Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0327 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PRGPERTY r PUBLIC NOTICE ~" ?~L ~ ~' ~:~, : '~, r.;, 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-s of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on March 27, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration af: A joint worksessivn with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development planlmaster plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation faclity far an approximately 12 acre unpiatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, lacated south of the South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle, A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for site regrading, a building addition and long range planning, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoadfLo# 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`h Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey, Pratt, Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson A request far a conditional use permit, to relocate 1300' of low-lying bike path, informally known as the Katsos Property, lacated at Tract A, Vail Village 12th Piling. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Qchs A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of a major arcade at the Vail Transportation Center, located at 241 E. Meadow DriveNail Transportation Center. Applicant: H.,l. Hyde, Jr. Planner: Brent Wilson A request for final review of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), lacated at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyan Office Building)/Lot 54, Black K, Glen Lyan Subdivision. Applicant; Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner; George Ruther A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9, 12-6D-8 and 12-fiD-fi, Town Code, tv allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower Drive/Lot 6, Block 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner:. Allison Ochs The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project p1anner`s office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published March 10, 2000 in the Vail Trail. ~. .~ T4t9,'Y 4F YAIif 1 • PLANNING -AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, March 27, 2000 AGENDA Project Orientation I PEC LUNCH - Community Development Departmen# MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits 1. Pearson - 303 Gore Creek Drive #~-C ~O]fl Driver: George NOTE: if the PEC hearing extends until 8:00 p.m., the board will break fear dinner from 6.:00 - 8:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers p~B~~~'SFO 12:U0 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 2:OU p.m. A request tar a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of a major arcade at the Vail Transportation Center, located at 241 E. Meadow Drive/lfaii Transportation Center Applicant: H.J. Hyde, Jr. Planner: Brent Wilson 2. A request for a conditional use permit for a Type lil EHU, located a# the Vail Athletic Club & Spa, 352 East Meadow Drivela part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Ron Byrne, d.b.a. VMl_, L.L.C., represented by Tom Braun Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-5H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition v# gross residential floor area and balconies within required. setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vaii Townhouse #2-ClLvt 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1~t Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ran Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf 4. A final review of the proposed changes to the Tawn of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Tawn Gvde. Applicant: Tawn of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson • MEMBERS ABSENT ~t ~. .~ ~IWN OF YAtiJ 5. Final review of the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and propased amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Cade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson S. A request far a conditional use permit, to relocate 1300' of low-lying bike path, informally known as the Katsos Property, located at Tract A, Vai! Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison C}chs 7, A PEC review of propased modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenadel-1°racts 18~ A, E31ock 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing.. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED 'UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 S. A request for a conditional use permit ta. allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain Schaal, located at 3160 Katsas Ranch RoadlPart ofi Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 9. A request far a variance from Sections 12-6D-9, 12-6D-8 and 12-6D-6, Town Code,. to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower DrivelLot 8, Black 6,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 10. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village}, located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Gffice Building)/Lot 54, 61ock K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruttier TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 11. A joint work session 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 approximately 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 VaiWail Recreation District Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 24, 2flflfl 12. Information Update Four, two-year term PEC vacancies - (Galen Aasland, Brian Doyon, Diane Golden and Torn 1rVeber). PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FUR 2flflfl- Doug Cahill - ,Jan-Mar '00 - Apr-Jun '00 - Jul-Sep '00 - act-Dee '00 13. Approval of March 13, 2004 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 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpra#ation mailable upon request with 24 hour notification. Please caN 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, fear information. Community Development Department Published March 24, 20x0 in the Vail Trail • • 3 PLANNING AND ENVIRQNMENTAL COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, March 27, 2f]00 MEETING RESULTS Proiec# Orientation /PEC LUNGH -Community DeveloQment Deoar#ment MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ASSENT Galen Aasiand Diane Golden Brian Doyon Chas Bernhardt ^oug Cahill Site Visits . Jahn Schofield Tam Weber Driver: ~o N(?TE: I# the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board wilt break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinn -Town Council Chambers f 2:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m. t . A reques# for a conditional use permit, to allow far the establishment of a major arcade at the Vail Transportation Center, ipcated at 241 E. Meadow Drive/Nail Transportation Center Applicant: H.J. Hyde, Jr. Planner: Brent Wiisan MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH 1 GONDiTIflN: 1. That a staff report is provided to the PEC after two months of operation. 2. A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Nail's pari~ing pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-1©, Town Cade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0-1 (Galen recused) APPROVED • e ~~ ~ry~1~.f nor ~7 Li !V-f!t VF ~~iL x 1 3. Final revrew of the Town of Van's revised parking c~enerat~on analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter i 2-i p, Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vaif Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5-t~ TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 4. A request far a conditional use permit,. to relocate 13Qa' of low-lying bike path, informally known as the Katsos Property, located at Tract A, Vail Village 12"' Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Allison Ochs MOT14N: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill V{3TE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 5. A PEC review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek PromenadelTracts I ~ A, Block 5B, Vaii Village 15~ Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow far a proposed expansion at Vaii Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoadOPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12~~" Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented icy Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 7. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9, 12-6D-8 and 12-fiD-6, Tawn Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower DrivelLot 6, Block 6,Vail intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2fl00 $. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1 Q4Q S. Frontage Road West (Dien Lyon Office Building)ILot 54, Brack K, Gien Lyan Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruttier TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 2 ~. A request far a variance from Sections 1 ~-6H_8 and 12-14-~, Tawn of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of grass residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vaii Townhouse #2-CILot 2, Block 5, Vail Viflage 1st Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL APRfL 10, 2000 10. A joint work session with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development planlmaster plan and a conditional use permit far a park and recreation facility far an approximately 1 ~ 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 VeiilVail Recreation District C=Tanner: Dominic Maurieilo TABLED UNTIL APRiL 24, 2000 11. Information Update Four, two-year term PFC vacancies - Galen Aasland, Brian Doyon, Diane Golden and Tam Weber}. PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB t~OR 2000- Doug Cahill - Jan-Apr. 5, '00 - Apr-Jun 'l)0 - Jul-Sep '00 - Oct-Dec `00 12. Approval of March 13, 2040 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 a# Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 4i9-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notificatron. Please call 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, far infarmatian. Community Development Department ~~ J 3 ,~ • • IVIEIYIORANDUM TQ: planning and Environmental Commission l=RC1M: Community Development Department DATE; March 27, 20x0 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow far the establishment of a major arcade at the Vail Transportation Center, located at 241 E. Meadow DriveNail Transportation Center. Applicant: H.J. Hyde, Jr, Planner. Brent Wilson I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION O~ THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing the establishment of a video game arcade within an existing vacant office space on the fourth level of the Vail Transportation Genter (TRC}. The TRC is zoned "General Use" and "major arcades" (mare than 4 video games) are an allowed conditional use wi#hin the zone district. The applicant's proposal involves the placement of 6 video games at this lacation_ The property is owned by the Town of Vail and leased through the Vaii Transportation. Department. II. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES -CONDITIONAL USE I~ERMIIT Qrder of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PE~C for acceptability of rise and then by the DFi'B for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Cammission: Action; The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CtlP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, panics and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic f6ow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. • 4, Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the ,proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors. and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter ~2 of this Title. Conformance with developmen# standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height Density - GRFA - Site coverage - Landscape area - Parking and loading - Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Aaron: The DRB has NO review aufhority on a CUP, but must reviewv any accompanying DRB application. Staff: The staff is responsible far ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform. to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff proviaes a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Councilor by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission apprave the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the establishment of a major arcade at the Vail Transportation Center, based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.. 