TC Minutes 03-09-1999MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
HELD MARCH 9, 1999
A regular meeting 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 Judy Yoder at 5:30 PM. A roll call was taken
with Councilors Jim Benson, Debbie Buckley, Rick Cuny, Mac McDevitt, Buz Reynolds,
and Mayor Protem Bob McIlveen present. Also present were Town Manager Bill Efting,
Town Attorney Burt Levin, Assistant Town Manager Larry Brooks, Town Clerk Kris
Nash, Public Works Superintendent Bob Reed, Recreation Director Meryl Jacobs,
Transportation Director Harry Taylor, Community Development Director Mike Matzko,
Planner George Harrison, Planner Karen Griffith, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Police
Chief Jeff Layman as well as members of the press and public.
Citizen Input:
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission, Lot 21, Block 3, Wildridge
Councilor Reynolds stepped down from the Council due to conflict of interest.
Mr. Laddie Clark approached the Council. Mr. Clark stated Erich Burkhard, an architect
in Pennsylvania, purchased the lot about 5 years ago and designed the duplex for his
personal home. His design was not according to the Town's zoning codes and ordinances
so he worked closely with Town staff to change the design to make it in accordance with
the effective zoning codes and ordinances. Staff agreed he had complied with the codes.
At the first Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting on January 19, approval was
recommended. There were six commissioners at that meeting, Anne Fehlner, was absent.
It was suggested that had Anne been there, she may have been the deciding vote for
approval. The P&Z suggested that some items be deleted from the design. Three
commissioners voted for approval and three voted against approval, so it was tabled until
the following meeting in February.
At the February meeting there were still six commissioners; however, Anne Fehlner an
architect herself, was present. Anne liked the design and asked for some of the items that
were deleted from the January meeting be added back in. Instead of reapplying the
deleted items, the P&Z who voted against the design in the previous meeting, voted
against it again. One of the commissioners who voted for the design in the previous
meeting changed his mind and voted against it. That commissioner had more issues with
clarification of materials, which were clarified to everybody's satisfaction.
The letter of denial sited specific architectural elements as their reason for denial;
specifically, the large roof planes mostly visible from the eastern side, and an unusual
window pattern. The P&Z felt the design should have larger windows along the western
side because of the dramatic and constantly changing views. Mr. Burkhard placed the
windows specifically for the use of the room and also for the spacing of furniture in the
room.
Mr. Clark feels the P&Z allowed too much of their own subjective opinion.of the design
and didn't follow the zoning regulations close enough. This design is certainly within the
perimeters of an acceptable design and the existing designs in Wildridge today. One
unusual aspect is that he chose to use colored concrete instead of stucco.
Mr. Jack Reutzel, attorney for Mr. Burkhard, approached the Council. Mr. Reutzel
provided Council with a letter dated March 9 earlier in the day, and was made part of the
record. Mr. Reutzel stated the basis for the appeal is because they believe the P&Z failed
•
to apply the required guidelines as stated in the procedural rules and regulations of the
Town. The guidelines state that any disapproval of a final design must specifically
describe the purpose or design guideline that the design does not comply with and the
manner of noncompliance. Mr. Reutzel stated findings such as the concrete and that there
is no reason for it to be there, or the randomness of the project fails to tell any objective to
the party what guideline they think we are not meeting and then describe in detail the
manner of noncompliance. The four points that the P&Z used to refuse and deny the final
design are:
A) The architectural style is not compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Reutzel
pointed out the many different styles in Wildridge and did not see how this design
could not fit in.
B) The massing, particularly the west roof, and more specifically Unit #1's expansive
roof, and the massing of Unit #1's unbroken west elevation. Mr. Burkhard was
guided by the Town's guidelines suggesting that rooflines be kept simple.
C) The concrete, there is no reason for it to be there. Mr. Burkhard proposed that the
exposed concrete is used at the foundation and retaining walls, there are no areas
where this exposure is excessive. The P&Z fails to identify where the concrete
appears to be excessive and without merit.
D) The randomness of the project. P&Z expressed that it'is trying to be two different
things. Mr. Reutzel stated it is a very steep site, and staff encouraged that they not be
mirrored units. The P&Z found it to be a random association of buildings. Mr.
Burkhard was in good faith trying to comply with the staff correction.
Mr. Reutzel stated that for the last year and four months, Mr. Burkhard has been engaged
in a debate and dialog with the Town's planning staff about the review and design of this
duplex. At times it was struggle, but he worked with the staff with the understanding that
at some point they would be in a position to recommend this project. The planning staff
did recommend to the P&Z that this design in fact did meet the objective elements of the
code and the guidelines.
