Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-0927 PECA request for a minor subdivision, to vacate common lot lines to create a new lot, located at 2477, 2485, 2487, 2497 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1-4, Block H, Vail Das Schone #2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a bed and breakfast, located at 1987 West Circle Drive / Lot 26, Buffehr Creek, Applicant: Jeanine Ericksm Planner Brent Wilson 1� EMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT 9. Information Update 10. Approval of September 13, 1999 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. El MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1 . Weiss — 3971 Bighorn Road #7DD maim Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 7. A request for a minor subdivision, to vacate common lot lines to create a new lot, located at 2477, 2485, 2481, 2497 Garmisch Drive/ Lots 1-4, Block H, Vail Das Schore #2. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Nina Timm Planner: Allison Ochs E Ll TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 11, 1999 2 K] MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: September 27, 199 1 ,*, SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a medical facility, located at 3971 Bighorn Road #7DD / Building 7, Pitkin Creek Park. Applicant: Weiss & Newberry Medical Associates Planner: Brent Wilson 11 PEC Update: This item was tabled by the PEC on September 13 th So that the following three questions could be answered: 1 Previous Use of the S pace? — For the past six years, the office space (7DD) was s_edas a parte office for Dan Vernick. Dan owned a speaker factory in Wisconsin and had a house in East Vail. He used ©- ©p for the storage of equipment and light office duties when h- ©— visiting Vail, Prior to that, the space was used as an office for Bighorn Rentals for 5 years. 2. Time Limits on Permit? —The PEC asked if placing a time limit on the conditional use permit would <.. : «: application. © applicant states a time limit placed on his business operation would jeopardize his contract/lease with Bighorn Rentals. 3. Special Parking Arrangements? — The front row of parking in th:4«»®«&l«' of Pitkin Creek Park has been reserved and signed/posted for commercial parking only. As noted in the previous staff memo, parking at this complex tends to be a problem primarily for residential units during evening and weekend hours. ■ III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for. E 0 2 TOWN OF EA IL �. 3 i i �:' k ", i .. �.. (' i 9 S { —il � , ,. ° -A .....�,.3d,' il�•tn� ,:.I��t�.�t} �o will�l - A� FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 27, 1999 PEC Update: This item was tabled by the PEC on August 23 to allow for a private resolution to the landscaping issue among adjacent owners. The adjacent owner, Jim Garland, has rescinded his request for the addition of landscaping on his property, His letter to the PEG regarding this issue is attached. In 1996, Jeannine Erickson received Planning and Environmental Commission (PEG) approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request to allow her to run a Bed and Breakfast in her home at 1987 Circle Drive. She is now requesting P approval to transfer this CUP to a recently- constructed primary unit on her property. This revised bed and breakfast operation would be conducted entirely within the new primary unit. a III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Bed and Breakfast operation at the existing primary unit located at 987 Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek Subdivision, based on the following findings: 1 1 hat the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 8 3 5 a �L it Aj CAP f'AW 1(u G �., cvLV%�xc IuC GA �tk12� f r, f 'l FFt obt 6c (/J" r N - 1 N EW c'.iU Y -� A i // r t Cu -- w I I LE SPIP�i.E WAi,! I OPEN lt] I7 BELOW Z. BEDROOM #2 16' -9" X 13, -11 ir> a sa; vs +— uh .�, �E J LZN'N NEWEL POST- -r r tX7I I _ ! ,, Em z� �I V 1 _ aj'I BATH #3 r �j 7 M]d d � N III 11 - 5 X �� 1 -1 I J 1s� -�� x �3� -1. 7 ° ---- ------ ---- - ----- ,) �-1 2; 2 z to t1EAUER - —. DECKS A j t DECKS IL ihCi S, Al. S BY THERS - I2 I MEMORANDUM 10 TO Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 27, 1999 I I I � IN III I IN 11 IMI,.� The Municipal Code provides a framework for a minor amendment of an established Special Development District. According to the Municipal Code, The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The staff has addressed each of the mine SDD review criteria. Upon consideration of the nine SDD review criteria staff finds that the changes proposed by the minor amendment are consistent with the design criteria and that the changes do not alter the basic intent or character of the SDD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H MM MW DATE: September 27,19Q 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS 11. BACKGROUND 0 The Employee Housing Report, was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall9 Aoki Re men and Cares, Inc., of Boulder, Colorado. Rosall, Remmen and Cares, Inc. has 0 extensively researched the matters of affordable housing throughout the Rocky Mountain west with information from seventeen mountain resort communities. The report provides the recommended ed ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Rousing Report, the staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use), that result from the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment. A copy of the Suggested Employment Categories and Ran es for Vail Expressed as Employees per 1000 Square Feet has been attached for reference. 9 El 2 r 0 differences between the staff's calculations and the applicant's calculations are in the anticipated number of employee needed to operate the lodging (bellmen, reservations, housekeeping, etc.), the retail and the restaurant components of the hotel. In several instances the applicant is anticipating a greater need than is anticipated by staff. For example, the applicant projects that 36 employees will be needed to successfully operate the health club while staff is projecting only 29. Staff would suggest that the applicant, the staff and the Commission discuss the calculation methodology of the employee generation analysis. I I1111�11;111 � ; I li : 0 MIiiiiII11 � � 00- 1 a) b) c) The Employee Housing Generation Analysis below indicates the top, the middle and the bottom of the ranges recommended by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report, as well as a staff recommended figure which was used in determining the employee housing needs of the Vail Plaza Hotel. A summary of the Employee Housing Generation Analysis is as follows: IN IN I I WIN IN KENN 10I Health Club =19,955 sq. ft. @(1/1000 sq. ft.) =19.9 employees Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen =8,700 sq. ft. @(5/1000 sq. ft.) = 43.5 employees 6 4 Top of Range Calculations: ) Retail/Service Commercial =3,550 sq. ft. (3/1000 sq. ft.) =23.4 employees ) Health Club =19,955 sq. ft. (1.5/1000 sq. ft.) =29.9 employees ) Restaurant/Lounge/Kitchen = 3,700 sq. ft. @ (3/1000 sqa ft.) =69.5 employees ) Conference Center = 15,333 sq. ft. (1/1000 sq. ft.) =15.4 employees ) Lodging = 93 units @(1.25 /unit) =122.5 employees f) Multi Family (Club Units) = 46 units (. /unit) = 13.4 employees Total Employees =234.2 employees ( -60 existing employees) = 224.2 employees (X 0.30 multiplier) _ 67.3 new lye s 1 GFNER-ATION RATES S UGGESTED E11NfPL0Y CATECOMES AND P-A? GES �'OJZ VAIL F-XPRESSED As EALi3LoyFr pElz 1000 SQUARE F)=-T RRC RF-sF-ARcH Other: To be determined airough the SDD process, upon submission of adequate JOFJ documentation and a review of the ap p 'car '1�catiojj materials, I OVERALL SUGGESTED AVERAGES RANGE Bar/Restaurant 5 .7 /1000 s, f. S'-- Retail and Service COmmercial 5.9/I000 5-8/1000 Retail: Grocery/Liquor/Convenience I.8/1000 1,5-3/1000 Office: Real Estate 7.6/1000 6-911000 Office: Financial —off-Ice: 11/1000 2,5-4/1 COO 6.611000 5-8/1000 ,onferencc Center NA 1/1000 Health Club NA I-1.511000 Lodging* 1.3/roorn m25-1.25/room Local Government 6.5/1000 5-811000 Construction (Off Interior Storage, etc,) I0,5/1000 9-13/1000 Multi-Family N/A 0.4/.unit Single Family NIA n '? unit Other: To be determined airough the SDD process, upon submission of adequate JOFJ documentation and a review of the ap p 'car '1�catiojj materials, I r 7m 1 2 Im 0 VPH staffammary e ge 2 VPH Staff - Comparables Page 3 0 Conference Center If It 1.00 50 If it Health club/SPA L50 0 k,:�tail/Sc�lc__es 6.50 ---------- Chart _2 HOTEL & RESORTS Planning, Design and Refurbishments, highly reputable halt 0� wide used by architects "Typical ratios of staff per room" page 276 High-grade Convention Hotel = 0.Iqf=j!iotaI empl incl c. Chart 31 MARRIOTT AT VAIL - actual data number of actual ratio TOV is higher use unit uantity ME! aces unit ratio than Marriott Lodging hotel units 344 161 employee/unit 0.47 167% mul Condos i 38 15 0A0 0% Restaurant, lounge__ sf 6,500 40 employee/1000 sf 6,15 6% Kitchen I sf 5,000 29 #� 5.80 12 % Conference Center sf 23,000 17 It It 0,74 35% 3 5 sf 22.000 29 1,32 0 IJ4% Retail/Services sf 4,000 9 125 89. 189% employees total 3 300 00 total employees/unit e 'mployees/..it 0.79 Excluding retail 9 291 'tot 0.76 TEL RESORTS La by Fred Lawson (chart2) 0090 I Data provided by Marriott's Payrrol Ach Shane Level) (970)476-4444 ---------- Leased out L 0 00 V IA Staff - mp r bles Imw *age 4 VPH Staff - Comparables Page 5 VPH staffing Qgr TOV Guidelines than V PH number of T guidelines use lunit unit I ratio Lodging hotel units 97 121 employee /unit 1.25 38% Club Club units 46 18.-- 0,40 0% Restaurant, lounge i sf 5 38 employee/ I 009sf j 6.50 -2%,----- 19 6.50 -29% 6 sf! 125011 13 @ 1,00 14% sf, 13,542 20 1,50 -44% Retail/Services sf 3,56 23 6.50 9311N. 1 employees I total 252 total emplovecshinit 1.76 -- 10% Excluding retail 229 1.60' HOTEL & RESORTS by Fred Lawson (chart 2) 0.90 It can be seen that the more important discrepancy is for Lodging. 1 _ 1 - - - - For Retail d much higher but this item is much smaller than Lodging, WH — staffed --- it - 's - Retail on the basis of the real need, not in the basis of sq.ft. It is easy to understand that sq.11. is not a good base to dimension the realail need: a shop with 800 sf. or with 3,000 sf may require the same staff. In fact, merchants at Vill em, lo - ees/ 1000 sf �7 -6 V F} 0 aQ LCI6 s s —w— a Iw 'Page 8 Businees Name Store # of Employees employed by f e usi ness - Tezia Lingerie: 7001 — 1.5 To Catch-a-Cook 1,700+ 2. i Vail Boot & Shoe i 1,125 1.5 Vail Village Antiques -� 625 1.0 A Secret Garden 500 4 - ------------------------ Annie's of Vail - - - - - - - 1,600+, — 2. - 5 Base Mtn. Sports goo 2.0 Craigs Market 1,500 1,5 Knox 800 40 1.5 d — agg — ett Ifey dai — Ie r 4,200 5.O Plaza Gallery 2, 00 0 1.51 total 15,65 21.51 M Planning and Environmental Commission DATE September 27, 1999 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of amendments to Title 12, Zoning with respect to Employee Housing Unit Standards, Minimum Lot Size Requirements in the , Primary/Secondary and Two-Family Residential Zone Districts and Site Coverage Standards, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello On June 15, 1999 the Community Development Department presented to the Town Council some potential revisions to the Town Code having impact on the provision of employee housing in the Town's duplex zone districts, Two-Family Residential and Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential. The Town Council gave staff the direction to move forward with the concepts is presented. The P has reviewed the proposal at its August 23, 1999 and September 13, 1999 meetings. The PEC recommended several modifications to the proposal which have been incorporated into the proposal. As part of the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes the community stated that the Town needed to improve its incentives for private developers to create Employee Housing Units (EHUs). Staff has identified some areas of the Zoning Regulations that may need to be modified in order to ensure that the Zoning Regulations are truly "promoting" employee housing rather than acting more as a disincentive. The intent of presenting this is to gauge whether the Town Council agrees that there may be areas that need to be addressed in the code and if staff should work to resolve these issues. Requiring garage space for an EHU, where code does not require garage space for other dwelling units Page I of 5 F:\EVERY0NE\PEC\MEM0S\99\Ejjj T S2TDOC TOWN OF VAIL UIU PfUPUZ5U* LUXLUIIdIIYtb IUf UU[1bIbLtj1IUY VTIUI LIIU VU dUL on the general welfare of the community. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. vi. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ZONING TEXT CHANGES Chapter 13, Employee Housing 1. Deed Restrictions/Enforcement (see attachment pages 1-2) meeting these requirements. The current regulations are unclear as to the occupancy requirements. Additionally, the current reporting requirement provides that the owner provide a report of rental activity. This proposal requires a sworn affidavit from the owner. This will aid with the enforcement of EHUs. of incentives and the development of the clearing house concept. Staff is currently develoM ing plans for implementation of these concepts and will present these to the PEC at some point in the future. ;111�zflwwlll��� The proposal also includes waiving the DRB fees for a project Other fee waivers can developed administratively to encourage the development of EHUs. i Site Coverage: 2,800 sq. ft. (max.) Landscape Area; 8,400 sq. ft. (rain.) P: \EVERYONE \PEC\MEMOS \99 \EHU S27.DOC 2,800 sq. ft. -¢ 70 sr�. ft. (EF- U credit 0,000 sq. ft, (max.) 8,400 s. ft. (rein.) -700 sa. ft. (El, U credit 7,700 sq. ft. (rain.) Page 4 of S 5. Minimum Lot Size in the Primary /Secondary and Two- Family Residential Zone Districts (see attachment 8) page The PEC did not express much interest in the consideration of lowering the minimum lot size in these zone districts. Staff continues to believe that by lowering the minimum lot size, even by 1,000 sq. ft., may encourage redevelopment of homes and the creation of Type 11 EHUs. The majority of lots of less than 15,000 sq. ft. are located in East and West Vail. These lots were annexed to the Town of Vail and applied zoning that did not reflect the plats that were recorded by Eagle County. These lots range from 9,000 sq. ft. to 15,000 sq. ft. The PEC at its September 13, 1999 meeting discussed this issue again. It appeared that Commission thought that a change to 14,000 sq. ft. might be a good idea to test the concept and that lowering the limit might encourage redevelopment. The proposal includes having a provision that any new subdivisions would continue to have a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. and that any existing deed restricted employee housing units would have to be maintained and not eliminated. 6. Existing Nonconforming Lots with Two Legally Created Ownerships The PEC gave staff the direction not to propose code changes to solve this ownership issue, but rather for staff and the PEC to recognize this ownership as a form of hardship for the purpose of considering density variances. This would allow ORFA expansions to these dwelling units without requiring that one dwelling unit be deed restricted as a Type I EHU. Staff will immediately Implement this policy directive. 7. Incentives developed administratively The PEC has recommended that continuing incentives be developed in order to encourage appropriate use of EHUs in Town (i.e., annual ski pass). Also recommended is that these incentives only apply to newer rental EHUs with the current deed restriction. Therefore, if an owner with an older deed restriction would like to take advantage of any new incentives that might be developed, they would have to update the deed restriction. Staff is proposing that incentives be developed administratively and with Town Council approval and not be codified, as they may need to change from time to tune. F.AEVERYONE \PEC \MEMOS \99 \EkIU 527.DOC Page 5 of 5 0 Revised September 2, 1999 CHAPTER13 EMPLOYEE HOUSING SECTION: 12-13- Purpose 12-13-2: Applicability 12-13-3: General Requirements 12-13-4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type 1 5o The provisions set forth in this subsection (A) shall be incorporated into a written agreement in a form approved by the Town Attorney which shall run with the land and shall not be amended or terminated without the written approval of the Town. Said agreement shall be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder office prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of an EHU. E. Deed Restriction, Occupancy Limitations, Reporting Requirements Type VI. All Type VI Employee housing unit deed restrictions shall be incorporated into an agreement in a form and substance acceptable to the Town Manager and Town Attorney. C Development Standards. LE No property containing an EHU shall exceed the maximum GRFA permitted in Title 12 except as specifically provided in herein. 3. All surface parking shall be screened by landscaping or berms as per Chapter 12- 11, Design Review. 7 Occupancv of an of an emplovee housing unit shall be limited to the maximum of two persons per bedroom. D. Application Requirements. 1 Applicants for a conditional use permit for the purpose of constructing employee housing shall not be required to pay a conditional use permit application fee or Design Review application fee. 3 4 12-13-4: .0 EHIJ Requirements by Type. EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA /Site Additional Site Coverage Garage Parking Minimum/ Density permitted by right or Transference Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Credit/Storage Maximum count as density, by conditional use LQRgLi_Space ZeR+fi��� R. GRPA Requirement GRFA of an garage shall be sq. of sfe&-ef EHU Per Chapter 12- Type I Permitted Use: The EHU mav be GRFA: Site Coverage Allowed 300 sq. ft. of Per Chapter 12- Per Zone District. Counts as Primary/Secondary sold or The EHU is entitled to an The site is entitled to an garage area per 10 as a dwelling 2nd unit on Residential, transferred as additional 500 sq. ft. G4PA additional 5% of site coverage enclosed vehicle unit. property, Two-Family Residential separate unit on ef`e&�FGV`e4rthe� for EHU, space at a maximum (all with lots less than ILRLOWML. 6,4aH4+9l_4)&­aIkme4 of 2 parking spaces 15,000 sq, ft.) Landscape Area: (600 sq. it.). (Previously The site is entitled to a required deed reduction of landscape area bv All units not 5% (reduced to 55% of site restriction on both area) for EHU- constru c ted with a units to allow sale) garage shall be required a minimum 75 sq ft of storage area in addition to � normal closets ace. i a credit for sioraae one Type If Conditional Use: Single-Family R T,, F am il y The EHU shall riot be sold or transferred separately from The EHU is entitled to an additional 500 sq, ft, GR credit. 44��� IN/M Allowed 300 sq. fl. of additional garage area for the EHU. 4 pep 444&&&� 300 sq. ft. min. 12gq sq. ft- max. Allowed as 3rd unit on properly, Does riot e*oe-k-60"q- _Residential Primary /Secondary Residential Agriculture the unit it is associated with. geGU91442-4_5-� All units not constructed with a count as density, LQRgLi_Space ZeR+fi��� R. GRPA garage shall be sq. of sfe&-ef required a minimum Per Chapter 12- 75s_ sq . ft. storage 10 as a dwelling Sesile,- 1. 1 rz F area in addition to unit. EgLmat closet space. TNLZIs j f! shall be a credit for storag only I EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional GRFA/Site d N ,Vc ioul Site Cover Garage Credit Parking Minimum/ Density e ue Landscaperla perm Ue yrg tor ransference Coverage Maximum by conditional use GRFA of an EHU Type III Permitted Use: The EHU may be EHU are entitled to 500 N/A N/A 4-parking-&paGe A. Dwelling Not counted Lionshead Mixed Use 1 sold or transferred ag fl of additional (aRFA pef --leedreG, m _ unit — as density. Lionshead Mixed Use 2 separately, p 2r unit ffRfa6s. -E-HU ex fo rma t, t' !00 g. ft. mm. Conditional Use: +"uW-e&-2 lIQLsq. ft. Residential Cluster pa*wKj--spaGes,, Max. Low Density Multiple- Family Per Chapter 12- B. Dormitory Medium Density 10 -e format Multiple- Family le6"4aR4 200 sq. ft. min. High Density Multiple- W4V-epaGes 500 sa. f max. Family Public Accommodation Commercial Core I Commercial Core 2 Commercial Core 3 Commercial Service Center Arterial Business Parking District General Use Ski Base/Recreation Type4V 4+&-E-4W4n-aY-b9 NA N/A 0-133-4-a 4A per -6%4 .-� DU be de4ermll---d by er ss -Ra*"-DwAr� GeReFal-l4se Type V Permitted Use: The EHU shall not The EHU is not entitled to N/A The EHU is not Per Chapter 12- 1,200 sq. ft. max, Counts as Hillside Residential be sold or additional GRFA. entitled to additional 10 as a dwelling 2nd unit on transferred garage area credit. unit. property. separately from the unit it is Uireed associated with. +t+st -b etasleeed:- EHU Zoning districts Ownership/ Additional CRFA /Site Additional site Coverage Garage Credit Parking Minimum/ Density permitted by right or transference Coverage /Reduced Landscape Area Maximum by conditional use CRFA of an EHU Type VI Anv dwelling unit The EHU may shall be determined by / shall be determined Per Chapter 72- Shall be shall be may be deli nated only be sold or zoning on pLgperty. b zonin on 10 as a dwelling determined by determined and deed restricted transferr tzrooertye unit. zoning on b zonin as a TY9 Vl se arately. RL2gerjy. on ro erty. Emnioyee Housing Unit, unless alYeady designated as an ern loyee housing unit. Code changes to Two- Family Residential and Primary/Secondary Residential FAEVE RYON E\DOM\E H UCODE5.WP D • Planning and Environmental Commission SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Town of "Jail's 1999 Core Area Parking Analysis. Planner: Brent Wilson Page I of 3 F:\EVERYONE',IPEC\-,MEMOS\99\Parking.doe � �71VAIL Table 2. i - Current and Suggested Parking Rates (Commercial Core Areas Only) • UM Parking Availability Table 2.2 - Parking A vailability by Location ILocation/Type Current Requirement Suggested Increas 995 21 % R e equirment 1 3-00 28% 2.0+ spaces;/unit 1.1 spaces/unit 1 sp c /u 45% decrease jPublic Vail Village -Spaces 1.0 spaces/unit 25% no change 4,723 1 space / 8 seats I spk�T� seats no change General R ail*** MON."A decrease Office*** I A sn;rc%Q K' - 1.5 spaces / KSF 62.5 decrease RestauraEnt 1 space / 8 seats I space / 6 seats 25% increase Bank/Finance4' 5 spaces / KSF 2 spaces / KSF 60% decrease UM Parking Availability Table 2.2 - Parking A vailability by Location ILocation/Type # of Spacesi Percent of Total jPrivate Lionshead Spaces 995 21 % ;Public UonsFe Spaces 1 3-00 28% !Private Vail Village Spaces 1228 26% jPublic Vail Village -Spaces 1200 25% ITotal Availab . I . e Spaces - 4,723 100% Land Use Quantity Current Recommended Requirement Requirement Res - that - U - n i f - s - 2,148 units 3,222 2,255 Retail 1 51475 sf 504 227 Restaurant 82,127 sf 257 342 Office 45,000 sf 180 68 Bank 2,460 sf 12 5 Total Required 4,175 2,897 Spaces 0 - ')G; ° el " , J� rm rmu ...Ju. 7 G.1. uo..jc_ r u F. Vj-. , �-.b TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............. ............................... � 1. INTRODUCTION ................. ............ .................. 3 A. Background ......... ...... . B. Study Purpose .....,..® .... .............................. ................ , .... ...... 1 11. EXISTING C 3 1TION ........ ............................... ® 3 A. Parking Characteristics ................. B . Land Use ..........<.<.. ........... ®...... m ............ 3 .................... 1Ei. P STANDARDS .......... ................... ®. ®.w.....,, A DDENDU M 0 SFP 21 '99 14 =24 FR FHU 303 721 0532 i7 19704792452 P.04/21 LIST OF FIGURES e 1. Vicinity Map ........... .............................2. 2. Parking Transactions by Month. Vail Transportation Center Lionshead Structures ..... , . ............................ . . Vail Village Cori Area ............ -- ........................... 4 . Lionshead Cora Area ......... .................................. 7 LIST OF TABLES . Parking Transactions by Month ...... . . ........................... . 2. Parking by Length of Stay ............. ............... ®. ®.... a . _ a . Existing Land use - Vail Village And Li nshead ........................ 5 4 . Parking Fates ................ ............................... . 5. Recommended Care Area Parkin Rates ........................... ® » 10 5. Calculated Parking Requirements - Vail Village and L€ nsh ad .............. 11 A SEP 21 '99 14:2-25 FR FHU 303 721 0832 TO 19 ?04 792452 P. 05/21 i SEP 2- '99 14:26 FR FHU 303 721 0832 TO 15704792452 P.06/2 L INTRODUCTION A Background tl> MINI I m (ri m n. cr SEP 21 '59 14:2? FR FHU 11. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Parking Charactstfas 303 721 0632 TO 19704?52452 P. oe/21 53,179 Lionshea 33,505 Figure 2 graphically depicts the monthly parking transactions for both VT C and Lionshead structures the 1913$11999 ski season. As shown, parking transactions peaked in March, with 60,141 transactions at the VTC and 41,344 transactions at Lion shead. This peak coincides with the highest month for skier activity based on proprietary information provided by the resort. The peak ski day occurred on Saturday, February 13, 1999. On this date, the VT C recorded 2,042 parking transactions, and Lionshead recorded 1,394 transactions. The 15th highest ski day, typically usedfcr planning purposes in Vail, occurred an Sunday. February 7, 1999- Or) this date, the VT C recorded 1,966 parking transactions, and Lionshead recorded 1,392 transactions. Historic length of stay data for parking in both the VTC and Lionshead structures was provided by the Town, as summarized in Table 2. F-1 L-J-1 _� D im P.09/21 vsi! Pm*ing Gworation 99-137 B19 9 3 03 721 0832 TO 19704792452 P.10/21 IM F L BURG HOW `1" & tr LMLEVIG I �7r ti ~ Omms za t� blow F T. Q Q joy e' ¢ d,Idi is 9 •a'8 ` idr. °:•, °, °.'... _ eLL I ... all ® t _ a8 d l p y. aid r arm' - de rea, m aAw it " J I "Rt .an o H r c ztus P: li foci to a.a n Q b a � AHd i is e • B '1 • i6 °= I . a , db S Nom^ . a H1 9. �°�5 a an sa a� - • e ms' • ' a _ s K 4is ' a e i6 er IB a� : °:fie• _ �'-':° 7 ' S�eC1 C�A J° H4li bas$ ! %1 BBB MOP Figure Va il Village Core Ar North Vail Ps,kiag Ganrara7lora 90•%97 Mat" fi r ROW r. V M W 7 R E R MSC t n J:M 11 8 Seats Re General r Office 1.4 ., r Restaurant (5) ,�. 1/7.1 S e ats �. 1. PARKING GFNERATION. 2nd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. 2 Town o f Breckinri O 3. Downtown Breckinridge Multi-Use Area Parking Ratios, DOWNTOWN PARKING ST ' g Holt i 4 . Town of Vail Parking Regulations. 5. Rates shown are per seat and per KSF. The KSF rates are based on 40 SF per seat (typical). Depe on gross sq fra of dwelling unit. L* it ac Irty Hotel with conye!ntion facility. SEP 21 '59 14:32 FR FHU 30:3 Y;21 UH✓d2 I U VJY04'ey�4�c H.Ib/21 The above parking rates are intended to be applied only to development occurring within the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas, previously illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. These rates were developed based an the density and mix of uses within these areas; therefore, the use of these rates in outlying areas would underestimate potential parking demands and could exacerbate current parking shortages. 11 It can be seen that. using the recommended care area rates, the combined parking space requirement for Vail Village and Lionshead would be 2,897 spaces. This parking requirement is 1,278 spaces less than the current regulations would indicate, representing an approximate 31 percent reduction. 303 '121 UU J;2 i U 197047 - )��4!D�2 P. 1?/21 0 , 7 Zd dim Dwelling Unit If gross residential floor area is 500 1.04 Space per D.U. lLow/Mid-Rise square feet or less. 1,5 spaces per Apartment) dwelling unit, it gross residential floor area is over 500 0.88 Space per O.U_ (High-Rise Apartment) square feet up to 2,000 Square feet° 2 spaces per dwelling unit. If gross residential floor area is 2,000 1 -1 1 Space per D-U. (Residential square feet at more per dwelling unit: Condominiuml 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Accommodation Unit O• 4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.81 Space per Room (Convention Hotel) 0. 1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a 0.52 Space per Room (Non-Convention maximum of 1.0 spaces per unit. Hotel) Banks & Financial 1-0 space per each 200 square feet of 0.63 space per 1.000 SF lWalk-In Only Institutions (Le- net floor area. Bank) Savings & Loan) 4.23 Spaces per I =0 SF (Walk-in/Drive-An Bank) Eating and Drinking 1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on I Space per 2.63 Seats (Quality Restaurant) Establishments seating capacity or Building Code occupancy standards, whichever is more 1 Space per 3.57 Seats (Family Restaurant) restrictive. Hospitals 1.0 space per patient bed plus I space 139 Spaces par Bed (Hospital) per 150 square feet of net floor area. Medical and Denial 1.0 spaces per each 200 square feet of 1.0 s r De 4-11 Spaces per 1,000 SF (MedicjallDenlal Offices net floor area. CliniclOffice) Other Professional and 1.0 spaces per each 250 square feet of 2.79 Spaces per 1,000 SF (General Office 'e Business Offices net floor area. Building) Quick-Service Food/ 1.0 spaces per each 200 square feet of 11,6£3 Spaces per 1,000 SF (Fast Food Convenience Stores net floor area for the first 1,000 square Restaurant w/o Drive-In Window) feet of net floor area: 1.0 spaces per 300 square feet for net floor area above 1,000 square feet. Recreational Facilities, Parking shall be required. Amount to be No data. Public or Private determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission Retail Stores, Per5onai 1.43 space per each 300 square feet of 3.23 spaces per 1,000 SF "Shopping Services & Repair net floor area- Center) Shops —1 1 Theaters, Meeting 1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on 1 Space per 5.2.6 Seats (Movie Theater) Rooms, Convention seating capacity or building occupancy Facilities standards, whichever is more restrictive. Warehousing 1.0 space per each 1,000 square feet of 0.50 Space per 1,100,10 SF (Warehousing) net floor area. t f a — Any Use N Lister blot List L Parking requirements ireents to be determined P 't'rmin,d by the Planning & Environmental :j Commi ion ( Similarly, civic center encompasses a board spectrum of definitions with uses varying fro government offices to libraries, museums, and other similar activities. If you need a specif parking w'© for this category, we suggest 2.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area applied. However, a special review privilege should be retained by the Town, « «k2 possibi to be included in this category. Gas station categories have very little empirical data. However, techniques used in oth h jurisdictions have been researched to formulate our suggested approach. Parking provisio related to gasoline sales are suggested to be 1 space per pump. Auto service parking , I - suggested to be 3 spaces per service bay. If gasoline sales and auto service bot r h occu he ratios are additive. When a restaurant use is associated with one or both, we suggest -*zdditive of 1 parking space per 8 seals I I, III I ::C:1 WIM�R Ic I 11 H 11 3 �800 Approved October 11, 1999 Brian Doyen rec,,sed himself from this item, Torn Weber made a motion for approval in a ccordance with the Staff memo. 3 11 Jul I PXA I LA13"LE: Planning and Environmental c Iul3 Minutes S, 27, 1999 Chas Bernhardt suggested that Jay contact Paul Hymers regarding the housing issue George ether said the final number was off by 30 beds. p ; 11�111lli ;1I gill 11111 11 111 1111111ri Tom Weber said that 6,000 sq. ft. was excessive and he didn't agree with the dwelling unit. He said he would like the applicant how to figure out getting the housing in Town. He suggested using the applicant's numbers or a numbers reduction, if the housing was provided in Town or on-site; perhaps bumping up a couple of floors. He said he would like to encourage the Town Council to help future development and that there was a possibility to put some housing on-site, if the bulk and mass were increased. Tom Weber agreed with Chas; 30%; 3:1 ratio, as he felt this hotel would be attracting the more professional employees. Brian oyon thought to split the two numbers range; 30% in Town and 40% if housed down- valley. 5 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Approved October 11, 1999 John Schofield stated for the record that there was no public present to comment. rr Galen Aasiand said the people needed to be accountable for the deed restrictions and that we couldn't hold people in the past to the same rules. Doug Cahill said he was in favor of all the incentives and in favor of the curbcut in conjunction with site coverage and garage separation. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Doug. Diane Golden was in favor of as many incentives as possible. She suggested crossing out the sworn affidavit. Dominic Mauriello said the sworn affidavit was for enforcement and an extra measure for compliance, and was not intended to affect lawful owners, but those who were grossly violating the regulations. Tom Moorhead said there were penalties for putting false information in an affidavit. John Schofield said this was a good first step to eliminate the road blocks and that incentives needed to be provided. He thought it was a disincentive to require consent of other property owners in writing. Dominic Mauriello stated that that would go away when allowing everyone to use their 250. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 6 11 Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Galen opposed. 6, A request for a worksession to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Town of Vail's 1999 Core Area Parking Analysis. 7 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 Approved October 11, 1999 Brian Doyon said his concerns were policy and the increase in restaurant policy will cause a loss in restaurants. He said he saw a decrease in office spaces and workers from Barn to 5pm take away ski parking. He said he can understand that retail and conference facilities won't change and the residential spaces were empty. Brent Wilson said it did address restaurant outdoor seating. Chas Bernhardt disagreed with the restaurant/office standards, as they didn't take into consideration the guests that arrive by vans. He said that workers at most office jobs in Vail travel by car. Brent Wilson said land uses per square foot were taken into consideration. Diane Golden said she was not in agreement with reducing any parking spaces, especially for offices. She said the 2,500 total parking spaces in Town was unrealistic, as 20,000 people come to Town. 0 N Brian Doyon said hundreds of VA employees park in the structure to go on the mountain to work. Dominic Mauriello said understanding VA's contribution might be a public input issue. He said the impetus was if retai I/restau rant uses were generating as much as our Code says. He asked, regarding the mixed use credit, if in the mixed use environment, they should be assessed the same, such as in the West Vail Mail, Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 27, 1999 �, m PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, October 11, 1999 AGENDA 1. Vail Plaza Hotel —100 E. Meadow Drive C 2