2 r~ ~J 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IV. REflUIRED CRITERIA AN17 FINDINGS - CONDITI~ONAt_ 'USE PERMIT A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development obiectives of the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan places a "Semi-PublicNillage Master Plan" designation on this property. This designation includes "...municipal facilities and other public institutions which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents." Additional village-area land use considerations are addressed in the Vail Village Master Pfan. The Vail Village Master Plan identifies appropriate uses on the property as "`...public and charter bus parking, transportation facilities and a limited amount of office and retail activity." Staff believes this proposed use is a compatible accessory to the estabEished use (transportation center) on the site. Additionally, the proposed use would provide entertainment to bus users and income to the Town of Vail. Staff believes this use is compatible with the Town's. development objectives. • 2. The effect of the use on lioht and air. distribution of population. transportation facilities. utilities, schools. Darks and recreation facilities, and ether public facilities needs. Staff does not believe this use would have any negative impacts upon the above-listed facilities. 3. Effect upon traffic with~articui~r reference to congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flaw and control. access. maneuverability. and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 8t is anticipated that the primary patrons of the proposed arcade will be bus riders. Staff does not believe this use would have any negative impacts upon the above-listed facilities. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located. including the scale and bulk of the oroaosed use in relation to surrounding uses. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the bulk, mass or location of the existing building. • E3. FINDINGS The Planning and 'Environmental Commission shall make the failowina findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 3 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zvnin~ code. r1 4 • Proposal for Video Game Raom in Vail 1"ransportation Center 1. Relationship ~ Impact -Will provide entertainment far Town of Vail bus patrons -Will provide income stream for Town of Vail 2. Effect an light ~ air -none 3. Effect on traffic -none 4. Effect on the character of the area - -Positive effect -Alleviate boredom -Keep waiting patrons bud • • ~i ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ _. r - - _ ~ --- -- . -_ ~ ~ ~,-Q" _~_ ~ ~'-~ EkPAN5i0M JOINT I - - - ~ ~~ rf `~ ~~ i~ . - ~ x,13 cj..l (V _ ~~ - ~~ M ~I .`JI I ~~ ~ ~, ' .-~ ~ I' ! `~ _1• G ~-. 401 S (y-_ G• +, _ ~ ~~ ~~ i /. ~ _ _~ - ~- ~ ~ L r._ _ _ _ r -~ VE a2 ~ 402 j ~ =- ! ! IC~•Ck ! I A ~~ CORRIDOR ~ I ~-- $ ! `~' T~ a. ~ VEST_ _; I-- f 422 ~ ~ ~ ~ 404 ~~ ~ ~ 405 ~ ¢ 5 ~2,~a ~#r~i~. STAIR 13 - ~_ __ _ -__.J_ ! sTAIl~ ~ ~ f ~' ~ - - / _ ~ f 9r ~ - - .~~ - f.. __ - - - J..~ ~,, ~ WAlT ~ ~ : - - - -_-_ ~ i ~4os~ I VEST. ~i ~ !_ 40~ ~~~~ I~S~ C I- :~~Ifr•2.-~ EC~V ~ ELJ=V ~ . ~.0~' ~ 405 ~ 490 j '"- L~ ~_ y ~~ ~I I! ~ "T f ., EMSI~Ai~I;~:~YSTEI'v1 {WP1Vf) ;PRIOR TO PLACING NEW daTED THUSLY ~/, MEitr1SJ~ANE AT SLAB T© PAGE BENEATH, EXPEND 'LNG LINE OF ENCLOSING ~i ~~ - ~~ ~ f ~~ ~. . ©t ~ `~ _ /~~ ~ ~, ~ , .`, ~~, 3, i 1 J,r,~ x+31 ~ MEMC3RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Developmen# DATE: March 27, 2040 SUBJECT: A request for final review of proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay- in-lieu policy and proposed #ext amendments to Chapter 12-90, Town Cade. Planner: Brent Wilson BrACKCRf7UNl1 AN17 l3ESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST PEC Update: On February 94"', the PEC conceptually reviewed the propased changes to the Town's "parking pay-in-lieu" policy and provided specific direction to staff. Staff has completed the applicable maps (based an the PEG"s comments) and is requesting final review of this proposal today. In conjunction with the propased "special review" option for properties not identified far pay-in-lieu applicability within the commercial core areas, staff has developed review criteria to be used in the evaluation of such requests. Applicants requesting special review for parking-pay-lieu applicability shall demonstrate compliance with the objectives outlined in the Vaii Village Master Plan or the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and the pedestrianizatian, vehicle penetration and streetscape framework objectives outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, as referenced in the amended code excerpt (Attachment "A"). These concepts and objectives are attached for reference. Proposed changes to the program are indicated an the attached maps and revised cads text. History of the Program The Town's zoning code has allowed far certain exemptions from on-site parking requirements since 9973. In 9982, 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 pragrarn'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 infili development and redevelopment. Currently, all properties that are zoned CCI, GCII or LHMU-9 {Vail Village and Lionshead) have the ability to participa#e in the Town's pay-in-lieu program -regardless of their location. The PEC and Vail Town Council have expressed a desire to re- evaluate the program in an effort to promote the original goals outlined in the Vail Village and Lionshead Design Guide Plans.. Staff has reviewed the applicability of the program to each affected property and is requesting final review from the PEC. The propased z^ Page 9 or3 ~~``~ r:~.c~r~~xvo~v~:^,[~~:~-,,~e~ic~s~oo~N~ii?.aoc T~-W~wOFVAYL revisions are based upon the following observations: The current "pay-in-lieu" 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 or no impact on 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, far example) exhibit some or all of the characteristics outlined for pedestrian zones under the original program. Certain properties that have direct vehicular access within the core areas should pay-in-lieu. The Gasthof Gramshammer, for example, has direct vehicular access along Gore Creek []rive -one of Vail's primary pedestrian zones (the Town has approved on-site parking on this property). Staff believes the pay-in-lieu option would be preferable aver on-site parking at that location given the pedestrian- oriented nature of Gore Creek Drive.. 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATIQN' Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to the following findings: That the proposed code amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposed amendments are in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Vail t_and Use Phan and all other applicable master planning documents. 3. That the health, safety, welfare and interests of the community are being met by the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendments. RO{-ES 01= THE REVIEWING BQARDS Planning and !Environmental Commission: Action: The ,PEC is advisory to the Town Gaurrcil. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation 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 community. • P~$~ ? ~t ~ F:',F, V E RYUN L:U'LLII'~l E YEDS1{J©1PP [1.2. DDC Staff:, The staff is responsible for ensuring that afl 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 Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approvaUdenial 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 Review Board: Action: The DRB has ND review a~rthority on code amendments. lll. FINDINGS A synopsis of staff and PEC findings are outlined in the attached maps. Large versions of the maps will be on display at the March 13`h PEC meeting. Proposed text amendments (Chapter 12-10, Tawn of Vail Coded are included as Appendix A". Additional proposed changes include: An amendmenf 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 those projects that truly warrant consideration for the program, while the traditional variance process will still be available for all other 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 far properties within the core areas. • ~~.,~~ ~ ~,s~3 F~,IEVLRI'C7N13\P1;C'.I~EEM(]5\OOIPPIL2.DOC APPENDIX "A" -PROP©SED TEXT AMENDMENTS Added text is shown in bold and underlined type; deleted text is shown in~-i fype ~2-10-16; EXEMPT AREAS; PARKING FUND 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 to exempting any area from the off street parking and loading requirements, the Council shall determine the following! 1. Tha# the exemp#ion is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption wilt not confer ar~y 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. That the exemp#ion 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 of adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and for 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: I:~ Co~.m~mn~^~~, 1, C~~;wi Csrc_', w~~ai ! i~r~t,~r.tl P~i- ~~ 1 ~~,~.~.~,, rtii~nrtre..,w -,.,.,~~~r.te ProQerties located in the Lionshead and Vail Viilaae care areas fas delineated on the town's "Vail Village Parkiinq Pav-in-Lieu Zone" and "Lianshead Parkins Pav-in-Lieu Zone" mans) shall be efiaihle for consideration to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established, for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking. Certain properties are located in areas delineates! as "special review applicabilatv." These properties are subject to the criteria located in subsection °`C" of this section. 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 and/or loading areas, the owner or applicant shall pay to the Tawn the parking fee hereinafter required. 1. The Parking Fund established in this Section shelf 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 bands or other indebtedness far parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking, 2~ 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 or general improvement district is formed and assessmen#s levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the 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,OC10.Oq) per space. This fee shall be automatically increased annually by the percentage the Consumer Price Index of the Gity of Denver has increased over each successive year. 5. For additions ar 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 or 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 (5} year period. If the latter course is taken, the first payment shall be paid on or before the date the building permit is issued. Four (4} more annual payments will be due to the Town on the anniversary of the building permit. Interest of ten percent (10%} per annum shall be paid by the applicant on the unpaid balance. If the owner or applicant does choose to pay the fee over a period of time, he or she shall b~: required to sign a promissory note which describes the total fee due, the schedule of payments, and the interest due. Promissory note forms are available at the offices of the Department ofi Community Development. 7. When a fractional. number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (Sec#ion 1 ~-10-1 a 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. 1 Q(1994) ~ 1: Ord. 6(1991 } § 1. Ord. 3d(1982} § 1: Ord. 47(1979) ~ 1: Ord. 8(1973} ~ 14.8Q0) C. S~aecial Review: Anu nroQerkv within the Vail Village yr ~Lionsheat! commercial core areas fas defined on the Town's "Core Area Parkins Schedule" mans. incorQOrated by reference) that is not eligible for the "pav-in-lieu" option may apply tp the Town°s Planning and Environmental Commission far "special review" in order to provide rerauired parking aff- site pursuant to the brovisians of this title. Aanlicants reauestina special review for parking-aav-lieu aaplicability shall demonstrate compliance with the abiectives outlined in the Vail Village Master' Plan or the Lionshead. Redevelopment Master Plan and the pedestrianization, vehicle penetration. and streetscape framework obiectivRS outlined in the Vail Village Urban, Design Guide Plan. 12-10-18: VARIANCES: ~" J ~'~ ~~~ri~r,-~, ,.,M:..~, s~ n~w~^tr~ ti,~ r~,~r •1 ~i ~~i,: Tile--~h~Jl ~a rJ~ {~J V1, ~.±r~~fIV~ ~r~~~. ~~I\.,~ ~'~ 1-...~f~~ GY3GC~l7Trr"i--~c c~}::.