Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-21 Town Council Minutes• Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 21, 2005 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council convened at approximately 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2005. Council Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Farrow Hitt* Kent Logan Kim Ruotolo Greg Moffet Staff Members Present: Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney *Arrived at approximately 6:23 p.m. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Joe Staufer asked that people identify themselves as residents (or not) when making public comments on agenda items. The second item on the agenda was the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA) Appointments. Cleveland moved and Ruotolo seconded a motion to appoint Steve Lindstrom to the VLHA. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The third item on the agenda was a Construction Update. Public Works Director Greg Hall stated paving around Children's Fountain and Gore Creek Drive would take place on Thursday and Friday, while work on the P3&J pocket park and parking garage continued. Hall also stated East Meadow Drive would be paved by the end of the week. Construction in Lionshead was reported to be very disruptive. Hall also said Gore Creek Place construction would continue to require the closure of the bike path. Construction on the Sonnenalp, One Willow Bridge Road and Vail Plaza Hotel will continue through the summer. Logan asked about completion of the Children's Fountain. Hall assured Logan the fountain would be operational by the Fourth of July. Slifer thanked the town staff and construction crews for their hard work. The fourth item on the agenda was a discussion regarding the Conference Center ballot question for the November 2005 election. Town Attorney Matt Mire asked Council to review a draft ballot question and to discuss any desired changes. At the regular meeting of June 7, 2005, Council directed staff to bring a draft ballot question to the Council Meeting on June 21, 2005, for discussion. Council further directed staff to bring forward a question that contemplated an "all or nothing" decision by the electorate. Mire and town legal consultant Dee Wisor told Council ballot language decisions would have to be finalized by the second meeting in August. Zemler stated the town would have • finalized conference center construction estimates prior to finalizing the ballot question. Zemler also discussed the potential of having a special meeting in August to facilitate election schedule requirements. Cleveland asked if the ballot question would pass with an ordinance or resolution. Mire stated by resolution due to time constraints. Logan clarified the question would remove the authority of the 2002 tax. Donovan expressed a desire to have only one tax rate as opposed to "piggy -backing" separate taxes on top of each other. Community Development Director Russ Forrest stated the necessary increase in funding for the center was approximately $12 million. Mire stated after the resolution passes, town resources can not be utilized to promote the initiative. Mire and Wisor reported they would return to Council with alternative ballot initiative proposals on July 5. Hitt arrived at approximately 6:23 p.m. The fifth item on the agenda was the 2005 Town of Vail Community Survey Results. In presenting results from the 2005 Town of Vail survey, Chris Cares of RRC Associates reported the mood of the community is more positive and upbeat since the last survey was fielded in 2003. RRC Associates conducted the random telephone survey at the close of the 2004-05 ski season. The findings, according to Cares, show support and excitement for Vail's future among full-time and part-time residents, as well as respondents from the various neighborhoods throughout Vail, and with differing lengths of residency. When asked about the general state of Vail, 70 percent of those surveyed said the town is moving in the "right direction," a significant improvement over the 57 percent approval rating in 2003 when the survey was last fielded. Also this year, fewer people, 19 percent, have said the town has gotten off on the "wrong track," compared to 28 percent who provided a negative response in 2003. Citizens are generally satisfied with town efforts to facilitate, manage and disseminate information regarding Vail's redevelopment, according to Cares, with 55 percent saying they are "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the quality of new development or redevelopment over the past three years, compared with only five percent who said they are "not at all satisfied." When asked how they would describe their attitude about the improvements that are occurring throughout Vail, 88 percent of respondents said they were either "very excited" or "somewhat excited" about the vision for the new Vail. Only ten percent said they were not at all excited." Respondents were split, however, when it came to ranking the town's progress in addressing five areas of focus identified by the Town Council in 2004. Respondents were most favorable toward efforts to "add to Vail's appeal as a great place to live, work and play," with 57 percent saying they were either "satisfied" or "extremely satisfied" with current efforts. Respondents were also largely satisfied with efforts to "facilitate Vail's redevelopment," with 55 percent saying they were "satisfied" or "extremely