Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-07 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session e 6. VAIL TOVIIN COUNCIL ~~~T,~~, II ~?IES®~•ll ~ +7~~4~~ ®My /®ll~g A"51~/'4lp~y p0 p9g9~2 0 .ai® 1~.6ti9. 8~ If ®tl ff.C®CYll~dlll~ OAtl-B l`96Y~~~Hl~7 IEXIPAIN®~® Pl~~Itl®d°W 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. ~ 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 3, 1993, and August 17, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meetings. Mike Mollica B. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek Estates subd+vision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation, a Colorado Corporation. 7:40 P.M. 3. Executive Session: Legal Matters. 8:10 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving Andy 6Cnudtsen a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on second reading. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:40 P.M. 5. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Tom Moorhead Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.058, controlling undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties for the violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, on second reading. Backaround Rationale: This Section was not under proper Title. There is no change to the ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, on second reading. 1 8:50 P.M. 6. Ordinance No. 13, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs Shelly Mello 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Reauested of Council: Table Ordinance No. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, until staff has completed research on the issue. 9:05 P.M. 7. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance submitting to Steve Thompson the registered electors of the Town of Vail at the Regular Municipal Election Steve Barwick to be held on Tuesday, the 16th of November, 1993, the question of Tom Moorhead whether the Town of Vail should be authorized to collect and spend the full revenues generated during 1994 and each subsequent year in an amount not to exceed $ [which amount does not include revenue generated from ad valorem property taxes] without any increase in such tax rate and to spend such revenues for debt service, municipal operations, and capital projects; authorizing the Town Council to adopt annual budgets and amendments thereto to implement the approval of this referred measure; setting forth the ballot title; providing for notice of the details in relation to the foregoing. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on first reading. " Backaround Rationale: Ballot passage of question by voters will allow TOV to collect and spend full revenues generated while leaving in place other Tabor Amendment restrictions. Staff Recommendation: Consider several available alternatives regarding wording and approach Council wishes to take on ballot issue. 9:10 P. M. 8. Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993, a resolution waiving a restriction on Jim Curnutte residential condominium unit #3 at the Red Lion Inn Condominiums to allow a minor exterior alteration for the expansion of the residential condominium unit. Applicant: Jay Peterson. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993. Backaround Rationale: The applicant's request is for a minor exterior alteration to allow for an 11 square foot expansion to residential unit #3, Red Lion/Lots E, F, G, and H, Block 5-A, 304 Bridge Street, Vail Village 1st Filing. On 4/9/90, the Red Lion Building was redeveloped with a maximum GRFA of 9,207 square feet. 1r1/hen the building permit plans were submitted it was discovered that the building was actually 8,714 square feet in size. The staff and Council felt that the mass of the building should not be enlarged from that associated with the original approval, so the remaining GRFA was restricted to interior modifications only, unless written authorization was granted by Council. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993. 9:25 P.M. 9. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993, a resolution to offer amnesty for a limited Steve Thompson period of time from the 1.5% per month penalty provided in Paragraph 14, Tom Moorhead Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, for delinquent assessments in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993. 2 Backaround Rationale: Several property owners having delinquent assessments have requested relief from penalty. Notice of Hearing from December, 1992, referred to interest but not penalty though ordinance properly reflects penalty. Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993, to bring delinquent assessments current prior to October 1, 1993. 9:40 P.M. 10. Vail Valley Performance & Conference Center (VVP&CC) presentation of Caroline Tremblay Meeting Planner Demand Analysis. Action Requested of Council: Remove conditional support from Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, in light of favorable economic impact estimates. Handouts will be distributed at the meeting. A copy of Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, is enclosed for your reference. Backaround Rationale: Positive impact of Conference Center -Incremental room nights of 40,000-50,000 estimated to add between $10,765,000 and $13,456,250 to the Vail economy each year. These seem to be very conservative estimates. 10:00 P.M. 11. Adjournment. TIE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORT( SESSION WILL BE ON TOES®A1f, 9/14/93, BEGINNING AT 1:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CFIAMBERS. T(~9E FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE OBI TUES®A~f, 9/21/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CFIAMBERS. TIE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE OBI TUES®AY, 9/21/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 R.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:WGENDA.TC 3 MINUTES' VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETIlVG AUGUST 3, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Tom Steinberg was not present when this meeting was called to order. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Janice Ciampa Bauer expressed concern about increasing violent crime in the Denver area, which she felt would inevitably impact Vail and surrounding mountain communities. She asked if Council could address Governor Romer about this issue. There was discussion about what Vail and surrounding communities could do to be more aware of potential violent crime in the area. She said residents and visitors needed to be more alert, and felt support from the community level up to Governor Romer was necessary. Larry Grafel advised he had received, through CML, a copy of Governor Romer's 14-Point Proposal addressing juvenile violence. The proposal asked for assistance in the form of input, comments, and suggestions regarding the recommendations within it to help in the development of a statewide approach to the violence. Larry said he would provide a copy of the proposal to anyone who was interested in reviewing and/or commenting on it. Mayor Osterfoss noted there was clearly a perception of security on the part of visitors who come to Vail, and it was a considerable concern that that sense of security be something visitors and locals could rely on and have confidence in. Ms. Bauer felt greater police presence would be a comfort and that local crime problems and statistics should receive more publicity to help develop a more cautious local attitude. Neighborhood Crime Watch programs were also suggested. Jim Gibson asked if there was any reason public places such as the parking structures could not also come under Crime Watch programs. Mayor Osterfoss suggested 911 phones be installed in the parking structures. Bob Buckley noted parents were responsible for knowing where their children were and what they were doing. He felt it was a societal problem, not just a police problem. Ms. Bauer noted the State of Massachusetts was considering a bill whereby parents would be responsible for juveniles' actions and suggested a similar proposal be made to Governor Romer. Jim Shearer noted there was a rumor that gang members caught in crime in California were given a choice of serving time or the option to leave the state. If that issue situation was true, Jim Shearer felt Governor Romer and state and federal officials should be appealed to to put pressure on other states to stop that practice. Mayor Osterfoss indicated Council would discuss and respond to Governor Romer's proposal and examine possible local actions for crime prevention dun-ing an upcoming Work Session. Item No. 2 was approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Merv Lapin moved to approve the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993 Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 16.20.010,16.20.220, 16.22.010,16.22.160,16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition 1 of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello explained that since last discussion of this ordinance, a number of sections had been added to clarify this ordinance. She said the additions were for clarifications, but the intent of the ordinance had not changed. Merv Lapin suggested passing Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, as presented, but without an amortization period. He felt signs presently in existence should be grandfathered, and if any of those signs presently in placed burned out, they would not be allowed to be replaced. Rob Levine agreed. Merv felt TOV was asking for problems with related Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, concerning five year amortization. Jim Gibson felt the result of Nlerv's suggestion would be unfair competitive advantage. Mayor Osterfoss directed focusing the discussion back to Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993. Merv stated he would be against Ordinance No. 5 if there was an amortization period established by the potential passage of Ordinance No. 13. Kristan Pritz explained the amortization period was already in TOV's Code. Jim Gibson stated he was be opposed to Ordinance No. 5 based on his belief that government had no business going that far inside private property to perform regulation. There was discussion about options to amortization. Shelly mentioned several examples of presently grandfathered signs including signs at the gas station and the Roost Lodge. She noted that other businesses do not get those size signs, so there was already a situation currently existing. Jim Gibson felt that did not mean TOV should promulgate it. Jim Gibson repeated his objection to creating unfair competitive advantage. He felt the signs were purely and simply a competitive advantage. There was discussion about the regulation of signage three feet back into stores and the difference of impacts of signs versus lighted signs. Mayor Osterfoss asked what was magic about three feet. She felt if TOV had the right to go into a business for three feet to regulate signage, the whole interior signage should be subject to regulation. She felt interior signage should be totally regulated or not regulated at all. She felt the message had to be consistent. Note was made of precedent set by Breckenridge having adopted an ordinance based on their concern with what people saw as they walked by a business. If that was TOV's concern, it should follow suit. Mayor Osterfoss thought TOV had chosen to take a more conservative approach because substantial signage was not an addition to the ambiance of the community. Her point was the need for consistent regulation, whether free enterprise or ambiance were the choice. (Tom Steinberg arrived at this point in the discussion (8:00 P.M.) Rob Levine agreed with Mayor Osterfoss although he shared Jim Gibson's concern about government interfering with private enterprise and insides of businesses. He said he would be in favor of Ordinance No. 5, but opposed to Ordinance No. 13. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, on second reading, stating that if Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, concerning amortization was approved, he would present another motion to bring up Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, for reconsideration. Rob Levine seconded that motion. Before a vote was taken, there was a discussion about the difficulty of enforcement of this regulation. Further discussion clarified that if a business was sold and the name of the business was changed or the merchandise being sold changed so that the previous owner's signage was no longer pertinent information, the new individual owning that shop would not have the right to another sign of the same size. Bob Buckley indicated he was uncomfortable with government going in to the back of stores and felt the existing Sign Code was adequate and ample. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Jim Gibson and Bob Buckley opposed. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on second reading, with the deletion of Paragraph 1 regarding amortization of non-conforming signs and that all existing non-conforming signs as of August 3, 1993, at 8:09 P.M. be grandfathered, and that language under Paragraph 2 be changed to reflect that there was no amortization. Rob Levine asked what the purpose of that was as opposed to defeating the ordinance. Kristan Pritz explained this Section of the Code was basically in TOV's Sign Code now. She said Larry Eskwith, former TOV Attorney, had been concerned that the non-conforming sections specifically addressed amendments to the Sign Code in the future because the section relating to non-conforming signs and amortization was passed in September, 1977. Merv Lapin was concerned with the ordinance's second WHEREAS, stating "...the Town Council wishes to amend the Sign Code to require that non-conforming neon and gas lit signs shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date of the amendment." 2 He said he read this ordinance as having to do only with neon and gas filled signs. Kristan felt what Mr. Eskwith was trying indicate that the Code was amended and he wanted to make certain that amendment fell under the existing section of the code so there would be no question about it. Rob Levine asked how much enforcement there was of amortization of existing signs. Kristan advised when this section of the code was used when West Vail was de-annexed and brought back in, the amortization was not followed through with. Rob Levine suggested we do away with amortization of all signs. Shelly Mello said that it was Mr. Eskwith's feeling that the reason TOV should pass this ordinance was because TOV always had amortization but it was not enforced, therefore it should be re-instituted at this time so that there was a starting point for these types of signs. Jim Gibson asked about other types of non-conforming signs. Kristan said they would fall under existing sections of the code. She stated this ordinance was merely changing existing sections of the code and the change was stating "any amendment thereto." Shelly added that any time the Sign Code was changed in the future and signs were non-conforming as a result of that, the amortization would be as of that date. Kristan noted there were no signs being amortized at this time and explained there was a procedure to go through to amortize a sign. Jim Gibson inquired about business who may ask for just compensation instead of amortization. It was his understanding once someone was notified their sign was illegal and they had five years in which to amortize it, they had the right to ask for just compensation instead of amortization. Tom Moorhead did not believe that was correct. Jim Gibson said the Beautification Act had set precedent for that, i.e. billboards along highways, ball fields, parking lots. He recalled those who took their cases to court received just compensation which caused the signs to come down immediately. Jim said the bill for just compensation was ridiculously high because compensation was computed based on earnings. Jim Lamont said when the amortization schedule was first passed, around 1972-1973, TOV put that schedule in place. He said it was principally motivated because of the Holiday Inn sign in existence at that time. The Holiday Inn, because there was an amortization schedule, knew the sign would be coming down in five years, elected to take that sign down in exchange for a new sign program. Mr. Lamont pointed out that during the time Colorado was leading the country in the debate about amortization. As Mr. Lamont recalled, from an administrative standpoint, the amortization process was not effective while he had been in office because five years had not taken passed to that date. To that end, he was not aware if any notices were ever sent out as of the time the signs were to come down, but now felt the amortization could be effective in terms of recent legislation. He was unable to offer any insight, but felt that was something that should be looked into. Kristan said she was not aware of any TOV program that had documentation on signage or any knowledge of notification having been sent out to anyone regarding amortization of their signs. She noted it would be very difficult for staff to trace this to see if that was ever done. Kristan said there really had not been that many problems with the amortization section. Mayor Osterfoss felt most of this issue was self-correcting over time. Merv asked if amortization would abolished for all signs if Ordinance No. 13 were defeated. He was advised it would, but that did not mean that the non-conforming section would be deleted. Kristan suggested tabling the ordinance for further review. Merv Lapin then withdrew his previous un-seconded motion, and moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on second reading, until September 7,1993. Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was a consensus on the direction. It was felt there was not. Rob Levine felt staff should be directed to go back and eliminate amortization in the Code altogether. Kristan said before they brought the ordinance back, they would do a Work Session to review the direction. Merv asked Tom Moorhead if nothing was done with Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, how that would affect Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993; whether the signs would be grandfathered or amortized. Tom Moorhead said an argument could be made that the existing provisions as applied to signs do in fact apply to Ordinance No. 5. Rob Levine said the overriding issue in his mind was that there was not a big problem with signs, but Council was trying to be pro-active and address the issue before it became a problem. He felt if the amortization was eliminated altogether, some of the more distasteful signs would fall into the non-conforming section of the code and eventually be removed. Jim Gibson felt Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, should be defeated and that there should be a recall on Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993. Jim Shearer called the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Rob Levine and Jim Gibson opposed. Mayor Osterfoss directed staff to make some recommendations about what Council's options would be, as well as to present to Council the materials under the non-conforming sign section. Jim Gibson told Kristan he felt it was important she bring an enforcement plan if this was to become an ordinance. Item No. 5 Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 3 15.02.020(A) and 15.02.020(G} of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an annual elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and an annual commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Rob Levine. Before a vote was taken, Jim Shearer asked if, by inspecting these, TOV was taking any liability if something happened to an elevator. Gary Murrain said there was no more liability than TOV had on any other inspection. Gary said TOV's liability was much higher without the ordinance. After brief discussion including comment about NWCCOG's elevator inspection program's success, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of V~Iay Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Tim Devlin pointed out and explained the addition of Sections 12.16.010 B(3), D(1), and D(3) to the ordinance since first reading. Council had asked staff to review the existing Revocable Right of flay process and asked that an ordinance be created that would serve both the private and public needs by providing funding on TOV land for improvements recommended by the TOV Streetscape Plan, the TOV Village Master Plan, and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff had addressed the Council's concerns about design labor costs as well as the question of who repaired improvements after unforeseen problems such as utility work, etc. Tim Devlin indicated Jim Lamont was present and had requested the addition of language to Section 12.16.010 (D)(1) to indicate that costs and maintenance agreement would be set after a review of Town Council. Mr. Lamont discussed the maintenance issue. He said the private sector became a donor to the public by completing an improvement on public property, and he felt the maintenance agreement should be fairly specific as to who was responsible for repairs. He felt the maintenance issue needed to be spelled out, including when that responsibility may terminate. Staff agreed. After brief discussion concerning Section 12.16.020 regarding revocation of permits, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on second reading, with the addition of language to Section D(1) to state The costs and maintenance agreement shall be set after a review of the Town Council." Rob Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Jim Gibson expressed concern about the timeframe for removal by permittees of encroachments, obstructions, or other structures as stated in 12.16.020 A(1). He felt the timeframe should depend on individual cases and should be determined by staff. Kristan did not feel it was a problem if Council wanted to extend the timeframe. Tim Devlin suggested placing a sixty (60) day cap as the timeframe. After discussion, Merv Lapin amended his motion to change the timeframe to sixty (60) days, and Rob Levine amended his second. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the amended motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica noted this ordinance had passed on first reading on July 6, 1993, then action taken on first reading was rescinded on second reading on July 20, 1993, with direction to staff to refer the issue back to the PEC for reconsideration, and so that staff could give formal notice of scheduled hearings to the Simba Run Condominium Association formal notice. He stated that had now been done. The project went back to the PEC, and at their last meeting they unanimously recommended approval. Mike said the ordinance was essentially the same as first reading with the exception of the addition of two (2) conditions concerning the granting to TOV of a drainage easement and a bike path easement. These were conditions that were discussed extensively at the PEC review on numerous occasions and failed to make the July 6, 1993, first reading, but were now included. It was Mike's understanding that the applicant agreed to those conditions. Mike said staff was now recommending approval with the two added conditions. He pointed out that the issue of employee housing had come up at the PEC meeting. The PEC felt that since it was not part of their original motion to include the 4 permanent restriction on the existing six (6) Employee Housing Units (EHUs) during the first review, they did not feel it was appropriate to include it now. However, the PEC had gone on record stating they supported the Council's direction to proceed with the potential permanent restriction on the existing six (6) EHUs. In summary, Mike said the PEC recommended approval with the permanent deed restriction on the four (4) EHUs that would be part of this final phase of the project. He recalled there was an issue raised at the last Council meeting regarding the geologic hazard report and whether it was appropriate. He said Nicholas Lampiris, project geologist, was asked to review the potential hazard again. Included in staff's July 26, 1993, memo, was a summary report dated July 22,1993, from Mr. Lampiris and staff was now comfortable that the letter of the Code had been met. There was discussion about restriction of the six (6) existing EHUs. Mike said that restriction was not in this proposed ordinance on first reading. He indicated the ordinance was written in accordance with the PEC recommendations which did not include restrictions on the existing six (6) EHUs. Jim Gibson stated the original SDD ordinance included those six (6) EHUs with a termination date of twenty (20) years. Mayor Osterfoss recalled when this ordinance was reviewed before, the restriction of the existing six (6) EHUs was not in the ordinance either, but the majority of Council had voted to have that added to the ordinance. Mike advised again that the ordinance was written according to the recommendation of the PEC and Council could modify the ordinance or direct staff to add such language between first and second reading. Jim Morter, representing the applicant, apologized for Morter Architects' error with the notification procedure which had delayed this ordinance. He reviewed issues raised at the previous hearing including the required drainage easement which he indicated was currently being resolved with Greg Hall; the required bike path easement on their property, which Mr. Morter said was now being taken off the property so no easement would be required; the pedestrian access across their property, which Mr. Morter said was being discussed with their attorney, adding the applicant was paying for the construction of that path; and the rockfall hazard report which had now been completed and Mr. Lampiris was comfortable with. The major issue raised previously was the EHU issue. Mr. Morter said his client agreed with Council in terms of the importance and dire need for employee housing. Mr. Morter further stated he was caught by su~Y~~se at the last Council meeting and had not made two important points regarding the employee housing. Those points included ownership of the different properties that were part of this SDD. Mr. Morter said there was a property line that totally defined two (2}pieces of property; one piece being the new project being proposed, the other was the other Simba Run Phase I property. He informed Council that the two (2) pieces of property were under two different ownerships. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said was involved with the ownership of both properties, and there were partners involved. He emphasized these were two (2) different ownerships; two (2) different pieces of property. Mr. Morter discussed the number of units being proposed for this project. He noted there were conflicting documents regarding the original SDD, and, depending on which document was reviewed, the number of required EHUs ranged from eight (8) to ten (10). Mr. Morter pointed out that the number of units in the new project had been reduced from forty four (44) to nineteen (19), and they were still providing four (4) EHUs, and he felt that was far exceeding the ratio of EHUs to market units that most projects required. He said they recognized that opening up a new discussion on a new SDD or a modified SDD was a negotiation process. Mr. Morter advised Council that what his client was giving TOV, without being asked, included a much better project in terms of scale, further development of architecture that existed on Simba Run, improved landscaping; hidden vehicle access to every unit behind the units; correction of TOV's mistake regarding the bike path, reduction in number of units - a reduction of 8,774 square feet of GRFA; more EHUs per ratio than expected, and the right of public access through the site at their cost. With respect to EHUs, Mr. Morter said the applicant did accept providing four (4) EHUs for life duration, but the existing six (6) EHUs were under different ownership, and the applicant's whole financial plan was based on the assumption that a deal was a deal. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said did not accept the idea of converting the existing six (6) EHUs to lifetime EHUs. There was lengthy discussion about the size of the existing EHUs and consideration of suggested option concerning conversion or sale of those EHUs or building new permanently restricted EHUs on the project in lieu of those. Mr. Morter said that idea had been suggested, but that did not work on the new project from the standpoint of fitting them on the site. Mr. Morter reviewed site plans with Council to give a visual view of that, and stated that one thing they had looked at was adding one more floor to one of the buildings. However, that would require an elevator and would change the Building Code classification 5 of the structure. Tom Moorhead noted there was a change in the position of the applicant between the PEC hearing and this meeting. Tom Moorhead said Jay Peterson had represented that Mr. Said's ownership was 100% of the existing six (6) EHUs, and that was the way the PEC reviewed this issue. Mr. Morter said Mr. Said owned the existing six (6) EHUs, but he had partners in development of the new property. It was then established there were no partners in the existing six (6) EHUs. In that case, Rob Levine asked why there were any problems in changing the format of the existing six units. Mayor Osterfoss noted also that Mr. Morter had mentioned the easement issue which she assumed was between Mr. Said's property on one side and the property he and partners own on the other area, that was currently not buildable, because of ongoing negotiation between the properties. Mr. Morter confirmed that. Mr. Morter stated Mr. Said was only the owner of the units, not the owner of the existing Simba Run property. Jim Gibson asked Mr. Morter if Mr. Said would find it inviting to be able to sell the six units at market value versus having to wait ten years on a present value basis of even 8%. Mr. Morter said he could not represent Mr. Said on that issue. Mayor Osterfoss stated she was convinced the issue could be worked out from what had been discussed. She said the issue here was that Council was interested in securing the permanent restriction of ten (10) units. Mr. Morter guessed that Mr. Said would be more open to restricting some of the existing EHUs instead of building more EHUs or converting new sales units to EHUs. Tom Steinberg expressed concern about passing this ordinance on second reading without coming to a final agreement on the pedestrian access across the property. Tom Steinberg moved to table Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on second reading until staff could return with more specific figures, the owners' feelings on the EHU issue, and whether an agreement could be reached. There was no second to that motion. Mr. Morter said they were planning to getting the project started this year and preferred action other than tabling the ordinance. Mayor Osterfoss reminded Mr. Morter that changes could be made between first and second reading. Bob Buckley felt strongly that a deal was made in a previous project and that it was unfair to go back and change that deal. He felt there were some basic rights property owners had, and he was pleased with the fact that the project had gone from forty four (44) units down to nineteen (19} units on the very visible site. He felt that was a very commendable, positive act by the developer, and he was opposed to adding a penalty for such positive action. Jim Shearer agreed. Jim Gibson suggested to Mr. Morter that Mr. Said might want to entertain the idea of permanently restricting the smaller EHUs. However, Jim Gibson said he would only entertain that as a Councilperson if the applicant brought that to Council and said that was what he wanted to do. Rob Levine noted this was not two separate projects. It was one project, one entity from a zoning point of view, and these were the zoning issues. TOV was not re-opening the SDD, the applicant was. Mayor Osterfoss felt TOV SDD criteria has a provision whereby various mitigations/contributions were weighted so it could be determined what was appropriate in any given scenario. She felt Rob's point was well taken, but felt there was opportunity for creative compromise based on ideas expressed at this meeting. After further discussion, Mr. Morter suggested that so this could be considered a first reading (so the applicant could keep on schedule and hopefully conclude at the next meeting), the applicant build four (4) EHUs, deed restrict them forever, and deed restrict three (3) of the EHUs in the existing buildings, those units being of the applicant's choice, and drop the restriction on the other three (3). Merv Lapin thought staff should look at the existing EHUs prior to making that commitment to see what TOV was being given. Merv Lapin moved that Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, be approved on first reading, with the condition that the suggestion the owner's representative, Jim Morter, made to permanently deed restrict four (4) new EHUs, release three (3) existing EHUs for immediate sale, and permanently deed restrict the remaining three (3) existing EHUs, and that staff be directed, perhaps with a member of Council, to go look at the units to see if they were appropriate, and that the pedestrian access across the property be finalized and agreed to prior to second reading. Mr. Morter asked that the motion indicate that the three (3) permanently restricted EHUs be at the discretion of his client, however Merv Lapin wanted staff and Council to see the units first. Rob Levine seconded the motion. After brief further comment, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item 1Vo. 9 was Ordinance 1Vo. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD 1Vo. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen 6 distributed letters received f,.,.,.. the public. He pointed out that all the letters he distributed had been written in the early part of 1993, and that the project had been changed since that time. In Andy's opinion, there was a definite break and change in the plan between the January 11, 1993, proposal and the one being reviewed at this meeting. He advised that all neighbors in the area were advised of this Town Council meeting. He thoroughly reviewed the SDD criteria as detailed in the April 12, 1993, memo to the PEC from the CDD and reviewed the conditions of approval. Andy explained this was an SDD and a minor subdivision request. The reason being there were four (4) deviations from the Code: the first was that the applicant was proposing to develop in areas which exceeded forty percent (40%) slope; there was a ten percent (10%) setback encroachment in one location; there was wall height of four feet (4') in the front setback where three feet (3') was the maximum; and the minimum lot size was not met on one of the lots. He reviewed site plans with Council. He noted one of the complications of this review was created by the fact that development standards had come from the County. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the County approved six (6) phases of The Valley along Buffer. This was a portion of Phase II. The other portions of Phase II were built as Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouses. The applicant was proposing seven (7) single family homes in the lower development area and two (2) single family homes in the upper development area instead of clusters. The information and data of the County approval were referenced in the memo to the PEC from the CDD dated Apri126, 1993. Page 2 of that memo showed the breakdown of the County approval. Eagle County approved twenty six (26) dwelling units with thirty two thousand nine hundred nine (32,909) square feet, and a portion of that was broken out under the Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Steve Gensler, the applicant, had proposed a different type of housing, and staff had been working with him for some time trying to get the development to blend with the site and the existing neighborhood. He discussed the different zoning analysis for this project: County approval, straight residential cluster zoning, the January 11, 1993, proposal, and the current proposal. Andy added all the letters received today were addressed to staff regarding the January 11, 1993, proposal. Since that time, staff had communicated their concerns and the applicant had responded. The modifications made since the January 11, 1993, PEC Work Session were detailed in the April 26, 1993, memo. Andy stated the main concern was that the mature vegetation would be saved. After the January 11,1993, meeting, the applicant had the site surveyed and all trees above a five inch (5") caliber were identified on the survey and then the homes were shifted accordingly to save those trees. There was a cluster at the lower end closest to the Grouse Glen development where several trees up to twenty four inch (24"} caliber would be saved Staff felt that was significant. Other changes were that the road fill was reduced from twelve feet (12') down to eight feet (8'); landscaping was added; the GRFA was reduced; the road was reduced twenty feet (20') in length; and the amount of impervious surface was also reduced. Concerning the upper development area, the envelopes were shifted down off the top of the hillside and moved closer to the curb, cut and fill was mixiimized, and there was a condition of approval there which concept was that all finished grade be brought back to within four feet (4') of existing grade so the end product would have relatively natural contours. Due to the steep grade on the upper development area, the PEC requested several detailed studies to understand exactly how the development would occur. Andy noted these were not architectural designs that would be required of future developers, however, they showed that development could occur without reauirin~ anv variances. The detailed drawings Andy reviewed had been studied by a based on a soils study as well as a structural engineer to verify that everything could be constructed as it was designed by Randy Hodges, the architect. Noting this was in a rockfall hazard area, Andy stated Nick Lampiris had evaluated the potential hazard and had recommended an internal mitigation. The northern wall of the homes would be fortified to withstand the impact of any rocks that might fall, and with that mitigation, Mr. Lampiris felt the building sites were acceptable. To avoid scarring up above the site, that wall would be contained within the foundation. With all of the studies provided, the PEC believed they understood what they could expect. The PEC believed the proposal would be better than the plan the County had approved which included five (5) houses that were located in the debris flow. Jim Shearer asked if inclusion of EHUs in the project had been addressed. Any indicated that issue had been discussed, and the applicant had dropped the idea when the applicant reduced the GRFA. Because the project no longer exceeded density standards, the EHU requirements were not discussed further. Tom Steinberg was concerned about any precedent that might set. Tom Braun, the architect, gave a lengthy presentation detailing the research done to determine if the lot was buildable. Kristan Pritz indicated that it would be difficult to pace any EHUs in the project, but Jim Shearer suggested the applicant consider off-site 7 • ` EHUs. Unit sizes were discussed. Mayor Osterfoss requested a site visit to two (2) or three (3) other forty percent (40%) slope building sites. Jim Shearer agreed. Jim Gibson moved to table Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading, until after said site visits were made at Council's next Work Session. Tom Steinberg seconded that motion. Before a vote was taken, EHU requirements were again discussed and encouraged, even if the EHUs were off-site. It was suggested that Tom Braun consider various EHU options and consider what the project could offer in terms of EHUs. Tom Steinberg and Jim Gibson expressed serious reservations about the project's steep grade. A vote was then taken and the motion passed, 6-0-1, Merv Lapin absent during the vote. Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mike Mollica advised that the Eagle County Treasurer, Sherry Brandon, had requested TOV adopt a f,.~ gal policy similar to Eagle County's procedure regarding their final plat approval process. The description of the request and further details were provided in the CDD memo to the PEC dated July 26, 1993. Jim Gibson moved to approved Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-0-2, Merv Lapin and Rob Levine absent during the vote. Prompted by a number of letters from residents concerned about a request for a Conditional Use Permit and landscaping variance to allow for the proposed expansion of VA's maintenance shop, Tom Steinberg moved to call up additional review of the facility. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1-1, Bob Buckley opposed, Rob Levin absent during the vote. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:IMINSAUG3.93 8 MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 17, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 17, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley MEMBER ABSENT: Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Before Citizen Participation, Mayor Osterfoss reviewed the criteria for nomination of applicants for the Chuck Anderson Youth Recognition Award. Ernest Medina, Jr., one of this year's award recipients, had been unable to attend the award presentations made on July 6, 1993, and, in town this evening, he was formally presented his award. Bob Buckley spoke highly in Ernest's behalf, and Ernest thanked Council. Agenda Item No. 1 was Citizen Participation. Christy Hochtl expressed concern about I-70 noise levels and safety issues. She felt the most immediate solution to her concerns was lowering the speed limit from 65 mph to 55 mph on sections of I-70 passing through Vail and the east and west Vail outskirt sections of the interstate. Ms. Hochtl noted 65 mph speed limits were lowered through most of the towns along I-70, and questioned why Vail's was not. She felt the cost of this option would only be related to changing speed limit signage, and, if the limits were properly enforced, would raise money and save lives. She also point out that out-of--state drivers, in particular, do not understand the driving dangers associated with the high speed limit and unsafe driving conditions related to weather and road conditions, and they do not attempt to slow down. She urged Council to examine options, include concrete walls to cut down on the traffic noise. Jim Gibson shared Ms. Hochtl's concerns, but felt if the speed limit were lowered, fake brakes would be used all of the time. He also felt Vail looked better than a wall to cut down noise levels, feeling better enforcement was needed. It was pointed out the "Trees for Vail" program was, in part, designed to help absorb noise from I-70. Mayor Osterfoss advised Ms. Hochtl this issue was one of Council's short and long term goals, and suggested she put her ideas in writing. Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full: Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Rob Levine moved to approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District (SDD) No. 5 (Simba Run/Vail Run) and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mike Mollica pointed out 1 changes to Section 9 -Special Provisions, including Section 9(A)(1)(a) and (b)(i) and (ii) and Section 9(A)(2) relating to conservation and pollution controls, Section 9(B) related to Employee Housing Units (EHUs), and Section 9(F)(2) and (6) related to additional requirements of the ordinance since first reading. A typo was also noted for correction in Section (9)(B) to indicate that unit numbers 1201, 1205, and 2205 (not 2202) would become "free-market" dwelling units. Mike and Jim Shearer had visited the development the previous week, and Jim Shearer noted they had met with representatives of the owners and representatives of the condominium association. He stated he had been pleasantly surprised at the units offered to TOV as part of this SDD request. Jay Peterson said he had spoken to Mr. Said, the developer, and Mr. Said indicated, of the existing six EHUs, he wanted to keep three (3) one (1) bedroom units, numbers 2207, 2401, and 2402, as the permanently deed restricted Type III EHUs. There was Council consensus on which three (3) of the six (6) existing EHUs would become "free-market" units and which would become restricted dwelling units. Per the ordinance, the applicant also agreed, as part of Phase II of the project, to permanently restrict four (4) additional EHUs as Type III EHUs, according to TOV's adopted housing ordinance. Mr. Peterson, noting the ordinance also required the applicant to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and grant a public access easement to TOV prior to TOV's issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II construction, and additionally, asked TOV to indemnify the applicant on the pedestrian path. Tom Moorhead felt that the request was reasonable. After brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on second reading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. The applicant was SBC Development Corporation, a Colorado Corporation. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. The applicant was requesting a setback variance, a minor subdivision and rezoning in order to locate a gatehouse, which would include the subdivision's caretaker dwelling unit, on the site. Mike Mollica referenced the Community Development Department's (CDD) August 9, 1993, memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), in particular the section of the memo regarding evaluation of criteria of the zone change request from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to Single Family Residential Zone District. The above referenced memo stated, at this time, all of the conditions of the major subdivision approval had been fulfilled and construction of the subdivision's infrastructure was underway. Mike summarized and stated that staff was recommending approval of the rezoning to Single Family Residential. He pointed out the applicant was proposing to restrict the property to a permanently deed restricted EHU. He also noted the GRFA was being significantly reduced. Under Single Family Residential Zoning this lot would have construction capacity for approximately 7,500 square feet of GRFA; the applicant was proposing a maximum total of 1,625 square feet. Floor plans were displayed and reviewed by Mike. He added the site coverage would also be reduced to 2,000 square feet, and the applicant had agreed to waive the "250 allowance" which would normally be available to any property with a dwelling unit on it. Mike said the ownership of the property would remain with either SBC Development Corporation or the Spraddle Creek Homeowners Association and that had been built into the covenants which TOV was a party to. The covenants could not be changed without the approval of TOV. The PEC reviewed this, approved the minor subdivision, and the variance with the condition that the zone change be approved. The PEC also recommended approval of the zone change. In response to Rob LeVine's question about TOV being a party to the covenants, Mike said TOV does not actually sign the covenants, but there were a number of sections in the covenants which could not be amended without the approval of TOV. As one example, Mike stated that there was language in the covenants regarding three (3) caretaker units in the subdivision, and there was a requirement that three (3) of the lots have restricted EHUs and that this language could not be modified without the approval of TOV. Additionally, the Design Guidelines were an exhibit to the covenants which also could not be modified without the approval of TOV. Jay Peterson noted the developer was under a ninety (90) day obligation under the covenants to transfer not only the gatehouse (Tract C), but the open space tracts to the Homeowner's Association. After brief discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken an the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. 2 At 8:10 P.M., Jim Gibson moved that Council adjourn to Executive Session regarding Legal Matters, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Council reconvened the Evening Meeting at 8:30 P.M. Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Andy Knudtsen explained this proposed development was for two areas at the top of the Valley - an upper development area and a lower development area for a total of nine (9) single family homes. He focused on three points of discussion brought up at the August 3,1993, Evening Meeting. The three major issues discussed had been slope, natural hazards, and housing. With regard to slope, Andy noted that there had been a site visit earlier this day and that six (6) different sites around Town provided examples of how homes were built on slopes exceeding forty percent (40%). As far as the natural hazards issue, Andy stated he had spoken with Tom Braun, planning consultant for Steve Gensler, and word had been received from the geologist, Nick Lampiris, indicating that this set of natural rockfall hazard was not as significant as many other examples in the Valley, and the proposed mitigation was more than adequate. Andy distributed a study prepared by Rosall, Remmers and Cares (RRC) addressing the last area of concern previously questioned by Council, EHUs. The study included a set of multipliers for different types of uses, and Single Family was included. Andy advised there was some discussion by the RRC as to whether residential should be included in addition to commercial, and the final recommendation was to give TOV ratios for all uses. Andy said the report was approved by Council, in its entirely. Andy pointed out the criteria of the SDD was in the memo dated April 26, 1993, from CDD to the PEC. There were also 1993 letters from neighbors, mostly dated January, 1993, and Andy indicated there was a significant change between January and April, 1993, when the applicant was able to identify many trees and make changes to his proposed project to save them. Andy added neighbors were still fairly concerned about the project, but staff believed there were significant changes to maintain the buffer and the landscaping to keep the development as integrated into the hillside as possible. The PEC had voted 4-1 recommending approval of the project; Jeff Bowen had voted against it feeling the forty percent (40%) slope was too steep for construction. Staff had recommended approval and asked Council for approval. Andy advised there were also several conditions of approval listed in the Apri126, 1993, memo which were also identified in Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, and all of those conditions of approval would apply if this ordinance were passed on first reading. Tom Braun spoke about the specific challenges and adjustments made to this project and detailed efforts made to answer Council's previous concerns. He advised there was originally not an EHU in their plan and there still was not. He discussed the inclusion of EHUs in this and other projects. Mr. Braun felt there needed to be a relationship between level of development being asked for in specific projects and requirements for EHUs. He said he had heard a couple of reasons for why he should provide EHUs, one being that they were asking for an SDD. He said in the past five (5) to ten (10) years SDD's had been the mechanism where requirements for affordable housing had come into play, but he felt those had been typically been associated with larger scale projects which included requests for additional density. He agreed affordable housing was a community need, but felt there needed to be parameters to establish under what circumstances EHUs were required to be provided. He said the requirement for an EHU in this project took them by surprise given what they were asking for. He asked Council to re-examine if it was appropriate and reasonable to impose such a requirement on this project. He strongly suggested Council amend TOV's SDD ordinance or establish a formal policy statement or provision to inform property buyers and developers what the expectations in this area would be. There was a lengthy discussion about considerations and specific suggestions for the inclusion of an EHU in this project, including the possibility of an off-site EHU. The final amended motion to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 was made by Jim Shearer. He moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading with the provision that the developer include a permanently restricted 450 square foot EHU, and that staff be directed to work out the placement of that permanently deed restricted unit with the applicant (to be located on the lower portion of Tract B) by second reading. Jim Gibson seconded the amended motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg explained why he was going to vote against this SDD. He felt the area was already too dense, the road was a problem and was not practical, and he did not believe that the previous County approval should influence a TOV decision. 3 He felt the land was being abused and it would eventually be a horrible project. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-1, Tom Steinberg opposed. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.058, controlling undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties for the violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead explained that Section 18.24.058 had been found to be under the wrong Title in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, amended Chapter 8.24 to correct that. He stated there was no change to the original ordinance. After discussion, Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-2, Tom Steinberg and Bob Buckley opposed. They recalled they had voted against the original ordinance as being useless. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:WIINAUG17.93 4 ORDINANCE NO. 11 SERIES 1993 AN ORDINANCE REZONING TRACT' C OF THE SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FROIIfl GREENBELT AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE ZONING TO SINGLE EAiililLV RESIDENTIAL ZONING, A TRACT LOCATED WITHIN SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AN APPROXI~flATELV 40 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF THE IViAIN VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGE. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to rezone Tract C within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, from the Greenbelt and ,Natural Open Space Zone District to the Single Family Residential zone district, in order to provide for the addition of a permanently restricted employee housing unit/gatehouse; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with Municipal objectives to provide permanently restricted employee housing within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council hereby rezones Tract A, of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, from the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zone District to the Single Family Residential zone district. Section 3 1f any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any 1 one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 5 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 6 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repeater shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 2 1 ORDINANCE N®. 1~ Serles ®f 1993 ARC ®RDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPIIAENT ®ISTRICT (ICNOVNN AS SDD N®, 28, 51'IiE VAI~LEI~, PHASE II) AND THE DEVELOPl1AENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE KITH CHAPTER 18°40 4HE VAIL li1AAt1NICIPAL CODE AND SETTING PORTlH DETAILS III REGARD TIHERET® !~lHEREAS, Chapter 98.40 of the !fail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and 1iNHEREAS, Parkwood Realty has submitted an application for a Special Development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as The Valley, Phase 11, a part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 to be known as Special Development District No. 28; and lIUHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 28 will insure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and lAIHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and lNHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish such Special Development District No. 28. NOVV, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TONVN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Plannina Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 9 8.