HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-20 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 20, 1993
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 20, 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 -Tern
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg (arrived at 8:30 P.M.)
Rob LeVine (arrived at 8:30 P.M.
Bob Buckley
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Blondie Vucich expressed concern
about the increase of pet waste in public places and the difficulty with enforcing TOV's
ordinance requiring pet owners to clean up and dispose of their animal's waste. She
introduced and demonstrated a "user-friendly" product called "Pet Pick -Ups". She explained
this product provided an easy, sanitary, affordable, and environmentally responsible way for
pet owners to pick up their pet's waste. She suggested placing these devices in public places
to provide pet owners with an easy opportunity to clean up. She felt fines paid by individuals
ticketed for choosing not to clean up after their pets would be one way to create a revenue
source for TOV to pay for the devices on a long-term basis. Ms. Vucich noted the success of
this product in Boulder, and indicated Eagle County Animal Control had express willingness
to endorse use of the product. Ms. Vucich advised she would supply further information to
Larry Grafel for Todd Oppenheimer's review.
Item No. 2 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance
No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and
providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses;
development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting
forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. After brief discussion,
Mery Lapin moved to rescind action taken on Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first
reading. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 4-0. Mery Lapin then moved to refer Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 back
to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for reconsideration. Bob Buckley
• seconded the motion. A vote was taken and that motion also passed unanimously, 4-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending
Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,16.20.010,16.20.220,16.22.010,16.22.160,16.26.010,
16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition
of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing
regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and
interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the
title in full. Kristan Pritz requested Council table this ordinance to August 3, 1993. Mery
Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, to August 3, 1993.
Bob Buckley seconded the motion. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 4-0.
Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending
Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) 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, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested Council table this ordinance
until August 3, 1993. Mery Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, to August
3, 1993, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 4-0.
Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title
12 - Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of
Chapter 12.16 - Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz
• noted Council had reviewed this item at a Work Session several weeks ago, and there were
no major changes to the ordinance since then. She noted the right of way permit fee amounts
referred to in the ordinance had been left blank. She said standard revocable right of way
permits, were now part of almost every residential project involving landscaping that goes
from the property line out to the edge of pavement. She said that this type of landscaping
was encouraged. Kristan suggested there not be a fee for that type of revocable right of way
permit, but Council might want to consider a fee for permits involving major streetscape
improvements that would encroach on Town land. Kristan referred to Section D(1) of the
ordinance, and advised that staff was working with the Mill Creek Court representatives on
this ordinance, and, at the Work Session, they had indicated that they felt design and labor
costs should also be included in the total project cost that would be amortized. Then on
ordinance Section D(2), she noted the reference should be to paragraph D, not paragraph C.
Jim Lamont stated he felt this ordinance was a major step forward in getting the private
sector to participate with the public in making streetscape improvements that conform to the
Streetscape Master Plan, and he urged Council to consider including design and, particularly,
labor costs in the approval of this ordinance because if these costs were included on a case
by case basis, this approach gave protection to the government because there was an
understanding both from the government and private side as to what legitimate design and
• labor costs were.
Mery Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on first reading, with
ordinance Section B(4) concerning right of way permit fees completed to read NONE. Jim
Shearer seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan what
her response was to Mr. Lamont's suggestion. Kristan said the design and labor costs could
add up. She said staff had not changed the ordinance to include design and labor costs as
it was Council's desire to try to cap the total amortization cost, and she suggested alternate
wording for Section D(1) that would supply some flexibility, "The amortization schedule shall
be based on the hard costs of the improvement and, on a case by case basis, design and/or
labor costs may be included in the total amortized project costs." She said there may be some
projects where that cost would really be quite great. But Mery said it would always become
an issue if we wanted to tear out the project. Kristan stated it was staff opinion that most
of the improvements that would be allowed through this ordinance would not be torn out
because TOV had a Town Engineer, a Community Development Department, a Planning and
Environmental Commission, and a Council who all had an idea of what they wanted to see
in the future. She stated the TOV has master plans which were used to make decisions, and
Kristan felt it would be very unlikely, short of the unforeseeable, that these improvements
would be removed.
