Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0214 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 14, 2040, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A joint worksession with the ^esign Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan for an approximately 12 acre unplatteci parcel of land, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of VaillVail Recreation District Planner: !Dominic Mauriello A worksession to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building)/Lvt 54, Bloek K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: Brent Wilson A worksession to discuss the the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson A worksession to discuss the proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vaif Planner: Brent Wilson A review of a proposed amendment to the Town's Subdivision Regulations (Section 13-7-7 -~ "Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"), to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 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. Community Development Department Published January 28, 2000 in the Vail Trail. 1 ~~ TYIWh~OFYAIL ~~ 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 14, 200(} AGENDA Proiect Origin#atian /PEC LUNCH - Community DeveloQment Department 12:x0 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:30 p.m. 1, Donovan Park -Lower bench of Donovan Park 2. Glen Lyan Office Building -1000 S. Frontage Rd. West Driver: Brent ~~ MOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6;00 ~.m., th,e board will break for dinner from 6.00 - 6:30 P.m. • Public Hearin4 -Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.rrt+. 1. A joint worlssession with the De~si~n Review Board to discuss the proposed development planfmaster plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximate i 2 acre unplatted parcel of land, zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commaniy referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the Soutfa Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail/Vaif Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2. A worksession to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, located at 1Q00 S. Frontage Road West {,Glen Lyon Office Suilding)1Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Rather 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge)/Lot 1, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson lti 1Y1WN ~F YAIL 4. A wvrksession to discuss the Town of Veil's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments tv Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Appiicant: Tvwn of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 5. A wvrksession to discuss proposed changes to the Town of Veil's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Cvde. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 6. A review of a proposed amendment to the Town's Subdivision Regulations (Section 13-7- 7 -"Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"), to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to employee housing units, Appiicant: Town. of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 7. Information lJpdate 8. Approval of January 24, 24x0 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planners office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 Sauth Frontage Road.. Please call 479-213$ far information.. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published February 11. 20f)0 in the veil Trail • PLANNING ANb ENVIRONMENTAL COMMlSSiON PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, February 14, 2000 MEETING RESULTS Pr©iect Orientation I PEC LUNCH - Camm~rnity Develo~men# Department 12:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT DR1~ MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofiield Galen Aasiand Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Site Visits 1. Donovan Park-Lower bench of Donovan Park 2. Glen Lyon Qffice Building -1000 S. Frontage Rd. West Roy Driver: Brent NOTE: If the i:'EC hearing extends until B:00 p.m., the board will break For dinner from 8:06 - 6:30 p.m, Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 1:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. A joint worksessian with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximate 12 acre unplatted parcel of land, zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of VailNail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello WORKSESSION -- NO VOTE • ~. 1Yfl'VN4FYAIL Bill Pieree Clark Brittain Hans Woldrich 2. A worksession to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, located at 1 OiJO S. Frontage Road West {Glen tyoun Office Building}ILot 5~, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by 5egerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION -~-- NO VOTE 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge}ll_ot 1, Vail dos Schone #~. Applicant: Reaut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 4. A worksession to discuss the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson WORr~SESSION -~ NO VOTE 5. A worksession to discuss proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 6. A review of a proposed amendment to the Town's Subdivision Regulations {Section 13-7- 7 - "Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"), to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED (RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL} 7. Information Update 8. Approval of January 24, 2DOQ 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 Fron#age Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign 6anguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notiEicatian. Please coil 479-2356, Tekephone far the Nearing impaired, far information. Community Development Department 2 +~ MEMORANDUM T0: Town Council Planning and Environmental Commission Design Review ~3oard FROM: Donovan Park Design Team DATE: February 14 and 15, 2000 i~E: Three Alternative Development Scenarios for Donovan Park. PURPOSE On 1=ebruary 14th, staff and the design team far Donovan Park will review alternative designs and the public input received to-date with the PEC and the DRB. On February 15th, a similar presentation will be made to the Town Gauncil. The purpose of this meeting is to obtain input from the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Design Review Board an ~ alternative development scenarios far Donavan Park. A preferred alternative will be developed based an the input received at this meeting. as wail as that input from the public at an open house held February 10, 200(?. The consultant team of Odell Architects, Sasaki, Design Workshop, and ARC will make a detailed presentation with full-sized graphics. Included in this packet is reduced site plans; detailed list of the programming needs expressed by the public, the VRD, and the Town Council; a list of costs associated with developing the desired programming in the different scenarios; and a fact sheet on the property. PROCESS To-date there have been 4 public open houses (including February 10th) and several other public meetings !before the VRD and the Town GounciL. Following these meetings on the 14`h and 15`x, the consultant team will begin narrowing in on one development scenario based on the input received. Another public open house is scheduled for February 28, 2000 to review the preferred alternative, followed by another informal review by the PEC, DRB and the Town Council. There will be several mare worksessions/conceptual reviews by the PEC and DRS of full schematic plans resulting in an approved project by May 9, 2000. BACKGROUND Community facilities and park development were determined to be two of the top issues resulting from the Vail Tomorrow and Common Ground processes which have occurred over the past 3 years. On September 21, 1999, the Town Counci! decided to move forward with a process to determine which uses are appropriate and compatible with the Donovan Park site. The Town Council and the Vail Recreation District Board have directed staff to move forward with the following uses to be included in the master plan (generally in order of priority: ~- Park use and soccer fietd Pavilion ~ Multi-recreational space (gymnastics, yoga, martiial arts, etc.} (may be considered on ether sites) ~- Children's Genter (day camp, year-round youth enrichment programs and multi-purpose/generational activity roams) ~~ Gymnasium Indoor pawl (25 meter by 25 yard) ABC/Learning Tree Pre-schools Pe~t~fic Input On ~lanuary 5``' and Stn of this year, public open houses were held at the Red Sandstone Elementary School. The input received from the public at these meeting indicates the following levels of support for differing uses by those present at these open houses: Strong 5uppart: ~~+- Outdoor components {play fields, soccer field, picnic areas, shelters, and natural open space} ~' Gymnastics Facilities ~.- Community Pavilion with kitchen ~' Preschool Facility ~~ lndaor pool {strongest support for a smaller 25 meter pool for community and with lap ability v. a campetitipn level peal} Mixed Support: ~+- Gymnasium ~+- Children's Center {day camp, year-round youth enrichment programs and multi- purposelgeneratianal activity roams} Climbing Wall Limited Support: ~ Employee Housing (on-site) AGTIQIV REQIJESTE© Provide the consultant team with sufficient direction in order to develop a preferred alternative. The PEC and the DRB are not being requested to debate the issue of uses to be included except as may be necessary for determining compatibility with the site and surroundings. The PEC and DRg focus is layout, design, impacts to site, parking, bulk and mass (architectural plans to be developed}, and the like. F:IE V E RYON E 1PECIM E M(JSIfl OIDC~IV DV F14. DUC John F. Donovan Park Location Map N Donorran Park -Fact Sheet History ~` The land for this park was acquired in 198©. ~*` The land was acquired for $3,$75,OOC1 in RETT Funds. u+- The park was designated the "Jahn F. Donovan Park." ~+- A Master Plan was adopted in 1985 for the property which recommended a ball field, play areas, picnic shelters, a basketball court, a skating pond, and parking on the lower bench, and a cemetery, open space and hiking trails on the middle and upper benches. ~ A Cemetery Plan was developed in 1987, however, voters rejected its development by a vote of 55% tv 45% during anon-binding election in 1995. ~•° The Common around process identified Donovan park at a potential location for employee housing, recreation and open space. Vail Town Counci[ adapted Resolutions 9 and IO of 1998 approving further investigation on Donovan Park for these uses, Lawsuits filed by neighborhood groups in opposition to Resolutions 9 and FO and use of RETT funds far employee housing development. ~ Tn June of 1999, the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District hosted a design charette for the Hub Site (east of Lianshead parking structure) and concluded that same uses were compatible with park uses C1n September 21!., 1999, the Vail Town Council directed staff to explore community facility uses on Donovan Park and the Hub Site. Those uses included the following for Donovan Park: - Park (recreation fields, picnic areas, piny areas) - Community Pauilian - Gymnastics FacilityfGymnasium -Youth Activity area - Relocation of A8C and Learning Tree - Community goal - Retention of recreation path, stream tract and same open space Site Statistics ar The total site (all three benches) is 51 acres. ~` The lower bench is approximately 12 acres including stream tract. ~- The lower bench is zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, the. middle bench is zoned Agriculture and C]pen Space, and the upper bench is zoned Dutdaar Recreation. Donovan Park -Frequent Questions and Answers ~: Why are community facilities being cansidered far the lower bench of Donovan Park? A: Donavan Park emerged as a potential location after a series of community meetings last summer. The public thought the program for the Hub Site should be simplified and thus uses that were compatible with a park were proposed far Donavan Park. The Vail Town Council then agreed on September 11, 1999 to evaluate locating a "wishGst" of community uses there, which brings us to tonight"s meeting. Tonight you will be asked to comment on the proposed uses and provide any suggestions you might have. Q; Is employee housing being considered for the lower bench? A: Employee housing is being explored in anticipation of accommodating a percentage of new employees generated by the uses proposed far the site. This has been a requirement of both the public and private sector in the Town of Vail. No decisions have been made about the number of dwelling units to be considered or whether the units would necessarily be located on-site. Tonight you will be asked to comment on the housing component being considered, although a (final decision will rest with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council during the development review process. Q: Why is day care being considered for inclusion at Donavan Park? A: Day care is being considered for the site to accommodate the relocation of the A8C School/Learning Tree, if needed. It is dependent an what deveiapmen#, if any, will be pursued on the Mountain Bell property located north of the main Vail roundabout. The lower bench was identified as a potential location depending on the type of uses ultimately planned for the site. It was thought that a day care facility could share some amenities with the VRD youth programs. V1Je are looking for your feedback tonight, ~: How will potential uses be funded on Donavan Park.. A: The Town of Vail has budgeted $1 million in 2000 for park improvements. Additionally, the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District are working together to fund Vail's community facilities wishlist. Funds for these improvements could come. from Real Estate Transfer Tnx (Rt d i }, VRD budget, private donation, potentially a mill levy increase (if approved by voters), or other bonding opportunities. A final decision will be made on the financing package when the final costs are known for the project.. Q: WiIE all of the potential uses fit on the si#e? A: Yes. Preliminary analysis shows that all of the uses could fit on the site without impacting the sensitive riparian corridor and with maintaining approximately ~I3 of the site as a park and open space. Q: Will traffic, access, and parking be evaluated during the process? A: Yes. The design team includes engineers that will develop access plans far the site during the design phase of project. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) must approve any access location. Our preliminary analysis would preclude vehicular access at the intersection of Matterhorn Road and the 5. Frontage Road. Q; Haw is the development of plans for Donavan Park being coordinated with the Hub Site {east of Lionshead parking structure) design? A: The Donovan park design team is continually reviewing opportunities fvr locating uses between these two sites. Prior to choosing a preferred alternative, the Vail Town Council will have a spatial analysis far both the Hub Site and Donovan Park, tiling a comprehensive town-wide community facilities plan. A market analysis for uses on the Hub Site i5 being completed the design process for the Nub Site will begin in late February. Site Uses. • Soccer Field (165' x 300' ) • Basketball Court (5fl' x 84' ) • Open Park Pavilion • Community Pavilion • Green Room • Circulation • Backstage & Stage • Support/5torage w o_ Recreation Program • Multipurpose Space (Gymnastics) • Locker Raams • Storage Area Chkidren's Center Pre-Kamp • Classrooms/Storage • Adjacent Outdoor play Area Camp Vail • Lobby • Multipurpose Room • Restrooms • Kitchen • Staff Locker Rooms • Ark Room • LibrarylReading Room Parking PHASE I (OPTION) • ABC 1 Learning Tree PHASE II • Gymnasium • Pool (25m x 25yd ) Donovan Community Park facility dEell Archttede, 3aaeki Aeeodar.s, Deaipn Workahap • Playground Area * Picnic Area 13,000 g.s.f. • Restrooms • Kitchen • Lighting & Sound • Lobby • Offices • Vending • Juice Bar • Small Kitchen • Restrooms 16,786 g.s.f. 1,500 g.s.f. fi,flflfl g.s.f. * Laundry Room • Offices • Craft Room • Equipment Storage • Science Raam • Computer Lab • drama Room 1 ~0 cars S,Oflfl g.s.f. 12,5flfl g.s.fi. 17,750 g.s.f. . Februs7lD, 2D00 r: • Preliminary Budget Development I Concept A • Building Subtotal i - Pavilion ' -Indoor Recreation Space - Children's Center • Site Uses ! Siteworic • Parking • F.F.& E. • Owner Soft Costs I Contingency & Escalaton • Total Concept A -Phase I Concept B • Building Subtotal -Pavilion - Indoor Recreation Space - Children's Center • Site Uses ! Sitewark • Parking • F,F.& E. • Owner Soft Costs 1 Contingency & Escalation • Totai Concept B - l'haae I Concept C • Building Subtotal - Pavilion - Indoor Recreation Space - Childr®n's Center • Site Uses 1 Sitework • Partcing • F.F.& E. • Owner Soft Costs / Contingency & Escalation • Total Concept C - Rhase I $ 3,823,786 $ 3,005,989 $ 1,080,000 $ 3,823,786 $ 3,D05,989 $ 1,080,000 3,a57,7a6 $ 3,005,989 $ 1,080,000 Phase I Option tABC E Learning Tree) Phase II [Gymnasium) Phase II (Pool) Revenue Opportunities • Town of Vail Cash • Town of Vail LeaselPurchase • Vail Recreation District LeaselPurchase • s~,atQtal • iABG /Learning Tree Donovan Gommunitr~ Park Facility OdeW .•..: '.. ~,., Saeekf Auodatss, Deegn Worwirop $ 7,909,775 3.2,258.328 $ 2,731,855 $ 350,000 $ a,a9z,133 $ 17,742,091 $ 7,909,775 $ 2,170, 661 $ 2,55$,D91 350,004 $ 4.404,168 ;17,390,895 $ 7,543,775 $ 2,015,282 $1,698, 376 $ 350,004 $ 3,943,661 ~ 15,651,094 undetertnlned $ 3,aoo,ooo - $ 3,5ao,ooo $ S,Dao,oD4 - $ s,54o,ooD up to 3 8,000,400 up to $ 9,000,040 up to $ 3,000,040 s 1s,ono,4ao funded by other sources February 10, 2000 • Entry at North comer of Slte • Structured parkEng for 156 cars • Two levels of program spaces • Phase t oroaram ,. _ `~.,.~ ~ ,~~ / ~~ r - e ~/ ~ -- _ t Q6 '~Y .. . f ~ ir ~' ~ / ~ -- - '-Y _-_. .-- _ °i~ - ~_. F:: --- _ - Site Plan Concept A ~~ .. -r ~:. ~~~ -.~_ _. . - - 3r __ - * - - .,f _ __ _ ~,. Y ~ ~.__.: __ ~ ~ z _ _ -- ~ , f Y.a' ~ ~ j,: MA 9 ~ " i' _ _ - ~ .gyp.. ~T+,~''~t C'iF6 ~+4~ _- _.~ , ~~ lr C ~ ~~ Perspective View Concept A II • r: [~ana~an Cammuni#y Park Facilit~r Odell Archltede, Sse®ki Aesoda0ea, Drelpn Workshop Febniary ia, 2000 • • Entry at North comer of Site ~ ~ , + Structured parking for 130 cars ; . • Surface parking for 20 cars " . • Two levels of program spaces vii ~.Il*~~~ I~it?,;_ v- • Phase I program ` ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ k _ f _ • Phase 11 Poal and/or Gym s - {.. --. ~~ `~~` ~ `~ ,~;. ~~. Wf , j ~ _~~ ~~ t ~ -~ // _ ,• - - ~ - ~ ~. J ,~ 3 ~~i J„ '~ ".- ,1 '~ ` a v 1. s_ ~ _ ~ m Sin ,jy. _ ~ ~ l ~~ Er r ~, ,J ~ ~~ , F F ~ , r ' ~ / Site Plan -.- e`.-s~4. _ - .. _ ~ ~,_ _ _ ~~ ~`~ ~_ ..- ~~y« -`'~~ Jf+~ / .. I Concept B ~~ ,~ e ec w a Perspec#i~e View Goncep# B Donovan Coimimuni#~r Park Facility OtlNI AreJelldcb, 9eaeld AsogdRWe, fl®aign Wafkehap Fektrupry 10, 2{100 r + Entry at mitlpo~nt of Site i,/~ f • Structured Barking far Sd cars "" ' • 5urfaes harking for 10d cars , ' ; - ~~'~' - ° ' • Singie'erel program spaces ~ !{ • Phase i program • Phase i! Poet and,ror Gym ~` '~ :, • ~ ~:~, r-~ ~ n. t. ~ ~`/ •~ 4 ~ I. ~...... • `ff ~ ~~C ! M'~Y'nl' u~~ i ! li h ~' '~' ' ;. ,. l- ~ ,f ',.~. 't ~,: \ - _ ~> -. C - -- ~ ----- ~ - r #. I. ri; - w. ~, • Site Plan Concept C ~~ • -~ ~:~ ~.-~-° - - r< :~~ .,~:,:~~ PErspective i,°iew Donc~~van Communi#y Park Facili#~ OaeU.Artnnects. Saaak~ Associates. ~7es~gn y1'ocksnp0 °ebruaN 7~. 20aG' Concept G Donovan Community Park Facility Public comments from hebruary 10`t' evening meeting The following comments were received by the attending public at the February l0`" meeting at the Vail Town Council clambers. While most conu~~cnts were general to all of the design concepts presented, there ;were some specific remarks about the individual concepts. I. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Displaces Animal Life -Include (account for) animals. 2. Field close to road -needs seating, berming. Make sure to provide adequate space for field. 3. Need friendlier pedestrian access. 4. Develop landscaping (bus/pool) for sight sound & smell -lessen impact. 5. Youth programs critical to keeping families in Vail. (I.e. ABC/Learning 'Tree, Youth Center. 6. Drop-off is critical. 7. Gymnastics on site! 8. Don't make it "safe" for kids by eliminating them from program,. 9. Place ABC/LT on south side of parking. 10, Vehicular bridge on east end of site - create a one way loop through the site? 11. Don't just put pavilion -provide for family recreation! -youth! 1 12. This is perfect location far kid/yauth activities. 13. 1s is possible to create a wildlife corridor across the valley? 14. Don't use RETT fund for ABC/LT. 15. Condense all buildings on the sitel 16. C)kay to see parking -save ground] Four responses, 17. Concern over "Hidden Spaces" in parking stnictures, elevators- they are hard to keep safe. 18. Parking structure operational cost- has it been considered? 19. Maximize park! 20. Compare parking against parking counts at the Eagle Vail Pavilion. 21. Evaluate "More" vs "Less' -What is minimal program? 22. Provide analysis of site coveragelsite preservation, 23. Lighting far parking structures - be aware of it's impact on Surrounding neighborhood! Nine responses. 