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD 28. Section 2. Special Development District No. 28 Special Development District No. 28 (SDD No. 28) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Phase Il, The Valley, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, within the Town of Vail consisting of two areas. Tract A (upper development area) consists of .860 acres and Tract B-2 (lower development area) consists of 2.418 acres. Section 3. Purpose Special Development District 28 is established to insure comprehensive development and use of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 j Seoond Reading f an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets the design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. As stated in the staff memoranda dated July 12, 1993 and April 26, 1993, there are significant aspects of Special Development District 28 which are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone district. SDD 28 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of this site, building envelopes and driveway alignments will be established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. SDD 28 provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique character of this site given the difficult site constraints which must be addressed in the overall design of the project. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD 28 is approved and shall constitute the plan 'for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Parlcwood Realty and consists of the following documents: 1. Final plat of The Valley, Phase II, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 completed by Intermounts~in Engineering, Limited dated July 8, 1993. 2. Structural engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7, 1993. 3. Soils report for Tracts A-1 and A-2 by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993. 4. Site plan of the lower development area (Tract B-2) by Randy Hodges dated April 24, 1993, (Sheet number 1.) 5. Site plan for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated November 6, 1991, (Sheet number 4.) 6. Detailed analysis of the retaining walls, driveway, prototypical building sections and regrading for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated July 12, 1992, (Two sheets, unnumbered.) 7. Hazard analysis letters by Nicholas Lampiris, Phd dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. 8. A landscape plan by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993, (Sheet number 2.) 9. A drainage plan by Range West, Inc. dated January 28, 1993. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 199;! 2 Second Readirg 10. E{evations of the seven single family homes to be constructed in the lower development area (Tract 13-2}, (Sheet numbers 7, 9, 11, 9 3, 15, 17.) ese~eets c~o~~~~` '~r~d~chdes~t'B>>ptl :I:x <.:; ;H.:. > es at I~a~atl ` ' b . . ~t~og Iar~s e~euat~Qr~so~re ~drtc~ ~p : 1.»>;,, '9 X93 street n urgers 9 Y G,2;;;t~?a; artd C3. This r~ ~o b~ nstr~cted art tl~e ~wer~~lc~pmerlt~rea {Tract 8=2}, antl ~h~tl ~r~clu~+e a ~`ype lil employee heusfr~i ~ar~i~ l~av~nr~ X34 square feet Pryor to ~ssuar~ce of s b~~ltlittg permit for ~es~derrc~e Ca<~r~ l~~arrt shalt e~g~ ~ tleed restn~t~on on a dorm prr~tr~d~d by the ~omrnun~ty lJ'e~elc~prnent ;>~eparirn~er?t,~fi~ch;shall conformi to: a1i requ~remerlts fora Tape 11;1 . ~i~t < ' '';:f~sir >u~i »~ei"!~8~~t3C0 Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the Special Development District. B. The development plan shall adhere to the following: 1. Acreaae: The site is made up of iwo parcels: Tract A and B-2, The Valley, Phase 11. Site A is made up of .860 acres and site B-2 is made up of 2.418 acres. 2. Permitted Uses: a. Single family residential dwellings b. Open space c. Public and private roads 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public utility and public service uses b. Bed and Breakfasts as further regulated by Section 18.58.390. 4. Accessory Uses: a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family residential uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190; c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; 5. Setbacks The setbacks shall be those shown on the site plans for Tract A and Tract B-2. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1983 3 second Reading 6wellindJen~vtw,Appri~~bo~i~odeS~.;~by~~,rAe®Ggbis~reh~al~r~rtobatea~d®)Ts~~j1~#2mily - 7. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof. 8. Parking: Parking shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading). Each unit shall have a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces. 9. GRFA: GRFA for Tracts A and B-2 shall conform to paragraph 11(E) of this ordinance. 10. Landscaping: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design Review Board approved final landscape plan shall provide at least the minimum number of trees and shrubs shown on the plan prepared by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993 reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission on July 12, 1993. 11. Design Requirements: At time of DRB submittal, the applicant shall submit drawings that meet the following requirements: a. Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside anid stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site shall not be permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings shall not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. b. Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. c. Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with a turn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department shall require that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There shall be a minimum height of 12.5 feet of clearance in the turnaround area to allow for fire truck maneuvering. Ord'mance No. 17, Series of 1993 4 Second Reading P d. The sod areas shall align with the existing sod areas of Grouse Glen located to the west of Tract B-2 and the sod type shall match Grouse Glen. e. The GRFA of the proposal shall comply with the following chart. The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area (Tract B-2) and each envelope in the upper development area (Tract A) may be modified up to 50 square feet per unit as long as the total GRFA for each tract does not exceed the maximum of ~~,623 (93,31 ~ Q§) for the lower development area (Tract B-2) and 5933;,:(6,~~2;i;,.;,,,~~9) for the upper development area (Tract A). Lower developmern area (Tract B-21: Base Floor Credit GRFA currern garage Area overage' credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1675 225 1900 0 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G;i 1857~3tf~J"°: 45Q 26:1:6 46 459. total y~23:..:....... Upper development area (Tract Al: A-1. 32,52;:;:=';80~3;i72"" 225 3357 600 A-2. 79? . 281::"" 225 3046 600 total 5993: ° The drawings submitted at this time exceed the allowable by the amount shown in this column. At time of DRB review, the applicant shall reduce the plans so they do not exceed the allowable. Floor areas may change by up to 50 square feet from those shown in the "base floor area" column as long as the GRFA does not exceed the total shown for each tract. °~e addifianal 3D9 sr{uare feet ~s tnad~ up oY 1 ~ taken from tf#e (gyuer development .area aru3;150 greats f~y;the To~rrt ©f va~l f. The architectural design of Building B located in Tract B-2 shall be redesigned so that it is distinctly different from Buildings A or C as determined by the DRB. The architect for Building B shall revise the drawings so that the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color are distinctly different from either Building A or C. g. Prior to excavation of either building site on Tract A, the applicant shall either document that all excavation will occur on-site or shall provide letters from adjacent property owners allowing the excavation to encroach. h. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area, the applicant shall dedicate public access easements Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 ~ 5 second Reading 9 for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path. ' i. Immediately following the second reading of this SDD, applicant shall record at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office an instrument which shall notify future buyers of the reports, drawings and Town of \lail approved development plans for this parcel. The restriction shall state that: "Tracts A and B-2 of The Valley, Phase II, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 has been approved as an Special Development District by the Town of Vail, Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993. This approval for Tract A mandates building envelope location and road/driveway alignments. These approved plans may be amended only by the Town of Vail, per Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code. Future owners should review engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7, 1993 and a soils study by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993 on file with the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Future owners should also be aware that all retaining walls should meet the maximum height limits set forth in the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Proposed plans dated by meeting such requirements are on file in the Town of Vail Community Development Department." 12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is $.30 per square foot. 1;3: Drainage Plan Prior touance of any ~u~l~irrg permits within ifs SC33, the 2~pplicant shall prc~rde a':dralha~e plan which rrieets-the standards of the Tpwn 1=n veer 9 Section 5. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearinc~ in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 6. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the Ordinance No. 17, Series o1 1993 Fj Seoond Reading D approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 7. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal .Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 9 993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk {NTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C'~ORD93.17 Ordinance No. 17. Series of 1s~3 7 Second Reading ~ . . ti Il1AEIlAORAN®lJll~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development ®epartmen4 DATE: AprtB 260 1993 Staff o®enments made alnce Aprll 120 1993 are made 6n bold SUBJECT: A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and S, The Valley, Phase 11/9490 Suffer Creek Rd. ~?pplicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy lCnudtsen ::::::.....::::................::,:::::::::::::::::::.::.........::::::..:r,::.~::...,.....:..:..:.~...:::::.::.:.~:::::...f::...~::,,.~:::...~,:::.~ w.,~,.,._h...,,... I. PR®JECT ®ESCRIPTI®PB The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase II of "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow: 1. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%; 2. A 9 0 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is required. 3. lNalls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper development area which exceed 4he height limit by 1 foot; and 4. A l04 to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum buildable area for this zone district; In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family homes on the upper development area and distinguish the lower development area from the other phases of development in The Valley. The applicant will use the single family subdivision process in the tower development area and to sell off individual houses as they are constructed. Lower developmen4 area description The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from Suffer Creek Road at an slope. The road is intended to be 22 feet wide and will provide automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck tum-around located at the bottom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges from approximately 9,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square footage, each home will have atwo-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes 9 - range from 27 feet to 30 feet. Uooer development area description The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes, which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single - family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be a building envelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA.of 3,252 square feet. The eastern building envelope will be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square feet of GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway. II. BACKGROUND The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Valley. The six different phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 1970's and the early 1980's. On June 3, 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units far Phase II. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of i 5S includes a Nr~vis~on recognizing the County approval. The Ordinance states that a~.y significant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating the proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, consisting of six dwelling units and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. fn 1991, Jack Snow completed construction on five existing foundations which are now called the Buffer Creek Townhomes. This development consisted of five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA available for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site. The following table summarizes this information: Eagle Grouse Buffer Remaining County Glen Creek Development AQ~roval Townhouses Potential 26 D U's 6 D U's 5 DU's 15 D U's 32,909 sq. ft. 6,233.8 sq. ft. 7,208.9 sq. ft. 19,466.3 sq. ft. The Eagle County approved plans for the lower development area consisted of a centralized parking area at the top of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were two to three stories in height (24' to 30') and ranged from 924 to 1400 square feet of GRFA. The proposed development for the upper area consisted of five dwelling units, similar in design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out" 2 1 r v' area off the north side of Suffehr Creek Road. It is important to note that the County approved plans for the upper area located 4he units partially on slopes greater than 40%. ®n January 9 9 , 9993, June 2~, 9 991, December 9, 1991, and December 16, 1991, the PEC reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that time, also. During the 9999 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal involved four departures from down of !fail coning standards. Because of these departures, the applicant has applied for an SDD. 3 Ilft !Conlna Analysis, Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40;748 sq. ri. Suitiable Loi Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. tt Lower 105.318 sq. it. Lower: 64,623 sq. tt. Total 146,058 sq. ri. Total: 73,009 sq. ft." Aaril 12. 1993 January 11. 1993 Residential June 3. 1980 Gensler Proposal Gensler Proaosal .Cluster County Anoroval Dwelling Uniis 9 9 10 15 'GRFA 19,466 sq. ri. 19,966 sq. tt. 18,252 sq. ft. 15,777.2 sq. tt. was proposed 19,466 sq. 1i. is allowed Site Coverage 10.9% or 15,889 sq. ft. 11.3 or 16,489 sq. ft. 25% or 36,514 sq. tt. 6.9% or 10,209 sq. ri. Setbacks 10' front 20' on 20' front ~ 3' front 20' sides all sides 15' sides 22' side 5' rear Height 27' - 30' 33' 33' 30' Parking 35 spaces 36 spaces 10 x 2.5 = 25 spaces 22 spaces°°° Landscaping 77.9% or 113,830 sq. ft. 77% or 113,135.3 sq. it. 60% or 87,634.6 sq. tt. 86% or 125.673.3"' _ Retaining Walis 4' 6' 6' 4' - 6' 'Size of A-1 0 sq. tt:'• A-1 0 sq. ft." 8,000 Na Buildable Area in A-2 8386 sq. tt. " A-2 8386 sq. tt." Proposed Lots Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards) Asphalt coverage 9.5% or 13,892 sq.ft."' 9.2% or 13,500.6 sq. tt. rya 7.3% or t 0,742.3 sq. tl. Impervious surface 22.1% or 32,228 sq.il."' 22.3% or 32,624.6 sq. ft. Na 14% or 20,385.6 sq. ri. 'Deviates Irom Zoning Code standards "Measured by stall "'Assumes that only halt of the full circle of parking is built 4 D IV. @IAO®IFICATIONS WIA®E SINCE THE JANUARY 11, 1993 PEC WORK SESSION, ®n January 11, 9993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session. tMinutes from tha4 meeting are attached 4o this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower development area were: 1) That mature evergreen trees should be saved, 2) That fill from the road should be reduced, 3) That the units should be clustered and some incorporated into duplexes, That site impacts of the development should be minimized, 5) That the proposal's character should integrate with the existing portions of Phase II, That the proposed amount of GRFA and the single family home use was acceptable, 7) That two Planning Commissioners said that garages and automobile access to the homes were acceptable. Concerning the upper development area, 4he Planning Commission's comments included: 1) That the building envelopes should be reduced in size, 2) l hat the envelopes slioula ve sniffed down oft of the uppermost part of the Hillside, 3) That the envelopes. should be shifted to the eas4 and moved closer together, 4) Tha4 detailed designs of the driveway, the garage aprons and the turnaround areas should be provided so that there would be an accurate understanding of what future development would look like. a) Lower Development Area Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower development area, the site has been surveyed, and alt aspen larger than an 8-inch caliper and all evergreens above 20 feet in height have been identified. There are eighty-eight trees identified in the survey, which can be broken down into three differen4 clusters. The first is in 4he central part of the site, the second is at the lower part of the site and the third is at the upper part of the site along the road. 1Alith the changes made since the last review, the applicant has been able to save the lower cluster of trees in addition to others across the site. This cluster is made up of five evergreen trees with calipers ranging from 8 to 24 inches. In addition, the applicant has been able to reduce the length of the road by 20 feet. This in turn, has reduced the amount of fill that is required. Previously, the fill required ranged from 9 0 to 12 feet in depth. At this time, the maximum amount o4 fill ranges from 6 to 8 feet. For a majority of the road, the fill is 4 feet or less. The area of asphalt has been reduced by 128 square feet. Heights of the buildings have been reduced from 33 feet to a range of 27 feet to 30 feet. Landscaped area has increased by approximately 700 square feet. 5 b) U~ner Development Area Since the January 11, 1993 work session, the applicant has changed the upper development area by reducing the size of the building envelopes, shifting these to the east and eliminatin13 the upper 10 feet of each of the envelopes. Envelope A-1 has been shifted 25 feet to the east. Envelope A-2 has been shifted 15 feet to east. The applicant has also recognized the Town's ownership of right-of-way in the boundary line dispute. The applicant has widened the road to accommodate Fire Department requirements. The applicant has drawn detailed plans of 4he driveway to the upper development area. The drawings Include garage locations, garage slab elevations, parking areas, automobile turnaround areas, or the retaining walls that are required to accommodate the access. Sections through each envelope have not been provided. These drawings show that access can be provided to the garages without lnvolvtng variances. Prior to first reading at Town Council, staff requests that the sketches be relined, that all assumptions made In the drawings be Identified, that top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall elevations be Identified for all retaining, and that sections through each envelope be provided. A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation to the amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any scarring on the back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to the plat: "Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" to.the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point." Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to be designed of a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside. c) GRFA In the previous discussions with the PEC, the applicant has proposed an additional 500 square feet of GRFA to the amount approved by the County. At this time, the applicant has eliminated this portion of the request and is now complying with the amount set by the Eagle County approval. The proposed building floor plans will have to be modified slightly to meet this amount. At this time, the staff measured approximately 96 square feet of GRFA in excess of what the County approved. The homes in the lower development area will need to be adjusted so that the proposal does not exceed the amount approved. The applicant has agreed to do this at the time of DRB application. The following table identifies the approximate GRFA for each envelope. Staff fs recommending that the GRFA for each residence be allowed to vary by 50 square feet from what Is shown below. Total GRFA for the lower and upper development areas may not exceed the totals for each area. 6 a ~ 0 GRFA >~tay n®t be trainsferred fr®m the upper to the fou?e>r development area. L®wver development area: ~as® Fbor Credit GRFA burr®nt garage Area ®verage predit A. 9816 225 2041 16 463 9816 225 2041 96 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1897 225 2122 3 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 9859 225 2084 21 476 aotal 13314 Upper development area: A•9. 3252 _ 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 2084 600 total 6152 d) Hazards The applicant has provided additional analysis by Mr. Nick Lampiris regarding both the debris flow and rockfalt hazards. The lower development area has been found not to be significantly affected by either of the hazards. Nick Lampiris specifically states that no mitigation is needed for the lower development area. Concerning the upper development area, the debris flow hazard will skirt the two building envelopes and does not need ~to be mitigated. However, rockfall does need to be mitigated. The geologist has recommended that on the north elevations of the two homes in the Upper Development Area, that 3 feet of exposed foundation wall, which can withstand 300 pounds per square foot of impact, be provided. This is not to be broken up by any windows or doorways. i3ased on the hazards reports and this recommendation, staff believes the hazards have been satisfactorily addressed. 7 . ` V. SDD CRITERIA A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate envtronment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, butlding height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual Integrity and orientation. Staff believes that the new design for the lower development area has improved its sensitivity to the immediate environment and neighborhood by shifting the building locations up out of the meadow. This has, in turn, reduced the length of the road by 20 feet, reduced the amount of fill required, and preserved the cluster of trees at the tower end of the development. As stated earlier, these trees range in caliper from 8 Flo 24 inches. There is 128 square feet less asphalt in the Lower Development Area since the road has been shortened and approximately 4 feet less fill required. Concerning the upper development area, staff believes that the building envelopes are reasonable locations for two single family homes. The applicant has stated a requirement on the plat stipulating that the grade on the west, north and east elevations of both single family homes not change more thari 4 feet from the existing grade. This will insure that there is rro scarring of the hillside as a result of development and will insure that the homes are "benched-in" the hillside. The applicant has shifted the envelopes to the east to reduce the amount of road required and has brought the envelopes 10 feet down off the hillside. Another stgniftcant Issue regarding senslttvlty to the Immediate envtronment involves the design for the automobile access to the two envelopes In the upper development area. Staff has reviewed the prellmtnary drawings submitted by the applicant and believes that access can be provided without requiring any variances. We would like to have these drawings refined prior to Council and all of the assumptions involved with the building and garage locations specified on the drawings. This is listed at the end of this memo as a condition of approval. Staff understands that other issues raised previously in the review process have already been resolved by the applicant. The shingles have been removed, the design of Building B has been modified significantly so that it does not look Iike~ A or C and the deck on Building A has been cut back by 5 feet. Given these changes, the staff has removed all of these issues from the list of conditions at the end of this memo. Building A encroaches 10 feet into the front setback. Because there is 21 feet between the property line and the edge of pavement, there will be an apparent 31 foot. setback. Staff believes that the benefits that have resulted from shifting all of the homes up out of the meadow will outweigh the few negative aspects associated with the setback encroachment. Given the 31 feet of distance between the home and the road, staff believes it will be acceptable. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 8 The proposed use for both development areas is single family homes. -This use is Bisted in the zoning code as an allowed use for the Residential Cluster Zone District. l~/e believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the surrounding uses, even though many of them to the west are condominiums. iNe believe that the use is reasonable and tha4 with some design modifications 4o the architecture and 8andscaping, that the development will be compatible. C. Compliance with parking and loading requtrements as ®utlined in Chapter 1.52. Atl of the home sites in both the upper development and lower development areas comply with the Town's parking requirements. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vatl Comprehensive PIanD Town policies and Urban ®estgn Plans. The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDRj. As proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range of 3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with The Vail Land Use Plan designation. . f~. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and attached 40 this memo. Staff has listed the recommendations from his study as conditions of approval. li=. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Staff believes that the location of the buildings, since they have been shifted to the east, have resulted in better open space provisions and are more responsive to the existing vegetation. Though the road accessing the Lower Developmen4 Area will remove a stand of trees, staff believes that any development plan in the remaining portion of Phase II would require removing some trees. Staff believes that, in general, there is a reasonable balance between preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this portion of The Valley and building out the approved density. A circulation system designed f®r both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off~site traffic circulation. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been addressed in this design. Concerning the upper developmen4 area, there is vehicle access to both envelopes. Concerning the lower development area, there is vehicle access to each home site as well as a pedestrian path tha4 ties into the res4 of The Valley pathway system. At the time the lower area is developed, the applicant wilt complete a single family subdivision in order to sell off the homes. At that time, the common roadway and pedestrian pathway must 9 be dedicated as access easements. ~ „ The Fire Department has approved the vehicular access plan for the lower development area as well as the upper development area with one .condition. They are requiring the applicant to design aturn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement (of the driveway). There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and funct(ons. Staff understands that the applicant has redesigned the landscaptng, shifting much of tt around to the areas between the proposed development and the existing development In Grouse Glen. A minor point concerning the landscaping is to have the areas proposed for sod tie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and modify the type of sod to match the existing sod. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional and efficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest of The Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat to accommodate both on-site and off-site drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer is requesting a final component of a drainage study. As result, the staff is adding a condition of approval that prior to first reading at Town Council of the SDD, the applicant provide all information the Town Engineer needs in his review of the drainage plan for the development. Any structures or easements that are recommended in the drainage study will need to be provided for in the design and on the subdivision plat prior to scheduling this development for first reading. Easements for pedestrian and vehicular traffic will also be provided on the plat. V1. MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION The standards for creating tots in this zone district are as follows: Section 18.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet, containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each site within its boundaries." Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain the minimum amount of buildable area. The requirement is for eight thousand square feet, and the proposal, as measured by staff, provides no buildable square footage for the western envelope. If the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed. 10 t - Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision. VVe believe the applicant has demonstrated tha4 tvv® single family units can be built on Tract A. The original development plan located 5 unfits In the hazard area. Vile believe the new .plan provides for a much safer design. Bn respect to Tract we feel It is reasonable to plat unplatted parcels that are phases within a development. The PEC is the approving authority for the flAinor Subdivision request. However, Town Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that once the plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD. Prior 40 the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be Inc®rporated Into the plat: 9) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated into the plat, including proposed improvements as well as easements; All hazard areas, as designated on the Town of Vail hazard maps shall be graphically shown on the plat. . 3) The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SDD receiving final approval from Town Council. V11. STAFF RECO~if~AEl,~lDATION ON THE SDD REQUEST Staff believes that 4his project meets all the SDD review criteria and is recommending approval of the proposed development plan with the following elements of an agreement with the developer. Assuming that the following changes can be incorporated into the drawings, staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town .Council that this SDD be approved. A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be incorporated into the drawings: 9) ®rawings for the automobile access to 4he upper development area shall be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the building location, identifying 4op of wall and bottom of wall elevations, and providing sections through each building envelope showing the building, any retaining walls and driveway. S. At time ®f ®RS hearing, the ®R® shall determine that: 9) tuildings on Tracts A-9 and A-2 shall be °benched-in° into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. Bn order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. 99 2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated - September 18. 1992 and January 22, 1993. 3) buildings on Tract A-2 shat) be designed with a tum•around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located .at any point along the southern edge of the envelope._ The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and thte far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. 4) The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase II and that the sod type matches Phase II. 5) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart. The GRFA allocated for each residence to the lower development area and .each envelope in the upper development area can be modified by 50 square feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of 13,314 for the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,152 for the upper drrveiopnteni area (Tract A). Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1897 225 2122 3 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1859 225 2084 21 476 total 133 t 4 Uaoer development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 2084 600 total 6152 C. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; 12 ~ V • ~ ~~1~97 o ''..•..v i~~'j' . - . M°D~. ~ e ~q _ ~ ~''°P ~ ~ ~ ~oosg ~~ga~Be ~M ~-'r ~~~''i ~ wr .fir ~/•P ~ 1~~~~ -i rt.'!ty- p Iror ~i'v~~~~~ ~C~` j?!~1 ~ Pj%~~:...... ~I 'i t:'1•..: p = 'i i-, ~ ~ Yom/ ~ . ~ / f~ ~~ij I _j e I '~•j iP ,vim! = -g ice" ~i ~ . ,•r ~ o _ ~ lVll~ ~ a _ S'o•i:~ ~e ^ e ~.r rO O.N.. .w. CA• W O b ~ .41 /9 Ci ~ pPe oPPG OfT00~0 ' t3 . ~ ~ ~ ~.y ~ apr p.e.s.pwrrae o•. ~ ~ ~ ~~!.i•r~goooedo ~ IID.'1®b~ N~'w.~"..vr ~...~r°ia~:... u:seN..: a.me. ~ ~faglmav0og..e _ be«...wr~.o rr a.M a.ab • ' W N.e a Nmne w N+ Ns C-A b 0 fmY60AM1OCtl ~.aAVC P r a,m ot~A. bocsS _ _ •r mltM1. x _ w ~ , ; ~ N / n . •~N ~~~~p~ a ~ I ~ / .+n~L .!c i A =r / rA~'~ ~ S~~ , t M'P`s w ~y, dd ` C~,,i1 I ~ s dom.. b O. p .N ~ b~ ~ °'L~" FPO °i°',,K^~'',O,.wrdf I:,,~ , / - t ~ •'r F~ / _ M r ? ' t !A 1 f t • f 1'~f•- ~ / r , / . i..+ ~ o~- / ~ f _ ~w a emu' ice. o .r.~.•_'..~• • e e ~ ~~~-s..~ co+geMS~t tyy0b m~ ms's `'1~~94 _ ~ ~pf>~ ,~,:,s~ s« ~ ~ mss ,o pe OM•!•yy.AN7'~' ff•G /LA I'Q1wj.L•>f ~ 9 ' 0 M~ ~ r~ ®dNf ryr,~. ®~j.NHfr /6i•V/O~iA. ~r+~1~ ° . e°• w : o^.M ®ro e• o ,,,,a X91$ !nq ' a, °`pr~.o yvv11 ~ ~ r~ • sedA~~tiod?i^~ .6~68tr•°'?sfOts f. arras Z'S' ; e>~ d>''" / j 1 q a,r P'M•0 y ° ` r i~ / ' % ~ ~ 'ate i _`la~'j^ti..~ Y .ir: ~ . .1 / Y , ~ _Jt'2'~elC 1 ° d„q{•o ;ww ~ t 27®'1' • ~ _ °r~.aS+ °`V~• ~ . • ? .'.moo . y t~ _ _ 6..•.'_'_ 1 1 ~ 1 . ? ; ~ I r • ~ ~ ~ ..Aa~rJp • •+f'f ~Pu+a'° Ce.a+ ~ ~ `~,o' ` 6 ° ` ((ya 1 r ~t 0 f ' ~~L''./fi` ~ - - ? r•'„•, ~.o~e.r°W ~ d:~ 1 ~A ~ ~ #T.e) ~ f' ~ 'Y r ~ _ .tA'r`•rr L.t+B~„~."~. \ w`. ~'•(g_ oo .1! 1 ~ - 1 I a.a~T ~d L 9 ~jr~ ~0 1 = y......,, r.` ` b `b? ` e 0 a e1 .E s ® s'ue'. 1 1 , ~ _ _ . ~ , 6 8 0 1' • +~r.a • i ! ~'LS • 1 1 1 • a• ~ ~ ~ ~ !ks oo w d ~ 0 ~ p: :a. 1 d I. / ~ •+~'~"-E°~. r ~ /i .•1 ~ 4`..'~. 0'I'~ o Q 7~ 1 g / .rs / ~ I;~ir:,•° ` , rr,,:ati~ , t / r / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ` b Q' 6 0 ®~g 1 t i t'• g ~ 1 Y' ~ ~~`4e + ~ . ` ~ / " ` • / tP• R°po ,tb Oa / J~~~`f) $'14~ `b ~ -~.~•:y`. 1 1 :.e, .Q1 -t. \ ~q_.e~r,~`"(,s~~`.! ~ ..y ~ ` ~ / ~ I/ ~ 4o\t6. ~ ~ CtO. 6 il;re~•.- ~ d 0~. .~~~"~`~~1 `"ti,,d ..:,,n:~',-s*'~'... ~•o~°° ,G, ..°ca° aB. s~~ rb• 6 / ~ ,'1; •~<'.d•~ ~ ~ i e ,.o.r e.• .v ea a•w°. a. omtr o. ~e~ ~'el. g~'?,i •:a:: bb :01''.~ ~ cra ~i ~ ...-1-~ ~ c~I sa^ may;, ~ ~ _ ? l~ "1b'. ' ~ / 'qe• 4 ti ' . ~ ~ i ...r'~~. ~++~r ~s . I~VIch®las Lamperis, Ph. _ ' C>~tSUITING GEOLOGIST _ ~ ®985 INGERSOLL LANE • - ~ ~ILTB COLORADO 61652 476$400 Rd P40UR5) ~anuarb• X99 gqg.°, Steven ~ensfler ~'dP~:b1DOd ll;eal $y d~99 LTG ~1 vd o Q#~00 fs=ngl ebJ®od v Qug g fl ~ . ~Eo T~°act ~9 A.ion's fridge Subdiviri®n lea- Plr e Cen sl er e % have ~E•E~n a~!<:e:~ to cl ari ¢b~ m}~ po5i ti Dn ®n th>: Pock$al l mitio~tion I su^_,gested in my previcus lettnro % belaPVe that one r.:iti~~~a~i~~rr ttclrniyr.~r_:. i~ is', c:ur-~~•r-e On,~ possibility is to either acalP er grout loose rocScs in the lr.,l•1 Uutcro~ dirt?ctl~;~ a.ba~.~r the site_.a bEttEr is try con=•trc!ct the rc~~,r aoundation 6da11 nd tha t+uildinq~ to protrude ext least three f~ ^t aho•,~r ~i ni shF~r! c~ra.de anal tc? h~~.~,rp no I~Ji ndo<:s i n this i ntr?rval if;-t~:r around level to the too o~f the stE_~m ddall) e This edall shc•:.rl d have a strength c~ ~~.t 1 e~a.st 3i.0 pr,ur,ds pEr sq~~.are toot e . Thi_, s•:all would also act to prc~i_ect the ho^r? in tht event snow shar:l c. s1 i de up ~~.g,~i n..t tt-,ti harnc•. 1•. thr_'i'~ ~11''e =;.11^tf:E'I^ QLiestl%i:l£S please CO~~i:i+Ct '1',?e N 6 h:iwhcl.~ Lar,:iri.s Con=.~~1 ti no GEC? aGi St _ Nicholas Lampiris, ~h.G. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST •Q1BS tNGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 p0316763~00 R4 MOURS) Seote~iber 12, 195'2 - Steven Gensler Pariel~aod Fealty 52 i~J DTC P1 vd ; #SGCJ Errol Eit•JDad, CO 6ui 11 F:E: T,-act A, L.ion's fiidge Subdivision Dear ~i-. Gensler: • VG-' r3Vi£-l•:ed the ::•JD~-.1'~G'a c'~.r-. ~iiOL:nuf, f:Y"lE c1000!'iDail~'1nQ ?i1a~~ fDr ~:i.ti-4:1ta~G', o•~ %o~lC t=all and i)ebris Flc;•i reviesi :•o. thet l•o~•a^~ o•f tiJ~:i l . `h:.` twD ~i ~~°5 f'icZVt~. .t'i. C'E:n CiiGSE'il i:G b2 D'._tt Qi a'1^ tC tflE' 1•Jc?i: O'S tf1t= L~•t:l~i i:a .'dn c:i,'.J.' Cf'1~':n:21. ThC G~riV~W3`/ mi.:St Cf1tE'r clad r-~ :h., .c,..n ht:~:,cavtr. . The recl; fell ,•~zre=~ is morr=~ sE~Vere ~.trthcr west t?:~':n ihes_ twig building ~itcs ar,d the 1vw outcrops ab~OVe these sites car. be ea~i 1 y nrout~°_~ Gr ,Gtrit=~rt•Ji SC nE'lltrc.? 1 C'd bceausE, thE=y are thin anJ di _~a~anti nt.iou~. ; h..a acre hard rduus autcrcrs much hi nc~r on this' 1-ii115id:: INiii S~It:O RiGC•t'.)~ t0 ~i1C` 1•::?~~. ~:1L`~DU:3fi f111Lit]c{~i.1rJn «'i. t:•`y hGi'C~+i tLfi 1 ~ Cif:-x`31 b~:. L thrcunh i•Jal i S Oi- b:.'rmi nC:. i i ~ l::-G!;~ibl nGi: l•J~if'rcll't`.E=d vLt~ ~h ~hL 1G1•J cht:nCC• G'f rDC~.C r..P.Chiftr the <~i Gtz~~crc;~ :•:~r;~ r7i^iei^ i:u cor.;tructior, ~,+i 11 C~• bc'r:•.:~fic.i::~l. T~'~iG ~ ).n lac c.l.ii~f :~•h=i•i^:: 1C~C' riL~~L, CD1L.1:11f1Q ~.iE CGJ.1"L':E G~•.`' ~.'t=::LLfiLI .:l cull ir:r: r`_!cs, ~ art ~L:CiI c' lo:•: 1C"/t~? S~~?'Ch r•E'S'~2C::i: ~:7 i'i-:' i i^,..''•:'. rDC~C~i t~J ~.1 !-c1.i t_iV rc7f'h ~{1'c 31'%C''S„ i~fl~. 2. ~ 'C::~E" C: Ll l'J 1 1 ~ i.n - ~ ~ .a_ r.. 1 y T: + • t ~ a H. : S r - ~ l ha\c t. I ; ~.i,.~ cf-c•r. Nc. tr. i:u_lc 'r OC. Dcct_i^ ~tbcie :'r 7;1 t. CG:r~':rLIC'~i'Jfi G~ L~'1C'3c:• L:111":.i t•Jill nr't' if:cC'(c~C.:aE:' t::-~ i,Ci~'.r~ i..G t]tili:i^ 17i'•OrEi~i:`/ Cr ~trLi~t:ii LAS. Cr t0 j:ub1 i C f'1 dhi:S~C•: ~4ti.~t`j . bt.ti'.;;inr,~, roads, str=~•~o. e.;s~rn~'-its, u.ii=i•:iF•s Dr •<<:cili•tic:: :~+r 4 L :~1 Ltr'.9 i•~r~ Cj~riL`f' Oi^D~i:'rii2C t7'f etny I~in~. `E'i: mi= E":~•S~c3tC-' thy" thD r,o: i n thz= dc:;ri. s ,ti acard crs~~;s. Sri i 2 s ~~ngi n~eri nc studies are rccess4ry dtae to the steepnn~s or ~.iiirr-:'0~. 1T ~`erC• arC• Gr'.:GStlv~'°. D1Cnr-..^'. CvfitaL'i tT,C. SI nC~rC'1 "!i chat as L"ar;rp i -i s Consulting Geologist o ~ Q~i~h®las ~ampiris, ~h.®. ° CONSULTING GE060G)ST ®985 INGERSOLL 1.AAtdE • ~ ~ SILT, COLORADO 81652 ~ e~ssaoo Gs atouas~ ~e~tctrblsr° g~4 g9~m Steven Gensler 6~•~~r6:~?oGd ~iealty ~2~9 D7C ~l vd . $t~C~Cy Er.gi e~ CO C01 a 1 ~,~a(1 T\ ct d':. L.ao;9°s Radg~ dt~bdivbaiGn D~Gr P1r. Gene-lero Y h_.,e'c~ r~•\°i. c•t•:cd thc~ see°.n si •tes us she:;n on the ~,ccr.,s:r nyi na r:: 'i GI^ Furpo~c_~ cJ f,oC~t ~c11 l d:nd ~e'bri s Fi Dw rte`/i stV Apr ;:h~_' Tr.!'sr: O1 . ] 1 . :'-e SE\°on 5:~ t55 c^.rE.' Gt:t C.ti' 'z. t"^.!' ~ ~ n ~ C~i~ nr:~`1 . '~e et... ~ , ~.n a F; 7. o•,= try' ~c)"ih =•i^r.,^.c;t site and ~ar-t~ a-~ t`9e n~:;t t:•:t~ r.r-e w: t~-:i n •ci,~~ :~ir_•di.:::r: So~i, File :-:ward tse~ ~;c~c•~:;:an~°inmg r.:a~:' . TP~e roc4; ~tll a. ~a is more sevt~r~' furt`:er north than th~:.c hL;ildan~ _•i.•cc_= on the G;_hrr :r~id~ o~' Tr,:,ct fi ~~here it ham begin r•''OGI^i:[•i: 1;1 C:InL:..^.::~•::rc~..r,~:`CU:'~ ll tV:.".'r ti:l^,~1~ tp:['`/ Cc~..n ~s:y .^cs^•l~ gro:t't~;~ o:- o'~h~`rl;i~e nE'Lt•~i~ali~cd b~czu=E• .hE'y arc• thir: ~:r,d C~ ~C'L~n i ~illi:ll~, I i1G' I;torL c1. dL:t a CL:tCrQQS much hi ~riC'r O.^. ~~'i:~ hz l :~i dc' :•:i 1 i '.:had a)G~tl ~ •~o r^~ t•:cs ° F;l thct.;gh mi ti ga'_i can at tl,:, hon.~.,_~itcs is ~as_~:blc'~tt;rcunh iaa~Is Gi^ borr.)ir;g, at i~ ncl- t•;~;~ r.~;n~c-d d::~~ '~G 'she Iot•r r_hanc~ o-~ PGCi;s rE~.c*~ina t¢e sitos. j~P; Th~:~ [~•nstrt..;C1:.iGn O'i ti-:o~~• units tdl:l ?:Ot 1nCr 22SL•' tb'~(? a: C;.^•.~T•~ ~ LG Gth~. F:'G',J01'Yy° Gr :.':rUC~LII"C':ay Or 'F:O 7L•.b11C r1Qh~S~Dfi~:Vc^^. ;'S f:l.li 1 f.~i:~.^,-~. rAuG_ y _:t!^G•'L'tDy C'15LC^f:t:i l.;ti..lt~^5 Gi"• •i aC:. A ItiC`3 OI' t Gt:h".•" ~s)"C~j:... ~1C':+ D';' c^-.ny F; i.nCi. i~.`15 Gi::`:i=r ail i:OLi t~YE riJ~ .r~ L''.'. ~t'~C':^ d 'ch~rL` arc GLIB S ~i. Gn5 ,'Jl E'c;5E3 CG:Zt,:~.Ct ° t':1 chol C.~ ~c~fil t"`.1 re r Caneultir.g G~olLeirt . L~~~ 500°38'S6"VY 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00°38'56"E 122.81 feet " to the southerly ROW line of I-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81 °23'19'E .165.42 feet to a point e of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49°08`51" and a chord that bears S15°57'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40°32'10"E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49°12'10" and a chord that bears S15°36'05"E 64.28 feet; thence SS°40'00"W 90.27 feel; thence N38°42'24'W 224.55 feet; thence S78°10'32"4N 101.44 feet to the Point of ®eginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael t-auterhach Planner: Jim Curnutte ?ARCED UNTIL JANUARY 25,1993 Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion and a unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled the request until January 15, 1993. 8. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivi'slon to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Palley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a potential conflict of interest. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from they code. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further research before the final hearing regarding that issue. Public Input Neighborhood input was then requested and the. first speaker was Brian Doolan. He requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and come up with an alternative design. Steve Vndstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County . approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr. Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design. Planriing and Environmental Commisslon January 11,1993 Q , o . ~ Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared report done by iql<®, Bnc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the details of the drawings, specifically trying to understand the amount ®f fill that would be located at the lower end of the proposed road. Sherry ®orward was the Bast neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC Pequire the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of The Valley and requested that some ®f these characteristics be included in the new design. ,~®per ®evelo®ment Area The PEC decided to discuss the upper development area~first. Greg Amsden said that interesting architecture was the key to an attractive development. He said that 3,600 square feet of GRFA was quite a bit for that lot. He said that he was concerned about the terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area. He said that it should be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of the design at this time prior 4o any decision on the request. "These would include garage erdr!es, the auYcmcb?!^ turn~~~s.~rd area for each homy, :he parking area outside the garage, and the access to and from each building envelope. ®alton Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue but the major issues to him were Waiting down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved. Caena Whi44en said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted 4o see the details of the driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation. Jeff Bowen said that he concurred with the comments that had been stated. Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea. She also said that the two envelopes should be moved together as well as shifted to the east. Lower Development _Area Concerning the lower development area, Jeff Sowers began the discussion by saying that putting garages in these homes was a good idea and that most homes in Vail Weed garages. He continued by saying that the mature evergreen trees should be saved. He also said that the amount of grading proposed was a problem, especially oW the west end. Concerning the fact that all of the proposed homes are single family, he suggested that clustering a few as duplexes would help the site plan. Sena WhitteW concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development ~ianning and Environmental Commission January ~ ~ n ~ 993 . -r should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated •d and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan. Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildings into the hillside to make them look smaller. Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and that this could be done by reducing the width of the road. In his own experience with the development review process, he negotiated with the Fire iJepartment.to sprinkle the structures and in tum, was able to reduce the width of the drive significantly. He said that this may also help to save trees. which was an important issue to him. He said the square footage of the homes was not a problem but that they should be worked into the hillside. Diana Donovan referred back to page four of the staff memo. She said that the unite should be clustered, that they should share common drives and yards, and that they should be designed to save the vegetation around the development. She said that the asphalt s_ hould be reduced and that the mature vegetation should be saved. In general, she believed that the units should be clustered Goser together at the top of the site to preserve the rest of the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one phase of a multi phase project, 4he existing neighborhood should definitely be considered in the review of this project. Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from. the PEC that the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have to be resolved and the design improved before the PEC could support the plan. 9. Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso cans). Staff: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin reviewed the Town's policy on vending carts per the staff memo. Diana Donovan said that she supports the staff memo. r Public Comments: Susan Fritz, the Vice President of the Restaurant Association and the owner of the Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso cart at her restaurant. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11,1993 1 r ~ ~ . ~4' AflEiIA®RAIV®l1M . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 92, 9993 SUBJECT: A request for a proposed SDD and a minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and 13, The !!alley, Phase 11/9490 Buffehr Creek Road. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Paricwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen Y....v:.~.,...r.~ ..w.~:;~:~ S:: r:; ~ ~:::::::.?n>:Y~;x?K:•:::::::~:.::.:.~.•.,::-::::•: ...........................:,max, r..:. I. IIVTR®®UCTI®~ On April 26, 9993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) discussed the proposal made by Steve Gensler and reached a general consensus to approve the plan. One outstanding issue, however, involved the site work in the upper development area. The PEC wanted a soils test provided for this area to verify that the proposed plans could in fact be constructed. In addition, the PEC wanted to see more detailed drawings regarding the retaining walls, driveway slope, site sections and spot elevations for the proposal. Staff has attached the memo from April 26, 9 993 as well as the minutes from that hearing at the end of this packet. In that memo, staff has provided a full discussion of the SDD criteria and all of the issues related to these developments. II. ®tSfrUSSI®N OF S®ILS REP®RT The engineers analyzing the soils for this site have determined that the rear retaining walls of structures can be built up to 26 feet high. (Please note that this wall would be incorporated into the building.) In their opinion, walls of this height can be built since there is bedrock on this site. Bedrock was encountered approximately 7 feet below the surface of the earth and continues down to the extent of the testing, which was 40 feet below the surface. In addition, they have said that boulder retaining walls would also be allowable on this site up to 8 feet in height. At this time, the applicant shows that 4 to 6 foot walls will be the maximum height for all retaining walls. Their concern is with the amount of excavation required in order to construct a 26 foo4 high rear retaining wall. In the executive summary, they cite that "the potential for encroachment on adjacent property during construction needs to be considered." Staff believes that given the extent of the cut, the excavation could be excessive. Staff recommends that written approval be secured from adjacent property owners for encroaching or that the excavation be done with a method of "pile driving". nth the "pile driving", staff understands that the excavation will no4 extend off-site. 9 ! ~ - 1 II. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the proposed SDD and minor subdivision. We believe all of the issues related to the development have been discussed and documented in previous hearings. Regarding the last area of concern, staff believes that the soils tests have documented that the site can sustain the type of development designed by Steve Gensler and Randy Hodges. Given this additional information, staff believes that the proposed design is reasonable and should be approved. The conditions of approval from the end of the memo dated April 26, 1993 are provided below. Staff has added one condition (#7) and partially changed another (#B), which are shown underlined. The conditions shown in bold were modified at the last PEC hearing. A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following . changes must be incorporated into the drawings: 1) Drawings for the automobile access to the upper development area shall be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the building location, identifying top of wall and bottom of wall elevations, and providing sections through each building envelope showing the building, any retaining walls and driveway. ' B. At time of DRB submittal, the applicant shall submit drawings that meet the, following conditions for DRB review and approval:, 1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. 2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. 3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with a turn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. 4) The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase II and that the sod type matches Phase II. 5) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart. . 2 The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area and each envelope in the upper development area can be modified by 50 square feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of 13,314 for the lower development area (Tract and 6,152 for the upper development area (Tract A). Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 9816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 - 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1675 225 1900 0 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1857 225 2082 21 476 total 13314 Upper development aFea: A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 3125 600 total 6152 ° The drawings submitted at this time exceed the allowable by the amount shown in this column. At time of DRB review, the applicant shall reduce the plans so they do not exceed the allowable. Floor areas may change by up to 50 square feet from those shown in the "base floor area" column. GRFA may not exceed the total shown for each area. 6) The architectural design of Building l3 must be redesigned so that it is distinctly differen4 from Buildings A? or C. as determined by the DRB° The architect for Building B should revise the drawings so that the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color are distinctly different from either Building ~ or C. 7) Prior to excavation of either building site on Tract ,4, the applicant shall either document that all excavation will occur on-site or shall Drovide letters from adjacent property owners allowing the excavation to encroach. C. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; 3 o ~ -.o conditions which are set forth in pages 2-3 of the staff memo. Andy said that the Town Engineer had not completed his review of this proposal yet but that this would happen before this item goes for first reading in front of Council. Bill Anderson asked how all of the previously discussed concerns with this site would be conveyed to potential future buyers of the homes. Jay Peterson stated that they can be put on the plat map. Andy Knudtsen stated that they can also put this information in the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office on the title for 4he property. Tom Braun stated that the hazards on the site will be noted as well as the soils report. Jay Peterson stated tha4 this information could be referenced by property restrictions. Jeff Bowen stated that the citizens of !fail feel that situations such as this proposal on steep terrain should not be addressed by an SDD and he agrees with this position. Fie said that for this reason, he would be voting against this request for an SDD. Bill Anderson stated that the applicant has worked hard on this site to make it developable. Diana Donovan stated that she felt the PEC had taken as many steps as they could and that the project is better now than what was originally proposed. Allison Lassoe stated that she agrees with Bill's and Diana's comments. She said that the soils report and the structural engineer's report were helpful in making a determination for this site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was uncomfortable with this project but that she respects the applicant's development rights for this site. Tom Braun, the applicant's architect, stated that he feels this proposal has adequately addressed the previous concerns that the PEC had with this project. Fie added that the only development standard being deviated from with this current proposal on this Tract pertained to building in areas with 40% or greater slopes. Jeff Bowen stated that he has a philosophical problem with this type of development on steep slopes. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve this request per the staff memos of 1993 (April 12, 1993, April 26, 1993 and July 12, 1993) with the conditions that 1) a Deference to the ICoechlin soils report and a Deference to the requirements for wall designs wilt be indicated the on the plat and title report, and 2) that Greg fF,yall review the wall designs and soils report before the project goes to Council for first reading. Allison Lassoe seconded this motion and a 4-1 vote approved this Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 5 j •Neon ordinance -second reading ' Kristan Pritz stated that this item was tabled at the July 6, 1993 Town Council meeting. •Par 3 discussion at Town Council on July'6, 1993 Kristan Pritz stated that Town Council was allowing the Vaii Recreation District to continue to work the Army Corps of Engineers conceming the golf course design and possibly the wetlands. •PEC/Council discussion of SDD criteria -set date Diana Donovan suggested that it might be helpful for each PEC member to write down their thoughts conceming SDD criteria prior to the discussion with Council. Jeff Bowen stated chat it might be helpful if the PEC members met conceming SDD criteria prior to a discussion with Council so that they can reach a consensus on what they feel are the most significant issues. Kristan Pritz suggested that this meeting take place in early 1994, after the new Town Council members have been elected. •Follow-up on John Lincoln workshop Kristan Pritz stated that John Lincoln was currently working on the summary of the PEC's workshop with him and as soon as staff received the report, it would be given to the PEC. At this point, Allisson t_assoe arrived at the meeting. 10. Public Works Workshop on their Proposed Master Plan (Please see enclosed invitation). The PEC was invited to attend the workshop. 11. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek; Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Reafty Planner. Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that a soils analysis had been completed for this site. He added that a structural engineer had also analyzed the site. From these studies it has been determined that the soil can support the proposed development although there will be significant site disturbance. He stated that the staff was recommending approval of this proposed SDD with Planning and Environmental Commission Jufy 12, 1993 4 _ ` . Y~ F request with Jeff Bowen opposing for the reasons stated previously. a 92. A request for a minor subdivision for Lots 94 and 95, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation Planner. Mike Mollica/Jim Cumutte Jim Cumutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a minor subdivision. Rodger Tilkemeyer, representatives from the Spraddle Creek Livery stated that they had concerns with the subdivision, especially with regard to living up to previous agreements with the livery. Jay Peterson, representing the owners and developers of Spraddle Creek, stated that he was unaware of any problems with the livery and encouraged people to talk to him directly rather than in a public forum. He pointed out that in any event, the problems with the livery have nothing to do with the application currently before the PEC. Jeff Bowen made a motion per the staff memo to approve this request for a minor subdivision with Diana Donovan seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote approved this request. 9 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 9/4 NW 9/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M./Vail Associates. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing Vail Associates, Inc.'s request for a conditional use permit to expand the easternmost building on the property. He requested that the PEC focus on the discussion issues outlined in pages 3-6 of the staff memo (parking requirement, landscape improvements, possible access permit modifications, possible impacts to West Forest Road, long term joint maintenance agreement for West Forest Road and the proposed building design and materials). Rill Pierce, the architect for this project, stated that he feels that the parking requirement outlined by staff is too high because the vehicle maintenance shop only has between 4hirty-one and fifty-six employees and therefore the parking demand on the site is not high. I~ristan Pritz explained that the staff used a worst case parking requirement to indicate that even given tha4 requiremen4 the project met the parking requirement. She noted Planning and Environmental Commission Juty 12, 1993 6 y ' ~ c L - IIRI~ AND I~tL~rad DESIGN AYt~:n.eat~(JI~E AND DEYEI.OPMEP~~' ~7S 7375, VAIN, COiARADO, 51658 [3113) d76-9128 ~ RESP S T PROPOSAL AIVD EIV\/IR NMEIVT°AL IMPA~1'~REPORT and ' OtVS`~ 1'IIV IMP/aCT STl1DY i~ ~~a~~ Fa~~~ ~ LinSrid e F~~en 0 P ' ~ai0 ~®O ~ad® prepared for the homeowner Associations of the Va!'ay and the Grouse Glen fond®miniums January 9, 1993 ' ~ D - y v r• ~ ' RICE AND KItu~r.~~T DESIGN AR~.cui~,~aLx~ AND DEVELOPMENT . aOR xt7~, VAII,. COLORADO, t16S8 3a314'TF9223 Response to Proposal and ~ - Environmental Impact Report Tract B, Parcel A, Lionsridge Loop, Vail, Colorado January 7, i 993 gQ,proach - This document is a direct response to the proposal entitled rrrossview a~ Vail. Special D~velooment District and Environmental Impact Re cQ~r , _ prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, December, 1992. We do not believe that the author and client of this document meant to intentionally mislead the Town of Vail Staff, but there are certain areas where we would like to add to, or rebut, their statements. Relationship to SDD Desian Criteria - We have the following responses to the nine SDD Design Criteria: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural - design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Response: While the overall GRFA of the proposed project is similar to the existing proposal. The identity and orientation are vastly different (due to the road). The design of the buildings proposed for Tract B are clearly in compatible with the scale and bulk of the buildings found on the adjacent site. The remainder of the development is composed of a community of small Townhomes and Condominiums. _ B. No Response. ~o response. _i. Conformity with applicable element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies, and urban design plans. Resge~nsP: I The applicant states: WThe development plan fcr Crossview at Vail is based on the premise that market demand is for single-family homes and not the multi-family cluster development concept reflected in the County approved plans. ®f the two closest developments: ®uffehr Creek Townhomes (a contiguous property) and Suffehr Creek Chalets (used as an example by the applicant); I the former had all five units under contract within one month of completion, while the latter has sold just one of three in close to two yeaPS. iVo Response. ~ F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural feat~~res. veoetation anti overall aesthetic ~ quality of the community. Response: The question of the insensitive approach is best dealt with in the Construction impact study; however there are in several areas in the applicants response we must take excepticn to. The applicant justifies the hillside approach design by staring: This solution represents a far more sensitive site planning alternative than spreading development and roads throughout the site.°° True enough. This insensitive design is indeed better than an even less sensitive design. The.main point of the homeowners contention is that~tiere are a number of other far more sensitive development alternatives. The existing plan is just one example. The argument that the county plan requires a large parking lot is no longer applicable; The 44 space parking lot was to serve The Ridge at ` Vail and the Aspen Grove Homes units, this is no longer necessary. The required parking for the site will be determined by ~ the new development's density. The reduction of the parking load should be viewed as an opportunity to improve an existing successful development. l~l. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Resoonse;, . The applicant again uses in unneeded parking lot as an example. , In fact, if this were measured against the needed parking the paved surfaces increase from 9,993 square feet to 11,300 square J feet. Furthermore, the impervious surface increases from 15,408 to 21,080 square feet. OTHER AREAS (]F GC)NCERN WITHIN THE REPORT" Page three: "Important Elements of the Proposal"; Paragraph Four. We take exception to the statement that "U~its on tract B have been sited to minimize impacts on mature vegetation and the steepest portions of the site." We feel the Construction Impact . Study and the cross-sections clearly show this to be false. t Response to Staff comments and concerns Lower Development Area (tract B) D. Identify on the site plan all trees which will be saved. The plans do not appear to distinguish between existinc and proposed trees. Please make this distinction. Resoonse: The applicant respond that"...the vast maority of the heavily wooded hillside uphill from units A,B,and C will be undisturbed during construction." The site plan m~:y show this, but unfortunately the realties of construction will not permit this. The ~ section through building "C" allows fora 24" uphill leg of the footing and a 24" for the setting of form-work. Both of these ~ assumptions are absolute minimums for such a hillside. The disturbance is then drawn at a 1:1 slope. This clearly illustrates site destruction to, and most likely beyond, the property line. C. Please reconsider the aesthetic appearance of the shingles to be put on the sides of the proposed homes, V1 a believe it would be more positive if the homes reflect more of the "Valley" architecture in style and materials. Resoonse: We concur completely with the comment and feel that in a broader sense the proposed project should be part of the "Valley" (as in the area incompasing The Valley Condominiums, The Eastern Valley Condominums, and the ,Grouse Glen Condominiums) community as in architecture, planning, and character. - _ _ I~I~ AND ICRUSEN DESIGN AR~??~.CTURE AND DEVELOPMEhi I~03S 3378, VAII., COIAddADO, 81658 R03) A9S-9I~ 1 Construction 9rgapact Study . Tract S, Parcel Li®nsridge Loop, Vail, Colorado January 5', 199 dotes and f~iethodoloav: A number of criteria were used to evaluate 2 dif`erent construction scenarios: The ®rigina) Proposal, circa. 1980, and tie 1992 Crossview Properties Proposal. The intent is to objectively quantify the impact of the two proposals on the site, with particular attention paid to the effect on, and damage to, the heavily treed hillside. Foy consistency, both . ~ analyses are based on proposed changes to the topography as it exists in 1992. - The Scenarios: 1. Orioinal Prooosal, Revised - - The original project, which was prepared and approved around 1980, shows 6 buildings with 9 units,' in a pedestrian area. Parking for 4~ cars was located on the upper bench, at the east ° end of the property. 'The parking was origir;afiy proposed with two wings, north and south. The north wiry has been built as shown. The Revised ®rigina) Proposal takes into co:zsideration the fact that the south wing of the parking area is no longer required. The original concept for 7'he Vauey included the areas now known as the Ridge at Mail and Aspen Grove Lane. Tre parking for these units necessitated such a large parking area. Since the Ridge at /ail and Aspen Grove Lane are no longer governed by this P.IJ.®., and their parking already exists entirely on their own sites, the o required parking for the Revised ®rigina) Prcposal would be 18 spaces. (There are 9 units of less than 2,000 sq. ft. GRFA each.) 0 0 This assumed "revision" to the Original Proposal is thought to be valid, as it would not be logical to construct, nor would the Town y of Vail permit, a parking lot for 22 spaces that is not required. For the sake of simplicity, we have assumed that the south lot would simply be deleted, and that the remainder of the Original Proposal would stay intact. (Of course, the site disturbance of the Original Proposal could be further decreased by relocating some of the buildings up on the east bench, where the south lot was to have been, but this analysis is to deal exclusively with the Original Proposal versus the Crossview Properties Proposal.) 2. The Crossview Properties Prc~aosal - ' This plan was submitted to the Town of Vail in ®ecember of 199'!, and represents 7 buildings and 7 units, with automobile access to all units. I Categories of Analysis: 1. Number of Buildinos - This category could be important, because of the fact that the Original Proposal was based on a designed P.J.D. Although the number of units is smaller in the Crossview Proposal, the number of buildings has increased. 2. Site Coveraoe - This category consists of four numbers: First, the building coverage, using only the outside of the fou.~dation lines, (i.e., excluding decks and overhangs.) Second, the area of new paving and impermeable surface. Third, the total of these two, and fourth, the total area of these which occurs within the surveyed tree line. 3. Cut and Fill - This was analyzed on a 100 square-foot grid and calculated in absolute terms; i.e., 2 cubic yards of cut and 2 cubic yards of fill equals 4 cubic yards of site disturbance. Thy overall balance of cut and fill is not part of this study. Cut and fill amounts were tabulated overall, and within the surveyed tr?e line. Note: this number does not include areas of cut and fi?. under the building footprint. 4. Maximum Cut and Fill - This number indicates the greatest amount of cut and of fill located in each of the proposals. 5. Area in Excess e~f 4 Feet of Site INaniaulation e VNhile 4 feet is an arbitrary number, is was felt that it represents °intense°° site work. ®ne to three feet are often needed to satisfy drainage requirements, and it is reasonable to assume that at least some trees can be protected and maintained. beyond 4 feet,'the maintenance of existing trees and vegetation is virtually impossible. This number was tabulated over the entire site, and within the surveyed tree line. Note: this number does nit, include the building footprint. 6. `li'otal Ares of Imoact Within the Treeline - This number indicates the sum of paved areas, areas of over ~ feet cut or fill, building footprint, and an 8-foot area around the foundation. It is felt that on a site of phis steepness, the requirements of excavation and scaffolding justify the use of 8 feet as a conservative margin for construction. CATEG®RV REl/ISE® ®RIGINAL OROSSi/IEW PROPOSAL, PROPOSAL _ Number of Buildings 6 7 Site Coverage (sq. ft.) -Building 5,415 9,780 Asphalt 9,993 11,300 Total 15,408 21,080 Total w/in treeline 2,850 9,000 _ Cut and Fill (cu. yds.) Total 859 2,559 Total vv/in treeline 446 1,507 ~fiaximum Cut & Fill (ft) Cut 1 6.5 Fill 6 91.5 - Area in Excess of 4 ft. cut or fill (sq. ft.) Total 500 5,100 ~!//in Treeline 500 4,250 Total impact w/in Treeline (sq. ft.) 8,685 ~ 14,070 Cc ~ .IrIDi~GS r.ofix oa GU-.~•NO%rr.~ \\\\\~-NOrc+Tt• P?esaL or rM~~D eur~ofriH t. ~ ~~lrl rwT•... ~.aa tMa / ~ ~ ~ . a iL 1` ~ ; ~ • , ' ' J • ~_1 _ ~~~~~Y ~ rf ~w I ro..-... r _ x 1 w . ~ ~ ~ ~ ,a„y, sa.. cf • •.n..T w...,~. • ~ THRU uu~c r-•~~ ~r 1•- ~ ~ R ~ ` ~ _ T/_I~ifa~t~G .O• `1,tWR ~NAOy ~1 LAaP~ I •l+(PT•1?IA+~O? L/MM/L Oww/M w wr.o~.: foul "MRu UN V G ~C~r 4 ~ ~ AM pr P•~ ~ _ ~ i- 1 ~,,,p,a.>~ ~ < v ~ ~ ~ 6O ~ ` eoo _ _ rte' r~ ~ -~-q0 l Oa r ' '~'t7~,b es, 1 ~MC~ U AD .a R i ae oa Ce ~ ~ s „ov+d . r~ • ' ~ a l~ January 7, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: As spokesmen for the condominium associations whose members are most affected by the proposal of Parkwood Realty of Englewood, Colorado for establishment of a Special Development District and adoption of a Development Plan for The Valley Phase II, Parcel B, we wish to submit for your consideration some general comments concerning the proposal. First, we note that our associations have retained consultants to assist us, as well as the Commission and Community Development Department staff, in addressing the questions raised by the proposal. We understand that at the Commission meeting at 2:OO p.m. on Monday, January 11, 1993 Parkwood Realty will be making a general presentation on its proposal. Subject to hearing that general information, and to information we may obtain from a meeting between Parkwood representatives and our representatives scheduled for this afternoon, we have some written comments to submit at this time. Attached to this letter are: a construction impact study, a response to the December 1992 Special Development District and Environmental Impact Report prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. for Parkwood, and a letter from our counsel. As noted, all of these consultant comments are subject to further development of the details of the pending proposal, and we point out in particular that we obtained a copy of the Jamar Report only last Monday, so we have rot had the opportunity to study it fully. By way of general additional comment on the Parkwood proposal (which, as you know, goes back to early 1991), we enclose a copy of our February 22, 1992 letter commenting on the proposal as it was structured at that time. .n addition, we offer the following summary thoughts: Our Objectives: It is not our objective to prevent development in the area, but merely to have it conform with the basic plan that has been in place for the area since 1980. Indeed, two projects consistent with that plan have commenced (one successfully completed) without any opposition from the residents. Those overall plans were of record as a part of the approval process by the Eagle County, and they were accepted by the Town of Vail in Ordinance 13, Series of 1981. Thus they were justifiably relied upon by purchasers and owners in the Valley. While we certainly recognize Mr. Gensler's rights as a property 1 owner to use his land, we also feel we have the right to rely on . the development plan approved by governing bodies< Necessity For ~hancx}na The Plane Although Mro Gensler, who has been the proponent of the development proposal since its inception in 8991, has indicated that the profits from units that conform to the ,original plan would be insufficient, we understand that the economics were satisfactory on the recently completed uaitso The original plan also contemplates units that would be more affordable to local residents, and although luxury single family units might be wore profitable to the Denver developer, that does not help provide affordable housing for locals. Further, we have doubts that higher priced single family units sell as well as the units contemplated by the original planet For example, there are no units currently available in either the Halley or Grouse Glen and the new units have sold outo Unfortunately, the three speculatively built single family detached units have not shared the same fate. The Plan: What we object to is not so much the ultimate density, although we feel the addition of garages materially changes the massing, but rather the change in character of the plan from a project that would have interior pedestrian walkways with vehicular access from the streets to just another large single family project built on a cul de Saco The transformation would be less objectionable if it did not require the destruction of virtually all the trees in the area, substantial cuts and at least twelve feet of fill in places. In summary, we do not believe that the plan proposed is sensitive to the original plan and the restrictions that were placed on the land at the time of the original plan. Further, and perhaps more important, we feel that the proposed plan is simply too destructive of the site for consideration as good planning. While we are sympathetic to Mr. Gensler's desires to improve the economics, we do not believe that any significant hardship is imposed by the original plan and that the additional profits anticipated by this proposed plan justifies the negative impact on the current homeowners by changing the plan upon which they relied. P,s our previous letter stated, we have a 100 concurrence from the affected homeowners within our associations. Such . concurrence has been reaffirmed. n Sinc rely, I ' l/ ~ ~ ~ ~erV~Grouse Glen`~Condo `nium Association or The Va a Condominium Association P 1`~` ~ a~ grip v c®xDOlKrlvr~ ~ssoCiaTroly . ~ suPE~ ~ssocaaTiox L°~ t",? 111178 8-575 P-361 03/18/9? l6:31 a6 1 OF 3 REC DOC ~ ~ JOHNXErTf PXILIIPS fAStf CDUNIr ClFR%, COlORA00 15.00 0.00 ~ February 22, 1992 Planning and Em?ironmental Co..k..rission VGA FAX #479-2157 Town of Vail Hard Copy to Follow 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Commissioners: First, we want to thank the Planning Staff for their time and effort in acquainting us with Mr. Gender's proposal. We have retained several professionals to assist us to our review of the proposed changes to the approved plan. We will, of course, be happy to share these in detail with the commission and staff at a convenient time. After reviewing those plans in some detail with our consultants, we believe they represent a radical departure from the intent of the plan adopted by the Eagle County Commissioners in 1980 and concurrently recorded as a Declaration of Protecting Covenants on the land. The purpose of both the Commissioner' action and vesting rights to the current owners through the recorded covenants was to insure that future development was . consistent with current development and maintained the unique character of that development. We believe that Mr. Gender's proposed plan represents a material and detrimental change from the previous plan and would significantly alter the character, useability and the marketability of the present units. We have attempted to outline below in summary those aspects of the plan that are inconsistent with the current Planned Unit Development plan and restrictive covenants. The conflicts between the two plans outlined herein are not meant to be exhaustive but merely represent some of the more obvious differences based upon our consultants preliminary review. Density. While Mr. Gensler has proposed that the number of units be decreased, it appears that the total square footage of area included within structures is actually increased by about 15%. This is due, in large measure, to provide garages integral to the units which were not incorporated under the original plan. The number of separate buildings is also increased under the plan and total site coverage of the building is increased by about 85%! ° ° 4JI6J~ D°5J5 P°364 03J1E/9? dB:34 P~ ~ OF 3 . ~asactero The ®riginal plan contemplated a condominiuan project of relatively small, affordable units with vehiailar access from existing roads and an interior system of pedestrian walkways. The current proposal apparently suggests a small number of large single family detached units with the vehicular access provided by a new road that would replace the prior plan9s systeffi of anterior walkways. ~°ordabllity. The approved plan provided smaller units that would be at a level of affordability (S150,004 to X195,000 in 1992 prices) that could make theca available to full tune residents. The proposed plan would provide units that would be priced at levels of 1~ two or three ti$aes those coatetnplated in the original approved plan. While we would concur that the profit would be significantly better under the proposed plan, we do not agree that this should be a determining factor. ~uvaronneental Issues. Tt is our understanding that this plan would require the destruction of many snore full ~a~rwre trees than the currently approved plan. The planning office has indicated that ARr. Gensler is currently studying this issue in detail. It is also apparent that the additional access road would require a substantial increase 1;20%) in the area of required paved area. The siting of the houses and the accamanodatian of the new road will require sizable increase in volume of the hillside cuts required, as well as fills of over 11 feet. We believe that in addition to the changes in the character of the project you proposed, these environrtaental impacts on the site will materially and negatively impact the aesthetics of both the proposed project as well as those of current residences protected under the restrictive covenant. We recognize that the °l'own of Vail is successor to Eagle County in reviewing and administering the planning and zoning process for the property, however, we believe if such changes as are proposed by l~lr. Gensler were to be adopted by the 't'own of `fail, that they would not be permissible under the recorded covenants. In fact, we believe that under the restrictive covenants, Eagle County or the Town of Vail may retain an obligation to enforce the covenants and thus the plan as it currently exists. The property is also subject to covenants recorded in September, 1972 which prescribe the appraval of an architectural committee prior to the cognmenceanent of any construction activity. 'To our knowledge, such approval has neither been sought nor received. It is our intent to continue Yo vigorously pursue our purpose of maintaining the continuation of the existing character and aesthetics of the project as contemplated by the existing plan. We believe that the proposal submitted represents, not good planning, but merely better economics for the developer. . gn addition to our involvement in the political ~ administrative process, we intend to fully exercise our rights under the various restrictive covenants both as to possible injunctive relief and to actual and punitive damages as provided by the covenants. ~'Ve would certainly be appreciative of notice of any pending action contemplated by the Buard on the matter. In order to expedite such notice, please contact 'T'homas pitch at 476-7202 and he will advise our Board as appropriate. ' _ ' ~ _ , BVhile the Board of Directors bas approved this policy on the matter, i~ should be ~ noted that we have a 100% unanimous written concurrence from the individual home c'~ _ owners within our association. ~ O' For your convenience, we Nava include a copy of the restrictive covenlnt for your ~ review. On lvehalf of the respective Boards of Directors, Sincerely, luiichael L McCbne Enc. cc: Thomas Fitch 471<78 8.575 P-361 03/18/41 16:34 P6 3 Of 3 ~ r i ' AAA®dp~d~~npi.JyH~~T~~J+AvJcIl p9rg6+ ~p®t'YfV ~,d~ ,e A8 d~dll®GbJ /'aA ~J'~VY Suite 630 Suite 210 , Suite 302 7800 East Union Avenue ~1ail Alational Bank Bldg. Aspen Athletic Club Bldg. Fost Office Boy 37090 108 South f=rontage Road 720 E. fIymaa Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237 /ail, Colorado 81657 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)779-4664 (303)476-8865 (303)925-8774 FAX (303) 779-4854 FAX (303) 479-9773 FAX (303) 920-4801 January 7, 1993 1~PLT TO VAIL OEF'ICE Boards of Directors Grouse Glen Condominium Assocdation and The Valley Condominium Assoeiation Ree Crossview at Vail: Parkwood Realty, Inc. Special Development District and Minor Subdivision Applications Valley Phase II Ladies and Gentlemena As you requested, I have reviewed Parkwood Realty's proposal to the Town of Vail for establishment of a Special Development District, and adoption of a I;eveiopment Plan, for the Valley Phase II Parcels A and B, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 18.40.1 This letter commenting on the proposal can be used in discussions with the TOV and the applicant as an aide to clarifying the issues. The current proposal evolved from a request made early in 1991 by Steve Gensler for modification of a development plan for Parcel A approved by Eagle County prior to annexation of the area by Vail in 1980. The plan approved by f3agle County was accepted by Vail in 1981 by Ordinance PTo. 13, Series of 1981. That ordinance specified that major changes° to the plan, such as those proposed by Gensler, required review by the Vail PEC, and that the "procedure for changes shall be in accordance with 1 Parkwood also is proposing a Minor Subdivision for Parcel A, to allow construction of two single-family residences, but the focus of your request is Parcel B, so I have not considered the P~inor Subdivision application. Boards of Directors January 7, 1993 Page 2 Chapter 18.662 of the Vail Municipal Code." It appears that following a series of meetings between Gensler and Vail Community Development Department ("CDD") representatives during the later half of 1991 and in 1992, the CDD representatives recommended that the applicant propose a Special Development District for the property "in order to provide both review criteria and review procedures."3 The procedural segue, from (a) PEC review of a proposed major change in the Eagle County plan pursuant to Ordinance 13 to (b) establishment of a Special Development District and adoption of a new Development Plan pursuant to Code Chapter 18.40, raises two procedural legal questions. First, it is arguable that Ordinance 13, Series of 1981 does not allow establishment of a Special Development District as to property that was annexed after approval by Eagle County of a "planned unit development",(PUD) that was thereafter accepted by Vail following annexation. Ordinance 13, in Sec. 2.a., states that "the Valley, Phases 1 through 6," inter alia, "shall be developed in accordance with the prior agreement approvals and actions of the Eagle County Commissioners as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or parcel of property." Although Ordinance 13 also provides, in Sec. 2.d., that "major changes" require PEC review i;. accordance with the procedures of Chapter 18.66, and that further provision almost certainly overrides the earlier requirement for development in accordance with County approved plans, that does not necessarily allow for overlay of Special Development District status. For example, arguably the decision on a major change such as proposed here rests exclusively with the PEC, rather than, as contemplated by the procedure for establishment of Special Development Districts, with the Council. Second, there may be a procedural defect in the pending SDD proposal. The procedure for establishment of a Special 2 Chapter 18.66 addresses "Administration" of the Zoning provisions of the Code, and includes provisions relating to notice of hearings, etc. 3 See second sentence of first paragraph on page 4 of the December 1992 "Special Development District and Environmental Impact Report" prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. 'The Jamar report was submitted to the CDD on December 14, 1992; a copy was provided to the Associations on January 4, 2993. .r .P 4 hoards of Directors ' January 7, 1993 Page 3 Development District is prescribed by Chapter 18.40° Section 18.40.030 provides that application for establishment of a SDD °shall be made on a form provided by the Community Development Department and shall include" specified informations and "be accompanied by submittal requirements as outlined in Section 18.40.050 and a development plan as outlined in Section 18040.060." % have not been able to obtain from the CDD an application for establishment of a SDD from either Gensler or Parkwood.6 Possibly the original major modification request directed to the County-approved development plan evolved into an SDD proposal without the required formal application for such status ever being filed. Further, it does not appear that the CDD has authority to waive the Code req~;irement for submission of an application on the required form and containing the required information<~ Of course, even if no application was filed, that ~ The Special Development District category of zoning district in Vail is not a classic PUD such as exists at the County level and in many municipalities, but it is akin to a PT7D in that it is itself a zoning district category that "overlays" another zoning district category and allows departure from the requirements of the underlying zoning district without necessarily going through the variance or re-zoning process. s That information includes "a legal description of the property, a list of the names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district, or their agents or authorized representatives." s Yesterday my legal assistant went to the CDD to obtain a copy of the application and was informed that none could be found. I have spoken with Peter Jamar about this issue, and he was not certain whether a specific SDD application has been filed. However, it is quite possible that the application itself is in the hands of a planner working on this matter. ~ The Code does authorize the CDD to waive or modify the "submittal requirements" in appropriate cases (see Sec. 18.40.050), but such submittal requirements are distinguished in the Code from the above-described information, as is the "development plan" that the Code also specifies shall accompany the application. %n any event, it appears that the Jamar report is meant to satisfy the submittal requirements and development plan requirements. As you know, because of time limitations I have not undertaken to determine whether or not it does meet the legal requirements, or to assess its substantive merits. ~ ' Boards of Directors January 7, 1993 Page 4 defect can be cured prospectively, and there may not be anything in the substance of the application that is pertinent to your concerns. In any event, assuming that it would be lawful for Vail to establish a Special Development District overlay on the property in question, all the procedural requirements for such establishment must be followed. I have not had the opportunity to verify such procedural steps as required notices of the PEC hearing on the application at the proper time to all the proper parties, but that question will have to be resolved. Further, even if notice by mail was given as required by Chapter 18.66, and publication was made as required by Chapter 18.66, the possible absence of the application on the required form could be a defect in the proceedings, since an interested party cannot by reviewing the file at the CDD obtain the information that should be included in the application. Turning from process to substance, if Vail does by ordinance establish a Special Development District for the property and adopt a Development Plan, that action will be subject to review by the Eagle County District Court in a Rule 106 proceeding. In a Rule 106 appeal, the issue would be whether Vail's action was an abuse of its discretion or in excess of its authority. In addition, even if the action by Vail withstood review under Rule 106, it still would be subject to challenge under state and federal constitutional provisions. Without attempting to analyze the options for and merits of constitutional causes of action at this time, I will note that the Colorado Constitution contains a rather unusual provision (the scope of which has not been well-defined by the courts) allowing recovery for "damage" to property of one person resulting from governmental action directed at property of another person. This cause of action is markedly easier to establish than the usual "taking" claim, which requires deprivation by government action of all economically viable use of the property. The Colorado Constitutional action allows for recovery of damages for mere diminution in value, without a showing of deprivation of all viable economic use. Thus if the value of the property of the owners in your Associations were diminished by changes in the original, County-approved development plan on Parcel B, damages could be recovered by those owners. Finally, I note that all property in Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, of which Parcel B is a part, is subject to a detailed set of recorded protective covenants that would a - ~ a ~OardS ®f Direct®rs - January 9, 199 Page 5 have to be met in ghe development of Parcel ~o In particular, Section 4 prohibits construction without review and approval of detailed pleas by an Architectural Comzaitteeo Further, Section 10 provides that trees may not be cut, trimmed or removed except fob construction and then only after approval in writing by the Architectural Committeeo Finally, Section 26 provides that failure to enforce any provision of the covenants is not a waiver of the right to enforce them in the futureo Any owner of property in Filing ABoo 2 would have standing to bring as action to enforce the covenantso g will stay in touch with you as this matter proceeds through the PEC review processo In the meantime, please contact me if you have any cguestions or commentse Sincerely, ' ~ L~ Robert L. Norris for PRORRIS, RUDY & LOWER RLPZ e j 1 e t kl ~ ®R®BNANCE N®. 19 SERIES ®F 1993 AEI ®R®INANCE AMEN®ING CHAPTER 18.24 ®F THE MUNICIPAL C®®E ®F THE T®V~N ®F VAIL SY ®ELETING SECTI®N 18.24.058, AN® AMEN®ING CHAPTEf~ 8.24 ®F THE MUNICIPAL CO®E ®F THE T®VVN ®F VAIL SV THE A®®ITI®N ®F SECTI®N 8.24.058, C®~ITR®LlLING UN®ESIRASLE PLANTS VIIITHIN THE ~'®VVN, ®ECLARING SUCH PLANTS A NUISANCE, St u ~ ING FORTH PENALTIES F®R THE VI®LATI®N ®F THIS ®Fi®INANCIm; AN® SETTING F®FiTH ®ETAILS IN REGAR® THERETO. lAIHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to institute the provisions of C.R.S. Section 35-5.5- 109 dealing with the control of undesirable plants within the State of Colorado; and liVHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1992, incorrectly designated Section 18.24.058; and IiVHERE,4S, the control of undesirable plants is a matter concerning a public nuisance and should be included within Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOlAI, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: ' 1. Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Section 8.24.058 to read as follows: A. Undesirable Plants Russian, Spotted and Diffuse Knapweed and Leafy Spurge are declared to be undesirable plants to be controlled in accordance with this ordinance. B. Declaration of Nuisance Leafy Spurge, Russian Knapweed, Spotted Knapweed, and Diffuse Knapweed, and all other plants designated "undesirable plants" by the Town are declared to be a public nuisance. Such action may be taken as is available for nuisance abatement under the laws of this state and the Town of Vail, and as Town Council, in their sole discretion, deem necessary. C. Removal of Undesirable Plants Required by Property Owner Property owners within the Town of Vail shall be responsible for the elimination of undesirable plants from their property within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this ordinance. Such removal shall be accomplished in an ecologicaNy feasible and environmentally safe manner in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. D. Enforcement The Town shall have the right to enter upon any premises, lands, or places, whether public or private, during reasonable business hours or upon proper notice for the purpose of inspecting for the existence of undesirable plants, and shall have the right to propose, implement 1 Ordinance No. 19, Serres of 1993 or enforce the management of undesirable plants upon such lands in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. Section 35-5.5-109. E. Penalty Violation of this chapter/article shall be subject to a penalty of a fine up to nine hundred ninety nine dollars ($999.00), in addition to any other remedies provided herein or allowed by ordinance, law, rule, or regulation. 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, andl each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is, necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitant`, thereof. 4. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal CodE; of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not bE; construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretoforE; repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 17th day of August, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 7th day of September, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 2 oro~~ar,~ No. is, saw ~ is~~ o~ READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 9 993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:~ORD93.19 3 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993 r. p OIR®tNANCE N®. ~3 SERIES OF X993 AN ORDINANCE AAAENDING PARAGRAPIiS 16.32.030(F) AN® 96.32.040(A) OF T6~E RAIJNICIPA~ C®®E OF THE TOVIi'N OF VAIN, TO PROVI®E f~OR TIHE TERMINATION OF ANY NONCONFORMING SIGN f~IVE YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE ®ATE OF ANY AMEN®MENT TO TI'rIE SIGN C®DE ORDINANCE, AN® SETTING FoRT~I ®ETAILS IN REGAR® TIiERIET®. lNHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail has enacted an amendment to the Sign Code regulating neon and gas lit signs; and M/HEREAS, the Town Council wishes to amend the Sign Code to require that non- conforming neon and gas lit signs shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date of the amendment. NOM, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Paragraph 16.32.030(F) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: By amortization the right to continue to use oroperate anon-conforming sign shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date of the ordinance codified in the title or any amendment thereto or the annexation of the area in which the sign is located to the Town of Vail. 2. Paragraph 9 6.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: A) dVithin a reasonable time after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title, any amendment thereto, or the effective date of the annexation of any area to the Town, the Sign Code administrator shall compile a list of the existing non-conforming signs and present said list to the Design Review Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. The Design Review Board may affirm, add to, or delete signs from the list as presented by the Sign Code administrator. After the review of the list of non-conforming signs by the Design Review Board, the Sign Code administrator shall send written notice by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the owner of the non- conforming sign (if known to the Sign Code administrator) and to the owner of property, business interest or enterprise advertised or identified by the non-conforming sign. 1illithin fifteen (95) days from the date of said notice, 1 l fi the owner of the sign or the property, business interest or enterprisE: advertised or identified by the non-conforming sign may appeal thE: classification of the sign as non-conforming to the Design Review Boarci and the Town Council, or he may file an application for a variance. ThE: date of the notice shall be deemed to be the date of its mailing. ThE; Design Review Board may recommend to the Town Council that thE; application for a variance be granted, and the Town Council may approvE; the application if it is found that the sign substantially conforms to this title, that it does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, and the same would be in the public's interest. If the variance is granted, the sign may continue in existence subject to the provisions of this title, and subjecl: to any conditions that may be made on the approval by the Town Council. If the application is denied, the right to continue anon-conforming sign shall terminate in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 4. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore 2 II repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this i day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the ~ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Touvn Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this + day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Touvn Clerk C:WRD93.13 3 ,p c~~~c~^ ; w~~°~ , ORDINANCE NO. 20 SERIES OF 1993 AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, THE 16TH OF NOVEMBER, 1993, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT AND SPEND THE FULL REVENUES GENERATED INCLUDING REDUCTION IN DEBT SERVICE DURING 1994 AND EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR, ~Y1+~®T1~1d1 C1C DG\/C1.11 ICQ /'_`~AIIC~ATGrI QV TL.IC Art \/A 1 A~C11A ~~A~C~TV TAYGQ' IN AN AM®UNT N®T T® ExCEED S IN 1994 ~w~~CIH AMOUNT; DOSS NOT; ~NC~~u~lr RfE~ENUE QENERATEO ,FROM AD V~41.OREM PROPERTY TAXES] WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN SUCH TAX Ii~ATES AND TO SPEND SUCH REVENUES FOR DEBT SERVICE, MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS, AND CAPITAL PROJECTS YA~,/~1'1®IJT ~I"AITIAI/± IAI AAIV VCA® ATIJC® ®C\/CRIIIGQ TLIAT 11AAV QG /+f11 B CnTC11 AA111 C~CdIT DV TLIG L, AUTHORIZING THE TOWN COUNCIL TO ADOPT ANNUAL BUDGETS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO TO IMPLEMENT THE APPROVAL OF THIS REFERRED MEASURE; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF THE ELECTION; PROVIDING FOR CONDUCT OF THE ELECTIONS PROVIDING FURTHER DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE FOREGOING. WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, authorizes the Town of Vail to refer the question herein submitted to a vote of the registered electors of the Town of Vail as a "revenue change"; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, requires that the Town of Vail will ot~fire:fid be subject to receiving voter approval from Town of Vail registered voters to add new taxes and tax rate increases or to increase Town of Vail debt which requirements are not affected by this question; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, requires that all ad valorem property tax restrictions remain in place, that real estate transfer tax can not be created or raised and that election requirements must be met which restrictions and requirements are not affected by this question; and WHEREAS, on fVovember 16, 1993, the Town of Vail will hold its regular biennial municipal election; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is of the opinion that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the Town of Vail that the full revenues generated during 1994 and each subsequent year pursuant to its existing tax code without any increase in said tax rates and with the exception of ad valorem property taxes should be collected by the Town of Vail notwithstanding the limitations of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution and spent for debt service, municipal operations, and capital projects; and UVHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that such question should properly be decided by the registered electors of the Town of Vail, 1 Ordinance No. 20, Series of 7993 NOV1/, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: SECTION 1. At the regular municipal election to be held in the various precincts and at the polling places of the Town of Vail on Tuesday, the 16th day of November, 1993, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., there shall be submitted to the vote of the registered electors of the Town of Vail the question herein authorized. SECTION 2. At the said election, the official ballot, including absentee ballots, shall state the substance of the question to be voted upon and so stated shall constitute the ballot title, designation and submission clause, and each registered elector voting at the election shall indicate his or her choice on the question submitted, which shall be in the following form: C~lUESTION NO. 1 SB~ALL TIDE TO~i/N OP VAIL EE AUTIHORIZED TO COLLECT AND EXPEND THE FULL REVENUES GENERATED INCLUDING REDUCTION IN DEST SERVICE DURING 1994 AND EACIi SUESE(~UENT YEAR;~AIITkI TuC~`/rvc®TI^wl nc oc\rGwAA Acs_ /'_`CwIC1~ATICn 6!V TLIIG An \/AI nQGRA ~®n~G®TV TAVL•Q9 IwC Awl AnAouNT N®T T® ExcEED ~ IN 1994 ~1M1lleH ~~O~lr~ I~OE~; N®~ ~NC~u~~ .REV~Nt~>= ;,fiaENEFIATI~D ~iR01~ AIwO~EI~: ~~~p~~ ~~?XES]; wliT~ou~ INCREas~ ~nl such 'TAx SATES ~N® To "SPEND such REVENUES FOR fDES~pSaERVICE, INUNICIPAL OPERATIONS, AND CAPITAL I~R®aIEVTS \A/ATUnAAT A 111AATIwAl~ BAA AwIV VGAQ TL.IG ApAn11wIT ~G nTl.lf~® BAG\/Gw1A1CQ TAJAY ~AA~ Anl n G/+TCn AwAn a o ~.rc e®G~.~,wAI~T-~ T.. T-~ R~IIAO•VE T~#i1E RESTRI^TAnwl~ nG AQTI/+A G v ~e/+Tlnwl on nG , ~~v~- l l PWC\Ar~TAw~G~e A wln TAV ®ATG nwl/+®cwcGe I~G Annnn\rcn ®v TuG Tn\f?rwA nA" \/AAA n~Cr_BCTC®CA'1i \/nTC DC A~A w°c\W/ Tn\Blwl nC \/A11 A1C~ J''~~ ~1° °c~' BE-,~6RRRA~/EEi-~V~~WN~r V~416 REaISTERZ® \rnTC®Q Al l W~1 ~rAl nQCwA ®pnQG®TV TAY ®CQQI/~TInwIQ , i,~d r A~GI1AAIwA AwA f~AAA A GnQ/+C Awlr\ GGGCI'?"r9 TL~~IE t+pwl DG wln 1I:~r;E#~~E~R IMII~SITIC?N eF---AOO NE~V REf T®AwTaarn~vi=E~ ~~~9 p " ~~Ev~ InwA ®rnA IAO~Gw~I,~ Qcl?AAnwn GGCG/+TnvG Y€€ Nfl Al0"I'F~[I~f~ 11~ Y'D~IIS Q1.#ESTfON CAN ~'E CCINSTR9JE® 7'6 REMOVE 7'4~1!E REnAA1NIt~IG RESTRICTIOhdS f?F ARTICLE S?EOTION 20 ®F TFfE COLORADt) CONSTITUTION IAl1iICl-t ;,IS f~~II~IVIONL~P;1CNOilVN AS A14~.EN®MENT NONE 'AND/OR .TNT '1`AROR ANIEI~®N1ENT. >~TIiOSE RE~IIIAININ(~ RED s t~ICTIQNS ®N`~I~IUI~ `~'O ~E,4UIREa, ~f0`Ir`~~ A,ppIROVA~. O~ AIt.L I~EiM;"t~~' ~16~9)r ~A3~ ~A'1 E fN~RE~?,S`E'$i ~O~'ER. AI~IPROVAL FAR NE~U ~?IR ;ADDITIONAL '~l9 2 Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993 ~C~~......~e~A , Y/~4IL~OREtUI P'Rt~PE#3TY TA'~f. d~~S'~#iICTIQNS Fil~M~ll~ !1~ ~l~Ll AN~3 E;~FEs PI® lE~1~REASE CSR [MPOS[TIE3~1 Q~ ~ NEt~/ SEAL: ~4~p~ ye~~w y~] fie ~~7 Y ~;A !~w 6+a~F'A#'1#-;{~wSa. 6 /'PAif i?Ft6~9 ~LS~.0., ~pl~q$,.~W 6 ~iF4~ ~~~~J:iA11~F9A~/1l~ ~ 87~~Y91"?~tw ~~~4 I~IF:IImt~Ts SECTION 3. If a majority of all the votes cast at the election shall be for the measure, the measure shall be deemed passed, and the Town of Vail shall be authorized to collect and expend the full revenues in accordance with the approved measure and to budget and appropriate such revenues and expenditures apart from any other expenditure of the Town which may be limited pursuant to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution and notwithstanding the passage of any other State of Colorado initiative limiting such collection or expenditure, and the revenues authorized for expenditure by the passage of this measure shall not be counted in any such expenditure limitation. SECTION 4. The election shall be conducted under the provisions of the Charter and ordinances of the Town of Vail and, to the extent applicable, under the provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code as set forth in Title 31, Article 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.). SECTION 5. The Town Clerk of the Town of Vail shall give public notice of the election on the question hereby submitted (a) by causing the notice to be published in the The Vail Trail as provided by law, (b) by mailing to "all registered voters" at each address within the Town of Vail at which a voter is registered no sooner than twenty five (25) days before the election and no later than fifteen (15) days before the election a notice entitled "Notice of Election on a Referred Measure". This notice shall include only: (1) the election date and hours for voting, (2) the ballot title, (3) the text of the measure to be voted upon, (4) the office address and telephone number of the Town Clerk, and (5) two (2) summaries, not more than five hundred (500) words each, one for and one against the measure, of written comments filed with the Town Clerk no later than thirty (30) days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the measure to be voted upon. The Town Clerk shall maintain on file and accurately summarize all relevant written comments. SECTION 6. The officer of the Town of Vail are authorized and directed to take all action necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this ordinance. 3 Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993 SECTION 7. The Town Council finds and declares that this ordinance is a matter of local concern pursuant to Article XX, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado. SECTION 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. SECTION 10. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. SECTION 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this _ day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the _ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ' Hotly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk' 4 Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this _ day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: C:\ORD9320 5 Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1993 • IIAEAAORARIDUithl i? E TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 26, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of residential condominium unit #3 at the Red Lion lnn Condominiums/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing/304 Bridge Street. Applicant: Aagje Rlourse Planner: Jim Curnutte I. DESCRIPTIORI OF THE REQUEST The Commercial Core I Zone District requires Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval of an exterior alteration request prior to the addition of any enclosed floor area to structures located within the district. The proposal includes an 11 square foot floor area expansion of the second floor residential condominium unit #3, located on the west side of the Red Lion Inn Condominiums, on Bridge Street. Under the redevelopment proposal, the existing doorway which leads from the living room of unit #3 to an exterior deck to the south will be removed. This 11 square foot area, which was formerly outdoor deck space, will now be added to the living room and used for the purpose of a new television alcove. Additionally, two new skylights will be added to the roof of unit #3 to provide emergency access out of the third story loft. II. BACItGROURID ARID HISTORY On April 9, 1990, the building owners received the necessary Town of Vail approvals to redevelop the Red Lion Building. These development approvals included a site coverage variance, a stream setback variance, a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck, an exterior alteration for Commercial Core I and a modification to view corridor #1. On April 17, 1990, the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the Red Lion's request to amend view corridor #1. The maximum GRFA approved through this redevelopment project by the Town Council, was 9,207 square feet. In the fait of 1990, the building permit plans were submitted to the Town offices for review. Along with these plans came an explanation by the project architect that further refinement of the floor area calculations indicated that the building was actually 8,714 square feet in size (calculated according to the GRFA definition in place at the time), a difference of 833 square feet under the GRFA approved by the Town. The staff felt that the overall mass of the building should not be enlarged from that associated with the previous approvals and requested that the applicant restrict the use of the remaining GRFA to interior modifications of the building which would not increase the overall shape and size of 1 the approved building. The wording of this restriction was agreed to by the applicant and - included in the condominium declarations of the Red Lion Inn Condominiums (see attached copy for specific wording of restriction). As indicated in this restriction, no exterior modification which increases the air space, as shown on the condominium map, or GRFA as defined by the Vail Municipal Code for units R-1, R-2 and R-3 shall be allowed without the prior written consent of the Town of Vail. On July 20, 1993, the Vail Town Council reviewed the proposed 11 square foot exterior modification as described in this memo and agreed to allow the applicant. to proceed through the PEC exterior alteration process, with the condition that if approval is granted by the PEC;, the exterior modification restriction contained in the condominium declarations will be amended to allow for the 11 square foot addition and brought back to the Council for formal approval. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1) Zone District: Commercial Core I 2) Lot Area: 13,958 square feet 3) GRFA: Maximum Allowed: 9,207 square feet Existing: 9,040 square feet (calculated according to today's GRFA definition) Proposed: 9,051 square feet Remaining After Addition: 156 square feet 4) Site Coverage: no change in site coverage will occur because the television alcove will be added to an area of the deck already covered by the third floor of the building above. 5) Parking: The existing GRFA of condominium unit R-3 is approximately 3,000 square feet. The addition of 11 square feet will not necessitate the add'Rion of another parking space. Therefore, no monetary contribution to the Town of Vail parking fund will be required as a result of the proposed building remodel. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 PurQOSe: "The Commercial Core f District is intended to provide sites and to maintain t:he unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, opein space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and 2 - uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." It is the staff's opinion that the proposed change to the Red Lion Inn Condominium, unit #3, would be in compliance with the Purpose Section of the Commercial Core I Zone District as stated above. We also believe that the addition will not negatively effect the scale of the building nor detract from the overall appearance of the building as viewed from the pedestrian level of Bridge Street below. REVIE~i' CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements which establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally the architectural/landscape considerations, which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Streetscape Plan address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. In addition, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal. VI. COf1hPLIANCE 11UITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this proposal. VII. COMPLIANCE !fi/lTH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to ensure that new development is consistent with the established character. The design considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianisation: The proposed television alcove will have no impacts on pedestrian traffic flow because of its proposed location. B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. 3 C. Streetscape Framework: The proposed building remodel will not affect visual interest and activity along Bridge Street. D. Street Enclosure: Due to the location of the proposed building alteration, beneath a third story cantilevered area, and the relatively small size of the proposed remodel, it is staff's opinion that the proposed addition will not have a negative impact on street enclosure. E. Street Edge: Staff believes that the television alcove addition to residential condominium unit #3 will have no impact on the street edge along the Red Lion Inn Building. F. Building Height: Building height will be unaffected as a result of this proposal. G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed remodel does not affect any of the Town's adopted view corridors. In addition, the remodel will have no impact on the line-of-sight from either the top or the bottom of Bridge Street. H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery pattems. I. SuNShade: There will be no increase in the shadow pattems as a result of this addition as it is located within the existing shade patterns of the building. J. Architectural/Landscape Considerations: The staff believes that the architectural detailing of the proposed addition will not have a negative impact on the appearance of the area as viewed from Bridge Street. Skylights are proposed on the north roof which wil! have little impact on adjacent owners. The proposed addition will have no effect on existing landscaped areas on the property. 4 !/III. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES IN THE VAIL !TILLAGE MASTER PLAN The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan which are relevant to this proposal: Goal #1 - Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objec4ive: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. The proposed television alcove addition is consistent with established zoning and the existing uses in the area. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed 11 square foot building alteration does not detract from the appearance of the building nor do we feel that the proposed building expansion, due to its small size, is the type of exterior modification which should not be approved given the aforementioned condominium restriction. IX. STAFF RECOHARflENDATIONS The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested CCI exterior alteration. A review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies indicate that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. Staff would recommend that the following condition be attached to this approval for an exterior alteration: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition, staff must be provided with a copy of an amendment to the Red Lion Inn Condominium declarations, which includes wording authorizing the 11 square foot exterior modification of unit R-3. This document will then be taken to the Vail Town Council for formal written approval. The document must receive Council approval before a building permit may be released for the addition. c:\pecUn em os\no u rse.72 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 Landmark and Vencura constructed additional improvement on the Condo 'nium Property, which construction has now been comp ed. Vencura, Landmark and Commercial Federal as the ole owners and sole recorded m tgagee desire to record a suppl ental condominium declaration and su lemental condominium map hich subjects such improvements to the Co ominium Declaration d in addition to make certain changes to the C ominium Declar ion, as hereinafter set forth. The Condominium Declaration is reby amended as follows: 1. The Condominium Map itled The~first Supplemental Map for the Red Lion Inn Condominiu Lots E, F, 'G, & A, Block 5-A, Vail Village, First Filing, Tow~ of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, recorded in Book at Page - / of the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Color,~do, (hereinafter referred ~~to as "First Supplemental Map"}all be deemed to be the Condominium Map or Map ' described in Sec j- n 2.12 of the Declaration or any other. section of the Declaration: The Co ominium Map recorded on September 18, 1981 in Book 329 at Page 105 hereby revoked. Section 2.17 of the Condominium Declaration is hereby . rev e~ ~ -~,\Y~ r~ 3. The following paragraph 3.4 shall be added to Article 3 of the Declaration: c 3.4 Restriction on Residential Condominium Units. Residential Condominium units R-1, R-2 and R-3 shall be restricted to the exterior configuration as set forth on the First Supplemental~Nlap. No exterior modification which i.ncre~ses ~ the air space as defined by the First Supplemental Map and this l Declaration or GRFA as defined in Section 18.04.130 of the j Municipal Code of the Town of Vail for Units R-1, R-2 and R-3 ~ shall be allowed. In addition, Units R-1, R-2 and R-3 shall not be divided or partitioned to create spaces smaller than such units as shown on the First Supplemental Map for the purposes of j using, conveying, leasing or creating additional dwelling units. ~ No additional GRFA, as defined in Section 18.04.130 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in excess of 9207 square `i feet, additional residential density in excess of three. residential units, or additional height as defined in Section ; 18.04.170 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, which ~ increases the height of the Residential Units as defined by the ~ First Supplemental Map, shall be allowed.~._.. - The restrictions in this paragraph 3.4 shall not be amended or revoked without the prior written consent of the Town of Vail. ~~--~'1 6~~C~C~'~~ 6?~ ~X`fe~~r~~ /'L1~~1 ~~Cci~iEt~_S )x.., m.us.~u. 1 ~9. ~ r _ Lam/ I ~ i II!~pnnlo l~,/-J,~` I I ?~11~~ ~~~II I ~ Vr~~ 1 . ~Il~ ~Sk < ff,' . . ~ ~I •q,: ''4~~~w~.~` i~2 b - i~.a!`.. v 14~ X112, I ~ 113 I ~ 1 / 120 I (BEDROOM ~2 °.r _ _ - _ - ~ - - - - • - . , - - - - • !1103 a : II'~ 'cr L ~ ~ toy N • BATH ~ ' ' ~ ~1. i'..r. .r 10~i Ir o D ti r~ KITCHEN. ~ c' •,STA S ~ ~ 111 ~ - `J ~ - f-- - - u` CLOSET ~ _ l03 - }x.04 =a - - - - ( ~ ~ - ~ _ I ~ I I r ~ ~ ~ I {Vgll%i ~ -r-y ?k ~ ~ ~ ~i12' BIZ ~~IZ• ~ 51. ~ lob Ilo _ ylZ ~ III 0 ^ ' UP ENTRY( CLOSET ~ O ~ ~ MEGH. sNp,FT . :p 105 I.~ 107 POW_ OER• ~ Foiz..txI9T GT ~ ~ _ . f WORK. ¢ GM V: ~ o,y ~ ".07 ~ b' 10~ II'.~112' ry'~i~ I I ~,.pi I . s,'.1,3/t~ _ ~ ~ --J - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - - - -N J - ~ - - ~ r . _ - JJ _ . _ -LL UIJE o~ Lo F7 ~ LIVWG "N DINWC - - ~ 202 p.3ovE IIz - 1 • - 11 ° ~ 110 I i 1114 _ 2 II - 2 11 12 _ 2 II 4 WOoD URt~INb - - - ~~K- ~ ~ G -9 - - c~ - . _r - 0 1?~C~... _ - O Q ~ - ~ ~h _ 14'-0 24=11° 71/Z ~ 2: ~Il~z• too 2'-0I~ 2p~• li 24'• Ii1~ ~ Ilo'- II S/8~ j7, Co'• l o " 10 ln~..~i~~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I I 1111. I ,..._,-~_...,_,-.,_,-.....f;_• r ~01 _ o - _ I ~ ! 115 c . -1- ---y ~ ~ - 3U'd,' X12 312" BIZ. 5 ?i ~ 3~ z . ~ n IOq Ilp ~ -t , \ J - ~ ~~t--'`~ I III O M~cH.~IaFr i ~ UP - E~LTRY; ~ • CLOSET. ~ ~ O por'L EXIST purr ~05_~-~- 107 POWDER.L ; - ~ 'Woa-K- ~ cF1~:9 A 5.) ' J 1230 ~ ~ ~ o II' °IIi~ ~r51~:' I I ,~t,o+ ~ 31~; - ~ ~~a, --,t J' ~ 21~.II3~~ : i - L~ ~ ~ i ~K _ LL ~_Ut!E of LoE ~ IVING _ -N .DINING Qo2 p,3o .I-110_ ~ I,~4-' I. ~2'-I 1112. 2'• I 1112 _ - {JOOD. uRh11Nb:. _ ~ - • - • `n ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ov~ - - ~ ~ ~ \ ---~G ~ - ~ - ._Q_. _ - - - - - - ' ~ Y`c~.~tS 'C~. r:: ~ t~3j.I ~j2 .7 8'I I . 8''•~ h ~J'll l~.~ - _ ~ Y - - _ _ - H 2 ' - - a to......_. - - 24'11° 7 7~/aMJ a!11~~2° ~'.o ,i~.~~ - p; oa 2 I • (i12 ~ Ilo'-II 5~8 I ~f'-3'~l¢ / I tv'-l0 3/~~ r /'~3'-212 .-_N/T'om' W~t~-L @ .6,Diel"!'"3- . _ . _ ~ . . _ . - - - - ~ ~ h ~i ' . n 14~ 4 . mod- i ~ _ C ~ D E E.4 F G ; i. .r' .4.1025 ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ I SfG~LIbNt9:' , - • 'r ' ~ 12 I 12 ~ .a , ~ I ~ XX I I 12 oUNn.. ~ - ~ ~ I. • I i _ _ _ I~ ~ ~ - ~ 14.5. - _ _ I l~ ~ : • I ~ I ? - II ~ ' ~1fU _ R 5 RR 55 YI.IbNt..•. ~ ~ FF GCo HH II ~ . • • • ' , ' • - EwhTl Nb.C JJ KK LL O O . I . ~ ~-0- - ~ - PP PP PP ' . . ' ..T. ~ ~ II ry ~ -EXIhT. STUGG~ I II _ ~ ~ • : •:PaNrE~ RED li ~ LION wt~o O0T oa. 005 004 00; ' i . it + I , I ~ 12EPPIR ~xIST. Pl.P•NT'LR. . (f~P1.A.GE FALI.LN ~RIG}c5 ; ~ } nl ~ CJ~~ REPoiNT t~oRt/~•R- -1oiNT _ ~y~~~ .1/_8~nc1 . - -o P~ ~ ~a , ~a Aa~~ ~ - aa.t - ~ ~ • i ~ - i _ •t I _.~r--,- , . - L~oN ~h ~ i - . I r~~___~-~-S~-Y ~b~1t,S•ilP RAF - . - ..SK-'11.1bt1th • , _ ~ • ~ ~ s.l l ~ - - - n aN 4 P~- , . _ ~'1 E~tihT. ~ _ X53 ~ Mh ~~~t7 ' ' ~n - _ - ~I PLtiI'iTE ~ = ail - , RESOLUTION NO. 1® SERIES OF 1993 A RESOLUTION ~IAIVING A RESTRICTION ON RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT #3 AT TFIE RED LION INN CONDOMINIUMS TO ALL01~/ A MINOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION fFOR TIDE EXiPANS10N 01F TIDE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNIT. WHEREAS, the applicant, Aagje Nourse, has proposed an exterior alteration request that includes an eleven (11) square foot floor area expansion of the second floor residential condominium unit #3, located on the west side of the Red Lion Inn Condominiums, Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado; and WHEREAS, this eleven (11) square foot area, which was formerly outdoor deck space, will be added to the living room and used for the purpose of a television alcove; and WHEREAS, this increase in GRFA will not cause the unit to be in excess of the maximum allowable GRFA; and WHEREAS, there is presently a restriction on this unit in the Condominium Declaration, Article III, Paragraph 3.4 restricting the exterior configuration as set forth on the First Supplemental Map; and WHEREAS, said restriction requires that Paragraph 3.4 shalt not be amended or revoked with the prior written consent of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. That it is determined that the proposed exterior alteration will not be in violation of this restriction as there is no exterior modification which increases the air space, as shown on the condominium map, for GRFA as defined by the Vail Municipal Code for units R-1, R-2, and R-3, and that this proposal shall be allowed without causing a revocation or amendment of the referenced restriction on the residential condominium units. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:IRESOLU93.10 Resolution No. 10, Series of 1993 0~ ° 95 09•:39 YI•f2 YIIY2SYI•~I1Y bICGUP gPg~1 , • ~`1~, ~L f~ .l~QN7Z92 ~p47 MIA CaOfB (`.ifCla baH. C0lbfatl0 X1667 Z7 ~eagust 1993 . ~'Jitf ~g°tdYner, ~n ®e~ ~ ~ y ~ Sig /L i~o ~ ffi pls. line ~.,~blayo ~-ordlnator a ~ieur!bexs the g ~~.bmmittee - '-~--a ~stt Sranferen~/Pe~~ wg Aa-t<s i~eateae ~aii, ~alorado 916°x7 P, sad begs of ~e Sts~:.u bog Q~ommitb~e: is s d of • the ~steie caetmpre~iga plea for the (.onP:...:..~.oe/Pt~'~~ w ~ . , lag Ceriteara ~rlai ~ framework, speedPies the oompameats of the sampaiga aad dess~°i the, philos ~ x W,y under which each component should be operated. I 1001 ~~+srd ~ good counsel from each ad' you, fox' the pLLettn man be improved aad t$gi~L~.:~..ed, aad t3iat will make it su.~ cress the mast' p i$ speed sad flnstSta»tede it is my request tY~at you shpt my a°esignation ~ Cha3rmara of the Gralss Moots Committee_ Your choice that a chair it ~ra~ s get hancro how. ~ it is a higher profile position thaxs % wilBixlg to eco~aate~neae at this stage in my Bite. 1~9y experti$e is best used behind flee rae, sadstyzing how t4 get the Sob done, writing, advising :nd sts-~act~aringo ~ no l~ge~r eQmi'ortable 3n the high profile adminfstratian of a ma@~o~° po~litic~ ~mpaiga~ or business pro3ect. B am therefore at your dis~;x ~.l~n--B e,rould due mm continuing membership on the Steering iromiaitteefl end the opportunity to use my brain acrd skills to help w.. ate a su..a gfufl campaign, to be a» oional speaker, ~o write or ghost-write wpy, but to d® each in sssocfation with s persaaa whta wmuld replace me as :tl~e ~nairpersomm. 1 sta°ong8y believe iaa the Centex sod ~ Hope that I era be a woz°krr to assist in it°s. appB at flee motion in November. . lit Fte;~ar°ds, . a ~efP ~~en SEP 02 ' 93 09 ~ 40 THE I hIHESTMENT GROUP P e 2 } ' - d ~*i PI~RiId F~ VO a a~ ~iPPll(DV~ ~ ~ AR'i'S/CONrr.~crrt~iCB ~Ive~ ~S~Y e~ A1lgust 1 nb s~ aid ~e Cog= tee ~e ~ ~;,,:re ego and t~~e Ac~t~tic ®enter f~w,c ~ ag®® plus Knowing the prapontnts of eachs the ~l~?fl IPerl~.~ w.in~ / renter has two ma~ar slT~ces against approval. ~tarl~eti'ng ~ a dependent traversial pra~ect In n small town, fs the Ilaardest t ketingo and St lug ~ to ~ su~.lly done In Vail. ~e ~d Pe~a~,r~ing arts/Coiotes'enoe ~ has an additional st~rilce t it this 'o se Qt dmeat ~ to the C®lprado ®b»stitutiau and flay ~-~~ltiug pleth a~ related ballot issuese perhaps the ~~w,,posed «enter has t1S~°ee ~'l~es againr3t i$o we uns9o ? Nat in baseballs In palttic~? Not easilya ~ wt~ a~ we sis~er~g forging ataead witty a protect wt,icra has an onees~r fiance ~ t~ei®g $p~r~°a~wed'? Yn baseball. ~1r ffisst two 111tLSCryr bathers StY'i1Ck auto but the d was iuckyp a?it a sisxgle and got on tfrst bases The Haan believes flt ~ win sod it is now ttieh° fob to brJ,ag trie batter ~ ~~nd Mine bases ~ Ihim ~ arum ~a E4Yici tlhat is w1tP~'e the 1Par:,~.~ ming /texenee ~r iss we gat lucky and ~e Center i.. on mat base; nakr it is ttie respo~ib~t~r oi' our tea~a ~ bring ft arovncl and alio~r it bm score. (~PAYGGIIS Aiotwiths9~diaag tie 8' tit it would ~ easier ~ be ~e ®ataager o~ tt~e iltuaory baseball t~.m, let t~ look at some tae ®istakes ofi mar •pa~edeoess~°s: SEP ®2 ° 93 ®9~ 40 TF~ INdr~ i i~NT CROUP P. 3 0 ' - d~D eariie~° p~iects staa-ted at t~ ~topW--wrfth vrealth~ and pole po~ae~t~1 maple ~°oa~tia~ pro.9~c°'ts wl~ ~x suppoQ-ted. Q~~ ~ ad~xt ~ ~ ®f the ~rlier ~ vas abvious the ~rOmaters4 I~e~t tk ~ ne°ve~' ~,.~~paunicabec3 that tt~e avera~ vatEr would bemmefi#b Ih lacta ~e ~easral a~sens~as i~ ~ ~ tT~St sl,,~ eve='y~one hls~ to p~ i~ ~~ae~ support the ~x°o~eets° the pmm..~:.:.~ mere getting f~~ ~ t® ~ . Q3) ~e prn.~uL~:n~~w ~iste~ed ~ suy?osur but themselve8~~especia]iy nat to t$e masses ~ ~ ~,?ho ~rere ~ p ~.,~aaded t0 ~u ~ Oro b~ the use of slut pa~esentattons o ~°here was to °cllass~ wa~flictm &he ric~a wanted the tb® weer ~oa~i~ see ~ benefit, rebelled at the ballot bao~ and ~ p bar a huge negative ~t~. yY~'f~.~,,.® ~y it ~b~eAeo~~ae, ~sy~cleat$ .that ~@e~m~aY°lcetln~g7~.~ett~t{"8oyp°, L886ab ~e~ tl2G6d~Fi~IS b83~ ~4:1~K7~~W9 ddC~o tlV6Gi 0 d ~~r ~~ap~G u ~a~l$ w~ ealident ~ ~ t~ 1~t~ beYOre~ the eleCk$ga. ~he }~3®8P. ~ ~St$A~ ~?ith these ~?O . $e~lg ffis~ke5 ~ tl'I~~ eaters in VaiD aa°e bright, avelt informed, 3ndepeadent and not easily per,. waded naaiess the ~:-~~der bas done has hos?eworl~o snd the pro3ect a~eally has merit. . ~ e~® taave a me$sa~e. SEP 0z ' 93 09 ~ 41 THE I NVEa i i ~u~IT GROUP P . ~ Haar caaapaa ~ aPpe ~ tax ica~ the ~w ~eaater is to ~e ~ • ~~t vr.. t fh prfior campaigns, it ® tae 'honest and though tk • mill, bsx'gek ~ pa© ft must address each a~egment at the Vail •~pulationo lam ~ tion~ • ana~ ~o people, tt is evident vie have gc~C w~~. ~ ~ ~ w?e have a»le .aaatsb~ mare enemies #ltsn d$, ~ ate, fi~ludiaig ~rhm ~l .inall~r mere fn fgvair ~ the rn+n~l~eet. e basis ~begy 3s oa'eo g~~ ~ It[DW I[~, ho sa]d QII p,;.;,,.L,,.85~6?~. `t'he vottc° taa°get 3s a~ewet° x~~dea$$s ~8$I N°h~ ge8~ elatY'+eEa~da Ya~.ll$ dy~•. ~~~dps 'W'h® will w4.. b t ~~te~'e g~) T® ge a a~®peiga~ it emotes eoo?npmic 6enef'it a$d makes less ~ $ anti t ~o ~hi~ is trot' ematioa~s$ opt. Z'la3s shaald i~ludc da~aa~ that the inter ®!'fers peyeh+$ 8nd ~sto. s during ®no a get i3'' in the ~ri~er, mom t9~s and iaa°otlt fox' iii mex°a°.~aantsg not jatst the 2totels and restsuratttsD seed, fin~y9 a im~n ~ nt iga the quality ~d a°sage of actlwitieso ~'o er°eate a ga r~ campslg~a oast starts at the botbaan N3tlx tt~ ~roa°lcer, IE~t a$ the Bop. ~`tlis mesaas that evezy ~Iun~L~:.~:..• ~~AV~{r~+;nirt h~S'i ~ tae on tea, and leader a?:a~»~.~yr s]ea~ograiahic gawp have ~ ors the terama ~a1e must ~ and e~ftie~o ertd honestly research and respo~ad their i~ n, ah~iaag us ~ a the effiotional extremism of the earlier a~.~,p~aso • Qty ham at& ®~°lsetiaag parse eirsgales W are the ®osts, these are • the ats, thfs is the ®uitiplier ei~eat, and aa®, floe inter Hat nvea°rum ~Ysil with tt~ ~ 9 ~d yea, 1 e~nOgY'aphic g8'cilip i~uiii trenetit aaad t~hls ho~fl ease ~o ttRe ~en$e~r mill nOt ~,...?pete rrtth a&~ existing ~~,,.~~~,Q QDo 'e SEP 02 °93 ®942 THE INVESTMENT GROLA' Pe5 • o . ~6) T® ab~olu ale ~ o~te~r amore w~ public, so them ~ no bait ~xtd awftc~~e am~tis,~ ~ua~ ~volutlcn ~ great but oat iaa o polfticaZ • a~apaigoo a»d ~t ~ out ~ 4~e arm where we ~a®e lost ~ signfffcant comber ~ aaa~ B~~ Ta ~ ~ wed aught Baia advertising ~~d using ~ media which is g~ i$ adeq~t~ ~inaoae~ B~~ ~°o av~ "~`tants• ~ belawa SEP 02 ' 93 09 ~ 42 THE IP~IVESTMENT C-~OUP ~ P e 6 • o d11Vitl Q~) A anembe~° d e~ ~lunteer grid business o~°ganiration 3s 88aVited 'b~ soin . fihL ~ cnmwittee, ~d I~Ld $O ~SS~~YL ~ isle®ber og ~IIiplv,~ w,'. Q[ that , ~~,~nir!sti4i~nn Sia+.~ID liaiirxaua Wfth S]l ~h~' a~m'~~.,...30 v.. ?:Yxt~ ~ iat$1°~8i aa9ar~e~~ 1e1~th~II ~ r c:~;~ ®R' acid a~ ~ , ~wi$h .p d2) I+stab3ish me ~gi.~~.-~v:,v~;,..~..m~to ~°~all Y..aideats . •the ~°e9. P ia~ the eiec~a~e [Qu~don. will there be ~ difle.., ,.,,~..t a<,egi.~l~,~ d for fps e]ectior3 than fQa° the as~rliear g~ral write and ®u9~i boa' hut3ooa aaa s i~c,~~~~~~,~,atiom and data pa~age d~ibia~g t~oa~ ~e profit ~ ~ ~ demographic group pflus deaa~ga°aphl~: psm o;°gam3zat~ms and busing, w~°k w daii t® give all new and .:.~.rning ~~,~~~,t~1~~,~ a ova ttse tea°, ~?ith ~ worded dialogue stressing ~ea:° ndl eanplo®nt anei benefits which the Center will help pravidee ~repu°e a ttinu3rig series art "~'iaiiz~ed~ ar~ticlee on the which ~e pu weekly iu dtcla paw and ®ore tgequentiy in the as the n ~Pp If we can°t get good $~]a.,::~;~~`~,t, purchase ~la.,~eaat as an ads ih?ed editQrriei gea~ieso Q~) Iananediatelgi iaa.~stb~ a srosll donaa~ pa°c$ra?m®@as low as 525, if we sties use $hh€da° mane ®an Raul agar ads headed ®T'hese I'e®pie supr..~ ~ the CenterWo ~5=A) Immediate ixistihate a d®nt~ progrsffi, ~erith the goal that lbir tl~ a s~niPiearat nua:a~a° or dollaa°s age onmanttted, ~ ~ ~pps•~v.c.Il oP tgae•taas i$.st~ b~ the voters. ~Chis ,~L,~~~~p ®f donors must ' a~ be a~e$t ~ show theh° t® be used bn aalaertising wing their supi fo&° the Centro • SEP 02 '93 09 43 THE INVESTMENT GROl1P P.7 •e o 0 0 • Q6~ ~°a°4'e j~hi(~ o~ p~Ct ~IVh1Chfl nth h~ndWttS/fliex'8 p180ed at ste ~Y1a ~ ~latl, Such 8S 1~kSo Safeway, ®.ile il~I'sI',j~® ~,Olf ~U3'SL~o ~8~ IRSS~C~te$ ~OY°~OI°ate ~tfCh ~8I'k$II~ $a~`~~e5a DoDSO~ 8r r-;a.~ ~'V ~Yaoes, 't'he ~t the pat°~cing ~~e ~dvert~sing Dan Dailey°s ~Zass ~aY~ ~ w ~..v~,t~ 3~d there, is a~a e~coellent exampDeo Q~~ ~1ist a ~ p .off ~w~ter8 to ~ ~.~.pare ~~t~nt~.ing I.ell#:.m ~ the ~di#~° ~ the Otero The objective would Ip~ have tWO lett+~.,. ~ week fmm e~h per the el:..~~ ~~p o have o ~ .a. pic@y,~,g~,~t.~h8e sy~~th~at dinat~s v~~tl~a ~ ~ ' 4Sd4G ~ 9 6JlsK~iAGB-d'~rp 87CC~ ~g 6GA~N _ o e e~ th6 C~.,,.1.~° a ~ ~ ~'~tt 8tts'BCI~o~t at ~$e p? ~,dd e ~ QUt ~ ~ tt'adit~Ona1 ljgnd.~a Qgy ~stab~sh bi~~v briei3u~s for at tton~ why are ~?olitie~]ly tive~a~ as the ~e~.~,~ ~ at the library, the Moue School h~?mes ~i~hborhoods. Q~~~~ Persuade ~ o~ ~tve peopie to e u apeakers' bureau t+~ make ~a~sentatio~ns ~ at which ~ ~ ~~~o ~ e ~ ~~~~m .J• Q~®~ ~e'I~C~ ~ I$~ ~bGx"~ rQgiBtered ~l~ we~i before the ~o ' a Ql.~~ a and w adv~::,.~Llzimm~ Matz tw?o ~d tbr~ days beYore 4he rao • 0 a a P v ~ _ ~.t it ~ ~oin~ fl, ~t a benefit ~ ~'~D ~ ens ~..ot~fl std we ~hauld enter' the campaign rvit~ €~1~ ~.g ~m~ ~a~ pe~ne~~ ~ pence enc~ vnlloe~se ° ~ ,a RES®LUTI®N N®. ~ SERIES ®F 1993 A RES®LUTI®N ESTAI8L9SHING SUPP®RT ®F THE VAIL T®WN C®UNCIL FAR PLAN "°C"~ ®F THE VAIL~ @~ALI~EI° PERF®RMANCE AN® C®NFERENCE CENTER, SUSM~ ~-t~tNG AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTI®N A NEW f`l'AX RIESTAURANTS AN® BARS AN® L®®GINGS, AN® EXPRESSING THE BNTENTI®N ®F THE T®WN ®F VAIL T® C®MMIT FUNDS T®W~,R® THE C®NSTRUCTI®N ®F THE CENTERe MIHEREAS, The Vail Town Council, as well as the community, supports the development and construction of a Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center; and lNHEREAS, the Vail Town Council endorses Plan °C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, of the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center; and N1lHEREAS, the Vail Town Council wishes to submit to the registered qualified electors of the Town at the next Regular Runicipal Election for approval a 0.9% tax on restaurants and' bars and a 9.8% tax on lodging which revenue will be dedicated to the construction, marketing, and operations of a performance and conference center; and !AlHEREAS, consistent with the aforementioned tax, the Town of Vail would issue revenue bonds in the amount of twelve million six hundred thousand dollars (92,600,000.00); and NNHEREAS, the portion of the tax that is required to finance the debt of the revenue bonds will sunset when the deb4 is retired; and lNHEREAS, the aforementioned taxes if approved will be collected beginning in January, 9 994, and accumulated for no longer than three (3} years before beginning construction on a facility which incorporates a performance and conference center consistent with the total public and private funds available. i~OlAl, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado that: 9. The Town Council shall at the next Regular Municipal Election submit 4o the registered qualified electors of the Town of Vail the approximate following ballot question: °Shall the Town of Vail taxes be increased annually by the imposition of a new tax of 0.9% on restaurants and bars and a new tax of 9.8% on lodging commencing in January, 9 994, and thereafter which revenue shall be designated exclusively for the construction, marketing, and operations of a performance and conference Center." 9 Resdution No. B. Series of 1893 D • 2. The Town Council expresses its intention, desire, and expectation that the Town will commit one million dollars ($9,000,000.00) 4o the Nail Malley Performance and Conference Center in the year 1995 or 1996 contingent upon: A. The economic feasibility of Plan °C" of the Nail Halley Performance and Conference Center based upon the meeting planner demand analysis of July 1993; and l3. The approval by a majority of the registered qualified electors of the aforementioned 0.9% tax on restaurants and bars and the 1.8% tax on lodging; and C. The receipt of pledges of charitable contributions from private sources in an amount that is the difference between the total project cost and the amount of money raised by the above referenced tax plus Town of Nail's contribution. 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED ARID ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 1993. Marga et A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: ~ ~ Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk CiRESOLU93.8 2 i~eohrtion No. B, Series of 1993 Fu / o y o t `~AtL /ALLEY PERF®RtVIAIVCE IVFEREIVCE CENTER ~ REVISED PL~iN ASSUME PER SO FOOT COST OF: ~ $150 BUILDING SIZE: ~ 93,700 FACILITY COST: $14,055,000 EQUIPMENT $3,857,500 I DESIGN, ~ to ~ a, INSPECTION ~ CONTGCY I $2,810,650 T®TAL FACILITO' C®ST _ ~ X20.723.150. BOND ISSUANCE $400,000 TOTAL 521,123,150 ~?DJUSTED FOR 1991 COSTS 523.762,752 REVENUE BONDS $11,746,815 ASSUME TAX REVENUES~e~iRE~ACCUMULATE ~ D AND CONSTRUCTION BEGINS IN 1997 RESTAURANT BAR TAX @0.9% ..._......W_,._._.___ LODGING TAX @ 1.8°~ TOTAL ACCUMULATED TAX REVENUES (NET OF INTERIM EXPENSE $8,693,577 INCLUDING INITIAL THREE YEAR MARKETING PLAN) CUMULATIVE INTEREST EARNINGS $853,301 PRIVATE1TO1dVN FUNDS REQUIRED FOR SPRNNG ':9~' .STET X2,+469;059 ENDOYNiIAENT FUND F®R PERF®RNfl~lNCE CENTER DEFICIT 52,000.000 T®T~?L 54,469,059 ASSUME TOWN ®F VAIL CONTi8113UTION 51.000.000 ®p~ p ~a spy ~7 yip 19MV9N\oE ®F FUNDS U~® ®6 ~9'Er91~lE®~PRIVR T®~ ~NlM6''DE~71~71! ' , . : ~`Sa71~7s®59.. 7f2f93 m A' o 0 0 0 Q ~ ~9 . o ~ o r o ~ o e. ® a o 'I ~ ~1 If' I ~ F ~ 'N~ ~ ~ . ~ Ali !xi ~ I 1 ~ ~.i .r VAIL VALLEY rcKroKMnNcr: coNrtFrr,ct. VAII ARCHITECTS C®LLABORATIVE 4.29.93 CEN7[R HAFDY IIOIlMAN PfllfF[R r155pCIATl.S RESOLI.ITION NO. 11 SERIES OF 9993 c~ RESOI~9TION TO OFFER AMNESTY FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE 1.5% PER MONTH PENALTY PROVIDIED IN PARAGRAPI'~I 14, ORDINANCE NO. 31, SERIES OF 1992, f~OR DEI~IN®IIENT ASSESSMENTS IBS TIE SO0T6~ CREEK LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail has heretofore by Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1992, authorized and ordered the assessment of a penalty of 1.5% per month for any delinquent assessment in the Booth Creek Local Improvement District; and WHEREAS, the Town Council recognizes that while the penalty is properly described within Paragraph 14 of the Ordinance, such a penalty was not described in the Notice of a Public Hearing on Special Assessments for the Booth Creek Local Improvement District of the Town of Vail, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail is interested in offering an incentive for delinquent assessments to be made current prior to the 1st day of October, 1993, when such delinquent assessments along with interest and penalty will be certified to the County Treasurer of Eagle County, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. The Town Manager is hereby directed to send by certified mail to each property owner who is presently delinquent in the payment of their assessment a notice that from the effective date of this ordinance until October 1, 1993, when such delinquent assessments will be certified along with interest and penalty to the County Treasurer of Eagle County, Colorado, that such assessments can be made current by the payment of the total amount of the assessment and interest or the appropriate installment thereof with interest by September 30, 1993. If payment is not received by September 30, 1993, such delinquency will be certified to the County Treasurer as provided for in Paragraph 14 of the Ordinance including principle, interest, and penalty interest at the rate of 1.5% per month. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September, 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993 `rG 9~7-G3 al~~c.# l~ @~~9L ~~LLEY ~E~~'®R~~i~C~ ~ C®~9~ERE~CE CENTER ~MEETIiVG PLANNEIa ®Eil~AN®ANALYSIS OF THE CONPEI~ENCE CENTER Prepared by CENTON ~ HIRE August 1993 SELECTE® HIGHLIGHTS A copy of the full report is available for check out from Caroline Tremblay What size group is likely to meet in !fail? Most groups would be under 300 people with the majority of groups less than 600 people. The conference center is best suited to groups of this size. Large national groups are not likely to come to Vail because of the two hour traveling time from the Denver airport. Meeting planners find large groups are usually best suited to transfer times of less than one hour. This facilty meets the needs of the largest market demand. When are groups roost likely fo meet in Vail? Summer is by far the most popular time to meet in Vail with the fall months of September/October the second most popular time. Winter season is also a strong season for meetings with November/December the weakest period. Spring is a popular time to meet, but meeting planners are unlikely to plan many meetings in Vail in April/May. They feel that we are "closed" because shops and restaurants are usually not open and weather is hard to predict at that time. How often would the conference center be used? The conference center would be used by groups for special events for 20-25 days per year. Some of these are days that Dobson Ice Arena is currently acting as a facility for special events. The conference center would be in use for 200-250 days per year, taking into account that many of the conferences would be held concurrently. The conference center is expected to have 281-347 individual usage days per year. What effect will the conference center have on area hotels? Hotels with meeting space will have an increased demand for rooms in summer and fall seasons, longer lead times for meetings and increased national exposure in the meetings market. Meeting hotels in outlying areas will have more groups as they are pushed out of properties close to the new center. Leisure guests with shorter average stays will be replaced by national meeting attendees with longer average stays. Hotels with little or no meeting space will benefit from smaller groups who are pushed out of larger meeting hotels and can utilize the conference center for their meetings. Smaller properties will have an increase in leisure guests who would have stayed in the conference hotels but are now pushed out by the meeting attendee who booked their room farther in advance. These leisure guests are more loyal to our destination than to a particular property. The research found that about 15% of meeting attendees stay in non-headquarter properties and that 55% of the meeting planners had used condominiums for some attendees in the past. How many new meetings will come to Vail because of the conference center? The total number of new meetings in Vail is estimated to be 103/year. Annually, summer will account for 45 meetings; winter, 30; fall, 17; spring, 9; and early winter 2. This is only new business, not what is expected to come to Vail already. What do these meeting numbers mean for the loca9 economy? If the estimated number of new people come to Vail, we will have an additional 40,000-50,000 room nights sold in our hotels each year. About half of the meeting attendees are expected to bring their spouse or family with them. Using national spending patterns for meeting delegates, we can expect an additional $90,765,000-$13,456,250 in our local community each year. Resort expenditures are usually higher than national averages, so we can assume that these estimates are somewhat conservative. is the estimated return of $10,765,000-$13,56,250 /year worth the investment of $2.1 lwillion / year? YEi. . - - _ _ K'~?. - - a - m'1 +Y . a ~ •'k*f - ~T_ _ _ r.~ r ' :.:1_~. _ f`.< _ h t .Z~. _ _ sir T^_» - ~a - -V3. • ,ty .4.- a~: . 1T t.~.., _ .~~t` .jig ..r . l L x >+ry;. r r ~ , - l ~ 4~ ~d V ba _ x ..ty _ _ _ i ~ ~'z p 1:2i-r: "3~ .Y >ti+ Ht?H.,~a , ' ~ _ v t..i~' ~F; _ `~;v~ _ _ ,,e'. A:f..''~ , ~ . _ .y+~' cN~.-. X3,_4-__z'.- '.C i..,. «3 n° 2. 3 ~y&~` _ 2~ } L' %.~.A., df, '.tr?S">#~ 'W d. 1 V n 1 ..f_ rte b~' t . . ~ " _ /SFr " xfk'1dT _ _ ~ ~:w~. _ e F ~ i 4 r~ z ~ s .TM's{k S ~ ,~ra f .q~ ~ s. 2 t ~ ~ r~ 'Y r N a ; ! F ~ 7 q .ter, ~ ~ ~1 4 t f ~~,:5 fi r ~ +s~}~y~~ ^j~. y /yy~ @, j] `T~, r - - .4 b ~ t 5., ~ 'f r~~t7-rL~f[.[rbi~~,'UB~i~'a7 lRr 4+~ill~~, y. . ~,4 ; ~t ~ j~ ~'-t ~ t ~iY ~ 4 '"..i .t 7A)~~ ~14 t`W Ik 4'~~SIIi - . r ~ ~ _ .v_ _ hP~ aY.. fit' - o r. ' :k: r t+ - .a - - 'f~~ _ _ "f ~ _ I{ 1 - i.` - . - - _ a k-` 4y.~ . ..'z~ a c ~ ~ - (r~rc ~ ir? Cri'b~w1 e ~ l~Ca~.e~- G- . ® - \1A90_ !!ALLEN ~ERFOE~f~fiA~CE A6~® _ ® COf~FEREi!!CE CE~ITEE~ COi~liil~iTTEE . ~ ~ c/o THE TOi~~1 OF !lABL . 75 SO~DTH FRORlTACE d3OA® llAiL. COLOFiA®O 51557 . STV9®N OF G'OTEf~TBAL f~iA~B<ET ®Ei~iiAf~® ~ - FO~ THE ~ROPOSE® . VAV9. !!ALLEN G'ERFORMA~CE _ A~!® COi~FERENCE CE~lTEit (COiiIFEREi~CE CENTER 4.~SACE Oi~LN) TO 5E LOCATE® 9it~l \lA~L, COLORA®O @~EPOE3T ®ATE: ' ~ august, 1993 SUSf~iiTTE® 5N: ~iO[3ERT 5~.~ SE~I~Of~ ~ ASSOCBATES 1510 ~lynicoop Street, Suite 400 ~ ®enver, Colorado 80202 ~ j . ~ ~ _ H96~E ~ ASSOCBATES 1353 Solitude, Lane Evergreen, Colorado 80439 J ~ i ~ YLL®j~(~~JW 1(~~L\LL~(Q~AI •(/~Y~[Ag1LI1 ~~„lll ~l\ ' R.u 111~U®VJIL L~LJ~ Hospitality Consulting anal Valuation August.l7, 1993 Vail !!alley Performance and Conference Center Committee , c/o Tpwn of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO S1 S57 . ®ear Committee i~iiembers: yl/e have completed our study of the potential market demand for the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center to be located in Vail, Colorado. Our assignment has been to complete a demand analysis in regard to the conference center, without analyzing performing arts usage. The conclusions reached are based upon our present knowledge of the meeting and conference market in Vail, and other Colorado resorts as of the completion of our fieldwork on July 30, 1993. I ies of this t e the estimated results are based u on competent As in a I stud yp P marketing and management of the proposed facility and presumes no significant change in the competitive position of the meetings industry in the immediate area ~ ' from that set forth in this report. The terms of our engagement are such that we have no obligation to revise this report to reflect events or conditions which occur subsequent to the date of completion of our fieldwork. However, we are available to discuss the. necessity for revision in view! of changes in the economic or market factors affecting the proposed project. Since the estimated results are based upon estimates and assumptions which are subject to uncertainty and variation, we do not represent them as results that will actually be achieved. 1610 Wynkoop Street, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 802D2 Telephone: 303-6'29-6900 Fax: 303-G23-1411 Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center Committee August ~ 7, 1993 Page 2 ~ . The study does not include the possible impact of government restrictions on the proposed project, except those set forth in' the report. . TPiis report has been prepared for your use and guidance in evaluating the feasibility of the project in relation to its cost. This report may not be reproduced or included in any prospectus used in offers or representations in connection with the sale of securities or participation interests to the public. !i!/e would be leased to hear from ou if we can be of further assistanc in h P y e to interpretation and application of our~findings, conclusions and recommendations. 1~Ie appreciate the opportunity to,work with you on this interesting project. Very truly yours, . Robert S. Benton ames Hire, ISHC Robert S. Benton ~ Associates . Hire & Associates . RSR:vcr Attachment ~ ~ . - TABLE OF ~ ~ , CONTENTS ' - - Paoe No. SECTION I ~ , INTRODUCTION ~ ~ ~ L-1, SECTION II ~ ' SUNifi~ARY OF FINDINGS AND CON L ' C USIONS. STUDY,IViETHODOLOGY ' ~ - II-1 AREA DATA ~ II-2 .SITE ANALYSIS - II-3 CONFERENCE CENTER LAYOUT ~ ~ II.4 VAIL LODGING fVIARKET , ~ II-5 . iVIAIL AND TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS ~ II-7 . ~ 'Mail Survey ~ ~ ~ II-7, . Telephone Survey II-10 ISSUES ~IMPAGTING THE RESORT MEETLNGS MARKET - II-12 COMPETITIVE RESORT,CONFERENCE CENTER FACILITIES II-12 COfViPETITIVE CONFERENCE CENTER MARKET DEMAND ~ II-15 . Room Demand Generated by Meetings ~ - II-18 ESTIMATES OF,CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE - II-21 Estimated Sleeping Room Demand II-26 ' Incremental Room Demand ~ II-27 • - Meeting Absorption to Stabilization . ~ II-28 "DELEGATE EXPENDITURE PATTERNS. II-30 CONFERENCE CENTER AFFECT ON VAIL AREA LODGING PROPERTIES. - II-32 Other Issues ' . II-32 ' ~ - 1 SECTION III ~ _ ' . AREA DATA ~ ` REGIONAL OVERVIEW III-1 The Vail Valley Market III-1 RELEVAiVT,ECONOMIC INDICATORS III-2 1 Retail Sales, ~ , III-2 . TRANSPORTATION' III-5 ' ~ Highway Transportation I'll-5 ~ Air Transportation ~ ~ - ~ III-6 Stapleton Interriational Airport ~ 'III-6 . .Denver International Airport ~ - III-7 Eagle County Airport ~ _ ~ ~ III-7 - .Vail Area Transportation . ~ III-9 , - - - - ~ - . ~ • ~ _ - TABLE OF CONTENTS/CONY D. ~ - . ~ - . ~ Paae No. OTHER EAGLE COUNTYRESORTS III-1 ~0 Beaver Creek ~ ~ III-1 ~0' ' Arrowhead st, Vail ~ : ~ III-11 • _ WINTER TOURISM III-12~ 'Classification of Ski Areas : III-12 - Colorado•Skier Markets ~ , ` _ - ~ ~ III-13 Geheral Growth of the Colorado Ski Industry "VIII-1"4 V.ait/Beaver Creek , ~ ~ ' tIF-19 ~ SUMMER TOURISM ~ , III-21 , Golf , . . III `23 AREA DATA- SUMMARY ~ ' III-24 . ~ . • SECTION , fV~ ~ ~ , ` SITE,'ANALYSfS ~ ~ - LOCAT~ON . , LV_1 ACCESSIBILITY - ~ IV-2 ' ~ - " - _ f SECTION V • - - "VAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE AND CONFERENCE CENTER LAYOUT " Entry and Lob.b.y' ~ ' V-1. The•'Performing .Arts Theater • ~ ' V•-2 . . - ~ ME-EYING AND CONFERENCE SPACE" ' V~-2 ~ _ The Ballroom ~ ° ~ ~ ~ . ~ . V-3 . .Conference Rooms V~-~ Public arid Back=of-.the-House Facilities V~-4 ~ ~ ,V-5 ' - .Seating Capacity - „ . ~ " 'RECOMMENDATIONS V-6, - - ~ ~ - SECTION VI . . - , ' , VAIL LODGING ANALYSIS ' • ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ;SUPPLY • , . ~ ~ - ~V.I-1 DEMAND. - ~ - - V1~ 4 . = r i TABLE OF CONTENTS/CONT'D. Paae No. SECTION VII ~ ~ - RESULTS OF SURVEYS (MAIL AND TELEPHONE) INTRODUCTION VII-1 MAIL SURVEY V11-2 Mail Survey Methodology V11-2 Mail Survey Results ~ ~ VII-3 General Conclusion from Survey - VI1-17 TELEPHONE SURVEY VII-17 _ Telephone Survey Methodology VII-17 Telephone Survey Results VII-18 .SECTION VIII ISSUES IMPACTING THE RESORT MEETINGS MARKET Accessibility VIII-1 Cost of Transportation ~ VIII-2 Seasonality ~ ~ VIII-3 Meetings Contained in One Facility VIII-4 SECTION 1X COMPETITIVE RESORT CONFERENCE CENTER FACILITIES INTRODUCTION - IX-1 COMPETITIVE CONFERENCE AND RESORT FACILITIES IX-1 VAIL CONFERENCE MARKET IX-4 COLORADO COMPETITIVE RESORTS AND fViEETING FACILITIES IX=8 Beaver Creek ~ ~ ~ ~ IX-~ The Broadmoor - IX-11 ~ Keystone ~ IX-12 Snowmass IX-14 Copper Mountain ~ ~ IX-16 .Breckenridge IX-17 Projected Growth in Competitive Supply IX-19 SECTION X CONFERENCE CENTER MARKET DEMAND INTRODUCTION ~-1 SEASONALITY X-1 -iii = . - ' ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS/CONY D. - Paoe No. THE RESORT MEETINGS MARKET - ~ X-3 Segmentation of Meetings ~ ~ X-5 Seasonality of Meetings ~ _ X=6 In-State Versus Out-of-State Demand ~ X-8 .Historical Growth in Demand - - X-9 Room Demand Generated by Meetings _ ~ X-1.0 , Vail Hotel Results ~ ><-13 - ~ . SECTION XI ~ ~ ~ ~ - • • ESTIMATES OF CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE - . INTRODUCTION , - XI=1 Estimates of Conference Center Usage ~ XI-3 , Market Mix ~ - • . XI-8' . Estimates'of Usage Days ~ ~ . XI-8 Estimated Sleeping. Room Demand X1=9 , Incremental Room Nights - XI-13 . - ~ _ - Meeting Absorption to Stabilization . XI-16 _ . _ - SECTLON XII ~ • DELEGATE EXPENDITURE PATTERNS - XII-1. SECTION XIII - _ CONFERENCE CENTER AFFECT ON VAIL ARE~~ LODGING' • PROPERTIES ~ - - INTRODUCTION - XIII-1 - - DEMAND PATTERNS IMPACTING VAIL LODGING ,PROPERTIES - •XIII-1 Effect on Properties with Meeting Space ~ ~ ~ .XIII=3. .Effect on Non-Meeting Lodging Facilities ~ ~ XIII-3 • Will Visitors.Stay in Vail, or Leave the Area? -.XIII-4 Estimates of Room Demand• Impact on Vail Lodging Facilities - ~ XI11-5 Other Issues ~ XIII=5. ADDENDA - - • ~ , , r'~ • - -iv- , ' ~ - - LISTING OF TABLES Table No. ~ Paae'No.. II-1 VAIL OCCUPANCY AND AVERAGE DA{LY RATE TRENDS(1) 11-6 II-2 •VAIL MARKET M!X(11 ~ . {I-7 ~ II-3 GROUP SIZE LIKELY TO MEET iN VAIL I1-~ • II-4 ..LIKELIHOOD OF A GROUP MEETING IN VAIL DURING A • SEASONAL TIME PERIOD II-10 II-5 COMPETITIVE MEETING FACILITIES ~ if-13 II-6 VAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE 'AND CONFERENCE CENTER COMPETITIVE MEETING.FACfLITIES IN THE STATE • OF COLORADO II-14 {i-7 ~ COMP•ETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET -MEETINGS HELD • BY SIZE II-16 • II-8 COMPETITIVE ,MEETINGS MARKET -MARKET " SEGMENTATION II-17 II-9 COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET -MEETING SEASONALITY II-18 •l~! 11-10 COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET ROOM DEMAND, • BY SIZE OF MEETING AND SEASON II-19 1i-11 VAIL HOTELS -NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY SIZE AND'SEASON II-20 . • • i1-.12 ,VAIL HOTELS- ROOM DEMAND GENERATED BY • MEETINGS BY SIZE AND SEASON II-21 I-13 STABILIZED YEAR PROPOSED CONFERENCE I CENTER USAGE - BY SIZE OF MEETING II-23 ~ • Il-1~ STABILIZED YEAR PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER _ .USAGE -NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY SEASON AND SIZE(1) ~ II-24 • ~ t . ~ ~ - ~ - - LISTING OF TABLES/CON'T D. Table. No. - Paae No. II-15 STABILIZED YEAR. PROPOSED CONFEREENCE CENTER - . USAGE -ESTIMATED USAGE DAYS ~ ~ 11-25 II-16 STABILIZED.YEAR PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER - USAGE -ESTIMATED ROOM DEMANC? " ~ 11=26 11-17 - PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER;USAGE -ESTIMATED ..ROOM DEMAND BY SEASON(1) ~ II-27 ~j II-18 FIRST FIVE YEARS OF OPERATION PROPOSED ~ ~ ' - ;CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE ESTIMATED . NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY SIZE ' II-29 = II-19 SPENDING GENERATED PER DELEGATE DAY , . ~ . • BREAKDOWN OF DELEGATE EXPENDI-fURES, - NATIONAL AVERAGE ~ ~ 1i-30 II-20 STABILIZED YEAR ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE _ _ PATTERN II-31 • - l~ III-1 RETAIL SALES 1.985-1992 _ . - III-3 • III-2~ HOTEL AND LODGING RETAIL SALES V~'~IL, ~ COLORADO 1,985-1993 ~ : ~ - • - III-4 III-3 - TRAFFIC COUNTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS . ~ VAIL VALLEY - . , III-6 . - - III-4 COLORADO SKIER MARKETS III-13 III-5 ~ . COLORADO SKIER VISITS III-14 ~ ^-111-6 TEN SEASON COMPARISON, OF SKIER VISITS ~ . • IN COLORADO ~ - ~ "III-17 ~ : III-7 PROFILE OF COMPETITIVE COLORADO SKI - RESORTS - - - ~ ~ III-18 - III-8 VAIL/BEAVER CREEK SKIER VISITS .III-~~T - - ~ ~ ~ -ii.- . - - - , - - - . ~ I~" LISTING OF TABLESlCONT'D. Table No. ~ Paoe No. V-1 ~ SEATING CAPACITY -VARIOUS CONFIGURATIONS V-6 " VI-1 ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN A TWO, FIVE AND TEN MINUTE WALK OF THE PROPOSED VAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE AND CONFERENCE CENTER SITE VI-3 VI-2 VAIL OCCUPANCY AND AVERAGE DAILY RATE TRENDS(1) VI-5 - VI-3 VAIL MARKET MIX(1) VI-6 Vll-1 NUMBER OF MEET{NGS ORGANIZED VS. NUMBER OF MEETINGS HELD IN RESORTS VII-4 VII-2 ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP VS. ATTENDANCE - AT RESORT MEETINGS . VII-5 VII-3 PURPOSE OF MEETING HELD 1N A RESORT VII-f • V11-4 IMPORTANT FACTORS IN SELECTING A RESORT ~ ~ • DESTINATION VII-7 - . . ~ VII-5 AVERAGE LENGTH OF A MEETING IRI A RESORT VII-8 V11-6 PREFERRED DAY OF ARRIVAL FOR RESORT MEETINGS VII-9 V11=7 PREVIOUS USAGE OF A MOUNTAIN RESORT VII-10 VII-8 ATTITUDE TOWARD THE USE OF A CONFERENCE • CENTER ~ VII-11 • VII-J OPTIMAL NUMBER OF SEATS REQUIRED FOR GENERAL SESSION ~ ~ .VII-12 - .VII-10 SEATING CONFIGURATION' -GENERAL SESSION ~ - VII-13 , Vil-11 LIKELIHOOD OF USING THEATER(1) VIl-13 - in - r ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~ LISTING OF TABLES/C,ONT D.. Table No. ~ Paae No. . VII-12 ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF~CONFE=RENCE CE,NTEFi. . _ ~ WITH SURROUNDING FACILITIES VII-14 VII-13 GROUP SIZE LIKELY TO MEET IN NAIL VII-16 - ~ - VII-14 , LIKELIHOOD OF A GROUP MEETING ~IN .NAIL . DURING A SEASONAL TIME PERIOD. ~ VII-16 IX-1 "COMPETITIVE MEETING FACILITIES IX-3~ - ~ IX-2 NAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE AND CONFERENCE - CENTER COMPETITIVE MEETING FACILITIES - ~ J IN~ NAIL, COLORADO ~ ~ - - IX=5 . - ~ IX-3 ADDITIONAL MEETING FACILITIES -~~VAII_, COLORADO ~ IX-8 ~ IX-4 NAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE AND CONFERENCE _ - .CENTER COMPETITIVE MEETING FACILITIES - IN THE STATE, OF COLORADO IX-9 X-1 COMPETITIVE .MEETINGS MARKET MEETINGS HELD BY SIZE X-3 X-2 ~ ' COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET MARKET . X-5 - . SEGMENTATION X-3 COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET MEETING ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ - SEASONALITY ~ ~ X=7., X-4 COMPETITIVE MEETINGS_ MARKET. AVERAGE ROOM. ~ ~ ~ NIGHTS BY SIZE OF MEETING ~ " , X-10 - ' X-5 COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET ROOM DEMAND ~ ' BY SIZE "OF MEETING BY SEASON X-12 X-6 NAIL HOTELS NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY SIZE - AND' SEASON ~ , - X`13 -iv- " _ ~ ~ - • • . LISTING OF TABLESYCONT D. Table No. ~ 1 _ ~ • Paae No. X-7 VAIL HOTELS ROOM DEii/iAND GENERATED BY ® •finEETINGS BY SIZE AND SEASON ~ ~ ~ X-15 v~ XI-1 - STABILIZED YEAR PROPOSEDCONFERENCE ~CEIVTER USAGE BY SIZE OF MEETING , ' XI-4 " XI-2 -STABILIZED YEAR PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER • USAGE NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY SEASON BY' SIZE XI-6 XI-3 STABILIZED YEAR PROPOSED CONFERENCECENTER USAGE ESTIMATED USAGE DAYS XI-9 XI-4 - STABILIZED YEAR'PROPOSED CONFERENCE.CENTER ' ~ - . • .USAGE ESTIMATED ROOM DEMAND ' . XI-10 XI-5 STABILIZED YEAR PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER -USAGE ESTIMATED ROOM DEMAND BY• SEASO'N XI-12 XI-6 FIRST FIVE YEARS OF OPERATION PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE ESTIiVIATED :NUMBER • OF MEETINGS` BY SIZE XI-18 • XII-1 SPENDING GENERATED PER DELEGATE DAY , • BREAKDOVI/N OF DELEGATE EXPENDITURES - - ~ NATIONAL AVERAGES XII-1 XII-2 STABILIZED YEAR ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY _ RATE ROOM NIGHTS GENERATED BY CONFERENCE ~ . . _ CENTER ~ XII-3 XII-3 STABILIZED. YEAR. ESTIMATED. EXPENDITURE PATTERN - ~ XII-4 ~ • _ ~ ~ - ~ • • _ _ TABLE II-4 LIKELIHOOD OF A GROUP MEETING IN VAIL DURING A SEASONAL TIME PERIOD: LIKELIHOOD Time Period Very Likely Likely Not Likely Januar Februar March 19%~ 36% A 45% y~ Y~ April, fVlay ~ ~ 1'4% 39% ~47% ' June, July, August 31 % 45% 24% • September, October ~ 19% 44% 37% N v m er December 7% . 26% ~ 67% o e b , _ Telephone Survey , The telephone survey was conducted after pre-qualifying a group of over 100 meeting planners. A total.of 32 ,qualified interviews were conducted: The basis of the telephone interviews was the same questionnaire,~as the mail-out survey with a. few modifications. ~ - Of particular .emphasis in the telephone survey was the selection criteria meeting planners use and why. Meeting planners expressed strong opinions regarding access to Vail,'the use of conference centers and the- size of groups which. work i~n resort settings.. ' Twenty-four out of 28 meeting planners with groups over 300 attendees indicted concern about Vail's location for larger groups. They, have found that the larger the group, the harder the logistics of transportation to the .more remote resorts. We received many comments from meeting planners that they would consider bringing groups of under 300 attendees to Vail, but would hesitate with larger groups. II-10 - , . - ® Ei ht- ercent of-meetin' . 1 nn r i g Y.p g pa e s nd.icated.thE.y were rnterested in meeting, . Sixty-three, percent .said they would have a prE.liminary interest in using the . , . . : 'conference center. ~ , - - . ' ~ ' - • ,s The •follo.win ~ tables in i ~ ~ ~ g. d cate the size group and -seasonality of likely meetrngs _ - ~ , ~ TABLE 11-3.. - _ ~ ` , " GROUP~~SIZE LIKELY TO"MEET IN VAIL - ~ Percent , = ~ ~ . Size Grouo "of . - Total .(11 . ~ .0-300 ~ 76% " ~ " . ~ .301=60.0. ,15% ~ ~ _ . - ' :601-900, ~ 6% ~ . . ' - - ~ 901-1;200 - ~ 14%' ~ ~ . 1,201-,1,500, ~ 0% . ~ . , Over 1;500. - '2% (_1) Based on 240 respon"ses.. Meeting planners were allowed.to. select more - than .one size group: - ~ ~ - - , • , 11-9 ~ : - , : - The mail-out survey generated considerable data. Highlights of this data include: o Of meeting planners responding, 73 percent plan more than six meetings 'annually, with 31, percent planning over 20 per year. However; 67 percent . arrange less than. six, meetings in resorts per year. o Meeting planners who plan less than 10 meetings per year were morelikely to use resorts than planners vvho organize more than 10 meetings per year. o Meeting planners represented organizations with various size' memberships, . with 73 percent having over 300 members.. Hovvever, 86 percent of the meetings planned in resorts had attendance less than 300 ,people. o The most important factors in selecting a resort location were: . Availabili#y of one hotel in which all members can lodge and all meetings , . ~ .can be held. ~ . # Accessibility of the. resort from a~ major airport. Availability of summer recreational amenities such as golf and tennis. Cost of transportation. ~ ~ ~ ' o The preferred day of arrival for resort meetings are, ,in order: Thursday, V1/ed,nesd.ay, Sunday, :Saturday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday. o Meetin tanners havin held meetin s in mountain resorts in the ast listed 9P 9 9 P Vail%Beaver Creek. second behind the Broadmoor as .the. place most have met. o Thirt -six, ercent of meetin Tanners indicated the r would likel or ver likel Y P 9 P Y Y. Y Y consider using a conference center, even if a hotel with meeting facilities were available. o ''Forty-two percent of meeting planners indicated they would be -likely, -or very ` ~ likely, to use the theater for meeting general sessions and/or keynote speakers. ' o Virtually all groups require break-out meeting rooms. . o Forty-eight percent. of meetings require exhibit space. II-8. - - TABLE II-2 ~ ~ ~ ~ . Y. . . " . .NAIL MARKET MIX111 - ~ . _ - _ ,Market Mix ~ ~ ~ • . ~ Season ~ ~ Occuoancv~ ' Indiv~idua"1 Groun January-March ~ • 83.6% ~ ~ 65.9% 34.1 % ~ " ' .April-May ' _ .30..1 ~ 59.2 40.8. _ . " , " _ ~ ~ June-August, 59.1- . ~ 5,0.7 49.3, ~ ~ , September-October. 31.8 51.7 48.3 " , 1, ' , . November-December ~ . 45.3 ~ 75:6 ~ . °24:4 ~ : - ` " ~ ~ ' ' - ~ 54:.:1 % ~ '61.0%° 39.0.% ~1.)Reflects lodging properties_within the_.Town ~o:f Vail.." ~ ~ Source,: ~ -~•Vail Valley Occupancy andAverage Daily 'RateResearch Study - ` 1991-1992; .April, 1.993', l _ , . . - . , . ~ : ' ' - Based upon our market research, it appears that the .best opportunities for significant ~ - increases• in :occupancy for- Vail properties from the proposed conference center. will ~ . be in the ;June :through August .and September -October periods: ' . ~ • - . , M-AIL.AND TELEPHONE •SURVEY RESULTS • . - ' . -Mail Survey, , . ' _ , . ~ , _ _ Our market research" included a mail survey to~ 1,500-pre-qualified meeting ~planne~s ; fr.om`selected states throughout the.~U..S. Tha list was generated through "Successful' -Meetings Magazine", ~ a recognized ;source. for thi,; type. of .,information: 1-he• ` questionria-ire iricluded~ 37',questioris `related to resort usage, size andtype meeting's, , - use, of.confe~ence centers and other' matters. ~ A copy .of the schematic'Iayout was. . .also included and comments generated: A total of 27_i' responses toahe survey were ~ - . , received.- _ - ~ _ • . , , . ' ~ ~ ~ - r n ccu anc versus 35.9 ercent for Valley in 1992 operated at a 64.4. pe ce t o p y, p condominiums. ~ ~ ~ , Seasonality for Vail is obvious from the following table. TABLE II-1 VAIL OCCUPANCY AND AVERAGE DAILY RATE TRENDS(11 • ~ Average - Season - Occupancy, • Daily Rate January-fViarch ' , 83.6% 5202.00 . April-lViay - 30.1 93.48 . June-August 59.1 78.82 September-October .31.8 ~ 67:54 ~ . ' November-December 47:3 ~ 159.48 Total 54.1 % ~ 51,39.65 ' (1?Reflects lodging properties within the Town of Vaii Source:' Vail Valley "Occupancy and Average Daily Rate Research Study 1991-1992, April, 1.993. ~ • r • - iViarket mix for Vail hotels is reflected'in the following table: - II-6 • _ _ - _ _ ~ Our reSea.'rch indicates~~the fixed-seat theater will be at iv ~ - _ . tr<~ct a for use by some groups, , abut inappropriate:forothcrs: A major concern expressed by`meeting' pianriers~wasahe " possible conflict in uses that-could~.occur when meetin sand erformance-functions' - ' _ 9 ,P are occurring simultaneously in,both~spaces. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . Our recommendations~'for the layout include, ma'ximizirig storage. for meeting tables; ~ . banquet'tab es; chairs and .other meeting ~ related items, .as well ,as`storage for the. theater.. ,The kitchen: is located .on the upper level, and will require a_service/holding 1 - kitchen on, the' lower level. A- small, 500 ,to 700 square, foot boardroom is . recortmmended,'but ,not mandatory. All dividing walls in meeting 'spaces should be. ~ - rriaximally.soundattcnuated, and baffled. between the ceiling and 'roof/floor structures: - ~ . VAIL- LODGING MARKET' ~ The Vail lodging market is heav.,iiy reiiant.upon tourism-for their.base of occupancy and. average room rate.. Being .tourist based,.-the market is highly seasonal with peaks, in ,January: through, March .and July 'and August.. ' 1NFiil~~ the' predominance- of group': .meeting demand, also occurs daring these peak, periods, there is: also meeti~n~g dem~ind . during weaker occupancy'periods: The proposed.con~ference center is expected, to - . ~ ~ supplemerit all periods: ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ' , According to the Vail,Valley Tourism~and Convention Bureau, there are approximately' 4;300.short-term lodging units available within the Vail Valley including hotelrooms,. , ~ ~ :i~ ~ .and condominiums. ,Approximately, 3,100 of the units are located in :Vail,- and, i"E is ' - .estimated that 1,600 of. these. units are hotel rooms... - _ ~ - ~ - - . "During 1992; ,tfie;Vail Valley experienced ari~ occupancy rate of.53.3 percent,, u,p`' .:slightly from: 53.1 ,percent 'iri 1991.:Properties in ~Vaii achieved. a .54:,1 percent,.. ~ . occupancy, compared. to 51:6, percent for Avon/Beaver' Creek.. Hotels in,: the .Vail . ~ 11-5 . - issue is expected to be a concern of meeting planners, we believe this can be overcome in most situations. - CONFEREiVCE~ CENTER .LAYOUT We were provided with, a preliminary schematic layout of''the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center. Major spaces within the facility include the following: . o , - A 94,700 square foot building on.two floors: - o A 950-fixed seat theater including balcony..Each-seat will include a "pop up" desk for conference use. - o A' 26,000 square foot main lobby on the lower level. o A 14,600 square foot ballroom on the upper floor. - - - o A 4,600 square foot conference center on the lower floor divisible into six possible break-out rooms., o A 1,600 square foot conference room on the lower floor, divisible into three . break-out rooms: ~ " . o Associated kitchen, storage, dressing°and office space. - The design and size of the conference center is best .suited to groups of under 600 attendees.: This will allow for. general session meetings, and food functions to be .conducted, on either side of the main ballroom, with break-out meetings held in the lower'floor conference rooms. With proper sound atteriuatiori,~the facility should also be able to handle two or more smaller groups simultaneously, in the mixture of rooms available. II-4 , " .SITE ANALYSIS.: ~ ~ _ ~ - ~ _ - , ,The site.for the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center is located _ • .adjacent to the Lionshead Parking .structure= and Dobson Arena, approximately a 12= . " minute walk'-from the Vail Village Core and-four minutes .from the Lionshead•Mall: - ~ ' There are numerous hotels and condominium complexes near the site., with~th:e largest " - - property being ahe, Rad.isson Resort Vail; approximately a 10-.minute ,walk. from the " site.., - ~ - , . r ~ i - _ -Access to .the site is via East .Lionshead Circle on the south and South. Frontage Road ~ , , •on the north.. These streets offer'easy access to .most of the lodging facilities-in Vail , and to I-70, themajor access,highway to Vail. ~ Access to,theaite is considered to,.be good. Visibility of the, site will: improve once the' proposed- building ~is constructed: Currently, visibility is 'marginal. ~Fo~ the guest trying 'to find the ~facili.ty once."built, " there .is expected to be little or no problem. , . - Our interviews with meeting planners revealed two issues ,of concern:. the..distance of Vail from a major airport. (Denver) and the distance o~f the`site from a lieadquart~.rs." r • ~ sized hotel. Meeting .planners .expressed- considerafjlE: rconcern about. the 100 ,mile - ~ " drive, between, Vail _and Denver for: larger groups. 'Their concerns are related to tra~~el ~ ~ . time, coordination of transportation and .cost of transportation. -Discussions with ' operators of competitive con#erence-center's and hotels, indicates that this is less of . a.probfem iri actuality than'perceiv`ed by meeting planners. r~ • • - - ' _ The lack `of a .major -hotel adjacent or very ~close~ to 'the conference center v~ras " expressed. by many meeting planners as a .concern. ,Most meeting planners pr-efer.to ~ . `hold.their"meetings'"under one roof." They,did., however, indicate that attendees are. more flexible. in resort settings than in riiore, urban or suburban` settings~.'.1Nhile this 11-3. ~ , . - . - o Analysis of spending patterns of delegates to meetings. - o And, analysis of the potential affect on room demand for Vail hotels from meetings booked in 'the proposed conference center. - The results of fieldwork, data analysis and our objective.and.subjective opinions are • contained within this report. The findings and .conclusions of the full ,report are summarized in this section. . AREA DATA - Vail Valley and Eagle County are primarily reliant upon tourism as the major source of economic activity. Vail is an internationally renown resort', with a high level of identity among meeting- planners. Originally, Vail was primarily a winter; resort; with little activity or visitors in the non-winter periods. Since, the early 1970's this has changed., with Vail gaining popularity, particularly in the summer rrionths. ' The Vail economy has shown very steady growth over the past. eight to 10 years. .Both winter visitors (in terms of skier days.) and summer visitation (in terms of meeting attendance and"golf course play) have continued to increase. Based on the recent ~ recovery in the' Colorado economy, and the reported beginning of a' slow recovery nationally, increases in visitation are expected to continue. ' - ~ • ,The overall economic climate in the-Vail a.nd Eagle .County area is positive..This is conducive to the development of the proposed Performance and. Conference Center. . ~ ' ~ ~ _ ~ II-2 • . - - - ~ ~ SUMMARY OF IND - • . F INGS AND CO~ICLUSIONS , " Robert S: ,Benton. & Associates and Hire & Associates have been retained by the Vail . Valley.Performancesnd Conference"Center Steering.Cornmittee-through the Town of° ~ - ' _ Vail to perform ~a market demand study relative to the, conference center portioh of"the., proposed Vail Valley.I?erformance and• Conference; (:enter. Our study' does not.' , ~ address the ,market .for performing arts usage. ~ ~ - , . STUDY METHODOLOGY . ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ` Fieldwork on this study, was conducted during May, June-, and .July, 1993. C)ur . fieldwork included the following tasks, among. others: , ~ - ~ ' - ~ - . , - An overview analysis of the Vail and-Eagle County economy'as, it relates to 1:he • otential to" attract market demand to the conference en r p - c to . . • ~ Site •analysis, including access,~visibility,; and proximity'ofithe site to Vail hotels, - - ~ _ • condomiriiums,;retail,shops and other activities.. - • ~ An ~,evatuation and rev-iew of preliminary schematic• ~plans,~for the Performance a'nd Conference Center.: , _ ~ _ _ An analysis of the existing Vail lodging supply. ~ ® 'Completi'on °of as mail-out questionnaire to 1,500 ,qualified meeting planners. ~ ` - ~ .Completion of telephone interviews with-32'rneeting planners;identified as likely " , ~ "to' utilize meeting facilities in Vail. ~ Analysis of-factors affecting, meeting •planners when 'considering resorts 'locations .for meetings. , ~ ~ ~ ~ _ • Interviews and analysis of~data from selected comparative and/or competitive • resort conference centers and resort hotels with meeting'.space: ' . , . - ~ Completion of estimates:of. usage for, the' prop.c~sed c'onferericecenter.. ~ • ` - . _ , ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ , . . ~ , . - _ ~ ' , ' - . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ,SUMMARY~:OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS _ . . . INTRODUCTION , ~ Robert S. Benton & Assocrates;and'Hire.& Associates have been retained by the, Vail Valley Performance~arid Conference Center Steering Committee to coriduc.t-a-study _ - . of:potential market demand for~the proposed. VaiLUalley. P'erformance'and:Co.nference` Genter to• Abe located. in Vail, Colorado. Our ~ass,ignment has been ~to„complete., a,~.~ ' 'demand anal sis with re and to- the usa f ~ - y g ge o the facility as~;a~,Conference Center, without analyzing perfor.mirig arts usage. .This report rep[esents,the ~cuimination of ` - our market research, analysis and objectiveassessments relative..to the mar~;et~ r , . . ~ . demand for the proposed conference center aspect of this project. The information. utilized in this study is based upon ~iritervievvs .with` operators'of ~ - conference; centers and resort hotels' with extensive meeting facilities located -throughout the state: Vail Valley .Tourism and •Conve~ntion Bureau representatives; ~~aif . • - • ~ Associates. representatives; Towri of: Vail officials, and persons familiar with various _ _ factors potentially .affecting ;the operation of; the :proposed.: perform.ing,. arts and- 1. _ ~ conference center to bet located in Vail, Colorado. We have. also completed~survc;ys;, ~ _ ~ ~ .of meeting. planners, both_by mail a.nd:telephone, n~'order to gather information o.n . ' . . meeting facility needs, impressions,of Vail as a meeting'destination and-feedback.on the`layoutoftlie~proposed.facility. _These.interviews;v~~e~re;combined~witfa1an analysis of_ data regarding similar. types of conference facilities ~ and • our knowledge of the ~ ~ ~ ' ~meetings~ market .in .Colorado-, mountain.`resorts, ao reach ahe conclusions and ' recomme~ndatiohs contained in this. report. _ ~ ~ ~ ' , is J SECTION INTRODUCTION i~ .1 LISTING OF MAPS" - , - , . ` :Page No. that.. - . - ` .Mao Section . Mao Follows . ' _ 1. State of Colorado Showing Vail Area Data After III-2 2., Vail Map -•Showing Site ~ ;Site Description " .After IV-2.. . 3. Schematic Drawing. .Project Description -....After .V-2 • ~ ~ ~ - 4. ~ ~ Map of, Comparable Properties - ~ ; . Vail ~ Supply , . After IX-E.' - . ,~l _ - - 5.- Map' of Competitive Properties = ~ s - - Colorado ~ Supply After IX-10~"~ - - ~ - . . . • . ~ ~ - ' . ' Almost all meeting planners prefer to house their attendees and hold meetings in the same facility. Most. have used conference centers at some point, with a, mixture of success and failure. The primary concern of meeting planners is keeping attendees concentrated on meetings without the distractions of moving between facilities. Also, : timing of meetings, breaks and meals must~be carefully.coordinated. in s comin \ to Vail will refer to house and meet their It is expected that mast meet. g, g p groups in hotels. However, there is, more flexibility for resort meetings than in more formal settings. During peak meeting periods; when hotel meeting space is booked, there should be strong demand for the proposed conference' center space. i For meeting planners in~the .telephone survey; 90 percent of their resort meetings are 0 attendees and 96 ercent were under 600 attendees. The length of small under 3 0 p meetings (under 100 attendees) -is~ generally shorter (.about two days) than larger meetings (over-100 attendees), which average three to four, days. . - ~ - Meeting' planners generally prefer the months of ,May through October ,for their meetings: When asked., May meetings were usually. held at beach or golf resorts in ' southern regions of the country. ~ , Meeting space~flexibility is a.concern to meeting planners.' They must be able to meet and then feed the .attendees in separate rooms .very proximate to each other. Numerous break-out rooms,~of different sizes .are needed. ;for most meetings. If meetings 'of two or more groups are held .concurrently, they are concerned about registration space, sound buffering and security of. meeting materials. - Overall, the meeting planners are very interested in meeting . in Vail, and most said They would consider using the conference center.. However, most also .indicated the groups they would bring would. have fewer than 300 attendees,. L If=11' • ..ISSUES .IMPACTING THE RESORT. MEETINGS MARKET . ~ Our interviews and questionnaires, both with meeting planners and operators, included questions regarding the issues that impact the decision-making process in selecting ' .resorts for meetings. .Our findings indicate the followiing important•areas. • . ' - . • . Accessibifity;..lncluding time, availability~ofi ground transportation, and. ease:of • coordination.. . ~ ; ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ . • . Cost •of transportation, .including airfare,• ground transportation and local. " transportation at the resort. ~ - " ~ ~ ~ ~ • Seasonality -Meeting planners prefer to hold meetings, when the 'chances of inclement weather'is low and activity levels at 'the resort ,arehigh. Meetings. contained`in one facility -Meeting ~~Ianners-do not like to spread " meetings b;etvveen multiple facilities, even if they are close". COMPETITIVE RESORT CONFERENCE CENTER FACILITIES , , , ~ ~ ~The'Colorado mountain resorts have a considerable number of resort properties,which. -can•accommodate .meetings..However., not all have either adequate facilities, .o~ the ri which utilizes Vaill facihities. Conference centers . image to :attract the type of,dema d "'and resort hotels with meeting space expected to be competitive ,with the proposed , . _ Vail, Valley Performance and Conference' Center were selected based om their- ability to attract the type and size meetings that could potentially be accommodated "at; the ,proposed conference center. 'The.'follovving list of.properties are considered to~ be. _ competitive with the proposed;conference,center: , . - ' II-12 ~ . TABLE II-5 ' ~ 'COMPETITIVE MEETING FACILITIES Facility, Location - 'The. V~/estin Resort . ' ; Vail, Colorado . Radisson Resort Vail ~ Vail, `Colorado Sonnenalp Hotel r . Vail,. Colorado IVianor Vail Lodge ~ Vail, Colorado .Hyatt .Regency Beaver Creek Beaver Creek, Colorado. . ' The Broadmoor ~ Colorado Springs, Colorado ~ t - Keystone Conference Center, Keystone, Coaorado ~ . Keystone Lodge Keystone; Colorado ' Snowmass Conference-Center Snowmass Village, Colorado Copper Mountain Resort ~ Copper Mountain, Colorado ' Beaver Ruri ~ ~ Breckenridge, Colorado , Breckenridge Hilton Breckenridge, Colorado ~ , Village-at Breckenridge Breckenridge, Colorado .Ritz-Carlton Hotel ~ ~ Aspen, Colorado Source:- Robert S. Benton & Associates and-Hire ~ .Associates. The Vail properties Fisted are not. necessarily competitive , vvith the proposed conference center. Rather, they are listed as~the closest hotels with meeting space to the conference center site.` The V1/estin Resort and.Radisson Resort both have over 10,000 square feet ~of meeting space; the largest in Vail in a hotel. ~ ~{n addition to these four Vail hotels; several other Vail properties have various amounts of meeting space. It is expected .that the proposed conference center .will be more ,complementary than competitive with Vail hotels. As the conference center will have no sleeping rooms, meetings generated in the conference center will require sleeping ~ - . 11-13, ' - - - rooms from hotels in: Vail.-The proposed performance rind conference center will also ' , assist th"e :existing hotels accommodate groups needing additional space for keynote . s Bakers ands ecial events: ~ - P I? , In the. non-Vail properties; the competitors have various amounts .of~ meeting space.' A list of"this space follovvs: ~ - ~ 1 ~ - - - L Y PERF RMANCE .AND CONF=ERENCE CENTER". VAIL VA LE 0 • , , COMPETITIVE MEETING FACIILITIES ~ _ IN THE STATE OF COLORADO ~ Dedicated Meeting and - - - ~ - _ Bar~auet Space" - - Total. , Largest - Property SF - SF , . _ , . - Hyatt Regency Beaver Creek ~ - _ 18,69.6 10,275 , . - The Broadmoor.~. 69,097 1.7,500 - `Keystone. Conference, Center- 20,434 . ' 16,000 - _ ~ Keystone Lodge ~ 11, 620. ~ . 5, 700 • ; Snowmass Conference . ~ ~ • ~ - ~ " - ~ ;Center ~ _ 13,247. 1,0,823 , . . " . Copper Mountain Resort ~ 27;848; - "7;776 ~ ~ . . - - ~ ~ - • Beaver -Run. 11,140 7,200 ~ - - - Breckenridge.Hilton ~ - 9;343 4,770 - r - ~ ~ Village At- Breckenridge - 27,932 - .6,'93,5, ~ ' • .Ritz=Carlton = ~Asperi 1.6,758 ` ~ , .9,274. ~ - ` - Source: Robert S.. Benton & Associates amd Hire & Associates:' ~ ~ , - ~ 11-14 - - ~ ~ , While the Hyatt Regency Beaver Creek is listed_as.a competitor., it will more than likely also be a ~benefactor,~from the proposed conference center. As. properties with meeting space in' Vail fill,, demand:is expected to "spill out" ,to other resorts. As the closest large resort property with meeting space, the Hyatt should be the ,next logical choice for meeting planners. , - rl n in" As eri ~o " ened in December, .1992.. While it is iricluded in the The Ritz Ca to p p . competitive supply list, it is~not ~included.iri our analysis of the meetings market..The ' . Ritz-Carlton was not open for a full"year and all seasons, and inclusion in the analysis , fora partial year would distort the results. An expansion to the competitive supply is being proposed by the Broadmoor. They are tannin to add 150 rooms and a 12,000 square foot ballroom, which. is expected p 9 - to open in 1995: ~ ~ • COMPETITIVE CONFERENCE CENTER MARKET .DEMAND, . Meeting"; demand at competitive. conference. centers and hotels was determined through interviews with, property operators and other sources. fVleeting demand was measured for the 1992%93 period; by season.. Seasonality was determined by the natural seasons in, m®untain resorts, as follows:, ' , ~ - Winter Season • January, February, March ` Spring Season April, May ~ , . Summer.' Season ~ 'June, July, August _ • Fall ,Season ~ ~ September, October • Early Winter Season 'iVovember; December" " • I r tin months in Vail and at The summer and wrnter periods are the,most popu a mee g competitive .properties. ~ ~ - ~ • II-15 _ ~ The competitive._meetings market is dom- inated by sm<~Iler meetings. Meetings .held . " in competitive properties, by size, is shown on •the `folllowing table: ` . TABLE. II-7 ~ ~ . ~ ~ COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET . • MEETINGS HELD BY-SIZE ~ • ' ~ ~ ~ • Number Ratio - Group ~ of to . .Size ~Meetinas Total . <.100 1,817 80.7%` ` . ~ . '100-300, 319 14:2.% _ - ~ 300-600 85 ~ 3.8%•,'. , . ' ~ .Total -2;252 100.0% Source: , Robert S. Benton & Associates and. Hire & Associates. Y ~ ~ The.meetings listed above, include only those held at competitive properties, and not , y other smaller properties locatei~,fhroughout the mounta'iris of those held at the.man . Colorado. • . ~ ~ ~ ~ , Market segmentation at competitive properties is estimated as follows: ~ ~ i - . 1 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~II-16 ~ • . ~_r. _1~ ' " ' TABLE 11=8 - ~ " _ COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET - MARKET SEGMENTATION ' Rlumber Ratio of to . Segment .Meetings Total Association 918 ~ 40.8% Corporate - 942 , 41.8% ' Incentive 143 6.4% Other ~ " " 249 = '11.0%" 1 Total, 2,252 100.0% " Source: Robert S; Benton" & Associates and Hire ~ Associates. . " The seasonality of meetings at competitive hotels~and conference centers matches the two busiest seasons in Vail"".-"summer "and winter. In "most of the resort markets, including Vail, IVlarch .is a month when capacity constraints limit the number of , meetings which can be booked. "This also occurs during July and August when the Thursday through Saturday period tends to be at or near capacity., and most groups wish to book over weekends. Even with these constraints, these are the periods of -strongest demand for meetings in Vail as well as the other competitive properties. A ' breakdown of`demand by season by size of meeting at competitive properties appears on the following table: ~ ~ ~ " - ~ ' , II-17 ® ~ ~ ~ ~ " . • :TABLE II-9 , , • ~ r ~ COIVIPET'ITIVE MEETINGS MAEtKET - , - - MEETINGSEASONALiTY - " ~ ~ Ratio . ~ ~ to • < 100 ~ 100-300 300-600. 600> Total ~ . ~ Total is Jan.-Mar. 467 °86 • 18 ~G 575 25.5% ' A r.-Ma 170 24 7 203• ~ " 9:0,% p Y ~ , , Jun.-Aug. ' -810 , 1'46 40' ~ ~ 2'I 1,017 45.2%. Sep.-Oct. 268 52 16 - 4 ~ ~ 340 15.1 % ~ . Nov.-Dec. 102 1 1 4 0 1 17 - 5:2'% , Total 1,817. 319 ~85 3'I 2,252 100:0% Source: ^Robert S.-Benton & Associates and Hire Associates: , As the above table indicates, mosf~of the meetings are smaller (under-300 attendees) . ~ and occur. in•summer'and'.winter•.~ This is consistent with the findings*in our surveys, - with meeting planners.: Based ~on our fieldvvork.analysis,~the fall period of~September . and October appears"to be, increasing in. meeting demand and is a .period when, there, ' is more capacity to hold meetings. This ,is also the• period_ ofi. highest potentiaf-to attract new meetings to Vail. , • '•Roon. Demand Generated by Meetings _ - _ _ , Our analysis ~of cornpetitiue property meeting demand included estimates of room, . . . demand -generated by _meetirgs.. In order .to :estimate roomdemand, the average size , ' and length, of meeting in each size category was estimated.',based upon industry averages and~,interviews..`~Our source far this data .includes Successful Meetings . IVlagazine,.the International Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus, ,Meeting ; _ Planners International and the.,Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau:, Data was. ` _ n _ ~ ' - ~ - confirmed by both our meeting planner questionnaire and interviews with the - . competitors'. The average meeting length; by size of meeting, is as •follows: ,Attendance < 1.00 2.0 days Attendance 101-300 3.5 days - Attendance 301-600 3~.5 days . Attendance 600> - 3.5 days Using this information, room demand by meeting size and seasonality is estimated in the following table: ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ • TABLE 11-10 ' ~ : - COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET ROOM DEMAND, BY SIZE OF MEETING AND SEASON ~ - • Ratio. ' Season <100 100-300 300-600 '600> Total To•Total - Jan.-Ma'r. - 45,321 47,282 21,434 9,310 123,347 ' 23.5°~ Apr.-May 16,729 12,829 8;013 3,780 41,351 7.9 • Jun.-Aug.- .79,220 .82•,158 49,098 48,020 258,496 49.2 ' Sep.-Oct. .26,243 27,502 20,222 ~ 7,035 81;002 1.5.4 Nov.-Dec. 10.167 5.876 4.510 ~ 630 21.243 4.0 ' . Total ~ 177,680 - 175,647 103,33:7 68,775 525,439 100.0% ~ ' Ratio to ' Total 33.8% .33.4% ~ 19.7% 13.1 % 100.0% Source:' Robert S. Benton & Associates and-Hire & Associates.' A similar estimate of meetin s _b season n •i g y a d s ze for Vail ~ reveals the following results: - ~ , ~ • : ~ . • . ~ i1-19:. . , . _ _ HaTE~s - 54N. ' - ~ V p,1L E Ar~D SEA . Ratio _ BY S1Z . to ~ ' MEETINGS . - NUMBER OF - ` , . 60~ ~ . , .3~p,6pp 2g.8°~° 1.7 8 10~ p 10;$°fO . ~ 0 . ` 54 ' 32 1 - ° 33,.5°f° 0 . 198 ~ 44 , ~ 6 ~ 3 : 17..6% ' fan.-Mar• 67 - , ~ ~ 1 4. ° a 26 1 p 10 - Apr' M Y ' 168 p . polo p,u9~ 15 1pp., _ 3 4. 82 100°~° . Nov,_~ec. 502 ~ 0 5% t).7% gl ° Tot 13.9 ~ - Percent of g4.9°/° ~ ; - and Hire fk Assoc?ateS~ ; - ~otai , ~ . ~ & Associates • , ~ ~ Rob enton , , . ource. ~ ert S: B ~ V_ai1~ utilizing ?ndu~try 'S , ~ • ~ rouP,meetin9,hotels~~ table , the Primary 9 . Wn o~'the followir<9 , . ma~d.ge~erated by a duration. is Sho ~ ; an RooR? de ~ - size ; - : ~ , far. meeting . , . avera9e$ ~ ~ . ~ ~ - . it-2o - TABLE II-12 , . VAIL HOTELS - ~ ~ ' - ROO_ MDEMAND GE(VERATED BY MEET(IVGS BY SIZE AND" SEASON ~ . < 100 100-300 300-600 600> ..Total Jan.-Mar. 14,400 15,680 ~ 0 0 30,080 , Apr.-May 5;700 2,940 ~ 0 . 2,800 11,400 Jun.-Aug. 16,.800, ~ 12,740 1,313 8,,400 39,253 Sep.-Oct. 8;800 7,350 ~ 1,313 ~ ~ 0 17,463 , fVov.-Dec. 4.500 ~ 1.470 1,313 0 ~ 7.283 ~ , Total 50, 200 ~ 40,180 , 3, 939 11., 200 .105, 519 Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire`s Associates.' " Overall, Vail hotels have a relatively strong market capture ~in meetings when ' compared to the competitors. The 105,000 room nights currently being captured is~~ " about 20 percent of the overall market., This is being done without an existing conference center, and, includes periods of peak demand ,when additional groups " ;cannot be accommodated due_to a lack of available sleeping rooms and/or meeting space. ESTIMATES OF CORIFERENCE CE(VTER USAGE, ~ ~ ~ , Using all of the data. collected and analyzed for this -study, estimates were made of potential market demand and "usage' for the proposed conference ~ center. Our estimates included both objective ~and'subjective analysis of data and feedback from " . meeting .planners.. ' - ~ l ~ " ~ - II-.21 - ; " 1 I'n. addition.to our analysis, .we have made certain critical assumptions ,which impact potential usage.. These: include.: ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ~ - - There will be no `booking constraints ,"placecl upon management ~ of the - conference center relafed to peak periods, i.e., the conference center can; be . booked during March, even though citywide lodging would normally operate close to capacity without these- bookings. Room "'rates generated by lodging , ro erties will like) be the determining factor by which booking decisions 'are ~ ' P P Y made, arid ,the .market will dictate the mix between- individual 'and .group demand' accommodated. _ _ ~ . , - • Our. usage projections assume that the Performance Theater- included in the ` . same building will 'not hinder the ability ~to book' the conference center. ~ x , . ~ -Sub'ective .consideration is ~ iven"that. the' theater will not always be available 9 , . , fio the meeting group. This assurription• relates to the abilify to concurrently , have a performance in the theater while holding orie or more meetings in t:he~ . ~ ~ „ ~ conference~center.~ - • We have assumed that the final design of the conference center will take into consideration that concurrent meetings in the facility will be held. This includes . proper sound attenuation,.sufficient space for niultiple registration areas, and adequate equipment for groups to co=exist without undue interruptions. • O.ur projections also include the assumption that, local Vail hotels will support ; _ _ ~ the conference center by making available sufficient hotel arid con_ dominium . , " ~ - ~ units to support the meeting..groups. There aresufficient units within an ~ . adequate distance of.the~ conference center to .house most- available groups. . ~ These units will.have to be'committable by the i~ieeting coordinator to be able ~ - to satisfy the meeting planner. ~ ~ ~ ~ .f ~ ~ ` Our estimates of conference center usage in a stabilized year by,size of~meeting are. . illustrated -in the following ~ta'ble:. _ , - ~ ~ - II-22; . , - ~ ~ . TABLE II-.13 1 . ' • ' STABILIZED YEAR, PROPOSED CQIVFERENCE CENTER USAGE- - , BY SIZE OF MEETING Size ~ Number • . of of Meeting fVieetinas , • - . < 100 ~ ~25-30 , . 101-300 50-60 301-600 14=18 . " . ~ _ , 600 > 2-4 . - Special Events ~ 20'25 Source: Robert S. Benton, & Associates and. Hire & Associates. It is expected that the predominance of small meetings (under 100 attendees) will utilize hotels for meeting space. The conference center ~is expected to concentrate marketing .and' promotion on groups of over. 100 persons. ~ Groups of over 600 attendees are not e~cpected. to generate many meetings., Thiss is due to size .constraints of the conference center meeting space and the lack of large hotels near .the center. to serve as a headquarters property,, as, well as the limited amount of demand for resort meeting facilities by larger groups. • .Special event usage of the ~performarice and• conference center are primarily dinners or special meetings which require a large space for a limited• period of time. At least ' half of these events are expected to be locally based. This should- decrease the number of times the-Dobson Ice Arena needs to be used for special events, as many - ~ • II-23.. " I users are expected ,to 'move to the new facility. 1"hese special events- are. not •expected to generate much, if any, nevv Lodging room demand. _ The estimated number of meetings by size b'y season, appear on the-following table: - . _ • TABLE I I=14 . - . - • , , .STABILIZED YEAR„,.. . PROPOSED, CONEERENCE_~CENTEFi USAGE. NUMBER OF MEETINGS-~BY SEASON -AND SIZE(11 . ~ ~ - 101- 301= - Season - . < 100 300 600 600> .Total" Jan.-Mar.., . ~ . ~ 19 4' , . 0 30 - . , Apr.-.May ~ 3 . _ 6 ~ , 0 '0 I , 9 - . - June=Aug.-. - ~ 13 20' . _ 9 ~ . 3 45 - - Sept.-Oct.: ~ ~ 5 , ~ ~ ,9 : ~ . ' 3 0 ~ ~ Nov.-Dec: - . . 0 ~ ~ 2 ~ .0: 0 . - 2 Total _ - 28 ~ 56 16 " . , ~3 103 - (1 Approximate mid-point in range of estimates - , - ~ - i ~ nd`Hire & -Associates: - . _ Source.: Robert S, -Benton & Assoc ates a _ 1 • ; Consideration was given to those periods when Vaif is already near capacity inklodging . ~ - bookings. For instance,, only limited space -will be av~3ilable in' March and weekends • . _ -in July: a;nd August. The availability of -both meeting space and lodging will =limit; ~ ~ potential bookings at the conference center during these periods. .It should.be `noted ' , ` that Vail ~ hotels with ~ meeting 'space -have some available capacity, for .booking meetings in .July •and. August.: This is primarily on Sunday through Wednesday - , periods. However, the meeting planner prefers to."book meetings on weekends.to take advantage of Saturday stay-over airfares arid 'fewer lost workdays. While some meetings will be able to be moved, to the beginning of"the week, thus 'inc'reasing occupancy during those days, others will, insist on weekend meetings. " Usage days for the conference center were estimated based upon length of meetings in each category as follows:. - ~ TABLE II-15 ' STABILIZED YEAR "PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE - ESTIMATED USAGE DAYS . ~ " Number _ , " Meeting ~ of _ Average .Usage Size. Meetings "Length - Davs < 100 25-30 2.0 50-60 . 101-300 ~ ~ 50-60 3.5 -175-210 301-600 14-18- 3.5 49-63 Total ' 91-112 ~ ~ ; 281-347 ' 'Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire ,.Associates. ifi ant number of conferences will be held concurrently, It is expected that a sign c especially.during peals meeting months. Thus, the usage day estimates do not mean the proposed conference center will .be 'in=use 281-347 days per year. We would expect th'e days with meetings in the. conference center will range from 200-250 days per year in a stabilized year., II-25 - ~ ~ , " ~ ' _ ~ - ~ . - . ~ Estimated Sleeoing Room Demand . ~ ~ Using the estimates of group size, average length of stay and number of meeting, vve ' have estimated ,room demand that would be generated Eby the, proposed conference " ,center in a stabilized year. The following table shows this calculatiori., , - ~ . " ; . TABLE II-16 STABILIZED YEAR`. • PROPOSED-CONFERENCE CENTEf~' USAGE - ~ ~ • ESTIMATED` ROOM DEMAIVD Number Average.Average Estimated „ of , Length . -Meeting , • .Room - •Meeting Size •Meetinas ~ ~ of Stav Attendance ~ - Nights`, , Low Estimate. • ~ ~ - ~ • _ < 100 -25' 2.0• ' ~ . 60 , ~ 3,000 ~ 101=300 50. 3.5 175. 30,625 - ~-30.1,-600 ~ 14 3.5 - 350. 17,150 - 60.1 > , . ^2 3.5 .700 4.-900 , - v Total ~ 91. _ . - 55,.675 • - , . High .Estimate . ~ . ~ ~ • < 100 ~ 30 ' 2'.0 , 60 3, 600. . - ..101-300 60 3.5 175 36,750 " . 301-600 •18' • ~ 3.5 ~ ..350 _ ~ 22;050 - 601. > ; 4~ -3.5 ~ 700 - 9,800 " ~ 12/ ~ 72,200. , ~ ` Source: Robert S:. Benton & Associates and Hire &.Associates. Estimated room .demand by season "from meetings at the., conference center is t estimated as follows: _ ~ • ~ " ' • ~ ~ - ~ - • ~ - , 'TABLE II-17 ~ , PRO.I'OSED CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE , ESTIMATED ROOM DEMAND.BY SEASON111 ' Winter 17,377 • , Spring ~ 4,035 ~ . , Summer 32,1$5 . ~ . Fall 9,787 Early Winter ~ 1,225 _ ~ . Total 64,609 ~ . (11Uses~mid-point of meeting demand estimated. ~ ~ ' Incremental Room-Demand 5 ~ , The estimate of room demand expected to be generated by the proposed conference. center in a. stabilized year is hot a truly accurate assessment of the increase in room demand expected: from additional meetings: Due to timing factors,: many of the "meetings are expected to be held during times when Vail hotels and condominiums are expected to be~operating at or near capacity. Meetings booked at the conference • ~ center are expected, to be reserved some times 18-3,6 months in advance:. When this , ,occurs during times "when Vail hotels would: normally be full anyway, some business will undoubtedly be lost by booking the meetings. Incremental room nights. are defined herein as the over.aal expected demand generated'by the conference center, .less those rooms which are pushed out of the marke_ t because hotel ,rooms are full. Our estimate of room demand generated by the .proposed conference center ranged from 55,675~to 72;200 room nights. We estimate displacement at 15,675 to 22,200 , "room nights. Thus, the incremental demand expected to be generated by -the ' - - - ~ - - • = - , propose.d.conference ceriter is expectedao range.from ~~0,000 to 50,000.room nights annually in a stabilized year. : • _ • The:estimate of -incremental demand and its affect can be a bit •deceiving: It is _ expected that the groups:attracted by marketing for the proposed conference center, vvill be the groups which are able, to obtain the space. The groups :"pushed out" • . should be organizations with shorter lead~times, or predominantly in-state groups., li he~' nevv groups :booked,. are expected to~ be from out-of-state with-better expenditure • patterns, more'§pousal/family attendance and a stro.ng~er propensity to visit ,Vail in the; • ,future as. a' leisure guest. Those. groups pushed-out of -V"".ail, are not expected to • be , ~ totally lost, as many will-go to the Avon/Beaver Creek(particularly the Hyattl' area for their meeting and would still have.experiditures in Vail. Ariy leisure visitors 'pushed' ` ` out will also ,be `•more' likely, to -book the: Avon/Beaver Creek: area as their: alternative. . - . ..The incremental room;demand~estimated to be genera1ted,by~the conference center is about ~70 percent of the total room nights estimated.. This is not .unusual; in our 1 4 ~ , • • experience; for a meeting facility which does-not include. sleeping rooms. Some displacement must, be expected in-an,y. facility ofi this type, and the busier the market, ' y the more displacement will occur.• 1 Meeting Absorption to Stabilization _ ~ The estimates of meeting demand; days of usage and estimated "sleeping room - _ - , demand expectedao be generated by the proposed conference center are ail stated -in. stabilized year .figures. 1A,'stabilized year. is defined as an average year in the . . ~ .o.'peration-of the conference center, after an allowance~for time.to market, and promote • the• facility so that. it ~is well .known Viand recognized- in the marketplace. The conference center is not expected to~open with stabilized .market demand in plane. . - . ' - 'i1-28 ~ - r . ~ ~ Assuming adequate marketing and. promotion, conference centers generally be in to 9 . stabilize in the fourth ,or fifth .year of operation. Prior to. stabilization, the facility operates at below the stabilized rate in both number of meetings and attendance. r im Ou est ates of early year operating results are based on historical data from other conference centers. Since there are few facilities comparable to Vail in seasonality, market recognition and other factors, we have adjusted ,the expected results up slightly from those experienced .by other conference centers. ' , TABtE II-18 _ FIRST'FIVE YEARS OF.OPERATIO{V . .PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE - ~ ~ ~ . ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY~SIZE Year . < 100 101-300 301-600 601 > Total - ' 1 35-40 12-25 4-8 0-2 ~ 51; 75 2 30-35' 20-32 7-12 - 1-3 58-82 3 3~0-'35 40-50 10-14 1-3 81-,102 , . 4 25-30 48-58 13-16 - . 1-3 87-107 . . 5 ~ 25-30 , ~ 50-60 ~ ' • 14-18 . 2-4' - 9,1-112 Source: ~ Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire & Associates. . . • - - II-.29 - - ~ -DELEGATE EXPENDITURE PATTERNS . , , Ln order to estimate .revenues which. would be .generated for the Town, of Vail businesses b-y delegates attend'ing'meetirigs at the proposed Vail Valley Performance - and Conference Center. Burin a stabilized ear of o eration riational'statistics on . g y p c ' delegate expenditures have been utilized. Our source,of data for the statistics is'the~ International Association' of -Convention and -Visitors Bureaus (IACVB), which is recognized nationally as the most reliable source of delegate experiditure.data. The " . - average expenditure per delegate day during 1991-, the most recent year for which - data is ,available, is summarized in the follovving table:: ~ ~ ~ - - SPENDING GENERATED PER DELEGATE DAY - " - . BREAKDOVI/N OF DELEGATE EXPENDITURES -NATIONAL A•VE~RAGE - - . Percent Expenditure Cateaorv, Amount ' of Total - ' . Hotel Room -Incidentals 577:23 ~ 50:8% . - . . " Hotei Restaurant`s-, -16:b5 11.0; ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Other Restaurants _ 17..31 ~ ~ 1.1.:4 ~ ~ ~ - ' Hospitality-Suites-- ~ 7:67 - 5.2 ' _ .Entertainment 7.88 5.2 ~ - - Refail~ Stores' ' 12..43' 8.1 , - Local Transportation - ~ _ ~ 6.56 ` ,4.-3' - - ~ Other ~ = ~ - 6.01 4:0 . . , , . , ' . ' . ' - ~ Total. ~ ' ;5151.94 100:0% L , . . Source: Int. ernational Association of Conventions-and Visitors Bureau. . - ,r; This national data was then adjusted to reflect room rates and expenditure patterns in Vail. We did 'not adjust -sales from retail stores to reflect the higher expenditure patterns normally associated with resorts, as no detailed information was available to make this adjustment. ' The estimated expenditures per delegate based on the revised estimate for Vail are shown on the following table. Local transportation costs have• been.removed from the calculation, due to•the free bus system operating vvithin the Vail,Valley. ® ~ TABLE II-20 ® STABILIZED YEAR • ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE •PATTERN - _ Estimated Percent Expenditure/ 1 IACVB. ~ of Delegate Expenditure Gateaorv Survev Total Dav (11 Hotel Room and Incidentals. .577.23 • 5.3:1 % 5115.85 Hotel Restaurants ~ - 16.65 ~ ~ 11.5 ~ 24.98 Other Restaurants-. ~ 17.31. - 11.9 25.97 Hospitality Suites ~ 7:87 5.4 11.81 Entertainment ~ 7.88 5.4 11.82 Retail Stores ' 12:43 8.6 18.65 • Other ~ 6.01 ~ ~ 4.1 9.02 ' Total Expenditures ~ ~ ~ 5145.38 100.0% 5218.10 ~ . (1 )Stated in .1993 value dollars ~ ' . Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates• arid~ Hire ~ Associates. r ~ • ~ ~ . . . . Using the- rncre a tal oom;night range calculated in~ ~>,ection XI, the direct economic , , impact attributable to meeting market demand attracted to the proposed conference - ~ center is estimated to.range~from 58;720,000 to, 51C1;900,_000. = ~ . . ; . - The estimated economic impact calculated above,doe~s.not include the expenditures - by.spouses or families .which may be accompanying the attend,ee..We estimate ghat ~40 to 50 percent of, attendees will bring 'one or more' of their :family .members, to~ ' ; meetings. ~ ; ' . . ~ CONFERENCE CENTER AFFECT..ON VAIL AREA LODi31NG PROPERTIES The, d~evel.opment and successful, operation o.f the ,proposed' conference center` is~, expected to generate; .considerable new sleeping ~ room demand to Vail ~ lodging . . properties.. . Based: on our estimates ~of 4.0,000-50,0.00 incremental room, nights " generated~by the conference center, we: estimate that 15,000-30;000 annual room nights will be, absorbed by lodging facilities within a 10-minute walk of=the proposed conference center. The remainder; or 20,000-25,000 room nights will be spread out ~ ' ` `to lodging properties of all types throughout the Towri of Vail.. This positive. impact- - on outlying lodging properties will most likely occur during the .peak meeting months . of February, March, Jane, July; .August and September, ~ - ~ ' ~ Other .Issues ~ ~ If world appear that during peak periods of the year,-.that meeting demand drawin to the conference center would simply replace. demand already staying. in "Vail lodging ~ . properties. ,To some ,extent this is true.' .However,, there are some, substantial . ~ "hidden" benefits: to this" new demand. ~ - ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ; - . , The proposed conference center is expected to market~and"d`raw from a meetin base ,9 ,that currently has only limited 'exposure to Vail -the national meetings market. This ~ , will expose "new" visitors to Vail who are more likely to spend an extra couple of days before, or after the meeting, to explore the area. These new visitors are also potential sources of business during other times of the year, such as returnin in the 9 winter. to ski, or the summer" to enjoy the mountain setting. IViuch of the displacement which is expected to occur°will :be replacing local in-state groups with national groups. In-state groups are familiar with Vail and tend to spend . less in retail sales and food and beverage than a visitor coming to Vail for the first - time. - Some displacement of leisure visitors will occur during the summer months. These 'visitors are typically, in Vail for'two nights lusually Friday and' Saturday) or only one night (Saturdayl. The meeting group replacing this. visitor will typically come in for ' three to; four 'nights; increasing lodging property occupancy levels on non-weekend nights. During the busiest periods in Vail, some meeting demand is likely to be turned away. , When this occurs, there is a' supply/demand imbalance. The imbalance not only - - 'effects Vail; "but also. Vail's competitors. .When. this imbalance occurs, lodging operators have the opportunity to increase room rates fo groups grid individuals alike. . Thus, turning away business is not necessarily a total loss of business. - ~ ' . ~ - There will inevitably be some meeting attendees who, simply will not spend the money necessary to rent rooms at~ headquartershotels or condominiums in close proximity ~to the conference, center. These attendees would rather find transportation to/from the center to. enable them to stay in.lower-priced lodging. This should help properties ' in outlying areas such as West Vail. ~ ~ ~ ' . - ~ . ' ~ II-33 1 _ , , ~ : e an over~11 positive ~ - v the... , . ~ - ~ eXpecaed'to ha ht to ~ ` ~ center is will be broU9 s ro ose~ conference cause new v?sitors - ret~rn~to va?1 a ee$l elusion ~ the.p, , p ~ ropert~es • . $e, attend ~ later ~ . In con - in9 p n meeting Vail 1od9 ected vvhe Tely perspective• all ...effect °n er edit 'is exP leisu t rt, a forth , .ben ~ ~ e area from a more ~ reso. en,oy th _ . le?sure visitors:to - - - , ` - ` ~ - . .t ~ ~ . ~ ` ~ _ I . - . - . ' t _ ~ - _ 11.34.. ; ~ . . - ~ . ~ . = pea f r AREA DATA ' REGIOiVAL OVERVIEW • L~9 ~ ~ ~ ; The Town of Vail,is Located in central Colorado in Eagle County, approximately 100 miles west of Denver: The .town is situated in what is known as the Vail Valley. In addition to Vail and the Vail Ski Area, the Vail Valley includes the Beaver Creek Resort and Arrowhead at Vail: Each of these areas is a separate resort development located along the Interstate Highway 70 (I-70) corridor which `passes through Eagle County. They comprise a distance of approximately '20. miles from the eastern town limit of Vail to Arrowhead to the west. ~ The map on the 'following page shows the location ~ of Vail within the State of Colorado. ~ - - The Vail Valley Market - ' The Vail Valley is almost entirely dependent upon tourism for its economic existence. Vail, along with Aspen, are the 'two best known- ski resort areas in the U.S. During - the ski season, .Vail is visited. by over one million skiers from all parts of the U.S. and the world. ~ Vail has a very strong, positive image as ,an upper-end resort, catering to - - the world's elite winter vacationers. . During the 1970's and 1980's, Vail began to, grow from solely a winter ski area into a year-round resort. Golf courses were developed-to attract summer visitors.and.retail• shopping became a significant drawing card for visitors year-round. Visitors soon discovered that Vail can ,be as interesting in the summer as in the winter. Vail began entering the meetings market in the mid-1970's with the development of several hotel properties with meeting space.__IVleetirig room expansion has"continued ~ • and strong marketing has generated a substantial market niche. for meetings in Vail. III-1 . ,A . • - • r - • - ~ Tourism, whether skiers; golfers, meeting attendees oar just overnight visitors, .is the " lifeblood of the Vai{.Valley economy... An examination of economic factors relative to tourism and. its. impact on Vail is appropriate. in this examination of `market`demand 'for . =a new conference center. ~ ~ - The subject site is located, approximately :4 miles w..est ;of the ,1-70 interchange servicing central Vail. The site is located within walking distance to Vail Village (a,12.. - minute walk-to the- Vail Village Centerl,,and Lionshead Mall (approximately a four. ;j~. . minute walk: Varl Village and Lionshead are pedestrian=oriented; commercial zones . . which include lodging, retail, shops, restauLrarifs and entertainment facilities. ~`rlie entire area and the subject site-is serviced.by Vail's free shuttle service every seven to 10 minutes, 20 hours per da.y.: - ~ ~ REL"EVANT ECONOMIC INDICATORS - ~ , . In order to evaluate the economic environment. iri which, the proposed facility will ; `l~ . operafe;:~aeveral economic indicators -were reviewed. ~ Tourism .;trends. are,, best. reflected by overall -retail sales statistics .and an analysis of, hotel and lodgirig rE;ta-il sales'. This analysis revealed~an economy that has experienced growth since the rnid= ' ~ - , 1980's...The results of.our ;findings are summarized in the para,gr~aphs that follow. ; Retail' Sales - ~ _ . ~ - According to the Colorado Department of Revenue,-total 'retail sales in Eagle County ~ experienced compound: annual growth of 1 O.O. percent for. the period 1985 through, 1992, while Vail's retail sales increased by 7:6 percent.•annually. Retail sales wi~Ghiri ~ -the state,grew-at~a 4.6 .percent corripound annual 'rate over the same. period. The t growth in retail sales in Vail and. Eagle County reflects. the increase in tourism in, the " ~ - ~ _ ~ _ - ~ . III=2 - - ~ , _ 1 I 1 !J 1 I~ I _ © ier on Grap Ics Corp. ~ L gyennely` WYOMING \ ~NE~SKA _ r r _ ~r _ - ~ ` ~ 12 f ..K I,. t ~ v ~ ~ _ 7, ,13 I d 4 ^ se I 1 r ~ s.m J > ~ I ` ....p I •p rru rsr ~ L 2 85 V 59 - I ~ MOFFA " la - w"`'°' ,W61D 1 t76 ° om .aw Nsn. ~ I~CX ON p`~ ~ 1ARIMER • w. le Sterling r ez roMeRe„r r _ v, I e ` 7 e ~I la Fort Colll ~ ~ pN LLlPS Xd`~, . 2 I I pr,. ed Cr Ig c w s ^t ~ 0115] HOCI(V NOUNTAIN ~ Dear I ~ X01.1° / \ eT y 40 $tB8 bat Springs Iner pm"NATL PAflN. H 77 dl Ri lo,lss' o a and y--- G~eyey 52 ' " •0 1 ~ _ os , - 3d 1 a0 uber a as Rerx i 144 M f3Af1; aL 7d 63 s 13 c„• 9A~8 Ns4 U 3d .w " s9 131 ~ 25 arua uum e w s : I 4 s,m,. ^ c^OU L~,LOn moot uwe.°1 ww.~F~ort organ zz I- ~ ~ C~7AN0 - ~ _ b xe Yume ~ v e I n.., n tuxes I ,.e.,a. ro r z 73 .v r ]2 119 ~ x...r e Mee r ti_. Ir smn (~d,Q 52 IvU AS tN N r ~ LDE 11 _ R80 R ANC I d0 : R L. et a 52 VJ GYO ' ~ 9 w 1 ~ a° 9 xeeexsna r I. is la r, ^ 4 13 I ~ I31 d r'~ w da.`? N':. - 00 IB A MS 1 r y 93 I 139 n.' rxr.r ~ aUMF4,- I cM Olden Q n I rye F~r:r c:~.°.. ~.r~ 36 .moo x s sr a U - _ s d k ti 1 ARARAN :r a.rr aw.. vel ~OR ~ er9r . v n r , r~ ~ ~ 4~r$Rf ffC..r Ril ]0 ~ hti ` ~ . E Rf LII / _ od Bpringa w-Ir a ~ . S ~ ' I ~ . - r d~ _ , " ~ , . ec IU. 25 59 9 =a,.:. ~ ~ ' J ~ _ _ ~ "itil 91 sdr'~~ro s.,a,n°w a. r. - r Kf CAR ON y I` s 3 M.001' Ce e R Lf3ER ~ yp f M do d~~ .•+'l 11 . e 4-~ - ti,, 10 _ 70 ' ~ - "Aspen x~Pa OUG e E ea 70 ~ ~ ~ ~ n. ~ I 6 r. Frulte - I I~ R/TlQ t c..wv ~o,o, o per, 0. ~ed.~d~. E~ , Jr.. I arowre function - i%ISd °a E.ar ~"3,a9s I r a I _ 133 1 3~ a 24 1 Ef ER • 7A d9 I Peb - A b5 2d ~ ~ 60 1 ~ L9N OtN = f )d 1 R : _ rm. o, iio L ~ I 83 a d0 . ~ ? Q I ~ 141 `"a° aee e v a Faros Nan. m Maxlrou .es. ~ C L. RADO SPRING ~ 94 CHL YENNE ..r. 7 - qty. I' rn zz x... , I- a 92 = s. ~ red _ zs SO ] •ene orv rvnr.. r: xrs ~ 35 I - 7 `SeCUflt 1 r Id ro) C p01e Cr ak ~ Y • N Den °.rr„e~x. GUfJN': '3N Y .,.,x I k~.J_ roer,re° Z - ~ wwso N I F h ~ / WeMe o r ~ o x r ns ~ Y ~ ' ~ n .uxeer s 92 _ Gu Ison ~ I 71 I ~ ~ 1 nt o - EMQNT ~ KItM1A _ 8 In . M Nr;ac~t= so ~ 9a 90 ~ City 9d anon 2s I I - 90 a ~ ~ ~ ~ Flore Sp CRO EY • ~e I ~ lag • e~ ~ L 1_ I ~ UEBLO © r. I sz r. ~ I ' ~ 96 I ~ I f_ nn ~ I a9 x.. t 96 g I . i.~ 67 xM ~r : - rx: ~ 9a ~ x 7e= 6f o ~ 9 I tal j ~S `~~4 I? \ u;rom ne.•n.. I ~ .,e: 5as •ra K t9a - iax~ i,r,.. Lamar 2t9e r Id,J09 y C s.w• r ._.;~1 e3."!M. A .e::v - ; ~AGIIAUNn: Lffi' n W Roe YF o L Anr es • xe ro ~ - ~ . r°d Le J te~ ~ 1 V WE S I 1 I ~ ~ ~ - u.=°.d w°ar, T n ."r. J,• u....• "17 ro .ao .r 71 R° ®E,. . R I ~ 10 ...,y., NNSD&a.E x 10 ~ OTE Q~ I 10 ~ r _ lozu _ ._s, r I aAN d. ld9 )f r~r~ 69 ~ c..n n.xcrrc - Ids II 1 _ y _ MINERAL. e~° ~arL. °e.ssLn:. 7d r °a ~ I - ~ 17fC+ (iI7AAJ.~~ vlsl . n. I~ w~ w.. else urg I lld. on , rx,Y . 1 I A y3 r 13' ran. 'J.q ? ~ Alamosa9 Ch a' 1 i I N„a. moA er,P 7&t r..„~IL - ,x,.,or h a,v.. - AS ANI •'~Y I Mx I 71 r Cortez " 1 e L M 9 w L LA~ ~ r _ I`` pa ~ro. 159 Q ~ r ' d+rsA EnoE' urango ~ ` ~yCNU1C n ° - ' so - 6 u sr.n9. 25 NA~a P fl r _ ~ 7 ~ ~ b ~ . CO lLls:. .x,6 .e.r. RAGA bbb ~ _ ,i 111111 .ox.xe x. -x :+e "9 I s.. r Ido v +;.L "x~.a la2' v, -~IZ Ida I I „r.. a......r,., ~ ' rinidad I r 12 al . I Isl ~ 9 0 20 40 12 m :::e.. „e..,. tb ~...e.,. a,. a...r..,,." r,r" i ea 3 t7 ~ ® leeo. 90 alerso oreouca corn: ' J-' ~ _ J NEW M E X 1 C O Reton , A r (1 I C 1 D 1 E I F 1 G I H 1 I 1 J I K I L 1 M 1 N 1 O 1 F' COLORADO Published by Pierson Graphics Corp. The n C e n t e n n i a l Stater B88 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 (3031623-8299 area. 'The followin table show ' h hi g s t e storical rate of growth for Vail,. Eagle County and the State of Colorado forahe period 1985-1992: TABLE III-1 • ~ - RETAIL SALES ` ~ ~ 1985-1992 Year Vail. CO Eaale County. CO State of Colorado ~ - . " ` 1992 310,996,000 ~ 642,018,000 53,872,626,000 J 1991 31-0, 383, 000 618, 991,000 48, 970,094,000 ' 1990 303,095,000 588,904,.000 .45,292,872,000. 1989 289,592,000 524,257,000 42,350,118,000 1988 - 238 627 000 ~ 435 147.-000 40,401,370,000 • ~ 1987 212;930,000 , ` 364`,885,000 • , 37,716,187,000 1986 20.1;836,000 333,635,000 38,752,785,000 • 1985 ~ 186,"491,.000 329,239,000 39,367,493,000 . ~ • Compound Annual Growth , . 1985-92 7.6% 10.0% ~ 4.6% . Source: Colorado Department of.. Revenue. . " - . • " The above table includes +retail sales from ,all sources, including hotels and other lodging places, restaurant and bar sales. as well as clothing and other retail goods. "Hotels anal other lodging facilities comprise a significant percentage of retail sales in Vail. The following .table shows retail sales by quarter from "Hotels and Other Lodging Places" located in Vail, Colorado. " . ~ . III-3~ _ - ~ - ~ TABLE III 2.- - :HOTEL AND' LODGING RETAIL• SALES,, - _ VAIL. COLORADO 1985-1993 ~ _ January- April- July- October- Year March ~ Jurie September ~ "December ~ Total ~ - 1993 ..34',550,722 - - 1992 30,363,300 4,074,223 8,590,736 10,382,000 -53,410,259 ! 1991 32,770,930 5,239,187 9,346,000" 10,737•,000 58,093,917: _ , ' 1990 .35,706,772 6,736,665 ~ 10,708,013 9,044,130 62;195,580• - 1~ . - 1989 35;422,69,4 7',328,462 12,862,440 11.,531,356 67,1,4,4,952 1988 26,893,787. 5,601,898 _ 9,959,867 10,982,399 .53,437,951 - ~ • 1987 -23,607,910 4,445,040 9,135;158- 11,016,•399' 48,204,507 - 1986 21,884,18$ 5,423,449 9,033;876 10,0,62,460 - 46,403;973' ~ ' 1985 22,755,783 5,505,029 • 7,700,136' 7,692,180 43,653,128 Compound Annual Growth - ~ _ - , 1985-92 4.2% " (4.2%) 1.6% 4.4°k - . 2.9% , ' - 1985-93 5.4°~6 - .Source: Colorado-Department of Revenue: ~ - • -Hotel -and lodging retail, sales have increased at.a -2.9. percent compound annual' rate. - • - of growth :from 1985 to 1992. -This is lower than the 'rate of growth for-overallsretail . •sales in Vail,•~whieh is. positively impacted by the am~~unt, df day traffic that passes, • - - _ • through Vail; as' well as the increase in the number of high-end, resort-oriented shops -that have opened. • - • ' - The seasonality of demand for Vail's lodging facilities .land tourism) is. evidenced by . _ • the °qua'rterly differences in-_ retail ,sales. Historicailly,° -the- highest 'overall hotel ' `occupancies and, average room rates are experienceal during January, February -and. ~ • March.' During April and May, when demand. for bodging is .lowest-, some hotel properties reduce their operations,.or'close t~emporariJy. During the summer months, . - demand. increases- but ,is significantly lower than the winter .mo.nths. -.-Although - ' ~ - ~ - " - - , -III-4 - ~ - • . - _ - - - - 4 ~ • ~ ~ occupancies .increase durin Jul and Au ust room rates are le 9 Y g . ss than half of rates during ski season. During the fall months, lodgin°g demand decreases until- the Thanksgiving holiday,when the ski area gerierall,y opens. From mid-December through the first of the year, occupancies and room rate's are historically the highest for the .year. - . • . TRAIVSPORTATIOIV Miahwav Transbortation Vail is approximately 100 miles west of Denver.via I-70, the primary east/west route through.-the State of Colorado. With the completion of I-70 over Vail Pass and the Eisenhower Tunnel under the Continental Divide, access to Vail from the Denver area was greatly improved. _ _ The following table shows historic traffic counts at various.locations on I-70 for the Vail Valley area. Traffic on I-70 'has increased significantly. One of the primary influences of highway traffic in the area is tourism. ~ . _ ~ . _ • . III-5 r . _ ~ - - - " ~ - • ~ - _ " ~ - TABLE Ilf-3 - TRAFFIC COUNTS AT VARIOUS LOCATFONS - VAIL.VALLEY . ~ ~ - ~ Average C?aily Total Compound , . ~ - - Traffic =Both Annual - Directions , ' ~ ° Growth Rate ~ _ Location _ 1985. 1'991- 1985-1991 ' On~ 1-70, between Gypsum and - Eagle, CO ~ . , 6,000 9,150 .7.3 . -On 1=70; between Hwy.. 24-and - ~ ~ - West Vail. ~ 21.,700 _ " .30;800 6.0% - ~ - - On I-70, b~etweeri 'Hwy. 24 and, ~ - East Avon - 13,300. 25,300 11.3% , On I-70 at Vail Pass • - 12,400 19,600.. - 7.9% Source: Colorado Trans ort'ation De artr-nent.. - - P P Air TranSDOrtBtlOf1 ~ ~ . Staoleto"n -International Airport ~ - ' From mid-April through .November,- there- is currently no direct air transportation: to : ' Vail. Those desiring air service utilize Stapleton International Airport located. in • • ~ . . _ Deriver. The drive time from Stapleton to Vail is approximately .two hours. _ - ~ in oiht`in the Stapleton International Airport currently serves as a mayor connect g p . - national air transportation system.During ~,1.992,:~ ;Mapleton .served 30,877,1180.. _ ~ rves as a j~' passengers, making it` the sixth busiest airport m the nation. Stapleton se , major hub facility for United and Continental Airlines, which control over 80 percent- - ~ ~ ~ of the flights in and .out of,Deriver: , ' ~ ~ ,III-6.~ - - _ ` Denver International Airport ~ . . Currently under construcfion is the new Denver International Airport (DIA), which is scheduled to open in December,' 1993. DIA is located approximately 115 miles east of Vail. 'The airport, which will open with #o`ur runways and has the potential to add eight more as demand warrants, is expected to benefit tourists and groups traveling • to Colorado's mountain resorts via. Denver. The runways at the existing Stapleton " International Airport are positioned too close together to permit simultaneous landings Burin eriods of limited visibilit causin fli ht:dela s. The ~runwa s at the new 9P. _y, 9 9 y y - airport reportedly do not have this"problem, which should reduce delays during periods • of inclement weather. \ . , The ability. of the new airport to accommodate additional capacity, as well as the marketing efforts of the City of Denver to attract international flights, is expected to have a favorable impact on the Colorado mountain resorts during the winter months. The international ski market has been identified- as a growth opportunity area by • Colorado Ski Country USA, an organization that markets the state as a.ski destination. , Eagle County Airport ~ • o ~ ~ ~ ~ Within the Colorado ski market, several ski areas have .made arrangements with airlines to provide direct service from ,major cities around the country to regional _ airports proximate to the ski resort. T'he ski resort operators have typically provided •a: revenue guarantee to the airlines in order to;.attract air service. Vail: Associates currently has arrangements with four airlines, American, United, Delta and Northwest, to utilize the Eagle County Airport, located .approximately 35 miles west of Vail and 25 miles west of Beaver Creek Resort. Direct ,flights into the Vail Valley are currently available from December through. mid-April via Eagle County Airport. , - ~ III-7 . • _ ~ _ ~ _ . _ In order to accommodate commercial air traffic,:the Eagle County Airport completed 51.4 million of improvements at the airport during 19$9including lighting as well: ~as ' extending :and ~ vvidening the .airport' runway. In ~ August, .1992; , additional . improvements 'were completed "which included. the • addition of a deer and "security fence and the extension of the taxiway and aircraft parking area. -By year.-end 19..14, -the airport is `expected to -have additional" radar, facilities, updated, approach lighting . .~1.. systems and, expanded aircraft'. parking areas. ~ ~ , . During the ski season,. American Airlines currently provides daily non-stop service from , Chicago and Dallas/1=t. Worth. American also provides Saturday 'service f[om ~ - _ LaGuardia .and Miami. Airports. United Airlines flies into Eagle, daily from Denver: Delta offers Wednesday,, Saturday .and Sunday service ,from'Salt Lake City, and- , Northwest provides daily service from Minneapolis. An~erican and Northwest Airlines - ~ . - ~ - operate 757 Aircraft, while Uriited.and Delta operate 737's and 727'x; respectivE;ly. ~ . " Continental Airlines h"as expressed interest in providing year-round daily air service from Denver,to.Eagle County Airport beginning next summer..Negotiations:between Vail Associates (VA,) and Continental Airlines have-been on, going., According to our - interviews with VA representatives, Continental has sought revenue guarantees~similar. ~to what ,V.A provides the other airlines currently flying into Eagle during the winter - months. However, VA representatives have stated it would not provide a, revenue - , ~ • - ~ guarantee for .summer-service.. - VA fjelieves"that Continental may still• choose 'to . ~ provide. year-round service as'. early. as ~ summer 1994, but plans. remain very preliminary. ~ - J ~ . - ~ i~. I~f summer scheduled air service does begin, this could have a positive effect on the :demand and-usage of the proposed performance .,and conference center. ~M~any. m'eetiri tanners expressed -reluctance to' transferring attendees the two hours ~ between Denver and Vail.yia ground transportation: This-was especially a concern . - 111-8 ~ - ~ - with larger groups. The extent of market demand increases which could result from more frequent air flights into Vail has not.. been 'a part of this analysis. Total enplanements for Eagle.County Airport were approximately 55,000-passengers during the '1992!93 'ski, season compared to 35,000 passengers during the 1991 /92 _ season, and'6,500 passengers during the 1989/90 season..~According to officials at the Eagle County ~ Airport, enplanements are expected to reach 72,000 for the - 1993/94 ski season. Eagle County Airport~averaged-31, flights per week during the- 1992/93 ski season. ~ ~ , Vail Area TranSDOrtatlOn - - The Town of Vail has a free bus system providing a transportation network through Vail for local residents and area visitors. The comprehensive bus system plays a vital role in the success of Vail's tourist industry.- Ridership has increased, annually and 1 numbered 3.2 million passe.ngers.in 1992..-This volume was the second largest in the . r .l . State of Colorado. Vail s complimentary shuttle bus routes serve East Vail, V1/est Vai and the Sandstone areas.- , . During~the winter and summer months, there is a free shuttle between Vail Village and Lionshead that runs every seven to 10 minutes. Imthe shoulderseason of mid-April to late May, the . shuttle runs approximately every 10-15 ~ minutes. The proposed performance and conference center is situated at approximately the center point of the shuttle route. ~ ' - . - - - ~ ~ ~ - III-9 OTHER EAGLE COUNTY RESORTS. Beaver Creek ~ ~ ~ ~ • . - ~ Beaver Creek is a plannedyear-round resort by Vail Associates, 10 miles.vvestof Vail. ® ~ - ,'i, Its main entrance is`one-half mile south" of.the Avon/I-70• interchange. Of the .total - . ~ - 4,901 acres which comprise the "resort,: 2,126' areprivately, held and the baVa•nce is . - • , leased from the U.S. Forest~•Service. At an average ,altitude of :8,100 feet (villagel, ¦ ' the-terrain varies from the mountain top { 11,440 feet) and steep hillsides to relatively = ~ - 5~, - gently sloping meadows .and stream beds. ~ - A pedestrian village..is the hub of Beaver Creek. Day visitors are pri_ma~ily shuttled • from the base of the waliey; and .overnight guests park tlieir• cars in ,underground lots. • . The focal point of the village is the Village Hall: Its multitude of functions include a •conference center,- a •ski • school, ski ,rentals and accessories sales, ticket sales, a - nursery,,.medicalfscilities, commercial retail space, •a cafeteria acid a food preparation ; . area. The .village core location includes lodging andretail uses. Total overnight ' ~ accommodations:at build-o;ut are projected for 10,000, visitors. An attraction in itself, • the village extends the alpine architectural theme, .which is a Vail distinction. r iv` I hi h activit Level which has been lanne~d~for thevilla e,contrastsvvitfi The relat e y g y P g _ - - • ~ - the.~lovv density of~the residential clusters acid medium ~~ensity of outlying, multi-family. ~ ' projects: Single-#amily..areas interspersed throughoui:; the galleys provide about 245 . - _ ~ Beaver Creek has sexperienced very strong real, estate sales in recentyears. This trend< has induced a great deal.~of new construction- at Beaver Creek and,• with the completion of the HyattRegency Hotel, Beaver Creek is rapidly, maturing into a ,self- - ' - i was ori' inalf conceived. supporting destination resort as t g. y - , - III-10~ - - Rec.reationat and sports facilities,. other than downhill skiin are located in the ortion 9- P of -the resort owned by Vail Associates. These include tennis, golf, swimming and an equestrian •center. Robert Trent. Jones, Jr. designed the 18-hole golf course which opened for play in 1982. Extending along the entry road to. the. village, the course . encompasses a variety of terrain, meadows,.woods and water hazards. Arrowhead at .Vail _ Arrowhead at Vail has a common. boundary with Beaver Creek, which it adjoins to the west., It is about 1.0 miles west of Vaii, and contains 2,350 acres at elevations. ranging from 7,300 to. 9,600 feet. The base meadow area is located at the mouth of McCoy Creek and extends 'north to the Eagle Riyer, encompassing both sides of U.S. Highway 6. Current zoning would allow 330 hotel rooms, 1,557 condominium units, 193 units of employee housing, 50 .single-family lots, covered parking, an athletic club, 132,000 square feet of retail development, and an 18-hole golf course. It `is anticipated, based upon initial development, that substantially less than the maximum density will be constructed. ~ ~ " The first phase of the~ski mountain opened for the 198.8/89 ski season. The area offers approximately 200 acres of skiing. ~ The terrain is primarily suitable for ' intermediate skiing, and the ,resort has aimed its marketing toward families. )`here have been negotiations in the past to purchase,major portions of Arrowhead (including the ski mountain) by Vail. Associates, who would operate the area in conjunction with Beaver Creek.. According to Vail Associates, there lias been progress in the negotiations, but no final agreement has been reached. Information as to the extent of land and facilities that 'would potentially 'be ,acquired was' not available: Arrowhead is planned to rovide another si nifican p g t core area development with a full range of recreational activities. The Country Club of,the Rockies, Arrowhead's initial _ III-11 _ ~ . • - 1 ~ ~ amenity, includes a Jack Nicklaus designed 18-hole "SCottish,Links" golf course,with . • a clubhouse: ~ _ ~ WINTER TOURISM The ski industry, with its related activities and support services, is a:major contributor - ~ _ to. the Colorado economy. ,According to a 1991 study: prepared for Colorado-Ski Country USA; the state's skiing industry has grown .to encompass approximately . ~ 66,000 -jobs arid 52.56 billion in annual retail sales: Curing the 1992/93 ski season,, - there were 25 ski areas operating.in`the state, ranging from areas~with only a few lifts . _ ~ . ~ to large multi-lift complexes such as the Vail/Beaver (~reeK Ski~~areas.