The URL can be used to link to this page

PZC Packet 111505Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission ATVO NiMeting l� November 15, 2005 C 0 L 0 R A 0 0 Meetings Held At: Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road 5:00 - 5:30 pm Work Session Discussion of Regular Meeting Agenda Items - REGULAR MEETING AGENDA - I. Call to Order: 5:30 pm It. Roll Call III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda IV. Conflicts of Interest V. Consent Agenda: Approval of the November 1, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes. VI. PUD Amendment / Confluence (5:35pm - 7:30pm) PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Confluence/95 Avon Road Applicant., East West Resorts /Owner. Vail Associates Description: A request for an amendment to the Confluence PUD to modify the existing development rights and zoning for the entire property. This application proposes a hotel, retail plaza, high-speed public gondola, condominiums, and fractional ownership residential units. VII. Other Business (7:30pm - 7:45pm) A. Fence Application Property Location: Lot 80A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2465 Draw Spur Road Applicant/OwnerWilliam Vancuren Description: This application has been remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied this application at their December 7, 2004 meeting. The fence is split rail and approximately 3 feet high. VIII. Adjourn (7:45pm) Posted on November 11, 2005 at the following public places within the Town of Avon: • Avon Municipal Building, main lobby • Avon Recreation Center, main lobby • Alpine Bank, main lobby • City Market, main entrance bulletin board • On the Internet at htto://www.avon.ora / Please call (970) 748.4030 for directions Staff Report TVO N Minor Project - Fence CO L 0R A O0 November 15, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report Date November 9, 2005 Project Type Minor Project — Fence Legal Description Lot 80A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Address 2465 Draw Spur Road, Unit A Introduction A Minor Project application for this fence was denied at the Commission's December 7th, 2004 meeting. It was denied (5-1 vote) due to concerns with grading and the fact that the proper procedure was not followed. The fence had been installed before the application was made to the Town. The applicant, Bill Vancuren, appealed the Commission's decision and the decision was heard by the Town Council. At the Council's January 11th, 2005 meeting a unanimous motion was made to remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review. Town Council felt that the Commission's reasons for denial were not acceptable and that a completed landscape plan should go back for review before the Planning Commission. Design Review Considerations According to the Commission's Procedures, Rules & Regulations, Section 4.10, the Commission shall consider the following items in reviewing the design of this project: 1. Fence material shall be wood and no more than four feet in height The fence is wood and no more than four feet in height. 2. Split rail design with no more than 2 horizontal 'rails.' The fence has 2 horizontal 'rails.' 3. Does not delineate property lines. The proposed fence does not delineate property lines. 4. Fenced area is less than 2,000 square feet. There are two lengths of fence that contain an area approximately 1000 square feet in size, thereby in compliance with this criteria. 5. Wildlife migration is not negatively affected with the proposed fence design. Wildlife migration should not be affected with this fence design. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 9495749 Lot 80A, Block I, Wildridge Subdivision, Minor Project — Fence November 15, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 6. If part of a multi -family project approval must be received from the association, and the fence design must be integrated with the overall landscape design of the property. 2of2 The fence was approved by the homeowners associated for the project (Elk Run). It is questionable whether or not the fence 'design' is integrated with the overall landscape design. 7. If located on a duplex property, written approval must be received from adjoining property owner and the fence design must be Integrated with the overall landscape design. Not applicable. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval this application for the fence located on Lot 80A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 748.4009 or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Matt Pielstic Planner I Att: Minutes from Planning and Zoning Commission (12/7/04) & Council (1/11/05) Landscape Plan Neighbors' Approval Photos of fence Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748.4030 Fax (970) 949.5749 addssed prior to building permit issuance. Commissioner Trueblood add ,ssed the bridgeless aspect of the duplex. Commissioner Didier questioned they iveway and the potential difficulty of leaving the site without backing out of drile. action required. Final Design — Single Family Residence Property Location: Lot 5, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/5039 Wildridge Road East ApplicantlOwner: Leslie Roubos Dtion: Leslie Roubous is proposing a single-family residence on the ill ,side of Wildridge Road East. The unit would total approximately 4,000 access. The Commission approved a sketch design for a duplex on the same property earlier this summer. Additionally, the Commission reviewed and provided feedback on a revised single-family design at their October 5, 2004 meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Michael Poukas, architect, approached the podium for commission questions. Commissioner Struve suggested spicing up the garage doors and moving the wine cellar towards the foundation for coolor temperatures. Commissioner Didier and Commissioner Trueblood compliment3d the design. Commissioner Karow questioned height and elevations. Commissioner Trueblood moved to approve Item IX, Final Design — Single Family Residence, Property Location: Lot 5, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision/5039 Wildridge Road East, Applicant/Owner: Leslie Roubos, with five conditions as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and all commissioners unanimously approved it. X. Minor Project — Fence Property Location: Lot 80A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2465 Draw Spur, Unit A Applicant/Owner: Bill Vancuren Description: The applicant is proposing a 3' tall split rail fence on his property in Wildridge. The fence measures approximately 24'x Wand was constructed approximately 2 months ago. All fences require specific approval from the Planning Commission. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Trueblood suggested to get the word out to the public that all projects need to get approval prior to construction and does not support this FAManning & Zoning CommissionNinutes120041120704.DDC Page 4 of 6 project. Commissioner Didier commented that the fence was okay. Commissioner Smith suggested the grading needed attention. Commissioner Struve voiced fixing the grading to return it to its original look. Commissioner Savage commented that the public needs to apply for design approval prior to construction and does not believe that this fence was warranted. Commissioner Karow stated that the Design Guidelines discourages fencing and he cannot approve this application. Commissioner Savage made motion to deny Item X, Minor Project — Fence, Property Location: Lot 80A, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision/2465 Draw Spur, Unit A, ApplicantlOwner. Bill Vancuren, due to the fact that proper procedure was not followed and its site disturbance. Commissioner Trueblood seconded. The motion carried 5 to 1 with Commissioner Didier dissenting. XI. Minor Projects - Marr Approvals A. Property Location: Lot 22, Block 2, BMBC — Outback Steakhouse Applicant: Don Shipp, Const. Manager Owner., Timberline Company Description: Remove existing exhaust, replace with upgraded exhaust and duct system. B. Property Location: Tract Q, Block 2, BMBC — Benchmark Shopping Center Applicant: Kent Beidel, Nova Emertainment Owner: Stoltz Management Description: New door for future business to match existing doors in building. C. Property Location: Lot 86, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Applicant/Owner: Frank Hamel Description: Lengthening of non-structural retaining by approximately 87' on downhill side of duplex. go ersation continued with an item in the Vail Trail regarding the onfluence parking as over flow for skiing this year. To date, Staff is not aware f this issue. The next issue discussed regarded the method to enforce penalties for illegal zoning, design, construction plus those that have been denied. %nathan Levine and Chapel Square lighting fixtures issues were addressed. JX. Adjourn Commissioner Trueblood made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Smith seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at x`:25 pm. s r: F \Planning & Zoning Commission\Minutes\20041120704.DOC Page 5 of 6 f • • Town of Avon Page 4 of 7 be jointly considered by P&Z and Council. • Metcalf Loading & Delivery Issues Police Chief Jeff Laymen addressed the memo included in councilrls packet identifying some of the short-term and long-term ideas to help resolve the loading & delivery problems on Metcalf Road. He noted both Town sponsored ideas & merchant sponsored Ideas. All agreed it would need to be a cooperative effort from both parties as well as the trucking industry and that immediately implementing the short-term solutions would be in order. Staff would continue to research the costs of the long- term solutions. It was suggested by Mark Donaldson that the town conduct a zoning certification in that area, since he thought that some of the building may not be in compliance with the originals plans submitted to the town. The work session adjourned at 5:35 pm. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL HELD JANUARY 11. 2005 A regular meeting of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held at 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado in the Council Chambers. Mayor Ron Wolfe called the meeting to order at 5:40 PM. A roll call was taken and Council members present were Debbie Buckley, Kristi Ferraro, Mac McDevitt, Amy Phillips, Brian Sipes and Tamra Nottingham Underwood. Also present were Town Manager Larry Brooks, Town Attorney John Dunn, Town Clerk Patty McKenny, Finance Director Scott Wright, Police Chief Jeff Layman, Town Engineer Norm Wood, Recreation Director Meryl Jacobs, Public Works / Transit Director Bob Reed, and Community Development Director Tambi Katieb as well as members of the press and public. Citizen Input Resident Buz Reynolds addressed the Council with regard to the Battle Mountain Scholarship program. His request included future funding for this program that provides scholarships to two Battle Mountain seniors who meet certain criteria. It was noted that Council would review the program at its next work session. Resident Cameron Kantock addressed the Council with regard to the current transit service to Beaver Creek. He explained his dissatisfaction with the service noting some of the problems he has seen with riding the Avon buses. He presented some of his ideas that might resolve some of the problems, i.e. rethink the routes, more information & education, donut force public to the new landing. Council informed him that some changes have been put in place and thanked him for his comments. New Business I Councilor Ferraro noted that she has had contact with the applicant, Bill Vancuren, regarding this appeal of a Planning & Zoning Commission decision made on December 7, 2004 regarding the denial of a Minor Project Application for a fence at 2845 A Draw Spur, Wildridge In Avon. Town Attorney John Dunn asked If any other members had contact with the applicant. None expressed contact with him and none Indicated that there were any concerns if Councilor Ferraro participated In the consideration of this appeal. httv://www.avon.or ecays.cfm?id=49 onF/I)nna Town of Avon Page 5 of 7 Community Development Director Tembl Kadeb presented backgroun on the situation In that a fence was Installed approximately three month ago without approval from the Planning Commission. Staff received the application under review after's request for a minor project application was made to the applicant. He noted the Commission denieb this application on December 7, 2004 because the design guidelines do not support fences B concern over grading Issues. Applicant Bill Vancuren addressed the Council with reasons why he wanted a fence In his yard. He presented pictures of his home with the fence. He noted that there was approval for this fence from the homeownee7s association and that he did not know this type of Installation required Town Involvement He explained that he was not at the meeting with PBZ whereby the decision was made to deny his application, and that after the denial was communicated to him, further Instruction was given to remove the fence within a few days or face monetary penalty. He noted that he appears before the Council because he does not believe the i_;rlghto thing was done regarding -his situation. Councilor Buckley noted that she would like. to communicate a message to the PBZ Commission with regard to future situations of this nature, she noted that citing the reason r_:becauss proper procedure was not compiled with by the applicant because he/she was unaware of the requ/remenV, does not justify denial of a project application. She also noted that It should not be expected that the party remove fences In the middle of the winter. She reiterated the need to continue discussing the design review guidelines, Including fences. Mayor Pro Tem Underwood moved that this application be-rsturne#fe- PBdF Commission, but that /t be submitted at; &r,cdmphad-hW4 capv pJA and that the Town waive the application fee 49 tong "i"n meats tlr♦ arfdif ole Mhto►project appikatfort; thetthd wont Is, dbmp/eeMd'wiMin a- time6ams sat by Community Development and that future applications not be denied just because someone doesn-t follow correct procedures. Councilor Buckley seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. A Town Engineer Norm Wood presented the water rights lease proposal between the Town and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (-UERWAG) as drafted by Gary Greer, the town -a water attorney. He read the proposed lease agreement generally defined by the following Items (Included /n council packet memo): 1. Avon proposes to lease the entire currently decreed 448 AF of consumptive use water rights tot the Authority; 2. The Authority will agree that the 448 Ac -Ft of consumptive use water rights Is adequate to provide water service to all development within the Town l a Augmentation Plan Area up to 5167 SFE -a, 3. The Authority will allow the Town to use any of the water rights not required for the then current level of municipal service plus lake evaporation and non -potable Irrigation for filling or refilling Benchmark Led* from time to time, as needed, 4. Avon must continue to control the operation of Benchmark Lake and manage the non -potable Irrigation (within the cap). Wood Indicated that N approved by Council,' It would be presented for http://www.avon.ore/recat)s.cfm?id=49 nil A/Irx15 juewdoleneo � SON L2 I L i K 4 A / Y 3 c I -:�ISL 7j '71 KV /7/S 0 til c I -:�ISL 7j '71 KV /7/S 0 December 4, 2004 To Whom It May Concern: The owners of Elk Run Townhomes, located in Wildridge, Avon, CO, approve of the split rail fence erected on the property belonging to Bill and Rebecca Vancuren, Unit A. Unit B Unit C ZA I. Rae unit Dat RrOCFpj Nov 1 1 2405 0000A DO wP w% is Staff Report AVON � ''"PUD AMENDMENT C O L O R A D O November 11 th, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Report date November 7, 2005 Project type Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Legal description The Confluence PUD ("Beaver Creek Landing") Current zoning PUD Address 0095 Avon Road Introduction Outlined below are several of the remaining discussion items of the PUD amendment reviewed at the initial hearing that we hope to complete at this meeting (please refer to the application submitted for specific details of each area highlighted below). In some cases the applicant has either responded to the Commission's suggestions regarding specific revision to the site plan (i.e. gondola location and building orientation) and/or has provided a more detailed analysis of specific areas of the plan (parking). Because the applicant submitted the parking analysis by Walker on November 10'h, staff has had little time to review and comment on this report and encourages the Commission to explore the assumptions of both this report and the parking demand analysis located in Tab II of the appendix of your original bound application. We suspect that the majority of this meeting will be devoted to the parking analysis and discussion, and as such, we will focus the report primarily on that topic. If possible, we will also touch on the proposed employee housing mitigation. PUD Parking Background & Review Documents The applicant has provided an in-house analysis of the anticipated parking demand generated from the site along with analysis performed by Walker Parking Consultants (Exhibit A). Both analyses estimate the total parking demand projected based on use and anticipated management/control of the of the structured parking. The models used for this analysis are relatively sophisticated and staff has asked the applicant to provide an overview of both the in- house analysis and the consultant's findings during the meeting. Again, staff has had minimal time to review this analysis as it was submitted a day before the packets were distributed to the Commission. The proposed parking for all land uses (hotel, timeshare, and whole ownership) would be developed below grade, in some cases two levels below grade. The below grade parking would be connected in some areas with control devices allowing for access. For example, the timeshare west building would locate the retail component of the required parking in the shared parking area of the hotel. Staff prefers the use of below grade parking, as it is not only a more efficient use of the site; it helps to achieve the pedestrian environment that both staff and the applicant desire. This is a large departure form the existing PUD that contemplated all surface Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 The Confluence PUD- Amendment to the 1998 PUD approval November 15t°, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 2 of 8 parking, the extent of which would encompass approximately 1/3 of the site. That said, our goal is that the below grade parking is an effective, safe and convenient experience for the public. The analysis of parking performed by the applicant was developed using data provided by the Eagle County Airport along with data provided by Colorado Mountain Express (CME). In general terms, the purpose of the analysis is to explain visitor travel behavior in terms of the percentage of visitors that fly versus those that drive for each guest type. The model then takes that percentage of visitors that fly and generates a percentage of visitors who rent cars versus those that take a shuttle form the airport (Sections 1 and 2). Using these percentages, the model then calculates the projected percentages of owners/users that will have a car during their stay and therefore require a parking stall. This model is used for both the whole ownership and timeshare components of the development. It is important to note that the model assumes 100% occupancy, which represents the most conservative occupancy assumption. Of most importance in your review, please consider the following requests being made by the applicant: - A request for a fifteen percent (15%) reduction for 'shared parking' that is proposed for all parking in the application (however this is inconsistent with the 'Parking Analysis Summary Matrix' provided by Walker Consultants in Tab 2 of the November 10, 2005 Parking Analysis Handout). This additional reduction was not approved as part of the development standards that currently exist in the PUD. - A request for the 30% maximum allowance of compact spaces for the entire project. This is the maximum amount permitted by Town Code. - A request for a lowered parking ratio for 'Incidental Commercial' versus Standard Commercial, which include the Spa and Meeting Facilities. Please keep these items at the forefront of your review and in context to the existing PUD standards and the standards required by the Town Code, particularly the request for a further shared use reduction when the required Town Code ratio is not also being applied. We have attached the relevant sections of the Town Code. Because of the range of uses and the flexibility to permit different types of uses, the aggregate number of required parking spaces for the entire project is difficult to determine at this stage. Staff's analysis of the parking is therefore predicated on the specific land use and corresponding parking ratio. The following section is a parking comparison by land use based on the existing PUD, the proposed PUD, and the Town Zoning Code. Hotel Parking Proposal The proposed hotel will be programmed as a condo -tel, which combines owner occupied condominiums with an option to enter these units into a rental pool. The program would allow for a mix of studio units, 1 -bedroom units, 2-bedrrom units, and 3 -bedroom units, all of which could be lock -off in various rental configurations. The parking ratio, however, is irrespective of the mix of units since this may vary through the design review approval process. As proposed, the parking ratio for the residential portion of the hotel is a request for a reduced parking ratio from both the existing approved PUD and Town Code. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 The Confluence PUD- Amendment to the 1998 PUD approval November 15", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 3 of 8 The hotel also includes commercial uses, which are discussed in detail below, however the Walker Study is applying a 15% shared use reduction to this portion of the project and the original application is proposing a 15% reduction to the entire project. The applicant should clarify this condition for staff and the Commission; however, irrespective of the request staff does not support a further reduction from a standard they would like to create for this project specifically. The 15% reduction should not be taken out of context to the required ratio that it is attached to in the Town Code (see AMC requirements attached as Exhibit B). Under the proposed use configuration, the application seeks a variance from the Town Code of approximately 56 spaces for the hotel. Compared to the current PUD standard, the variance is only 10 spaces. Again, the Commission should consider that the ratio is capped with a maximum of 1.2 spaces per unit maximum, so that a 2 or 3 bedroom unit is parked the same as a 2 bedroom unit in the hotel. The application also suggests that the maximum allowance for compact spaces ("Parking Space Size Reduction for Compact Cars', AMC 17.24.020/ Exhibit B) be employed in this PUD, which amounts to 30% of the entire parking. In the specific analysis provided by Walker and assuming that 601 total spaces would be constructed as a result of the unit count/mix, that allowance would permit the construction of 180 compact spaces. Irrespective of the unit mix or total number of spaces or final parking ratio that might be acceptable to the Town, staff would strongly recommend that you not approve greater than a 10% allowance for compact car spaces if any at all considering that all the parking provided is underground. Compact spaces are functionally incompatible with the type of vehicles used in our mountain resort community and cause poor circulation and parking experiences for the users in all structures that are constructed in this area. Also important to note for parking under the hotel is the use of at least 25 'tandem/stacked spaces' (See Floor Plans under Tab 4 of the Walker Parking Analysis dated November 10, 2005). The Town Code does not address stacked or tandem parking and this situation has historically not been allowed on any commercial site, however, there should be consideration for a limited allowance of tandem parking provided the valet management of that situation is codified through the PUD approval and runs with the project in perpetuity. Commercial Parking Proposal With the exception of the commercial uses located on the ground floor of the timeshare west building, the majority of commercial land uses will be located along the public plaza and in the hotel building. The parking required for these uses will be located in the shared use parking of the hotel. The applicant is proposing two standards for commercial uses; standard commercial and incidental commercial. As proposed, the existing PUD and the proposed PUD have the Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Parking Comparisons Land Use Existing PUD Proposed PUD Town Code Variation by use Hotel 1 per BR 1 per BR, 1.2 1 per BR, 1/z No per BR 1/s maximum (any # space per add space/ 1.2 max add. BR's) BR The hotel also includes commercial uses, which are discussed in detail below, however the Walker Study is applying a 15% shared use reduction to this portion of the project and the original application is proposing a 15% reduction to the entire project. The applicant should clarify this condition for staff and the Commission; however, irrespective of the request staff does not support a further reduction from a standard they would like to create for this project specifically. The 15% reduction should not be taken out of context to the required ratio that it is attached to in the Town Code (see AMC requirements attached as Exhibit B). Under the proposed use configuration, the application seeks a variance from the Town Code of approximately 56 spaces for the hotel. Compared to the current PUD standard, the variance is only 10 spaces. Again, the Commission should consider that the ratio is capped with a maximum of 1.2 spaces per unit maximum, so that a 2 or 3 bedroom unit is parked the same as a 2 bedroom unit in the hotel. The application also suggests that the maximum allowance for compact spaces ("Parking Space Size Reduction for Compact Cars', AMC 17.24.020/ Exhibit B) be employed in this PUD, which amounts to 30% of the entire parking. In the specific analysis provided by Walker and assuming that 601 total spaces would be constructed as a result of the unit count/mix, that allowance would permit the construction of 180 compact spaces. Irrespective of the unit mix or total number of spaces or final parking ratio that might be acceptable to the Town, staff would strongly recommend that you not approve greater than a 10% allowance for compact car spaces if any at all considering that all the parking provided is underground. Compact spaces are functionally incompatible with the type of vehicles used in our mountain resort community and cause poor circulation and parking experiences for the users in all structures that are constructed in this area. Also important to note for parking under the hotel is the use of at least 25 'tandem/stacked spaces' (See Floor Plans under Tab 4 of the Walker Parking Analysis dated November 10, 2005). The Town Code does not address stacked or tandem parking and this situation has historically not been allowed on any commercial site, however, there should be consideration for a limited allowance of tandem parking provided the valet management of that situation is codified through the PUD approval and runs with the project in perpetuity. Commercial Parking Proposal With the exception of the commercial uses located on the ground floor of the timeshare west building, the majority of commercial land uses will be located along the public plaza and in the hotel building. The parking required for these uses will be located in the shared use parking of the hotel. The applicant is proposing two standards for commercial uses; standard commercial and incidental commercial. As proposed, the existing PUD and the proposed PUD have the Town of Avon community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 The Confluence PUD- Amenament to the 1998 PUD approval November 15th, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 4 of 8 same standard with respect to the standard commercial uses (i.e., retail, office space). However, the incidental commercial ratio is proposed at a much lower ratio (2:1000) For the standard commercial uses, the applicant has proposed a higher ratio (5:1000) than required by the Town Code (4:1000). For the restaurant use, the applicant's proposed standard, which is a standard that applies to all commercial uses, is less than required by the Town Code. However, the difference in the aggregate required commercial spaces appears too be a wash. Because the square footage of the restaurant and retail space is not fixed, it is difficult to determine the precise total required commercial parking spaces, but it is reasonable to assume that of the commercial space proposed (20,000 square feet — 40,000 square feet) the restaurant use would be a maximum of 20% of the commercial space required (4,000 square feet), and therefore the variation in ratio for the restaurant use would be negligible given the proposed increase in the standard commercial parking ratio. The Incidental Commercial proposed parking ratio would apply to the spa and meeting (conference) facility. There was specific discussion at the prior meeting regarding the use of the spa and whether guests outside the resort would be permitted to use the facility. In the event the spa is available for guests outside the resort, the Commission should consider whether the proposed parking ratio (2:1000) is sufficient for this use. Likewise, staff has expressed concern to the applicant that such a limited parking ratio for a meeting facility that could host small local conferences or weddings could create a poor user experience. Staff would prefer to park both the spa and meeting facility at the standard commercial ratio of 5:1000. Timeshare Parking Proposal There are two proposed timeshare buildings located on the east and west sides of the hotel. The parking ratios proposed for this use are greater than the existing PUD by .3 spaces per unit (two bedroom lock off unit), but less than required by the Town Code by .5 spaces per unit. The analysis provided by the applicant and their consultant concludes, "that 1.5 spaces per unit required is appropriate for timeshare parking." The report also indicates "national research data for all rental—type residential units (including apartment) shows an average peak parking demand ratio of 1.5 cars per two-bedroom:' The consultant assumes that the parking demand for the Westin may actually be slightly lower given some guests may arrive at the resort using a shuttle. Under the proposed use configuration, the application seeks a variance from the Town Code of approximately 56 spaces for the timeshare. Compared to the current PUD standard, the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Par Ing Comparisons Land Use Existing PUD Proposed PUD Town Code Variation by use Commercial 5 per 1,000 5 per 1,000 GLFA 4 per 1,000 +1 per 1,000 Retail GLFA GLFA GLFA Standard Commercial 5 per 1,000 5 per 1,000 GLFA 1 per 60 s.f. -16 per 1,000 Restaurant GLFA seating GLFA Standard Commercial 5 per 1,000 2 per 1,000 GLFA 4 per 1,000 -2 per 1,000 GLFA Spa GLFA GLFA Incidental Timeshare Parking Proposal There are two proposed timeshare buildings located on the east and west sides of the hotel. The parking ratios proposed for this use are greater than the existing PUD by .3 spaces per unit (two bedroom lock off unit), but less than required by the Town Code by .5 spaces per unit. The analysis provided by the applicant and their consultant concludes, "that 1.5 spaces per unit required is appropriate for timeshare parking." The report also indicates "national research data for all rental—type residential units (including apartment) shows an average peak parking demand ratio of 1.5 cars per two-bedroom:' The consultant assumes that the parking demand for the Westin may actually be slightly lower given some guests may arrive at the resort using a shuttle. Under the proposed use configuration, the application seeks a variance from the Town Code of approximately 56 spaces for the timeshare. Compared to the current PUD standard, the Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 The Confluence PUD- Amendment to the 1998 PUD approval November 15", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 5 of 8 variance is 90 spaces. Again, the Commission should consider that the ratio is capped with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit maximum, so that a 3 bedroom unit is parked the same as a 2 bedroom unit. Whole Ownership parking Proposal The whole ownership portion of the development represents the largest variation in parking when comparing the proposed PUD with the Town Code. The variation in most cases would be approximately .7 spaces per unit, assuming all the whole ownership units are greater than one - bedroom. Please refer to page 9 of the Walker memo and Tab II of the PUD amendment application for the explanation of the analysis relative to whole ownership units. Par Ing Comparisons Land Use Existing PUD Proposed PUD Town Code Variation by use Timeshare .6 per BR .75 per BR, 1.5 per 1 per 600 sq. .25 per studio, .5 home to 2BR, .5 per unit maximum (any ft. per Add BR add BR # add. BR's Whole Ownership parking Proposal The whole ownership portion of the development represents the largest variation in parking when comparing the proposed PUD with the Town Code. The variation in most cases would be approximately .7 spaces per unit, assuming all the whole ownership units are greater than one - bedroom. Please refer to page 9 of the Walker memo and Tab II of the PUD amendment application for the explanation of the analysis relative to whole ownership units. Under the proposed use configuration, the application seeks a variance from the Town Code of approximately 126 spaces for the whole ownership portion of the project. Compared to the current PUD standard, the variance is 136 spaces. Again, the Commission should consider that the ratio is capped with a maximum of 1.2 spaces per unit maximum, so that a 2 or 3 bedroom unit is parked the same as a 2 bedroom unit in the hotel. Total Parking Summary According to the current configuration proposed by the applicant and located in Tab 2 of the Walker Parking Analysis, the total parking being provided for the Confluence is summarized as follows: Proposed PUD Application Total Parking of 601 Against Approved PUD Standards Total Parking of 752 Against Town Code Standards Total Parking of 839 Thus, the application represents a reduction in proposed parking to Town Code standards of approximately 238 total spaces, and 151 total spaces against the existing Confluence PUD standards. In percentages, this is a reduction of approximately 29% from existing Town Code standards and approximately 20% from the existing and approved PUD standards. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 Par Ing Comparisons Land Use Existing PUD Proposed PUD Town Code Variation by use Condo/Town 2.0 per unit up 1.2 per unit 1.5 per 1 BR, 2 .3 up to one unit, home to 2BR, .5 per maximum (any #all others .7 all other add BR add. BR's Under the proposed use configuration, the application seeks a variance from the Town Code of approximately 126 spaces for the whole ownership portion of the project. Compared to the current PUD standard, the variance is 136 spaces. Again, the Commission should consider that the ratio is capped with a maximum of 1.2 spaces per unit maximum, so that a 2 or 3 bedroom unit is parked the same as a 2 bedroom unit in the hotel. Total Parking Summary According to the current configuration proposed by the applicant and located in Tab 2 of the Walker Parking Analysis, the total parking being provided for the Confluence is summarized as follows: Proposed PUD Application Total Parking of 601 Against Approved PUD Standards Total Parking of 752 Against Town Code Standards Total Parking of 839 Thus, the application represents a reduction in proposed parking to Town Code standards of approximately 238 total spaces, and 151 total spaces against the existing Confluence PUD standards. In percentages, this is a reduction of approximately 29% from existing Town Code standards and approximately 20% from the existing and approved PUD standards. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 The Confluence PUD- Amendment to the 1998 PUD approval November 151h, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 6 of 8 Employee Housing As previously reviewed, the existing PUD development agreement requires one employee housing unit for every ten dwelling units created on site. This requirement was a product of negotiation and standing inclusionary policy, not based on any well-defined Town housing plan or regulation at the time. The current proposal states that to satisfy the Town's need for employee housing, a pay in lieu fee in the amount of approximately $600,000 (i.e. $20,000 for every 15 dwelling units constructed, or an equivalent of approximately $1,300 per unit). Irrespective of the proposal, the application should be reviewed in context of the Town's existing policies on.housing and also in context of the type of project the Confluence represents - a catalyst for development of the Town Core. The Town's existing Comprehensive Plan supports affordable housing through a variety of means, including: public and private efforts, upgrading existing affordable housing, and the development of additional affordable housing on appropriate sites. We do believe that a contribution and creation to a Town capital fund for employee housing can further the long-term goals of the Town. However, the contribution of funding without a place of 'deployment' does not necessarily contribute to or alleviate the issue of employee housing needs being generated by the development. Most recently, we have engaged in discussions with Eagle County as they update their housing plans and policies and (potentially) enact legislation that will require a percentage of inclusionary/employee housing for all project approvals in the County. We have also discussed the potential to create a Housing Authority that would be better able to coordinate and manage employee housing projects county -wide, including the programs of the Towns. The contribution of $600,000 (based on full build out) has no correlation to the average annual estimate of Full Time Equivalent employees generated by the project - submitted by the applicant as 211 (261 during peak season and 161 during shoulder season). As previously discussed, it also bears no obvious correlation to the savings realized by the applicant in not constructing on-site housing opportunities. In response, however, the applicant has suggested that the project brings substantial public benefit to the Town through other means (the gondola, riverfront park experience, the catalyst for new development and redevelopment, etc.). Staff does not argue with this premise, however we also recognize that this project will generate a certain amount of demand on employee housing, either rental or ownership, that does not necessarily bear any correlation to the proposed fee being dedicated. We also recognize that the Confluence, as with any project reviewed or approved by the Town, would need to find 211 housing opportunities to entirely 'close the gap' in theory and that this solution is impractical and does not respect the economic and social benefits created by the type of project proposed. As with any affordable housing policy or regulation, the 'benchmark' of new housing which must be provided or otherwise accommodated by new development is a function of public policy as well as proportionality. In Eagle County, a benchmark of 100% would still not meet the needs of the Town or County as a result of past development approvals. Combined with the lack of a clear written policy or regulatory instrument, this makes the subject of employee housing difficult for staff to evaluate, as the end result will be a product of negotiation and not necessarily based on clear direction. Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 The Confluence PUD-' Amendment to the 1998 PUD approval November 15'", 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 7 of 8 That said and after much internal dialogue on the subject, staff remains unconvinced that the existing. 10% dedication on-site is an unreasonable request, and the applicant should be prepared to evidence to the Commission and Council why this cannot work. Though we may not have solved the problems of the Town through our existing negotiated 10% exaction, staff is very pleased with the historical results: mixed-use projects like Chapel Square or Lot C that incorporate employee housing on-site add long-term community benefits to the Town Core and diversify our housing stock. To that end, adding a slight increase to the total allowable units is not an issue in staffs opinion if the desire of Town remains to have employee housing mixed with the market housing on-site where employment is generated. Should the Commission and Council agree with the applicant's position that employee housing on site is not possible, guidance should be provided to the applicant as to the fee in lieu dedication amount and timing that would be acceptable. Water Rights Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the projected demand for water and the necessity of the developer to provide the anticipated water. It is staff's expectation that this analysis and the subsequent review by the Town's water attorney may not be complete between now and the December 201" meeting. However, to ensure this item does not hold up the PUD review process and is satisfactorily addressed by the applicant, staff will prepare a condition requiring this item is resolved prior to the issuance of any building permit. Topics for Next Meetings Review Our subsequent meetings will review the PUD Development Plan and Development Standards, Preliminary Subdivision comments, proposed conditions of approval recommended by staff and any other areas you identify as requiring further discussion. PUD Design Criteria According to the Town of Avon Zoning Code, Section 17.20.110(h), it shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following design criteria or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a particular development solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that you review the areas outlined for discussion in this report, also reviewing the applicants response to the discussion held at prior first meetings, and then motion to continue the file to the regular meeting of the Commission on December 20, 2005, with submittal of revised plans no later than December 6, 2005. To continue to the next regular meeting of December 6, 2005 will not allow staff adequate time to review the final development plan, the revised subdivision plan, or the revisions that may result from your deliberation as a result of the holidays and the anticipated time it will take the applicant to respond. of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 The Confluence PUD- Amendment to the 1998 PUD approval November 151h, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 8 of 8 If you have any questions regarding this project or any planning matter, please feel free to call either of us at 748-4030, or stop by the Community Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Tambi Katieb, AICP Director ric Heidemann, AICP Senior Planner Attachments: A. Parking Analysis dated November 10`h, 2005 B. Avon Municipal Code Parking Requirements C. Ordinance 98-20 & Approved Development Agreement (previously distributed- please bring to mtng) D. 2001 Confluence Proposed Illustrative Site Plan (available at meeting only) E. Proposed massing model (available at meeting only) F. Draft Comprehensive Plan District Policies Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749 i Memorandum To: Tambi Katieb, Planning Director, Town of Avon From: Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, ERFPD Date: 11/15/2005 Re: The Confluence at Avon, Site Plan, Alternate L Study The above submittal was reviewed for emergency vehicle access with the following comments: - Based on the number of stories of Buildings A, B, and C, the cul-de-sac identified as the "RR crossing contingency" may need to accommodate the turning requirements of the ladder truck. This will require verification with a site plan submittal signed by an engineer. - The round -about at Building D appears adequate for ladder truck access. It's my understanding this building is greater than 3 stories in height. - Accesses in front of Buildings E, F, and G have been previously reviewed and if no changes are proposed, they appear to accommodate the ladder truck. Again, this would need to be verified with a site plan submittal signed by an engineer. Please contact me with any questions at 970-748-4741. RECEIVED NOV 15 2005 Community Development Arn M. Menconi 3023A Wildridge Road Avon, CO 81620 November 14, 2005 Re: The Westin Riverfront Resort & Spa To: Avon Planning & Zoning Commissioners I am sorry I will not be able to attend the hearing on Tuesday, November 15th. I have anxiously been awaiting this file. I wish this letter to be read into the record and sent to the town council as well. I received from East West Partners a conceptual plan of this project this summer. I reviewed it and the application for amendment to the 1998 PUD (Version A). I understand this might not be the most current version of the application, but as it was the only one available it is what I used to prepare my comments. I have lived in Avon since 1991. I moved into Avon Crossing in 1996, as one of the first residents, and I witnessed the construction of Canyon Run. The town of Avon made a grave error in not requiring the applicant to respect the river environment as a public amenity. I see the confluence PUD as a renewed opportunity to not take anything for granted from the original PUD approved in 1998 on this and other issues. This site is a metaphor for much of the dual nature of Avon. Avon is both a resort and a community; a beautiful natural environment and an urban center and both of these dualities cross at the confluence. To me this application must be reviewed to find the best balance between these sometimes conflicting requirements. I understand that the current design has somewhat evolved away from the original concept of smaller, human scaled buildings on the western end of the site (as depicted in the plans I have) to a larger condominium building of greater height. This change must be fully evaluated for its impacts. Is it better for the river environment to have larger single buildings? Or more human scaled dispersed buildings that allow the natural environment to blend and mix into the built environment? One thing that Canyon Run did was to form a wall along the river and I believe that was a mistake. A central theme must be to preserve the natural attributes of the river environment. I learned this from working with Mr. Frampton, the Vail Valley Foundation and Eagle County on preserving 72 acres in Edwards along the river. The Eagle River is a unique asset and one that should remain for public enjoyment. It is even more special when river preserves are located within urban communities. The balance between community and resort is also central to this location and should be central to this application. I recognize that the gondola and the proximity of the transit center make this an ideal location for resort amenities. I also recognize the efforts the developer has taken to preserve the connection from the town center to both the gondola and the river, but I think that more can be done. The connection from the public plaza to the river seems tenuous and forced and too urban. I believe that this connection should be a transition and dissolve into the natural environment in much the same way that I feel the townhome scheme was a better transition in.building scale. I also feel that there should be some method to ensure the public nature of this connection either in the form of an easement or other measure. A permanent view corridor should also be identified to preserve the visual connection from town center to Beaver Creek. Another way that community and resort should be balanced, in my opinion, is for there to be some measure of residents that can obtain and live permanently on the site along with the resort guests. This applies to both employee housing and to town citizens who wish to live on the river adjacent to resort amenities. I am opposed to the proposed pay -in -lieu of contribution to satisfy the employee housing requirement. The original, 1 unit per 10 dwelling units, is more appropriate. I have been studying the numbers and predictions being generated by NWCCOG and I am becoming increasingly concerned about these predictions, which negatively affect the Job/Housing Ratio. There is no question in my mind that we cannot continue to push this problem away and into the future. A project such as this is an ideal place to begin a new paradigm of integration and community planning. I know that the Council has been presented with the data I speak of, but I am not sure that the Commission has seen this data. I would encourage the Commission to become familiar with this data and for them to direct staff to evaluate the housing issue fully before making a recommendation. Find impacts of Second Home study at http://www.nwc.cog.co.us/Second°/a20Home%2OStudy/second home studyhtm). Most importantly is that you see this a new beginning and the last most important landuse decision for the Town of Avon. I would hope that this file and its concerns such as housing, traffic, design, community benefits, cost to serve, road impacts, and environmental integrity are truly vexed. Thank you for your service to our town, Arn Menconi Town Resident CONFLUENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Standards by Lot RECEIVED K , v >_ 0 2005 Community Devetoptllll t Allowed Uses Timeshare, Vacation Ownership and Fractional Fee Ownership Apartments, Condominiums and Townhomes Lodging Support Uses Standard Commercial Uses Incidental Commercial Uses Temporary Vacation Ownership Sales Center Maximum Height 40 ft. Maximum Dwelling Units 30 DU's Minimum Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1, 2 & 4 combined if hotel is built Maximum Commercial 5,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1a and Lot 1b combined Minimum Setbacks: River 60 ft. East 0 ft. West 0 ft. North 0 ft. . ' CONFLUENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Standards by Lot Allowed Uses Timeshare, Vacation Ownership and Fractional Fee Ownership Apartments, Condominiums and Townhomes Lodging Support Uses Standard Commercial Uses Incidental Commercial Uses Temporary Vacation Ownership Sales Center Public Uses Maximum Height 100 ft. Maximum Dwelling Units 90 DU's Minimum Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1, 2 & 4 combined if hotel is built Maximum Commercial 5,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1a and Lot 1b combined Minimum Setbacks: River N/A East 0 ft. West 0 ft. North 0 ft. CONFLUENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Standards by Lot Allowed Uses Residential/Lodging Uses Lodging Commercial Uses Standard Commercial Uses Incidental Commercial Uses Lodging Support Uses Temporary Vacation Ownership Sales Center Public Uses Maximum Height 130 ft. Maximum Dwelling Units 140 DU's Minimum Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1, 2 & 4 combined if hotel is built Maximum Commercial 40,000 sq. ft. Minimum Setbacks: River 75 ft. East 0 ft. West 0 ft. North 0 ft. CONFLUENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Standards by Lot LOT3` '- Allowed Uses Open Space Public Uses CONFLUENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Standards by Lot �LOT4 • _ Allowed Uses Timeshare, Vacation Ownership and Fractional Fee Ownership Apartments, Condominiums and Townhomes Lodging Support Uses Standard Commercial Uses Incidental Commercial Uses Temporary Vacation Ownership Sales Center Public Uses Maximum Height 100 ft. Maximum Dwelling Units 60 DU's Minimum Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. on Lot 1, 2 & 4 combined if hotel is built Maximum Commercial 10,000 sq. ft. Minimum Setbacks: River East West North 75 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 0 ft. 11 CONFLUENCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Development Standards by Lot Allowed Uses Timeshare, Vacation Ownership and Fractional Fee Ownership Apartments, Condominiums and Townhomes Lodging Support Uses Standard Commercial Uses Temporary Vacation Ownership Sales Center Public Uses Maximum Height 85 ft. Maximum Dwelling Units 160 DU's Minimum Commercial None Maximum Commercial 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum Setbacks: River 75 ft. w/ encroachments permitted for balconies, eaves and porches for no more than 15% Lot 5 river frontage East 0 ft. West 0 ft. North 0 ft. r i. EXHIBIT B 17.24.020 Off-street parking. (a) General requirements. (1) Location. a. All parking spaces required to serve buildings or uses erected, established, altered or enlarged after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be located on the same lot as the building or use served, except that up to forty percent (40%) of the parking spaces required to serve industrial buildings or uses may be located within five hundred (500) feet of the building or use served, or to serve commercial and residential buildings or uses may be located within three hundred (300) feet of such building or use served, but only if such parking is developed in accord with all the applicable district regulations. Off-site parking shall not be located in such a location so as to require the user to cross a major barrier such as a street, river, ditch, etc., in order to reach the use requiring the parking. Establishment of off-site parking shall be a special review use. b. Buildings or uses existing on the effective date of this Chapter which are subsequently altered or enlarged so as to require the provision of parking spaces under this Chapter may be served by parking facilities located on land other than the lot on which the building or use served is located, provided such facilities are within five hundred (500) feet walking distance of a main entrance to the use served for industrial uses and three hundred (300) feet for commercial uses. c. Owners of property nonconforming as to parking requirements who elect to provide additional parking may locate such parking on land other than the lot on which the building is located, subject to the provisions listed immediately above. d. Off-street parking spaces, including the adjacent area used for turning movements necessary to enter or leave the parking spaces when open to the sky, may be located in any yard except the front ten (10) feet of the required front yards, and unless otherwise specifically restricted by this Chapter, Enclosed buildings and carports containing off-street parking shall be subject to the applicable district yard requirements. (2) Control of off-site parking facilities. a. In cases where parking facilities are permitted on land other than the lot on which the building or use served is located, such facilities shall be in the same possession as the lot occupied by the building or use to which the parking facilities are accessory. Such possession shall be by deed or lease, and such deed or lease shall be filed with the recorder of deeds of Eagle County. b. If possession is by lease, the term of the lease shall be perpetual in nature running for the duration of the use requiring the parking. Should the lease be terminated prior to the termination of the use, the person operating the use shall provide evidence that all off-street parking requirements are being met. Failure to do so shall classify the use as an illegal nonconforming use and appropriate action shall be taken by the zoning administrator to terminate the use or bring it into compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. (3) Size and vertical clearance. All minimum requirements as to size, shape and design of spaces, aisles and drives shall meet standard Town specifications. Such space shall have a 14 vertical clearance of at least seven and one-half (7.5) feet, a minimum width of nine (9) feet and a depth of eighteen (1 S) feet for ninety degree (90°) parking. All spaces exposed to the weather shall be marked with yellow striping at least once a year. (4) Access. Except on lots accommodating single-family or duplex dwellings, each off-street parking space shall open directly upon an aisle or driveway of a width of twenty-four (24) feet for ninety -degree parking and design meeting standard Town specifications. All off-street parking facilities shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic movement, and all such points of access must be approved by the Town Engineer. (5) Shared parking provisions. a. Private facilities. Off-street parking facilities for separate uses may be provided collectively if the total number of spaces so provided is not less than the sum of the separate requirements governing location of accessory parking spaces in relation to the use served and adhered to. Further, no parking space or portion thereof shall serve as a required space for more than one (1) use unless otherwise authorized by the Planning and Zoning Commission. b. Public facilities. I. Where the Town has constructed or proposes to construct public off-street parking facilities, the Town Council may, by resolution, establish a shared parking district within the boundaries of an area set forth by the resolution. When such a shared parking district has been established, all, or a part, of the private off-street parking spaces required within the parking district may be provided by a public off-street parking facility located within said district. Prior to property owners within the established parking district being allowed to so reduce the number of private off-street parking spaces, such owners shall submit, and the Town Council must approve, a parking and site development plan for the affected properties within the parking district. Such plan shall show proposed development of the area and how the total number of required off-street parking spaces will be provided by the use of public and private facilities. In addition to an approved parking and site development plan, the Town Council may, as it deems necessary and appropriate, require formal agreements with the property owners concerning land dedications and easements, participation in construction and maintenance costs of the public facilities and other related matters. Subsequent to formal execution of agreements and availability of the parking facilities, property owners may reduce the number of private off- street spaces required in accord with the approved parking and site development plan. 2. The total number of off-street parking spaces provided by the combined public and private facilities within the shared parking district shall not be at any time less than the number required by this Section. (6) Reduction in parking requirements for mixed-use projects. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (c) hereof, the minimum parking requirement for a mixed-use project shall be determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission as part of its review of any plan for development and shall be calculated as follows: Main level —5.5 spaces/ 1,000 square feet; Additional levels, including basements— 4.0 spaces/1,000 square feet; Residential — in accordance with Section 17.24.020(c)(1); Provided, said minimum requirement may be reduced by a tactor of fifteen percent (15%) upon determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission (as part of plan approval and not as a special review use) that the following criteria are met: a. No parking spaces are reserved for use (except by handicapped persons); b. The mixed-use project will be served by the Town's bus system; c. The mixed-use project is located within a TC, SC, RHDC or PUD zone district; d. Adequate snow storage on site will be provided; e. At least seventy-five (75) parking spaces are provided; if application of the reduction formula results in the requirement of less than seventy-five (75) spaces, the minimum requirement hereinabove provided shall govern and reduction will not be permitted. Reductions in the number of required parking spaces for mixed-use projects shall not be made in combination with a reduction made on a large single -use basis. (7) Parking space size reduction for compact cars. Up to thirty percent (30%) of the total number of parking spaces provided in covered or underground structures on lots containing twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces may be reduced in size down to a minimum of eight (8) feet in width by sixteen (16) feet in length for use by compact cars. Such spaces shall be clearly signed for compact cars only and marked with double yellow striping. (8) Reduction in parking requirements for large single -use projects. Minimum requirements for large single -use projects shall be determined in accordance with Subsection (c) hereof. The minimum parking requirements for commercial uses established by Subsection (c) hereof may be reduced by a factor of fifteen percent (15%) in the case of large single -use projects upon determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission (as part of its review of any plan for development but not as a special review use) that the following criteria are met: a. No parking spaces are reserved for use (except by handicapped persons); b. The large single -use project will be served by the Town's bus system; c. The large single -use project is located within a TC, SC, RHDC or PUD zone district; d. Adequate snow storage on site will be provided; e. At least seventy-five (75) parking spaces are provided; if application of the reduction formula results in the requirement of less than seventy-five (75) spaces, the minimum requirement hereinabove provided shall govem and reduction will not be permitted. Reduction in the number of required parking spaces for large single -use projects shall not be made in combination with a reduction made on a mixed-use basis. (9) Computation. When determination of the number of off-street parking spaces required by this Chapter results in a requirement of a fractional space, any fraction shall be counted as one (1) parking space. Parking spaces required on an employee basis shall be based on the maximum number of employees on duty and/or residing on the premises at any one (1) time. (10) Utilization. Except as may additionally be provided for the parking of trucks and other large vehicles, accessory off-street parking facilities provided in accord with the requirements of this Chapter shall be solely for the parking of passenger motor vehicles of patrons, occupants, visitors or employees of such uses. (11) Design and maintenance. a. Plan. Except for single-family and two-family residential uses, the design of parking lots or areas shall meet standard Town specifications. b. Character. Accessory parking spaces may be open to the sky or enclosed in a building. c. Surfacing. All open, off-street parking areas shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete, concrete or other approved hard surface, which shall be constructed and maintained in accord with specifications of the Engineering Department. d. Drainage. All open off-street parking areas shall be graded and drained to dispose of surface water accumulation in accord with standard Engineering Department practices. e. Landscaping. All open vehicle parking areas containing more than six (6) parking spaces shall contain at least five percent (5%) of the area in landscaping that blends in compatibly with adjacent existing or proposed developments. Such landscaping shall be in keeping with the character of the Town. Large lots containing more than thirty (30) parking spaces shall be periodically broken with islands containing landscaping similar in character to that found throughout the Town. Said landscaping shall be evenly spread throughout the parking area. The area located outside the actual perimeter of the parking lot shall not be counted in the five percent (5%) landscaping area. f. Lighting. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be directed away from residential properties and public streets in such a way as not to create a nuisance. All lighting shall be a sodium vapor type light. g. Wheel guards. All perimeter parking spaces, except for single-family and duplex family use, shall be provided with wheel guards or bumper guards so located that no part of parked vehicles will extend beyond the property line. h. Vehicle repair and service restrictions. No vehicular repair, service or maintenance activities done anywhere upon a residential district lot shall be done for remuneration; additionally, no such activities whether or not for remuneration shall be permitted on any vehicle with either a gross weight or a gross carrying weight of ten thousand (10,000) pounds or more. (b) Specific requirements. (1) All oft -street parking spaces required by this Chapter, except those required for single-family and two-family dwellings, shall be designed in accordance with the standard Town specifications. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the specified parking requirements as hereinafter set forth in the Off -Street Parking Table. (2) Parking spaces for major accessory uses which are specifically enumerated within the Off - Street Parking Table shall be provided in addition to those required by the principal use. Parking spaces for accessory uses not specifically enumerated within the Off -Street Parking Table shall be assumed to be included in the principal use requirement. (3) If for any reason the classification of any use for the purpose of determining the amount of off-street parking, or the number of spaces to be provided by such use is not readily determinable hereunder, the parking requirements of such use or the number of spaces to be provided shall be determined by the zoning administrator, after recommendation by appropriate Town departments, based upon the most similar uses for which specific requirements are provided. (c) Off -Street Parking Table. Off -Street Parking Table (1) Residential Land Use a. Perdwelling unit: I. Single-family or duplex 2. Multifamily building and townhouses a) Studio b) One bedroom c) All others b. Per accommodation unit including lockoffs: I. One bedroom 2. Over one bedroom Guest parking spaces: I. Multifamily and townhouses a) 3-5 units b) 5-10 units c) II -15 units d) 16-20 units e) 21-25 units I) over 25 units d. Mobile home parks: e. Timesharing units: (2) Commercial Land Use a. Shopping and convenience goods retail b. Personal services and repair est.Businesses and professional servicesOfFlce buildings and banks (except drive-in banks) c. Drive-in banks Minimum Requirements 2 spaces/unit3 spaces/unit for units over 2,500 sq. R. not including garage I space I''/, spaces 2 spaces I space I space plush space for each additional bedroom in excess of one 2 spaces 3 spaces 4 spaces 5 spaces 6 spaces 7 spaces plus I space for each 5 units in excess of 25 up to a maximum of 10 additional spaces 2 spaces/mobile home space I space per 600 square feet but not less than I space per unit unless reduced as part of a mixed-use project reduction. Minimum Requirements 4/1000 sq. R. GLFA 3/1000 sq. ft. GLFA 3/1000 sq. R. GFA plus 5 storage spaces/outside teller window or drop station d. Restaurants – food consumed within structure 1/60 sq. tt. of seating area only, outside patio used with a bar or restaurant do not require any additional parking. e. Restaurants – carry -out only – food consumed on 10/1000 sq. ft. GFA premises f. Restaurants with drive -up window 1/60 sq. R. of seating area plus storage for 7 car/drive-up window g. Service stations 2/1000 sq. It. GFA h. Commercial recreation facilities, bowling alleys 4/alley plus I/employee Tennis courts 4/court plus I/employee Handball and racquetball courts 2/court plus I/employee Swimming pools 20/1000 sq. ft. GWA Skating rinks 10/1000 sq. ft. GFA (3) Industrial Land Uses Minimum Requirements Manufacturing plants, warehousing, wholesaling 1/800 sq. ft. GFA establishments, freight terminals Off Street Parking Table (cont'd) (4) Fducation Land Uses Minimum Requirements a. Nursery schools and day care centers 2/1000 sq. ft. GFA b. Elementary and junior high schools Uemployee c. Senior high schools 1 /employee plus I/each 6 students based on design Minimum Requirements capacity d. Trade schools 1/each 2 students (5) Medical Land Use Minimum Requirements a. Doctors' offices. including optometrist, medical, 5/1000 sq. R. GFA dental, chiropractor, chiropodist and all others b. Hospitals 1/bed (6) Public Buildings Minimum Requirements a. Auditoriums, theaters, stadiums and arenas 1/4 seats b. Museums and libraries 4/1000 sq. R. GFA c. Public utilities companies 3/1000 sq. ft. GFA (7) Other Land Use Minimum Requirements a. Churches I/each 3 seats provided in main seating area b. Clubs and lodges 5/1000 sq. ft. GFA c. Other uses As determined by zoning administrator (d) Payment -in -Lieu Program (1) Designation of exempt areas. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, the Town Council by resolution may exempt designated areas from the off-street parking requirement of this Chapter if alternative means will meet the off-street parking needs of all users in the arca. Prior to exempting any area from the off-street parking requirement, the Town Council shall determine that the exemption is in the interest of the area to be exempted and in the interest of the Town at large. (2) Parking fund. There is established for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking, the Town parking fund. The parking fund shall receive and distribute funds for the purposes of conducting parking studies or evaluations, including evaluations of alternative transportation means; acquisition, design and construction of parking facilities or alternative transportation means in any area exempted from the off-street parking requirements; maintenance of public parking facilities; payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities; and administrative services relating to parking. (3) Payment in lieu. a. Application. An applicant for planning and zoning approval for a development plan in an area exempted from the off-street parking requirements may seek a mitigation of the off-street parking requirements via a payment in lieu. Such an application may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission only if the applicant demonstrates that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generated by the project, how the project impacts on the parking of the neighborhood, and the project's proximity to mass transit routes. The decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission may be appealed to the Town Council. b. Approval. Approval of an application for payment in lieu shall be at the discretion the Town. c. Fee. In all cases in which approval has been given for a payment in lieu of parking, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment to the Town, in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) per parking space. This fee shall be automatically adjusted on the first day of January, annually, by the percentage the Consumer Price Index of the city of Denver has increased over each successive year. The payment in lieu shall be due and payable at the time of the issuance of a building permit. All funds collected shall be transferred by the Building Official to the Finance Director, for deposit in the Town parking fund. (Ord. 04-12 §9; Ord. 99-05 §l; Ord. 91-16 § 1; Ord. 91-10 § I (part)) 17.24.030 Off-street loading. (a) General requirements. (1) Location. All required loading berths shall be located on the same lot as the use served. No permitted or required loading berth shall be located within thirty (30) feet of the nearest point of intersection of any two (2) streets. No loading berth shall be located in a required front yard. (2) Size. Unless otherwise specified, a required off-street loading berth shall be at least twelve (12) feet in width by thirty-five (35) feet in length, exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space, and shall have a vertical clearance of at least fifteen (15) feet. (3) Access. Each required off-street loading berth shall be designed with appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic movement, and shall meet standard Engineering Department specifications. All driveways servicing off-street loading berths shall be in accordance with applicable Town driveway standards. (4) Utilization. Space allocated to any off-street loading use shall not, while so allocated, be used to satisfy the space requirements for any required off-street parking facilities or portions thereof. (5) Central loading. Central loading facilities may be substituted for loading berths on individual lots, provided the following conditions are fulfilled: a. Each lot served shall have direct access to the central loading area without crossing streets or alleys at grade. b. Total off-street loading berths provided shall meet the minimum requirements herein specified, based on the sum of the several types of uses served. (6) Minimum facilities. Uses for which off-street loading facilities are required herein, but which are located in buildings of less floor area than the minimum prescribed for such required facilities, shall be provided with the adequate receiving facilities accessible by motor vehicle off any adjacent alley, service drive, parking lot or open space located on the same lot. (b) Specific requirements. The minimum amount of off-street loading or unloading space to be provided shall be as follows: Land Use Gross Floor Area Floor Area Requiring Floor Area Requiring an Floor Area Requiring One 12'x 35' Berth Additional 12' x 35' Berth 12' x 55' Berth (1) Residential: Multifamily Dwellings As determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission (2) Office — Institutional — Educational: a. Health and medical institutional uses; educational, cultural, religious institutions; recreation and social; banks, financial institutions; medical - dental clinics; business and professional offices 10,000 sq. ft. Over 100,000 sq. ft. (3) Commercial Uses a. Retail 5,000 sq. fl. Over 20,000 sq. ft. Over 35,000 sq. 11. b. Hotels -Motels 10,000 sq. fl. Over 100,000 sq. ft. ----- c. Commercial recreation (including bowling alleys) 10,000 sq. fl. Over 100,000 sq. ft. ----- d. Wholesale 10,000 sq. ft. Over 40,000 sq. ft. ----- e. Restaurants 5,000 sq. fl. Over 25,000 sq. ft. ----- E Laundry 10,000 sq. ft. Over 25,000 sq. It. ----- g. Funeral homes 5,000 sq. ft. Over 100,000 sq. ft. ----- (4) Industrial Uses a. Manufacturing and warehousing Up to 5,000 sq. ft. Over 40,000 sq. ft. ----- b. Storage Up to 10,000 sq. ft. Over 25,000 sq. It ----- (5) Other Uses a. Stadiums, auditoriums and arenas Up to 20,000 sq. ft. ----- Over 20,000 sq. ft. b. Transportation terminals 5,000 sq. ft. Over 40,000 sq. ft. ----- c. Sewage treatment plants — municipal 10,000 sq. ft. ----- ----- (Ord. 91-10 §I (part)) CHAPTER 17.28 Amendments to Zoning Codeand District Map 17.28.010 Authority. The Town Council may, from time to time, amend, supplement or repeal the regulations and provisions of this zoning code. (Ord. 91-10 § l(part)) 17.28.020 Initiation of procedures. Amendments to the text of the zoning code may be initiated by the Town Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission or by written application of any property owner or resident of the Town. Amendments to the zoning district map may be initiated by the Town Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission or by a real property owner in the area to be included in the proposed amendment. (Ord. 91- 10 § I (part)) 17.28.030 General rezoning of Town. Whenever the zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of the zoning code, whether such revision be made by repeal of the existing zoning code, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change, shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the Town THE WESTIN RIVERFRONT RESORT & SPA A PROPOSAL FORTHE CONFLUENCE SITE ATAVON s ,` �I 1!'. �1 CONNECTING THE RIVER • MOUNTAIN • TOWN Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Parking Analysis November 10, 2005 RECEIVED NOV 1 0 2005 Community Development t�IIMit3 '• � .� CONNECTING THE RIVER • MOUNTAIN • TOWN Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Parking Analysis November 10, 2005 RECEIVED NOV 1 0 2005 Community Development TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1— Executive Summary Section 2 — Summary Matrix Section 3 — Walker Parking Analysis Section 4 — Comparison Communities Section 5 — Parking Plan Confluence PUD Amendment Application Parking Analysis Executive Summary INTRODUCTION The proposal for the Confluence site contains a number of unique resort -oriented land uses with unique parking requirements. In order to arrive at a set of reasonable requirements for these land uses the development team studied other resort projects, compiled comparable parking requirements of other resort municipalities, performed an in-house functional use analysis and commissioned Walker Parking Consultants to provide a 3`d party expert assessment of the proposed parking requirements. These studies and analyses are summarized below and detailed out in the sections that follow. The result of these studies and analyses are the following proposed parking requirements: Vacation Ownership parking is proposed to increase from 0.6 stalls per bedroom to 0.75 stalls per bedroom, with a maximum of 1.5 stalls per unit. Whole Ownership Residential parking, including hotel condominium units larger than studios, is proposed to decrease from 2.0 stalls per unit plus 0.5 stalls per additional bedroom in excess of 2 to a requirement more appropriate for resort -oriented residential of 1.2 stalls per unit. Standard Commercial parking is proposed to remain the same at 5.0 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft., while a new requirement for Incidental Commercial within a hotel has been proposed at 2.0 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. In addition, because portions of the project will likely feature a shared -use parking facility an additional development standard has been added allowing for a 15% reduction in total parking required for any parking facility that features shared -use parking, in accordance with the Avon Town Code. Given these parking requirements, the design team recently developed a parking plan for the hotel and timeshare. This plan is summarized below. Detail of the plan is provided in Section 5. WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS ANALYSIS Walker Parking Consultants' analysis can be found in Section 3 and is summarized as follows: ■ Methodology: o Start with a base ratio of stalls per unit or sq. ft. based upon national averages data o Adjust base ratio to reflect % of users who drive vs. those who arrive via other methods of transportation ("mode split") o Adjust base ratio further to reflect % of users who are already parked on- site via another use ("captive rate") o For shared use facilities - analyze shared use during the course of a peak day to determine the peak parking requirement at the peak time of day Timeshare / Vacation -Ownership: o Based upon 113 2BR units o Result: 168 stalls needed o Equates to ratio of 1.49 stalls per unit o Compares to proposed PUD requirement of 1.50 per unit ■ Hotel Building (including commercial): o Based upon a development plan featuring shared -use parking and a mix of land uses as follows: ➢ 114 Studio Rooms ➢ 2 1BRUnits ➢ 59 2BR Units (w/lock-off) ➢ 19 3BR Units (w/ lock -off) ➢ 22,195 sq. ft. of Standard Commercial ➢ 7,837 sq. ft. of Incidental Commercial o Result: Peak parking need of 277 cars at 9:00p o Compares to requirement of 287 cars under proposed PUD parking requirements ■ Whole -Ownership Residential: o Based upon a development plan of ➢ 40 2BR Condos ➢ 80 3BR Condos o Result: 135 stalls needed o Equates to a ratio of 1.125 stalls per unit o Compares to proposed PUD requirement of 1.20 stalls per unit ti EXISTING LOCAL PROJECTS ■ Timeshare / Vacation -Ownership: o COMP 1: Post Montane, Beaver Creek ➢ 1.0 Stalls per Unit • 24 Units 24 Parking Stalls o COMP 2: Sandstone Creek Club, Vail ➢ 0.8 Stalls per equivalent BR • 5 1 BR Units • 44 2BR Units • 9 "Loft Units" that sleep up to 8 people (4BR equivalent) • 4 "Lofts Units" that sleep up to 10 people (513R equivalent) • Equates to 149 equivalent BR's • 120 Parking Stalls ➢ "Parking lot never fills up in winter because so many people come in Vans" ➢ "Parking lot is only full 4th of July and Memorial weekend" o COMP 3: Sheraton Mountain Vista, Avon ➢ 0.6 Stalls per BR ➢ Recent study was conducted of SMV's current parking by Marcin Engineering which showed that even on the busiest day of the year 32 parking stalls were still available o COMP 4: Hyatt Mountain Lodge, Beaver Creek ➢ 1.06 Stalls per Unit • 50 Units with lock -off configurations • 53 Parking Stalls o COMP 5: Marriot Streamside, Vail ➢ 1.07 Stalls per Unit • 150 Units • 160 Parking Stalls ➢ "Parking works just fine" o COMP 6: Park Plaza, Beaver Creek ➢ 1.11 Stalls per Unit • 36 Units (24 — 2BR's, 12 — 3BR's) 0 40 Parking Stalls ■ Hotel Building: o COMP 1: Marriott, Lionshead ➢ 318 rooms ➢ 28 condos ➢ 16,000 sq. ft. meeting space ➢ 5,000 sq. ft. spa ➢ 164 seat restaurant ➢ 260 parking spaces ➢ Valet only in winter, choice of valet or self park in summer ➢ Functions well excepts for large events in the 15,000 sq. ft. ballroom ➢ If our proposed parking requirements were applied to the Marriott, Lionshead about 335 parking stalls and valet spots would be required — after shared -use reduction vs. 260 currently at the Marriott, Lionshead. o COMP 2: Park Hyatt, Beaver Creek ➢ 275 rooms ➢ 20,000 sq. ft. commercial ➢ 20,000 sq. ft. spa (assume 5,000 retail, salon and treatment) ➢ 156 parking stalls ➢ 30 additional cars can be accommodated with valet ➢ Demand exceeds the 156 only 4-5 times per year ➢ If our proposed parking requirements were applied to the Park Hyatt about 327 parking stalls and valet spots would be required — after shared -use reduction vs. 186 currently at the Park Hyatt. ■ Whole -Ownership Residential: o COMP 1: Highlands Westview, Beaver Creek ➢ 1.21 Stalls per Unit • 29 condos ■ 35 parking stalls o COMP 2: McCoy Peak Lodge, Beaver Creek ➢ 1.08 Stalls per Unit • 37 condos ■ 40 parking stalls o COMP 3: Oxford Court, Beaver Creek ➢ 1.14 Stalls per Unit • 35 condos 0 40 parking stalls COMPARISON TO OTHER RESORT MUNICIPALITIES Detail of the municipal requirement comparison study can be found in Section 4. A summary of the comparison follows: Methodology: o Parking requirements for each comparison municipality were applied to the same development plan as Walker Parking used. o Results were tracked for overall parking requirement, as well as requirement by land use. Total Project Parking: o Total parking required under the proposed PUD requirements ranks 7`h in most parking out of the 12 sample municipalities. o The Avon Town Code and Current Confluence PUD take the #1 and 92 spots respectively o Steamboat Springs Resort Residential requires the least amount of total parking Timeshare / Vacation -Ownership: o Timeshare / vacation -ownership parking required under the proposed PUD requirements ranks 4`h in most parking out of the 12 sample municipalities. o The Avon Town Code and Aspen requires the most timeshare / vacation - ownership parking o Steamboat Springs Resort Residential requires the least amount of timeshare / vacation -ownership parking Hotel: o Hotel parking required under the proposed PUD requirements ranks 8`h in most parking out of the 12 sample municipalities. o The Current Confluence PUD requires the most hotel parking o Steamboat Springs Resort Residential requires the least amount of hotel parking Commercial: o Commercial parking required under the proposed PUD requirements ranks 3`d in most parking out of the 12 sample municipalities. o Telluride requires the least amount of commercial parking Whole Ownership Residential o Whole ownership residential parking required under the proposed PUD requirements ranks 8`h in most parking out of the 12 sample municipalities. o The Existing Confluence PUD and Avon Town Code take the #1 and #2 spots respectively o Steamboat Springs Resort Residential requires the least amount of whole ownership residential parking PARKING PLAN A design for the parking garage for the timeshare, hotel and commercial is included in Section 5. This design is based off the same development plan used in the Walker Parking analysis and the municipal comparison analysis. Design of parking for the whole ownership buildings has not yet been developed. ■ Timeshare o The current plan accommodates timeshare parking in two-level subterranean garages beneath the timeshare west and timeshare east buildings. o Self parking only. o Exclusive parking for timeshare only. o Garages are accessed through internal gates from the hotel / commercial shared use garage. 0 64 stalls for Timeshare West vs. 63 required per proposed PUD 0 107 stalls for Timeshare East vs. 107 required per proposed PUD Hotel / Commercial Shared Use Facility o The current plan accommodates hotel and commercial parking in a two- level subterranean garage beneath the timeshare west and timeshare east buildings. o Undesignated shared -use stalls. o Parking requirements will be met through a combination of valet and self park. o Garage is accessed via ramp from the hotel entry drive. 0 294 total stalls including 28 tandem spaces vs. 287 required per proposed PUD w Z w J LL z O T �L r Rf E 7 cn z O aN 4 N o o n n � A o o man g ma m N M M z p .MM- O M In M N N ma N N N o 0 Y w E N p Z Z m 7 V Yw 0 3 O Ow m C m a m m 0�c 7 LU Z a o 2 r O E O N Om O m U' O aN 4 N o o n n � A o o man 0 ry ma m N M M z p .MM- O M In M N N ma N N N o 0 Y w E N p Z m 7 V 0 3 O Ow m C m m m 0�c 7 LU Z m o 2 r O E O N Om O m w y Q c L O N N N O N O N N a� [V fV N y Z ww N N IV W p 00N 6 F ON P o m 3 Y Cl! U E v am p 0 J o n o o o h N N O N L Q QZ ^ NN m L O O aN 4 N o o n n � A o o man 0 ry ma m N M M 0- p .MM- O M In M N N ma N N N o 0 U w E N p Z m 7 V 0 3 O Ow m C m m m 0�c 7 LU Z m o 2 r O E O N Om O m w y Q c L O N N N O N O N N a� [V fV N y Z N N IV W p 00N 6 F ON P o m 3 m Cl! U E v am F- V N ao A o o O N mmm rov O p V W O M In (h M ma N M M N A w w E N p a m 7 V m 3 O z m C m 0�c 7 LU H 2 r o w y Q c 9 m Of L° a� o 0 0 0 mN O W O N N O 00N m F ON P o 3 N Cl! U E oaon am p 0 0 0 o n o o o h N N O N L QZ ^ NN m L � F- a M� ion ao A o o O N mmm rov Z O V W A O JO m` w w E N p g m 7 V m 3 O z Z m C m 0�c 7 w H 2 r o w y Q c 9 m Of L° mN o 0 0 0 mN O W O N N O 00N m F ON P 3 N Cl! p n m h N L N E E 0 U ort m 0 Nmmm Z O N mmm N O M no N N O n w V W A O JO m` N E E 0 U ort m 0 Nmmm � � 6 JO m` C E a m 7 V m 3 O o m C m 0�c 7 H 2 r o w y in of 9 m Of L° mN mN E r°- .t m F P 3 MEMORANDUM PARKING ANALYSIS — CONFLUENCE AT AVON PAGE 1 DATE: November 9, 2005 TO: Don Schieferecke Andy White COMPANY: OZ Architecture. ADDRESS: CITY/STATE: Andy Gunion, East West Partners CC: John Evans, East West Partners Tom Romine, Walker Parking Consultants HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No FROM: Jeremiah J. Simpson PROJECT NAME: Confluence at Avon PROJECT NUMBER: 23-7017.00 SUBJECT: Preliminary Parking Demand Assessment Planning Team - WALKERPARKING CONSULTANTS Walker Parking Consultants 5350 S. Roslyn Street, Suite 220 Greenwood Village, CO BOl l l Voice: 303.694.6622 Fax: 303.694.6667 www.wal kerpo rki ng.com The following draft memo contains Walker's preliminary shared parking analysis for the proposed Confluence/Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa in Avon, Colorado. Please note that the parking demand figures projected in this memo should be considered "ballpark" estimates only since the analysis is based on conceptual buildout data that may change as the project evolves. The client may want to commission a more thorough parking demand and management analysis prior to completing design on the parking garage(s). Feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Jeremiah J. Simpson Parking Consultant i:\23-70f7-00confluenceiat awn\shored use anoysis\mem 1 10905 -shored parking_onaysis.doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS – CONFLUENCE AT AVON PARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 2 INTRODUCTION The proposed Westin Riverfront Resort and Spa is comprised of timeshare, hotel, commercial and whole ownership residential land uses. The client provided a hypothetical development program for purposes of conducting this analysis, as detailed in Table 1. Table 1: Westin Riverfront Program Summary JOU(Ce: Walker Yarking CA1)5UItant5, ZV W; based on data provided by UZ Architecture and Lost West Partners. Parking for the whole ownership residential units will be provided in below -grade parking garages on the western portion of the site. We anticipate that these garages will contain open parking intended for condo owners, staff, and guests. A larger garage will be constructed for the hotel, commercial, and timeshare components on the eastern end of the site. The design team anticipates that this structure will include 2 levels of below -grade parking. For this analysis, we assume parking for the timeshare guests is "reserved" separately within this garage, but that the rest of the structure will be available on a shared use basis for hotel guests, employees, and visitors utilizing the spa, restaurants, meeting space, retail, and offices. The project developers have applied for a PUD Amendment which includes revised parking standards for the site. Under the hypothetical development program provided by the developer, the proposed parking standards would result in 170 timeshare stalls, 287 hotel/commercial shared use/valet stalls and 144 whole ownership residential stalls. Walker Parking Consultants has been retained to provide an objective 3'd party analysis of the proposed parking requirements to determine whether the planned parking supply will be sufficient to accommodate the planned land uses. j: \23-70)7-00 conPuence_of avon\shared use onolysis\mem 1 10905-shored�parking_ona{ysis.doc o , Ce,—vA. �grm ax.3 �i_ D4scaption{oc6lI M �2bdr A Timeshare 113 units Timeshare UnitsR B Hotel Commercial/Auxiliary 194 condotels 26,625 sf. GLA Condolel units [convertible to 272 hotel keys) Includes restaurant, cafe, meeting space, spa, offices, etc. C Traditional Condominiums 120 units 2- and 3-bdr wholly owned private condos JOU(Ce: Walker Yarking CA1)5UItant5, ZV W; based on data provided by UZ Architecture and Lost West Partners. Parking for the whole ownership residential units will be provided in below -grade parking garages on the western portion of the site. We anticipate that these garages will contain open parking intended for condo owners, staff, and guests. A larger garage will be constructed for the hotel, commercial, and timeshare components on the eastern end of the site. The design team anticipates that this structure will include 2 levels of below -grade parking. For this analysis, we assume parking for the timeshare guests is "reserved" separately within this garage, but that the rest of the structure will be available on a shared use basis for hotel guests, employees, and visitors utilizing the spa, restaurants, meeting space, retail, and offices. The project developers have applied for a PUD Amendment which includes revised parking standards for the site. Under the hypothetical development program provided by the developer, the proposed parking standards would result in 170 timeshare stalls, 287 hotel/commercial shared use/valet stalls and 144 whole ownership residential stalls. Walker Parking Consultants has been retained to provide an objective 3'd party analysis of the proposed parking requirements to determine whether the planned parking supply will be sufficient to accommodate the planned land uses. j: \23-70)7-00 conPuence_of avon\shared use onolysis\mem 1 10905-shored�parking_ona{ysis.doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — CONFLUENCE AT AVON PARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 3 SHARED PARKING OVERVIEW Generally, Walker Parking Consultants ("Walker") uses a ULI-style model for calculating shared -use parking demand.' This methodology takes into account the number of cars generated by various land - use components in a mixed-use development at different times of the day. Adjustments are built into the model to reflect factors such as the hourly presence for various user groups (i.e., employees, visitors, etc.), seasonal trends, mode split, and captive rate. The terms "mode split" and "captive rate" are discussed below: • Mode Split = the percentage of patrons or employees that arrive to the development via car versus other forms of transportation such as taxi, shuttle, or the Colorado Mountain Express. Note that areas with high transit usage will have a higher mode split adjustment. Also, rideshare programs, transportation demand management strategies (such as pricing), and walk-in demand are considered when determining the potential mode split. • Captive Rate = the percentage of customers who may utilize a land use but are already parked on-site for another primary demand generator. A classic example is a hotel population that is already parked on-site but may visit the hotel restaurant for lunch or dinner. For mixed-use developments, the shared use methodology is preferable over City/Town code requirements, which tend to over-estimate parking demand by assuming that demand from all components of a development peak at the same time. Also, code requirements rarely make allowances for factors such as captive rate and mode split. PROGRAM DATA AND ADJUSTMENTS The sections below provide a breakdown of the hypothetical development program provided by the client. Assumptions regarding the usage of the timeshares and the hotel "condotel" units are described in the text and on the footnotes to the tables. Timeshare The hypothetical development program includes 113 two-bedroom timeshare units. These units will be marketed as traditional timeshare condos where owners can purchase blocks of time for a single unit. However, the timeshares will also be available with a lock -off option where each two-bedroom unit can be converted into two one -bedroom units. The one bedroom lock -offs would also be available as part of the timeshare ownership pool. The developer anticipates that on a typical vacation week, roughly half of the units will be in use as two-bedroom condos while the other half will be in use as separate one - bedroom units. ' Several of Walker's primary sources for the Shared Parking Model are as follows: 1 . ULI-the Urban Land Institute, "Shared Parking". Washington, DC . ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1983. 2. Parking Generation, Third Edition. Washington DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004 3. Data collected by Walker Task Force members for the upcoming 2006 UU publication. is\23-7017-00c nfluence_at ovon\shared use analysis\mem710905-shoredLparking_onolysis.doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — CONFLUENCE AT AVON PAWNGCONSUUMTS PAGE 4 The existing Confluence PUD specifies that timeshares are parked at 0.6 stalls per bedroom (or 1.2 spaces per two-bedroom unit). The developer anticipates that parking needs for timeshare will be slightly higher since each two-bedroom can potentially be sold and used as two units (possibly to two separate fractional owners) rather than one unit to a single family. The PUD Amendment proposes a revised requirement of 0.75 spaces per bedroom for timeshare or 1.5 spaces per 2BR unit. Walker Comments: Based on our assessment of the timeshare product, Walker concludes that the 1.5 spaces per unit requirement is appropriate for timeshare parking. In total, the developer's revised PUD would result in 170 timeshare parking spaces given the hypothetical development plan: • 113 units x 1.5/unit = 170 spaces Timeshare units themselves are a unique product and therefore do not have much statistical research data in publications such as ULI's Shared Parking and ITE's Parking Generation. However, national research data for all rental -type residential units (including apartments) shows an average peak parking demand ratio of 1.5 cars per two-bedroom. We assume that the Westin resort timeshare units will have a slightly lower ratio of parking demand since some of the guests will arrive to the resort via shuttle. However, the excess spaces should also be provided to accommodate employee parking, day visitors visiting timeshare guests and timeshare guest groups who arrive in two cars. A breakdown of Walker's projected parking needs for the timeshare units is provided below. We anticipate that 170 spaces for the 113 timeshare units will be sufficient. Table 2: Parcel A Projected Parking Needs. Usage. ••'� (,Units in Use r" �k8ose Demand(Raho a/ unit) �t((cars/ t: a%' Driving , iTolal Parking _a k4. a ,s Two -Bedroom Timeshares (Assume 50%of 113) 57 1.50 0.725 62 One -Bedroom Timeshares (Assume remaining units at 26dr each) 112 1.00 0.725 81 Surplus Ifor addl, timeshare guests / employees) Z 0.15 1.000 25 Totals 169 168 1. Transit data was provided by the planning team from a comparable resort project in Beaver Creek - this study was preformed by VRI Market Research. Results showed that an average of 78.5% of resort visitors arrive via the airport and that 35% of these take a shuttle (vs. renting a car). Based on this data we anticipate that a 0.275 mode split adjustment is appropriate (or 0.785 x 0.35). Assuming that the research data on the Beaver creek resort is comparable io the Westin project, we have assumed that 72.5% of resort timeshare users arrive via car. 2. Assume that 0.15 surplus guest space is allowed for every occupied timeshare unit. Assume 169 occupied timeshares on a typical vacation week (i.e., 50% in use as 2-bdr and 50% in use as two 1-bdrs). 'Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2005; based an data and usage assumptions provided by the client j: \23-7017-00confluence_at_avon\shored use onaysis\mem I 70905-shoredLparking onelysis.doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — CONFLUENCE AT AVON PARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 5 Hotel & Commercial The table below shows a breakdown of the hypothetical development program for the hotel, spa, and auxiliary commercial uses. The developers proposed parking requirements in the PUD Amendment would result in a parking requirement of 287 stalls. Note that the town code allows for a 15% reduction for shared use. Additional justification for the hourly shared use and transit adjustments based on Walker's model are outlined on the following pages. Table 3: Parcel B Land Use Program Summary Componrit ions• - f - y. � Deekipt ` -, Units :MoximumlKeys, A6as6bWSF ,est. . r Condotel Hotel t Studio Units 114 114 1 BR Units 2 2 2BR Units 59 118 3BR Units 19 38 Retail & Auxillinry Spa [Treatment Rooms, Retail & Salon) 3,987 Meeting Space lExduding Pre -function[ 3,850 Restaurant Front of House 1120 seats[ 4,680 Cafe / Deli 1,615 Ski Shop + Ticketing 2,825 Real Estate Brokerage Office 1,990 Timeshare Sales Office 725 Wellmess Center 4,000 B3Q Retail 535 Lobby Retail 420 Misc. Plaza Retail 5,405 Totals 194 272 30,032 1. Condotels area newer type of product where the hotel units are purchased by owners cs'condominiums' and then can be entered back into a rental pool as on investment property as individual 'Lock -off' hotel keys. Per the developer, we assume 50% usage as condominiums [i.e. 1 key per unit) and 50% as hotel rooms (i.e., 1 key for studio and 1 bar. units and 2 keys per 2bdr. and 3bdr. unit) on a peak design day. Assume 100% hotel occupancy on the design day. 'Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2005, based on data and assumptions provided by the client As referenced in the footnote above, the hotel rooms are being developed as "condotels". These units are a newer resort product that combines owner occupied condominiums with an investment option where owners can enter their units into a hotel rental pool. These units are then rented out as hotel rooms by the resort. The developer's hypothetical development program contains a mix of studio units, 1 - bedroom units, 2 -bedroom units, and 3 -bedroom units. Studios and 1 -bedroom units can only be occupied as one "key" while 2- and 3 -bedrooms can either be occupied as a whole unit (one key) or as a condominium plus a lock -off hotel room (two keys). is \23-7017-0Oconfluence_af_avon\shared use onafysfs\mem 7 10905shared�arking_analysis. doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS — CONFLUENCE AT AVON 40 PARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 6 A breakdown of the total units available on the typical design day is provided below. Assumptions for this usage are provided by the developer. Conservatively, we assume that the available keys are 100% occupied on the peak design day. Table 4: Condotel and Hotel Room Anticipated Design Day Usage -aource: vvafxer rarKing I-onsmtanrs, eVW. Shared Use: Tables 5 and 6 on the following pages show a full breakdown of the hotel & commercial land uses and assumption concerning the base ratios, transit adjustments, mode split, and hourly presence factors. The adjustments used for this model are based on the following general assumptions: 1. Base ratios are established per Walker's Shared Parking Model, 2005 and represent statistical national average parking generation rates for each land uses type (at peak). For land uses such as the timeshare sales office and brokerage office, we have applied a general "office" base ratio. Likewise, for the ski shop we have used a typical ratio for "community retail". For nonconforming land uses (such as the spa) we have applied the most comparable ratio available in our database or from recent comparable studies 2. Mode Split adjustments have been applied per the assumptions discussed with the developer. A 0.72 transit adjustment has been applied for condominium and hotel guests per the Beaver Creek research data (as referenced on table 2). A 0.50 transit adjustment has been applied for hotel employees and hourly staff at the restaurant, spa, cafe, etc. Due to the project's location near a bus line, we anticipate that many hourly employees are likely to utilize mass transit. This trend is prevalent at many comparable resorts in the area. Some walk-in guest demand is also expected for resort amenities for adjacent resorts and nearby residential areas (see footnote on table). 3. Non -Captive adjustments reflect the percentage of guests that may arrive from off-site to use the spa, restaurant, and other resort amenities. Because of the large population of residents and guests already parked on-site, we assume that destination traffic for these other land uses will be minimal. Captive adjustments have been applied based on recent comparable studies at other resort projects. Note, that the "unadjusted demand" column represents the total number of vehicles that would be generated if each land use were developed as a stand alone project with no access to transit and no i:\23-7017-0OconHuence_oLovon\shored use onolysis\meml 10905-shared-porking-analysis.doc Design Day Assumption Owner%Renter __ — v "l HofeliKey Rentail Descriptions W 1Totol,UnitsVJlaximum K S .. ?Y 'Otto led 6 P ortdo ISO% < r ., _ _ !` 4of. Uni l= MlRemaining Ke Studio Units 114 114 57 57 1 BR Units 2 2 1 1 2BR Units 59 118 30 58 3BR Units 19 38 10 18 Totals 98 134 -aource: vvafxer rarKing I-onsmtanrs, eVW. Shared Use: Tables 5 and 6 on the following pages show a full breakdown of the hotel & commercial land uses and assumption concerning the base ratios, transit adjustments, mode split, and hourly presence factors. The adjustments used for this model are based on the following general assumptions: 1. Base ratios are established per Walker's Shared Parking Model, 2005 and represent statistical national average parking generation rates for each land uses type (at peak). For land uses such as the timeshare sales office and brokerage office, we have applied a general "office" base ratio. Likewise, for the ski shop we have used a typical ratio for "community retail". For nonconforming land uses (such as the spa) we have applied the most comparable ratio available in our database or from recent comparable studies 2. Mode Split adjustments have been applied per the assumptions discussed with the developer. A 0.72 transit adjustment has been applied for condominium and hotel guests per the Beaver Creek research data (as referenced on table 2). A 0.50 transit adjustment has been applied for hotel employees and hourly staff at the restaurant, spa, cafe, etc. Due to the project's location near a bus line, we anticipate that many hourly employees are likely to utilize mass transit. This trend is prevalent at many comparable resorts in the area. Some walk-in guest demand is also expected for resort amenities for adjacent resorts and nearby residential areas (see footnote on table). 3. Non -Captive adjustments reflect the percentage of guests that may arrive from off-site to use the spa, restaurant, and other resort amenities. Because of the large population of residents and guests already parked on-site, we assume that destination traffic for these other land uses will be minimal. Captive adjustments have been applied based on recent comparable studies at other resort projects. Note, that the "unadjusted demand" column represents the total number of vehicles that would be generated if each land use were developed as a stand alone project with no access to transit and no i:\23-7017-0OconHuence_oLovon\shored use onolysis\meml 10905-shared-porking-analysis.doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS - CONFLUENCE AT AVON PARKING CONSUBANiS PAGE 7 captive with other nearby uses. The "adjusted demand" represents the total demand for the project if all land uses generated peak demand at the same time. Table 5: Parcel B Shared use Ratios and Adjustments i s ProgroTlnits {ueGoup �8aa-Ratio ,i - " - J vtlOIs4Dewipr'os s0i ) 4P __ - Pd uierds r st Demand Condominium Hotel 2 Studio/ 1 Bdr Condo (in use by owner) 58 units owner/remar 1.00 /unit 58 0.73 1.00 42 osi'or 0.15 /unit 9 1.00 1.00 9 21bdr/36dr Condo lin use by ownerl 40 units owner/renter 1.50 /unit 60 0.73 1.00 44 visitor 0.15 /unit 6 1.00 1.00 6 Hotel Key (in use by guest) s 134 keys guest 1.00 /key 134 0.73 1.00 98 Hotel employee 0.25 /key notal) 68 0.50 1.00 34 Retail & A -m Thaw Spa (Treatment Rooms, Retail & Salon) 3,987 GA Visitor 3.10 /1,000 GSF 12 0.75 0.25 2 Employee 2.10 /1,000 GSF 8 0.50 1.00 4 Meeting Space IExd. Pre function) ° 3,850 GA Visitor 10.00 /1,000 GSF 39 1.00 0.25 10 Employee 3.80 /1,000 GSF 15 0.50 1.00 8 Restaurant Front of House (120 seats) 4,680 GIA Visitor 15.25 / 1,000 GSF 71 0.75 0.30 16 Employee 2.75 /1,000 GSF 13 0.50 L00 7 Cafe/Deli 1,615 GA Visitor 12.00 /1,000GSF 19 0.75 0.30 4 Employee 2.00 /1,000 GSF 3 0.50 1.00 2 Sla Shop + Ticketing 2,825 GA Visitor 3.20 /1,000GSF 9 0.75 1.00 7 Employee 0.80 /1,000 GSF 2 1.00 1.00 2 Real Estate Brokerage Office 1,990 GA Visitor 0.30 /1,000 GSF 1 0.75 1.00 1 Employee 3.50 /1,000 GSF 7 1.00 1.00 7 Timeshare Soles Office 725 GIA Visitor 0.30 /1,000 GSF 0 0.75 1.00 C Employee 3.50 /1,000 GSF 3 1.00 1.00 3 Wellmess Center 4,000 GA Visitor 5.50 /1,000 GSF 22 0.75 0.25 4 Employee 0.25 /1,000 GSF 1 1.00 1.00 1 Retail AII) 6,360 GA Visit. 3.20 /1,000 GSF 20 0.75 1.00 15 Employee 0.80 /1,000 GSF 5 1.00 1.00 5 Totals 585 331 1. Mode split adjustments based on expected transit usage (the Eagle Valley Transit station is located near development) and walk-in guest demand from adjacent resorts and residents (i.e., Western Town Ctr. Located just north of site). Nontapfive adjustments are applied based on the expected usage of resort amenities by on-site guests. 2. Owner occupied 1 -bedroom and studio condominiums are parked at a base ratio of 1.00 per unit. Larger 2- and 3 -bedroom owner occupied condominiums are parked at the ratio of 1.5 per unit (same as the timeshare ratio). All hotel keys in use by hotels guests will be parked at 1.00 per key. Ratios are established per Walker's research on similar resort hotels, and condofel development. 3. Note that the employee presence has been calculated based on the total maximum key count of 280. We assume that basic hotel services such as housekeeping and room service will be available regardless of whether the codotels are owner occupied or in use as hotel keys. 4. Hotel Meeting Space may generate up to 10.0 cars per 1,000 sf for a destination -type (i.e. local event) weekday meeting. However, since the planned meeting space is very small compared to the number of guest rooms we anticipate that the usage of meeting spaces on a peak evening will be minimal. (Conference and conventions will be more likely during the resort's off-season). "Source: Walker Parking Consultonfs, SPM, 2005, with assumptions provided by the developer is \23-7017-00confluence_of-ovan \shared use enofysis \mem f 10905-shored-pwrking_anafysis. do c MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS - CONFLUENCE AT AVON PARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 8 Peak Parking Demand Shared Use Table 6 below presents a more realistic scenario where demand for the various land uses fluctuates over the course of the day. Hourly adjustments for this table have been applied per data in the Walker model. Based on the hourly presence table, we anticipate that the hotel and commercial parking complex would need to accommodate a minimum of 277 vehicles to accommodate the peak hour parking demand for visitors, owners, employees, and guests. Table 6: Total Parcel B Shared Use Demand (per hour) r s0e;cA ficins,. h �. � ._,tea -� r.. �.� - (User C.ay n .a _ _ +��. a 7-00 AM � u - � -9.00'AM 6.00AM ,- • ice. 4 �._. 1-:00 PM -� .r n 13:00 PM -. �2:a 5:000PM 7U0 PM'T t9.00PM'y l 1! OO PA Condominium Hotel Studio/1Bdr Condo owner/rema 40 34 29 27 29 34 36 40 42 visitor 2 2 2 2 2 4 9 9 7 2bdV3bdr Condo owner/renter 42 35 31 29 31 35 37 42 44 visitor I 1 1 1 1 2 6 6 5 Hotel Key lin use by qui guest 93 78 69 64 69 78 83 93 98 Home) employee 10 31 34 34 34 26 19 19 15 Retail 3 A nAlia�. Spa Visitor - 1 2 2 2 2 2 I Employee 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 1 Meeting Space Visitor 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Employee 8 8 e 3 8 8 8 a a P.eslaurant From of Hain Visitor - - 2 9 7 10 15 14 14 Employee 1 4 5 5 5 7 7 7 6 Cale / Deli Visitor 2 3 4 4 2 2 3 1 Employee 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 Ski Shop + Ticketing Visitor - 2 6 7 6 7 7 4 1 Employee 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Real Eslole Brokwog= Office Visilor 1 1 1 - - - - Employee 1 6 7 6 3 1 - - Timeshare Sales Office Visitor - - - - - - - - Employee 1 2 3 2 1 - - - WellmessCemer Visitor 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 - Employee 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Retail 1.111 Visilor 1 5 13 15 14 14 14 12 2 Employee 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 Totals 223 238 243 241 238 257 272 277 254 `Source: Walker Parking Consultants, SPM, 2005 Table 7 on the following page shows an approximate breakdown of employee versus visitor parking needs at a peak (evening) hour and an off-peak daytime hour. Assuming that employees will self -park, the remaining 232 vehicles can be accommodated through self park, valet or some combination thereof. 1:\23-7017-00 confluence_alaeon\shored use analysis\mem 110905shared_parking_or is. doc MEMORANDUM WALKER PARKING ANALYSIS - CONFLUENCE AT AVON PARKING CONSULTANTS PAGE 9 Table 7: Peak Hour Parking Demand by User Group User,Group � Stalls in!use- f � !IPeok'Hour�_ � 1 ° kStollsin use �f�-'PedL;tl,l'o:m:(' Visitor / Guest Shared Employee 232 45 172 71 Total 277 243 "Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 5PM, 2005 Whole Ownership Residential The following table shows Walker's total recommended parking allocations for the stand-alone resort condominiums. The developer has proposed 1.2 stalls per unit, which results in 144 total stalls based upon the hypothetical development plan. National averages for owner -occupied condominiums indicate a total base demand of close to 1.7 spaces per unit regardless of bedrooms. However, research provided by the developer indicates that similar resort condos at other properties tend to generate vehicles at a lower rate due to the fact that the planned product will be used more frequently as a vacation residence rather than a primary dwelling. Based on this data, Walker has assigned a base ratio of 1.5 per unit for the 2 -bedroom and three- bedroom condos, a 90% presence factor for the design day occupancy, and an adjustment for transit usage (assuming that non -local condo owners, like the timeshare owners, will tend to arrive to via the airport and taxi or shuttle). Walker recommends 135 spaces for the hypothetical whole ownership residential development program, which equates to 1.125 stalls per unit. Table 8: Parking Recommendation for Parcel C Condominiums �- - -YBase WliofeQ.vnershipConilos i __ r.o�_._..._.-,._....._.....,..�..— Demand Ratio Units. a474 _ __. __ _...�A(cars/until.,.._,�.....Pjesence...__,_._._. Des gn Day _ M-Driving . 46taLDemor`d __J2 Bedroom (assume 1 /3 of total) 40 1.50 0.90 0.725 39 3 bedroom (assume 2/3 or total) 80 1.50 0.90 0.725 78 Visitor/staff Parking [at 0.15 per Unit) 0.15 1.00 1.000 18 Totals 120 135 'Source: Walker Parking Consultants, SPM, 2005 j:\23-7017-00confluence_cL-oon\shared use onolysis\mem 110905 -shored rking_analysis.doc MEMORANDUM PARKING ANALYSIS - CONFLUENCE AT AVON PAGE 10 TOTAL SHARED USE PARKING DEMAND FOR RESORT 46 WALKER eaerwa eorJsurraun The following table presents Walker's preliminary estimate of the total parking demand projected for the Confluence Westin Riverfront project based upon the hypothetical development program provided by the developer. The table also shows Walker's recommend parking supply as compared to the parking required by the proposed parking standards in the PUD Amendment. Table 9: Total Parking Recommendations for Confluence Westin Riverfront Resort --�-� .- - �Guest�Visibr,Sondn- t. I Total lker' ' $ ces R'�- uved•'','�.--- 1 °. Component_ s m - iEmp_layee Parking tTimesho e%Owner tpa lim�lreservedl Projected Pea iUnder Proposed PUD 1Voriance Ar edl •g J Demand f I •Amendment, rte...,_._..... Timeshare - 168 168 170 2 Hotel/Aux./Commercial 277 277 287 10 Sub -Total: 277 168 44,5 457 12 j Wholly Owned Condos 1351 135 j 144 91 i:\23-7017-00confluence ataeon\shored use anaFsis\meml 10905-5haredLporking oncisis.doc F�l J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6f 00 i- (p 0 0 0 0 0 LO V cM N U321If1a321 Sl1tl1S @NI)l"d any of 4� o;e' 4p Oma 1b a� Ga hrp a /VOO oJT4a i . 0 Jai 4!J;10 aasb ra" �00 pS J4�pTdA,S a'ThoJi�P Kogo Tho � .~i a / 4 o a6A, Teas w H �4a Z A4a oda 9 Oi)aaoee f4 0 lam J/P'JJa JAasp0oa �� 1:10 *0 oov a� 7 Pa W EO C M O u O O O O O N O LO O Ln a3ldinb32i STIVIS 9NI)f-dVd /a J° PFJ Ja aA°J J G Gag �0.( sb G /aJ °76 o0 G� o� a /Ga Sq,J 4 `4AGa a*oa 4'6 J� ap�J'//ate 07aaJGa 7 sGo � /aJ° Jpa a J� O '1 ° a 0 f / o aaJGa��G°Ja6pJGa� aVOJ Ga oaJ� VO 00 JJ°J baa �0°a J Ja'Pa .bOJ as s a /aJ°s sC..J /P s 'JJa4, sP�� 0 r�,G Gioov GS Ga0//P /Sa 7 J� .04%. 'rP 09 �Pa �S 0 0 0 Cl 0 O N O LO O 0 Ln aaminb3ld S 11115 9NIN21tld aA of 4� ose 401 /aJ o0 JJ a� 4/OJ/G /aVOO /E/0,0�i aasb /aJ foo OJ` Q aAi S �0/aA,S !h09 0. /a �f JOJ z OJ /4a J/0 0JJ 19.1 eel,/iP 1 Gad 7 b /a, 07 oJG aaJ4a X70/Jas 0 A i O�aasP!!' J4a*0 Aas0�0ovo d baa sP� V„ I G ti S. U Im n .ti -12 zftw c.> CS -22 •: _ AT O CD _o co m � o I U321If1b321 STIVIS 9NI IIIVd aA �saJ k,0 s J a Oda 0 { o4ary�4oJ 9�Pa�S 4 a�A4e � aJJ�J O aAoJ Oaao 4 Geo! a,e4o /aJ 4o�a' JAas Ja M /a �00 Q 0 0 4*OW As,OJ Z /aJ0 a A �J4,19 a6A /aJ0 !JGa J9 !14 'JJa4. 0 0 J9 wa iaaJJ oj!�P Ja �P a0 /O .)°'a G /a J0 asP� !P'0 fssP��o a VO X40 4S 4 rI Q V -- �3 CS At PLO !J r 0 0 ch 0 0 04 o N 0 0 0 LO C) a321Inbn SllVIS 9NI 11JVd J4 a100 J OJ�4a 4�0 laJ 0�b of !P, • JJ a� 60, O0 !PFJ Ja`4 00:sb J 'os J4�0�a 6 �aJOJ p,J4a N� d J ~ 402 q Z iaJo !SJhO/ !�'J asb Vo iJ4a ,r4a� 4'oJJ �iJaJ 4a� 7 b ap�Jh!!a,! O�aaJ4a 7� 4 is °JA aJj as 0 Ja'aa oOJ� 6 a 06 A,Sa J�0 X04 saJJ S 09 '�S 9 sn 7 �" 8 S S o 8 S H S 8 S 8 m 8 8 p s N .s O a N $ d a N O V � N O O o Q p _m m w C E � S N 8 8 8 o S m 8 0 Eu�`i •- a o ry .- o 0 0 9i 2 O °o$ n o$ J H rc. � � N � � 9 gw � v o 8 � a U N R � nv F Ly w g n N m m n n n N N J II 8 8 8 8 g n rc .- 7 �" 8 S S o 8 S H M p s N .s O a N $ LL mo a N O V � N O O o Q mpp _m m w C E � S N Y rc w Gn 0 Eu�`i •- a o ry .- o 0 0 9i 2 O °o$ n o$ u rc. 7 �" E p s N .s O a N $ � a � � 9 •- mpp _m m w C E � D N Y rc w Gn 0 ^ a a ry N n a 9i 2 O �m n o$ u n FJO 3 OLL N� v o 8 � a u � nv F oLL 8 8 8 8 g n .- 7 �" E p s .s s a rc $ � a � � 9 •- mpp _m m w C E � D N Y rc w Gn 0 ^ - 2 O u FJO 3 OLL N� v o 8 � a 7 E s .s s a rc $ � a � � 9 mpp _m m w C E � N Y rc w Gn r _ m E5 A a d J u n EE n m m CCLl• rc` U � m om @ d E U Y rc � m z rc ^ yN J� y ~Q Oil 00 pp O m m e m m m m n^ ry FW 0 F ti J 6N y ^ W O� p mgr p �N N Oo r _ m E5 A a d J u n EE n m m CCLl• rc` U � m om @ d E U Y rc � m ^ yN y J 6 H Oil 00 W N O f N W f Wry F ti J 6N y ^ WymgY p mgr ^ LL N Oo OLLN O F ON yNm b y_ N F NmB $Ne m F a N y N N �NY ry e uA m m S 8 $ N f m M 7 N ^ ^ �- •- Eox ^ ^ W Y K o � Thr yg� JON e r M F^ e F^ ry m ^ 6 m m� OWN NN7 O �- �+ e M m O p � Q � 30 m �m r _ m E5 A a d J u n EE n m m CCLl• rc` U � m om @ d E U C � m yN y J 6 H Oil 00 W N O f N W f Wry F ti n WymgY p mgr LL N yaJ OLLN O F ON yNm b y_ N F NmB $Ne C1 y �NY uA m m S 8 $ N f m M 7 N ^ ^ �- •- Eox ^ ^ W Y � Thr yg� JON e 0 r _ m E5 A a d J u n EE n m m CCLl• rc` U � m om @ d E U V � m yN y O Oil 00 W N N W f Wry F ti n p mgr LL N yaJ OLLN O F yNm r _ m E5 A a d J u n EE n m m CCLl• rc` U � m om @ d E U V 00 N W f yo O F b y_ N NmB $Ne uA m m S 8 $ N f m M 7 N ^ ^ �- •- ^ W Y � Thr yg� g& e 0 OWN NN7 r _ m E5 A a d J u n EE n m m CCLl• rc` U � m om @ d E U PARKING ANALYSIS 11/09/05 " PARKING REQUIREMENTS -HOTEL LEVEL PER CONFLUENCE PUD SUBMITTAL NO.3, SECT. II -H TIMESHARE EAST A. RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 1.0 1 PER GUESTROOM/STUDIO (1 x 114) 114 2.0 1.2 PER 1BR/28R/38R (1.2 x 80) 96 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 210 REQUIREMENT 107 B. COMMERCIAL 461 1.0 5 PER 1000 SF OF STANDARD COM (22,195 SO 111 2.0 2 PER 1000 SF OF INCIDENTAL COMMERCIAL (7,837 so 16 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 127 REQUIREMENT TOTAL COMMERCIAL + TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 337 15% REDUCTION ALLOWED FOR SHARED USE 287 (TOTAL x.85 ) STANDARD INCIDENTAL COMMERCIAL USES: COMMERCIAL USES: —retail (excl. ski valet) —spa (excl. support) —restaurant, bar, lounge —meeting and conference —deli/cafe rooms —offices PARKING REQUIREMENTS -TIMESHARES PER CONFLUENCE PUD SUBMITTAL NO.3, SECT. II -H A. TIMESHARES WEST 1.0 1.5 PER FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP (1.5 x 42) [1770 B. TIMESHARES EAST + RIVERFRONT 1.0 1.5 PER FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP (1.5 x 71) TOTAL TIMESHARES REQUIREMENT CURRENT PROD. PARKING PROVIDED OVERALL PROJECT LEVEL TIMESHARE WEST TIMESHARE EAST HOTEL TOTAL P2 P1 32 32 35 72 229 65 296 165 TOTAL 64 107 294 461 NOTE: 28 TANDEM SPACES INCL. IN 294 HOTEL SPACE COUNT PER BUILDING BLDG. REO. I PROVIDED + — Timeshare West 63 64 +1 Timeshare East 107 107 0 + Riverfront Hotel 287 294 +7 (incl all commercial) W Z W U ZD fi a n c r Z J CC U a•a' rn r gii'cc OOa- Q Z a +I I z dW e@@ �"I�� i& al-lad+ls8 41 AM. PWA .No IVs I blb Z a +I I z dW e@@ �"I�� i& al-lad+ls8 41 AM. PWA .No IVs wcli $ _ o _�� a z pp pK � � > o IL any J w l Ir EE ` 00 -- -------------- 'lot ---- - �Im w =In D N R b �= I I O I I blb With y3 q ° 1 plp ; a alb y1.9 T I -- -------------- 'lot ---- - 'lot L ° 1 plp �1a 2 =1 cis" O mn U O��n 'lot L