HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-05 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
7:00 P.M.
Vail Town Council Chambers
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at
approximately 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Dick Cleveland.
Members present: Dick Cleveland, Mayor
Andy Daly
Kerry Donovan
Kevin Foley
Kim Newbury
Margaret Rogers
Susie Tjossem
Staff members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation.
Joe Hanlon, Vail Recreation District representative, invited the Council and the public to
an open house on Oct 7, 2010 at the Vail Golf Course to review the proposed master
plan at 6 p.m. for public comments.
James Van Beek, an unaffiliated candidate running for Eagle County Sheriff's office in
November, introduced himself to Council and gave a brief presentation about his
background and views to Council and wants to give the community personal and more
proactive services.
Joyce Gedelman-Viers, a Vail property owner, thanked the Commission on Special
Events (CSE) for their hard work this past year. She stated she was interested in the
vacancy on the CSE but had decided to postpone applying to be on CSE until
December when 3 vacancies would be available. She said she heard the Council was
going to appoint more people to the CSE than what was published in the notice and
said the Council was starting a dangerous precedent in not following what was
published in the public notice and not communicating to interested parties what the
procedures and process was to the public in advance. She said the Council wouldn't
want to undermine their credibility by not following current procedures.
The second item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Kathleen Halloran
reviewed the monthly Revenue Highlights.
October S, 2010 Town Council Meeting Minutes
The third item on the agenda was the appointment of one member to the Commission
on Special Events (CSE). The applicants were interviewed at the afternoon work
session.
The Council had a discussion on whether to appoint more than one person to the CSE
at this time as there were a lot of good candidates for the CSE. The Council decided to
vote to fill the one vacancy at this time, for the three month timeframe as published.
A vote was taken and a motion was made by Kim Newbury to appoint Amanda Jensen
to fill the vacancy on the CSE; the motion was seconded by Andy Daly and the vote was
unanimous, 7-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was an appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals,
Vail Town code, of the Town of Vail Design Review Board's approval of a design review
application, pursuant to Section 12-11, Design Review, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
change to the approved sidewalk paver blend, located at 141 East Meadow Drive.
Michael Suman, the in-house architect for Solaris, sent a letter to Council and will be
added to the agenda for the record. He apologized to the Council for not following the
guidelines. Solaris owners felt they were doing the "better thing" in changing the color
of the pavers.
Warren Campbell, Community Development Chief Planner, stated on September 7,
2010, the Council voted to call-up the Design Review Board's (DRB), August, 18, 2010,
approval of a change to the paver colors on the north side of the Solaris development.
On November 20, 1991, the Town of Vail adopted the Streetscape Master Plan which
established the paver design and color blend for pedestrian areas. The paver pattern
for pedestrian areas was established to be herringbone and the paver color was a
unique "Vail Blend" which was a "charcoal grey with reddish/black accent". These
patterns and color blends were reaffirmed in the adoption of the 2003 Streetscape
Master Plan Addendum. The Community Development Department recommends that
the "Vail Blend" be utilized for the pedestrian sidewalk on the north side of the Solaris
development pursuant to the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan and the
Streetscape Master Plan Addendum.
Newbury stated the she was in favor of upholding the DRB decision. Rogers said she
agreed with Newbury and stated the Council appoints various community members to
the town boards and relies on them to do their job to which they were appointed. She
believes the DRB is doing their job and will support their decision.
Foley made a motion to uphold the decision of the DRB; seconded by Newbury;
Donovan said she was not in favor and will not approve as she feels the applicant
October 5, 2010 Town Council Meeting Minutes 2
needs to follow the master plan. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with
Donovan opposed.
The fifth item on the agenda was a request to provide a one year dispensation to Vail
Commons Residential Homeowner's Association required land lease payment to the
Town of Vail.
Nina Timm, Housing Coordinator, stated in December the Vail Commons Home Owners
Association (VCHOA) asked for a dispensation of the land lease payment. Staff would
like Council direction on whether the dispensation should be granted and provide staff
direction on how to amend the Capital Projects Fund to reflect any changes Council
would make to the VCHOA land lease payment. Pursuant to the request from the Vail
Commons Residential Homeowners Association "to defer the land lease fee for the
maintenance on capital projects", staff has prepared a memorandum outlining the terms
of the Vail Commons Residential Land Lease as well as the terms for other employee
housing developments on Town land. Staff does not recommend providing lease
payment dispensation for the Vail Commons Residential Land Lease.
