Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-07 Town Council Minutesr 141, MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 7, 1992 . 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 7, 1992, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro -Tom Jim Shearer Jim Gibson Rob LeVine Bob Buckley MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Steinberg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk • The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation, of which there was none. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of four items: A. Approval of Minutes of December 3, 1991, and December 17, 1991, evening meeting minutes. B. Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and Section 18.62.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. C. Ordinance No. 49, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.60, Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.020(G) Application - Contents and Chapter 18.62, Variances, Section 18.62.020(F) Application - Information Required; and setting forth details in regard thereto. D. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 3,52.060 of the Town of Vail Investment Policy, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterloss read the titles in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda, with a second from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. item No. 3 was Ordinance No.1, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance declaring the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to create a Local Improvement District within the boundaries of the Town of Vail for the purpose of converting existing overhead electric facilities to underground locations; adoption of details and specifications therefore. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Larry Eskwith reviewed the history of this ordinance. When Town Council passed a resolution to proceed with a hearing to obtain input from the property owners in the proposed District, information was reviewed re: original request for formation, associated costs, and the proposed formula for assessment. If it was decided the District should be formed, individual property owners would be formally notified about a separate hearing at which they would be advised of their specific assessment. Larry said, before moving to assessments, the first step was to form the District, and that would be upto the Town Council after hearing public input. Larry stated assessments were not part of the tax bill, but would be issued by the Finance Department of the Town of Vail. The bill could be paid either within thirty (30) days in its entirety, or spread out over twenty (20) years, according to statute. Peggy Osterfoss asked for public input. Speaking against the ordinance were Jeff Bowen, Roger Tiikemeier, John C. Ohrt, Dr. Steven Thompson, and Tony Reiterson. They agreed the undergrounding would be aesthetically pleasing, but felt the estimated assessments were too high, and they felt everyone who would benefit should pay. Speaking in favor of the concept, but not the economics, was George Lamb. Larry and Greg Hall explained how properties were selected to be part of the proposed District. Greg noted there were four (4) types of property owners in the area: (1) vacant lots, (2) existing residences with underground service connected to an underground primary system, (3) existing residences with underground service connected to an overhead primary system, (4) and properties having overhead service connected to the overhead primary system. He said of the 42 i- selected lots, there were actually 73 services or meters, and the cost would be for each meter. Greg explained vacant lots and houses already connected to the underground system did not add cost to the District because the District was picking up only secondary costs. Upon future construction, owners would pay on a per lot basis. Also speaking in favor of formation of the proposed District was Art Abplanalp, speaking for Landis Martin and Jim Schink, residents willing to be included in the District for aesthetic and safety reasons although their lots had no overhead utilities. Greg stated the amount absorbed by Holy Cross would be $70,000, making the total project cost $240,000. Dean Gordon, from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., said his engineering firm had been working with Town staff to define the scope and limits of the District and identify the cost associated with it. He explained if the proposed District was formed at some point in the future, the total cost could never be assessed to the District at a higher figure than what was represented to residents of the District during this public hearing or at subsequent public hearings for individual assessments. As a result, he felt it was necessary to be conservative but realistic in calculating the total estimated cost. He said the $170,000 represented costs in four areas: (1) the actual construction cost of the secondary service lines and the division point between primary service and secondary services, (2) administrative costs, (3) bond costs, and (4) engineering costs. Holy Cross would be responsible for the transformer; beyond the transformer was secondary service, with costs for calculation of the individual assessments from that point. In response to a citizen request for the Town of Vail to pay for this improvement, the Mayor restated the request had come from the neighborhood. Ron Phillips stated there was no staff advocacy for the project and the staff had resisted getting involved with this because of the extensive time commitment it entailed. Nancy Gibson spoke about the process over the past 21 /2 years, and her current attempts, along with Dave Rogers, to get recent feedback. She said she realized $2500 could be a hardship to a lot of people in the project area, and one of the reasons for approaching the residents about splitting the costs equally was to help defray the high cost some homes would have. Peggy said the first thing to be decided was whether there was interest in forming the District. Secondly, they would iron out the fairness and equity issues. Al Welss, although not involved with this issue at the present time, said he could foresee a future time . when formation of other Special Districts would be requested for the same purpose, and he wanted to know, if once a Special District was established by ordinance, there would be recourse for residents or would residents have to accept whatever assessments were set in such other Special Districts. Larry stated if a different form of assessment