24. Question "Business" uses (ABC). Appropriate on this site? 25. Try to avoid elevatorslvertical circulation. 26. No school/housing. 27. Area around soccer field/? Be sure to provide raan~. 28. All scenarios too dense. 29. Timing??/PhaSiilg?? 30. Protection of kids from waterlGore Creek. 31. Concern over density/safety far children. 32. Very little space far ABCILT -need adequate space. 33. Soccer fields very important -support special events -maintain. this for community. 34. What is square footage of the Eagle Vail Pavilion? 35. Verify square footage of pavilion to accomn~odaic 200 people -can it be smaller? 36. What if project is only baseline program, what arc design implications? 37. Can V.A. contribute tcy gymnastics? Trade off w/ Camp Vail? 38. Define youth center vs. teen center. What should be in I,ionshead vs. here'? 3~). Need healthy active programs for youth, (i.e. gymnastics, youth center). II. CONCEPT A 1. Parking is condensed -Good. 2. Least footprint is better 3. Parking structures -high operation cost. Two responses 4. Please include playgroundf park. 5. Parking structrire (lighting) is ugly. p'ive responses C~. Parking structure -not safe. Two responses 7. Don't like stairs/ele4~ator. Two responses ~. Too Dense. Two responses 9. Bus access better. 10- Bus access not better, 11. Provide roller hockey rather than outdoor basketball 12. Traffic conflict potential sharing a traffic circle with bus traffic III. CONCEPT EB 1. Too dense. Two responses IV. CONCEPT C 1. Consider straddling park wl parking lot. 2. No reason to drop parking. 3. Tighten up buildings. ~. Gets program closer to creek. 5. Direct access for youth to fields- good[ 6. Like no parking structure/but wish parking was more compact. 7. Contiguous connection of youth to fields- goodi 8. No parking structure- good aspect of plan. Two responses 9. More aesthetically pleasing. 10. Phasing important good aspect. 11. Good open parking. 12. Play grounds for A>3C/L`I'- make sure to provide. 13. No elevators required- good aspect of plan r MEMORANDUM TC7: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 14, 2000 Sl1BJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District No. 4 Cascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg- Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther t]ESCRiPTION OF T1HE REQUEST The applicant, Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg-Mayhew Architects is requesting a major amendment to SDD #4, Development Area D. The purpose of this request is to allow far the modification to the approval granted by the Town Last year for the expansion to the existing building (ord. No,14, Series ofi 1999)_ The applicant is proposing to construct a 37,088 sq. ft. (grass) office building addition to the east of the existing building, a 3,270 sq. ft_ modification to the existing building by adding hallways and an elevator, and two EHU's (1,127 sq. ft. and 738 sq. ft.}. The resulting total leaseable area of the building is 35,741 sq. ft. which requires a total of 147 parking spaces. The new building is proposed to be constructed above two levels of a parking structure containing 121 parking spaces, The east end of the site wiH also contain a surface parking lot (with a level of parking below} of 20 parking spaces, for a total of 141 parking spaces. The proposal also includes aligning the entrance of the parking lot with that of the Vail Professional Building directly across the street and re-striping of the traffic lanes on the South Frontage Road to accommodate turn lanes and bike lanes. The purpose of this worksession meeting is to provide the applicant the opportunity to present the proposed changes to the 1899 approval and receive fieedback from the Commission on the request. Il. BAGKGROUND The original Cascade Village SDD was approved in 1976 and has since been amended several times. The development plan approved in 1988 for this area included additional office space and a micro-brewery. 1f\\4~7~' T17WN OF YAIL In 1999, the PEC and Vail Tawn Council approved a major amendment to SDD #4 to allow for a proposed expansion to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building. Please refer to the Zoning Analysis for a comparison of the previous approval to the present proposal. IIII. PROJECT PROS AND CONS Benefits • Provides a substantial increase in office space in the Tawn of Vail • improves and redevelops an unsightly area and older building in the Town of Vail • The 2000 proposal has an overall reduction in traffic impact and volume from the 1959 approval • The project generally complies with the Town of Vail Land Use Plan Negatives The building is substantially larger than the previous approvals • The 200(} proposal encroaches into the 50' Gore Creek stream setback IV. STAFiF RECOMMENDATION As this is a request for a worksession to discuss the proposed major amendment, staff will not be forwarding a recommendation to the PEC at this time. Staff will provide a recommendation at the time of final review. The final review is currently scheduled for Monday, February 28, 2000. • • V. ZONING ANALYSIS The development statistics for the proposed buildings in Area D are shown below (Nate: Deviations from the 1999 SDD approval are indicated in BOLD) Zoning: There is no underlying zoning prescribed for this SDD Lot Area: 78,307.81 sq. ft. S~,andard 1999 SDD Approval Height: 72' maximum Setbacks: Per development plan: f~: 1 S; 10' E: 155' W: 135' Stream Setback: Site Coverage: Landscaping: 55' 30% (23,492 sq. ft.) 59.7% (46,757.81 sq. ft.} 2~U00 SDD Proposal 72' maximum E: 164'(+9') W: 151'(+16') 44' (-11 feet} 29.4% (23,037 sq. ft.} 60.9% (47,678.81 sq, ft.} (+9'21 sq. ft.) • 2 f Parking: Commercial Floor Area: Density: GRFA: Loading and Delivery 143 required per code 147 provided 35,741 sq. fit. fatal/leaseable 37,488 sq. ft. total/gross (14,040 sq. fit.. gross existing} 4 DUs 2 EHUs DU - 0 sq. fit. EHU - 1,865 sq. ft. 1 berth required per code VI. DISCUSSION ISSUES 147 required per code 141 proWided (-6 spaces) 34,304 sq. ft. totaVieasable (-1,441 Sq. f#.) 4 DUs (+4) 2 EHUs DU - 8,040 sq. ft. (+ 8,(300) EHU - 1,865 sq. ft 1 berth provided Staff has identified a number of issues that should be discussed in greater detail between the applicant, staff and the Commission. Those issues are listed below: 1. Proposed Development Standards The 2004 proposal results in various changes to the development standards permitted by the 1994 approval. The mast notable changes are an eleven foot reduction in the Gore Creek stream setback, 6 fewer parking spaces than required by Code, and four new dwelling units on the top floor of the building. Staff would suggest that the applicant and Commission discuss the appropriateness of the proposed changes to the development standards. Staff would recommend that the applicant be required to maintain the 50-foot setback from the centerline of Gore Creek. 2. Employee Hcausing The applicant is proposing the same quantity of employee housing units t2 EHU's} as was previously approved. The scale of the project and the type of use proposed will not generate as many employees as the previous 1985 approval, since that project included a micro-brewery and restaurant. The applicant has been working with the 2 EHU requirement for the past several years. A recent study (,dune 1998) on Town of Vail businesses shows that professional offices in Vail, on average, operate with 5.86 employees per 1,400 sq. ft. of net leaseabie floor area. With other SDD projects the Town Council has required that 30% of the demand generated be accommodated either on-site or off-site, in the form of deed restricted housing. The currently accepted standard for minimum square footage ofi housing required per person is 354 sq. ft. If we apply these numbers to this project we find the following: New Impact Qnly. • 25,241 sq. ft. (net leaseable floor area) x 5.56 employees/1,400 sq. ft. 148 employees 3 • Employees to provide housing for = 148 x 30% =44.4 employees • Translates to 15,540 sq. ft. of mousing Staff would suggest that the applicant and Commission discuss the appropriateness of providing more employee housing units in the building. A review of the plans indicates that a large portion of the top floor of the building could be used for residential purposes. Vll. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR TlilS REQUEST .. Titlel2, Chapter 9 of the Town Code provides for ttie establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development wi#hin the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone diistrict, sha[I establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of tme applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, ar demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Staff will provide a review of the nine criteria at the time of final review. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhaod and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bully, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. D, Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Tawn policies and Urban Design Plan. E, Identification and mitigation of natural andJor geologic hazards that affect the property an which the special development district is proposed. • 4 r F. Si#e plan, building design and location and apen space provisions designed to produce a functional development resloansive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the cammuniry. G. A circulation system designed far bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing an and offMsite traffic circulation, H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and apen space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. I. Phasing ,plan ar subdivision plan that will maintain a workalale, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. • • 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 14, 2000 SUBJECT: A review of a proposed amendment to the Town's Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 13-7 - "Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"}, to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson DESCRIPT}©N OF THE REQUEST In 1983, the Town of Vail passed Ordinance 2, Series of 1983 in an effort to address the conversion of accommodation units {live beds"} into condominiums within the Town. The ordinance placed restrictions on the use of accommodation units that had been previously converted to condominiums and required these units to participate in a short- term rental pool. This principle of "lodging preservation" is a universal theme throughout Colorado's mountain resort communities and the Town has managed through both subdivision regulation and zoning to preserve a substantial number of accommodation units. A copy of Ordinance 2, Series of 19$3 has been included as Appendix "A" far reference_ In 1995, the Town of Vail amended this regulation in order to prohibit the conversion of any accommodation units to condominiums. The restrictions an previously-converted units remained in effect under this amendment while the application process for conversion of a.u.'s into condominiums was eliminated. This amendment is also included in Appendix "A" for reference_ This proposed amendment to Ghapter 13-7 would allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing through the Town's existing condominium platting process. None of the Town's other restrictions on condominium conversions would be changed with this amendment. li. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action.: The PEC is aci~vr"spry to the Town Couracif. The PEC shalt review the proposal for and make a reeommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the cornmuni#y. ~~ ,_,~; T~14VN OF VAGC ~ Staff; The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Tawn Council on any text proposal. Town Council: Action: The Town Counci! is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Reaiew Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authorifyr on code amendments. 111. RECOMMIrN'DATION The Community Developmen# Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed • amendments to Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Regulations to the Vail Town Council, subject to the fallowing findings: 1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Tawn of Vail_ IV. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL. TEXT CHANGES Proposed text amendments for Section 13-7' are outlined in Appendix "A'" of this memorandum. V. COMRATIBILITY WITH THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN Staff believes this proposed text amendment would impact the following gaols and policies identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Page ? a#+ 17 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in exis#ing developed areas (infill areas).. Staff Resoonse Staff believes the proposed amendment would help facilitate the location of employee housing units within the Town of Vail (a high Council priority) in existing infill locations. Staff believes affordable employee housing is essential for the provision of services that both residents and visitors expect. Staff also believes the benefits of employee housing may outweigh the need far accommodation units at certain locations_ 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and t_ionshead areas are the best location for haters to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condarrriniums should be discouraged, Staff Response Although the Land Use Pian identifies lodging unit preservation as a high priority, it also identifies appropriate locations for accommodation units (the Village and Lianshead). Staff believes these policies should be used to identify whether a proposed conversion is consistent with master planning objectives. Although the conversion of any accommodation units within the Town's core areas should be highly discouraged, staff believes certain other properties in town may be appropriate for the location of employee housing. 5.1 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Staff Response Staff believes the proposed text amendment furthers the above-listed goals by providing additional opportunities far localslemployee housing within the town limits. 6.9 Services should keep pace with increased growth. Staff Response Staff believes the provision of employee housing is vital if Vail is to provide services consistent with the demand created by residents and visitors. Page 3 of 17 APPENDIX "A" -CHAPTER 13-7, TOWN OF VAIL CODE CHAPTER 7 C©NDC7MINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS Added texf is shovrrn in bold and underlined Type; delefed fexf is shown in ism- fype SECTI©N: 13-7-1: Purpose 13-7-2: Definitions 13-7-3: Preliminary Map 13-7-4: Final Map 13-7-5: Review Procedure 13-7-6: Additional Requirements For Condominium Conversions to Employee Housiinq Units 13-7-?: Condominium Conversion Of Lodge Qr Accommodation Units 13-7-$: Restrictions on Unfits Converted Prior to February 7. 1995_ 13-7-9: Action On Preliminary Map 1' 7 `~ Rr~i~•i. i n M; ,~-Ramie--f-lc ~ e~k 13-7-1Q: Final Map; Certification And Approval _ 13-7-11: Improvement Security 13-7-12_: Exemptions 13-7-13: Applicability 13-7-14: Filing And Recording 13-~-1: PURPOSE: This Chapter has been adopted in accordance with the provision of the Laca! Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as found in Colorado Revised Statutes section 29-20-1 Q1 et seq., as more particularly spelled out in Colorado Revised Statutes section 29-2Q-1 Q4, to regulate condominium developments which may result in significant changes in the population of the Town and to control the impact thereof on the Town and the surrounding areas. The Tawn finds that this Chapter is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare to accomplish the following purposes: A. Ta ensure the performance of maintenance responsibilities in condominiums and converted condominiums, and to promote the public health, safety and welfare.. B. To ensure that rental units being converted to condominiums meet reasonable physical standards as required by subdivision and building codes adopted by the Town. C. To protect from unnecessary eviction the residents of rental units being converted to condominiums, and to assist these residents in meeting their future housing needs. D. To preserve a reasonable balance in the owned versus rental housing mix and to maintain the supply of law to moderate income units available in the Town. Page 4 of 17 E. To monitor the supply of low to moderate income units so that the Town may take measures to avoid a worsening hauling crisis. F. To ensure the rental pool of accommodation units is not depleted by the conversion of lodges and accommodation units to condominiums. (Ord. 1 {1995} § 1: Card. 2(1983) ~ 1) 13-7-2: DEFINITIONS: The following definitions shall apply to the interpretation of this Chapter: BYLAWS: Shall refer to the bylaws of the unit owners' association or corporation. COMMUNITY APARTMENT: A development in which there is an undivided interest in the land coupled with the right of exclusive occupancy of an apartment located therein. Community apartments shall be subject to the same restrictions and conditions set for#h in this Chapter far condominium units. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION: The development or use of the land and existing structures as a condominium project regardless of the present or prior use of such lands and structures, and regardless of whether substantial improvements have been made to such structures, it shall not be permitted to convert existing lodges or accommodation units to a condominium project, CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: The entire parse! of real property, including all structures thereon, to be divided into two (2) or more units for the purpose of constructing or converting existing structures to condominium units. CONDOMINIUM UNIT: An individual air space unit together with the interest in the common elements appurtenant to such unit. DECLARATION: An instrument recorded pursuant to the statutes of the State and which defines the character, duration, rights, obligations, and limitations of condominium ownership. The declaration shall include all restrictions, limitations and specifications which may be required by the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council, including provisions relative to time-sharing estates, licenses or fractional fees; and the procedure for amendments of the declaration. which requires approval of the Town. EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT: Shall be defiined in accordance with Section '52-2-2, Town of Vail Code. INDIVIDUAL AIR SPACE UNIT: Consists of any enclosed roam ar roams occupying all or part of a floor or floors of a building of one or more floors to be used for residential, professional, commercial or industrial purposes, which has access to a public street. MODERATE INCOME: Shall be as defined from time to time by the Council. {Ord. 1(1995) ~ 2: Ord. 2(1983) § 1) Y~gc 5 of i 7 13-7-3: PRELIMINARY MAP: All proposed condominium projects shall submit the preliminary map, containing the information and requirements specified in Chapter 3 of this Title, as may be applicable to the proposed condominium project. In addition to that information, the preliminary map for the condominium project shall include: A. A map showing all common areas and usages of the building and grounds, and plans for the interior division of the building showing horzontap and vertica6 boundaries of all units. B. A copy of the declaration applicable to the condominium project. C. A copy of the bylaws. The bylaws shall contain the information required by the Condominium Ownership Act of the State of Colorado9. All condominium projects shall comply with this requirement. (Ord. 2(1983) ~ 1 } 13-7-4: FINAL MAP: The final map for the condominium project shall contain all information required by Chapter 3 of this Title as the same may be applicable to the condominium project. In addition, if there are any restrictive covenants, conditions or restrictions other than specifed in the declaration, they shall be filed concurrently with the final map. {Ord. 2(1983) § 1 } 13-7-5: REVIEW PROCEDURE: The review procedure far condominium projects and condominium conversions shat[ be in accordance with the procedures #or subdivisions as specified in this Title. There shall not be permitted any conversion of existing lodges or accommodation units to condominiums10. (Ord. 1{1995} § 3: Ord, 2(1983) ~ 1} 13-7-6: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 1=0R CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS TO EMPLOYEE HOUSiI~tG UN1T5: The applicant proposing to make a condominium conversion shall provide the following documentation with the preliminaryr map: A. Conversion Report Listing Building Conditions: A condominium conversion report from the Town Building Official on the condition of the building, listing all Building Code violations, Pire Code violations and related violations which are detrimental to the health„ safety and welfare of the public, the owners, and the occupants of the building. The applicant shall have available and shall provide copies of this report to all prospective Pale 6 of 17 purchasers of condominium units or interest in the condominium project. E3. Required Information: A report of fhe proposed conversion, including the following information: 1. Length of occupancy of present tenants. 