HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-01 Town Council Minutes•
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, February 1, 2005
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:05
P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer.
Members present: Rod Slifer, Mayor
Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem
Diana Donovan,
Farrow Hitt,
Kent Logan
Greg Moffet
Kim Ruotolo,
Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Steve Lindstrom, member of the Vail
Local Housing Authority (VLHA), reported the Children's Garden of Learning, the early
childhood education center, had recently become operational in its new location with the
• final construction costs hovering around $1.5 million. Lindstrom then thanked FirstBank,
Vail Resorts, Vail Valley Medical Center, the Dauphinais Family, Shaw Construction, the
VLHA and Slifer, Smith and Frampton for their support of the project. Lindstrom
continued Middle Creek was presently at 97 percent occupancy. Lindstrom then thanked
Housing Coordinator Nina Timm, Planner Matt Gennett, Fire Prevention Officer Mike
Vaughn and Fire Marshall Mike McGee for their immeasurable assistance in bringing the
project to fruition. Slifer then reported Council had made a site visit to the location and
thanked all involved for helping to create an invaluable community asset. Ruotolo
reiterated Lindstrom's comments.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. Approval of Dec. 21, 2004,
Jan. 4, 2005 and Jan. 18, 2005 Minutes. Council unanimously approved, 7-0, three sets
of minutes of record with minor amendments, later provided by Donovan. Moffet moved
and Logan seconded the motion to approve.
The third item on the agenda was the Seibert Circle Modification Options. Council
voted 4-3 (Moffet, Ruotolo and Cleveland opposed) to continue with the Seibert Circle
redesign process. Slifer reported for the record there had been open house from 5:15 to
6:00 p.m. earlier in the evening for the public to view three possible options. Brent
Lloyd, representing Wenk Associates, lead streetscape designer, outlined three possible
strategies proposed for modifying Seibert Circle and provided estimated costs for each.
The first option (A) retained the existing Moroles sculptures and added minimal
landscaping with a small water feature. The second option (B) added cobble pavers to
the area, plus water and gas utilities for a fire pit. The third option (C) replaced and
relocated the existing sculptures to create a new design that would have visual appeal
throughout the year. Lloyd qualified, due to the unknowns of the actual feature,
0
•
estimates provided were educated guesses. Hall then posed three questions to Council.
(1) Does the town move forward with Seibert Circle as a part of streetscape, and if so,
does the Council prefer Option A, B, or C?; (2) Does the Council desire an accelerated
or extended schedule?; or (3) No design, but establish a budget. During an opportunity
for citizen input, Pete Seibert Jr. stated he was happy to see the discussion regarding
the site named after his father was occurring and gave his support for alternative C.
Seibert also questioned why the relocation of the existing Moroles sculpture, if removed,
was included in the refurbishment estimate. Seibert also mentioned the possibility of
selling the Moroles pieces to help subsidize the cost of refurbishment. Nancy Rondeau
reported the current design of the circle is a disappointing expression of Vail. Ron Riley
stated he believed the Moroles sculpture was a lifeless piece of art, subsequently
supporting plan C. Sheika Gramshammer maintained the town should leave Seibert
Circle as a place to meet and greet. George Knox supported the replacement of
infrastructure in the circle. Barbara Deluca expressed the Moroles sculpture needed to
be removed. Paul Rondeau expressed concern that redevelopment estimates of the
circle were too expensive and Vail Resort's involvement in the project should be
questioned. Rick Mueller stated the site needs to be redone. Dan Berry also expressed,
"something needs to be done." Kay Cherry stated something more organic needed to
occur in the location. Jim Cotter questioned whether it would be legal for the town to
move a "site specific" art work. Kathy Langenwalter, a former chairperson of the AIPP
Board, said she believed the project was too expensive to pursue, as the area had been
redeveloped only seven years ago and this action would be fiscally irresponsible. Logan
stated a decision made on a piece of art is not a mistake, as tastes and perceptions
continually change and evolve. Logan then expressed, "If we are going to spend a lot of
• money on a project, this is the appropriate place to do it. The numbers are large, but
they are hardly precedent setting. Ruotolo questioned where the price of the art was
included in the budget. Moffet stated he would like the location to become known as a
destination. Moffet also asked for assistance from the private sector to refurbish the
area. Cleveland stated it is a misuse of government funds to rip out a feature only seven
years of age. Cleveland continued, "Why do you think this body will be any better than
the body who installed the circle in its current format?" Donovan reported her decision
was not based on the art or the money, "It's about completing it (Village Streetscape)
and getting it done right. Has Seibert Circle art ever been used for a post card?" Stating
her involvement as Council representative to the AIPP Board, she also communicated
the AIPP board likes the (Moroles) piece, although they believe it would be more
appropriate in a softer (more natural) setting. Slifer stated he believed prolonging the
streetscape process was not helpful. Zemler concluded the discussion by stating the
project would continue as three simultaneous processes: 1) some identification of a
design; 2) streetscape contractors would investigate costs; 3) public dialogue would be
continued. Zemler then reaffirmed Council was committing to only the process, not the
actual feature. Logan moved and Donovan seconded the motion to endorse Option #C.