`,~. -\-~ I tr- ~-6-~-thi~ Ch~~.,+ r rnr.~ ~n~~) ~ 11). Variances from the provisions o#. this chapter shall follov~ the procedures set Earth in Title 12. Chapter 17 of this Code. • A r~ } ~U f f Il ~ ~ `~~ ~y ~ i P _ ~! ~ I i' ' ~ ~ I u~ Vr.AI`~M'Ti ~ ~y'l l( ~ +~\ ~ ~ r I ~ ~2 :/1 /W~ JJ ~ ~ ~ k /ai ~ ~a, ~ ~ i F i r' 1' ~~ ~~ !' sj ~ Jr° Ott i~„j~`~~`.. { ` Jy~7, f r r ~~~ 1 r_ , ~,~ t 1 ~ 1 '~ /~ 1''1 t x ;iii '_ `~'.~, I~,~-..~.~--~~ ~ ~n r / ~I ~' 1 ~'~9,`V~~ a..~.. M1' ,~\ ~r71 ry `'~ Ili ~. y ~ ~y~ 1,,~ ~ ~ f ~ 4 9 1 ~ PV '~ a 1 ~~ ~, li ~ Il 1,11 .tt ~~ ~~ ,:'~'; s ~~'~ _\ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~.~ _ +1 ~ ~~, it ~ s ~ a ~ d ~ +~ ~ ~~~" 4~i~ 'f ~' 1. 1 ~. } ~ •~ 1 %~ !' r~'r Y;/ ~c ' +I '~ , a l ~,~`/1 a : i 1~ a 1~, r / ~ ! ~ ~ ' ~. • <~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ , e ~ '~~ ; Vi'i' ~~ r~~ i 7 r- ~ .~ { i , n. ~ r s j E / / -~ ` ~e~ i I ~ ~ ~~ l+ ++~ ~ 1 . E l !~~ /// y~l ~ -lam ] `~,/~ -I L/L~ J H_ \~ ~! ~~~ - 'I i ~ _ ~~i ~ x ~ ~i I ~' v ~ ~ i ~ ~ L ~w ~ ~ •1 ,ti i _ 1 x,,11 ~~ i 111,,,~~~ €, 's `, ~ ~ ~_~~ / ~ _ r7,~'l4 ' } ~~~ a aY ~ ~ ? _,~ r ~.~ C - , i ` ~ ~',, ~, =~ a~ q, ~-r-1 ~ °`' i ~ i ~ ,fit, ~~~-- ~ ~~~~,1~, `~ s . ~~~~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ , ~ LLB V ! ~ _ (/ /./ ~ '~ w ~A 0 ` ` i ~ `t ~~~-~,~~y as v.eorrsu~~ `" `• A ~ ~~ t ~~ ~`- ~, it i ~_____ • ~ L/ i a^ ~/ ~w vT+RS s ~ ~~~~~~~~ 1 ~~~~ P~nESr~lAr~i~Ariarr Ali r~ew or expansion construction should anticipate the appropriate level of pedestrianization adjacent to the site. A major ab3ective far Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected ne±wark of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many cif the improvements recognized in the ilr~ian .Design Guide ~l ans , and accompanying Design Gonsideratinns, are to reinforce and expand the quality to pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets bus routes, delivery access} a totally car-free pedestrian system is not achieveable throughout the entire 'Village. therefore several Jewels of pedestrianizatian are proposed: 1. pedestrian-only streets ~1 s t a raic~k mne~ ~.q . ~~ , _ + + _~ l~ `~ -' Z, pedestrian streets witch • limited delivery traffic- with sufficient width far unimpeded pedestrian S walking 3. separated pedestrian walks where street width and , traffic rolume (trucks, shuttle hus, etc) preclude- . joint vehicle/pedestrian use of the roadway 4, primary vehicular rautes- minimal pedestrian develfl pment confined to wide shoulder, sidewalk, or separate pathway. -.The Framew©rk Circulation Plan, and ~~sub-area Guide Plans designate the specific type of street develop- ment desired for n~ajar streets in Pail Pillage. • ~at~. '~ . E ~~~~~ F ~d5 `' ~ ~i J 2Z' .. ~~, ~~a~ ~;1~ :_. ~~`~ka i~' ~~ .1 ,' ~ C`l F ;~ ~ ::::~' ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ i r I 1: ' ~ S ' ' 8 ~ ~ 1Q LZ , 2 VF!~ICLL FF?~FTRATIflN To the maximum extent passible. all ncrn-resident traffic should be muted along tJ~g Frontage Road to Yai1 Yziiagej Yai7 LiQrrsHead parking structures. i C~r~ft~Lfro~ -~ Jnii+~~li~ ~riC~#rdn - ~~ ~~Q ~~I1a~,e ~T~~G G~~'l~~~A~~ ~ G' ton5fr~f+ons fo txr~rrLf o~f~ ~ 7v rrs+~e~~ ~~ vice ~ c~~~ ~~ ~~~~ 1n Gonjs~nction with pedestrianization -~jective5, major errrphasis is focussed u}aon reducing auto penetration into the center of tt~e Pillage. Vail Road ar~d Vai 1 ilal ley Drive wi 1 i continue -#,~ serve as tie major routes far service and resident access to tfie Yi]lage. Road constrlct~ons, traffic circies, signage, and other measures are indicated in The Guide Plans to visually and ptrysically discourage al i but essential vet~i c1e penetration beyond the Frontage Road. Alter-native access points and private parking relocation, where feasihie, should be considered to further' reduce traffic conflicts in the Yiliage. C. S i RFL i SCAP~ FRRMF~Jt?RK 7o improve the quaiity of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two genera] types 'of improve- menu adjacent try the walkways are considered: ] . Open space 14 i andscaping - "" - ~ berms, grass, f7r~wers and ~ 1 tree planting as a soft, -" colorfu] frarne~rark l~kage ' - 1 ~ r a l o~ ~destri an routes ; - ~ and ~azas and park green - _ _ ~- spaces-mss open. nodes and - focn]_.point5 along those _ routes. - _ T -. r 2_ infil'~ camrr~erti~al storefronts - "~""~ expansion of existing buildings, ar new infilT development to create new commercial activity generators to give street life and visual interest, as attrac- tions at key locations slang pedestrian roui:es. ~_. 3 ~; ' , Via} I ,~ I I ~ +1 ~lr f I 4` I~ I ~~' I'f i h f ' I '~ ~I ~ ~ I '~~ l.i i. cr f ~. !`e !~ ir'~~=~.~ J a~/r_~ ~~~fl ir+ i~ltttf=~ ~ ~l 1~1 ~1 - l ~' ~~~~~~ r ~~r / ~ ~ , ~ 7 I ` . 1 I ~ ~ ~t~ ~`~~ ~ A 1 ~\A I ~~+~,r i:~ /rely ~~~~ ~j. { ~L#'~ ~ ', k'k .~`. ,II 1~ , `~,\~`~~`.~ ~\ ~ l \ \ ' b I'~ II 11 ~' ~ r r al `" ~ ~ t {+: f~~ ,s` ti fit, .- ~ t~tt _t~,"+ ~__~, ~r T_ ` ~ _1 f~ I ii _~ ` ,~-A~\~ _- • ,1 ~~ rl 1. r - ~ ~ ~- r ~~ ~ ~ `~ .~ ,. 3 I n l ~ re , r L ~~ . i 1~ ,. - i . I IJ I I (~~ Y e f I ~ ,n k ~' ~ ~ +~, `f ~~ ~ _ ! ~ I r } ` ~ .t ~~ ~~ ' F t ~ ,~~ ~ ~ r 1 l r" ill ~~ ~~Ij ~~~ t ~~°~ '~ ~~ ,l~ll~'~~ ~/~,, / ,% (~ `~~`~,~~~'~: '~ ~`~ I., f~ h.~ ~ '~•`~'~~ r~ ~,~`1 /,/~/,lit,",`r~ II' I14 ~ r~' '`I ~I t ... _ ~ ~~I r - f ~ JL~ 11 ~ ~ /'~ {{ ~ ~' ~Ji` ~//I F/r//ltk ~,ya~/ ~ ~. ~~ ~ -,L. ~ "` ~'.,~ 1"!1 ~ ~ti ~ ~ _ J ~ <~~ ~~~ ~ ~^ ' /~ ~ ~ ~ Jr ~r - ~1 ~l r ~ am~ ,~ _ Ih,l G ~ ` l _ j 1. f,l~ f~ Il~ I~ , , ~ r ~ r~" ~ ~ `~ ~_ 1. ~ f ( 1,. I ~.r,S <1/j~ ` I~ ~^ i l,~f ~ . '~ ~ ~f~~ I ~~~~r iy ~ ~~ / , ~, ~` ~~ ~ / !1 r Ih -,~ a r ` ~ it 1 I ~{s ~ ~"- r~ d~t l ~ \/ a°!, V f ! / ` ` ,r ~~ e` ~ _ l I~ I II - ~~ y '~, '~. \ ~~~ ~ L.' '~`~~~I' ~~~-., \V~ S~ o rIl' T ~ }/f_J I~ 1~~4 ~~5-~ L `~ ~ '~h r' ~ `~/ jjj~,,,kkk.... ,! I~I1I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ' ` Q h ~~ ,~ t, ~ ~' t~g [ y S ~~ '~ ,, ~ ; ~,I~ v~ti. .,y~ s r ~yl~_s ~~~1~-r~~f~'l{ ~ I all 1~ ! I~ ~ I y ~ IiS ~ [ y~_i ~,_, !7 K" r _~ r, ~ ~ }~}I~ 7:r ~ ~{~l~~.l~~M~~~ 7F fi.,,. _ m h i it k ~ lVl,~~~n.1~ ~'7 ~i. k3 (~ ~ ~• .. ti. 1,-~s- ~~ ' "i `` ~_ I ~r / ~r~. +y 1 ~ 1'~ 1 I ~1 ~ u. iL ` a .- ~~i ir.t.~''._ ~- `v1~~.-', ~~ ie ~f~l ~4 ~~ .Ir- '~'f d- _ '!///%(lll~lr~~+~;~~r'1~,ir~ ~ I~r ~t.. ~i ~ .a~~a:~ rt o. C~'~~i..'X~. i~r. ' r.~:r 1, .~f./~~.!/T77~r/I//.;e.al. {i.l ~1 ~1 !~I ~~~'I±~ ~IJ~r I ~~ ~++I~r ~ti + }~ (} (~~y ~, E ' i { -C1 I ~: MEMC3RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: March 27, 20Q4 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of the Town of Vail's Core Area Parking Analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-1 d, Town of Vail Code. Planner: Brent Wilson 1. BACKGRC]UND AND DESCRIPTION OF TWE REQUEST PEC Upda#e: On February 14"', the PEC conceptually reviewed the proposed amendments to the Town's parking regulations and voiced the following concerns: • Private aarkina generation vs. public day skier parking demand. -Although the PEC acknowledged a desire to amend the parking requirements far private businesses within Vail's commercial core areas in order to provide an incentive for redevelopment and mare accurately reflect actual parking generated, the commission was generally wary about relaxing private parking requirements without any planned additions of day skier parking -especially given the recent expansion of the ski area. Staff resaanse: The purpose of this study is to examine the parking demand generated by individual businesses in the care areas. This proposal would amend the zoning regulations to limit the required parking for private businesses in core areas to what they generate based an land use and square footage. We believe day skier parking issues should be addressed by the Town of Vaii and Vail Resorts as a separate agreement on skier parking demands. The Town is currently working with a consultant to address management and paten#ial additions of day skier parking within the town. An overview of this day skier parking analysis is being presented to the Tawn Council on March 21St and the study should be completed in June of this year. Staff believes i# would be inappropriate to require local businesses to be burdened by day skier parking demands. ^ Identifying where existing aarkina is underutilized -the PEC expressed. a concern that existing privately-held parking spaces are frequently used inefficiently. • Staff resQOnse -based on conversations with property managers and developers around town (as well as field observations}, we believe parking. for residential condominiums and accommodation units has been aver-assessed within core areas in the past, Many properties in town (Village Center condos, the Antlers, the Austria Haus) have under-utilized on site parking facilities. The fact that privately-held spaces are under-utilized supports the argument that the Tawn is aver-assessing Page 3 orb ..~. ,~, ~.~~-•f~ S anwun~• ti,~ri I~ businesses in the two commercial core areas. Please refer to the attached letter from Rob Levine (Antlers) an this issue. ^ Residential parking reauirements -the PEC expressed concerns that the proposed residential dwelling unit parking requirement is too low Staff response -Major factors that influence parking demand for dwelling units in the core areas include: parking turnover ratios, alternate sources of kransportation and variable occupancy rates. Given the fact that almost three-fourths of the dwelling units in Vail are held by absentee owners, staff believes peak dwelling unit occupancies within the core areas rarely, if ever, approach 1r~0%. When the consultant examined parking generation by dwelling units within Vaii, he factored in the use of shuttle services, the proximity of the airport, and skier visitation patterns. ^ A chance in calculation methadoloov from net floor area to cross floor area -the PEC expressed a concern that businesses would be assessed a greater parking requirement based on the use of grass floor area calculations. Staff response -all proposed parking requirements have been adjusted based on this methodolgy with no increases proposed due to calculation methodology. Since the changes are from net floor area to gross floor area, the actual change in parking requirements is a slight reduction. History of the arogosal During the summer of 1999, the Town hired the firm of Felsburg, Holt 8~ Ullevig to conduct an in-depth analysis of parking generation in Vail's commercial core areas. The primary purpose of the study was to determine the influence of external factors (mixed uses, transit(pedestrian trips, hourly variations in business activity) an 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 Vaii Village and Lionshead to provide on-site parking and the Town's $17,917 per space parking pay-in-lieu fee, staff realized a need to produce a more realistic assessment of parking generation in these areas. ®ver the past six months, the consultant examined data involving a number of factors influencing parking generation in Vail 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 model 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 1V of this memorandum. It is important to note these recommendations are applicable only to those properties. that exhibit. the characteristics outlined above (mixed uses, transitJpedestrian 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. r r:,~.~ _,~t ~, ~:.... ~ .... r . ~ r, rn,. r,• e r-. nr~^~ n n r. * nnr~.r5R5 U U 1! i :r` Chl^ Tlnf' I!. ROLL=S C)F THE REVIi=WING 13~ARDS Planning and Environmental Commission:. Action: The PEC is advlsary to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation 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 community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that ail 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 Council: Action: The Town Caurrci! !s responsible for finat approval/derrr"at an code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes far consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authnrlty an code amendments. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the proposed code amendments to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to the following findings: 1. That the proposed code amendments further the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposed amendments are in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Vail Land Use Plan and all other applicable master planning documents. 