She introduced Ethan Moore who represents the VCHOA. Moore said the VCHOA
understands the amount requested of $38,000 is not insignificant. The VCHOA feels
the dispensation is a legitimate request and is in the town's best interest as well. Vail
Commons is a valuable asset to the town, is the largest block of owner occupied
residences in Vail and they are requesting the VCHOA have temporary access to land
lease funds to improve their project on town -owned land. The funds would be
redirected for specific improvements to the common elements of the property. Any work
done would not increase any maximum sales price.
Rogers asked about the capital projects funds. Zemler stated there were far more
projects then dollars to fund them.
Newbury asked how much land the VCHOA has leased versus the commercial spaces
and City Market. Moore said about half of the land is leased by the VCHOA.
Timm said in the fifteen years that Vail Commons land lease has been in effect, the cost
has never been increased.
Matt Mire, town attorney, stated if the Council approves the dispensation, the Council
needs to site a purpose or reason as to why they are approving it or it would be illegal.
Rogers wanted clarification on whether the request is for forgiveness or a deferral.
Moore stated they wanted it to be forgiveness of the payment. She asked for specifics
on what the money would be used for. Moore said the money could be used for roof
October 5, 2010 Town Council Meeting Minutes
repairs, adding additional snow melt, redesign of some of the roofs, and the windows
need to be replaced and sidewalks need to be repaired.
Rogers asked what kind of precedent would this set.
Timm said part of the reason the VCHOA is coming forward is because they are the
only land lease project in Vail. The Vail Commons property cost was $3.1 million. The
intent when the land was purchased was to recoup the value of the land. There has
been a 42% increase in the value of the units since inception.
Cleveland stated that the cost of the $38,000 wouldn't even begin to touch the cost of
replacing the windows. He wanted to know if the VCHOA is asking for dispensation for
one time or for each future year.
Moore asks that the land leases be changed to be more in line with other projects in
town. He said quality affordable housing is in the best interest in the town and he wants
this asset to be in the best interest of everyone.
Newbury asked if the HOA dues were affordable. Carol McKown, a Vail Commons
homeowner, said the dues are currently $835 every 3 months ($278/month) for two
bedroom condominiums and $910 for 3 months ($303/month) for three bedroom units.
Michelle Reimer, Vail Commons homeowner, stated the dues include the land lease
fees.
Daly said when the project was approved the taxpayers believed they would recoup the
$3.1 million of the project and interest costs. He also said a more important matter is
using this funding mechanism. If an association is not looking for special assessments
or additional funds to set aside for projects and replacement reserves, the town is not
recovering costs. Daly said he cannot support this request. He said the VCHOA needs
a replacement fund. This undermines the idea of affordable housing with land leases.
Cleveland does not support this request either. Cleveland said everyone who owns
property has fixed costs they have to deal with as a homeowner. Tjossem agrees with
Cleveland and suggested the VCHOA come in and renegotiate the land lease. She said
that forgiving the land lease to do maintenance projects should not be done. The
request was denied and there was no motion to change the land lease or move this
issue forward.
The sixth item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010, an
ordinance amending Chapter 12-6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, to establish
the Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Rachel Dimond, planner, gave a brief overview of the project. There are a number of
properties in Vail that would benefit from this new zone district. Several legally
October 5, 2010 Town Council Meeting Minutes 4
nonconforming properties would conform to this new zone district, including Vail Trails
East, Vail Trail Chalets, Vail Row Houses and the Texas Townhomes. The application
went before the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) in August and was
approved with modifications. The PEC recommends the Vail Town Council approve the
first reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010, with the following modifications:
- The gross residential floor area (GRFA) standards should allow a 1.35 GRFA ratio.
PEC recommended 1.35 ratio, so they can utilize the full potential GRFA.
- The parking standards should include the applicant's proposed language allowing
parking in the front setback and street right-of-way.
- The setback standards should be 20 feet as recommended in the staff memorandum.
Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, representing the applicant, made a
presentation to Council and reviewed the background and process of this request. The
original application was denied. One of the homeowners at Vail Rowhouses, Mr.
