Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-05 Town Council Minutesr. • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 5, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 5, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Rob LeVine Bob Buckley Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Tom Steinberg TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager 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 the Minutes of the December 1, 1992, December 15, 1992, and December 22, 1992 Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. B. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Chapter 2.36 - Limitation of Terms, to provide for the limitation of terms for all members of permanent Town of Vail Boards and Commissions. C. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code, adding sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. D. Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing Section 11 of Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1987, Subsection 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (This ordinance concerns a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to remove a previous condition of approval for Unit No. 30, Phase I, Vail Village Plaza Condominiums/100 East Meadow Drive.) Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, L.P./Frank Cicero. Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Due to requests for further discussion on both Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, and Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, Rob LeVine moved to remove items B & C from the Consent Agenda, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Jim Gibson then moved to approve Consent Agenda item A, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Jim Gibson also moved to approve Consent Agenda item D, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-0-1, Bob Buckley abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Mayor Osterfoss felt Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, an ordinance providing for limitation of terms for all members of permanent TOV Boards and Commissions, should include language to allow incumbents to apply for reappointment if not enough new applicants applied for vacant positions. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1992, on second reading, with a change to indicate that, in the event there was an insufficient I Y. number of applicants for openings on permanent TOV Boards and Commissions, incumbent members who had served more than eight consecutive years would be eligible to apply for reappointment. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-1, Bob Buckley opposed. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, an ordinance concerning an amendment to Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code to add sledding and tobogganning parks as a conditional use was discussed next. Bob Buckley stepped down due to a conflict of interest. A memo dated 1217/92 from the Community Development Department (CDD) to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) detailed a description of the request, background information, the proposed Code amendment, an analysis of the proposed Code amendment, and staffs recommendation that given the fact the proposed use would be allowed only after approval of the conditional review, the requested code amendment would have few, if any unmitigated negative impacts. The proposed addition to the zoning code would allow Vail Associates, Inc. (VA) to apply for a conditional use permit to operate a sledding and tobogganning park (s/t park) in the Lionshead area, specifically on an unplatted tract of land currently owned by VA located south of Gore Creek near the skier bridge, under Chair 8. Kristan Pritz noted seven letters of opposition from residents of the area being considered had been received. Art Abplanalp, attorney representing several residents in opposition to this proposed amendment, began a lengthy discussion by first retailing he had appeared before Council in December, 1992, after becoming aware VA had requested approval of a proposed amendment to Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open Space District (AOSD), of the Vail Municipal Code, to include s/t parks in the list of conditional uses outlined in Section • 18.32.030. He indicated, after examination of material VA had distributed to property owners adjoining the area VA proposed for a sh park, everyone of the property owners who would be affected by the known impact of this ordinance were opposed to it. He referred to the universality of opposition to this text amendment as primarily being site specific, but noted the objections were also generalized as to the impact of this type of change within the AOSD on adjoining properties. Mr. Abplanalp stated it was recognized this ordinance was a proposal for a text amendment, but felt the impact of this type of conditional use was important. He distributed copies of VA's proposal as characteristic of the type of use being considered for this district. Mayor Osterfoss asked Mr. Abplanalp why he considered a sh park different from other conditional uses shown in Section 18.32,030 of Chapter 18.32 of the Vail Municipal Code. She indicated that was the focus of this discussion, and Council could not discuss an application they had not received, although Mr. Abplanalp contended an application from VA had been submitted to the CDD perhaps two months ago. He felt Council would not have considered the change if VA had not proposed the sit park. He said TOV had received a proposal and decided to change the zoning laws to fit it. He said that was the reverse of the way the process should work. He felt that was the problem. Mayor Osterfoss repeated Council did not review information that had not been presented to them. She repeated throughout the discussion that the proposed change was a conceptual change, not a plan for a sh park. Larry Eskwith advised no application was presently before Council, and added there could be no application for this issue without a change in the zoning. He . emphasized potential conditional use applications were not argued before they were made. Mr. Abplanalp argued, this being a text amendment, people who might be impacted were not notified and given the opportunity to respond. Now aware of the proposed amendment, those people who would be impacted either by a specific application which may have been filed, or any