3. That the health, safety, welfare and interests of the community are being met by the adoption and implementation of the proposed code amendments. IV. FINDINGS The following table is a summary of the consultant's recommended parking rates for specif c 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. Pa~e3otb .......-,<-.~,..r~.:r.nisn.rr.,. nr.•r~~~ennnc~nn:onrf r:r:~a17 f1{1P' Table 2.7 -Current and Suggested Aarking 14ates (Commercial Care Areas Only) Land Use Residential" Hotel**` Conference Facility General Retaii""* ~ Offce*** Restaurant BanklFinance*** Current Requirement 2.0+ spaceslunit 1.0 spaceslunit 1 space ! 8 seats 3.33 spaces 1 KSF 4 spaces 1 KSF 1 space 18 seats 5 spaces 1 KSF Suggested Requirement 1.4 spaceslunit 0.7 spaceslunit 1 space 1 11 seats 2.3 spaces l KSF 2.7 spaces 1 KSF 1 space / 12 seats 3.7 spaces /KSF increaselaecrease 30% decrease` 30% decrease** 37.5% decrease 30% decrease*"* 32.5% decrease*~"" 50% decrease 26% decrease**# Assumes an average unif size of 5(?0-'1,999 square feet. Currently Includes timeshares and FFU's. ** Assumes an accommodation unit size of at leasf X00 square feet. Current requirement is Q.4 spaceslunit, plus 0.1 spaceleach X00 square feet of GRFA, wifh a max.of 9.0 space/unif. For parking purposes, timeshareslFFU's will be considered as AU's. **'" Involves a change In calculation from "net floor area" to 'gross floor area." "`K5F" ~ 1,000 square feef l=~r 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 Parking foe 1997 Vail Villaae Club Proposal Retail = 3,594 sq. f#. - Off ce = 94 sq. ft. _ RestaurantlClub W 5,7'17 sq. ft. {381 seats) Total = Grand Total 11.98 parking spaces 0.38 parking spaces 47.64 parking spaces 60.00 parking spaces -27 (grandfathered spaced'" 33.00 parkins spaces aav-in-lieu Hypothetical Required Parkins far Vail Villao_e Club Under Proposed Parkins 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 -27 (grandfathered spaced'` Grand Total = 13.26 parkino spaces pay-in-lieu This represents a difference of 19.74 pay-in-lieu spaces or $353,680.79 (based on current pay- in-lieu rates). C • • Pale ~ of 6 • V Parking Availability Ta61e 2.2 -Parking Availabiiify by Lncatiara I_acatianiType Private Lionshead Spaces ~Pubiic Lionshead Spaces Private Vail Village Spaces Public Vail Village Spaces __ _ Natal Available Spaces # of Percent of Total paces 995 21 1,saD 28°~° 1228 - - 26 12DD 28% 4,723 100%° About 47°f° of the available parking in Vail Village and Lionshead is supplied privately. The vast majority of these privately-held spaces are devoted to residential uses. DISCUSS101V ITEMS Overall, the consultant's recommended parking rates represent a 31 % reduction (including a slight reduction due to the change from net to gross floor area calculations} in the amount of required parking for private uses in Vail Village and Lionshead compared to our current regulations. Table 3.1 -Current versus Proposed Parking Requirements Land Use Quantity Current Requirement Residential Units 2,148 units 3,222 Retail 151,478 sf 504 jRestaurant 82,127 sf 257 Office 45,000 sf ~ 18D MBank 2,460 sf 12 Total Required ~ ~ 4,175 spaces Recommended Requirement 2,235 351 1SD 125 9 2,~ao As depicted in Table 2.2, there are about 4,723 total parking spaces in Vail Village and Lionshead. I# 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 2,5D0 public parking spaces in the core areas to serve day skiers and their associated trips ~- with another 250 spaces outside the core areas at Fard Park. Pav-in-Geu Sites - aQ^licability 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 Pane ~ of G proximity of core area properties to publiclprivate roads in an effort tQ determine the most appropriate areas far the pay-in-lieu option. A detailed analysis of this issue will be presented to the PEC and Council concurrent with #his item. • • Pagc G ~3ffi 6 . r fL~ ! i I~~ ~~ i -vr ~ ' rr~ 1: -, ;r, ri ~l ,; ^~ ~ y i"r, i r r rl ~' l ;' i , , j ~1 El i >> F ,, ~% ,, ~ I'' 1 ~/ ~~ _ ~'~ ' ,~ :_~ __,~\' urn '~~..~ r~, r • L rr~ ~.~J f :'. • • • ~7'i ~~ .~ ~ ~ 4~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ,a -~ Q cu 0 t~ _ ~~~~~~ ~, ~,~ ~ ~ ~~_ ,~ ~~ ,, ~, ~~ ~' J1 ~ ~ i i ~ l+ ~~ lI ~'r~'~ r; ~f ;~ l~ ,,~ ~\ ,~ ~• v 0 U c6 .~ ~: • APPENDIX: "A°, CHAPTER 1U OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOAQING SECTION: Added text is shown in ,bold and underlined type; deleted text is shown in ~ type 12-10-1; Purpose 12-1 Q-2: Applicability 12-10-3: Existing Facilities 12-1 p-4: Additions Or Changes 12-1D-5: Construction And Maintenance 12-10-6: Parking; Off-Site And ,faint Facilities 12-1 Q-7: Standards; Authority Ta Adjust 12-1a-8; Parking Standards 12-1 d-9: Loading Standards 12-10-10: Parking Requirements Schedule 12-10-11: Parking Schedule Applicability 12-10-12: Credit Far Multiple Use Parking Facilities 12-1D-13: Loading Requirements Schedule 12-10-14: Loading Schedule Applicability 12-1Q-15: Credit Far Multiple-Use Loading Facilities 12-1 [J-16: Exempt Areas; Parking Fund Established 12-1 D-17: Leasing Of Parking Spaces 12-10-18: Variances 12-10-1: PURPOSE: In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congest%on and shortage of on-street parking areas, off-street parking and loading facilities shall 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 Go the need far 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 or carport structures. {Ord. 26{1982} § 1: Ord. 19(1976) ~ 12: Ord. ${1973) § 14.10Q}. 12-10,2: APPLICABILITY: Oft-street parking and loading space shall be provided for any new building, for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or for any conversion of uses which requires additional parking under this Chapter. {Ord. 26{19$2) § 2: Ord. 19(1976) § 12: Ord. ${1973) ~ 14.2x0}. 12-1fl-3: EXISTING FACILITIES: Off-street parking and loading facilities used for off-street 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 to less than the minimum standards prescribed in this Chapter. {Ord. 26(19$2) § 3: Ord. 19(1976) ~ 12: Ord. ${1973) § 14.201) 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, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use. (Ord. 19(1976) ~ 12: Ord. ${1973) § 14.202) 12-1fl-5: CONSTRl1CTlON ANf~ MAINTENANCE: All off-street parking and loading facilities required by this Chapter shall be.constructed and maintained in accordance with the minimum standards for 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 in#ent of this Chapter, except for temporary periods of short duration in event of heavy or unusual snowfall. (ord. 8(1973) § 14.300) 12-90-6: PARKING; OFF-SITE AND JQINT FACILITIES: All parking and loading facilities 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 facilities if located within three hundred feet (300') of the use served. Authority to permit off-site orjoint parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by this Title to be located within the main building on a site, but may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior to permitting off-site orjoint parking facilities, the Council shall determine that the prcposed location of the parking facilities 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 unified 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. 81973) ~ 14.400) 12-10-7: STANDARDS; AUTHORITY TO ADJUST: Parking standards shall be those 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 loading 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 ~:enerally recognized design standards far off-street parking and loading facilities. (Ord. 8(1973) ~ 14.500) 12-10-9: L©ADING 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 ser*red, 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. U. Size: Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve feet wide: twenty Five feet long, and if enclosed and/or covered,. fourteen feet high (12" x 25' x 14'). Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be provided within the lot lines. C, Access: Accessways not less than ten feet {10'~ or more than twenty fee# {20') in width shall connect. all loading berths to a street 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 fallowing schedule; • • A. The following schedule applies to properties within Vaii's "Commercial Core Areas" (as defined on the Town of Vail Commercial Core Area Parking Zones Map, incorporated by reference). Use D lli U it ._ -_ - i Parking Requirement i we ng n 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit ~ Accommodation Unit 0.7 spaces per accommadation unit Hotels with Convention Faciiities ~ 0.7 spaces per accommodation unit, plus 1.0 space per 11 seats devoted to a meetingllecture seating !Banks and Financial Institutions ~__ (Eating and Drinking Establishments Hospitals ~__.___ Medical and Dental Offices Clther Professianai and Business Offices I Quick-Service Food !Convenience Stores Recreational Facilities, Public or Private - AthleticlGym '~ General Retail St©res, Personal Servi Shops - furniture Stare -Art Gallery Grocery Stare Meeting Rooms, Convention Facilities IVlovie Theaters Any Use Nat Listed ~. - 3.7 spaces per 1,000 grass square feet 1.0 space per 12 seats 1.0 space per patient bed plus 1 space per 150 square feet of grass t1oar area ~.7 spaces per 1,000 gross square fee# 2.7 spaces per 1,000 gross square €ee# 5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and En~rironmental Commission Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission 2.3 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet ~~ 1.0 space per 1 1 seats -w-~ ~ 1.0 space per Sseats Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission For the purposes pf ealculatina parkins reaiairemPnt.s, timeshare units. fractional fee units, and other forms of interval ownership units are considered "accommadation units." • B. The following schedule wiil apply to properties outside Vaii`s ~`Cammercial Care Areas" (as defined an the Town of Vaii CorrirnerciaE Core Area Parking Zones Map, incorporated by reference): Use (Dwelling Unit. If gross residential floor area is 500 square feet ar less: If gross residential Hoar area is over 500 square feet up to 2,000 square feet: If gross residential floor area is 2,D00 square feet or more per dwelling unit: (Accommodation Unit Banks and Financial institutions Eating and Drinking Establishments Hospitals Parking Requirement 1.5 spaces per unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit; 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit 0.4 space per accommodation unit., plus 0.1 space per each 1 DD square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1.0 space per unit 1 space per 200 gross square feet 1 space per 8 seats 1 space per patient bed, plus 1 space per 150 square feet of gross Hoar area Medical and Dental Offices ~ 1 space per 200 gross square feet Other Professional and Business Offices ~ 1 space per 250 gross square feet Quick-Service Food ! Convenience Stores 1,0 space per each 2DD square feet of gross floor area for the first 1,ODD square feet of gross floor area: 1.D space per 300 square feet for gross floor area above 1,000 square feet Recreational Facilities, Public or private- ~ Parking requirements to be determined by the i Planning and Environmental Commission - AthieticlGym 4,5 spaces per 1,DOD grass square feet General Retail Stores, Personal Services and Repair 1 space per 3DD grass square feet Shops -Furniture Store _......._.. 1.5 spaces per 1,ODD gross square feet Art Gallery - Grocery Store Gas 5tation* - with automotive service -with sit down dining Theaters, Meeting Rooms, Convention Facilities Any Use Not Listed 1.5 spaces per 1,ODD gross square feet 3.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet space per pump 1 space per pump + 3 spaces per bay 1 space per pump + 1 space per 8 seats 1.0 space per 8 seats Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission *Total vehicle storage on site rnav not exceed 150%, of the minimum required aarkinq. For the purposes of calculating narking rPCauirements. timeshare units. fractional fee units, and other forms of interval ownership units are considered "accorr~madation units," fDrd. 26(1982) ~ 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.601). 12-1t1-11: PARKING SCHEDULE 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; CREDIT FOR MULTIPLE USE PARKING FAC1L17lES: A. Ataplicability: This schedule will apply to those properties which lie outside the Town's commercial core {as defined on the Town of Vail Commercia! Care Area Parking Zones Map, incorporated by reference}. The credit for mul#iple uses is not available to those properties utilizing the core area parking schedule," B. Multiple Use Credit Schedule; Where a single parking facility serves more than one use, the total parking requirement far all uses may be reduced in accordance with the following schedule: Total Requirement Permitted Reduction Determined Per Ta Determine Multiple Section 12-10-10 Use Parking Requirement 1 to 100 spaces No 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 000 spaces 20.0 percent 901 to 1,000 spaces over 1,000 spaces 22.5 percent 25.0 percent (Ord. 8(1973} ~ 14.603} 12-14.3: LOADING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE: Off-street loading requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedule Use Lodges with over ' 0,000 square feet total floor area, including accessory uses within the lodge Loading Requirement One loading berth for uses up to 75,000 square feet total area, Pius 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 gross residential floor area Professional and business offices, banks. and financial institutions wi#h over 10,000 square feet total floor area Retail stores, personal services, repair shops, eating and drinking establishments and all other commercial or service uses with over 2,000 square feet total floor area Any use listed as a conditional use Any use not listed, if such use required the recurring receipt or distribu#ion of Coods or equipment lay truck (Ord. 8(1973} ~ 14.701} One loading berth for uses up to 100,000 square feet gross residential floor area, plus one additional berth for each 50,000 square feet gross residential floor area in excess of 100,000 square feet One loading berth One loading berth for uses up to 10,000 square feet total floor area, plus one additional berth for each 5,000 square feet. total floor area in excess of 10,000 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 loading berth, plus additional berkhs prescribed by the Town Council upon determination of need • 12-10-14: LLIADING SCHEDULE 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 FO#~ MULTIPLE-USE LOADING I`ACILfTIES: Where a single off-street loading facility serves more than orre use, the number of off-street loading berths may be reduced in accordance with the following scl~edule~ Tatal 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 fi berths 3 berths 7 berths 4 berths 8 berths 4 berths 9 or more berths 5 berths (Ord. 8(1973} § 14.703} 12-10-16: EXEMPT AREAS: PARKING FUND ESTABLISHED -PLEASE REFER TO APPENDIX "A" ON THE "PARKING PAY-IN-LIEU" MEMO. NO ©THER CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS CODE SECTION. 12-10-17: 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 other 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. !_ease Qualifications; Application To Lease: A parking space, spaces or areas may be leased by the owner, occupant or building manager thereof in accordance with the following: Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns, occupies or manages ten (~~} or more private parking spaces located in Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Care 3, High Density Multiple-Family, Public Accommodations, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, t_ionshead Mixed Use 2 or Specie! Development Zone Districts and provides sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to the Administrator of the Town for a permit to lease 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 with 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 approval of the condominium association (if any) will be required on this application. 3. The Administrator may request that an applicant conduct a parking utilization study to determine the difference between the average capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization, and such other information as may be necessary far the proper consideration of the application. 4. The proposed lease agreement shat! be for the period of not less than one month nor greater than twelve (12) months. When requested, the Adminis#rator may extend the lease agreement for an additional twelve (12) months so long as the conditions relating to the parking spaces have not significantly changed. Any applicant wishing for an extension to an established lease agreement, mus# 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 utilization as de#ermined by the Administrator. 6. No applicant who is operating a private parking area charging an hourly fee on the effective date hereof shall be eligible for 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 ono#her person under the provisions of this Section. 8. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant or building mar}ager who has leased spaces to others to pravide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see that the ]eased spaces are used and occupied in accordance with the lease agreement. 9. Leasing shall be permitted for short-term parking only, and shall be prohibited for long-term storage of vehicles by individuals or companies. 1 Q. Car rental agencies may lease parking spaces only in the CC3 Zone District, and shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen (15} parking spaces per site, Mach site may be allowed a maximum of one lease for a car rental agency. (Ord. 3{1999) ~ 5: Ord. X7(1991) ~ 1: Qrd. 31{1985} ~ 1: Ord, 34{1977) ~ 1) 12-1 U-18. VARIANCES: A~'I`i.~:g~a; i~: ~~,e-~+v#ic; is ~iw ,tr d ;~ ~ r-~,~,^+^ , ~ .,f +~,•~ T;tlc ;`:ail Itc rc:,~.:n rd `~~b•,~~c +nte ~~c Tr~r,'c +n~ f=~~i7d; u:~ yet-fertlz ire Gaatie~-12 1© 1 A®- fC~~pnc_ `~., C~{~n7 , Variances from the vravisions a# this chanter shall fellow the arocedures set forth in Title 12, Chapter 17 of this Cade., • • ~~ JaLTERNATIVE PARKING RATIO ANALYSIS FOR THE VAIL VILLAGE AND ' L101115HEAD CORE AREAS IN VAIL, COLORADO Prepared for: Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Prepared by: Fefsburg Holt & Ullevig ' Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Ave. Ste. 2(70 Englewood, Colorado 801 1 1 {3x73) 721-144a Engineer: Charles M. Buck, P.E. Principal: Arnold J. Ulleviy, ~'.E. November, 1999 FHU Reference iVo. 99-137 1~ TABLE DF CONTENTS Paae EXECUT€VESUMMARY .............................................. i I. 1NTR©DUCTIQN.... ...........................................1 A. Background ..,......., .................................. 1 B. Study Pui•pc~se . ............................. .. . ......... . '€ II. EXISTING CONDfT€ONS ............................ . ...... . ..... 4 .A, Parking Characteristics ....... . ............................. 4 $. Land Use ... ......................,,...................f~ fl€. PARKING STANDA,RDS .................................... . . .. 1(7 ADDENDUM • LAST of F1GUREs Page 1. Vicinity Map ................................................. 2 2. Parking Transactions Cy Month: Vaii Transportation Center & Lionshead structures ............... . ...................... 5 3. Vail Village Core Area ......... . .. . ... . ........... . .............. 7 4. Lionshead Core Area. ........................................... 8 LIST OF TABLES 1. Parking Transactions by Month . .... . .. ..... . ...................... 4 2. Parking by Length a# Stay ..... . ...... ... . .. . .............. . ...... 6 3. existing Land Uses -Vail Village And Lionshead ..... . .................. 6 4. Parking Rates ..... .... .......... .................... . ...... 1 ~ 5. Recommended Core Area Parking Rates ............................. 1 1 6, Calculated Parking Requirements -Vail Village and Lionshead .............. 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMA~iY Currently, the Town of Vail requires new deveCopment 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 different land uses which tends to reduce the aggregate parking demand of the core area. The following report documents the analytical process used to develop alternative parking generation rates specific to the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas. The analyses utilized 1998/1999 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 {ITEM and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) on shared parking for mixed use developments. A corrrnparative evaluation with previous. transportation engineering efforts in other CoCorado resort towns was also utilized. The resultant parking rates, documented below, are intended to be applied only to development occurring within the Vail VilCage and Lionshead core areas; the use of these rates in outlying areas wauld underestimate potential parking demands and could exacerbate any existing parking shortages. Recommended Core Area Parking Rates • U Residential Hotel ' Land Use Parking Rate 7.4 spaces ,per Dwelling Unit 0,7 spaces per Accommodation Unit Hotel with Convention Facilities Ge:-ieral ReiaiB Office Restaurant BanklFinance 0.7 spaces per Accommodation Unit, plus 1 .0 space per 11 Seats devoted to meetinglleciure seating .3 spaces per 1,000 Square r=oe: 2.7 spaces per i ,000 Square Feet 1.0 space per 1 ~ Seals 3.7 spaces per 1,00(7 Square Feet For purposes of parking requirements, lime share and fractional fee units will be considered as accommodation units. • I. lNTRODUCT~ON A. Background The Town of Vail is one of Colorado's premier mountain resort communities. Located along I- 70 just west of the Continental Divide, Vail provides unique year-round recreation opportunities, with emphasis on winter ski activity, Vaii is one of the most recognized destination ski resorts in the state, and has hosted international ski carrtipetitions. Continuing growth, and the physical setting of Vail, have challenged the community to develop and maintain one of the most innovative and successfu6 multi-modal, pedestrian oriented transportation systems. The Vail transit system is the second mast utilized in the state, and consists of a core area shuttle coordinated with bus service talfram outlying areas. An extensive system of pedestrian/bicycle trails enhances multi-modaiism while providing recreational opportunities. Central parking facilities provide an interface between vehicular travel and pedestrian access to the core areas of Va`rl Village and Lionshead, Vail Village and Lionshead are located south of i-70 along the south frontage road, as depicted in Figure ~ . Each of these pedestrian oriented core areas consists of a mix of residential, accommodation, cammerciaifretail, and restaurant uses. At Vail Village, the Vail Transportation 1 Center (VTC) parking structure provides 1,200 parking for these uses, as well as for day skiers during the winter. A 3 ,300 space structure accommodates similar parking needs within Lionshead. B_ Study Purpose Currently, new development ar redevelopment within Vail Village and Lionshead is assessed parking impact fees by the Town of Vaii 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 core areas. !n 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 conflict or encroachment. This is often due to the difference 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 excursion with visits to several retail establishments and a restaurant for lunch. With the close proximity of uses, the vehicle is parked once, and 'he remainder of the trips within the multi-use area are accomplished either on foot or via transit. Similar parking relationships between hotels and nearby restaurants has also been ~~ocumented. Shared parking concepts are applicable in mutt's-use areas with the following characteristics: '1 ~ Mix of uses in close proximity. Continuous pedestrian connection. Strang transit element. ~_ t~ ~~ ~ d .e(, J1 J~ J ~' 7 W 1 dt m 7 ~ V R ~ ~~ m~~ C ~+ b C ~~ a r As lath Vail Village and I_ionshead exhibit these characteristJcs, the purlaose of this study is to develop alternative parking generation raise specific to these core areas. The analyses documented in this report are based on 1 89811999 sl<i season data provided I}y the Town, including; Skier visits pr:r day. Parking transactions at bath VTC and Lionshead parking structures. • Existing land uses vt,-ithin the Vail Village and ~.ionshead care areas. The above dais were supplemented with available inforinafiion on parking and shared parkin 9 from the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Urban Land Institute. Previous transportation engineering efforts in other Colorado resort towns were also referenced. i i i~ ~• 3 II. EXISTING CONDITIQNS A. Parking Characterr""stirs As previously stated, the VTC structure contains 1,2Q0 parking spaces {including 18 handicap spaces.), and the Lionshead structure contains 1,300 spaces (including 16 handicap spaces}. 