As part of the motion, Council also stipulated planning for the refurbishment be
completed by April, 2005.
The fourth item on the agenda was an informational presentation to the Vail Town
Council on the Proposed Lionshead Streetscape design. The purpose of the
presentation was to share the proposed design with Council and to gain information and
input from Council on the design as the applicant progresses forward with final design
development drawings for review and approval by the Design Review Board (DRB). On
September 27, 2004, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC)
approved a major exterior alteration application allowing for the construction of the
C7
Lionshead Core Site Hotel. In approving the application, the Commission required the
applicant to construct certain off -site improvements. Included within the improvements is
the streetscape within the LionsHead Mall area. Chief Planner George Ruther reported
the ensuing streetscape design presentation clarified a possible formalized approved
design. Ruther also stated the design could be potentially approved by the DRB in mid -
February. Tom Braun and Jay Peterson then began a pictorial presentation of the
proposed Lionshead streetscape design. Peterson stated any reference to "Vail Square"
during the presentation, now known as LionsHead, was purely preliminary. Peterson
also stated the reference was only an attempt to tie Vail Village and Lionshead areas
together more. Continuing, he stated streetscape improvements to the area were a
separate project from the core site. Both Peterson and Braun communicated the
streetscape improvements intended not only to beautify, but to also make the area fun.
Braun discussed creating outdoor rooms and a sense of arrival with the use of pylons
and columns. Braun stated, "We are tying the new skier bridge together with
pylons/columns (approximately 36 ft. in height). The project is about discovery, not
dissimilar to those elements recently introduced in the Wall Street streetscape ... The
entire area will be treated with pavers ... And we have included the introduction of a news
stand." Peterson also stated the whole of the project is American with Disabilities Act
(ADA) accessible. The applicant reported they had met on numerous occasions with
town staff, LionsHead merchants and property owners, neighbors, DRB and PEC. In
addition, the applicant held several open house meetings to hear concerns regarding the
streetscape plan and solicit input on the project. Ruotolo asked who would maintain any
streetscaping outside of the property boundaries. Peterson replied the town and
adjacent property owners would be expected to be responsible. Cleveland asked if the
• town might examine a sampling of Vail Resort's design ideas as the town would like to
see some fresh ideas for Seibert Circle. Slifer stated he would like to see compatibility
with the square's and the town's wayfinding signs.
The fifth item on the agenda was a request for the Town Council to remand Special
Development District (SDD) #39 (Crossroads) Back to the PEC for review prior to
returning to Council for 1st Reading of an Ordinance. Council unanimously approved, 7-
0, to remand the Crossroads redevelopment SDD application back to the PEC. Moffet
continued comments expressed previously about the need to expand the town's
interpretation of public policy benefits to extend beyond traditional streetscape
improvements should acknowledge the project's retail components as a public benefit.
Several Council members expressed displeasure with a list of project modifications
interpreted by town staff following Council's initial review of the redevelopment. Staff had
attempted to assimilate a comprehensive list of questions raised in a previous work
session. However, Council members indicated the list contained individual comments
but should not be used to reflect Council consensus. Peter Knoble, project applicant,
reported he had received good input from Council at the previous meeting. Cleveland
moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion to remand the application.
The sixth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. #3, Series of 2005,
an ordinance amending Section 12-11-4, Materials to be Submitted; Procedures, Section
12-11-6, Park Design Guidelines, and Section 14-6, Grading Standards, Vail Town
Code. On November 23, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7-0
to forward a recommendation of approval for the proposed text amendments to the Town
of Vail's erosion control and storm water quality standards. Town Environmental Officer
Bill Carlson stated the goal of the ordinance is the protection of Gore Creek's water
quality. Cleveland asked what precipitated the proposal. Carlson replied several recent
0
•
construction sites were having a detrimental effect (polluting) on Gore Creek. Carlson
also commented on the increasing stringency of federal water quality standards. Citing
potential bureaucratic complexities and expenses, Slifer suggested any changes
required by the ordinance be made part of the town building permit process. Hitt
encouraged larger penalties be placed on the back end of development, meaning
violators of the ordinance face more serious fines, as opposed to charging higher up-
front/applicant fees. Cleveland stated he believed anything the town did to protect water
quality would have to pay for itself, in regard to costs absorbed by the town enforcing the
ordinance. Donovan asked for a clearer definition of routine maintenance made by public
agencies as she believed in many instances, public projects resulted in pollution of the
creek. Zemler stated the town has had occasions where routine maintenance has led to
contaminated discharge. Donovan also expressed the need for stringent enforcement of
the ordinance. Moffet asked what the penalty would be for infractions made by the town.
