Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Parking.0025-05 City of Aspen Community Development Dept. CASE NUMBER 0025.2005.ASLU PARCEL 10 NUMBER 9999-99-9-99-999 PROJECT ADDRESS 0 ZERO PLANNER CHRIS BENDON CASE DESCRIPTION CODE AMENDMENT:PARKING REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS BENDON 429-2765 DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4/4/2005 CLOSED BY Denise Driscoll MEMORANDUM V\\\e TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council FROM: John Worcester, City Attorney Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~ Parking Code Amendment - Public Hearing Second Reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2005 THRU: RE: DATE: March 28, 2005 ~ SUMMARY: This proposed ordinance updates the Parking Chapter of the Land Use Code consistent with direction from City Council during a recent work session. The proposal focuses on the bigger picture of mobility by leveraging the City' parking requirements. Aspen has a long tradition of promoting alternate transportation methods. To require on-site parking is counter to this philosophy as it promotes driving to downtown. Parking takes-up very valuable ground floor commercial space and with the relatively small downtown lots, parking quickly becomes the main factor of a development. Parking is a significant barrier to development and redevelopment of these smaller lots. The aesthetics of parking is also counter to traditional townsite development. Aspen is fortunate to have little on-site surface parking downtown and enjoys a pedestrian orientation. Providing payment-in-lieu options will enable the City to fund programs that enhance mobility. This could be in-town transit, car-share programs, or other ideas that the Transportation Department brings forward that require funding. The most critical area for this parking discussion is the immediate downtown - the CC and CI districts. P&Z, along with staff, feel that on-site parking should not be encouraged in this area as this area should be as pedestrian-oriented as possible. Staffis recommending the following parking strategy: . Equalizing the commercial parking ratio to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space. . Allowing cash-in-lieu to be an easier option for developers. Currently, this requires a P&Z review. Staff is recommending this be permitted outright for commercial and mixed-use development. . Maintaining the cash-in-lieu fee at the current $15,000 per space figure to minimize the barrier of redevelopment. . Allowing cash-in-lieu to be used by the City with greater flexibility. Currently, the City can only spend these funds on building additional parking. Programs like the car share program and in-town transit address mobility and should be funded to a greater degree. " ,/"'....., , '. '" . Eliminating parking requirements for residential and lodging development in the CC and C 1 Zones. The biggest barrier to residential development above commercial space is parking. Staff has met with several developers and the significance of this barrier cannot be overstated - it's a "deal-breaker." Otherwise, the parking requirements preclude on-site affordable housing options, counter to the basic mixed-use philosophy. Council requested additional information on how other communities are approaching parking. Attached is some initial research and staff will provide more upon second reading. The Portland, OR, example implements parking maximums. This is an aggressive approach to limiting parking, but Portland has been successful in reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. '. The proposed Ordinance also addresses Commercial Parking Facilities. The current code is a little unclear as to what qualifies as a commercial facility. Staff has reworked this and is prosing that two characteristics are necessary for a parking facility to be considered a commercial facility: I) The parking is used on a short-term basis. Staff is prosing this be anything less that one month. This will catch operations that lease on an hourly or daily basis but not those that lease on a long-term basis. 2) The facility is a stand-along commercial venture. This would exempt parking that is accessory to a use, even if the parking were short-term. For example: parking at one of the grocery stores would not be considered a commercial parking facility just because it is short-term parking. Staff believes this definition is better suited for regulating potential Commercial Parking Facilities. This won't interfere with existing long-term parking leases in town and will not interfere with short-term parking for guests, patrons, etc. of businesses. This specifically focuses on the potential for short-term parking operations that are independent commercial ventures. Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2005. RECOMMENDED M nON: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2005." ATTACHMENTS: A - Review Criteria B - Council Work Session Summary C - Research on parking policies of other communities 2 , .....,... Exhibit A Parking Amendments STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment Section 26.310.040, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this title. Staff Finding: The proposed Parking code amendments are to encourage the development of higher intensity development in areas that can support such intensity with existing infrastructure. Areas within the Infill Area (Aspen mountain to the rivers) can support higher levels of development intensity and lower level of on-site parking. This is largely due to the presence of street parking, which can accommodate overflow needs, and the pedestrian orientation of this older portion of the City. This promotes a general planning goal of maximizing the efficiency of existing public infrastructure and also providing development intensity in areas where automobile use can be minimized. No aspect of the proposed code amendment is in conflict with other portions of the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding: Staff believes these changes to the parking regulations are supported by the AACP. There are many references to restricting the amount of additional parking in town and minimizing the affects of more automobiles coming into town. High parking ratios require infrastructure serving the automobile and this enables more cars to come into town - counter to the specific goal of limiting trips across the Castle Creek bridge. The cash-in-lieu provision will allow the City to address the broader issue of mobility through transit infrastructure and other programs aimed at reducing reliance on single-occupant vehicle trips. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This amendment does not affect a specific location no zone boundaries are being changes through this ordinance. Staff believes this criterion in met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. staff comments - Parking Amendments. page I " ,,"''- -" ,. 41" Staff Finding: The proposed changes should reduce traffic generation (of single-occupant vehicles) from new projects. Some additional trips will be handled through shuttles, bicycles, walking, public transit, and car-sharing. Staff does not believe the amendments represent any safety issues on local roads. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The amendments intentionally encourage greater use of existing infrastructure and providing an ability to pay for new infrastructure needs through the payment-in-lieu program. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: A lower parking ratio should help to reduce the potential impacts on the natural environment by encouraging a greater number of trips to be handled through transit, car sharing, walking, etc. Increased reinvestment opportunities will allow for greater utilization of existing and planned infrastructure improvements. This may have less of a negative effect on the environment than development in areas where infrastructure does not already exist. Staff believes this Ordinance will not encourage adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. Staff Finding: Characteristic of traditional towns, and important to Aspen as expressed in the Community Plan, is a vibrant downtown commercial district that emphasizes the pedestrian. This is the historic character of the downtown and the changes should encourage reinvestment in this development type. Staff believes the amendments are consistent and compatible with the community character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is not specific to one parcel. staff comments - Parking Amendments. page 2 " "" ;", ,/ J. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title. Staff Finding: This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. The AACP reflects a community desire for pedestrian orientation and less reliance on the automobile. Staff believes this Ordinance will promote the purpose and intent of this Title. This Ordinance promotes a lesser reliance on single-occupant vehicle trips and greater use of transit, car-sharing, and other non-SOY trips. staff comments - Parking Amendments. page 3 .,'~"" ....,J ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 AGENDA TOPIC: GMQS & Parking - work session PRESENTED BY: Chris Bendon COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Helen, Terry, Tim, & Torre Summary: This work session focused on amendments to the City's Growth Management and Parking regulations. Council reviewed each of the issues and directed staff to proceed into public hearings. GMQS Items Discussed: Residential Development: Question: Is City Council comfortable with continuing staff exemptions for single- family and duplex development? This is the ADU or cash-in-lieu policy that has been in effect for roughly 15 years. Staff does not see any reason to change this policy. Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the revisions. Question: Staff recommends continuing the exemption for Historic Landmark properties. Does City Council want to change this policy? Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the revisions. Question: Council earlier stated a preference for a 1 % growth rate for residential development. All other forms of development would continue to be restricted to a 2% growth rate. Staff supports this lowered rate for residential development. Is City Council still directing staff in the manner? Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the reVISIOns. Question: Stafl is recommending the affordable housing requirement be 60% units and 30% FAR for all new residential development. Is Council still directing staff in this manner? Council directed staff to maintain this policy in the revisions. Rachel raised the possibility of lowering the Category designation to Category 3. This was not endorsed by other Council members. This item can be further discussed during hearings. I r"" ,-,,./ Question: Should ADUs which are fully deed restricted and sold according to the Housing Office policy be counted toward the 60/30 requirement? Staff supports this policy only for fully deed restricted ADUs. This would be applicable to any new single- family subdivision. Council directed staff to implement this policy in the revisions. Lodllim! Development: Question: Is Council interested in this lodging development incentive concept? Staff believes the dwindling bed base is a significant community issue and that rejuvenating the resort's offerings is an important goal. The incentive program would be based on developments having atleast one lodge unit per 500 square feet oflot are and an average unit size of 500 square feet. The incentive would be that additional lodge rooms would only require 50% of the affordable housing mitigation. Council directed staff to proceed with this incentive program after further meeting with the Gems of Aspen and other lodge operators. Question: If 20% of an Incentive Lodge project can be free-market residential what should the mitigation for these residential units be? Additional mitigation will reduce the value of the incentive. Council directed staff to include a mitigation level similar to exempt residential development - an ADU or cash-in-lieu. Question: Is Council interested in these (or other) lodging development options? Staff believes the complete exemption for projects with no free-market development should be offered. The option of offering a larger incentive through a review process could allow the City to incentivize lodging on a project-by-project basis. This item will be explored by staff and brought forward with the code amendments. Commercial Development: Question: Does City Council want to redirect staff on these general points? Staff is recommending the same 60% affordable housing mitigation standard be applied in the revisions, that redevelopment projects with no increase in impacts not be required to provide mitigation, and that the reviews for commercial and mixed-use developments occur with the P&Z. Council directed staff to maintain these policies in the revisions. Question: Is Council interested in this Alley Store Concept? An affordable housing mitigation waiver is likely the only way to encourage this concept. Council directed staff to include this provision in the revisions and raising the maximum size to 600 square feet. Question: Is Council comfortable with the proposed On-Site Affordable Housing Incentive? Staff believes the mix of uses and income groups will encourage very 2 ." .. ,j interesting projects. Council directed staff to include this provision in the revisions. Torre wanted to meet with staff and go through a few pro formas before fully endorsing this concept. Question: Is Council comfortable with this Free-Market 1 Affordable Housing ratio for mixed-use buildings? Council previously directed staff to provide additional analysis of this FAR mix. This additional analysis suggests an affordable housing requirement equal to 30% of the free-market FAR. This would mimic the multi-family requirement and is similar to existing requirements. Staff is not recommending the 60% units requirement of the residential program but rather allowing the free-market space to be divided into as many units as the developer feels appropriate. Council directed staff to proceed with this policy. Historic Incentives. Question: Is Council interested in a lower mitigation rate as a historic landmark incentive? To what extent? Should a cap on the total waiver be used? Council directed staff to further explore a lesser mitigation standard for historic properties. The 4- employee cap was seen as a way to provide an incentive without exempting a significant impact. Tim wanted to have an opinion from the HPC. Previously Resolved GMQS Items: Redevelopment projects should be permitted a credit for their existing development. The City's code permits the replacement of commercial square footage after demolition only if the project mitigates for affordable housing as if nothing existed there before - no credit. This replacement penalty is a significant barrier to redevelopment and removing it is a consistent theme of the infill discussions. This redevelopment credit idea was implemented a few years ago in the Lodge Preservation Program and has produced some positive activity. Providing this credit is similar to the City's approach on Lodging development. Off-site affordable housing mitigation should be approved by P&Z while off-site, outside the city limits should only be approved by City Council. This outside the city issue also was raised by Council during lodging discussions with the preference being to permit such mitigation with approvals from City Council. The Historic TDR Program will not be expanded to the Commercial Zones. A TDR program for Affordable Housing mitigation will not be pursued in infill code amendments. The idea will be forwarded to the Housing Authority and Board. 3 , , # Parkin!!: Staff recommended the following parking strategy: . Equalizing the commercial parking ratio to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space. . Allowing cash-in-lieu to be an easier option for developers. Currently, this requires a P&Z review. Staff is recommending this be permitted outright for commercial development. . Maintaining the cash-in-lieu fee at the current $15,000 per space figure to minimize the barrier of redevelopment. Doubling the fee will undo the benefit of reducing the parking requirements. . Allowing cash-in-lieu to be used by the City with greater flexibility. Programs like the Car Share program address mobility and should be funded through these parking waivers. . Eliminating Commercial Core parking requirements for residential development at a minimum. The C I zone would also benefit with this change. The biggest barrier to residential development above commercial space is parking. Staff has met with several developers and the significance of this barrier cannot be overstated - it's a "deal-breaker." . Unfortunately the parking requirements preclude on-site affordable housing options, counter to the basic mixed-use philosophy. Question: Is this an acceptable parking strategy? Can this item move forward? Council directed staff to move forward on parking consistent with this strategy. Council directed staff to provide research on various other communities that have recently lowered parking ratios andlor implemented parking maximums. 4 " J ~;VJi~ ~ c::rI1JltYt- of- ~'fW.- ~ Tn~~ 0 (~. 