HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-17 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes
.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
6:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately
6:00 P.M. by Mayor Rod Slifer.
Members present: Kent Logan
Kim Newbury
Mark Gordon
Kevin Foley
Greg Moffet
Rod Slifer
Farrow Hitt
Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager -
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation.
There was none.
The second item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report.
Town Manager Stan Zemler recognized Rick Scalpello for his efforts organizing and
developing the Vail Farmers' Market into one of Vail's most successful events. Scalpello
then thanked Marty Stewart, Jonathon Staufer and Council for their support and efforts.
"The Vail Farmers' Market is now the largest farmer's market in the state of Colorado."
Slifer, Hitt and Foley personally thanked Scalpello for his hard work.
Public Works Director Greg Hall provided a construction update reporting that snowmelt
on East Meadow Drive continued to be installed and the Vail Plaza hotel was performing
work on Vail Road, continuing soon onto the South Frontage Road.
Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer explained staff had learned of a unit that
would potentially qualify for the town's "buy down" program. The unanticipated
opportunity would provide the wherewithal for either housing a critical employee in this
tight housing market this winter or turning the unit into a deed restricted unit. Council
authorized staff to proceed with negotiating on the purchase of this unit, also instructing
them to come back with a supplemental appropriation request.
The third item on the agenda was a request to proceed through the development review
process to locate a skateboard park on the west end of Donovan Park.
0
• Brandmeyer explained the item was not an actual request to proceed, but rather a
discussion to find out if the proposed skateboard park was "palatable" to Council. She
continued by explaining $400,000 from the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) fund had
been set aside in the '06 budget to provide the town with a skateboard park. At this time,
staff from both the Vail Recreation District (VRD) and the Town of Vail (TOV) have been
working on preliminary plans to site the skateboard park on the west end of Donovan. In
order for this to occur, the Donovan Park Master Plan would have to be modified to allow
for this use, requiring a public review by the PEC and ultimately by Council. For
numerous reasons, e.g., convenience, neighborhood, parking, restrooms, excellent
visibility, and so on, staff believes the approximately 7,500 square feet would nicely
accommodate a skateboard park at this site. Should an amendment to the Donovan
Park Master Plan be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission(PEC)
and the Council, the next step would be to prepare a Request for Proposals for a
"design/build" team. Skate board park "users" would be included in public session(s) to
gather ideas for this element and staff would travel to other successful skate board parks
around the state. Considerable time was spent two years prior by the former VRD/TOV
Capital Committee reviewing potential sites. Hitt moved to approve the request with
Foley seconding. Moffet expressed concern that the proposed location didn't solve
problems or create opportunities. He then asked for a police assessment of the Donovan
location. Newbury asked about previously discussed alternate locations at Booth Falls
and on the former Hud-Wirth (Chamonix) site. She felt the Chamonix site would be more
appropriate. Project Manager Todd Oppenheimer explained some aspects of Donovan
Park would need to be rearranged. Moffet said he believed Ford Park was the most
appropriate venue. Slifer, Hitt and Gordon argued Donovan Park was the most suitable
location for the skateboard park. Foley said development of a skating facility was
. something that needed to happen "sooner rather than later." Logan stated he could not
support the project, "Because a skateboard park doesn't show up in the top five priorities
identified on our most recent resident recreation needs assessment." During a pause for
public comment, Scott Proper asked Council to table the item. Dave Nelson, active skate
boarding instructor, said the park should be located close to an emergency services
facility. Hitt and Foley then withdrew their motion. Subsequently, Moffet moved to direct
staff to further study the Chamonix, Ford Park, Booth Falls and Donovan Park locations
and return with a recommendation prior to the end of year. Foley seconded. The motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was a request to proceed through the development
review process with a proposal to install a new manhole, sanitary sewer line and
retaining wall on the Town -owned stream tract parcel adjacent to the Vail Mountain View
Town home development site, located at 442 South Frontage Road.
Forrest reported the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) and the owners
of Vail Mountain View town home development site were in the process of undergoing
development review of an application to install a new manhole, sanitary sewer line and
retaining wall on town property, located upon Tract B; Vail Village 5th Filing. The new
manhole, sanitary sewer line and retaining wall are required to facilitate the
redevelopment of the old Apollo Park condominiums. Currently, the sanitary sewer line
runs through the center portion of the development site. The new retaining wall was
needed to ensure adequate soil cover exists over the top of the new sewer line to
prevent freezing during the winter months. Council, as the property owner of Tract 'B,
• must grant the applicant permission to proceed through the development review
process. Moffet moved to approve the request with Gordon seconding. The motion
• passed 5-2, with Hitt and Foley opposed. The applicant will now proceed with the
appropriate development review applications for Design Review Board (DRB) review
and consideration.