Bridgewater, refrained from being included in the Special Development District (SDD).
He said there were holes in the SDD and the application was resubmitted for text
amendments and the properties that would be included would be Vail Trails Chalets,
Texas Townhomes, Vail Trails East, Vail Rowhouses, Numbers 1-6 and Vail
Rowhouses, Numbers 7-13. Staff sent notices to all 80 property owners and have
letters of support from the Vail Trails Chalets and the Texas Townhome property
owners. Mauriello then reviewed their memorandum with the Council.
Cleveland and Daly had concerns about the "step backs" allowing 48 feet high
elevations from the street side of the property and said implementation could be an
issue. Rogers said she supports the PEC recommendations.
David Viele, a board member of the PEC, said the PEC came to their decision to
include all property owners' rights in the process so no one had a "taking" of their rights
at the 1.35 ratio and it was the lowest common denominator for equity for all
homeowners, streamlined the process, saved staff time and promoted a client -friendly
review process. He said saving floor area of 50 % was difficult and that this approval
did not allow for step backs that were 48 foot high from the street level.
Mauriello recommended the applicant come back with a model at the next meeting so
Council could have a visual view of what they are talking about.
Viele said it's more important to address removing the 50% floor area versus the 1.35
ratio.
John Dunn, an attorney representing the Bridgwaters, who live in the Vail Rowhouses,
stated the Bridgewaters have been part-time residents for many years. Their concern is
October 5, 2010 Town Council Meeting Minutes 5
about the Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) ratio as a matter of public policy. They
believe the ratio will change the overall feel of Vail.
George Ruther said part of the implementation will be to have a plat map amendment
on the collective townhouse properties. This would allow a property owner to redevelop
without the multiple variances that would currently be required.
Scott Lindall, an architect representing Unit 13 of the Vail Rowhouses, stated they are in
support of the Vail Village Townhome District ordinance and the 1.5 ratio and are in
support of the amendments except for the side setbacks. He said the front and rear
setbacks comply but the side setbacks are almost to the property line. The Vail
Rowhouses Unit 3 is the only unit that has 20 feet of side setback. He recommends
using three feet as the side setback because Unit 13 would be the only one that can
comply.
Daly made a motion to approve first reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010, with
amendments; the ratio would be 1 to 1.25 of lot to developable GRFA; the eave height
on the street side limited to 35 feet; no split zoning would be allowed; town staff needs
to come back with language to provide for not vacating right-of-way and total rezoning
of project; parking standards should be 20 feet and comply with the findings of PEC;
Newbury seconded the motion. Tjossem said she would support a vote with the PEC
recommendations so she would be voting against. Rogers said she would be voting for
the PEC recommendations as well.
Ruther clarified that the town would not be vacating any right of way.
A vote was taken and passed 5-2, with Tjossem and Rogers opposed.
The seventh item on the agenda was Resolution 23, Series of 2010, a resolution
amending Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub -Areas, East Gore Creek Sub -Area (#6) to
include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
Rachel Friede Dimond, staff planner, recommends the Council table Resolution 23,
Series of 2010 until the second reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010, so the
ordinance and resolution go into effect at same time.
Foley made a motion to table Resolution 23, Series of 2010 to coincide with second
reading of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 2010; the motion was seconded by Daly; a vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The Council moved to the eighth item on the agenda which was Resolution No. 24,
Series of 2010, a Resolution Approving an I ntergovem mental Agreement Between the
October 5, 2010 Town Council Meeting Minutes
Town of Vail and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)Regarding
Highway Maintenance; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto.
CDOT is required to maintain state highways including highways extending through a
city or an incorporated town. The Town of Vail and CDOT wish to enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement authorizing the town to maintain the highways within town
limits, and for the State of Colorado to pay a fee of $120,998.00 for such services. Staff
recommends approving the IGA and authorizing the Town Manager to sign and enter
into the IGA with the CDOT in a form approved by the Town Attorney.
Daly made a motion to approve Resolution No. 24, Series of 2010, the motion was
seconded by Tjossem; a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Council moved to the ninth item on the agenda was adjournment.
Newbury made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Foley and passed u ani usly. The
meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. rf
Dick Cleveland, Mayor
Atte t:
L
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk
October 5, 2010 Town Council Meeting Minutes 7