Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-13 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl July 13, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers & Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Rollie Kjesbo, Brian Gillette, Karen Perez Absent: John -Ryan Lockman, Pete Seibert, Henry Pratt 1.2. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom. us/webinar/register/W N_ETcZHgnLS_6jd9wJ gxfQgA After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates gives a presentation on the application, going over the variance requested, the previous meeting when this application was heard, and the staff recommendation. Kjesbo asks about the original development of the home when it comes to which was the primary or secondary unit. Gates responded affirmatively that the East unit was the primary when developed. Gillette asks for clarification on GRFA and how it is being divided between the units. Asks for some history of the changes in the code that led to the current situation. Gates responds with some of the history and how it affected the home in question. Perez adds that a full understanding of the inequity is needed. Dominic Mauriello, the applicant representative, goes over a presentation on 20 min. the application Gillette asks as to whether the property is double dipping by getting this variance. Maruiello says that the lot would not be double dipping, simply asking for the currently allowed amount of GRFA to be used by either side. Perez summarizes that this would be taking away the primary/secondary part of this zoning. Mauriello explains that this would not be a special privilege because what is there today is an unintended consequence of that amendment. Kjesbo asks if the west unit got the deduction for the basement. Mauriello says that yes, it is the lower basement, so it got the deduction. Because of this it got less GRFA and added to the inequity. Kjesbo says the basement issue for duplexes was originally thought about in the 2004 code, and nothing was different when this section was clarified in 2016. Gillette says he is having a hard time finding the inequity in the current situation. Mauriello brings the conversation back to the intent of the 2004 change Gillette says that they already took advantage of the pre code change credits. Creating nonconformities happens and the other side got more GRFA than they would have otherwise would have been allowed. Perez says the whole point was to have consistency and you are asking us to not have consistency. If we do this for one based on this situation then we'd have to do it for everyone. Gillette says that the 2016 basement clarification was always enforced and that the clarification was solidified at that point. Mauriello restates his argument that one of the units got shorted out of GRFA with the change when it was approved. Gillette says the original intent of the 40/60 was to have the smaller side be a caretaker unit and not a smaller side of the duplex No public comment at this time. Ludwig closes the public comment. No final comments from staff or applicant. Final discussion from commissioners: Gillette asks for clarity from staff on recommendation. Gates responds that it was based on loss of any development potential as a direct result of code change, but believes that PEC is valid in their viewpoint of preserving the 60/40 split. Gillette asks for clarification on if double dipping or not Gates said it does not seem like double dipping, there is development left. They would not be getting anything additional. Rollie Kjesbo moved to deny. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent: (3) Lockman, Pratt, Seibert 2.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 90 min. regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to refine the appropriate sections to allow for a comprehensive approach to meeting the minimum parking requirements, including clarifying the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007) Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy Planner Roy began by describing how this amendment was brought up in the first place. I n the last meeting a few options were discussed for parking solutions for developments with additions that cannot add new parking. The first time this issue was brought up, the PEC recommended a more comprehensive approach to fixing parking standards. The current proposed changes include: increasing the distance that would qualify for off-site parking, combine the pay -in -lieu parking zone with the core parking area map, expand what the current parking fund can be used for, and create a secondary pay -in -lieu zone that would focus on zones with more of a mix of vehicular and pedestrian access. Tom Braun spoke about the previous meetings related to this parking issue which was to provide and outlet for properties in Lionshead and vail village that are outside the defined pay -in -lieu parking area. Braun then showed the current pay -in -lieu map. Properties within the pay -in -lieu zones can only pay into this fee to provide for their parking. Trying to find some relief for properties that also cannot build more parking for additions but are not within this defined zone. Braun then identified additional properties that could be a part of the pay -in -lieu based on their adjacency to pedestrian only areas. Braun described this as the foundation for the current code changes. Current code allows any property outside the pay -in -lieu zone to apply for the pay -in -lieu option to the PEC. Felt this is problematic and too broad. Braun then showed a map of the proposed secondary pay -in -lieu zone, which would be a zone allowed to ask the PEC to use the pay -in -lieu fund. Braun then listed some parameters for this request. Additions to existing properties should be considered for the pay -in -lieu. Demo/rebuilds should have access to provide new parking so they would not qualify. This should not be used as a way to eliminate existing parking to provide more development area. Applicants for this secondary district must provide evidence for the need to utilize the pay -in -lieu. This proposal also would allow the pay -in -lieu funds to be used for multi- modal transportation improvements. Currently commercial uses in the pay -in -lieu zone are not required to provide parking or funds. This proposal would define lodge rooms as commercial uses. If the town would waive the fee for restaurants and other commercial uses, why would it not waive it for lodging as well? Braun discussed a study of uses in this zone and their would-be parking requirements. Found that the town provided parking that would be utilized by these uses only accounts for about 40% of the available public parking. Most of the parking issue within the town is from day-trippers to the town. In addressing concerns related these changes overcrowding existing parking structures, Braun stated that most projects within the core area have been additions. These have been very small additions and are unlikely to result in a large influx of parking need. In addressing why lodges should be considered exempt, Braun stated that again the additions historically and in the future, based on current build out, are very small. Commissioner Gillette: Asked if the town had seen any benefit from exempting retail and restaurants. Braun: Thinks that the town has seen benefit from this incentive. I n discussing the load on the parking garages, thought the impact would be small and that the Town should be prioritizing those who are spending an extended period of time in Vail rather than day -trips from the front range. Braun ended his presentation by saying that if no change is made then you will likely see very little development investment in the core areas outside the pay -in -lieu area due to the burden of parking. Chairman Kurz: One concern the PEC had in April was about the length of the lease for parking spaces. Why was that not addressed in this proposal. Braun: We saw some language in the code that we felt needed to be fixed and wanted to address these issues first. The town still has control over what terms it wants to see in these leases. Gillette: When this was first being discussed, there was a property that could not build its third parking level for groundwater reasons. The PEC let them use pay -in -lieu, but with this proposal that would not be allowed because that property was a demo/rebuild. Wants to look more into the need to exempt lodges and retail. Also wants to know why the fee only accounts for 1/3rd of a parking spot. Thinks the fee should be equivalent to the cost of a parking space. Wants to know the benefit the town gets and the benefit the town is providing in more detail. Braun: In clarifying the situation for the development in need of pay -in -lieu, they were granted a onetime use of the pay -in -lieu. Gillette: But we still wouldn't have been able to grant that under these new regulations correct? Roy: Believes we could allow for that sort of thing through a variance process. Perez: Wants staff to confirm that this is an option. Worried about opening the flood gates for this sort of variance. Worried about writing ourselves out of a solution avenue. Gillette: Still has an issue with exempting certain uses. If they cannot provide an additional parking space then they should have the option to request use of pay -in -lieu at the least. Braun: We developed these changes based on the purpose of the existing parking regulations. There is still a special exemption through the PEC that could still be allowed for properties outside the Vail core. Gillette: Wants something addressing variance language. Wants no exemptions on any property, Council can change this if they want to. Wants to set the pay -in -lieu fee at the cost of a parking space Braun: Offered a cost -benefit analysis to support for the current fee price and for the exemption of lodge units. Gillette: That would help. Perez: Wants to go through the changes section by section. Kjesbo: In favor of expanding the pay -in -lieu zone. Also wants to increase the fee in conjunction. Thinks there still needs to be a pay -in -lieu or parking requirement for lodge units. Perez: Agrees with Gillette and Kjesbo. Asked for clarification on certain proposed changes. Wanted clarification on why a section related to loading requirements was removed. Braun: We intended to remove all references to loading requirements in the parking requirements. Perez: But loading is still a part of parking, so loading needs to be addressed as well. Braun: Could not find a reason for including reference to loading in these sections. Perez: Concerned about why there was a section making reference to the fee without referencing when the fee is due. Spence: We generally do not include due dates for fees within the code because this is an administrative function. We require these fees at the building permit. Perez: Questions the need to remove PEC purview related to where off-site parking will be located. The changes would have the PEC just look to see if the proposed parking is within a quarter mile with no flexibility or digression in their review. Kurz: Also feels that the pay -in -lieu should reflect the cost of a parking space rather than simply a number picked out of the blue. Asked the applicant and staff come up with some compromises to address the PEC comments. Gillette: Could see future staff reading these changes and determining that pay -in -lieu is not available to anyone outside of the core of Vail, even with PEC review. This should not be the intent. Public Comment Dominic Mauriello: Thankful that these old code sections are being looked at. Had a question about the distance required for off-site parking. Felt that the quarter -mile language was more applicable for discussing the walkability of Vail Village in ski boots. Thinks that this distance should be more flexible due to the presence of free shuttles and ability for developments to provide shuttles to off-site parking. Also had a concern about the barring of demo/rebuilds for the pay -in -lieu area. Felt that requiring the fee be equal to a parking space would hamper development. Small additions could generate hundreds of thousands in revenue but would have a hard time being built if they had to provide the full up -front cost of a parking spot. Gillette: This is why a cost -benefit analysis would be helpful. Braun: Requested a tabling. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to July 27, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent: (3) Lockman, Pratt, Seibert 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. June 22, 2020 PEC Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent: (3) Lockman, Pratt, Seibert 4. 1 nformational Update 4.1. West Vail Master Plan Update Applicant: Planner: Matt Gennett Gennett gives an update of the process the West Vail Master Plan Committee has been up to at this point. Provides dates and efforts planned for future meetings, deadlines, projects, reports, outreach, and focus groups. A short run-through of the EngageVail website was done. Absent: (3) Lockman, Pratt, Seibert 5. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent: (3) Lockman, Pratt, Seibert The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Register in advance for this webinar: https:Hus02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN ETcZHgnLS 61d9WJgxfQgA After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information aboutjoining the webinar. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description [Staff Memoranduml PEC19-0050 7.13.20.pdf Staff Memorandum PEC19-0050 [Attachment Al PEC19-0050 Vicinity Map.pdf [Attachment A] Vicinity Map [Attachment Bl Gillett Variance Narrative 11-11-19.pdf [Attachment B] Applicant's Narrative TOWN OF VAlL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates I. SUMMARY The applicants, Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for relief from the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application item, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. This variance would allow the secondary unit to use greater than 40% of the allowable GRFA for the lot. The subject property is located within the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) zone district and was first developed with a duplex structure in 1986. A number of additions to this duplex were legally approved throughout the 1990s to bring the property to its current state. After these additions, the East unit had at least 137 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining while the West unit appears to have nearly reached its maximum development potential in regard to GRFA. Following subsequent code amendments related to the way Vail calculates GRFA in 2005, the East unit is allowed an additional 617 sq. ft. of GRFA, while the West unit is now out of compliance with regard to GRFA and considered legally non -conforming. The goal of these variances is to restore any development potential lost as a result of previous code changes, and to bring the West unit into compliance with the Town Code. The approval of a variance related to the 40% GRFA limit for a secondary unit would result in 617 sq. ft. of GRFA available for both sides to pull from. A vicinity map (Attachment A) and the applicants' narrative (Attachment B) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND In 1986, the duplex in question was approved and built to code. At this time, the 40% secondary unit GRFA restriction was in place, and the East unit was considered the primary unit as it was the larger of the two. Through the 1990s, several additions were made to this property. These additions made use of the 425 sq. ft. allowance, 250 ordinance allowance, and interior conversions that were available for this zone district at the time. As a result of these additions, both units ended up close, but not over their maximum allowed GRFA at the time. The East unit remained as the primary unit at the end of the 90s. In 2005 the Town of Vail significantly altered the way it measures GRFA. Of note, the 425 sq. ft. allowance, 250 ordinance, and interior conversions were no longer available for the PS zone district. To offset this, the Town altered its GRFA calculation to incorporate the 250 sq. ft. and 425 sq. ft. allowances. The basement GRFA deduction was also codified at this time with the rational that basement floor area does not significantly contribute to a structure's bulk and mass. As a result of these code changes from 2004 to today, the East unit has 617 sq. ft. of GRFA available while the West unit exceeds its maximum allowable GRFA by 237.4 sq. ft. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) CHAPTER 11: LAND USE PLAN GOALS / POLICIES (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth /Development 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. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Vail Town Code 12-1-2: PURPOSE: (in part) A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 5. urposes: 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL: (in part) B. Gross Residential Floor Area.- The rea: The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site.- a. ite: a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of site area, plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10, 000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of site area, plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet of site area, plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: (in part) A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: V. UI 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Lot Area: Zoning: Land Use Designation Current Land Use: Geological Hazards: 775 Potato Patch Dr. Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch 0.494 acres / (21,532 sq. ft.) Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Low Density Residential Duplex Residential None SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use Zoning District North: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential South: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential East: USFS None West: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Granting the variance related to the 40% GRFA limit on secondary units will not result in any more GRFA than a strict interpretation of the code currently allows. This variance simply makes GRFA currently available only to the East unit available to the West unit as well. The variance may help facilitate additional bulk and mass from what currently exists, but should not significantly impact the uses, structures, or views of surrounding properties. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. It is clear from the development history of this property that the code changes related to the measurement of GRFA have created a nonconformity on this property. While this nonconformity is legal and will not prevent development on the East unit, from reviewing PEC minutes during the 2004 GRFA code change hearings it is evident the Commission wanted to avoid the creation of non -conformities from these changes. The degree to which the West unit is out of compliance is rather small (less than 250 sq. ft.). As such, Staff finds that the variance related to the 40% GRFA limit for a secondary unit is appropriate. This is because this variance would maintain the development potential currently and historically available to the East unit, while bringing the West unit into compliance, all while not granting additional GRFA to the property as a whole. Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will not result in additional dwelling units or additional traffic to this property. As such, there are no anticipated effects on light and air, population, transportation and traffic, or any other public services. Therefore, Staff finds that the proposal meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval for a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the requirement that a secondary unit in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district not exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA, located at 775 Potato Patch Dr., Block 1 Lot 19, Vail Potato Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0050)." Findings Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve either/both variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the July 13, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative Gillett Residence 60-40 Split & Basement Credit Variance Date Submitted: November 11, 2019 u Mauriello Planning Group Introduction The owners of the units at 775 Potato Patch in Vail are requesting variances from the 60-40 GRFA split of the Primary/Secondary Zone District (Section 12-6D-8: Density Control), and the requirement that basement credit is only given if the lowest level of each unit is within 6 ft. of each other (Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions). The variances are requested due to the GRFA amendments which have modified the calculation of GRFA and which have impacted this property negatively with regard to development potential. 775 Potato Patch - east unit. The basement space was created via the Foster Gillett owns the west unit which has Interior Conversion process. This space was not counted as GRFA when recently been called the secondary unit approved. Now, under current regulations, the entirety of this basement (nothing formally designates the Gillett unit space is counted as GRFA, because the finished floor elevation is 8 ft. above the finished floor elevation of the western unit as the secondary unit) at 775 Potato Patch. The unit is non -conforming with the requirement that the secondary unit not exceed 40% of the allowable GRFA for the property. The secondary unit is 43.23% of the allowable GRFA. As a result, there is no remaining development potential for the unit. In this case, the GRFA modifications that have occurred over the years rendered the unit non -conforming and eliminated any future development potential from the secondary unit. Furthermore, the current limitation that basements are deducted from GRFA only if the lowest level of the duplex is within 6 vertical feet of the lowest level of the adjacent duplex unit created a hardship on this property. The existing basements are within 8 vertical feet of each other, and therefore only the West unit is allowed to take the deduction. Both of the basements were legally constructed through the Interior Conversion provision of the code, and which exempted the conversion of crawl space to livable area from GRFA calculations. The Interior Conversion provision of the Code was eliminated for PS zoned properties in 2004 when the entire GRFA chapter was rewritten. The current method of counting the basement, adopted in 2016, on the East unit effectively eliminates available GRFA potential from the property. The owners are requesting these variances to allow for fair treatment of properties under the current GRFA calculations. In this instance, the West unit is being considered the Secondary Unit, though there is nothing in the code that prescribes which unit gets Primary unit Status vs. Secondary unit Status. As such, the current regulations render the West unit non -conforming and eliminated all opportunities for additional development. This is unique to the West unit and created an unfair hardship, depriving the owner of development potential that all other units in the Primary/Secondary zone district are allowed. Furthermore, the East unit is prevented from deducting the basement space from GRFA because of the2016 GRFA chapter rewrite. 2 This variance request is unique in that there is not a development plan associated with the proposed variance. This is because there is no immediate plan to add onto the West unit. The owner of the East unit has been pursuing an addition which would utilize the limited GRFA remaining s, on the property. In their design process, it was discovered that though the site has available GRFA due to various code changes, only the primary side has the ability to use the available GRFA because �r. = _= the secondary side was rendered non- — - conforming with the 60-40 split requirements. In addition, due to the language on the basement deduction, only the West unit gets credit for the below- grade basement area because its basement is 8 ft. lower than the basement of the East unit. The granting of this variance would allow the owners of both halves of the duplex to split the available 775 Potato Patch - west unit. The basement space was created via the GRFA based on their own agreements on Interior Conversion process. This space was not counted as GRFA when the use of GRFA. approved. Now, under current regulations, 87% (or 977 sq. ft.) of this basement is deducted from GRFA. The following section provides an overall GRFA analysis for 775 Potato Patch, indicating how the changes to the GRFA calculation have negatively impacted 775 Potato Patch. 3 GRFA Analysis Permissible GRFA for a residents is based on the zone district for that property. In the case of 775 Potato Patch, the Town has made several changes to the GRFA allowances for the PS zone district. One of the keys in establishing total GRFA and allowable GRFA for each unit is based on establishing the Primary unit versus the Secondary unit. However, the code does not define Primary or Secondary. It simply states that the Secondary Unit shall not exceed 40% of the allowable GRFA for the entire lot. The issue with the 60/40 split applied to this property is that the designation of Primary/Secondary based on the size of the units has changed. In 2004, the West side would have been considered the Primary unit based on size, whereas in 2016 the East side would be considered the Primary unit based on size. This back and forth works counter to the intents and purposes of land use planning. Zoning regulations would change over time, causing properties to become non -conforming without any material changes to the property. This is a dangerous precedent, and one that should be avoided. The Town never really analyzed the effects of the GRFA changes on the 60/40 status within the PS zoned neighborhoods. Current GRFA Analysis (2018) 775 Potato Patch is zoned Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS), just as all of the other single-family and duplex homes in the Potato Patch neighborhood. The total lot area is 21,531.71 sq. ft. GRFA in the PS zone district for the entire lot as follows: 46% of the first 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area 38% of the next 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area 13% of the next 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 6% of lot area in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. It then further limits the "secondary" side to no more than 40% of the total allowable GRFA, which allows the primary side to have 60% of the total allowable GRFA. The following is the allowable GRFA for 775 Potato Patch: Primary: 4,409 sq. ft. (60% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,939 sq. ft. (40% of total allowable) Total: 7,349 sq. ft. The following provides the existing GRFA calculations for 775 Potato Patch: East (Ryan): 3,555 sq. ft. (48.37% of total allowable) West (Gillett): 3,177 sq. ft. (43.23% of total allowable) Total: 6,732 sq. ft. (617 sq. ft. unused GRFA remaining) Historical GRFA Analysis I. 1990s GRFA Analysis When the home was originally constructed, and when subsequent additions were done in the late -1990s, GRFA was calculated differently. The calculation was as follows: 4 25% for the first 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 10% got the next 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area 5% of lot area in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. Primary: 2,641.80 sq. ft. (60% of total allowable) Secondary: 1,761.20 sq. ft. (40% of total allowable) Total GRFA (before credits): 4,403 sq. ft The secondary unit was limited to up to 40% of this calculation before any other credits were applied. In addition to the calculation above, each unit was allocated an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA. After the application of the 425 sq. ft. credit to each unit, the allowable GRFA looks like this: Primary: 3,066.80 sq. ft. (58.4% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,186.20 sq. ft. (41.6% of total allowable) Total GRFA (425): 5,253 sq. ft. (4,403 + 850) You will note that at this point the allowable GRFA for the secondary unit exceeds 40%. Per the code, if a unit was an older unit, each unit was then also allowed an additional 250 sq. ft., called a "250 addition." Both of the units took advantage of a 250 on this property. When you add in the 250 additions the allowable GRFA looks like this: Primary: 3,316.80 sq. ft. (57.7% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,436.20 sq. ft. (42.3% of total allowable) Total GRFA (425 & 250): 5,753 sq. ft. (4,403 + 850 + 500) In addition, the Town permitted "Interior Conversions" which allowed owners to use existing space, such as unfinished crawl spaces or attics, to be converted to livable area above the allowable GRFA. Interior conversions were not limited in the amount of GRFA that could be used. Nor were interior conversions subject to the 40-60 split as applied by the Town. When built, both units were very similar in size. Based on the Town's files, after some "250 additions" and "interior conversions" in the 1990s, the GRFA for each unit was constructed as follows: West Unit: 3,070 sq. ft. (49% of existing GRFA and 53% of total allowable) East unit: 3,180 sq. ft. (51% of existing GRFA and 55% of total allowable) Total: 6,250 sq. ft. (5,753 sq. ft. allowable GRFA) Though it appears that the units exceeded the allowable GRFA at the time, all the additions were legally done, approved by the Town of Vail, and were permitted by the Zoning Code of the time. The units were allowed to be nearly a 50/50 split on GRFA. II. 2004 GRFA Modifications In 2004, the Town undertook a massive overhaul of the GRFA regulations in all residential zone districts. The GRFA calculations were modified to increase the allowable GRFA for PS zoned sites. With the amendments, "250 additions" and "interior conversions" were no longer permitted in the PS zone 5 district. The thought was that the calculation would be increased to such a level that they were no longer needed. However, when the Town revised the GRFA in 2004, many secondary units which had legally constructed the 425 sq. ft. credit, a "250 addition" and an "interior conversion" were then rendered non -conforming with regard to the 60-40 split. This was despite the fact that these secondary units had been conforming and had been previously approved by the Town of Vail, but were now rendered non -conforming though they made no material changes to their properties. The non- conforming status was a result in a change of the code and causes a major infringement on the rights of the homeowner. In 2004, the modifications to the calculation of GRFA also changed how GRFA was measured, including measuring to the outside of walls (previously to the interior wall surface) and counting vaulted spaces above 16 ft.in height as floor area. The biggest impact to 775 Potato Patch had to do with the calculation of basement space. The goal at the time was to exempt underground space from the GRFA calculation, recognizing that it did not impact bulk and mass of a structure. The following is the 2005 methodology for the basement exemption: Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of exterior wall surfaces unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level's exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level's exterior walls. The following provides an analysis of the GRFA for 775 Potato Patch based on how the basement deduction was calculated in 2004: GRFA Analysis by Level with 2004 Basement Deduction GRFA Split on Allowable 1 43.23% 1 39.70% Remaining GRFA 1 1,232.011 21.50 1 1,254.51 Gillett - West Side ` Ryan - East Side Total Upper Level 1,588.00 11485.00 3,073.00 Main Level 1,355.00 1,170.00 2,525.00 Lowest Level 1,123.00 850.00 1,973.00 Basement Deduction -977.01 -637.50 -1,614.51 Garage 688.00 650.00 1,338.00 Garage Deduction -600.00 -600.00 -1,200.00 Total Existing GRFA 3,176.99 2,917.50 6,094.49 Total Allowable GRFA 4,409.00 2,939.00 7,349.00. GRFA Split on Allowable 1 43.23% 1 39.70% Remaining GRFA 1 1,232.011 21.50 1 1,254.51 As indicated in the above analysis, in this case, the West side was actually larger than the East side, making it the primary unit rather than the secondary unit, in theory. When Gillett purchased the property in 2005, the West unit was larger than the East Unit at 3,177 sq. ft. (52%) v. 2,917 sq. ft. (48%). The East side complied with the 40% requirement, and the remaining available GRFA was available to the West side. This basement credit definition allowed basement credit to be applied to each unit on the property and applied to the lowest level within each unit regardless of the relationship of the floor elevations of the two units (i.e., it was equitably applied). Available, unused, GRFA remaining would have been approximately 1,250 sq. ft. in 2005. III. 2016 Basement Amendment In 2016, Town staff made a change to the basement deduction, adding (1) a requirement that the credit is applied to the entire structure and no longer on a unit by unit basis and (2) adding in a requirement that to get a basement deduction, the lowest levels of an entire structure have to be within 6 vertical feet of each other. In other words, if one unit's basement level is greater than 6 ft. below that of the other unit, then only the lowest unit gets the basement credit. This is particularly problematic if there is any significant grade change across units, which is very common in the Town of Vail. The following is the current method of measuring basement space: Basements: On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the finished floor level with the lowest USGS elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. A multi -unit building shall be considered one structure. The percentage deduction calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title; but the deduction does not apply to any crawl space or attic. In this case, the change had a dramatic impact on the ability to take the basement deduction on the East side (Ryan). While the West side (Gillett) is able to take advantage of the deduction, the East side (Ryan) no longer has that ability, as the finished floor elevation of the West side (Gillett) basement appears to be about 8 ft. below the finished floor elevation of the East side (Ryan) basement. The following provides an analysis of the GRFA of 775 Potato Patch as current regulations require (no basement deduction for the East side): GRFA Analysis by Level 2016 Basement Deduction (none on East side) Gillett - West Side Upper Level 1,588.00 Main Level 1,355.00 Ryan - East Side 1,485.00 1,170.00 Total 3,073.0 :2,525:0d0 7 Gillett - West Side Ryan - East Side Total Lowest Level 1,123.00 850.00 1,973.00 Basement Deduction -977.01 0.00 -977.01 Garage 688.00 650.00 1,338.00 Garage Deduction -600.00 -600.00 -1,200.00 Total Existing GRFA 3,176.99 3,555.00 6,731.99 GRFA Split on Allowable 43.23% 48.37% Total Allowable GRFA 2,939 4,409 7,349 Difference from Existing -237.99 617.01 617.01 In this case, the East side (Ryan) is the larger unit and could therefore be considered primary unit. However, by making this declaration, the West side (Gillett) does not comply with the 40% requirement for a secondary unit, which makes it nonconforming. Available GRFA remaining is approximately 617 sq. ft., a significant reduction from what was allowed previously, before the basement definition was amended. Because these analyses are somewhat confusing, here is a current breakdown of the GRFA for 775 Potato Patch based on the changing regulations: West Side West West Side East Side East Side East Side Total Total Complied Allowed Side % of Allowed Existing % of Allowed Existing with Code Existing Allowbale Allowable 1986- 2,186 2,186 47.0% 2,466 2,466 53.0% 4,652 4,652 YES Original Construction 1999- 2,011 3,070 53.4% 2,291 3,180 55.3% 5,753 6,250 YES Additions to Units 2004 - GRFA 2,939 3,177 43.2% 4,409 2,917 39.7% 7,349 6,094 YES - East Amendments side was Secondary 2018 Current 2,939 3,177 43.2% 4,409 3,555 48.4% 7,349 6,732 NO Code Criteria for Review Section 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review for a variance. These criteria, along with an analysis, are provided below: N 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Response: 60-40 Split Variance The 60-40 split requirement has little impact on other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity. In fact, the property has never truly had a 60-40 split of GRFA. Due to the way 425 credits were applied after the 60-40 split was calculated, when the structure was originally constructed it did not have a 60-40 split of GRFA, as indicated below: Primary: 3,066.80 sq. ft. (58.4% of total allowable) Secondary: 2,186.20 sq. ft. (41.6% of total allowable) Total GRFA: 5,253 sq. ft. Futhermore, when both units constructed 250 additions and interior conversions in the 1990s, the West side unit was significantly greater than 40% of the allowable GRFA for a secondary unit. East side: 3,180 sq. ft. (55.3% of total allowable) West side: 3,070 sq. ft. (53.4% of total allowable) Total GRFA: 6,250 sq. ft. (Total Allowable GRFA was 5,753 sq. ft. plus Interior Conversion which was exempt from the calculation) As indicated above, actual constructed GRFA for the property was much closer to a 50-50 split and is a non -conformity created by the change in GRFA regulations. As a result, the variance from the 60-40 split has no impact to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Basement Deduction Variance Both of the units used the Interior Conversion provision of the code to convert existing crawl space into livable space. Interior Conversions were only permitted after the maximum allowable GRFA at the time (1990s) was maxed out. It did not count towards GRFA and was not subject to the 60-40 split. With the GRFA revisions of 2004, the reason presented for not counting basements towards GRFA was that below grade space did not have an impact on the bulk and mass of a structure and should not be subject to the GRFA limitations. The basement area existed within the structure, whether or not it was counted towards GRFA. The east unit could have dug the crawl space 2 ft. deeper in the 1990s, and the space would be deducted from GRFA calculations today. It was only the 2016 creation of the rule that the lowest level had to be within 6 ft. that created a situation where this space now counts as GRFA. As a result, there is no impact to other existing uses or structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Applicant Response: 9 60-40 Split Variance The duplex at 775 Potato Patch complied with the GRFA regulation when originally constructed. Each side of the duplex legally constructed 250 additions and Interior Conversions through the Town's established process. Due to the various changes in the GRFA calculations since 2004, the secondary unit was rendered non -conforming, eliminating any development potential to that unit. The clear and stated intent was that the elimination of the 250 Ordinance and Interior Conversions would not create non -conformities. The staff memorandum to the PEC (September 8, 2003) specifically stated: The PEC has determined that the "250 Ordinance" and the "Interior Conversion" GRFA bonuses should be repealed in their entirety due to the inequities of property rights that are created by these regulations. In an effort to afford these bonuses to all properties and to not create non -conformities, the proposed GRFA calculation formulas have been increased over the current calculations to compensate for the elimination of these bonuses. The PEC recommendation of approval included two conditions regarding non -conformities, stating (underline added for emphasis) : (4) An amnesty clause should be adopted in conjunction with the adoption of the FAR regulations. The amnesty clause should have no time limit, waive the Town of Vail application fees, and prevent the creation of non -conform in a properties in regard to FAR. (5) Any loss of development potential currently allowed by the existing GRFA regulations that is caused by the adopted of the FAR regulations shall be considered iustification for a variance from the FAR regulations. (Note that the PEC was recommending renaming GRFA to FAR, which was not carried over in the final adoption) The clear intent by the PEC was that non -conformities would not be created by the changes to GRFA. However, in this case, a non -conformity was clearly created, as the secondary unit exceeds 40% of the current allowable GRFA for the property. This non -conformity is unique to the secondary unit on this property, and a variance is necessary to treat this property as all other properties in the vicinity. Per the conditions included with the PEC recommendation of approval of the repeal of the 250 ordinance and the repeal of the interior conversion, the loss of development potential on this property should be considered justification for a variance. Therefore, relief from the 40% limitation, allowing the unit to partake of the GRFA allowed for the property in not a grant of special privilege. Basement Deduction Variance Both of the units, using the Interior Conversion allowance, converted crawl space to livable area prior to 2004. This space, located on the lowest level of each unit, was not counted towards GRFA at that time because it was substantially below grade. However, the current GRFA deduction for basement space only allows the deduction for both basements if each level is within 6 ft. of the other. Though there is very little grade change across this relatively flat site, the structure steps with grade, as is encouraged by the Design Guidelines. This has created an inequity of treatment for the units: the west unit, being slightly lower in finished floor elevation, is able to deduct the basement from the GRFA calculation, while the east unit, being 10 8 ft. above finished floor elevation from the other unit, does not. As a result, 637.50 sq. ft. of the east unit's basement which is entirely below grade, is counted as GRFA. This was an issue when the basement deduction definition was reviewed by the PEC in 2016. In fact, many members of the PEC expressed concern about the 6 ft. limitation being arbitrary. On August 22, 2016, the PEC reviewed the staff's proposed changes to the basement deduction. The following comments were recorded in the minutes: 775 Potato Patch - the lot is generally flat in comparison to most lots in Vail. As is encouraged by the Design Guidelines, the structure steps with the natural grade. Commissioner Stockmar -feels choosing six foot separation allowance is arbitrary and is inclined not to change anything with GRFA at this time. Would like to have a bigger discussion dealing with all of GRFA. Commissioner Gillette - likes the application being applied to all zone district impacted by GRFA. However, six foot rule is arbitrary. Believes all levels that are subterranean should be deducted from GRFA. Commissioner Pratt - does not think this application solves the bigger problem and it contradicts the decision of the PEC on the Michael Suman application and appeal. Allows multiple levels but is not equitable between units. Each side should get credit for buried space. Feels the six foot rule meets the status quo being interpreted by staff, and will send this application to Council. Based on the review of the minutes, many of the concerns of the PEC were focused on the construction of new homes. However, this change had impacts on existing homes. It is common for duplex structures to step with grade. In fact, it is encouraged by the Design Guidelines. These steps often occur between units. There are few flat development sites within the Town of Vail and it is inequitable that the basement deduction is not allowed for both units, especially when the basement is below grade and has no impact on bulk and mass of a structure. It is clearly inequitable to treat half of an existing duplex different than the other half, simply because of the grade change over the site. It is therefore not a grant of special privilege to grant this variance. 11 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Applicant Response: Due to the nature of this variance request, there are no negative effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 12 Adjacent Properties POTATO PATCH PARTNERS RLLLP 785 POTATO PATCH DR VAI L, CO 81657-4480 CHAMBERS, JASON R. 3796 PARAN RDG NW ATLANTA, GA 30327-3026 WERTHEIM, HERBERT A. & NICOLE J 4470 SW 74TH AVE MIAMI, FL 33155-4408 JOHN H. DAVIE, JR REVOCABLE TRUST 776 POTATO PATCH DR VAI L, CO 81657-4477 RYAN, SCOTT T. & PAULA J. 2398 SW 76TH LN OCALA, FL 34476-6770 GILLETT, FOSTER L. 950 RED SANDSTONE RD UNIT 43 VAI L, CO 81657-4092 EAGLE DEN PROPERTIES LLC 6477 STRAWBERRY CT LONGMONT, CO 80503-7164 BARTLIT, FRED H. 1899 WYNKOOP ST STE 800 DENVER, CO 80202-1086 13 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to refine the appropriate sections to allow for a comprehensive approach to meeting the minimum parking requirements, including clarifying the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff Memorandum PEC20-0007 7-13 Final.pdf Attachment A. Applicant Narrative Final.pdf Attachment B. Final Amendments Redline.pdf Attachment C. Final Amendments Clean.pdf Attachment D. Pay in Lieu Parkinq Exhibit.JPG Description Staff Memorandum PEC20-0007 Attachment A. Applicant Narrative Attachment B. Final Amendments Redline Attachment C. Final Amendments Clean Attachment D. Pay in Lieu Parking Exhibit 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to refine the appropriate sections to allow for a comprehensive approach to meeting the minimum parking requirements, including clarifying the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007) Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy SUMMARY The applicant, Tom Braun with Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3- 7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outline in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council. II. BACKGROUND Prior to Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1999 the pay -in -lieu zone was only those areas zoned Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2. The ordinance added the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district to the pay -in -lieu zone. In 2001 Town Council pass Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2001 that amended the pay -in -lieu zone application and set the fee structure. This was the ordinance that removed commercial businesses from having to pay -in -lieu when an expansion required more parking within the zone. It also created the "zones" we know today instead of going directly by the zoning. Previously the PEC saw a similar application on the 13th of April meeting. That proposal was only to change Section 12-10-6. At that meeting PEC gave feedback that some of the amendments needed to be revised and that a larger discussion of parking and pay -in -lieu needed to be explored. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The proposal would amend Section 12-10-6 to increase the distance from a site that would qualify for off-site parking from 300' to 1,320' and change the limit of parking that can be placed off-site from what was not required to be in a building to 25%. Section 12-10-16 would be changed to establish pay -in -lieu zones instead of 12-10-21, combine the pay -in -lieu zone map, core parking area map, and secondary pay -in -lieu zone map, expand what the parking fund can be used for, set the fee for pay -in -lieu, classify accommodation units as commercial for the fee purposes, and take out the unused section that allows the fee to be paid over time. Section 12-10-19 would be removed to avoid redundancy since the core area maps are referenced in 12-10-16. Section 12-10-21 would be changed to create a secondary pay -in -lieu zone. Previously it was allowed to take place in any area of town and this would focus the zone to areas that were selected to reduce vehicle traffic and increase pedestrian activity. Summary of changes to 12-10-6: The applicant is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend the section that allows for off-site or joint facilities parking to increase the distance from a site that would qualify for off-site parking, and set a defined amount of parking that would qualify. The distance that off-site or jointly used parking facilities would move from 300' to 1,320' or'/4 of a mile. This is a generally accepted distance for easy walkability. The amount of parking that could be permitted off-site is currently capped at the amount that is not required to be in a building. This amount is different district to district and this proposal would change that to a standard amount of 25% of the required on-site parking. Summary of changes to 12-10-16: There are also changes proposed to the section on pay in lieu parking to clean up the language and add that parking funds may be used for mobility purposes that would reduce the parking demand. It also updates the amount per parking space that would be required to match today's requirement and removes the possibility of paying for the parking overtime. It would also remove accommodation units from the list of residential uses that have to pay the fee and add it to a new list of commercial uses that are exempt Town of Vail Page 2 from the fee. Currently pay in lieu funds are restricted on what they can be used, such as construction and maintenance of parking facilities, parking studies and administrative services related to parking. The proposal would expand this list to include mobility options that would reduce parking demand. The Mobility Innovation Coordinator for the Town, Chris Southwick, listed multiple possibilities of where money could be used to reduce parking. These include E -Bike share programs, increased bus service, filling gaps in the bike path network, and partnerships with private sector that would provide more options for car shares or carpooling. As the Town does not have current plans to build more parking, providing these alternative outlets to reduce parking demand could provide a way to put these funds to use. Based on recent discussions on the type of use that Accommodation Units fall under, it makes sense that the use fits better under the list of commercial uses vs. residential uses. Back in 2001 when this section was amended Council decided to exempt commercial uses from the pay in lieu requirement as it was not the commercial uses that were driving parking demand and a fee would stifle redevelopment. The amount per parking space is not being changed, but is codifying what the current amount is at this time. The section on paying the fee overtime is also being removed as it has not been used to staff's knowledge and it is common that the fees must be paid before a building permit is issued for a project. The application would also be referencing one map, the "Core Area Parking Map" which shows the pay in lieu zones, rather than just the "Parking Pay In Lieu Zone" map to avoid redundancy. This also allows the section on the "Core Areas Identified" to be removed as the core areas will already referenced. Summary of chanaes to 12-10-21: Section 12-10-21 would be amended to create a "Secondary Parking Pay in Lieu Zone. Currently this section allows for any property in town that is outside of the Pay in Lieu Zone to apply to pay in lieu instead of providing parking. The secondary zone would restrict that possibility to areas that are identified in the cores of the town. These sites were selected based on possible vehicle access and pedestrian ization goals for specific areas. This addition would come with parameters on how projects would qualify for the pay in lieu. It would require compliance with zone district and masterplans, show a need for relief from providing on site spaces, and not be allowed to reduce the amount of on-site spaces or be used for a complete demolition and rebuilding of a property. The following are attached for review: Applicant Narrative (Attachment A), Final Amendments Redline (Attachment B), Final Amendments Clean (Attachment C), and Pay in Lieu Parking Exhibit (Attachment D). Town of Vail Page 3 IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The applicant proposes the following language to be added to Title 12: The proposed amendments are as follows (text to be deleted is in 6tFikethFG nh, text that is to be added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.): Proposed Amendments to Off Street Parking and Loading: Section 12-10-6 Section 12-10-16, Section 12-10-19 Section 12-10-21 Section 12-10-6 PARKING OFF SITE AND JOINT 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 Town of Vail Page 4 site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three h, -n-red foot (3094 thirteen hundred and twenty feet (1,320') of the use served. Ai itherity to permit nff site er i HPeP^IA-S; . No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of required on-site parking may be provided by such off-site locations. Prior to permitting off-site erje+pt parking facilities, the town council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will he as , "'e :;Ad nnnyenient as parkiRg fa,.iliti, ,,,,r GGRtratieR of parked narc . The town 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. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400) 12-10-16: EXEMPT AREAS; PARKING FUND AND PARKING PAY IN LIEU ZONES 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 leadiRg requirements, the Council shall determine the following: 1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town. 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted. 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; fnr preyicieR of adequate leadipg faGilitiec �nrl fnr a system fnr dictrib tieR and r,iGk up of needs; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, 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: For PFej2sts properties located within the Town's "Parking Pay -In - Town of Vail Page 5 Lieu" Zones (as identified on the Town's official "ParkiRg Pay In Lieu i eRe Core Area Parking Map" maps, incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code.{^r the ra irr.^o^ ^f rrf^^+iRg the GIAMAR ] A -rd- the zeRiRg reg latieRs. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop apaFGGI A# property within ar exempt area the "Parking Pay in Lieu Zone", which would require additional on site parking lead_iRg areae the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required: 1. The Parking Fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking..., and the funding of multi -modal transportation programs implemented for the purpose of reducing the use of private vehicles and reduction in parking demand. 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 assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payer 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 e+ghteeRtwenty-nine thousand five h, r„Ir^d r,ir,^+„ o^.,^r dollars eight„ „^r,+& ($829,000) per space for residential uses (including, but not limited to dwelling units, timeshares and fractional fee units). There is no pay in lieu fee for commercial uses (including but not limited to accommodation units, retail uses, bars and restaurants). This fee shall be automatically adjusted annually by the percentage the consumer price index of the City of Denver has increased or decreased over each successive year. 5. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and Town of Vail Page 6 not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. 7-6. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (section 12-10-10 of this chapter) the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on site requirements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 11: Ord. 10(l 994) § 1: Ord. 6(1991) § 1: Ord. 30(1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.800) 12-10-219: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS 12-10-202: SECONDARY PARKING PAY IN LIEU ZONES ESTABLISHED Penetratielp elemepts. (Ord. (2995) § 29: Ora. 4{23)For properties located within the Town's "Secondary Parking Pay -In -Lieu" Zones (as identified on the Town's official "Core Area Parking Map", incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants proposing an expansion, modification or change of use to an existing building may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code. Any decision to approve pay in lieu parking within the Secondary Parking Pay in Lieu Zone shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Prior to granting such approval the Planning and Environmental Commission shall determine the following: 1. That site constraints and/or the design of the existing building create significant practical difficulties such that the construction of additional on- site parking would be infeasible; 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone district within which the property is located and with applicable elements of the Town's adopted master plans. 3. That the project is in compliance with Section 12-10-3 of the Zoning Code and will not result in the removal of any existing on-site parking, 4. That the proposed project involves an expansion to an existing building, modification to interior space of an existing building or change of use to an existing building, and that the proposal does not involve the substantial demolition and re -construction of an existing building. VI. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Development Goal #2 • Promote alternative transportation through planning efforts that will reduce Vail's carbon impact. Land Use and Development Goal #3 • Develop a streamlined design review process and include in regulation updates. Vail Village Masterp/an Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicle traffic in the Village to the greatest extent Town of Vail Page 8 possible. Policy 3.2.1: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality". This text amendment is intended to advance these purposes by providing clear standards in the zoning code that is consistent and less ambiguous. It would direct the pay -in -lieu zones to those areas that are intended to decrease vehicular traffic and promote walkability. The changes would allow the funds coming in to be used to promote alternative means of transportation and assist the Town in achieving sustainability goals. Staff finds the proposed text amendments meet this criterion. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment provides an avenue to reduce vehicle traffic and allow for greater possibilities for infill developments. The codification of these standards will help better implement and better achieve the adopted goals, objectives and policies in Vail, including reducing vehicle traffic in the Villages and promoting alternative transportation through planning efforts that will reduce Vail's carbon impact. Staff finds the proposed text amendments meet this criterion. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and This section of the code has changed over time and continues to do so as conditions change. These changes reflect the direction of mobility by depending less on individual cars and utilizing alternative modes of transportation. The amendment would provide a route for redevelopment in the town where it is limited today. As the town has continued Town of Vail Page 9 to build there is little room to expand or add parking areas that was not the case when the code was originally written. This amendment allows those developments that do not have room to add parking on-site to satisfy demand in alternative means that still meets the Town's goals and objectives. Staff finds the proposed text amendments meet this criterion 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed text amendment would promote a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The text amendment does not conflict with other existing land use documents or municipal development objectives. Staff finds the proposed text amendments meet this criterion. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to refine the appropriate sections to allow for a comprehensive approach to meeting the minimum parking requirements, including clarifying the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0007)." Town of Vail Page 10 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the July 13, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " IX. ATTACHEMNTS A. Applicant Narrative B. Final Amendments Redline C. Final Amendments Clean D. Pay in Lieu Parking Exhibit Town of Vail Page 11 Off-site Leased Parking and Pay in Lieu Parking Amendments to Sections 12-10-6, 12-10-16, 12-10-19 and 12-10-21 of the Zoning Code July 13, 2020 Need for and Goals of Amendment The need for this amendment is to address a "gap" in how parking requirements are applied to private development in Vail Village and Lionshead. Currently properties in the core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead are in the Pay in lieu Parking Zone and are required to pay a fee in lieu of providing on-site parking for any new development that creates a parking requirement. Properties surrounding these core areas are required to provide on-site parking. However, due to limited site area and existing improvements, most of these surrounding properties have little to no potential to create additional parking and as such have very limited development opportunity. The purpose of these amendments is to: Provide an outlet for properties in Vail Village and Lionshead that are outside the Pay -in -Lieu Parking Zone and do not have a realistic way of providing additional on-site parking, to pursue additions or improvements to their property that would otherwise trigger a requirement for additional on-site parking. The underlying premise of these amendments is that additional and improved retail, restaurant, or lodging uses on these properties is a good thing for Vail, that this type of development would benefit Vail Village and Lionshead by animating and energizing Vail's two main pedestrian activity centers, strengthen the diversity of commercial activity and enhance Vail's tax revenues. Amendments have been drafted to ensure that they effectively address the needs of the community in a manner that will further the Town's development goals and objectives specific to Vail's two main activity centers - Vail Village and Lionshead. Background on Amendment Process The initial proposal presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on April 13th was to amend an existing section of the code regarding off-site leased parking. The amendment proposed several clarifications to this section of the code. While the PEC acknowledged the purpose for these amendments, a broader evaluation of the town's parking regulations was requested to see if there were more suitable ways to address the problem. On April 27th five potential alternatives were presented for how a property not located in the Pay -in -Lieu Parking Zone yet unable to create additional parking could address parking requirements. These options were: • Variance request Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking • Section 12-10-20 —Special Review Provisions • Amending/expanding the Pay in Lieu Parking Map • Amending Section 12-10-21— Parking Pay in Lieu Zones Established, and • Amending Section 12-10-6 — Parking; Off site and joint facilities. The PEC was unanimous in that amending Section 12-10-21 would be the most appropriate way to address this situation. Background on Parking in Vail Village and Lionshead Parking in Vail Village and Lionshead is provided two ways — on-site parking at private development sites and in the Town's public parking structures and outlining surface lots. Private Parking On-site parking at private developments in Vail Village and Lionshead provides parking primarily for residential and lodging uses. By way of example, Christiania, Manor Vail, and Antlers are all lodging or condominium properties that provide parking for owners and guests. Other mixed- use properties such as the Vail Village Inn, the Lodge at Vail, Sonnenalp and Arrabelle provide on-site parking, but in most cases patrons to retail or restaurant uses do not park on-site. While it may be possible to valet park, patrons of retail and restaurants by and large utilize the Town's parking structures. Town Parking Structures The Town's parking structures are widely viewed as skier parking for Vail Mountain, these structures also provide the main source of parking for visitors to Vail Village and Lionshead. These structures and outlying lots also provide parking for employees in these two areas. Pay in Lieu Parking The Town established a pay -in -lieu parking program in 1973. This program defines specific properties in Vail Village and Lionshead that are not allowed to provide additional on-site parking. If these properties redevelop in a manner that creates additional parking demand, a payment is made to the Town in -lieu of providing new parking on-site. The 25 properties within the pay -in -lieu zone are located within the core areas, or the most pedestrianized areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. The pay in lieu parking program is intended to limit parking to lessen vehicle traffic and in doing so benefit the pedestrian character and experience. By code, funds generated by the pay -in -lieu program are used to construct or maintain parking facilities, to conduct parking studies, to pay bonds on parking facilities and administrative services related to parking. Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking On the following page is the existing Core Area Parking Map. Existing Core Area Parking Map depicting Pay -in -Lieu Properties. Vail Village and Lionshead Parking Analysis Town of Vail parking facilities provide parking for patrons and employees of the vast majority of all restaurant, retail and office uses in Vail Village and Lionshead. Town parking facilities include approximately 2,595 spaces: 1,210 spaces — Vail Village Structure 1,000 spaces— Lionshead Structure 122 spaces — Red Sandstone Structure 54 spaces — Soccer Field 194 spaces — Ford Park 15 spaces — Spraddle Creek In order to understand the parking impact of restaurant, retail and office uses on the Town's parking resources, square footage of commercial development in Vail Village and Lionshead was obtained from the Eagle County Assessors Office. Square footage was allocated to these three land uses and the town parking ratios (2.3 spaces per 1,000 SF for retail, 1 space per 250 Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking SF for restaurants, and 2.7 spaces per 1,000 SF for office) were then applied to determine the total parking requirement. The estimated parking requirement for existing retail, restaurant and office uses in Vail Village and Lionshead is: Approximate Use Square Footage Parking Requirement Retail 300,105 690 Restaurant 60,125 241 Office 43,196 117 TOTALS 443,511 1,047 The numbers above provide context for the degree to which Town parking is utilized by private retail, restaurant and office development. Based on the calculations above, just 40% of the Town's parking resources in Vail Village and Lionshead are utilized by these three land uses. This analysis suggests that most of the Town's parking, 60% or 1,548 spaces, is available for day skier parking and other users. Proposed Amendments to Section 12-10-6 - Leased Parking Amendments proposed to Section 12-10-6 (that allows for off-site leased parking) include: • The distance in which off-site leased parking must be located from the subject property is increased from 300' to 1,320'. • Parking that can be satisfied with off-site leased parking is limited to 25% of a projects total parking requirement. • Qualitative standards for off-site leased parking are amended. Below is a redline version of changes to Section 12-10-6 PARKING OFF SITE AND JOINT 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 "--Ad-Ire' feet 4994thirteen hundred and twenty feet (1,320') of the use served. A utheFity to n^rW,;t tem"a laeaAed- thiPt# ^ 161ildi^g eR @ Site, 196t r@�' eAeRd to ^aFl4i peFm itted to he -App less , No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of required on- site parking may be provided by such off-site locations. Prior to permitting off-site e+ Oe Rt parking facilities, the town council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will be as 61sa-ble end- GRt aS PaFkiRg faGili+i^s Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 4 leEratedi_rrthe 50te of the use, apd- y.,011 PctEr3uS2 trafffie eeRgestie SFght ,,n+r- tieR „f r-,rk,,,a The town 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. Proposed Amendments to Pay in Lieu Amendments to Section 12-10-21 (that allows subject to PEC review properties to pay into the parking fund), Section 12-10-16 (that establishes the pay in lieu process), and Section 12-10-19 (this section was deleted) include: • Housekeeping refinements, changes to section titles in all three sections, name change to the pay in lieu parking map. • References to loading requirements have been removed. • Multi -modal transportation programs have been added to ways parking fund can be used. • The per space parking fee has been increased from $18,597 to $29,000. • Accommodation units have been added to the commercial uses that are exempt from paying a parking fee. • The finance option for paying the parking fee has been eliminated. • The Core Area Parking Map has been modified to add a "Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone" where properties subject to PEC review can pay in lieu of providing parking. • Criteria are established for the PEC to use in the review of pay in lieu parking in the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone. Below are redline versions of changes to Sections 12-10-16, 12-10-19 and 12-10-21: 12-10-16: EXEMPT AREAS; PARKING FUND AND PAY IN LIEU PARKING ZONES 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 leadiRg requirements, the Council shall determine the following: 1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 5 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 exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted. 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; far r.re.,isien of adegi +e lead-li.pg faGili+ies fer a system far his+rihi +den and r.iGk , ip of geeds� and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, 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: For PFej2sts properties located within the Town's " Pay -In -Lieu Parking Zone" (as identified on the Town's official "Parking Pay Ir, L ie, %ane Core Area Parking Map", incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code.fer the r„ irpese of meetiRg the dernapd :;Ad :-;Ad- the zeniRg ren, latiens. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a paFGel 9# property within a-n-eXet aFea the "Pay in Lieu Parking Zone", which would require additional on site parking aRG-1,19r 19-a liRg areas the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required: 1. The Parking Fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, a44 administrative services relating to parking..., and the funding of multi -modal transportation programs implemented for the purpose of reducing the use of private vehicles and reduction in parking demand. 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 Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking subsequent thereto a special or general improvement district is formed and assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payer 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 eighteeRtwenty-nine thousand five h, rd -rod ninety codollars nighty Gorf& ($829,000) per space for residential uses (including, but not limited to dwelling units, timeshares and fractional fee units). There is no pay in lieu fee for commercial uses (including but not limited to accommodation units, retail uses, bars and restaurants). This fee shall be automatically adjusted annually by the percentage the consumer price index of the City of Denver has increased or decreased over each successive year. 5. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. -�6. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (section 12-10-10 of this chapter) the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on site requirements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 11: Ord. 10(l 994) § 1: Ord. 6(1991) § 1: Ord. 30(1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.800) Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 12-10-2-G19: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS — this section is deleted, pertinent elements of this section are incorporated into 12-10-16. 12-10-202: SECONDARY PAY IN LIEU PARKING ZONE ESTABLISHED a n__1 fGF the Offino A -f ��GWR Gl .SII ho i io�� iiJon�if�i crn�rrtcc-vr �'v-r'rvT� rcTc�nurr-ac-aa �crcrrcrr�r Ghapte F. PFv'p•er+ieo Will he rpryi iiCed GGFHPIYWith }mh,e ameRded pFeg Fam up Prepert 0 es RAt the Pay 1A Lieu ze-Res may apply te the Peeetr +a�efen}epts. (Ord - 29(2 95) § 29: Ord--4(23)For properties located within the Town's "Secondary Pay -In -Lieu Parking Zone" (as identified on the Town's official "Core Area Parking Map", incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants proposing an expansion, modification or change of use to an existing building may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code. Any decision to approve pay in lieu parking within the Secondary Parking Pay in Lieu Zone shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Prior to granting such approval the Planning and Environmental Commission shall determine the following: 1. That site constraints and/or the design of the existing building create significant practical difficulties such that the construction of additional on site parking would be infeasible; 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone district within which the property is located and with applicable elements of the Town's adopted master plans. 3. That the project is in compliance with Section 12-10-3 of the Zoning Code and will not result in the removal of any existing on site parking, 4. That the proposed project involves an expansion to an existing building, Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking modification to interior space of an existing building or change of use to an existing building, and that the proposal does not involve the substantial demolition and re -construction of an existing building. Highlights of Substantive Amendments Below is information on the more substantive changes proposed by these amendments: I Jcp nf Finck The use of funds from the pay in lieu program are limited by ordinance to conducting parking studies, construction and maintenance of parking, payment of bonds and administrative services. An amendment is proposed that will expand the use of funds to include multi -modal programs implemented for the purpose of reducing the use of private vehicles and hence parking demand. Examples of how these funds could be used include but are not limited to bike -share programs, carpooling and/or car -sharing programs, increased bus service and improvements to recreation trails. Per Space Parking Fee Based on a review of Town ordinances, the per space fee for Pay in Lieu Parking was first set by the Town Council in 1982 at $5,000 for residential uses and $3,000 for commercial uses. The fee was increased to $8,000 in 1991 and to $15,000 in 1994. Based on Town Council minutes, the 1994 fee was based on the Town's cost in expanding the Vail Village Parking Structure. The most recent fee was set in 2001 at $18,597.80. It is assumed that this rate was set by applying the escalator (based on the Denver Consumer Price Index (CPI)), to the 1994 fee. Applying the CPI escalator to the 2001 fee results in a new fee of just under $28,304.90. Rounding up, a per space fee of $29,000 is proposed. Some members of the PEC have expressed the need to modify the per space fee based on the cost to construct a parking space. While it is difficult to define a typical or average price of a structured parking space, one recent and one current project provide some context. The new Red Sandstone Parking Structure cost approximately $94,000 per space. While this cost included many improvements beyond the structure itself (e.g. new bus stop, turn lane, loop road through school site), the structure was benched into a hill and only required excavation on two sides. Reduced excavation costs were possibly offset by the non -structure costs. A new structure is underway in Breckenridge at an estimated cost of $100,000 per space (400 spaces at $40,000,000). Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone The Town's Official Core Area Parking Map depict properties within the proposed Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone. The primary factor in selecting properties to be included in this new zone was whether additions or expansions to the property could benefit Vail Village and Lionshead by animating and energizing Vail's two main pedestrian activity centers. Properties included in the Secondary Pay in Lieu Zone are zoned for or developed as mixed-use projects, are adjacent to the core areas of Vail Village and the Lionshead Mall or are located on highly pedestrianized corridors. Gore Area Parking Map _ Commercial Core Areas ® Commercial Core Area - Evervail (pending certain crite(ia} Pay -in -Lieu Parking Zone Secondary Pay -in -Lieu Parking Zone Proposed modification to the Core Area Parking Map adds the Secondary Pay -in -Lieu Parking Zone depicted in orange. Exempting Accommodation Units from Pay in Lieu fee Since its original adoption in 1973 Pay in Lieu Parking regulations have been amended seven times. The 2001 amendment eliminated the fee for "commercial development". The rationale in doing so was to provide an incentive for small business owners in Vail Village and Lionshead to expand and improve their shops and restaurants. It was also mentioned by Council that Vail's parking problem was not from merchants and restaurants, but rather from skier parking. Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 10 Commercial development was not defined, but over the years has been interpreted to mean retail and restaurant uses. The 2001 amendment did list accommodation units as a residential use and as such the pay in lieu fee applies to hotel rooms. For the same reasons Council waived the pay in lieu fee for retail and restaurant uses in 2001, it is proposed that the fee also be waived for accommodation units. Lodge rooms are essential to the success of Vail. Overnight guests bring vitality to Vail Village and Lionshead and spending by overnight guests is a significant benefit to shops and restaurants. Exempting lodge rooms from the pay in lieu fee will serve as an incentive for small lodge expansions in much the same way the exemption was intended to incentivize retail and restaurant expansions. In 2001 Council members stated that Vail's parking problem was a function of day skiers and not a result of shops and restaurants. The parking analysis outlined above supports this conclusion. Based on this analysis, just 40% of the Town's parking resources in Vail Village and Lionshead are utilized by retail, restaurants and office uses. This analysis suggests that most of the Town's parking, 60% or 1,548 spaces, is available for day skier parking and other users. Review Criteria Approval for a project in the Secondary Pay in lieu Parking Zone to pay in lieu of providing parking is subject to the discretion of PEC. Four criteria are proposed for the PEC to use in the evaluation of such requests. Parameters under which Pay in Lieu may be approved include: • Properties must be within the Secondary Pay in Lieu Zone as depicted on the Town's Official Core Area Parking Map. • The provision can only be used for the expansion, modification or change of use to an existing building and specifically not for demo/rebuilds. • The project cannot result in the removal of any existing parking. • The project must demonstrate that it is infeasible to provide additional parking on-site. These criteria were drafted to ensure that the utilization of