The fifth item on the agenda was a request to proceed through the development review
process and modify the approved Meadow Drive Streetscape Plans in the area of the
Solaris/Crossroads Development.
Hall reported the town had received DRB approval and improvements under contract to
proceed with streetscape work in front of the Solaris project on Meadow Drive. The
Solaris developer wished to proceed through the process to modify the plans. The
developer is responsible for all the costs of the associated streetscape, including
modifications. Staff recommended Council grant permission to proceed through the
development review process working with the town staff on design concepts and final
approved plans. Moffet moved to approve the request with Newbury seconding. The
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The sixth item on the agenda was approval of the Seibert Circle Final Design.
Project Manager Todd Oppenheimer asked Council to: 1) Approve the final design for
Seibert Circle and 2) Approve an overall project budget of $675,000 assuming a
$325,000 commitment of private sector funding is received by December 5, 2006. 3)
Conditionally approve the award of the design, fabrication, and construction contracts
based on the private sector funding. On September 5, 2006, five design concepts for
. Seibert Circle, prepared by WET Design and Wenk Associates, were displayed and
discussed in an open house forum. From 20 to 25 people attended the open house. A
written description of each concept, with the estimated cost, was distributed to each
attendee. It was explained that the cost of all five concepts exceeded the town's budget
allocation. Attendees were asked to indicate which, if any, of the design concepts they
preferred so raising additional funds from sources outside the town's budgets could be
started. Staff received 15 responses. The WET Design concept number -three with
"Leapfrog" water jets and 'Water on Fire" nozzles received the most favorable
responses. It also contains the most expensive technology. The estimated cost for this
concept is $672,311. The current budget allocation for Seibert Circle is $350,000. Veil
Resorts committed $200,000 out of the Front Door public art allocation if the Council will
adopt any one of the 4 WET Design concepts. This contribution leaves the shortfall at
$122,311. Local residents Ron Riley and Alan Kosloff committed to raising the'balance
of the required funds if the Council will adopt concept 3 as the final design. The optimal
time for construction of the improvements is spring of 2007. The feature can be complete
and fully operational by July 1, 2007. In order to complete the work, WET Design will
need to begin final engineering in early December. The conditional approval of the
design and construction contracts will allow Riley and Kosloff time to raise the additional
funds. The deadline for raising the funds will be the December 5, 2006, Town Council
session. The conditional approvals will expire after that time. Oppenheimer explained
during public comment sessions no local residents suggested the site be left as it was.
Vail Mountain Chief Operating Officer Bill Jensen announced Vail Resorts was
comfortable committing $200,000 of its $1 million Front Door public art commitment.
John Kaemmer a local merchant with a business close to Seibert Circle encouraged
Council support of the project. Moffet thanked Vail Resorts for its monetary commitment.
S Moffet moved to approve concept three and its project budget with Hitt seconding.
Foley asked that Pete Seibert be acknowledged on the structure. Logan applauded the
public/private cooperation. "Vicki and I would like to join the list of donors." Newbury
commented, "I don't feel it is a good use of taxpayer funds for a feature that is going to
be cold." The motion. passed, 6-1, with Newbury opposed.
The seventh item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 26, Series 2006, an emergency
ordinance declaring the town council's intent to adopt an ordinance establishing
employee housing regulation for commercial and residential development and
redevelopment and applying such regulations to new development applications.
Mire explained that in May, 2006 the town engaged RRC Associates, Inc. to prepare a
Town of Vail Nexus/Proportionality Analysis for Employee Housing Mitigation Programs.
The purpose of this was to create a legal basis for assessing an employee housing
mitigation requirement on commercial and/or residential development. That study is now
complete and its findings have been presented to Council. Prior to adopting any
regulations regarding employee housing, Council would like to ensure that it has
provided adequate opportunity to educate the public about employee housing. The Town
Council has further determined that additional time is necessary to study employee
housing options before adopting new employee housing regulations. As such, rather
than impose a moratorium on development to give the town adequate time to study
employee housing options, the town would like to allow new development applications to
be submitted during the study with the understanding that those developments will be
subject to the pending employee housing regulations when and if those regulations are
adopted by Council. Mire explained, "This is the best means for you (Council), If you
want to stop short of a moratorium, and if you want to continue to process but make sure
developers are bound by the most current regulations." Moffet moved to approve the
ordinance with Foley seconding. Representing Vail Resorts Development Company, Jay
Peterson expressed concern that the proposed changes may require any design
alterations requiring a new development application, would subject that property to the
new regulations. "Representing a variety of clients," Dominic Mauriello urged Council to
use caution and reevaluate the data used to prepare the rational nexus study. Scott
Proper stated, "What is on the table is unpredictable and industry does not like
unpredictability." Moffet responded, "You can always take your money and go
somewhere else." Foley continued, "We are just trying to create a level playing field and
eliminate the gray areas." The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The eighth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 13, Series 2006, a Resolution By the
Town of Vail Council Urging Vail Voters to Educate Themselves and then Oppose Ballot
Issue Number 38 in the November 7, 2006 Election.
