HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-20 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, December 22, 2022
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 Langmaid.
Members present
Members present virtually:
Staff members present
1. Citizen Participation
Kim Langmaid, Mayor
Travis Coggin, Mayor Pro Tern
Kevin Foley
Jen Mason
Barry Davis
Jonathan Staufer
Pete Seibert
Russell Forrest, Town Manager
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Stephanie Bibbens, Town Clerk
Robyn Smith, a Vail resident, expressed there was a need within the community to make
fentanyl test strips and Narcan widely available, especially at bars and special events.
Dave Chapin, a Vail resident, reiterated some of the ideas that were brought up earlier in the
day's Destination Stewardship plan review and also voiced concerns regarding paid overnight
parking rates and the time it started.
2. Any action as a result of executive session
There was none.
3. Recognitions
3.1 Mauri Nottingham Excellence in Environmental Sustainability Scholarship Awards
The scholarship program is intended to provide recognition and financial support to qualified
local residents and students interested in pursuing education and careers in the field of
environmental sustainability. This award honors the contributions of Mauri Nottingham to the
Vail Community. Lauren Merck, Dean Mosher, and Catherine Moloney are the recipients this
year.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 1
Langmaid announced the recipients of the Mauri Nottingham Excellence in Environmental
Sustainability Scholarship Awards. Lauren Merck, Dean Mosher, and Catherine Moloney
received the scholarships.
4. Consent Agenda
4.1 November 1, 2022 TC Meeting Minutes
Foley made a motion to approve, Staufer seconded motion passed (7-0).
4.2 November 15, 2022 TC Meeting Minutes
Davis made a motion to approve, Coggin seconded motion passed (7-0).
4.3 Resolution No. 60, Series of 2022, A Resolution Approving the Purchase of
Residential Property
Approve Resolution No. 60, Series of 2022 authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an
agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, the purchase of North Trails Townhomes,
Unit D, 2477 Garmisch, Vail, Colorado in the amount of, and not to exceed, $306,277.00, plus
closing costs.
Background: The availability of housing for its employees remains an ongoing need for the
Town of Vail municipal government. As the fourth largest employer in Vail, the Town of Vail too
is challenged by the need for housing for its workforce. As the FTE count for the Town grows so
does it's need to support housing for the employees. Over the years the Town has taken a wide
range of approaches to addressing its employee housing needs, including "buying down" homes
for purchase by Town of Vail employees. Availability of adequate housing remains a primary
barrier to acceptance of employment offers for the Town of Vail.
Mason made a motion to approve; Coggin seconded motion passed (7-0).
4.4 Resolution No. 61, Series of 2022, A Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of
Residential Property
Approve Resolution No. 61, Series of 2022 authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an
agreement, in a form approved by the Town Attorney, the purchase of Homestake at Vail
Condominium, Unit B1 03, 1081 Vail View Drive, Vail, Colorado in the amount of, and not to
exceed, $465,000.00, plus closing costs.
Background: The availability of housing for its employees remains an ongoing need for the
Town of Vail municipal government. As the fourth largest employer in Vail, the Town of Vail too
is challenged by the need for housing for its workforce. As the FTE count for the Town grows so
does it's need to support housing for the employees. Over the years the Town has taken a wide
range of approaches to addressing its employee housing needs, including "buying down" homes
for purchase by Town of Vail employees. Availability of adequate housing remains a primary
barrier to acceptance of employment offers for the Town of Vail.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 2
Foley made a motion to approve, Staufer seconded motion passed (6-0, Coggin abstained).
5. Town Manager Report
5.1 Council Matters and Status Report
5.2 Parking Update
Greg Hall, Director of Public Works gave an update on the parking.
Hall explained all the levels of the Red Sandstone Parking Structure would be open starting the
upcoming weekend. Hall also informed Councill that Ford Park during the weeks had remained
wide open, whereas the Red Sandstone structure had been more full, due to school being in
session and level 2 being closed. Hall commented that on the weekends, when the top level had
been available for public parking, Red Sandstone had not filled at all.
Hall also stated, there had been two Frontage Road parking days so far and there was space
available at the Ford Park Lot.
Hall also explained staff would start to manage the Ford Park Lot moving into some of the peak
weeks coming up and staff would maintain parking for employees in the mornings but start
releasing spots in the afternoons to the public when the structures start to fill.
Langmaid asked about the earlier comments made by Chapin during Citizen Participation and
asked if staff could move the 4am charge time to Sam for employees that work late.
Hall explained he wasn't sure of the change from this year to last year with the times of charging
and implied the booth attendants may have used the DUI program pass to let the late -night
working staff out without a charge and that might not be the case this year, Hall thought that
might by why the late -night staff was seeing the charge this year as opposed to last year. Hall
stated staff would look at what could be changed to help alleviate the issue.
Seibert asked if staff could maintain employee parking in the mornings for employees at the Red
Sandstone Parking Structure like Ford Park.
Hall explained staff had not been pushing the public over to the Red Sandstone lot and after the
upcoming weekend there would be more available parking for employees at Red Sandstone.
Mason wanted to reiterate to the community that if they had an Employee Parking Pass to go to
Ford Park and Red Sandstone regardless of the time of day because staff was holding spots
back for employee parking.
Foley stated he heard from some of the public that Ford Park wasn't convenient to park in. He
went on to state that between the four East Vail Buses and the two Ford Park buses there was a
bus every 15 minutes and didn't understand how that wasn't convenient.
Coggin added that it was a five-minute walk from Ford Park to the Vail Village.
5.3 Council Strategic Planning Session Update
Forrest confirmed January 17", 2023 for a mini strategic planning retreat.
6. Action Items
6.1 Resolution No. 62, Series of 2022, A Resolution of the Vail Town Council Approving
an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan Map
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 3
Presenter(s): Greg Roy, Senior Planner
Background: The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Community Development Director
Matt Gennett, is requesting approval of Resolution No. 62, Series of 2022, a resolution
amending the Vail Land Use Plan map amendment, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment
Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the designation of portions of Tract A Middle Creek
Subdivision from Open Space to Public/Semi-Public and High Density Residential.
Staff Recommendation: The Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed Land Use Plan Map Amendment on December 12, 2022 where a
recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 4-2-0 (Pratt
and Perez opposed).
Roy explained the area of the Land Use Amended Map was West Middle Creek near the Middle
Creek Housing Site, in Mountain Vail Tower.
Roy also explained the amendment went before the Planning and Environmental Commission
and summarized the process.
Langmaid stated she noticed Commissioner Perez voted against the amendment during the
PEC meeting because of an administrative piece about the deed and asked if the issue had
been rectified.
Roy explained that was part of the minor subdivision application that Perez referred to and she
wanted to see an updated title report for the property. Staff added that as a condition of the
minor subdivision which would be completed by the applicant as required.
Staufer asked for clarification on why Commissioner Pratt voted against the amendment.
Roy answered Commissioner Pratt was concerned with the change overall and thought the land
should remain open space. Pratt thought the original plan was correct and didn't need to be
amended.
Matt Gennett, Director of Community Development, presented on behalf of the applicant and
explained the item was a request for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan which would
amend portions of Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision from Open Space to High Density
Residential for Lot 5 and Public/Semi-Public for Lot 4.
Gennett mentioned in 2001, there was an approval of the land use change and rezoning of Lot 1
to accommodate the Middle Creek Housing project. Originally the site had a land use
designation of Open Space and was amended to be High Density Residential. Similarly, the
original zoning was Natural Area Preservation, and the site was rezoned to Housing.
Gennett explained the land use change was meant to allow for access to the new Lot 5 for
housing and also had room for a future early childhood care facility on Lot 4 that would have a
similar configuration to the current temporary Children's Garden of Learning site at Lionshead
Parking Structure.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 4
Gennett also reviewed the Geohazard and Slope Analysis and went over the review criteria for
the Land Use Plan Amendment. Gennett also clarified the PEC requested an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and there were no significant impacts found in the report.
Coggin asked if there had been any public comment regarding the amendment.
Gennett answered there had not been any public comment at PEC.
Coggin clarified there is section that was pushed up because of a CDOT right of way, and if
CDOT didn't need the right of way, the applicant could come back and amend the Land Use
Plan again to pull it closer.
Gennett explained the Land Use Plan would not need to be amended, but the Minor Subdivision
would need to be updated.
Staufer asked about massing studies that Bill Pierce completed years ago.
Foley clarified the site could become the permanent home for the Children's Garden of Learning
over to Lot 4.
Gennett stated that staff phrased it as a "future early childhood facility" because staff didn't want
to commit to anything until they knew more about the site or others that may become available.
Staufer asked about language being used to protect the creek and wetlands around Lot 4.
Gennett stated staff carved out the 25-foot setback which is the current regulation and there
were recommendations in the Environmental Impact Report that staff would implement as well.
Mason asked how hard it would be to have a pedestrian overpass put in to help connect the
community and stated if a childcare center was built, it would give them easier access to the
villages and the town.
Gennett stated staff could factor in the cost of the overpass in as an option during the
development plan.
Staufer suggested publishing the massing studies from Pierce to let the public know what is
being proposed.
Forrest cautioned the massing studies weren't truly reflective of what the Town would or would
not do and it could also be a little misleading and create a false expectation.
Gennett stated staff would want to fully vet the studies before publishing.
