing they were not required because the steep slope guidelines did not apply to us, were made in order to accommodate the suggestions of the staff and the Board in hopes of mitigating their concerns pertaining to this issue. We felt had we incorporated these changes then we would receive P & Z approval. Based upon the actual slope of this site and the incorrect information the board was consistently given by the staff throughout the process, even down to their final report and recommendations, it was impossible for the Board to make a correct and informed decision. They never had accurate and correct information in order to make a proper decision. John Perkins will site example after example to support my contention. We ask that you reverse P & Z's denial based upon the merits of this project and the true facts as they exist. Everything we have discussed is based upon hard objective facts, not innuendo nor subjective opinion. There are several ways to design an acceptable project, unfortunately, P & Z feels that their opinions and subjective evaluations are the only acceptable approach to project design. Thank you for your time and consideration.