Mire introduced Resolution No. 13, Series of 2006. The Colorado Secretary of State
certified Ballot Issue Number 38 on December 6, 2005. This dramatic proposal would
substantially change the historical referendum process in Colorado. Among other things
this amendment would expand the referendum powers toward all local governments
including "all enterprise authorities and other governmental entities." These enterprises
and other governmental entities would be seriously and detrimentally impacted by such
referendum. Proposals similar to Amendment 38 have twice before been rejected by the
Colorado voters in both 1994 and 1996 by substantial margins. The proposal is not
clearly written and creates with virtually every line of the proposal numerous practical
and legal interpretation questions. Strictest compliance is required against hundreds of
• governmental districts which would create a substantial cost to the state even if only
complaint based enforcement occurs. This ballot item would overrule any conflicting
• state constitution provision, home rule town charter and all other state and local laws.
The procedures set forth present an unfair playing field in that the plaintiffs can recover
their attorney's fees but governmental entities have practically no chance of recovering
taxpayers dollars spent on frivolous compliance actions. Such broad initiative and
referendum right would seriously disrupt the operations of government. Council would
be forced to delay local laws from going into effect before a 91 day waiting period had
passed. The measure purports to prohibit any future ballot issue rejected by the voters if
the future issue is wholly or mostly similar to the rejected ballot item. Amendment 38
mandates taxpayer financed political advertising in the form of up to a one thousand
word statement, for petition proponents. Opponents have no such right under this ballot
item. Moffet moved to approve opposing Ballot Issue Number 38 with Gordon
seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The ninth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 19, Series 2006, A Resolution in
Opposition to the 2006 Ballot Issue Known as "Term Limits for Supreme Court and Court
of Appeals Judges," Amendment 40 to the Colorado Constitution, that Would Politicize
the Appellate Courts and Adversely Impact the Judicial Process.
Mire introduced Resolution 19, Series of 2006. An initiated constitutional amendment,
Amendment 40 to the Colorado Constitution, has been certified for consideration by the
voters of the state of Colorado at the regular election to be held on November 7, 2006.
Amendment 40 would cause all appellate court judges to be up for reelection at the
general election in 2007 but only if those judges have not then served ten years in office.
The effect of Amendment 40 would be to remove from office next year five Supreme
. Court justices and seven court of appeals judges. The effect of Amendment 40 would be
to limit the independence of the judiciary and to politicize their appointment by placing a
limit of ten years on the service of any appellate judge, thereby empowering the
governor with the appointment of a majority of the appellate judges after each general
election. The further effect of Amendment 40 would be to deprive this state of the
wisdom and experience of our sitting appellate judges and substitute on-the-job training
after each appointment. The further effect of Amendment 40 would be to discourage the
most qualified trial judges and attorneys from applying for appointment to the appellate
bench. The further effect of Amendment 40 would be to cause newcomers to the
appellate courts to be reviewing the decisions of seasoned trial judges, for whom no
term limits are proposed. No other state has placed term limits on the judiciary. The best
interests of the Town of Vail and its citizens will not be served by the attack on the
independence and competence of the judiciary contained in Amendment 40. Moffet
moved to approve the resolution opposing Ballot Number 40 with Gordon seconding.
The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The tenth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 20, Series 2006, A Resolution in
Support of Referendum I: The Colorado Domestic Partnership Act.
Mire introduced Resolution 20, Series of 2006. Thousands of law-abiding, taxpaying
Coloradans are denied basic legal protections and responsibilities merely because they
live in committed, same -sex relationships. Committed same -sex couples are not
guaranteed the right to visit a partner in the hospital, direct his or her care in a nursing
home, or to leave their property to whom they wish upon death. Gays and lesbians who
die without a will are more likely to have their property left to the government than to
their partner. In November, Colorado voters will have the opportunity to approve
domestic partnerships, a registered civil contract between committed same -sex couples.
I
• domestic partnerships, while not marriage, will provide many, but not all, of the
protections and responsibilities that these couples deserve. It was hoped the passage of
Referendum I would send a strong signal throughout the country of Colorado's
commitment to fairness and equality for all citizens. Moffet moved to approve supporting
Referendum I the resolution with Gordon seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-
0.
The eleventh item on the agenda was Adjournment.
Moffet moved to adjourn with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-
0, at approximately 8:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
f
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
Minutes provided by Corey Swisher.
r
J
Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor