Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-02-05 Town Council MinutesMINUTES SPECIAL MEETING.. TOWN COUIVCI L Off' THE TOWN OF VAI L FEBRUARY 5, 1973 A special meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail was convened at 11:15 a.m., February 5, 1973, in the Council Room of the Vail Municipal Building. Mayor John A. Dobson and the following Councilmen were present: Richard Bailey John Donovan Joseph Langmaid Josef Staufer Tom Steinberg Gerry White Also present were: Terry Minger, Town Manager Larry Robinson, Town Attorney Stan Bernstein, Finance Director Kent Rose, Town Engineer Jim Lamont, Administrative Assistant Jim Slevin, Member, Planning Commission The planners, Royston, Girvin, Livingston, and van Ginkel were also present. The first item discussed was the fact that applications for building permits have been received for an additional $20 million of construction. No permits have been issued. One reason which might be given for delays is that the capacity of the sewer system is inadequate to handle the projects. Mr. Livingston indicated that he would have a report on the changes in the zoning ordinance prepared by the middle of March. Prior to this date, high priority items can be completed. For example, they have already prepared a prelim- inary report on parking. The assumption underlying this report is that the person who comes to Vail should be able to exist entirely without.a car'. It also appears necessary for the day -skier to park outside of the center of town and be transported to the lifts. Their recommendation for the financing of any parking structure was to assess the owner of a building on the basis of • benefit derived from the structure. if an individual has already provided parking within an area that is designated to become pedestrian, this parking, will be eliminated and the person given credit on -the basis of the dollar invest- ment in the improvements he has made. He will not be given credit for the value of the land, as this can be put to other uses. Mr. Royston emphasized •that the frontage road must be viewed as the major means of vehicle movement. Mr. van Ginkel emphasized the need to avoid looking at the automobile as the only means of access •to the valley, or as the only means of moving people and goods. The restraints necessary on both the resident and the visitor must be considered. Mr. Royston had made a listing of the transportation needs in Vail: 1 . to move people on their daily work rounds; 2. to move people for sightseeing; 3. to move people to recreational experiences and places; 4. to service the shops, rooms and homes, perhaps requiring a vehicle different from that required by the first three needs listed; 5. to collect the garbage, again a different vehicle; 6. to transport the day --skier; and 7. to accommodate growth in east and west Vail. Councilman White suggested that an eighth category of transportation users would be the second -home owners, most of whom bring their cars to Vail. Mr. Minger suggested that the way to eliminate this use of the car was to eliminate the option and make the car a detriment. Councilman White suggested that to make a transportationsystem effective,. It can't be slowed down at non -peak periods. If this is done, the system becomes inconvenient and people will not make use of it. Following some discussion, it was suggested that buses would have to run on a Five-minute interval basis. Mr. van Ginkel suggested that at some point, however, the f surplus of buses becomes as bad as a surplus of cars. Mayor Dobson sug- gested that, in reality, two problems were being considered: 1. the problem of eliminating cars from the pedestrian core and providing an alternative means of transportation that does not violate the pedestrian concept; and 2. the problem of mitigating the effect of cars in the larger valley. in the latter instance, a five-minute schedule would seem to be too expensive and impos- sible to follow. Mr. Minger expressed his concern that, as the transportation system of the valley is in a state of change, extreme care needs to be exercised in designing a transportation terminal. It is possible that if designed for today's system; it would be obsolete within 5 years. Mr. van Ginket, expressed his concurrence with the opinion that the main parking lot could be the place for a structure. Mr. Livingston was of the opinion that if the structure is placed in that loca- tion, East Meadow Drive would need to be closed.. At present, the amount of traffic makes it difficult to move from the parking lot to the core on foot. Councilman Donovan disagreed with the method of financing proposed by Mr. Livingston. He was of the opinion that the sales tax generated on Bridge Street is supportive of the entire Town and hence, the entire Town should Finance the structure. On the matter of pending construction, Mayor Dobson suggested that it was necessary to obtain some further piecemeal standards from Mr. Livingston. It was his understanding that the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation problem was very bad and would require another construction season to be corrected.. Discussion of what standards were to be applied led to the suggestion that Mr. Royston's office provide the Council with maps showing the open space and related items they propose. Councilman White was of the opinion that there are two types of developments with which the Council must deal 1 those developments which are far advanced into the planning stage and have followed the previously applicable rules; and 2. those developments which are currently only conceptual or for which the plans have only been started. The ordinances should be amended throughout the interim period in order that the laws applied to projects of the second category will reflect the new intent. Mr. Livingston noted that he can provide these amendments within the 30-day period if he receives the land -use information he has been awaiting. In regard to ordinances needed, Mr. Minger suggested that an ordinance adopting a development fee for open space and recreational amenities should be considered. Mr. Royston suggested that an ordinance should also be. adopted requiring the posting of a bond to guarantee the completion of the landscaping plan and its maintenance for one year. Councilman Langmaid was concerned with the means by which the Council could say "no" to a developer. Mr. Royston suggested. that the method should be to talk to the developer until he was wUltng to offer something to which the Council could say "yes." Mr. Livingston suggested that if the objection to a project was on the basis of architecture •,' for example,, this view could be tied to a functional deficiency, for example, .that the garages included in the plans do not fit in with the parking needs.., Mr. van Ginkel concurred with this sug- gestion. He added that he was of the opinion that the Council would be stronger in its denials if for every negative answer they could suggest a changed situation to which they could give a positive answer. Councilman Steinberg suggested that the water and sanitation problems were the strongest basis for a denial; Senate Bill 35 gives the power to deny an application on that basis alone. Mr. Minger noted that Mr. Rose and a consultant have been working on the determination of exactly what are the limitations of the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District. Page 2 Returning to the discussion of the parking structure, Mr. Minger noted that if an attempt is going to be made to build at least part of the structure next summer, some commitments and arrangements need to be made now. .Mr. Royston suggested that it is also necessary to begin discussions with the public now. Mr. Ream, the architect of the previous design For the parking structure, will be informed of -the new ideas which will require changes in his original design. It might be wise to include buses and related items in the bond issue. There was some discussion of whether the day -skier would park in that lot; of whether a provision For parking at a greater distance from the core would meet the Forest Service requirements. It was also noted that the Town does not own the land but leases it from Vail Associates. There was some discussion of whether it is rational to build a major parking structure in the area where there is the smallest lift capacity. The parking that will be eliminated by pedestrianizing areas or the core will be picked up in this structure; also, it is possible that it takes 600 to 1000 cars -to keep the core viable. It was suggested that if the structure is in the main lot, all entrances and exits should be on the north. side. In response to the direct question as to whether we should proceed on structured parking, Councilman Staufer stated that it should be made certain that the structure can be made available for as many alternative uses in the future as possible. Mr. Royston noted that this would mean that the ceiling height should be carefully considered. Other, considerations and comments made were: . Mr.Slevin - should move ahead on the structure as this opens the door to other steps; Mr. White - the structure should be built to the maximum size as it now appears, if this is too large in the future, it can be converted to other uses; Mr. Langmaid - the large number of buses which are now in Vail on the weekend should be considered in -any plans; Mr. Bailey - in Favor, of moving ahead as soon as possible even if the entire structure cannot be built during the coming summer; Mr. Dobson - if necessary, the transportation center portion could be built first; Dr. Steinberg - would move ahead as soon as possible, making allowances for a recreational use For the roof in the summer. Mayor Dobson summarized that there was a consensus that plans should be moved ahead on the parking structure. • Mayor Dobson summarized the projects for the near future as: 1 . From Mr. Livingston, standards to be incorporated into the zoning ordinance are needed; 2. from Mr. Royston, drawings of -the proposed pedestrian areas are needed; 3. the Council needs to consider an ordinance for a landscaping bond, an ordinance for an amenity fee; and to study the water and sanitation situation. The meeting adjourned at 2:00• p.m. Page 3 Town Clerk' Livingston and Blayney 40 Gold Street San Francisco, California VAIL PLANNING STUDY PARKING: PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS Parking problems in Vail primarily involve the lack of adequate parking serving Vail Village commercial establishments and hotels, and the tremendous park- ing demands created by visitors during the winter ski season. Completion of Interstate Route 70 is expected to greatly increase the number of day skiers, and without remedial action the situation only can worsen. Innovative solutions are needed soon if Vail is to continue functioning as a high quality winter and summer resort without being innundated by cars seeking to park in the wrong places. Many Vail Village business establishments were built without providing any off- street parking, and others provided parking that was insufficient to meet their needs. Fewer visitors, available on -street parking, and parking overflow into adjoining areas combined to minimize the problems during earlier years of the Village's development. With increased construction and growing popularity of the Vail ski slopes came the inevitable parking crunch, only partially relieved by the use of the main parking lot which is leased to the Town by Vail Associates. At the same time, it is the lack of parking in the core of the Village that gives it a special pedestrian orientation and a tight urban character that need to be enhanced. Lifts within walking distance of the hotels and the difficulty of driving in winter weather contribute to this quality. Streets in the Village already have been restricted, allowing only essential access to parking areas. If the Village could be converted to a pedestrian precinct by closing all streets to non -essential traffic and filling in parking lot gaps with new buildings, the Alpine village character originally intended could be fully achieved. Unfortunately, provision for the automobile did not receive the consideration needed when the Village was developed. Development at Lionshed, in contrast, is proceeding with accommodation of the pedestrian and automobile accorded due regard. The acuteness of the parking situation in the Village led to recent Zoning Ordinance amendments that require off-street parking to be provided by new uses, and for expansions of existing uses. Previously parking was not required in the C-C zoning district which covers the core of the Village. Prior to incorporation of the Town provision of off-street parking was optional, and it was provided only by those businesses which believed it was essential to their economic health to have adjoining parking facilities. The dilemma faced now by the Village is that provision of parking facilities required. by the Zoning Ordinance is impossible for some uses which would • like to expand, in some cases onto the portion of their sites originally allo- cated for parking, and for others provision of any parking is impossible at their present sites. Attempts to satisfy parking needs at or near the site of each use would be counter -productive because it would introduce more cars Into what desirably should be an exclusive pedestrian precinct. Only an off-. street parking facility close enough to meet the parking demands generated in the Village, yet outside of the pedestrian core, could solve the problem. Adding to the difficulty, it would be desirable if many of those uses which now have adjoining off-street parking were served by parking elsewhere which did not bring cars into the pedestrian oriented center. Problems of how to handle access, parking, delivery of goods, and emergency services will be examined during the design studies. The approach will focus on solving specific problems faced by individual establishments. Unlike most business districts and many vacation communities, visitors to Vail have a high tendency to park in one location - at a hotel, for example - and have less need to use their car for movement within the Town. With park- ing, lodging, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and ski lifts all within walking distance, the need for using a car to get from one parking lot to another Is diminished. The concept of peripheral parking serving an auto -free pedes- trian precinct is more workable. An effective, attractive public transportation system operating throughout the Town could reduce auto usage further, and would reinforce the pedestrian orientation in the Village and Lionshed alike. A 1972 study of parking needs by Beardsley, Davis Associates found a deficiency of nearly 700 parking spaces in the 'Vail Mill Creek/Gold Peak area, assuming Zoning Ordinance requirements are adequate, and proposed that the first priority for meeting Vail's parking deficiency should be utilization of the main parking lot to accommodate additional cars in a parking structure. The site is under a long term (to year 2019) lease to the Town. The parking study also proposed design guidelines for development of the site and urged additional study of financing methods and operating questions. Other sites also were suggested for parking development, including study of potential parking north of the freeway. The need for additional parking to serve the Village's current deficiency, plus the relocation of existing parking from those portions of the Village that should . be developed as a pedestrian precinct, apparently can be accommodated in a suitably designed parking facility at the main lot. Such a facility logically should be developed as a complete transportation terminal, providing a bus 2. station, .auto rental facilities, taxi stands, and convenient transfer to Village and Town -wide transit. Vail Village Parking Strategy Although a parking facility would have some citywide benefits, particularly if it also were to serve as a transportation center, its primary area of bene- fit would be the Village commercial center. It would be appropriate, then, that its financing be largely the responsibility of the Village property owners, with such additional assistance as may be suitable on a citywide basis to the extent that the facility also benefits a larger area. The Vail Charter permits the Council to establish local 'improvement districts, and permits assessment of the properties within the districts to finance public improvements. Local improvement districts may be created by the Council, subject to protests by owners of a majority of the property within the district, or may be established by petition from more than 50 per cent of the land owners. The improvements would be financed through sale of local improvement district bonds, which would be repaid from parking fees and from assessments levied annually. The Charter gives the Council wide flexibility to determine the method of assessment best suited to the improvement program. If, in addition, the improvement confers benefits on the Town as a whole, the Council may levy a citywide tax to cover these benefits. Revenue bonds could be utilized, but it is doubtful that parking fees would be sufficient to amortize the bonds, and interest rates would be higher than assess- ment district bonds backed by the Town's credit. Until design studies are further along and the concept of a pedestrian area for the Village is firmed up, it is not possible to determine precise boundaries of the pedestrian precinct, or of a potential parking assessment district. How- ever, it appears likely that much of the commercial center should be auto -free, and that existing parking in the area should be reaccommodated. Given this assumption, two issues arise: how to equitably treat those properties that now provide parking spaces which should be relocated, and how to equitably assess the costs of a parking facility to all uses within the benefitted area. The improvement district concept is widely used throughout the nation as a means of providing public parking facilities, although the methods of spreading the assessments to the benefitted properties vafy. Most common means include an assessment per square foot or front foot, or an assessment based on valuation 3. of the property. Where there are differing degrees of benefit to different properties, benefit zones may be established within an assessment district and different rates of assessment applied in each zone reflecting the relative benefit. Assessments based on land area assume distribution of benefits to all prop- erties in relation to their size. While this is generally true of undeveloped sites where the land utilization or earning potential of the sites is propor- tional to their area, it is less true of developed sites which generate different parking needs according to. their use. In terms of parking demand generated by various uses, the square foot or area method of assessment does not directly assess properties on the basis of need or benefit. Assessments based on valuation may include land valuation only, or may include land and improvements. Where the parking facility or other public improvement confers a higher value on benefitted properties, this method allows. the project to recapture some of that benefit through the resulting higher assessments. However, it has two drawbacks: like the area distribution of assessments, it does not relate to parking need or demand of particular uses, and it tends to discourage investment in new improvements because they lead to increased assessed valuations which then result in higher payments. Parking demand may • be high for a low value use, and may be low for a high value use. An additional method of spreading assessments within the area benefitted by a parking facility, not widely used but currently gaining in favor, is to base the assessments on the parking need generated by each use or each property. This method is most equitable because those uses with a greater parking demand con- tribute proportionately more toward financing the parking facility. The principal difficulty lies in determining the precise parking demand of each use, because of the widely varying needs of the multiplicity of uses usually encountered in a commercial district. Yet in most communities such a precise schedule already has been developed, applied and tested — the schedule of parking requirements prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance. Assuming that the requirements accurately reflect the parking demands for various categories of uses, assessments based on zoning requirements for off-street parking provide an eminently equitable means of spreading assessments to benefitted properties. Use of the off-street parking schedule of the Zoning Ordinance for assessment • purposes within an improvement district would not constitute imposing zoning requirements retroactively on uses which have inadequate parking or lack parking entirely, but are permitted to continue as non -conforming situations. 4. Rather, it would be a means of equitably spreading the assessment to those who would benefit, and would apply only within the improvement district boundaries. • Starting with the basic assumption that each parcel should be assessed in proportion to the parking demand it generates, an annual assessment per space required would be levied. This assessment would include capital and Interests costs, plus net operating costs of the parking facility — or that portion of the structure which serves the Village in the event the facility has greater parking capacity. Uses which now have no off-street parking would be assessed annually on the per space basis, using the Zoning Ordinance schedule as the measure of parking demand generated. Formulas for credits against the assessment should be developed to cover two special situations. First, those uses now providing off-street parking in the designated pedes- trian precinct but which would not be permitted to continue such parking should be allowed credits. Most logically, these credits should be based on the value of existing parking improvements (not land) discounted or amortized from the date of construction. The credit would be compensation for the loss of parking improvements which have remaining value or useable life. However, the credit should not be based on the value of the land because when the parking use is discontinued the site will then be available for presumably more valuable uses. In hold -out cases, it would be necessary to condemn the right to use the land for parking, but the cost would be low where the site could be put to a more valuable use. (If the parking right cannot be condemned under Colorado law, it will be necessary to condemn the fee and recoup the cost by resale. ) A second credit schedule should be applied to those uses within the improvement district which have off-street parking which may continue without detriment to the pedestrian precinct. In some cases, a use now may only provide a portion of its required parking. Logically the credits should be the same or close to the per -space assessment levied elsewhere within the district, since the use pro- viding some or all of its own parking would be relieving the district of that res- ponsibility. Uses permitted to retain their parking would have to be evaluatdd on the basis of their location and the impact of access to their parking facility on the pedestrian precinct. Assessments would be determined annually, based on the parking requirement of each use on the assessment date. If the use of a property changed during the • year and resulted in a different parking requirement, the assessment in the sub- sequent year would reflect the change. Because the property owner would be the long run beneficiary of the parking provided by the improvement district, assess- ments would be levied against the property. In the case of tenant -occupied prop- erties or buildings, the cost presumably would be passed on to the tenant in the form of a rental increase. 5. The parking facility should be operated on a fee basis, but with provisions for validation parking for customers (and possibly employees) of businesses within the district. The fees would be reimbursed to the district by the businesses validating the parking. Parking fees should be set to discourage use of the facility by day skiers, particularly at times of peak demand. Fees also could vary according to demand, with higher rates in winter and on busy weekends. Careful, critical review of present parking requirements will be necessary to assure that the present Zoning Ordinance schedule accurately reflects the demand generated by each category of use, before adopting the schedule as the basis of assessment. if instances are found where the parking required by the ordinance•now is either insufficient or excessive, the ordinance should be amended. Where a combination of uses occupies a single structure or site, such as a hotel with restaurant, bar, and some shops, the Zoning Ordinance should be revised to permit a reduction in the total spaces required that reflects the overlapping parking need. The restaurant, for example, may have customers who already are hotel guests, and the parking schedule should not require additional parking when there is not any additional demand. While Vail's current parking requirements are not substantially out of line with nationally recognized standards for off-street parking, several of .the require- ments need to be checked closely with actual current experience in Vail to be certain they fairly reflect parking demands generated. The advisability of accounting for multiple uses within a building has been cited. Various types of retail and office uses and restaurants should have requirements tailored to their generation of parking needs, rather than the single standard now in effect (3 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of primary floor area). Personal services such as beauty shops usually generate higher demands than furniture stores or repair services. Banks usually create a greater parking need than other kinds of offices that have lower volumes of patronage spread over longer time periods. Design studies now underway will determine the potential hotel and commercial space that can be accommodated in the Village if vacant sites are improved and present parking areas in the pedestrian precinct are discontinued and con- verted to commercial uses. The total parking requirement of the Village, less whatever parking can be accommodated on -street or in lots which can remain without impairing the pedestrian concept, will determine the necessary minimum capacity of the parking facility. To the extent that additional space might be available in the facility, it can accommodate day skiers. b. While most or all of the Village is within walking distance of the parking site, a local transportation system uniquely serving. Vail requirements — the pro- posed Ginklevans or "elephant trains" — would increase the accessibility and vitality of the core. These vehicles would provide transportation of baggage, skis, and packages as well as people between the parking facility and their' destinations. Hotels might be permitted to provide additional, specialized shuttle service such as is common around major airports, provided that their vehicles did not interfere with pedestrian activity in the core. Lionshead The Beardsley, Davis study found no serious deficiency in parking spaces at Lionshead, principally because present zoning standards apply to all develop- ment there. However, there would be a deficiency if day skier demand should exceed the capacity of the three public lots in the area. Eventual decking of parking facilities at Lionshead remains a possibility. Day Skier Parking Accommodation of day skier parking will become increasingly crucial when the completion of interstate 70 brings Vail within less than two hours driving time of Denver. Peripheral parking lots outside the Town, with convenient freeway access that does not congest local streets, appear to be the only logical solution. Accommodating day skiers in parking structures near the lifts would be both expensive and physically disruptive. Shuttle bus service between the lots and the ski lifts, at the Village and Lionshead, and the proposed new lifts will. be necessary. Some popular California ski areas have parking lots so large that they must provide shuttle service within the lots. Without peripheral lots, Vail probably would be hopelessly congested with day skier's cars. The pro- posed parking structure could not adequately meet Village requirements if it accommodated many day skiers. High daily rates and a validation system should be used to divert them to the peripheral parking lots. Transit System Extension of the proposed Ginklevan service for Vail Village to serve Town - wide transportation needs should be explored. The Ginklevans, or similar vehicles particularly suited for low speed, frequent stop service were pro- posed by the Beardsley, Davis study to link the various.parking lots with Lionshead, the Village, and other major areas, The transit service should be free, and should be more attractive and convenient than driving within the Town. 7. High speed buses, with exterior ski slots, should be used to link the day ' skiers' lots with the Village, Lionshead,. and the new lifts. Quick and easy transfer to the slower speed, local transit system should be possible. Conclusion If the precise location, capacity, and facilities of a parking structure are to be determined in time to permit construction during the coming building season, several immediate steps will be necessary. These will be the respon- sibility of the City staff and the RHB.A/L&B consulting team, assisted by archi tectural, engineering, and public finance specialists. Design studies for the Village must be completed to determine the present parking need and the potential parking demand when vacant sites and sites now devoted to parking are developed. — The impact on individual uses of converting the Village to an exclusive pedestrian precinct should be evaluated, and discussed with the property owners and businessmen affected. — Preliminary plans and cost estimates, followed by working drawings, must be prepared for the parking facility. — The proposed improvement district boundary must be determined, and preliminary financial studies must be made to determine what level of assessment will be necessary within the district to finance the parking improvements. Necessary Zoning Ordinance changes should be prepared and adopted. — Interim financing may be needed to cover initial costs and design work on the parking facility, until district financing can be assured and improve- ment bonds can be marketed. — When financial and legal feasibility is assured, formation of the improve- ment district should proceed. S.