. it was suggested that a clause covering TOV's liability should be included in the case of an
emergency. Mery Lapin asked that "emergency" be specifically defined. Mr. Lamont said he
could not speak for the particular costs, but said he felt that the ordinance was dealing with
the reassurance to property owners making major investments. He felt there should be some
degree of flexibility when and if emergency situations occur. He thought that when a
property owner began to construct a project, the labor costs, depending on the sophistication
of the project, were a major concern. Mery remained concerned as to whether TOV was
responsible for repairing damage. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the utility companies had
responsibility for repairing damaged improvements. Kristan said staff would look at this
more closely for second reading, but noted Section D(2) of the ordinance stated in part,
"Should the improvement be destroyed or eliminated for any reason other than the Town of
Vail's revocation of the permit which (was) described below, the Town shall not be liable for
any payment to the permittee. She felt the intent there was that if there was an Act of God
or major emergency with the utilities the Town would not be liable for improvements. Mayor
Osterfoss asked, if there was an emergency and landscaping or repairs had to be made, was
it clear in the ordinance that that was not a homeowner's cost. Tom Moorhead advised that
normally it would be at their cost. Mayor Osterfoss said she felt that needed to be addressed,
and Tom was directed to consider situations involving emergencies with utilities and
incorporate appropriate language into the ordinance for second reading. Again, Mr. Lamont
said, on a case by case basis, if it was known there was a utility in a project area, that could
it be part of the contract agreement if it appeared to be a potential problem.
2
Before a vote was taken, there was discussion about a design cost limit. Jim Shearer felt a
specific amount should be stated. He suggested up to $1,000. Kristan said $1,000 would be
used up very quickly. Jim Shearer said he was looking at it in terms of either having no
funds or having at least $1,000. Mayor Osterfoss noted, historically, once specific amounts
. have been incorporated into an ordinance, a review of those amounts was needed every few
years. Mr. Lamont felt, in any event, preferred to see Council in the position of having to
make the final determination on the amount they would award in a particular negotiating
agreement. It was conceivable to Mr. Lamont that some of the projects outlined in the
Streetscape Plan and other Plans that could happen in the future could be major public/
private partnerships. He felt this ordinance provided the foundation for that discussion to
take place. Bob Buckley agreed with Jim Shearer, but he did not want to discourage people
from participation, and thought putting a limitation on design costs was a major disincentive.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0.
Item No. 6 was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support of the Vail
Town Council for Plan "C" of the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center, submitting
at the Regular Municipal Election a new tax on restaurants and bars and lodgings, and
expressing the intention of the Town of Vail to commit funds toward the construction of the
Center, Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead felt the resolution was
straightforward and noted the language therein was not the exact language that would be
considered for placement on the November, 1993, ballot. Rob LeVine and Tom Steinberg
arrived at 8:30 P.M. during discussion of this issue. After lengthy discussion concerning the
amount of the revenue bonds TOV would issue consistent with the 0.9% tax on restaurants
and bars and 1.8% tax on lodging which revenue would be dedicated to the construction,
marketing, and operations of a performance and conference center, when the bonds should
be issued, and possible shortfalls and projections, Council was reminded the primary point
of this resolution at this time was to show Council's support for the project. Mr. Lamont
stated he was pleased to see the depth and examination being given to this issue, but he
asked Council to reserve judgement until the voice of the community was heard. Bob Buckley
noted this project had been under study for three (3) years and felt it needed strong
endorsement from Council at this time. Caroline Tremblay added that the reason such
strong endorsement was needed was so that potential major donors could more effectively be
approached. After further discussion, Rob LeVine moved to approve Resolution No. 8, Series
of 1993, with a change to the amount of revenues bonds TOV would issue to the specific
amount of twelve million six hundred thousand dollars ($12,600,00.00), and with a change
to the language in contingency item C to read, "The receipt of pledges of charitable
contributions from private sources in an amount that is the difference between the total
project cost and the amount of money raised by the above referenced tax plus Town of Vail's
contribution." Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mery Lapin
said he was voting for the motion because he did not want to be perceived as being against
the project. Mayor Osterfoss also asked that federal regulations be checked and Council be
provided with any additional pertinent information as it became available. After brief
• discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Bob Buckley announced that he had resigned from Vail Associates, Inc. effective July 12,
1993, and would not have a conflict of interest with the following agenda item.
Item No. 7 was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) decision to
not allow the removal of a dwelling unit in the A & D Building/286 Bridge Street/Lots A-
D/Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. The appellant was Vail Associates, Inc. Mike Mollica
summarized the Community Development Department (CDD) memo to the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) dated May 24,1993, including a description of the request,
a zoning analysis, criteria and findings, a review of similar requests, and staffs
recommendation. The description of the request within the above referenced memo noted
that Barry Florescue, owner of the A&D Building was requesting a conditional use permit
to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit within the Commercial Core I zone district.
Vail Associates Real Estate currently operates a real estate office, of approximately 575
square feet, on the ground floor of the A&D Building and was now interested in expanding
their existing real estate office through the conversion of a second floor residential
condominium, of approximately 1,820 square feet, located on the second floor immediately
above the existing real estate office. Because the existing area proposed to be converted to
a professional office was currently a three bedroom condominium, a conditional use permit
would be required. Staff recommended denial of the requested conditional use permit to
eliminate the dwelling unit within the Commercial Core I zone district. The PEC had voted
4-1-1 to not allow the request. Staff felt that although the request had no impacts on six (6)
of the seven (7) review criteria, Criteria F, concerning continuance of the various commercial,
residential and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain existing character
of the area, would be impacted in a negative way. Further, staff felt the elimination of a
dwelling unit in the Village Core did not further the Vail Village Master Plan goals and the
purpose of the Commercial Core I zone district.
Greg Stutz, attorney representing VA, noted the initial request for a conditional use permit
was made by VA. He noted there would be only one dwelling unit lost, and he pointed out
that another real estate business, Coldwell Banker Timberline, was situated directly across
the wall from it. In return for removing the one (1) unit out of residential use to become
commercial, he suggested the mitigation of placing either a lock -off unit or Mr. Florescue's
dwelling unit into the short-term rental pool. He cited increased transfer tax revenues as a
benefit of the residential to commercial conversion, and added the proposed new commercial
area would be compatible with other commercial units in the area.
Mery Lapin felt this request seemed to be in conflict with Andy Daly's desire to increase
Vail's bed base. Kristan Pritz stated this trade off proposition was not part of the original
proposal the PEC had heard and felt it should go back to the PEC. Mayor Osterfoss asked
if Mr. Florescue understood the full details of a deed restriction on his unit. Ken Wilson
asked for direction from Council before he returned to the PEC, because of what appeared
to be a change in the request.
After discussion by Bob Buckley concerning the personality and character of the Village, Mery
Lapin moved to uphold the PEC decision to deny the request for a conditional use permit
based on Criteria F of CDD's May 24, 1993 memo concerning continuance of the various
commercial, residential and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the
existing character of the area. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg referenced another part of the staff recommendation
in the CDD's memo. Staff therein stated in part, "Should the PEC decide to approve this
request, the staff would recommend... that the applicant be required to pay into the parking
fund the required amount. . Tom stated he felt the $8,000.00 per parking space
requirement was grossly inadequate. A vote was then 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 9:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Margazt A. Osterfoss, Mayor V
ATTEST:
putwd"-M
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto
0 CAMI JUL2D.93