HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-07 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7,1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 7,1993, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Rob LeVine
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Mayor Osterfoss and Jim Shearer were not present when the meeting was called to order by Mery
Lapin.
1 The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Agenda Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of two items:
A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 3, 1993, and August 17, 1993, Vail Town
Council Evening Meetings.
B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract C of
the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space
zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek
Estates subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the
Main Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation, a Colorado
Corporation.
Mery Lapin read the titles in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second
from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 3 was an Executive Session regarding legal matters. That Executive Session had instead
been held at the end of the Work Session earlier this date, and no Executive Session was called
during the Evening Meeting.
Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving a Special
Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the development plan in
accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mery Lapin read the title in full. The applicant was Steve Gensler/Packwood Realty. Andy
Knudtsen noted a minor amendment to the ordinance since first reading. He recalled an issue of
concern on first reading was related to Employee Housing Units (EHUs), because an EHU had not
been included in the SDD. He discussed the details of this particular EHU. Another change to the
ordinance since first reading was the addition of a condition requiring that, prior to issuance of any
building permits within this SDD, the applicant would provide a drainage plan meeting the
standards of the Town Engineer. With those changes, Andy said staff recommended approval. He
said they had spoken with Jay Peterson, Tom Braun, and Steve Gensler, who all were in agreement
with the changes. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on second
reading, with a second from Rob LeVine. Mayor Osterfoss arrived at this time. Before a vote was
taken, there was note by jay Peterson of a correction to be made under Section 4 - Development Plan
(11)(e) (footnote) to state that "the additional 309 square feet was made up of 159 taken from the
upper (not lower) development area and 150 granted by the Town of Vail." There was brief
discussion about prior site visits to other developments with 40% slope. Mery stated he felt it was
a mistake to allow SDDs in residential zone districts. Jim Shearer arrived at this time. Andy stated
the developer had been very specific in his designs, and felt there was a level of assurance regarding
fill, cut areas, and scarring. He said several additional studies had been done in an effort to establish
exactly how the project will be developed. Mery also expressed concerned about building on 40%
slopes. Tom Steinberg asked if this was an SDD, and if TOV did not allow building on 40% slopes,
other than single-family homes and duplexes, how TOV was allowing this project on an SDD.
Without further input and research, Tom Moorhead was unable to answer this question. Andy said
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Atinute 9P7193
it was staffs understanding that this SDD allowed variations from the Code standards. After further
discussion, Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Mery
Lapin and Tom Steinberg opposed.
. item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter
18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter
8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.058, controlling
undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties for the
violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title
in full. Tom Moorhead explained the original ordinance, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1992, had
already been passed, was in the Code and that Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, would simply
relocate the original ordinance to its correct place in the Code. Rob Levine moved to approve
Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. Bob Buckley advised he planned
to vote against this ordinance, feeling it was unenforceable and a waste of time. Tom Steinberg
stated he was vehemently against this ordinance, feeling it had not worked. Mayor Osterfoss pointed
out that a vote against relocation of the existing ordinance within the Code would not eliminate the
ordinance from the Code, but that another ordinance to eliminate it from the Code would be
required. Jim Gibson recalled the whole purpose behind the original ordinance was an effort to
cooperate with State agricultural concerns created by specific undesirable plants. Jim Gibson called
the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-3, Tom Steinberg, Bob Buckley, and Mery
Lapin opposed.
Item No. 6 was Ordinance No.13, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.0300 and
16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-
conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance,
40 and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Jim Gibson moved
to table Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1993, on first reading until such time as staff had time to
complete research on it. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed,
7-0.
Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance submitting to the
registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, the
16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect
and spend the full revenues generated during 1994 and each subsequent year in an amount not to
exceed $____, [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property taxes]
without any increase in such tax rate and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal
operations, and capital projects; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and
amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title;
providing for notice of the details in relation to the foregoing. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.
Tom Moorhead indicated there were two issues to be discussed. First, in regard to the part of the
ordinance stating "... in an amount not to exceed..:', he said there was no direct language in
Amendment 1 stating that the amount had to be included in a revenue change, as being done in this
particular ordinance. He said the direction to include the amount was only included in those sections
which described what had to be on the ballot when a new tax, an increase in tax, or renewal of a tax
were being proposed. He explained that by putting a specific amount in this ordinance, TOV was
placing a burden on itself if TOV were to exceed that amount. Another request of the voters to
spend that amount would then be required. He noted Boulder and Commerce City were not
including a specific amount in their ballot questions. He did not believe, based on the language in
Amendment 1, that TOV had to include a specific amount in this particular ballot question.
