HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-19 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
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 Andy Daly.
Members present: Andy Daly, Mayor
Kent' Donovan
Kevin Foley
Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Pro-tem
Greg Moffet
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. There was none.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda.
a. Foley moved, with a second from Kurz, to approve the February 5 minutes. A
vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
b. Foley asked these be considered separately because there was an addition to
the minutes to include a comment from Susie Tjossem acknowledging the passing of June
Simonton. Foley move to approve the February 19 minutes, with a second from Donovan. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The third item on the agenda was Town Manager Report. George Ruther, Community
Development Director, reported on the Public Information Sign Options at the Lionshead
Parking Structure and requested direction from the Council. Ruther stated the town is exempt
from the sign code, but suggested the following standards be followed: compatibility
(appropriately sized); sign surface (non -reflective); lighting fixtures (shall not shine light onto
adjacent properties); electrical wiring (concealed); sign maintenance (kept in good repair); wind
pressure and dead load (compliance with IBC); and moving parts (prohibited). Donovan
questioned who we were trying to direct and suggested the brown "I" on the north side only of
the tower be installed. Tjossem said it should be compatible with the overall wayfinding
program. Foley, Kurz, Rogers, Moffet and Donovan all signed approval for moving forward with
its installation.
The fourth item on the agenda was the Ford Park Master Plan and Management Plan Public
Discussion. Ruther explained an overview of the questions for Council had been presented at
the afternoon work session. Questions before the Council were: Does the Town Council have
concerns with the direction recommended for Ford Park based upon the existing planning
............................. _.... ........._
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2013 Page 1
documents (1985 Master Plan, 1997 Management Plan and 2012 Management Plan
Amendments)? If so, what are those concerns and why are they of concern?
The three options for the review of the current Ford Park Phase II Improvements application
are: 1) Continue forward with the recommendations of the Ford Park Management Plan
Amendment and take no action (no policy or implementation concerns); or 2) Withdraw the
Owner's consent to proceed through the development review process prior to the PEC public
hearing on April 8 and direct staff to immediately initiate amendments to the master plan and
management plan (policy concerns); or 3) Call up/appeal the final decision of the PEC on the
development application after the public hearing on April 8 (implementation concerns).
Ruther outlined the master plan history and the chronology of events (see Community
Development Memorandum dated March 19, 2013), ending with the following conclusions: 1)
Ford Park has been the town's longstanding solution to providing for the recreational needs of
residents of the community, our visitors and guests; 2) The 1985 Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan
Park Master Plan, as adopted in 1985, and later amended in 1997 and 2012, remains relevant
and in effect today; 3) The three documents (the Master Plan, the Management Plan and the
Management Plan Amendment) are a combined planning document for decision making
purposes; 4) The 1997 Ford Park Management Plan articulated six major goals statement
aimed at guiding future development decisions. Those goal statements, along with those
articulated in the 1985 Master Plan, established the town's intentions for development within the
park in 1997; 5) An outcome of the town's planning efforts in 1996-97 resulted in the Betty Ford
Garden Education Center being relocated out of Ford Park and onto the soccer field parking lot
on Vail Valley Drive; 6) The Management Plan amendments adopted by the Council in 2012
altered the policy direction for development in Ford Park from what had been established in
1997; 7) Policy direction established by the town allows "administrative offices" and "education
centers" in Ford Park, subject to review, and a finding of compliance with the planning
documents; 8) The 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment established illustrative
plans and descriptive narrative for "appropriate improvements and activities in the park;" 9) The
illustrative plans and descriptive narrative speaks generally, and specifically, to the development
of an education center and amphitheater improvements, among numerous other physical
improvements throughout the park; and 10) Those development applications for physical
improvements which most closely adhere to the implementation strategies prescribed in the
Management Plan Amendment have the greatest likelihood of being approved.
Daly clarified the process which is to discuss the Master Plan only and not specific projects.
This applies to both the Council and the public. He also stated in the 1997 Management Plan
there was contained adequate guidance for future decisions with no additional significant user
groups or uses. However, some potential conflicts were not resolved at that time, with disputes
being handled by the Office of the Town Manager. It was clear that no event or program could
dominate the park.
Donovan asked why the 2012 Amendments were applied to the 1997 Management Plan vs. the
1985 Master Plan, and shouldn't the amendments have applied to the Master Plan instead.
When she asked who made the amendment application, the response was the four
stakeholders: Vail Valley Foundation (VVF), Vail Recreation District (VRD), Betty Ford Alpine
Gardens (BFAG) and the Town of Vail (TOV).
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2013 Page 2
While this may be, Rogers stated, there were several open public meetings at Manor Vail.
Ruther responded that there were also public Council meetings, open houses and Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) meetings where several versions were reviewed. He also
said a significant part of the management plan was not changed in any way. Daly noted there
had never been an update on the noise issues at the Amphitheater, as promised, and this
resolution was missing from the 2012 Amendment.
Foley stated at the January 15 Council meeting, there should have been more history shared
from the1996-97 process. Tjossem questioned whether the changes made in Resolution 17,
2012, had made permanent changes or was the Council still in the thought phase. She said
there was specific language in conflict with the amended plan (Memo page 6). Tjossem says a
lot of people felt this was under the radar and did not resonate to the surface. This was seen as
a placeholder and not a given. Rogers said the BFAG Education Center was moved; however,
objectives and policies were still in place. Tjossem noted Council was not as educated about
the verbiage in the '85 and '97 plans.
Rogers pointed out in April of 2012, Donovan had openly stated, "We have given ourselves
permission to use the term placeholder." Donovan commented this community was pretty savvy
but the changes to the park did not cant' the gravitas and did not evoke the weighty changes, a
gross error. She said the Management Plan is more an addendum to the original Master Plan
so the Amendment in 2012 was adopted in error.
Kurz weighed in saying the Council should stay the course and move forward with the language
and intent or the 2012 Amendment. Tjossem and Moffet both noted they had been mistaken in
voting in favor of the amendment.
At this point, Daly opened comment to the public, again reminding everyone comments were to
pertain only to the Master Plan and not to any specific projects.
Those in favor of leaving the 2012 Amendment in place were: Jack Hunn, on behalf of the Ford
Park stakeholders; Harry Frampton, who noted "everyone" owns Ford Park, the VVF had fund -
raised $4M for both Phase I and II, which would put that money in jeopardy and Vail must
remain competitive; Nicola Ripley, Executive Director with BFAG, asked Council not to
withdraw its support and to continue with the amended plan; Mike Charles, Vail resident, who
asked not to lose sight of "ends to the means" and to stay with the plan; Bob Fritch, treasurer of
BFAG, who stated in good faith the Gardens moved forward with planning and withdrawing
support would leave BFAG in a very bad position; Sheika Gramshammer, who claimed she was
a part of the old guard but said now is the time to proceed; June Vanorek, BFAG board
member, asked Council not to go back on their word and to please approve what's in the best
interest of the town; Jackie Benson, Advisory Board for BFAG, was totally shocked to hear the
Council might withdraw support after they'd done so much to move forward; Gwen Scalpello,
BFAG board, stated the Amendment in 2012 was consistent with past master and management
plans and the town was surrounded by open space; Susan Schwimm, who works for the
Gardens, said this would be a great amenity for residents and tourists so to move forward with
the plan as amended; Liz Paxon, President of the BFAG, stated the building was consistent with
the Master Plan and to not withdraw support; Liz Campbell, Development Director with BFAG,
asked to support the Master Plan and not to fall short; Susan Milhoan, a fundraiser who had
been working with El Pomar, the Gates and Daniels Foundations, said she couldn't believe
approval could be redacted; and Ceil Folz, President of the VVF, stated there would have to be
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2013 Page 3
a reconsideration of the consequences this action would trigger re: their fund raising plus
working out a new concept would cause a delay of at least two years.
Those in favor of Council's withdrawing their support included: Jonathan Staufer, resident and
business owner, who thanked Council for revisiting the topic, which he felt was a mark of good
government. He felt the citizens did not have all the facts and with all due respect to both the
Gardens and the Foundation, certain things don't belong in the park; Joe Staufer, resident and
former Councilmember, reminded Council that if the City of New York had said "yes" to all of its
development proposals for Central Park, it would've been built over 2-1/2 times by now and that
the Master Plan needed to be re-examined; Billy Suarez, local resident and business owner,
stated Council should look into new information and not be afraid to consider all of the
information available; Tom Steinberg, resident and former Councilmember, stated as a 47 year
resident of Vail he encouraged throwing out the Management Plan and starting over, doing a
2013 Master Plan — the park has been abused in the past and this cannot happen in the future;
Dick Cleveland, resident and former Mayor, thanked Council for reconsidering the Master Plan
and asked Council to limit further development and leave the park viability as it exists today;
Bob Armour, resident and former Mayor, agreed that Cleveland's comments were spot on and
Council should re -visit the '97 plan; Hermann Staufer, resident and former Councilmember, said
to re -look, re -think and re -do the Master Plan; Galen Aasland, local resident, asked to
reconsider the plan since there isn't a lot of green left in the town any longer; and Kaye Ferry,
resident, said if Council didn't look at the Master Plan again, it would be death from a thousand
cuts.
Foley questioned whether the Phase I improvements were fully funded and was told yes — and
that Phase II still required approvals from both the Design Review Board (DRB) and the PEC,
after which Council could call up either board's decision. Tjossem said approvals were given
only for Phase I improvements. Further, she stated everyone is using "permission to proceed
through the process" as an explicit approval. That is not correct. Council had only agreed to let
the applicant proceed through the process. Council did not give its stamp of approval so this is
a cart before the horse situation. The word permission is misconstrued.
Rogers stated this is a perfect analogy for the Ever Vail process, where this is but one of the
things we wanted to see in the park and showed it on the map. Tjossem said the placeholder is
merely a concept, which is the basis of why we're all here tonight. Mixed signals have been
given and there are multiple impressions of what's been approved. Kurz said he did not base
his support of moving forward on the Foundation's potential financial trouble if this is stalled or
honoring the Ford family. He said it's the right decision and the community will gain from it. It's
the right thing to do at the right time.
Donovan moved to withdraw the owner's consent to proceed through the process, with a
second from Foley (for discussion purposes). Moffet noted the Master Plan is not known or
understood in the community. And while this would appear to be somewhat unprofessional
government, he is leaning toward not supporting the consent to proceed.
Daly said the site plan depicting improvements is conceptual and not a commitment; however,
Council gave permission to go through the process and should honor that commitment.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3, Daly, Kurz and Rogers opposed.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2013 Page 4
Daly clarified next steps to re-examine the master plan and management plan and to
immediately withdraw all aspects of Phase 11. This will be scheduled for the next regular
meeting on April 2 and will include discussion of both the management and master plans. He
said it is apparent Council is opting for Option 2.
A 5 minute recess was taken.
The fifth item on the agenda was Vail Golf and Nordic Clubhouse Project Update. Ruther
introduced the item, stating the Council was being requested to make decisions on three
revisions to the plan based on input from the PEC: 1) A reduction in capacity of the banquet
room from 200 to 160 people; 2) A prohibition against parking on Sunburst Drive; and 3) A
requirement to implement a valet parking program to meet the parking needs of the club house
and to ensure no parking occurs on Sunburst Drive.
Tom Braun of Braun Associates and Dan Guimond of Economic and Planning Systems (EPS)
were then introduced to present their findings. Braun noted the Update would address the
renovation of the property and the banquet facility; would evaluate utilization from both a public
and private service provider's view; would look at both costs and projected revenues; and would
look at the economic impact to the valley.
The evolution of the project has included an approach to re -zoning; expanded parking lot; tents;
parking lot entry; landscaping; noise and outdoor amplification of sound and use of outdoor
spaces; operations and management plan; bike lane signage along Sunburst Drive; and use of
the 18'' green.
Guimond then presented the Vail Golf Club Banquet Room use Analysis. EPS looked at a
scope of work including existing Vail Golf course facilities and utilization; competitive facilities;
utilization forecasts; and economic impacts.
Major findings concluded the renovation would improve the golf course operations by having a
separate bar and grille and a dedicated banquet room that could capture up to 50 weddings per
year. The Clubhouse is a highly desired location and setting and most weddings would be
about 130 guests, with June to September weekend nights in peak season. This facility could
also attract limited corporate and community use, with perhaps corporate off -site dinners
totaling 5 and 15 community use events annually. He produced a valley wide market analysis
noting the valley hosts approximately 600 weddings a year, split between the Donovan Pavilion,
the Eagle Vail Pavilion and select resort hotels.
Tjossem noted that most weddings were held in the evening and would not compete with the
day time activities, e.g., golf and Nordic progress.
Major findings under the economic and financial analysis resulted in the Vail Golf Course
generating a net profit of $51,000 based on room rental only. By providing beverage service,
this could increase revenues to $130,000 annually. Total wedding spending would equal about
$5M a year; sales tax revenues would be in the $137,000 to $150,000 per year arena; and
lodging tax revenues are estimated at $124,000 to $137,000. Guimond noted these numbers
were achievable with professional marketing and as long as the space was made available.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2013 Page 5
Dale Bugby, Vail property manager, reviewed language from the Pulis Ranch Deed Restriction
as it relates to the golf course: "To be used in perpetuity for a public golf course or open space
or park for benefit of the public and only such other related support facilities required for those
purposes. This covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of Grantee and Grantor, their successors and assigns. He also expressed concern
about outdoor amplified music; no sharing of valet parking; and that there be no special event
patio or lawn events.
