Loading...
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