'Ford F'ark, a ski season temporary parking location, accommodates approximately 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 on data provided by the Town, the private parking supply in Vail Village is 1,228 spaces, with 995 private parking spaces in Lionshead. The demand for parking in Vai[ varies considerably between seasons, with the peak ski season creating the highest demands. This demand is accommodated 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 clang 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 199801999 ski season. Each transaction represents a single vehicle's stay within a parking facility. Table 1 summarizes these data by month. Table 7. Parking Transac#ians by Month `Location - November VTC 10,734 Lionshead 7,467 f'Grking Transactions {1 } December ~ January I February I March 53,179 55,170 52,798 ~ 60,141 33,505 36,599 34,676 ~ 41,844 April 26,441 18,311 1998!1999 ski season data. 'Figure 2 graphically depicts the manihly parking transactions far both VTC and Lionshead structures the 1998I199L' ski season. As shown, parking transactions peaked in March, with 60,141 transactions at the VTG and 41,8.44 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 1 5th highest ski day, typically used for planning purposes in Vail, occurred an Sunday, February 7, 1999. ©n this date, the VTC recorded 1,966 parking transactions, and Lionshead recorded 1,392 transactions. • 4 F~L5~3[~Rv /~~ HALT & ( L_LEVI~ ~aaaa saaoa ,~aooo a.aaoa 1 aaaao 2aaao ' ~aooo ~ a ~~ O'V. DEC. Fib ~ 99$ f ; 999 Si{l B~A~~3i ' LEGEND ' ~ = Vail Trarsportatiort Center ~r`~.:_-.'~ _ Lionsi~ead Figure 2 Parking Transactions By Manth. Mail Trans,~artatian Genter & Lianshead Structures flail Parking Genesatlon 99-137 9f3UlB9 S Mar. Jan. Apr. Histaric length of stay data far parking in both the VTC and Lionshead structures was provided by the Town, as surnmarized in Table 2. Table 2. Paricirag by length of S#ay lacatian Average length of Stay in Tours {1) fl-1.5 ~ 3.5-2 ~~-3 ~ 3-4 4-5 ~' 5-° .L_~'-7 17-8 •~ 8-~ f 9-1 1? 1- - ..- - V TC 3 2 ~!0 10 °,5 15 °,~ 8 °,/0 6 °~o 6 ~i6 7'?%n Lianshead 37°,'0 7°/a 1D°fo 7°1o 7°/a 8°Jo fi °,fi ~ 4°,'0 3 °lo ~ 3 °/n 9°.'0 8% ~ ~°!a ~% ~ 1% ~~ 1. Based an 199&(1997 ski season data. ~-- --~ _ _ ___ As spawn, approximately 35 percent of all. parking transactions were for length of stays of 1.5 hours or less. Typically, durations of 4 hours or less would be primarily attributable to cornrnercial development. Qay skier parking duration would be expected to fall within the 4 to 9 hour range, and residential/accomrnadatlon uses would account for mast of the stays in excess of 9 hours. B. Land Use The core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead are depicted in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Existing land use data within the core areas were provided by the Town of Vail,. as summarized in Table 3. Tahie 3. Existing land Uses - Vaii Village And Lionshead Land Use f Vail Village- f ___Lionshead ~ Tatal ResidentiallAccorrsmodation (1 } 1,190 units 958 Units 2,148 Units Retail (33,553 SF 67,922 SF 151,475 SF Restaurant - 58,930 SF ~ 23,197 SF 82,127 SF ©ffiae 22,600 S1' 22,400 SF 45,000 SF Bank 1,40 SF 520 SF 2,460 SF 1 . 5ased on coservatians of the Town, residential units, Eractionai feeitimeshare 3~nits, and lodging aeccmmodation units have sirniiar functional charaderistics within the core areas.. • E c*a c~ ~ ~ _~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~ ~ r - ~ ,rlr-~=.. Ern . ~~. `~a~ ` = / f ~ //~// .. / ' ~ ~, ~:.'!d RYA LL 1' ~_° ~ r I d ~ ~r`I \ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~~.~ ~; W ®.~ ~, ~__ w_.~ ~~ ,I i~ ~r ~ a I~l ~~~, _r .~1 ~= 4~~'1 m h n CI a A a :~ m 7 ,_ _~ F of U _ ~~ r-= ~~.. E•_ i Q r; ~i i . ; . ~ i °~~ 4 i1 ~ ~ ~ ,F~ , r ~-~~~ ._ r~ ~, ~~ s f .; =~ * ; + ~ )+~ ! A !' ~' f f J Y ~ ~ R c - 3 4II _i i ! . M - A -} 3 ~ ~ a~ ~ L Q O CJ R3 L O ~a= • • a n m ~_ ai m c 0 m c R II As shown, these core areas consist of a mix of residential and commercial uses. As previously discussed,. such combined land uses result in higher levels of multi-purpose trip rnaksng, where a single vehicle trip is made to complete two or more trip purposes. This results in a reduced demand for parking space from what migh# Be expected in areas of less intense develaprnent. These core area uses are also seen to generate less demanr~ far parking than similar uses in other areas of Vail due to the proximity and viability of alternative transportation modes. Additionally, hourly variations in the peak accumulation of parked. vEhicles Between different land uses tends #o reduce the aggregate parking demand of the core area; this phenomenon is termed "shared parking". The CJrBan Land Institute {ULI} and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITS} have puBlished extensive data on shared parking for mixed use developments. This concept, in conjunction trrith the forgoing data, has Bern utilized in tl-~is analysis. • 9 III. PARKING 57AfVDARDS The following table is a comparison of parking rates from various sources for existing and potential uses within the core areas of Vail Village and L,ionshead. Table 4. Parking Rates Land Use - ., .. Park fTE {1}.! , .. ing Rates Expressed in Spaces per Unit.. ;' Breckenridge Breckenridge Town of Vail .' Standards (21 Core {3} {4y, ,, Residential 1.111DU 1.51aU 1.11DU 1.5-2.51DU~' Motel _ 0.52/AU 1 .O/AU 1,11AU 1.0/AU {max} Convention Facility 0.81 /AU * ~ Special Review 3.1 IKSF ~ 118 Seats I General Retail 3.23IKSF - 2.,51KSF 1.4/KSF ~ 3.331KSP Office 2.79/KSF 2.5/KSF I 1 .4fKSF f 4.01KSF Restaurant {5} 1 /3,57 Seats 114 Seats 117.14 Seats 1l8 Seats 9.08/KSF 6,~5lKSF 3.5fKSF 3.12/KSF __ _- - Bank/Pittance 4.23/KSF ~ 2.5/KSF ~ 1.9/KSF ~ 5.0/KSF 1. PARKING GENE3=iAT10N., 2nd 1=dition, Enstitute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. 2. Town of Breckenridge, Colorado Off-Street Parking Ordinance. 3. Downtown 8reckinridge Multi-Use Area Parking Ratios, ^OWNTOWN PARKING STUDY,. Felsburg Hoit & Ulleveg, 1995. ~?. Town of Vail Parking Regulations. 5. Rates shown ate per seat and per KSF.-The KSF rates are based on~ 40 SF per 5e3t {typical}, ~` Dependent on gross square footage of dwelling unit. *' * Hatel with convention facelity. The applicability of the current Town of Vail parking req+~erements were evaluated as they relate to the core area uses: • ~~SiC7~nT121, ': he cLJrr2nt varlCln£7 !'°C1iJlr~ment~ are lllgh fflr CorE ar2a5, ranging from ~ .~J spaces to 2.5 spaces per dw~:l[ing unit dependant on the size of the unit. 1-lo~rrever, within the care areas, size of the dwelling unit is seen to have minima! of#ect on parking demand; these units are typically occupied by a single family with a single vehicle, It is, therefore, suggested that the residential parking requirement within the core areas be reduced to 1 .4 spaces per dwelling unit. • 10 I-'otel. Tne current hotel parkina requirements are D.4 space per acccmmradation, plus D.1 spare far each 1DD square rest of floor area, with a maximum of 1.D space per accommodation unit. For the Bare areas, a requirement of D.7 space per accommodation unit is suggested, with no adjustment far the size of the unit. Time share and fractional #ee residential units would also be considered as accommodation units ~rvith a parking requirement ofi 0.7 space per unit. For hotels with convention facilities, an additional requirement of 1.D space per 11 seats is indicated to accommodate meeting attendees who are not staying at the hotel. • Retail. The current requirement ofi 3.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet (1 .0 space per 300 square feet} is high for care areas. A reduced parkina requirement of 2.3 spaces per 1 ,ODD square feet is suggested for the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas, • Office. The current requirement of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet {1.0 space per 250 square feet} is typical for general office developments in suburban areas and is high for care areas. It is suggested that a reduced parking requirement of 2.7 spaces per 1,OD0 square feet is appropriate far the Vail Village and Lionshead care areas. • Restaurant. Town regulations currently require 1 .0 space per 8 seats, based on seating capacity or on Building Code occupancy standards (whichever is higher}. This parking requirement is generally consistent with measured parking demands. However, an adjusted parking requirement of 1 .D space per 12 seats is suggested for the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas to be consistent with other adjustments. • Bank/Financial institutions. The current requirement of 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet {1.0 space per 200 square feet} Es 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 for core areas. The above parking rates, recommended for use in the Vail Village and Lionshead core areas, are summarized in Table 5. Table 5, Recammendecf Core Area Parking Rates hand Use •u Residential Hate! hotel with Can~ention Facilities General Refoii Office ReStaU rant BanklFinance Parking FCate ` -' 1 .4 spaces per Dwelling Unit 4,7 spaces ner Accornmadatian Unit 0.7 spaces per Accomrngdation Unit, plus 1 .0 space per 11 Seats devoted to meetingl'lecture seating ~ ~.3 spaces per 1 ,0403 Square Feet - 2.7 spaces per 1 ,0{74 Square Feet -- p. ~..__ .. _ - -- 1 .Q S aCe er i ~ SeatS 3.7 spaces per 3 ,000 Square 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 exacer#~ate current parking shortages. These rates were developed based on the density and mix of uses within these areas with adjustments to reflect socioapolitical perceptions in Vail. 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 Parking Requirements -Vail Village. and Lionshead Parking Spaces Required Land Use Quantity Current Rates Recommended Rates ._ _ ~ Residential/Accommodation 2,148 Units 3,222* 2,235** I Retail 151,475 SF 504 351 Restaurant 82.,127 SF"~`* 257 180 Office 45,00() SF I 180 125 Bank - -- 2,480 SF I 12 9 Total ~ 4,175 2,300 '~ Estimated average rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. * * Estimated average rate of 1.04 spaces per dweiGng unit. * * Estimated 1 seat per 40 SF {typicalf results in 2,053 seats. It can be seen that, using the recommended core area rates, the combined parking space requirement for Vaii 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. 12 The following table is a carnparison of current Town of Vaii parleing regulations to parking generatian rates contained in PARK]NG GENERATION, 2r7d >`ditian, Institute of Transportatian Engineers, 1987. The ITE rates are based on an average a# data collected nationwide; and, as such, may nat be appropriate for application in Vail or r*her resort areas. This table is, therefore, intended fear comparison purposes only. • • C©MPARISQN 01= PARKING RA31rS: VAIL STANDARDS VERSL3S 17E • • Current Town of Vail Requirements f Qwefling Unit Accommodation Unit Banks & Financial Institutions (i.e., i Savings & f_oanl Eating and f?rinking Establishments Hospitals Medics! and Den*.al Offices Other Professions! and Business Offices Lluick-Service FcodJ ~ Convenience Stores Recreational Facilities, Public ar Private Retail Stores, Personal Services & Repair Shops Theaters, Meeting Rooms, ~onventian Facilities. V'Jarehousing Any Use Not fisted ITE Parking Generation Rates if gross residential floor area is 500 square feet or less: 1 .5 spaces per dwelling unit. If gross residential floor area is aver 500 square feet up to 2,044 square feet: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. If gross residential floor area is 2,004 square feet cr mare per dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. 4.4 space per accommodation unit, plus 0.1 space per each 100 square feet of gross residential floor area, with a maximum of 1,4 spaces per unit. 1.4 space per each 200 square feet of net floor area. 1.0 space per each $ seats, based on seating capacity or Building Cade occupancy standards, whichever is more restrictive. 