2. Thee household composition of present tenants. 3. Current rental rates; whether rents include or exclude utilities; date and the amount of last rental increase, 4. A summary of the proposed ownership of the units, if the units will be sold as time share or interval ownerships; the approximate proposed sale price of units and financing arrangements to be provided by the applicant. C. Plans And Descriptians: Plans and descriptions showing how the following will be performed: 1. All site work shall be brought up to current Town standards unless a variance therefrom is granted to the applicant by the Town Council in accordance with the variance procedures of Chapter 1 of this Ttle. The Tawn Council may, if i it deems necessary, require additional parking facilities to meet requirements of owners and guests of the condominium units. 2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by the Building Official. 3. Condominium projects shall meet current Uniform Building Code requirements for heat and fire detection devices and systems. (Ord. 29(1983} ~ 1: Ord. 2(1983) § 1) 13-7-7: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF LODGE OR ACCOMMODATION UNITS: A. No New Conversions Allowed; Exception: There shall not be permitted any conversion of a lodge or accommodation unit within the Town to a condominium, except as provided for the provision of emplavee housing units. Employee housing units created pursuant. to this chanter are s€~hiect to the definitions. requirements and provisions of Chapter 12-13. Town of Vail Code I"Employee Housing"l. Page 7 of l7 13-7-8:RESTRICTIONS ON UNETS CONVERTED PRIOR TO 1995: A. Any accommodation unit within the Tawn which has been converted to a candominium or has received approval far a conversion prior to the effective date of Fehruarv 7, 1995 shall comply with the requirements of this Section. The requirements contained in this Section shall not apply to structures or building which contain two (2) units or less. B, Use By Dwner/Renter: The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be included in the candominium declaration for the project, and filed of record with the Eagle County Clertc and Recorder. The condominium units created shall remain in the short term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. 1. An owner's personal use of his ar her unit shall be restricted to twenty eight (28} days during the seasonal periods of December 24 through January 1 and February 1 through March 20. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season". "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit off the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unren#able. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge, however, shall not be restricted by this Section, 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three (3) times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restric#ion and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected by foreclosure on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restriction shall give the Town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the Town enforces the restriction, the Town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such PageBofl7 enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney fee incurred. 3. The Town shall have the right to require from the condominium association an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons for all converted condominium units. 4. The converted lodge units shall not be used as permanent residences. For the purposes of this Section, a person shall be presumed to be a permanent resident if such person has resided in the unit far six (B} consecutive months notwithstanding from time to time during such six (6) month period the person may briefly dwell in other places. C. Converted Lodge Retains Customary Facilities: Any lodge located within the Tawn which has converted accommodation units to condominiums shall continue to provide customary lodge facilities and s€:neices including a customary marketing program. b. Unsold Condominiums Rented: The converted condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. If unsold thirty (30} days after recording of the condominium map, the unsold converted condominiums steal! be required to be furnished and made available to the general tourist market within ninety (90) days after the date of recording of the condominium map. This requirement may be met by inciusian of khe units of the condominium project at comparable rates in any local reservation system far the rental of lodge or condominium units in the Town. E. Common Areas Remain: The common areas of any lodge with converted units shall remain common areas and be main#ained in a manner consistent with its previous character. Any changes, alterations or renovations made to common areas shall not diminish the size ar quality of the common areas. F. Employee Housing: Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide housing for employees at any time during the three (3) years previous to the date of the application shall remain as employee units far such duration as may be required by the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Tawn Council. Pa~;~ y of 17 G. Applicability: All conditions set forth within this Section shall be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personal representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is tale subject of the application for the life of the survivor of the present Town Council plus twenty one (21) years. Conversion of accommodation units located within a lodge pursuant to this Section, shall be modified only by the written agreement of the Town Council and the owner or owners of the units which have been converted into condominiums. The documents creating and governing any accommodation unit which has been converted into a condominium shall be modified by the owners of such uni#s only with the prior written approval of the Town Council. (Ord. 15(1995} § 1: Ord. 1(1995) § 4: Ord. 21(1987) ~§ 1-3: Ord 2(1983} § 1) 13-7-9: ACTION ON PRELIMINARY MAP: A. Criteria Considered: At the hearing on the preliminary map, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the following housing goals of the Town: 1. To encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the Town through a variety of housing types. 2. Ta expand the supply of decent housing for low- and moderate-income families: 3. To achieve greater economic balance far the Town by increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them. ~. Determine Percentages For Safe Or Rent: The Commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income. C. Findings Supporting Denial: The Planning and Environmental Commission may deny the tentative or preliminary map upon finding that: 1. Sased on the information required by Section 13-7-6 of this Chapter, and on the vacancy rate for rental housing, tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below five percent (5%) based on the mast recent Town survey constitutes a housing emergency situation. 2. The ratio of multiple-family rental units would be reduced to less than twenty five percent (25%) of the total number of dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from f]owd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with na replacement rental pausing being provided. {Ord. 2(1983) § 1) Page I 0 ©f l7 1 ~ 7 C~-R-~€! I h/1 ! C 9?-: /1. 2wee~ohi~ ^~t{~r: Ns IG1~r;hwr f%r.~~ (C) du~•s-a#e~~"~ f't~-g c{ c~, np~4iccti~~ 1ii%`I, t+!".~-c.N~;..ll~°'''+ °~''~u nrt+ift~ +h r, +r~ nn#n .,~ fl,i ~•:~:~@Sl~'~ ~3i4~^II~IIFI!~°k}F~ ~~ro•ar/u~ ci:~ r tc t"s ol.,~,.,;.,~ .,nu E~:~•i;cr;::~c::~cl Cc:~:;~~.cis;- cc p:~i~iie hiv~in~, kl-~ op~ a~i;~r,~+rtM,~„-,~..~r.,f+„n.,~+~ ,~c~i:ink-te-~:r~~t~t+.~-et;vi,,.,,T e~#+;a- €. ^f~r.'1t r;,;r 11~or~Cet-~~Eaisi;n~ tona;.~ ~"cll ~~~~e~tifi~d--~f Una ~rer~.a~ ^alo ~i~:- Eaa"'.~~ ~1 c"cll 4~~. nn~s;~,at34c clr±~~ch~• their uhf this ;.;ir.G~; -~.~r~::`.--~at+ao. Th~ncr~l ;~:3~r~,„~i~ °cpa!--t3c ~ fciv . iVt--ti-i~ ~i: t, .1.•~...~r ihc~ Dom"'' ~11'~ Grr.~:~c:~:`.:er: r ... ~-In+r~r.~-.; n.s ~.+ _ icl ~~~ :~i~~ .~a th~, try 4i,i-:~;; rr,~,-~o+, .,~„~,.~c~ tr `:i~:;, tl,c ~,,rNli~~#~i Tu~~~a d~+~.~1~ (~i_ ~(1(k°,?) ~ 13-7-10: F1NAL MAP; CERTIF1CATi©N AND APPROVAL: A. Required Information; Certification: The final map to be filed by the applicant shall contain the information required by subsection 13-3-68 of this Title, relating to subdivisions as the same may be applicable to the condominium project. In addition to that information, the applicant shall obtain the following certification to be tiled with the final map: receipt of a condominium report from the Building Official of the Tawn stating that condominium structure and units are in conformance with the Town Building Codes, Fire Codes and other related codes adopted by the Town ar the Vail Fire °~vr, ~lctciat Department, a- iN~t u~r~~rna~t~ hM:.., ~~~•~ ~R+~r^~' +~te-~-~sh tJ.-:c Tc~.~~~•. Fi:~~r. ^ic{se~+~cc~~t: ~ coif c~~::~-rc ~ ~' :::-iifs- B. Final Map Approval: No final or partial map shall be approved until the certification required in subsection A above is obtained. (Ord. 2(193) § 1 } ~`~--s' 11: ~~ ~onl\'I~ICf`! ©~ ir~i it e~eonc~~r: >'1. C~rtar,#; T; ^~~,,~ ^,t-r~ieatiu~: The-ski-vi:,i*r Kr ~bliv ~^~'I ;tote `ht At c~l~c ~r? , ,~;,.,.+ +~ rtnn, ,n.-„nr„ ~,.. +hc :xis#~g tvne..t c f~:.~ ~f c-;s,,~cc wr :saa,,~~u ~c~.. r~r±..4 i„ i.~ , icc~~r: c cf k,,., ~ wdia~ ~:~bt!c rs~caft, th.~ ep'~i•c-an. ~, ~,~ ~c te7~n~• ~e~ 1. Th1~IGic ~f i::~.~~n~-ef 1~~ r~pc~. ''. Tho ; ig"t rs~f-~p~::w,=-s~:a~,fiv~ .cba~e~ Y~gclSutl7 ~. Th :tie-r-e~air cr -~.rr~~°rill bail ~4 Inert t'~i;r~,~~~:,~•c if+,,. +a r~±#e- +sc~~nc! sf t`t3~:~:ci ~acM~i~, r- ~:.:.+~:.~~ieef}l~-, ~~c: ~ f~t~:- S. I`~9fiE:/a Fitcvl: ~r~ic~ cr ~vi~ n®+;,.~,~. ~~,.~~~ hn ~;~„~, ,.,~+h the r~,,.~.,.-+,-.,,,~,+ ~f r'v:~r1r'^i::y- ~.':~1: °L~„~,rr,~n+ ~+ +~,~ tll^-:° +~,~, n„+;,.,, ;-, yid.,,., +„ +ti„ +...,.,riV~ I'l. t~~'~ ~~,/c Cf N CC~!l1cc~ p~ejee~~c~ ..c;aii: ~ cf fr;.~~ r,, ~ ., °'° ^~'^~~ +"~ ~r;Jisa~lhlll ;~cci thi Y-;~:.q•,~~T Y• ~ li !ii • . ~., f.~ry~ of th! a~t-cf "~~el -°;G~ ('~i. W~1 ~~-§°~~ ~' 13-7-11: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY: A. Acceptable Form C)f Security: The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council may require a security to be posted by the applicant which shall consist of one or more arrangements which the Council shall accept to secure the actual cost of construction of such public improvements as are required by the ordinances of the Town. The improvement security may inelude any one or a combination of the types of security or collateral listed in this subsection and the applicant may substitute security in order to release portions of the condominium project for sale. The types of collateral. which may be used as security are as follows: 1 ~ Restrictions on the conveyance, sale or transfer of any unit within the condominium project as set forth on the final map. 2. Performance of property bond. 3. Private or public escrow agreement. 4. Loan commitment. 5. Assignments of receivables. 6. Liens on property. 7. Letters of credit. 8. Deposits of security funds; or other similar surety agreements. B. Amount Determined: Security other than plat restrictions, required under the improvement security, shall equal in value the cost of the improvements to be completed but shall not be required on the portion of the condominium project subject to plat restrictions. The Council shall. not require security with collateral arrangements in excess of the actual cost of construction of the improvements.. The amount of security may be incrementally reduced as subdivision or condominium improvements are completed. (Qrd. 2(1983} § 1} ~~~~ i 7 ~t• ~ ~ 13-7-12: E~tMPTIONS: The terms of this Chapter shall not apply to developments or structures of two (2) units. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1 } 13-7-13: APPLICABILITY: The terms of this Chapter shall be applicable to se€~cr~ri>-projects that are commenced or converted after the effective date hereof. (Ord. 2(1983} ~ 1) 13-7-14: PILING AND RECORDING: The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder; however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records_ (Ord. 18(1993} 8) f-~ Pagc 13 af` l7 APPENDIX ""D" VAIL LAND USE PLAN - COALSIPQL1CIt=S 1.Q General Growthllgevelopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quasi#y ofi development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Cora should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.6 Development proposals an the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment, 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8 Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a) Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 1.9 National Fores# land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise fails into private ownership should remain as open space and not be zoned for private development. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where na high hazards exist, if such development is for public use.. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, long term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process. 1.12 Vaii should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas}. 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well as its potential • for public use_ Page I a of l7 2.4 SkierlTourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Tawn leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities far day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand far recreational facilities. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 2.8 Day skiers need for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as: a) Increased busing from out of town. b) Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d) Addition of structured parking. 3.0 Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and I~ic+nshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on-going events and sane#ioned "street happenings should be encouraged. ~~~~ i s ~~~ i ~ 4.Q Village Core 1 Liortshead 4. t Future commercia! development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Care areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Gr~re areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vaii Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved.. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.} 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b} Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, andlor sculpture plaza. c} New develapment should be controlled to limit commercial uses. 5.a Residelntial 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types.. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional ernplayee hauling needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. • Page 16 of 17 6.U Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. G.2 The Town of Vail should play a rode in future development through balancing growth with services_ ~.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Yag~ 3 7 s~f' 17 • • project data BUtLDlNG CODE: 1 ~ d.Y~Dl10 CA04 fe3~ EDR N7M FIl~ C7i87RIG?~ raven or vet OGGUPs1NCY GROUP: ea p+eecw ~.aw.o~ e- orrlea srwca Ka Er+R,m~re ~+rawa- u+ns ray A-! errlo.E: Lloww oars r2~ ESl1[LD~xJ'a tYPE: r'rp[ n ~n Cgt6rliCilM r1.tLx envR~cLEn / LBU GRffirralCrlW ILL1Y bfiRlX},Ep M ~~ ~~~" _ ~ W ~a...w. d ~ °~. ~~ ~ ~ w ~~ ~-:.~, s ,~,~ w ~_ ~""" ~. ate' ~ ~,.,....w..~.,, ~ ~~ ~ ~ `. ~' d ~~y .....e,~. '~':~ . w. ~W ir' GLEN LYON VA[ L .m urr-`.s..w. ~"" ~~r ~~ite plan eymlpol~- • K `S d _~-.. ~,,,6.., +--~ GMA~Lw ~~~~~ ~.. ~~~ MYw . - Y/~~L~/ WkN lL~llss L.'! aYl~ e~LMYYL ~~ v. ~~~ ~T~ IGIL~h4~ LM -~~'~~ An O Yl1~S 1L1iL1 L.M ? W W~ KHAT~g1 ~~ R -e- yIILIPP 1~eL~ lWr ~ ~~1 ~ ~~ Gl~f1 N~ ~ M LL /1 ~PYr Lae ~nR~ • ® +TW ILW~ Ypl~~w wail ~ ^~ ~ a~ S ~N~ ~ ~ ...,.. ~~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~- ~ ~ '^ ~ ~ ~~ e~L ar- w ~,~=.. ~t ~: ~=~.r. a., =-: :~ ~~"-"" ,_ ~. !/bY~J ~~ r~ Iq,Iva9yly ///fell 1w.1 ~6Tp~1 _ Y w..` ~ `~ - YYLYY ~:. MALlw1M+~ Mw•` w ww~ • • • /~ys Y ~~ ~ ~. .~ i ~ ~ ~ J ~. :.r_- f `~~--. •1+ _ ~\\ ,~~~ i _.1~! ~~~ cam; ~ -~ r_ ...•r i ~ f J ~~__ M+ 'yr-.• ~ `~~~ r~ ~J ,c~~.~~ ~~ ~ 1 .~ _~/ • :7 • p..~..P_P..p..~_p..p._p_ eJ~ iili~fiifiiliiirilrrl~~Ii El~ ~~ ~~_~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~Il~ ~~~~~~~~ e 4 L ~' r ~ s ; 4 c c c c c G~ c G I C c c c Y i OtllfaGE Pe RCM} f?a [l]FwACT bTd,LL61 ~ d lil l l i~' JIII~ l?J rr-0- fT-0' ~ 7T-I' I - -- S I ~ T I ~ jII I • V n~ o- e.t - 1 ~ e rrr ~ tr.r •r.r I 1 I i I I ~.~.~, ~..:.~ I L----_ _-._.---------- -----v' i ~ ~ urr rrs nay 1 I I I ' ~ raew_~ E Md }aM L---------------~-- ------ I~ O f 4 I~ k k f I { L------------------_ _..__- b x-r ~ rr-r ~ a ~ fY~` R-I' T'-s' ft~' R 1 ~ ~, ~~ oooe~ sr. r~aoemr. O • L6~~L rjly6+~+' ~ ~~~ ' ~ LyyA+J _ I it I O'+4r ' riwau~ w.4.4 ' C~a,.~. NORTH ELEVATION • u»I. s J OI~rX ~ lit a. d~ +' siiv~-4~ ¢ 7ww~u I.tvw ~ vpme'~i 'SOUTH ELEVATION y~yN`d' EAST ALE r,~yls Gw L F++HOtnL4 I_ u+ • IVIEMORANDL#M TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community ©evelopment DATE: February 14, 2Q00 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Town of Veil's Core Area Parking Analysis. Planner: Brent Wilson C, I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST During the summer of 1999, the Town hired the firm of Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig to conduct an in-depth analysis of parking generation in Veil's commercial core areas. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the influence of external factors (mixed uses, transitf'pedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity) on parking generation. Currently, the Town's parking regulations da not account for these factors and assess parking requirements strictly by land use type and square footage. Given the inability of many properties in Vail Village and Lionshead to provide an-site parking and the Town's X17,917 per space parking pay-in-lieu fee, staff realized a need to produce a more realistic assessment of parking generation in these areas. Over the past six months, the consultant examined data involving a number of factors influencing parking generation in Vaii. Skier visits, parking structure transactions, land uses per square foot, parking turnover ratios {length of stay), and traffic (automobile, transit and pedestrian} counts were referenced and incorporated into a model. This mode! was used to determine a more accurate assessment of parking generation in the Town's commercial core areas. The consultant's recommendations are outlined in Section II of this memorandum. It is important to na#e these recommendations are applicable only to those properties that exhibit the characteristics outlined above {mixed uses, transit pedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity}. Many areas of Vail {outside Vail Village and Lionshead} do not exhibit these characteristics and it would be inappropriate to apply these same rates at other locations. A copy of the consultant's study and findings has been included in your packet for reference. • II. FINDINGS The following table is a summary of the consultant's recommended parking rates for specific uses within the Town's commercial core areas. A comparison between the Town's current rates and the consultant's recommended rates is listed and reductionsladditions to parking ratios are listed where applicable. Ya~c l of4 '.1 V,'1YL'~.L~ATAICVERYO\~E`~PEC .iv£1:i1~1C7S`,00`,PRKN(;GEli.r7C~C' ~~ ;~,~ ~, ~nwN o,F a,~rt,''i Table 2.'1-Current and Suggested Parking Rates (Ccammercla! Care Areas Only) hand Use Residential Hotel** Canventian Facility General Retail'~'"~ Office`""" Restaurant t3anklFinance"'~* Current Requirement 2.0+ spaceslunit 1.0 spaceslunit 1 space 18 seats 3,33 spaces /KSF 4 spaces 1 KSF 1 space 18 seats 5 spaces /KSF Suggested Requirement 1.4 spaceslunit 0,7 spaceslunit 1 space 1 11 seats 2.3 spaces 1 KSF 2.7 spaces /KSF 1 space 1 12 seats 3.7 spaces 1 KSF Increase/Decrease 30°f° dECrease" 30% decrease*"` 37.5% decrease 30% decrease'""`'` 32.5% decrease**w 50% decrease 26°I° decrease""* Assumes an average unit size of 5D0-9,999 square feet. Currently includes timeshares and FFU's. '"" Assumes an accommodation unit size of at least 80Q square feet. Current requirement is Q.4 spaceslunit plus 0~ 1 space/each 9(JO square feet of GRFA, with a max.af 9.a space/unit. For parking purposes, timeshareslFFU's will be considered as AU's. **"` Involves a cfiange in calculation from °net floor area" to °gross t7aor area." "1CSF" = 1,ODD square feet For Example For a point of reference, a recently constructed project (the Vail Village Club) is shown based on existing and proposed parking schedule applicability. Required Parkins for 1997 Vaii Village Club Pronasal Retail = 3,594 sq. ft. - Office = 94 sq. ft. _ RestaurantlClub = 5,717 sq. ft. (381 seats) _ Tots! Grand Tatai 11.98 parking spaces 0.38 parking spaces 47.64 Dar1(ing spaces 60.00 parking spaces -27 (grandfathered soaces)* 33.00 Harkins spaces e~av-in-lieu ~oothetical Required Parkins far Veil Vill~ae Club Uncler Pr~a~~ed Parking Standards Retail = 3,594 sq. ft, _ - - 8.26 parking spaces Office = 94 sq. ft. = 0.25 parking spaces RestaurantlClub = 5,717 sq. ft. (381 seats) ~ 31.75 parking spaces Total = 40.26 parking spaces -~7 (grandfathered spaces)* Grand Total = 13.26 aarkinq saaces oav-in-lieu This represents a difference of 19.74 pay-in-lieu spaces or $353,680.79 (based on current pay- in-lieu rates). Page ? of 4 C] r~ ~~ 't1VAIL1flAT.1'~kiV F:RYOhJEiPEC'~,A4Eiv1C]S'~,O[71PRiCNGGE~I.I~QC • • Parking Availability Table 2.2 -Parking Avarlablllty by Location LocationlType # of Percent of Total Spaces ~ Private Lionshead Spaces 995 21 % Public Lionshead Spaces 1,3(39 28% Private Vail Village Spaces 1228 26% ~Pubiic Vail Village Spaces 1290 25% Total Available Spaces 4,.723 100°/a About 47%° of the availabEe parking in Vail Village and Lionshead is supplied privately. The majority of these privately-held spaces are devoted to residential uses. DISCUS5IQN ITEMS OveraEl, tike consultant's recommended parking rates represent a 31 % reduction in the amount of required parking far private uses in Vail Village and Lionshead compared to our current regulations- Table 3.7 -Current versus Proposed Parking 14equirements Eland Use Quantity Current Recommended Requirement Requirement Residential Units 2,148 units 3:222 2,235 Retail 151,475 sf 504 351 Restaurant 82,127 sf 257 180 ~Qffice 45,000 sf 180 125 MBank 2,460 sf 12 9 Total Required 4,175 2,900 Spaces As depicted in Table 2.2, there are about 4,723 total parking spaces in Vail Village and Lionshead. It is important to note, however, that a large percentage of these spaces (47%) are privately-held and devoted primarily to private residential uses. There are only about 2,500 public parking spaces in the core areas to serve day skiers and their associated trips -with another 250 spaces outside the core areas at Ford Park.. Pav-in-lieu Sites - aoolicability The Town Council has expressed a concern that properties in the core area should be supplying on-site parking whenever possible and. that the pay-in-lieu option should only be available to those sites that lie within pedestrian zones- Staff is in the process of evaluating the proximity of core area. properties to publiclprivate roads in an effort to determine the most Page ~ of ~ V.aI[.',DoT.