Mery Lapin felt an advantage of putting a specific amount in the ordinance was that if the question
passed, it would differentiate TOV. He said Amendment 1's author, Doug Bruce, was making an
argument against these ballot questions for not including specific amounts. Mery asked if the ballot
question did declare a specific amount whether that would differentiate TOV and keep TOV
protected from a challenge by Bruce. Tom Moorhead replied that would put TOV in an independent
position as opposed to taking the same position as other municipalities. He said it was clear that if
a specific amount was picked and it was exceeded, TOV would be in the position of having to make
a refund unless the voters approved spending that additional amount. He repeated there was
nothing in Amendment 1's language stating a specific figure had to be included in a revenue change.
He said that a specific amount included in TOV's ballot question would have to be so large that it
could cause concern among the voters. In addition, other issues that would be on the ballot would
make it very difficult to predict what kind of revenue situation TOV might be in next year. After
discussion about various reasons for and against including a specific amount, Tom Moorhead advised
leaving the specific amount out.
Steve Thompson felt Bruce would retort by saying the reason the specific amount needed to be
included was because once that amount was exceeded, no matter when, Amendment 1 would require
going back to a vote. Steve added that was how Bruce set that up, but the courts were not
necessarily looking at what the intent was when they were reviewing some of these cases. Steve felt
no matter which way TOV chose to word the ballot question, it would not be satisfactory to Bruce.
VM1 Town Council E—t g Meeting Minrtes 9/7/93
Tom Steinberg stated TOV should not be allowing Bruce to dictate what TOV did. Rob LeVine
agreed. Steve noted the attorney for Boulder had been working on Amendment 1 since day one with
CML committees, and he felt comfortable following what Boulder was doing.
After discussion, it was agreed the ordinance language be changed to read, "An ordinance submitting
to the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election to be held on
Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of whether the Town of Vail should be authorized
to collect and spend the full revenues generated including reduction in debt service during 1994 and
each subsequent year [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property
taxes] without any increase in such tax rates and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal
operations, and capital projects, effective January 1, 1994; authorizing the Town Council to adopt
annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting
forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the election; providing for conduct of the election;
providing further details in relation to the foregoing."
After Council questions about sales taxes, ski lift ticket taxes, and real estate transfer taxes, Jim
Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, on first reading, with the language
changes as stated above.
Before a vote was taken, there was discussion about the benefits of making the ordinance effective
January 1, 1993. Jim Gibson amended his motion to further change the ordinance to have it become
effective January 1, 1993. Jim Shearer seconded the amended motion. Rob LeVine felt that could be
harmful if it gave the perception that there were excess revenues in 1993.
After further discussion about rationale for making the ordinance retroactive, a vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 8 was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993, a resolution waiving a restriction on residential
condominium unit #3 at the Red Lion hin Condominiums to allow a minor exterior alteration for the
expansion of the residential condominium unit. The applicant, Jay Peterson was present. Jim
Curnutte reviewed the description of the request as detailed in the CDD's memo dated July 26,1993,
to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). He stated when this property was
redeveloped several years ago, there was a restriction put in the Declaration of Covenants for the
property which stated there would be no exterior modifications which increased the GRFA on this
building, However, as detailed in the above referenced memo, the Condominium Declaration
indicated the restriction could not be amended without the prior written consent of the Vail Town
Council, and, therefore, Council did have the ability to review the minor exterior alteration requested.