Coggin made a motion to approve, Mason seconded motion passed (7-0).
6.2 Ordinance No. 25, Series of 2022, First Reading, An Ordinance Rezoning Lot 5 of the
Middle Creels Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Tract A, from Natural Area Preservation
(NAP) to Housing (H); Lot 4 of the Middle Creek Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Tract A,
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 5
from Natural Area Preservation (NAP) to General Use (GU), and the Remainder of Tract A,
Middle Creek Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Tract A, From General Use (GU) to Natural
Area Preservation (NAP)
Presenter(s): Greg Roy, Senior Planner
Background: The subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1968 with Ordinance
No. 8, Series of 1969. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1995 zoned the portions of Tract A from
Agricultural Open Space to the General Use and Natural Area Preservation districts. This
rezoning was part of a larger rezoning that occurred after the passage of the 1994 Open Lands
Plan adoption. In 2002, the property was subdivided to create Lots 1 and 2 to facilitate the
development of Middle Creek Housing and to create the site for the telecom tower. In 2020, a
subdivision application was approved by the PEC to create Lot 3 as the site for the Residences
at Main Vail project.
Staff Recommendation: The Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed Zone District Boundary Amendment on December 12, 2022, where a
recommendation for approval was forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 4-2-0 (Pratt
and Perez opposed).
Roy explained the ordinance went along with the previous application and reviewed what the
rezoning would entail.
He also explained the rezoning had gone through the same process as the previous item with
the PEC and the PEC found that it met the criteria for the Zone District Amendment (4-2).
Foley asked if the Town was increasing the Natural Area Preservation area.
Roy stated the Town would be increasing the Natural Area Preservation area by half an acre.
Gennett presented on behalf of the applicant, stated Lot 4 would be changed from Natural Area
Preservation to General Use and Lot 5 would be changed from Natural Area Preservation to
Housing. Gennett added the rezoning would also clean up and put it under Tract A under one
zoning designation because Tract A was zoned as two different zoning distinctions even though
it wasn't separate parcels or subdivided with boundaries. Approving the rezoning would make all
of Tract A Natural Area Preservation in the areas to the north.
Gennett explained the rezoning went through the review criteria with PEC and the Commission
determined the rezoning application met the criteria and recommended approval.
Coggin made a motion to approve; Davis seconded motion passed (7-0).
7. Public Hearings
7.1 Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2022, Second Reading, An Ordinance Repealing and
Reenacting Chapter 13 of Title 5 of the Vail Town Code, Regarding Carryout Bag
Requirements and Fees
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 6
Presenter(s): Beth Markham, Environmental Sustainability Manager
Background: On July 6, 2021, Governor Jared Polis signed HB21-1162, the Plastic Pollution
Reduction Act (PPRA) into law. Following business and community outreach and Town Council
input staff developed and refined recommendations for changes to Town of Vail Code Title 5,
Chapter 13 regarding disposable plastic bags to come into compliance with the PPRA.
Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2022 incorporates the code updates. The first reading of the
ordinance was approved December 6, 2022 with no changes required.
Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Ordinance No. 23, Series
of 2022 upon second reading.
Markham explained she did not have a formal presentation for the second reading of the
ordinance but would gladly answer any of Council's questions that may have come up since the
first reading.
Markham reviewed additional public input that had been received since the first reading. Some
of that feedback included the public not wanting to pay the $.25 bag fee, the businesses
frustrated with the timing to implement, restaurants had concerns and businesses worried about
educating their employees about the new mandate.
Markham addressed the concerns and stated the implementation timeline was a State mandate
and the Town unfortunately couldn't change the start date. She also reiterated that the
restaurants were exempt from the mandate and also informed Council that staff was rapidly
working on a tool kit to help businesses educate their employees and their customers on the
new state mandate.
Davis asked if the mandate required the businesses and Town to split the fee.
Markham explained the mandate required the Town to let the businesses keep at least 40% of
the bag fee sales. Markham also explained on first reading, the Council requested the
businesses be allowed to keep 60°/U.
Some Council members expressed their reluctance to charge a $.25 bag fee and stated they
would rather keep the current $.10 bag fee.
Markham explained currently the Town collects 100% of the bag fee and the total amount
collected the past year was around $42,000 which went right back to the community to offer the
hard to recycle events and other waste diversion plans (compost pilot program and paying for
the waste diversion intern) offered by the Town. Without the bag fee money, the Town would not
be able to run some of the critical programs unless staff requested more budgetary money.
Mason stated if the Town would be collecting a bag fee from all the retail stores in the Town, the
Town would be collecting more of the tax and could stay at the $.10 bag fee.
Markham explained the way the ordinance is written, the Town would continue only collecting
the $.10 bag fee and the businesses would receive $.15 of the remittance. She stated she did
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 7
not know what the ratio of bag usage was for the other retail stores, but ideally yes that Town
would collect more by adding in the other businesses.