Mr. Burkhard is struggling with his next decision. He is not inclined to make wholesale
revisions to his design. He has worked very hard and feels it is entirely consistent with
any objective reading of the Town's code. As a result, he would like the Council to
overturn the P&Z denial of his plan based on the fact that the design of the units, as
reviewed by the planning department, objectively demonstrates compliance with the
standards and design guidelines. As an alternative, Mr. Reutzel would offer a waiver of
the 30 day decision from the Council in exchange for a remand back to the P&Z with
direction from the Council to re-review this based upon the design guidelines and an
objective reading of the guidelines, or at least more clearly be able to articulate the
objective reasons for the denial. Mr. Burkhard's preference is to overturn the decision,
but if Council believes there is merit to turn this back to P&Z for further consideration, he
would be willing to do so.
Mayor Yoder confirmed that if it were to go back to P&Z, Mr. Burkhard would negotiate
with P&Z on some issues, or that he would want the exact same design reviewed. Mr.
Reutzel believes Mr. Burkhard is willing to make some changes, he just doesn't want to
start from the beginning.
Councilor Cuny questioned the square footage of the two units. He was told that unit 1 is
3920 sq. 'ft. and unit 2 is 2958 sq. ft. The lot is .9 acres. Mr. Clark presented a color
rendering of the design. He also confirmed' where the colored concrete would be located.
Mayor Protein McIlveen stated he did not have a problem with the actual design of the
house, but the common wall seems to be a regulation issue and the driveway being too
steep. He feels those two issues are more relevant than the actual architecture of the
house.
2
•
u
Councilor Buckley also questioned if it meets the guidelines for a duplex.
Community Development Director Mike Matzko stated that initially the design did not
meet the connection requirement for a duplex. The design was revised to meet that
connection requirement and staff is satisfied.
Councilor Cuny asked if the driveway was changed to be less steep.
Town Planner George Harrison stated they had revised the driveway to be in more
compliance with the Town guidelines.
Mr. Cuny confirmed that it is now just the architectural criteria that are not being
satisfied, which he feels is so subjective and open to interpretation.
P&Z Commission Chairman Chris Evans approached the Council. Mr. Evans stated they
are in the realm of the subjective nature of the design review guidelines. P&Z tries to
stay away from that but as the architect presents a project that is subjective in nature
based on his wishes, we also have to evaluate it based on what, unfortunately, is
subjective criteria. The P&Z did not object to the size of the project, nor was the CAD
presentation and issue. Mr. Evans spoke with the P&Z member who made the
recommended motion to review the basis for the denial. The concrete is not an issue.
Regarding the comments that P&Z should go with staff's decision, it is not their decision.
They prepare a recommended motion and supporting details for the P&Z to act upon.
P&Z has taken the recommendation and worked from that. The final denial was by a
vote of 4-2 to deny.
Mr. Evans clarified some of the items stated in Mr. Reutzel's letter and other points and
concerns of the P&Z:
❑ The applicant, architect for the project, never attended any of the DRB sessions.
❑ Regarding consistency, the applicants response to the P&Z review of January 19,
acknowledges the architectural issues that were stated explicitly during our design
review of the project and are part of the record for that review. The applicant
essentially dismisses the architectural concerns that we brought up (the massing, the
roof planes, and the windows). We were given an explanation about the window
placement; however, it has a direct effect on the outward appearance of the house.
❑ This review was done in detail and he would be surprised if anyone left with the
wrong impression of the concerns of the P&Z.
❑ It was suggested at the January 19 meeting that the architect be present for the next
meeting to present his design.
❑ We suggested a model be presented, but was not required.
❑ The window placement on the west elevation of the two units, one half has very
neatly placed windows and the other appears to be a "shotgun" approach to placing
windows. There is no rhyme or reason from an architectural standpoint for the
windows to be placed that way.
❑ There is no consistent architectural theme to the project. On the south elevation, there
is another elevation of the project with a completely different personality to the house.
We do prohibit mirrored image duplexes, but it is not difficult to carry a consistent
design approach through a duplex and allow for some uniqueness between the two
independent halves.
o They objected to the roof plane presented due to the neighboring properties above this
project. It directly effects the people'above them.
The inconsistent architectural theme and the roof plane issues were brought up
consistently at both P&Z meetings.
Mr. Evans feels the denial and motion made at the P&Z meeting does suitably reference
the design guidelines. Architectural compatibility and impact to neighboring properties
are two specific guidelines within the DRB guidelines that the P&Z have to work with.
