HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-06 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
Council Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor
Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem
Diana Donovan
Kent Logan
Kim Ruotolo
Farrow Hitt
Greg Moffet
Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Ruotolo reported there was a local
Hurricane Katrina disaster relief organizational meeting held earlier in the day at the
Eagle County Building in Eagle. She stated another meeting would be held at 5:30 p.m.
Sept. 8 in the Holiday Inn -Apex Lodge Ballroom.
Eagle County Commissioner Arn Menconi announced that a web site with information on
local recovery assistance was available at www.eaglecounty/Katrina.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda, approval of Aug. 2 and Aug.
16 Minutes. Moffet moved with Cleveland seconding a motion to approve the minutes
without amendments. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The third item on the agenda was a Construction Update. Public Works Director Greg
Hall reported streetscape work had begun for the fall season earlier in the day. Work on
the LionsHead core site had been continuing primarily on the tunnel area. In West Vail
work was to continue by the Conoco service station for a few days with paving taking
place later in the week. Improvements to the "Vail Road chute" by the Lodge at Vail were
to begin in the near future. Final improvements (streetscape) to the Parker's Green and
Founder's Parking Garage also are being completed.
The fourth item on the agenda was Resolutions #16, Series of 2005 setting forth
language for a ballot question on November 8, 2005, to raise the lodging tax to pay for
the construction and operation of the Vail Conference Center and Resolution #17, Series
of 2005, expressing Council's intent in developing a threshold for collecting up to 1.5% in
additional lodging tax for the conference center.
A) Resolution #16, Series of 2005, which sets forth language to have a ballot measure
on November 8 which would ask voters to increase the lodging tax for the
40 conference center, and
. B) Resolution #17, Series of 2005, which would state the Town Council's intent on
collecting up to 1.5% of new lodging tax for the conference center.
Community Development Director Russ Forrest reported on August 31 the Conference
Center Advisory Committee (CCAC) met to review the guaranteed maximum price from
Mortenson Construction and proposed ballot language. At that meeting the Committee
unanimously recommended Council approve Resolution #16 and #17. Moffet moved to
adopt Resolution #16 with Logan seconding. Representing Architectural Research
Consultants, Chris Squadra reported a guaranteed maximum price of $64,772,865. The
price included the following:
Construction Costs
$
53,376,740
Soft Costs
$
4,700,000
Housing Requirement
$
525,000
Furniture Fixtures & Equipment (FF&E)
$
1,845,000
Town of Vail Contingency
$
4.326,125
Total Cost
$
64,772,865
The Town of Vail contingency included:
Construction $ 1,756,093
FF&E $ 184,500
Consultant, Eng & Design $ 255,151
Other Contingency $ 2,130,381
Owner's Contingency $ 4,326,125
Finance Director Judy Camp introduced town underwriters Johnathon Hurue and
Michael Lund representing Piper Jaffray. Hurue explained the fees and costs associated
with bond issuance. Underwriting, insurance premiums and rating expenses were all
associated with the cost of issuance. Camp then described a 30 year projected financial
analysis of the center. Donovan clarified funds had been budgeted for significant repairs
and replacement (more than basic maintenance). Squadra reported the building would
be under warranty the first year of operation. Representing the town, bond attorney Dee
Wisor reported Resolution #16 ballot language would approve a lodging tax of not more
than 1.5% (which will result in a total lodging tax imposed by the town of not more than
3.0%). The ballot language would give Council authorization to increase or decrease the
tax, based on available cash reserves. The initial tax could possibly be .79% based on
interest rates and bond insurance. During a pause for public comment Michael Cacioppo
provided nine reasons why Council should not approve Resolution #16. CCAC member
Rob Levine stated many people were supportive of the conference center with or
without the language included in Resolution #16. CCAC member Rick Scalpello
disagreed with the proposed funding requirement analysis. Logan stated Scalpello's
findings were a matter of financial semantics. Logan emphasized, "This is not a field of
dreams project. If we build it, they will not necessarily come ... This is as big a risk as the
original founders of Vail undertook." Logan's comments clarified business owners would
receive a larger rate of return than would the town. "Let the town decide (by
referendum) this is a risk they want to underwrite at this point in time. Representing the
Holiday Inn -Apex, Mark Cervantes clarified that if the ballot question fails, the 2002 tax
would go away. He asked Council to reconsider and spoke in support of the conference
center. CCAC member and Vail Marriott General Manager Dave Pease spoke in
support of the center on behalf of the Marriott and Vail Resorts, Mark Gordon asked if
2
• the ballot passed, could another petition preclude the construction of the center? Town
Attorney Matt Mire answered yes. Donovan expressed concern the construction budget
projections were not accurate. "I have continued to be disappointed with this ... There has
never been a pro/con discussion ... I think this is a risk that is too big to take ... I will also
vote against it at the ballot box because of the architecture." Slifer stated a contract with
the builder and contingencies would be adequate to cover costs. Responding to Logan's
comments, Michael Cacioppo argued the risk for the conference center was not as great
as that assumed by the founders of Vail. Wisor clarified the resolution did not bind
Council to actually issue the debt. An amended motion passed 6-1, Donovan opposed.