Staufer asked if the Task Force had general feedback that the ordinance would change
behavior.
Markham answered the idea of changing behavior was the driving force for the stakeholders in
suggesting raising the bag fee from a $.10 charge to a $.20 to $.30 bag fee charge.
Staufer was concerned the business owners would be the ones to end up paying the bag fee
and it would have no impact on the behavior change.
Markham stated the State regulation mandated there be a line item on the receipt for the bag
fee that is paid for by the customer and the mandate also stated the businesses were not able
to refund the fee or pay for the cost.
Council discussed the differences between charging $.10 and the businesses keeping 100% of
the fee and charging $.25 and the businesses keeping 60% of the fee ($.15) and voiced their
concerns on how the customers and guests were going to react to the fee regardless of the
amount.
Markham stated there was push back with the initial ban at the grocery stores in 2015, but now
it was accepted.
Foley commented if the Council decided to stay with the $.10 bag fee, staff insinuated there
would be budget implications on the Town to fund the hard to recycle events and other
programs.
Mason responded if the Town is collecting the bag fee from more businesses than just the
grocery stores; the money the Town received should stay the same.
Forrest and Coggin explained most of the bag use would be coming from the grocery stores and
adding the other business' bag sale would not make up the difference.
Langmaid asked what the other communities were charging.
Markham answered Frisco was charging $.25, Breckenridge was considering $.25, Avon, Eagle
County and the Town of Eagle were charging $.10, Aspen was charging $.20, and lastly Boulder
was currently charging $.10 but considering increasing the fee to $.25.
Coggin suggested staying in line with Avon, the Town of Eagle, and Eagle County by charging
$.10, with the exception of keeping the spit 60% to the businesses and 40% to the Town.
Forrest responded if Council decided to change to the $.10 bag fee, staff would have to ask
Council to fill the gap in funding for the projects the bag fee was currently paying for.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 8
Markham stated if Council wanted to go to the $.10 fee, she would recommend the Town keep
60% of the fee and give 40% back to the businesses which would make it consistent across
Eagle County.
Coggin stated if the Town changed the percentages to 40% to the businesses and 60% to the
Town, it would be better for the businesses if the Town charged a $.25 bag fee and gave the
business 60% ($.15) instead of charging $.10 and giving the businesses 40% ($.04).
Markham stated the tool kit that staff would be offering to businesses would provide a sign
stating the State was requiring businesses to charge a bag fee and the Town would be charging
$.25.
Mason asked that the tool kit also include a list of the programs the collected bag fee would help
fund.
Public comment was called. There was none.
Seibert stated this was a State mandate and guests and customers would be upset no matter
what and thought the $.25 charge was the right way to go.
Coggin made a motion to approve, Staufer seconded motion passed (6-1 Foley opposed).
7.2 Ordinance No. 24, Series 4f 16221, Second Rbading, An Ordinance Making Budget
Adjustments to the Town of Y#ail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, Real Estate
Transfer Tax Fund, Housing Pund, f4gidences at Main Vail Fund, Heavy Equipment Fund
of the 2022 Budget for theiTowp of Vail, Colorado; and Authorizing the said Adjustments
as Set Forth Herein; and Sa ttin� Oorth Details id Regard Thereto
Presenter(s): Carte Smith, Face Director
Background: Please see attachmemo.
Staff Recommendation: Approve, approve with amendments or deny Ordinance No. 24, Series
of 2022 upon second reading.
Smith explained the ordinance would allocate $4.5 million across all of the Town's funds and
stated the majority of the supplemental reflected projects already approved by Council. Projects
included housing purchases, new buses and approved construction projects.
Smith stated there were a few minor changes made since first reading that were outlined in the
beginning of the memo.
Coggin asked for the breakout of the $230,000 of legal.
Smith explained some of it was for the Town Attorney, but also other firms that the Town has
employed.
Forrest explained there were some CIRSA related claims.
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 9
Smith stated she could compile that information and send it to Coggin.
Coggin asked if the Town had finalized where the Pepi's Plaza memorial would be.
Hall explained the memorial would be at the Children's Fountain in Vail Village and staff would
be discussing concepts and budget and would come back to Council to review them.
Public comment was called. There was none.
Coggin made a motion, Foley seconded motion passed (7-0.
There being no further business to come before the council, Foley moved to adjourn the
meeting; Coggin seconded motion passed (7-0), meet adjourned at 7:17pm.
Attest:
v S e nie Bibberis, Town Clerk
Respectfully Submitted,
i t.. �
m LangmLMd, Mayor
! ��*j --> �t
4
RAT'��
Town Council Meeting Minutes of December 22, 2022 Page 10