Zemler replied the town would be held to the same standards as any other individual or
entity. Town Engineer Tom Kassmel clarified questions about future best practices being
utilized to meet storm water discharge obligations potentially impacting the town.
Council unanimously approved, 7-0, the ordinance on first reading. Hitt moved and
Ruotolo seconded the motion to approve.
The seventh item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. #4, Series of
2005, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 10-1, Building Codes, Vail Town
Code; adopting by reference the 2003 Editions of the International Building Code,
International Residential Code, International Fire Code, International Mechanical Code,
International Plumbing Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Energy
• Conservation Code; 2002 Edition of the National Electrical Code; and with regard to the
above -described codes, adopting certain appendices, setting forth certain amendments
thereto, and setting for details in regard thereto. On January 24, 2005, the Town of Vail
Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals forwarded a recommendation of approval to
the Town Council for the proposed text amendments. Charlie Davis, Chief Building
Official, explained since the 1990's, there has been a nationwide movement to create a
single model building code for the United States. Previously, there were three separate
codes regulating construction across the country. The Uniform Building Code (UBC),
published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), generally
regulated the Western United States (including Colorado); the National Building Code,
published by the Building Officials and Code Administration International, Inc. (BOCA),
generally regulated the Northeastern United States; and the Southern Building Code,
published by the Southern Building Code Congress (SBCCI), generally regulated the
Southeastern United States. These International Codes are being adopted, or have
already been adopted, in jurisdictions across the United States, throughout Colorado,
and throughout Eagle County. Davis explained, "Although the International Codes may
appear to be a one -size fits all approach to construction design and regulation, there are
allowances built into the code that take into account geographic locations throughout the
country. For example, seismic design and activity (earthquake resistant construction) is
addressed in the 2003 editions of the building code by recognizing certain areas of the
country are more prone to seismic activity. The West Coast has had catastrophic events
associated with earthquakes in the past. Colorado and specifically the Vail area have not
had the same history as the West Coast. The building code recognizes differences in
geographic location and has provided the user with tables determining seismic design
based on where the code will be employed for design." Davis went on to explain these
tables are then used to determine how the design professional is required to design a
building based on the seismic activity and location of the building. Council expressed
0
•
much interest in making sure the International Code had built into itself many other
elements of requirements based on geographic location, allowing the user to address
elements of design based on geographic location. The Town of Vail Building Safety and
Inspection Team, in association with the Town of Vail Fire Department, requested and
recommended Council adopt the most recent edition of this International Code. The
Town of Vail Building and Fire Code Board of Appeals also forwarded its
recommendation of approval to Council for the proposed adopting ordinance.
Additionally, the Colorado Chapter of the American Institute of Architects also gave its
support for Vail's proposed adoption of the International Codes. Council unanimously
approved the ordinance on first reading. Hitt moved and Ruotolo seconded the motion
to approve.
The eighth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
➢ Vail Chamber & Business Association (VCBA) Update
Zemler announced a report had been included in Council packets provided by the
VCBA. Donovan stated "The Vail Guide" is better than the Vail Local Marketing District
Advisory Committee (VLMDAC)-produced marketing piece. Cleveland agreed the
promotional piece was "great". Kaye Ferry, VCBA Executive Director, requested the
Council require the VLMDAC include their "Vail Guide" as a part of the fulfillment piece
throughout the summer.
Zemler, reiterating comments made in the afternoon Work Session, commented on
proposed legislation, Senate Bill #62. Cleveland asked if Eagle County Commissioner
• Tom Stone had supported the legislation. Slifer then asked if Stone was the town and
county's representative on the State Water Board. Zemler replied Stone was the town's
representative. Cleveland suggested the town write a letter to the Eagle County
Commissioners expressing the town's displeasure with Stone's stance on the issue.
Zemler stated a response to the commissioners and Senator Jack Taylor would be
prepared and sent post haste. Slifer asked if the Colorado Association of Ski Towns
(CAST) needed to hire a lobbyist to oppose the measure. Zemler responded CAST had
allocated $2,500 towards funding for a lobbyist with other funds being potentially
forthcoming.
The ninth item on the agenda was adjournment. The meeting was unanimously
adjourned, 7-0, at approximately 10:05 p.m. Moffet moved and Ruotolo seconded the
motion to adjourn.
Respectfully Submitted,
OF
SEAI Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
ATTEST:
cOlOftPC .
.l � i
0
0
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Minutes provided by Corey Swisher.
C:
CJ