If Council felt the intent of the restriction was not being violated, they could approve the resolution
to allow for the alteration. Tom Steinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993, with
a second from Rob LeVine. Before a vote was taken, Rob asked if the specifics of this proposal
would apply to any potential waiving of restrictions in the future. Jim Curnutte advised that
Resolution No. 19, Series of 1993, was prepared to be very specific to this request only. Any future
request would have to go through this same process. Under discussion, it was noted there was a
. conflict in Section 1 of the Resolution. It was agreed to amend the language in that section referring
to exterior modification. Tom Steinberg amended his motion to include the language amendment
discussed. Rob LeVine amended his second. After brief discussion about the projects GRFA and
note that a new definition of GRFA had been adopted, a vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 9 was Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993, a resolution to offer amnesty for a limited period
of time from the 1.5% per month penalty provided in Paragraph 14, Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992,
for delinquent assessments in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. Mayor Osterfoss read
the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained there were presently seven assessed property owners who
had failed to pay their assessments, and they would be certified to Eagle County as delinquent
October 1, 1993. He advised there had been several discussions with some of the property owners
within the last week and they had indicated they wanted to come current, but they had not realized
there was a penalty. They realized there was interest, but not a penalty. Tom Moorhead noted that
Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, clearly called for the penalty, and based upon that ordinance, the
penalty of 1.5% per month was in effect. He added that a letter had been sent out in December, 1992,
announcing the Public Hearing in regard to the assessment, but that letter referred only to an interest
payment, and not to the penalty payment. After speaking with some of those assessed, it seemed
if there were amnesty offered, several of them would come within compliance. He said he had
discussed this with Steve Thompson and Steve Barwick, and it was felt this was an opportunity to
bring some of those delinquent property owners into compliance prior to the date of the certification.
• Passage of this resolution would also put these property owners on notice that they were not in
compliance and that there would be no question that the penalty for 1993, as well as for 1994, would
be in effect. Mery Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993, with a second from
Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 10 was a presentation of a meeting planner demand analysis for the Vail Valley
Vail Town Council E—ing Meeting Minutes 9/7M
Performance & Conference Center (VVP&CC) as called for in TOV's Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993.
Caroline Tremblay distributed a document summarizing selected highlights of the VVP&CC Meeting
Planner Demand Analysis of the Conference Center prepared by Benton & Hire in August 1993. She
noted a copy of the full report was available upon request. Caroline discussed, in detail, primary
issues including the size of groups most likely to meet in Vail, when those groups were most likely
to meet in Vail, how often the conference center would be used, the effect of the conference center
on area hotels, how many new meetings would come to Vail because of the conference center, and
what the meeting numbers meant for the local economy. The summary asked the question if the
estimated return of $10,765,000-$13,456,250/year was worth the investment of $2.1 million/year. The
Benton & Hire report concluded it was.
Noting there were many different ways to calculate what the proposed performance and conference
center's economic impact on the community would be, Caroline explained some of the details of how
the research was done. She stated that meeting attendee expenditures were determined by the
International Association of Convention Visitors Bureau's (IACVB) average expenditures from
meeting planners. To emphasize that VVP&CC planners were taking the most conservative approach
to arrive at the figures they had, she compared IACVB's figures with the Colorado Tourism Bureau's
(CTB) retail spending habits of visitors to this State. She felt that the estimated return each year was
worth the $2.1 million. The $2.1 million would be funded by tax revenues, if the proposed 0.9%
restaurant and bar tax and the proposed 1.8% lodging tax were passed by the voters, combined with
private contributions, Town of Vail contributions, and revenue bonds would pay for the construction,
marketing and operation of the proposed conference center.
Tom Steinberg indicated that one of the continuing controversies he had been hearing was that this
" proposed conference space offered nothing for the visual arts. He felt it might be reasonable at the
present time to divert some of the meeting space to an environmentally controlled space for visual
arts. He stated he did not think the conference center size should be cut back, but perhaps converted
for the next ten years or so to solve the visual arts problem, and then, if the space was needed for
conventions, it could all be converted to convention space. Caroline felt there were certain
modifications that needed to be made in the design to accommodate the needs of the meeting
planners and that would be the addition of break-out rooms, the addition of partitions, and the
addition of permanent registration areas. She said there was also some space which could be
modified to accommodate local visual arts. She said that was something that was another phase in
the design process but was something the Steering Committee was in favor of. She said they were
in favor of having a small room in the existing facility for the visual arts. She felt that would happen
in the final design. She stated right now they were in Plan C of the design phase and she was certain
there were going to be some changes. Tom Steinberg felt it was important for it to be said that a
visual arts area was being considered. Caroline advised she had spoken with the local visual arts
community and had met with the president of the Vail Valley Arts Council and discussed the
Steering Committee's plans and expressed support for the visual arts space in this facility. The Vail
Valley Arts Council's primary concern was that they felt they had been promised a space in the past
which they had not gotten, and they were apprehensive about getting it now. Caroline said she
assured them that they would get a space similar to what was presently available to them at the
Library. She said the Arts Council cautioned against the VVP&CC implying that they were offering
something that would not be. Caroline totally agreed with that, saying the Steering Committee
would like to have a room in the facility that could be used for local arts and traveling shows, but
they were not planning to build a performance center, a conference center, and a museum. Tom
Steinberg added that room for visual arts would need special heating and air conditioning because
loaners of expensive art would not even consider loaning the art unless security could be guaranteed.