Mr. Evans asked that Council not remand the project back to P&Z unless the applicant is
willing to make substantial changes to make the-project work. P&Z tabled the issue for
them once so they could make the changes and we got a letter back saying they are not
making changes. Mr. Evans requested the Town Council uphold the P&Z decision.
Mr. Evans stated the color scheme and materials being used are all satisfactory. When
asked if P&Z received any input from the surrounding neighbors, Mr. Evans stated the
property is posted that there will be a hearing, but no one attended the meetings to voice
concerns. Mr. Evans stated the illegal lock-off issue was resolved.
Councilor McDevitt confirmed that the major two complaints of the P&Z are the roof
massing and the inconsistency between the two halves. Mr. Evans stated that is correct.
Planning & Zoning Commissioner Sue Railton approached the Council. Ms. Railton has
concerns about this duplex design approval being denied. Ms. Railton supported
approval of the application. She feels there is no reason to deny the design. It is a
competent design by an architect. The guidelines do not say that all houses must be
designed to look the same. She feels the variety is the right of the owner as long as the
criteria is being met, which is the case in this proposal. There is no requirement that there
be large windows on the west side of the western unit as P&Z suggests. Ms. Railton felt
the applicant was treated shabbily by P&Z. She feels the denial is a sad reflection on the
community for its intolerance of anything different and doesn't feel it is the philosophy of
the residents of Avon.
Mr. John Railton, architect, stated that he doesn't believe the design guidelines suggest a
preference for any particular type of architecture design. He believes the guidelines are
very open to a variety of designs. He does not feel this design is outside of the design
guidelines. He feels the architect has worked hard and that it is a competent building and
requests the Council approves as designed.
Mayor Protem McIlveen stated he gets the feeling the roof massing is the biggest concern
now and asked if there was any way to solve that issue. Mr. Clark stated there was a
suggestion made to add a dormer, which is getting back to personal subjective opinion
and did not think it would make a pivotal difference.
Mr. Evans stated the issue is not about whether the architectural style belongs in
Wildridge as stated by previous comments. He does not see a problem with one of the
architectural styles. The problem is that there are three or four identifiable styles in his
opinion; that and the roof plane are the two main issues for the denial of the project.
Mayor Yoder asked why staff first recommended approval and now staff recommends
denial.
Community Development Director Matzko stated after review of the file, discussion with
staff member (George Harrison), and attending the hearings, the denial by P&Z is the
right recommendation looking at the basis for doing so and looking at our design
guidelines. Mayor Yoder confirmed that if staff had to do it over again, they would not
recommend approval to begin with. Mr. Matzko stated that is correct.
Mr. Clark stated that at the first meeting, the primary concerns were the clarification of
materials. The architectural elements were mentioned, but did not seem too concerned.
He questions staff reversing their recommendation for denial after working so closely
with Mr. Burkhard to design within the guidelines.
Mr. Reutzel confirmed that the two conditions of denial are the roof massing and the
randomness of the windows. Once we stray from the objective criteria, we are into
subjective review. He doesn't feel the intent of the architectural guidelines was to limit
the architecture, but to provide enough flexibility so you can have a variety of
architecture.
Mayor Yoder stated the public hearing is closed and asked Council for comments.
4
Councilor Benson agreed that it does bother him on the west elevation that the windows
on one unit are nicely laid out and the windows on the other unit are just put where
convenient. He stated either unit works for him as long as they are a similar pattern. He
agreed there was too much roof mass and would like to see if the roof could be broken up
in some way. The west elevation looks nice, but the windows should be more similarly
placed. The south elevation disturbs him that the one unit has a cross pattern window and
the other is a vertical linear pattern. Make them similar. It should look more like the
building was built together.
Councilor Buckley stated the architecture looked fine to her. She was mainly concerned
with them trying to be two different buildings. It looks to her like a duplex trying to be
two separate houses.
Councilor McDevitt stated it is a superior design, but does concur with Councilor
Benson's comments especially in regards to the inconsistency. The roof massing is going
to be big no matter what is done. He is mainly concerned about the non-uniformity of the
two halves.
Councilor McIlveen stated he does have a problem with the windows. It's a lot of work,
it is a large building and the roof will be large no matter what is done with it.