Moffet then moved to approve Resolution #17 with Logan seconding. Moffet stated he
would like to examine a way to reduce the tax burden on the lodges. He encouraged
exploring a mechanism that would enable Council to reduce the Vail Local Marketing
District (VLMD) tax since a portion of the tax is used to market groups just as the
conference center budget would provide. Donovan stated the conference center would
compete with existing conference space. CCAC member Stan Cope asked if the initial
tax rate would be based on current interest rates or those existing at the time of debt
issuance. Forrest clarified the ability to lower the projected .79% initial tax increase if
existing rates remained at the status quo or fell. Wisor clarified the VLMD is a separate
legal entity from the town. The motion approving Resolution #17 passed 6-1, with
Donovan opposed. Hitt stated more of the financial burden should have been shouldered
by a partial sales tax increase. Slifer thanked the CCAC for their industriousness and
time consuming efforts.
The fifth item on the agenda was an appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail
Town Code, of the Town of Vail PEC's approval of a variance from Section 12-6C-6,
Setbacks, Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage,
pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential
addition, located at 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 1. Senior
Planner Bill Gibson stated on July 25, 2005, the PEC approved a variance from Section
12-6C-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6C-9, Site
Coverage, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
residential addition at 1448 Vail Valley Drive. The appellant, Vail Town Council, "called -
up" the PEC's decision at its August 2, 2005, public hearing. Staff recommended Council
uphold the PEC's approval of a variance from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a residential addition at 1448 Vail Valley Drive, subject to the findings
in the staff memorandum dated July 25, 2005. However, staff recommended Council
overturn the PEC's approval of a variance from Section 12-6C-8, Density Control, and
Section 12-6C-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition at
1448 Vail Valley Drive, subject to the findings in the staff memorandum dated July 25,
2005. The applicant, Robert Stephenson, stated due to the multiple levels (five) of his
home and elderly relatives he would like to request the ability to construct a new 100 sq.
ft. single -story front entry room with a 45 sq. ft. five -story elevator addition (total of 225
sq. ft.) Speaking on behalf of the applicant, John Schofield, a next door neighbor and
former PEC chair, explained the variance requests, adding that some discrepancy
regarding the GRFA could be related to methods for calculating GRFA within the town
which have changed many times. Project architect Pam Hopkins said, "We are asking
for a variance for the garage not for additional site coverage. Moffet replied, You still
require a GRFA variance." Moffet moved to uphold the set back variance with Cleveland
seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Moffet then moved to uphold the
setback variance in relation to covered parking with Cleveland seconding. The motion
passed unanimously, 7-0. Moffet moved to overturn the PEC in regard to additional site
coverage in relation to covered parking with Ruotolo seconding. Donovan stated she
could have accommodated the additional square footage by reconfiguring the existing
square footage. The motion passed 4-3 with Hitt, Slifer and Logan opposed. Moffet then
moved to overturn the GRFA variance. The motion passed 4-3 with Hitt, Slifer and
Logan opposed.