satisfied." Satisfaction declined with the remaining three goal areas as follows: - "Elevate community leadership, including efforts to work in partnership and cooperation with the business community, Vail Resorts, the Recreation District, etc." Responses were relatively divided, with a similar percentage of respondents indicating they were satisfied, 33 percent, compared to not satisfied, 29 percent, regarding efforts to address community leadership. • "Improve the local economy, focusing on reversing trends such as flat sales tax, regional competition, etc." Only 25 percent of respondents were satisfied with efforts toward this focus, compared to 33 percent who were generally not satisfied. • • "Address issues proactively, continuing to pursue resolution on important projects, such as the West Vail fire station planning, 1-70 noise mitigation, etc." About 37 percent of respondents were generally not satisfied with efforts at addressing issues proactively, compared to only 27 percent that were satisfied. Parking tops the list as the biggest issue facing the town with nearly twice as many comments as any other category and similar attention received by full-time residents and part-time residents. Other issues of importance include the conference center, redevelopment, affordable housing, 1-70 noise, growth, development/overdevelopment, tourism, cost of living and business issues. The random telephone survey was conducted during a two week period in March and April and includes responses from 302 year-round residents and 102 part-time residents. It has a margin or error factor of plus -or -minus 4.9 percent. Cares noted that because the survey method was virtually identical to the past three years in terms of the type of questionnaire used, the timing and the general wording of questions, it is possible to make direct comparisons from year to year to identify shifts and trends. For example: • Ratings of the "sense of community" showed some positive change this year from the past several years. The percentage of respondents who said things had "improved" stayed about the same as in 2003 at 17 percent, but the percentage who said things had "gotten worse" declined to 21 percent from 31 percent. • Showing significant improvement from 2003 are ratings for the three-hour time -limited shopper's parking, which was rated 3.2 in 2003 and 3.8 this year with 5.0 being the highest score. Parking fees/pricing structure also improved this year (3.0 average) from 2.7 in 2003, but remains below the rating in 2002 (3.2 average). • Town of Vail staff continued to receive a very favorable rating of 3.7 on average. The percentage of respondents rating staff a 4 or 5 increased about 10 percentage points this year (65 percent) from ratings in 2003 (54 percent). • Town Council ratings improved this year, averaging 3.2 versus 3.0 in 2003. The percentage of 4 and 5 ratings also increased about 12 percentage points, from 26 percent in 2003 to 38 percent this year, whereas the percentage of 1 and 2 ratings was largely similar with 2003 (23 percent in 2005 vs. 21 percent in 2003). • Modest declines were seen in satisfaction with various aspects of Community Development (including building permit review and inspections, 3.0 in 2005 versus 2.8 in 2003), and the Police Department (overall feeling of safety and security, 4.4 in 2003 versus 4.2 in 2005; friendliness and approachability of police, 4.2 in 2003 versus 4.0 in 2005; and the overall quality of police services, 4.1 in 2003 versus 3.9 in 2005). In rating their satisfaction with a variety of municipal services, the highest scores were given to the following categories: courtesy and helpfulness of firefighters, 4.5; dependability of bus service, 4.5; summer parking availability, 4.5; fire/emergency medical response time, 4.4; library story hour, 4.4; frequency of the in -town shuttle, 4.4; and bus driver courtesy, 4.4. The lowest scores were given to winter parking availability, 2.5; Design Review Board, 2.7; building permit review and inspections, 2.9; parking fees/pricing structure, 3.0; and parking pass benefits, 3.0. In a new series of questions, • recreation programs were evaluated. In general, satisfaction ratings with programming and facilities was high, with average ratings between 3.8 (the lowest rated category, "adult programs and activities") and 4.2 (the highest rated "Vail Nature Center'). In another new question respondents were asked, "What doesn't Vail have that you would like to see provided?" Only about half (54 percent) of respondents identified an improvement. When the open ended suggestions are quantified, the large majority of suggestions fall in the area of recreation (a recreation center) or swimming pool (77 responses; 25 percent of respondents), followed by better or affordable parking (32 responses; ten percent); a conference center (eight percent) and entertainment and activities for kids/teens (seven percent). While one of the goals of this question was to probe whether there were big new ideas on the minds of the community, Cares says, in general the majority of responses fell into categories that have been discussed by the community at various times in the past. Donovan asked if the survey was a good cross-section of the community or was there a group left out. Cares stated he believed it was a good cross-section, as it occurred during a time when a lot of the (Vail's) work force was present. "It was a little more conversational survey than what we have done in the past." The