HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC080067Planning and Environmental Commissonഀ
ACTION FORMഀ
TOWN W VAഀ
CO M "rY MVELOPWUrഀ
Department of Community Developmentഀ
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657ഀ
tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452ഀ
web: www.vailgov.comഀ
Project Name: PEC Number: PEC080067ഀ
Project Description:ഀ
Participants:ഀ
WITHDRAWN CODE AMENDMENT TO PRESCRIBED REGULATIONS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-ഀ
3-7, AMENDMENT, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO SECTION 12-6I-8, PARKING AND LOADING, VAILഀ
TOWN CODE, TO AMEND PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE HOUSING (H) ZONE DISTRICTഀ
OWNER VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG 11/03/2008ഀ
75 S FRONTAGE RDഀ
VAILഀ
CO 81657ഀ
APPLICANT TOWN OF VAIL 11/03/2008ഀ
GEORGE RUTHERഀ
75 S FRONTAGE RDഀ
VAILഀ
CO 81657ഀ
Project Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location:ഀ
Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: R.O.W.ഀ
Parcel Number: 2101-064-0000-3ഀ
Comments:ഀ
BOARD/STAFF ACTIONഀ
Motion By: Action: WITHDRWNഀ
Second By:ഀ
Vote: Date of Approval:ഀ
Conditions:ഀ
Planner: Nicole Peterson PEC Fee Paid: $0.00ഀ
Housing (H) District Parking Regulations Project Timeline andഀ
Table of Contentsഀ
Dateഀ
Meeting Typeഀ
Actionഀ
Staffഀ
11/03/08ഀ
Applicationഀ
PEC Notice postedഀ
George Rutherഀ
submittedഀ
for 11/24/09ഀ
11/24/09ഀ
PEC Work Sessionഀ
Tabledഀ
George Rutherഀ
12/02/08ഀ
Town Council Workഀ
Tabledഀ
George Rutherഀ
Sessionഀ
01/26/09ഀ
PEC Work Sessionഀ
Tabledഀ
Nicole Petersonഀ
02/09/09ഀ
PEC Finalഀ
No recommendationഀ
Nicole Peterson/ഀ
Recommendationഀ
- Tie voteഀ
Nina Timmഀ
02/17/09ഀ
Town Council Workഀ
Tabledഀ
Nicole Peterson/ഀ
Sessionഀ
Nina Timmഀ
03/17/09ഀ
Town Council Firstഀ
Tabledഀ
Nicole Peterson/ഀ
Reading ofഀ
Nina Timmഀ
Ordinance No. 3,ഀ
Series of 2009ഀ
05/05/09ഀ
Town Council Workഀ
Applicationഀ
Nicole Peterson/ഀ
Sessionഀ
Withdrawnഀ
Nina Timmഀ
Zoning Code Amendmentsഀ
Application for Review by thഀ
Planning and Environmental Com ' sionഀ
t Department of Community Developmentഀ
~l~OFM 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 8165] 3ഀ
tel: 970.479.2128 fax: 970.479.2452ഀ
web: www.vailgov.com TOWN OF VA I Lഀ
General Information:ഀ
All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting aഀ
building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested.ഀ
An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required informationഀ
is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Townഀ
Council and/or the Design Review Board.ഀ
Type of Application and Fee:ഀ
❑ഀ
Rezoningഀ
$1300ഀ
❑ഀ
Conditional Use Permitഀ
$650ഀ
❑ഀ
Major Subdivisionഀ
$1500ഀ
❑ഀ
Floodplain Modificationഀ
$400ഀ
❑ഀ
Minor Subdivisionഀ
$650ഀ
❑ഀ
Minor Exterior Alterationഀ
$650ഀ
❑ഀ
Exemption Platഀ
$650ഀ
❑ഀ
Major Exterior Alterationഀ
$800ഀ
❑ഀ
Minor Amendment to an SDDഀ
$1000ഀ
❑ഀ
Development Planഀ
$1500ഀ
❑ഀ
New Special Development Districtഀ
$6000ഀ
❑ഀ
Amendment to a Development Planഀ
$250ഀ
❑ഀ
Major Amendment to an SDDഀ
$6000ഀ
Aഀ
Zoning Code Amendmentഀ
$1300ഀ
❑ഀ
Major Amendment to an SDDഀ
$1250ഀ
❑ഀ
Varianceഀ
$500ഀ
(no exterior modifications)ഀ
❑ഀ
Sign Varianceഀ
$200ഀ
Description of the Request: A REQIIEST FOR A RR('ommENDATToN To TRA vATT. TOWN COUN ILഀ
OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12-6I-8, PARKING AND LOADING. VAIL TOWN CODE,ഀ
TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIRF.hIF.NT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES FOR PARKIN;ഀ
Location of the Proposal: Lot: Block: Subdivision:ഀ
Physical Address:ഀ
Parcel No.: 2101 064 0oool (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.)ഀ
Zoning:ഀ
Name(s) of Owner(s): TowN OF VATT comet JTTV nuvm pmNT DEPARTMENTഀ
Mailing Address:ഀ
Owner(s) Signature(s):ഀ
Phone:ഀ
Name of Applicant: TOWN nR VAI COM10=1TV DEVET RKE= DERAഀ
Mailing Address: 75 S.FRONTAGE ROADഀ
Phone: 970 479-2138ഀ
. E-mail Address: GRUTHER&VAILGOV. COM Faxഀ
for Office Use Only:ഀ
Fee Paid: lAi Check No.: By:ഀ
Meeting Date: ll 12~ PEC No.:ഀ
Planner: Project Noഀ
c ev ermi s anning C\zoning_code_ameno.ooc rage i oഀ
Iഀ
TOWN OF PAIL ~kഀ
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTYഀ
PUBLIC NOTICEഀ
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of theഀ
Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Townഀ
Code, on November 24, 2008, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, inഀ
consideration of:ഀ
PECO80061, Rezoningഀ
PEC080062, Major Subdivisionഀ
PEC080063, CUPഀ
PEC080064, Major Exterior Alterationഀ
PEC080065, Zoning Code Amendmentഀ
A request for a final review for a variance from 12-6E-7, Height, Vail Town Code,ഀ
pursuant to 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a building in excess of 33ഀ
feet in height, located at 2754 South Frontage Road West/Lot B, Stephens Subdivision,ഀ
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080066)ഀ
Applicant: Lorraine Howenstein, represented by Beth Levineഀ
Planner: Bill Gibsonഀ
A request for a final review of an amendment to the prescribed regulations outlined inഀ
Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to establish a minimum parkingഀ
requirement for the Housing (H) zone district and to further clarify the parkingഀ
requirement expectations of the town, and setting forth details in regard thereto.ഀ
(PEC08-0067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Departmentഀ
Planner: George Rutherഀ
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONഀ
November 24, 2008ഀ
12:OOpmഀ
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOMEഀ
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657ഀ
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENTഀ
Michael Kurz Scott Properഀ
Sarah Paladino-Robinsonഀ
Susie Tjossemഀ
Bill Pierceഀ
Rollie Kjesboഀ
David Vieleഀ
30 minutesഀ
4. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuantഀ
to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking andഀ
Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, toഀ
amend parking requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parkingഀ
requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regardഀ
thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: George Rutherഀ
ACTION: Motion to Table to December 8, 2008ഀ
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0ഀ
George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce said he wants to know how other communities deal with thisഀ
exact issue. He felt that flexibility was a benefit, and once it is codified, this benefitഀ
goes away. Most developers don't draw employee housing and then ask for relief.ഀ
He said it would be helpful to have discussions before things get drawn to discussഀ
how the parking will be dealt with within a project.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that there are forces here. Do the parking requirementsഀ
work? There are guidelines for each area, where if you are transit orientedഀ
development, you have lower guidelines. Perhaps we could have guidelines thatഀ
break it down by dormitory, one bedroom, two bedroom, single family etc and basedഀ
on location and desired occupant. The developer will provide a plan for parking, andഀ
if they deviate from general guidelines, they will have to provide additional amenitiesഀ
like sidewalks, bike parking, etc. We need to let the developer respond with aഀ
creative method that works for each project. They should also be able to provideഀ
shuttles or some other mechanism to provide transportation to the people who liveഀ
there. If the parking comes first, on top of all other requirements, they may decideഀ
that's not what they want.ഀ
George Ruther asked if it is possible to come up with a parking requirement for aഀ
dorm unit.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz responded that per dormitory unit, you cannot have a singleഀ
requirement because they have a wide variety of number of beds. Kurz said generalഀ
guidelines are good, but then need to take into account the other factors like transitഀ
oriented development.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem asked if this came out of the Town Council discussion onഀ
redevelopment of Timber Ridge. She said a requirement might allow moreഀ
measurable development. Isn't this helping make the housing affordable?ഀ
George Ruther said that the Timber Ridge Advisory Committee is the impetus behindഀ
this request. As a developer, there needs to be clear and predicable expectations,ഀ
and not just open-ended interpretation.ഀ
Commissioner Viele said he looks at what makes sense and what is required/legal.ഀ
He agrees that there needs to be flexibility in approval, but there has to be aഀ
minimum/maximum guideline that shows a threshold that needs to be met or that theഀ
Town considers to be adequate.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that putting a requirement puts a limit on what can be built,ഀ
and he said that developers need the ability to be creative. If we require it at all, itഀ
will not bring new solutions.ഀ
George Ruther asked if zero parking is an option if alternate means of transportationഀ
are provided.ഀ
Commissioner Palladino said that no, it is not ok because the Town takesഀ
responsibility for the cars being somewhere else, like on the Frontage Road, atഀ
trailhead parking or displaced elsewhere in town. She said as much as no parking isഀ
great, it is not practical. The town is still rural and not dense enough, and there areഀ
no rental car places in the vicinity to serve as an alternative means of transportation.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem said that the seasonal workers are changing and are againഀ
switching from international back to domestic. There are many domestic laborers outഀ
of work and they are coming here, and like it or not they have cars. We cannot baseഀ
this amendment on who we are attracting at a single point in time or who we wouldഀ
like to attract because it keeps changing. However, proximity to public transportationഀ
and alternate means of transportation to a building would be better to control theഀ
issue.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce said guidelines need to be provided as a starting point.ഀ
Chapter 10 of the Code provides closely defined requirements, but If its in a differentഀ
location, the parking requirement is less. He said the Code needs to take intoഀ
consideration some units that are a-typical. Perhaps need to add requirements forഀ
dormitory rooms or number of spaces "per pillow". He believes we need to haveഀ
requirements so that people understand what is required from the start. Alternateഀ
housing opportunities should have their own section.ഀ
George Ruther sought to clarify the comments he heard from the PEC. He saidഀ
transit oriented development helps to reduce requirements from other places, suchഀ
as transportation, etc. He said he was wondering if there are times when theഀ
transportation system goes underutilized. He said there may be opportunities toഀ
greater utilize infrastructure, including buses, sidewalks, bike paths, etc.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that if the town had 24 hour bus service and you could liveഀ
in the village, there could be a reduced need for cars. People however want cars toഀ
go other places. We can not ignore that. He said it would be good to take cars offഀ
the road with environmental sustainability in mind.ഀ
George Ruther asked about parking for visitors. He asked if it's ok if visitors to theഀ
project do not have parking. He said this is included in the calculation for parking.ഀ
The Commissioners said you need to provide visitor parking.ഀ
Commisioner Viele said there needs to be an element of trust within the market.ഀ
There needs to be parking provided that the developer will provide on their own.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said that each project is different, and with for-sale units, youഀ
need more parking.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem said that when a business owner has a building we don'tഀ
want them to have the ability to say no parking. With Timber Ridge, she says theഀ
developer needs to understand what is required.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said there needs to be flexibility.ഀ
George Ruther said that developers tell the Town that they would like predictability.ഀ
He said that is it clear at to distance from services, buses, etc.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said that in Solar Vail there was a parking plan that allowedഀ
flexibility. He said there is not enough parking in any building in Town was hisഀ
perception.ഀ
Commissioner Viele said that the Code is the worst case scenario, and that shouldഀ
be put into the pro-forma and anything allowed in less is a bonus. He said theഀ
question is whether that requirement should be different in the Housing District.ഀ
George Ruther asked if the criteria are good for this type of development (ie Housingഀ
zone district), can they be expanded to other districts?ഀ
Commissioner Viele said there is a provision in the Lionshead Redevelopmentഀ
Master Plan that allows for flexibility from the Town Code. He said there should beഀ
flexibility written in.ഀ
George Ruther asked if we want all the cars and parking that comes withഀ
development, but perhaps take another method, like transportation, etc. Do we wantഀ
the outcome when we assess that parking? Should we be looking at other ways toഀ
address problem?ഀ
Commissioner Kurz asked if a transportation plan is required.ഀ
George Ruther said that there are aspects of a transportation plan in each project,ഀ
but not in detail. If we rely solely on parking spaces as addressing transportationഀ
needs, perhaps we are not getting results we want.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that if the units require parking, the developer will put that inഀ
the economic model. He said that location should help determine what your parkingഀ
requirements are.ഀ
George Ruther said there has been a paradigm shift where parking is very valuableഀ
but if you give people walkability, they may not need parking.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said it needs to be in conjunction with traffic flow considerations.ഀ
Dominic Mauriello said that parking requirements could be established but thenഀ
allow for diversions from that.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said that at Middle Creek, they charge for parking. On Timberഀ
Ridge there is a model with how many parking spaces. There is history to use toഀ
understand what parking requirements are.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce asked about parking at Timber Ridgeഀ
Nina Timm said there are 308 spaces for 198 units, and all are utilized. (It was laterഀ
determined on December 2, 2008 that there are only 225 spaces on-site). She saidഀ
you cant regulate the occupant but you have more people per units at Timber Ridge.ഀ
Because of financing, you can limit occupancy but you don't have more than 2ഀ
people per unit at Middle Creek, driving it more than anything.ഀ
MEMORANDUMഀ
TO: Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commissionഀ
FROM: Community Development Departmentഀ
DATE: November 24, 2008ഀ
SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council forഀ
prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,ഀ
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading,ഀ
and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, toഀ
amend parking requirements for employee housing units and to clarify theഀ
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forthഀ
details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: George Rutherഀ
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTഀ
The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a worksession with the Town ofഀ
Vail Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss possible prescribedഀ
regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Townഀ
Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Streetഀ
Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements forഀ
employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housingഀ
(H) zone district.ഀ
The Town's stated policy for parking in the Housing (H) zone district is,ഀ
"there is a transportation need generated by the residents living withinഀ
the Housing (H) zone district that shall be addressed. "ഀ
In addressing that need, however, presently there are two options an applicantഀ
can choose from to meet the transportation need. The two options are either:ഀ
1) adhere to the parking requirements prescribed for residentialഀ
development as stated in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations,ഀ
orഀ
2) successfully demonstrate that the transportation needs of theഀ
residents is met by means other than providing for the convenient use ofഀ
a private automobile.ഀ
According to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, the parkingഀ
requirement for development in the Housing (H) zone district shall be as follows,ഀ
"Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of thisഀ
title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any requiredഀ
setback area. At the discretion of the planning and environmentalഀ
commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in chapter 10 ofഀ
this title may be approved during the review of a development planഀ
subject to a parking management plan. The parking management planഀ
shall be approved by the planning and environmental commission andഀ
shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on aഀ
demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than chapter 10 of this titleഀ
would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in theഀ
required parking could include:ഀ
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportationഀ
including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services.ഀ
8. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number ofഀ
cars for each unit.ഀ
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to,ഀ
rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, orഀ
staggered work shifts."ഀ
To summarize the regulation, the parking requirement for development in theഀ
Housing (H) zone district shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 10ഀ
of the Zoning Regulations. Pursuant to Chapter 10, a minimum of 1.5 to 2ഀ
parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit.ഀ
Conversely, recognizing the importance of ensuring the affordability of dwellingഀ
units constructed in the Housing (H) zone district, and the many uniqueഀ
challenges in doing so, the current regulation also grants the Planning andഀ
Environmental Commission discretion when determining the parking requirementഀ
for development within the district. According to the regulation, the Commissionഀ
may grant a reduction in the number of required parking spaces if the applicantഀ
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commission that alternate provisions existഀ
to meet the transportation needs of the residents living within the District.ഀ
There is little doubt that the intent of the current regulation, as written, is toഀ
maintain flexibility through discretion in the application of the parkingഀ
requirements. However, several issues have come up questioning theഀ
effectiveness and efficiency of the current regulations. Those issues include:ഀ
Given the demographics and likely lifestyle choices ofഀ
potential residents of the Housing (H) zone district, are 1.5 toഀ
2 parking spaces per dwelling unit the appropriate number ofഀ
parking spaces or is that too many spaces?ഀ
Does the current regulation clearly state the Town'sഀ
development objectives and expectations for development inഀ
the Housing H) zone district?ഀ
2ഀ
• Does the current regulation provide predictability for anഀ
applicant in the imposition of the parking requirements orഀ
does it unintentionally create ambiguity and confusion forഀ
applicants? Is it the most efficient way to address theഀ
situation?ഀ
• Are there additional issues (traffic congestion, traffic flow,ഀ
public transit capacity, environmental, distribution ofഀ
population, availability of public parking, etc.) that can beഀ
addressed with amendments to the parking requirements forഀ
the Housing (H) zone district?ഀ
DISCUSSION ISSUESഀ
The Community Development Department has identified a number of issuesഀ
which should be discussed prior to drafting an amendment to the existingഀ
regulation. They include:ഀ
1. Should affordability (economic) have a greater priority than livability andഀ
assuring that transportation needs are met?ഀ
2. Should the residential parking standards be amended to include aഀ
provision for providing parking spaces on a per pillow basis in addition toഀ
a per dwelling unit basis?ഀ
3. How should the parking needs of visitors be addressed?ഀ
4. Should any amended parking standards be expanded to all employeeഀ
housing units or should they only remain applicable to development withinഀ
the Housing (H) zone district?ഀ
5. Should quantifiable standards be created to better determine whenഀ
reductions to the requirements can be granted (ie, distance to publicഀ
transit stop, availability of sidewalks and bike paths, proximity toഀ
commercial centers, etc.)?ഀ
6. Should the regulations be the same for rental projects and for-saleഀ
projects? What about dormitory/studio units versus one, two & threeഀ
bedroom units?ഀ
7. Should public transit, bicycle path, sidewalk improvements, etc. beഀ
required in lieu when granting relief from the prescribed parkingഀ
requirements?ഀ
8. How should the issue of "displaced" vehicle parking be addressed?ഀ
9. It has been suggested that a parking requirement of one space per fourഀ
bedroom dormitory unit be established (ie, 0.25 space/pillow). Is that aഀ
reasonable requirement given likely demographic of the residentsഀ
choosing to live in a dormitory unit?ഀ
3ഀ
10. Others?ഀ
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONഀ
As this is a worksession, the Community Development Department will not beഀ
providing a recommendation at this time. Staff anticipates that this request willഀ
be back before the Planning and Environmental Commission on December 8,ഀ
2008, for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council.ഀ
4ഀ
MEDIA ADVISORYഀ
December 2, 2008ഀ
Contact: Corey Swisher, 479-2106ഀ
Town Manager's Officeഀ
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 2, 2008ഀ
Work Session Briefsഀ
Council members present: Foley, Daly, Cleveland, Hitt, Gordon, Rogersഀ
Newbury entered the Council Chambers at 1:54 p.m.ഀ
--Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC)/Design Review Board (DRB) Updateഀ
During a review of the most recent meetings of the PEC and DRB, Chief of Planningഀ
Warren Campbell answered questions regarding the latest proposals to go before theഀ
two boards. Hitt expressed concern about the continued presence of snow cats onഀ
Forest Road.ഀ
Newbury entered the meeting at approximately 1:54 p.m.ഀ
--A work session to discuss a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Sectionഀ
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, andഀ
Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parkingഀ
requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in theഀ
Housing (H) zone districtഀ
Community Development Director George Ruther asked Council to provide staff withഀ
policy direction on the town's expectations related to the transportation needs andഀ
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district. Based on numerous discussionsഀ
on the transportation needs and parking requirements for the Housing zone district, it isഀ
often identified that the flexibility provided in the parking requirements also creates aഀ
certain amount of unintended confusion and ambiguity. The current stated policy forഀ
parking in the Housing (H) zone district is, `there is a transportation need generated byഀ
residents living within the Housing zone district that shall be addressed." Rogersഀ
emphasized, "We want to house people, not cars ...She then spoke in support ofഀ
parking space rentals ...You need to burden the people who want cars by making themഀ
pay for them ...I'm very much in favor of reducing parking spaces in the housingഀ
district ...It seems to me flexibility is the better way to go and it needs to be moreഀ
predictable." Hitt asked for a study to "determine what our reality is here in town." Heഀ
then expressed concern that reduced parking requirements would lead to moreഀ
abandoned vehicles being parked in residential neighborhoods. "I don't think it hasഀ
been clearly proven that just because it's a dorm it means less cars." Daly clarifiedഀ
fewer foreign workers in town would lead to increased parking demand. He thenഀ
encouraged providing enhanced predictability for developers. Cleveland stated, "It'sഀ
unreasonable to expect our seasonal workers to exist without an automobile... Anyഀ
project is going to require parking." Foley spoke in support of providing additionalഀ
public transportation. Zemler encouraged "thinking through" some sort of payment-in-ഀ
lieu component. Rogers encouraged staff to speak with the City of Boulder in regard toഀ
their existing parking requirements. For more information, contact George Ruther atഀ
479-2145.ഀ
MEMORANDUMഀ
TO: Vail Town Councilഀ
FROM: Community Development Departmentഀ
DATE: December 2, 2008ഀ
SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant toഀ
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parkingഀ
and Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vailഀ
Town Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing unitsഀ
and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district,ഀ
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Departmentഀ
Planner: George Rutherഀ
1. SUMMARYഀ
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Vail Town Council of theഀ
existing regulations for addressing the parking requirement and transportationഀ
needs of development within the Housing (H) zone district and to share theഀ
Planning & Environmental Commission's initial input on the issues and optionsഀ
for amending the prescribed regulations. Based upon the input received to dateഀ
and the input shared by the Town Council, staff will be returning to the Planningഀ
& Environmental Commission on December 8, 2008, with a proposed amendingഀ
ordinance. At this time we anticipate first reading with the Town Council to beഀ
held during the evening session of the Town Council meeting on December 16,ഀ
2008.ഀ
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTഀ
The applicant, the Town of Vail Community, is requesting a worksession with theഀ
Vail Town Council to discuss possible prescribed regulation amendments,ഀ
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8,ഀ
Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vailഀ
Town Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing units and toഀ
clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district.ഀ
The Town's stated policy for parking in the Housing (H) zone district is,ഀ
"there is a transportation need generated by the residents living withinഀ
the Housing (H) zone district that shall be addressed. "ഀ
In addressing that need, however, presently there are two options an applicantഀ
can choose from to meet the transportation need. The two options are either:ഀ
1) adhere to the parking requirements prescribed for residentialഀ
development as stated in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations,ഀ
orഀ
2) successfully demonstrate that the transportation needs of theഀ
residents is met by means other than providing for the convenient use ofഀ
a private automobile.ഀ
According to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, the parkingഀ
requirement for development in the Housing (H) zone district shall be as follows,ഀ
"Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of thisഀ
title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any requiredഀ
setback area. At the discretion of the planning and environmentalഀ
commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in chapter 10 ofഀ
this title may be approved during the review of a development planഀ
subject to a parking management plan. The parking management planഀ
shall be approved by the planning and environmental commission andഀ
shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on aഀ
demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than chapter 10 of this titleഀ
would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in theഀ
required parking could include:ഀ
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportationഀ
including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services.ഀ
B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number ofഀ
cars for each unit.ഀ
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to,ഀ
rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, orഀ
staggered work shifts. "ഀ
To summarize the regulation, the parking requirement for development in theഀ
Housing (H) zone district shall comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 10ഀ
of the Zoning Regulations. Pursuant to Chapter 10, a minimum of 1.5 to 2ഀ
parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit.ഀ
Conversely, recognizing the importance of ensuring the affordability of dwellingഀ
units constructed in the Housing (H) zone district, and the many uniqueഀ
challenges in doing so, the current regulation also grants the Planning andഀ
Environmental Commission discretion when determining the parking requirementഀ
for development within the district. According to the regulation, the Commissionഀ
may grant a reduction in the number of required parking spaces if the applicantഀ
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commission that alternate provisions existഀ
to meet the transportation needs of the residents living within the District.ഀ
There is little doubt that the intent of the current regulation, as written, is toഀ
maintain flexibility through discretion in the application of the parkingഀ
requirements. However, several issues have come up questioning theഀ
2ഀ
effectiveness and efficiency of the current regulations (ie, "the problem'). Thoseഀ
issues include:ഀ
• Given the demographics and likely lifestyle choices ofഀ
potential residents of the Housing (H) zone district, are 1.5 toഀ
2 parking spaces per dwelling unit the appropriate number ofഀ
parking spaces or is that too many spaces?ഀ
• Does the current regulation clearly state the Town'sഀ
development objectives and expectations for development inഀ
the Housing H) zone district?ഀ
• Does the current regulation provide predictability for anഀ
applicant in the imposition of the parking requirements orഀ
does it unintentionally create ambiguity and confusion forഀ
applicants? Is it the most efficient way to address theഀ
situation?ഀ
• Are there additional issues (traffic congestion, traffic flow,ഀ
public transit capacity, environmental, distribution ofഀ
population, availability of public parking, etc.) that can beഀ
addressed with amendments to the parking requirements forഀ
the Housing (H) zone district?ഀ
DISCUSSION ISSUESഀ
The Community Development Department has identified a number of issuesഀ
which should be discussed prior to drafting an amendment to the existingഀ
regulation. They include:ഀ
Should affordability (economic) have a greater priority than livability andഀ
assuring that transportation needs are met?ഀ
2. Should the residential parking standards be amended to include aഀ
provision for providing parking spaces on a per pillow basis in addition toഀ
a per dwelling unit basis?ഀ
3. How should the parking needs of visitors be addressed?ഀ
4. Should any amended parking standards be expanded to all employeeഀ
housing units or should they only remain applicable to development withinഀ
the Housing (H) zone district?ഀ
5. Should quantifiable standards be created to better determine whenഀ
reductions to the requirements can be granted (ie, distance to publicഀ
transit stop, availability of sidewalks and bike paths, proximity toഀ
commercial centers, etc.)?ഀ
6. Should the regulations be the same for rental projects and for-saleഀ
projects? What about dormitory/studio units versus one, two & threeഀ
bedroom units?ഀ
3ഀ
7. Should public transit, bicycle path, sidewalk improvements, etc. beഀ
required in lieu when granting relief from the prescribed parkingഀ
requirements?ഀ
8. How should the issue of "displaced" vehicle parking be addressed?ഀ
9. It has been suggested that a parking requirement of one space per fourഀ
bedroom dormitory unit be established (i.e., 0.25 space/pillow). Is that aഀ
reasonable requirement given likely demographic of the residentsഀ
choosing to live in a dormitory unit?ഀ
10. Others?ഀ
IV. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INPUTഀ
On Monday, November 24, 2008, the Town of Vail Community Developmentഀ
Department held a worksession with the Planning and Environmentalഀ
Commission (PEC) to discuss possible amendments to the transportation andഀ
parking requirements. Following is a brief overview of the key points the PECഀ
identified related to the parking and transportation needs of employee housingഀ
residents.ഀ
Residents have transportation needs.ഀ
a. Irregardless of any parking provided residents have a need to getഀ
from their home to work, the grocery store, etc. These needs must beഀ
addressed by the development.ഀ
i. Sidewalks and bike paths;ഀ
ii. Proximity to bus stops;ഀ
iii. Parking spaces; andഀ
iv. Location of the development.ഀ
b. If transportation needs are not addressed by development the Townഀ
will be forced to address the increased transportation needsഀ
generated.ഀ
2. The targeted demographics of a development will dictate the parking andഀ
transportation needs of the residents.ഀ
a. Recognize that different housing types have different target marketsഀ
with different needsഀ
i. Flexibility may be allowed based on the product beingഀ
developed.ഀ
b. Establish guidelines based on the specific market demand for whatഀ
may be the best mix of parking and transportation provided.ഀ
3. Establish minimum guidelines.ഀ
a. Recognizing that certain employee housing types do not function likeഀ
a more typical dwelling unit, it may be appropriate to assess parkingഀ
requirements based on bedroom count and not unit count.ഀ
i. Seasonal rentals may require 0.25 parking spaces perഀ
bedroom.ഀ
ii. Owner-occupied units may require 1 parking space perഀ
4ഀ
bedroom or 1.5 parking spaces per unit.ഀ
iii. No parking is not acceptable based on current transportationഀ
options and transportation paradigms.ഀ
b. Can not create parking regulations based on who is living in units.ഀ
i. Need to establish a flexible system based on specific criteria.ഀ
1. Proximity to jobsഀ
2. Proximity to servicesഀ
3. Proximity to existing public transitഀ
4. Unaccounted for Vehicles and Guest Parking must be addressed.ഀ
a. Provide plan for resident's vehicles not provided a parking space.ഀ
b. Provide plan for short-term and long-term guest parking spaces.ഀ
c. Town can not be left holding the bag.ഀ
i. A management plan that is "trustworthy" must be provided andഀ
approved.ഀ
5. Other community examplesഀ
5ഀ
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONഀ
0 January 26, 2009ഀ
1:00pmഀ
TOWNOF VAQ,ഀ
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOMEഀ
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657ഀ
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENTഀ
Michael Kurzഀ
Sarah Robinson-Paladinoഀ
Susie Tjossemഀ
Bill Pierceഀ
Rollie Kjesboഀ
David Vieleഀ
Scott Properഀ
Site Visits:ഀ
1. Ever Vail, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road Westഀ
Commissioner Robinson-Paladino departed at 2:00 upon return from the site visit.ഀ
45 Minutesഀ
A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Sectionഀ
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-ഀ
10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements forഀ
employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district,ഀ
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: Nicole Petersonഀ
ACTION: Tabled to February 9, 2009ഀ
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6-0-0ഀ
Nicole Peterson made a presentation per the Staff memorandum.ഀ
Commissioner Proper stated that when it comes to private development, the Town seems toഀ
require as much parking as possible. However, it seems that in this situation, it seemsഀ
inconsistent.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce stated that it is beneficial to allow a parking reduction to reduce the cost ofഀ
affordable housing and to allow for spending elsewhere, on other amenities.ഀ
Commissioner Viele is not in favor of this because the Town has done a good job managing thisഀ
on an ad hoc basis with the current regulations. The PEC has been able to make reasonableഀ
and rational exemptions from the parking code, and to depart from that would be a mistake. Theഀ
type of employee housing varies, and the requirements would be very different. Example isഀ
Solar Vail versus Chamonix, with each project having very different needs.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo agrees with Commissioner Viele. Chamonix and Timber Ridge are veryഀ
different products, and have very different needs for parking. Allowing the PEC to review eachഀ
request is important. At Solar Vail, the requirement was reduced, but it is important to review onഀ
case-by-case basis.ഀ
Page 1ഀ
Commissioner Pierce stated that there is a delicate balance between what is necessary andഀ
what can be done. There needs to be guidelines so the developer knows how many spaces heഀ
needs to have on site. There might be room for flexibility that addresses the needs of theഀ
project. Does this apply on top of the mixed use reduction? Nicole Peterson and Warrenഀ
Campbell responded that there is a mixed use reduction in the Town Code, but it would not applyഀ
unless a mix of uses was proposed.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem stated that there are many different housing products, so this may not beഀ
appropriate. She noted that Steamboat and Telluride allowed for 50-100% reduction.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz stated that it is important to provide guidelines, but to allow each developerഀ
to create their own plan, and wants the PEC to review parking plans.ഀ
Nina Timm, TOV Housing Coordinator, stated that the Housing District has flexibility aroundഀ
parking requirements and transit needs for developers to utilize, but there is no predictability.ഀ
Timm stated that the goal of the text amendments would allow for predictability in the process ofഀ
reduced parking requirements while meeting transit needs on site. She stated that theഀ
Commission shouldn't focus on rental vs. ownership, because housing products can changeഀ
form, with for-sale units becoming rental properties and vice versa. She referenced theഀ
proposed amendment that includes a provision to only allow the parking reduction for projectsഀ
over 20DU/acre.ഀ
Peterson stated that the proposed parking reduction applies only to projects with density over 20ഀ
DU/acre, based on research that revealed that vehicle trips and vehicle ownership decreasedഀ
significantly with density over 20DU/acre.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem asked if this came up during Timber Ridge, with developers wanting toഀ
have an understanding of the criteria.ഀ
Timm responded that developers want to understand their parking requirement early on, andഀ
with the current process, they do not know. She went on to describe the Middle Creek projectഀ
negotiations, and stated that they were a good candidate for a parking reduction, however theyഀ
were un-successful under the current standards, and were confused by the currentഀ
requirements.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce asked for the distances, is it as the crow flies, or what?ഀ
Peterson responded that the proximity proposed in the amendment, is measured from the frontഀ
door or primary entrance of the furthest building from the bus stop or commercial job core.ഀ
Timm added that there was a need to understand the transit needs of employees.ഀ
Commissioner Viele asked for clarification on parking requirements today.ഀ
Peterson responded by explaining the current Chapter 12-10 requirements as follows: Inഀ
Schedule A (within Vail Village or Lionshead) the requirement is 1.4 per dwelling unit. Inഀ
Schedule B (everything outside Vail Village or Lionshead, which includes all 4 Housing Districtഀ
properties) the requirement is based on the size of the dwelling unit as follows: <500sf = 1.5 perഀ
DU, 500-2,000sf = 2 per DU and >2,000sf = 2.5 per DU.ഀ
Kaye Ferry, member of the public, stated that in Middle Creek, they were required to do allഀ
required parking, and it seems now that there is too much parking. The tragedy of Middle Creekഀ
was that building the parking made the project more expensive. To make it more affordable,ഀ
Page 2ഀ
parking needs to be reduced. To price ourselves out of the market will be a mistake. The Townഀ
is not asking for the variance to give themselves something special, but on the basis of reality.ഀ
Commissioner Proper commented that the Town gets these reductions, but developers do not.ഀ
Campbell responded by clarifying that there is a parking reduction that is available to all propertyഀ
in the Town, under Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provisions, Vail Town Code.ഀ
Ferry continued that the Staff needs to be able to give the reduction without going to the PEC.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce stated that back in the day, he had five cars. Things have changed.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem asked if it would be possible for a range of reduction.ഀ
Commissioner Viele stated with Solar Vail, the PEC was good with helping allow the reduction.ഀ
At the Vail Commons project, the parking is a mess and people park all over the place.ഀ
George Ruther, Director of Community Development, stated that on a staff level, the discussionഀ
revolved around gearing this towards for-rent projects versus for-sale projects. This will notഀ
apply to Chamonix because the requirement applies to projects with 20DU/acre or more. Theഀ
requirements would allow that if you meet the requirements and standards, you can then haveഀ
the reduction. Other communities have fallen short by focusing on the parking need, and not theഀ
transportation need. If you don't get the transportation need correct, the parking will never beഀ
right.ഀ
Commissioner Proper commented that if the Town Council chooses to do so, they could allowഀ
employee housing but not allow cars on site. He said he now understands the issue greater andഀ
would vote for it.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz stated it would be dangerous to not allow employers to do parking plans likeഀ
private shuttle service, etc. He believes the parking reduction should allow flexibility and beഀ
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.ഀ
Commissioner Viele stated that if its density driven, there are no districts except the Coreഀ
districts, and they should be commensurate with Housing.ഀ
Peterson asked if the Commission would be more comfortable if there were more options for theഀ
developers.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce said that predictability is positive.ഀ
Timm suggested a `wild card' option to allow more reduction if a developer provides a differentഀ
new concept for transit and parking.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz added that there could be a more cost effective solution that would reduceഀ
the need for parking. However, if predictability is the goal, he's not sure that additionalഀ
guidelines for van-pool or car-share programs are appropriate, but it seems better than nothing.ഀ
Commissioner Proper said that this does not preclude asking for a variance.ഀ
Page 3ഀ
1Wഀ
MEMORANDUMഀ
TO: Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commissionഀ
FROM: Community Development Departmentഀ
DATE: January 26, 2009ഀ
SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments,ഀ
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8,ഀ
Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vailഀ
Town Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing units and toഀ
clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forthഀ
details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: Nicole Petersonഀ
DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTഀ
The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a work session to discuss prescribedഀ
regulation amendments to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, toഀ
clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district. This item was noticedഀ
including amendments to Chapter 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading however, thereഀ
are no amendments proposed for Chapter 12-10 at this time.ഀ
The amendment to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, is meant to provide clear andഀ
predictable regulations for the reduction of parking in the Housing (H) district; and off-setഀ
the unintended consequences associated with the reduction of minimum parkingഀ
requirements. Proposed text that is to be deleted is in stFikethro g text that is to beഀ
added is in bold.ഀ
Section12-61-8, (Housing District) Parking and Loadingഀ
Off street parking shall be pFevided in aGGGFdaRGe with GhapteF 10 Gf this title. No parkingഀ
or leading area shall be IGGated within any required setbaGk area. At the disGFetion ofഀ
planning and eRViFGRrneRtal GGFRFAiG6iGR, vaFiations to the parking standards 0UtliReഀ
to a parking rnaRagemeRt plan. The parking management plan shall be appFoved by ffieഀ
reqUiFerneRts based en a deFRORStFated need fop fewer parking spaGes than Ghapteഀ
of this title would require. FGF example, a deFRGRStFated Reed for a FedwGtieR on theഀ
0ഀ
Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 ofഀ
this title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required frontഀ
setback area in compliance with 12-61-5 Setbacks. Notwithstanding Section 12-10-ഀ
20, Special Review Provisions, the following section 12-61-8A, Parking Reductionഀ
applies.ഀ
A. Parking Reductionഀ
A twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of required parkingഀ
spaces shall be applied to sites with density of 20 dwelling units or more per acre,ഀ
meeting the following criteria:ഀ
1. Proximity to Public Transportation: The subject dwelling is located within 880ഀ
feet (.16 mile) of a public bus stop or public,transit center, as measured alongഀ
a pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of the building locatedഀ
farthest from the public bus stop or public transit center.ഀ
2. Proximity to Commercial Job Core: The subject dwelling is located withinഀ
2,500 feet (.47 mile) of one of the following Commercial Job Cores, asഀ
measured along the pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of theഀ
building located farthest from the Commercial Job Core. For the purpose ofഀ
this section, the Commercial Job Cores shall be defined as:ഀ
a. Vail Village, as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan, Action Plan Mapഀ
b. Lionshead, as designated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,ഀ
Map A Study Areaഀ
c. West Vail, which includes all properties zoned Commercial Core 3 (CC3)ഀ
District on the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map.ഀ
3. Bicycle Parking: Covered bicycle parking shall be provided on site, equal toഀ
ten percent (10%) of the required off-street parking space requirement, prior toഀ
the reduction. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, theഀ
required number of additional bicycle parking spaces is five percent (5%) ofഀ
the required off-street parking space requirement, prior to the reduction.ഀ
II. BACKGROUNDഀ
The Town of Vail established the Housing (H) District to facilitate the development ofഀ
deed restricted employee housing. The purpose, in part, of the Housing District is asഀ
follows:ഀ
"The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housingഀ
permitted in the zone district is appropriately located and designed toഀ
meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses,ഀ
and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenitiesഀ
appropriate to the allowed types of uses. ...because of the nature andഀ
characteristics of employee housing, (it) cannot be adequately regulatedഀ
by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoneഀ
districts. It is necessary in this zone district to provide developmentഀ
standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal orഀ
project..."ഀ
The Housing District, at the Planning and Environmental Commission's discretion, offersഀ
flexibility for setbacks, site coverage, parking requirements, building height, and densityഀ
2ഀ
kഀ
control. While this flexibility creates opportunity, it also creates unpredictability in theഀ
development review process. Most notable in the review of Middle Creek and theഀ
proposed redevelopment of Solar Vail with the "debate" about appropriate parking ratios.ഀ
Looking back at these two developments, and forward at future development in theഀ
Housing District, it has become apparent that some predictability around minimumഀ
parking requirements is an appropriate addition to the Housing District.ഀ
On November 24, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a workഀ
session to discuss the prescribed regulation amendments. The application was tabled.ഀ
Minutes of the work session are attached.ഀ
On December 2, 2008 the Vail Town Council held a work session to discuss the theഀ
prescribed regulation amendments. The application was tabled. Minutes of the workഀ
session are attached.ഀ
III. RESEARCH AND ANALYSISഀ
Since the PEC and Town Council work sessions, Staff has conducted research andഀ
analysis to support the proposed amendments. Please find two tables, attached, thatഀ
provide information regarding the affected Housing (H) District properties and otherഀ
community examples. The results are summarized below.ഀ
Affected Propertiesഀ
There are four (4) properties designated Housing (H) District within the Town of Vail.ഀ
The four properties are known as Middle Creek, Solar Vail, Timber Ridge and Chamonix.ഀ
Staff conducted an inventory of the 4 properties that will be affected by the proposedഀ
amendments to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading. The results are provided inഀ
Attachment A, Housing (H) District Property Inventory.ഀ
Staff found that a 25% reduction in parking is appropriate based on the results of theഀ
management assessment combined with the total number of spaces provided on-siteഀ
compared to the current parking requirement for each site. The results include theഀ
following:ഀ
1. Middle Creek development includes 247 parking spaces, which is exactly theഀ
amount of current parking required and the management assessment is, that theyഀ
have "Too much" parking.ഀ
2. Solar Vail development includes 28 spaces, which is a 25% reduction in parking,ഀ
and the management is that they have "Adequate" parking.ഀ
3. Timber Ridge development includes 225 surface spaces, which is a 43%ഀ
reduction from the requirement, and the management assessment is that there isഀ
"Not enough" parking.ഀ
Staff's recommendation to only allow the 25% parking reduction for sites with density ofഀ
20 units or more per acre, in part, is based on the existing density of the four Housingഀ
District properties, and also on research regarding average trip generation. Staffഀ
researched average trip generation for multi-family dwellings and found that as densityഀ
increased, the trip generation decreased. The implications of the findings are that inഀ
more dense development, the likelihood of vehicle trips and/or car ownership decreases.ഀ
Staff found the proposed density (20 units per acre) from a San Diego study thatഀ
revealed density of 20 units or more per acre, averaged 6 trips per dwelling unit, andഀ
density of 20 units or less per acre, averaged 8 trips per dwelling unit, an difference of 2ഀ
3ഀ
trips per dwelling unit per day. Staff believes the 20 units per acre is a relevant and
appropriate density for the parking reduction.
The proposed distance of 2,500 feet (47 mile) to a Commercial Job Core is also, in part,
the result of the inventory, in that, the average distance from the four Housing District
properties to the nearest Commercial Job Core is 2,500 feet. Staff researched the
average distance that the average person is willing to walk to services and employment,
and the results vary from 500 feet (.09 mile) to 4,000 feet (.75 mile) largely depending on
the region. The average of 500 feet and 4,000 feet is 2,250 feet. The farthest walking
distance definitions tended to come from communities in California and Canada. Other
studies revealed that the reasonable walking distance varies based on topography,
urban design, traffic calming, sense of safety and security and presence of interesting
activity. Ultimately, Staff chose to recommend the distance that is relevant to the Town
of Vail, based on the existing subject properties.
In the Housing District property inventory, Staff included the approximate distance of the
site to a public bus stop. For information purposes only, the average distance of the 4
properties to a public bus stop is approximately 680 feet. For the proposed
amendments, Staff is recommending an 880 foot distance to a public bus stop based on
the Vail 20/20 Transportation Chapter. The Chapter states a pedestrianization goal to,
"Ensure that walking distances from residential areas to transit stops are one-sixth [880
feet] of a mile in high density areas (5 minute walk)." Staff believes the goal is relevant
and appropriate to include in the parking reduction criteria for the Housing District.
Other Community Examples
Staff conducted a survey of 22 other Towns and Cities that have similar issues with
affordable or workforce housing and parking requirements. The results are listed in
Attachment B: Other Community Examples.
Staff found that the Town of Vail parking requirements are on par with the average
number of parking spaces required for residential properties in the 22 comparable
communities. The research revealed the following averages compared to Vail's
requirements:
Minimum Required Parking Spaces per Unit for Multi-Family
Dwellings
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 13 BR Notes .
AVERAGE OF 22 1.13 1.25 1.65 1.83
COMMUNITIES
1.4 1.4 1.4> 1.4 Schedule A - Within Commercial
Core Parking Area
See See See See Schedule B - Outside Core
CURRENT VAIL notes notes notes notes Parking Area 500 sq, ft- or less
PARKING 1.5 spaces, 500-2000 sq. ft. 2
REQUIREMENTS spaces. >2000 sq. ft. 2.5 spaces
1:5 1.5 2 2 Schedule B - Example Middle
Creek---
Staff also found that, in the communities that provided parking requirement reductions
for affordable or workforce housing units, the average reduction was 50%. In some
communities the parking reduction was out-right, meaning that the developer did not
need to comply with additional criteria to reduce the number of required parking, instead
4
the reduction was based on meeting a definition of 'affordable' housing. Staff believesഀ
that the communities with out-right parking reductions are not good examples toഀ
compare to Vail, because those communities are urban and provide public transportationഀ
options that exceed the frequency and speed of the Vail bus service. Ultimately, Staff'sഀ
recommendation of 25% was based on Vail's existing conditions revealed in the Housingഀ
District property inventory.ഀ
Staff also researched bicycle parking requirements in other communities, and based theഀ
proposed requirement on the existing requirements in the City of Boulder. The type ofഀ
bicycle parking was also researched, including short-term parking which is outdoor racksഀ
that are generally located in highly visible areas for safety and security. The other typeഀ
is long-term bicycle parking, which includes lockers and/or lock-ups that are for bikeഀ
storage. Staff's recommendation remains general, in addressing bike short-term parkingഀ
vs storage, to allow the developer flexibility in design. However, Staff believes it isഀ
important to require bicycle parking spaces, to encourage the use of bicycles as anഀ
alternative form of transportation.ഀ
Research Summaryഀ
From the research collected, Staff *believes that it is relevant to offer a parking reductionഀ
in the Housing District however certain criteria should exist in order to warrant theഀ
reduction. The proposed criteria warrant a parking reduction in that they provideഀ
measurable and enforceable criteria that are directly linked to alternate modes ofഀ
transportation. Furthermore, Staff believes that the density of the project will alsoഀ
warrant a parking reduction, as reflected in the proposed requirement that the reductionഀ
only applies to sites with density of 20 units per acre or more.ഀ
IV. ATTACHMENTSഀ
A. Housing (H) District Property Inventoryഀ
B. Other Community Examplesഀ
C. PEC work session minutesഀ
D. TC work session minutesഀ
5ഀ
(Aഀ
0ഀ
0jഀ
0ഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
coഀ
vഀ
O)ഀ
Cഀ
Aഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
•ഀ
Wഀ
(nഀ
Aഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
f 1ഀ
Oഀ
COഀ
Vഀ
a)ഀ
U,ഀ
Aഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
-ഀ
(D Cl) 7 C:ഀ
° Qഀ
'aഀ
Wഀ
5iFഀ
(Dഀ
Wഀ
cഀ
Wഀ
C:ഀ
ഀ
Wഀ
0 N Oഀ
N Oഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
O O Iഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
jഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
C~ഀ
Oഀ
C/)ഀ
Oഀ
IOഀ
~ഀ
N o (aഀ
'ഀ
• cnഀ
caഀ
Oഀ
O Oഀ
oഀ
(nഀ
(nഀ
c°O cnഀ
0ഀ
cnഀ
N - vഀ
mഀ
Wഀ
0))ഀ
aഀ
Nഀ
(ODഀ
=ഀ
'ഀ
0 C • cOnഀ
c Nഀ
nഀ
yഀ
(Dഀ
=rഀ
3ഀ
ഀ
° CCDഀ
o kഀ
O kഀ
cഀ
cഀ
k j t'ഀ
00ഀ
Cഀ
-Iഀ
*kഀ
tഀ
Qഀ
Dഀ
nഀ
n) cf°D CDഀ
r«ഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
mഀ
cഀ
coഀ
3ഀ
yഀ
cnഀ
Cഀ
ഀ
-Tlഀ
mഀ
mഀ
°ഀ
°ഀ
(Dഀ
Dഀ
aഀ
o' c-ഀ
viഀ
Dഀ
°ഀ
oഀ
!ഀ
C7 N°ഀ
Dഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
Oഀ
Dഀ
Oഀ
Wഀ
=ഀ
nഀ
-0ഀ
cnഀ
C)ഀ
CLഀ
(Dഀ
Iഀ
CL 0ഀ
0ഀ
(Dഀ
(nഀ
(Dഀ
toഀ
.cnഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
(nഀ
Nഀ
3 CDഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
o<ഀ
Nഀ
Sഀ
Cnഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
O Oഀ
a Nഀ
Oഀ
"Oഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
-Oഀ
Nഀ
!ഀ
, CD yഀ
CD Q)ഀ
(nഀ
°ഀ
CD CDഀ
Cnഀ
Cഀ
CDഀ
U)ഀ
-ഀ
10ഀ
CDഀ
'aഀ
(Dഀ
fഀ
ഀ
=ഀ
?ഀ
T1ഀ
aഀ
aഀ
(Dഀ
CD d CDഀ
tiഀ
3ഀ
Nഀ
wഀ
1ഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
0ഀ
°ഀ
-0ഀ
D cഀ
nഀ
ocnഀ
(Dഀ
=ഀ
nഀ
Qഀ
cഀ
•ഀ
C/)ഀ
I =ഀ
CDഀ
CDഀ
Mഀ
3ഀ
ഀ
CDഀ
=ഀ
mഀ
aഀ
nഀ
oഀ
nഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
oഀ
°ഀ
(nഀ
~ഀ
. nci 3ഀ
CDഀ
aഀ
CDഀ
7ഀ
_ഀ
mഀ
aഀ
mഀ
cഀ
~ഀ
(nഀ
)ഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
ഀ
jഀ
~ഀ
lഀ
~ mഀ
°ഀ
oഀ
CD aഀ
jഀ
< oഀ
CDഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
0ഀ
2ഀ
=ഀ
Qഀ
<ഀ
Fഀ
aഀ
Cbഀ
Nഀ
;ഀ
CDഀ
oഀ
U)ഀ
CDഀ
(nഀ
_ഀ
CDഀ
nഀ
ഀ
CDഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
j OO Cഀ
Oഀ
~ 'ഀ
Cnഀ
7ഀ
nഀ
Cnഀ
7ഀ
mഀ
Xഀ
mഀ
Xഀ
tഀ
Nഀ
<ഀ
Dഀ
7ഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
""iഀ
Pഀ
fA Nഀ
~l Oഀ
Oഀ
-1ഀ
N I , Wഀ
~ഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
tഀ
A A Aഀ
? Olഀ
Dഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
Aഀ
Aഀ
CAഀ
Aഀ
=ഀ
I~ഀ
Sഀ
Q)ഀ
Fli,ഀ
-0ഀ
p_ഀ
(Dഀ
tQഀ
CLഀ
-ഀ
-ഀ
-ഀ
Oഀ
.ഀ
nഀ
LYIഀ
0)ഀ
>ഀ
>ഀ
_ഀ
Nഀ
-4ഀ
-Nഀ
Cഀ
N cഀ
CSഀ
Cഀ
wഀ
wഀ
Zഀ
(Dഀ
(Dഀ
Oഀ
(Dഀ
a)ഀ
i'ro fഀ
wഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
dഀ
Nഀ
Dഀ
7ഀ
coഀ
aiഀ
~3ഀ
(Dഀ
(Dഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
Nഀ
0ഀ
Jഀ
0ഀ
0iഀ
Nഀ
O_n:°ഀ
0ഀ
5;ഀ
qഀ
nഀ
i~ഀ
67ഀ
2)ഀ
7 Nഀ
C)ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
CDഀ
'ഀ
Nഀ
CL (nഀ
CDഀ
to (Dഀ
.0ഀ
Cഀ
° N COഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
=3ഀ
1 (Dഀ
Nഀ
^ഀ
3ഀ
C)ഀ
0ഀ
Nഀ
Sഀ
Nഀ
Sഀ
ഀ
Wഀ
Oഀ
j 7Cഀ
jഀ
3 CDഀ
xഀ
dഀ
CDഀ
A Cnഀ
(nഀ
-(3ഀ
Nഀ
CDഀ
7-ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
Lഀ
°ഀ
mഀ
mഀ
00ഀ
3ഀ
jഀ
(Dഀ
{fl 0-ഀ
(71 CT Nഀ
4 CD Q)ഀ
~ഀ
CLഀ
-ഀ
.ഀ
ഀ
jഀ
ooഀ
ഀ
ca_ഀ
o:~ഀ
mഀ
~ഀ
oNഀ
CDഀ
N °ഀ
'Rഀ
~Nഀ
yഀ
1ഀ
N ~ഀ
0ഀ
zഀ
=ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
-ഀ
(Dഀ
aഀ
fഀ
~ (Dഀ
CLഀ
CLഀ
Iഀ
cഀ
(Dഀ
Iഀ
cn aഀ
CDഀ
Cl-ഀ
(n wഀ
U) 0ഀ
CD oഀ
0ഀ
oഀ
jഀ
,ഀ
fഀ
0ഀ
cDഀ
v 3ഀ
-ഀ
Iഀ
$ Dഀ
aഀ
Nഀ
Cnഀ
nഀ
g Cl)ഀ
m eഀ
mഀ
x•ഀ
N. N mഀ
a m x,ഀ
tഀ
ivഀ
Dഀ
aഀ
rഀ
°ഀ
Cnഀ
o tഀ
wഀ
a)ഀ
co Zഀ
oഀ
jഀ
jഀ
N I.(nഀ
,ഀ
N CO Ioഀ
ഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
Dഀ
Dഀ
4pഀ
Nഀ
jഀ
ഀ
°ഀ
cnഀ
oഀ
=ഀ
~ഀ
iഀ
aഀ
CL cnഀ
Sഀ
°ഀ
Oഀ
*ഀ
°ഀ
•ഀ
(Dഀ
Qഀ
oഀ
mഀ
Wഀ
e -0ഀ
Oഀ
iഀ
!vഀ
Iഀ
jഀ
Nഀ
_0ഀ
n<ഀ
3ഀ
Wഀ
o cn . ()jഀ
0 ~ഀ
ഀ
vഀ
rnഀ
IVഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
crഀ
°ഀ
Cഀ
Dഀ
Dഀ
Zഀ
°ഀ
yഀ
ഀ
toഀ
0 ~ഀ
oഀ
vഀ
iഀ
-ഀ
vഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
Aഀ
°ഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
^ഀ
_ഀ
vഀ
inഀ
Nഀ
yഀ
-ഀ
wഀ
10ഀ
a)ഀ
3ഀ
CDഀ
=3 CDഀ
(Dഀ
<ഀ
CDഀ
sഀ
(ഀ
zഀ
cnഀ
o CDഀ
CL Cഀ
Dഀ
C:ഀ
Lഀ
nഀ
0ഀ
=3ഀ
<ഀ
-ഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
1:2ഀ
m Iഀ
Iഀ
Iഀ
r)ഀ
mഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
3ഀ
7ഀ
'ഀ
ഀ
'ഀ
Iഀ
cഀ
a)ഀ
Nഀ
. Nഀ
s:ഀ
! fP9ഀ
Oഀ
4ഀ
p. }ഀ
jഀ
Dഀ
ഀ
I (ഀ
aഀ
0ഀ
asഀ
mഀ
mഀ
° imഀ
0ഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
°oഀ
V)ഀ
zഀ
CDഀ
0ഀ
CDഀ
= CDഀ
1ഀ
0ഀ
? fഀ
CDഀ
j Dഀ
(Dഀ
Sഀ
CD S :ഀ
CDഀ
+Jyഀ
cnഀ
f)ഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
nഀ
Oഀ
iഀ
(0ഀ
7 Oഀ
CDഀ
aഀ
Iഀ
-ഀ
iZഀ
jഀ
ഀ
nഀ
c SU : -0ഀ
Dഀ
ഀ
°ഀ
o _ഀ
1 'ഀ
C nഀ
(ഀ
mഀ
C)ഀ
mഀ
Cഀ
CDഀ
Dഀ
cഀ
mഀ
aഀ
Sഀ
CDഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
oഀ
Imo;ഀ
( Dഀ
CD Iഀ
;ഀ
<ഀ
j mഀ
7ഀ
CLഀ
wഀ
CLഀ
Zഀ
(Dഀ
10ഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
Dഀ
CLഀ
(nഀ
C)ഀ
Cnഀ
N cഀ
mഀ
xഀ
L. mഀ
Q N X,ഀ
tഀ
Nഀ
Dഀ
aഀ
tഀ
(Dഀ
(o zഀ
O >ഀ
Zഀ
Oഀ
ഀ
wഀ
5•-o Dഀ
C)ഀ
oഀ
oഀ
v,ഀ
oഀ
-4 rഀ
, o °•1ഀ
Zഀ
°ഀ
coഀ
vഀ
a- a i (nഀ
(D Vഀ
wഀ
Dഀ
ഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
itഀ
ഀ
oഀ
(.nഀ
Oഀ
zഀ
oഀ
to jഀ
aഀ
z;ഀ
ഀ
(n aഀ
°ഀ
=rഀ
°ഀ
oഀ
.ഀ
(Dഀ
a•ഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
CDഀ
mഀ
o oഀ
(nഀ
Cnഀ
!ഀ
cഀ
rnഀ
vഀ
aഀ
o °ഀ
Cn ;ഀ
, .ഀ
aഀ
-ഀ
rn_ഀ
aഀ
° 0' Oഀ
(Dഀ
Cnഀ
Qഀ
cഀ
Dഀ
Dഀ
nഀ
ഀ
mഀ
z Cnഀ
CDഀ
vഀ
O 5ഀ
pഀ
cഀ
ഀ
mഀ
< , (nഀ
eഀ
Iഀ
wഀ
n) aഀ
S oഀ
mഀ
C)ഀ
cഀ
o0ഀ
0 CD (n cഀ
a - aഀ
mഀ
aഀ
ഀ
cഀ
°ഀ
cnഀ
°ഀ
iDഀ
Zഀ
<ഀ
m ! zഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
3ഀ
:Eഀ
° CDഀ
(Dഀ
mഀ
(Dഀ
~ഀ
_ cnഀ
jഀ
CDഀ
_ ccnഀ
U) =Iഀ
(nഀ
3ഀ
o m oഀ
-ഀ
oഀ
(nഀ
cnഀ
, ~ഀ
ഀ
z1-Iഀ
_ഀ
cഀ
Nഀ
O Zഀ
< w 'aഀ
CDഀ
O- Cnഀ
(nഀ
Oഀ
Iഀ
71ഀ
Dഀ
0 Oഀ
dഀ
Sഀ
Qഀ
Sഀ
pഀ
-1ഀ
d -p Wഀ
p -ഀ
pഀ
<ഀ
(Dഀ
oഀ
Zഀ
cnഀ
mഀ
mmഀ
ഀ
a)ഀ
<ഀ
(Dഀ
CDഀ
CD (Dഀ
Lഀ
Iഀ
Oഀ
(Dഀ
CDഀ
CLഀ
(Dഀ
jഀ
(Dഀ
O_ഀ
O ° 3ഀ
(Dഀ
aഀ
- Jഀ
~ oഀ
CLഀ
C)ഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
aഀ
rഀ
!ഀ
a jഀ
tഀ
(D O 1ഀ
N 3 Nഀ
r".ഀ
Oഀ
r•aഀ
Z)ഀ
c 0 (Dഀ
nഀ
oഀ
jഀ
CDഀ
aഀ
CDഀ
vഀ
CDഀ
d(ഀ
aഀ
jഀ
aഀ
cnഀ
aഀ
- (Dഀ
CDഀ
cഀ
oഀ
{ഀ
Oഀ
m 3ഀ
CDഀ
1ഀ
a~ a oഀ
0 ocaഀ
0ഀ
~ഀ
aഀ
OOഀ
cnഀ
0oty°ഀ
mഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
o~•ഀ
-ഀ
Oഀ
oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
C)ഀ
v)ഀ
N 1 r,)ഀ
mNഀ
CDഀ
CDഀ
)ഀ
>ഀ
Dഀ
-ഀ
wഀ
cഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
1ഀ
a:ഀ
toഀ
jഀ
°ഀ
Nഀ
CD <ഀ
=r°ഀ
Nഀ
jഀ
Oഀ
oഀ
zvDഀ
ഀ
ഀ
coഀ
°ഀ
Oഀ
mഀ
=ഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
°ഀ
(ഀ
Dഀ
Vഀ
.Aഀ
n !ഀ
C: c 'ഀ
c rഀ
00ഀ
ഀ
0ഀ
pഀ
Nഀ
CDഀ
O6ഀ
;oഀ
00ഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
<ഀ
CD (Dഀ
~ഀ
~-mഀ
m~ഀ
Oഀ
0'ഀ
)ഀ
mഀ
oഀ
vഀ
wഀ
o froഀ
CDഀ
0)ഀ
°ഀ
Dഀ
°ഀ
vഀ
.ഀ
Dഀ
Dഀ
?ഀ
°ഀ
aഀ
(n °ഀ
(D (nഀ
o_ nഀ
CDഀ
mo ~3ഀ
mഀ
<ഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
CDഀ
CD (Dfഀ
vഀ
0ഀ
-ഀ
cnഀ
1ഀ
CDഀ
1ഀ
(Dഀ
nഀ
ഀ
0ഀ
N C)ഀ
5ഀ
_ഀ
cഀ
S 'ഀ
)ഀ
Oഀ
Dഀ
?ഀ
oഀ
7ഀ
CLഀ
ഀ
cഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
nഀ
=ഀ
Lഀ
Oഀ
N CD :Eഀ
_ഀ
Oഀ
(Dഀ
Nഀ
Sഀ
Nഀ
CDഀ
CDഀ
illഀ
W N jഀ
Nഀ
Dഀ
Nഀ
O fl'ഀ
CDഀ
* C) nഀ
Sഀ
° Sഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
ഀ
r aഀ
o I iഀ
(Dഀ
Oഀ
DZ° ° oഀ
=ഀ
asഀ
mഀ
3ഀ
coഀ
CDഀ
cഀ
TT~<ഀ
aഀ
0ഀ
fഀ
mഀ
_ഀ
cഀ
=nഀ
m`ഀ
iഀ
0 m o °ഀ
<ഀ
oഀ
< 3ഀ
CD ° ~Dഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
rt~ഀ
oഀ
dഀ
!ഀ
iliഀ
m (Dഀ
~ഀ
CD 0ഀ
O Q)ഀ
CDഀ
?ഀ
<ഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
`nഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Dഀ
oഀ
caഀ
omഀ
.ഀ
cn CD Oഀ
AiMഀ
j !ഀ
0 7ഀ
0 Dഀ
7ഀ
3ഀ
CDഀ
7ഀ
C:ഀ
C: 7ഀ
7 7ഀ
cഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
C:ഀ
Dഀ
Wഀ
=ഀ
~ഀ
7cഀ
xഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
Eഀ
ഀ
7c'ഀ
7C'ഀ
7~ഀ
1ഀ
:rഀ
ഀ
ഀ
:3ഀ
7cഀ
7ഀ
Cഀ
7cഀ
Oഀ
Q1ഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
~ഀ
'ഀ
N (Dഀ
CDഀ
mഀ
oഀ
oഀ
Oഀ
°ഀ
~ഀ
cഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
3ഀ
0 1ഀ
Qഀ
>ഀ
0ഀ
>ഀ
0ഀ
°ഀ
?ഀ
Dഀ
Dഀ
o cഀ
n•ഀ
.ഀ
oഀ
_ഀ
cഀ
0ഀ
L.ഀ
=3ഀ
=3ഀ
CDഀ
N NOഀ
Oഀ
ഀ
<ഀ
CDഀ
Kഀ
X.tഀ
Sഀ
3ഀ
Xഀ
.ഀ
6,ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
-6ഀ
Nഀ
Wഀ
LIഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
b•?ഀ
Oഀ
T3ഀ
cഀ
nഀ
Xഀ
Oഀ
Iഀ
0 CADഀ
<ഀ
aഀ
Wഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
:Iഀ
kPഀ
CAL Iഀ
Clഀ
mഀ
CLഀ
asiഀ
rഀ
_ഀ
CDഀ
!ഀ
P,ഀ
7ഀ
V1ഀ
MI,ഀ
,3 aഀ
Yഀ
rFഀ
i7ഀ
3ഀ
CDഀ
Dഀ
Wഀ
iJഀ
Vഀ
Qഀ
°ഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
iഀ
~ഀ
'ഀ
, piഀ
Uഀ
vഀ
4oഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
Mഀ
: Mഀ
OJഀ
Mഀ
Mഀ
tഀ
nഀ
N Iഀ
O.ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
4)Iഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
LOഀ
: Oഀ
Oഀ
"Dഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
~.C7ഀ
.L.)ഀ
ഀ
~ Cഀ
.ഀ
0.7 Uഀ
0ഀ
¢ഀ
¢ഀ
¢ഀ
Iഀ
~ഀ
aഀ
aഀ
U c'ഀ
ഀ
~ N 'QI Iഀ
aഀ
a ~ഀ
Qഀ
aഀ
_ഀ
_ lഀ
aഀ
aഀ
:ഀ
Zഀ
qaഀ
D 0 CCഀ
Zഀ
Z~ഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
ZIഀ
ZIഀ
Zഀ
y W 11ഀ
LOഀ
n 'ഀ
aഀ
oഀ
¢ഀ
cഀ
sഀ
aഀ
aഀ
sഀ
¢ഀ
aഀ
aഀ
Qഀ
aഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
zഀ
aഀ
zഀ
Qഀ
zഀ
aഀ
zഀ
aഀ
zഀ
aഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
o 4 aഀ
-ഀ
~:.Zഀ
2ഀ
aഀ
ഀ
Iഀ
':O c) `m aഀ
aഀ
sഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
¢ഀ
zഀ
c .c~ roഀ
in U.: zഀ
Iഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
0ഀ
U Nഀ
Gഀ
_W._ഀ
.ഀ
wഀ
Z,ഀ
U)ഀ
aഀ
CY)ഀ
oഀ
ഀ
Uഀ
°ഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
v 2ഀ
Wഀ
1ഀ
a .Gഀ
Eഀ
~ഀ
Sഀ
ofഀ
aഀ
WIഀ
a)ഀ
> aഀ
Nഀ
xഀ
Oഀ
`ഀ
mഀ
Tഀ
°ഀ
0ഀ
mഀ
mഀ
mഀ
mഀ
mഀ
Nഀ
.ഀ
tC--ഀ
Q c qഀ
mഀ
°o~ഀ
nഀ
mഀ
wഀ
wഀ
~w~-aഀ
cr~tn,ഀ
~ഀ
-ഀ
aഀ
a) L,ഀ
Mഀ
oഀ
=ഀ
Iഀ
nഀ
Mഀ
rഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
Mഀ
° N Nഀ
¢ hഀ
mഀ
C Uഀ
'Oഀ
cr,ഀ
cഀ
=ഀ
.0ഀ
Cഀ
.0ഀ
Cഀ
.0ഀ
Cഀ
.7ഀ
Cഀ
Lഀ
cഀ
0 t L m pഀ
U. jഀ
m Nഀ
mഀ
7ഀ
OJഀ
wഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
m O N jnഀ
21ഀ
Nഀ
C "=3 C Cjഀ
Wഀ
•ഀ
~Iഀ
N a) mഀ
C Nഀ
o mഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
ഀ
cഀ
Oഀ
c :Cഀ
O Nഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
C U)ഀ
O C Cഀ
C _v C)ഀ
E Cഀ
C C1ഀ
QJ Oഀ
.ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
u~ഀ
vഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
~ഀ
cഀ
uഀ
roഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
Oഀ
U mഀ
.ഀ
4, a n R'ഀ
CVഀ
w 0Aഀ
Cഀ
'O mഀ
Lnഀ
Oഀ
"Oഀ
7ഀ
Uഀ
7ഀ
'pഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
'p `ഀ
`ഀ
7ഀ
Uഀ
7ഀ
"0ഀ
7ഀ
'0ഀ
Nഀ
7ഀ
Nഀ
7ഀ
'6ഀ
7 0 Uഀ
CO Oഀ
"ഀ
117 ,ഀ
Qഀ
mഀ
0ഀ
CIഀ
::I Oഀ
m •ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
N 0)ഀ
wഀ
p:ഀ
= >r. Oഀ
0ഀ
C Uഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
C w,ഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
C C Eഀ
Nഀ
t cഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
m? mഀ
m mഀ
mഀ
m~ഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
acഀ
mഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
`mഀ
mഀ
mഀ
`mഀ
`mഀ
m ` o mഀ
Qഀ
2ഀ
'ഀ
oI =ഀ
`z cvഀ
zഀ
zഀ
° U vഀ
aഀ
aഀ
a aഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
a mഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
a a a Nഀ
zഀ
W 0ഀ
Eഀ
iഀ
>)I LLഀ
LOഀ
LOഀ
LOഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
a) :J E 0.ഀ
G)Iഀ
( aഀ
¢Qഀ
aഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
aഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
aഀ
sഀ
Oഀ
aഀ
zഀ
Vഀ
TJഀ
Z; G V>ഀ
O Oഀ
Uഀ
Eഀ
'ഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
,ഀ
vഀ
yഀ
mഀ
-ഀ
LOഀ
Loഀ
y cnഀ
ഀ
ഀ
¢ഀ
f~Oഀ
aഀ
sഀ
toഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
¢ഀ
aഀ
aഀ
sഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
aഀ
ro'Z7 E Q;ഀ
rഀ
ഀ
N Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
> Nഀ
Gഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
I' ¢ഀ
¢ഀ
¢ഀ
oഀ
¢ഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
¢ഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
aഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
iP,ഀ
LOഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
I~ഀ
Nഀ
b..ഀ
ഀ
,'O• ¢ഀ
aഀ
sഀ
Lഀ
Oഀ
O Cliഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
sഀ
Oഀ
aഀ
(Npഀ
t7>,ഀ
Os..0 0ഀ
~ഀ
U) Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
.ഀ
mഀ
cഀ
mഀ
mഀ
rnഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
mഀ
mഀ
mഀ
Uഀ
caa~~fഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Lഀ
m Oഀ
'ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
wഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
Uഀ
dഀ
Lഀ
Cഀ
oഀ
Cഀ
oഀ
oഀ
cഀ
Yഀ
uഀ
Uഀ
Cഀ
Eഀ
mഀ
mഀ
oഀ
Oഀ
.aഀ
0ഀ
'Oഀ
Cഀ
C7ഀ
¢ഀ
c 0ഀ
c; ti pഀ
U mഀ
cഀ
cഀ
oഀ
yഀ
uഀ
cഀ
Eഀ
mഀ
>ഀ
cഀ
mഀ
cഀ
°ഀ
0ഀ
mഀ
Vഀ
Qഀ
yഀ
wഀ
cഀ
1ഀ
LLഀ
cഀ
cഀ
cഀ
Eഀ
mഀ
:3ഀ
tഀ
V)ഀ
mഀ
nഀ
Lഀ
wഀ
ഀ
2-0-ഀ
a)ഀ
4) Uഀ
S(,Lfഀ
: Nഀ
¢ഀ
>ഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
mഀ
Lഀ
L)ഀ
dഀ
oഀ
mഀ
wഀ
'xഀ
Oഀ
=ഀ
mഀ
Oഀ
jഀ
mഀ
zഀ
mഀ
aഀ
mഀ
U)ഀ
mഀ
V)ഀ
mഀ
(nഀ
U)ഀ
Nഀ
F-ഀ
3ഀ
3ഀ
¢ഀ
Q) Aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
¢ഀ
coഀ
noഀ
L)ഀ
nഀ
_ഀ
Iഀ
o Wഀ
' ¢ഀ
¢ഀ
¢ഀ
¢ഀ
aഀ
¢ഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
aഀ
ഀ
ഀ
aഀ
sഀ
aഀ
o v aഀ
al <CI dഀ
ca' zഀ
Iഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zI` z((z=ഀ
~ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
'cYഀ
•ഀ
Oഀ
U)ഀ
C a)ഀ
°ഀ
:t-- Nഀ
Oഀ
iഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
c=ഀ
hഀ
c oഀ
oഀ
Eഀ
Fഀ
Uഀ
N_ഀ
m e p o Nഀ
Vഀ
Oഀ
Mtnഀ
O Nഀ
"0ഀ
1]ഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
tഀ
w o o mഀ
Nഀ
Eഀ
nഀ
E Nഀ
'Eഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
E-ഀ
Eഀ
rnഀ
Fഀ
d,ഀ
nഀ
-Faഀ
>ഀ
>ഀ
CN :3ഀ
mഀ
U)ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
coഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
'ഀ
cഀ
ml Oഀ
Luഀ
U)ഀ
TI' mഀ
Eഀ
.ഀ
Nഀ
J°ഀ
oഀ
mഀ
Nഀ
o°uഀ
Iഀ
mഀ
o a wഀ
tnഀ
o Nഀ
mഀ
~ഀ
C)ഀ
<ഀ
Eഀ
,ഀ
<ഀ
C4 :3ഀ
coഀ
v C,4 ,4- toഀ
Iഀ
Zഀ
wഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
p Nഀ
roഀ
Eഀ
'ഀ
Eഀ
M a)ഀ
E 0) mഀ
mഀ
v~ഀ
t m Iഀ
_,4,ഀ
oഀ
mഀ
mഀ
2'ഀ
mഀ
cഀ
mഀ
y nഀ
a vഀ
°ഀ
~iഀ
Eഀ
~ഀ
LO C,ഀ
vഀ
?ഀ
%ഀ
51ഀ
'ഀ
iഀ
Nഀ
>ഀ
rഀ
E Eഀ
o oഀ
7)ഀ
i-oilഀ
~ aഀ
, +n Nഀ
I d 2tഀ
mഀ
m lഀ
oഀ
viഀ
Wഀ
U V m._ uiഀ
E2ഀ
roഀ
~ ~ oഀ
c: 'ഀ
Eഀ
12 m cn~ cഀ
aഀ
`m•Yഀ
u' X2.5ഀ
c4ഀ
c C tnaഀ
ഀ
' 72ഀ
tഀ
Nഀ
-0 (n Eഀ
N Cഀ
C:ഀ
-6 CLഀ
lഀ
N iഀ
Vഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
Uഀ
L) .c Uഀ
Nഀ
m wഀ
.Lഀ
O 7 Nഀ
CSഀ
! N'ഀ
74ഀ
"ഀ
Nഀ
=ഀ
m l lഀ
U V N Uഀ
V L)ഀ
E Oഀ
O Nഀ
0 0 0 Oഀ
U>>ഀ
m Q~7)ഀ
ഀ
cഀ
vഀ
Oഀ
E cഀ
fn _ഀ
~r~ഀ
L5 mഀ
v mഀ
N N mഀ
ao xഀ
qty C,'. O N,ഀ
u<LI m u;ഀ
nQഀ
°7'ഀ
tb oI N!ഀ
!ഀ
-j (1)ഀ
~mഀ
CLഀ
a) E'0~ഀ
°-0ഀ
Moഀ
tbഀ
>v Oഀ
C)ഀ
a)ഀ
yഀ
Eഀ
Fn Eഀ
ഀ
O N 0ഀ
Zഀ
L)ഀ
T U') )nഀ
N dഀ
J CS 0 C7ഀ
"ഀ
fഀ
E i Zഀ
.ഀ
mഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
N ~ഀ
mഀ
0 ~ U ~ Cഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
co ~ Dഀ
fn m Oഀ
U) L I: Ci (nഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
~ Nഀ
Nഀ
LOഀ
)Aഀ
t!')ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
t!')ഀ
Nഀ
coഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Ce)ഀ
(nഀ
'4'' ~ഀ
Uഀ
I NIഀ
WIഀ
,ഀ
Oഀ
~Oഀ
D °ഀ
iഀ
Iഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
t0ഀ
t0ഀ
~ഀ
fDഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
t0ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
mഀ
~ഀ
<3"ഀ
Nsഀ
Nഀ
C)ഀ
Oഀ
Tഀ
A Oഀ
NIഀ
fഀ
Yഀ
F;ഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
toഀ
t0ഀ
Nഀ
d•ഀ
Clഀ
toഀ
t0ഀ
toഀ
(O')ഀ
Nഀ
yഀ
`7.ഀ
I7ഀ
LL i CGiഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
N Oഀ
Oഀ
Q) Oഀ
OO !ഀ
toഀ
u7ഀ
toഀ
Nഀ
N Lr)ഀ
Loഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
ulഀ
Wഀ
Oഀ
& U?ഀ
' r••ഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
I.ഀ
a) Oഀ
_ഀ
zഀ
zഀ
fn cഀ
7ഀ
#Sഀ
r^tഀ
yഀ
Nഀ
pഀ
Oഀ
Uഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
vഀ
Cഀ
tഀ
ഀ
o;ഀ
wഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
dഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
mഀ
mഀ
Yഀ
Cഀ
dഀ
'oഀ
°ഀ
wഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
ഀ
Zഀ
pഀ
O:ഀ
Vഀ
mഀ
yഀ
`yഀ
Nഀ
ഀ
Uഀ
Lഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Uഀ
coഀ
mഀ
dഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
wഀ
¢ഀ
uJഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
vഀ
7ഀ
£ഀ
Eഀ
mഀ
aഀ
41ഀ
pഀ
0ഀ
yഀ
7ഀ
yഀ
U)ഀ
wഀ
Cഀ
yഀ
LLഀ
Cഀ
Yഀ
cഀ
wഀ
cഀ
3ഀ
-ഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
aഀ
mഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
coഀ
Uഀ
a)ഀ
mഀ
r-ഀ
>ഀ
Uഀ
U ¢ഀ
¢ഀ
Qഀ
mഀ
[aഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
0ഀ
Wഀ
2ഀ
Sഀ
Jഀ
zഀ
aഀ
Inഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
F_ഀ
¢ഀ
aഀ
~,Iഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
dഀ
' toഀ
I°ഀ
hഀ
a0ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
Cഀ
toഀ
Oഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
tTഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Iഀ
tiഀ
ATTACHMENT Cഀ
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 24, 2008 PECഀ
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONഀ
November 24, 2008ഀ
12:OOpmഀ
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOMEഀ
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657ഀ
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENTഀ
Michael Kurz Scott Properഀ
Sarah Paladino-Robinsonഀ
Susie Tjossemഀ
Bill Pierceഀ
Rollie Kjesboഀ
David Vieleഀ
30 minutesഀ
4. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant toഀ
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, andഀ
Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parkingഀ
requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in theഀ
Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: George Rutherഀ
ACTION: Motion to Table to December 8, 2008ഀ
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0ഀ
George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce said he wants to know how other communities deal with this exactഀ
issue. He felt that flexibility was a benefit, and once it is codified, this benefit goes away.ഀ
Most developers don't draw employee housing and then ask for relief. He said it would beഀ
helpful to have discussions before things get. drawn to discuss how the parking will be dealtഀ
with within a project.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that there are forces here. Do the parking requirements work?ഀ
There are guidelines for each area, where if you are transit oriented development, you haveഀ
lower guidelines. Perhaps we could have guidelines that break it down by dormitory, oneഀ
bedroom, two bedroom, single family etc and based on location and desired occupant. Theഀ
developer will provide a plan for parking, and if they deviate from general guidelines, theyഀ
will have to provide additional amenities like sidewalks, bike parking, etc. We need to let theഀ
developer respond with a creative method that works for each project. They should also beഀ
able to provide shuttles or some other mechanism to provide transportation to the peopleഀ
who live there. If the parking comes first, on top of all other requirements, they may decideഀ
that's not what they want.ഀ
George Ruther asked if it is possible to come up with a parking requirement for a dorm unit.ഀ
8ഀ
Commissioner Kurz responded that per dormitory unit, you cannot have a singleഀ
requirement because they have a wide variety of number of beds. Kurz said generalഀ
guidelines are good, but then need to take into account the other factors like transit orientedഀ
development.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem asked if this came out of the Town Council discussion onഀ
redevelopment of Timber Ridge. She said a requirement might allow more measurableഀ
development. Isn't this helping make the housing affordable?ഀ
George Ruther said that the Timber Ridge Advisory Committee is the impetus behind thisഀ
request. As a developer, there needs to be clear and predicable expectations, and not justഀ
open-ended interpretation.ഀ
Commissioner Viele said he looks at what makes sense and what is required/legal. Heഀ
agrees that there needs to be flexibility in approval, but there has to be aഀ
minimum/maximum guideline that shows a threshold that needs to be met or that the Townഀ
considers to be adequate.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that putting a requirement puts a limit on what can be built, and heഀ
said that developers need the ability to be creative. If we require it at all, it will not bring newഀ
solutions.ഀ
George Ruther asked if zero parking is an option if alternate means of transportation areഀ
provided.ഀ
Commissioner Palladino said that no, it is not ok because the Town takes responsibility forഀ
the cars being somewhere else, like on the Frontage Road, at trailhead parking or displacedഀ
elsewhere in town. She said as much as no parking is great, it is not practical. The town isഀ
still rural and not dense enough, and there are no rental car places in the vicinity to serve asഀ
an alternative means of transportation.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem said that the seasonal workers are changing and are againഀ
switching from international back to domestic. There are many domestic laborers out ofഀ
work and they are coming here, and like it or not they have cars. We cannot base thisഀ
amendment on who we are attracting at a single point in time or who we would like to attractഀ
because it keeps changing. However, proximity to public transportation and alternateഀ
means of transportation to a building would be better to control the issue.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce said guidelines need to be provided as a starting point. Chapter 10 ofഀ
the Code provides closely defined requirements, but If its in a different location, the parkingഀ
requirement is less. He said the Code needs to take into consideration some units that areഀ
a-typical. Perhaps need to add requirements for dormitory rooms or number of spaces "perഀ
pillow". He believes we need to have requirements so that people understand what isഀ
required from the start. Alternate housing opportunities should have their own section.ഀ
George Ruther sought to clarify the comments he heard from the PEC. He said transitഀ
oriented development helps to reduce requirements from other places, such asഀ
transportation, etc. He said he was wondering if there are times when the transportationഀ
system goes underutilized. He said there may be opportunities to greater utilizeഀ
infrastructure, including buses, sidewalks, bike paths, etc.ഀ
9ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that if the town had 24 hour bus service and you could live in theഀ
village, there could be a reduced need for cars. People however want cars to go otherഀ
places. We can not ignore that. He said it would be good to take cars off the road withഀ
environmental sustainability in mind.ഀ
George Ruther asked about parking for visitors. He asked if it's ok if visitors to the projectഀ
do not have parking. He said this is included in the calculation for parking.ഀ
The Commissioners said you need to provide visitor parking.ഀ
Commisioner Viele said there needs to be an element of trust within the market. Thereഀ
needs to be parking provided that the developer will provide on their own.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said that each project is different, and with for-sale units, you needഀ
more parking.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem said that when a business owner has a building we don't want themഀ
to have the ability to say no parking. With Timber Ridge, she says the developer needs toഀ
understand what is required.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said there needs to be flexibility.ഀ
George Ruther said that developers tell the Town that they would like predictability. He saidഀ
that is it clear at to distance from services, buses, etc.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said that in Solar Vail there was a parking plan that allowed flexibility.ഀ
He said there is not enough parking in any building in Town was his perception.ഀ
Commissioner Viele said that the Code is the worst case scenario, and that should be putഀ
into the pro-forma and anything allowed in less is a bonus. He said the question is whetherഀ
that requirement should be different in the Housing District.ഀ
George Ruther asked if the criteria are good for this type of development (ie Housing zoneഀ
district), can they be expanded to other districts?ഀ
Commissioner Viele said there is a provision in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Planഀ
that allows for flexibility from the Town Code. He said there should be flexibility written in.ഀ
George Ruther asked if we want all the cars and parking that comes with development, butഀ
perhaps take another method, like transportation, etc. Do we want the outcome when weഀ
assess that parking? Should we be looking at other ways to address problem?ഀ
Commissioner Kurz asked if a transportation plan is required.ഀ
George Ruther said that there are aspects of a transportation plan in each project, but not inഀ
detail. If we rely solely on parking spaces as addressing transportation needs, perhaps weഀ
are not getting results we want.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said that if the units require parking, the developer will put that in theഀ
economic model. He said that location should help determine what your parkingഀ
requirements are.ഀ
10ഀ
George Ruther said there has been a paradigm shift where parking is very valuable but ifഀ
you give people walkability, they may not need parking.ഀ
Commissioner Kurz said it needs to be in conjunction with traffic flow considerations.ഀ
Dominic Mauriello said that parking requirements could be established but then allow forഀ
diversions from that.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo said that at Middle Creek, they charge for parking. On Timber Ridgeഀ
there is a model with how many parking spaces. There is history to use to understand whatഀ
parking requirements are.ഀ
Commissioner Pierce asked about parking at Timber Ridgeഀ
Nina Timm said there are 308 spaces for 198 units, and all are utilized. (It was laterഀ
determined on December 2, 2008 that there are only 225 spaces on-site). She said youഀ
cant regulate the occupant but you have more people per units at Timber Ridge. Becauseഀ
of financing, you can limit occupancy but you don't have more than 2 people per unit atഀ
Middle Creek, driving it more than anything.ഀ
11ഀ
ATTACHMENT Dഀ
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCILഀ
MEDIA ADVISORYഀ
December 2, 2008ഀ
Contact: Corey Swisher, 479-2106ഀ
Town Manager's Officeഀ
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 2, 2008ഀ
Work Session Briefsഀ
Council members present: Foley, Daly, Cleveland, Hitt, Gordon, Rogersഀ
Newbury entered the Council Chambers at 1:54 p.m.ഀ
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, andഀ
Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parkingഀ
requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in theഀ
Housing (H) zone districtഀ
Community Development Director George Ruther asked Council to provide staff withഀ
policy direction on the town's expectations related to the transportation needs andഀ
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district. Based on numerous discussionsഀ
on the transportation needs and parking requirements for the Housing zone district, it isഀ
often identified that the flexibility provided in the parking requirements also creates aഀ
certain amount of unintended confusion and ambiguity. The current stated policy forഀ
parking in the Housing (H) zone district is, "there is a transportation need generated byഀ
residents living within the Housing zone district that shall be addressed."ഀ
Rogers emphasized, "We want to house people, not cars... She then spoke in support ofഀ
parking space rentals ...You need to burden the people who want cars by making themഀ
pay for them... I'm very much in favor of reducing parking spaces in the housingഀ
district... It seems to me flexibility is the better way to go and it needs to be moreഀ
predictable."ഀ
Hitt asked for a study to "determine what our reality is here in town." Heഀ
then expressed concern that reduced parking requirements would lead to moreഀ
abandoned vehicles being parked in residential neighborhoods. "I don't think it hasഀ
been clearly proven that just because it's a dorm it means less cars."ഀ
Daly clarified fewer foreign workers in town would lead to increased parking demand. He thenഀ
encouraged providing enhanced predictability for developers.ഀ
Cleveland stated, "It's unreasonable to expect our seasonal workers to exist without anഀ
automobile... Any project is going to require parking."ഀ
Foley spoke in support of providing additional public transportation.ഀ
Zemler encouraged "thinking through" some sort of payment-in-lieu component.ഀ
Rogers encouraged staff to speak with the City of Boulder in regard to their existing parkingഀ
requirements.ഀ
12ഀ
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RESULTSഀ
February 9, 2009ഀ
1:OOpmഀ
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOMEഀ
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657ഀ
MEMBERS PRESENTഀ
Bill Pierceഀ
Rollie Kjesboഀ
Michael Kurzഀ
David Vieleഀ
Scott Properഀ
Susie Tjossem arrived at 1ഀ
03 after item #1 was tabled.ഀ
MEMBERS ABSENTഀ
Sarah Robinson-Paladinoഀ
45 Minutesഀ
5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribedഀ
regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, toഀ
Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to clarify the parkingഀ
requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto.ഀ
(PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: Nicole Petersonഀ
ACTION: Recommendation of approval (The motion failed, do to a tie vote)ഀ
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 3-3-0 (Proper, Tjossem, Kjesboഀ
opposed)ഀ
Nicole Peterson gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum.ഀ
Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, believes it is a big mistake to reduceഀ
parking on any project. In his judgment the parking should be built and how it isഀ
distributed for use could be more dynamic over time to address changing conditionsഀ
during the life of the building. There are endless uses for utilization of parking.ഀ
Commissioner Proper asked for clarification about the current problems with theഀ
ordinance.ഀ
Nicole Peterson responded that the current requirements leave opportunity forഀ
arbitrary interpretation, which leads to varying and unpredictable outcomes.ഀ
Warren Campbell added that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to addഀ
predictability to the development process.ഀ
Commissioner Viele commented that he disagrees with Jim Lamont's comment thatഀ
there should not be a parking reduction. He believes that certain conditions warrantഀ
a reduction in parking.ഀ
Commissioner Kjesbo would still like to see the reduction on a case by case basis.ഀ
He believes there is a difference in the type of occupancy and the amount of parkingഀ
needed. He would like to see the requirements remain as there are today.ഀ
Commissioner Tjossem agreed with Commissioner Kjesboഀ
Commissioner Kurz had nothing to add.ഀ
Following the vote, Commissioner Pierce summarized the opposing votes and statedഀ
the main reason for opposition is that the issue of reducing the amount of parking isഀ
too dynamic and should by applied on a case-by-case basis.ഀ
Commissioner Proper added that he applauds Staff's effort to add predictability toഀ
the regulations; however, he believes that the issue of reducing the amount ofഀ
parking is too subjective in terms of the types, design, and operation that may beഀ
proposed in a development. He added that there is a disconnection with theഀ
application of rigid (black and white) criteria to a dynamic (grey) issue.ഀ
MEMORANDUMഀ
TO: Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commissionഀ
FROM: Community Development Departmentഀ
DATE: February 9, 2009ഀ
SUBJECT: A request for final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribedഀ
regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Townഀ
Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amendഀ
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details inഀ
regard thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: Nicole Peterson/ Nina Timmഀ
1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTഀ
The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a final recommendation to the Vail Townഀ
Council for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment,ഀ
Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amendഀ
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district.ഀ
Since 2001, the Town has reviewed development and redevelopment of properties in theഀ
H district. The experience has proven that the unpredictable nature of the currentഀ
parking reduction language has not been in the best interest of the Town, the communityഀ
or the developer. The current regulations have lead to confusion and unpredictability inഀ
the review process, which is not the intent of the zoning regulations. The purpose of theഀ
proposed amendments is to write predictable, quantifiable and enforceable policy thatഀ
removes the discretionary review and creates a predictable process to eliminateഀ
confusion and delay in the review for the Town and the developer.ഀ
II. BACKGROUNDഀ
Since the PEC work session on January 26, 2009, Staff has revised the proposedഀ
amendment as follows:ഀ
1. Added language that will allow the applicant to chose the criteria of the 25% parkingഀ
reduction in the H district, from the proposed Section 12-61-8A, Parking Reduction, orഀ
from Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provisions (Summarized in Section 111,ഀ
Applicable Planning Documents, of this memorandum).ഀ
2. Added an `Applicability' section that states the 25% reduction only applies to theഀ
permitted uses in the H district and sites with density of 20 dwelling units or more perഀ
acre of buildable site area.ഀ
3. Added a `Recording' section that requires the applicant to include a statement withinഀ
the recorded employee housing unit deed restriction for the property thatഀ
acknowledges the approved parking reduction.ഀ
III. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTSഀ
Current Parking Requirements, Vail Town Code:ഀ
Section 12-61-8, (Housing District) Parking and Loading, Summarized:ഀ
The Town of Vail currently allows a reduction in minimum parking requirements, in theഀ
Housing (H) District if a parking management plan is approved by the Planning andഀ
Environmental Commission that demonstrates a need for fewer parking spaces thanഀ
chapter 10, Vail Town Code would require (No current percent limit on the reduction). Itഀ
states, "For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking couldഀ
include:ഀ
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, butഀ
not limited to, public transit or shuttle servicesഀ
B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for eachഀ
unit.ഀ
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshareഀ
programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts."ഀ
Section 12-10-10. Parkina Reauirements Schedules. Summarized:ഀ
The Town of Vail currently requires minimum parking spaces for multiple-familyഀ
dwellings as follows:ഀ
Schedule A (Property located in the 'Core Area' - Vail Village and Lionshead):ഀ
1.4 per unitഀ
Note: A parking reduction was figured into this number because of theഀ
walkability and ease of public transportation in the 'Core Area' as compared toഀ
the rest of Vail.ഀ
Schedule B (Property outside the `Core Area' - Vail Village and Lionshead):ഀ
1.5 per unit if units are <500 sf,ഀ
2 per unit if units are >500sf and <2,000 sfഀ
2.5 per unit if units are >2,000 sfഀ
Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provisions, Summarized:ഀ
The Town of Vail offers a 25% parking reduction, at the Planning and Environmentalഀ
Commission's discretion for any property within the Town, if the developer provides aഀ
report documenting the presence of unique parking characteristics, by a qualifiedഀ
consultant and the following findings are made:ഀ
A. The parking demand will be less than the requirements identified in sectionഀ
12-10-10 of this chapter, andഀ
B. The probable long term use of the building or structure, based on its design,ഀ
will not generate additional parking demand; andഀ
C. The use or activity is part of a demonstrated permanent program (including,ഀ
but not limited to, "rideshare" programs, shuttle service, or staggered workഀ
shifts) intended to reduce parking demand that has been incorporated intoഀ
the project's final approved development plan; andഀ
D. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation (including, butഀ
not limited to, public transit or shuttle services) is significant and integral toഀ
the nature of the use or business activity.ഀ
2ഀ
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMSഀ
Multiple Use Creditഀ
The existing zoning regulations include a provision for the reduction of parking forഀ
shared parking and loading facilities. Section 12-10-12, Credit for Multiple Use Parkingഀ
Facilities and Section 12-10-15, Credit for Multiple Use Loading Facilities state theഀ
parking reductions as a percentage or number based on the original parkingഀ
requirement.ഀ
In the H district, permitted uses are: Bicycle and pedestrian paths, employee housingഀ
units, outdoor recreation areas and paths. Staff has included a statement in theഀ
`Applicability' section of the proposed amendments that states the 25% reduction onlyഀ
applies to the permitted uses in the H district. Therefore, the reduction will not apply toഀ
the conditional uses that include offices, retail, restaurants etc. Furthermore, if aഀ
development includes a `multiple-use parking or loading facility,' Staff has includedഀ
language in the amendment that the parking reduction cannot be used in conjunctionഀ
with sections 12-10-12 and 12-10-15.ഀ
Managed Solutionsഀ
Managed solutions, such as van pools, car sharing and shuttle service were discussedഀ
at the January 26, 2009 PEC meeting. The difficulty with managed solutions is thatഀ
there are factors outside the Town's control in regards to the implementation,ഀ
maintenance and service of those programs in the long term under changing dynamicഀ
conditions. It would be impossible for the Town to enforce the managed solutionsഀ
proposed, and therefore Staff is recommending that managed solutions should not beഀ
included in the public policy.ഀ
Parking Based on Unit Sizeഀ
From the research collected, of similar communities, Staff found that the existing numberഀ
of required parking spaces for multiple family dwelling units, set forth in Chapter 10, isഀ
accurate and consistent with other communities. Furthermore, the current parkingഀ
requirement for Schedule B that is based on the size of the unit, was mentioned in theഀ
research, as a best practice for Transit Oriented Development because smaller units areഀ
not penalized with a higher parking requirement. Therefore, Staff believes the existingഀ
parking requirements, set forth in Chapter 10 should remain the base by which a projectഀ
is assessed.ഀ
Owner vs. Rental/ Seasonal Unitsഀ
Staff was unable to find research to support a claim that ownership structure is a factorഀ
in the increase or decrease of trip generation or vehicle ownership. None of the 22ഀ
communities that Staff researched, distinguished ownership vs. rental units in regards toഀ
parking requirements. Furthermore, Staff believes that housing ownership dynamics areഀ
unpredictable and that individually owned units can become rental units and vice versa,ഀ
based on the economy or personal choice of an owner or manager. Staff believes itഀ
would be impossible to regulate and enforce the unpredictable nature of housing.ഀ
Instead, Staff found that the agent in the decrease of trip generation hinges on theഀ
density of a project. There were several studies that revealed that as density increases,ഀ
trip generation decreases. Staff found the proposed density (20 units per acre) from aഀ
study that revealed density of 20 units or more per acre, averaged 6 trips per dwellingഀ
unit, and density of 20 units or less per acre, averaged 8 trips per dwelling unit, aഀ
difference of 2 trips per dwelling unit per day. Staff found further proof in the Institute ofഀ
3ഀ
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 6th Edition, that the average tripഀ
generation per unit rate dropped from .58 for a 'low-rise apartment' to .30 for a `high-riseഀ
apartment.' The ITE information also reveals that as density increases, trip generationഀ
decreases, making it less likely for residents to need a personal vehicle. Staff believesഀ
the proposed 20 units per acre is a quantifiable and appropriate density for the parkingഀ
reduction because research shows that high density results in the decrease of vehicleഀ
trips and ultimately, car ownership.ഀ
V.ഀ
CRITERIA AND FINDINGSഀ
CRITERIAഀ
According to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, before acting on anഀ
application for an amendment to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, theഀ
Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the followingഀ
factors:ഀ
(1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specificഀ
purposes of the zoning regulations; andഀ
Staff believes the proposed amendments further the general purpose of Title 12 Zoningഀ
Regulations by promoting the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town,ഀ
through applicable, enforceable parking regulations in the Housing District. The Town ofഀ
Vail currently allows a reduction in minimum parking requirements, in the Housing (H)ഀ
District if a parking management plan is approved by the Planning and Environmentalഀ
Commission that demonstrates a need for fewer parking spaces than Chapter 10, Vailഀ
Town Code would require. It states, "For example, a demonstrated need for a reductionഀ
in the required parking could include.ഀ
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, butഀ
not limited to, public transit or shuttle servicesഀ
B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for eachഀ
unit.ഀ
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshareഀ
programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. "ഀ
The current regulations do not provide quantifiable, enforceable regulations. The currentഀ
regulations have lead to confusion and unpredictability in the review process, which isഀ
not the intent of the zoning regulations. The purpose of the proposed amendments is toഀ
propose predictable, quantifiable, enforceable policy that removes the discretionaryഀ
review and creates a predictable process to eliminate confusion and delay in the review.ഀ
(2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and betterഀ
achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policiesഀ
outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the developmentഀ
objectives of the town; andഀ
The Vail Land Use Plan states a specific residential goal that affordable employeeഀ
housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives,ഀ
provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Staff believes the proposedഀ
amendments directly achieve the goal by proposing a limited incentive (parkingഀ
4ഀ
reduction) for employee housing with appropriate restrictions that balance theഀ
transportation needs and parking needs of the residents.ഀ
(3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions haveഀ
substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how theഀ
existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; andഀ
Conditions have changed in that the Town has reviewed development andഀ
redevelopment of property in the Housing District. The experience has proven that theഀ
unpredictability of the current parking reduction language has not been in the bestഀ
interest of the Town, the community or the developer. The current regulations do notഀ
provide quantifiable, enforceable regulations. The current policy has lead to confusionഀ
and unpredictability in the review process. The proposed amendments are lessഀ
subjective, efficient and predictable. Therefore, the proposed amendments eliminateഀ
arbitrary interpretation, confusion and delay in the review process.ഀ
(4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient,ഀ
workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipalഀ
development objectives; andഀ
The proposed text amendments further the purpose and goals of the Zoning Regulationsഀ
and the Comprehensive Plan, as stated in criterion 1 and 2. The proposed amendmentsഀ
provide predictable policy that will result in coordinated and harmonious development ofഀ
the Town, through applicable, enforceable parking regulations in the Housing District.ഀ
Therefore, the proposed amendments provide predictable policy, through the Zoningഀ
Regulations consistent with the municipal development objectives of the Comprehensiveഀ
Plan.ഀ
(5) Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commissionഀ
and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.ഀ
FINDINGSഀ
Before recommending and/or granting an approval of a text amendment the Planningഀ
and Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findingsഀ
with respect to the requested amendment. Staff has included the following findings inഀ
the recommended motion of approval in Section VI, Staff Recommendation, of thisഀ
memorandum.ഀ
(1) That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of theഀ
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive planഀ
and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; andഀ
(2) That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoningഀ
regulations; andഀ
(3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfareഀ
of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of theഀ
town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and itsഀ
established character as a resort and residential community of the highestഀ
quality.ഀ
5ഀ
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONഀ
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning andഀ
Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Townഀ
Council of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, based on the criteria and findings in Sectionഀ
V of this memorandum.ഀ
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward aഀ
recommendation of approval of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, the Communityഀ
Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commissionഀ
pass the following motion:ഀ
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation ofഀ
approval to the Vail Town Council, of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009"ഀ
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward aഀ
recommendation of approval of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, the Communityഀ
Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission make theഀ
following findings:ഀ
"(1) That Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 is consistent with the applicableഀ
elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vailഀ
comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of theഀ
town; andഀ
(2) That Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 furthers the general and specificഀ
purposes of the zoning regulations, andഀ
(3) That Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 promotes the health, safety, morals,ഀ
and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmoniousഀ
development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its naturalഀ
environment and its established character as a resort and residential communityഀ
of the highest quality."ഀ
VII. ATTACHMENTSഀ
A. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009ഀ
6ഀ
ATTACHMENT Aഀ
ORDINANCE NO. 3ഀ
Series of 2009ഀ
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE FORഀ
PRESCRIBED REGULATION AMENDMENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-3-7,ഀ
AMENDMENT, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO SECTION 12-61-8, PARKING AND LOADING, VAILഀ
TOWN CODE, TO CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE HOUSING (H) ZONEഀ
DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.ഀ
WHEREAS, The Town of Vail has initiated prescribed regulation amendments to Sectionഀ
12-61-8, Parking and Loading of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code; andഀ
WHEREAS, prescribed regulation amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vailഀ
Town Code are permitted pursuant to Section 12-3-7C.2, Vail Town Code; andഀ
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held aഀ
public hearing on February 9, 2009, at which the Planning and Environmental Commissionഀ
forwarded a recommendation of to the Vail Town Council for the proposedഀ
amendments based on the criteria and findings presented in the staff memorandum; andഀ
WHEREAS, the current regulations do not provide quantifiable, enforceable regulationsഀ
and the current regulations have lead to confusion and unpredictability in the review process,ഀ
which is not the intent of the zoning regulations; andഀ
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to establish predictable,ഀ
quantifiable, enforceable policy that removes the discretionary review and creates a predictableഀ
process to eliminate arbitrary interpretation, confusion and delay in the review process; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable elements ofഀ
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and areഀ
compatible with the development objectives of the Town; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments further the general and specific purposes of theഀ
zoning regulations; andഀ
7ഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and generalഀ
welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town inഀ
a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character asഀ
a resort and residential community of the highest quality; andഀ
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds it in the interest of the public health, safety, andഀ
welfare to adopt the amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code.ഀ
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OFഀ
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:ഀ
Section I. Text Additions and Deletionsഀ
The Vail Town Council hereby approves the Vail Town Code amendments, as illustratedഀ
by text additions stated in bold italics and deletions in stpilio+hm ghഀ
Section II. Article 12-61, Housing (H) District shall be amended to read as follows:ഀ
12-61-8, Parking and Loadingഀ
SeGtion17_61_8r (HE) king Dictrin+\ PaFk*Rg and Leadingഀ
Off st; c t paF *Rg epall,e pFevided in aGGE)F anGe With Ghapter 10 of this titleഀ
staRdaFds outlined OR Ghapter 10 of this title ma~d j during the review ef aഀ
for feweF parkiRg spaG PteF 10 of thus title would requiFe. F=9F example, aഀ
limited to p blip }ronsit er shuttle se Win°cഀ
B. A lirnitatiOR plaGed on the deed restFiGtiGRG limiting the number Of Gars for eaGhഀ
U44-.ഀ
pFegFaFnG, GaFss aFe ptpggms, shuttle jer~o nr staggered work shiftsഀ
Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10ഀ
of this title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any requiredഀ
front setback area in compliance with 12-61-5 Setbacks. The applicant mayഀ
pursue a parking reduction from the Chapter 10 requirements under Sectionഀ
8ഀ
12-10-20, Special Review Provisions or the following Section 12-61-8A, Parkingഀ
Reduction. Sections 12-10-12, Credit for Multiple Use Parking Facilities, 12-10-ഀ
20, Special Review Provisions and 12-61-8A, Parking Reduction shall not beഀ
applied together.ഀ
A. Parking Reductionഀ
A twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of requiredഀ
parking spaces shall be applied to development or redevelopment thatഀ
meets the standards set forth in Section 12-61-8A1, Applicability and 12-61-ഀ
8A2, Development Criteria; and Section 12-61-8A3, Recording.ഀ
1. Applicabilityഀ
The twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of requiredഀ
parking spaces applies to permitted uses in the Housing (H) District;ഀ
and sites with density of 20 dwelling units or more per acre of buildableഀ
site area.ഀ
2. Development Criteriaഀ
a. Proximity to Public Transportation: Development is located withinഀ
880 feet (0.16 mile) of a public bus stop or public transit center, asഀ
measured along a pedestrian connection from the primary entrance ofഀ
the building located farthest from the public bus stop or public transitഀ
center; andഀ
b. Proximity to Commercial Job Core: Development is located withinഀ
2,500 feet (0.47 mile) of one of the following Commercial Job Cores, asഀ
measured along the pedestrian connection from the primary entrance ofഀ
the building located farthest from the Commercial Job Core. For theഀ
purpose of this section, the Commercial Job Cores shall be defined as:ഀ
1. Vail Village, as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan, Actionഀ
Plan Mapഀ
2. Lionshead, as designated by the Lionshead Redevelopmentഀ
Master Plan, Map A Study Areaഀ
3. West Vail, which includes all properties zoned Commercial Core 3ഀ
(CC3) District on the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map; andഀ
c. Bicycle Parking: Covered bicycle parking shall be provided on site,ഀ
equal to ten percent (10%) of the required off-street parking spaceഀ
requirement, prior to the reduction. After the first 50 bicycle parkingഀ
spaces are provided, the required number of additional bicycle parkingഀ
spaces is five percent (5%) of the required off-street parking spaceഀ
requirement, prior to the reduction.ഀ
3. Recordingഀ
The applicant shall include a statement within the recorded employeeഀ
housing unit deed restriction for the property that acknowledges theഀ
approval of the parking reduction under Section 12-61-8A, Parkingഀ
Reduction.ഀ
9ഀ
Section IV. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is forഀ
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portionsഀ
of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance,ഀ
and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the factഀ
that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declaredഀ
invalid.ഀ
Section V. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance isഀ
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitantsഀ
thereof.ഀ
Section VI. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinanceഀ
shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred priorഀ
to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding asഀ
commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provisionഀ
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or supersededഀ
unless expressly stated herein.ഀ
Section VII. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistentഀ
herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not beഀ
construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretoforeഀ
repealed.ഀ
10ഀ
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHEDഀ
ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 17th day of February, 2009 and a public hearing forഀ
second reading of this Ordinance set for the 3rd day of March, 2009, in the Council Chambersഀ
of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.ഀ
Richard Cleveland, Mayorഀ
ATTEST:ഀ
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerkഀ
11ഀ
MEDIA ADVISORYഀ
February 17, 2009ഀ
Contact: Corey Swisher, 479-2106ഀ
Town Manager's Officeഀ
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR FEBRUARY 17, 2009ഀ
Work Session Briefsഀ
Council members present: Foley, Newbury, Daly, Cleveland, Hitt, Gordon, Rogersഀ
--Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal adviceഀ
on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instructഀ
negotiators; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease,ഀ
transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions;ഀ
and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Re: constructionഀ
of North Day Lot Housingഀ
No decisions were made. For more information, contact Matt Mire, 479-2460.ഀ
--Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC)/Design Review Board (DRB) Updateഀ
During a review of the most recent meetings of the PEC and DRB, Communityഀ
Development Director George Ruther answered questions regarding the latest proposalsഀ
to go before the two boards. Council emphasized the importance of managingഀ
construction parking related to the North Day Lot. In regard to adequate constructionഀ
parking Ruther commented, "We believe we have adequately addressed that issue."ഀ
Daly said all construction parking should take place on site. Newbury moved to call upഀ
the item with Foley seconding. The motion failed 2-4 with Foley and Newbury voting inഀ
favor. Rogers moved to call up the item with Daly seconding, solely to review theഀ
construction schedule and to review other conditions of approval such as requiredഀ
easements. The motion passed 5-1 with Foley opposed. For more information, contactഀ
George Ruther at 479-2145.ഀ
--Presentation by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), Denver, CO, of their Chamonixഀ
Employee Housing Market Analysisഀ
In 2008, the Town of Vail adopted the Chamonix Master Plan and rezoned theഀ
Chamonix Property to the Housing (H) District to allow for the development of deedഀ
restricted employee housing units. The Chamonix Master Plan calls for approximatelyഀ
58 deed restricted, for-sale employee housing units. In order to ensure project successഀ
the town has completed a cost validation study and has engaged EPS to provide theഀ
town with a site specific market analysis. This information will be the basis to developഀ
and sell units that are affordable and most desirable to local employees. Questionsഀ
precipitating the study focused on the appropriate pricing for the project, product mix,ഀ
and sales timeframe. The study analyzed market demand by:ഀ
Evaluating the project's market position in the context of competing locations andഀ
characteristics of competing projects.ഀ
Identified price brackets at which buyers will favorably consider the Chamonix site inഀ
comparison to larger units elsewhere in Eagle County.ഀ
Provided a framework for a market oriented development program based on theഀ
availability and price points of competing projects.ഀ
Newbury clarified there was not a lot of demand for larger style homes (as wasഀ
previously believed). Daley encouraged pursuing firmer construction costs andഀ
developing a phasing plan. Rogers emphasized pursuing Federal Housingഀ
Administration (FHA) financing. Knudtsen recommended collecting as much updatableഀ
data as possible. Zemler stated staff would bring back a series of next steps. For moreഀ
information contact Nina Timm at 479-2144.ഀ
- Discussion of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, an ordinanceഀ
adopting prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment,ഀ
Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amendഀ
parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district The proposed amendments wereഀ
in response to direction provided by the Vail Town Council and the Vail Local Housingഀ
Authority to determine if in fact here was a more predictable, quantifiable way toഀ
consider reductions in parking for project constructed in the Town's Housing Zoneഀ
District. On February 9, 2009, the PEC held a meeting to forward a recommendation toഀ
Council for Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009. No formal recommendation wasഀ
forwarded, due to the motion resulting in a tie vote (3-3-0 with Proper, Kjesbo andഀ
Tjossem opposed). Hitt said he was in favor of maintaining the current parkingഀ
requirements. Cleveland commented, "I have a real concern about making a changeഀ
because I know how easy uses can change." Newbury said she was interested inഀ
cautiously moving forward. It was then clarified Middle Creek Parking is being leasedഀ
out to individuals who do not live there. For details, contact Nicole Peterson at 479-ഀ
3452.ഀ
--First Reading of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2009, an ordinance amending Section 12-ഀ
7--3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; and Section 12-16-7, Use Specific Criteria andഀ
Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow business offices and professional offices asഀ
conditional uses on the first floor in the LionsHead Mixed Use-1 Districtഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
--2009 Budget Adjustments; First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2009, anഀ
ordinance making budget adjustments to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capitalഀ
Projects Fund, and Heavy Equipment Fund of the 2009 Budget for the Town of Vail,ഀ
Colorado; and authorizing the said adjustments as set forth hereinഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
--Information Updateഀ
Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer provided Council with an update on theഀ
planning for the Battle Mountain High School property uses after the school closes.ഀ
Economic Development Manager Kelli McDonald reported Vail is doing "less bad" thanഀ
other ski towns considered peer resorts. Finance Director Judy Camp said revenuesഀ
are trending down from last year, but last year January was a very good month.ഀ
McDonald reported 1500 hotel room nights can be attributed to the "Vail All the Love"ഀ
campaign.ഀ
--Matters from Mayor & Councilഀ
• ECO Service Discussionഀ
MEMORANDUMഀ
TO: Vail Town Councilഀ
FROM: Community Development Departmentഀ
DATE: February 17, 2009ഀ
SUBJECT: A work session to discuss Ordinance No. 3, Seriesഀ
prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Sectionഀ
Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vailഀ
requirements in the Housing (H) District, and settingഀ
(PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: Nicole Peterson/ Nina Timmഀ
of 2009, an ordinance adoptingഀ
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Townഀ
Town Code, to amend parkingഀ
forth details in regard thereto.ഀ
PROBLEM STATEMENTഀ
The Vail Town Code currently allows for a reduction in minimum parking requirements in theഀ
Housing (H) District if a parking management plan is approved by the Planning andഀ
Environmental Commission, with no maximum percent reduction. Experience has proven that theഀ
current parking reduction language in the H District may not be in the best interest of the Town,ഀ
the community, or the developer. The current parking reduction regulations are:ഀ
✓ Unpredictable;ഀ
✓ Unquantifiable;ഀ
✓ Discretionary and untimely,ഀ
✓ Offer managed solutions, andഀ
✓ Unenforceable.ഀ
PROPOSED SOLUTIONഀ
The purpose of the amendments is to create predictable, quantifiable and enforceable policy thatഀ
removes the discretionary review and creates a predictable process to eliminate confusion andഀ
delay in the review process for the Town and the developer.ഀ
Staff is proposing parking reduction language for the H District to allow for a 25% parkingഀ
reduction for deed' restricted EHU's in the H district. The criteria for the 25% parking reductionഀ
are, in summary:ഀ
✓ The development shall have density equaling 20 units or more per acre;ഀ
✓ The development shall be located within 880 feet (0.16 mile) of public transportation;ഀ
✓ The development shall be located within 2,500 feet (0.47 mile) of a Commercial Jobഀ
Core (Vail Village, Lionshead or West Vail);ഀ
✓ Covered bicycle parking shall be provided on site; andഀ
✓ A statement shall be provided in the recorded employee housing unit deedഀ
restriction(s) that acknowledges the approval of the parking reduction.ഀ
J0.. .ഀ
III. ACTION REQUESTEDഀ
At this work session Staff is requesting that the Town Council answer the following questions:ഀ
1. Does the Town Council wish to amend the parking reduction language in theഀ
Housing District to establish more predictable, quantifiable, enforceable and lessഀ
discretionary parking regulations for deed restricted EHU's in the H district?ഀ
2. If so, do the proposed amendments in Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, meet theഀ
intended goals?ഀ
IV. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONഀ
On February 9, 2009, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a meeting to forward aഀ
recommendation to the Vail Town Council for Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 (Attachment A).ഀ
No formal recommendation was forwarded, due to the motion to approve, resulting in a tie voteഀ
(3-3-0 with Proper, Kjesbo and Tjossem opposed). In summary, the Commission found that theഀ
issue of reducing the amount of parking is too dynamic and should be applied on a case-by-caseഀ
basis.ഀ
V. RESEARCH AND ANALYSISഀ
Since the PEC and Town Council work sessions, Staff conducted research and analysis thatഀ
included an inventory of the H District properties and a comparison of Vail's current parkingഀ
regulations to that of 22 other communities. The data tables are attached for referenceഀ
(Attachments B & C).ഀ
Research Summaryഀ
From the research collected of similar communities, Staff found that the existing number ofഀ
required parking spaces for multiple family dwelling units, set forth in Chapter 10, is accurate andഀ
consistent with other communities. The existing parking regulations that base minimum parkingഀ
spaces on the size of the unit are nationally recognized as a best practice in parkingഀ
requirements. Therefore, Staff believes the existing parking requirements, set forth in Chapter 10ഀ
should remain the same.ഀ
However, from the analysis of the inventory of existing H District properties, Staff believes it isഀ
relevant to offer a parking reduction in the H District with certain criteria that warrant theഀ
reduction. The proposed criteria warrant a parking reduction in that they provide measurable andഀ
enforceable criteria that are directly linked to alternate modes of transportation (i.e. riding the bus,ഀ
walking and biking). Furthermore, Staff found that the decrease of vehicle trip generation hingesഀ
on the density of a project. There were several studies that revealed that as density increased,ഀ
vehicle trip generation decreased, and therefore, the need for a personal vehicle also decreased.ഀ
Therefore, the density of the project may also warrant a parking reduction. Most importantly,ഀ
however, the transportation needs of the residents, regardless of mode, must be accommodated.ഀ
VI. ATTACHMENTSഀ
A. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009ഀ
B. Analysis of Housing (H) District propertiesഀ
C. Comparative Analysis of Similar Communitiesഀ
2ഀ
ORDINANCE NO. 3ഀ
Series of 2009ഀ
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE FORഀ
PRESCRIBED REGULATION AMENDMENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-3-7, AMENDMENT, VAILഀ
TOWN CODE, TO SECTION 12-61-8, PARKING AND LOADING, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO CLARIFYഀ
THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE HOUSING (H) DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILSഀ
IN REGARD THERETO.ഀ
WHEREAS, The Town of Vail has initiated prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12-61-8,ഀ
Parking and Loading of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code; andഀ
WHEREAS, prescribed regulation amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Codeഀ
are permitted pursuant to Section 12-3-7C.2, Vail Town Code; andഀ
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a publicഀ
hearing on February 9, 2009 to forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for Ordinance No. 3,ഀ
Series of 2009. No formal recommendation was forwarded, due to the motion resulting in a tie vote; andഀ
WHEREAS, the current regulations do not provide quantifiable, enforceable regulations and theഀ
current regulations have lead to confusion and unpredictability in the review process, which is not theഀ
intent of the zoning regulations; andഀ
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to establish predictable, quantifiable,ഀ
enforceable policy that removes the discretionary review and creates a predictable process to eliminateഀ
arbitrary interpretation, confusion and delay in the review process; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of theഀ
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible withഀ
the development objectives of the Town; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoningഀ
regulations; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfareഀ
of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner thatഀ
conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residentialഀ
community of the highest quality; andഀ
3ഀ
1.ഀ
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfareഀ
to adopt the amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code.ഀ
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,ഀ
COLORADO, THAT:ഀ
Section 1. Text Additions and Deletionsഀ
The Vail Town Council hereby approves the Vail Town Code amendments, as illustrated by textഀ
additions stated in bold italics and deletions in str6kethmugഀ
Section Il. Article 12-61, Housing (H) District shall be amended to read as follows:ഀ
12-61-8, Parking and Loadingഀ
Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of thisഀ
title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required front setback areaഀ
in compliance with 12-61-5 Setbacks. The applicant may pursue a parking reductionഀ
from the Chapter 10 requirements under Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provisionsഀ
or the following Section 12-61-8A, Parking Reduction. Sections 12-10-12, Credit forഀ
Multiple Use Parking Facilities, 12-10-20, Special Review Provisions and 12-61-8A,ഀ
Parking Reduction shall not be applied together.ഀ
A. Parking Reductionഀ
A twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of required parkingഀ
spaces shall be applied to development or redevelopment that meets the standardsഀ
set forth in Section 12-61-8A1, Applicability and 12-61-8A2, Development Criteria;ഀ
and Section 12-61-8A3, Recording.ഀ
1. Applicabilityഀ
The twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of required parkingഀ
spaces applies to permitted uses in the Housing (H) District, and sites withഀ
density of 20 dwelling units or more per acre of buildable site area.ഀ
4ഀ
2. Development Criteriaഀ
a. Proximity to Public Transportation: Development is located within 880 feetഀ
(0.16 mile) of a public bus stop or public transit center, as measured along aഀ
pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of the building located farthestഀ
from the public bus stop or public transit center; andഀ
b. Proximity to Commercial Job Core: Development is located within 2,500 feetഀ
(0.47 mile) of one of the following Commercial Job Cores, as measured alongഀ
the pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of the building locatedഀ
farthest from the Commercial Job Core. For the purpose of this section, theഀ
Commercial Job Cores shall be defined as:ഀ
1. Vail Village, as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan, Action Planഀ
Mapഀ
2. Lionshead, as designated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,ഀ
Map A Study Areaഀ
3. West Vail, which includes all properties zoned Commercial Core 3 (CC3)ഀ
District on the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map; andഀ
c. Bicycle Parking: Covered bicycle parking shall be provided on site, equal toഀ
ten percent (10%) of the required off-street parking space requirement, prior toഀ
the reduction. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, theഀ
required number of additional bicycle parking spaces is five percent (5%) of theഀ
required off-street parking space requirement, prior to the reduction.ഀ
3. Recordingഀ
The applicant shall include a statement within the recorded employee housingഀ
unit deed restriction for the property that acknowledges the approval of theഀ
parking reduction under Section 12-61-8A, Parking Reduction.ഀ
Section IV. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for anyഀ
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of thisഀ
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part,ഀ
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or moreഀ
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.ഀ
Section V. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessaryഀ
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.ഀ
Section VI. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall notഀ
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effectiveഀ
date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under orഀ
5ഀ
by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive anyഀ
provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.ഀ
Section VII. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith areഀ
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise anyഀ
bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.ഀ
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE INഀ
FULL ON FIRST READING this _th day of , 2009 and a public hearing for second reading ofഀ
this Ordinance set for the _rd day of , 2009, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipalഀ
Building, Vail, Colorado.ഀ
Richard Cleveland, Mayorഀ
ATTEST:ഀ
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerkഀ
6ഀ
7ഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
nഀ
Dഀ
0ഀ
3ഀ
7ഀ
Xഀ
(Oഀ
00ഀ
Vഀ
0)ഀ
cnഀ
Aഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
0ഀ
(9)ഀ
(nഀ
Aഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
ഀ
0ഀ
iഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
(ഀ
00ഀ
-1ഀ
Oഀ
Cnഀ
Aഀ
wഀ
Nഀ
ഀ
0ഀ
N 7 Cഀ
° Qഀ
coഀ
-aഀ
-0 Qഀ
COഀ
O Wഀ
ഀ
-pഀ
ഀ
~ഀ
Nഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
jഀ
7ഀ
O~ഀ
O~ഀ
Wഀ
0ഀ
ONഀ
Oഀ
N Oഀ
O (nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
(Dഀ
U) Xഀ
Enഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
X -0ഀ
pഀ
jഀ
Z3ഀ
N Oഀ
(Dഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
'ഀ
Nഀ
LIZ:ഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
(Dഀ
(ഀ
Dഀ
vഀ
ഀ
ഀ
vഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
4.ഀ
Nഀ
IDഀ
ഀ
.ഀ
c (Dഀ
Oഀ
(nഀ
•ഀ
cഀ
Dഀ
0ഀ
< cnഀ
.ഀ
•ഀ
iiഀ
o<ഀ
mഀ
.ഀ
o *kഀ
~ഀ
4kഀ
=3ഀ
oഀ
ഀ
Wഀ
nഀ
Iഀ
*kഀ
ഀ
01ഀ
orഀ
Dഀ
~ഀ
mഀ
:3 -0ഀ
ഀ
°ഀ
~ഀ
IDഀ
Dഀ
cLഀ
_ഀ
O cഀ
7rഀ
Oഀ
(nഀ
Nഀ
(nഀ
Dഀ
0ഀ
(Dഀ
:3ഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
cep 7 CDഀ
U)ഀ
(nഀ
'aഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
Nഀ
Iഀ
yഀ
Qഀ
0 Wഀ
Cഀ
~ഀ
Dഀ
oഀ
(oഀ
cഀ
(Dഀ
.ഀ
7ഀ
U)ഀ
CD pഀ
3ഀ
oഀ
°ഀ
nഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Dഀ
U)ഀ
oഀ
nഀ
CLഀ
°ഀ
sഀ
a y" Dഀ
00ഀ
((Dഀ
D Cooഀ
mഀ
mഀ
ഀ
mഀ
(nഀ
xഀ
Oഀ
(nഀ
gഀ
°ഀ
aഀ
oഀ
•ഀ
nഀ
mഀ
,ഀ
nഀ
0 pഀ
d <ഀ
~ഀ
Cnഀ
~ഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
wഀ
'Oഀ
(nഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Nഀ
(D N Nഀ
Qഀ
toഀ
cnഀ
(Dഀ
CDഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
D 3ഀ
CDഀ
.ഀ
ഀ
nഀ
7ഀ
7ഀ
COഀ
Oഀ
<ഀ
°ഀ
(Dഀ
V -Q Nഀ
(Dഀ
oഀ
C-ഀ
CDഀ
Cഀ
C7ഀ
Cഀ
Dഀ
sഀ
~ഀ
(Dഀ
.C-.ഀ
(ഀ
CDഀ
°ഀ
aഀ
j'ഀ
(ഀ
oഀ
aഀ
oഀ
<ഀ
= n ciഀ
.ഀ
.ഀ
aഀ
mഀ
aഀ
°ഀ
ഀ
vഀ
aഀ
,ഀ
mഀ
CDഀ
~ഀ
v,ഀ
v,ഀ
jഀ
CDഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
mഀ
~jഀ
rtഀ
ഀ
CLഀ
mഀ
0ഀ
°ഀ
toഀ
vഀ
ഀ
oഀ
(<Dഀ
ഀ
CDഀ
°ഀ
oഀ
2ഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
Cഀ
y'ഀ
vഀ
nഀ
iഀ
3<ഀ
mഀ
3ഀ
iഀ
oഀ
vഀ
:3ഀ
cnഀ
cഀ
Dഀ
U)ഀ
CDഀ
j~ഀ
CDഀ
~Cഀ
yഀ
I O Oഀ
iഀ
Oഀ
N 7ഀ
Xഀ
Xഀ
Nഀ
CCഀ
<ഀ
Qഀ
wഀ
Iഀ
Iഀ
Nഀ
Aഀ
69 Nഀ
V Oഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
-ഀ
~ഀ
Nഀ
o Aഀ
wഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
tഀ
(Dഀ
A^ Aഀ
A A Cnഀ
Dഀ
=ഀ
Nഀ
Cnഀ
Aഀ
Aഀ
O)ഀ
Aഀ
_ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
?cഀ
7ഀ
(Dഀ
N a 'ഀ
I Oഀ
Oഀ
Vഀ
(T (nഀ
Oഀ
vഀ
,Iഀ
Aഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
(Oഀ
Wഀ
Oഀ
Aഀ
Nഀ
alഀ
Oഀ
CJ,ഀ
a.ഀ
Dഀ
aഀ
Cഀ
ഀ
3ഀ
ഀ
°ഀ
Oഀ
°ഀ
Oഀ
vഀ
O aഀ
° I'ഀ
Iഀ
yഀ
Nഀ
pഀ
N dഀ
m yഀ
{Dഀ
Aഀ
O °ഀ
Nഀ
CD aഀ
(Dഀ
Wഀ
Dഀ
W Dഀ
?ഀ
(nഀ
aഀ
Dഀ
.ഀ
(ഀ
Dഀ
mഀ
(Dഀ
CD C)ഀ
°ഀ
d °ഀ
3 c)ഀ
t"!ഀ
Cഀ
a o oഀ
-ഀ
ഀ
°ഀ
°ഀ
-nഀ
C7ഀ
7rഀ
nഀ
nഀ
.O-.ഀ
<ഀ
t9ഀ
Nഀ
CLഀ
(nഀ
CDഀ
7ഀ
(1?ഀ
Cഀ
Wഀ
°Oഀ
cnഀ
0ഀ
7ഀ
Nഀ
_ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
roഀ
7C"ഀ
3 (Dഀ
Aഀ
Oഀ
?Pഀ
!ഀ
Nഀ
N)ഀ
coഀ
3 A cnഀ
wഀ
(Dഀ
xഀ
CLഀ
0ഀ
0 Oഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
Cഀ
Sഀ
mഀ
5ഀ
mഀ
Wഀ
coഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
aഀ
°ഀ
iഀ
. >ഀ
jഀ
Dഀ
Nഀ
q N Iഀ
Dഀ
Dഀ
oഀ
:3ഀ
asഀ
3ഀ
3ഀ
(noഀ
aഀ
lഀ
ഀ
cnn CLഀ
aഀ
rഀ
0 CDഀ
O (Dഀ
(Dഀ
7ഀ
ഀ
!ഀ
'ഀ
iഀ
Cഀ
(D O Nഀ
dഀ
N 3ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
_ഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
Lഀ
Oഀ
0 CDഀ
3ഀ
7ഀ
-pഀ
Cഀ
Lഀ
.ഀ
7 (Dഀ
.ഀ
EL,ഀ
CDഀ
CLഀ
(nഀ
oഀ
°ഀ
mഀ
0ഀ
v 3ഀ
(Dഀ
o Dഀ
CLഀ
N aഀ
cnഀ
°ഀ
g cnഀ
v°ഀ
Oഀ
mഀ
x•ഀ
N mഀ
a v X.ഀ
"ഀ
tഀ
Nഀ
~ഀ
Dഀ
aഀ
(Dഀ
+ cnഀ
(D oഀ
oഀ
wഀ
rnഀ
v, Zഀ
oഀ
N<ഀ
jഀ
-ഀ
N Nഀ
U, Coഀ
l oഀ
.ഀ
!ഀ
Aഀ
-jഀ
oഀ
vഀ
Nഀ
Dഀ
-ഀ
Dഀ
-ഀ
Aഀ
00ഀ
Nഀ
Aഀ
0ഀ
cnഀ
0ഀ
_ഀ
oഀ
CAഀ
oഀ
CLഀ
0 oഀ
Oഀ
.N-.ഀ
O ~ഀ
.y.ഀ
CLഀ
Aഀ
.ഀ
ഀ
I(ഀ
-Qഀ
Nഀ
0 CDഀ
CDഀ
Oഀ
Wഀ
° cnഀ
oഀ
(ഀ
rnഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
C7ഀ
ioഀ
Cഀ
::3ഀ
Dഀ
Dഀ
Zഀ
Cഀ
cnഀ
vഀ
•ഀ
\ഀ
0 Nഀ
SUഀ
nഀ
Qഀ
(Dഀ
ഀ
Nഀ
Iഀ
°ഀ
yഀ
(Dഀ
aഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
(Dഀ
(Dഀ
mഀ
=ഀ
<ഀ
_ഀ
I 0ഀ
N'ഀ
CLഀ
Qഀ
i• 3ഀ
(Dഀ
(Dഀ
Nഀ
(Dഀ
mഀ
(Dഀ
ഀ
tiഀ
Nഀ
(Dഀ
(nഀ
O (Dഀ
CDഀ
a (Dഀ
C wഀ
(ഀ
-ഀ
Oഀ
CDഀ
tU,ഀ
Cഀ
D~ഀ
>ഀ
> mഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
mഀ
~ഀ
wDഀ
o'nഀ
lmഀ
3ഀ
mഀ
mഀ
IZIഀ
7ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
aഀ
Kഀ
CAഀ
.ഀ
Vഀ
-ഀ
Xഀ
1ഀ
(Dഀ
Ixഀ
i-ഀ
Qഀ
Q~i 1ഀ
Dഀ
Nഀ
.ഀ
0 0ഀ
oഀ
7•ഀ
5ഀ
Aഀ
cnഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
1ഀ
:qഀ
! mഀ
oഀ
oഀ
°ഀ
0ഀ
I zഀ
aഀ
~ഀ
(nഀ
a sഀ
~ഀ
mഀ
mഀ
3ഀ
3ഀ
3'ഀ
ഀ
°ഀ
sഀ
3 3ഀ
(oഀ
-ഀ
oഀ
wഀ
Qഀ
mഀ
h=ഀ
Iഀ
Iഀ
CDഀ
°ഀ
(Dഀ
crഀ
o 0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
(Dഀ
~ഀ
>ഀ
Iഀ
(Dഀ
C)ഀ
- 0 7ഀ
Iഀ
mഀ
1ഀ
mഀ
IDഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
nഀ
Nഀ
>ഀ
wഀ
Loഀ
pഀ
pഀ
>ഀ
coഀ
7 0ഀ
O Oഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
Iഀ
1ഀ
ZIഀ
Vlഀ
~ഀ
Nഀ
.0ഀ
cഀ
(Dഀ
I'L'Pഀ
;Dഀ
vഀ
mഀ
0ഀ
Iഀ
-ഀ
0ഀ
°ഀ
Lഀ
~ഀ
aഀ
°ഀ
°ഀ
U)ഀ
rot.ഀ
0ഀ
CD nഀ
'xഀ
iഀ
;r,ഀ
_ഀ
I C7ഀ
I~ഀ
'ഀ
aഀ
aഀ
CDഀ
iഀ
CDഀ
7 (Dഀ
cഀ
Zഀ
Gഀ
rഀ
oഀ
oഀ
aഀ
Dഀ
CDഀ
CLഀ
oഀ
CLഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
_ഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
0ഀ
omഀ
1ഀ
O dഀ
Cl)ഀ
N 7ഀ
Xഀ
(n O mഀ
tഀ
Nഀ
Dഀ
Iഀ
> 3ഀ
Oഀ
Wഀ
Dഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
, v,ഀ
-ഀ
(nഀ
"ഀ
tഀ
00ഀ
Q A^ cnഀ
tഀ
Dഀ
00ഀ
Cnഀ
1ഀ
.ഀ
CLഀ
T.ഀ
0ഀ
=rഀ
°ഀ
pഀ
T,ഀ
CL N X.ഀ
CDഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
C-ഀ
(Dഀ
0ഀ
O '1 (nഀ
nഀ
N nഀ
O 0ഀ
? 0ഀ
Cnഀ
Wഀ
vഀ
Aഀ
Oഀ
-jഀ
3ഀ
Oഀ
,ഀ
uiഀ
coഀ
vഀ
0ഀ
(D wഀ
vഀ
a Oഀ
0)ഀ
Cഀ
=ഀ
Dഀ
(nഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
°ഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
(ഀ
i mഀ
° Nഀ
(Dഀ
`ഀ
~ഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
Dഀ
ഀ
7ഀ
ഀ
ഀ
N O" Cഀ
(Oഀ
Oഀ
(Dഀ
Cഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
mഀ
zഀ
Nഀ
(Dഀ
N Cl) dഀ
CD Nഀ
Iഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
00ഀ
7ഀ
p (D q rഀ
a Clഀ
(ഀ
M.ഀ
(Dഀ
3.ഀ
Dഀ
nഀ
Dഀ
ഀ
Zഀ
3ഀ
;ഀ
<ഀ
I (nഀ
'ഀ
.ഀ
Lഀ
Qഀ
G7ഀ
<ഀ
(ഀ
r 3ഀ
Dഀ
CDഀ
iഀ
mഀ
mഀ
jഀ
~ഀ
Nഀ
CDഀ
n o 3•ഀ
° (oഀ
ഀ
c. c°nഀ
0ഀ
.0ഀ
3 0 (D zzh oഀ
wഀ
-ഀ
aഀ
oഀ
fnഀ
Dഀ
(Dഀ
Nഀ
(Dഀ
cnഀ
oഀ
v,ഀ
Mഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
3ഀ
mഀ
°ഀ
mഀ
roഀ
jഀ
aഀ
°ഀ
°ഀ
roഀ
3'ഀ
3ഀ
Oഀ
gഀ
D 7ഀ
=ഀ
ഀ
vഀ
CLഀ
oഀ
imഀ
0ഀ
°ഀ
< N "Oഀ
°ഀ
-Oഀ
CDഀ
iഀ
(Dഀ
Aഀ
pഀ
oഀ
Oഀ
Xഀ
Iഀ
`ഀ
D ?ഀ
Nഀ
p Oഀ
Sഀ
~ഀ
CDഀ
UA1ഀ
NOഀ
Iഀ
Oഀ
7rഀ
7 O 1ഀ
<ഀ
"0ഀ
{ഀ
(Dഀ
~ O Nഀ
CTഀ
(Dഀ
Nഀ
jഀ
t7,ഀ
'ഀ
pഀ
0ഀ
:ഀ
ഀ
2-ഀ
vOiഀ
Cഀ
an.ഀ
mഀ
mഀ
3ഀ
3ഀ
U)ഀ
(Dഀ
ഀ
-ccഀ
Qഀ
iഀ
Nഀ
0ഀ
CD BCD mഀ
CD 4ഀ
tഀ
iഀ
mഀ
iഀ
0ഀ
iഀ
mഀ
~ഀ
oഀ
°ഀ
mഀ
°ഀ
°~3ഀ
pഀ
lഀ
jഀ
m°ഀ
aഀ
Iഀ
D,ഀ
.n•.ഀ
°ഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
3ഀ
'ഀ
7ഀ
°ഀ
f"ഀ
n• ~ഀ
flഀ
wഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
3ഀ
rഀ
°ഀ
oഀ
iഀ
mഀ
aഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
?ഀ
oഀ
(7~ഀ
_ഀ
co co ~ഀ
CDഀ
Oഀ
v cഀ
7ഀ
aഀ
A V (Dഀ
(Dഀ
_ഀ
O aഀ
CDഀ
CLഀ
Oഀ
°ഀ
°ഀ
3ഀ
L.ഀ
_ഀ
0 (D 0 CTഀ
O O C 3ഀ
° -oഀ
0ഀ
U)ഀ
0ഀ
mഀ
° mഀ
°ഀ
tഀ
Aഀ
zഀ
Oഀ
mഀ
oഀ
ഀ
~ Nഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
ഀ
Iഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
~ഀ
~ഀ
Dഀ
yഀ
Cഀ
O C:t N "6ഀ
pഀ
jഀ
p1 7ഀ
3 -a 7c oഀ
Xഀ
O'ഀ
Xഀ
O a'ഀ
coഀ
Oഀ
pഀ
Cഀ
oഀ
3-ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
(Dഀ
vഀ
Aഀ
cഀ
Iഀ
coഀ
Oഀ
-ഀ
Nഀ
-ഀ
Dഀ
0)ഀ
QOഀ
COഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
COഀ
oഀ
0 CD c z Oഀ
CD 0 0ഀ
Z Nഀ
m•ഀ
ഀ
oഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
°ഀ
((Dഀ
Nഀ
0 jഀ
(Dഀ
iഀ
oഀ
CDഀ
C:ഀ
coഀ
coഀ
oഀ
yഀ
IDഀ
°ഀ
°ഀ
CDഀ
mഀ
mഀ
3ഀ
Qഀ
Lഀ
°ഀ
-ഀ
iഀ
°ഀ
oഀ
Lഀ
oഀ
$ഀ
mഀ
CDഀ
CD °ഀ
-ഀ
o°ഀ
O CDഀ
3ഀ
0ഀ
CDഀ
(7ഀ
-0 CDഀ
mഀ
CDഀ
mഀ
C,ഀ
oഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
cnഀ
_Xഀ
D (Dഀ
Nഀ
3ഀ
;uഀ
Iഀ
;ഀ
.ഀ
yഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
nഀ
Dഀ
mഀ
Lഀ
0 N -0 0ഀ
:3ഀ
N (D tt]ഀ
_Oഀ
(Dഀ
CDഀ
Dഀ
'ഀ
cD (Dഀ
_ഀ
.ഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
wഀ
Oഀ
3ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
(Dഀ
D ° =r CDഀ
mഀ
(D * ° °oഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
°ഀ
Noഀ
Iഀ
wഀ
Cഀ
CDഀ
cn 0ഀ
DZ° =•0ഀ
aഀ
3ഀ
U~ °ഀ
aഀ
mഀ
~mഀ
oഀ
3•ഀ
3ഀ
aഀ
mഀ
mഀ
(Dഀ
m== <ഀ
CD wഀ
-0ഀ
o o;crഀ
mഀ
(Dഀ
oഀ
dഀ
g<ഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
~ഀ
mഀ
aഀ
3 U )ഀ
O om 3ഀ
0ഀ
~ Oഀ
(Dഀ
a~ഀ
0ഀ
lഀ
0ഀ
aഀ
CLഀ
U)ഀ
Mഀ
0ഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
CDഀ
Oഀ
•ഀ
?ഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
Yഀ
Iഀ
fn (pഀ
Dഀ
.ഀ
CLഀ
(Dഀ
W.ഀ
3ഀ
Iഀ
I.ഀ
cഀ
a oഀ
,ഀ
s noഀ
o°vഀ
=ഀ
oഀ
Zഀ
yഀ
Cഀ
°ഀ
Cഀ
°ഀ
Cഀ
iഀ
zഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
C Iഀ
C)ഀ
Zഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
°ഀ
Dഀ
_ഀ
Cഀ
°ഀ
(nഀ
wഀ
wഀ
oഀ
wഀ
0)ഀ
Nഀ
=ഀ
oഀ
Vഀ
7 Cഀ
U) (D (Dഀ
Nഀ
=ഀ
=3ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
oഀ
Cഀ
(Dഀ
Oഀ
zഀ
2K,ഀ
Oഀ
X,ഀ
Oഀ
xഀ
Oഀ
xഀ
Oഀ
~ഀ
Oഀ
3ഀ
Cഀ
Xഀ
Oഀ
xഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
O =ഀ
3 ODഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
Cഀ
~ഀ
0ഀ
:Eഀ
CD Iഀ
.ഀ
=3ഀ
0,0ഀ
:3ഀ
CDഀ
=3ഀ
=3ഀ
(nഀ
cnഀ
W 0ഀ
Nഀ
CDഀ
Nഀ
Gഀ
lഀ
0ഀ
cnഀ
x'ഀ
Oഀ
CDഀ
N aഀ
°ഀ
Fഀ
Oഀ
1ഀ
Z7ഀ
CLഀ
-ഀ
oഀ
0ഀ
CD 0-ഀ
CLഀ
(OD CDഀ
:ഀ
aഀ
Wഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
oഀ
aഀ
ഀ
6 Lnഀ
Q) Nഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
Mഀ
Mഀ
Wഀ
Cl)ഀ
Mഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
LOഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
LOഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
ODഀ
d-ഀ
Uഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
Ziഀ
zഀ
Lഀ
fഀ
Wഀ
7ഀ
°ഀ
Uഀ
0)ഀ
Lഀ
mഀ
_ഀ
.rഀ
Mഀ
oഀ
.ഀ
Iഀ
Wഀ
7 fnഀ
~ Oഀ
Nഀ
X_ഀ
Oഀ
'0 Jഀ
C.~ഀ
)ഀ
C Oഀ
~ഀ
O cഀ
m Yഀ
Cഀ
yam.::ഀ
®ഀ
Q cഀ
°ഀ
f6ഀ
°ഀ
0 oഀ
Cഀ
Ofഀ
00ഀ
CDഀ
OLഀ
L) oഀ
cഀ
Lഀ
mഀ
mmഀ
c°ഀ
,ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
-ഀ
Wഀ
LOഀ
Nrഀ
E6ഀ
_ഀ
(DEഀ
Xഀ
Lഀ
Domഀ
cഀ
cഀ
°ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
>ഀ
:3ഀ
vഀ
Oഀ
-0v,ഀ
~0ഀ
ഀ
Z 'in- Eഀ
mഀ
~tഀ
Lഀ
ujഀ
j (nഀ
mഀ
C Oഀ
a~ Eഀ
0 0ഀ
- Oഀ
Oഀ
Tഀ
N' E Oഀ
cഀ
mഀ
mഀ
(o _ഀ
m rsaഀ
L c;ഀ
m 1 (2ഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
ഀ
f0ഀ
N Qഀ
0ഀ
Nഀ
0ഀ
COഀ
CU E 0)ഀ
O >ഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
yഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
0 (n Iഀ
Cഀ
Nഀ
C:ഀ
dഀ
-ഀ
0)ഀ
mഀ
-ഀ
-0ഀ
Uഀ
°ഀ
-`0ഀ
-ഀ
-ഀ
-ഀ
-ഀ
L)ഀ
.ഀ
Vഀ
~ഀ
=ഀ
Oഀ
`ഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
aഀ
70ഀ
ഀ
a`ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
O Oഀ
C 'ഀ
(ഀ
o =3ഀ
CLഀ
Nഀ
t a)ഀ
0 (6ഀ
Oഀ
ഀ
0).ഀ
Cഀ
-0 Mഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
cuഀ
cuഀ
coഀ
cuഀ
mഀ
Q) >1ഀ
?ഀ
Oഀ
LLഀ
mഀ
`ഀ
mഀ
wഀ
cഀ
oഀ
:3 (1)ഀ
pഀ
wഀ
wഀ
wഀ
wഀ
E cഀ
cl'.ഀ
~r lഀ
Qഀ
f `ഀ
oഀ
oഀ
a yഀ
oഀ
(nഀ
oഀ
L 0)ഀ
rഀ
oഀ
U.0ഀ
C V (nഀ
Mഀ
.Cഀ
Lഀ
.Cഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
cഀ
0 X .0ഀ
-ഀ
o Oഀ
Q 7+1 Oഀ
'ഀ
oഀ
(n 3ഀ
m Oഀ
y aഀ
0) Cഀ
'Cഀ
Ly,ഀ
Oഀ
Eഀ
° (n cഀ
N N .0ഀ
Nഀ
ഀ
aഀ
CT,ഀ
cr,ഀ
(7,ഀ
0 0ഀ
O a (I)ഀ
0ഀ
Uഀ
)ഀ
rഀ
7 Cഀ
m (nഀ
-0 O Nഀ
ഀ
3 Nഀ
o aഀ
oഀ
`ഀ
°ഀ
n"Nഀ
ഀ
oഀ
`ഀ
°ഀ
7ഀ
oഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
oഀ
7ഀ
oഀ
(0 (n Cഀ
a o cഀ
Gഀ
n31ഀ
U-ഀ
O Oഀ
iഀ
C O Oഀ
`ഀ
C "0ഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
Cഀ
0ഀ
4ഀ
~ഀ
U Cഀ
.ഀ
Cഀ
2ഀ
cഀ
0ഀ
cഀ
2ഀ
cഀ
2ഀ
Cഀ
2ഀ
Cഀ
2ഀ
Cഀ
oഀ
<Lഀ
ഀ
arഀ
ഀ
sഀ
Oഀ
0)ഀ
C 0) Cഀ
.0ഀ
U (6ഀ
oഀ
Uഀ
.ഀ
Uഀ
Nഀ
U) c cr,ഀ
.ഀ
Uഀ
.ഀ
Uഀ
.ഀ
Uഀ
.ഀ
Uഀ
.ഀ
Uഀ
.ഀ
Uഀ
.ഀ
U Fഀ
Uഀ
C Nഀ
ഀ
Cഀ
- f0ഀ
4ഀ
Nഀ
0) 0ഀ
-0ഀ
Yഀ
Y .2ഀ
aഀ
7 •Cഀ
-0 (nഀ
7ഀ
'0ഀ
7ഀ
-0 Nഀ
-0 Oഀ
L Yഀ
0ഀ
7ഀ
'oഀ
7ഀ
_0ഀ
Nഀ
0ഀ
'oഀ
Nഀ
7ഀ
-0ഀ
Oഀ
7ഀ
70ഀ
Nഀ
,ഀ
0ഀ
-0 Uഀ
Nഀ
'0;ഀ
Nഀ
V}ഀ
Nഀ
-0ഀ
(0ഀ
mഀ
0 f0ഀ
a yrഀ
N )ഀ
Lഀ
dഀ
Lഀ
(D C)ഀ
Lഀ
N mഀ
Z)ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
Lഀ
Nഀ
L U Lഀ
tL)Cഀ
(n mഀ
'ഀ
a)ഀ
-0ഀ
Mഀ
(D cl oഀ
Wഀ
cഀ
°c)ഀ
° 72 2ഀ
cഀ
cഀ
cഀ
cഀ
cഀ
cഀ
°c) a yഀ
12ഀ
6ഀ
E>ഀ
Lഀ
1. c Oഀ
oഀ
¢ഀ
.0. (6ഀ
Cഀ
(ഀ
-Neഀ
0 0ഀ
Nഀ
oഀ
mഀ
Cഀ
Nഀ
O (tiഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
ഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
f6ഀ
(0ഀ
f6ഀ
Nഀ
(oഀ
Wഀ
(0 pഀ
Qഀ
0ഀ
jഀ
Z,. Qഀ
In Nഀ
r Nഀ
Zഀ
`ഀ
_ഀ
U chഀ
0ഀ
C LLഀ
n-ഀ
Oഀ
a-oഀ
C Lഀ
(nഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
ILഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Iഀ
ILഀ
aഀ
a C 'Lഀ
zഀ
a)ഀ
TJഀ
.G Lnഀ
Nഀ
Lnഀ
0ഀ
LOഀ
Lnഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
rഀ
LOഀ
ഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
rl-ഀ
oഀ
00,1ഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
oഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Cഀ
CLഀ
I Mഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
oഀ
®ഀ
(Dഀ
F^ഀ
LOഀ
LOഀ
LOഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
LOഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
LOഀ
rഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
k mഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
pഀ
pഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
pഀ
Qഀ
ഀ
>ഀ
c*!ഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Oഀ
Lnഀ
LOഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
a-ഀ
c-ഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
`ഀ
iYlഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Oഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
pഀ
Qഀ
Cpഀ
,ഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Oഀ
a,ഀ
Nഀ
C3 Loഀ
Lnഀ
ഀ
LOഀ
ciഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
rഀ
rഀ
rഀ
0ഀ
Nഀ
LOഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
` Oഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Oഀ
Qഀ
(Dഀ
'ഀ
U)ഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
°ഀ
mഀ
Jഀ
v.ഀ
Nഀ
Qഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
jഀ
0ഀ
=ഀ
Nഀ
yഀ
ഀ
0ഀ
cഀ
("0ഀ
0ഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
Wഀ
Nഀ
Lഀ
Uഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
oഀ
Qഀ
Dഀ
cഀ
Nഀ
C7ഀ
Cഀ
dഀ
Vഀ
tUഀ
Cഀ
.ഀ
>ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
yഀ
Oഀ
Yഀ
cഀ
Qഀ
Uഀ
rഀ
Yഀ
0ഀ
F;ഀ
~m+ഀ
Nഀ
jഀ
Nഀ
yഀ
'ഀ
Oഀ
aഀ
Oഀ
>ഀ
yഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
ഀ
Rഀ
(0ഀ
tഀ
cഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
7ഀ
Oഀ
Uഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
0ഀ
4ഀ
Cഀ
mഀ
L6ഀ
cഀ
6ഀ
cഀ
3ഀ
dഀ
-ഀ
-ഀ
6ഀ
Uഀ
-ഀ
Lഀ
Wഀ
Uഀ
Lഀ
Nഀ
lഀ
Mഀ
Nഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
mഀ
coഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
oഀ
Wഀ
mഀ
rഀ
Jഀ
Zഀ
CLഀ
ഀ
O LLഀ
U)ഀ
fnഀ
ഀ
U)ഀ
F-ഀ
Gഀ
rഀ
U?ഀ
3:ഀ
_ഀ
ഀ
(6ഀ
0ഀ
®ഀ
N iഀ
U Nഀ
yഀ
C 4ഀ
Oഀ
II U sഀ
Uഀ
mഀ
ZEZ)ഀ
U)ഀ
LLJഀ
lഀ
°ഀ
L)ഀ
U) 0 -ഀ
pCഀ
E .2ഀ
-°wഀ
:ഀ
Lnഀ
wഀ
ULnഀ
7 Mഀ
CU (Dഀ
rഀ
2>,ഀ
j'0N 'ഀ
Qഀ
-ഀ
-oഀ
VJഀ
Vഀ
)ഀ
a a~ഀ
> aഀ
d Le''ഀ
Lഀ
(nഀ
T)ഀ
°ഀ
a)ഀ
Q °ഀ
cഀ
U)ഀ
Oഀ
~ഀ
O IIഀ
cr. coഀ
Cഀ
.Xഀ
fഀ
6ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
'C Cഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
Uഀ
LOഀ
U)ഀ
(nഀ
10ഀ
{ nNഀ
Nഀ
Wഀ
1-ഀ
pഀ
~ഀ
-0ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Coഀ
7ഀ
0ഀ
C I 4) Aഀ
Sഀ
mഀ
-ഀ
'ഀ
m C:ഀ
N.- Cഀ
vഀ
iഀ
LO Eഀ
-ഀ
-ഀ
00ഀ
Lഀ
N <ഀ
coഀ
O I U iഀ
LL (oഀ
Oഀ
Uഀ
~ഀ
0ഀ
Tഀ
qഀ
LLഀ
Ui vlഀ
I- oഀ
°ഀ
~ഀ
oഀ
ഀ
Eഀ
oഀ
°ഀ
Nഀ
aഀ
u ' ~ഀ
aiഀ
C)ഀ
oഀ
Eഀ
0U mഀ
oഀ
mഀ
aഀ
iഀ
N mഀ
=3ഀ
Nഀ
2ഀ
Nഀ
(1)ഀ
Xഀ
'ഀ
4 0ഀ
-ഀ
0ഀ
-coഀ
Jr. oഀ
wഀ
(pഀ
Nഀ
toഀ
Eഀ
0 I L3trഀ
(ll {ഀ
,ഀ
(Dഀ
Q Nഀ
(n ' (nഀ
_ഀ
Cഀ
7ഀ
oഀ
a)ഀ
0ഀ
oഀ
,ഀ
C 7ഀ
a~ഀ
-0 °ഀ
-0-0ഀ
O Nഀ
(nഀ
Nഀ
O coഀ
.Cഀ
LO oഀ
C i. 'CJ Oഀ
ca Elഀ
Oഀ
Lഀ
U) Itഀ
mഀ
0ഀ
mഀ
° Nഀ
01ujഀ
Q IGഀ
Cഀ
pഀ
Eഀ
U 0ഀ
(Nnഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
-0 0ഀ
`ഀ
, Iഀ
LOഀ
` I _ഀ
Cഀ
,ഀ
0ഀ
Uഀ
c6ഀ
Eഀ
TLq~ഀ
°ഀ
Uഀ
0ഀ
-=-0ഀ
<1 M mഀ
Qaഀ
CJഀ
`ഀ
jഀ
°ഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Lഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
-c:ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
LOഀ
'Cഀ
a (0ഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
(D;ഀ
a) :ഀ
C Cഀ
Otഀ
C TS' T7 iഀ
{/yഀ
a1 ISഀ
a aഀ
cഀ
CO C,ഀ
C,ഀ
°ഀ
> o.N >ഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
rഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
wഀ
Qഀ
CO >ഀ
M (nഀ
0ഀ
0N-ഀ
C)ഀ
°ഀ
°3''~ rഀ
iഀ
CLഀ
Nഀ
Qഀ
Nഀ
Co U 0 (0ഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
Sഀ
zഀ
00ഀ
rഀ
U1 r IC/)ഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Cഀ
Nഀ
Lqഀ
Lf)ഀ
Lnഀ
Nഀ
LOഀ
-ഀ
LOഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
LOഀ
Nഀ
COഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
ഀ
COഀ
Mഀ
mഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Oഀ
O pഀ
: a} pഀ
'ഀ
rഀ
~ഀ
;ഀ
mഀ
p° Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
LOഀ
Lnഀ
LOഀ
LC)ഀ
Ll-ഀ
COഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
LOഀ
rഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
(C)ഀ
toഀ
LOഀ
*cT, { N jഀ
N mഀ
CVഀ
rഀ
rഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
rഀ
pഀ
N 0ഀ
fl 0 iഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
t-ഀ
co OCഀ
Iഀ
_Iഀ
~ഀ
L()ഀ
ഀ
Lnഀ
Lnഀ
Lnഀ
Nഀ
'-4-ഀ
COഀ
LOഀ
r-ഀ
rഀ
e-ഀ
rഀ
Inഀ
toഀ
tf)ഀ
ഀ
(Dഀ
Nഀ
U-)ഀ
V mഀ
~LoIഀ
rഀ
rഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
r-•ഀ
) Cഀ
r.ഀ
Eഀ
U)ഀ
Iഀ
U)ഀ
E O'ഀ
rഀ
rഀ
Lnഀ
LOഀ
toഀ
Nഀ
Lnഀ
Lnഀ
rഀ
rഀ
LOഀ
rഀ
CDഀ
CI)ഀ
"T. I 1ഀ
' 'a:.ഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
Qഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
Nഀ
Nഀ
rഀ
Qഀ
Mഀ
Oഀ
Nഀ
0 0ഀ
rഀ
{ഀ
cn iഀ
G7 f rഀ
Oഀ
~ഀ
Zഀ
Zഀ
Cഀ
U)ഀ
U~ഀ
.ഀ
6ഀ
cഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
Oഀ
2ഀ
Nഀ
0ഀ
Hഀ
ഀ
Oഀ
Uഀ
•Cഀ
0ഀ
Wഀ
iഀ
4-ഀ
dഀ
dഀ
Nഀ
Uഀ
zഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
cഀ
Uഀ
~ഀ
Nഀ
mഀ
Qഀ
Oഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
Qഀ
Ijഀ
cഀ
Oഀ
41ഀ
Mഀ
41ഀ
cഀ
0ഀ
a+ഀ
U)ഀ
Vഀ
Qഀ
0ഀ
Cഀ
Uഀ
cഀ
Cഀ
(aഀ
'rഀ
Nഀ
Wഀ
uഀ
i 1ഀ
Nഀ
>ഀ
mഀ
Oഀ
coഀ
(9ഀ
Uഀ
Uഀ
Oഀ
Dഀ
(pഀ
Wഀ
.ഀ
2ഀ
Oഀ
=ഀ
7ഀ
Nഀ
Jഀ
Zഀ
~ഀ
cഀ
iഀ
Lഀ
U)ഀ
(Jഀ
Hഀ
0ഀ
Qഀ
.ഀ
7ഀ
Q"^ഀ
Qഀ
Qഀ
n Lഀ
)ഀ
)ഀ
U)ഀ
Cഀ
,ഀ
.ഀ
Iഀ
;..Iഀ
Nഀ
coഀ
V•ഀ
toഀ
Oഀ
Mഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
rഀ
Nഀ
Mഀ
etഀ
toഀ
COഀ
~ഀ
00ഀ
CAഀ
Oഀ
rഀ
rഀ
rഀ
rഀ
Nഀ
F Jഀ
-ഀ
0ഀ
4)ഀ
Vഀ
ccഀ
Qഀ
Oഀ
Uഀ
Cഀ
Oഀ
mഀ
Vail Town Council Meeting Minutesഀ
Tuesday, March 17, 2009ഀ
6:00 P.M.ഀ
Vail Town Council Chambersഀ
The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00ഀ
P.M. by Mayor Dick Cleveland.ഀ
Members present: Dick Cleveland, Mayorഀ
Mark Gordonഀ
Kim Newburyഀ
Kevin Foleyഀ
Margaret Rogersഀ
Andy Dalyഀ
Not present: Farrow Hittഀ
Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Managerഀ
Matt Mire, Town Attorneyഀ
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Managerഀ
The seventh item on the agenda was the First reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series ofഀ
2009, an ordinance adopting prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-ഀ
3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-8, Parking and Loading, Vail Townഀ
Code, to amend parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district.ഀ
Planner Nicole Peterson and Housing Coordinator Nina Timm explained the previousഀ
direction of Town Council and the Vail Local Housing Authority (VLHA). The Communityഀ
Development Department has prepared amendments to the parking requirements in theഀ
Housing (H) zone district to reflect this direction. The purpose of the amendments is toഀ
create predictable, quantifiable and enforceable policies that replace discretionaryഀ
review with a more predictable process that eliminates confusion and delays in theഀ
review process for the town and the developer. On February 9, 2009, the PEC held aഀ
meeting to forward a recommendation to Council for Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009. Aഀ
motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, failed with a tie voteഀ
(3-3-0 Proper, Kjesbo and Tjossem opposed). Timm and Peterson emphasized theഀ
ultimate goal of the ordinance was to provide developers with a predictable and timelyഀ
understanding of any reduction in parking requirements. Rogers wants to ensure theഀ
option for a parking reduction greater than 25% is available under specialഀ
circumstances. Daly asked why the group focused on per unit as opposed to per bedഀ
requirements. "The change that is driving parking demand is the number of beds not theഀ
number of units ...We have situations in Timber Ridge redevelopment proposals whereഀ
eight beds exist in a unit ...So why wouldn't we look at a per bed zoning direction."ഀ
Newbury said she believed parking requirements were not driving developer decisionsഀ
regarding unit mix but rather meeting their employee housing requirements. Zemlerഀ
expressed concern about current Timber Ridge redevelopment responses to theഀ
Request for Proposals (RFP) that was issued by the town. Zemler has requestedഀ
a3sponses based on today's parking requirements. Daly emphasized he just wanted toഀ
measure demand most accurately. Rogers moved to table the item until April 21 withഀ
Daly seconding. Cleveland questioned the inclusion of bicycle parking. During a pauseഀ
for public comment, local hotelier Johannes Faessler said he believed parkingഀ
requirements should emphasize smaller units housing fewer people. "This willഀ
encourage quality housing not quantity housing." Municipal Court Judge Buck Allen saidഀ
he was aware of parking shortages occurring at a Breckenridge affordable housingഀ
complex. "It really doesn't work very well ...If you are going to have employees they areഀ
going to have cars and it's something you might want to look at." The motion passedഀ
unanimously, 6-0.ഀ
MEMORANDUMഀ
TO: Vail Town Councilഀ
FROM: Community Development Departmentഀ
DATE: March 17, 2009ഀ
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, an ordinance adopting prescribed regulationഀ
amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-61-ഀ
8, Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements in the Housingഀ
(H) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067)ഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: Nina Timm/Nicole Petersonഀ
PROBLEM STATEMENTഀ
The Vail Town Code currently allows for a reduction in minimum parking requirements in theഀ
Housing (H) District if a parking management plan is approved by the Planning andഀ
Environmental Commission, with no maximum percent reduction. Experience has proven that theഀ
current parking reduction language in the H District may not be in the best interest of the Town,ഀ
the community, or the developer. The current parking reduction regulations are:ഀ
✓ Unpredictable;ഀ
✓ Unquantifiable;ഀ
✓ Discretionary and untimely,ഀ
✓ Offer managed solutions, andഀ
✓ Unenforceable.ഀ
PROPOSED SOLUTIONഀ
At the direction of the Vail Town Council and the Vail Local Housing Authority the Communityഀ
Development Department has prepared amendments to the parking requirements in the Housingഀ
(H) zone district. The purpose of the amendments is to create predictable, quantifiable andഀ
enforceable policies that replace discretionary review with a more predictable process thatഀ
eliminates confusion and delays in the review process for the Town and the developer.ഀ
Staff is proposing parking reduction language for the Housing District to allow for a 25% parkingഀ
reduction for deed restricted EHU's in the Housing District. The proposed criteria for the 25%ഀ
parking reduction are, in summary:ഀ
✓ The development shall have density equaling 20 units or more per acre;ഀ
✓ The development shall be located within 880 feet 10.16 mile) of public transportation;ഀ
✓ The development shall be located within 2,500 feet (0.47 mile) of a Commercial Jobഀ
Core (Vail Village, Lionshead or West Vail);ഀ
✓ Covered bicycle parking shall be provided on site; andഀ
✓ A statement shall be provided in the recorded employee housing unit deedഀ
restriction(s) that acknowledges the approval of the parking reduction.ഀ
III. BACKGROUNDഀ
On February 9, 2009, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a meeting to forward aഀ
recommendation to the Vail Town Council for Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 (Attachment A).ഀ
No formal recommendation was forwarded, due to the motion to approve, resulting in a tie voteഀ
(3-3-0 Proper, Kjesbo and Tjossem opposed). In summary, the Commission found that the issueഀ
of reducing the amount of parking is too dynamic and should be applied on a case-by-case basis.ഀ
On February 17, 2009, Staff requested the Town Council answer the following questions:ഀ
1. Does the Town Council wish to amend the parking reduction language in theഀ
Housing District to establish more predictable, quantifiable, enforceable and lessഀ
discretionary parking regulations for deed restricted EHU's in the H district?ഀ
2. If so, do the proposed amendments in Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, meet theഀ
intended goals?ഀ
At the work session Town Council requested Staff move forward cautiously. Based upon theഀ
extensive research previously presented to Town Council, Staff recommends Town Council moveഀ
forward with the proposed amendments.ഀ
The proposed amendments provide timely and reliable parking regulations for the Housing (H)ഀ
zone district. The amendments will allow development in the Housing (H) zone district toഀ
determine immediately if they qualify for a 25% parking reduction based on the proposed densityഀ
of the development, the development's proximity to public transit or the Commercial Job Core andഀ
covered on-site bicycle parking.ഀ
IV. CRITERIAഀ
According to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, before acting on an application for anഀ
amendment to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmentalഀ
Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors:ഀ
(1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes ofഀ
the zoning regulations; andഀ
Staff believes the proposed amendments further the general purpose of Title 12 Zoningഀ
Regulations by promoting the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town, throughഀ
applicable, enforceable parking regulations in the H District. The Town of Vail currently allows aഀ
reduction in minimum parking requirements, in the Housing (H) District if a parking managementഀ
plan is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission that demonstrates a need forഀ
fewer parking spaces than Chapter 10, Vail Town Code would require. It states, "For example, aഀ
demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include:ഀ
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limitedഀ
to, public transit or shuttle servicesഀ
B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit.ഀ
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs,ഀ
carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. "ഀ
The current regulations do not provide quantifiable, enforceable regulations. The currentഀ
regulations have lead to confusion and unpredictability in the review process, which is not theഀ
intent of the zoning regulations. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to proposeഀ
predictable, quantifiable, enforceable policy that removes the discretionary review and creates aഀ
predictable process to eliminate confusion and delay in the review.ഀ
2ഀ
(2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve theഀ
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vailഀ
comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; andഀ
The Vail Land Use Plan states a specific residential goal that affordable employee housing shouldഀ
be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town ofഀ
Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Staff believes the proposed amendments directly achieve theഀ
goal by proposing a limited incentive (parking reduction) for employee housing with appropriateഀ
restrictions that balance the transportation needs and parking needs of the residents.ഀ
(3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions haveഀ
substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existingഀ
regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; andഀ
Conditions have changed in that the Town has reviewed development and redevelopment ofഀ
property in the H District. The experience has proven that the unpredictability of the currentഀ
parking reduction language has not been in the best interest of the Town, the community or theഀ
developer. The current regulations do not provide quantifiable, enforceable regulations. Theഀ
current policy has lead to confusion and unpredictability in the review process. The proposedഀ
amendments are less subjective, efficient and predictable. Therefore, the proposed amendmentsഀ
eliminate arbitrary interpretation, confusion and delay in the review process.ഀ
(4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workableഀ
relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal developmentഀ
objectives; andഀ
The proposed text amendments further the purpose and goals of the Zoning Regulations and theഀ
Comprehensive Plan, in that the amendments provide predictable policy that will result inഀ
coordinated and harmonious development of the Town, through applicable, enforceable parkingഀ
regulations in the Housing District. The proposed amendments provide predictable policy, throughഀ
the Zoning Regulations consistent with the municipal development objectives of theഀ
Comprehensive Plan.ഀ
V. ACTION REQUESTEDഀ
The Community Development Department recommends the Town Council approves of Ordinanceഀ
No. 3, Series of 2009. Should the Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series ofഀ
2009, the Community Development Department recommends the Town Council pass theഀ
following motion:ഀ
"The Town Council moves to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, on first reading. "ഀ
Should the Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, the Communityഀ
Development recommends the Town Council make the following findings:ഀ
"(1) That Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 is consistent with the applicable elements of theഀ
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and isഀ
compatible with the development objectives of the town; andഀ
(2) That Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 furthers the general and specific purposes of theഀ
zoning regulations; andഀ
3ഀ
(3) That Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009 promotes the health, safety, morals, and generalഀ
welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of theഀ
town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and itsഀ
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. "ഀ
VI. ATTACHMENTSഀ
A. Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009ഀ
4ഀ
ORDINANCE NO. 3ഀ
Series of 2009ഀ
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE FORഀ
PRESCRIBED REGULATION AMENDMENTS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-3-7, AMENDMENT, VAILഀ
TOWN CODE, TO SECTION 12-61-8, PARKING AND LOADING, VAIL TOWN CODE, TO CLARIFYഀ
THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE HOUSING (H) DISTRICT, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILSഀ
IN REGARD THERETO.ഀ
WHEREAS, The Town of Vail has initiated prescribed regulation amendments to Section 12-61-8,ഀ
Parking and Loading of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code; andഀ
WHEREAS, prescribed regulation amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Codeഀ
are permitted pursuant to Section 12-3-7C.2, Vail Town Code; andഀ
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail held a publicഀ
hearing on February 9, 2009 to forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for Ordinance No. 3,ഀ
Series of 2009. No formal recommendation was forwarded, due to the motion resulting in a tie vote; andഀ
WHEREAS, the current regulations do not provide quantifiable, enforceable regulations and theഀ
current regulations have lead to confusion and unpredictability in the review process, which is not theഀ
intent of the zoning regulations; andഀ
WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed amendments is to establish predictable, quantifiable,ഀ
enforceable policy that removes the discretionary review and creates a predictable process to eliminateഀ
arbitrary interpretation, confusion and delay in the review process; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of theഀ
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible withഀ
the development objectives of the Town; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoningഀ
regulations; andഀ
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfareഀ
of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner thatഀ
conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residentialഀ
community of the highest quality; andഀ
5ഀ
WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfareഀ
to adopt the amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code.ഀ
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,ഀ
COLORADO, THAT:ഀ
Section I. Text Additions and Deletionsഀ
The Vail Town Council hereby approves the Vail Town Code amendments, as illustrated by textഀ
additions stated in bold italics and deletions in strekethrn, ,,,hഀ
Section II. Article 12-61, Housing (H) District shall be amended to read as follows:ഀ
12-61-8, Parking and Loadingഀ
Off streetഀ
arkiRഀ
shall beഀ
roviഀ
ded OR aGGGFdanGe with Ghaഀ
tഀ
10ഀ
f thiഀ
titlഀ
Nഀ
kiഀ
pഀ
gഀ
pഀ
pഀ
erഀ
eഀ
sഀ
e.ഀ
e parഀ
ng 0ഀ
Ghaഀ
ter 10 of this title maഀ
be aഀ
roved duFffiRഀ
the review ef a dഀ
elഀ
tഀ
lഀ
bഀ
t tഀ
pഀ
yഀ
ppഀ
gഀ
evഀ
eprnenഀ
pഀ
an suഀ
jeGഀ
o aഀ
based en a demonstrated needഀ
fE)F fewerഀ
arkiRഀ
sഀ
aഀ
thഀ
hഀ
tഀ
10ഀ
f thiഀ
titlഀ
ldഀ
reഀ
uireഀ
F=er examഀ
leഀ
a dernonഀ
gഀ
pഀ
pഀ
Gesഀ
an Gഀ
oഀ
apഀ
eFഀ
sഀ
e wouഀ
stFated Reed fer a redഀ
Gtiഀ
Oഀ
thഀ
iഀ
dഀ
kiഀ
1dഀ
qഀ
.ഀ
pഀ
,ഀ
&Rdude=ഀ
Uഀ
eRഀ
Rഀ
e requഀ
Feഀ
parഀ
ng G061ഀ
publistraRSit eF shuttleഀ
,ഀ
hiftsഀ
^r staഀ
Bred . rkഀ
sarshareഀ
reഀ
ramsഀ
shuttle iGeഀ
,ഀ
gഀ
sഀ
pഀ
gഀ
,ഀ
,ഀ
Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of thisഀ
title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required front setback areaഀ
in compliance with 12-61-5 Setbacks. The applicant may pursue a parking reductionഀ
from the Chapter 10 requirements under Section 12-10-20, Special Review Provisionsഀ
or the following Section 12-61-8A, Parking Reduction. Sections 12-10-12, Credit forഀ
Multiple Use Parking Facilities, 12-10-20, Special Review Provisions and 12-61-8A,ഀ
Parking Reduction shall not be applied together.ഀ
A. Parking Reductionഀ
A twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of required parkingഀ
spaces shall be applied to development or redevelopment that meets the standardsഀ
set forth in Section 12-61-8A1, Applicability and 12-61-8A2, Development Criteria;ഀ
and Section 12-61-BA3, Recording.ഀ
1. Applicabilityഀ
The twenty-five percent (25%) reduction in the total number of required parkingഀ
spaces applies to permitted uses in the Housing (H) District; and sites withഀ
density of 20 dwelling units or more per acre of buildable site area.ഀ
6ഀ
2. Development Criteriaഀ
a. Proximity to Public Transportation: Development is located within 880 feetഀ
(0.16 mile) of a public bus stop or public transit center, as measured along aഀ
pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of the building located farthestഀ
from the public bus stop or public transit center, andഀ
b. Proximity to Commercial Job Core: Development is located within 2,500 feetഀ
(0.47 mile) of one of the following Commercial Job Cores, as measured alongഀ
the pedestrian connection from the primary entrance of the building locatedഀ
farthest from the Commercial Job Core. For the purpose of this section, theഀ
Commercial Job Cores shall be defined as:ഀ
1. Vail Village, as designated by the Vail Village Master Plan, Action Planഀ
Mapഀ
2. Lionshead, as designated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan,ഀ
Map A Study Areaഀ
3. West Vail, which includes all properties zoned Commercial Core 3 (CC3)ഀ
District on the Town of Vail Official Zoning Map; andഀ
c. Bicycle Parking: Covered bicycle parking shall be provided on site, equal toഀ
ten percent (10%) of the required off-street parking space requirement, prior toഀ
the reduction. After the first 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, theഀ
required number of additional bicycle parking spaces is five percent (551o) of theഀ
required off-street parking space requirement, prior to the reduction.ഀ
3. Recordingഀ
The applicant shall include a statement within the recorded employee housingഀ
unit deed restriction for the property that acknowledges the approval of theഀ
parking reduction under Section 12-61-8A, Parking Reduction.ഀ
Section IV. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for anyഀ
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of thisഀ
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part,ഀ
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or moreഀ
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.ഀ
Section V. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessaryഀ
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.ഀ
Section VI. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall notഀ
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effectiveഀ
date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under orഀ
7ഀ
by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive anyഀ
provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.ഀ
Section VII. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith areഀ
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise anyഀ
bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.ഀ
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE INഀ
FULL ON FIRST READING this 17th day of March, 2009 and a public hearing for second reading of thisഀ
Ordinance set for the 7th day of April, 2009, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,ഀ
Colorado.ഀ
ATTEST:ഀ
Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerkഀ
Richard Cleveland, Mayorഀ
8ഀ
. %ഀ
MEDIA ADVISORYഀ
May 5, 2009ഀ
Contact: Corey Swisher, 479-2106ഀ
Town Manager's Officeഀ
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MAY 5, 2009ഀ
Work Session Briefsഀ
Council members present: Foley, Newbury, Daly, Cleveland, Gordon, Rogersഀ
"arrived lateഀ
Not present: Hittഀ
--Interviews for Vail Local Licensing Authority (VLLA) vacancy appointmentsഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
--Interview and appoint one member to the Vail Local Housingഀ
Authority (VLHA) Boardഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
--Site Visit. 2657 Arosa Drive (commonly known as the A-Frame property)ഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
---Site Visit. Discussion of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2009ഀ
adopting a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Northwoods,ഀ
pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for aഀ
lobby addition and locker reconfiguration; located at 600 Vail Valley Drive (Pinos Delഀ
Norte, Building C)/Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regardഀ
thereto. (PEC090009)ഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
--Site Visit. Discussion of First reading of Ordinance No. 12, Series of 2009, anഀ
ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 41, the Vail Row Houses,ഀ
pursuant to Article 12-9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, andഀ
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080074)ഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
--Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC)/Design Review Board (DRB) Updateഀ
During a review of the most recent meetings of the PEC and DRB, Chief of Planningഀ
Warren Campbell answered questions regarding the latest proposals to go before theഀ
two boards. No items were discussed in detail. For more information, contact Campbellഀ
at 479-2148.ഀ
--Vail Transportation Master Plan approval and discussion regarding prioritization andഀ
implementation scheduleഀ
Tom Kassmel, town engineer, explained that on April 27, 2009, the PEC voted 6-0-0 toഀ
forward a recommendation of approval for proposed amendments to the Vailഀ
Transportation Master Plan following initial review by the Town Council on March 3,ഀ
2009. Kassmel then reviewed the contextual changes made to the document as a resultഀ
of the PEC's review and comments. The changes included clarification in severalഀ
sections, including the Preface and Sections II-A, II-C, IV-A, V-H, V-I, VI, and Tablesഀ
i . .ഀ
5,6,7,8. In addition, Kassmel explained the document had been revised to explain whyഀ
the 15th busiest day of the ski season is used as a target for the appropriate design levelഀ
for transportation considerations. Other adjustments made by the PEC includedഀ
clarifications of projected trip reductions, transit reductions and regional transit solutions.ഀ
During the Council's discussion, a preliminary prioritization and implementation plan wasഀ
also reviewed which outlines a proposed sequence of projects and cost estimates for theഀ
next 10 to 20 years. Council members agreed to include the prioritization andഀ
implementation schedule within the master plan document to be used as a planning tool.ഀ
Estimates on the town's costs as well as cost estimates from other partners will beഀ
included. The implementation schedule outlines a series of capital road systemഀ
improvements, including a Simba Run underpass and more roundabouts, as well asഀ
parking and transit system improvements. The purpose of the master plan is to provideഀ
direction for a period of time over the next 20 years. However, the plan does not conveyഀ
approval for any one particular improvement, development, project or facility identified inഀ
the plan. Assumptions made in the plan must be justified at the time of application forഀ
any one particular improvement or development. Upon adoption of the plan, next stepsഀ
include completion of a Nexus study for codification of traffic impact fees and completionഀ
of feasibility studies for Ford Park, Lionshead Transit Center and the Simba Runഀ
Underpass. For additional details, contact Kassmel at 479-2235.ഀ
--A work session to discuss parking requirements in the Housing (H) Districtഀ
After reviewing the progression of a concept to amend the parking requirements in theഀ
Housing Zone District, Council members decided to leave the current requirements inഀ
place, noting such changes would affect only the Timber Ridge property in theഀ
immediate future. Instead, Council members agreed to pursue refinement of minimumഀ
standards for parking requirements as well as mitigation factors that could be used toഀ
reduce the parking requirements, such as a privately-run transit operation or paidഀ
parking on the property. Once the minimum guidelines are established, Councilഀ
members acknowledged a negotiation process with the developer will be needed toഀ
finalize the number of parking spaces required for redevelopment of Timber Ridge. Theഀ
Town Council has wrestled with the issue of parking requirements during the year,ഀ
noting the importance of neither underparking nor overparking a workforce housingഀ
development. For example, Middle Creek is thought to be overparked, while Timberഀ
Ridge is currently underparked per town code. Initially, the Council had instructed staff toഀ
work with the Vail Local Housing Authority to prepare amendments to the Housing Zoneഀ
District parking requirements for the purpose of creating "predictable, quantifiable andഀ
enforceable policies that replace discretionary review with a more predictable processഀ
that eliminates confusion and delays in the review process for the town and theഀ
developer." An ordinance was presented to the Town Council on March 17, 2009, whichഀ
provided a 25 percent reduction from the parking requirement in the Housing District ifഀ
certain measurable criteria are met. However, the Council tabled Ordinance No. 3,ഀ
Series of 2009, to the April 21, 2009, Town Council meeting and requested furtherഀ
information after a local architect suggested the existing parking requirementsഀ
encouraged construction of dormitory units over other sized units. On February 9, 2009,ഀ
the PEC held a meeting to forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council forഀ
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009. No formal recommendation was forwarded, due to a tieഀ
vote following a motion to approve. In reviewing the progression of the ordinance andഀ
possible modifications, Andy Daly suggested exploring the concept of a parkingഀ
calculation based on a per bed basis. Currently, parking requirements in the Housingഀ
Zone District and town-wide are based on the amount of square footage of the unit withഀ
a cap at 2,500 square feet. Also during the discussion, Mark Gordon suggested the needഀ
. ~ iഀ
to overhaul the parking requirements town-wide in the future, so long as the processഀ
doesn't disrupt redevelopment of Timber Ridge. Council members agreed with aഀ
suggestion by Margaret Rogers to withdraw the ordinance after clarifying the Council'sഀ
au _ority o crea e e minimum par ing requirement standards that would apply toഀ
Timber Ridge. For more information, contact Vail Housing Coordinator Nina Timm atഀ
4ഀ
--Plat Right of Way (ROW) through town-owned lands for existing roadsഀ
Town Engineer Tom Kassmel explained the Town of Vail owns, operates, and maintainsഀ
public roads with no legal ROW across town owned land (tracts). These roads,ഀ
therefore, do not have the same designation as other roads through town and do notഀ
legally provide the appropriate accommodation for the road, public users and utilities. Byഀ
designating ROW for these roads, there will be an undeniable road corridor that willഀ
provide the necessary accommodations for existing uses and provide boundaries forഀ
future road and utility construction. Kassmel noted four locations where this conditionഀ
exits: along Red Sandstone Road, Vail Valley Drive east of the Village parking structure,ഀ
on Kinnikinnick near Stephens Park and along a portion of Beaver Dam Road. He askedഀ
for Council's authorization to address the four areas described and to identify others thatഀ
need plat adjustments for a 50 ft. ROW. The process includes a review by the PEC andഀ
approval by the Town Council. Kassmel says the issue was discovered during someഀ
planning for utility work. He said the circumstance was likely an oversight when the landsഀ
were acquired. The plat work will cost an estimated $20,000 and will be funded from theഀ
capital street maintenance budget. The Council agreed to authorize the work. Forഀ
additional details, contact Kassmel at 479-2235.ഀ
--Discussion of First reading of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2009, an ordinance toഀ
amend Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-3-3,ഀ
Prescribed Regulations Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish regulations forഀ
temporary building banner signsഀ
The applicant, the Vail Valley Foundation, applied for a prescribed regulationsഀ
amendment to Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, in order to facilitate the useഀ
of large banners on buildings under construction to advertise community events. Onഀ
April 13, 2009, the PEC made a final recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Councilഀ
(3-2 vote, with Tjossem and Viele opposed, Pierce and Palladino absent). Based uponഀ
staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section V of the staff memorandum to the PECഀ
dated April 13, 2009, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Communityഀ
Development Department recommends denial of Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2009.ഀ
Please see Evening Session Briefs.ഀ
--Discussion of the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 2009, an ordinanceഀ
making supplemental appropriations to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projectsഀ
Fund , Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund, Dispatch Services Fund, Heavy Equipment Fundഀ
and Debt Service Fund of the 2009 Budget for the Town of Vail, Colorado; andഀ
authorizing the said adjustments as set forth herein; and setting forth details in regardഀ
theretoഀ
In preparation for the evening meeting, the Council reviewed the list of items included inഀ
a supplemental budget appropriation, which includes placing $3 million in projects onഀ
hold until a full budget review in June. As such, the appropriation was adjusted to $7.2ഀ
million across all funds, as opposed to $10.2 million. During discussion, Andy Dalyഀ
questioned whether the town was obligated to pay additional costs for the Seibert Circleഀ
water feature, due to earlier problems associated with leaks and repairs. Public Worksഀ
MEMORANDUMഀ
TO: Vail Town Councilഀ
FROM: Community Development Departmentഀ
DATE: May 5, 2009ഀ
SUBJECT: Proposed amendments to the Housing (H) District Parking Regulationsഀ
Applicant: Town of Vailഀ
Planner: Nina Timm/Nicole Petersonഀ
INTRODUCTIONഀ
On March 17, 2009, the Vail Town Council voted (6-0-0) to table Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009,ഀ
to the April 21, 2009, Town Council meeting. The tabling was based upon Council's request forഀ
Staff to evaluate the applicability of requiring parking in the Housing (H) District on a perഀ
employee to be housed basis rather than on a per unit basis.ഀ
The purpose of the amendments is to create:ഀ
➢ Predictable;ഀ
➢ Quantifiable;ഀ
➢ Enforceable policies; andഀ
➢ Replace discretionary review.ഀ
This will eliminate confusion and delays in the review process for the Town and the developer.ഀ
ACTION REQUESTEDഀ
Provide Staff with answers to the following questions:ഀ
Q1: Does the purpose of the parking requirements identified in the Vail Town Codeഀ
currently meet the objectives of the Town? (Adopted Town policy)ഀ
Information:ഀ
12-10-1: PURPOSE:ഀ
In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on streetഀ
parking areas, off street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to newഀ
structures, enlargements of existing structures or a conversion to a new use whichഀ
requires additional parking under this chapter. The number of parking spaces and loadingഀ
berths prescribed in this chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilitiesഀ
created by the particular type of use. Off street parking and loading areas are to beഀ
designed, maintained and operated in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protectഀ
the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from theirഀ
impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this chapterഀ
are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverseഀ
visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking and of separate garage orഀ
carport structures.ഀ
Q2: Would Town Council like to amend the parking reduction requirements in theഀ
Housing (H) District?ഀ
Information:ഀ
At the direction of the Vail Town Council and the Vail Local Housing Authority theഀ
Community Development Department has prepared amendments to the parkingഀ
requirements in the Housing (H) zone district. The purpose of the amendments is toഀ
create predictable, quantifiable and enforceable policies that replace discretionary reviewഀ
with a more predictable process that eliminates confusion and delays in the reviewഀ
process for the Town and the developer and reduces the cost of the design reviewഀ
process.ഀ
On March 17, 2009, Town Council tabled Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2009, to the April 21,ഀ
2009, Town Council meeting. The Ordinance proposed parking reduction language forഀ
the Housing District to allow for a 25% parking reduction for deed restricted EHU's in theഀ
Housing District. The proposed criteria for the 25% parking reduction are, in summary:ഀ
✓ The development shall have density equaling 20 units or more per acre;ഀ
✓ The development shall be located within 880 feet (0.16 mile) of publicഀ
transportation;ഀ
✓ The development shall be located within 2,500 feet (0.47 mile) of a Commercialഀ
Job Core (Vail Village, Lionshead or West Vail);ഀ
✓ Secure bicycle parking shall be provided on site; andഀ
✓ A statement shall be provided in the recorded employee housing unit deedഀ
restriction(s) that acknowledges the approval of the parking reduction.ഀ
Q3: Should the Town continue to ensure both the transportation and the parking needsഀ
of residents in the H District are met by private development?ഀ
Information:ഀ
Currently, the Town Code allows for a parking reduction in the H District if a developer canഀ
demonstrate the transportation needs of residents can be met by a method other than aഀ
personal automobile.ഀ
12-61-8: PARKING AND LOADING: (in part)ഀ
...A demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include:ഀ
A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limitedഀ
to, public transit or shuttle services.ഀ
8. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit.ഀ
C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs,ഀ
carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts.ഀ
Criteria A, B, and C are all managed solutions for a parking reduction and are difficult, ifഀ
not impossible, to enforce.ഀ
Q4: How could the parking requirements be calculated on a per employee to be housedഀ
basis rather than on a per unit basis?ഀ
Information:ഀ
In order to establish a number of parking spaces per employees housed (or beds) Staffഀ
utilized existing Town standards (Table 23-2, Commercial Linkage). It is important toഀ
note, to date, none of the approved development or anticipated development in the Hഀ
District is fulfilling regulatory obligations under Commercial Linkage.ഀ
The chart below illustrates the following findings:ഀ
✓ A 25% reduction in Schedule B is nearly identical to the required parking in Scheduleഀ
A (Properties in Vail Village and Lionshead). The parking requirement in Schedule Aഀ
is less, based on proximity to services, jobs and public trans .ഀ
✓ Calculating parking spaces per employee according to Table. 23-2 results in aഀ
decreased parking requirement, as compared to the existing quirement.ഀ
✓ However, using the average spaces per employee as a base number to calculateഀ
parking spaces required, per table 23-2 Employees Housed, per employee wouldഀ
result in an increased minimum parking requirement.ഀ
o Studio = 1.25 emps housed x.86 (avg spaces/ emp) = 1.08 spaces requiredഀ
0 1-bed = 1.75 emps housed x.86 (avg spaces/ emp) = 1.50 spaces requiredഀ
0 2-bed = 2.25 emps housed x.86 (avg spaces/ emp) = 1.94 spaces requiredഀ
0 3-bed = 3.50 emps housed x.86 (avg spaces/ emp) = 3.01 spaces requiredഀ
0 4-bed = 4.00 emps housed x .86 (avg spaces/ emp) = 3.44 spaces requiredഀ
Schedule B !ഀ
Schedule Bഀ
Schedule Aഀ
Schedule Aഀ
Table 23-2ഀ
Table 23-2ഀ
Requiredഀ
Requiredഀ
Requiredഀ
Requiredഀ
Per Employeeഀ
Table 23-2ഀ
Min. Sq.ഀ
Employees Iഀ
Spaces perഀ
Spaces Per `ഀ
Spaces perഀ
Spaces Perഀ
% Changeഀ
Unit Typeഀ
Ft. GRFAഀ
Housedഀ
Unit**"ഀ
I Employee*ഀ
Unit**-ഀ
Emplo ee*ഀ
from B to A**ഀ
Studio Unitഀ
438ഀ
1.25ഀ
1,5ഀ
1.2ഀ
1.4ഀ
1.12ഀ
6.7%ഀ
One-Bedroom Unitഀ
613ഀ
1.75ഀ
2 Iഀ
1.14 4ഀ
1.4ഀ
0.80ഀ
30.0%ഀ
Two-Bedroom Unitഀ
788ഀ
2.25ഀ
2 _ഀ
0.89ഀ
1.4ഀ
0.62ഀ
30.0%ഀ
Three- Bedroom Unitഀ
+ഀ
1,225ഀ
3.5ഀ
2ഀ
0.57ഀ
1.4ഀ
0.40ഀ
30.0%ഀ
Dormitory Unitഀ
1,000ഀ
4ഀ
2 1ഀ
0.5ഀ
1.4ഀ
0.35ഀ
30.0%ഀ
Averageഀ
iഀ
0.86ഀ
Average 0.66ഀ
25.3%ഀ
*Spaces per employee is based upon Schedule B and Schedule A Required Spaces divided byഀ
the minimum square footage per employee requirements in TABLE 23-2 SIZE OF EMPLOYEEഀ
HOUSING UNITS. It is important to note, to date, none of the approved development orഀ
anticipated development in the H District is fulfilling regulatory obligations under Commercialഀ
Linkage.ഀ
**The per employee percent change means the percent reduction in parking spaces requiredഀ
from Schedule B to Schedule A.ഀ
***Schedule B is the required parking schedule for all four properties currently zoned Housingഀ
District. Schedule B is included above in Question 2.ഀ
****Schedule A is the required parking schedule for properties within Vail Village and Lionsheadഀ
only. Schedule A is included above in Question 2.ഀ
3ഀ
Page 1 of 2ഀ
Nicole Peterson - Re: Parking amendments for the (H) zone districtഀ
From:ഀ
To:ഀ
Date: 03/16/2009 11:48 AMഀ
Subject: Re: Parking amendments for the (H) zone districtഀ
CC:ഀ
Nicole,ഀ
One of the questions that I have regarding your proposed ordinance that has a huge impact on the numbers isഀ
just what the parking requirements in Chapter 10 are for the (H) district. The ordinance does not specify andഀ
the copy of the standards on the internet has no category for EHU's outside the core districts.ഀ
If it is "multi-family" then we are hosed. If it is "limited service lodges" (probably a good match up) then we canഀ
lose a few spaces. Solar Vail was based on the requirements for AU's which very quickly comes out to oneഀ
space per unit.ഀ
We can discuss this at 3:30ഀ
Thanks.ഀ
Henry Prattഀ
tel.970.476.1147 fox 970.176 1612ഀ
Gwothmayr Pratt Schultz Lindaal ArchiloC'4, PCഀ
1000 South Fronlage Rood West, Suite 102 • Vail, CO 81657ഀ
www typslarchitects tomഀ
In a message dated 3/16/2009 10:47:45 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, NPeterson@vailgov.com writes:ഀ
Dear Henry,ഀ
Thank you for your interest in the Parking amendments for the Housing (H) zone district. Please findഀ
attached Staff report and proposed Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, prepared for the March 17, 2009ഀ
Town Council meeting. If you have questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thankഀ
you for your time and consideration.ഀ
Best Regards,ഀ
Nicoleഀ
Nicole M. Peterson, AICPഀ
Town Plannerഀ
Town of Vail, Community Developmentഀ
75 South Frontage Roadഀ
Vail, Colorado 81657ഀ
PH: 970.477.3452ഀ
FX: 970.479.2452ഀ
nneterson(a vailgov.comഀ
<GPAxVAIL@aol.com> 03/16/2009 8:30 AMഀ
Members of the Council,ഀ
I am writing regarding the upcoming ordinance on parking requirements for the (H) Housing zoneഀ
Page 2 of 2ഀ
district. To be honest, I am not aware of what is being proposed as it has not been published whereഀ
can find it,but I am told that you are looking to codify a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit. I would like toഀ
suggest a different way of looking at it that would be more equitable for projects like the Solar Vail.ഀ
Solar Vail is on hold due to the economy. No surprise there. My guess is that it will come backഀ
someday as a smaller, less expensive building. One way for Johannes to save costs is to reduce theഀ
amount of structured parking- something nearly impossible on our tight site. We have quite a fewഀ
spaces that are built into the hillside and have nothing above them- a somewhat expensive way ofഀ
providing parking.ഀ
Solar Vail was approved with a parking ratio of .75 spaces per unit. While this would seem to be a veryഀ
low number, it actually isn't due to the fact that Solar Vail has a very large percentage of studio andഀ
one bedroom type units. A ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit would actually be a huge increase in requiredഀ
parking for Solar Vail that would be counter-intuitive to the needs.ഀ
I would like to suggest that you look into a parking ratio per bed. This approach would make it possibleഀ
to compare Solar Vail (.38 spaces per bed) to other projects like the just approved VR North Day lot (.3ഀ
spaces per bed) which have a higher number of larger dormitory style units. As you can see, by usingഀ
this ratio, Solar Vail has considerably more parking than the North Day lot building. If the Solar Vailഀ
Project were to be amended and approved at the VR ratio as measured on a per bed basis, we wouldഀ
be able to eliminate 12 parking spaces! If Solar Vail were to be required to meet the 1.2 spaces perഀ
unit ratio, we would have to add almost 40 spaces! On our site, this would be at least another full levelഀ
of structured parking at an estimated cost of an additional $1.3 million (based on $35k per space).ഀ
hope that this shows you all why going "per unit" will drive future projects in the (H) district to provideഀ
only one type of unit as the large dormitory units result in less parking required than a mix of units thatഀ
provide better living conditions for the workforce.ഀ
Thank you for your time (once again).ഀ
Henryഀ
Henry Prattഀ
tel 970 476.1147 fox 970.476 3612ഀ
Gwathrney Pratt SchultzLin_d_all Architects, PCഀ
1400 Sovth f romasye Road West, Sprite 107 • Vail. CO 81657ഀ
www gp-florrltitects romഀ
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.ഀ
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.ഀ
file://CADocuments and Settings\AdministratorTocal Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49BE3... 03/17/2009ഀ
Page 1 of 2ഀ
Nicole Peterson - H zone district ordinance- revisitedഀ
From:ഀ
To:ഀ
Date: 03/16/2009 5:55 PMഀ
Subject: H zone district ordinance- revisitedഀ
CC:ഀ
Members of the Council,ഀ
am writing you with a revised version of my previous letter that is based on what I learned in a meeting withഀ
Nicole on the Staff this afternoon. In short, I think you should table this ordinance.ഀ
The proposed ordinance has no relationship to the TOV standards for employee number generation or theഀ
minimum size of employee units. By going with a per-unit basis for parking and not a per-employee (or per-bedഀ
as we have called it before) ratio, it heavily favors the dormitory solution to employee housing and penalizes theഀ
incorporation of any of the smaller sized units. This is why I favor going to a per-employee basis for theഀ
requirements. Going with a per-employee basis would also allow you to compare different projects moreഀ
readily as the unit size would be irrelevant. I offer two examples:ഀ
The recently approved North Day lot project has 32 units, 124 "beds" or employees housed and 40 parkingഀ
spaces. Per the TOV press release, it is predominately 3 and 4 employee dormitory type units. On a per unitഀ
basis, these numbers give it 1.25 parking spaces per unit. On a per employee basis, it has .3 spaces perഀ
employee.ഀ
Solar Vail was approved with 61 parking spaces for 82 units (58 were studios less than 500 sf and 24 wereഀ
dormitory units). The number of employees housed is 150. The per unit parking ratio is .74 spaces per unitഀ
and the per employee ratio is .38.ഀ
Due to the fact that Solar Vail has smaller units, and more of them (something that Johannes feels is anഀ
upgrade in quality of living), we are providing more parking spaces per employee than the North Day lot by 27%ഀ
and yet if you look at it on a per-unit basis, we are providing 40% less parking than the North Day lot projectഀ
and 40% less than would be required by the proposed ordinance. This is for a project that is just across theഀ
pedestrian overpass from the North Day lot and which has about the same distance-to-work as the North Dayഀ
lot.ഀ
Under the proposed new rules, Solar Vail would have to provide an additional 40 spaces or an increase of 65%ഀ
(or 165% depending on how you look at it). Since we can't accommodate more parking on the Solar Vail site orഀ
afford to build 40 more underground spaces), we will have to cut the numbers of employees housed down to aഀ
number that fits with the new requirements. Is this what you want a new parking ordinance to do? Reduce theഀ
amount of housing provided?ഀ
I would propose that you consider at several things in (hopefully) getting Staff to rewrite this ordinance:ഀ
1. Change to a per employee housed basis for the requirements. This will take out the bias against all butഀ
large dormitory style units. Under the proposed rules, a 4 person dormitory style unit (1000 SFഀ
minimum) would provide .5 spaces per employee while a studio (438 sf min) would require 1.2 spaces perഀ
employee. This seems bass ackwards.ഀ
2. Perhaps offer a larger reduction in the requirements if some threshold of covered parking is provided on site.ഀ
3. Break the linkage to dwelling units (i.e. condos), and thereby reduce the overall requirements, by creating aഀ
new category in the parking standards that is solely for multi-family employee housing that is in tune with whatഀ
the parking requirements for employee housing really are. (I was told by Nicole that she visited Middle Creekഀ
and counted cars instead of consulting the management to see how many spaces had been leased to residentsഀ
and how many were leased to outsiders. The word on the street is that so many spaces were empty that theyഀ
leased spaces to local construction companies. It would seem to me that this skews her numbers on what isഀ
actually needed by quite a bit.)ഀ
Page 2 of 2ഀ
One odd thing about this ordinance: the proposed ordinance requires a certain percentage of the parking beഀ
tied to a number of bicycle parking spaces required to be provided. The TOV has no space requirements forഀ
bicycles so how would I figure out how much space I am required to allocate? While I feel that providingഀ
bicycle storage is a good idea, it fails the reality test unless it is in the form of storage lockers- who in their rightഀ
mind would leave their fancy bicycle anywhere in the open in an employee housing project and how manyഀ
bicycles get used in the winter when housing occupancy is at its highest?ഀ
Thanks again for taking the time to read this.ഀ
Henry Prattഀ
Henry Prattഀ
I*L 970 476.1147 fax 970.474 1612ഀ
Gwnthmny Pratt Sch~91z Lindall Architects, PC-ഀ
1000 Seth Fro-Auge (toad West, Suite 907 • Vail, CO 81657ഀ
www gpslarrhitacts camഀ
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.ഀ
file://CADocuments and Settings\AdministratorTocal Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49BF62... 03/17/2009ഀ
Solar Vail - Proposedഀ
Studiosഀ
One-Bedroomsഀ
Two-Bedroomsഀ
Three-Bedroomsഀ
Four-Bedroomsഀ
Emps / Unitഀ
Empsഀ
Quantityഀ
- CLഀ
Housedഀ
57ഀ
1.25ഀ
71.25ഀ
12ഀ
1.75ഀ
21ഀ
1ഀ
2.25ഀ
2.25ഀ
4ഀ
3.5ഀ
14ഀ
8ഀ
4ഀ
32ഀ
82 140.5ഀ
Middle Creek - Todayഀ
Parking Perഀ
Parkingഀ
12-10w/ഀ
Per Emp w/ഀ
12-10ഀ
Per Empഀ
25% reduc.ഀ
25% reduc.ഀ
85.5ഀ
1.200ഀ
64.125ഀ
0.900ഀ
24ഀ
1.143ഀ
18ഀ
0.857ഀ
2ഀ
0.889ഀ
1.5ഀ
0.667ഀ
8ഀ
0.571ഀ
2ഀ
0.143ഀ
16ഀ
0.500ഀ
12ഀ
0.375ഀ
135.5 0.861 97.625 0.588ഀ
120.919 82.661ഀ
Emps / Unitഀ
Empsഀ
Parking Perഀ
Parkingഀ
12-10w/ഀ
Per Emp w/ഀ
Quantityഀ
- CLഀ
Housedഀ
12-10ഀ
Per Empഀ
25% reduc.ഀ
25% reduc.ഀ
Studiosഀ
45ഀ
1.25ഀ
56.25ഀ
67.5ഀ
1.200ഀ
50.625ഀ
0.900ഀ
One-Bedroomsഀ
29ഀ
1.75ഀ
50.75ഀ
43.5ഀ
0.857ഀ
32.625ഀ
0.643ഀ
Two-Bedroomsഀ
24ഀ
2.25ഀ
54ഀ
48ഀ
0.889ഀ
36ഀ
0.667ഀ
Three-Bedroomsഀ
44ഀ
3.5ഀ
154ഀ
88ഀ
0.571ഀ
22ഀ
0.143ഀ
Four-Bedroomsഀ
0ഀ
4ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
averageഀ
averageഀ
142ഀ
315ഀ
247ഀ
0.879ഀ
141.25ഀ
0.588ഀ
277ഀ
185.25ഀ
Timber Ridge - Todayഀ
Emps / Unitഀ
Studiosഀ
One-Bedroomsഀ
Two-Bedroomsഀ
Three-Bedroomsഀ
Four-Bedroomsഀ
Quantityഀ
- CLഀ
0ഀ
1.25ഀ
0ഀ
1.75ഀ
198ഀ
2.25ഀ
0ഀ
3.5ഀ
0ഀ
4ഀ
198ഀ
Empsഀ
Parking Perഀ
Parkingഀ
12-10w/ഀ
Per Emp w/ഀ
Housedഀ
12-10ഀ
Per Empഀ
25% reduc.ഀ
25% reduc.ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
445.5ഀ
396ഀ
0.889ഀ
297ഀ
0.667ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
0ഀ
0.000ഀ
averageഀ
averageഀ
445.5ഀ
396ഀ
0.222ഀ
297ഀ
0.167ഀ
99ഀ
74.25ഀ