200 1 Implementing the regional transportation plan What is the Regional Transportation Plan? Metro's 2000 Regional Trans- portation Plan is a blueprint to guide new transportation investments in the Portland metropolitan region during the next 20 years. The plan begins to implement Metro's 2040 Growth Concept to protect the livability of this region in the face of an expected 50 percent increase in population and a 70 percent increase injobs by 2020. The goal of the plan is to expand choices for travel in the region. To this end, the plan sets policies for traveling by cars, buses, light rail. walking, bicycling and movement of freight by air, rail. truck and water. .' (,.:, -,_,if'" . ,Ii, METRO Regional Services Cteating livable commUllities Metro, the regional government that serves the 1.3 million people who live in Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington counties and the 24 cities in the Portland metropoli- tan area, provides planning and services that protect the nature of our region. Printed on recycled content paper ZOOO.J0583.TRWOO464kf1a Providing options to driving alone The region's transportation demand management program (TDM) is Ihe element of the Regional Transportation Plan that works to provide alternatives to driving alone. The policies direct planning in the regional TDM program and support funding for regional bicycle, -pedes- trian and public transit systems. The policies respond to the federal Clean Air Act requirements of 1990, the state Transportation Planning Rule and the state Employee Commute Options Rule. Core elements of the regional program are administered by Tri-Met with oversight by Metro through the TDM subcommittee of the Transportation Policy Alterna- tives Committee. Elements of the program are administered by the Department of Environmental Quality, the Oregon Office of Energy and Wilsonville's transit system (South Metro Area Rapid TransiJ). Regional transportation demand management policies Policy: Enhance mobility and support the use of alternative transportation modes by improving regional accessibility to public transportation, carpooling, telecommuting, cycling and walking options. Promote programs that reduce the number of people driving alone and dependence on the automobile. continues Bicycling and taking MAX are among the alternatives to driving alone. ."" ,~,' Metro adopted parking ratios at the Clackamas Promenade, designed to maximize the use of parking lots and reduce urban sprawl by reducing land devoted to parking. Promote transit-supportive design and infrastructure in 2040 Growth Concept land-use components. . Establish a non-single-occupancy vehicle modal target for each 2040 design type (see table). Establish and support transportation management associations for employee commute options. Promote private and public sector programs and services that encourage employees to use non~SOV modes or change commuting patterns, such as telecommuting. flexible work hours and/or compressed work weeks. Investigate the use of high-occupancy-vehicle (carpool) lanes to improve system reliability and reduce roadway congestion. Promote facilities that support alternative transportation, such as showers and lockers at employment centers for employees who bicycle to work. Investigate the use of market-based strategies that reflect the full costs of transportation to encourage more efficient use of resources. Regional program The regional program includes strategies that promote shared rides (car and vanpooling) and the use of transit, walking, biking, work schedule changes and telecommuting. especially during the must congested times of the day. Providing optiuns to driving alone allows people to eliminate trips or switch to another method of travel that can improve the efficiency of our transportation system and result in better air quality. This can delay the expansion of the regional motor vehicle system. Alternative mode share targets established in the table that follows are goals for cities and counties to work toward as they implement the 2040 Growth Concept at the local level. Improvements in non-single-occupancy 2040reg.ional modal targets non~singJewoccupancy vehicle 2040 design type modal target nonwsinglewoccupancy vehicle Central city 60 to 70 percent Regional centers Town centers Main streets Station communities Corridors 45 to 55 percent Industrial areas Intermodal facilities Employment areas Inner neighborhoods Outer neighborhoods 40 to 45 percent vehicle mode share will be used to show compliance with per capita travel reductions required by the state Transportation Planning Rule. The most urbanized areas of the region will achieve higher participation than less developed areas closer to the urban growth boundary. Parking management As non-auto modes of travel are used more, the demand for parking decreases. Reducing the demand for parking will allow the region to use our land supply more efficiently, reduce paved surfaces and provide opportunities to redevelop existing parking into other more important uses. "..;;...... " ,,~ "' Parking management policies are intended to assist local jurisdictions with implementation of the state Depart- ment of Environmental Quality's voluntary parking ratio program contained in the region's ozone maintenance plan. ~ Regional parking management policies Policy: Manage and optimize the efficient use of public and commercial parking in the central city, regional centers, town centers, main streets and employment centers to support the 2040 Growth Concept and related RTP policies and objectives. . Establish minimum and maximum parking ratios to help the region manage the number of off-street parking spaces in the region. . Support local adoption of parking management plans. . Promote the use and development of shared parking spaces for commercial and retail land uses. . Implement appropriate parking ratios and investigate other measures throughout the region that reduce the demand for parking or lead to more efficient parking design options. . Encourage preferential parking stalls for carpool, vanpool, motorcycle, bicycle and motorized bicycle parking at major retail centers, institutions and employment centers. . Conduct further study of market -based strategies, such as parking pricing and employer-based parking- cash outs and restructuring parking rates. TDM program enhancements The TDM program will be conlinually updated to include new strategies for regional demand management. One strategy to be considered is the" location efficient mortgage" , which increases the borrowing power of potential homebuyers in "location efficient" neighborhoods. These are neighborhoods that are pedestrian-friendly areas with easy access to public transit, shopping, employment and schools. This mortgage recognizes that families can save money because the need to travel by car is reduced. Instead of owning two cars, a family could get by with one car, or none. Bankers are required to look at the average monthly amount of money that applicants would be spending on transportation and apply it to the servicing of a larger mortgage. This increases the purchasing power of borrowers when buying a home in location efficient neighborhoods, stimulating home purchases in existing urban areas. Peak period pricing considered Peak period pricing will be considered when new highway capacity is added in the region. Peak period pricing involves market pricing (through variable tolls) on congested roadways at times of highest use. Peak period pricing has been successful in other parts of the US and internationally by providing an incentive for The 2000 Regional Transportation Plan places new emphasis on street parking where possisble (as shown here in Portlands Pearl District) to reduce the need for new parking lots. Tri-Met allows bicycles on transit to encourage less driving. drivers to select other modes, routes, destinations or times of day to travel. Drivers who choose to pay the toll can benefit from significant time savings. Peak period pricing is the only demand management tool specific to a location and time of day, making it uniquely effective in reducing congestion and improv- ing mobility while limiting vehicle miles traveled and the need for new roads. In addition, it may generate revenues to help with needed transportation improve- ments. The Traffic Relief Oplions Study, completed in 1999 by Metro and ODOT, examined the potenlial of various types of roadway pricing to meet the regional transportation, environmental and land-use goals. The study, undertaken with the guidance from a citizen task force, found that pricing existing lanes would generate the most revenue. It could also result in the most significant reduction in vehicle miles of travel and air pollution. However, the task force did not recommend pricing existing roadways. Instead, it was recommended that pricing be considered when new highway capacity is built. Peak period pricing policy Policy: Manage and optimize the use of highways in the region to reduce congestion, improve mobility and maintain accessibility within limited financial re- sources. Apply peak period pricing appropriately to manage congestion. In addition, peak period pricing may generate revenues to help with needed transportation improvements. Consider peak period pricing as a feasible option when major, new highway capacity is being added. Do not price existing roadways at this time. Circumstances where peak period pricing may be appropriate are: - When one or more lanes are being added to a currently congested highway, a stretch of several miles should be considered. - Where a major new highway facility is being constructed where none exists now to provide congestion relief in the corridor, peak period pricing of all lanes should be considered. - Where a major facility (bridge or highway) is undergoing reconstruction and significant capacity is being added, pricing of one or all lanes should be considered. Objectives for future consideration of peak period pricing: - Identify at least one specific project for which peak period pricing is appropriate to serve as a pilot project within two years. - Pursue federal Value Pricing Pilot Program funds for development of detailed implementation plans and/or administration of pilot projects. For more information Call the transportation hotline, (503) 797- 1900 option 2. You can leave a message requesting a copy of the Regional Transpor- tation Plan or other fact sheets about the plan. Ask for a list of all RTP fact sheets. If you are hearing impaired, call TDD (503) 797-1804. Visit our web site at www.metro-region.org Send e-mail totrans@metro.dst.or.US / T',..' RA',.' " N',' s. '.1' 'T'.,' '.: :' . .,., '. ,. 'j, .. .. . . ~ : ';. . .< ;,. ..... . ", ':. :, . .,.. ..." ... '.. .", " ' ' fOl'LiKtMIleCOIlJIH.iaes Contact Us: 626 Selby Ave, Suite A Saint Paul, MN 55104 (651) 767-0298 Fax: (651) 221-9831 The Myth of Free Parking ., ., ._-~---,,-,,~-- .. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the Twin Cities region, drivers rarely think about parking; parking spaces are abundant at all but a few locations and most appear to be free. Public officials typically focus on ensuring "enough" parking to satisfy demand and ignore the problems of oversupply and subsidization. Even most employers fail to question the long-standing practice of providing employees and customers with "free" parking. The full costs of parking While vehicle parking provides benefits, those benefits come at a cost - a cost that is often higher than people realize. The cost to construct a single parking stall in a typical above ground. ramp is $15,000, and the maintenance costs are hundreds of in the Twn alies legion_ govemment invests more dollars per year. In money each year in off-street parking and dliveways the Twin Cities lhan in public transit. metropolitan region, more money is invested annually in parking and driveways by government, individuals, and businesses than is invested in streets and roads. Furthermore, government's investment in public transit in the Twin Cities metropolitan region is less than government's investment in parking. Parking also has hidden costs and unexpected consequences, especially when it is oversupplied or provided at no cost to the user. Parking plays a key role in low density development patterns and high dependence on the automobile in the f Twin Cities region. "Free" and abundant parking contributes to growing congestion by providing an incentive for driving alone and a disincentive to use other forms of transportation. Too much parking can detract from a "community feel" and pedestrian environment in neighborhoods and business districts. Parking also affects housing affordability by increasing construction costs. In addition, too much parking negatively impacts water quality and urban temperatures. A proactive approach Recognizing these problems, some public agencies, municipalities and employers are taking a new approach to parking policy. Some employers are charging employees for parking and are providing incentives for other modes of travel. Public sector leadership is coming from Oregon where the state legislature t requires metropolitan areas to reduce parking spaces per capita and the regional government for the Portland metropolitan area placed region.wide limits on the amount of parking municipalities require. Other cities are using strategies to reduce the need for parking and better balance supply and demand. Iowa City, Iowa and St. Paul, Minnesota have established special "traditional neighborhood" zoning districts with reduced ~ parking requirements that encourage walkable, transit-oriented development. The City of Seattle provides technical assistance to neighborhoods on parking management. Many cities, including Minneapolis, require employers to implement plans to reduce drive-alone trips by employees. The City of San Francisco uses a parking tax to fund a significant portion of the budget for MUNI, the city's public transit agency. "Parking is important where the place isn't important. In a place like Faneuil Hall in Boston it's amazing how for people ore willing to walk. In o dull place, you wont 0 parking space right in front of where you're going." ~ Fred Kent president of Partners for Public $paces III New York City SOUlreL E<D(J KOI;(ii\ Liso ;Vc'm~se( .L\~n t [-"Pf: rnit~1< of Parkin:;,; 11,01'0. ^ rric'1n1!lp_ .111,':{, N'/7 is roo Lm-l1J Horli$t 8on(jsh&i! m MinneOpoiis ottroc;s lOfge crow'Os tor summef concorts d9$pjto having roiotivofy liffio en-Sife potkt'VJ Recommendations for reforming parking policies and practices In the Twin Cities region, employers, government agencies, and local units of government all have a role to play in reforming parking policies and practices. This report recommends a number of different strategies; the primary ones are described here. Employers and business "Free" parking is a significant factor in commute decisions because it results in a subsidy for driving. Employers should charge employees and customers for parking, or at a minimum, provide equal incentives for use of transit, carpooling, biking, walking and other modes of transit. Local government Municipalities should evaluate local parking requirements to ensure they are accurate and consistent with goals for housing, transit ridership, density, pedestrian access, and environmental protection. Parking charges at municipal parking facilities and meters should reflect the full cost of providing the parking. In addition, municipalities can work with neighborhoods and businesses to ensure that the existing supply of parking is managed effectively. Tools such as setting a parking cap, taxing parking usage, or charging fees in lieu of parking should be considered. Metropolitan Council Regional strategies are crucial to adequately address the negative consequences of parking that is oversupplied or subsidized. The Metropolitan Council should address parking policy more fully in its regional planning and transportation documents. It should consider establishing region-wide minimum and maximum parking ratios and set a goal for reducing parking spaces per capita. Modeling for major transportation projects should examine the effect of employers charging for parking or increasing parking charges as a method to reducing drive-alone commuting and traffic congestion The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Planning documents should recognize the important role that "free" and abundant parking plays in rising levels of traffic congestion and low rates of transit use and carpooling. MnDOT should also provide technical assistance to local units of government on parking surveys, parking management and other best practices. State of Minnesota Legislature The legislature should adopt legislation that establishes a goal for reducing parking spaces per capita. It should affect direct state and regional agencies to adopt policies to reduce the need for parking and better manage supply and demand. The legislature should increase funding for public transit and evaluate transit fares in light of the availability of "free" and subsidized parking. Finally, the legislature should require all state employees to pay the full cost of parking or provide an equivalent benefit for carpooling, transit use, walking, biking and other modes. , , Chapter 33.266 Parking And Loading C. Calculations of amounts of required and allowed parking. 1. When computing parking spaces based on floor are not counted. 2. The number of parking spaces is computed bas site except as stated in Paragraph C.3., below. separate primary uses on a site, the required or the sum of the required or allowed parking for t For joint use parking, see Paragraph 33.266.11 3. When more than 20 percent of the floor area on the required or allowed parking is calculated se An example would be a 40,000 square foot buil warehouse and a 10,000 square foot accessory allowed parking would be computed separately uses. 4. If the maximum number of spaces allowed is Ie minimum number required, then the maximun increased to one more than the minimum. Title 33, Planning and Zoning 7/16/04 ~h;b"f- c:.. ~.~ ~ or r~, ~ &k. 5. If the maximum number of spaces allowed is less than one, then the maximum number is automatically increased to one. D. Use of required parking spaces. Required parking spaces must be available for the use of residents, customers, or employees of the use. Fees may be charged for the use of required parking spaces. Required parking spaces may not be assigned in any way to a use on another site, except for joint parking situations. See 33.266.IIO.B. Also, required parking spaces may not be used for the parking of equipment or storage of goods or inoperable vehicles. E. Proximity of parking to use. Required parking spaces for residential uses must be located on the site of the use or within a tract owned in common by all the owners of the properties that will use the tract. Required parking spaces for nonresidential uses must be located on the site of the use or in parking areas whose closest point is within 300 feet of the site. F. Stacked parking. Stacked or valet parking is allowed if an attendant is present to move vehicles. If stacked parking is used for required parking spaces, some form of guarantee must be filed with the City ensuring that an attendant will always be present. when the lot is in operation. The requirements for minimum or maximum spaces and all parking area development standards continue to apply for stacked parking. See also 33.266.140. G. Office of Transportation review. The Office of Transportation reviews the layout of parking areas for compliance with the curb cut and access restrictions of Section 17.28.110, Driveways - Permits and Conditions. f 33.266.110 Minimum Required Parking Spaces A. Purpose. The purpose of required parking spaces is to provide enough on-site parking to accommodate the majority of traffic generated by the range of uses which might locate at the site over time. Sites that are located in close proximity to transit, have good street connectivity, and good pedestrian facilities may need little or no off-street parking. Transit-supportive plazas and bicycle parking may be 266-2 Title 33, Planning and Zoning 7/16/04 Chapter 33.266 Parking And Loading substituted for some required parking on a site to encourage transit use and bicycling by employees and visitors to the site. The required parking numbers correspond to broad use categories, not specific uses, in response to this long term emphasis. Provision of carpool parking, and locating it close to the building entrance, will encourage carpool use. B. Minimum number of parking spaces required. ~ ~ 4. *5. 