sixth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. #1, Series of 2005, an ordinance establishing Special Development District No. #39, Crossroads. On April 25, 2005, the PEC held a public hearing on a request to establish SDD No. #39, Crossroads. The purpose of the new SDD is to facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive. Upon review of the request, the PEC voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to establish SDD No. #39, Crossroads, to the Vail Town Council. In introducing the agenda item, Community Development Director Russell Forrest told Council this was one of the more challenging projects the department has had over the past few years. He explained floor plate heights have increased over the years, which has had an impact on the overall height of the building verses what the Vail Village Master Plan identified for potential building heights. "The master plan envisioned five to six story buildings along the frontage road." He then said additional work is still needed on the architectural design. Town Planner Warren Campbell summarized building height, setbacks, architecture, northwest corner building form, comparison of Four Seasons and Vail Plaza and sub grade encroachments. "Everyone can agree Crossroads is in need of redevelopment." Representing the applicant, Dominic Mauriello explained how the building conformed to master planning and reflected changes previously outlined by Council. Logan questioned traffic generation. Mauriello stated the project traffic analysis did not show a roundabout was warranted. Town Engineer Tom Kassmel stated traffic on the south side of the proposed project was rated at level C service, and is working very well. Level C service is designated as an expected pause of 23 seconds. Cleveland asked if all projects in the area had been evaluated to determine the cumulative traffic impact. Hall stated the analysis was not created in a vacuum. Logan questioned the creation of only five new employees from the project (in regard to employee housing units). Mauriello stated by following town requirements, only 30% of the additional employees generated by the project required additional housing. Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Rick Scalpello, president of the Meadow Drive Partnership, stated the majority of business owners on East Meadow Drive agreed Crossroads should be approved as presented. During a pause for public comment, Paul Johnston, Joe Staufer, Jonathan Staufer, Andy Daly, • Luc Meyer, Sheika Gramshammer, Wendy Losassa, Bob Fritch, Bill Rey, Gwen Scalpello, Dean Hall, Tom Steinberg, Georgeine Burton, Ann Marie Mueller, Connie • Miller, and Fred Hibberd stated design guidelines are inadequate and encouraged Council to send the project back for a meaningful reduction and recommended Council preserve the "quaint village" type atmosphere Vail currently maintains. PEC member Doug Cahill stated the grade plane primarily helped him determine the structure was not too high. He qualified his statement by saying the master plan allows for the height on the frontage road. Logan asked if the PEC had asked for more aggressive changes. Donovan questioned the role of PEC members. PEC member Bill Jewitt stated the height plane created by Jeff Winston helped. Tim Parkes Todd Biaka, Reyla Kundolf, Mark Gordon, Robert Aikens, Bob McNichols, Rob Swim, Kaye Ferry, Steve Lindstrom, Chas Bernhardt and Annette Hahn spoke in support of the project. Ann Reilly Bishop, representing the Village Inn Plaza Homeowner's Association Phase III, emphasized the project was incompatible with the existing environment. Hitt questioned easements involving public use of the plaza and development improvements. Donovan stated the landscaping was inadequate and the height comparisons provided to Council by staff were deceptive. "I have a huge problem with the architecture." Logan stated his overwhelming feeling was one of disappointment. "I am disappointed in town staff and PEC. I think we have wasted three months." Since Council's last review, Logan said a reduction in height from 108 to 100 feet, and one less dwelling unit was not enough to cause him to support the project. Logan completed his comments by saying the town needs to articulate a vision of where it is going and strategically review what Council wants to happen. Cleveland expressed concern over deviations from underlying zoning. "Heights are out of scale for this town. I voted against Four Seasons because for the very reason we are here." Ruotolo expressed concerns over landscaping and employee housing, but generally agreed with the project's concept. Moffet supported the project as it provided much needed retail and recreational amenities. "We will look more like Beaver Creek without Crossroads than we will with Crossroads." Moffet moved to pass the motion with Ruotolo seconding. Slifer stated Crossroads needs to be developed but not enough progress had been made on the size and design of the structure. "We have come a long way, but there is work to be done." The motion failed, 2-5 with Slifer, Logan, Donovan, Hitt and Cleveland opposed. Zemler recommended tabling the ordinance until the first meeting in August. "We need to get our arms around the issues." Cleveland asked the item be discussed at the next meeting. Zemler stated the developer needs to know what changes Council required for the project's success. Bob Lazier recommended Council negotiate the matter directly with the developer. Hitt moved the item be tabled to July 19. Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 with Moffet and Ruotolo opposed. The seventh item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. #16, Series of 2005, an ordinance amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use to the District and to add a definition of a "bowling alley" to the Vail Town Code. On April 25, 2005, the PEC voted 6-0 (Gunion absent) to forward a recommendation of approval for a proposed text amendment to the Commercial Service Center (CSC) District to add "bowling alley" as a conditional use and to add a definition for a "bowling alley" to the Vail Town Code. Cleveland moved and Hitt seconded a motion to table the item until July 19. The item passed unanimously, 7-0. The eighth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #14, Series of 2005, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance #24, Series of 2004 establishing Special Development District No. #38, Manor Vail Lodge. On December 7, 2004, Council at a public hearing approved the second reading of Ordinance #24, Series of • 2004 by unanimous vote to establish SDD No. #38, Manor Vail Lodge. The purpose of the new SDD is to facilitate the redevelopment of the Manor Vail Lodge, located at 595 Vail Valley Drive. In the time since this approval, a discrepancy was discovered in the lot area of the Manor Vail development site which has rendered many of the zoning statistics reported in Ordinance #24, Series of 2004 inaccurate. In addition there was a typographical error found regarding the number of attached accommodation units to be constructed. Ordinance #14, Series of 2005, corrects these items. Moffet moved with Cleveland seconding to approve the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The ninth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending SDD #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The applicant requested Council table the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, to August 2, 2005. On July 12, 2004 the Town of Vail PEC voted 4-2 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for the proposed amendments to SDD #4, Cascade Village. On August 3, 2004 by a vote of 7-0 Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, with a condition that the applicant, Vail Resorts, resolve any issues related to the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, prior to the second reading of this ordinance. On August 17, 2004; October 5, 2004; January 4, 2005; and May 3, 2005; Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, to allow the applicant additional time to resolve issues related to the protective covenants. The outstanding protective covenant issues have not yet been resolved; therefore, Vail Resorts requested the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of 2004, again be tabled to a future Town Council meeting. Representing Vail Resorts, Jay Peterson reported progress was being made. Moffet moved to table the item until August 2, with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The tenth item on resolution No. #10, Series of 2005. Tribute to Betty Ford. Donovan questioned the wording of the tribute to Mrs. Ford, as she believed it trivialized her contributions. Moffet moved with Cleveland seconding a motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1, with Donovan dissenting. The eleventh item on the agenda was a Timber Ridge Affordable Housing Corporation (TRAHC) Board update. The "Agreement Regarding Reporting and Financial Disclosures" between the TRAHC Board and the town sets forth certain reporting requirements. TRAHC is providing Council with financial and operating information per these requirements. TRAHC's bond counsel has drafted documents for the $700,000 loan approved by Council on June 7, 2005. This information is also provided for Council comment. Council also requested updates concerning progress toward remediation and sale or redevelopment of the property. This update will be provided by the TRAHC Chairman. The twelfth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. ➢ Clean Up Day Wrap Up Cleveland mentioned Ernst Larese (Swiss Hot Dog Company) has always catered the clean-up. Council agreed he deserved praise from Council, and his restaurant should be used the next time Council required catering. ➢ Mid -Cycle Funding Requests • During the discussion on mid -cycle funding requests on June 7, council advised staff to include the question of why this funding request was not part of the regular cycle on the mid -cycle criteria. Staff added this question to the mid -cycle funding request criteria. Also, during this discussion, council directed staff to come up with a recommendation for a dollar amount for discretionary spending on mid -cycle funding requests. Staff recommended bringing any requests over $5,000 to council for approval. Budgeting for in -kind services will be examined by staff during the 2006 budget process. Donovan clarified it was in -kind services/dollars. ➢ Seibert Circle Update Donovan provided a graphic representation of a proposed Seibert Circle design. Ruotolo stated she hated it. Logan said he would have to study the renderings. Moffet said he was bored to death by it. Cleveland stated it was boring. Council agreed to provide direction at its July 5th meeting. The thirteenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:20 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, N OF V � SEAL Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher.