Loading...
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