Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-02 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 2, 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 Kerry 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. Mayor Daly noted that any attendees who were planning to speak at the upcoming pubic hearing on Ford Park should understand that only comments relating to the Master Plan would be heard and no comments would be heard regarding specific projects in the park. With that stated, Randy Milhoan, Minturn resident and long-time valley resident, spoke historically about the evolution of cultural events and the purchase of the Antholtz property, which subsequently became Ford Park. The Mayor ultimately asked Milhoan to step down until the Ford Park discussion was called. The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. a. Ludi Kurz moved, with a second from Greg Moffet, to approve the March 5 minutes with no corrections. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. b. Moffet then moved, with a second from Donovan, to approve the March 19 minutes. Daly asked to have minor corrections to paragraph 1 (addition of his name). A vote was taken and the minutes were approved unanimously, 7-0. C. Mayor Daly read Proclamation #2, Series of 2013, in full relating to the Mayors Day of Recognition for National Service. Donovan moved to approve, with a second from Moffet. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. d. Mayor Daly then read Proclamation #3, Series of 2013, in full relating to Colorado Architecture Month. Kurz moved, with a second from Moffet, to approve the resolution. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. Stan Zemler, Town Manager, reported the tree growth maintenance process for the area near the Covered Bridge is being submitted to the Design Review Board (DRB), saying Council had given staff the ability to manage the trees. Margaret Rogers said a problem with this is that Council doesn't get to see the proposed solution. She recognizes that Council can call it up, but that's after the fact. George Ruther, Community Development Director, said previously an amendment to the view corridor ordinance had been Town Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013 Page 1 passed by Council to allow for general maintenance. Ruther indicated he would prepare a memo for the April 16 meeting to clarify what's being proposed. The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing to discuss master planning for Gerald R. Ford Park. Ruther introduced the topic stating Council should have the red -lined version of Resolution 17, Series of 2012, adopting the amendments to the Ford Park Management Plan (1997) and which show what was retained and what was removed. Ruther said these amendments reflected updated new ideas following the passage of the Conference Center Funds and the uses that were outlined in that ballot question, thus affecting Ford Park. He noted there were several questions to be answered by Council centering on the original policy direction provided in the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan: the relationship between the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, 1997 Ford Park Management Plan and the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendments; what is similar and how do they differ; did the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendment alter the policy direction in the two previous plans; and, the fundamental point, should the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan be amended to include, all or parts of the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendments. And if so, which parts should be included and how should the amendments be implemented in the future. These critical issues needed to be understood. Ruther then went on to clarify the chronology and history of the planning documents for the park, in which the planning issues were outlined. In the 1985 Ford Park Master Plan, key policy direction centered around the following: Ford Park is to meet the recreational needs of the community, thus a community park; care is to be taken to conserve and enhance natural areas; active recreational elements are to be consolidated and located away from the meadow and creek areas, the sensitive riparian areas; the park will be protected from over development; high use facilities will be located away from more passive uses; structures will be stepped into the existing topography; parking areas will be located adjacent to the Frontage Road and away from areas with children; berms and landscape buffers will separate uses; and the plan provides the guidelines for which future development will be evaluated. These policies identify and acknowledge intended uses on the upper and lower benches of the park. Ruther stated the 1997 Ford Park Management plan was more about operations and management, although it supported the policies of the 1985 plan document. In this document, there were six major goals: preservation and protection; reduction of vehicular intrusions; reduction of conflicts between venues; resolution of parking and Frontage Road access problems; improvement of pedestrian circulation; and delineation of financial responsibilities. Donovan asked if these were considered over -arching goals. Ruther clarified these further addressed issues around operations and planning, with the concerns for the park beginning to be understood. The six goals remain highly relevant. Daly stated the only way he could rationalize the two plans was that the '97 plan goals got more specific and the scheduling and planning for the park appears to be successful. Daly questioned the difference between "allowed" uses vs. "prohibited" uses. Rogers stated some administrative office support was essential to the operation of the various users and should be allowed only to the extent they are ancillary to cultural and educational endeavors and should not exceed 20%. Daly agreed offices should only support uses actually happening in the park, things that occur in the park. He then asked about the Vail Recreation District (VRD) tennis center and how much actual space went to offices. That was confirmed at almost 100%. Discussion ensued bout whether the use was operational or ancillary is the appropriate definer of office space. Daly suggested VRD's use of the tennis center be grandfathered for three year to allow the district to find new office space in order to stay consistent with the concept and plan. He also asked whether Council should be addressing uses that are year 'round or seasonal. Rogers stated the '85 plan