Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC 11242009PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 24, 2008 12:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Kurz Scott Proper Sarah Paladino-Robinson Susie Tjossem Bill Pierce Rollie Kjesbo David Viele 30 minutes A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-6I-8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Motion to Table to December 8, 2008 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commiss ioner Pierce said he wants to know how other communities deal with this exact issue. He felt that flexibility was a benefit, and once it is codified, this benefit goes away. Most developers don’t draw employee housing and then ask for relief. He said it would be helpful to have discussions before things get drawn to discuss how the parking will be dealt with within a project. Commissioner Kurz said that there are forces here. Do the parking requirements work? There are guidelines for each area, where if you are transit oriented development, you have lower guidelines. Perhaps we could have guidelines that break it down by dormitory, one bedroom, two bedroom, single family etc and based on location and desired occupant. The developer will provide a plan for parking, and if they deviate from general guidelines, they will have to provide additional amenities like sidewalks, bike parking, etc. We need to let the developer respond with a creative method that works for each project. They should also be able to provide shuttles or some other mechanism to provide transportation to the people who live there. If the parking comes first, on top of all other requirements, they may decide that’s not what they want. George Ruther asked if it is possible to come up with a parking requirement for a dorm unit. Commissioner Kurz responded that per dormitory unit, you cannot have a single requirement because they have a wide variety of number of beds. Kurz said general guidelines are good, but then need to take into account the other factors like transit oriented development. Commissioner Tjossem asked if this came out of the Town Council discussion on redevelopment of Timber Ridge. She said a requirement might allow more measurable development. Isn’t this helping make the housing affordable? George Ruther said that the Timber Ridge Advisory Committee is the impetus behind this request. As a developer, there needs to be clear and predicable expectations, and not just open-ended interpretation. Commissioner Viele said he looks at what makes sense and what is required/legal. He agrees that there needs to be flexibility in approval, but there has to be a minimum/maximum guideline that shows a threshold that needs to be met or that the Town considers to be adequate. Commissioner Kurz said that putting a requirement puts a limit on what can be built, and he said that developers need the ability to be creative. If we require it at all, it will not bring new solutions. George Ruther asked if zero parking is an option if alternate means of transportation are provided. Commissioner Palladino said that no, it is not ok because the Town takes responsibility for the cars being somewhere else, like on the Frontage Road, at trailhead parking or displaced elsewhere in town. She said as much as no parking is great, it is not practical. The town is still rural and not dense enough, and there are no rental car places in the vicinity to serve as an alternative means of transportation. Commissioner Tjossem said that the seasonal workers are changing and are again switching from international back to domestic. There are many domestic laborers out of work and they are coming here, and like it or not they have cars. We cannot base this amendment on who we are attracting at a single point in time or who we would like to attract because it keeps changing. However, proximity to public transportation and alternate means of transportation to a building would be better to control the issue. Commissioner Pierce said guidelines need to be provided as a starting point. Chapter 10 of the Code provides closely defined requirements, but If its in a different location, the parking requirement is less. He said the Code needs to take into consideration some units that are a-typical. Perhaps need to add requirements for dormitory rooms or number of spaces “per pillow”. He believes we need to have requirements so that people understand what is required from the start. Alternate housing opportunities should have their own section. George Ruther sought to clarify the comments he heard from the PEC. He said transit oriented development helps to reduce requirements from other places, such as transportation, etc. He said he was wondering if there are times when the transportation system goes underutilized. He said there may be opportunities to greater utilize infrastructure, including buses, sidewalks, bike paths, etc. Commissioner Kurz said that if the town had 24 hour bus service and you could live in the village, there could be a reduced need for cars. People however want cars to go other places. We can not ignore that. He said it would be good to take cars off the road with environmental sustainability in mind. George Ruther asked about parking for visitors. He asked if it’s ok if visitors to the project do not have parking. He said this is included in the calculation for parking. The Commissioners said you need to provide visitor parking. Commisioner Viele said there needs to be an element of trust within the market. There needs to be parking provided that the developer will provide on their own. Commissioner Kjesbo said that each project is different, and with for-sale units, you need more parking. Commissioner Tjossem said that when a business owner has a building we don’t want them to have the ability to say no parking. With Timber Ridge, she says the developer needs to understand what is required. Commissioner Kjesbo said there needs to be flexibility. Geor ge Ruther said that developers tell the Town that they would like predictability. He said that is it clear at to distance from services, buses, etc. Commissioner Kjesbo said that in Solar Vail there was a parking plan that allowed flexibility. He said there is not enough parking in any building in Town was his perception. Commissioner Viele said that the Code is the worst case scenario, and that should be put into the pro-forma and anything allowed in less is a bonus. He said the question is whether that requirement should be different in the Housing District. George Ruther asked if the criteria are good for this type of development (ie Housing zone district), can they be expanded to other districts? Commissioner Viele said there is a provision in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan that allows for flexibility from the Town Code. He said there should be flexibility written in. George Ruther asked if we want all the cars and parking that comes with development, but perhaps take another method, like transportation, etc. Do we want the outcome when we assess that parking? Should we be looking at other ways to address problem? Commissioner Kurz asked if a transportation plan is required. George Ruther said that there are aspects of a transportation plan in each project, but not in detail. If we rely solely on parking spaces as addressing transportation needs, perhaps we are not getting results we want. Commissioner Kurz said that if the units require parking, the developer will put that in the economic model. He said that location should help determine what your parking requirements are. George Ruther said there has been a paradigm shift where parking is very valuable but if you give people walkability, they may not need parking. Commissioner Kurz said it needs to be in conjunction with traffic flow considerations. Dominic Mauriello said that parking requirements could be established but then allow for diversions from that. Commissioner Kjesbo said that at Middle Creek, they charge for parking. On Timber Ridge there is a model with how many parking spaces. There is history to use to understand what parking requirements are. Commissioner Pierce asked about parking at Timber Ridge Nina Timm said there are 308 spaces for 198 units, and all are utilized. (It was later determined on December 2, 2008 that there are only 225 spaces on-site). She said you cant regulate the occupant but you have more people per units at Timber Ridge. Because of financing, you can limit occupancy but you don’t have more than 2 people per unit at Middle Creek, driving it more than anything.