~'.EW~RYC]\I'`PPC',41EWI05'.UiI' PRKNGGr:N.UOC appropriate areas for the pay-in-lieu option. A detailed analysis of this issue will be presented to the PI=C and Council concurrent with this item. iV. RECOMMEN[]ATION As this a worksession to discuss possible text amendments to Town's Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. However, at the time of final review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff will provide its recommendation. Yaffe 4 nt'4 11V.A11:~~1~A`I'A1F. V ERYb~fE\P EC\MEM(7;~16)01PRKNGGEN.DOC APPENDIX "A" CHAPTER 10 flFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING SECTION: Added text is shown in bold and underlined type; deleted text rs .shown rn ~~ type 12-10-1: Purpose 12-10-2: Applicability 12-10-3; Existing Facilities 12-10-4: Additions Dr Changes 12-10-5; Construction And Maintenance 12-10-6: Parking; flff-Site And Joint Facilities 12-10-7: Standards; Authority Ta Adjust 12-10-8; Parking Standards 12-10-9: Loading Standards 12-10-10: Parking Requirements Schedule 12-10-11: Parking Schedule Applicability 12-10-12: Credit Far Multiple Use Parking Facilities 12-10-13: Loading Requirements Schedule 12-10-14: Loading Schedule Applicability 12-10-15: Credit For Multiple-Use Loading Facilities 12-10-16: Exempt Areas; Parking Fund Established 12-10-17': Leasing Df Parking Spaces 12-10-18: Variances 12-1 U-1: PURPUSE: 9n order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on-street parking areas, off-street parking and loading facilities shat! be provided incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing structures or a conversion to a new use which requires additional parking under this Chapter. The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this Chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Off-street parking and. loading areas are to be designed, maintained and operated. in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this Chapter are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking and of separate garage ar carport structures. (Ord. 26(1982} ~ 1: Ord. 19(1976} ~ 12: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.10Q}. 12-10y2: APPLICABILITY: Off-street parking and landing space shall be provided for any new building, for any addition ar enlargement of an existing building ar for any conversion of uses which requires additional parking under this Chapter. (Ord. 26(1982} § 2: Ord. 19(1976} § 12: Ord. 8(1973} § 14.20(}). 12-1 d-3: EXISTING FACILITIES; Off-street parking and loading fiacilities used for ofF-stree# parking and loading on the effective date hereof shall not. be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces prescribed in this Chapter, or reduced in area or number tQ less than the minimum standards prescribed in this Chapter. (Ord. 26(1982} § 3: Ord. 19(1976) § 12; Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14.261). 12-10-4: ADDITIONS OR CHANGES: For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, the additional parking shall be required only for such addition, en[argement or change and not far the entire building or use. (Ord. 19(1976) ~ 12: Ord. 8(1973} § 14.202) 12-10-3; CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE: All off-street parking and loading facilities required by this Chapter shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the minimum standards far such facilities prescribed by this Chapter, and shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or other materials preventing full use and occupancy of the facilities in accordance with the intent of this Chapter, except for temporary periods of short duration in event of heavy or unusual snowfall. (Ord'. 8(1973} 14.3D0} 12-10-6: PARKING; OFF-SITE AND JOINT FACILITIES: All parking and loading facifities required by this Chapter shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are required,. provided that the Town Council may permit off-site or jointly, used parking facifities if located within three hundred feet (300') of the use served. Authority to permit off-site or joint parking facilities shah not extend to parking spaces required by this Title to foe located within the main building on a site, f~ut may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior to permitting off-site or joint parking facilities, the Council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facifities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this Chapter, will be as useable and convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use, and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly concentration of parked cars. The Council may require such legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unifred operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the continuation of such facilities., including evidence of ownership, long-term lease, or easement. (Ord. $(1973) ~ 14.400) 12-10-7: STANDARDS; AUTHORITY TO ADJUST: Parking standards shall be Chase provided in Title 14, Development Standards. The standards set out in Title 14 shall govern the design and construction of all off-street parking and landing facilities, whether required by this Chapter or provided in addition to the requirements of this Chapter. Minor adjustments of the dimensions prescribed in this Chapter may be authorized by the Administrator if consistent with generally recognized design standards for off-street parking and loading facilities.. (Ord. 8(1973} § 14.5fl0) 12-10-9: LOADING STANDARDS: Standards for off-street loading shall be as follows: A. Location: All off-street loading berths shall be located on the same lot as the use served, but not in the required front setback. Off-street loading berths shall be provided in addition to required off-street parking and shall not be located within accessways. B. Size: Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve feet wide, twenty five feet long, and if enclosed andlor covered, fourteen feet high (12' x 25' x 14'). Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be provided within the lot lines. G. Access: Accessways not less than ten feet (1©') or amore than twenty feet (20') in width shop connect all loading berths to a stree# or alley. Such accessways may coincide with accessways to parking facilities. (Ord.. 26(1982) ~ 5: Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14.502) 12-10-10: PARKING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE: Off-street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule: *"*~`PLEASE REI=ER TO ATTACHED SCWEDUL€. TMIS SECTION WILL BE UPDATED WHEN A REVISED SCHEDULE HAS BEEN ADOPTED.***** (Ord. 26(19$2} § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.601) 12-10-11: PARKING SGHI=DULE APPLICABILITY: Where fractional requirements result from application of the schedule, the fraction shall be raised to the next whole number. (Ord. 50(1978) ~ 10) 12-10-12: GREDIT FOR MULTIPLE USE PARKING FACILITIES: A. Applicability: This schedule will apply to those properties which Ile outside the Town's commercial care areas [as referenced on hAap `~'`l. The credit far multiple uses is not available to thflse properties utilizing the "Core Area Parkins Schedule." B. Multiple Use Credit Schedule: Where a single parking facility serves more than one use, the total parking requirement for al! uses may be reduced in accordance with the following schedule: Total Requirement Permitted Reduction Determined Per To Determine Multiple Section 12-10-10 Use Parking Requirement 1 to 100 spaces Na reduction 101 to 200 spaces 2.5 percent 201 to 300 spaces 5.0 percent 301 to 400 spaces 7.5 percent _ 401 to 500 spaces 10.0 percent 501 to 600 spaces 12.5 percent 601 to 700 spaces 15.0 percent 701 to 800 spaces 17,5 percent 801 to 900 spaces 20,0 percent 901 to 1,000 spaces 225 percent Over 1,000 spaces 25.0 percent {Ord. $(1973} ~ 14.603) 12-10-13: LOADING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE: ©ff-street loading requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule Use Loading Requirement Lodges with over 10,000 square feet One loading berth for uses up to total floor area, including accessory 75,000 square feet total area, uses within the lodge plus one additional berth for each 25,.000 square feet total floor area in excess of 75,000 square feet Multiple-Family dwellings with over 20,000 square feet grass residential floor area One loading berth for uses up to 100,0{]© square feet gross residential floor area, plus one additional berth for each 54,000 square feet gross residential floor area in excess of 140,000 square feet Professional and business offices, banks, and financial institutions with over 10,000 square feet total floor area Retail stores, personal services, repair shops, eating and drinking establishments and all other commercial ar service uses with aver ,2,000 square feet total floor area Any use listed as a conditional use Any use not fisted, if such use required the recurring receipt or distribution of goods or equipment by truck {Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14.701) One loading berth One loading berth for uses ula #o 10,000 square feet total floor area, plus one additional berth for each 5,000 square feet total floor area in excess of 10,0[10 square feet Loading facilities requirement to be determined by the Town Council as a condition of the conditional use permit, but not less than the comparable requirement prescribed above One leading berth, plus additianai berths prescribed by the Town Council upon determination of need 12-10-14: LOADING SCHEE]ULE APPLICABILITY:. Where fractional requirements result from application of the schedule, the fraction shall be raised to the next whole number. (Ord. 50(1978) § 10) 12-1Q-15: CREDIT FOR MULTIPLE-USE LOADING FACILITIES: Where a single off-street loading facility serves more than one use, the number of off-street loading berths may be reduced in accordance with the following schedule: Total Requirement Reduced Determined Per Requirement With Section 12-10-13 Multiple Use • • 1 berth 1 berth 2 berths 1 berth 3 berths 2 berths 4 berths 2 berths 5 berths 3 berths 6 berths 3 berths 7 berths 4 berths 8 berths 4 berths 9 ar more berths 5 berths (Ord. $(1973) § 14.703) 12-1Q-16: EXEMPT AREAS: PARKING FUND ESTABLISHED ~ PLEASE REFER TO APPENDIX "A" ON THE "PARKING PAY-IN-LIEU" MEMO. NO OTHER GRANGES ARE PROPOSED 1=QR THIS CODE SECTION. . 12-14-17: LEASING OF PARKING SPACES: A_ General: No owner, occupant or building manager, or their respective agent or representative, shall lease, rent, convey or restrict the use of any parking space, spaces or area to any person ether than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the zoning ordinances or regulations of the Town except as may be specifically provided in this Section. B. Lease Qualifications; Application To Lease: A parking space, spaces or areas may be leased by the owner, occupant ar building manager thereof in accordance with the fallowing: 1. Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or manages ten (10) or more private parking spaces located in Commercial Core 1, Commercial Care 2, Commercial Care 3, High Density Multiple-Family, Public Accommodations, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Lionshead Mixed Use 2 or Special Devekopment Zone Districts and provides sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to the Administrator of the Town for a permit to kease parking spaces. 2. Application shall be made on a form provided by the Administrator and upon approval of the application by the Administrator a leasing permit shall be issued wkth or without condition as determined by the Administrator. If the Town staff determines that the lease proposal results in a visual impact to surrounding streets or property, the Administrator may condition the approval with a requirement that the applicant install landscaping on the site to improve the visual appearance of the parking area. If said private parking spaces are located on the common area or grounds of any condominium project, written approvak of the condominium association (if any} will be required an this applica#ion. 3. The Administrator may reques# that an applicant conduct a parking utilization study to determine the difference between the average capacity of the fat and the peak day utilkzation, and such other information as may be necessary for the proper consideration of the application. 4. The proposed lease agreement shall be far the period of not less than one month nor greater than Twelve (12) months. When requested, the Administrator may extend the lease agreement far an additional twelve (12} months sa fang as the conditions relating to the parking spaces have not significantky changed. Any applicant wishing for an extension to an estabkished Cease agreemen#, must submit an application to the Administrator no later than two (2} weeks prior to the termination of the existing approval. 5. No applicant shall be permitted to lease more than sixty percent (60%} of the parking spaces which is the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day u#ilizatkon as determined by the Administra#or. .. 6. No applicant who 6s operating a private parking area charging an hourly fee on the effective date hereof shall be eligible far approval of his or her application. 7. Parking required for any use in accordance with this Title may not be satisfied by the leasing of space from another person under the provisions of this 5ectian. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant or building manager who has leased spaces to others to provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see that the leased spaces are used and occupied in accordance with the lease agreement, 9. Leasing shall be permitted for short-term parking only, and shall be prohitaited for long-term s#orage of vehicles by individuals or companies. 1{J. Car rental agencies may lease parking spaces only in the CC3 Zane ©istrict, and shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen {15) parking spaces per site. Each site may be allowed a maximum of one lease for a car rental agency. (Ord. 3{1999) § 5: ord. 47{1991) ~ 1: Ord. 31(1985} § 1: Ord, 34(1977} § 1 } 12-10-18: VARIANCES: ~3" ,:r~;'ri:~g~,~ric:~ee-w~iei~ ie g~G~:~cu ~~~C" Vic, r7 e`1i•ie T~I• eh~ll we A~~r~eYr:tr~k~te i~rta-t~;~~n'c ~crl;ir~~ r:~rvl, Gc c tf~t`~ i~ ~eeti~r 13 1" 1g-e€-#~ic C~e~,~~:~ (Q,r~--5a~~'4} ~ ~-}, Variances from the provisions of this chapter shall follow the procedures set forth in Title 12, Chapter 17 of this Code. • Draft Parking Rafes Use I Current Parking Requirements Recommended Commercii Parking Rates Genera! Retail Stores, Personal Services and Repair 1 fl space per each 300 square feet of net floor area Shops - Furniture Store j 1.i) space per each 300 square feet of net floor area -- -- ~ 2.3 spaces per 1,000 gross sq - Art Gallery ~ 1.0 space per each 300 square feet of net floor area i - Gr©cery Store 1.0 space per each 300 square #eet of net floor area Gas Station Parking requirements to be determined by the _ nla planning and Environmental Commission -with automotive service Parking requirements to be determined by the n!a Planning and Environmental Commission -with sit down dining Parking requirements to be determined by the n!a Planning and Enviranmental Commission _ __ 1.0 space per 8 seats, based, on seating capacity or Meeting Rooms, Convention Faciii#ies building occupancy standards, whichever is more 1.0 space per 11 seat: restrictive 1_D space per 8 seats, based, on seating capacity ors Movie Theaters bui~d'ing occupancy standards, whichever is more ~ 1.0 space per 8 seats restrictive I ___ Warehousing 1.0 space per each 1,000 square feet of net floor i n/a -.. _ . i area Any Use Nat Listed Parking requirements to be determined by the Parking requirements to be dete the Planning and Environm Planning and Environmental Commission Commission • ~ Draft Parking Rates Use dwelling Unit ff gross residentia! floor area is 500 square feet or less- If gross residential floor area is Doer SDO square feet up to 2,OD0 square feet: If gross residential floor area is 2,flflfl square feet 4r more per dwelling unit: 'i Accommodation Unit Hotels with Convention Facilities Banks and Financial Institutions Eating and Drinking I`stablishments Hospitals Medical and 'Dental Offices Other Professional and Business ©ffices Quick-Service Food /Convenience Stores Recreational Facilities, Public or Private - p~thleticlGym Current Parking Requirements 1.5 spaces per unit Recommended Comma parking Rates 2 spaces per dwelling unit; 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit D.4 space per accommodation unit, plus D.1 space 1.4 spaces per dwelli per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor 0.7 spaces per accommo area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit 0.4 space per accommodation unit„ plus 0.1 space ~ ~~ per each 1 DD square feet of gross residential floor D.7 spaces per accommoda area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit; plus 1 1.0 space per 11 seats c space per $ seats devoted to meetingllecture meeting/lecture sei seating 1.D space per 20D square feet of net floor area 3.7 spaces per 1,DD0 grvs: 1.D space per 8 seats I 1.0 space per 12 s~ 1.D space per patient bed plus 1 space per 150 1.0 space per patient bed plr square feet of net floor area 15D square feet of gross __ ... 1.0 space per each 200 square feet of net floor area; 2.7 spaces per 1,000 Bros: 1 space per each 250 square feet of net floor area 'i 2.7 spaces per 1.D00 Bras: 1.0 space per each 200 square feet of net floor area~~ - - ------ for the first 1,OD0 square feet of net floor area: 1.0 I 5 spaces per 1,DDD gross space per 3D0 square feet for net floor area above 1,D00 square feet Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commissicn Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission Parking requirements to be a the Planning and Envirc Commission Parking requirements to be d the Planning and ~nvirc Commission .~ ALTERNATIVE PARKING RATIa ANALYSIS FC]R THE VAIL VILLAGE AND LIt~NSHEAD CORE AREAS IN VAIL, GI~LQRADO Prepared for: Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vaig, Colorado 81657 Prepared by: Felsburg Hoit &Ullevig Greenwood Corporate Playa 7951 E. Maplewood Ave, Ste. 200 'Englewood, Colorado 801 7 1 {303) 721-1440 Engineer: Charges M. BUClc, P.E. Principal: Arnold J. Ullevig, P.E. November, 1999 FHU Reference No. 99-137 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................. i I. INTRObUCTI~N ...............................................1 A. Bac#cground ............................................. 1 13. Study Pu~prt~se .... . ............... ....... .............. 1 II. E)CJSTING CQNDITI©NS ........ . ........ . ....................... 4 A. Paring Characteristics ..................................... 4 8. Land Use ........... .........................,.........6 III. PARJCJNC STANDARDS ........................................1Q ADDENDUM • • • Lisr o~ FiouR~s Paae 1. Vicinity fl~lap ................. . .......................... ... 2 2. Parking Transactions by Mont`: vaiE Transportation Center & Lionshead Structures ..... . ................ . ............... ~ 3. Vail Village Core Area ....... . .. . . . .......... .................... 7 4. Lionshead Care Area ........... . ... ....... . .................... S LIST OF TABLES 1. Parking Transactions by Month .... . .... . ......... . ....... . ........ 4 2. Parking by Length of Stay ......... . .................. ... . ........ 6 3. existing Land Uses -Vail Village And Lionshead . . ................. . . . .. 6 4. Parking Rates ............. . ... . ............................. 1 U 5. Recommended Core Area Parking Rates ................. . ........... 1 1 6. Calculated Parking Requirements -Vail Village and Lionshead ....... . ...... 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the Town of Vail requires new development or redevelopment to provide for parking based on requirements contained in the Town's standards. The concern has been expressed that, due to the mix of uses and modal split characteristics, these standards may not be applicable within the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. Typically, such combined land uses result in reduced demand for parking, based on: • Higher levels of multi-purpose trip making, where a single vehicle trip is made. to complete two or more trip purposes. • The proximity and viability of alternative transportation modes. • Hourly variations in the peak accumulation of parked vehicles between dif#erent land uses wi~ich tends to reduce the aggregate parking demand of the core area. The #ollowing report documents the analytical process used to deveCop alternative parking generation rates specific to the Vai[ Village and Lionshead core areas. The analyses utilized ~ 99.811999 ski season data provided by the Town, including daily skier activity, parking transactions at both VTC and Lionshead parking structures, and existing land uses within the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. The above data were supplemented with available information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers f1TE) and the Urban Land Institute iUL]) on shared parking for mixed use devElopments. A comparative evaluation with previous transportation engineering efforts in other Colorado resort towns was also utilized. The resultant parking rates, documented below, are intended to be applied only to development occurring within the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas; the use of these rates in outlying areas would underestimate potential parking demands and could exacerbate any existing parking shortages. Recommended Care Area Parking Dates _.- Land Use' Residential Hotel with Convention Fai.ilities General ~?etaii Office Restaurant BanklFinance Parking Rate 1.4 spaces per t)weiling Unit 0.7 spaces par Accommodation Unit 0.7 spaces per Accommodation Unit, plus 1 .0 space per 11 Seats devoted to meetingllecture seating ~.3 spaces per 1 ,000 Square Feet 2,7 spaces per 1.,000 Square Felt 1.0 space per 12 Seats 3.7 spaces tYer 1,000 Sa,uare Feet For purposes of parking requirements, time share and fractional fee units wilE be considered as accommodation units. • • • !. QNTRC]QUCTiO~N A. Background The Town of Vail is fine of Colorado's premier mountain resort carrsmunitses. Located along l- 70 just west of the Continental Divide, Vail provides unique year-round recreation opportunEtEes, with emphasis on winter ski activity. Vail is one of the mast recognized destination ski resorts in the state, and has hosted international ski con-petitions. Continuing growth, and the physical setting of Vail, have challenged the community to develop and maintain one of the most innovative and successful molt%-modal, pedestrian oriented transportation systems. The Vail transit system is the second most utilized in the state, and consists of a care area shuttle coordinated with bus service to/from outlying areas. An extensive system of pedestrianlbicycle trails enhances multi-modalism while providing ' recreational opportunities. Central parking facilities provide an interface between vehicular travel and pedestrian access to the care areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. ' Vail Village and Lionshead are located south of 1-70 along the south frontage road, as depicted in Fgure 1 . each of these pedestrian oriented core areas consists of a mix of residential, accommodation, cammerciailretail, and restaurant uses. At Vail Viifage, the Vail Transportation ' Center (VTC} parking structure provides 1,200 parking for these uses, as well as #or day skiers during the winter. A 1,300 space structure accommodates similar parking needs within Lionshead. B. Study Purpose 1 Currently, new development or redevelopment within Vail Village and Lionshead is assessed parking impact fees by the Town of Vail based on requirements contained in the Town's standards. Due to the mix of uses and modal split characteristics, the concern has been expressed that these standards may not be applicable in these care areas. 1n these multi-use areas, the concept of "shared" parking may provide alternative standards. Typically, two or more land uses in close proximity to each other may share the same parking supply without ~i ~ conflict or encroachment. This is often due to the differE:nce in peak parking demand between the uses; for example, parking spaces used during the day by office workers may be used during the evening hours by restaurant patrons. In addition, related land uses can result in multiple-purpose trip making, in which a single parking space satisfies several trip purposes. An example of this might be a shopping excurs`son with visits to sEVeral retail establishments and a restaurant for lunch. With the close proximity of uses, the vehicle is parked once, and the remainder of the trips within the multi-use aree are accomplished either on foot or via transit. Similar parking relationships between hotels and nearby restaurants has also been documented, Shared parking concepts are applicable in multi-use areas with the following characteristics: • Mix of uses in close proximity. • Continuous pedestrian connection. • Strong transit element. 1 rrl~sr~~~1~c 1-~ n E..~, s~ UI.LEiV1C; LionsFlead Parking Structure ~~- Iv ~~ North Vall Par Gi~natalion 99137 k3130199 i ~lor~sHea~ ~'~ CgRE AREA ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ i v~BS~ Rd L' Waii 7rans~ortation Center / Parking Structure As both Vail Village and Lionshead exhibit these characteristics, the purpose of this study is to develop alternative par;cing generation rates specific to these core areas. The analyses documented in this report are based on 1998/1939 slci season data provided by the Town, including: • Skier visits per day. • Parking transactions at bath VTC and Lionshead parking structures. • Existing land uses within the Vaii Village and Lianshead core areas. The above data were supplemented with available information on parking and shared parking fram the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land institute. ~'r~:~~ious transportation engineering efforts in other Colorado resort towns were also referenced. 3 ]l. ~x>ysrrr~o co~a~T~oNs A. Parking Characferistics As previously stated, the VTC structure contains 1,204 parking spaces (including 18 handicap spacesJ, and the Lianshead structure contains 1,300 spaces (including 16 handicap spaces}, Ford Park, a ski season temporary parking location, accommodates approxirnately 250 vehicles, bringing the total formal public parking supply within Vail to about 2,750 spaces. In addition to this public parking supply, private parking is also provided within the care areas. Based an data provided by the Town, the private parking supply in Vail Village is 1,225 spaces, with 995 private parking spaces in Lionshead. The demand for parking in Vail varies considerably between seasons, with the peak ski season creating the highest demands. This demand is accarnmodated through a variety of public and private parking facilities. During peak times, public facilities such as the VTC and Lionshead structures, as well as the temporary parking lot in Ford Park, approach capacity. When the capacity of these three locations is exceeded, overflow parking occurs a{ong the Frontage Road. Available parking data far the structures at VTC and Lionshead consist of the number of transactions conducted at each location per day during the 1998/1999 ski season. Fach transaction represents a single vehicle's stay within a parking facility. Table 1 summarizes these data by month. Table Z . Parking Transactions by Month Location '. Parking Transactions (1 j :- ': _ ' November _... December i January ''February I EVlarch I April VTC 10,734 53,179 55,170 52,798 60,141 26,441 Lianshead 7,467 33,505 36,599 34,676 41,844 18,31' 1 - 199811 999 ski seascan data. -- __. _- - - Figure 2 graphically depicts the monthly parking transactions for both VTC and Lionshead structures the 1998J1999 ski season. As shown, parking transactions peaked in March, with 60,141 transactions at the VTC and 41,$44 transactions at Lionshead. This peak coincides with the highest month for skier activity based on proprietary skier visitation data information provided by the resort, The peak ski day occurred on Saturday, February 13, 1999. On this date, the VTC recorded 2,042 parking transactions, and Lionshead recorded 1,394 transactions. The 15th highest ski day, typically used for planning purposes in Vaii, occurred on Sunday, February 7, 1999. On this date, the VTC recorded 1,966 parking transactions, and Lionshead recorded 1 ,392 transactions. • 4 FE? SBURU ULLEVIG i 704(}0 60000 50x00 40000 3oa00 20x00 10oQ0 0 ! ' P~lav. ? 998 i ~ 999 Sal S~A~Cfi~ ~ I `~=~ 'I Mar. LEGEND Vail Transportation Center L :,~;:::;~: I ' = Lionshead Figure 2 Vaii Parking Generation 33-79T 9i3L'!99 Parking Transactions By Month: Vail Transportation Center & Lionshead Structures Feb. 'Dec. Jan. Apr. Historic length cif stay data far parking in both the VTC and Lionshead structures was provided by the Town, as summarized in Taivle 2. `Fable 2. Parking by Length of Stay Location:, ~ Average Lsngth of Stay in Hours {1). D-1.5 ~ 1.5-2 1 2-~ ~ 3-4 ~ 45 5.6 l 6-T_, 7-8 8-9 ~ 9-11 ~ 17 + VAC ~ 3~°6 10°ta 15°/a $°i6 8°k fi% 7°to 6~/a 4°!° ~ 3% 3% i_ionstiead ~ 37°k 7°!° 7fl°to 7°!a 79b 8`;~ .._ 9°k -_ 8°to _ - ~°!0 2°~6 ~ 96 t . Based on ~ 958/1997 ski season data. ~_ ~~~ ____ As shown, approximately 35 percent of all parking transactions were for length of stays of 1 .5 hours ar less, Typically, durations of 4 hours or less would be primarily attributable to commercial development.. Day skier parking duration would be expected to fall within the 4 to 9 hour range, and residentiailaccomrnodation uses would act©unt ;or most of the stays in excess of 9 hours. 8. Lind Use . The core areas of Vaii Village and l_ic~nshead are depicted in 1=figures 3 and 4, respectively. Existing Sand use data within the Bore areas were provided by the Town of Vail, as summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Existing Land lases -Valli Viiiat~e i4nd Lionshead --- Land.Use A` ` Vail Village ~ 1_ionshead TotaF residential/Accommadatifln (1) ~ 1,190 Units 953 lJnits 2,148 Unite Retail 83,553 SF fi7,922 SF 151,475 Sl= i restaurant 58,930 SF ~ 23,197 SF 82,127 5~ dffice - 22,60E SF 22,400 5F 45,000 SF Bank I 1,940 SF _520 SF 2,400 SF 1 . Based nn obser~dtions of th,e Town, residential ur;its, fractional feeltimeshare units, and lodging accommodatson un]LS leave 51r:1ftar functional characteristics within the core areas. • 6 1'ELSFiL1RG ULL~VIG ~~ ~ -- _~~ ~' rw wr wr srw 14G ti TI ~ ~~_ Ii~v , _I f ~` ~ ~.4F If ~ t NMLI! « ptPf ~ ~i ~ 1)l Wpllu [VM ]) p ~1 777 EM1KSJI irvv[i 41 ~~-_~ ~~~ _~ z~ 1! ~~ j » ~~ -~` .s __ n Is .a i ~ ~+«~ , e North Vall ppe}:Inp Goneaa4ion 99137 8730199 „~, F WTEH9TATE 7Q ~-~ . F~LSf3Ul~G N O L "[' & Ul.L~:V1G 00 ~ ~t ~~~ .o, ~, ~ J! ., ~' ~ /~ ~.., .».~~, +mwyw~wariwvru. " ~ nrNwa ~_i ,. i ~.~ m.,,~ hR~ ,x n. ~ r~~ rw ~' n~. w rw ,~ North Vdil Parkiit~ (ienOrBliOn 99~13T b~30f99 ~ i _.i.: W~ ~•r 1-- Y~ n~ ~ As shown, these care areas consist of a mix of residential and commercial uses. As previously discussed, such combined iznd uses result in higher levels of mufti-purpose trip making, where f a single vehicle trip is trade to complete two or more trip purposes. This results in a reduced demand for parking space from what might be expected in areas afi less intertise development.. These core area uses are also seen to generate less demand for parking than similar uses in ~ other areas of Vail duQ to the proximity and viability of alternative transportation modes, Additionally, hourly variations in tha peak accumulation of parked vehicles E,etween different land uses tends to reduce the aggregate parking demand of the core area; this phenomenon is termed "shared parking".The Urban Land Institute (ULl) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers ~1TE} have pubEished extensive data on shared parking for mixed use developments. This concept, in conjunction with the forgoing data, has been utilized in this analysis. • g Ill. PARKING STANDARDS The fallowing table is a comparison of parking rates from various sources for existing and potential uses within the care areas of Vail Village and l_ionshead. Table 4. Parking Rates .: ~ Par€~ing Rates Expressed in Spaces per_Undt Land Use lTE { 1) Breckinridge _ Breckirridge Tvwn of Vai3 . -. ~ _ Standards i21 ~ Core (3} {4} ,_ __ _ Residential _ 1.1 1/DU 1.5/DU r 1 .11DU ~ 1 .5-2.5/DU* Hotel 0.52IAU 1.C}!AU 1 .1IAU '1.OIAU [max} Convention Facility 0.81 /AU * * Special Review 3.1 IKSF 118 Seats General Retail ~ 3.23/KSF 2,5lKSF 1 .4/KSF 3.33IKSF Office 2.79IK5F 2.51KSF 1.41'KSF 4.0/KSF Restaurant {5} 1 /3.57 Seats 114 Seats 1 /7.14 Seats 1 IS Seats 9.081KSF 6.25/KSF 3.5/KSF 3.12IKSF BanklFinance I 4.23IKSF 2.51KSF 1.91KSF S.OIKSF 1. PARKING GENERATION, 2nd Edition, Institute of 7ranspartation Engineers, 1987. 2. Town of Breckinridge, Colorado Off-Street Parking Ordinance, 3. Downtown Breckinridge Multi-Use Area Parking Ratios, DOWNTOWN PARKING. STUDY, Fe3sburg Holt & Ulievig, 199x. 4. Town of Vaii Parking Regulations. 5. Rates shown are per seat and per KSF. The KSF rates are based on• 40 SF per seat {typical}. Dependent on gross square footage of dwelling unit. ** Hotel with convention facility, , The appdicabi3ity of the current Tawn of Vail parking requirements were evaluated as they relate to the core area uses: :"'t85iG'enttcf. `:'`ke current parklnC •'€:l~UlrementS are hEgh s®r amore ar2aS, ranging TrOm 1 .J spaces t© 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit dependant an the size of the unit. However, within the core areas, size of the dwelling unit is seen to have minimal effect an parking demand; these units are typically occupied by a single family with a single vehicle. It is, therefore, suggested that the residential parking requdrement within the core areas be reduced to 1 .4 spaces per dwelling unit.. • 1C • Natel, The current ;~tatei parking requirements are 0.4 space per accommodation, plus 0.1 space for each 100 square feet of Hoar area, with a maximum of 1 .0 space per accamrt~odation unit. For the core areas, a requirement of 0.7 space per accommodation unit is suggested, with na adjustment for the size of the unit. Time share and fractional fee residential units would also be considered as accommodation units with a parking requirement of 0,7 space per unit. For hotels with convention facilities, an additional requirement of 1.0 space per 11 seats is indicated to accommodate meeting attendees who are not staying at the hotel. • Retail, The current rer~uirement of 3.33 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet (1.0 space per 300 square feet) is high for care areas. A reduced parking requirement of 2.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet is suggested far the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. • Office. The current requirement of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1,0 space per 260 square feety is typical for general office developments in suburban areas and is high for core areas. It is suggested that a reduced parking requirement of 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet is appropriate for the Vail Village and L.ionshead core areas. • Restaurant. Town regulations currently require 1 .0 space ,per 8 seats, based on seating capacity or on Building Code occupancy standards (whichever is higherl. This parking requirement is generally consistent with measured parking demands, H©wever, an adjusted parking requirement of 1 .(~ space per 12 seats is suggested for the Vaii Village and Lianshead care areas to be consistent with other adjustments, • E3ank/'Financial institutions. The current requirement of 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 .0 space per 200 square feet? is typical for standard urban developments but high for denser resort areas. A reduced parking requirement of 3.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet is suggested far core areas. The above parking rates, recommended far use in the Vail Village and Lionshead care areas, are sumrrgarized in Table 5. Table 6. Recnmrnended Care Area Parking Rates hand Use . ...r:. Residential F~otei Hote! with Convention Facilities General Re~ail Office Restaurant BanklFinance _.- _ p :. Parking Rate --..--_- ' 1.4 spaces per Dwelling Unii 0.7 s~aaces per Accommodation Unit 0.7 spaces per Accomrnodatian Unit, plus 1 .0 space per 11 Seats devoted to meeting/lecture seating 2.3 spaces per 1 ,OOf} Square Feet 2.7 spaces per 1 ,000 Square Feet 1 .0 space per i 2 Seats 3.7 spaces per 1,000 s2uare Feet --_--. For purposes of parking requirements, time share and fractional fee units will be considered as accommodation units. 11 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. The use of these rates in outlying areas would underestimate potential parking demands and could exacerbate current parking shortages. These rates were developed based on the density and mix of uses within these areas with adjustments to reflect soeio-political perceptions in Vaii. As a means of comparison, the aggregate parking requirements were calculated for the land uses in Vail Village and Lionshead using both the recommended core area parking rates and the current rates from the Town of Vail regulations. Table 6 summarizes this comparison. Table 6. Calculated Partcing Requirements -Vail Village. and Lionshead Larid'Use Quantity Parking Spaces: Requirei:f Current':. Rates Recommended Rates ResidentiallAccommodation 2, T 48 Units 3,222 * 2,235 ~' Retail 151,475 SF 504 35 T Restaurant 82,127 SF*~'* 257 Office 45,000 SF 180 Bank 2 4fi0 SF 12 * ** *** -- - Total 4,175 Estimated average rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Estimated average rate of 1.04 spaces per dwelling unit. Estimated 1 seat per 40 SF (typical) results in 2,053 seats. It can be seen that, using the recommended care area rates, the combined parking space requirement fior Vail Village and Lionshead would be 2,900 spaces. This parking requirement is 1 ,275 spaces less than the current regulations would indicate, representing an approximate 31 percent reduction. 180 125 9 2,900 12 The fallowing table is a comparison of current Town of Vail parking regulations to parking generation rates contained in PARKING GENEF~ATION, 2nd Editson, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. The ITE rates are based an an a~~erage of data collected nationwide; and, as suci~, may not be appropriate for application in Vail or c`her resort areas. This table is, therefore, intended for comparison purposes only. • • COMPARISON OF PARKING RATES: VAIL STANDARaS VERSUS ITE I~ Land Current Town ^f Vail Recsuirements Qwelling Unit if gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Accommodation Unit Banks & Financial Institutions (i.e., Savings & Loan) if gross residential floor area is over 500 square feet up to 2,000 square feet: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. If grass residential floor area is 2,000 square feet cr more per dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces par dwelling unit. 0.4 spaco per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square #eei of grass residential floor area, with a maximum of 1 .0 spaces per unit. 1.0 space per each 200 square feet of net floor area. Eating and I3rinking 7.0 space per each 8 seats, based on Establishments seating capacity or Building Code occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive. Hospitals Medico[ and Dental Offices Other Professional and Business Offices Quick-Service Food) Convenience Stares Recreational Facilities, Public or Private Retail Stares, Personal Services & Repair Shops Theaters, Meeting Rooms, Convention Facilities Warehousing Any Use fVot Listed 1.0 space per patient bed plus 1 space per 150 square feet of net floor area. 1.0 spaces per each 200 square feet of net floor area. 1.0 spaces per each 250 square feet of net floor area. ~ 1 .© spaces per each Z00 square feet of net floor area far the first 1,000 square feet of net floor area; 1.0 spaces per 300 square feet for net floor area above 1,000 square feet. Parking shall be required. Amount to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission i .0 spac° par eac?a 300 square #ee*, of net floor area. 1.0 space per each 8 seats, based on seating capacity or building occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive. 1.0 space per each 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Parfcing requirements to he determined by the Planning & Environmental Commission 1TE Parking neration Rates 1,04 Space per D.U. (LowllV]id-Rise Apartment) 0,88 Space per D.U. {l-filth-Rise Apartment] 1.11 Space per D.U. (Residential Condominium} 0.81 Space per BUQm (Convention Hotel] 6.52 Space per Room (Non-Convention Hotel} 6.63 space per 1,000 SF {Walk-ln Only Bank1 4.23 Spaces per 1,000 SF (Walk-InlDrive-fn Sank} 1 Space per 2.83 Seats i0uality Restaurant) 1 Space per 3.57 Seats (Family Restaurant} 1.79 Spaces per Bed {Hospital] 4.11 Spaces per 1,000 SF;Medical/f3ental Clinic/Office) 2.79 Spaces per 1,000 SF (General Office Building} 11.68 Spades per 1,000 SF (Fast Food Restaurant wlo I'Jrive-In Window) No data. x:.23 Spaces pr-r i ,OCO 5F f whopping Canters 1 Space per 5,26 Seats (Movie ~1-heater] 0.50 Space per 1,000 SF;Warehousing) MEM©RANDUM TO; Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 14, 2[3QQ SUB.~ECT: A worksession to discuss proposed changes to the Town of Vaii's parking pay-in- lieu policy and proposed text amendments to Chapter 12-1Q, Town Cade. Planner: Brent Wilson L BACKGRC3UND AND DESCR1PT10N QF THE REG3tJEST The Town's zoning code has allowed far certain exemptions from on-site parking requirements since 1973. In 1982, in conjunction with the Vail Village and Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plans, the Town established its current "parking pay-in-lieu" program -thereby allowing property owners to pay a fee in exchange for a reduction in an-site parking, The program's primary purpose was to minimize vehicular traffic in the Town's pedestrianized commercial areas while allowing property owners some flexibility in the provision of required parking created by infill development and redevelopment. Currently, all properties that are zoned CCI, CCII yr LHMU-1 (Vail Village and Lionshead} have the ability to participate in the Town's pay-in-lieu program -regardless of their location.. The PEC and Vaii Town Council have expressed a desire to re- eva~uate the program in an effort to promote the original goals outlined in the Vail Village and Lionshead Design Guide Plans. Staff is in the process of reviewing the applicability of the program to each affected property and is requesting preliminary feedback from the PEC. The proposed revisions are based upon the following observations: The current "pay-in-lieufl policy allows any property (with appropriate zoning) the ability to locate required parking off-site. However, there are many properties (particularly in Lionshead} that are located a considerable distance from pedestrianized areas. Additionally, many of these properties have direct vehicular access from areas that have little ar no impact an pedestrian zones. Allowing these properties to pay-in-lieu is inconsistent with the original goals of the program. ^ There may be other properties that do not currently have the ability to pay-in-lieu that warrant special review. Many properties (along Meadow Drive, for example} exhibit some or all of the characteristics outlined far pedestrian zones under the original program. ^ Certain properties that have direct vehicular access within the care areas should be encouraged to pay-in-lieu. The Gasthof Gramshammer, for example, has direct vehicular access along Gore Creek Drive -one of Vail's primary pedestrian zones - ~~`~ Page l oft ~,~`' ,. ~h ava1~'toot.~~u~[tYc3tvE',~r:c~~,.~n~~x~~~~r~5.~ux~c;P>>_.[~o~C T0~','YOF UA[L however, the Town has approved on-site parking on this property. Staff believes the pay-in-lieu option would be preferable over on-site parking at that location given the pedestrian-oriented nature of Gore Creek Drive. II, FINDINGS Staff's preliminary findings are outlined in the attached maps. Large versions of the maps wil! be on display at the February 14th PEG meeting. Proposed text amendments (Chapter 12-10, Town of Vail Code) are included as "Appendix A", Additional proposed changes include: An amendment to Section 12-10-18 ("Variances"). This section states that any property receiving a parking variance shall contribute to the Town's parking fund. Essentially, this would allow any property in Tawn to take advantage of the pay-in- lieu policy. Staff believes this provision is inconsistent with the original intent of the program. Additionally, the new "special review" provision will provide the flexibility necessary to evaluate thane projects that truly warrant consideration for the program, white the traditional variance process will still be available for all o#her properties. ^ Amendments to Section 12-10-10 ("Parking Requirements Schedule"). Staff is currently reviewing data provided by our consultant for re-evaluation of our required parking schedule. Proposed amendments include the creation of a separate parking schedule for properties within the core areas. Ili. RECOMMENDATION As this a worksession to discuss possible text amendments to Town's Off-Street Parking and Loading Regulations, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. However, at the time of final review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff will provide its recommendation. Page ? of 2 '~1VAiL',DATA'~ V ERYC)NEIPE~IMGMOS'~,bO1PKK~IGPIL.DOC APPENDIX "A" -PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Added fext is shown in bold and underlined type; deleted Text is shown in ~ type 12-10-18- EXEMPT AREAS; PARKING PUNf~ ESTABLISHED: A. Criteria: The Town Council by resolution may exempt certain areas from the off- street parking and loading requirements of this Chapter if alternative means will meet the off-street parking and loading needs of all uses in the area. Prior #o exempting any area from the off-s#reet parking and loading requirements, the Council shall determine the following: That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town. 3, Thaf the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted. 4 That suitable-and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; far provision ofi adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and far financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. B. Parking Fund: In Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2, and Lionshead Mixed Use 1, property owners or applicants shall be eligible to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established, for the purpose ofi meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking, At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel of property within an exempt area which would require parking andlor loading areas, the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required, 1. The Parking Fund established in this Section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. ~, The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant shall be determined by the Town Council. 3. If any parking funds have been paid in accordance with this Section and if subsequent thereto a special ar general improvement district is formed and assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, fibs payor shall be credited against the assessment with the amount previously paid. 4, The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant is hereby determined to be fifteen thousand dollars ($15,OOfl.t}0) per space. This fee shall be automatically increased annually by the percentage the Consumer Price Index of the City of Denver has increased over each successive year. ~. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not. for the entire building ar use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. 6, The owner or applicant has the option of paying the total parking fee at the time of building permit ar paying over a five (~) year period. If the C latter course is taken, the first payment shat! be paid on or before the date the building permit is issued. Four (4) more annual payments will be due to the Town an the anniversary of the building permi#. lnterest of ten percent (10%) per annum shall be paid by the applicant an the unpaid balance. If the owner or applicant does choose #o pay the fee aver a period of time, he ar she shall be required to sign a promissory note which describes the total fee due, the schedule of payments, and the interest due. Promissory note farms are available at the offices of the Depar#ment of Community Development. 7. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the • requirements schedule (Section 12-10-10 of this Chapter) the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on-site requirements. (Ord. 3{1999) § 11: Ord. 10(1994) ~ 1: Ord. 6(1991) ~ 1: Ord. 30(19$2) ~ 1: Ord. 47(1979) ~ 1: Ord. 8(1973} ~ 14.$(}0) C, Special Review: Anv propertv within the Vail Village or Lionshead commercial core areas fas defined on the Town's "Gore Area Parking Schedule" mans. incorporated by reference) that is not eligible for the "nav-in-Lieu" option may annly for "special review" by the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission for the provision of off-site parking pursuant to the provisions of this title. In consideration of the "special review" request. the Planning and Environmental Commission will evaluate the proposal's impact on pedestrianized area, proximity to off-site narking locations, means of vehicular access and compliance with the goals. policies and objectives of the Vail Villaae or Lionshead Desian Guide flans and other relevant mas#er planning documen#s. • n~u nm r ~~•~ ilr~~~. ~~i ~~~~~,~~~ i~~~w~'~~~~~ I~r°~c~ ,,~~r~~~ I~~,~a~ ~~r ~~' ~f~s ~~ ~~~~~r ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~IYir~~ ~~ ~ r~ ~~~~ 1~Is. ~~ I °IAni~~ ~r r .. _., .. • ~ _ .- .. ., •, _.. - ..__... id1~"._. . ~~ _ Is . `~~ TRACT E 'l - r ` ~ I 4`. ~- ~ I. 7 .I , II I .., I .1 ~.. 508 .I i d, I WVEST-WINL3S I ~$ - - L ~ ~! '~ UNPLATT~p 1 :f hIC7RTli DAY I { 4 548 r VAiriTAC~E I~ , ; .: ~- I,I'~+ RAR3iING LC3T. ~ I ~i ~;° `, PIJtNT . - - _:l . - ~ `~ ~' ~ ~ , ~ r- ~ , - :- . ~= 5f~ VAIL GLd~ , ,~ .....I.. VAllw ~1 ., 1 - L1Fll-f0llS~ pRi[}E 52'1 ,I L'd5TELL0 701 1 A ~ LANDMARK. ;.~r _~ 55S - ,, 1 - - - - . 4 >r 705 ~~ _ Lt1b ~ ~ r - ~I { _ . c 4.. '~ i `~ _. I - ... - 1 61$ .I I TRACT C ` S ~'. F - ~ _- .~ Li4NSH£AI~ ENZIAN ~ I, ~. t r I GQfd13flLA ~ ' A~CAOE - 705 r ~= I'~C]NTANEROS ` C £rUNl3]RE~ ~ ~ ~ TICff£T5 . I 1 , 1 6A4 k ., ; ~ r. . M I k _ __ 2 ~ ~ , f. ~I r 7 C 6.1, yt 675 i~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ CENTER D ............ _ ,. _ . , _ . 714 I " ~ .. _. LI4~f'S SQUA~iE ~ .` .:,..,.... ..,, - TRACT C_ _ .. . WORTH 1 ~ .. . `. '~•,. I MARRIGTT (`r. .635 _ ,74~.. ` ' f ~ r .- .. _.. `.:~'>,M„ . TRACT D . -:-~,,~ ~ ~ ~ 560 ~~~:~ ~rl~, ~ ~~. a ~,:,~ ~,:~ ~.~:~ ~: ~ ~::.~ ; ~~ i,~ ~.~ ~ ~~°~ ... I.... i gin. ~ ~..i n:.,~ ~~{;;,~ ;.~ {.u ~ ~ ~ I ~~~ ;~:p -~ ~ ..~ ~I~,~ ~ • ''~,~' ~~;~~ li ~~~'~ ii N I~ ~~:~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ i~fa ~~~o ~ i~~,~ ~~,~~ ~M'~ w~~~ ,~~~w~ .nf iN w~f~~ ,I® IPHffif3 ii ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~" ~~~h ~~~I~~ ~a d~fi d~tl N I f 1 ~ Il STmonRO' . _ sT~ v II{flip ST~~fi' T;7 _. it Mt!LILU'~.~.~.: G ~~ e. i_ 96 ~ < f4 I ° F _'. ~.! SST S?fil 3 9T lA/iGT J Q1Wg 19 -. ~~ 1 ~ 1 I y~ 3 a~ =, ~.. ~,~~ ~ :g ~~.,~ ~,~ ~~.~ -, i l ~'',,;~ ~,t _ ~ i-~... ~.,. i ~;~ ~.lr f :,~ rn,,.~, },a~ ~ :,~ r ~1, i 1~:,~ ~:a ~~~'' ~' c.:~ ~~~ ~p~ ~,.,~ i ~,rt~ ~~ +:~ ~° ! 4 R 1 8A :~ 1 }.-.....I ~ 915 305 r~ .§77 r._.__ _.:.-._.. s..,~.._ ,..__.,-.-~... __....___.._ _.._.~......._ _._..~..,.,.,.~.w.......e... I 375 I . _ _ - .. _ 71 1 f I ,. 1 I _. ~ 9 9+73 , l I 39 '~.. ~. ~ r -_ ~ d ~. 3f2 i g 1 '~. b28 .-_ _ .. 397 ~ I ra , _ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: February 14, 23x0 SUBJECT: A review of a proposed amendment to the Town's Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 13-7 _ "Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"), to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1983, the Town of Vail passed Ordinance 2, Series of 1983 in an effort to address the conversion of accommodation units ("live beds"} into condominiums within the Town. The ordinance placed restrictions on the use of accommodation units that had been previously converted to condominiums and required these units to participate in a short- term rental pool. This principle of "lodging preservation" is a universal theme throughout Colorado's mountain resort communities and the Town has managed through bath subdivision regulation and zoning to preserve a substantial number of accommodation units. A copy of Ordinance 2, Series of 1983 has been included as Appendix "A" far reference. In 1995, the Town of Vail amended this regulation in order to prohibit the conversion of any accommodation units to condominiums. The restrictions an previously-converted units remained in effect under this amendment while the application process for conversion of a.u.'s into condominiums was eliminated. This amendment is also included in Appendix "A" for reference. This proposed amendment to Chapter 13-7 would allow for the conversion of accommodation units into employee housing through the Town's existing condominium pia#ting process. None of the Town's other restrictions an condominium conversions would be changed with this amendment. li. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Plannin4 and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEG is advisory to the Town Council The PEC shall review the proposal far and make a recommendation to the Town Council an the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. ,~ Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Cauncil_ Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Desian Review Baard: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on code amendments. lil. REGOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of the Subdivision Regulations to the Vail Town Council, subject to the following findings; 1. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Vail Land Use Plan. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vaii. IV. SUMMARY OF PQTENTIAL TEXT GHANGES Proposed text amendments for Section 13-7 are outlined in Appendix "Afl of this memorandum. V. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE WAIL LAND USE PLAN Staff believes this proposed text amendment would impacf the following goals and policies identified in the Vail Land Use Plan: 'f.1 Vail should continue t© grow in a cantraiied environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Page ? of 17 t.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Staff Response Staff believes the proposed amendment would help facilitate the location of employee housing units within the Town of Vail (a high Council priority) in existing infill locations. Staff believes affordable employee housing is essential for the provision of services that both residents and visitors expect. Staff also believes the benefits of employee housing may outweigh the need for accommodation units at certain locations. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used mare efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Tawn of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. Staff Response Although the Land Use Plan identifies lodging unit preservation as a high priority, i# also identifies appropriate locations for accomr-nodation units (the Village and Lionshead). Staff believes these policies should be used to identify whether a proposed conversion is consistent with master planning objectives. Although the conversion of any accommodation units within the Town's core areas should be highly discouraged, staff believes certain other properties in town may be appropriate for the location of employee housing. 5.9 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private effarfs, assisted by lirriited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. S.S The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional emp[oyee hauling needs should be accommodated a# varied sites throughout the community. Staff Resoonse Staff believes the proposed text amendment furthers the above-listed goals by providing additional opportunities for locals/employee housing within the town limits, s.i Services should keep pace with increased growth. Staff 'Response Staff believes the provision of employee housing is vital if Vail is to provide services consistent with the demand created by residents and visitors. • Page 3 of ] 7 APPENDIX "A" -CHAPTER 13-7, TOWN ©F VAIN CODE CHAPTER? CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS Added text is shown in bold end underlined Type; deleted feat is shown in s~~vlrra- fype SECTION: 13-7-1: Purpose 13-7-2: Definitions 13-7-3: Preliminary Map 13-7-4: Final Map 13-7-5: Review Procedure 13-7-~: Additional Requirements For Condominium Conversions to Employee Housinv Units 13--7-7: Condominium Conversion Of Lodge C}r Accommodation Units 13-7-8: Restrictions on Units Converted Prior tp February 7. '1995 13-7-9: Action On Preliminary Map 1' 7 9: f?inzr 13-7-10: Final Map; Certification And Approval 4~ ' 11: ci~~~~ici~r. f'~airl:~ 13-7-11: Improvement Security 13-7-12: Exemptions 13-7-13: Applicability 13-7-14; Filing And Recording • 13-7-1: PURPOSE: This Chapter has been adopted in accordance with the provision of the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as found in Colorado Revised Statutes section 29-20-101 et seq., as more particularly spelled out in Colorado Revised Statutes section 29-20-104, to regulate condominium developments which may result in significant changes in the population of the Town and to control the impact thereof on the Town and the surrounding areas. The Town fnds that this Chapter is necessary for the protection of the public health, safe#y and welfare to accomplish the following purposes: A. To ensure the performance of maintenance responsibilities in condominiums and converted condominiums, and to promote the public health, safety and welfare. B. To ensure that rental units being converted to condominiums meet reasonable physical standards as required by subdivision and building codes adopted by the Town. C. To protect from unnecessary eviction the residents of rental units being converted to condominiums, and to assist these residents in meeting their future housing needs. D. To preserve a reasonable balance in the owned versus ren#al housing mix and to maintain the supply of low to moderate income units available in the Town. S'a~~ 4 of P7 E. To monitor the supply of low to moderate income units so that the Town may take measures to avoid a worsening housing crisis. F. To ensure the rental pool of accommodation units is not depleted by the conversion of lodges and accommodation units to condominiums. (Ord. 1{1995} ~ 1: Ord. 2{1983) § 1} 13-7,2: DEFINITIONS: The fallowing definitions shall apply to the interpretation of this Chapter: BYLAWS: Shall refer to the bylaws of the unit owners' association or corporation. COMMUNITY APARTMENT: A development in which there is an undivided interest in the land coupled with the right of exclusive occupancy of an apartment facated therein. Community apartments shall be subject to the same restrictions and conditions set forth in this Chapter far condominium units. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION: The development or use of the land and existing structures as a condominium project regardless of the present or prior use of such lands and structures, and regardless of whether substantkal improvements have be~:n made to such structures. It shall n©t be permitted to convert existing lodges or accommodation units to a condominium project. CONDOMINIUM PROJECT: The entire parcel of real property, including ail structures thereon, to be divided into two (2} or more units for the purpose of constructing or converting existing structures to condominium units. CONDOMINIUM UNIT: An individual air space unit together with the interest in the common elements appurtenan# to such unit. DECLARATION: An instrument recorded pursuant to the statutes of the State and which defines the character, duration, rights, obligations, and limitations of condominium ownership, The declaration shall include ail restricti©ns, limitations and specifications which may be required by the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council, including provisions relative to time-sharing estates, licenses or fractionak fees; and the procedure for amendments of the declaration which recluires approval of the Town. EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT: Shall be defined in accordance with Section 12-2-2, Town of Vail Code. INDIVIDUAL AlR SPACE UNIT: Consists of any enclosed roam or rooms occupying all or part of a floor or floors of a building of one or more floors to be used for residential, professional, commercial or industrial purposes, which has access to a public stree#. MODERATE INCOME: Shall be as defined from time to time by the Council. (Ord. 1{1995} § 2: Ord. 2{1983} ~ 1) Pane 5 aS' 17 13-7-3: PRELIMINARY MAP: All proposed condominium projects shall submit the preliminary map, containing the information and requirements specified in Chapter 3 of this Title, as may be applicable to the proposed condominium project. In addition to that information, the preliminary map for the condominium project shall include: A. A map showing all common areas and usages of the building and grounds, and plans for the interior division of the building showing horizontal and vertical boundaries of all units. B. A copy of the declaration applicable to the condominium project. C. A copy of the bylaws. The bylaws shall contain the information required by the Condominium Ownership Act of the State of Colorado9. All condominium projects shall comply with this requirement. (Ord. x(1983} § 1 } 13-7-4; FINAL MAP: The final map for the condominium project shall contain all information required by Chapter 3 of this Title as the same may be applicable to khe condominium project.. In addition, if there are any restrictive covenants, conditions or restrictions other than specified in the declaration, they shall be filed concurrently with the final map. (.Ord. 2(1983} § 1 } 13-7-5: REVIEW PROCEDURE: The review procedure far condominium projects and condominium conversions shall be in accordance with the procedures for subdivisions as specified in this Title. There shall not be perrnitked any conversion of existing lodges or accommodation units to condominiumsl0_ (Ord. 1(1995} ~ 3: Ord. 219$3} § 1} 13-7-6: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOMINIUM GONVERStOIVS TO EMPLOYEE HC]USING UNITS: The applicant proposing to make a condominium conversion shall provide the following documentation with the preliminary map: A, Conversion Report Listing Building Conditions: A condominium conversion report from the Town Building Official on the condition of the building, listing all Building Gode violations, Fire Code violations and related violations which are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public, the owners, and the occupants of the building. The applicant shall have available and shall provide copies of this report to all prospective Y~~ 6 ot~ z ~ purchasers of condominium units or interest in the condominium project. B. Required Information: A report of the proposed conversion, including the following information: 1. Length of occupancy of present tenants. 