Councilor Cuny feels the applicant has done quite a bit to address the problems presented
by the P&Z and staff. He stated that a 7000 sq. ft. duplex that is connected side by side
would have an even larger roof mass. The architect has broken it up with elevations and
the way the units are attached. He feels the unit as presented is better than if they were
side by side. He feels if the coloring and materials are compatible, the windows won't
even be noticed when it is built. Unfortunately, the P&Z are down to subjective
comments because the objective things have been addressed. He feels it is unfair that a
builder in Wildridge has to deal with that aspect of it. Councilor Cuny stated it should be
approved.
Councilor Benson commented that staggering the roof could make a difference.
Town Attorney Levin stated Council's options are to either entertain a motion to either
affirm the P&Z decision, reverse the decision, or modify; or a decision to remand the case
back to P&Z; or the Council can adjourn and deliberate briefly and come back with a
decision.
Mayor Protem McIlveen motioned to remand back to P&Z. Councilor Benson asked if it
could include remanding to P&Z based on the randomness of the project and the massing
of the roof. Mayor Protein McIlveen amended the motion. Councilor Benson seconded
the motion.
Town Manager Efting asked if they wanted to include the language to waive the 30 day
clause.
Mayor Protein McIlveen amended his motion to also include the waiver of the 30 day
clause. Councilor Benson seconded the amended motion.
Mayor Yoder asked for a roll call.
The motion carried with Councilor Cuny opposed.
Ordinances:
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 99-04, SERIES OF 1999, An Ordinance
Approving a Zone Change from Industrial Commercial (IC) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD), and Approving the Grand View PUD Development Plan and
5
0- •
Development Standards, for Lot 42, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision,
Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado
Councilor Yoder stated this is a public hearing.
Town Planner George Harrison approached the Council. Mr. Harrison stated the
Ordinance covers both the rezoning and approval of the Grand View PUD development
plan and its development standards. All drainage-issues have been satisfactorily
addressed. There may be some further specific issues taken care of at final design. Staff
is comfortable with the application. Part of the application will include an easement
agreement to allow the project to encroach onto town owned land Tract B. The
agreement is currently being reviewed by staff and should be presented at next meeting.
There will also be a deed restriction agreement to follow.
Mr. Jack Lewis, representing Vail Resorts, stated this is one of the many projects that
Vail Resorts hopes to do in the town to provide employee housing in Avon. All units are
for sale.
Councilor Cuny asked what the application process would be. Mr. Lewis stated since
Vail Resorts is building the units we would like to see our employees that work here have
first chance. Once that transpires, then it would go to the Town's normal process.
Town Planner Karen Griffith stated there is a priority system in the master deed
restriction agreement and it is based on income and residency. Primarily residents in
Avon and the lower income residents have the first priority. Staff is supportive of Vail
Resorts employees having first priority, that is also stated in the agreement.
There being no further comments, Mayor Yoder closed the public hearing.
There being no further comments by Council, Councilor Benson motioned to approve
Ordinance No. 99-04, Series of 1999. Councilor Buckley seconded the motion.
Mayor Yoder asked for a roll call.
The motion carried unanimously
Town Manager Report:
Town Manager Efting presented a proclamation to the Council from the Forest Service
for the World Championships. Mayor Yoder read the proclamation.
Town Attorney Report:
Town Attorney Levin passed out a copy of Council's decision from the appeal matter.
Consent Agenda:
a.) Approval of February 23, 1999 Council Meeting Minutes
b.) Resolution No. 99-09, Series of 1999, A Resolution Approving the Final
Plat, A Resubdivision of Lot 5, Block 4; Wildridge, Town of Avon, Eagle
County, Colorado
c.) Contract with Lindisfarne for Salute to USA
d.) Engagement Letter for Arbitrage Specialist
e.) West Beaver Creek Blvd. Streetscape - Design Proposal
f.) East Avon Streetscape Circulation and Street Improvements
i.) Design Proposal - Intermountain Engineering
ii.) Landscape Design Proposal - Terrasan
6
a
iii.) Transportation Planner Consultation Preparation - Charlier
g.) Avon Roundabout Crosswalks
L) B&B Excavating Contract (Asphalt)
ii.) Gallegos Masonry Contract (Concrete)
h.) 1999 Street Improvements Contract - B&B Excavating
L) Financial Matters
Councilor Reynolds stated he has a conflict of interest in item b and will abstain from
voting on that item.
Councilor Benson motioned to approve the Consent Agenda.' Councilor McDevitt
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilor Benson motioned
to adjourn the meeting: Councilor Buckley seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 6:36 ,PM.
Submitted:
Ms Nash
Town Clerk
APPROVED:
Jim Benson
Debbie Buckley
Rick Cuny
Mac McDevitt
Bob McIlveen
Buz Reynolds
Judy Yoder
7