The sixth item on the agenda was the discussion of Village Streetscape Mill Creek
Court Building Construction contract Award for 2005-2006. The town and Mill Creek
Court Condominium Association cooperatively designed and received a proposal for
construction improvements in Vail Village. Council was advised negotiations were
underway and finishing the streetscape in this area was an appropriate objective. Staff
negotiated a cost sharing agreement with the condominium association. The association
board has agreed to the proposal. These improvements include the replacement of
planters, steps, landscaping, installation of snowmelt systems and final streetscape
treatments. In addition the association has agreed to upgrade a trash dumpster. The
town reviewed the proposal with the contractor. The project is scheduled to begin
construction later this year and finish in spring 2006. Staff recommended council add the
required additional dollars to the supplemental budget to fund the town's portion of the
project: $225,000 from Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund and $50,000 from Capital
Projects Fund; the remainder of the project will be funded by the Mill Creek Court
Condominium Association ($205,000) and from the existing streetscape budget
($95,000). Hitt moved to supplement the Village Streetscape budgets by $225,000 from
RETT and $50,000 from the Capital Projects Fund and direct the Town Manager to
execute a change order with B&B Excavating up to $550,000 to construct the
streetscape improvements around the Mill Creek Court Building. General concern from
Council and staff was expressed in regard to an on -going concrete shortage. Mire
encouraged an amendment be added to the project regarding approval of contracts
between the town and the adjacent property owner. The motion was amended. The
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The seventh item on the agenda was a discussion of Gore Valley Trail Improvements at
Cascade Village. Landscape Architect Greg Barrie recommended the following:
Approve a total project budget of $645,000 with the understanding the town will be
reimbursed for the cost of Project 1 through the Holy Cross Energy Enhancement
Funds. Award the Gore Valley Trail Improvements at Cascade Village project, in whole,
to B&B Excavating in the amount of $ 574,583.87 with the understanding a portion of the
work would be completed in the spring. Staff has continuously worked on multiple
projects in the Cascade Village area for the past several years. While Cascade Village
Metropolitan District postponed their projects previously scheduled for this fall, the town
was in a position to perform much needed maintenance work to the Gore Valley Trail,
starting on Sept. 12. A portion of the work would be completed in the fall, with the
remainder of the work occurring in the spring of 2006. Hitt asked about the widening of
the recreation path behind Cascade Village. Barrie stated the path would be a consistent
ten feet in width. Hitt expressed concern about the straightening of the path as its
meandering nature added to its quaintness. Hitt inquired about the status of easement
agreements. He stated rec path dollars have always been contingent on easement
grants and would not vote on this unless easements are tied to the money. Barrie stated
negotiations were cordial and significant progress had been made. Donovan clarified
natural areas would be protected. Ruotolo moved to approve the aforementioned
projects with Moffet seconding. Hitt requested the funding be contingent upon recreation
path easement resolution. The motion passed 6-1, with Hitt dissenting.
4
The eighth item on the agenda was a discussion of the West Vail Sub -Area Plan
Process. Community Development Director Russ Forrest announced the purpose for
creating a West Vail Sub -Area Plan was to provide an improved framework for decision
making in the West Vail commercial area by providing direction on appropriate uses,
bulk & mass, along with other development parameters. It would also help to identify
other public improvements which developers would consider upon submitting proposals
to the Community Development Department, such as affordable housing, retail uses,
parking and traffic circulation improvements. Council had in previous meetings identified
a need for the West Vail area to have a sub -area plan created for a well thought out
redevelopment of West Vail. The plan would study the area from the Roost Lodge west
to Wendy's on the North Frontage Road. There is a mix of zoning between The Roost
Lodge and the Brandess Building. Donovan asked if too many projects were too far
along in the application process for the proposed study to be valid. Representing the Vail
Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont encouraged fostering the reality that
West Vail is an integral part of the community. Lamont stated his association looked
forward to being involved in the process. Slifer asked the Conoco on the South Frontage
Road be included in the study.
The ninth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #17, Series of
2004, an ordinance amending Special Development District #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 October 4, 2005. On July 12, 2004 the PEC voted 4-2 to forward a
recommendation of approval, with conditions, for the proposed amendments to Special
Development District #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 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 and
October 5, 2004; January 4, May 3, June 21, and August 4, 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
Council meeting. Moffet moved with Cleveland seconding. The motion passed
unanimously, 7-0. Ruotolo asked if the tabling provided a reasonable time.
Representing Vail Resorts, Jay Peterson stated, "We are pursuing it, and we feel we can
get it done." Logan then asked if The Arrabelle at Vail Square construction was
proceeding on schedule. Peterson stated, "We are currently two to three weeks
behind ... We have had a significant amount of water ... We feel like we can get the dirt
past the skier bridge by ski season." Zemler confirmed the opening of the gondola in the
winter would not be delayed. Cleveland asked for construction reports from Vail Resorts
for the next few months. Logan also asked if there was significant impetus to rename
the LionsHead ski area. Peterson stated, "Yes, and we have not tried to hide that ... The
name of our project is The Arrabelle at Vail Square ... Much of our signage will reflect
that ... We've had a lot of support for the idea."
The tenth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. #19, Series
2005, an Ordinance making supplemental appropriations to the 2005 Budget,
Supplemental Appropriation No. #2. Moffet moved to approve the ordinance with
Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
6!