Caroline said the designs were still preliminary, but those issues would be taken into account.
Mayor Osterfoss noted that, in addition to the $10-$13 million incremental conference center return,
it would be fair to say there would also be the return of performance facility, because, as she
understood it, the two proposals were, in fact, linked together. She felt that it was worth mentioning
that would create a substantial return in terms of cultural value to the community.
There was discussion about endowments to support performances at the proposed performance side
of the facility. Such endowments were set forth as requirements in TOV's Resolution No. 8, Series
of 1993. Caroline said current plans included endowments to support the performing arts. Mery
asked Tom Moorhead about part of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, which stated that monies would
be "... accumulated for no longer than three years before beginning construction on a facility ..." He
asked Tom Moorhead what if the generation of revenues took more than three years. Tom Moorhead
said the revenues would be earmarked for construction, maintenance and operation of the
performance and conference center, and if revenues were collected and not used, he believed the
issue would have to go back to the voters for an extension or for alternative use direction. Tom
Moorhead confirmed that if it took more than three years to generate the necessary and required
revenues, construction could not begin. He pointed out that an ordinance and ballot question still
had to be drafted to refer the issue to the voters.
Mery Lapin asked how sales taxes would be refunded if necessary, and inquired if the forthcoming
Vail Town C—il Evening Meeting W-tn 9M/9a
u
10
ordinance was where the potential refunding issue would be addressed. Tom Moorhead said
refunding previously collected taxes was a very delicate issue; it was a very difficult proposal, and
no one had yet come up with strong suggestions on how those taxes would be refunded. It was
suggested the taxes could possibly be refunded through the provision of additional services by TOV.
Jim Gibson asked if Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, could be extended. He asked if there were any
legal ramifications with parenting money. If at the end of three years building was not eminent,
could the resolution be extended without going to the voters. Tom Moorhead said that would
depend on the ballot question, but he needed to research this further.
There was further discussion about ramifications to TOV should inadequate revenues be raised in
the stated time period. Rob LeVine said he wanted to add to Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, that
the portion of such additional taxes which specifically paid for debt reduction would sunset when
the debt was retired. He moved to strike Section 2(A) of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, given that
contingency had been met by the presentation made by Caroline Tremblay at this meeting. Jim
Gibson did not feel it needed to be stricken, it was just one of the contingencies that had already been
satisfied. Tom Moorhead explained that Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, had been passed, adopted,
and was effective. He noted that a resolution reflected Council's position on matters that were of a
temporary nature. He indicated changes discussed at this meeting would be properly included
within "whereases" in the ordinance yet to be drafted.
Mery Lapin asked how the proposed ordinance would address the issue of the inadequate generation
of revenues raised by the tax related to carrying the cost of the proposed performance and conference
center's building and maintenance. He stated he did not want those costs to end up as property tax.
Torn Moorhead indicated further research was necessary. Caroline also had no. answer to that
question. After further discussion, Tom Moorhead advised in light of Amendment 1, he did not
think the ballot question needed to provide for the possible eventuality of needing more tax dollars
in the future. He believed Council was limited by having to go back to the voters to ask for those
tax dollars. He said a figure would have to be computed as to how much would be raised in the first
year. He advised this would be addressed in the forthcoming ordinance which he hoped to have
prepared for first reading at the September 21, 1993, Regular Evening Meeting. Caroline said there
was always the chance their budget was not accurate, but the numbers had been reviewed and the
figures were believed to be conservative. If there was error, she felt they were erring on the
conservative side. She said she understood Merv's concern, but that the Steering Committee had
approached this as a private enterprise business and that the numbers presented were firm numbers
they believed in. Rob LeVine thanked Caroline for extensive work on this effort.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
ATTEST:
Holly cCutcheon, Tawn Clerk
Minutes taken by Dodanne S. Deto
[aO3na6�C arr�cxl
Respectfully submitted,
�, 4Dn >
Marr gar& A. Osterfoss, Mayor — —�
Vail Town Council E ffig Meeting Minutes 919193