Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-07 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 7, 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 Ludwig Kurz Kerry Donovan Kevin Foley 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. 1) Approval of April 2 and 16 meeting minutes. Foley moved, with a second from Moffet, to approve both sets of minutes as presented. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 2) Simba Run Underpass Feasibility and Planning Environmental Linkage (PEL) Report Contract Award. Donovan said this was such a big part of the Ever Vail discussion and should be considered a shared public benefit as far as funding. She understood where it would land on the north side and was concerned how it would affect Timber Ridge. Town Engineer Tom Kassmel explained this would cover planning and environmental concerns and would address any impacts. When asked if this would also address the "cut and cover," Kassmel said no. Foley reminded Council this was a funding split with Colorado Department of Transportation Revenue (CDOT) and moved to approve the contract award to Felsberg Holt and Ullevig (FHU) for an amount of $324,929.32, with a second from Kurz. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The third item on the agenda was the Town Manager Report. There was none. The fourth item on the agenda was a public hearing to discuss the proposed 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan. This public hearing is a continuation of the hearings previously held on March 19, April 2, and April 16, 2013, regarding master planning for Ford Park. George Ruther, Community Development Director, took a moment to introduce a new addition to the planning staff: Jonathan Spence, who is joining the town after an eight year planning career with Steamboat Springs. Ruther then opened the public hearing on the 2013 Gerald R. Ford Park Master plan. He noted Council has been very busy studying and reviewing this plan and has had three separate meetings since March. He reminded Council this plans reflects a compilation of master planning as far back at 1974, through additions in 1985, 1997 and 2012, in an attempt to create one singular document. Staff has boiled these plans down into goal statements and objectives, with the last chapter acting Town Council Meeting Minutes of May 72 . et , .013 Page 1 as an illustrative plan. Subareas are based on uses and should be complimentary. He quoted a recent e-mail comment to Council in which the writer said, We love our parks to death," and stated this remains a very, very draft approach. Consultant Tom Braun stated he would walk through the different elements and process. He said this is an overview of the proposed Master Plan and staff wanted to make sure they were on the right track. Donovan questioned whether this would proceed to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), and Ruther responded it was noticed for the May 13 meeting, and based on tonight's discussion, a decision would be made to proceed. Regardless of the evening's results, he stated it would still be very helpful to keep the PEC up to speed. Donovan asked whether wordsmithing now was appropriate, to which Braun stated if a word could change the meaning, certainly state it. Ruther noted they had begun work on the new illustrative plan, which could perhaps be included as an appendix so it would not be as cumbersome. Ruther highlighted accomplishments from the four plans: 1974 defined possible park -like activities and structures, including solitude and natural settings being maintained; 1985 concluded an aquatic center would not be located in the park; 1997 focused on a management plan for existing uses; and the 2012 amendments included new improvements to existing facilities, including changes to the Amphitheater, new softbalVathletic fields and the addition of an educational center. A lot of passion has been put into these documents over the years. Now is the time to establish clear expectations. Donovan suggested the riparian areas were too vaguely described as open space, unless open space were further defined to be natural habitat. Rogers questioned bullet point 5 under Part 3 — History of Ford Park and Previous Planning Efforts stating, in fact, there is an interest in major new projects for the park and some changes were contemplated in the 2012 amendments. Braun stated the 2012 plan goals, objectives and policies further refined the flow, consolidating a couple of added new items. In Goal #1, Rogers shared concerns about the difference between new structures and new uses and questioned whether Council was really saying no new structures for existing uses. Daly stated Goal # 1 is the defining goal for the park plan. Rogers asked if Council was being forward thinking enough not to include language that would allow for new facilities. Braun stated a "compelling public interest" was the trigger for adding new facilities, and that Council should focus on the goals and not on individually proposed projects. Moffet added the plan was setting broad lines. Ruther clarified public art is an allowed use in the park and administrative offices are allowed when there are uses relevant to the park. Donovan asked why prohibited uses were listed and Ruther responded Ford Park is zoned General Use, which includes those listed. So this inclusion adds clarity and specificity. Rogers stated Council knows changes will occur, so Council can make a change based on public purpose. Braun continued with Objective 1.2 stating these, in essence, reflect what can happen and where. Objective 1.3 was inserted to better protect the creek in its natural condition. Rogers asked to keep the area northwest of the art shack, the flat area, as a potential site for the sculpture garden. In discussing the schoolhouse, Donovan suggested returning it to its original state; Tjossem agreed this would preserve its integrity. Rogers said the Gardens are not an historical society. This does not fit into their mission. Four Councilmembers agreed to further discuss. Tjossem said its use should be discussed with the group that negotiated to have it moved from its original