contemplates winter use, while Donovan felt these were already eliminated Town Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013 Page 2 In regard to year'round use, Ruther asked what it is about year'round use Council wants to understand. What are the impacts? Ruther said it was the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) role to evaluate those impacts. Daly questioned the impact of more and frequent delivery trucks adding to the traffic on the lower bench, especially as an organization's main headquarters were now located there. Foley noted ADA access would be tough to control. Moffet agreed with Daly's comment, stating the building would be a long way from the street so traffic was inevitable. Rogers suggested the storage areas on the west end of the upper bench could be used for receiving and shipping goods. Tjossem agreed a centralized delivery area made sense. Kurz felt the 20% for offices was a little excessive and that staff should look into it. He emphasized the '97 plan spoke to reducing conflicts between users, having a low profile and the use of natural materials. He also stated the social plaza educational center and enlarged restrooms appeared to fit into the 2012 amended plan, since it shows new structures. Donovan said the '97 plan was the result of a broad public process, in which it was determined the Alpine Gardens Educational Center was approved for the soccer field parking lot, and not in the lower bench. It was clarified the Phase I projects included new buildings, adding restrooms on the east and west end of the softball fields, a concession stand, relocation or the bus shelter and a new trash shelter. Tjossem said a case could be made for the educational center on the upper bench. Kurz noted the incremental cost of providing structured parking at the soccer field parking lot put the kibosh on the Garden's educational center at the soccer field parking lot. He feels the best place for the educational center is the lower bench because of proximity, although he could be easily convinced for another location. Foley agreed and said he would listen to a case for the upper bench, as would Tjossem. Rogers said cultural and educational activities already occur on the lower bench; however, the upper bench is also close to the gardens entrance and they were going to fix up that north entrance anyway. It would be a great location. Moffet felt much more comfortable sticking with the '85 plan and was much more amenable to the upper bench. Daly summarized that the majority belief of Council was no additional structures should be on the lower bench and the lower bench should be preserved for natural uses. Rogers asked where the actual demarcation between the upper and lower bench was. Moffet replied the new retaining wall at the ball fields was appropriate since it defines the topography. Everything north of that wall is the upper bench. Daly questioned how the town would deal with antiquated facilities, such as the restrooms, and how we could modernize facilities within a certain foot print, such as the social courtyard. How would remodels and modest increases be handled. Donovan stated there should be no new structures or buildings on the lower bench, since this would just open the door to creep. There should be no expanding of the footprint. Rogers stated it was never said that the lower bench was to be a conservation area. Foley said to fix them up but not to expand. The town needs adequate facilities. He also noted new restrooms were underway for the softball fields at both ends, east and west. Moffet said hard limits were needed. Rogers questioned what, then, could be done with the Art Shack. Could a new building be put on an old foundation? She did not want to preclude improvements to the park. Foley, Tjossem, Moffet and Donovan agreed there should be no new buildings, along with Kurz, although he didn't agree entirely with Donovan. Zemler noted a social courtyard already exists at the Amphitheater and the Ford Family Tribute has been moved to this location. Town Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013 Page 3 Rogers asked if they were starting from scratch and if they were planning this park in the abstract. Foley replied that, yes, we're coming up with a new document. Moffet said Council couldn't do a master plan update based on a development application. He also noted the Phase I improvements were consistent with the '97 plan and the 2012 amendments. Daly asked about ownership of the structures in the park, recognizing if the structures were not maintained to the town's standards, they should revert to the town. Tjossem agreed these structures have long term implications and that the town is ultimately responsible for them. Rogers asked if the town really wanted to own everything in the park, and thus assume responsibility for them. Ruther pointed out Goal # 6 outlines the roles, responsibilities and obligations of all the park users. Tjossem said the improvements need to look and feel like they meet Vail standards. Daly stated an effective ground lease with a reversion clause was needed to insure this. A request was made for an update on the temporary structures in the park supporting concerts, social events and galas. Donovan said she did not believe the Commons Area green space on the lower bench should be treated as a wedding venue and should not be an available venue. She added International Dance and Bravo! were OK on a limited basis but there should overall be less temporary use. Anything that takes up that green space for an extended time should not be allowed. Ruther suggested Gold # 3 that deals with conflicts could have more language added on frequency. Ruther also noted the staff memo, page 8, talked about the '85 plan and its defining of bulk, mass and scale. Expanded uses were covered in the '97 plan after the completion of the pedestrian path from the ball fields to the Village Parking Structure. And parking improvements to the Frontage Road have been made so there is no actual net loss of parking. Zemler questioned what we tell the Phase II applicants. What is the process at this point, while not presuming any outcomes. Kurz urged Council to respect the '85 and '97 documents that have done the town well and to recognize these are 28 and 16 years old, respectively. The town has to look to the future so that 50 years from now, we can be just as proud. Public Comment was opened with Tom Steinberg, former Councilmember, stating past abuse at Ford Park has not been rectified, resulting in much more shallow streamflow. The stream bank needs to be returned to its original state. He urged Council not to overuse the park with buildings, amphitheaters, bridges and schools but to return the park to open space and recreation. He said Ford Park was originally bought with RETT dollars, so to honor the intent of RETT. Bob Armour, former mayor, stated there was a reason we did a management plan and not a master plan back in '97 and noted there was already enough administrative staff in the park. Nicola Ripley, Director for the Gardens, said the Gardens remain flexible and are perfectly comfortable waiting for direction from Council. Diana Donovan, former Councilmember, noted there was no language that supports arts and cultural activities on the lower bench, and Council should return to more riparian concerns, more natural and recreational uses. She also questioned what public process had occurred and that as a citizen of Vail; it was hard to get educated when there was no give and take with the public. Also noting a small and select group of users put the amendments forward, it was not the same process as being at a round table. Donovan stated residents are not polarized on this but there is just a huge amount Town Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013 Page 4 of misunderstanding. She asked to share her red -lined copy of the documents and was assured Zemler and Ruther would sit down with her. Galen Aasland, local architect, noted one of the stakeholders, the public, was not at the table. He is glad there will be no further development on the lower bench. He said a 3,000 SF building was too much, especially when you consider how much surrounding space goes to ground improvements and the adjacent area. Joe Staufer, former Councilmember, was concerned that the Phase II plans primarily called for restrictive private structures and that the social plaza should be off limits for further construction. Jack Hunn, representing the Vail Valley Foundation for over 2 years, said shared visions for the entire park were included in the 2012 amendments and reflected these pursued concepts. The improvements to Ford Park had always been treated as one project, to be implemented in two phases. A lot had gone on since the amendments were approved a year ago. He recognized the town owns the park and said the Foundation would continue to be a good partner. Future language should not preclude good ideas into the future. Daly asked whether a small citizen committee should be put together, to which Rogers responded the talking had already been going on for the last two years. They were not starting from scratch but were correcting a process that was flawed. Donovan said the Master Plan deserves a public debate, although agreed we're not starting over. Zemler said clear guidance was needed. A draft master plan would be provided and it would be Council's job to establish policy. Randy Milhoan returned to the podium and underscored it was very important to listen to what Jack Hunn had said. In researching The Vail Trail form 1971 to 1973, he said the progress was miraculous, but this occurred not by over -regulating but by trusting each other. He asked not to straightjacket the future. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowner's Association, thanked the Council for taking this much care of a public property and for their ability to step back. He suggested taking a re -look at the original Vail Plan because every Council has dealt with Ford Park. He asked to make changes in a very circumspect way and from an historical perspective. He said a definition of what these quasi - public buildings will be should be added. He suggested adding a visitor center on the upper bench that could contain the educational center and a public parking structure to shield the sound from the Interstate. Tom Steinberg again approached the podium to state Bravo! does not receive money from the Amphitheater, which he knows from sitting on the Bravo! board for 23 years. He urged Council to say no to an additional sculpture garden and to leave this as recreational and open space. There being no further public comment, Council requested staff bring back a merged 1985 Ford Park Master Plan with the 2012 Ford Park Management Plan Amendments, the latter of which already contains the 1997 Ford Park Management Plan. A five minute recess was called. The fifth item on the agenda was to appoint one member to the Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council. A motion was made by Kurz, with a second from Tjossem, to appoint Michael Town Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013 Page 5 Holton to fill an unexpired term ending on December 31, 2013. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The sixth item on the agenda was the 2012 Year-end Investment Report. Finance Director Judy Camp stated the 2012 Year -End Investment Report was based on three over -arching policies: safety, liquidity and yield. Treasury yields remain low, although the town has out -performed its benchmarks, at almost 1-1/2 % higher. Staff has changed the mix of investments and has used low - yielding funds to pay off external debt on Timber Ridge. The seventh item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2013 supplementing the 2013 budget. Kathleen Halloran, Manager of Budgets and Financial Reporting, gave a brief overview with questions followed by Council. Donovan was concerned with a picnic table location as a part of the streamwalk improvements. Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works Capital Projects, stated there would be a 270 foot low boulder wall, built within 3-4 segments and with a maximum height of 5 feet that would realign a section of the path. This $360,000 project was endorsed by Council with the condition that the route to the creek is obliterated, creating a buffer to preserve the riparian area. Daly also noted the path looks very straight so to add some interest and use a little creative license. Oppenheimer confirmed the path would have a natural service. Daly questioned moving forward with the North Frontage Road improvements in front of Safeway, but was reminded that a vote had previously been taken and the outcome was 5-1 to move forward. Rogers moved to approve, with a second from Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The eighth item on the agenda was Adjournment. There being no further business, Moffet moved to adjourn, with a second from Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0, to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: Andrew P. Daly, M r Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town nager ;SEAL: Town Council Meeting Minutes of April 2, 2013 Page 6