1. The minimum number of parking spaces for all zones is stated in Table 266-1. Table 266-2 states the required number of spaces for use categories. The standards of Tables 266-1 and 266-2 apply unless specifically superseded by other portions of the City Code. 2. Joint use parking. Joint use of required parking spaces may occur where two or more uses on the same or separate sites are able to share the same parking spaces because their parking demands occur at different times. Joint use of required nonresidential parking spaces is allowed if the following documentation is submitted in writing to BDS as part of a building or zoning permit application or land use review: a. The names and addresses of the uses and of the owners or tenants that are sharing the parking; b. The location and number of parking spaces that are being shared; c. An analysis showing that the peak parking times of the uses occur at different times and that the parking area will be large enough for the anticipated demands of both uses; and d. A legal instrument such as an easement or deed restriction that guarantees access to the parking for both uses. 3. Exceptions for sites well served by transit. There is no minimum parking requirement for sites located less than 500 feet from a transit street with 20- minute peak hour service. Applicants requesting this exception must provide a map identifying the site and TriMet schedules for all transit routes within 500 feet of the site. Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25 percent of required parking. For every five nonrequired bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long-term bicycle parking standards, the motor vehicle parking requirement is reduced by one space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision. Substitution of transit-supportive plazas for required parking. Sites where at least 20 parking spaces are required, and where at least one street lot line abuts a transit street may substitute transit-supportive plazas for required parking, as follows. Existing parking areas may be converted to take advantage of these provisions. Adjustments to the regulations of this paragraph are prohibited. a. Transit-supportive plazas may be substituted for up to 10 percent of the required parking spaces on the site; b. The plaza must be adjacent to and visible from the transit street. If there is a bus stop along the site's frontage, the plaza must be adjacent to the bus stop; 266-3 Chapter 33.266 Parking And Loading Title 33, Planning and Zoning 7/16/04 c. The plaza must be at least 300 square feet in area and be shaped so that a lO'x I 0' square will fit entirely in the plaza; and d. The plaza must include all of the following elements: (I) A plaza open to the public. The owner must record a public access easement that allows public access to the plaza; (2) A bench or other sitting area with at least 5 linear feet of seating; (3) A shelter or other weather protection. The shelter must cover at least 20 square feet. If the plaza is adjacent to the bus stop, TriMet must approve the shelter; and (4) Landscaping. At least 10 percent, but not more than 25 percent of the transit-supportive plaza must be landscaped to the LI standard of Chapter 33.248, Landscaping and Screening. This landscaping is in addition to any other landscaping or screening required for parking areas by the Zoning Code. ~6 Motorcycle parking may substitute for up to 5 spaces or 5 percent of required automobile parking, whichever is less. For every 4 motorcycle parking spaces provided, the automobile parking requirement is reduced by one space. Each motorcycle space must be at least 4 feet wide and 8 feet deep. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this provision. c. Carpool parking. For office, industrial, and institutional uses where there are more than 20 parking spaces on the site, the following standards must be met: 1. Five spaces or five percent of the parking spaces on site, whichever is less, must be reserved for carpool use before 9:00 AM on weekdays. More spaces may be reserved, but they are not required. 2. The spaces will be those closest to the building entrance or elevator, but not closer than the spaces for disabled parking and those signed for exclusive customer use. 3. Signs must be posted indicating these spaces are reserved for carpool use before 9:00 AM on weekdays. 266-4 ~ Title 33, Planning and Zoning 7/16/04 Chapter 33.266 Parking And Loading Table 266-1 Minimum Reouired and Maximum Allowed Parkin&: Suaces Bv Zone n 1 Zone Reauirement OS, RF - RH, IR, CN2, CO2, Minimum is Standard A in Table 266-2. CG, EG,I Maximum is Standard 8 in Table 266-2. EX Minimum None, except: Household Living: minimum of 0 forI to 3 units, 1 per 2 units for four+ units, and SROs exempt.. Maximum is Standard A in Table 266-2, except; 1) Retail, personal setvice, repair-oriented- Maximum is 1 per 200 sq. ft. of floor area. 2) Restaurants and bars - Maximum is 1 per 75 sq. ft. of floor area. 3) General office - Maximum is 1 per 400 sq. ft. of floor area. 4) Medical/Dental office - Maximum is 1 per 330 sq. ft. of floor area. CNI Minimum - None. Maximum of 1 space per 2,500 sq. ft. of site area. CM, CS, RX, CX, COI Minimum None. Maximum is Standard B in Table 266-2. [11 Regulations in a plan district or overlay zone may supersede the standards of this table. 33.266.115 Maximum Allowed Parking Spaces A. Purpose. Limiting the number of spaces allowed promotes efficient use of land, enhances urban form, encourages use of alternative modes of transportation, provides for better pedestrian movement, and protects air and water quality. The maximum ratios in this section vary with the use the parking is accessory to and with the location of the use. These maximums will accommodate most auto trips to a site based on typical peak parking demand for each use. Areas that are zoned for more intense development or are easily reached by alternative modes of transportation have lower maximums than areas where less intense development is anticipated or where transit service is less frequent. In particular, higher maximums are appropriate in areas that are more than a 1/4 mile walk from a frequently served bus stop or more than a 1/2 mile walk from a frequently served Transit Station. 266-5 """ ,c"'" ',,-. ,.f Chapter 33.266 Parking And Loading Title 33, Planning and Zoning 7/16/04 Table 266-2 Parking Spaces by Use 'Refer to Table 266.1 to determine which standard aUllies.1 Use Cateaories Snecific Uses ' Standard A Standard B Residential Cateaories Household Living 1 per unit, except SROs None exempt and in RH, where it is 0 for 1 to 3 units and 1 I oer 2 units for four + units Groun Livinu 1 ner 4 residents None Commercial Categories Retail Sales And Retail, personal service, 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 196 sq. ft. of floor Service rcnair oriented area area Restaurants and bars 1 per 250 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 63 sq. ft. of floor area area Health clubs, gyms, lodges, 1 per 330 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 185 sq. ft. of floor meeting rooms, and area area similar. Continuous entertainment such as arcades and bowlinp allevs Temporary lodging 1 per rentable room; for 1.5 per rentable room; for associated uses such as associated uses such as restaurants, see above restaurants, see above Theaters 1 per 4 seats or 1 per 6 1 per 2.7 seats or 1 per 4 feet of bench area feet of bench area Office General office 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 294 sq. ft. of floor area area Medical/Dental office 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 204 sq. ft. of floor area area Quick Vehicle 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 196 sq. ft. of floor Servicinu area area Vehicle Repair 1 p~rr :,50 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor area 1 area Commercial Parki~ Not annlicable None Self-Service Sto~e I2l 21 Commercial Outdoor 20 per acre of site 30 per acre of site Recreation Major Event 1 per 8 seats or per CD 1 per 5 scats or per CD Entertainment review review Industrial Cateaories Manufacturing And 1 p~rr~150 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor Production area 1 area Warehouse And 1 per 750 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor Freight area for the first 3,000 sq. area for the first 3,000 sq. Movement ft. of floor area and then 1 ft. of floor area and then 1 per 3,500 sq. ft. r~~ floor per 2,500 sq. ft. of floor area thereafter 1 area thereafter Wholesale Sales, 1 per 750 sq. ft. of floor 1 per 500 sq. ft. of floor Industrial Service, area [1] area Railroad Yards Waste-Related Per CU review Per CD review 266-6 . , , . ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: YCl.V'k/lI\~ ~~ ~ce~spen,co SCHEDllLEDPUBLlCHEARINGDATE: V~o/a5 ,200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~wt~ LI~dl- (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: ~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) ofthe Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government, school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that owns property within three hundred (300) feet ofthe property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) "" .~ Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text ofthis Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, 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 has been available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. ~(~ ~~J nature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" wa~wledged before me this) Lf day of ~~ ,2005,by J?- - ~ ).....l~ I . Public Not Notary Public WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 'f 63/ ~ \ .?-::. .F'LJ~~/ C' 0." <:/ Srnr...'r\ , ,. QP-'SS 11';.... . Q- ...."..... .' 0 T(~ 6F"cOv , ~ PUBLIC NOTICE RE: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS - PARKING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, March 28, 2005 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the As- pen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena 51., Aspen, to consider an application sub- mitted by the City of Aspen Community Develop- ment Department requesting land use code COPY OF THE PUBLICATION amendments tu the following sections of the Land Use Code - 26.515, Parking and 26.104.fOO, definition 01 comffiCial Parklng Facility. For further inform 'on, conlact ChriS Bendon at [PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) the City of Aspe Community Development De- partment, 1305. lena 51.. Aspen, CO, (970) 429- 2765 chrisb@ci.as en.co.us. , IHolo"Kall"K1",do"d,M,ym ill GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on March 13, 2005. (2481) A TT ACHMENTS: BY MAlL MEMORANDUM ""a, TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council RE: John Worcester, City Attorney Chris Bendon, Community Development Director~ Parking Code Amendment First Reading of Ordinance N 0.11-; Series of 2005 Second Reading Scheduled for Mr;ch 28, 2005 THRU: FROM: DATE: March 14, 2005 SUMMARY: This proposed ordinance updates the Parking Chapter of the Land Use Code consistent with direction from City Council during a recent work session. The proposal focuses on the bigger picture of mobility by leveraging the City' parking requirements. Aspen has a long tradition of promoting alternate transportation methods. To require on-site parking is counter to this philosophy as it promotes driving to downtown. Parking takes-up very valuable ground floor commercial space and with the relatively small downtown lots, parking quickly becomes the main factor of a development. Parking is a significant barrier to development and redevelopment of these smaller lots. The aesthetics of parking is also counter to traditional townsite development. Aspen is fortunate to have little on-site surface parking downtown and enjoys a pedestrian orientation. Providing payment-in-lieu options will enable the City to fUnd programs that enhance mobility. This could be in-town transit, car-share programs, or other ideas that the Transportation Department brings forward that require funding. The most critical area for this parking discussion is the immediate downtown - the CC and C I districts. P&Z, along with staff, feel that on-site parking should not be encouraged in this area as this area should be as pedestrian-oriented as possible. Staffis recommending the following parking strategy: . Equalizing the commercial parking ratio to 1.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space. . Allowing cash-in-lieu to be an easier option for developers. Currently, this requires a P&Z review. Staff is recommending this be permitted outright for commercial and mixed-use development. . Maintaining the cash-in-lieu fee at the current $15,000 per space figure to minimize the barrier of redevelopment. . Allowing cash-in-lieu to be used by the City with greater flexibility. Currently, the City can only spend these funds on building additional parking. Programs like the car share program and in-town transit address mobility and should be funded to a greater degree. . Eliminating parking requirements for residential and lodging development in the CC and CI Zones. The biggest barrier to residential development above commercial space is parking. Staff has met with several developers and the significance of this barrier cannot be overstated - it's a "deal-breaker." Otherwise, the parking requirements preclude on-site affordable housing options, counter to the basic mixed-use philosophy. Council requested additional information on how other communities are approaching parking. Attached is some initial research and staff will provide more upon second reading. The Portland, OR, example implements parking maximums. This is an aggressive approach to limiting parking, but Portland has been successful in reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. The proposed Ordinance also addresses Commercial Parking Facilities. The current code is a little unclear as to what qualifies as a commercial facility. Staff has reworked this and is prosing that two characteristics are necessary for a parking facility to be considered a commercial facility: 1) The parking is used on a short-term basis. Staff is prosing this be anything less that one month. This will catch operations that lease on an hourly or daily basis but not those that lease on a long-term basis. 2) The facility is a stand-along commercial venture. This would exempt parking that is accessory to a use, even if the parking were short-term. For example: parking at one of the grocery stores would not be considered a commercial parking facility just because it is short-term parking. Staff believes this definition is better suited for regulating potential Commercial Parking Facilities. This won't interfere with existing long-term parking leases in town and will not interfere with short-term parking for guests, patrons, etc. of businesses. This specifically focuses on the potential for short -term parking operations that are independent commercial ventures. Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. It, Series of 2005, upon first reading. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. Lt Series of2005, upon first reading." ATTACHMENTS: A - Review Criteria B - Council Work Session Summary C - Research on parking policies of other communities 2 , , ORDINANCE NO. 11 (SERIES OF 2005) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.515 - OFF- STREET PARKING AND SECTION 26.104.100 - DEFINITIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen directed the Director of the Community Development Department to propose amendments to the Land Use Code, part of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, related to the Infill Report, a report developed by a city-commissioned advisory group, the Infill Advisory Group, pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the Infill Program is to implement action items identified in the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan, Barriers to Infill Development (a report commissioned by the City of Aspen in 2000), recommendations of the Infill Report (a report produced by the Infill Advisory Group in January, 2002), and the Recommendations of the Economic Sustainability Committee (a joint project between the City of Aspen, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, and the Aspen Institute Community Forum concluded in September, 2002) that call for: . intensification of land uses within the traditional townsite. . focusing of growth towards already developed areas and away from undeveloped areas surrounding the city. . retention of existing commercial and lodging uses. . increased vitality of the downtown retail environment. . rej uvenation of aging commercial properties. . development of mixed-use buildings with housing opportunities for locals. . development of affordable housing in locations supported by the "Interim Aspen Area Housing Plan Guidelines" (incorporated as part ofthe 2000 AACP). . revisions to, or elimination of, identified barriers to successful infill development such as the costs of development exactions, growth management penalties for redeveloping buildings, and the length and uncertainty of approval processes. . revisions to the strategy implementing growth management to emphasize quality of development as opposed to just the quantity of development. . elimination of development incentives for single-family and duplex development within commercial, mixed-use, and lodging zone districts. . balance between the community and the resort aspects of Aspen. . sustainability of the local social and economic conditions. ---"....,...._..._.,,-~,.~.._~-"' . The creation of a development environment in which private sector motivation is leveraged to address community goals; and, WHEREAS, the amendments herein relate to the following Section of the Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code: 26.515 - Off-Street Parking 26.104.100 - Definitions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the proposed amendments, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapters and Sections on September 3, 2002, continued to September 17, 2002, continued to September 24, 2002, continued to October I, 2002, continued to October 8, 2002, continued to October 15, 2002, continued to October 22, 2002, continued to October 29, 2002, continued to November 5, 2002, continued to November 12,2002, continued to November 19, 2002, continued to November 26, 2002, continued to December 10, 2002, and continued to December 17, 2002, took and considered public testimony at each of the aforementioned hearing dates and the recommendation of the Community Development Director and recommended, by a five to one (5-1) vote, City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the land use code by amending the text of the above noted Chapters and Sections of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Chapter 26.5] 5, Off-Street Parking, which Chapter describes requirements for the provision of off-street parking associated with development, shall read as follows: Chapter 26.515 OFF-STREET PARKING Sections: 26.515.010 General provisions. 26.515.020 Characteristics of off-street parking spaces 26.515.030 Required number of off-street parking spaces. 26.515.040 Special review standards. 26.515.050 Cash-in-Lieu for mobility enhancements 26.515.010 General provisions. A. General requirements. All development shall be provided with off-street parking as provided in this Chapter. B. Requirements for expansion/redevelopment of existing development. No development shall reduce the number of existing off-street parking spaces below the minimum number of existing spaces required herein for that development, unless expressly exempted by this Chapter. If existing development is expanded, additional off- street parking spaces shall be provided for that increment of the expansion as if it is a separate development. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. C. Off-street parking calculation. All requirements for off-street parking for residential dwellings and lodges shall be calculated based on the number of units. Requirements for off-street parking for commercial uses shall be calculated based on the net leasable area of the structure or use. Requirements for all other land uses not considered residential, lodging, or commercial shall be established by Special Review. D. Required number of spaces when fractional spaces computed. When any calculation of off-street parking results in a required fractional space, said fractional space may be paid through a cash-in-lieu payment or an entire space may be provided on the site. E. Commercial Parking Facilities. When a parking facility is proposed to function as a Commercial Parking Facility, as such terms are used herein, review and approval shall be according to Section 26.430 - Special Review - and the review standards of Section 26.515.040 - Special Review Standards. Development of such a facility may also require Conditional Use Review in some zone districts. Also see definition of Commercial Parking Facility, Section 26.104.100. ',--.,~-~.."-~~_..-._-,". 26.515.020 Characteristics of off-street parking spaces. A. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet wide by ei~hteen(l8) feet long . and seven (7) feet high with a maxirnUInslope:oftwelve(l2)percentin:any:oIledir.ect!on. Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street or alley. Off-street parking provided for multi-family dwellings which do not share a common parking area may be exempted from the unobstructed access requirement subject to special review pursuant to Chapter 26.430 and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, below. Nodr.ivewayshallexceed a maximum slope of twelve (12) percel1twithilllwenty (ZO).feet of.a property line bordering a public<or privateright-of-wa.y. Off-street parking must be paved with all weather surfacing or be covered with gravel. For residential development, a grass-ring or grass-paver type surface may be used. All parking shall be maintained in a usable condition at all times. B. Location of off-street parking. Off-street parking shall be located on the same parcel as the principal use or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership as the lot occupied by the principal use. For all uses, parking shall be accessed from an alley or secondary road, where one exists unless otherwise established according to this Chapter. C. Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off-street parking provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings are not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but shall not block access of emergency apparatus to the property or to structures located on the property. This allows for "stacking" of vehicles where one vehicle is parked directly behind another. D. State Highway 82 off-street parking. All parking required for uses fronting State Highway 82 shall, if an alley exists, be provided access off the alley and shall not enter or exit from or onto State Highway 82. E. Restrictions on use of off-street parking areas. No off-street parking area shall be used for the sale, repair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, nor shall any such activity adjacent to off-street parking spaces obstruct required access to off-street parking areas. Parking spaces shall be used for the parking of vehicles and shall not be used for non-auto related uses such as storage units or trash containers. Parking spaces may only be used as a Commercial Parking Facility if approved for such use. See Section 26.515.010(E) and the definition of Commercial Parking Facility, Section 26.104.100. Commercial Parking Facilities shall require special review approval and may also require conditional use approval in some zone districts. F. Surface Parking. Surface parking is prohibited or requires conditional use review as a principal use of a lot or parcel in some zone districts. For surface parking of eight (8) or more spaces, parking areas shall include one (I) tree with a planter area of . twenty (20) square feet for each four (4) parking spaces. Planter areas may be combined, but shall be proximate to the parking spaces. The Planning and Zoning Commission may waive or modify this requirement on a per case basis. from this landscaping provision. Parking within structures is exempt G. Restrictions on drainage, grading and traffic impact. Off-street parking spaces shall be graded to insure drainage does not create any flooding or water quality problems and shall be provided with entrances and exits so as to minimize traffic congestion and traffic hazards. H. Restrictions on lighting. Lighting facilities for off-street parking spaces, if provided, shall be arranged and shielded so that lights neither unreasonably disturb occupants of adjacent residential dwellings or interfere with driver vision. All outdoor lighting shall comply with the Outdoor Lighting Regulations, Section 26.575.150. 26.515.030 Required number of off-street parking spaces. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each use according to the schedule, below. Whenever the off-street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, that review shall be pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. W4enever the parking requirement shall be established through a Special Review, the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.040, below, shall apply. Whenever the parking requirement may.be provided via a payment in lieu the standards and procedures set forth at Section 26.515.050, below, shall apply. An existing deficit of parking may be maintained when a property is redeveloped. Use: Aspen Infill Area: All Other Areas: Commercial: 1.5 spaces per 1,000 net leasable 3 spaces per 1,000 net square feet of commercial space. leasable square feet of 100% may be provided through a commercial space. payment-in-lieu. Residential- Lesser of one space per bedroom or Lesser of one space per Single-Family and two spaces per unit. Fewer spaces bedroom or two spaces per Duplex: may be approved, pursuant to unit. Section 26.430, Special Review and according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040. Residential- One space per unit. Fewer spaces One space per unit. Fewer Accessory Dwelling Units may be approved, pursuant to spaces may be approved, and Carriage Houses: Section 26.520, Accessory Dwelling pursuant to Section 26.520, Units and Carriage Houses. Accessory Dwelling Units and Carriage Houses. Use: Aspen Infill Area: All Other Areas: Residcntial- One space per unit. Fewer spaces Lesser of one space per Multi-Family (as a single may be approved, pursuant to bedroom or two spaces per use): Section 26.430, Special Review and unit. according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040. Residential- One space per unit. 100% may be One space per unit. Fewer Multi-Family within a provided through a payment-in-lieu. spaces may be approved, mixed-use building: No requirement for residential units pursuant to Section 26.430, in the CC and Cl Zone Districts. Special Review and according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040. HoteIILodge: .5 spaces per unit. Fewer spaces may .7 spaces per unit. Fewer be approved, pursuant to Section spaces may be approved, 26.430, Special Review and pursuant to Section 26.430, according to the review criteria of Special Review and according Section 26.515.040. No requirement to the review criteria of for lodging units in the CC and C1 Section 26.515.040. Zone Districts. All Other Uses: (civic, Established by Special Review Established by Special cultural, public uses, according to the review criteria of Review according to the essential public facilities, Section 26.515.040. review criteria of Section child care centers, etc.) 26.515.040. For properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, fewer spaces may be provided andlor a waiver of cash-in-lieu fees may be approved, pursuant to Section 26.430, Special Review and according to the review criteria set forth below. For lodging projects with flexible unit configurations, also known as "lock-off units", each separate "key", or rentable division, shall constitute a unit for the purposes of this section. For projects with parking requirements in multiple categories (residential, commercial, lodging, or other), the provision of on-site parking may be approved to satisfy the requirements for each use concurrently pursuant to Section 26.430, Special Review and according to the review criteria set forth below. (For example: A project comprised of commercial use requiring 5 parking spaces and lodging use requiring 5 parking spaces may be approved to provide less than 10 total parking spaces.) This shall not apply to parking which is provided through a payment-in-lieu. 26.515.040 Special Review Standards. Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to Special Review, an application shall be processed as a Special Review in accordance with the Common Development Review Procedure set forth in Section 26.304, and be evaluated according to the following standards. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the project requires review by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development Director has authorized consolidation pursuant to Section 26.304.060.B, the Historic Preservation Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Special Review application. A. A Special Review for establishing, varymg, or wmvmg off-street parking requirements may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: I. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests, and employees of the proj ect have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. B. A Special Review to permit a Commercial Parking Facility may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: 1. The location, design, and operating characteristics of the facility are consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The project has obtained growth management approvals or is concurrently being considered for growth management approvals. 3. The location, capacity, and operating characteristics, including affects of operating hours, lighting, ventilation noises, etc., of the facility are compatible with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 4. Access to the facility is from an acceptable location that minimizes staging problems, conflicts with pedestrian flow, conflicts with service delivery, and elimination of on-street parking. 5. The proposed style of operation is appropriate (manned booth, key cards, etc.). 6. The massing, scale, and exterior aesthetics of the building or parking lot IS compatible with the immediate context in which it is proposed. 7. Where appropriate, commercial uses are incorporated into the exterior of the facility's ground t100r to mimic conventional development in that zone district. 26.515.050 Cash-In-Lieu for Mobility Enhancements A. General. The City of Aspen conducted a parking facility analysis in the Fall of 2001 and determined the costs associated with developing new parking facilities to serve the demands of development. While not all potential facilities represented the same potential expenditure, facilities considered likely to be developed by the City of Aspen required an expected $25,000 to $40,000 per space to develop in 2001 dollars. Parking serving commercial and mixed-use development is a public amenity and serves the mobility of the general population. As such, the mobility needs of the general population can be improved through various means other than the provision of on-site parking spaces. B. Cash-in-lieu. A cash-in-lieu payment, for those types of development authorized to provide parking via cash-in-lieu, may be accepted by the Community Development Director to satisfy the off-street parking requirement as long as the following standards are met: I. Amount. In developments, where the off-street parking requirement may be provided via a payment in lieu, the applicant shall make a one-time only payment to the city, in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) per space. A pro-rated payment shall be made when a portion of a space is required. 2. Time ofoavment. The payment-in-lieu of parking shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building permit. All funds shall be collected by the Community Development Director and transferred to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. 3. Use of Funds. Monies in the account shall be used solely for the construction of a parking facility, transportation improvements including vehicles or station improvements, transportation demand management facilities or programs, shared automobiles or programs, and similar transportation- or mobility-related facilities or programs as determined appropriate by the City of Aspen. 4. Refunds. Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present owner of the property for which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7) years from the date fees were paid, unless the Council shall have earmarked the funds for expenditure on a specific project, in which case the time period shall be extended by up to three (3) more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a "..,,," petition to the Finance Director within one year following the end of the seventh (7th) year from the date payment was received by the City of Aspen. For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of the first payment in shall be the first payment out. Any payment made for a project for which a building permit is revoked or cancelled, prior to construction, may be refunded if a petition for refund is submitted to the Finance Director within three (3) months of the date of the revocation or cancellation of the building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the petitioner is the current owner of the property, that the development shall not commence without full compliance with this Chapter, and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the fee. 5. Periodic Review of Rate. In order to insure that the payment-in-lieu rate is fair and represents current cost levels, it shall be reviewed periodically. Any necessary amendments to this section shall be initiated pursuant to section 26.310.020, Procedure for Text Amendment. Section 2: Section 26.104.100 - Definitions, which Section defines terms used in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, shall be amended to include the following term and definition: Commercial Parking Facility: The use of a parcel or structure for the short- term parking of automobiles as an independent commercial venture. Lease periods of less than one month shall constitute short-term parking and shall be considered Commercial Parking Facilities. Leasing of off-street parking spaces to tenants, guests, patrons, or the general public for periods of one month or more shall not constitute a Commercial Parking Facility. When the use of off-street parking spaces by tenants, guests, patrons, or the general public, is accessory to an on~site business or operation and is not an independent commercial venture, the parking shall not be considered a Commercial Parking Facility. Commercial Parking Facilities may require conditional use approval or special review approval in some zone districts. Public parking facilities owned by a public agency shall be considered "public uses." Section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office oftbe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 28th day of March, 2005, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14th day of March, 2005. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of ,2004. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Bendon-C: IhomelinfiIIIParkinglParking-Ordinance.doc ....... - ." t"""" I' 'J i ____".___~_._______.____"__._J j Eie ~t Bocord t:Iavlllate F!<<m Roports FoftDaI: lab tJel> .._.-.--~---~-_._-----------_. ----~-....~- . .-.-.---.--.--------" _...._._--~.~- .---,---. L~....tio\>~J ~ ~ i>i1lili!lti.Junpl :.1 I ~ II illl ~ c. .j' J S ~ ,~ €I' .I j . <J II cg [';,J <) .I i H __.___._.".""__ _"_m_...m._____~____". " Lm... J If)_~ ~ ~~ar_~.1 RoUing~iolorY I ~lion. I Subfo"nils 1 !(oIualion Main 1 RllY'ng Status I AIchlErjj 1 Parcel> I eu.'om Fjelds Po"ni;TJIPO Address 10ZERO Ciy IASPEN POll1lit IrlOIIllalion IvlasterPelmitI Plojec' I DO$Criplion ICODE AMENDMENT:PARKING Subml;'ed ICHRIS 8ENDON 429.2765 r Visible on the web? Pul!ie Ccmmont I AltoclJnonl. I Fee! 1 Fee Summar~ I ~lions I ~; ~ Routing Queue jaslu S latus I fin~l I,r ie Applied 10410412005 fll t'!, Approved 10410412oo5.t:!J Ie Issued I .Ql Final 10410412005 .9J E"""es 10313012006 fll ~ ~ Clock IStepped D"lI'ro Po"nilID: I 33589 Last N....larv OF ASPEN Phone 1(970)920.5000 0" nllolNOl' I.. 6nnit-.=wl1? l:Gi . m,,-__:._:__,>~:':~.,,:~_, IEnter ,he po"ni; lJIPO "odO _ ~ F,stNarno1 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN CO 81611 oi' Jill -_II Record: 4 cf 4