site. It serves as an historical artifact to be restored and protected. Donovan said to add some teeth and to raise it to a world class level. The original intent cannot be thrown out. Foley stated that also in that area, the defector parking on the east side should be removed entirely. Ruther suggested reviewing the Town Council Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2013 Page 2 original language that was accepted by Betty Ford Alpine Gardens (BFAG). Rogers said turnin into a museum was a whole different story. Braun introduced Goal #2, which is new, saying the intent is to provide a balanced mix of open space, facilities, uses and programs to meet the recreational, educational and cultural needs of residents and guests. Passive enjoyment of the natural areas and preservation of significant view corridors reinforce the Park's connection to the natural environment. The intent is to separate active recreation subareas from other subareas. Support for the arts, music, dance and other cultural pursuits is maintained and enhanced, where appropriate. Discussion turned to Action Step 2.3.2 which spoke to a continuation of the boundary of the Park to Slifer Square. Ruther clarified this had been mislocated but was an attempt to expand the open space connection and to encourage uses that don't create more parking need. Tjossem added Slifer Square didn't really lend itself to park -like features. Rogers questioned restrictions at Roger Staub Park that might preclude placement of public art. Four raised hands were in agreement to discuss educational programming at the Nature Center. Rogers said three areas for the proposed BFAG educational center need to be discussed. Moffet responded the would narrow the scope and they were trying to provide broad parameters. Braun stated Goal # 3 deals with vehicular intrusions into the interior of the park. Ruther suggested revisiting the '97 Management Plan to focus on the objectives. Tjossem said it should be even more restrictive and should strictly limit access on the west side. Daly said users should be responsible for transportation specific to their areas, rather than relying on public transportation. Rogers said any expansion would increase traffic appreciably. Braun said the intent was to keep vehicles where they belonged and to ensure there was "no -net loss" of existing parking. Donovan stated additional signs for clarity and ease of use were needed. As well, she said users should cost share in major capital improvements to the Frontage Road. Concerns about two way traffic and safety were discussed. Goal #4 ensures compatible relationships between all venues and all uses within the Park. The term Park Superintendent will be replaced by the Town Manager or his/her designee. No one user will dominate the Park. And the General Public will be added to the previous list of 4 users. Ruther stated berms and landscape buffers would continue to ensure good neighbors and stakeholders. Goal #5 addresses internal pedestrian circulation and pedestrian connections to the Village. Braun stated this was retained nearly verbatim. Goal # 6 addresses financial responsibilities among leaseholders. Braun stated nothing was touched and it came from the '97 plan. Is this OK. Rogers pointed out not all users are created equally, since BFAG is the only stakeholder that does not have a revenue source. Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works, clarified utilities pay shares. Ruther stated the quality and functioning standards should be set by the town. Daly said new leases should be drawn up including cure and fault provisions. Tjossem questioned if a further discussion on whether tenants should own or lease their facilities, to which staff said they would follow up. Braun began to start a quick discussion of the Ford Park Subareas, but Daly stated this area of the plan would be tabled to a later meeting to allow for public comment. Dr. Thomas Steinberg, local resident, said the town continued to ignore the damage it had already done in the park. Zemler responded that he'd already ordered a report to assess what damage had been done to the hillside, as well as to Gore Creek. Steinberg said the park was purchased with Town Council Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2013 Page 3 RETT for open space purposes but the town continues to add buildings. Daly said RETT had been modified over the years and use had been expanded. Nicola Ripley, Executive Director of BFAG, shared concerns about the subareas and the possibility they might preclude improving pedestrian access to the creek in an environmentally appropriate manner. The school house should remain a very comfortable and welcoming environment since BFAG is keeping the building open to the public. It acts as a welcome center for the park. Anne Esson, Local resident, said she sees a red flag with Ford Park and if the building continues there will be no money left in RETT for open space purchases. She urged Council to use RETT for the right purposes. Gwen Scalpello, Vail citizen, said discussion sounds like Council does not want to see any changes in the park. She urged Council to return to the original goals and objectives and to keep activities relevant to the community. She said she works an average of 400-700 hours each summer so she hears the comments and knows what visitors to the park want. She urged further discussion regarding the school house. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner's Association, reminded Council of some historical factors, including restoration of the art shack from ruin; restoration of the school house with its contents; and the Nature Center modification to be environmentally sound. He asked if Vail saw itself as nurturing the historical. He feels it is essential to preserve as many historical buildings as possible. The town should take financial responsibility for this. It creates both a public and community interest. Rogers said the subareas should be accurately defined to correspond to the actual current lease areas. There being no further public input on this topic, Donovan moved, with a second from Foley, to table the discussion of subareas to the May 21 Council meeting. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fifth item on the agenda was 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 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. Daly read the title in full. Ruther introduced the ordinance, which dates back to the end of 2012, following a rigorous review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The PEC held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on October 22 and November 12, 2012. On November 12, the PEC forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed amendment by a vote of 5-0-2 (Pierce and Hopkins recused). Subsequent tabling's have led Council to consideration of this ordinance on first reading tonight. Donovan stated approving this ordinance simply was helping the Council get its house in order and is not an approval of a specific project. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner's Association, asked if it allowed for administrative offices of the Vail Recreation District(VRD) in case we have to find a new home for the VRD offices and was told that it did. Moffet moved to approve the motion on first reading, with a second from Rogers. He included the following findings from the PEC: 1) That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the town; and, 2) that the amendments further the general and speck purposes of the zoning regulations; and, 3) that the amendments promote the health, safety, morals and general Town Council Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2013 Page 4 welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. A vote was taken and motion carried unanimously, 7-0. Ruther restated the maximum height of the golf course clubhouse could not exceed 33 feet. The sixth item on the agenda was 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 Vail Goff 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. Daly read the title in full. In Ordinance No. 22, the applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a zone district boundary amendment to the Town of Vail Zoning Map to rezone the Vail Goff Course Parking lot located at 1775 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3, from the General Use District (GU) to the Outdoor Recreation Zone District (OR). Moffet moved, with a second from Kurz, to approve the ordinance and included the following conditions as proposed by the PEC: 1) that the zone district boundary amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 2) that the zone district boundary amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and, 3) That the zone district boundary amendment promotes the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Rogers said in Council's considerations of the golf course, the Nordic operations, which occur seven months of the year, have been considerably downplayed. Rogers asked if the neighbors were in favor and was told they were. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 2013, an ordinance repealing an reenacting Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1990, amending Special Development District No. 16 Elk Meadows, to relocate and reconfigure Lot 1, 2, and 3; adjust the gross residential floor area allowance for each lot, allow for off -site employee dwelling unit mitigation, and revise the architectural guidelines, in accordance with Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, located 1624, 1626, 1628, 1630, and 1632 13uffehr Creek Road/Lots 1-5, Elk Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Daly read the title in full. Tjossem recused herself and left the meeting. Ruther noted the purpose of this public hearing was to allow the applicant, Elk Meadows Development, LLC, represented by Sharon Cohn, to introduce four proposed amendments to the adopted Elk Meadows Special Development District (SDD) No. 16. Those amendments are : 1) relocation and reconfigurations of Lots 1,2 and 3; and, 2) revisions to the architectural guidelines; and 3) revisions to the on -site employee housing requirement; and 4) an increase in the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). He said the site had been staked and was visited earlier in the work session by the Council. Ruther referred to these changes as housekeeping measures. The new proposal would require the same things to which everyone else in town must comply. The employee housing will be deed restricted. Moffet requested a briefing about inclusionary zoning at the next meeting, which will be done off-line. Moffet moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, with a second from Rogers, with the following findings from the PEC: 1) that the SDD complies with the standards listed in subsection A of this section, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved; and 2) that the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 3) that the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and 4) that the SDD Town Council Meeting Minutes of May 7, 2013 Page 5 promotes the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Cohn stated they were very happy to be moving forward with this project and she considered herself and company stewards of the land. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The eighth item on the agenda was Phase I Design Development Review of the Vail Wayfinding Project, including the Interstate, Off Ramps, Roundabouts, Frontage Roads and the Parking Structures. The Wayfinding Project is a Component of Town of Vail Guest Service Enhancement Initiative. Moffet moved, with seconds from Donovan and Foley, to table this item to the first part of the agenda on May 21. Zemler asked Council to let staff know beforehand if they have any specific concerns about the proposal. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The ninth item on the agenda was Adjournment. There being no further business, Moffet moved, with a second from Donovan, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: 1 Andrew P. Dal r —! Y� M�j[.P_ _ Pam Brandmeyei .Town Council Meeti..g.. _....._... .y....'. ............_ ..... .............--.._ ................,__„ _.....,.,,,,.,,.... !; n Minutes of Ma 7 2013 Page 6,..