Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-04 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 4:00 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. Stephen Connelly, local home and business owner, stated the public trust is at risk and has been violated lately. Council's role is to lead and represent this community. Recall has been discussed in the community and there are issues with the town not releasing information as well. He also stated concerns about plastic grocery bags, which leads to higher costs at the landfill. Council should immediately move forward with a ban on the bags. Dale Bugby, local resident, business owner and golfer, stated the 18th hole is at risk and he had circulated a petition which currently carried 245 signatures. The town should enforce the Pulis covenants, which would prevent this. Jonathan Levine, Hummers of Vail, said he'd had no feedback from the Town on a former complaint he'd lodged re: the licensing registration. Stan Zemler, Town Manager, said he would schedule an update at an upcoming meeting, since staff had said they would return to Council after the winter season. The second item on the agenda was Consent Agenda. 1) Approval of May 7 and May 21 meeting minutes. Kurz moved, with a second from Foley, to approve the minutes as corrected. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) had been incorrectly typed as Colorado Department of Revenue. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. On the May 21 minutes, a typo for the start time was corrected along with language clarifying a comment made by Rogers about Subarea 1, Parking/Transit. The corrected wording is: "Rogers voiced a preference for using transit to address environmental concerns." (Page 4). A second correction on Page 5 related to Subarea 6, Gore Creek Preservation. The Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 1 added wording: "Daly said to take a vote. The vote was positive to disallow new buildings, while allowing for possible bridges. By a 4-3 margin (Donovan, Foley and Daly against), this specific discussion ended." Moffet moved to approve, with a second from Donovan. A vote was taken and the minutes passed unanimously. 2) 2013 Curb/Gutter Repair Project Award. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, advised this item did not require a vote, but from a straw poll of Council, everyone was in favor of approving a curb and gutter repair project for the Main Vail roundabouts to Betone, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $67,538.25. The third item on the agenda was Town Manager Report. There was none. The fourth item on the agenda was appointment of three members to the Local Licensing Authority (LLA) and one member to the Housing Authority (HA). A motion was made by Kurz, with a second from Rogers, to approve Bruno, Steers and Zinn to a two year term on the Local Licensing Authority. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Kurz moved, with a second from Rogers, to appoint Craig Cohn to the Vail Local Housing Authority. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fifth item on the agenda was a final review of an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission decision, pursuant to Section 12-3-3C, Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decisions, Vail Town Code, appealing a decision by the Planning and Environmental Commission approving, with conditions, a development application for amendments to an existing conditional use permit for the Vail Golf Course, located at 1775 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 and Unplatted Parcels, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Daly introduced the item, stating a public process was to be followed regarding this hearing by a protocol displayed on the south side of the Council Chambers. The first item to be considered was who, of the plaintiffs, was to be admitted standing in this proceeding. Thus, a Hearing to Determine Standing of Appellants was opened. He also noted there would be an opportunity for public comment, which would be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Mire said it is the job of the Zoning Administrator to make a ruling on the appellants, where a decision is made as to which appellants have standing within the Town Code. George Ruther acts as the Zoning Administrator. Steven Collis, attorney for the appellants, introduced himself and began the Presentation of the Appellants. Collis noted the list of appellants was the same list that had been used in the application in the fall of 2012. He requested the appellants be treated as any other applicant to the town. He described the clubhouse proposal as one that would leave his appellants aggrieved with material injuries. He said the Applicant had previously admitted to having no operational plan, and thus, the PEC required plan. There is no way the town can guarantee that the special events center could be controlled at 160 people, and that the 160 applies only to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) area. There could be a tent on the fairway, as well, so this would have a cumulative affect on Sunburst Drive. The neighborhood, the appellants and other users have safety concerns. He said some homeowner's property values have already been affected. Rogers asked if he could provide some examples. Collis said one example comes from the appraisal. Daly said that Montaneros was not a good comparable, given the addition to the redevelopment of other condominiums in Lionshead. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 2 Collis said the appellants will be adversely affected by drunks stumbling down fairways, which becomes even more difficult because the police don't respond to complaints. Deborah Webster, appellant, introduced herself and said she'd just received a long memo from Community Development re: standing. She also noted she has called the police department many times on sound violations over the last 22 years. When questioned how recently she'd called, she said probably 2-3 years ago. Her home has been on the market for 2 years, but upon inquiry, her realtor must still state the terms of the lawsuit and the situation with the clubhouse. When stating she was concerned about the tents, Daly responded that no tents were allowed within the CUP per the PEC approval. Rogers asked who her realtor was and she replied Barbara Schofield with Prudential. Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak, and there was no one. The Mayor moved on to the Presentation of the Town Staff. Ruther produced a PowerPoint map on the neighborhood and adjacency as it reflects standing. Per his analysis of the criteria and considerations, he stated R. Glenn Hilliard, Deborah L. Webster, the Olson Family 2012 Trust and Starfire Company, LTD. had standing as adjacents, but were not adversely affected or aggrieved. 1835 Sunburst Drive, LLC, Richard J. Callahan and Mary Celeste Callahan, Samuel and Luleta Maslak and Landon Hilliard, III had neither standing nor were they adversely affected and aggrieved. Ruther then read the considerations on which he based his determination. 1) The uses proposed by the applicant are consistent with the purposes of the zone district and achieve the development objectives of the town. 2) An Operations Plan was required by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and town staff, in addition to the already established regulations for noise and lighting. In all instances, the Operations Plan is more restrictive than current regulations, thus affording the appellants greater protections than those afforded to other property owners elsewhere in town. 3) A review of the Town of Vail Police records does not support the appellants claims of lack of enforcement. When questioned by Council on how far back the records went, Ruther said he did not know. 4) Temporary tents are an allowed use in the zone district today and regulated by the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. The Operations Plan again affords the appellants greater protections than those afforded to other property owners elsewhere in the town. 5) The reconfiguration of the existing driving range net is not relevant to the CUP approval granted by the PEC. The justifications for its reconfiguration, if pursued, are not directly related to the approval granted. The fairway is not a part of the CUP. Rogers added the Operations Plan does not address the fairway. Ruther said this was not within the PEC scope for review of the CUP. 6) The appellants have provided no competent evidence to support any claims of lack of buffer to protect residences. Setback requirements have been imposed to ensure an adequate separation amongst land uses exists. The allegation of adverse affect is unfounded. 7) The Outdoor Recreation zone district, as most recently expanded with the neighbor's input, provides a significant amount of certainty regarding the use of the property. At a minimum, the appellants are no more aggrieved or adversely affected, if at all, by zoning than any other property owner in town. Ruther added zoning is in place across the entire town. 8) The appellants have provided no competent evidence to support any claims of parking congestion and safety. To the contrary, the applicant has proposed, and the PEC has Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 3 approved, a parking plan which fully complies with the provisions of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. The applicant, at the request of the appellants and others, amended the parking plan to remove vehicle parking from Sunburst Drive. This is a limitation not imposed upon any other property owner in the vicinity, so this is unfounded. Ruther added subject to permission from the Police Department, prohibition of parking on Sunburst can still be waived on special occasion for neighbors. 9) The appellants' claims that emergency vehicle access will be compromised due to parking on Sunburst Drive and lack of law enforcement are clearly intended to sensationalize the issue and provide a distraction to the process. Such claims are inaccurate and purposefully false as the appellants have been repeatedly informed that parking is not permitted on Sunburst Drive. And 10) the appellants have been actively engaged in the development review process associated with the development application prior to its inception. Much of the input and feedback provided by the appellants has been incorporated into the final approval and conditions imposed by the Planning Department. After Council deliberation, Moffet moved, with a second from Rogers, to approve standing as adjacents but that none are adversely affected or aggrieved to the four recommendations from Ruther. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0-1 (Foley). Mayor Daly then moved on to the Public Hearing on the Merits of the Appeal. Collis spoke to the parking on Sunburst Drive, stating anything unexpected will cause parking on Sunburst and there is no room for error. Daly said this will require coordination of the events. Collis said informal events could occur which might not be anticipated. Moffet said overflow parking on Sunburst is currently the status quo. Collis restated this was a safety concern. Rogers said the Operations Plan does not prevent a party or event and the PEC simply approved a remodel of the clubhouse. Collis said the Operations Plan did not support activities that were customary and incidental. With two separate entrances for golfers and events, it is further clarified the events center is taking precedence. Daly said the square footage is being increased from around 18,000 to 21,000 SF, which is a 16% increase in capacity. The banquet space is growing by 1,000 SF, while the remaining goes into the Golfer's Grill, lockers and restrooms. Collis said only activities necessary to the operations of the golf course should be included, and with re: to the Nordic Center, if this has been a violation in the past doesn't mean it should continue. This is a much more dramatic use. Rogers asked how the Nordic space was relevant to golf. Collis said he didn't know. Rogers asked if the clubhouse was ancillary to the golf course. Re: the Nature of the Appeal, Collis said the appellants alleged the following: 1) the proposed location of the use will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; 2) the town's plan most definitely will be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity of the event center; and 3) what the Applicant is proposing is neither customary nor incidental. In sum, the PEC approved amendments to the CUP without making the proper findings, and the proposed event center fails to satisfy either of the two tests for a conditional use as an accessory building for use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. Collis said if the Applicant builds it, people will come. The only thing to be considered is what is necessary for the operations of the golf course clubhouse. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 4 Moffet asked if Collis could name one successful golf course where a restaurant is separated from the grill. Donovan asked for a definition of the word necessary. Resort expectations are somewhat different in Vail and cutting back service is not an option. She had questions about the outdoor amplified sound, to which Collis responded it is already loud and complaints are lodged. Daly said the outdoor amplified sound must be completely off by 8:00 p.m. And the facility would be air conditioned; some of the most strident conditions in the town. Donovan noted the town already has regulations in place about lighting. Art Abplanalp, attorney for property owners on Sunburst, disclosed to Council that an additional two homeowners, Chapman and Knowlton, also had asked him to speak on their behalf. He presented a stack of paperwork he said should have been included in the record, but which he had assembled. Some will duplicate what Ruther has presented. He said these reflected the application as it unfolded. Rogers asked if he had attended every PEC meeting, to which he responded he had. He said no operational plan had been presented to the PEC. He had a red -lined copy of the PEC April 22, 2013, memo, but there was no inventory of the objections the golfers had voiced. He said the Vail Local Marketing Committee had been the catalyst for this proposal, and the current application is not within the original footprint. The PEC did not take any intelligible action on the CUP. Only those things customarily incidental and necessary should apply to the operations of the Golf Course. If that doesn't occur, then it should be identified for what it is, which is an events center. The events center was changed to a banquet room in January. Not one golf course he's aware of has an event center or a banquet room. Rogers said no golf course space had been sacrificed for weddings. Daly said Arrowhead, BeaverCreek, the Sonnenalp, Red Sky and Cordillera all had independent grills but the facility itself was available for weddings, meetings, banquets, and so on. Tjossem questioned how the use of banquet facilities could preclude golf, to which Abplanalp responded someone could not get from point A to point B. He said the neighborhood supports a new clubhouse but what Council is considering is a disservice. Appellant Deborah Webster said Council's mission is to provide service. The PEC approval came as a complete surprise. She said the 5-0-2 recusal was hardly an endorsement. The Applicant has made minimal concessions. The plan would be thrust on property owners to enforce. Council is not doing its job and should go back to the drawing board. It's the wrong project in the wrong place. The meeting proceeded to the Staff Presentation by Ruther, who first addressed a full page ad in the Vail Daily on the previous day. He said it lacked accuracy and included many misrepresentations. The golf course clubhouse would increase by 15% and golf and Nordic would occupy 100% of that increase. Capacity for the banquet space has been set at 160 people. The operations plan includes a parking plan, with 112 existing spaces increasing to a 158 requirement. Ruther noted in the April 22 memo to PEC, there was a review of the criteria (page 14 of the PEC memo and Page 5 of the Council memo dated June 4, 2013) for the CUP. The golf course clubhouse is a permitted use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district, so the use is determined to be allowable. The Operations Plan was modified based on recommendations from the planning staff. Boundaries have been