Attorney Chris Toll, who represents 8 homeowners on Sunburst Drive, was concerned with
operations policies that can change over time. He stated a design plan is needed.
Vail resident Kaye Ferry noted the banquet layout showed 168 seats, rather than the 160 called
for, as a revision.
Moffet moved, with a second from Kurz, to approve the 3 revisions as proposed. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
The sixth item on the agenda was to appoint three members to the Art in Public Places (AIPP);
one member and two alternates to the Building and Fire Codes Appeal Boards (B&FCAB); two
members to the Design Review Board (DRB); and three members to the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC).
Although there were three vacancies for the Art in Public Places Board, just one candidate,
Jennifer Mason, applied. She was unanimously approved for another two year term and the
remaining two vacancies will be re -advertised. Kathy Langenwalter was reappointed to the
Building and Fire Code Advisory Board, with Mark Donaldson and Mark Hallenbeck being
appointed as alternates for 5 year terms. Brian Gillette and Tom DuBois were reappointed to
the Design Review Board for another two year term each. And Michael Kurz, Luke Cartin and
Pamela Hopkins were reappointed to two year terms for the Planning and Environmental
Commission.
The seventh item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2013
supplementing the 2013 budget. Mayor Daly read the title in full. Kathleen Halloran, Manager
of Budgets and Financial Reporting, stated there was nothing new, with the exception to some
increases to projects in the capital fund. Tjossem noted the second hour of the Vail's 50"' film
would fully document Vail's first 50 years and recommended a general fund allocation of
$50,000 to Roger Cotton Brown to successfully complete this project.
Greg Hall, Public Works Director, stated the Bighorn Creek culvert was actually a joint project
with Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and would be a net zero cost to the town. It was
explained that the $40,000 laserfische upgrade would compliment the finance system. Stan
Zemler, Town Manager, noted the $630,000 Safeway parking upgrades project and contribution
from Vail Resorts, Inc., would have an answer by second reading of the ordinance. It was
clarified the sidewalk would be on the south side of the vehicles parallel to them. A question as
to whether parking meters could be installed was answered by Hall stating the Federal Highway
Administration was studying this request.
In response to funding an additional $190,000 for the Main Vail Fire Station EHU's completion
was met with a request to have the Fire Department provide a further explanation at the second
...... ..... ......... .....
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2013 Page 6
reading April 2. Another question arose about the RETT expense of diverting $360,000 formerly
to be used for bike paths to the stream walk behind Apollo Park and the Wren. Todd
Oppenheimer, project manager, explained this would lessen the grade from 17% to 6.3%, and
would consist of new construction, rebuilding more than half of the stream walk, placing boulder
walls and resurfacing. Oppenheimer was also asked to return to Council on April 2 with a more
thorough explanation of the work.
Judy Camp, Finance Director, clarified it had been normal practice to have an average of three
supplemental appropriation ordinances per year. Zemler noted the savings in overall operations
helped to fund special events from the general fund. Moffet moved to approve Ordinance 6 on
first reading, with a second from Donovan. A voted was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
The eighth item on the agenda was a request to table the first reading of Ordinance No. 21,
Series of 2012, an Ordinance for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-
7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to Section 12-8B-7, Height, Vail Town
Code, to establish an allowable building height for golf course clubhouses within the outdoor
recreation district, and to allow for amendments to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code,
to define the terms golf course and golf course clubhouse, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Mayor Daly read the title in full. Because the applicant was requesting a tabling to May 7,
Moffet moved, with a second from Donovan, to do so. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
The ninth item on the agenda was a request to table the first reading of Ordinance No. 22,
Series of 2012, an ordinance for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-
7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of the Vail Golf Course parking lot from
the General Use District to the Outdoor Recreation District, located at 1775 Sunburst Drive/Lot
3, Sunburst Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Daly read the title in full. Again, because the applicant was requesting a tabling to May
7, Moffet moved, with a second from Donovan, to do so. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 7-0.
The tenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. There being no further business, Donovan
moved, with a second from Foley, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Res p y Submitted,
Attest:
_ Andrew P. D , Mayor
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant T04 Manager ,aN OF Va
Town Council Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2013 ,L"y Page 7