1.04 Space per D.U. {fowlMid-Rise Apartment} 4,88 Space per D.U. (High-Rise Apartment} 1.11 Space per Q.U, {Residential Candominiuml 0.81 Space per Room {Convention Hotel} 0.52 Space per Room ;Non-Convention Hotel} 0..63 space per 1,fl00 SF fWalk-In only Bankl 4,23 Spaces per 3,440 SF (Walk-InlDrive-fn Bank) 1 Space per 2..63 Seats {rluaiity Restaurant} 1 Space per 3.57 Seats {Family festaurant} _ _ ._.,._ 1,0 space per patient bed plus 1 space ~ i.79 Spaces per Bed lHospital} per 150 square feet of net floor area. 1 .0 spaces per each 240 square feet of 4.1 3 Spaces per 1 ,000 SF lNledicallQerttal net floor area. CliniclDfficel 1.4 spaces per each 250 square feet of 2.79 Spares per 1,440 SF (General Office net floor area. Buildingi 1.0 spaces per each 204 square feet of ~ 1 3.tii3 Spaces per 1,004 5F {Fast Food net floor area for the first 1 ,040 square Restaurant w/o thrive-In Windowl feet of net float area: 1.0 spaces per 3174 square #eet for net floor area above 1,044 square feet. Parking shall be required. Amount to be determined by the Planning and Environmeniaf Commissicn 1 .4 spac9 ?er each 3iJ0 square fee*, of net floor area. i .4 space par each $ seats, based an seating capacity or building occupancy standards., whichever is more restrictive. i_4 space per each 1,440 square feet of net floor area. Parking requirements to be determined by the Planning & EnviranmentaM Commission No data.. 3.23 Spacrys per 1.000 Sr= (Chapping Center} 1 Space per 5.26 Seats (Movie Theater) 0.54 Space per 3,400 SF [YVarehousing} MEMORANDUM T0: Planning and Environmental. Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATI=: March 27, 2x00 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to relocate 1300' of low-lying bike path, informally known as the Katsos Property, located at Tract A, nail Village 12~'' Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Allison Qchs BACKGROUND AND DE;~CRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the relocation of 1300 ft. of low tying bike path located at the property informally known as the Katsos property I Tract A, Vail Village 12`h Filing. A map has been attached far reference. The property is currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District, which requires a Conditional Use Permit for "pawed and unpaved, non-motorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways.'" The purpose of the Natural Area Preservation District is: The Natural Area l'reservatian District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in Section 12-8C-2 of this Article. The Natural Area Preservation District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space. The Natural Area Preservation District includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements. The Town of Vaii is proposing the relocation of the 'Dike path due to the hooding that typically occurs on this portion of the path during the spring. The existing path is located in the 100-year Flood Plain. The proposed path is located at a higher grade, and out of the 100-year Flood Plain, except where the proposed path meets existing. The Town of ~. TOPVN~F1'AIL ~~ Vail has been working with the Army Corps of Engineers on this project {see conditions of approval below.) The existing path will be removed and the area will be reclaimed. The attached plan shows the proposed relocation of the bike path. Prior to the 1960's this property, informally known as the Katsos property, located at Tract A, Vail Village 12`h, had been used for sheep grazing. In the early 19fiD's, it was purchased by Vail Associates, who planned to develop the property as housing. However, steep slopes and multiple geologic hazards precluded extensive development. In July of 1977, the Town of Vail purchased the property. In the late 197Q's, the Town of Vail rezoned the property from Low Density Multiple Family to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, with a proposal to complete the bike path, which was already partially constructed on the western portion of the property. At that time, a Conditional Use Permit was not required for paved. fn 199fi, the land was rezoned to Natural Area Preservation District, which requires a conditional use permit for paved recreation paths. 11. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Plannino and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. r. Conformance with development standards of zone district Desicrn Review Board: The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review application for. 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation ~. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site ~. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 1 Q. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting 7 13. The design of parks III. STAFF REC(.?MMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the relocation of the bike path, subject to the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the conditional use permit for the relocation of the bike path, staff recommends the following cundr'tlvn: 1. Prior to construction, a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers must be submitted to the Community Development Department. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FAR TH _ CnNnITIfDNAL USE PERMIT „~ , _ ~_ The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Code. The bike path is located within the Natural Area Preservation Zone District. The proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 1 B. For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual ar special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shalt be denied. 3 A. Considers#ion of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives ofi the Town. Staff believes that the proposal follows the development objectives of the Town of Vaii, as these objectives are stated in the Land Use Plan: 1.1.1. 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. 1.1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever passible. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. Ire addition, Staff believes that the proposal follows the development objectives of the Tawn of Vail, as `"improving the pedestrian and bike system" was identified as a priority in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Because the existing path is located within the floadplain, there will be activity within the floadplain when the existing path is removed. The proposed path is not located within the floadplain, except at the paint where the proposed path joins the existing path (see attached map}. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The relocation of the bike path will improve the circulation of the entire bike path throughout the spring when this section is typically flooded. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safefiy and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the stree# and parking areas. The relocation of the bike path will improve pedestrian safety and convenience. Staff believes there will be no effect on the other above- mentioned criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be 3ocated, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 4 Staff believes there will be no effect on the above-mentioned criteria. B. Findings The Planning and environmental Commission shat! make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. Thal: the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • ~, J O t a Y m N .~ d a c 0 c U Q i -~-~ a L '~ _~ ~_ '~ ~~ 0 a T _~ L... +~ a ~ f - - - ._ -._ . OIIVtiO'7©a 'Ilan ~O Alh{01 - -- -_ _ ~ Opi-£8 01 pOtQB YiS ~Iai~L Xp2lc all 'JM13i33NIJIJ~ M1II~LlvW ~pl~,da0'S3ti ~tvaf,L 3~Ft® Ilan ~' _-_~_ ~-`i ~r`,~,~ s c~ fi ~ ~~ ~~/~, 7' I '~~~.., ~ J ~ ~, y417y~L r~ t .~ ~-. j f~ ~ ~ + ~~ ~e -; 1. ~ ,, ~. 1 ~ t. ~~: ~~~~~~ ~~ ` ~ ~ j t ~ ~~ ~`~ 's~ l~ i ~~` `~ F~ ~ ~ Ij r~ ~f if i,1 ~ 1 ,,~ ~ } ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" a ~~- r ~~~I 4 ~~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~,l rill 1~ ,. ~ ~ r 8 0 ~~ i ~ !1 r~ da PAN ~o~ ~~_ v~ _ r ~W ~ -> > :~ 7. 1 ,,~~ ~ i~~ r w W e+7 ~ ~ Z ~~,~ ii ~ _~ , !i z ~~ ` ,` I - ~x..~ - -- ~~ ~" ~`, ..a t l l= , , L ~ . ,... II I _ y i a - I f i ~ .-..-... ~ I ~ ~ a ~, 3 - ,.-~ r ~ - ,.,, r k f. tL'eC Wys, -~1v~1 - F -~~ oo+~e p FC03 ~ Wa1 3~19~'1Ydh aL{W ~ vv+ Nau'~~o - '- ~ ~ al9N~ Nl~a ~ i~~~+ ~,.. ~' __ _.~ I ~ a G_ y l ~' ~. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~)' ~ 'M ~ ~ ~X - i ~ i a ~ `~ ~`03~''1; ~, ~~ y1 t, ~' +~ "~ ~~ d ,~ .. 1- ~ _ - 'd~ 1y 1 ~ ! i~. I ~ `'. ~ a t~ I I i ~ ~ ,r - ~~ 4'i - ~ "' ~~, ~~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~~ )rI y l ~ f; J/ Jj ' ' \ ~ 1 ~ t ~_rr ~ j ,r,1 ~ Q ~i ~_ +~ 4 ! d ~ d ~'s1 n i.~ j /. atr, .I; ~ 4G", ~~ ~ i 1 "fir ~~ ~ ~Cq ~.+ ~ 111 ~~~, ~:~ R / /~ ~M1i r ~`~r 1 I {I~~ .~~ f 1 I~~ ~'1 "~ ~ ~' ~ ~ _ - i r a f ~ ~ - ~ ~ . ~ 141 y "•'`y, ~,~a ~`~1Y1`4`r~ ~ ~ ~` >..z j~~r„ ~ 41 - ~\ +~~ _ ~,~4 ~ -~ t ~~ r ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~1 ~i ~ ~'' `~ A ~1 ~ q ~~~~'~ ~ ~ 4~, ~ ~ ,~ ~~~ ,1 ~ ~~~~_ " ~,. ~ ~ ~ l~~1 ,I i ~~,~~~~ " ~ ~ ' ~,a ~.. t ~ ;~ f ~';~ ~f~. ~~ ~~ ' ' ; -- - ~ u , : ; ;f 1 ~,~. 1 ,. ~ ;;(rr. t_ ~_,~,.r ~,r,~~ ~~ -- _ ___._ ~ , l~' -- M - ti ~; i. ~,~1~'~. ~ 4 ~'i I ~ i , r ~ ~`~ ~} S) ~ j I I ~1 `l , Q f 1 , ' r 'i ~ i `i ~ V 1 ~ . .` '. '~ i t :~ ` ` r\ \ `' '' \ ~ \ 1 `1 i ~ _~`, `~ ` 1 ` \` ^..: ~ _ ~~~_ ~ .`~~~ _ ~ ~~ •i ~ , ~ l ' i `i i l ~ } } ~ •~l C ~4 ~ 1 `~ ~ ~~ \ P ~ i ` ~1 iii ~~~ •~, ~~ , i a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i ~ s t ~ ~ ~, '~' f ~""~ 1 '~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~V A \ ~ 1~,0 \ \ ~, ~~ `` ~`~ ~~ .` - --~ _ .. \. ~ _ r-J `\ ` ~i ~ \. . , ~ ~ ~, ~~~~ Approved 4114100 PLANNING AND ENV1R©NMENTAI_ CC7MMISSION March 27, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Diane Golden Brian Dayon Chas Bernhardt 'Doug Cahill Public Hearing MEMBERS ABSENT: John Schofield Tam Weber Galen, Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello Brent Wilson Alison Ochs Judy Rodriguez Greg Barrie 2:f)0 p.m. A request far a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of a major arcade at the Vail Transportation Center, located at 241 E. Meadow Drive/Vail Transportation Center Applicant: H.J. Hyde, Jr. Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any comments. Skip Hyde said it would add a great deal to waiting customers. Galen Aasland asked for any ,public comment. There was no public comment. Doug Cahill said he agreed with the proposal, but felt it shouldn't be located in a dark corner of the building. He suggested a window to show there was entertainment there and asked the applicant haw would he deal with the noise level. Skip Hyde said the internal wall would be removed and there would be an attendant there at all times between the hours from Sam until ~ Opm. He said it would. be visible by the bus attendant and there would be no closed doors, He said the machines had low noise levels. Chas 'Bernhardt had no comments. Diane Golden asked why it couldn't be closed for noise control. She asked it the applicant had used some discretion in his ctloice of games, as some games were pretty gruesome. Skip Hyde said it would be too dangerous to be closed off and discretion in game choice was used. Brian Doyan was concerned that an arcade might be mare of a nuisance, rather than entertainment for people waiting for the bus. Brent Wilson said a time frame could be included in the approval and he could do a follow-up report far the PEC with a site visit. Galen Aasland said he would like it to be a situation that could be called up, and i# it got out of Planning and ~nviranmentai Commission 2 Nlinukes ,_ . ar M r.~ 2 4 :: ,:. ,,, ~; _. ., ; :. .,,,:, .. - ,i ApprQVed 4110100 hand.. it could be detrimental to the Town. He shared Diane's concerns with the type of games, Brent Wilson, again said the motion could include being called up and in a month the s#aff will do a report after the business gets going. Dominic Maurieila said the conditional use call-up was already in the code and mentioned that the Police Department now had a substation in the structure. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with a condition that staff would give afollow-up report after 2 months of operation, The motion passed by a vote of 5-t}. Chas Bernhardt asked about calling this up. Brent Wilson explained the public process for a coil-up. 2. A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-t 0, Town Cade. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Galen Aasland recused himself. Brent Wilson briefly went over the pay-in-lieu zoning map for Lionshead. Brian Dayan asked that since the structure was foil. every weekend, where a new structure might go. Brent Wilson said the site far a new structure hadn't been determined or if they were even going to have one. He then explained the measure of flexibility. Dominic Maurieila said if the PEC feels the proposal extends too far west, then now was the time to cut it off. Brent Wilson asked if there were any more comments regarding Lionshead. He then briefly went over the Vail Village pay-in-lieu zoning map. Doug Cahill asked about the backside of the Lodge at Vail. Brent Wilson said, they would still have the special review option. Brian Doyon asked about the Row Houses, Villa Valhalla and the Galatyn Lodge. Brent Wilson explained that they were out of the Vail Village pay-in-lieu area, but within the special review area. He said that under the current zoning they couldn't take part in the pay-in- lieu, but they would have a good argument, since they were so close to the structure.. Diane Golden asked far any public comments. Tam Braun asked why not the Swiss Haus. Brent Wilson said the Swiss Haus was identified as a question mark, but could get through the Talisman via an access easement, however, could apply for special review. E~ianning and Enviranm®ntal Gammission ~ Minutes ,:. ... - March 27, 2000 • • ~ Approved all QIOo Doug Cahil! said the ability to have the yellow zone for flexibility was good. Brian Doyon made a motion for a recommendation to the Town Council, in accordance with the staff memo_ The motion passed by a vote of 4-©-1 {Galen recused) 3. Final review of the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed amendments to Chapter 12-1 p, Town Code.. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. He said there were a number of private parking spaces underutilized and therefore the Town may be over-assessing for core areas. Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. Tom Braun asked about net floor area to gross floor area. Brent Wilson explained the chart on page 4 of the staff memo. Tom Braun said that from `83-'88, this was discussed when he was a planner and that it was a positive effort. He said there was a very limited reduction far multi-use credits and stated there was no credit until there were over # 00 spaces. He said it may be something to think about. Brent Wilson gave an example and said the consensus was that if you're staying in the Village, you were likely to eat away from the hotel you were staying at. Doug Cahill said he liked the reductions, but suggested leasing out the spaces out there that were empty. Brent Wilson said if it was required parking, they couldn't be leased, but that it was built into the Code that extra spaces could be leased. Doug CahiA asked about provisions in the Code, to allow for this opportunity. Dominic Mauriello explained the leasing opportunities. He said staff went on a site visit fast Thursday around 2pm and 50°Ip of the spaces were empty and there weren't 2 spaces per unit and so maybe they were over-assessing.. Doug Cahill said he didn't want the excess spaces to be turned into storage. Dominic Mauriello said they wouldn't have to turn them into spaces. Doug Cahill said he would like it a requirement. Dominic Mauriello said it would be tough to be a requirement. Chas Bernhardt asked about office space, bank and finance. Brent Wilson said it was the same argument as residential spaces, just used at different times of the day. • E ~ :. Y R..iiw ~ ~_ ., •• " s tee., a«. .. , ,. ~ ~. .. ,,. ,.. _,_ Planning and Environmenkai Cammissian MSRlI{P.S 3 .. - • - March 27, 2{M)0 ::: _ .~ .._ .. . ~. ~ ~, ,~,a u '^„ei :~ ~x$ °-O wC "rtni~ 4F~ bi ni,^,W t.`" ~ ~,~~y ' Cdr,' h. -f1...... ~ a ~.. i s yx ~ ~.. ~-.,~e d ~, ~P k ,4Mr N '"k. Approved 4110/OO ~ Chas Bernhardt disagreed with reducing the office, bank and finance. He said with the skier population coming during the day, it compounded the problem with the office, bank and finance which made 6t easier for the restaurants at night. Brent Wilson said we would like to think private uses were for private spaces. Dominic Mauriello said we could decrease the requirement for restaurants. Chas Bernhardt mentioned that there was not enough parking at the medical center. Brent Wilson stated that a lot of the existing parking was developed prior to planning and zoning regulations, such as the Sitzmark that had only 20 parking spaces or so. Chas Bernhardt asked how to handle the changes- Brent Wilson said if we alter one use it would change other numbers. Diane Golden said she understood what the study was saying, but we had to be realistic that the uses aren't competing with the day skier. Brent Wilson said we acknowledged there was a parking problem, but we are not going to place the burden on private business, He said Council may want us to wait and put this on hold until late summer when the comprehensive study was completed, Dominic Mauriello said it is more complex than dust providing a parking space. He stated that once the supply was increased, you could reduce ridership on buses. He said ii the privately owned spaces were leased at a high cost, the Frontage Road might always be crowded. He said it would ail depend on how the parking was managed. Diane Golden agreed with Ghas's comments about reducing the office spaces. Brent Wilson said private spaces were not available to the day skier and would not capture the overflow. Brian Doyon said residential was Glaser to what reality was. He thought hotels could be hit harder and said Vail had no conference rooms, He said since 90°ro of retail came from skiers, to decrease was adouble-edged sword. He said he has concerns with office space and restaurants, but the office space reduction was a goad idea. He said he was having a hard time swallowing the restaurant and office space numbers. He suggested changing restaurant to square footage numbers and possibly considering a 1:3 retie for seating and all the other uses would be two-thirds of that. Dominic Mauriello asked if the convention facility should be per seating. Brian Doyon said the conference facility and restaurant are very similar square footage and should be gross, such as 250 sq, ft. =one parking. He said banks and financial were fine on parking. Brent Wilson thanked Brian for his specifiic comments. Galen Aasland said it should not be impassible t© do a restaurant in Town and the restaurant should be easier. He said a number of those numbers were a wash and he agreed with Brian on conference space. He said he saw no reason to decrease the residential, since the use was not necessarily a use #or downtown Vail. He asked if a single person should be able to shut dawn a restaurant due to noise? Planning and Enviranrnenta! Commission ~ Minuses March 27, 2(lOp ~.u'~~_ ~"i-,:ar, .. '.~~5.... .atu' -, ~.~ ~~x ..~i: t+c^' :'L cL,!?''ss", "y`, ~•..: r - _~:tii a~~ '' `~f.='-:~ _ _ w°5' ~ }^+ y.:.~_~r. ~i+ i , ~~ { Approved 4410/00 Dominic Mauriello said this made for an unclear policy; to ding parking on residentia[ and to encourage restaurants. Galen Aasland said he disagreed with Chas on office space being in the downtown area, but he had no problem with discouraging residential with an increase in parking. Lominic Mauriello said it was bad public policy to say we don't want condos in downtown Vail, so we ding residential parking. Galen Aasland said he found it difficult to shoot from the hip with guessed numbers. Doug Cahill said he liked the seating area rather than the gross. Dominic Mauriello mentioned a bigger kitchen might have more employees and was something to think about. Doug Dahill said he would like to see some research for grass square footage, before he could make a decision. Dominic Mauriello said they could put together some examples with different businesses. Brian Dc~yon made a motion to table this item. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to relocate 1300' of low-lying bike path, informally known as the Katsos Property, located at Tract A, Vail Village ~ 2th Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if there was any applicant comment. Greg Barrie said they would be mitigating almost a half-acre of wetlands that were being displaced. Brian Doyon asked why they were doing this, Greg Barrie said a couple of years ago the path was flooded and people had to walk around the path. Brian Doyon said this would reroute the Vail Trail and suggested raising the two areas that were flooded. Greg Barrie said because of the impact on the trees, they would need culverts. He also said they looked at bridging that area, but it was more costly and wouldn't be far another year. Doug Dahill asked for other options. Chas Bernhardt had no comments. PEanning and Environmental Commission Minutes Mazch 27, 2f~(} 5 ~. ~~-~ . ~ - v~-~.erw-i~-4.~.a,~ia~r~ ~ ,~ .,.,..~-"~~,r~-•1x•-~~e~t...~,~..y.~u~~: ;ase~+ ,. ,.._ „~-~~,..~r~ r~.e~~. ~.~.°~ . _ ` 3:`~F~~ Approved 4/1 QI00 Diane Golden asked why it was built in the first place. Galen Aasland asked about the wetland mitigation. He said Brian brought up a goad point about the Vail Trail. Greg Barrie said he didn't even know that there was a Vail Trail. Galen Aasland said the Vail Trail path should be addressed. Brian Dayon explained the Vail Traii route, as he used it often. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item. D©ug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 5. A PEC review of prapa~sed modifications to the Gore Greek Flaad Plain, located at the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Dare Creek Promenadef7racis I & A, Black 5B, Vail Village Esc Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a proposed expansion at Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Raneh RoadlPart at Lot 12, Black 2, VaiC Village 12`x" Filing. Applicant: Vail Mountain Schaal, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects Planner; Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 7. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6D-9, i 2-6D-S and 12-6D-6, Tawn Code, to allow for a garage and residential addition, located at 2955 Bellflower DrivefLat fi, Block fi,Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Alan & Francine Peters Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 8. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building)ILot 54, Black K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2000 'Planning and Enviranmentai Commission ~ Minutes Mazch 27, 2000 i `" ~ c °`; '4 err--~°_;: i .,. h¢ g~F e~,R;;~,+~q rat + ~;n.;: _y - - r, -tr~ -. ~' .~~ty ~.~} - Approved 4/1 D1DD 9. A request far a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks, located at 3013 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-C/Lot 2, Block 5, Vaii Village 1St Filing. Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf TABLED UNTIL APRIL 10, 2QOf7 i 0. A joint work session with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development planlmaster plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential Cluster, commonly referred to as the laver bench of Donovan Park., located south of the South Frontage Road and east and north a# Matterhorn Circle. Applicant: Town of Vail/Nail flecreaton District Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL APRIL ~4, 2QOQ Diane Golden made a motion to table items 5-10 to their respective dates. Brian Doyan seconded the matian. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 11, Information Update Galen Aasland said, for the record, that we had just received a letter from Mr. Robinson. Four, two-year term PEG vacancies - (Galen Aasland, Brian Dayon, Diane Golden and Tom Weber). PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FDR 2ftQ0- Doug Gahill - Jan-Mar 'Od - Apr-Jun 'f]0 - Jul-Sep '©d - Oct-Dec 'oo Doug Cahill volunteered to do the April 5'h DRB meeting. 12. Approval of March 13, 20©0 minutes. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Brian Dayon seconded the matian. The matian passed by a vote of 4-0-t (Diane Golden abstained}. Diane Golden made a motion to adjourn. Brian Doyan seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Miuntes ,:, March 27, 2QUD - ::.. ~~. w ..,,=..~x-~ ~~r *±v, ~ sY„~"." ~"k"!n ~~ ~J!..J4 ~'~., X „Crv+ :~,r~ a ~ ~a,.r: a } ~a~::d"~ .~'~+a1;~gy ~'a. ,+ y».., e „M.;.,. 1~ r.~}ry .~.ty F ~, ~y