changed for the CUP, Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 5 at the request of the neighbors, which is the very purpose of a review process. An additional requirement will be the graphic depiction for the tent location. PEC made their findings, but in the course of discussion, an in depth conversation on the term materially injurious was had based on a request from Commissioner Michael Kurz. In response to the question of the town being treated differently than any other applicant, Ruther said the Operations Plan speaks to this. The parking plan fully complies with adopted land use regulations. Given public testimony, the application reduced the size of the CUP area. As for enforcement of the Operations Plan, this will be no different than what is expected of any property owner within the town. The town has a number of venues by which to ensure enforcement. This fourth hearing of the PEC included the conditions of the graphic depiction of the tent area, as well as the Operations Plan be drafted in a form that is legally enforceable for the zoning. Mayor Daly opened Public Comment. Stephen Connelly said the town has done a great job of banning tents. He questioned the value to VRD of $79,500 for revenue generated. He asked there be an estimate on the impact of rounds of golf, thus lost revenue, in diminishing the offset of revenue generated from the events center. He asked why build it so big. The public is not fully engaged. He suggested Council table the item tonight and put it forward to a vote. Mike Cacioppo said there have been events at the clubhouse for over thirty years. The covenants say this is to be used for golf course purposes. The clubhouse is not just for golfers; all taxpayers own the clubhouse. As an expert in the sound business, he suggested a separate banquet room would be better to insulate noise. Paul Simon said this has turned into a lot more than a clubhouse, but agreed the town needs a nicer golf clubhouse. Eric Taylor, who is a member of the men's golf club, said the town has changed the use definition to get past the covenants. The town is interested only in generating revenue. The current parking lot at 112 spaces spills over regularly. 46 new spaces is short-sighted. There is a problem with the revenue projections. Most who use the clubhouse don't want this project. Joe Staufer said there is a misconception of what we voted for. There are competitive new restaurants on the mountain. If the golfers and the neighborhood don't want it, who is the town serving. Richard Silverman said the valet parking is an issue and questioned how a banquet event business could be successful with an end time of 8:00 p.m. Dale Bugby said the nature of need of this CUP is the problem. The outside uses and tripling of patio and lawn area are not needed. This is a change in use for this property. Council has been unwilling to compromise. Kim Newbury said as a former Councilmember, she had attended many open houses and heard the public discussion, which eventually led to putting this forward on the ballot. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 6 Council never talked about allowing no events. She said Council should see how the PEC made their decision, which clearly shows this should not be overturned. PEC listened to public input and made changes. Her peer group is not opposed to this project. Jason Plante, 25 year resident, expressed concerns about safety on Sunburst Drive, which doesn't work for the community, and management of valet parking. Hermann Staufer said he had listened carefully to the comments. The convention center was voted down. The purposes on the ballot were clear. The Pulis restrictions were never lifted. It should be used as a golf course with less emphasis on weddings. He questioned why the town would compete with local businesses. Rob LeVine said he was in favor of the project, which would be in the best interest of the entire community. He used the analogy of the Sonnenalp golf course where he lives on the first hole. The Faesslers decided to expand the clubhouse, the deck and the public restaurant. In fact, this attracted more and better events, which has been an overall benefit to that golf course community. Barbara Schofield, local realtor, presented a copy of an Affidavit of Jay B. Pulis, Jr., and read the following sections: #7) Minimizing development and maximizing open space were always very important to us. We always intended the golf course land to remain as golf course land and to be used for recreational purposes; #8) To ensure the neighborhood and the valley met our vision for it, in 1966 we leased our land on which the Vail Golf Couse now sits to the Town of Vail, with specific requirements that it should only be used for a golf course or other specified recreational uses. If any clubhouse were built, it had to consist only of facilities ordinarily available in structures operated in conjunction with golf courses; #11) By the time we sold the Golf Course property to the town, the Vail Valley had become one of the nation's premier tourist destinations, and we knew how tempting it would be for the town to make a large profit by either developing the golf course land itself or selling it to other developers, contrary to the common plan we had for the golf course and its adjoining neighborhood; #12 To prevent that from happening, and to preserve the neighborhood around the Golf Course, we included with the January 11, 1984 deed to the land a restrictive covenant that states that the only use of the land was for a golf course, open space, park, or related facilities that were required to support those uses ("Pulis Covenant"). The idea behind the Pulis Covenant was to keep the land as undeveloped as possible so it would remain a golf course with only supporting facilities for a golf course; and #13 Creating an events center with a wedding venue and indoor/outdoor banquet facilities is not consistent with our intent or the intent of the Pulis Covenant. Our intent was a golf course, simple required support facilities, and surrounding residences, and not commercial operations. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked Council to reverse the decision of the PEC based on the incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, as it would do irreparable harm. Dennis Koller, 14 year local, said the clubhouse represents a lot of tradition and reflects the history of Vail. It is not for weddings. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 7 There being no further comment from the public, Mayor Daly closed public comment. Ruther said a recurring theme is parking, which was addressed by the PEC and Operations Plan. Staff recommends Council uphold the decision of the PEC and noted the Finding of Facts in both the PEC and staff memo for this meeting. Mayor Daly called for the Response by Appellants. Toiler stated the PEC had found the project to be materially injurious and detrimental to public safety. Only those things customary and incidental to a golf course should be included. This should be re -designed to be in a quiet neighborhood. The events center competes against the golf course itself. He said the PEC did not adopt the conditions in their findings. Webster received an e-mail on July 12, 2012, from Warren Publis, who called the event center a complete sham. The original conditions had already been agreed upon. Abplanalp said staff should be commended on their parking efforts, but unfortunately, these don't deal with the golfer. The events center trumps the golfer. Only what's necessary should be included. The Operations Plan will not work over the next 50 years. The correct finding is to reverse the PEC. Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Mire asked Council to accept all documents as presented as part of the public record. Moffet moved, with a second from Donovan, to accept all documents as presented, along with all exhibits. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Daly opened the Council deliberation. Tjossem said she struggled with what the Council can do or should do. The conditions have become incredibly restrictive. An average wedding with 150 people now costs between $25,000 to $50,000. Is this facility still marketable at this price and with these restrictions. Can it be financially viable, too. She stated she believes PEC made the right decision. Rogers said this started with the ballot initiative and that language was to provide for expansion and improvement of the golf course clubhouse and the Nordic Center and for a multi -use commercial space. In her role in a quasi-judicial capacity, she does not believe the PEC approved any new uses that were not already going on. PEC made the appropriate findings and there is no error in their process. Moffet said ditto to Rogers comments. The ballot received an 85% approval. There is compelling evidence to support overturning the PEC decision. Kurz agreed with Rogers and Moffet. Although he's the oldest person sitting at that table, he continues to think about the future of Vail and moving Vail forward. He will vote to uphold the PEC decision. Foley stated Council should not do this project with all this opposition. He agreed with Tjossem's comparison of can and should. Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 8 Donovan said this had been an interesting discussion and thanked the public for their thoughtful comments. Tjossem's concerns made sense. Given this is a quasi-judicial issue, she said she does not believe the PEC recommendations or decision were flawed in their process. Daly said the scope broadened as it progressed, but in four PEC meetings, modifications were made in response to concerns. Parking has enforceability, which would lie squarely on the shoulders of the VRD. Guests and residents will be proud of this facility. PEC's identification of issues and efforts to resolve them has provided greater protection for this neighborhood than for any other in the town. He stated tents are outside the CUP, but that he is aware over the years promotional tents have been set up at various locations throughout the golf course. The PEC's job is to look at what is best for our community. It's been an open, comprehensive process, although also emotional, but it will make us a better community. PEC did not err in their review. Moffet moved, with a second from Kurz, to uphold the PEC decision, including the findings incorporated in the June 4, 2013, memo to Council. All findings are to be incorporated by reference, having previously been read in full into the record by Ruther. Tjossem noted even though she has reservations about the future, she will vote to uphold the PEC decision. A vote was taken and the motion passed. 6-1 (Foley opposed). The sixth item on the agenda was Adjournment. There being no further business, Moffet moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m., with a second from Foley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, U Pam Brandmeyer, Assis t Town Manager Town Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2013 Page 9