application, have conveyed to Council problems they saw with the text amendment. He said they did not feel the intensive commercial use resulting from a sh park run on a commercial basis was consistent with either present uses, the purpose of, or other conditional uses within the Code. He noted VA owned the land proposed for this park, and felt VA would not take on liability risks associated with this project unless there was significant income potential. For that reason, he said it must be assumed there would be a great deal of activity there, and, again, stated that was not consistent with AOSD purposes. Night lighting, parking problems, increased traffic, and security risks to homeowners' properties in the area were among other generalized concerns cited as reasons for why this amendment should not be granted. Mr. Abplanalp felt there was a technical problem with the procedure being followed. He referred to Vail Municipal Code 18.66.150, which required TOV to hold a public hearing on applications after receipt of a report and recommendations from the PEC. The following Section provided TOV act on proposed zoning amendments within twenty days after the closing of a public hearing. Mr. Abplanalp felt the logical reading of that was there first was a hearing on an application, then a decision on whether to develop and ordinance. He did not feel that procedure had happened in this case. He felt there was not only no notice to people who would be affected, there had been no hearing. He felt the procedural aspect 2 of this should be reviewed. Mayor Osterfoss clarified this was a public hearing, and all regularly scheduled evening meetings of the Vail Town Council, in addition to all meeting of the Vail Town Council were public meetings. Larry Eskwith added second readings of all ordinances were designated in the Charter as public hearings, and the zoning code had been complied with in this matter. Art suggested the ordinance suggested that public hearings come before TOV decided to adopt an ordinance, in other words, before first reading. Mr. Abplanalp stated some of the property owners who have had experiences with this type of conditional use did not believe there was a practical way of controlling conditional uses. Jim Gibson noted there were 37 individual parcels zoned AOSD. Under 18.32.050, each parcel was required to be a minimum of 35 acres. Kristan advised there were AOSD parcels in existence that did not meet the minimum lot size, but were parcels already in existence before the minimum requirement of 35 acres was established. If a new AOSD parcel were being created, it now would have to meet the minimum lot size requirement. Jim Gibson felt the number of parcels that could physically accommodate a s/t park should be known because this may indeed not be just a text change, but may be site specific. Jim Gibson asked if an AOSD parcel had to be a minimum of 35 acres in order to be used as a s(t park, and Kristan advised it did not. Jim Gibson's main objection was that of the 37 lots zoned for AOSD, there was no answer as to how many could conceivably house a s/t park. Kristan was not able to give Jim Gibson specifics. Jim Gibson felt a new s/t area would probably be a commercial venture, and, if that was the case, it might be found the only commercial opportunity was Lionshead, making this ordinance more than a text change; it could be site specific. Kristan indicated staff could do a general site analysis of which parcels might have some potential. Although there was no wording in the ordinance requiring s/t parks as a conditional use being commercial, it was established all 37 parcels would be eligible to apply for conditional use permits for s/t parks, but there was no foregone conclusion they would be appropriate for that sort of conditional use permit. Kristan said she felt staff had focused on the fact that although private recreation facilities were mentioned in the AOSD Purpose Statement, they were not listed in the list of Permitted or Conditional Uses. Public parks, recreation areas, and open space, however, were permitted uses. Staff had decided the proposed use was not a public park because it was a privately run operation for commercial purposes, and therefore they felt a zoning code amendment was necessary. She said staff felt this use made sense within the zone district, and, in fact, one recommendation through the zoning code amendment process was to change the name of the zone district to Open Space and Recreation District, as the term "agricultural" was misleading. Britt Anderson, representing Lawrence Field, John Jordan, and Burton Lasso (property owners in the area potentially affected by the proposal submitted to the PEC by VA,) also felt if it had not been for VA's proposal, there would be no issue of changing the ordinance. She said no need or interest had been shown for this project by the public. She stated it had to do with a site specific proposal made by VA dealing with the proposed plan in the Lionshead area. She felt the focus for the change in zoning was there to accommodate a potential application, and that was a backward way of dealing with good governing. Joe Macy spoke briefly to note staff had described what the application was for. It was an application that would allow a change in • the zoning code to allow applicants to apply for s/t parks in AOSD's as a conditional use. He added that did not mean staff would react favorably to the application or that the PEC would approve it. It was only an application which would allow any applicant, any owner of any of the 37 parcels to apply for a s/t park as a conditional use. He noted Vail was a winter sports resort, and that sledding and tobogganning were as much a part of winter sports as skiing, and there were people who would like to pursue this in a safe and controlled manner. He felt certain there was public support for it. Don Byers expressed concern about people living next to the other 36 parcels. He felt they had not had the benefit of any knowledge of this, and should be given an opportunity to be heard from if this would change allowed uses on their parcels. Kristan advised when a conditional use goes to the PEC, any property owners affected by proposals were notified. After further discussion regarding procedures related to specific applications and public hearings, Mr. Abplanalp and Ms. Anderson again indicated the property owners they represented were unilaterally opposed to the proposed A park. Mayor Osterfoss