2. The household composition of present tenants. 3, Current rental rates; whether rents include or exclude utilities; date and the amount of last rental increase. 4. A summary of the proposed ownership of the units, if the units will be sold as time share or interval ownerships;. the approximate proposed sale price of units and financing arrangements to be provided by the applicant. C. Plans And Descriptions: Plans and descriptions showing how the following will be performed: 1. All site work shall be brought up to current Town standards unless a variance therefrom is granted to the applicant by the Town Council in accordance with the variance procedures of Chapter 1 of this Title. The Tawn Council may,. if it deems necessary, require additional parking facilities to meet requirements of owners and guesks of the condominium. units. 2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by the Building Official. 3. Condominium projects shall meet current Uniform Building Code requirements for heat and fire detection devices and sys#ems. Ord. 29(1983} ~ 1: Ord.. 2(1983} ~ 1) 13-7-7: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION OF LODGE OR ACCOMMODATION UNITS: A. No New Conversions Allowed; Exception: There shall not be permitted any conversion of a lodge or accommodation unit within the Town to a condominium, except as provided for the provision of emnlovee housing units. Emplovee housing units created pursuant to this chapter are suhiect to the definitions. reauirernents and provisions of Chapter 92-13. Town of Vail Cade f"Emplavee Hausinc~"l. • N3ge 7 of 17 13-7-$:RESTRICTIONS ON UNITS CC3NVERTED PRIOR TO 1995: A. Any accommodation unit within the Tawn which has been converted to a condominium or has received approval far a conversion prior to tMe effective date Qf February 7, 1995 shall comply with the requirements of this Section. The requirements contained in this Section shall oat apply to structures or building which contain two {2) units ar less. f3. Use fay OwnerlRenter: The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall tae included in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The condominium units created shat! remain in the short term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. An owner's personal use of his ar her unit shall be restricted to twenty eight {28) days during the seasonal periods of December 24 through January 1 and February 1 through March 24. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season". `"Owner's personal. use" shall be defined as owner occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit off the rental market during the seasonal! periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the ledge, however, shall oat be restricted by this Section. 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a deify assessment rate by the condominium association of three {3) times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction. and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the beneft of the condominium association on that owner's uni#, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected by foreclosure an an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restriction shalt give the Town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the Tawn enforces the restriction, the Tawn shall receive the funds collected as a result of such Page B of 17 enforcement. In the event litigation results fram the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney fee incurred- 3. The Town shall have the right to require from the condominium association an annual report of owner`s personal use during the high seasons for all converted condominium units.. 4. The converted lodge units shall not be used as permanent residences. For the purposes of this Section, a person shall be presumed to be a permanent resident if such person has resided in the unit for six (~E) consecutive months notwithstanding fram time to time during such six (6) month period the person may briefly dwell in other places. C, Converted Lodge Retains Customary Facilities: Any lodge located within the Town which has. converted accommodation units to condominiums shall continue to provide customary lodge facilities and services including a customary marketing program. D. Unsold Condominiums Rented: The converted candominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. If unsold thirty {3Q) days after recording of the candominium map, the unsold converted condominiums shall be required to be furnished and made available to the general tourist market within ninety t9f7} days after the date of recording of the condominium map. This requirement may be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium project at comparable rates in any local reservation system far the rental of lodge or condominium units in the Town. ~. Common Areas Remain: The commas areas of any lodge with converted units shall remain common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its previous character. Any changes, alterations or renovations made to common areas shall not. diminish the size or quality of the common areas. F. Employee Housing: Any accommodation units that were utilized to provide housing far employees at any time during the three (~) years previous to the date of the application shall remain as employee units for such duration as may be required by the Planning and Environmental Commission ar the Town Council. Fage y cif 17 G. Applicability: All conditions set forth within this Section shall be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personas representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the subject of the application for the life of the survivor of the present Town Council plus twenty one {21 }years. Conversion of accommodation units located within a lodge pursuant to this Section, shall be modified only by the written agreement of the Town Council and the owner or owners of the units which have been converted into condominiums. The documents creating and governing any accommodation unit which has been converted into a condominium shall be modified by the owners of such units only with the prior written approval of the Town Council. {Ord. 15(1995} § 1: Ord. 1{1995} § 4: Ord. 21(1987} §§ 1-3: Ord 2(1983) ~ 1) 13-7-9: ACTION ON PRELIMINARY MAP: A. Criteria Considered: At the hearing on the preliminary map, the Planning and Environmental. Commission shall consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent with the fallowing housing goals of the Town: 1. To encourage continuation of social and econorrmic diversity in the Town through a variety of housing types. 2. To expand the supply of decent housing for low- and moderate-income families: 3. To achieve greater economic balance for the Town by increasing the number of jobs and the supply of housing for people who will hold them. B. Determine Percentages For Sale Or Rent: The Gommission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income.. C. Findings Supporting Denial: The Planning and Environmental Gommission may deny the tentative or preliminary map upon finding that: 1. Based on the information required by Section 13-7-5 of this Chapter, and on the vacancy rate far rental housing, tenants will have substantial dift'ICUIty in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below five percent {5%} based an the mast recent Town survey constitutes a pausing emergency situation. 2. The ratio of multiple-family rental units would be reduced to less than twenty five percent (25°/a} of the total number of dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with no replacement rental housing being provided. {Ord.2{1983) 1) Page l0 of l7 ~~~' ~. ~~Dl 9hA~hIADV D~~tl~ Fi~R':.'RT: A. Ow~:rc`~i~F '3~iar.: I" ~c Ic.c: then fi~.~ (~; dra,;s-after-th~~ f;ti+~y cf ~' ~~~ii~~'i,~r f~- ec.n~~~;~+o~, tYefi~u~ c;`~all l;a' the i~.,ncn~~-e#~#~ ~°c~,c~aC ~arc';:r-i~%:.~:, se~vcrvic~ c~; ~' r~cri ta~l~,nrr,-:g w, r~ ~-wa•iro~sn~n:a'-~'~r~ai~vicr ~t ;t~ ~:~wli~ ~a-ri'~, tl+~ .UrP-c~!~~~~ n, ~~•,~,-~Qf trn~n~ d rr.:i; in'm~[~can~•n~+ +n~,~w.-i~i:.~~ €. C1f"1~ F~i~-A,~a~~t'1~a1<<a: ~..«.+;nM +.,.,.,:Rr~~ ~i~ll ":: nw*.uficd--af tM~ p;.,.,~,~.,,,~, ~.,~~ nr;,.,, F;,~h +v~,.;~`ti•~c c ri~~{&C) ~~y ~~~w ;/~r,at}4v cw`,+:~ tc p~.~.:':~c~ ty: ;i: Grit a: t#ic rr~ia~i~cr,~~:~t ~-~T`-c ,:._~a+y, ~..~.rlc~-ve+~c ch: if-bc ~ {cir ri:,rl.~+. ~~~1~wc #er'."~ -;.~, card if ilac os,~C En~~:~`.cl !'cr.~r-~cci^~ ~I„+,,..,~.,;.,,,~- that tip prclit ;.,~~., r,.,~rt,~i ~rlae-~•~~~c s~~ `:ice#~ cpFlit~^~ ~:~~• Ice '-'~') 13-7-1I]: FINAL MAP; CERTIFICATION ANQ APPROVAL: A. Required Information; Certifrcation: The final map to be filed by the applicant shall captain the information required by subsection 13-3-6B of this Title, rely#ing to subdivisions as the same may be applicable to the condominium project. In addition to that information, the applicant shall attain the following certification to be flied with the final map: receipt of a condominium report from the Building Official of the Town stating that condominium structure and units are in conformance with the Town Building Codes, Fire Codes and other related codes adapted by the Town ar the Vail Fire Rre~~rt~~ I:~i~tric Department. E- i~:c:--a~r~tr.:c-:t~ ~~~~ir wear, i:-~+c ~v+th th~w~-, Fi-c Rr~irr. ^~^tse+aec:~ri: ~ ~.r.:' c{x~cv~rw ~~~' ~ni~. B. Final Map Approval: No final or partial map shall be approved until the certification required in subsection A above is obtained. (Ord. 2(1983} § 1 } 13 7 11. c ` ' LI o F ~ ~ rDc~~~cT-: ~'._ C+~:nis Tcrr,~n`. Tic.,. Thy c-~d~•~~•n r~"lie rc~.^~*~c ~ho#-~alcc ~ra- :,`u`vjiv4 }t-ZV-QC7~..:t.-~na~. tr,; t`.* :,x:dti; t `.~~s ~ireh"lp~ f-~;r tlryc ~cf~ ~f is~~r~r.~e-e-fi sir ~~Nc:-;. 1~+ihi:~ fi~~° r>~1 ^~~~,~ ^f ~~°~~cr.~t cf t"c ~~rlc~i~+s~r NwMli~ ;aNct, tl-t a~~t+car.t eh~ll~ ~e-ta~~n~ of ty~ fclM~ 1. T!~• ~"f icc•~~n^~ ^f +hr, rnr,.,rF The ~~h± ~f cc:;~iwr~y-v~vcifi..a .: Page 1 1 ~r 1 °. Tl~et rc ~crr~; ear ~cr:udaiirtg-vy+l~t3e~til ~t I:.,;ct t~iw, r~n~ ,~.~.,~. ~~+n,- ~+,v c+etc c~` :~ icc-Lr\nae :i t`~~ a~bd~i~rn ,~~~i•,fc rclc.:rr~s n the ~,.,+„ of .,~+;~;.~.,t,~n, •.v~+v!-;c:•sr ~. ~Icfic~a Fiie~': ~„ „{ ~ ;.a : Vic., i;~Gll t~~1aw - .;t,-, +~.,n nn~,~~+~-,cnt c~F Ccm-~:}~ ~.~. ~+slr~;~ci~t ; `.tae-tic t: ~~~i~cc iv ~i~•~~.-~-~ur~^r~.~. !r thr c ^f ~ „crri~~,- N~~jcct ,.~~;r+,~a ~f fwur (1} ~ur.~elc c,- Ivrc, t;'~c elCrli:.n~nt ~`~cll i~ca~ i';iv :~~.:,~;i~;:ic:~: wi}y,in fi~•~e (~} d~~~ cf the elCprvvjl ~f tpr~ fir~l r:-•r~, (~'~. ~(-a-9~~} ~ 1) 13-7-11: IMPROVEMENT SECURITY: A. Acceptable Form ©f Security: The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council may require a security to be posted by the applicant which shall consist of one or mare arrangements which the Council shall accept to secure the actual cast of construction of such public improvements as are required by the ordinances of the Town. The improvement security may include any one or a combination of the types of security or collateral listed in this subsection and the applicant may substitute security in order to release portions of the condominium project far sale. The types of collateral which may be used as security are as foAows; 1. Restrictions an the conveyance, sale or transfer of any unit within the condominium project as set forth on the final map. 2. Performance of property bond. 3. Private or public escrow agreement. 4. Loan commitment. 5. Assignments of receivables. ~. Liens on property. 7, Letters of credit. ~~ Deposits of security funds; or other similar surety agreements. B. Amount Determined: Security other than plat restrictions, required under the improvement security, shall equal in value the cost of the improvements to be completed but shall not be required an the portion of the condominium project subject to plat restrictions. The Council shall not require security with collateral arrangements in excess of the actual cost of construction of the improvements. The amount of security may be incrementally reduced as subdivision or condominium improvements are completed. (Qrd. 2(1983) ~ 1 } Page 12 ~C 1 ? 13-7-12: EXEMPTIGNS: The terms of this Chapter shall not apply to developments or structures of two (2) units. (Ord. 2(1983) § 1) 13-7-13; APPLICABILITY: The terms of this Ghapter shall be applicable to c-e~~e+-i+ projects that are carnmenced or converted after the effective date hereof. (Ord. 2(1983} ~ 1) 13-7-14: FILING AND REC©RDING: The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder; hawever, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider pr©vides the Town with a certification from the Eagle Gounty Treasurer's office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain ane mylar copy of the plat for their records. (Ord. 18(1993) § 8) ~a~4 i ; or' i ~ APPENDIX "B" VAIL LAND USE PLAN - GOALSlPOLICIES 1.U General GrowthlE?evelopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve bath the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air., water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Care through continued implernentatian of the Urban Design Guide Pian. 1.5 Gvmmercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some law intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions shauld not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.8 Recreational and public facility development on National Forest lands may be permitted where no high hazards exist if: a} Community objectives are met as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. b) The parcel is adjacent to the Town boundaries, with good access. c) The affected neighborhood can be involved in the decision-making process. 1.9 National Forest land which is exchanged, sold or otherwise falls into private ownership shauld remain as open space and not be zoned for private development. 1.11) Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail {other than parks and open space} may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.11 Town owned lands shall not be sold to a private entity, Ivng term leased to a private entity or converted to a private use without a public hearing process, 1.12 Vail should accommodate mast of the additional growth in existing developed areas {infil] areas). 1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as 'being a desirable land feature as well as its potential for public use. F'aar 14 of 17 2.0 SkierlTourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function mare efficiently. 23 The ski area owner, the business community and the Tawn leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and eultura[ opportunities to encourage summer tourism, 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year-round tourism. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as well as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 2.8 Day skiers need for parking and access should be accommodated through creative solutions such as; a) increased busing from out of town. b} Expanded points of access to the mountain by adding additional base portals. c) Continuing to provide temporary surface parking. d} Addition of structured parking. 3.0 Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.~ Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the care areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on-going events and sanctioned ustreet happenings" should be encouraged. Page l5 of 17 • 4.0 Village Core l Lionsheati 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vaii Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quaiity~) 4.4 The connection between the Village Gare and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk, alpine garden, and/ar sculpture plaza. c) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2 Quality time-share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vai[ with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 T'he existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. wage 1 G o#' l 7 6.D Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vaii should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. • Page i 7 ~f l7 Approved February 28, 2000 +w, . A J • MEMBERS PRESENT: John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Brian Doyon Tom Weber Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Public Hearing PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 14, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT: DRB PRESENT: Clark Brittain Bill Pierce Hans W©Idrich John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest George Rather Brent Wilson Judy Rodriguez 2:~4 p.m. A joint worksession with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development plan/master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility far an approximate 12 acre unplatted parcel of land, zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhom Circle. • c: Applicant: Town of VailNail Recreation Disteict Planner: Dominic Mauriello Russ Forrest gave an introduction on Donovan Park and said he just wanted to bring the PEC and DRB up to date. He said, later an, the PEC would look at it again for a conditional use permit. 0#s Odell explained a hoard with the prioritized uses, He explained that a green room was a backstage staging room to be used before a function. He asked far input from the PEC and DRB for parking ideas. He said they were thinking of 150 on site spaces and that there were studies done an the sun/shade and also grading, He said the trees along the streamtract would be left untouched and the kettle area ~depressiony would be preserved. He explained the different options for accessing the site and stated the entire riparian corridor would be left alone to remain natural. Ethan Moore from Design Workshop recapped the project and said they were trying to understand thoroughly the restraints of the site which would drive the plans. He explained why the intersection at Matterhorn was not a viable access and that accessing from the middle of the site or top corner of the site were the only two possibilities. He mentioned that if they came in central to the site, there would be 1,400 lineal feet of improvements. He then explained the implications of coming in from the tap of the site and that the fiat area was not on their property. He said a significant amount of fill and drainage would be required. He explained that some of the drawings showed the bus traffic an the site. Otis Odell went through the different concepts. He explained structured parking and said the total program for Phase I was 35,000 sq. ft. He said they were trying to keep the youth activities on the upper level, preferably not facing north. Planning and Environmental Gammission Minutes Febru~y l4, 2000 1 Approved February 28. 