HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RESULTSPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RESULTS
February 9, 2009
1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS
ABSENT
Bill Pierce Sarah Robinson-Paladino
Rollie Kjesbo
Michael Kurz
David Viele
Scott Proper
Susie Tjossem arrived at 1:03 after item #1 was tabled.
45
Minutes
5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-6I-8,
Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)
Applicant: Town of
Vail
Planner: Nicole Peterson
ACTION: Recommendation of approval (The motion failed, do to a tie vote)
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 3-3-0 (Proper, Tjossem, Kjesbo opposed)
Nicole
Peterson gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum.
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, believes it is a big mistake to reduce parking on any project. In his judgment the parking
should be built and how it is distributed for use could be more dynamic over time to address changing conditions during the life of the building. There are endless uses for utilization
of parking.
Commissioner Proper asked for clarification about the current problems with the ordinance.
Nicole Peterson responded that the current requirements leave opportunity for
arbitrary interpretation, which leads to varying and unpredictable outcomes.
Warren Campbell added that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to add predictability to the development
process.
Commissioner Viele commented that he disagrees with Jim Lamont’s comment that there should not be a parking reduction. He believes that certain conditions warrant a reduction
in parking.
Commissioner Kjesbo would still like to see the reduction on a case by case basis. He believes there is a difference in the type of occupancy and the amount of parking
needed. He would like to see the requirements remain as there are today.
Commissioner Tjossem agreed with Commissioner Kjesbo
Commissioner Kurz had nothing to add.
Following the vote, Commissioner Pierce summarized the opposing votes and stated the main
reason for opposition is that the issue of reducing the amount of parking is too dynamic and should by applied on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Proper added that he applauds
Staff’s effort to add predictability to the regulations; however, he believes that the issue of reducing the amount of parking is too subjective in terms of the types, design, and operation
that may be proposed in a development. He added that there is a disconnection with the application of rigid (black and white) criteria to a dynamic (grey) issue.