asked it be recognized there would be specific discussion about any application, and that would be opponents opportunity to say a specific application was inappropriate. Any application would have to go through the process, be thoroughly reviewed, and meet established criteria. After individual Council member input, Jim Gibson moved to table Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, until it was known how many parcels could be used for commercial sledding and tobogganning parks. Rob LeVine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, there was further discussion about the procedures for determining appropriateness of a parcel for this use, and about parcels that could be practically used for commercial development of sh parks. Kristan mentioned a number of private parcels with potential including the west area of Potato Patch, the Spraddle Creek area owned by the U.S. Forest Service, Tract E by Millcreek Circle and the Vista Bahn, an area above Red Sandstone Park, and the Abe Shapiro land, indicating it did appear there were more than one or two sites of AOSD that could be used for this purpose. Jim Gibson then withdrew his motion to table the ordinance, and Rob LeVine withdrew his second of that motion. Rob LeVine then moved to approve Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1992, on second reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. After brief criticism from Mr. Abplanalp, who dismissed half of the parcels Kristan mentioned for a variety of reasons, a vote was then taken and the motion failed 3-1- 1, Jim Gibson opposed; Bob Buckley abstaining. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, to provide changes to Area A requirements for SDD No. 4 that concern the development plans for The Waterford and The Cornerstone Development Building Sites; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicants were MECM Enterprises and Commercial Federal Savings. Shelly Mello briefly reviewed the status of this proposal as detailed in the CDD's memo to Council dated December 30, 1992, noting on December 7, 1992, the PEC recommended approval for a request to amend SDD No. 4, Cascade Village, Area A. On December Sth and 15th, 1992, Council reviewed the proposed amendment during work sessions. At that time, Council suggested a number of modifications to the project, including changes to the density and unit types on the Cornerstone building site. There was also further discussion as to the status of Westhaven Drive. As a result of feedback from Council, the applicant had chosen to modify the Cornerstone project to allow a single development plan for the Cornerstone site with 64 transient units versus the two development scenarios previously proposed to the PEC on December 7, 1992. With the current proposal there were no dwelling units located in the Cornerstone project. The applicant had not made any modifications to the Waterford project since the PEC review. All statistics for the Waterford listed in the CDD's December 7, 1992, memo to the PEC were up-to-date. The changes made to the Cornerstone project as a result of Council's feedback during work sessions were incorporated into Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, first reading. Rather than review the entire issue again, Kristan Pritz advised CDD would supply further explanation to any interested parties. Shelly added, being this was an SDD project, in order to change any type of density or development plans, including architectural design, a major amendment had to be proposed and approved. That was the process now underway. She noted full details regarding the PEC's recommendations to approve a minor subdivision and major amendment to SDD No. 4 Cascade Village to amend the Development Plan for Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A were detailed in the memo to Council dated December 8, 1992. Howard Stone initiated a lengthy discussion concerning the outstanding issue of the ownership status of Westhaven Drive from S. Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge. It was noted the road was owned by the Waterford project applicant, MECM Enterprises, and was privately maintained by a separate entity. This road had not been conveyed to TOV as it did not meet TOVs standards, including the skybridge across the road. Discussion concerning the specifics related to the road grade, • construction, and building clearance beneath the pedestrian bridge followed. Mr. Stone asked whose technical and financial obligation it was to bring the road up to standards. Shelly advised the applicant's for Waterford had agreed to bring the portion of the road from the South Frontage Road to the cul-de-sac up to standards and dedicate that portion and a public easement for the remainder of the road to the Gore Creek bridge. The Cornerstone developers had also agreed to perform the necessary tests which included borings to determine base compaction and an as -built profile of the road to determine the condition of the road in front of their project as part of this amendment. However, the completion of all of all of the improvements were not being required by staff. Essentially, the testing was necessary to determine a cost estimate for repairs. For the record, Mayor Osterfoss explained, initially, one developer had been involved with the entire SDD. There were now individual developers, and the Cascade Village Association (CVA), had, to a large extent, taken over responsibility for this road in lieu of the initial developer. Considering this development already had special zoning, and further accommodations were being requested, Mr. Stone did not feel it would be inappropriate for TOV to seek a final conclusion from the new developers on this aspect of the project. Mayor Osterfoss added CVA had members including the Westin, the Cascade Club, and the developers of this project. The new developers, being a part of CVA, were as responsible as all members of CVA, for the needed road improvements. Kay Saulsbury, representing Colorado Mountain College, the Colorado Mountain Condominium Association, and CVA, expressed concerns about the remainder of the road not being dealt with through this proposal. She encouraged Council to look at accepting the road as it was, and assume some responsibility for upgrading it. Rob LeVine asked what guarantees there were that the developer would be part of a future solution to the road problem. Fred Otto, MECM applicant, indicated guarantees were in the form