than had been suggested was selected, it could be incorporated into the next step. Larry advised Council there was a formal step to set a certain date for another hearing, as required by statute. Council agreed to set March 3, 1992, as the date for another public hearing. Notice about that hearing would be prepared and sent to residents as required by statute. Ron Phillips said there were possibly three viable formulas for alternate methods of dividing up the project's cost and suggested Council allow staff 2-3 weeks to develop those to bring back for discussion. Bob Buckley stated there was a very real hazard with overhead powerlines breaking in the mountains. Rob LeVine stated it required more than a simple majority to go forward with this, although he shared Bob's feelings about the aesthetics and safety concerns. Further, he said he was Interested in expanding the District to include some of the lots not included at a different assessed level, Mery felt there was a benefit to be had by all by forming this District, including the vacant lots and those who have already undergrounded because of the aesthetic aspect, but he wanted to be able to offer an alternative to fully underground and encapsulate the power lines, not just compress the equipment into above- ground green transformer boxes. Peggy's impression was there was support for undergrounding. The question was about the fairness of the allocation of the costs. Mery Lapin moved Ordinance No. 1 be continued until the March 3, 1992, evening meeting, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. A five minute recess was taken. is Rem No. 4 was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1992, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 1, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 5 was a Public Hearing commencing a needs assessment for Heritage Cablevision. Mayor Osterfoss explained Council's action was to listen to public input relating to the future needs of the Town of Vail cable television system. Larry Eskwith clarified this was the first step in the formal renewal process of the cable franchise agreement with Heritage Cablevision. He emphasized there would be further evaluation of the cable company's performance by the Town. If the Town did not accept the proposal, an administrative hearing would follow, but that was not carte blanche for a municipality to refuse to renew the franchise. Larry stated Heritage had asked the Town to institute the formal renewal process but also asked the Town to pursue informal discussion with them. Al Weiss briefly explained the reasons for his discontent with Heritage Cablevision. Mery Lapin asked Larry what the Town's powers were and what the Town could do in terms of rates or programming under the present franchise agreement with Heritage. Larry said Heritage had the right to impose a 50/6 increase per year, and with regard to the programming mix, the Town had the right to designate the types of programming the Town wanted broadcast, adding Heritage could change the stations on the cable, but they had to keep generally the same mix approved when the franchise was entered into, and they have done that. There were four (4) specific reasons not to renew the franchise, and these do not have to do with 4 whether the cable company had raised rates. He spoke briefly about the Federal Cable Television Act of 1983 and pressure Congress was reacting to from cable operators who maintained they were concerned because of the amount 2 r of regulation they felt municipalities were placing on them. The Act deregulated all municipalities' abilities to have much influence on cable rate structure, and it became much more difficult not to renew a franchise. For municipalities similar to Vail, one of the biggest problems was competition was very limited. In the last franchise agreement, they agreed Vail is in an area known as an area without effective competition, which meant they could no longer raise rates without the permission of the Town except to the extent of 50/6. Larry added that was defined by federal law, but in order to prove Vail is an area without effective competition, the Town would have to go through a process which Heritage said was unnecessary as they would stick to the agreed annual 50/6 increase. Larry stated Council needed to determine it the Town should demand more from Heritage in terms of upgrading the system technically. Mery was particularly exasperated by the fact the Town did not even have the alternative of having free TV due to the mountainous conditions and wanted staff to solicit opinions from E.B. Chester and Jack Crosby. Jim Gibson asked Ron Phillips for an update on competitor who had expressed interest in a franchise In Vail. Ron stated the interested party was asked to bring the Town a proposal but had not. Ron said he believed the reason a proposal was not submitted was because a great amount of the fee for the channels the interested party wanted to put on a separate system were controlled by the same company as Heritage. The price for that was more than the interested party felt he could afford for the investment needed for the infrastructure. Rob LeVine oonfirmed that, and emphasized it was not the Town being unwilling to issue a franchise. Jim Gibson recalled this potential franchiser was planning on using a wireless reception and transmission method. Rob recalled that also, but pointed to the expense involved with that, and the potential franchisee would still have to buy the service as it originated from TCI. Jim Gibson and Mery agreed the monopoly heritage had was abusive and should not exist, but Peggy noted the free market just does not exist in this case. Ron felt a replacement program for cable currently buried should be considered because the cable now installed was not technically advanced and was old. Al Weiss asked it Heritage Cablevision was obliged to produce an audit of their books to the Council. Larry said the Town can ask to review an audit. Larry felt it was important to get an audit of what the Town had and its quality. Mery Lapin moved these proceedings be continued indefinitely. • This continuance may include, but shall not be limited to the following: (1) The taking of additional evidence from citizens of the Town, (2) The mailing of appropriate surveys to the citizens of the Town, (3) Obtaining reports from engineers and other consultants relating to past performance of the cable operator under the existing franchise, and helping to identify appropriate future cable -related community needs and interests. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 6 was an appeal by applicant of a denial by the PEC regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor dining patio for Russell's Restaurant Deck at The Gallery Building, 228 Bridge Street; a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. The applicantlappellant was Ron Riley/D.R.R., Inc. Mike Mollica said the proposal was in two phases with the applicant proposing a "winter version" of the dining deck on TOV property, as well as a "summer version." He reviewed a description of the proposed deck use, background information, related policies in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, criteria and findings, and staff recommendations as fully detailed in the Community Development Department's memo to the PEC dated December 9, 1991. Mike Mollica noted one of the key issues of the project was the narrowing of Bridge Street at the proposed deck site. There was discussion about the specific measurements of various areas on Bridge Street. Mike spoke about three issues staff had with the project: (1) There would be a constriction or narrowing of Bridge Street creating possible pedestrian safety issues, specifically in the summertime, (2) Public Works expressed concerns about street sweeping in the summertime, and (3) Staff had concerns regarding views. Mike said staff recommended denial of the request as they did not feel it had met findings 3 and 4 in the December 9, 1991, memo. Mike said staff discussed an option they could support, basically the "winter version" of the deck. Staff could support that with two conditions of approval, although the PEC had voted 3-1 for denial. Mike said staff was very positive about dining decks and understood their economic necessity. The applicant, Ron Riley, addressed the issue of a street constriction, and said he would redesign the deck to avoid problems with the Fire and/or Police Department. He believed the encroachment of the summertime version deck was minor, stressing lower Bridge Street was sterile, and the dining deck would add interest to help the area to come alive. He felt, due to the popularity of outdoor dining, a restaurant was almost required to have a dining area outdoors. He felt his business could no longer survive only during the winter, and he wanted some viability for summer. Patios on Town property were all over, and he felt they were called for in the Master Plan to help bring a street alive through interaction. After further discussion about seating capacities for the summer and winter versions, Kristan reiterated staff's position was more than just concern about the constriction and the design of the deck, there was concern about views which would be obstructed by the deck, but she felt it could work. She wanted Council to know this was important, as this was the kind of issue looked for in urban design guidelines and concepts related to the Village regardless of what store or type of business would be in there. Mery Lapin moved to approve the applicant's request and overturn the denial by the PEC based on the findings listed on page 7 of the December 9, 1991, memorandum items 1,2, and 3, that are necessary for a conditional use permit and the conditional use permit be for one year. Further conditions to meet conditions 1 and 2 from the staff recommendation were the applicant was to be responsible for cleaning the street from the edge of the bridge to the end of his building on a daily basis, such sweeping to be finished by 8:00 A.M. the next morning, and snow from the deck would not be cleared onto the adjacent Town right-of-way, preferably, the applicant was to work out arrangements to have snow privately hauled from the sight, and the applicant was to install 2-3 aspens in the planter north of the proposed dining deck. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The applicant agreed to contribute to general upkeep of the street area, but noted aspen trees previously planted in the planter north of the proposed deck had died, and asked for flexibility to plant something else 3 46 equally attractive. Peggy requested the DRB decide that issue, and to look into seeing that adequate lighting in the area was addressed. Peggy recalled Merv's motion to overturn the decision by the PEG, with findings and conditions as stated in the staff memo, with a primary additional condition being the deck be approved for one year on the summer deck and a permanent approval on the winter deck, and the radius of the deck be pulled back 15 feet. A vote was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ATTEST: Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianna S. veto O.WIINSJAN7.92 Respectfully submitted, Margar A. Osterfoss, Mayor f 1 • PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) )) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE I, ALLEN KNOX do solemnly swear that I am th. Publisher of THE VAIL TRAIL; that the some is a weekly newspaper printed, in whole a in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published Public Notice P@ continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than txraP TAIL NDT1cE Th�c on Janmy �, fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal 19W,17:30P-jo dM.Courxdt0WrEen of the notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United To of V*.Moni*W Building et 75 South States mails as second class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3,1879, Footage riped:;va, cdorede, the Town or Va or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly hM hoW 'a'hegrirg to camrwrae Praq- ingo qualified for publishinglegal notices and advertisements within the meaningof the torthe PwpP d` eg 1: Identaycrg,the:future cable related eorrr laws of the State of Colorado. nuaay needs aWk"Wt9 That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and '""' •'"" -P° r01"'�108 of cable sigr'YT ft oehle opwatw'iar a The entire issue of everynumber of said week newspaper ouneal le an 4vw lou hies. N wspaper for the period of Milebersor tbs pab are iod to W-dthis meeting sod 9" thk eo emits"-ieWng to consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of These as tome Town Cound a the Town of f Va. said newspaper dated A.D. 19- / Pamel and that the last Town arreWa A. Sndrteyerer Town Alerh pubication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated Published in The Vaa Tres �� on Dwffd er''Z7 1981 wd Jmu y 3, 1992 C- tlll �f 3 AD.19!2� In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this' ~ day of /I YII GCr'�J AD, 19=2 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public i and forth my of Eagle, State of Colorado, this 3'^' day of / LL� j AD. 19 2:2 ¢ J� r My commission expires