Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-10-15 Town Council MinutesVail Town Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:30 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 5:30 P.M. by Mayor Chapin. Members present: Dave Chapin, Mayor Jenn Bruno, Mayor Pro Tern Kevin Foley Kim Langmaid Jen Mason Greg Moffet Travis Coggin Staff members present: Patty McKenny, Interim Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk 1. Consent Agenda 1.1. Resolution No. 39, adopting a 2020 Vail Local Marketing District budget Moffet made a motion to approve Resolution No. 39, Series of 2019; Langmaid seconded the motion passed (7-0). 1.2. Resolution No. 40, in support of Ballot Issue No. 1, to impose a special sales tax on cigarettes, tobacco products and nicotine products. Moffet made a motion to approve Resolution No. 40, Series of 2019; Coggin seconded the motion passed (6-1 Foley opposed). 1.3. Resolution No. 43, approving a lease agreement between the Town of Vail and the Children's Garden of Learning Moffet made a motion to approve Resolution No. 43, Series of 2019; Mason seconded the motion passed (7-0). 2. Action Items 2.1. Resolution No. 41, adopting the 2108/2019 Town of Vail Civic Area Plan Moffet made a motion to table Resolution No. 41, Series of 2019; Langmaid seconded the motion passed (7-0). 3. Public Hearings Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2019 Page 1 3.1. Ordinance No. 13, Second Reading, adopting Town of Vail 2020 budget and financial plan Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director, reviewed the changes and updates to Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2019 per the council's direction at the October 1 meeting. • An additional $50,000 was placed in the budget for a "First and Last Mile" plan and implementation to coincide with the addition of a new Mobility Planner. • An annual contribution of $20,000 for the Children's Garden of Learning for capital improvements and capital maintenance. • The Mountain Games event would now be recognized as a Signature Event with funding up to $140,000. • $550,000 was set in the 2020 budget for the event Spring Back to Vail Council agreed the Mountain Games should be an iconic event and the additional funding for 2020 should be granted but held until further discussion. Additionally, the $550,000 for Spring Back to Vail was granted with the condition the additional funding was for "A -list" performers. If an A -list performer was not booked for the event than the money would be held and adjusted appropriately. Council member Moffet didn't believe enough sales tax could be generated to justify the additional contribution and opposed the additional funding for Spring Back to Vail. Bruno made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 2019 with the additional funding for both Mountain Games and Spring Back to Vail; Mason seconded the motion passed (6-1 Moffet opposed). 4. Citizen Participation Steven Connolly, Vail resident, requested council revisit the parking requirements for workfor e housing and the sign code. Connolly, also suggested Council reevaluate the open land polic . Penny Wilson, thanked council for the progress on the berm at Bald Mountain Townhomes. Pam Stenmark, Vail resident, reminded council to make sure tonight's appeal hearing process was fair and open to all. 5. Action Items 5.1. Resolution No. 42, adopting Amended Rules of Procedure for the October 15, 2019 Appeal Hearing Matt Mire, Town Attorney, reviewed the added rule; which allowed each appellant an addition 3 min. for a rebuttal to the statements from the applicant. Moffet made a motion to approve Resolution No. 42, Series of 2019; Coggin seconded the motion passed (7-0). 6. Public Hearings 6.1. Appeal of Booth Heights PEC19-0018 Matt Mire, Town Attorney, addressed allegations of three council members (Langmaid, Foley and Moffet) having conflicts of interest regarding this project. Foley and Langmaid had articles in the local paper stating their assumed positions concerning the Booth Heights appeal. Langmaid and Foley stated on the record they could be unbiased when hearing tonight's information and would not see any financial gain or loss regardless of the outcome of tonight's Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2019 Page 2 hearing. Moffet's name, unknown to him, was added to a letter of support for the project. Moffet confirmed on the record he too would not have any financial gain or loss on this project and could be unbiased when hearing the Booth Heights appeal. Jonathan Spence, Community Planner, presented the history on the Booth Heights applicatio . Spence noted the Planning and Environmental Commission had held five public meetings on the Booth Heights application before voting 4-3 in favor of the project on August 26. The seven appellants were given 10 minutes each to present evidence, witness testimony, statements and arguments in support of the appeals. Bob Essin was the first appellant to present his standing. Essin expressed concerns about the following: • The bighorn sheep's survival; • The traffic impacts the project would have on East Vail residents; • The safety of residents due to the location of the project having steep terrain and rock face, lack of lighting and lack of parking; and • The impacts the project with have on bus services due to the distance of grocery shopping and other amenities. Essin stated the project was to house part time employees and not for people who live here. This project would cost the Town money due to the demand for more busses; which would lead to more employees, maintenance, etc. Essin suggested putting the project to a public vote. Essin allowed Diane Lazier to use the remainder of his time to speak to council. Lazier, Vail Resident, asked the Town Attorney if there could be a referendum. Mire stated he did not see a legal way. Julie Conn was the second appellant to present her standing. Conn's concerns were the following: • The traffic study being conducted in late December when school is out. Conn stated the traffic on the Frontage Rd in the morning when kids are being dropped off and, in the afternoon, when kids are being picked up is at a standstill. • The development causing danger to the bighorn sheep herd by depriving them of their winter habitat. • The development size of the project was too large for the site. Conn expressed a desire to preserve open space and stated the development would be a scar on the landscape. Additionally, Conn stated she was not opposed to Vail housing. Deborah Ford was the third appellant to present to council on her standing. Ford stated her and her husband were for employee housing but opposed the project due to its density. Ford stat d there were too many concerns not addressed. • Density of the project and the effects it would have on East Vail residents. Such as an overcrowded bus system. • The proposed 156 parking spaces for the development not being enough for the possible number of residents in the Booth Heights units. • Concern for safety due to no turn lanes and the location of the buss stop • The permanent and irreversible impacts on the natural beauty in area. Betsy Kiehl, the fourth appellant, presented her standing on how the project would affect the view from her home. Currently the view from her home was of open space, aspen and dark skies in the evening. The dark sky would be replaced by 153 lights and light poles 28 ft tall. The 61 units would require exterior lights and 115 windows that would additionally affect the dark sky. Kiehl stated she did not want to live where there are more lights and road congestion. Every piece of space didn't need to be developed. Kiehl also stated the site was critical habit t for bighorn sheep. Anthony and Cynthia Ryerson were the fifth appellants to present their standings. Ryerson's expressed concerns the project would have negative effects on the neighborhood. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2019 Page 3 • During an 1-70 Vail Pass road closure; • The 9 months when Vail Mountain school was in session with 460 students; • An event that has parking on both sides of the Frontage Road; • The Booth Falls Trail traffic/parking with bikers, joggers, etc. Ryerson's requested Council ask for another traffic study to be done at times of pass closure, schools and activities in the East Vail area. Penny Turielli , East Vail resident and the sixth appellant, stated her standing was primarily about safety and geology. Turilli presented previous studies of the area regarding rockfall hazards and showed pictures of potential debris flow. Turielli also noted the current traffic congestion at Vail Mountain School. She questioned the safety of students, residents and guests by adding more traffic to the area when there are no crosswalks, parking and location f bus stop. Collins Kelly, the seventh appellant spoke about the impact the development would have on Vail Memorial Park views. With the development of Booth Heights people would see parking lots and large buildings where currently they see open green area with aspen trees. Canada stated green space was important to the community and asked council to protect the setting. The applicant received 70 min. to respond to the appellants concerns. Michael O'Connor, representing the applicant Triumph Development, stated the project was n t rushed through the development process and felt he had not heard any new arguments tonight from the seven appellants that had not already been addressed in other public hearings. O'Connor stated there were significant contribution towards wildlife and that the development had met the criteria. The project had considered the wildlife habitat and 18 acres of the site were dedicated to protecting wildlife and provide open space. O'Connor demonstrated the changes and consideration given to the project with regards to the density and showed its compatibility to other developments in the area. O'Connor stated the Booth Heights plan met the prescribed development standards within the Housing Zone District. The development was not out of character with the neighborhood, there were no immediate neighbors and the project was designed to serve the community as a whole. No traffic improvements were required for this development. Pedestrian path and bus stop were approved and would not interfere with the wildlife habitat. A wildlife mitigation plan was created with the help of three wildlife biologists which required a conservation easement and $100,000 contribution from Triumph Developm nt prior to April 15. Rockfall mitigation had been adequately addressed in the development as required by town code. O'Connor addressed some of the other concerns the appellants had such as bringing in more topsoil to help with the vegetation returning to the area and keeping the lighting to a minimal to help with the dark skies. O'Connor said the question tonight was about upholding or not upholding the PEC approval of the development plan and not whether the development should happen on this site or not. Each of the appellants were allowed 3 min. to respond to O'Connor's remarks. Anthony Reyerson still questioned the traffic study being conducted on December 30, 2017 when it did not include skier traffic or traffic from the Mountain School. Reyerson also stated comparing East Vail to West Vail was a stretch because East Vail showed the Gore Range and was just different than West Vail. Debbie Ford, felt she did bring new evidence to the table tonight in her calculation of 456 allowable residents. She stated there were still too many unanswered questions. Safety was still a concern with density and traffic. Pam Stenmark, spoke on behalf of Judy Conn because Conn needed to leave the meeting, stated the code required the applicant to complete the mitigation work before construction could begin and that $100,000 was not completing the wildlife mitigation. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2019 Page 4 Penny Turilli stated the traffic study was questionable and did not reflect the situation; the 18 acres were all landslide; and Memorial Park would be affected and forever changed if the development was approved. Bob Essin stated Vail Resorts was just here for the money and the council should reverse the decision of the PEC and either purchase or condemn the property. Council asked Community Development Planner Spence to clarify the occupancy of the development. Spence responded 456 people would be the max with 2 per room and 2 sleeping on the couch per Town code. Greg Hall responded to council questions regarding bus routes and overcrowding. Town Attorney Mire confirmed council could not purchase or condemn the property tonight. Tonight's appeal was to either uphold or reject the PEC's approval of the development plan. Public comment was opened. Ann Marie Muller expressed concern regarding rock mitigation. Pete Fiestmann questioned why there was no rendering with the berm and stated the mitigation plan was not a mitigation plan; and questioned the traffic study. Suzanne O'Neil requested council and Vail resorts to look at alternative sites. O'Neill expressed concern for the bighorn sheep and their habitat. Charlyn Canada, quoted a philosopher and stated this was the only turf the bighorn sheep had in the valley. Charlie Langmaid, asked who is liable if the berm is ineffective? Penny Wilson expressed concern about bus capacity and vehicle/pedestrian safety in winter when Vail pass is closed. Wilson questioned the traffic study. Michael Cacioppo said the people had the right to vote on projects that affect them. He also questioned if John Ryan from Pec had a conflict of interest with his boss in the audience. Pam Stenmark stated the berm was too steep and could not be landscaped and was out of character for Vail. Jeff Andrews stated the development was per code and fit the area. Andrews requested cou ci vote in favor of upholding PEC decision Brian Stockmar encouraged the Town Council to "do the right thing" and overturn the approval. Stockmar stated Vail's reputation was being severely damaged. Mike Glass encouraged council to uphold PEC's decision. Glass stated the development criteria was met and he supported the project. John Ervin played a song regarding big horn sheep being left alone. Doug Scholfield, asked council to uphold the PEC decision. Scholfield would like to see an increase of families in Vail! Barbara Keller stated the scale, density and mass was not consistent with the neighborhood and that bus service would be a challenge. Keller questioned if this was the only location for employee housing. Pam Hopkins, expressed concerns about the site plans for rockfall, wetlands, slope stability, debris flow, wildlife, unknown soil conditions, etc. She felt more study was needed. Joe Staufer questioned conflict of interest of a PEC member and also questioned the reasons for pushing the development through so quickly. Jennifer Crabtree request council to uphold their mission statement. Kristy Henz questioned the traffic study. Henz stated Vail Resort employees were not locals and would not stay. She encouraged council to vote against the PEC decision. Donna Mumma was concerned about traffic impacts and dangers associated with East Vail underpass and 1-70. She would like another traffic study done. Todd McDowell, asked council to uphold the Pec decision. McDowell stated affordable housing was needed and felt the site was appropriate. Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2019 Page 5 Zach Collins questioned the site being the best location for the development. Jessica Landon, questioned how much light, air, noise and traffic would be created by this development. Landon urged council to slow down and reconsider this project. Jonathan Staufer felt there were inadequate studies and encouraged council to vote against the PEC decision. Rick Kon, Wildlife expert, stated the development had the potential to put the bighorn sheep's survival at great risk. William Schmidt fail to include the criteria of no effect on neighbors. Building dorms for cheap housing is not the answer. Kaye Ferry said council needed to look carefully at its vision, mission and values that are hanging on the wall. She thought it would be appropriate to take more time to discuss the issues Fred Rumford encouraged council to support the PEC decision. Jeff Babb stated he lived in East Vail when he first came to Vail and enjoyed the neighborhood that made him feel welcomed. Living where you work is amazing! He encouraged council to uphold PEC's decision. Paul Rondeau stated this was a bigger issue than the criteria and requested council put the development on hold. Brooke Chestnut stated he attended all the meetings the last five months. Chestnut encourag d council to please listen to what they have heard tonight. Public comment closed. Bruno asked staff to clarify the berm height and liability requirements. Spence stated depending on the location the berm could be 30-60 feet tall and a liability waiver was not a requirement but the person pulling the building permit would need to sign the release. Langmaid asked the applicant about the conservation easement cost. O'Connor replied he di not know the cost, but it was a separate expense from the $100,000 contribution. Moffet moved that the Town Council uphold the August 26, 2019 decision of the Planning an Environmental Commission, because the PEC properly determined that the Development Pla for the Booth Heights Neighborhood complies with Title 12, Chapter 6, Article I of the Vail To n Code; Bruno seconded the motion passed (4-3 Langmaid, Mason, Foley oppose). Foley stated he voted against the motion because development criteria C, D and E were not been met. Langmaid stated she voted no for the following reasons: safety and the impact on wildlife and memorial park. Langmaid stated there were no guarantees the wildlife mitigation would work. Mason felt development criteria's A, C and D were not met. Mason stated the development d d not fit the neighborhood and she did not believe the mitigation plan would necessarily work. Coggin voted to uphold the PEC decision. Coggin stated he felt the development criteria was met and that more had been done for this development than others in the past. Coggin also noted the Town engineer supported and agreed with traffic study. Chapin stated he supported the PEC's decision and that he had not heard any new evidence. Langmaid suggested Council schedule a future agenda discussion to determine if Vail Resort would be a willing seller of the property. She also wanted to discuss additional big picture housing opportunities. Council supported Langmaid's suggestions. There being no further business to come before the council, Moffet moved to adjourn the meeting; Coggin seconded the motion which passed (7-0) and the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2019 Page 6 Attest: - .r7:� Ta my N el, Town erk ave Chapin, o C) �AORATe9 Town Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2019 Page 7