the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone will address the purposes for which these amendments have been proposed. Summary Many properties within Vail Village and Lionshead are unable to pursue any level of expansion because they have no opportunity to create additional on-site parking and they are outside of the Town's Pay in Lieu Parking Zone. While additions and improvements to these properties would benefit Vail Village and Lionshead, the inability address parking requirements is a significant obstacle to these properties being improved. The purpose of the proposed Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone is to Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 11 remove this obstacle and in doing so provide an incentive for additions and improvements. With any ordinance change it is important to anticipate and understand unintended consequences and what the ordinance means. This raises two questions: To what degree will they be utilized; will they create too much incentive and generate a level of new development that will adversely burden the town's parking resources? This concern was identified early in this process and amendments were written to include parameters that limit the extent to which the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone can be utilized. • The program can only be used for additions to existing buildings, it cannot be used for demo/rebuilds. • The program is only available for properties that can demonstrate existing site conditions preclude the ability to provide additional on-site parking. • If properties in the Secondary Pay in Lieu Zone propose a demo/rebuild, the code requires on-site parking to be provided. • All properties in the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone are currently developed. While there are opportunities for additions to existing buildings exist, they are limited in scope. • Of the 19 properties included in the new zone, only 4 are lodging properties. While some opportunity exists for lodge expansions, they are limited in scope. Why should the Pay in Lieu Parking fee be waived for properties in the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone and why should the fee be waived for lodging? The Town's pay in lieu ordinance has since 2001 waived the parking fee for commercial development in Vail Village and Lionshead and in doing so makes a clear statement that this type of development is a priority for the Town and should be encouraged. This is not a new concept and the same approach is proposed for the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone. All properties in this new zone are directly proximate to the pedestrianized areas of Vail Village and Lionshead, encouraging additions and upgrades will benefit these areas and is in keeping with the Town's development objectives. Accommodation units have been added to the list of uses exempt from paying the parking fee as lodging is as important and equally valued as retail or restaurant uses. Can we risk putting further burden on the Town's parking structures by expanding the area where parking fees are waived for retail and restaurants and now for lodge rooms? During peak times, primarily in winter months, parking demand exceeds Vail's parking supply. Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 12 However, it is unlikely that these amendments will have a noticeable impact on the town's parking structures due to the limitations that have been built into the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone. While properties in the new zone have some development potential, the scale of development is limited by existing site conditions, particularly with the potential development of new lodge rooms. If new lodge rooms are to be developed in the Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone and hotel guest use town parking structures, the increased sale tax revenue from over -night guest spending would be significant and considered by many to offset any adverse impact from having fewer parking spaces available for day skiers. Properties located in the proposed Secondary Pay in Lieu Parking Zone currently have little to no potential for additional development given they are outside the existing Pay in Lieu Parking Zone and due to site constraints are unable to create additional on-site parking. With no opportunity for expansion there is little incentive for these properties to be upgraded. Without this proposed amendment there will be no change to this situation. With this amendment these properties will have the opportunity to consider expansions and upgrades to their properties. This amendment removes an obstacle to development and opens the door to property owners who may have an opportunity to make improvements that can further the Town's development objectives. Review Criteria for Zoning Code Amendments 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Response The town's pay in lieu parking program has been in place since 1973 and amended many times, it has been deemed to further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. The proposed amendment refines and expands the existing program in a manner that is consistent with its original intent. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Response Refer to criteria #4 below for a list of development objectives and policies from the Vail Village and Lionshead master plans. This amendment will facilitate these objectives and policies a Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 13 number of ways, foremost among them by encouraging redevelopment and potentially reducing traffic by supporting alternative modes of transportation. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Response If approved, this would be the eighth amendment to the pay in lieu parking program since 1973. Amendments have been done in response to changing conditions, circumstances and needs of the Town. Among other things, the amendment responds to a trend toward multi -modal transportation programs and the amendment responds to a current condition whereby many properties are unable to provide additional parking due to site constraints. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and Response The proposed text amendment refines and expands the basic premise of the pay in lieu parking program that has been in place in some form since 1973. It is not a new idea, rather the amendments reflect improvements to a long-established idea. The amendment will remove an obstacle to redevelopment and in doing so further a number of objectives and policies from the Vail Village Master Plan and the Lionshead: Vail Village Master Plan Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the town. Objective 2.2: Recognize the importance of Vail Village as a mixed use center of activities for our guests, visitors and residents. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Policy 2.3.1: The development of short term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 14 Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Policy 2.4.1: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. Policy 5.1.4: Continue to promote the lease parking program as a means for maximizing the utilization of private parking spaces. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 2.3.3 Stronger Economic Base Through Increased Live Beds In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates and the creation of additional bed base ("live beds" or "warm beds") through new lodging products. S. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments To be determined. Parking Code Amendments Off-site Leased Parking/Pay in Lieu Parking 15 Section 12-10-6 PARKING OFF SITE AND JOINT 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 orjointly used parking facilities if located within throe. h,_,PPIred foo+ (3c)9 thirteen hundred and twenty feet (1,320') of the use served. ^ 6 i+heri+„ +e permit eff s;+e er iemF# HAeA^'Ais; No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of required on-site parking may be provided by such off-site locations. Prior to permitting off-site erjGiRt parking facilities, the town council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will he as HS.Able Ar,PI ^epye„ie„+ as pa*iRg fAGilities nennen+ra+;GR of pa Fkepl ears . The town 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. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400) 12-10-16: EXEMPT AREAS; PARKING FUND AND PAY IN LIEU PARKING ZONES 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 leadiRg requirements, the Council shall determine the following: 1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town. 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted. 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; fer r.re.nsien of adegi +e lea li.pg faGili+ies fer a system fer and r.iGk , ip of geeds� and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, 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: For PFs}ests properties located within the Town's " Pay -In -Lieu Parking Zone" (as identified on the Town's official "Parking Pay Ir, Lieu eRe Core Area Parking Map", incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code.{^r the r.i irr.^o^ ^f m^^flr,rr the i-1^rv,and Ar,.J ,1^,,, Im^nfo ._r,.J the Z^niRg r^rr6 ilati„r,o At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop apaFGGI A# property within ar exempt area the "Pay in Lieu Parking Zone", which would require additional on site parking lead_iRg areae the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required: 1. The Parking Fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking..., and the funding of multi -modal transportation programs implemented for the purpose of reducing the use of private vehicles and reduction in parking demand. 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 assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payer 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 eighteeRtwenty-nine thousand five h, r„ -rod r,iRety codollars nighty GGRt& ($929,000) per space for residential uses (including, but not limited to Rots,61 dwelling units, timeshares and fractional fee units). There is no pay in lieu fee for commercial uses (including but not limited to accommodation units, retail uses, bars and restaurants). This fee shall be automatically adjusted annually by the percentage the consumer price index of the City of Denver has increased or decreased over each successive year. 5. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. 7-6. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (section 12-10-10 of this chapter) the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on site requirements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 11: Ord. 10(l 994) § 1: Ord. 6(1991) § 1: Ord. 30(1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.800) 12-10-219: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS 12-10-202: SECONDARY P"o PAY IN LIEU PARKING ZONES ESTABLISHED 7i�il�hlo fnr incn�} the Offino of ewR Clerk) shall ho used- fn ir-onfifi crn�rrtcc-vr vv�-rvrcrtc�n-crrrrsc-aaccrcv�crcrrcrr�r Ghapter. Preper}ies will be r89610rGd tG nmmPlY With Fthe arneRded nrnnram 61p RFE)PeFtieS RG-t O.RGII-19-189-1 OR the Pay Ip 1_49-W ZA-Res may apply te the Peeetrfa�relerepts. (295`, § 29: Ord.-4(23)For properties located within the Town's "Secondary Pay-In-Lieu Parking Zone" (as identified on the Town's official "Core Area Parking Map", incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants proposing an expansion, modification or change of use to an existing building may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code. Any decision to approve pay in lieu parking within the Secondary Parking Pay in Lieu Zone shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Prior to granting such approval the Planning and Environmental Commission shall determine the following: 1. That site constraints and/or the design of the existing building create significant practical difficulties such that the construction of additional on site parking would be infeasible; 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone district within which the property is located and with applicable elements of the Town's adopted master plans. 3. That the project is in compliance with Section 12-10-3 of the Zoning Code and will not result in the removal of any existing on site parking, 4. That the proposed project involves an expansion to an existing building, modification to interior space of an existing building or change of use to an existing building, and that the proposal does not involve the substantial demolition and re -construction of an existing building. Section 12-10-6 PARKING OFF SITE AND JOINT 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 thirteen hundred and twenty feet (1,320') of the use served. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of required on-site parking may be provided by such off-site locations. Prior to permitting off-site parking facilities, the town council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter. The town 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. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400) 12-10-16: EXEMPT AREAS; PARKING FUND AND PARKING PAY IN LIEU ZONES 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 requirements, the Council shall determine the following: That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town. 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted. 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking 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: For properties located within the Town's "Parking Pay -In -Lieu" Zones (as identified on the Town's official "Core Area Parking Map", incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code.. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a property within the "Parking Pay in Lieu Zone", which would require additional on site parking, the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required: 1. The Parking Fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, administrative services relating to parking, and the funding of multi -modal transportation programs implemented for the purpose of reducing the use of private vehicles and reduction in parking demand. 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 assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payer 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 twenty-nine thousand dollars ($29,000) per space for residential uses (including, but not limited to dwelling units, timeshares and fractional fee units). There is no pay in lieu fee for commercial uses (including but not limited to accommodation units, retail uses, bars and restaurants). This fee shall be automatically adjusted annually by the percentage the consumer price index of the City of Denver has increased or decreased over each successive year. 5. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. 6. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (section 12-10-10 of this chapter) the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on site requirements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 11: Ord. 10(l 994) § 1: Ord. 6(1991) § 1: Ord. 30(1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.800) 12-10-19: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS 12-10-2021: SECONDARY PARKING PAY IN LIEU ZONES ESTABLISHED For properties located within the Town's "Secondary Parking Pay -In -Lieu" Zones (as identified on the Town's official "Core Area Parking Map", incorporated by reference and available for inspection at the Office of the Town Clerk and the Department of Community Development), property owners or applicants proposing an expansion, modification or change of use to an existing building may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, in lieu of providing on-site parking as may be prescribed by the zoning code. Any decision to approve pay in lieu parking within the Secondary Parking Pay in Lieu Zone shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Prior to granting such approval the Planning and Environmental Commission shall determine the following: 1. That site constraints and/or the design of the existing building create significant practical difficulties such that the construction of additional on site parking would be infeasible; 2. That the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone district within which the property is located and with applicable elements of the Town's adopted master plans. 3. That the project is in compliance with Section 12-10-3 of the Zoning Code and will not result in the removal of any existing on site parking, 4. That the proposed project involves an expansion to an existing building, modification to interior space of an existing building or change of use to an existing building, and that the proposal does not involve the substantial demolition and re -construction of an existing building. Im m I 9 f— 8' i 5 1 Im m City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: June 22, 2020 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 062220.pdf June 22, 2020 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl June 22, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers & Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web. zoom. us/webi nar/register/W N_i Be9e3N PSwKdnAd7F QTB eg 1.2. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, John -Ryan Lockman, Rollie Kjesbo, Pete Seibert, Brian Gillette (arrived late) Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 5 min. regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off Site and Joint Facilities, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to the July 13, 2020 PEC meeting. Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to July 13, 2020. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Gillette 2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6 Business and 20 min. Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the number of allowable free standing signs, located at 2109 North Frontage Road West/Vail Commons Condominiums (City Market), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0011) Applicant: Town of Vail/Dillon Real Estate Co., represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence & Erik Gates 1. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Planner Spence points out the differences between a regular variance and a sign variance. Pedro Campos with Zehren gives an introduction to the team and the gives an overview of the project. Commissioner Gillette joined the meeting. Tim Halbakken with Zehren and Associates introduces himself and goes over the request for the sign variance. Lockman had questions on the use of the downstairs parking. Applicants stated that it is seldom used. Continued to describe the condition of the downstairs garage and the idea passed to the owner to improve the area. Kurz offered comments as to why he believes it is underutilized and was hoping that improvements to the downstairs lot would be included. Applicant states that would be the intent. Lockman added that the site is seeing more pedestrians around the east side of the building and is wondering if there are plans to improve crosswalks or signs in that area. Spence says he will relay those concerns to the Public Works department. He iterates that staff is in support of the proposal. Informs the PEC they are not looking at the signs, but that there would be allowed 2 instead of just 1. Pratt states that he sees a lot of traffic in that area during the winter. Tells the applicants that to see more utilization of the lower level they need to improve the experience of the users. That people avoid this area by choice, even though they know it is there. No public comments. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approved with conditions. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-5-2 (H): Other Requirements, Landscaping, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required parking lot landscaping to allow for the redesign of the existing surface parking lot, located at 2109 North Frontage Road West/Vail Commons Condominiums (City Market), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0012) The applicant has withdrawn this application. Applicant: Town of Vail/Dillon Real Estate Co., represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence & Erik Gates 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. June 8, 2020 PEC Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. 1 nformational Update 4.1. An update to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the 20 min. Realignment of the Gore Valley Trail in the vicinity of the Lionshead Base Area. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence introduces Todd Oppenheimer and introduces the project. Oppenheimer goes over the scope of the project and the reason behind the redesign. Notes that Vail Resorts is a partner in the project and has helped to fund the design. Goes over the segments of the project and the design to this point. Pratt asks about the price of the project and the relation of the bridge and the big spruce. Oppenheimer states that there was not a lot of cost difference in saving the tree or not, and that the bridge design did not have a lot to do with the cost. Lockman asks about the staircase for commercial access and signage. Lists concerns about the use of stairs and the amount of mountain bikes that could potentially use the stairs. Oppenheimer says they have not gotten to that stage of the design but lists possible ways to alleviate that possibility. Kurz questions on how the trail is closed during the winter at this time, but would the changes allow for some of the trail to be open during the winter. Oppenheimer says that there would still have to be a closure in the winter for the magic carpet grooming. 5. Adjournment Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: July 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: West Vail Master Plan Update Al 0000598884-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/10/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/10/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 7/31/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 7/31/2020. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1 ME LISPN MEDINA rrnav PugL!d. VAT(:OF-0111-11 NOTA 6ZY til2BblRI:Gl 79i9g N`/vCfi3.¢SGpM;XpAUGil672,28K' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION J.10 13, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers & Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road - V,II, Colorado, 8165/ 1. Call to Order 1.1. Attendance 1.2. Registerin advance for this—bin- impsl/us02web.zoom.us/webinar/regist.,MN_ETc2HgnLS_6j,1 wJg,dO,A 2. Main Agenda 2.1. Amquest for therevlew of a variance lmm Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to Me reqqulremeM that a secantlary uni in the Tiro -Family Primary/Secondary Residenial zone distrix no[ exceed 4D% of allowable site GRFA, in acoordance with the p—mcns of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, located at 775 Potato Patch 13,WLot 19, Block 1, Veil Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting font, details In regard thereto. (PEC19-0050) 20 min. Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Plannei, Edk Gates 2.2. Arequesl forarecommendaion to Ina Vail Town Council faxprescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Tawn Cade to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking, Off $ite and Joint Facilhies, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used m the review of such proposals and to clarity the ew process and other considerations, and seting mfth details m regard thereto. (PE020-0007) 90 min. Applicant: Braun Assodates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. June 22, 2020 PEC Results 4. Ind—cliond Update 4.1.West VaII Master Plan Update Planner: Matt Gannett 5. Adjournment The applicetbns and Inlormaion about the proposals are available for public Inspection during regular otlice hours at the Tawn of Vail Community Devel'Tant Devp'iart Brat, 75 S utthh FFm lcahearn inn' public is invibadto attend the project odenlaUcnan�d 'T grace pu ginthe Town of Vail Communhy Devebpment Deperinent. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be balletl upon to determine at what time the Planning and EnAnonmeMel Commission will consider an hem. Please call (970) 479-2138 for add tonal Intormat Please cal 1711 M sign language iMerpretalm, Q no, prior to meeting ime. Community Deyebpment Depa hment Publisted in the Vail Daily Jury 10, 2020. 0000598884 Ad #: 0000593667-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 nom anmbl ch ora miaaign Mznce wih oftiooil ,It pu ngin= 3-8, Vail Town Code, onJuly 13, 2020 at 1:00 pm PROOF OF PUBLICATION in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Register in advance for his webi— U 3-eb.—o,.us`webIoW—lsleoWN ET. VAIL DAILY 6i 9 g� STATE OF COLORADO A,1 st fa the revlew of a variance from Section 12--e, Density C-1, Vail Town Coda, to allow COUNTY OF EAGLE for a variance to he requirement that a secondary ilei`ro�aadsnia not meets 0%of allaowebi site GRFA, in accordance it, the p 's ns of Section V.11 Ton Code, —tad a1 775 12-17.Van—, Vawoca I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of Potato Patch FPingh1 Dalvalil nd setting fodetells to regard the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in thereto. (PEC1"D50) Applicant. Scott Ryan B Foster Gillett,represented whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, by Meurlello Planning Group State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; Planner: Erlk Gare. that said newspaper has been published continuously and The applications and intormation about1he propos- s are ova labia ror pUblk Inspe ton during oMCB uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle fora of hou at pie Town of Vail Com unity Developmen Demnment, 75 South Frontage Road. The publio P Y `7 9 period more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the ted to attend site visits. Please ,It 970.479. 2138 u visit www.vailgov—planningfgr addition- aI iMormation. first publication of the annexed legal notice or Signlanguage in erpretation available upon advertisement and that said newspaper has published the request with 24-hour nottcaton, dial 711. Published June 26,2120 in the Vail Baily. requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. 1011593667 The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 6/26/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 6/26/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 6/30/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 6/30/2020. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF r rnI, eu z VATf DFCULo-11 NOTARY til Rgir�079i9A u`/vCfi%¢CGON:Xi'IRI:GAk3Gil57et.26x'