• - ~ ~ - ,I ~ Classification of Ski Areas ~ ~ - ' _ - 1~. Colorado Ski Country USA .classifies ski. areas according to-three primary categories: _ destination FrontRange=resorts, destination'resorts and. Front Range. areas. ~ ~ ~ . - ; Destination f=ront. Range, resorts ,include Vail/Beaver Creek, :Breckenridge,, Copper • . IVlountain; Keystone,/Arapahoe;Basin,.and-Winter ParkiMaryJane, prim~arily.d.ueto tFie . extent of their base facilities and real estate dev.elopment,~and because these areas . - - -are close enough to the- Front Range area ao service the day skier. , ~ ~ ` ~ - • Destination resorts include major areas such as Steamboat Springs; Aspen/Snowmass, Telluride and' Crested Butte,' as well as several smaller ski areas. These resorts area classified as such due to the extent to 'their base facilities and real. estate . - development, and the remoteness of the ski areas from major metropolitan areas. ~ - • III-12 - _ - . ~ ' ~ 1 ~ ~ " Front Range areas consist of smaller ski areas with limited base facilities and relatively little surrounding real estate development. These areas include Ski Cooper, Loveland • and Eldora, which primarily cater to 'day skiers. , ' r Markets Colorado Skie . . ination resorts and destination Front Range resorts are.considered All of the. mayor dest ' to be competitive with Vail/Beaver Creek due to their ability to. attract and accommodate. the.'destination skier, which is defined as ~a person staying overnight away from home in association with a day of skiing. Destination skiers represent nearl 70 ercent of Colorado's total skier visits. Approximately 90 percent of y P • destination skiers are from outside the state.. Day skiers .represent approximately 30 . ' percent of the Colorado skier market and. are typically resort area, or Front Range residents, which includes the Denver Metropolitan Area (DMA1., TABLE III-4 . ~ ~ . COLORADO SKIER MARKETS ` Percent of Colorado • . Visitor Destination ,State of Origin Skier Visits • Texas/Oklahoma, ~ 11 % , ~ - - "Colorado 10% California ~ 9°l0 - Illinois ~ •5% ' New York ~ 5 % ~ . ' Florida 5 All Othefs • 54% , . •Total ~ 100% - Source: The Contribution of Skiing to Colorado Economy, 1991 Update, Colorado Ski Country USA. • ~ III=13 ~ - . ~ ~ . General Growth of the Colorado Ski Industry - i The growth occurring withrn~ Colorado's ski industry is hest demonstrated through the number of skier. visits during, each ski season. .The f.ollowiri,g table_ illustrates the . growth of the Colorado ski industry from 198,2/83 through;the.1992/93 ski season. . f ' , ~ TABLE II1=5 COLORADO SKIER VISITS, . ~ - - Percent ~ . Ski Season Skier Visits : ' Chance ' . 1992/93 11,077,087 6.2% . - 199-1 /92 .10;427,994 ~ - ; 6.5% 1990/91 9,788,487. .9% , ` 1989/90 - 9,703,927 ~ ~ .,(2.:81% . ~ ' ~ 1988/89' ~ 9;981,916 4.4% ~ ~ " 1987/88 ~ 9,557,002, ` 1.1 ` 1986/87`... 9,4'53,359 3.8%° ' 1985/86 ~ 9;1~ 10, 597. ' 0.6% . ~ ~ 1984/85 ~ 9,052,345 5:0,% . " 1983%84 8, 6'17,, 318' . , 5.1'%• - . 1982/83 ~ ~ ~ 8,200,442 - - - Compourid ~ ~ ~ . Annual Growth ~ . , ~ ~ ~ - 1982/83- : - " ~ .1987/88. ' 3,1 - . . ~ - 1987/,88- ~ ~ ~ ~ . " 1992/93' . , : - 2.5% ' 1982/83- - 1992/93: ~ - _ 3.1 % . ~ . ; ~ ' ~ Source.: - : Colorado. Ski Country USA. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' III-1.4~ ~ - " ' ' - ~ ~ - r . The iric~r in , . ~ . ease the 1992/93 season is attributed to heavy early season snowfall as , well as the improving economies of Colorado and the nation. Iri addition, several resorts extended -their• ski, season for several weeks beyond the normal closing date due to good snow, conditions.. The ski market is very competitive, and Colorado has been successful in building its market ~ share at._a time ~ when the national skier market has begun to flatten out. During the 1980's; many ski resorts in Colorado completed significant improvements in order to enhance the skier experience, a's well .as to improve the resorts' ability to . attract and accommodate additional skiers. Recent capital improvements have included mountain expansions, increased snow-making capabilities, the addition of high speed chairlifts and riew on-.mountain. restaurants,and base facilities.. Improved accessibility through direct air. programs has also improved the market position of .Colorado ski resorts.- ~ . ~ ~ ' These. capital improvements, combined with the marketing' .efforts of the individual , resorts and. Colorado Ski Country USA, have positioned Colorado as the premier ski destination in the United ~ States. Colorado ~ Ski Country" USA has identified the internatiori'al ski market as a growth opportunity; and is increasing its marketing of the state as' a ski destination to potential markets in Europe and South. Pacific. countries. Continued growth in skier visits at Colorado'ski resorts is anticipated. However the rate of growth is expected to be somewhat slower than the growth rates experienced during the early and mid-1980'x, and.should;be more~in line, with the 2,5% growth ~ = rate experienced over the past six years. The growth and success~of individual ski areas is best demonstrated by the number of skier visits during the ski season and the share of total Colorado skiers served by each ,area. The following table shows the-.trends in skier visits at the state's ski ' III-15 , ~ • 1 ` ~ N ~ ~ ~ y - - ~olloWed by a . is ?s ve ~ 21g3 ~ Th' C _ h 19g` _ .With. VaillBea. _ ~htou9 etitive " . ~ " . ~ 1 g821g3 be ~omP ear.period,.~f.. idered t° ~ - worts for the.10-y_ do Ski Resorts.:co~'s _ 4 r ~ ~Colora, table Profilin.9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ' . . Creek' ~ " ~ ~ ~ . ~ = ~ ~ ' ~ - ~ _ , 111-16 _ . . _ - - ~ ~s~SLE ///-S • ~ ~ 7"EfV SE.4SOiV COI~e'P~4fa/SO/V OF S/C/E/d. ~1/S/TS /l~! COLO/aADO ; . . f , ~ner~er < . . Rceas ' ;:1.983. 4:;; 1.984,5 85.8 _ _ ~ : _ _ :.:;i8.,.t:: ~ ;;39$8/8. ..::1987j88; 1988/89.:; ')9$9(90;;:' 199Q~9:°E 199:1:13:':;;; :.:::::.:~::96~193.. ; .z Destination Resorts ' Aspen Highlands 160,003 ,164,899 144,016 148,050 132,822 1.42,968 _ , 151,007 1.45,678 152,379 145,364 Aspen Mountain 291,779 299,836 284,239 353,160 384,433 382,341 352,665 366,962 395,591 1,381,7532 Buttermilk .164,611 163,034 134,824 ~ 135,871 158,602 1.77,364 ,:188,984 144,419. 163,658 ~ ? _ Snowmass 634,388 711,655 720,424 '665,370 648;058 '708,872 579,854 645;374 732,617 2 Mountain Cliff (Conquistador). 44,196 31.,321 25,061 40,898 35;865 DNO DNO DNO DNO - 11,532 Crested Butte 297,907 329;439 352,499 384,544 407;453 419,356. 431;015 400,895 496,301 506,310 Cuchara Valley33,575 40,133 16,737 16,495 16,383 _ 25,055 DNO DNO DNO 23,898 Howelsen DNO DNO DNO DNO DNO DNO DNO DNO 12,061 17,395 Monarch 141,828 158,705 126,858 161,002 153,950 126,616 123,223 145,075 154,647, 152,240r ' Powderhorn 72,734 62,000 50,333 81,265 80,052 --93,052. ~ 48,722 54,322 ,69,621' 71,641 Purgatory ~ 306,146 - 306,324 381,445. 337,742 305,147` 313,054 186,733 244,093 300,396 ' 316,862 Steamboat 839,201 _ 870,213 846,170 898,024 913,904 .976,254 1,024,310 1,025,984 1,,005,922' 1,,053,002 Sunlight 73,039 65,078 61,355 71,096 63,204 70,328 55,168 65,679 63,902 82,325 Telluride. ' ~ 132,460 149,520 165,261 216,435 216,601 ~ 226,074 159,994 219,522 265,825 275;424 Wolf Creek 83,732 ~ 101,459 1'18,370 117,653 116,860 129,132 73,482 T18,264 124,951 126,704 _ TOTAi-5, '3 275'599 ;3 X153,536 1.. :3,37,592 3 627,6P5 3;633,334 3,782,46 31375 1S7 3,5.78,267 ~ 3,837 871.;; 4'?,64,45Q , - '-Destination Front Ranae Resorts - Arrowhead ~ DNO DNO DNO DNO DNO 12,435 7,644 22,018 28,257 N/A Breckenridge 798,806 -849,968 907,443 940,406 1,002,050 1,071,111 .1,099,050 931,413 1,023,323- 1,164,000 Copper Mountain - 681,384 _661,388 714,864 675,602 733,391 826,1-51 771,565 862,289 810,493 878,000 Keystone/North Peak , 700,123 919;400 886,900 .1,023,110 958,472 _ 838,071 922,31.7 861,322. 1,012,513 1-,041,781 Arapahoe .Basin ~ 229,667 259,078 267,200 259,399 233,533 218,335 228,094 202,019 219,798 '240,0003_ SilverCreeK 92,421 91,009. 101,837 87,217 62,904 66,155 63,134 64,900 72,692 79,312 "Vail 1,264,621 .1,223,445 -1,277,961 1,285,195 1,300,121 1;454,386 1,523,503 1,536,554 1,540,018 1,570,350 , Beaver Creek 343,371 3fi3,647 331,958 366,257 374,116 390,744 401,105 432,421 445,802 488,603 • Winter Park/Mary :Jane 771,500 781,000 823,788 810,524 886,437 ~ 924;751 874,815 887,917 96'1,061 1,019,181 ' ` TA' _ 4 896 1:84: 16 383 , ' TC1 1.S +.::......5~ 2. _ ~.::5237.7.,.5~~.;;~:::;;5,~47;T74:::;::::;:5,551..~T~~4. ...a;BO~~~139.:..::::5;859,8:3.:6 a,.a30~f,853;:! ...6,133.857' S,#81227:::::' Front Ranae Areas Berthoud Pass 16,148• 19,912' 15,000 11,307 3,080 'DNO 30,765. 28,600 DNO DNO Ski Broadmoor ' .18,505 15,841 12,559 30,687 26,002 41,741 46,009 35,967 DNO DNO Ski Cooper 46,132 44,996 55;009 62,597 59,638 61,732 60,390 66,578 7.0,118 67,062 Eldora ~ 98,430 100,700 58,447 DNO 70,111 - 75,466 86,613 66,740 87,893 131,625 - Ski Estes Park 41,665 33,990 25,838- 44,457 41,405 27,964 16,367. 9,983 DNO DNO 'Loveland Basin ~ 185,647 220,907 248,643 228,996 172,408 ~ 190;408 197,399 293,499 - 218,155 232,723 . 5 5 346 4.. TOTR.S : 44.5.52 43. . _ 15,49fi ~ 378.044:::::::::>:::::3~284;4:;.. ;;.;;337,~17..~:.:.:.,... 37~43.~.. ..t7.3'87:.:~: 376166.;4$1. T0;'! GRAND TOTALS I 8,617,318 9 052,345 9,110,597 I 9,453,359 9,557,002 9,981,916 I 9,703,927 I 9,788,487 I 10,427,994 11,077,087 ' PERCENT INCREASElDECREASE I 5.08% I 5.05% ~ 0.64% I 3.76% 1 .10% 4.45% I (2.8)%~ I O 87.°k J ~ , 6 53% 6.22% ..,......F._ ~-n._.., -r~.._~~.~.~.o_.,_.,~.,_._..,~.~.w. _ ' DNO =Did Not Open ~ Lack of snow reduced skiers during ski season. 2 Aspen Skiing Company had not yet released individual area numbers. 3 Arapahoe Basin remains in operation until 7/93. This number represents latest year estimate for the area. • _ SOURCE:.Colorado Ski Country USA - r~~L~ e®A ~ • i°ROF/LE O~ COi~PET/77~1~' COLOR.4D0 S/C/ RESOR7"S _ rte........ <.:Percent of T r e ~a~n . ' ; ;'..;;;:13esttcL:?: Fraen.Qenv e~ Year 'Number..;..::::5k~able > Snowma(cmg>: .:.:s ' ;::::>:::..:::;:<>::;:::::.>s~Cs~ ,(m,l s:::: ~ ° <:; .<::<.> Beginnin Intermediate Advanced es3 OAB.,ed 4f L,fiS AEteS . AGt~,S 9 __o...a,_. ,..4,. _..W._A,,,. _w. , . _ Front Ranae Destination Resorts - Vail 103 1962 .24 3,992 332 32% 36% 32% Beaver Creek 113 1980 10 1,050 243 18% 4.0% 42% Breckenridge 85 1961 16 1,600. 430 20% . 31 % 49% 'Copper Mountain 84 1972 20 1,330 270 22% 28% 50% Keystone/North Peak 75 1969 19 1,104 849 20% 55% 25% • Arapahoe Basin ~ 84 1945. 5 490 0 10% 40% 50% Winter Park/Mary Jane ~ 73 . 1940 20. 1,301 258 21 % ~ 58% 21 _ Destination Resorts - Steamboat ~ 157 _ 1961 20 2,500 365 15% 54% ~ 31 Aspen Mountain 205 1947 8 625 210 0% 35% 65% Tiehack/Buttermilk 202 1957 7 410 108 35% ~ 39% 26% ' Snowmass 193 1967 16 2,100 55 •9% 51 % 40% ' Aspen Highlands• 203 1957 11 552 ~ 110 23% 48% 29% Crested Butte 234 1961 13 1,153. 238 12% 30% 58% ~ - Purgatory 384 1965 9 675 150 20% 50% 30% Telluride 347 9972 10 1,050 ~ 155 21 % - 47% , 32% SOURCE: Colorado Ski Country USA • . . Vail/Beaver Creek " Since 1985, Vail Associates has made substantial capital improvements to Vail and Beaver Creek. Over the past eight years, Vail has increased skiable terrain from 1,779 acres to 4,014 acres. Vail now claims to be the largest single ski mountain in the United States with bases at Golden Peak, Vail Village, Lionshead and Cascade Village. For the period 1984/85 through 1992/93, skier visits have increased at a compound annual rate, of. 3.3 percent reflecting recent expansions and on-mountain im rovements which have captured skiers from other ski areas. P i v v a din an Two major expansions have occurred since 1985. The first n of ed d g enclosed high-'speed detachable quad chair from Vail Village to IViid-Vail which has the capacity to move over 2.5 times the number of people up the mountain than does the - gondola in Lionshead. In addition, three other high-speed quad chairs replaced existing chairs on the mountain. Over the summer of 1988, Vail Associates added. . approximately 1,800 acres of skiable terrain to the popular back bowls area, doubling the size. of the ski area. The ,new terrain is collectively known as China Bowl and is serviced by a new high-speed quad lift and surface lift. Other improvements included anew quad lift from Lionshead and a new children's ski center. Over the summer of 1989, the Avanti Express high-speed quad was installed replacing Chairlifts 2 and 17. Anew 56.0 million restaurant and day lodge facility was constructed on the mountain for the 1991 /92 ski season. For the 1993/94 ski season, plans include a complete upgrade of Lionshead terrain and lift system. These include a new quad chair lift, increased snow-making~capacity, renovations.to restaurants and an expanded teaching area. A 59.0 million improvement plan was completed at Beaver Creek during the summer of 1986. An additional 80 acres of mostly intermediate and advanced terrain were added. In addition, a new high-speed quad chairlift was constructed which carries III-19 r _ - ' skiers from the base~of the resort to the Spruce Saddle Restaurant. Over_the summer of 1989, snow-making capabilities were doubled at the ,resort. For the 1991 /92 ski' season, approximately 120 acres of skiable terrain w~~as added at Beaver Creek Ski Resort at Grouse Mountain; which is accessed by a new~high-speed detachable quad ~ chairlift. Future improvements for the Beaver Creek. area include S 14.0 million in , renovations to be completed by the 1993/94 ski season. These iriclude the cutting of the new trails, substantially increased snow=makin13 facilities, the.addition of .?90 seats at the Spruce Saddle Restaurant and additional grooming equipment. The following table represents historical skier visits for the Vail and Beaver Creek Ski Areas in comparison to total skier~visits for the' State- of Colorado. 1t_is significant~to note that, with the exception of 1984/85 ski .season, skier visitation has increased . each year.. In 1992/93, Vail and Beaver Creek captured 18.6 percent of the overall Colorado ski market. Vail appears to have .lost somE~ market share in recent yE:ars possibly due to an increase in~ Colorado skiers who tend' to frequent ski areas closer. _ to the Denver Metropolitan area. In addition, several other resorts have completed ~ substantial .expansions and are marketing more aggressively to destiriation skiers: ~It . is important to note however, that while market share has declined slightly; overall ~ visits to the Vail Valley area have increased every year since the 1982/83 ski season with the exception' of one year (1984/851. - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ , . _ ~ ~ - III-20 ` ' . ~ ' ~ -TABLE III-8 ' VAIL/BEAVER CREEK SKIER VISITS " . Percent Percent - _ ' Increase, of Total ` Ski Beaver from. Colorado, i State Season Vail Creek .Total Previous , ' Market of Year Share ~ .Colorado 1992/93 1,570,350 488,603 2,058,953 3.7°k 16.6°~6 1 1 077 087 1991/92 1,540,018 445,802 1,985,820, .9 19.0 10,427,994 - 1990/91 1,536,554 432,421 ' 1,968,975 2.3 20.1 9,788,487 1989/90 .1,523;503 401,.105 1,924,608 4.3' 19.8. 9,703,927 1988/89 1,454,386 390,744. 1,845,130 10.2 1.8.5 9,981,916 ` 1987/88 , 1,300,121 374,116 ~ 1,674,237 1.4 ,17.5 -9,557;002 1986%87 - 1,285,195 366,257• 1,651,452. 2.6 17:5 9,453,359 , 1985/86 1,277,961' 331,958 1,609,919 1.4 - 17..7 9,110,597 1984/85 1,223,445 363,647 1,587,092 (1.3) 17.5 '9,052,345 1983/84 ' ~ 1,264,621 343,371 1,607,992 8.3. 18.7 8,617,318 1982/83 .1,255,626 229;573 1,485;1'99 ~ .18.1 8,200,442 - Compound Annual Growth • ~ ~ . 1982/83 - 1992/93 3.3% 3.1 Source:, - :Colorado Ski.Country USA. ~ _ SUMIViER TOURISM . " • Vail has two distinct peak seasons: summer and winter. While Vail is becoming more of a summer destination, summer has been slower to develop as a destination market than the winter. However, the community fias been pro-activ~e`in developing Vail as a summer destination and, as a result, it is becoming an increasingly popular summer vacation alternative. - , ~ ~ ~ . Vail is becoming an increasingly popular. summer destination for both individuals and groups. 'Recreational activitiesincLude~golf, hiking,~bicycling, fishing, white water ' III-21 ' " ~ ~ rafting, shopping and dining. Vail-offers six championship- golf courses and one nine- . hole course and,,has established a reputation for its: high quaCity of golf: Visitors may . also- ride the gondola up Vail Mountain. • During the, summer months, Vait is the location of several major cultural and sporting events and festivals.. Bravo! Colorado r in` F r- ~Am hi ' r.. Th -V''I V II I e.~. presents a series of open air conce is o d p theate e , ai a ey a so hosts the North American -Bolshoi Ballet Academy, ,ether popular summer events include the .Beaver Greek- Art Festwal and Vail Arts .Festival as well as the' Gerald R. , Ford {nvitatioriaL Golf'To.urnament. - ~ - - - ¦ In orderto p~romote.the Vail area d:u.ring theaummer months,~the Uail Valley Marketing - - Board (VVMB) was, formed in late 1988. The budget for the VVMB is funded through - . a business license'f.ee-and general`.fund coritributions f=rom the. Town of, Vail arid ltfie - ~ ~ Town of Avon. During 1989"(the first year of operation); the VVMB had a_ budges: of. 5553,000. In, 1;992; the "annual budget had .increased. to 'approximately 5650,000. - ~ - , - The marketing program, has been judged to be a, success by- many' local business ' • ~people:.The~ VVMB is currently targeting individuals,of very upscale demographics as welt as: corporate meetings and 'conventions. The Vail .Valley has experierii;ed . ' ' significant. growth in the summer .meetings ,market.-" - _ ~ - Despite the thrust to make the Vail Valley ayear-round destination resort,. the sumrner visitor differs substantially from'the winter visitor.. In, Sepfernber 1989, the VVMB - •commissioned McGladrey and Pullen-to complete ~a baselines summer visitor study. . The study confirmed several. distinct differences between the summer and.winter:. visitor. First,: there are many more-day visitors, i'n thie summer than in the winter. ' ~ .,Winter ~remairis a stronger destination season, while. s;umrner visitors do not stay as , long in.the Vail Valley. More families come'to_Vail in the summer and summer visitors ~ ' do not spend. as .much during ~theit trip"as winter visitors. Summer visitors-tend, to bey more:- regional,- while winter -attracts -,more . national and international, destinal:iori visitors. While Vail Valley's primary summer market tends `to be.~those :of -a "lower. ~ } III=22 ~ - ~ , .n , income level than winter visitors h . " t ey do spend money on the same type of expenditures' as the winter visitor (i.e., food, beverage, clothes and other retail). ' ~ ~ ~ . ' Golf - ~ ' The Vail Valley has six 18-hole championship golf courses and, one nine-hole course. , Two of the 18-hole. courses, the Town of Vail. Golf Course,, and the Eagle-Vail Golf Course are public, while the other four 18-hole courses are considered private, or semi-private. , ' . ~ Beaver Greek golf course is a semi-pnvate course and has a special arrangement with ' the Hyatt Beaver Creek. .This course's priorities. are;first to.the Beaver Creek Club (whose members are privileged to have daily tee times reserved between 7:00 A.IVI. - 10:00 A.~iVi.), then to the Hyatt Beaver Creek (10:00 A.i1~. - 1:00 P.l~i.), then.to the . remainder of guests staying at other accommodations in Beaver Creek, and lastly, to -individuals and groups. outside the resort., This; courser mainly accommodates individuals and groups staying in Beaver Creek arid is available to outside individuals and groups with 24.hours advance notice only. ~ The-Sinaletree golf course is owned by the Sonnenalp Hotel, and is currently semi.private but may become a completely private course beginning in the~1994 summer~season. Potentially, outside.play would - a be accommodated. The Country Club of the Rockies" golf .course is located in Arrowhead and is a comp;letel.y private course. iVo outside play is accommodated. The Cordillera Golf Club, which is under construction and scheduled to open Memorial Day, 1994, will be asemi-private course that will allow limited outside play. Both the Town of Vail Golf Course and~the Eaale-Vail Golf Course are public and available for advanced bookings for groups and/or tournaments: Willow Brook, located in Eagle- ® Vail is, a nine-hole public course which opened' in the,summer of 1992. , . III-23 ~ ' ~ - The,Vail Valley golf courses open for play between•mii~-April and Memorial Day, and usually close •toward .the end of October, or whenever,the"first snow falls. :Courses • ~ ~ - • rarely close once_they have opened. The courses reported closing between 2 arid.15 days during. the summer 1992; primarily for snowfall. - - , _ _ ~ ~ , ~AII of the courses reported that they operate at capacity between;July 1 through the - _ end of AUgust~. 'There is generally excess capacity in PJlay.; the first half of June, the ,last fwo~ weeks ;iri, September, -and all of October. The n~umbe~ of 18-hole rounds at " ~ . ,the Vail~Valley_18=,hole golf courses~ranged between ~1,~',500 to 27,.000 rounds for the . 1992 season... Interviews with representatives of each club revealed `that golf.course availability for ~ . " groups may be difficult in the peak. months of July anti August. Only the ,two public ~ ' 18-hole courses .will accommodate tournaments and other, types of outside group' . play: Groups may occasionally play the Beaver Creek course, but the tack of advance. . . -;booking availability. will severely hinder most outside ,groups. The, other three 18-hole ~ _ course do not allow outside group~play.~ - " _ AREA DATA SUMMARY- - ~ " ~ - . , . • The economy -of. ,Eagle County and Vail-. is based,, primarily .on .winter a"nd summer - - - tourism. During the, winter months, visitors are attracted to the Uail and Beaver Creek - - ski resorts. .The Colorado ski market has become very competitive.` Vaii recently completed major mountain improvements in order.to rnaintain its ~position;;as.a world class destination resort. " The--area is also an" increasingly popular summer resort _ t.~ ~ destination.due,to'tpe su'rrouridirig scenery and- rec~e<~tional amenities available. Our market research indicates that the area has.been,expenencing substantial growth over the last several t'ea'rs.. This growth is expecfed'to~ continue,due.to an anticipated ~ ~ - ~ III-24 • " 1 I ~ in crease in skier days and summer.tourism. Group meeting demand has also become a major source oftourism growth over the past. 10 yearn in. Vail: As .growth in individual tourism and group demand continues, additional meetin facilities will be 9 needed ,to meet this demand to allow continued growth into the future., _ ~ III-25 i so~~ ~n~a~-uses t SITE ANALYSIS LOCATION- ~ ~ ~ ~ - . - The site for the proposed- Vail Valley Performance and-Conference Center is located just east of the Lionshead parking `garage, approximately .4~ miles west of the Interstate Highway 70 (I-70) .interchange serving central Vail. .This site is approximately a 12-minute walk to the Vail Village Core, located to the east, and a . four-minute walk to the, Lionshead iViali to .the west. A map ,on the following page .shows the location of the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center . in relation to Vail Village, Lionshead IViall and other, area amenities. The site has frontage on South Frontage Road to the north and East Lionshead Circle . ~ to the south. East.Lionshead Circle becomes V1/est IVieadow Drive to the east of the' site.., South Frontage Road is the main artery providing access between east and west Vail. West iVieadow Drive provides access to Vail.Village. to the east, and East Lionshead Circle provides access to the Lionshead IViall to the west. This roadway is primarily used .by pedestrians and the Town of Vail: Bus System. The Town of Vail ,Bus System provides~free shuttle buses every seven to, 10 minuets with easy access . throughout Vail.. :Bordering the site to the east is VailInternational, acondominium complex, arid the Dobson Ice Arena. ~ The Town of Vail's'Public Library is located southeast of the site: Located south of the site, south of West iViea'dow Drive, .are two' condominium complexes, the Lodge at Lionshead and. Treetop Condominiums. West of the site is ` the Lionshead Parking Garage. The entrance to the parking garage is planned to be relocated when .constructions begins. - To the north of. South .Frontage road is I-70. - ~ r ~ " - IV-1 . ' ACCESSIBILITY . . , " _ Vail is located in central Colorado; approximately 100 miles west of Denver,: a-.two to two .and one=half hour drive. Access to Vail from DE:nver ~is via I-70. : ~Confe~erice _ . attendees.'arrivin in Denver ma ,rent a car, or shuttle service between Denver and ~ a . 9 ,Y ' .Vail is available. Vans,run between Denver and Vail every. half hour, or a group may r r v~i'I " I ~f r n i i n I` h r - _ charter a van or bus. .Meet :G eet services a e a ~ i, ab e o a add t o a c a ge , through several -good transportation companies. Interviews with meeting planners _ indicated.they vvere co'ncerned:with the accessibility o~f Vail from-the Denver Airport, • as well as the cost of ground transportation 1betwe~en Denver and Vail. ~ This is , " discussed in more.detail in the section Issues Affecting the Resort Meetings Market: Accessibility has, an, impact o`n. virtually all of the primary competitors to the proposed ' . facility. The Broadmoor, which is located approximateay 20 miies fromah-e Colorado ' Springs Airport,~is least impacted _by accessibility. Keystone, vvhich. is"~70 mixes, or .a , one and. one-half hour drive, from. Denver, markets i-tself~ as :the. closest mountain meeting. resort ,to' Denver. Breck,enrid.ge and Beaver Creek have access, problems " . similar._ to Vail: . Sno.wmass, ..w,hich is ~ approximately_ -225 miles from Denver, is ; ~ accessible. via air service. .Un'ited Express and Continental Express provide frequent" - service from Denver. The Aspen/Snovvmass Airport.is approximatelyaix.rriiles from: ~ . ^ ' ' Once a' conference attendee is~ in Vail, .the' proposed Vail Valley Perfo'rrnarice Center - will be accessible -from .East "Lionshead Circle and South. Frontagre Road." . East ' Lionshead-Circle, will be the primary access"point to 'the facility for ,people walking from VailVillage. and the Lionshead Mall. People using ,public transportation will also ~ . access the facility from West' Meadow~Drive: Access 'to the facility. for hotel~shutlaes - -will .be_-available from South Frontage Road. ~ Trucks ~rvill. also'kie able ~tb access the ;.facility,f.rom'South Frontage Road. " y ~ " ~ , - IV-2 - _ ® ® ~ ® ~ ~ a 3 4 S 6 7 e s ~o t> >a ~a to ~s >Ib n to to ao as as a3 as as as a~ as a~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ H s ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ a vae® w MidQ a ® ,v ® Y~ °Bf Tennis ~a ~ bBL6.d~GE Gerald R. Fortl ~ ® W~ P~ Park ` ; 5~ m~ Vail qd ~ 1 J` ` 4. ® Betty Ford 1 ®son q ~ e ~ a®I C® ~ qd. d0®6~$9-0~ ~Y Terms ®O Gore C~ ~ Arian pFr ~/bw lid. ~ FaBSf qd. ~ . p ~ ~ p n 4av ~ W _ ® ® ~ ~tl A $e ~ 3 F ~ Gore m~® 0® ere. ~Ib_~~ _ _ Tennis d ~ ~ ,,r~c~ T ~ Vay Fron~Ge goaar ~ ~ ® Gore C~ee~ ~ ~ ~ Tennis ~ ~3et~F'_ © ey~~~ I ~®A s+9~' Ceeavar ~ rk Gtahp <°yl 1 N3C Ctxtdren's Kres}IS Z7 V~ YL4i1WC ~O °Q~ A4 Pi m ®p 2 MD Bsnlang e-9 ~'2 ro ~ erlrer ® ~ 191 y dap 3 NI Seasons O-b ® ~ 6h~ ~ vIe gi05~ 4 Nphorn g 13 39 Golden Peak Hnuse 09 /~y S Npr1e Stanaad g 12 40 GondoW Bulldrsg R20 ~ ~ m ,y O ~ q S 6 NNler1 s Van I-22 Ol Gore Ueek Roza Bldg a-10 kL O 7 ApoUO Park fb 49 Harq Cka IYOUth Cenlerl r19 ~ G~n ~ ~~tlfdnWeadCr- ~ ® 8 Aspen Tree .26 42 HdrAiy Houu g 12 ~T 176 I Emer ~ ~e Cf. ¦ 9 Betl Tower Blaq. e~9 93 Homesuke Cnr1dDS r29 ®He4porl e d ~ / I 0 &snop Park Condos r 12 04 JMn Dobson ke Nena R I b ~ ~ . • ~ ~ Y ~Ipl~" ~q~ ®qb 11 &eakaway Weu h27 45 t~ndm,ut h~21 73 Ramshan Condos db Inlamatias Booth 6 ~ ~ ® $BrItlGt011e Q~ ® ~6 I Z &rage Street Bldg e9 46 Uhhouu Lodge R20 74 Red Uon Bldq. e9 ~ Cr ® ~d 13 &ool3see+-27 38,68.40,13b Ufi Tkkel CMices 7S Red Sarufstone Scfuwl}22 Iz/7e/Ndi6 N1 fdSf ~ N~1 S t 0 Cascade Club e28 o-9. c~L. h~20, e21 76 Rrva Rrdge Nash a-I 1 ~ ~ /Olerstale 70 q,~_ ® ~ © U~ I S Cascade Crossrsq f-27 47 l/onsNead NCade n 20 7T Rrva Ridge SpAh al 1 ~ ~~i-, z(q'~Yn`^% dll~ J 16 Chateau VarVMdday Irn q~ 13 48 UonsHrxi Center g-ZO 78 Rrver House e I 1 100 lrk•m,uk RZ8 ~ 1 7 Chmtkarsa a Varl d-B 09 l/onsHrad Parkng Structure rl B 79 RuCksxk &uldrug e-9 101 leads rownnotnrs d~5 Q• 18 Cock Tower Bb9 e-9 SO Lunsgr:sre Lodge 6 CoN. Cb g21 80 Sandstone Creek Club 1-28 t 02 limber Ridge Condos q~29 123 Van Trans West e7 $,~t)$~Q~~ 19 Cola Stream Cmdos trZ9 SI Uons kMV,e &ag i-29 81 Sandstone 70 r26 103 Iwok Lc dye d~l 129 Van Tempos uion Ceruer 68 20 Colorado Moudain CdMge r28 S2 Mons Pru1e Bldg h~20 82 Sanastorse Park Condos p27 109 Town of Vad Mkunu ipal Cumplea/ 12S Van 21 &ulausq R20 129 COlOlaao SW Herdage CU g9 S3 lodge at UonsESead R 1 B 83 Scorpio h-19 Van Pdlce Departmrru R 14 126 Van Valley Hosp 6 Med Ctr g 1 S WEST VAIL 21 C rncen Hatl Plaza R21 59 Lodge at van 6I0 84 Slmba Resort qde 1 OS Treetops h-w 131 van vaUry tun~sns 22 cantle ApanmerUS ra ss lodge lower O 10 as sitzmark e I o 106 Tyrolean Curulus r b L Convrnoon tlurrau r-1 I t Buck Bea, Inn ~ $B MA9~ 23 Covered &Idye &dg a-9 56 Costello r23 66 Skoallfasrs y14 107 UI$rrr tayle Valley Saniuoun F25 127 ved ViU: ~rlrn q-12 2 &,vulrss 8109 sF°b+q~®~c, ,p •e~ 24 Geeksde Buiarsg r4 S7 fA'asor Vast tr4 87 Ski Club Van W 108 V.ul Nntico S4,tan r26 129,49,98 Van VivWrY Crrvrr L 3 Cfl:unonu Bldg. ® 5 ZS Crossroads Cmtn g I I 58 Meadow Van P4ce f 13 38.68,40 SW Scn~wls van Nsaules 109 Van Assue n.rnt L wnn RZS nfoumtra, F1oah q 20, . I B, y-9 4 Conoco ® ~ Q 4 120 CunlnHitl Spons d9 S9 bHl Creek Coup Bldg o-8 try. 64. h~20 40 V:uf Assor~,nes CN1xrs h t0 128 VenWyr Pou n van r20 S Eagle Parge a ®®i ® 26 Cyrara's Buk]rsg 6B 60 Mtll Rxe Condos a-28 88 Slger kkulding e~9 110 Van Athlrti~. CkrU L Hael C7 129 Vnla Corona I l3 6 kAinintti Strearnuae tt ~ N F. I~ s 27 Earkwens e l l 61 MorsLrneros R21 89 Snow Fn. R2B I I1 Vanglu 1 ucxlr R 2t 130 Vnla V,WI,11.167 7 bkDonalOY Y ~+rro"~ 28 Ersaan Casdos R23 62 Marrgaus Haul 1 B 90 Snowkws e2B 112 V.ul Gutrw.ry R: u.i q~ I! 131 vnlsgr Center Corubs f 10 8 Pxk Mexlows Loaye ® s~~ 29 Evergreen Hulel R I S 63 f9ature Cernef c I ~ 91 Solar V,sn 1 ZO 113 Van Intcrf:inh Ctul,rl r~12 132 Vnlaye Inns PLUa f I I q PhUkps bb 1 1'v r~ 30 Fee Swtan F 13 64 t9orth Wuoas Condos G3 92 Sonnersssp Aa»u,a Euus 69 114 Van trurmnx,ml r I b 133 Vnlagr Irn PLUG CoruJOS g 1 I 10 Purmigan Townhouses 16 q u ~e 31 Tint tLN+ d Van 1-11 65 oIa Gar Creek School Mouse c-1 93 Sunnenilp Bavaria Haus I-11 11 S Van f9,nors;n B.mk R 19 134 Vurla+der e 7 11 Roos[ Lodge 32 Fora Park Terns Center e1 N Old Town Shup Slay. f26 99 Sonnenalp Swus Chalet I~ I I 1 16 V.ul PrtArsuursal (uaq 1 26 13S W,sq Surri Li16g o-9 12 Salrw:ry )3 Wrarn al the Guns a-7 6) One V:m Rxe o-9 95 Splandlr Creek R9 117 V:w Pudic Ua.uy y 17 136 Wrsun Hotel e~27 13 T,~lon Townhouses 30 Ciruol Grunsnsmmrr r9 68 PLR &uldusg r9 126 Sleaamon Haw4ns CImK g~ K 117 V:ul Rrcrrauon Dhurct q~17 137 west view R2b t4 llfuted Slates Post CNTsce 35 Gerald R. Ford Msprutheatre dQ 69 Puws Uel twee h3 9b Summers Lodger 10 118 V:nl Rnw Huusrs rN 138 WruwiM at V:nl r21 1 S Vud Gas Schone - 36 ('seen lyon OPocr &dy r27 70 Plaza lodge d9 97 Bonded lodge n41 119 vw Rw+Rrsort y-28 139 Wnluws al 1 16 West Van lodge 37 Gdaen Peak Crulaenz Skrusy Clr c 5 71 Porato Patch t_krb i1S 48 Sun VaA 123 121 V.ul Sps R24 190 Wren Cundus e9 1 7 West VJn Msll 38 Golden Peak Ski Scholl a-5 72 Rabsson g~23 99 Taloman Condos tl I 127 V>fl irons Lasl rb 141 Mniuturr Guq yZU IB Wesl V.In Teaxo 19 werWyl GOLF COURSE/ ~n-Town Shuttle Bus Routes GOLF COOJR$E ®1 EAST VAIL Ease to Wezt ®TT ~J T ~q QO.. o~z ~ y, o- lea s~„~:,,, r„ 1 Bighorn Rentals vorL,nrr m ERSB VN4. i~v c ,earn reak ~L ]s1A~ ®~~~eA~ 2 Cast V.nl Rentals V,nl 6ansporcn~on CrdrUCuvrrrd Bridge so,K. w., s ~ ~.,r 3 Tanndye I-]u (.IO15rnJIh/lnd )r al V.rJ 4 Fitlll at V.ul Vaugr Oln Ra]:Llnled:ulh Ch-ITx•1 m'~-- s PilkmCrrekTawnhouLes TOURISM CONVENTION BUREAU ~ w.e+u.K~w ~ .u.~..w 6 TimbenaUS V.ul V:slky Medical Ceruer Uobson I~-e Ner i/Lnxary u.omrww 7 Van Gult Course Clubhouse UonsHran Parking Structwe 8 V:ul Mountain School Radlsson Nrwn Van 9 Vdn Rxgiarl CIUb Caorn lr,ul Rua y PERFORI~flAA.A~ y~9~'~P°~ ~C~CEP1'3~R ~~N~E~ VAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE AND• ' ~ CONFERENCE CENTER" LAYOUT - , . f. Vail has com leted a reliminary 'set of~ schematic drawings for the The Town o p p layout of the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center. This schematic appears on the following page. _ ~ , 1 ~ -level 94 700 s uare foot 'The Performance and Conference Center- wil{ be a. two q . facility located between the Dobsori Ice Arena and ,the Lionshead parking structure. " The arkin structure will be connected to the subject facility with direct access p g ` through "doors on th,e lower level near• the theater entrance. Entrv and Lobbv " The primary entrance to the subject facility will be on the lower, or village level, via, East "Lionshead Circle. A secondary entrance on the upper floor will face South ® Frontage Road. Both entries include a circular drive with drop-off area and access to ® the parking garage. There .is handicap access at each entrance... Upon walking in. the main entcarice; the visitor will enter a 26,000 square foot ,main lobby. ,This space is planned and recommended.to`be high decor, with ample room _ to hold guests waiting to enter the theater; or for pre-convening a imeeting or banquet. • The lobby is to contairi booths for concessions for .performances,, which are recommended to also serve as cocktail areas for pre-convening, prior to large " ~ banquets in the meeting space.. ~ " ~An important factor to meeting planners is an .ample registration area for attendees. V1/e recommend the registration area be on the lower level; in;the.main lobby near the V-1 I. - ~ i ~ _ ' conference.~ooms. At least one permanent registration, booth would be required and space for.two ,more po~tabie~ booths are recommended:. .'The Performing Arts"Theater ~ . " ~ . - . _ ' . The performing arts theater is accessed directly off.the main lobby. Main floor seating - - includes 380 .fixed seats in.'the..Lower Orchestra 'area,'`a~nd.220 fixed seats in the- Upper Orchestra seating. The Theater Balcony; accessed interrnally via stairs or . _ - elevator, contains 350 fixed seats.Each of the-fixed seats in the theater is to contain a "pop-up" desk. These can be'accessed wheri the :'theater is in use by~meeting , . groups, primarily during group general sessions... . ~ - . _ The theater also has a full stage, fly. loft and, wing space: Dressing .rooms are- available for the cast.: The stage and fly, loft area can be used'by meeting groups .for , presentations, or_performa~nces~...We recommend the 'stage be' pre-wired for multi- media presentations including retractable screens aril capacity for multiple movie end' overhead projectors. ' If_ possible, :TV monitors should be ..available in- the balcony - section. ~ : ~ ~ ~ MEETING AND CONFERENCE SPACE J , - ~ - current) ~ desi ned .the .Conference ,Center .will. contain three primary "meeting ~ ~ : ? As Y 9 - - _ spaces:. a.14,600 square ..foot ballroom on the upper:level;,a".4,600 squa.re~foot . flexible cohference room and a 1, 600 square foot'flexible break-out room orrthe lower - , -level. Each of these spaces will have the capability of .handfing~~different ~furictions. ' - _ 1 ~ V-2- , - Village Level PROPOSED VAIE. VALLEY' upper Level Vail Valley Plan El. +50 PERFOR1Vi~lVCE & CO1drr.~cE1VCE CEid 1<~ac Plan D. +70 P.:.."L....ance aad e ® ce D a ® PRELIll~lARI' IDESgG~1S - 4 C` Hotel Drop"Off ? - Shuttle l.ft) ~ ~I'~Pe 19~ 1,,~ - ~ t ~ Kitchen o t / Stage ~ ` a ~ - - Balcrony Level •a•• - Grand Ballroom ~ ` ` ~ r ~ s _ ~ ` , ~ Parking Garage ~ t ~ , ~ ter` Parking Garage I > ' ~ sa. ~ r ~ ~ # a, ~ A-Central Conference Room ~ ,a ~ a, ~ ~ a ~ i ~c ' - B- Side Confemnce Rooms ~ - C- Green Room ~ Dressinc Rooms Main Entrance Reheazsal Main Entrance ~ Shuttle Bus-Stop Shuttle Bus-Stop The Ballroom ~ ~ ' The 14 600 s uare foot main ballroom is located on the upper level. There.is some q pre-function area .between the ballroom and the theater balcony section. However, - primary pre-function space._is in the lower level lobby. °Access to the ballroom can be - accomplished either by use-of. the stairs .or elevator from the lower level, or directly from the upper level drop-off, area., ~ " ' ~ ' The ballroom is currently planned to be divided into four separate areas by means of high quality partitions. This will allow multiple functions to~be held simultaneously. - " fur her means of flexibilit we recommend the ,two=end sections be "further Asa t Y. 1 divided in half to' allow for six different spaces in the ballroom. Due to the size of ' ,groups expecting to hold meetings in the Conference Center; it is important to have the maximum flexibility possible. This will allow for concurrent meetings to be held " with a"maximum of break-out space. This was a repeated need expressed by meeting planners. in both the mail-out "and telephone questionnaires. . We recommend a ceiling height of 20 feet iri the ballroorri.." This is needed due to the size of the room, as well as the necessity of allowing for large projection screens and ,the ability to set up trade show exhibits. ~ - ~ " The ballroom should have an ample supply of power hookups to handle 110 and :220 volt electrical needs, as well as multiple projectors and_ other audio/visual equipment. Each separate room should have a retractable projection" screen and separate power sources for audio/visual equipment. - ~ ' " V~/e recommend the ballroom be of high decor quality, as numerous special events are expected to be held both by meeting groups and local organizations. Decor items should include chandeliers, wall sconces, high-quality wall coverings and attractive ' ~ V-3 " ` - - moveable'items.such-as podiums, stages and a portable dance floor. Lighting should include. both incandescent arid. fluore.s.cent fixtures. Chairs and tables should be of , ' ~ high quality and easily portable.. Rectangular tables will be needed-for meetings and round tables for banquets. ~ ~ - ' _ Conference Rooms ~ - r, ~ - The conference rooms a're -located in two separate spaces on the .tower level. ~ "fhe ' _ 4.,600 square foot space is currently designed to split into .as many as six break-out rooms via ,portable walls. This` room has access ,ori aal four's sides, which is ' appropriate. Ceiling heights should be .14-1~6 feet to accommodate meeting. needs: Each room should have ample electrical outlets-and at least one retractable projection = screen which can~,be viewed by a per'son'in any part of~the space if all portable walls - are~removed. Portable screens should be available; to ail rooms if portable,walls are. -The smaller 1,600 ,square foot conference ,room is ~desigried to, separate, into .three - :individual break-out rooms. Ceiling heights, should be at least 12 feet.' If is expected ~ , ' ~ ~ that this area will be used primarily--for break=out ,rooms. ~ ~ - - It is .critical that each-of. the lower,-floor rooms be accessible ~to food and beverage . service.: Since. the; kitchen is on the-upper level, this, .will ,require a service elevator: , ' ~ We high{y recommend a'holding kitchen.be~design.ed into-the tower level. This facility , - ` " ..should be .close. and convenient for'servicing'_the'lower -level rooms. - - ~ _ - - Public and Back-of the House`Facilities. , The preliminary schematic plan does not detail`the size of some public. facilities. such . as restroorris or cloakrooms. These facilities must .b,~e sized adequately to allow for V-4 ~ ; - . - - theater and conference groups of up to 1,000 persons. A cloakroom should be designed to be' used either on a ;staffed ~or non-staffed basis, depending on expected volume and weather. Adequate. public telephones should also be supplied. Back-of-the-house ,spaces appear to be short on storage for chairs, tables and equipment, although this is difficult to determine from the preliminary drawings. The loading docks are appropriately located, but should be screened from the upper dro - P off area. Having the kitchen on the main floor, adjacent to the loading dock is appropriate, but will require an. elevator and warming/service kitchen on the lower floor. The location of offices and dressing rooms near the theater on the lower level is appropriate, but care must be given to allow for adequate space for storage for the. theater, as well as the conference rooms. Parking in the Lionshead parking structure. should be adequate unless there are simultaneous events at the Performance and Conference Center and Dobson Ice Arena. IViost conference attendees are expected ~to be staying at local hotels, " minimizing the need for,parkng. _ ' Seating Capacity Seating capacity of the Performance and Conference Center has been calculated along industry standards for-each type of seating based on the size of the room. As currently planned, the following seating capacity is available for each space. V-5 ' ~ TABLE V-1 SEATING CAPACITY -VARIOUS CONFIGURATtONS _ - Theater, Banqueit Classroom 8.X" 10 Style ~ Style ~ ~ ~Stvle Booths Upper Level Ballroom-.. _ 14,600 sq. ft.; 20ft.~ceiling height. Divides •into four conference' rooms: 1,475. 1,1'50 81,3 88 ~ • Lower level Central Room ' , 4,500 sq. ft., "15ft. ceiling ~ - - ' height. Divides into six . , ,break-out rooms. 456 300 .210. ` _ 19 " Rooms.A,B,C&D - 600 SF ea. ~ " ~ 60 40 40 N/A ~ ' ~ " Rooms E&F - 960 SF ea. 1 15 75 75' ~ N/A Outside Room ` ~ ~ 1 1,600 sq. ft., 15ft.~ceiling height. Divides into three " break-out, rooms.. G, H&I - 520 SF ea. 60 40 40 ~ N/A ' Performance Theater. ' Orchestra Level - 600 fixed `seats - Balcony -Level - 350 fixed. seats _ _ - ~ RECOMMENDATIONS Overall; the Pe'rfor,mance and Conference Center" prE:liminary design appears to be adequate to service both performing arts events, as well as conferences of under b00 r ns. If simultaneous events are held'in the.theatE;r and conference center; there' pe so , _ could be problems vvith the groups overlapping for r,es~t rooms, telephones; etc.: Also; . sound attenuation must be carefully handled so the groups do' not disturb each other:. - - ~ . We recommend that all ,dividing walls ~in'the Conference Center be highly sound attenuated, including,baffeling between the ceiling, top and. the floor/roof structure ~ . , . above. Sound travels over the ortable walls Basil It is critical that when holding P y `simultaneous meetings, that the groups not disturb one another. It is likely that there will be some demand for ahigh-quality boardroom of 500 to 700 square feet, if this can be accommodated within the structure. If not; this type of meeting can be held at local hotels. It is more important to assure that adequate stora e, kitchen holding and rest room spaces are provided. 9 h of r nc Cen r will be critical. Stairwa and Accessibility between floors oft a Co e e a to y elevator capacity is not yet known, but the ability to get 500-800 people between floors in about 10 minutes is necessary. 1~II Almost all groups using the Conference Center will require space for breaks in the morning and afternoon: Thought should be given to the logical, location for these breaks to allow ease of access for both attendees and staff. This should include the capability of servicing two or more groups on each level. Generally, groups prefer to have breaks outside versus inside the meeting rooms. l'le 1 . V-7 _ y~a~. e.o~~a~a~ ~rv~~~s~s 1 VAIL LODGING ANALYSIS . This section will provide an overview of the Vail lod in market. The availability of 9 9 Y lodging accommodations will have a significant impact on the ability of the proposed conference center. to accommodate group business. Therefore, it is important to understand lodging market conditions in Vail. This analysis and discussion will be expanded upon throughout the report,- and will serve as the basis for' the following analyses. o Total room nights generated by the conference center and incremental number of room nights captured by the Vail lodging market. o Direct economic impact of the conference center in Vail. o Conference center effect on Vail area lodging properties. , SUPPLY The Vail Valley offers a wide variety of lodging facilities with varying quality levels. According to the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, there are approximately 4,300 short-term lodging units available within the Vail Valley including hotel rooms . and condominiums. Approximately 3,100 of these units are located in Vail, and it is estimated that 1,6.00 of these units are hotel rooms. As of the completion of our fieldwork, no additions to the~lodging.supply were planned. .Accessibility of the conference center to surrounding lodging and meeting facilities is expected to be a primary issue for meetingplanners. The following table shows the ` number of condominiums and hotel rooms within a two, five and ten minute walk of the proposed site. It should be noted' that there are several smaller condominium VI-1 , facilities which dare not reflected' in this analysis, as we could 'no t determine whether , . - these units are available for, short-term rental. ~ ~ - ` .1 - . . ~ ~ , ~ . - ~ - - ~ - _ ~ , , - _ ~ - , VI-2 - ~ ~ TABLE VI-1 ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN A TWO, FIVE AND TEN MINUTE WALK OF THE PROPOSED VAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE AND ` CONFERENCE CENTER SITE Hotel Condominium Property Rooms Units Two lU7inute b1/e/k ' Evergreen Lodge J 28 19 Lodge at Lion,shead 54 Vail International 24 Treetops Condominiums ~ 0 ' k 128 .107 Within Two Minute Wal ® five l89inute Wa/k Holiday Inn/Chateau Vail 120 ~.J Holiday House 22 Westwind at Vail 48 Lift House Lodge 42 Montaneros Condominiums 37 Vantage Point Vail 35 Landmark Condominiums 19 Scorptio Condominiums ~ 5 Within Five Minute Walk (Cumulative) 248 218' Ten HAinute NV®Jk Radisson Resort Vail ~ ~ 349 ~ Sonnenalp ~ 180 ' Lion Square Lodge and Conf. Center ~ 28 90 Antlers at Vail 68 Vail Village Inn ~ 60 Vail Spa 55 L'Ostello 52 Willows 2 45 Vailglo Lodge 34 Village Inn Place 25 Riva Ridge South 13 Enzian Condominiums 9 ' - Talisman Condominiums 6 • Meadow Vail Place 3 - River House - 3 Within Ten Minute Walk (Cumulative) 953 535 • ~ Source: Robert S. Benton & Associates and Hire &_Associates. VI-3 l . - , i As the previous table indicates there are only 248 hotE.l rooms and 218 condominium units within afive-minute~walking~distance of the proposed site. 'The Radisson~Resort- _ Vail, which,is the largest property in .Vail, is a 10 minute~.walk.through the Lionshead . Mall to the site. V1/hile the vvalk to the proposed facility/ would'~be pleasant on,asunny day, in a rain or snowstorm the distance 6e'tweeri:the-~n~eeting facility and surrounding lodging properties could be a problem. While the Vail. transportation system should 1 help overcome this`"issue somewhat., this -will likely, be an issue with meeting planners ~ considering the,.facility for Large" groups, as .well- ;as meetivng planners considering ~ ~ - - planning a meeting during a, time of~year when weather may be a concern. ' . ~ DEMAND ~ ~ S _ _ _ - In order to evaluate the lodging market,.-iriformation ~~ontained~in the report entitled ".Vail Valley Occupancy and Average ~ Daily. Rate Research, Study 1991-1992" was utilized. The report is dated "April, 1993 .and was p,~epared by TashiroMarketing and Advertising, lric~. This report provides a compilation of occupancy, average daily rate, . and market m'ixinformation for hotels and :condominium complexes loc~3ted ~ ' throughout the Vail Valley. In ad~dition,`interviews v`vith,v.arious lodging op,eratoi•s from throughout the Vail Valley_.were completed-.regarding trends in .the lodging market. - ~ `.8 . ~ During 1992, the Vail Valley experienced an occupancy rate of- 53.3 percent; -up . slightly from 5.3.1 percent. in. 199'1'. ~ Lod'ging properties in Vail~~ achieved a ~i4.1 ~ _ ~ percent occupancy in 1.992, compared tb 51.6 percent, for ,lodging, ,properties in Avon/Beaver Creek. Hotels in the Vail Valley: ach'ie:ved a 64.4 percent occup~rncy compared to 35.9 percent for condominiums. , ~ ~ , In terms of rate, the Vail Valley achieved an average daily rate ,of 5142.90 in 19.92, compared ,to` 5135.67 iri 1991. The. average daily rate for Avon/Beaver. Creek ~ " ~ properties was 5149.66, while Vail properties achieved a 5139.15 average daily rate. " ~ ~ VI-4. ' ~ ~ ~ Condominiums achieved an average daily rate of. 5190.95, compared to 5125.69 for hotels. Lodging properties in .Vail experience a significant amount of seasonality. This is demonstrated in the followin table which shows occupancy and average daily rate 9 statistics, for Vail properties during the year. ~ . TABLE VI-2 ~ . _ VAIL OCCUPAiVCY AiVD AVERAGE.DAILY RATE TREiVDS(11 Average Season Occupancy Daily Rate Januar -March 83.6% 5202.00 Y April-May 30.1 93.48 " n -Au 59.1 78.82 Ju e. gust . September-October 31.8 67.54 - - 47.3 159.48 Rlovember December Total 54.1 % 5139.65 11 )Reflects lodging properties within the Town of Vail r., Source: Vail Valley Occupancy and Average Daily Rate Research Study 1991-1992, April, 1993. Demand is strongest during the months of January through,March, which corresponds to the peak of the ski; season. Occupancy and average daily rates are at their highest levels during this time of the year.: Demand ,begins to decline in April due to the closing of the ski. area and does not pick up again, until June. The period of June through August~serves as a second peak for Vail lodging properties, although the level . ' VI-5 ' " ~ of demand is below that. reached.durrng the winter months. Demand begins to decline - in September, a good month for group meetings. Dernan_ d.continues to decline until . ~ the ski area o ens in late November when skier bec in vii p s ..l to s t the area.. - _ ~ ~ With the -variation i'n' demand throughout the year, ,the market mix of- the Vail . properties changes significantly. This is shown in the ,fol'lowirig table:, ' _ 1 , _ , TABLE VI-3 ~ . ' . - - : VAIL' MARKET MIX111 _ . . " . ~ ~ ~ Market Mix ~ - . - Season ~ - Occugancv Iniiividual~ Grouo " . . ~ - . January-March, . ~ 83.6% 65.9%` 34.1 % " April-May, , _ 30.1 59,.2 41.8 t~ June-August - 59.1 ~ 50.7 ` - , 49.3.: September-October 31.8 51.7 48.J November=December 45.3 75.6 24.4 ~ " ' ~ ~ 54.1 . 61.0% 39:0% - - . (1?Reflects lodging properties within the Town of~ Vail. ~ ' . ~ - r Source: Vail Valley ~Oc,cupancy and Average Daily Rate Research S1:udy . - ~ 1991=199.2, April, 1993., . - ~ ' - . On an annual basis, group business represents 39 percent of the total market demand r, for Vail lodging properties., For properties with substantial meeting space, market mix 1~ .is typically higher for group business than,for individuals. For properties with litt9e or - ~ ` . . - - - , ' no meetin s ace, rou business will be a very lovv percents e. This will also 9, P 9 P . 9 change by season. During the .peak winter season, the group market is a smaller percentage of total demand, due, to the high level of demand that is generated by individual travelers. As demand declines with the closing of the ski area, the group market becomes a' more im ortant element of the. market's lod in mix.. This P 9 9 continues during the summer season as well as in September and October when group demand accounts for just less than half of the business accommodated by Vail's lodging properties. During the months of November and December, group business lin r r i he number of ~meetin s Burin these months is low due . dec es at Vail p ope t es, as t g g. t"o the holidays. . r r . . VI-7 1 1 RESULTS OF SURVEYS - (MAIL AND TELEPHONE) INTRODUCTION ' As a critical and integral part of the analysis of market demand for the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center, we conducted two separate surveys of ,meeting planners. The first ,survey consisted :of a four-page mail-out questionnaire consisting of 37 questions related to meeting demand, use of resorts, design of the facility and likelihood of meeting planners to use the conference center. The second survey was-conducted .by direct telephone interview to assess the same issues, but in a more informal., non-statistieal.for.mat. The 'source for meeting planners to whom to mail the questionnaire came from "Successful Meetings Magazine'." The magazine is a recognized source for current information based on surveys they conduct for the magazine. Meeting planners were selected based on several criteria -which assured that meeting planners used resorts for meetings and held meetings of at least 200 attendees. The selection also required meetin planners to be based in locations which, are headquarters. for major 9 associations and corporations and are also major feeder cities for the overall' Vail iv . Th w II f r market. A list .of 2,882 meeting planners was rece ed. a list as cu ed o duplications and multiple coritacts in the same company. V~/e then. selected 1,500 meeting planners to receive the questionnaire. The telephone questionnaire survey participants were chosen from two sources: A prior solicitation of meeting planners was conducted by the Vail. Valley Marketing Board, which identified a group of meeting planners who had expressed interest in Vail . for meetings. This list, combined with the remainder of the "Successfu,l Meetings" VII-1 list was the source for the in ~ r i ~ se to v ews. , The meeting planners were carefully screened prior to being interviewed;. ~ - , ~ . The findings of these two surveys, are discussed in this section. , - ~ - . MAIL SURVEY Mail,Survev Methodoloav~ ~ : ' - I - ~ ' In order to develop a qualified mailing list of 1,500 mE;eting planners, we utilized the data"base of-"Successful'Meetings" IVlagazine, a publication.which is oriented toward ~ meeting planners and the meeting industry. The "Successful Meetings" "data base is developed by _an annual, .survey of their "readers "who fare asked to respond to ~ a ~ . - , questionnaire regarding the meetings that they plan.. I'n return for their responding to the. survey, the meeting planners. are, given complimentary subscriptions to.the publication. = ~ - V . . The "Successful Meetings" data base allows for fhe~utilization of pre-defined criteria - , J in order to develop a targeted listing of.meeting .planners. The following criteria was _ ~ , . .utilized to develop a: listing. of potential meeting planners to survey: • y Corporate and/or association meeting' planners; ~ . ~ ~ , -Meeting planners, based-'in the following stales":' New Yolk', New Jersey,' . ~ . Connecticut, Washington, D'.C., ..Texas", .Georgia, Illinois, ~ California and . ~ - ` .Colorado. 'IThese states are primary locations for meeting planners; ~ iVleeting~ planners who ~plan~ meetings,' incentive travel by groups; as well. as -trade shows and exhibits; ~ ~ ' " - ~ ~ ' • Meeting planners who prefer resorts; , _ ,l. . • Meeting planners""who currently meet or are considering holding meetings in Colorado; ~ ~ . ; ~ ~ - VII-2 " . ~ , ' ~ ~ _ . • o fVieeting planners who plan meetings with attendance greater than 200 people. Based on the above criteria, •a mailing list of 2,882 names was developed. The mailing. list was reviewed in order to remove name duplication, incomplete address, ' ~ 'and company duplications. If several people within one company'or association were on the mailing list, then the individual with the greatest responsibility with regards to meetings (based on title) was kept on the list, while the other names were ' removed. Out of the names that remained, 1,500 were randomly selected to receive the questionnaire. • ` • A copy of the survey and the accompanying.data on Vail and the proposed project are included as an addendum to this report. Bail Survev Results A roximatel 1,500 surve s -were mailed out. As an incentive to return` the PP Y Y questionnaire, five "Summer Get-sways" to Vail were offered, including two nights., lodging, one night's dinner for two and complimentary gondola passes. A total of 277 responses were received, a response rate of 18.4 percent. A response rate over 15 .percent, is, considered to be good. ,The following paragraphs summarize the results of our survey, while a complete copy , of the survey results can be found in the addenda to this report. Initially,. the survey asked the meeting planners to indicate the number of meetings they organize annually and how many of these meetings are held in resorts. The results of these questions are summarized on the following table: VII-3 1,i-: TABLE VII 1 _ NUMBER. OF MEETINGS ,ORGANIZED VS. . NUMBER OF MEETINGS ,HELD IN RESORTS ' .Number of ~ ; , r Meetings Number of - • ~ Number. Organized.. Meetings - . ~ ~of ' : 'On An • ; Held In ' ~ Meetinas ~ Annual Basis• Resorts ~ - , 0-2 8% 36% , 3-5 19% ~ ~31.% ' ' 1~ 6- 20 ~ 13 % ~ 5 % - ~ ;1~ More than 20 31 % _8% . 100% 100% Source: Robert S. Benton &.Associates an~~ Hire & Associates.. i ~ ~ 'The previous table indicates that~of the meeting planners surveyed, approximately 73 percent plan six~~ meetings or more' annually, -with 31 percent."'planning over 20 m in s_ er ear. In com arison '67. ercent of,the meetin tanners arras a less eet 9 P Y P P 9 P 9 than six meetings per year in resorts. This would indicate that the respondents to this - . , ~ ' 'survey ~pfan a large number of meetings, with, resorts. being one of several locations: they utilize. • - • . - ~ • • ~ - Th"e survey also..; looked at the number . of . members within an organization in • ' comparison to attendance afi resort ,meetings. :The results to these questions. are shown in the "following table:... ~ . ~ ~ i ~ _ . ~ VII-4 3 - TABLE VII-2 ORGAhIIZATIOf~! MEMBERSHIP VS. ATTENDANCE AT RESORT MEETIiVGS Number ~ Members Attendance of In at Resort . ~ ~ Members Organization Meetings 0-300 27% ~ 86% 301-600 13% 7% 601-900 7 % 2 901-1, 200 4% 1 1, 200-1, 500 11 % 1 ® Mpre than 1,500 38"% 3% - ~1 ~ 100% . ' 100% Source: .Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire ~ Associates. The meeting planners responding to the survey represent organizations with various ,size memberships, with 73 percent of the organizations having over 300 members. In contrast, 86 percent of the meetings planned in resorts have. attendance of less than 300 people.. This would indicate that resorts are typically utilized for meetings when only .part of the organization is in attendance. The survey asked meeting planners to .indicate the number of meetings they hold in a resort, by the purpose of the meeting:" The results to. this question are shown in the following table: ' VII-5 " ` . TABLE ,VII-3_ . , _ PURPOSE OF MEETINGS HELD- FN A~-RESORT.. ~ ,Percent - _ , ~ ~ - _ , of - . ~ Tvoe of Meeting .Total ; , ' ~ Conference or Seminar _ 44% - - Board Meetings' ~ 15 % ~ . . ~ Other * 15 ' ~ . ` . . Incentive ~ 13% Annual Convention 10% ` .Trade. Show 3% 'I00% ~ , . *Other - Re Tonal Sales S~ m osiums Committee Meetin s Source: Robert,S. Benton & Associates .and Hire & Associates. , - . - . _ Meetings that typically:attract the largest number of attendees are annual conventions .and trade shows. ~ As the previous table indicates, these types of meetings account . ' ~ . ~ for only .13 percent of the total meetings held -in : ~esorts.~ Resorts. are most often , . - ,utilized for. conferences or seminars which are targeted tovvards a,~more specific audience. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . Faeto`rs which,~are considered'_important in selecting a resort destir?atio'n in''vvhich fio' meet -were noted. by meeting planners. The results are. shown in the folfovvin,g table: ' _ ` VIl-6 .TABLE VII-4 ' IMPORTANT FACTORS IN ~ ' SELECTING A RESORT DESTINATION , Factor ~ lmoortance . Availability of one hotel in which all members can lodge and all meetings 'can be held 3.55 - ~Accessibility of resort from a major airport 3.38 Availability of summer recreational amenities such as golf and tennis 2.99 , Cost of transportation 2.98 - - Availability of sightseeing or additional activities 2.79 Availability of a wide variety of restaurants 2.75 Availability of a wide variety of lodging facilities 2.33 iVieetirig at a riationally-recognized resort 2.24 Availability of winter recreational amenities such as skiing ~ ~ , 2.03 ~ , Large, membership proximate to the resort 1.63 I<ey: 4 =very important, 3 =important,' 2' = somewhat important, 1 =not important , Source: Robert S.. Benton & Associates and Hire &,Associates. _ , The most important factor to meetirig ,planners is the availability of one hotel in which, all members are lodged and all meetings can be held. As resorts typically host smaller ,meetings, meeting planners anticipate that the facility they select will be able to accommodate their organization. This is particularly true for incentive groups, where ' . the meeting planner wants all of the attendees to have a similar experience. VII-7 . _ Accessibility of "a resort. from a major airport- and cost of transportation. are also , considered important factors iri selecting a' resort."destination in which to meet.:, These factors become more im~ ortant as the size of the rou ~ incre'ases as it becomes more - p 9 F ,expensive, as vvell•as more difficult to transport larger groups. , ~ ~ The availability of summer recreational activities such as golf: a"nd ~te.nnis facilities".'is also`considered''an important factor.. From the 277 responses received., 194 meeting planners. indicated that they. typically plan golf • tournaments; while 137 meeting' . , . planners indicated that they plan tennis tournaments. • The .availability of whiter recreational amenities .was not considered as important, 'as "fewer organizations-plan 'meetings around, skiing. ~ , " . . . Meeting planners ,were asked to indicate the average length of ~a meeting in a resort- ; and what is,the preferred day of arrival for a resort meeting". ;The results to fihese ~ ~ ' questions are detailed .below:' ~ - ~ ~ TABLE, VII-5 • AVERAGE LENGTH OF A" MEETING IN A RESORT , • . , No, ,Percent • . ~ " . : ' Davs. - Total ~ - ~ , , . , • '7 + 1 % . ~ , .Total - 100 % : ~ J . " " Source: ~ Robert ~S. Benton & Associates" and Hire Associates. J - - VII-8: f , TABLE VII-6 PREFERRED DAY OF ARRIVAL FOR RESORT MEETINGS ' Dav of Week Percent of Totaf o , Thursday 23 /o Wednesday 1 J% Sunday 17% Saturday 13% Friday ~ 12% ' ' Monday 9% . Tuesday 7% 100% Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates' and Hire ~ Associates. ' Seventy-one percent of the meeting planners surveyed indicated that the average length of a resort meeting which they- plan is three to four days. Mlid_-week (Wednesday and Thursday) are the most popular arrival days, followed by Sunday. This pattern is consistent with ,what is currently being experienced ~in Vail and other Colorado mountain resorts.. By planning amid-week meeting that lasts .into the weekend, meeting planners cari .take advantage of reduced airfares that result from ' attendees staying over .Saturday night and leaving Sunday. In ~ addition; fewer -workdays are missed when meetings last into the weekend. Meeting planners; were asked if they had previously held a meeting in a mountain resort. Sixty-six percent of those meeting planners responding to the survey indicated that they had previously met iri a;mountain resort. The following table indicates those mountain resorts utilized for meetings, as well as the percentage of meeting planners who indicated they had previously met in one of these resorts. VII-9 . _ TABLE VII-7 :PREVIOUS USAGE OF A MOUNTAIN RESORT _ ~ Percentage of - . ~ ~ Meeting Planners . who had Previously • ~ N1et in a~:Mountain Resort ~ - .Resort (11, . - ~ , -The Broadmoor . `4~E.% J Vail/Beaver Creek ~ ~ 3E.%- ~ ~ Keystone ~ . - ~ 28.% ~ ~ ' . ~ , ` Aspen 2'S'•% Snowmass 22:%~ . ° _ _ Breckennd.ge 21 - Snowbird ~ - 2C?% ~ ~ _ .Park City 1 ~I% , - Ja.ckson,'Wyoming 1,E?% ~ ~ Steamboat. Springs 14~% - _ • ' , ~ Durango , ~ 1 14'r%. Estes Park ~ ~ 1 CI% , Copper Mountain . ~ 9% (1) ,Based on°1.83 meeting planners who indicated`they'had previously used a mountain resort.' Respondents were allowed.'to indicate more thah one ~ • . location: Sou'rce:.. ~ Robert S.,Benton & Associates".and Hire & Associates. ~ ~ As-this'ta.ble indicates, 36 .percent of the ,meeting planners-who had previously met in a mountain resort, have met in .the Vail/Beaver .Creek area.- This is second only to the Broadmoor and is.indicatiye of the area's popularity as a meeting destination. , VII-10 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ . Ninety-eight percent of the meeting planners who had groups which previously met in a mountain resort, indicated that their organization would meet in a mountain resort in the future. Meeting planners were asked their group s attitude toward the use of a conference center. The results are summarized in the following table: - TABLE VII-8 ATTITUDE TOWARD THE USE OF A COiVFEREiVCE CEiVTER We would use a conference center if there was not a hotel with meeting and banquet facilities large enough to accommodate us. ~ ~ 43% We would consider using a conference center, even if a, hotel with meeting and banquet. facilities large enough to accommodate us was available.. 29% We .prefer not to use a conference center. 21 We.would always :consider using a conference center, regardless of the meeting facilities at other hotels in the resort. 7% Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire & Associates. Asthe previous table indicates, 36 percent of the meeting planners surveyed indicated that they would consider, or always consider using a conference center, while 21 percent would prefer not to use a conference center. Forty-three percent of the meeting planners surveyed indicated that they would consider using the conference center if there were not a hotel large enough to accommodate their meetings. Traditionally, hotels are the preferred meeting venue for meeting planners in resorts, due to the availability of guest, rooms and meeting .rooms in one location. In addition, VII=11 • ~ hotels .will typically not charge a-group for. its meeting spaice if they are using hotel • rooms and having food and beverage functions: • Factors ~,_which `are primarily considered. in a "meeting planner's decision process regarding conference centers include the cost of renting- the conference center, accessibility of the conference- . " - ~ . ~ ~ . ' center- to area hotels; and the facilities available at the conference center: - - ~ The meeting planner survey asked •questions,regacdiing the -specific needs .of ,their . groups for, meeting facilities, in- resort meetings. The meeting planners, were asked ' specific questions regarding~their general session meetings and the likelihood #hat.their groups would utilize the 950 fixed-seat theater. The results of these questions are ~ ~ , summarized in the following table: ~ ~ - . TABLE VII-9 . OPTIMAL NUMBER OF SEATS REQUIRED FOR.GENERAL SESSION:'. Number of Seats Percent off Total . 0-300 5.3'% - . 301=600 ~ . ~ 23% - _ 601-900 ~ ,1 ' ? . ~ 901-1,200 i _ _ ~ 1,20.1-1,500 ~ 1 • ~ ~ • More than 1,500 . - ~ F;°lo ~ • - ~ ~ 101) % , . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Source: Robert S. Benton Associates ,and .Hire Associates. ' . " VII=12 • - TABLE VII-10 ' SEATING CONFIGURATION -GENERAL SESSION Configuration Percent of Total Classroom 55% Theater 40% ' Banquet '5 100 % ~ ~ ~ ' Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire ~ Associates. . TABLE VII-1.1 ~ _ LIKELIHOOD OF USING THEATER(11 ' Likelihood Percent of Total ° .Very Likely 14 /o Likely 28% . Not Likely 58% ' ' 100% (11For general session meetings , -Source: Robert S. Benton & Associates and Hire & Associates. Of the meeting planners responding to the survey, 91 percent of their meetings require 900 or fewer seats for their general session meetings, and 95 percent utilize classroom, or theater-style seating. However, only 14 percent of the meeting planners indicated that they were very likely to use the theater for a general .session meeting, while 28 .percent indicated that they were likely to use the theater. The - .meeting planners are concerned in using a theater that it is too difficult for people to VII-13 _ ' ' I . ~ i getup and move around, as well as. the ability of a sm~311 desk to hold. working papers and drinks comfortably. ~ ' ~ ~ ` Other needs of ,-groups .which were ,identified in the imeetirig planner survey are as follows: ~ ~ ~ ° ( - . • Virtually all groups required break-out rooms for them meetings. Generally, the , ` - larger the group,~the more arid~largei• break-out: rooms.their group needed, ; • Forty-eight of the ~ meeting planners surveyed .indicated that their groups required exhibit space.. ~ ~ ' - • °Ninety-four percent of the meeting planners surveyed require food service at the conference ceriter..~ ° IVleetiri - tanners were asked !if."the meetin facilities fat the conference center are too 9P • 9 small for.their, group would they-consider using this facility -together with facilities at surrounding hotels. Theresults ~to this .question are summarized below.: ' ` TABLE VII-12 - . ~ ~ ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CONFEf3ENCE CENTER ; ' • ~ WITH SURROUNDING FACILITIES • . • V1/e would definitely .use the conference ~ " ~ ~ center facilities together, with the meeting - • ~ facilities at surrounding hotels:. ~ 9.% ' We would consider using °the conference ~ ~ ~ ~ ` . - center; 'together with meeting facilities, at ~ • - surrounding hotels. ~ ~ ~37% ' ° We would not use the conference center, as ~ . ~ • ~ . we prefer to hold alh-of our -meetings in one ~ ' ;facility, _ ~ ~ ~ 54% Source:, Robert S. Benton & Associates and Hire & Associates. ~ , ' ~ _ _ - VII-14 • .x ° - • As this table indicates, 54 percent of the meeting planners surveyed ihdicated that they would not use the conference center if 'it could not accommodate all there . meetings, while nine percent would "definitely use" the conference center, together with the facilities at surrounding hotels. Thirty-seven .percent would "consider using" the conference center, together with other facilities.- Factors that would be taken into consideration by a meeting planner include proximity of .the conference center to surrounding meeting facilities and the number of properties that the group would have to utilize. Vail, as a meeting destination, had a very positive response from meeting planners. Several pieces of information we're ~ provided on Vail .and the proposed conference center for the,meeting planner to review. The meeting planners surveyed were asked the question Based on the data provided for your review, do you feel that your group would have a~ preliminary interest in meeting in. Vail, Colorado?" Eighty percent of the meeting planners responding to this question indicated that they are interested in ® meeting in Vail. - Meeting planners were asked, "Based on the data provided for your review, do you .think that your group would have a preliminary .interest in using the proposed conference center?" Sixty=three percent indicated that they would have a preliminary interest in using the conference center for a meeting. Meeting planners were asked 'for what size group would they be likely to plan a rrieetin.g in Vail and during, what time of year. The result to, these questions. are summarized on the following tables: VII-15 : ~ ~TABLE.VII-13 • , GROUP `SIZE 'LIKELY- TO MEET 1N VAIL. - Percent , . Size Grouo' of ~ . ; - 'Total ~ - . _ - 0-300 ~ 760/ ~ , - - ~ 301-600 _ 15 ~ - ~ ~ ' ` 60T-900 6% . ~ 901=1,200 ~ 14°/0. _ : " _ ' 1,201-1,5;00 0%, , ' Over 1;.500 2 % ~ • _ (1) ~ Based on 24.0 responses.: Meeting planners uvere allowed to select~rriore. i . than one size group.. - - Source: Robert S. Benton & A'ssocia~tes and Hire. & Associates. ' • . . ~ ~ ~ , - TABLE~VII-1.4 J ' :LIKELIHOOb OF, A GROUP MEETING LN VAIL . . DURING-A SEASONAL TIME PERIOD . j . ~ LIKELIHOOD ~ ~ - Time' Period Verv Likely ~ Likely Not Likely January, February, March ~ - 19% ~ 36%, 45% _ ~ ~ ~ . April, May- - ~ 14% 39%. 47%. ~ - . June; July; August 31 45% 24% - September, October ~ ~ ~ 19% 44% ~ ~37% November,, December ~ ~ 7%. 26,%~ 67% Source: ~ Robert S.` Benton & .Associates. and Hire & Associates: - , . ; ~ .'.VII=16 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ' - _ Sevent -six. ercent of the meetin tanners indicated that the .would likel ~ book a y P 9P Y y ,meeting of 0-300.attendees, while 22 percent of the respondents indicated that they were likely to book a meeting "of over 600 attendees. The .summer months of June, July and August were the most likely time for a meeting planner to plan a meeting in Vail, while fVovember and' December were the least likely time. General Conclusion From Survev The mail-out survey to meeting planners indicates strong demand for Vail as a meeting destination. Survey respondents indicated a favorable response to mountain resorts and Vail was one of the most popular of those used. iVieeting planners indicated a desire to either try or definitely use the conference center, with a lower number indicating likelihood to use the performing arts theater: Overall, we.found demand for meetings is strong and increasing, with Vail. a popular resort i.n which to hold the function. ~ 7 TELEPHOiVE SURVEY Telephone Survev Niethodoloav The telephone survey differed from the mail survey. The same basic survey form was used, but meeting planners were encouraged to .expand their answers in areas where they had opinions. The source oft meeting planners interviewed was a combination of those not selected from the '`Successful IVieetings" list, for the mail questionnaire, and a listing of meeting planners who had responded to a previous mailing completed by the Vail Valley li~/iarketing Board. IViore than 100 meeting planners were contacted in tlie'telephone interviews. They were then screened down by,use of qualifying questions as follows: . VII-17 - r ~ :i A. Do they handle at least one meeting annually with attendance in excess of 300 people? ~ , B. Do the .have .at least one meetin of over 300. eo le in a resort- . Y 9. ~ P. P ) annually? . _ ~ , " - C. Have..the or are the lanriin a meetiri` in the Rock Mountain area Y, Y P 9 .9 Y within the next two years? - , . , - D. Are they interested aril v~iilling to participate in a questionnaire interview which. will last approximately one=half hour?~ . _ ' a~ E. Are they .familiar with Vail? ~ ~ - " " " ~ = Teleohone Survev Results, _ ~ ~ ~ ~ We completed interviews with. 32 qualified meeting ;planners: These planners were encouraged to: discuss their meetings`and~indicate rea.~oris for~successful meetings in , resorts , as well as failures. •In man.y cases, the reasons. behind the. p'roblems` encountered. were more important to the meeting planriec than the problem itself. For • the most part, meeting :planners had a few "c,ritical. issues"- which' they. v~~ere concerned about;. transportation, size of the group that would-meet at 'a resort; grid ~ • "under one roof" issues. , . The following paragraphs summarize the results of our telephone survey. A complete ~ copy of the survey- is included~in the addenda to this report. ~ ' . • Accessibility to .the resort is a major's issue with meeting planners for large groups. ~ . . Twenty=four out of.twenty=eight meeting planners with- groups over. 300 attendees' ~ indicated; concern about Vail's location. 'Most indicated that ground, transportation for groups becomes a.severe.concern the larger the group., When explained that Vail had . 2.', excellent ground transportation systems from Staple't~~n ~Airpor•t "for DIA) the meeting . - ~ ~ - ~ ~ VII-18 ~ , • ~ - ~ planners were doubtful that a lar a rou could be moved efficient) .The were also 9 9 ,p Y Y concerned about atwo-hour-ground transport time from Deriver to Vail. This would require attendees from the east coast to spend the entire day getting to the meeting. Many meeting planners responded that the ground transportation alone would cause , them to limit the size of groups brought to Vail to .under 300 persons. The meeting planners expressed considerable resistance to having meeting space in a different building than lodging rooms. They very .much prefer the "under one roof" concept and would be more likely to book a hotel with meeting space before the 'conference center. However, most meeting planners indicated that their groups are more flexible in resort settings than they are in urban or suburban settings, and might be willing to walk short,. distances if necessary. Only four of the 32 interviewed indicated they would use a conference center if a hotel with meeting space were available. ' ~ All meeting planners interviewed had held meetings• in resorts. The majority of meetings held were smaller meetings such as board meetings, seminars, educational and training and incentive meetings. Few held annual meetings or trade shows. In an informal poll, 90 percent of meetings were under 300 attendees, and 96 percent were under 600 attendees. The length of meetings in resorts averages about two days for small meetings (under ' 100 attendees) and three to four days for larger meetings (over 100). The majority of meeting planners preferred to start meetings on .V~/ednesday or Thursday and end on Saturday night or Sunday to take advantage of Saturday night stay airfares and missing fewer work days. VII-19 . , - ~ _ The seasonality .of meetings held was -very interesting with this group of meeting planners..- When asked the primary meeting months, the foilovving answers. were iven: 9 . ~ • ' Preferred 't Meet~ing~ ' Period ~ Period - . ' May- ~ 10 . - AIF Months • - 8 - Aug., Sept.; Oct. ~ 5 •June 4 ~ - July . 3 " `Jan, `March - 2 Feb., .Nov., Dec. ` • 1 A follow-up question asked most planners was-,the location of'their May meetings. , ~ . Almost all were held at beach or golf resorts.. ~ ' - ~ - • _ When asked. about:the• process ,use.d for selection of ~a resort, the most co.mrnon - answers were; facility availability,.acces"sibility and c~~st. "Meeting planners do a~ lot of "comparisons with various resorts in applying these selection criteria. In the case of Vail;" planners ..indicated that, attendees often would choose Vail over more ~ . ~ ~ _ ~ , - proximate resorts to-Denver due to their familiarity with Va'i 's reputation and .image. IVleeting space flexibility is a critical issue to .meeting"• planners. ,There must . be . ~ sufficient' space to meet'for general sessions, a separate: room for feeding. the group and ample flexibly- sized break=out rooms. - •Many, planners expressed concern about . concurrent meetin' s with other .groups if the space vv~ere not' designed~to handle this" 9 contingency. ~ R . . ~ VII-20 " . . ~ ~ • ' We received a considerable amount of concern from meeting planners about events in the performing arts theater. They are concerned about noise from both crowds and performances, as well as access and security•for their members and items left in the meeting rooms overnight. These issues will have to be addressed" if concurrent meetings and theater performances are planned. ~ - The use of the performing arts theater was discussed with meeting planners. Most indicated some level• of interest in using affixed-seat theater, but usually for either general session meetings, or a fairly short meeting, featuring a special keynote -speaker. Most meetings in the theater are likely to be of short (three to four hoursl- duration. - - Overall, meeting planners are very interested in meeting in~ Vail and many would seriously consider the proposed conference center. However, we received repeated comments from almost every meeting planner interviewed that the predominance of groups they would bring to,Vail would be under 300 attendees. We also found a number of meeting planners who would be interested in participating in forums to help design the space. Many negative comments were heard on the flow and space utilization at existing conference centers they have utilized. The last major concern of meeting planners dealt with cost. With few exceptions, the meetings. planned are under budget constraints. Meeting planners are always concerned with attendee transportation, lodging and meeting costs. Most are not willing to pay for meeting space - "Why should we pay .for meeting space in a conferences center when hotels give it to • us for free?" Competitive hotels and conference centers expressed the same~_issues, stating "Our meeting space is our • largest negotiable item when room rates are discussed,." VII-21 " - Meeting planners typically.look at the cost of the meeting for attendees separately from transportation and; lodging. They ~ must establish the cost of the meeting to attendees early on in the. planning process, so expenses for. meeting space and food functions must be known: ' Meeting ..planners in our interviews indicated attendees often. utilize condominiums at ~ . resorts. .The meeting -planner generally" sets ; up 'the headquarters hotel, then lets ' " attendees: make their reservations wherever they ,wish. Several meeting planners indicated they"send alternative lodging brochures to prospective attendees. In.some - groups,"as many as TO to 15"percent of attendees will opt.for-non-headquarters hotel . ~ lodging. ~ , - . ~ ~ - .The use of condominiums by meeting attendees was rather sui-prising. Of the meeting " .planners interviewed; 55 percent indicated that at If;ast some part of their groups ~ ' meeting in resorts usecondominiums. ~ With the n,urnber of available condominium units -within a short distance. of the proposed conference center,, vve.,would expect ' some condominium rental, which should, increase as groups begin"to` return to Vail for subsequent meetings. ~ , ~ ~ " ~ ~ . : ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ , ~ ~ . ~ VII-22 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • , -1 : ~ - s~c~a~~a vaao 0~~49E~ 9~9d~A~TBh~G ~~E FtESOR~ N1flEE"~9B~BGS 6~9Psf8lC~'~ i 1 1 r r ISSUES IMPACTING THE. RESORT MEETINGS MARKET During the course of our research and analysis, several issues were found that , influence a meeting planners selection of a resort destination in which to hold a meeting. In the course of o.ur interviews with meeting planners, we discussed these issues in order to evaluate how they might influence a meeting planners selection of Vail. as a meeting destination. We also discussed these issues with hotel and conference center operators in the Colorado resort market, to see how they handle these issues and how they impact demand. It should be noted that a meeting planner is judged by the "success" of the meetings they plan. Therefore, it is in their best. interests to minimize risks in order to enhance the likelihood that their meeting will be a success. ~ . The following .paragraphs will discuss the issues that affect the resort meeting market: Accessibility - Accessibility of a resort to a major airport is a primary concern of meeting planners in selecting a resort destination in which to meet. A majority of meeting planners indicated that a 100 mile drive, or a two to two and one-half hour transfer time between the airport and the resort, .would be a major drawback to their planning a meeting at that particular resort. As the number of attendee"s at a meeting increases, our interviews indicated that a meeting planner's concern about this issue becomes stronger. The primary concern of meeting planners regarding accessibility is the amount to time it takes for attendees to travel between their origination point and Vail. For attendees from the east or west coast, they would have to travel six to - seven hours one-way, including flight time, transfer to ground transportation and drive ! / VIII-1 - ~ - ' r ~ time,tietween Denver and Vail. Other issues of concE;rn to meeting planners include . the coordination 'of ground .transportation for large groups. arriving from. a .variety of . ~ on inations at different times, `as. well as obtainin ood attendance for meetin s 9 99 9 , when an attendees participation" is voluntary, and accessibility is perceived tc~ be" difficult. - While several meeting planners indicated that th"e distance of Vail from the Denver - airport would preclude.them from using Vail as a meeting destination, others;indiceted ' . " ~ - . ` , that they would either use `Vail only for smaller meetings when accessibility is' not a major concern, or would first ,try Vail with a smaller imeeting,: and depending on the experience, would consider bringing a- larger group tc~ the area: ~ ~ ~ . Our interviews with hotel and~conference center operators indicated that accessibility is an initial concern of meeting. planners. However, it become less of an issue once a.meeting planner understands how'the .resort is accessed and experiences the "drive. The' scenery of th'e. mountain and. the resort. itself tend to off-set the accessibility issue. While accessibility becomes. less of. an issue, , it does .influence the. decision- ~ . ' making ,process of a meeting, planner and is expectE:d to 'continue to influence the. ability of a resort, .such as Vail, to attract ,large .groups. ~ _ - ~ Cost of Transoo~rtation _ - . ~ ,Associated with the accessibility of the resort, is the cost of, transporting attendees" - ` between the airport`in Denver. and Vail. Due to the distance between Denver and 'Vail, ; ~ " " ground transportation expense may be significantl~j :higher than -.what "a meeting"~ " ' ~ planner "is used .to paying. The larger the group, ahe~, more :significant grc?und transportation expense will "be.,, As .this is not usually a major experse,.~meeting; planners are not typically that concerned". However; when ground transportation,does " VIII-2 ~ - ~ . u " - , . , become a significant expense, it is perceived'as an unusual ex ense that makes a P meeting destination more costly. Our interviews with hotel and conference center operators indicated that this is a difficult issue fo'r them, because they do not have control over the ground transportation operator. The meeting planner is typically encouraged to look at the total trans ortation 'cost, includin .airfare and round trans ortation. P 9 9 P - Seasonality ~ - While the months of April, Niay and October are typically popular months for groups to hold meetings on a national level, these have never been very strong periods of demand for the Colorado-mountain resorts. This is primarily-due to the uncertainty of weather conditions in the mountains during.these months. If a meeting planner is going to bring a group from outside the region, they want to be reasonably certain ' that there will be good weather. IViany resort meetings include outdoor recreational activities and these events are difficult to plan if the weather is,unpredictable, or the area amenities are not'avaitable. Due to the cost of.holding a meeting (includ.ing transportation, lodging, meals, 'etc.), meeting, planners from outside the region are very hesitant to even consider holding a~ meeting ~in Vail, or other Colorado mountain resorts, during periods of uncertain weather conditions. Due to the limited number of visitors to-the resorts during the months of April, iViay . and October, many businesses close: This tends to reinforce in the meeting planner's . eyes-that the resort is.not "open for business." IViany resorts experience this business cycle and it is ,very difficult to change. Due to low occupancy levels in the shoulder seasons, the booking of only a few meetings can have a very positive impact~on room, food, beverage and retail sales. The.resort does not have to be full every night to receive .positive economic impact from groups. This perception can usually be VIII-3 ' gradually changed if, business remain open and demonstrate to meeting planners and attendees that 'there is'a level of resort "activity. ,Our interviews with hotel and . conference center operators indicate that they prirriarily. target in.-state demand - sources or price=sensitive groups during. these periods: - .Meetings Coritairied in One Facility-~ - - - For larger groups, the availability of one facility that c:an accommodate all.-meetings `and exhibits is a `primary issue of concern.. This issue is used by many meeting planners to eliminate potential meeting sites from consideration... While meeting planners may consider using several .meeting facilities, the primary issues, they will consider in making this decision include the proximity of the meeting. facilities to each ~ ~ ~ . - other and the number.,of properties they will need to-use. ;Generally;~the-closer the meeting facilities are. to each other, the more acceptable this, becomes to~ a meeting planner.. In addition, as th-e number of meeting facilities needed iricreases; the. less - ' ~ acceptable this becomes to a meeting planner. -Meeting planners."have several concerns, regarding the- use. of several meeting sites. These are outlined below: ~ - , - - ~ " • Attendance .tends to~ decline at break-out meetings, as .attendees -become, distracted as they travel between meeting sites. Iri addition, many attendees .arrive late and distract the meeting-once it~-has started. ~ . - It _is, difficult to~'schedule meetings; as~travel tune' between meeting sites must` ~ _ tie taken into consideration. , • During periods of inclement-weather, it will become inconvenient for attendees to travel between meeting sites. - - . - ~ - ~ ~ Meetings which have exhibits typically. depend on, e:K,hibitors to' rent exhibit space, which raises~.funds t'o help off-set,the cost of a meeting..Exhibitors require space that ' -;VIII-4 ~ . " - ~ ~ ~ is easily accessible to all attendees. If a meeting is divided among several facilities, or the exhibit space is not easily accessible to the attendees, exhibitors' attendance will decline. Thus, the meeting becomes less informative to attendees and less profitable to the meeting organization and exhibitors. Our interviews with hotel and conference center operators indicated that meeting planners are typically not willing to use a variety of meeting facilities unless they are attached or adjacent to each other..Vllhile a meeting planner may use guest rooms at various properties to house attendees, or an evening function may be held in another facility, meeting planners are generally not willing to split the day time meetings into various properties unless they are proximate to each other. In the past, meeting planners have requested the ~ use of Dobson ice arena for meetings and exhibit space.. Dobson is located adjacent to the proposed performance and conference center. ,Use of this facility for meetings causes significant inconvenience to persons wishing to use Dobson for its intended use; an ice arena. Of the 7 2 events, covering 42 days of meeting use of Dobson in 1992; eight of these events may have been able to be held at the performance and conference center. While requests for the use of Dobson for meetin s is not like) to sto 9 y p, the availabilrty of the performance and conference center should curb some of the demand. . i VIII-5 - ~~S~~B C06~FERE9~C~. C~N~EF~ ~~~1s~9'L6E~ CO~A~~."d6~9l~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 COfVIPETITIVE RESORT COIVFERfNCE CENTER FACILITIES • IIVTRODUCTIOiV In orderto evaluate existing and•potential market demand for meetings in the Colorado iVlountain resorts, ~ potentially competitive conference- centers and 'hotels with extensive meeting facilities were interviewed. Consideration was given to resort conference~facilities and hotels outside the state. However, our interviews indicated that the unique attraction~of the mountains, as well as the image of Vail and Colorado 1 as a meeting destination would limit the extent ~to which meeting facilities outside the state would compete with the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center. Our - research indicates that meeting locations are most often selected based on the , amenities available. in a specific location'such as mountains, sun, water, golf, skiing, etc. - . . Another factor considered in our selection of potentially competitive conference •facilities is the large number of in-state meetings which use the mountain resorts as meeting sites. A significant percentage of overall meetings held in resorts come from in-state associations, cor-porations and other organizations. This tends to limit the competitive position of out-of=state meeting facilities. Therefore, meeting facilities outside the state are considered secondary competition to the subject: , COiVIPETITIVE COiVFERENCE AIVD RESORT FACILITIES ~ ~ ~ Selection of potentially competitive facilities within the. state.was completed based on our interviews with ;meeting planners, operators of resort conference centers and resort hotels with extensive meeting facilities and our knowledge~of the competitive Colorado resort market. Criteria used for selection of competitive facilities include the • ~ • . ~avai1ability of ari~extensive amount of flexible;.first=class,~meeting space;. reputation,of : . . ' the resort and; an:established history of attracting group meetings .from within and . outside the state, particularly during th'e non-winter- monfhs.. . - The hotels and~c of r n,~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ o e e ce centers analyzed as potential competition all currently hold . meetings .which could potentially be 'attracted to~.Vail.,~ Where hotels~have~~iimited meeting ,facilities, such .as Breckenridge, the hotels combine -forces ~ (due to. `their , ~ 1 proximity to each otherl~to. market, and house aarger meetings: ~ Our interviews vvith operators as weil.as vvith:meetin ~ lanners~:indicate'th~at°each oteritial com etitcir~'is 9. P P . P considered, along witii.Vail-properties, as a meeting di,stination by meetirig.plann~rs. ,The' following meeting facilities are considered to be.representative of the market in which the proposed Vail'Valley~ Performance and Conferenc.e~Center will compete and ~ - have, been included- in our analysis of .potential, market, demand'. - . ..1 TABLE fX-1 ~ ' COMPETITIVE IViEETIIVG FACILITIES Facility - Location • The Westin Resort. Vail, Colorado Radisson Resort Vail - - Vail, .Colorado Sonnenalp Hotel Vail, Colorado: . Manor Vail Lodge - Vail, Colorado Hyatt RegencyBeaver Creek . Beaver Creek, Colorado The Broadmoor - 'Colorado Springs, Colorado ~j Keystone Conference. Center Keystone, Colorado Keystone Lodge - Keystone, Colorado • Snovvmass Conference Center Snowmass Village, Colorado Copper Mountain~Resort Copper Mouri'tain,, Colorado Beaver Run Breckenridge, Colorado . Breckenridge Hilton Breckenridge, Colorado Village at Breckenridge ,Breckenridge, Colorado , , Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and. Hire ~ Associates. Based upon the criteria established for the evaluation.of competitive meeting facilities, several resorts have not, been, included in our analysis: Steamboat Springs, Crested ` Butte, Telluride, Durango, Estes Park and Aspen: Steamboat Springs and Crested Butte were not included in the competitive analysis as their remote locations and limited accessibility I'imits the size of m, eetirigs these resorts attract, as well as their ,`ability to attract out-of-state meeting demand during the non-ski season months. Te,lluride's ability to attract ,group meeting business is.limited by its accessibility and limited meeting facilities. _•While Duran o has several lar a meetin facilities such as 9 9 9 the Red Lion Hotel and Tamarron Resort, it vvas not included in the analysis as .more IX-3 - - " - ` tliari 75 pe.rcent~~of the meetin demand emanates from Texas .New Mexico and ' 9 _ , , southern Colorado aril much- o•f this business drives to Durango:. Our, infervievvs . ~ ~ "indicated that many•of these groups would not select" Vail as a meeting destination due~to its driving dista~rice: Estes. Park was,:not~included in the-analysis as vi~rtually~ all , of its meeting business is derived from state associations. In addition,, its meeting ~ pattern is opposite~of Vail and other~rriountain~resorts: Estes.~Park offe~s.significant,ly - ' discountetl rates during the winter months in, order to`attract' rou ,s.' Durin .the • g P 9 summer, the conference center does not accept, group business as all of ahe'lodging • ..properties .fill -with. ~tourists.~ . ~ ~ , - . ~ . ? - Notably absent from. our. listing of. competitive meeting facilities ace properties in •Aspen. `;Our research and. arialysis~found.that~•due to meeting space limitations prior • ~ ~ ' to the opening of the Rltz-Carlton Hotel, Aspen prima,rilly.~attracted .groups; of-less than - 75 atten.dees:; ,Some-•.larger meetings ar`e held throughout the~town and return year after°year. Due ao the limited `.meeting facilities, Aspen was not considered .to be ' ' competitive for: larger meetings: With the opening. cif the Ritz-Carlton,Aspen ,will , • ~ ~ ~ • • become more competitive. for larger meetings: However, due to its recent' o.pening;~ ` • the -Ritz-Carlton- Aspen has not been included in the historical analysis. ~ ' • ~ • The.following section provides adescription of.the^VaiJ. Conference Market: This• will • , be followed 6y. a discussion of competitive resorts around the state. , VAIL CONFERENCE•MARKET ~ ' ~ ~ - . - Vail ;offers-a: wide variety of facilities ,in~which ,to hold-meetings: The maj~ority.of~ meetings ufiil~ize the meeting. space located `within. urea hotels ,and condominuum- ~ complexes. Vail Associates. offer. several facilities on: Vail Mountairi~ and within the ~ . day lodges which. are available for. meetings, as well-as special events.. _ 'I P rf m n an nferen a Cen er is ex ected to attract. The proposed Vai Valley a or ace d Co c t p ,meetings which are larger than the existing supply of meeting facilities can accommodate, ~as well as compete for smaller meeting groups. In our analysis of supply and demand, we have identified four hotels in Vail~~with extensive meeting facilities that are representative of the meetings market for which the subject property is expected to compete. A map showing th'e location of each property in relation to the proposed performance and conference center can be found on the following page. The properties and the meeting space dimensions are shown. in the following table: TABLE IX-2 ~ - VAIL VALLEY PERFORiVIANCE ARID CONFERENCE CENTER COMPETITIVE IViEETING FACILITIES ® ~ IN-VAIL. COLORADO ~ . : ~ Dedicated Meeting and Banquet Space ` Map ICev Meeting Facility ~ Total SF Laroest SF 1 Westin, Vail ~ 15',260 5,880 2 Radisson. Resort Vail 13,356 8,556 3` The Sonnenalp ~ 8,214 4,265 4 Manor Vail ~ .6,625 6,625 Source: Robert S. 'Be.nton ~ Associates and Hire. ~c Associates. , The followin ara ra hs rovide a brief descri tion of these facilities. 9P 9 P P P The I111~s~®~r F1~®® has the largest, amount 'of meeting `space in Vail, with the total of 15,260 square feet, including two ballrooms. , The_ Centennial Ballroom is the hotel's . IX=5, . . ~ ~ _ _ . ~ , largest with 5;880 square feet of space which.is divisible into six meetin rooms.. "-~he~ ' . 9 • Cascade Ballroom contains 3,380 square feet and.cannot be sub-divided. 'The Westin offers. an additional. 6,000 square feet of meeting space that can be broken down to • ~ • provide 12 additional meeting rooms. T.he Westin also' has.access to a 263 fixed-seat theater and a smaller 7~5-seat -fheater during the- day.' • . ~ ~ ~ , The Radisson Resort Vail has the market's largest ballroom,with .8, 556 square feet of space; which, is very flexible ~arid can be divided into 110 separate meeting rooms., ' A. , second ballroom in the hotel offers 4,400 square ;feet: of meetin s ace that can be 9 P divided; into four rooms. While alf of the •meeting.•space a,t'the Radisson Resorf Vail is located in two .ballrooms, the s ace is extreme) • flexible arid can h n' I _ p y a d e a. variety of groups:. - ~ ~ A.. ~ ~ ~ The, Sonnena/p contains a total of 8,214-square feet of dedicated meeting space:, The ballroom at the Sonnenalp contains. 4,265 square feet, which ~is. divisible into six. rooms..• The rerrmaining meeting space is located in .five meeting rooms. A patio.'and ; t • tent-is:.available,for food".and beverage functions. ~ • ` " Manor Vai/offers a total of 6,625 square feet of d•ed~icated meeting space, which cari open out~into one large meeting room. Through the use of divisible walls,.,the ,meel:ing ' ~ • . room can be divided into a total of six separate~'meeting .rooms. • , ` - The' •Hyatt• Recency Beaver Creek ~is not included in this- analysis of ~Vaif hotels with - ~ ~ ,meeting space., Principally, this is because of the 12=mile distance between the Hyatt _ and the proposed performance and conference center. The Hyatt is too'-far to even' be'~"considered .as ~a headquarters hotel,. "or as ;,an adjuncf meeting room: site .for . meeti'~ngs held in the conference .center.. It is .expected 'that fhe" Hyatt Beaver Creek. :will. be both a competitor with and-benefactor from the conferencecenter. ;The i:wvo ~ ~ .should .compete for meetings under 300 attendees. ~/hen•the~conference:center fills, IX_6 , . ~ ~ . • - _ ~ a a a ~ s v s T s 9 10 13 1a 13 14 1s 16 » 19 19 ao a1 as a3 as as as ar ae a9 ~Oe1IDr~~7 ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ Vas IV MN/ 3 ~ ~ . ~Ohl~ ~Q~ m a ® 7v , ® Tennis ~ lNLL~a!E t= Gerald A. Fwd ~ ® tPte v PaAr ~ ~ ®0~ 5N9 P ® Vail qtl \ ~ Faor.~,_ Alpne Frae"asa,`~ ® ~ ®q ~'~®~I 1 \ _~°°ee qa ` 6.0®R7$0-0EEa~ ~q Ten,,;a p ~ _ _ _ 06ore C~ ~s Pedest^an M{ ~d°y' ice. J ~ FOraSt qtl. ~ ~ ~1. T--'(y~rW' C~~~~~` ®Q` ® ~ y~ ~a~r ~ G] Fa~~i71.= - Gwe(~" Fro ~ ~ " ~ , ® ~ P,~ ~ $ Tennis TO East y . n~Ds q~tl Or ® D~ ® Gore Cr § ~ ® ® ~ J~~ 0 ~ ® '0a e f Ceeaver d " rk _ ~ Tennis ~ t nBC Cnddren s reres rl s rr,y~Yei1 Visitor C ~ - - o ~l ~ Gts~ 4,0~ T r16D Bullang r9 edgy e]Ifer - 6 P~ rJ 3 NI Seasons d-b ~ ® ® ~ ` ~O 141 `b 5 ~ / 0 Nphorn g 13 39 Golden Peak House d9 ~ ® ~ v ® s ~ ~ ~ ~ a~g 1.~ S Npne $LVWafd q12 40 Gonad., &Wang R20 _ l~ S~ 6 NUkr's a[ Vau 1-22 01 Gore Creek Pkaza Bldg a-10 at+ ~ ~ ~ tOG~ 7 Apotlo Park Ib 09 Hang CM ~YOU[h Ceruesl k19 Q y+ e /ispm tree r26 02 Hdla y House g~ 12 EXIT 178 ®®He6pon~ _ Eesl LWnWbed G. 4 ~ ~ _ed ~~a Cf ~ ® ® ® 1 9 Betl Tower &IX]. e"9 43 Homestake COrld01 i-29 vv//r// a P~ 10 Bishop Part Condos r I I 00 John Dobson Ice Here R I b ~ ~ ~ _,,,usd ~ L' 11 &eak.Yway West R27 OS Larsamak h-21 73 Ramshan Condos db ~l ~Mormelron godh ~ •-.st`F10~"®- Ppy~"1~ ~Q' QS I Z Brroge StreH &09 r9 06 Uhfsouu lodge R20 79 Rea Uon Slog r9 lp" 13 &oolaree r27 38,68,40.136 LIII TukH Ofnces 7S Red SandNOnf SCIwW j"27 / 10 Caxade Ck1D r2g 69 c"6 h-20, e27 76 Rrw Rr~e North a-1 I n7erstate ~ fast Inrerstare ~ ~ ~O as ~J~ 1 S Caxar,e Crossrg 1-27 07 l,onsNeaa Ncaae h20 I7 Rrva Rr a South d-I I ~ _ I'! , ~3' I6 Chateau VarVHdraay Im g 13 48 lx,nsHrad Ceruer g"20 IB Rlver Halu r I I 100 Telemark n28 1 7 Chnsture at Val tr8 09 UonsHeaa Parkusg Structure t 1 g 79 Rucksxk &nlWrx3 r9 101 lr.as Townhouus d 5 rs 7 8 CMxk Tower aby e-9 SO Lgnsqure Lodge b CoN. Ctr g21 80 Sandstone Creek Club 1-28 102 limber R,dye ConOUS q"29 123 WA Trans West r7 ~ $/~~®$T®Id~ 19 Cola Stream Condos tr29 51 lions Marx Bldg r29 81 Sandstone 70 r26 103 Irvub Lodge a 7 120 wd Trmp,nxlm Ceruer t8 20 Cdaado MauWnn Cdlege r28 S2 Lwns Pnde Bldg h~20 82 Sandstone Park Condos i-27 100 town of Val Munlclpal Compeu/ 12S Wn 21 &uldurg RIO 129 Cdorado Sb Herdaye CO g9 S3 Lodge at UonsHeaa R I B 83 Scorpo h- 19 Val Pd¢e Departrnrnt R N 126 Van Valley Hmp 6 Mcd Ctr q I S 21 Con<en Flae Roza RIl SO Lodge at VaY d 10 80 Simba Reson g1B 105 Lrelups fire 132 Vad Vatlry iwnsm WEST VAIL 22 Cornce /.panmenls f-7 SS LoAye Tower 0-10 gS Sitimark r 10 106 lyrulran Curdus (b b Convrnbon Burra<I I" I I 23 Covered Brrage &dg r9 56 L'Ostello rI3 86 Skod Han 14 107 U 1 BLlck lieu Im S rr ~4a. ~~$T ~?AAI~. 24 Crrekstle Buibn a-9 4 Isprr E.xgle Vaery Sanu.ttan t25 I Z) Vad VlUaye Inn q-I Z -q,A 9 S7 kharsor Val tr4 87 Skr C.IUD Val bq 1 OB V,xl Nnoco SCitron FIb 124,49,08 Val Vnlluri Crntrr b j 9th mono h ® ~uw qo4 ®b 4 W • <.r 2S CIOSN03OS Curler gl l 58 Meadow V.all Place f~ l 3 39,68.00 Sh S<R,ds Val Assoclaes 109 V.ul Assoc mutt b wl ns R25 buunnalrar Noah g10. r 1 g, y9 0 Corwco to 120 Cumn Hrp Sports tr9 S9 Mtll Creek Court Bldg a-g try. tr9 R20 00 V:ul Atwralln Ofl,<et h LO 128 V.uniyr Puun Vad r20 r4 ® ® ? ~ 26 Cyrara's Bularsg d8 60 Mtll Race Condos e"IB 88 Slder Buncung e"9 1 10 van Nhlrh,. C.hru L Hotel 17 129 Vnla Conma F 13 S Eagle Parxe ® S 27 Eoerwens e l l 6 Mamolti Slreamside ® N qa 61 Monuneros h21 a9 Snow Fo+ RIg 1 11 Valyw l utx3r I. ZL 130 Vnla V.'tlha4i trI ) McDorwldi y ® r'U.4u 2g Erul:n Corsdos R23 62 M[xuuam Haus 1~8 90 SnOWkcul ~2g 112 V.ul L;arw.ry H.v., g I! 131 Vnlayr Ceruer Corubs 1~1 D 8 Park Meadows Lodge ® IS 29 Everryeen Hotel R I S 63 Nature Center c I 91 Sola Van i 10 11 3 Vall mtrrfauh Chysrl e"12 132 VALrgr Inn PLStJ 61 I 9 Philk s bb t2 ~ 30 Fur $L]Ign 1-13 60 North Woods Condos R3 92 Sonnendp Auslna Maus 1~9 114 Van Intrrnmm~~l r I6 133 Vnlayr lm Pla]a Condos g 1 1 10 Rarmgars Townhouses ®sa ® 17 rU ~ 31 Hnt B:mk d Vad 112 65 CMd Gwr Creek Sahool House c-2 93 Srnuunalp Bavau Haul P I2 115 V,ul Nawrtid Hlnk h I9 134 Vurlaader e" 7 t~ ® U re re 32 Fora Park Trms Center e2 66 OW Town Sh Bb 126 90 Sonnrn I 1 Roou Lodge uFs 9 ap twos Chalet FI I 116 V,nl PlWrtsuxsa Bklq 116 135 w.m Sorel Wdy 69 12 Saleway 33 Gsrden of Ilx• Goss a-7 67 Clnr vat Plxe d9 95 Spatdr Creek R9 117 V;ul PuWlc Udary y 17 136 Wr>bn Hotel r27 13 Llbn Townhouses 34 Lilstof Gramxummrr r9 68 P b R &ukunq r9 126 Steadman Hawgns Clusx g~ I S 1 17 V.ul Rrurauon Dlsvut y 17 137 Wrst Vlrw h 26 14 ll/nied Slates Posl Olrlcr 35 Gerald R Ford Nnphnheaue d-2 69 News Del Nonr Ri 96 Summers lodge r I O 1 18 V.w Row Hnutes r"B 138 westwlnd at Van r21 1 S Val Das Schone _ 36 Glen Lyon Office Bldg r~2 7 70 Plata Lodge a9 97 SunDlyd Uxkjr h-11 1 t 9 van Hun Reson g-Ig 139 wmows tr I I 16 West Val l udge 37 Golden Peak ClvlarenS Skrug Ctr. 05 71 Pat.uo Pa<h Club r2S 98 Sun Van r23 121 Van lpl h"74 100 Wren Condos e_q 17 West vau Mail 38 Golden Peak SW Scrsod d5 72 Ra6sson g~23 99 ianrrun CunWS f-I I 122 V11 ir:nls C.nt rb 191 Mnrsnure Gue y 20 18 West Val Truaco 19 Wendy"s GOLF COURSE/ In-Town Shuttle Bus Routes ® GOLpF~ CO'pU~RSE EAST VAII East eo Wese g 9 ®u. u~7 ~~.y~ I:/1dT ®/YL .s"„g,,, W G 1 BrykHlfn Rerll.tlt G„Ick 1, Pr.,k T /~~yf s u,,,,i,,, 2 Past Van Rencds ~ s,.~~~,.q.m Van lronyxutnwn Center/Covered Br e s"""w" Fro ,w~u\. V-. 3 F.nlndye Crmsroan>/LOdyr :u VaA ~ ( 0 Falls at V.ul VYCrge Inn Hara7lntedarth CAapel Y u' i ~ ~ m`®, / ~ .n 5 Rtk,n Creek Townnouses sal Vdlry Medl<al Cerxer S~ ~~~r« 6 TrmberlaUS TOURISM CONVENTION BUREAU Oo[non 1•-e Nenl/Llor,uy rww 7 Vail Gull Course Ckrbnouse 8 Val Mounlam Scrwol LwnsMrad Varkusg Struclwe 9 Van Racquet Club Radnson Hewn Vad Corxrn Itae Nata . - ' ' and other hotels with meeting space in =Nail are full, the Hyatt Beaver Creek is expected to be the .next logical choice for meeting planners. V The meetings mix'.for the four Vail properties analyzed is estimated to be 30 percent association 45 ercent cor orate rou s, 10 ercent incentive-and 15 percent other. P P 9 P. P ~ Approximately 85 percent of the group meetings held at these Vail meeting facilities i han 100 attendees. While the ro osed Vail Valle are for .groups w th less t p p y Performance and Conference Center will compete with 'the existing Vail hotels primarily for meetings of less than 300 attendees, the-proposed facility will also assist ~ the existing hotels accommodate groups needing additional space for special events. ~ - Many other ,hotels and condominium complexes have meeting space available in their facilities, although they cater primarily to smaller meetings. Other Lodging properties in Vail with meeting, facilities include: ' ~ - _ I~X-7 ~ , ' • • ~ TABLE . ' . IX 3 a' ADDITI~O.NAL MEETING FACILITIES VAIL. COLORADO ' . ` . i . - ~ _ , . ~ Dedicaited Meeting and • ' ~ Banquet Soace , Total ~ Lar est . 9 , Prooerty - 'S-q~uare Footage; Square Footage " ~ Y , . ~ . Lodge at Vail ~ 5;430 2,580". ' • Lion Square .Lod.ge • •4;880• ~ ~ ~ - , 2;300 Evergreen Lodge,-.. ~ 3,994, ~ ~ 1,942. ~ ~ - _ { Vail Athletic, Club . 3,174 ~ ~ ' , 1,170 ~ • Antlers at Vail • . 3,1"11 ~ 1,650 ~ . • HolViday lnn 2,268 ~ 2,.268 - . , Vail• Racquet, Club ~ 1;808• ~ 1,,104 - Source': ~ Robert S. Benton &-Associates and Hire & Associates. COLORADO COMPETITIVE RESORTS AND MEETING fACILITIES~ As previously discussed-,several resort.'conference centers and hotels with extensive ~ ' - - ~ _ meeting space.located throughout the-state :have 'been 'identified as being potentially . ~ _competitive. with the. proposed Vail Valley Performance and C.o~nfererice~Center,,. A.. , - map~on the' following page ~sh'ovvs: the location of Vaiil in: relation.to the„competitive . ~ ' ~ resorts. ~ The following .table; lists these "facilities and 'provides data an 'the' meeting. ' ' . :facilities.: , _ ~ . ~ . , . TABLE IX-4 ' VAIL VALLEY PERFORIViANCE -AND CONFERENCE CENTER COaViPETITIVE 11nEETING FACILITIES ~ ~ . IN THE STATE, OF COLORADO Dedicated iVleeting and Banquet Saace iVlap ~ ~ Total Largest Kew ProQerty SF SF 1 Hatt Re enc Beaver Creek 18 696 ~ . 10 275 Y 9 Y , I 2 The Broadmoor 69_,097- 17,500 3 Ke stone Conference Center - 20,434 16,000 Y 3 Keystone Lodge - 11,620 5,700 " - ~ 4 Snowmass Conference Center 13,247 10,823 . 5 Copper iViouritain Resort 27,848: 7,776 6 Beaver Run 1 1,140 7, 200 - " 6 Breckenridge Hilton - 9,343 4,770 , 6. Village At Breckenridge 27,932 .6,935 i Source:. Robert .S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire & Associates. " Following. is. a brief description-of each resort and the meeting facilities which are available in the competitive properties.' ~ . ' Beaver Creek Beaver Creek is a master planned community developed by Vail Associates and is located approximately 1'0_ miles west of Vail. Vail and Beaver. Creek are generally ' , IX-9 - - - - J ~ , t ^ marketed to ether as=the Vail Valle ~ Beaver Cre k vvas ~ ~ lisp in~ ~ _ - g ~ y - e estab ed 1980 and . coihcided with the opening of the Beaver. Creek Ski `Area. - ~ ~ ~ While several properties,iri. Bearer Creek have .meeting facilities; the-Hyatt ~Rege~ncy . - ~ Beaver Creek_is -the .,primary gro.u'p%conference hotel 'in i;he,resort. The Hyatt~is located - at the base of~.the.,Beaver Creek. Ski Area and o_ peried in. November 1.989; with- 300. rooms. Located adjacent to the hotel is'~the VillageHall. Conference Center: ~ 1'h~is ~ - , ' ` . facility opened.~prior to th'e Hyatt and was available for groups booked by other re;>ort ~ - - lodging properties. ,However; when the Hyatt opened,,_operationsnd control of Village ~ - . ~ , ;Hall was given to Hyatt, 'who' novv utilizes the facility. exclusively. as ~ a~ significant _ , - - portion~of its meeting space. Ameriities~at; the Hyatt,Regency include access to the ; Beaver Creek Golf Club, a'~private golf course, located proximate to the hotel.. ~ ~ , - Meeting'space at the Hyatt~:Regency totals `18",696 sq~uare~feet of dedicated meeting , - - - . ~ - space. .The ballroom at the' Hyatt contains.10,275 squa're'feet and is divisible into ' : - ~ ' 'three separate meeting, rooms.. The rerriainder of the Hyatt's meeting space, is very ` - - ~ flexible and 'can be. broken. dovvri into a total of:14 separate meeting rooms. _ Other - . - ~ . ;properties :in the Beaver Creek Resort with. meeting ,space include the. Charter at ~ ; ~ 1~ Beaver :Creek,: vyith 3,587.'sq~uare .feet of,~ space grid the Inn at. Beaver. Creek with . . - ~ 2,400 square feet- of area. , SeveraP other facilities ~in ~t:he- resort, have. smaller meeting ~ ` - , , ro,oms.. - ~ - . - - - ~ . ~ , , - , . ; ~ The meetings market mix at~tFie Hyatt-Regency is estirriated at-25 percent.as`sociation, 5'5 percent Lcorporate; meetings, 10 percent .incentive, and' 10: percent other. It ,i's . estimated. that approximately 80percent of the groups that meet. at the Hyatt; have ' . ,less than 100 attendees,.. The Hyatt Regency Beaaver:, Creek ~is ~.~expected to be competitive with the proposed, Vail Valley I?erformance arid Conference Center ~~n~ a- year-round basis, primarily for, groups of less than 300 attendees. ~ ~ ~ Y, , . . - i 1 I I I 1, Ii I ~ C on G Cor - R A - WYOMING - y~` NE RASK 7 17 rj ~ : L ~L \ 71 llr3 1 ~°r. _ .f :Yit I ] 0 ~ J tw... r ~ .x....,.... I + a ~ .+'f MOFF T s i.... a.~ / ~ ON ~ 9`~•-. I LAAIMER f s,L w+a 2 ~s""°' ...~,`Q \ ......LOG N ,z S9 IM' r - 111 Ste~~+ ~ i~ ~ I ez Md..n.nr aA w.. C li / r ONOaw N.a ~ 14 c~a Po..~ . Fort CoRi e P L PS I .,,a. . v..., f W 'LJ~ r r ' 0?JtlS.-- HOCNY MOUNTAIN~'~ /rue" F( I 61 a ~ d0 Stee at Spnngs - .a \ n. PAaK. 52 n + ~ s o e end - Gree eY _ - ~ R!.: _ - A .v - 1 T, ~ e. Idd ,`.:AA 76 63 _ cr..~ M wa«. cA 3d .mow. ; I 13 a« 9.a1e v arl $ 59 ..r,. 61 t3t -ti~ z 7 tin«::'1 Fo organ usn 9 I ° GRANQ moot N rt rune I _ rda.lkr Mr~, Bo>72 °'~nP+a .....I. ~f, ~ ".,'r 3a _ W~ u ~ 119 s2 YU ' ~ B CDER t e e TO MA q N AIO B ANC - ~ ao - F W G „ ~ F~ rr., .••r ° ` 79 4 I 13 ' 1"~~ ~1 • ~ • GILF! oo~~ 1e ~ A AMS I - ~ ` n rs ~ 4 ~ " 139 a r..rr.. ~ r,>.~., ~ olden R ra.,....., _ 36 - ~ a...u ei..~ .w.. 6 - 6 4 ~ ARAPAHpE I °pi~ I I o.« ' 1 3 5 E.aror ~ _ ~ ~ a GARFIELO Rtl ~r 70 E • ea•' R ' ,Lit oq I , I s..~ ld d;~prings wa z 5 da. r9. ~ C ~ 25 oo.n 71 59 ~ I I B2 U~.9os~ V C~ e3 >rr ~KI CAR ON r r- c.e6m r y J y i - r.a oleo ~ « AE P. - I o. r ~ ,.vr w.oori'va Ce e R 1 •B - 2 f ~ _ - 4 x - EL RT ~ d arl~+ . rsd • -,~ti ~ l ; a NIII - ~P Fmna P/T1S„d,~ ° DOUG ~ ~ p ~ AKE L I ~u.rr s~ ~ ~ ~ I 6 70 ~ As en~~-~ f r r,s, i + Coloratlo Netl r. nrr. r 3 ~ dra~ka p~ '1 \ ~14US ~ Iy Mon,.,nan function ~ ra, ' ab,a aa. 'n.ov I I ` I ~ 65 ti 13 K' a~vl. U2d 2d -rx .TELLER 2A Sq _ r , u. x d0 + _ I MESA r I I"-' ~ L LN O = r ° DEL OA' ! J u. a.wa M~b ~ . 83 Q + ? f 1~ ..n°, ° ee -~,,.F I . ING ~ CHEYENNE a0 s .w..n. I F,r lal ~ I I ~ 8 ea Nafl. m + a ro Eip4 $b 41 « y T ~sd 92 _0~1 \ 9 ~ s 6 ..M 2 A3` """'u ~ _ ~ ~ ~ a 1 '~3 Mr rSi I${ ' ' c ool• cr Security Z mr,~ uml•on Narl. rv..r..rGGNN~M1OIJ MAN 3ev~ I'.' r .auox l+ a { untein ~ I ¢ _ L ' rw .E wa. 92 l~lson CNAFFE-_ y n °71 I I Y ~ ~ _ xes. M nt 0 n. r ~ 50 I ~ ` Ilde !='E MC;1T KlOWA 8 e r.•... m I ~ M NTROS ~~w. sr°. ~ n h.. i w. 90 - - i BnOn City 25 s... ° ~i ' CR Y f- w a Flo ,50 .e... 1 . I w" ~ ~ a~ ~5 ~ UEBLO ~`'P ~ W9 ,.y • 116 69 ~ T °--..d~a.. % r~ I ° 8 Idl SAr M L f5M/~ o..r' 14MV r,w r+n 'r°do • SAGUACIrE C ~vsA~.,, E'!.' ° Pocky faC 9d o es Rn ~2, rr. ' L8 f -1pr a ~,rv ~ ~ a.. I - ~ ~.,W ~Le1J te.. cTENI PR WE S _ a ~ _ ~ ~ ~r. I ~ ~ x a, ~ 1 > ; r^... log I ~ 10 "•~"~b• HINSOALE 17 OTERO 10 ~ roar _ " Greal //1~1\ r n>le . ~a SAN UAp! 'e s9 L Ids I. -l w..e c°.p (.'jl y _ MINERAL d.i w,. N M n m 7 ~ ° ' I I i RIOT ORAFl17.-( 7d ul ~ - HUER~ANO 81se ur _ 0 _ r . ~ .3aS' 160 3 9dir' r ?11 rl , rca rm IamO' vw 11 Q r Nefl. Menu Bd'- .aS9', yro n.rr ~a•`eµ II maCortez ..y LAt ` ° .x,rv,r. . - LAS ANIM + Q _ ~ Mes aoe ango ° ARCHUI. 4,I•° r - 159 S 1 i I_.- ~ NA PAflN I. ewm 9or.rp ~ J ~ {'.OS ILI. F! ` w~ BA C:A ~ ~ d0 7 - 6 ~ f U2 ~ 12 IbO. r ..r,.. rlnidad r ~ 12 } dl a......o,. u... u. r I51 ~ r ~ n lL ~ 0 ~ ~ ` 12 , .a. ,....aw. O 86 ~ ! , _ _ J 1 - ~ C n ~ 159 _ I, ---'miles'--__ '"1 ~ "_a-_ _ ewn Nm.