Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Offstreet Parking.45A-88Amendment to Section 7-404 Off-street Parking Requirements 45A-88 s-� eqea% T%off DATE RECEIVED: 8/8/88 DATE COMPLETE: CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEN City of Aspen PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 45A-88 STAFF MEMBER: PROJECT NAME: Amendment to Section 7-404, Off-street Parking Requirements Project Address: Legal Address: APPLICANT: Hadid-Aspen Holdings Applicant Address: 600 E. Cooper, Suite 200 Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Representative Address/Phone: 925-8080 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: P&Z Meeting Date CC Meeting Date 1 STEP: 2 STEP: PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir. Hlth. Aspen Consol. S.D. DATE REFERRED: Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Energy INITIALS: School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Building Inpector Other FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: f FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: 0 August 26, 1988 Joe Wells 130 Midland Park Place F2 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Application for an amendment to the Aspen Land Use Regulations Dear Joe, On August 8th when the Planning Office received the application on behalf of Hadid Aspen Holdings the required fee was not included. I spoke to you the following day and gave you the amount of the fee required which is $1,570.00. To date the fee has not been received and I wanted you to be aware that this application is not considered complete and will not be scheduled until the fee is received. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant ds cc: Perry Harvey, Hadid-Aspen Holdings • • • DOMMUS & weLLs an association of land planners August 8, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: AUG 8 101V, On behalf of Hadid Aspen Holdings, our letter is to request consideration of the attached language as an amendment to the text of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations under the provisions of Article 7, Division 2. The request has to do with allowing consideration of a reduction in the dimensional requirements for parking spaces by Special Review if certain conditions are met. In support of this amendment we are forwarding the relevant information required under Section 6-202 as well as information from a publication by the Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association titled "Dimensions of Parking," which includes a discussion of national standards for compact parking. Nationally, compact parking in a range of 25% to 40% of total spaces provided is considered acceptable if the spaces are 8 feet wide by 16 feet long by 7 feet high; if the width is reduced to 7 1/2 feet, the publication states that the percentage should be no higher than 25%. For local use, we are suggesting that the low end of the range, or 25%, should be used as the maximum to be considered for 8' x 16' spaces and that no more than 20% should be considered if the width is reduced to 7 1/2 feet. In addition, we are suggesting several other conditions that would prohibit a reduction in the size of the spaces if the parking is exterior, is imediately adjacent to a public street or alley, is unpaved or is not totally free of any obstructions. Please let us know if you need additional information. Sincerely, Joe Wells, AICP C- JW/b 608 east hyman avenue ❑ aspen, colorado 81611 ❑ telephone: 303 925-6866 Sec. 6-202. 1. Letter from the applicant is attached. 2. The proposed code amendment is being sought in order to permit the applicant to seek approval of a percentage of compact parking on Lot 1 of the Aspen Mountain Subdivision. 3. Disclosure of ownership for the subject property was submitted with the January 29, 1988 Submission of Amendments. 4. A vicinity map of the property was recorded with the Final Plat for the Property. 5. Not applicable to the proposed code amendment. III\I1111 Aspen Holdings, Inc. August 8, 1988 Mr. Alan Richman 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: My letter is to confirm that we have requested that Doremus & Wells fiLe the attached code amendment request on behalf_ of Savanah Limited Partnership and Hadid Aspen Holdings, Inc., Savanah's representative organization in Aspen. Please contact me if you need further clarification regarding this matter. Sincerely, Perry Ha vey PH/b Attachment 600 East Cooper Street Suite 200 Aspen Colorado 81611 (303) 925-4272 FAX: (303) 925-4387 Sec. 5-302. Characteristics of off-street parking spaces. A. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one-half feet (8 1/2') wide by eighteen feet (18') long and seven feet (7') high, PROVIDED THAT A REDUCTION IN THE DIMENSIONS OF A PORTION OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES MAY BE APPROVED BY SPECIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7, DIV. 4. Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwellings, shall have a public unobstructed area for access to a street or alley. Off-street parking must be paved with all-weather surfacing or be covered with gravel and maintained in a usuable condition at all times. Sec. 7-404. Required number of off-street parking spaces. B. Off-street parking requirements. Whenever the NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES OR THE DIMENSIONS OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED FOR a proposed development are subject to establishment or reduction by Special Review, the Development Application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: 1. ESTABLISHMENT OR REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED: a. In the Commercial Core ... (unchanged) b. In all other ... (unchanged) 2. REDUCTION IN THE DIMENSIONS OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED: IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS, THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE A REDUCTION IN THE DIMENSIONS OF A PORTION OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED. THE DIMENSIONS OF UP TO 25% OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED MAY BE REDUCED TO EIGHT FEET (8') WIDE BY 16 FEET (16') LONG AND SEVEN FEET (7') HIGH; IF THE WIDTH OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES IS FURTHER REDUCED TO SEVEN AND ONE-HALF FEET (7 1/2'), THEN NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED MAY BE SO REDUCED. IN NO EVENT, HOWEVER, SHALL ANY REDUCTION IN THE DIMENSIONS OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 5-302A, BE APPROVED UNLESS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET: • \ • a. ALL OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES WITH REDUCED DIMENSIONS MUST BE LOCATED WITHIN A BUILDING, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3-101; AND b. ACCESS TO SUCH SPACES MAY NOT BE DIRECTLY FROM A PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY, BUT MUST BE BY WAY OF AN ACESSWAY OF AT LEAST THIRTY FEET (30') IN LENGTH FROM THE PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY USED FOR ACCESS; AND C. ALL SUCH SPACES MUST BE PAVED WITH ALL- WEATHER SURFACING; AND d. WHEN REDUCED DIMENSIONS ARE APPROVED FOR OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES, THE PERIMETER OF SUCH SPACES SHALL BE FREE OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS WHICH FURTHER REDUCE THE APPROVED DIMENSIONS. TD�4 COLORADO � INC. Transportation Consultants 1155 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 839-1346 August 1, 1988 Mr. Joe Wells 130 Midland Park Place, F-2 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Ritz -Carlton, Compact Parking Spaces, Aspen Mountain Subdivision Dear Joe, With reference to your request for industry guidelines on the range of small car spaces for the subject underground parking structure, we suggest the following design considerations: 1. Facilities serving the general public (as compared to commuters/workers) should limit the proportion of small spaces to 25 to 40 percent of the total capacity (reference #1). If the small stall is 7-1/2 feet wide (vs. 8 feet), then maximum percentage should be 25 percent. 2. Small car stall dimensions range from T-6" to 8'-0" in width and 15'-0" to 16'-6" in length. Facilities such as the Ritz with anticipated low daily turnover rates (less than three to five turnovers per stall per day) could justify the smaller dimensions (reference #2). 3. Small car stalls should be of consistent size and should be at least one foot narrower than a large car stall, i.e. if the large car stalls will be 8-1/2 feet wide, the small car stalls should 'be 7- 1/2 feet wide (reference #2). 4. Small car stalls should be located and sized so that they always fill before the entire facility. Otherwise, large cars will be forced to use small car stalls (reference #2). I trust this provides the reference information you need to provide to Jay Hammond for the City's review. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, TDA Coloradq_bkc. David D. Leahy, P.E. Principal 7 cc: Bill Eager, TDA Seattle References: 1. "The Dimensions of Parking," Urban Land Institute/National Parking Association, 1983. 2. "Parking for Institutions and Special Events," Eno Foundation for Transportation, 1982. TDA COAADO INC. 11 54 Sharman Street Suite a10 wvor, Oalotad9 $0903 Second Edition I; ULI—the Urban Land Institute NPA—National Parking Association • r�L About ULI—the Urban Land Institute ULI—the Urban Land Institute is an independent, nonprofit research and educational organization incor- porated in 1936 to improve the quality and standards of land use and development. The Institute is committed to conducting practical research in the various fields of real estate knowledge; identifying and interpreting land use trends in rela- tion to the changing economic, social, and civic needs of the people; and disseminating pertinent informa- tion leading to the orderly and more efficient use and development of land. ULI receives its financial support from membership dues, sale of publications,and contributions for re- search and panel services. Ronald R. Rumbaugh Executive Vice President About NPA—the National Parking Association NPA—the National Parking Association, founded in 1951, is the trade association of America's parking in- dustry with membership throughout the free world. The Parking Consultants Council is a special profes- sional group within NPA that is concerned with eco- nomic analysis, functional and structural design, financial counseling, traffic analysis, and maintenance of off-street parking. The Association acts as a clear- inghouse for information about the parking industry. For the benefit of its members, the Association pub- lishes a regular schedule of newsletters as well as a quarterly magazine. The National Parking Association is especially concerned with federal and state legisla- tive matters which affect the parking industry. ULI Project Staff Senior Director, Publications Frank H. Spink, Jr. Managing Editor John A. Casazza Editor Nancy Stewart Staff Vice President, Operations Robert L. Helms Production Manager Regina P. Agricola Art Director Jeffrey Hughes Art Assistant Betsy Van Buskirk Recommended bibliographic listing: Parking Consultants Council, National Parking Association, The Dimensions of Parking, Second Edition. Washington: Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association, 1983. ULI Catalog Number D 34 01983 by ULI—the Urban Land Institute and NPA—National Parking Association Second Printing 1984 All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission of the copyright holder is prohibited. International Standard Book Number 0-87420-623-5 Library of Congress Card CatalogNumber83-50079 Printed in the United States of America ULI—the Urban Land Institute 1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.20005 Thomas G. Kobus Executive Vice President ii _._.. .. .. ,..... ...... .. <„`YMf�►fin' ... � ...:��1.4i.�ii.�.. i{:+S;iw!i►i :: �... ia+!.;.. � .. . '.. �- �tiu•.:ai-.. .... The criteria that a stall be 7.5 feet wide and ap- proximately 16 feet long should be adequate to accommodate all cars classified as Class 8 or smaller. As a matter of fact, some of the cars in Class 9 could fit into the stalls without causing too much of a problem, even though the average for this group (1982 dimensions) is 16.88 feet in length and 6.04 feet in width. The proportion of spaces to downsize in a given facility depends on the following factors: • Local zoning requirements or other regula- tions. • The type of customer the garage or lot will serve: • Employee/commuter facilities can usually pro- vide 50 to 75 percent of the total capacity as small spaces, especially if the downsized stall is 8 feet wide. If the width is 7.5 feet. the maximum number of small spaces should be 50 percent. • Facilities serving the general public and/or shoppers should limit the proportion of small spaces to a range of Z5 to 1'0 percent of capac- ity with 8.0-foot stalls (jr 25 percent if the stall width is 7.5 feet wide. • Small stalls should have•a standard size with- in each parking facility: whether the stan- dard is 7.5 or 8.0. or another dimension. Only that width along with the "full-size" auto di- mension should be used. Locating and Identifying Smaller Stalls In the location of smaller -car spaces. two points should be kept in mind: • Small -car spaces should be neither more nor less convenient than large -car spaces. • The parking layout should be easy to under- stand. That is, compact spaces should be well' marked and quickly distinguished from stan- dard spaces. Small -car spaces should not be "sprinkled" here and there in such a way that the customer parking a large car is deceived by the size of an empty space, finding it too small for his use. Public acceptance of the small -car parking concept depends upon the customer being able to trust the size of a park- ing space. Small spaces may be located on either the right or the left side of an aisle, or an entire bay can be devoted to small spaces. The designer should strive for consistency in locating small spaces so that the repeat parker knows where to look. Two methods are commonly employed to iden- tify small stalls: • Signs only. • Color -coded stall lines, as well as signs. Many operators find that signs alone are ade- quate. It may also be useful to paint a line at the entry to the smaller stall. (This extra line would paral- lel the aisle and mark the point beyond which the car should not extend.) The use of such addi- tional lines can also help educate customers in getting a "feel" for the size of their automobiles: if a car protrudes beyond the markings, it is not small. Even if a moderate amount of space misuse oc- curs —large cars using small spaces or vice ver- sa —it should not cause any real problems. Based on the growing number of small cars, the chances are slight that several full-size cars will arrive simultaneously and park in adjacent stalls. PARKING FOR INSTITUTIONS AND SPECIAL EVENTS Edward M. Whitlock, P.E. THE ENO FOUNDATION FOR TRANSPORTATION, INC. WESTPORT 1982 CONNECTICUT for different stall dimensim and parking angle combinations. Parking lay efficiency depends on selection of stall and parking bay dimensions that will provide a desired degree of service and economy while using a given site to its best advan- tage. The objective should be to maximize the number of vehicles that can be parked within a given area, subject to predetermined operational constraints. Ninety -degree parking stalls with aisles parallel to the long dimensions of the site, and 60-degree interlocking parking stalls with one-way aisles, usually require the least amount of space per stall. Angled parking stalls may provide greater ease in parking than 90-degree stalls, and may derive some advantage in the fact that drivers are able to see and anticipate empty parking stalls more easily. Angle parking is often used where site dimensions will not allow sufficient parking bay width for 90-degree stalls. If adequate aisle width is provided, 90-degree stalls can be as convenient and safe as angle parking. At parking angles of less than 90-degrees, access aisles are normally one- way. Sometimes this is desirable; but one-way aisle systems may also cause drivers to travel further within the parking facility, increasing circulation time and the opportunity for conflict with pedestri- ans and other vehicles. The two-way aisles of a 90-degree parking layout provide room to pass a standing or waiting vehicle. Other advantages of a two-way aisle system include better sight distance at aisle intersections and fewer aisles, hence shorter travel distance to locate an available park- ing space. Accommodating the Small Car The passenger automobile population in the United States is comprised of 55 oersentLgP cut and 45 pgrcent small carp. However, with specific areas and generators, the vehicle size mix can vary dramatically from the 1980 national average. Some researchers predict by as early as 1985, small cars will represent 75 percent of the automobile popu- lation. From most estimates, it appears that the auto- mobile population will continue to increase but with a mix of predominantly small cars, approach- ing characteristics of the European auto population that is almost exclusively composed of small cars. Exceptions to trend can occur in locales where there is heavAse of light trucks and/or recrea- tional vehicles for personal trans ortatio . Current- y, the vehicle size mixture can vary greatly between different types of generators, different communities, and different regions. There have been no comprehensive studies that indicate conclusively that parkers generated by medical or educational institutions drive small automobiles in greater proportions that other segments of the driving public. However, many in the parking indus- try tend to believe that work -trip commuters generally drive smaller cars. Altemative Approaches. Experience has shown local surveys provide the most reliable base for an assessment of small car usage. Continued demand for small cars may tend to equalize small car distri- butions between various locales and sections of the country. This emphasizes the importance of the local survey to determine automobile size distribu- tion and as a basis on which to justify requests for zoning variances concerning the size of stall that must be provided. In order to take advantage of the reduced park- ing area requirement for the smaller car, several approaches are available to the designer/ develop- er. 1. The parking facility can be designed to provide a parking module that will park the larger cars in the existing vehicle population at an angle of 60 to 65 degrees. This layout will facilitate conver- sion to 75 to 90 degree (using smaller parking stalls) small car parking in the future. 2. A new parking facility can be planned to incorporate two different sizes of parking stalls catering respectively to large and small cars. (Some communities have zoning regulations that specify the maximum amount of small car stalls that can be provided.) 3. Or, the entire facility can be built with slightly reduced standards using only one stall size. Alternative # 1 could be appropriate in situations where a fairly high proportion of full-size (large) cars must be accommodated today. In situations where it is known that the parking clientele will have a predominant number of small cars, consid- eration could be given to using two different size parking stalls as proposed in Alternative #2. Where a high proportion of the users will be commuting employees who tend to drive a higher proportion 47 • 0 of small cars and exhibit low parking turnover characteristics, providing up to half of the facility's parking capacity in small car stalls could be feasible. In comparison, facilities intended to serve high parking turnover should incorporate a lesser percent of small car stalls, if any at all. In all situations, the proportion of small car stalls that could be provided depends on the anticipated mix of small and large cars in the vehicle population as determined by available information for a particular site and generator type. Until small cars in use reach 70 to 75 percent of the total vehicle population, it will be most prudent to provide a lesser number of small car stalls than a survey might indicate as being possible. Again, this is particularly important when planning to use small car stalls in short-term, high -turnover parking situa- tions. As an alternative to a double standard for park- ing stall geometrics, one uniform, slightly smaller stall width could be used throughout a parking facility, as suggested in Alternative #3. The appro- priate stall size should be determined on the basis of the type of parker —long- or short -term —and other parking characteristics, as well as the degree of convenience to be provided to the parker. The New York and New Jersey Port Authority, for example, now uses an 8 4 stall width throughout their parking systems. Even though this stall width is rather tight for the largest cars still found in the vehicle mix, the Port Authority's experience suggests that it is rare when two large cars are parked adjacent to each other and not separated by a small car. Thus there is usually adequate door -opening room for the large cars parked in the spaces. Special Operational Controls. If special size parking stalls are used in conjunction with standard size stalls, the critical factor is to obtain full use of the two different stall types by vehicles of the size classification for which the stalls were designed. Two approaches to optimizing usage are possible. 1. Physically separate the small car stalls from parking areas containing large car stalls using lower parking fees and/or signing to attract small car use. 2. Integrate small car stalls within the same general parking area provided for large cars, and depend on signing and restrictive geometrics to control voluntary use. The first approach is difficult to control and discouraged for the general public's use by at least two factors. First, a more complex set of parking rates would be necessary and the increments between the rates would probably be small. Secondly, fragmented parking areas would foster operating problems of revenue security and of diversion from filled lot sections. For institutional facilities, however, these objections can often be overcome, since institutions can be more dictatorial in directing staff, employees, and students in where to park. Also the collection of user fees may not present a problem. The second approach is more widely used, but requires several key features to help ensure effec- tive use of both small and large car stalls. The proper use of the small car stalls should be self - enforcing to avoid added operating costs and misuse that detracts from capacity gains or patron service. Small car stalls should be marked differ- ently from large car stalls. A minimum of one foot in width is s chat is if a IarQe car stall is 8.5' wide, 4then the small car st in i udies have shown a substantially lower frequency of large cars in small car violations with 7.5' wide small car stalls than with 8.0' stalls for small cars. Also, the two different size stalls should be marked diffo t : for sta markings fnr laf P c ar ctallc an�i yPllgy�(„fQr small Cyr stal Prominently posted signs and/or pavement markings are also necessary. Stall end lines, painted parallel to the aisle and connecting the two side lines of a small car stall are helpful in discouraging drivers of large cars from using the smaller parking stalls. Some parking facility operators have found that placing small car stalls in the most conveniently accessible areas of a parking facility assures that they fill and are totally utilized before small cars must begin parking in the larger stalls. However, this may also encourage large cars to attempt using the smaller spaces. Making both small and large car stalls equally convenient (in terms of walking distance) is still another approach, but difficult to effect. Small car stalls should be located and sized (in terms of total parking capacity) so that they a ways i before the entirparking facility. Other- wise, arge cars will be forced to use small car sta Figure 20 illustrates one method of providing a self -enforcing mix of stall sizes. It employs large car 48 and structures conditional uses the City is provided with the oppor- tunity to review such proposals on a case -by -case basis so an (•xces- sive number does not develop. The conditional review also provides us with the ability to review the design of the lot or structure so as to control appearance, provide for screening and consider the accecu/e- gress points to the site. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTF,: The Planning and Zoning Commission recom- mended unanimously in favor of this code amendment on June 18, 1985. RECOMMENDED MOTION: SB.14 "Move to read Ordinance No. , Series of 1985." "Move to approve Ordinance No. _—, Series of 1985, on first reading." 2