of economic motivation. He stated it was correctly pointed out that they were members of CVA, and CVA had lien rights, taxing authority, and could force assessments against all CVA members to maintain that road. He suggested CVA find a way to capitalize the annual cost of maintaining that road and try to convert that into cost of repairs. He stated the problem was no one knew what that cost was. As dues paying CVA members, they would continue to participate and collectively find solutions. Mr. Otto viewed CVA as a political entity. He said it had been created by protective covenant and had senior lien rights. Ms. Saulsbury, CVA board member, said she believed the new developers would have to become members of CVA. She felt the new owners should take responsibility for the road, but Rob observed this issue involved an entire SDD stretching beyond the limits of the model displayed at this meeting. In that respect, he felt members of the entire SDD were ultimately the group responsible for solving the problem. He felt it was appropriate to expect the new developers to improve the area of the road adjacent to their property, and noted they had said they would do that. Beyond that, he also felt it was appropriate for them to participate in the future improvement of the rest of the road. After further discussion, including consideration of tabling this ordinance until the parties involved reached a timely resolution to the problem, it was agreed the first step was to ascertain the cost of undertaking repairs, and that would require a cooperative effort between all entities to organize a process to bring the road up to standards so TOV could take it over and the SDD could be relieved of maintenance costs for it. He stated they MECM would contribute • $5,000.00 to a study the total cost of the problem, but he felt guidance from TOV was needed. Estacquio Cortina stated they were willing to cooperate, but he wanted Council participation to help solve the problem and avoid lost construction time. Bob Buckley moved to approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Rob LeVine. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson advised he was going to vote against approval because he wanted to see: (1) a traffic study, (2) a resolution of the circulation problems, (3) a forum or format of cooperation between all the entities using the road, and (4) a commitment to bring the road up to TOV standards. Then, he indicated, TOV would take over the road and relieve the maintenance problems being experienced there. There was further examination regarding a collective effort to solve the problem. Ron Phillips then suggested there was a way to work out short-term (3-5 year) financing to accomplish this project if, with the aid of a local financial institution, TOV and the financial institution could get an agreement from CVA that what they now paid for maintenance each year would be dedicated for as long as it took to repay. Take the maintenance costs, capitalize that into something to fund the improvements. Mr. Otto had offered to take the lead to find out what it was going to cost to try to quantify that. Ron suggested putting the cost of assessing the improvements into that total and try to put together a financing package that could be paid off with the assessments. Jim Gibson felt that was a good suggestion. With the agreement that the road would be brought up to standards and a plan for paying for that, Jim Gibson felt the problem could be solved. The a suggestion was made that the assessment currently levied against CVA members be used to pay off the indebtedness to bring the road up to standards and TOV would then accept the road. Jim Gibson called the question. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. The applicants were directed to pursue the above referenced financing plan before second reading, at which time a determination on whether to proceed or not would be made. Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993, 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. Rob LeVine moved to approve Resolution No. 1, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Item No. 5 was a review of an Agreement between Town of Vail and Vail Associates, Inc. (VA) regarding VA's use of the athletic field parking lot. Bob Buckley stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Larry Eskwith explained this was a license agreement which would give VA the non-exclusive right to utilize the athletic field for parking this year. He added it provided VA would indemnify and insure TOV, and that VA would repair and maintain the athletic field parking lot while they were using it. Joe Macy noted this had been discussed at Council work session, and Council had suggested this agreement be made a concrete, situation and develop contract to formalize the agreement. Jim Shearer moved to approve this Agreement between Town of Vail and Vail Associates, Inc. regarding the athletic field parking lot, with a second from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-0-1, • Bob Buckley abstaining. Item No. 6 was the review of a sign variance request for Garton's Saloon at Crossroads Shopping Center located at 143 E. Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5-D, Vail Village list Filing. The applicant was Garton Development. Dave Garton was present. Shelly Mello noted staff and the DRB had unanimously recommended approval of the sign variance. It would allow for a sign to be hung on an awning which was not adjacent or connected to the business, although it was connected to the Crossroads Building. Full particulars of the description of the request, findings and staff responses, and staff recommendations were detailed in the CDD's memo to the DRB dated December 16, 1992. Shelly noted there were four items in that memo which discussed why staff felt there was a hardship, including a safety issue. Jim Shearer moved to approve the sign variance request as proposed with findings per the CDD memo dated December 16, 1992, and the findings of the DRB. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5-0. Before adjournment, Pam Brandmeyer briefly reviewed dates, times, and places of a number of upcoming functions and meetings. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. LJ ATTEST: Respectfully submitted, IF1, _ _u., t * a ��L��•if?(.Ud`uJ Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Acting Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dodanne S. Deto 16 40 C-ANWAN5.92