1
The eleventh item on the agenda was Resolution No. #15, Series of 2005, a resolution
expanding the boundary of the Study Area of the Lionshead Redevelopment and
amending Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, LionsHead Redevelopment
Master Plan, to include Section 5.19 Evergreen Lodge at Vail. Chief Planner George
Ruther explained on June 27, 2005, the PEC held a public hearing to discuss a text and
map boundary amendment to the LionsHead Redevelopment Master Plan. The purpose
of the amendment is to include the Evergreen Lodge in the Study Area of the LionsHead
Redevelopment Master Plan. Upon discussion of the amendment, the Commission
voted unanimously to table the final hearing on the proposed amendment to a future
meeting date. The purpose of the tabling was to allow staff and the applicant an
opportunity to address the various questions of the Commission prior to the Commission
taking action on the request. The Commission specifically requested any amendments to
Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, should make reference to the following:
• Vehicular and pedestrian access
• Maintenance of the existing accommodation units on the site
• Impacts on Middle Creek
• South Frontage Road improvements
• Physical relationship to the Vail Valley Medical Center
• Relationship to the proposed Vail Conference Center
• Need for architectural improvements
• Loading and delivery improvements
• Pedestrian connection to West Meadow Drive
On July 17, 2005, the Community Development Department requested a work session
with Council to discuss the merits of preparing an amendment to the LionsHead
Redevelopment Master Plan that would expand the boundary of the plan to include the
Evergreen Lodge. Upon discussing the possible merits of the amendment, the
Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment for further Commission and Council
consideration. On August 22, 2005, the PEC voted 6-0-0 to forward a recommendation
of approval of the proposed text and boundary amendment to the LionsHead
Redevelopment Master Plan to Council. In forwarding a recommendation of approval,
the Commission expressed the need for Section 5.19.3, Preservation of Existing
Accommodation Units, of the proposed amendment to place more emphasis on no net
loss of accommodation unit square footage, creation of quality hotel rooms, and the
maintenance of the number of existing "hot beds," rather than placing so much focus on
merely maintaining the number of existing rooms. T.J. Brink, HB Development, stated
he intended to include hotel suites in the project. He also advised Council he intended to
reface the tower portion of the project and redevelop the portion of the building nearest
the South Frontage Road. Ruotolo clarified an accommodation unit can not be a time
share. Slifer and Cleveland stated they did not want to lose one single hotel room.
Donovan asked Brink, "Why do you need to go into LionsHead to do what you want to
do?" Brink responded, "I don't need to. I could do a Special Development District (SDD).
It is zoned multi -family and I would need a conditional use to add hotel rooms. I don't like
conditional uses. They can be taken away." Ruther clarified the existing structure's
redevelopment would need to express good architectural design. "This project does not
have to look like the Arrabelle." Hitt emphasized the structure would need to fit into the
surrounding environment, both natural and architectural. Logan asked what the
allowable GRFA was for the property. Ruther stated he did not have the information
immediately available. Donovan asked for a pro/con statement as to why Council should
or shouldn't approve the change. Moffet moved to approve with Ruotolo seconding, with
a condition tied to the rezoning of the site. The motion also included an absolute height
clarification. Representing the Vail Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont
verified administrative processes surrounding the resolution. Donovan stated the project
was a good example of what SDDs were created for. Zemler re-emphasized a rezoning
is not the time to dictate what goes on the property. Michael Cacioppo stated the
building was ripe for redevelopment. He discouraged Council from micromanaging
projects as they came to Council for approval. Zemler stated comparing the Evergreen
Lodge project and zoning process was not similar to what existed with the recently failed
Crossroads redevelopment. "I think we had good success with the Arrabelle... It had a
background to work with as opposed to nothing at all." Hitt questioned, "Is Vail Resorts
the only one who is allowed to redevelop their property? We have one hand out asking
people to redevelop and the other hand out trying to keep them from doing so." Logan
asked for at least a conceptual description of what the developer intended to do with the
property. Zemler discouraged Council from trying to perform the function of the PEC.
Peter Knobel stated, "If someone is going to invest in this town they need
guidelines... There has to be some baseline for what you are going to be able to do with
the property." Logan stated he believed the size of the project impacted the character of
the town and therefore became a public policy decision. Donovan stated she did not
believe the project fit the LionsHead character of mass and scale. The motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
The twelfth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Nothing was
reported.
The thirteenth item on the agenda was adjournment. Moffet moved with Hitt seconding
a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0 at 10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Off•
��........�.�
n :
•
ff
:o
; Z
�O;•
•
a
•Z
•
Q r
o•••••.
O
ATTEST:
.••;ar
rerele'i'
Donaldson.Clerk
Minutes provided by Corey Swisher.
��-----47 �:A-4
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor