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