20©0 Ethan Moore explained the concept of Phasing and the ability to Phase in the parking, but that Concept C was the only concept that could phase in parking. ,~ohn Schofield asked for any public input. There was no public input. Russ Forrest said all comments would be passed on to Council. Hans Woldrich said the DRB was used to containing their comments to detail and architecture. He said Concept C was appealing, since a parking structure was not beautiful and unsafe for children, as it was dirty and dark. He liked spreading out the ,parking in the center. He said how the ball fields were separated from the Frontage Road and what happens when the ball goes out into the road. He asked if the hub site was turned down, would that effect this program. Russ Forrest said the hub site needed to be streamlined. He said the community youth orientation was taken out of the hub site and put here. Hans Woldrich said that air and light coming in from the south was very important. He said that the entry needed to be encouraging and playful to be inviting to families and kids, rather than a functional type of structure. He said there could be no scary places. Hans said the preservation of trees needed to stay natural and that the program was rather ambitious, since this was such a small town. Clark Brittain asked if the cemetery issue was dead. He said he was happy that the stream corridor was not being disturbed.. He said the quality of Eife in the meadow at the top of the stream corridor had been preserved in Concept A and somewhat in Concept C and that the open. parking was desirable. He asked turning left into the park when the roads were icy was a concern and another option was necessary. Ethan Moore explained the left turn lane. Clark Srittain said he would tend to have things not so highly developed and less impactive on the site. He said Concept C satisfied that. Ethan Moore said Concept C had a higher site coverage than the other ~ concepts. Clark Brittain said his mother was buried in a column cemetery in a garden area and this would be an option. Bill Pierce said he was trying to get a grip on haw big the building was. He asked if we could afford this 3b,Cl(]0 sq. ft. building that was three times the size of the Municipal Building. He stated that a small fortune would be spent in acelldecel lanes and suggested building a bridge across from the intersection of Matterhorn, putting acelldecel lanes off of Matterhorn. He said a soccer ball was purposely kicked out of bounds, which would impact the road. He suggested the soccer field being put in a different location with seating or a natural amphitheater to contain kicking the ball out of bounds. He also suggested underground parking under the soccer field, as the size was compatible.. Russ Forrest said the VRD wanted to address the 2,©OQ sq. ft. they occupied in the Lionshead Structure and that the Youth Center was being debated. He said VRD could consolidate their youth programs at Donavan Park. Bill Pierce mentioned that if one parking lot was full, you would need to go back out on the Frontage Road to see if parking in the other location was available. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ M inute~; February 14.24©Q Approved February 2$, 2000 Doug Cahill said parking structures were disliked, which would take Concepts A and B out of the scenario. He said Bill's idea on the lower side was a good idea. He asked how a bus turnaround could be accommodated closer to the structures, similar to Timber Ridge. Ethan Moore said 40-50 cars could be parked by the soccer field and there would be some scheduling so that every program wasn't operating at once. Doug Dahill agreed that a southern exposure and separation of the buildings was important and to push out our property line with an easement. He could envision a building into the hillside of the bench with parking on top of it. He suggested separating some of the come and go traffic. He suggested a turn lane with concept B or to come in from the Bridge side. He said he saw a lot of opportunities to shift on the Concept C scenario. Chas Bernhardt said Concept C placed the buildings lower and more intimate with the surroundings, but the pristine meadow that Clark mentioned was infringed upon. He said because of the steepness of the grade, the structured parking may have the entire south side exposed. He said Russ spoke with the people who owned the property to the east, about using their land for road access. He said the soccer field was too close to the road and he liked the idea of the soccer field above the parking structure.. He preferred Iower buildings, the pavilion and the Phase 1 parking. Diane Golden said she did not like concept C at first, but does now and also asked about the Cemetery. Russ Forrest explained that the rock garden cemetery did not get passed. Tom Weber said he was concerned with the size of the building and that there were too many uses foe this "park-like" site. He said the real value was the natural surroundings of the land and it was stretching it to put too many children's activities on this field. He said an exposed parking garage was. out of the question and suggested some sort of use on top of the parking structure. He said he was concerned that when a soccer game was over, a huge amount ofi traffic would be letting out onto the Frontage Road. He thought it would be nicer to reduce the amounts of access points off the road. He suggested that the back of the building face the Frontage Road. He stated that the land was too environmentally expensive to put a parking structure on it. He mentioned the need for some sort of traffic control light at Matterhorn if the left-hand turn lanes didn't work well. He thought some sort of roundabout might have to happen, because at the end of the day that whole area would be a mess. He said congestion would be compounded to put Learning Tree and ABC School on the site. Brian Doyon thanked staff for working on this important site. He stated there were a lot of needs in the community, but we have to say na. He said the site uses the community said they wanted were parks and this project showed buildings and parking. He said a soccer field doesn't need to be on the flattest portion. He said the soccer field is unusable and suggested removing it if it is not safe. He felt the building was too close to the soccer field. He again said that the uses that were the primary ones were being scraped off the plate. He suggested spending more money on the structure to make it brighter with mare Lights. He said we were making the Frontage Road into a super highway and we would have to get people off on Matterhom to slow them down before they enter the park.. He stated a 35,400 sq. ft. building was too big. Galen Aasland agreed with Bill Pierce to enter the park via Matterhorn Circle and said Bill's solution was excellent for a bridge by the Public Service Building, as it would be safer for everybody. He agreed with Hans on the parking. He said the soccer field was frightening and he agreed with Bill to terrace around it. He said he liked the size of the building and a good size Planning and Environmental Commission 3 ~iuutes ~~~ ia, zooa Approrred February 2$, 2000 building on this site would match the Cascade, the Ruins and GLOB. He said we need facilities for families and this site could handle it and therefore, was appropriate for a large building. John Schofield emphasized preserving the stream tract. He agreed wit Bill that the Frontage Road was not a safe access point and that people in the neighborhood wouldn't want to walk around to access the park. He said specific needs far the parking needed to be shown, as well as how much parking wauid be needed per use. He agreed to have structured parking buried, as Bill suggested, with adrop-off inside. He said the buildings were too large for a park and too much was trying to be crammed into too little a space. He said the soccer field should be placed where it is most usable, as the soccer bails would go onto the Interstate. He suggested the soccer field being used as a skating rink during the winter, as it should be multi-purpose. He said 4-6 EHU's were needed far that size of a structure, or a minimal amount of employee housing units and a pedestrian bridge along the stream to aceammvdate the neighborhood. Russ Forrest asked John if he would be willing to look at off-site employee housing. John Schofield stated if this project generated employees, it needed to be looked at the same as any other project, as the PEG could not treat the Town or Rec District different than anyone else. John Schofield asked for any other public comments. Carol Hymers said that all parking in the U.S. is underground and was not as dangerous as people think. She said that children would have to be taken into the large 35,(704 sq. ft. building by an adult. She asked how much landscaping would there be to protect the stream bed and asked how to walk to this park from Vail. John Schofield said a bike path was already there.. Carol Hymers suggested considering other paths into the park. 2. A worksession to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District 1~0.4, located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building)/Lot 54, Block K, Dien Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Jahn Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add. Greg Finch, a Senior VP from Dundee Realty, explained the proposal. Kurt Segerberg gave an overview on where the project had gone, since the last time it was presented. He explained what would remain the same and what would change. He said $,DOQ sq. ft. of condos would be constructed on level 3 and commercial space would be on levels 1 and ~. He said the main difference was that the entry was moved and the building steps were extended further dawn. Tom Weber said, in terms of mass and bulk, this was appropriate and he didn't have a problem with adding the dwelling units. He said he was concerned with the employee housing units and asked far more provided on-site. Greg Finch said 1, possibly 2 more EHU's could be added. Planning and Environmental Commission 4 iVlinutes February 14, 2Q00 Approved February 28, 2044 Tvm Weber said it might be a good idea to take a hard look at that. He said another concern he had was the impact on the stream on the far southeast. He said code grading to the stream could be provided, ifi the building was stepped to the north. Greg Finch explained trying to fatten the building up for building efficiency. Brian Dayon said the old building looked terrible and suggested making the two buildings look similar, as the new building doesn't relate to the character of the old building at ail. He said this mass was overwheiming_ He said the Ehu's needed a better location and 8 more parking spaces needed to be found. He had a concern with it moving into the stream corridor, once the grading was in. He said, since the uses were being changed, they would have to look at employee generation for this building and get more EHU's, as everyone had to be treated fairly, Greg Finch said the parking was way out of scale with what's down valley. Galen Aasland stated that 4 condos on the top of the building had no benefit to the Town and he agreed with Brian on the mass and stream issues. Doug Cahill agreed with his fellow Commissioner's and said to bring the mass down. Chas Bernhardt said he agreed with his fellow Commissioner's and mentioned that they were 11' closer to the creek . He suggested that it might be in the applicant's best interest to go over the '85 analysis, as it now appears to have been abused in this proposal. Diane Gatden said she would like more EHU's on the top of the old building to lessen the height difference. She said she was very much in favor of office space in Town and asked about shifting the building away from the stream. Kurt Segerberg said it was a possibility and that all the condos faced the creek. ,lohn Schofield suggested going back through the minutes of the past meetings. He said this Commission and the Town encouraged office space and he was not real pleased to see condos on this property. He said the stream setback was sacred. He said the parking could be tempered with more EHU's. He mentioned taking a look at the tree lass. Brian Dayon said the PEC would need to see a grading plan and a crass section of the building from the creek corridor. George Ruther stated that Type I!I EHtJ's could be put on this site and then sold. 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit, to allow far the conversion of existing hotel rooms into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge}ILot 1, Vail dos Schone #3. Applicant: Recut Corporation Planner Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Lynn Fritzlen showed a rendering of the project and explained the combination of hotel rooms that would be turned into employee housing units. She showed improvements to the commercial space facades and explained the idea behind adaptive reuse. She said in the past, employee Planning and Enviranmentai Commission ~ Mimics Fcbnzary 14, 2040 Approved February 28, 2aoo housing had been approved and going out of the building envelope would be for fagade improvements only. Tom Weber said he was concerned about such a large apartment building. He said more landscaping would be needed on the site and he would like the parking structure on the lower level. Brian Doyon said he agreed with Tom. He was also concerned with converting the feel of a lodge to a residential area by the division of parking and landscaping. Galen Aasland said he agreed with Tom and Brian and would like to hear #rom the neighbors, so we would need appropriate forums for the public to comment. He had concerns because not everyone who comes to Vail can afford the Sonnenalp and Vail needed to serve all the different guests that come to Town. Doug Cahil! echoed Galen's comments. He said we needed less expensive hotel rooms, as well as employee housing He said there were housekeeping items to clean up the property. He asked how the ownership would uvork between the retail and the housing pieces. Chas Bernhardt asked haw the property would be kept up and stated that the Town of Vail would be remiss in not purchasing it themselves for employee housing. Diane Golden said she was torn between the need for employee housing and the need for hotel rooms. She asked If all the parking was needed. Lynne Fritzlen explained the parking needs were the same, or 2 cars per unit. Brent Wilson stated, that according tv the architect's calculations, the project has just a couple of parking spaces over. Diane Golden said some amenities would be needed, such as a barbecue and she also questioned how the building would be maintained. John Schofield said all the outstanding issues on the property needed to be addressed and the PEG would need to see a formal plan of attack; important for a conditional use permit. He agreed with his fellow Commissioner's that we would need to see a guarantee for maintenance down the road. He said he questioned the marketability and viability of residential housing above employee housing, similar to the Ruins. Lynn Fritzien addressed how the property would be maintained in the future. She said condominium law has changed quite a bit and the level of accountability was much higher. Jerome Nathan explained the bad fortune the hotel had with the alternatives. He said he envisioned one condo association. 4. A worksession to discuss the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-t a, Town Code_ Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. planning and Environmental commission 6 Minutes February 14, 2000 i Approved February 26, 2000 Charles Buck, with a transportation consulting firm, explained how he studied transportation characteristics, skiing, restaurant and hotel uses. He said multi-use studies were used for core areas and pedestrian corridors to develop an estimate of the required parking. He said that 2,9(}0 spaces were required and currently there were 4,200 spaces, or a difference of 31 %. He said this reduction had to do with shared trips and shared parking. Doug Cahill asked which skier days were looked at. Charles Buck said they looked at the 1 ~'h highest skier day. Doug Cahill asked how to keep enough room in the structure for skiers. Charles Buck said the study was for uses other than skiers. Doug Cahill asked why the numbers were lower now than the last time it came before the PEC. Brent Wilson said, at the PEC & Council's request, the numbers were modified to reflect redevelopment incentives. Charles Buck said, provided the core area of Vail doesn't change the mix of uses, he was com#ortable with the smaller numbers. Doug Cahill asked about the change of use in a business. Brent Wilson explained it. Chas Bernhardt said residential should not be reduced from 2 parking spaces, as residents generally have 2 cars, often leaving cars here, even if they van in. Diane Golden said she couldn't possibly recommend any kind of parking decrease. Brent Wilson responded to the fractional space requirement. Tom Weber said those fractions are meant to be multipliers. He asked how many times a year we had a full parking garage. He said reductions were not applicable in real world circumstances where there are not shared uses and these numbers go straight to pay-in-lieu. Brian Doyon said this didn't incorporate Blue Sky Basin. He said he wasn't seeing more Vans to Vail, but rather, out of Town license plates and if we can't put that into the study, we are not doing much with this study. Charles Buck explained that the study was for new development in the core area. Brian Doyon said there was na parking available to share, since spaces were all taken up by skiers, He said that the VA expansion generated more parking, but they weren't required to put in more parking spaces. Brent Wilson said VA was helping pay off the debt on the parking structure. He asked if the PEC wanted to ease up on businesses, or keep things the way they were. Me said that was the question, as they were not creating any more supply. Planning and Environmental Commission 7 Minutes February 14, 2f~oU Approved Feioruary 28, 2000 Galen Aasland said what runs this town is sales tax revenue and what drives parking is Vail Associates. John Schofield asked for mare information, before the PBC could make a recommendation. Galen Aasland asked, since we proposed a significant increase in employee housing west of Lionshead, where are all these cars going to go, if we are going to reduce the parking requirements. Tom Weber said to make it clear that these numbers were meant for redevelopment and we were just talking about changing the use. He said it was impassible fvr restaurants to redevelop because of these requirements. Mane Golden said for Vail to survive, we need parking in Vail. Tam Weber said parking on the i=rontage Raad looks terrible to anyone on I-70 and no one would stop. Brent Wilson said a decrease in parking requirements would not generate refunds, but credits. ©aug Cahill said he would never want the parking spaces to turn into something else, but let°s make it as easy as possible fvr the restaurants to do business. S. A warksessivn to discuss proposed changes to the Town of Vaii's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Tawn Cade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Brian Doyan !e#t at b:4b. Galen Aasland recused himself from the discussion on Lionshead. Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. The PEC said yes to the Sitzmark being able to pay-in-lieu, Torn Weber said the Mountain Haus and VAC was not pedestrian and should not be changed. Brent Wilson said we were not taking away anyone's ability to have on-site parking; we just want to enhance the pedestrian experience where possible. Tom Weber said the VAC has multiple opportunities for on-site parking. George Ruttier said there was a benefit to limiting the cars and for the owner to redevelop, as they didn't have that option today. Brent Wilson said this would not be a hindrance to redevelopers. John Schofield asked for goals and guidelines to be put in the review criteria. Brent Wilson went over the Lionshead changes. Planning and Environmental Gommissron 8 Minuses Felartttuy 14, 2000 Approved February 28, X000 6. A review of a proposed amendment to the Town's subdivision Regulations {section 13-7- 7 - °Condominiums and Condominium Conversions"), to allow for the conversion of accommodation units to employee housing units. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. John Schofield asked for any applicant or public comment. Nina Timm said it was a great use. Lynn Fritzlen, a resident and architect in Vail, stated there was a continuing need for employee housing. She said she could see turning units into manager's or on-site managers units. Brent Wilson explained that we were talking about Type III and Type IV EHU's and we could change the text to say that. He said everything will be made public, with all ad;acents notified as part of the conditional use permit process. He said when the deed is restricted, it is on file with the Town. Diane Golden had no comments. Tom Weber said his only concern was compatibility with surrounding properties. Brian Doyon said this was a `°Catch 22" long term problem, for the Tawn. He said when we start losing ACJ's, we're short-changing the use of the building and the hotel use was very different from a residence . Brent Wilson read the criteria for the conditional use process to the PEC. Tom Weber said leaving it open for the PEC may not be specific enough. Brent Wilson said we have the mechanisms in the code to address off-site impacts. Galen Aasland said he had no comments. John Schofield said there was not an inn in this Town that had 100% occupancy. He said this allowed flexibility, but still under the PEC scrutiny. Doug Cahill made a motion far approval for a recommenda#ion to Town Counciil, in accordance with the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 7, Information Update Russ Forrest gave an information update. 8. Approval of January 24, 2800 minutes, Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes ke6ruary 14, 200(1 A~~roved February 28, 2000 Chas Bernhardt made a motion #or approval as amended. Brian Doyon seconded the motian. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Chas 8emhardt made a motion to adjourn. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-U. The meeting adjourned at G p.m. • • Planning and Environmental Commission 10 Minutes ~'ebruz~ry 14, 2000