__-._-__ "r' - OKLA. NEW MEXICO ze>r O +eeo, ep vlarwlr Orepic• J Raton , A 1 B 1 C 1 U 1 E 1 F I G 1 H { I 1 J I K I L I M 1 N 1 O 1 P COLORADO Published by c~.a j• Pierson Graphics Corp. The n C e n t e n n i a l C}~~ e f B88 Denver, CO e0203 /3031843-1288 The Broadmoor ' ~ . The Broadmoor is located. in the western portion of Colorado Springs,, approximately 70 miles south of Denver. Situated on 3,000 acres, recreational facilities at the - Broadmoor include three golf courses, three outdoor swimming pools, sixteen tennis . - ~ courts, an indoor ice skating rink, horseback riding, a zoo and skeet shooting. The winter demand pattern for the~Broadmoor differs from the other competitors as it is not affiliated with a ski ~resort~and is not easily accessible to _a~ski area. The " ~ Broadmoor, due to its history and reputation,, is~ internationally recognized as a destination resort. The 550 room hotel has been a IViobil Five-Star Resort since 1960 and has received the AAA Five-Diamond Award since the inception of this rating. _ ~ - - ~ . The Broadmoor offers just over 69,000 square feet of dedicated meeting space .located in six separate locations throughout the resort. Shuttle buses transport . _ attendees around the resort. The majority of these meeting sites are also within easy walking distance of each other. The ~ largest facility at the resort is the 17,500 square foot Colorado Hall Exhibit Center. The International Center, which is adjacent, to the Colorado Hall, offers a 16,000 square foot meeting hall that can be sub-divided into~two smaller ballrooms. . Other meeting facilities at the Broadmoor are located at Broadmoor West and . Broadmoor iViain. Broadmoor West 'has a total of 1.5,844 square feet of dedicated meeting space, including a ballroom of 5,040, square feet, an exhibit hall of 5,760 square feet, and 13. break-out rooms. with 5,044 square feet of meeting space. Broadmoorl\flain offers 13,047_square feet of meeting space plus a 285-seat theater. The ballroom in this building contains 3,115square feet of space. The remainder of the meeting space consists of break-out rooms. Smaller meetings can be IX-11 ~ ' accommodated in the South Buildin with 1 932 s i r ' f` f ` in g, q~ a e .eet o meet , g space and , of the Golf Club: with 4,80.0 square feet of meeting ~s~,pace. ~ Owners of the~Broadmoor are cu~rrehtly planning to const~uct.a~ 150-room addition;to~ ' , . :.the property, which would bring the total' rooms at .the resort" to 700.` Also included ` in the. expansion plans is. a 12,000 square foot. ballroom. .The new addition~~:is ex ected to be co`m leted ~sometime.in L1995'. ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ . ~ P _ , . p, _ Due to the extensive meeting facilities at,the resort, the Broadmoor can host a-variety' - . of .large an'd small. meetings :at one time. Slightly. over 70. percent .of the- resorts _ occupancy is generated by~group/conference business.:Fo'r meetings with, attendance, over what the hotel can~accorrmmodate; guest rooms a't area hotels such as.the~ Red. Lion and Sheraton Hotel.are~utilized: ~ - - _ - . The meetings market mix at the.Bcoadmooris estimated to be 50 percent asso"ciation,,;- 30 percent corporate group,; five percent incentive ;3nd~.1'5 .percen't ~othe'r types of / ~ .groups. Approximately 88 percent of the meetingsheld :at• the Broadmoor have less than 100 attendees: ,The Broadmoor'will.be-,a,prim~iry.competitor to the-proposed facility primarily during the n'on-wirite'r months for groups'of all sizes: Both resorts are, _ ' ' ' . internatidnally `recognized and are_well regarded as mee'tiingdestinations.. ~ Kevstone, , - - ~ , • . . y . " . _ ~ . Thee Keystone'Resort is located .approximately:70 miles west.of•Denver a,nd 40 miles southeast,of VaiI::~The resort is approximately eight miles south of Interstate Highway ; ' . - - 7,0J and four ~ miles southeast of the 'Dillon "Reservoir,. which is_ a ~ popular summer . recreation area.- Keystone is, a self-contained~year-round resort vvhich-:offers skiing at . ' two, mountains (Keystone'and Arapahoe ,Basin) during the vvinterseason.. Extensive recreational amenities` are available., in the "summer,, including .golf„ ~terinis and , ( _ horseback ridin ...While h ki r r g t e s a eas a e accessible to the public, other amenities are only available to guests staying at the resort. Keystone contains a 152-room hotel known as the Keystone Lodge, "as well as a management contract for more than 900 condominium units within the resort. The Keystone Lodge contains a 5,700 square foot ballroom"and.10 break-out rooms, for a total of 11,620 square feet of dedicated meeting space. The Keystone Lodge. is ~ :oriented toward smaller groups who meet at the resort. The Keystone Conference Center, which opened July; 1989 is oriented toward larger groups meeting at the resort. The Grand Ballroom has a total of 16,000 square feet of meeting space, which is divisible into 10 meeting rooms. An additional 4,434 square feet of meeting space gives the conference center a total of 20,434 square feet of dedicated meeting " space. The conference center also offers aroof-top terrace of 3,950 square feet that can be. utilized for food and beverage functions. . There are several other facilities at the resort which can be utilized for group meetings,. as well as food and beverage functions. fVlany of these facilities are meant to accommodate smaller meetings. _ Keystone Resort has Historically been a popular destination for groups wanting to convene in the mountains. The opening of the conference center has helped to strengthen the resort's ability to attract group and conference business to the area, " especially during .the summer season. Keystone is popular with groups due to its proximity to Denver and its control of all the resort activities. and lodging. This control allows Keystone to create consistent and appealing packages utilizing all of the _ resort's facilities, at a very competitive price, and at any time of .the year: ' The market mix for ro , _ g ups at the Keystone Resort is estimated to be 45 percent association, 45 percent corporate groups, five percent incentive and five percent other " ~ IX-13 , ' . ~ t es of rou s. A roximatel 85 ercent'of h m in ±h I ~ K ~ 'ri "h v ~ ~ yp g p, pp y p, t o eet gs e d at eysto e a •e less than ~ 100 ~attend;ees.. The Keystone Conference. Center is "expected ~to ~ be a primary competitor with the proposed Vail Valley Performance•and Conference Center; while Keystone Lodge will compete primarily for smaller groups. - - Snowmass - . Snowmass is" located approximately 220; miles southwest "of i Denver, 1 ~20 rrmiles, ~ ~ " northwest of Vail, and 12 miles north of Aspen: ,Due to its proximity to. Aspen; the , - two resorts 'are. typically.marketed-` together...- The .Aspen/Snowmass ,;area : ~is - • internationally recognized as one "of Colorado's premier ski •destinations. • There are , - , , - four" ski areas within a "12-mile radius offering a: variety of ski terrain and snow , , - • - conditions. Aspen offers ~ extensive resort amenities,.while Snowmass is .not as- ` . " ' :commercially; developed and is more oriented toward -families. - ~ - Aspen is well recognized as,~a summer destination; as the community-hosts numerous" cultural~events and..festivals which attract visitors from around the world; In addition, ' ~ due to travel patterns of'aourists.in' Colorado"du~ing.t:he summer months,,there is a.~ ` - l . ~ ~ , ,significant amount of,day..traffic_ which passes throucjh Aspen. .Snowmass benefits . • . from :its`: proximity to Aspen; however, it does not experience a similar level of - ~ visitation as does Aspen; .as' it is~ not as well known _and offers a Tess extensive _ amenity package. - , i ` . - -According to the Snowmass'Resort Association (SRAM„ the Snowmass lodging market . contains 'six hotels and numerous condominium projects offering: over 3, 500 rentable - ~ , ,units of various quality levels: The SRA _ operates~~'a,nd •markets the -Snowmass r F ~ , :Conference Center to groups which then utilize the area hotels and condominiums: , Initially,-the co'n.ference center met: with limited success due to management problams , and the limited. amenities iri' Snowmass._ .However; the group%conference" business ~ ~ • ~ _ ~ ~ ~ " 1X-14 - , , - during the non-ski season has improved in .recent years due to :the stabilization of management at SRA, an expansion of the Snowmass .Retail iViall,' and a change in the funding mechanism of the Snowmass Conference .Center which encoura es lod es 9 9 and condominiums to quote more competitive room rates. . ' The. Snowmass Conference Center is the primary meeting facility in Snowmass. The ballroom contains 10,823 square feet which is divisible into five separate meeting rooms. Three meeting rooms with a total of 2,424 square feet are located on the second level of the conference center, in addition to an 83-fixed seat .theater. A covered roof-top garden with 4,100 square feet of area can be utilized for food and beverage functions, as well as for exhibit space if necessary. Located adjacent to the Snowmass Conference Center.is the 260-unit Silvertree Hotel, which contains a~ total of 8,790 square feet ~of meeting space including a~ 4,500 square foot ballroom,. While the Silvertree caters to,_its own in-house groups, it also works closely with SRA to book, groups that need. the meeting space in both facilities. The Hotel~Wildwood, which ,was recently renovated at a cost of approximately S2.4 million is located proximate to the conference center and contains 3,919 square feet of.meeting space which can be utilized for, break-out rooms. The Snowmass Lodge and Club contains a total of 5,360 square feet of meeting space. However, due to its distance from the conference center, the Snowmass Lodge and Club primarily caters to its own in-house groups. While several other hotels and condominium complexes have small meeting facilities, these .are primarily used for small in-house meetings. ' The market mix for.groups meetin at the Snowmass Conference Center is estimated 9 to be 30 percent association, 50 percent corporate meetings and 20 percent other _ ~ types of meeting's. Approximately 50 percent of the meetings accommodated by the Snowmass Conference Center have less than.100 attendees. However, it should be IX-15 ` ~ - - - ; ~ ~ _ noted that man ~:of the smaller meetin~ s.are-accommodated~ b ~ind~e~ endent.-hotels y 9 Y P - - and ~~condorriiniums, and their impact has not been reflected in our analysis.. The Snowmass Conference~Center is expected to be~competitive with the proposed- Vail Valley Performance and Conference -Ceriter during the winter anii summer • ~ ~ . . months. Due to~Snowm;ass's distance from Denver,'tlne conference.ceriter,has been, unable to. attract meetin s Burin the shoulder eriod;~~ between the ski and summer,' - ;seasons. Many, of the lodging properties arid shops in Snowmass closeduririg the shoulder months. _ _ , Coooer Mountain - - - Copper Mountain -resort 'is located' approximately 75 miles-west of Denyer Gnd 25 - ~ mites east of Vail,,, just south of I-70. ,Historically, a winte:r ski resort, the conference, • center. opened in 1990'iri order to attract, groups and- conferences on a' year-round _ basis. The~conference.center~serves as a day lodge during the s.ki season, iri addition - to being utilized for group meeting event's. Lodging,at Copper Mountain .includes .650 ~ units,-ranging from hotel rooms to four bedroom townhomes. - In addition to skiing, • recreational activities at th-e~~resort include golfing, horseback~ridirig, mo-untain biking .and access to the Copper Mountain Racquet and Athletic Club: ~ - . ~ - Meetying facilities, at~Copper Mountain total- 27,848 •sq~uare feet of dedicated meeting space. ;The conference center; known as, Copper i~ommons, contains, a~~total of; . ~ _ - 1.;2,392 square feet of meeting space. The ballroom contains 7,776 square feet of space.an,d can'be divided into two rooms. Five additional meeting rooms'.in~CoFrip.er- _ . Commons contain 4,,616 .square feet of area. ; Adjacent to Copper .Commons -is The- . ' ` Center, which contains 4;.620.square,feet of meeting space on the secondand.thrd . floors-of, this building.: Copper Commons and The Center are considered the primary ~ ,1~ meeting facilities at the. resor-t due to their proximity to each oth'er.. The remaining IX-1, 6' . ~ - - , . • . - - meetings .facilities consist of smaller meeting rooms located throughout the resort in lodges arid other ski area buildings. The meetings market mix at Copper IViountain is estimated to be 29 percent association, 50 percent corporate, orie percent incentive and 20 percent other. Approximately 75 percent of the meetings held at Copper fountain have less than . 100 attendees. Copper fountain is expected to compete with the proposed Vail Valley Performance.and ,Conference Center for more price-sensitive groups attracted _ - . to the mountains on"a year-round basis. _ Breckenridge " Breckenridge is. located approximately 75 miles west of ,Denver .and 35 miles southeast of Vail. -Thee town is approximately nine miles south of I-70 on Colorado ,Highway,9. Breckenridge is a popular winter resort destination due to the availability of skiing. Due to a wide variety of .outdoor activities `which are available, including golf, tennis, hiking and mountain biking, Breckenridge has also. become a_ popular summer destination. Breckenridge attracts many Front"Range residents; especially on summer weekends due to its proximity to Deriver, its Victorian town setting and the 'various events and festivals that the.eomrnunity sponsors. Breckenridge has several large lodging properties, which work together due to their proximity to each .other, ` to attract large meeting' groups. Beaver Run, the Breckenridge Hilton and the Village at Breckenridge are all located at the base'of Peak - - . 9. Beaver Run has the area's largest ballroom with a total of 7;200 square feet of ~ - .area that can be divided "into five separate meeting rooms. An additional 3,940 square feet is,available in eight break=out rooms giving the property a total of 11,140 ` square feet of additional meeting space.. ~ Beaver Run offers several restaurants and . _ " IX-17 " ` 1 outdoor.,decks that can be utilized for#ood and beverage:functions: This-property has a total of 455 condominium units which lock off into'520 individual rental -units. ~ ~ , The 208-room.Breckenridge Hilton is located directly across the..street from Beaver " Run. The Hilton offers a total of 9,373.square feet'of dedicated meeting space. .The ` kallroom contains 4,770 square feet and is divisible unto"three meeting rooms. The , . ~ . " i~~ . remaining 4,603 square feet of meetirig,space.'is cc~nfained vvithiri seven meeting - " ~ ~ _ _ rooms.. ~ _ _ . " - The Village at~ Breckenridge is a 40-acre mixed-use development located at the base" ~ ~ - . of Peak 9,, and borders downtown Breckenridge. The complex contains .a number of hotels and ;condominium .hotels: While the Village at Breckenridge has _the largest: . "amount of meeting spa.ce.in~Breckenridge~with"22,9,32-square feet of dedicated space; , - " it is not very;'well. designed to. accommodate large groups, as`"the?property was kiuilt " , - in phases by "a variety of .developers. with various intentions.- The largest, mee~tirig. room contains`6,935 square feet and is located ~in the Maggie Building. 'T;his'meeting - - - ~ _ room is also used.as'a day, lodge for~the ski .area and is;.not in good.condifion:~" This meeting, room.•ismost appropriate for exhibits, although the ceiling height ;is only 12 feet. The room also h'as several pillars, which inhibit`.viewsthroughout the room. " - • -The primary meeting space at the Vilfage at Breckenridge is,located in the Liftside.lnn and the~,adjacent-Ten IVlile House.. Meeting space`totals 13,912 "square feet.. The " ~ , .,ballroom contain's;4,673 square feet and is notdivisible. -The remaining 9;23;5.square r . - , • ~ feet are locked iri nine break-out rooms: The remainincj.meeting rooms are smaller and; , ~ ~ are located within,se,veral smaller hotels on the prolerty. ~ The Hotel Breckenridge contains 3:,271, square~.feefi of, meeting 'space`'in four meeting rooms,'while Village. ...Hotel"contains 3,814 square"feet in three. meeting rooms. ~ ~ ~ ~ ' _ - . , Th ri e ma~o ty of large meeting groups that come to Breckenridge.utilize Beaver Run as their headquarters due to its size, quality level and the. design of its space. Meetings then overflow into the Breckenrid a Hilton and the Villa a ~at Breckenrid e. The 9 ,~9 9 market mix for -group business in Breckenridge is estimated to be 60 percent association, 33 percent corporate, four percent incentive and four percent other types of groups. Approximately 80 .percent of the group business accommodated by Breckenridge properties is for groups with less than ;100 attendees. As Breckenridge tends to attract .more -price-sensitive groups than Vail,: it is anticipated that Breckenridge will compete with the proposed facility primarily .for price-sensitive .groups. • ~ ~ . - . Projected Growth in Comoetitive~Suooly . As of the completion of our fieldwork, no new supply to the"competitive conference market was under construction.. Thee 259-room Ritz-Carlton in Aspen opened in 1 December, 1992. This facility offers 16,758 square feet of dedicated meeting space including a 9,274 square foot ballroom that is divisible into two rooms. Ten additional break-out rooms with 7,484 square feet of meeting space is available. While the Ritz- Carlton Aspen. will compete for groups that currently meet in the mountain resorts, the property is also expected to attract a significant number of new groups to the " market through its marketing efforts and .the addition' of new capacity to accommodate groups during peak periods of 'demand. The'Ritz-Carlton is expected' to compete with the proposed facility primarily for groups with fewer than 300 attendees. . ` As reviousl discussed • the" "Broadmoor is. ~ lanriin to com I 1 -r p y p g p ete a 50 oom ' expansion and construct a 12,000 square foot ballroom, giving them over 81,000 square feet of~dedicated meeting space. The expansion is expected to be completed ® some time in` 1995. The expansion ~is expected to help the Broadmoor enhance its ~ . IX-19 " " . , abilit ~ ~ to accomm im ~ . n ~ m , . . y odate s u to eous , eetrngs, as..~ ell aspotentially attract, even larger groups than ,it ~c.urreritly captures. ~ - . " , . ; . ~r . Our.researchrindicated:that several 'other communities in. Coaorado are looking at ahe ~ ' - feasibility-of"developing a conference facility.. Several years ago, Steamboat Springs ~ ~ completed, a market study fora conference.center. ~Ou~r. interviews indicated .that this ; project~is currently on Bold .with no established timetaC?le.to~,proceed vuith the .projE;ct. , Boulder is also~considering the.development.of aycoriference center. While the project , " , - ~~is curre'ntl on hold the=cit is~considerin ~a kin ~ ~ i y y g s_ g the .voters for a tax • rncreasE.. n November, 1994 ~to f.,und -a ~ corference center. They area also; wocki~ng with .the . ~ .University of Colorado to develop their interest .in the.. project. ,Although their plans. are pr'eliminary~at,this time; the.facility would be constructed to meet; feed~and break- out groups of 700 to 1,000 people. ' , ` ~ " A :group of interested parties. in Colorado.Springs .is considering the-.development of . a multi-use arena, which would be designed. to accommodate a variety of eve.nts,, - ~ . • including conceits, ~ sporting :events',' as well.' as : conferences. and conventions: Preliminary plans~for,the facility. include an exhibit hall of 86,'000 ~square'feet, 50;000 ~ - square feet;of conference space and a sports tra.inin'g facility, which will 'include two• ~ , ice,skating~rinks., The,~Colorado College hockey team will utilize this,facitity; as the` . . " ~ World. Arena at the Broadmoor 'will be razed to co.mpiete the previously-discussed - ~ ex ansion to~ the .resort: - The' ro'ect is rivatel .financed. •The s orts .facility is .expected to begin construction next spring in order to be open by,~ the fall .of 1994 to - accommodate.fhe Colorado-College Hockey Team. It i~, anticipated that~the Exhibition , - 'Half and meeting facility would open the following year, although the' timing is ~ - dependent upon.r,aisirig funds, for construction; . 1 ~ - ~ M~~~c~~,~~nn~~~ ~o~~r~~a~c~ c~~ . • • CONFERENCE CENTER MARKET DEMAND INTRODUCTION • The amount of meeting demand drawn to Colorado resorts is extensive. The • popularity of the mountains, ample recreational opportunities for attendees and - excellent facilities for small arid, medium-sized meetings makes the Colorado mountain ' resorts a popular meeting destination. In analyzing the potential demand for the proposed conference center, we •have analyzed historical demand among Colorado resorts and hotels with extensive meeting facilities that •cater to group meetings. These facilities have been described in the ,previous section. This is obviously- not all of the facilities capable of handling meetings in resorts, but does represent the properties that hold the vast majority of resort meetings over 100 attendees within the state's resort communities. This section analyzes the demand which is .accommodated by the. primary competitive facilities. • SEASONALITY ~ ~ . Meeting market demand was measured for the 1992/93 period, with meeting attendance broken down by season. Seasonality was determined by the natural seasons in mountain resorts, identified as follovvs: - The prime winter season'in the mountains is January, February and March. Meeting • demand is heavy during this period, as many attendees enjoy skiing and other winter ' recreational activities. .Meeting activity during the winter. is limited somewhat by the availability of~sleeping rooms: • This is the prime period for rion-group oriented guests as well, and typically, room rates for non-.group business is higher than for group • X-1 - J . meetings.: Lodging•ope~ators will. logically opt for the .higher rated business when it ,~is available. . The ~sorina months of April. and May are "typically months ofi low occupancy in "mountain resorts: Converse) ;these"months are ver strop in the national meetin s~ Y_ , Y 9 9 market. While.competitive properties have had some success in enticing meetings~to , , . ~ resorts inahese.months, meeting planners soon find that inconsistent weather, lower " ~ ~ . activity levels .in' the resorts, and a .lack of recreational, activities do~ not necessarily; ~ - offset- the availability of lower, room' rates ih, resorts.: -Still, there _is' a substantial meetings'market during•this period, and some- penetration of this demand, is e~cpected. at the subject conference 'center. _ ~ . The summer months of June.; July and Augusf are prime meeting montfis, in the . Colorado resort markets. Nationally, these are some ~~f th'e~"lower months for ovE;ralt . • meeting demand. .The prirrie reason for .the resorts 'being so popular during the summer is.fine weather, consiste;nt access, many available activities, ,lower rates than ' ~ ~ !I winter; cooler weather and"'the beauty of the :mountains. in. the s.ummer..''At present, more meetings are held. in the competitive properties during. these .months, -than any;' . other time of;the year. , ~ ~ - ~ - The fall months of September and October are prime, rnonths for meetings.na~tionally, and are, growing-months for. meetings in'~Colorado, resorts: Activity levels in resorts 'are still good in.September and. room rates are attractive. Although weather can-~6e' ~ inconsisten"t in"`October~,~~the beauty. of mountain scenery~in the .fall- att'racts;,many • • - ; ~ ~ ~ groups du.ring'~.the first half~of~the month.., Although competitors indicate that these • . months are still reasonably weak, this is a period of-significant potential growth `in _ demand. ; , . ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ; ~ " - In the early winter months of November and December, meeting demand nationally declines dramatically. This is~-even more true iri the resort markets. Inconsistent weather, the potential of insufficient snow i~n November and early December., and the Christmas holiday'period limits meeting demand potential.. THE RESORT MEETINGS MARKET Our. interviews and analysis of data indicates that the 1992/93 {12 months of data) period produced 2,252 meetings in the potentially competitive resorts in Colorado.. Attendance at these meetings is estimated at over 52.5.,000 persons, giving an .average meeting attendance of about .230 persons. .This average attendance is relatively high, considering that about 80 percent of the meetings are for groups of under 100 persons. Our analysis indicates the number of meetings held in.the competitive market breaks down by size as follows: TABLE X-1 ` COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MARKET MEETINGS HELD BY SIZE Number Ratio . Group of to Size Meetings Total 1.00 1, 817 ~ 80.7 100-300 319 . -14.2% 300-600 85 ~ 3.8% . , . 600 > : 31- 1.4 Total 2,252 100.0% .Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire ~i Associates. X-3 - ` " ~ - - 'The, factors affecting the meetings market, presented in a prior section,, give ~;he . primary .reasons -why the smaller meetings represent the vast. majority 'of meeting's in " resorts., ~ Hovvever, the ratios' 'presented above ,are .not: significantly, different triari national averages... Recent :statistics provided by various meeting: orgariizaticins indicates that about 75 percent of meetings,nation.widE: are under 100, attendees, and ' . ~ . less than five percent have ,atteridarice of over `1,000 pe~sons:.:.V1/ith .facilities. availability, access, weather issues, etc..,' it a not surprising that :the predominancy.-of meetings at poteritially,.compet'itive resorts :are small. . - , ~ : ~ - , . For,the proposed Vai/I Valley'Performance and.Conference Center, the.potential market,;, " ~ for meetings in,cfudes conferences of'all sizes.. Hovveve~r, realisticaliy,ahe potential fo'r the smaller meetirig. is signifiearitly reduced. Meetings planners repeatedly me:~tioned _ - that- they prefer.. to house,.meet ;and feed their attendees. under o,ne roof., Both Vail hotel :properties and, the~~other.competitors,`h~ave ~ample~":facilities to handle meetings ~ . under 100 -attendees ,and .the predominance of. demand is .expected: t_o use these,- facilities. u ~ ~ ` . , . ~ ' , , - The largest~p,otential for attraetirig meetings to the subject facility. i~s 'in the, rneeting . . ~ ~ ~ size over:100 attendees., ~~This,represents almost 20 ~:ercent of, the existing demand - : ih competitive facilities.. A`total ~of 435-meetings of dyer 100" persons were. held iri ~ ` ' ; competitive resorts over the "past .year; and this numt?er is growing, both in number _ of,meetings and attendance... The design of the ~propo:~ed conference center in Vail is . " appropriate, to ,handle this`.size; meeting, "and with proper. final, design,: concurrent meetings:of up to 300 peo'ple~should,be able to;be accommodated".; Groups over E700 ~ ~ , people-will ~6e,di.fficul.t to accommodate in'the planned facility due to~the neE,d .for a' . F large number of :break-out rooms,, separate rooms for meeting ahd'feeding and, often, the: riee~d for exhibit space.. A few 'of these larger groups (over 600) should be able . ~to be attracted to the facility. when their 'meeting space needs are not"excessive.:- _ ; ' . ' Seomentation of Meetings As part of our research, operators and meeting planners were questioned about the segments of the market that utilize resort meeting "facilities. The predominance of the market is in association and corporate meetings. Our analysis did not separate out ski groups, as they do not often require extensive, meeting space. A breakdown of the market segmentation of, the meetings held at competitive facilities is as follows: ` _ TABLE 'X-2 , - ~ COMPETITIVE.MEETINGS MARKET ' _ ~ MARKET SEGMENTATION Number ,Ratio , - of 'to' ® ~ ~ Segment Meetings Total ' i Association 918 40.8% - Corporate. ~ 942 41.8"% . - Incentive 143 6.4% Other 249 11.0%° ~ ' Total 2,252 100.0% Source: Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire ~ Ass'ociates. The almost even split between association and -corporate meetings is relatively consistent with national trends for resorts. Generally, the association meeting will be larger and, will require more .break-out rooms and some exhibit space. The corporate meeting will usually have more, planned "food and' beverage functions within the meeting space. . X-5 . The incentivegroups .are .particularly interesting to, .a .~commuriity . such' as Vail, , Incentive groups almost always visit, resort markets;- ~E,quire less break-,out and other space, and generally. spend. significantly` more per ~3ttendee than •oth'er, types~of meetings.. Although there' are'fewer meetirgs.than other segments; these meetings - ~ _ are particularly attracted to well-known, resorts such as Vail:• • The subject proposed conference center is expected.tc? draw more meetings. from the , associations market than.the c'orporate.segment. Ass~~eiation~meetings are generally _ aarger and require more conference center fac,ifities than; the corporate mar.ket.~ ; I~t is ' . important to note, hovv~ever, that the, corporate ma~Ket~is more;likely to have a "special. ` ' ~ - event" usage fore a gala party- than is .the .association market. ~ - ~ Seasonality of Meetings ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . The seasonality of meetings:at potentially. .competitive hotels and conference centers ` follows closely.the,'normal.~seasonality o'f.mountain re:~orts. When the resort isbusy ~ -and. active is when the meeting group 'is ~mo~st likely t_o want space: Our findings indicate that most meeting activity occurs in the summer, with winter a close second: ~r The shoulder'seasons. of spring and fall are much 'slower and early,winter is ^dF:fini~tely. the, lowest meeting. usage period. ~ - ~ The following •table details meeting seasonality: ~ , ~ , . . ~ - - ABL 3 COMPETITIVE IViEETIiVGS MARKET MEETIiVG SEASONALITY , Ratio, . to < 100 100-300 300-600 600> Total Total 'Jan.-iViar. 467 - 86 18 4 575 25.5% Apr.-iViay 170 24 7 2 203 9..0% - ~ Jun.-Aug. 810 146 40 21 1,0'17 45.2% Sep.-Oct. 268 52 16 ~ 4 340 .15,1 fVov.-Dec. 102 11 4~ 0 117, 5.2% Total 1,817 319 85 31 2,252 100.0% Source: - Robert S. Benton & Associates and Hire & Associates. As the above table indicates summer is the rimar meetin eriod in com etitive P Y 9P P facilities. Our interviews indicate that winter would be stronger, except for capacity constraints, particularly in February and March. .Some of the summer periods; .particularly weekends, are at or near capacity in Vail and other locations, thus adding new demand Burin these eak eriods will be difficult. The lar er hotels, which 9 P P 9 typically serve as headquarters properties fog meetings have some availability during non-weekend periods during July and August, but meeting planners prefer the weekend period for booking meetings. V1/hile ample demand may be available, the supply of sleeping rooms in a; hotel proximate to the conference center. will likely limit meeting demand., ~ . , During periods of peak meeting demand, some, meetings :may not be able to be accommodated. Even though turn-away"s will occur, some' positive benefits can be X-7 - - - ~ - ' ~ ~ - ` ,expected: First, when demand eaks, hotel o erators should be able to~incre r m . I? P _ ase o0 rates.as there will :be.a=supply/demand imbalance. Second, -smaller meetings which cannot be accommodated. at, the larger properties wilN be "pushed out`' to other Vai! _ properties ;with less exten'sive,.meeting space.. ~ ~ _ _ ~ • Despite the nationwide frequency of~ meetings in April and `May, this, period i`s 'orne of the lowest iri demand at com etitive facilities.' Thee reasons for this. have been- - ~ _ P , . - discussed. .I't is doubtful that .a.sigriificant increase iii overall meetings' will occur in , . - this time period with the development of.the Vail Valley•Performance and Conference .Center. ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ \ • - , _ Our analysis .does„ indicate the ability to-improve they fall period. ,This is a; popular. i~n`eeting time; and normally. Vail has very good weather and excellent activity levels. - We believe that September, October and "early Juneoffer` an excellent ,potential for expanded meeting `demand in Vail. ~ - - , . - In-State Versus Out-of-State Demand . t Our anaiysis~attempted to determine the amount of Colorado based meeting business ~ ~ versus :out-of-state . demand.. ~ Not all' Hof: the connpetitive :.properties keep this , . ' information, so' our analysis is somewhat _incomplete. Based ~ on th,e information we: ~ ; - were; suppl,ied', if."appears that. meetin"g demand is relatively evenly split between the ~ , two. 'Out=of.-state demand"is more association 6asedi and in=state, is mope corporate , . based. Out-of-state. meetingstend to' average -a 1~3rger attendance than in-state , - ~ i meetings, probably .because more~of.the meetings are ~associations.than in=state In- state demand often includes srimall corporate retreats of 20-50 people; while there: are ~ . ' few similar out-of=state meetings:. - ~ ` - ~ - ~ . ~ . ~ - ~ a - - , Relative to the proposed conference center in Vail, the largest potential market is the. out-o_f-state. association and corporate meeting.. These groups tend' to have longer lead times in booking (12-36 months),. while in-state. meetings tend to book with " shorter lead times (6-12 months). Operators of competitive facilities indicated groups were booking under shorter lead times in the last several years,. with most being in- state organizations.. " " Historical G"rowth in Demand ~ . During our interviews with both operators of potentially competitive hotels and conference centers and meeting .planners, trends rn. the .meetings business were " discussed. It appears that Colorado has been "found" as_a meeting site, as business has increased substantially over the past five years. While data was not found to be as reliable for past years as for the 1992/93 period analyzed, it is"apparent that the Colorado resorts surveyed have had an increase in total meeting attendance of above 10 percent in the past two to:three years: This includes not only, ari increase in the number of meetings, but also in average attendance per meeting. One property in the survey increased rooms sold~in 1992 over 1'991 by 12.9 percent after an increase of 10.5 percent the year before. The development of~the Keystone Conference Center :has had a very positive effect on ,meeting attendance in that resort. 'Operators of competitive facilities are-quite..optimistic about future growth in the meetings .market. IViany noted the peak periods and mentioned that supply of space constraints demand in the peak periods. In.non-peak periods, most operators believe that the biggest factor in ,drawing meetings is notifying.the market that facilities are available, access is good~and plenty of activities are present. The econom certain) la s a si nificant role in meetin s demand. When the ,Y Y p Y 9 - 9 economy is good or improving, the number and size of meetings in resorts increases. X-9 " " • ~ ~ ~ • ' Cor~,ve,rsely, when economic. times are difficult,, fEwver ~ meetin s are held and , 9. . attendaince~,is lower--. With Colorado in• improved` economic condition and.the national economy s-lowly. recovering, the outlook for the meetings market is favorable: Room Demand G ner. ~ v ~ I e ated b Meetrnas ~ • . It is generally drfficult.to accurately estimate the total. hotel .room demand generated . , by meetings,. Some 'attendees .wil•I double=up in' rooms, .although this is,,reasonably, , .infrequent iri resort locations. -Other attendees come in earl or',sta after rrieetin s Y - Y ~ 9 . to spend vacation time in the area. For the most part, t:he competitive facilities do not • . • accurately track .this information. What they do track is room nights generated by - - meetings. The following. table lists the average rooms rented by size of,meetin.q 'at the competitive• hotels and. conference centers. TABLE X-4 ' ~ _ . COMPETITIVE MEETINGS -MARKET , , AVERAGE ROOM NIGHTS BY SIZE~OF MEETING.. ~ - ,Average ~ . ~ , • ~ • Rooms ~ ~ ~ . _ Meeting • Rented _ . Size Per Nioht • ~ 100=300 1.75' ~ ~ ~ _ _ 300-600 350. I ~ ~ - ~ ~ , • ~ . 600 > ~ ~ .700 ' - . " ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ - Source: Rol?ert;S;,Benton & Associates acid Hire & Associates. ~ - ~ : r - - _ X-10 - . _ „ - The average length of meeting,.varies by size. The smaller meetings tend to be a shorter duration than meetings of over 100 attendees. Once groups reach, over 100 persons, the length of meeting becomes more consistent. After totalling the length of stay for the meetings surveyed, the ,following average lengths of stay were determined. by size of meeting. ~ • 100 attendees = 2.0, days per meeting 100-300. attendees = .3.5 days per meeting ~ ' • 300-600 attendees = 3.5 days per meeting . • 600> attendees = 3:5 days per meeting Using the average size of meetings and the average length of stay, the total room demand generated can be estimated. It should be noted that persons who double up for meetings are assumed to. off-set those- who stay extra. time for pre- or post- meeting vacations. ~ ~ • This demand can be broken down by size of meeting and seasons as follows:. • • • ~ X-11 . _ i . ~ I ' 1 ' ~ _ . ~ , . TABLE X=5 ~ - . ~ . COMPETITIVE MEETINGS MA,RKET.. ~ ROOM DEMAND BY SIZE OF~MEETING - ~ BY SEASON - . Ratio to . ~ Season <100 100-300 300-600 '600>~,' Total 'Total " Jan.-Mar. 45;321. 47,282 ~ ~ 21,434, ;),3.10 ~ 123;347 23.5% ' Apr.-May' 16;729 ~ ~ :1.,2,829 ~ /8;0.13 3,,780 ~ ~ " 41,351 7.9 Jun.=Aug.' 7,9;220 _ 82,.158 49,098 48;020 258;496 49.2 Sep.=Oct. .26,243 27,502: 20,222 , .7;035 81,002 ~ 1'S.4~ • Nov.=Dec. 10.167 5.876 ~4.510~ . 630 ~ ~ 21.243 4.0' : - V ~ . Total' ~ ~ 177,680 , 175,647 ` ' , 103,33T ~6£3,775~ 525,439 , 100.0% Ratio t_o . Total ~ 33:,8% 33.4% 19.7°~ 13.1 % 100.0%~' ~ - Source: . Robert;S. Benton & Associates and Hire Associates. ~ ~ . . ,The above table is'.similar to the table on meetings 6y season. • The summer has the " . . largest impact, 'followed- by,the winter season. It'sho.uld,--also be noted. that.the iarger~ ~ - " ` ~ number of meetings and.attendanee in the 600 ands osier meetings occurs during the ; " .Summer.. This is the best time for';travel for' large groups info the mountains duE:,to ' ,weather issues.. ~ " . - , ~ ~ . , ~ ' , This table also shows that despite the large`percentage.of meetings. (80:3%) in the ~ ~ . !y - below 100 attendees category, that these meetings represent only 33.8 percent of room demand generated. 1With~ the pred:omiriance of: meetings expected to~ be held at , . the Vail ~Val,ley Pe~forma'nce and".Conference Cente-~ to be in the~'1'00-600- attendee , ' - range, over 5D percent of the total room demand is :represented: This appears'fo be;,, ~ , - the best opportunity fo'r both size of groups and room sales for the subject. , 1 _ . ,F , X-12 - , . " Vail Hotel Results - ~ " • rm ~ - Ou arket research,included an analysis of meetings currently berng held in Vail. We included in our potentially competitive facilities, the results of four of Vail's premier meeting ,hotels. V~/hile this analysis does 'not portend to include all meetings in Vail, it does represent those properties expected to be most impacted`by the development of a conference center. ~ . • The, compiled results presented for Vail are. a blending,of the operating results for all . four properties. It should be noted that the~Hyatt Beaver Creek was included in our -analysis of competitive facilities., but is not included in the Vail results. • TABLE X-6 • VAIL HOTELS _ " " ' NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY SIZE AND SEASON . ~ Ratio to • ~ < 100 100-300 300-600 600 > Total Total Jan.-Mar. ~ 144 32 " • ~ 0 0 - - 176 29.8% • " Apr.-May, 57 6 0 1 64 10.8% Jun.-Aug. 168 ~ 26 " 1 3 198 ~ 33..5 Sep.=Oct. 88 15' 1 0 104 17.6% Nov a-Dec. '45 3 . 1 0 49 8.3 Total 502 82 3 4 591 100.0% 'Perce`nt ~ ' of _ . Total" 84.9% - 13.9%. 0.5% . 0.7% 100.0% • Source: Robert S. Benton .~c Associates and Hire. ~ Associates. . ~X-13 • ~ - It is irte'resting`to ,note that~Vail,hosts a~ lar ~er' ercerit,a ~ e of small meeti,n s than,the " . 9 P 9,. 9 other facilities surveyed. Ironically, the high number. of smaller meetings~is'similar to Keystone and the Broadmoor, both of which have IargE,r meeting facilities. ~ However, ,it is also interesting fo find th"at Vail, Keystone,and the Broadmoor also report a higher percentage of cor'porafe meetings ,than association ~ meetings. With ,corporate meetings-having lower°attendance; the ratios begin to make sense." ,Frequency' of meetings in~ Vail is "afso~ interesting.. ~ Vail hosts 33.5~_.pe'rcent ~of total meet'in s in.the summer com aredao 45.2- ercent for the"~com etitive facilities:- Phis 9 P- „p p , ,is likely due to capacity constraints in the .peak summer periods.. Vail's ratio "of" meetings is higher in.winterand fall, indicating the market ha's_found~ Vail for-meetings during these .periods. ~ i. ~ ~ , . ~ Overall, we found~t~hat Vail is ;doing well in the ezistirig meetings market.:. Based on~~. ' th.e size: of available meeting space in Vail hotels, the number and size of meetings is consistent with other competitive facilities-. , ~ ' ~ . • ~ r , ~ Room demand- generated by meetings in ,Vail hotels w~3s calculated using,the .average" ; _ ~ ~ attendahce for all competitors: ~ This is slightly different. than actuality, because no - . single Vail'"prope'~ty is capable of housing the large groups reported. Thus some rooms: were Likely absorbed b.y~other Vail prop,erties.': ~ _ ~ ~ , , ' ~ , : " - - TABLE X-7 ~ . VAIL HOTELS ® ~ ROOIVi DEMAND GENERATED BY NiEETIiVGS ~ - ® BY SIZE AND SEASON - - < 100 100-300 300-600 600.> Total - Jan.-Mar.' 14,400 15,680 0. ~ 0 30,080 Apr.-iViay ~ 5,700 ~ 2,940 0 2,800 11,400 Jun,.-Aug. ~ 16,800 12,740 1,313, 8,400 39,253 - - ~ .Sep.-Oct. 8,800 ~ 7,350 ,1,313 - 0- 17,463 ~ Nov.-Dec. 4,500 1.470 1.313 - - 0 ~ 7.283 Total ~ 50, 200 40,180 3, 939 11., 200 105, 519 Source:. Robert S. Benton & Associates and Hire & Associates. Room demand from meetings in Vail shows the dominance.of meetings in winter and summer, and the weakness of spring and. early winter. Fall is improving and is eicpected to continue to grow. ~ - Overall; Vail hotels have a relatively, strong market capture in meetings. The 1'05,000 . room nights currently being captured is about'20 percent of the overall market.- This is being done without an existing conference center, and accounts for periods of peak demand when additional groups cannot be accommodated due to a lack of meeting space and sleeping rooms. If additional meeting space were-available in Vail, more meetings could be booked, generating additional room demand and other expenditures by meeting attendees to Vail. . X-15. - i r t - 1 1 ESTIIViATES OF COiVFEREiVCE CEiVTER USAGE, IIVTRODUCTIOiV Projections of usage for .the proposed conference center requires review and analysis of all data gathered and analyzed. to. this point.: Consideration is also given to Vail's image in the local, national and international marketplace for meetings. The methodology for estimating potential usage includes both objective and subjective . analysis. Objective analysis includes, among other factors:;the amount of meeting demand currently visiting Colorado resort hotels and conference centers; the existing meeting market in Vail; capacity constraints during peak.demand periods; the design and layout of the center; and compilation of information provided by meeting planners in both the mail-out and telephone interviews conducted. Our subjective analysis also ,includes many factors such as: transportation time; cost and consistency of travel for the out-of-state. meeting; the location of the conference .center relative to ,potential headquarters hotels; the availability of sleeping rooms during certain peak usage periods; the desirability of convenient hotels to the conference center; the image of Vail as a meeting place; the desirability of mountain resorts in non-peak seasons; the effect of competition upon meeting demand; growth factors in the market; and many others. In addition to the objective, and subjectiye'factors considered, we have made certain - critical assumptions which impact projected usage. These- include: o There will be no booking constraints placed upon management of the conference center related to peak periods, i.e., the conference center can be, . ~ . booked during fViarch, even though citywide lodging would normally operate close to capacity without these bookings. Room rates .generated by lodging _ ~ . XI-1 ' ~ - ~ , - ro erties wi11-likel b/e the determinin factor b /whi h bookin - decision . P P_ Y - 9„ Y c g sane ' rnade; arid~ the market will dictate the mix-between individual and gri~up ~ ' • demand accommodated.- ` . : - ~ - ® -Our usage .projections assume that the Perfocrnance Theater included in the: 'same buil.ding,.will not': hinder the•.ability to-book the ~confer'ence~cen-ter. . Subjective consideration is given. that. the .theater will not always be-available to .the meeting group:' This'assumptiori reiate~~ to"the ab'ility•to concurrently , = ~ have' a'performance in the theater~vvhile Fioldin~g one or•more m`eetings:i~n-the conference center. ~ ~ ~ - _ ~ ` ~ • We have assumed that the;final~design of•the con.ference;.center:will take into consideration that concurrent meetings in the facility will be. held.. T.his'includes: ' ~proper~sound atteriuation,.suf#icient.space for multiple registration areas, and' adequate .equipment for groups to ~co-exist; w.itriout undue interruptions. - ® Our projections alsoinclude the assumption thaf local Vail hotels will support . - " - .the conference' center by making available su:fificient hotel; and condomirriurri - ~ .units, to •suppo~t the .meeting groups. There are sufficient units: within an • adequate-'distance ~of the corference center to house. most available .groups: _ ~ .These>units:.wil1-have to be committable by the meeting coo_rdiriator to be_ Bible to satisfy."the' meeting planner. ' - Using~t.he information collected, we-have made estimates ~of the.numtier of-meetings - • - i'n different size.categories.thst could potentially. be, held in the proposed' conference • center in a stabilized year of operation..ln~-any project of this type, the early years of. operation. 'are affected by marketing, booking policies `of groups and 'notifying the- - macKet :of the availability. of the facility. - Since many of the groups expected, to~. use - the proposed conference center. are~^from out-of-state,_the period required,to tiri,ng'the • ~ . conference center~t'o~a'stabil~ized point is-•expe,cted to be.three to four years. • - 0•nce~the number of. meetings .in each size .category is estimated;. historical data and " • national averages are used to estimate length of meetings and sleeping room us~ige.. " This information is then used to ,estimate usage °da,ys for the conference center and - the estimated number of room nights m local. hotels and condominiums that will result from the meetings. ~ _ , Estimates of Conference Center Usaae , The basis of our estimates of conference center usage were derived from the number, of meetings currently being held in.Colorado resort hotels and.conference centers and the results of,the mail=in and telephone interviews with meeting planners. V1/e found Vail to be a popular meeting place, both with current and prospective users. V1/ith existing Vail hotels currently capturing about 20 percent of the existing competitive meetings market ~ and growth in meetings expected to continue to increase, the prospects for significant usage of the proposed conference center are 1 excellent.. The results of .our questionnaires indicates that most meeting planners _ would prefer- to use hotels~as :opposed to conference 'centers. However, in resorts, 1 there appears to be a bit more flexibility in-=meeting. space choice than would be the case in more urban or suburban areas. Assuming this research is accurate, it would indicate that meeting space at the hotels would generally be booked before the conference center. Since few ,groups completely fill the rooms at the larger hotels, . there should be ample hotel rooms available at the larger properties to book additional meetings at the conference center. ~ ~ ~ . Our estimates of meetings to be held at the conference center are considerably lower than the number of existing meetings currently being held at Vail hotels. There are two primary reasons for' this; the conference center is_ expected to handle larger meetings (over 10.0 attendees) ~of which there are fewer overall meetings; and the conference center is expected to book meetings after existing large hotels have their meeting space booked. Some of the.~larger meetings will by-pass existing hotels for . ,the conference center due to space needs, but these meetings are expected to book - ~ XI-3 ! ~ ~ - r ~ _ , - t • rooms ~at the lar er- ro 'erties~. Since lar er meetiri s tend to re uire Ion er bookin ' • • lead times, there is the .potential for. 'issues: regarding booking"• availability ,to develop . between the larger~~hotels with meeting space and the meeting planners booking the - conference center. ~ - - Our estimates of conference center usage in a stabilized year by size of.meeting.are • • ~ - ~ illustrated below: , - ~ - • • . - , , ~ TABLE X1-1 • . , . " ~ STABILIZED YEAR " PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE ~ • - : y " ~ BY SIZE OF MEETING , . - • "Size ~ - , Number•~ • - ~ . ~ - ' Meetinq . •-Meet~inas . " ~ ; . • _ < 100. 25,•30 - ~ - . ~ 1,01-300 50-~60~, ` Y ~ ~ , - - 301•-600- 1.4-:'1 g _ ~ I , s ~ 600.>... 2=4 . ~ . ' ~ ~ ~ Special Events ' 20~=25 ~ - ~ ~ , . ~ . ~ .Source: Robert S. Benton & Associates• ar~d~Hi~re &,:Associates. Although.the under 100:attendee meeting represents ~~bouf.80 percent of the;existing ' _ - market, this Sizegroup is .expected to represent onl~i;.25 to 3.0 percent ofmeeting I, demand-for the:proposed~confererice ce~nter.^ The smaller group is much 'more litlcely ~to. use hotels than, a ,free-standing conference cente.r., Primary usage in this size group i ~ ~ ~ - is expected"to be from groups requiring exhibit space; or a larger number~of,break-out - . _ • • r ' , rooms than existing hotels can handle: These groups also. have shorter lead times for ,meetings and will likely, book the conference. center when other spaces -in Vail are already booked.. - The 101-300 group size represents the largest number of groups expected to use the' facility. Iri terms of total meetings, this is the second largest group size. This is the group size most likely to require the size ballroom and number of break-out rooms available at the proposed confereriee center. This Level of usage represents some penetration of the. existing groups, but mostly is reflected in~ new groups~traveling to Vail resulting from marketing of the new conference center. 1 , The groups of the size 301-600 attendees are fewer in number, but are more likely to utilize the proposed conference center due to space needs. This size group currently holds few meetings in Vail as there are limited facilities available which can. ' accommodate their space needs.. The proposed conference center should be able to . accommodate most groups of this size which do not require exhibit space. Groups with over 600 attendees are not likely to utilize the conference center often because of space needs. IVlost groups of this large attendance will require space to both meet~and feed attendees.. The conference center will accommodate about 600 if they meet on one side of the ballroom and are fed in the other half. 'Break-out rooms fora group of this size generally requires more space than is available.- VUe do expect the occasional group of this size under special circumstances where space . requirements are lower. We also expect some groups of this~.size for special events. . Special events, as .defined for this report, are primarily dinners ors ecial meetin s P 9 which require a large space for a limited period of time. We would expect that the primary use will be for .gala dinners in the ,ballroom, special presentations during a meeting, ,or from locally based groups. In some 'cases, the Performance Theater may - XI-5 ~ - ~ be used for a.s ecial uest s' Baker or a rou erf rman e W ~~h ~ - ~ ' . p 9 p 9, p p, o c e ave,estrmated 20. , . ~ , ~ : , 25 events .per'~,year; ;of..wliich~ 10-.15 will likely be from local. groups. These special evenfs 'will probably no,t: generate much, new lodging room demancf~. Theavailability ' ~ of the performa.rice~and conference center `could also impact the number of times per year, that-.Dobson .Ice Arena is used for special 'events, as. man of. these. functi~oris • y _ would likely chose the new facility over Dobson ".for special events., - . ~ _ ~ ~ . Projections. of usage for each. group size included an, analysis of potential-usage by season. Using~the~~approximate mid-point iri the. usage range for each=size meeting; the following seasonality. is expected:.. ~ ; F .TABLE ~XI-2. _ ; , , STABILIZED~YEAR _ ; _ PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE NUMBER OF MEETINGS BY SEAS(JN BY SIZE- . 10,1- - - 301- ~ ~ Total . , , ' ~ ~ ~ Season < 100 - ~ 300 ~ '60C) ~ 600 > - ~ ~ ~ _ ' -Jan.-IVlar.~ ~ .7.. 19 4 0 30 , ` . 'Apr.-May ~ ~ . 3. • ~ 6 0. . ~ ~ 9 ; ' . ~ -June-Aug.. ~ ~ 13. - ~ 20 ~ 9 3 ~ ~ :45 ~ .Sept.-Oct. . ~ 5 9 .3 0 17 . N,ov.-[dec., ~ ~0 ~ - , 2 _0- 0. - _2 ' . " , Total ~ ~ ~28 56 16 , 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 03~-~_ - _ ~ . , _ , i,.. (11Approximate mid-point in range of estimates . - ~ r~ - , - Sour.ce:~ Robert~S.~~Bento~n & Associates and Hire & Associates.. _ , . . - ~ ~ . • I , Consideration was given to those periods when Vail is already near capacity in lodging bookings. For instance, only limited space will be available in hotels with meeting space in IViar.ch, and on weekend in. Jul and Au ust. The availabilit of both ~meetin Y . .9 V 9 space and lodging will limit potential- bookings at the conference center during these months. • Consideration is also given to; the number. of hotels and/or condominium complexes . 'which have the capacity to house the size groups involved. iVo single hotel in Vail can house 600> attendees. This. will .limit .the number of meetings which can book the . conference center. Several hotels have~the capacity of ,housing groups under 300 attendees, •which gives -Vail a higher potential to book groups of this size.. - One of the more important considerations given in our estimate was the existing meetings market in Vail. Based on our research, Vail currently books more. meetings than any other resort in the competitive list. The development of the proposed conference, center should enhance Vail's competitive position,' but the potential to book the conference center is slightly limited due to existing groups. .This limits availability of meeting space and hotel rooms- proximate. to the conference center, especially -in headquarters sized hotels. Because larger groups tend to book far in advance, the hotels will be forced to make decisions on committing rooms much ~ earlier than is now done: This will cause the hotels to create booking policies with respect to the.conference center: The affect will be•to push some`smaller meetings out to other Vail hotels with. meeting space, and'allow the larger hotels to fill in "dead spots" because bookings will be done earlier. Overall,. higher Vail occupancy levels should occur. X1-7" • • • .E. _ ' . , ' - ~ - " ~ - - ~ , - ~ ~ ~ter:vvill . ce et ~/lix _ ~ roP.°sed cpnfereh~e ~ Vail hotels Mark - ~ - ~ arket, for -the R ~oSt. pf the , , . of _ - target m ~ m,~,rkets.. n - - . rimarY. , ntive market -Thus, ma v'SS _ that the P end once,.. ected.; corporate in-state busme It aS exp ` ~ the ~ be „nevV , 1 association ~ emphasis on ected .to nationa ~ ~ -heavy . - exP 24=36 ~ . be the ~ ~ lace ter are s t9enQra11Y - ` mPetators:P rence.cen rneetin9. -once of" .and other. co confe book? 9 _ redOm?n " . poked in .the time ~n the, p - ~.1on9er `lead x . ected :tcr be. the ,meetings b have 'of.,groups indicates " ` `s e p s tend to rniX , This s .,being . Nationa19~°uP irnates of, market d_as$OCiat~on grouPS• , : pf,~rneetin9 . Our est ~ 0 percept' rioUS GOrparate an 6 ent va . rnonthsl • ~ emanate :From ~ and vvith~ about five Perc ' , ` , vv~ll inae~tive and ~ , and, t .p Verall dem _ , derv ~ f `o . , . ercent~ . ~ . ~ . about' g0 Percen co~po~ate; five .pvern~ient, .;ocial~' etc~~I•` ` aaSOCiations~ meetings Ci.e.,,.re1i9' , , , . , other.tYPes ofi I ; _ ~ ~ ; ~ - s ~b1Y uniform of ~Usa e Da. _ reasOna_ jted - ,Estimates th four ~9{OUPs is u len9 , from c°rnP'~titOrs'res Verage meeting . , d results " cares that a... ~ an ~ , tistics t rch and al meet?rig sta , , ~ . Luc reSea ,nation. ~ ~ , : " ~ ` . nnaire ~ a~put uestio. ~ - ~ _ averaging , purq ' wing' ~ o be Shorter in length, ~ " in the : folio , . " es tend t - ` under.100 attenae. ~ _ t 3.5 days• - ~getin9S ~ verac~e ~pou - ~ - V ~ ~ 2.p daYs• ver x`00 atte~~ees a ~ " eetin9s °f 9r°u~?s ° . ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " imdted ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , - ~ . fe{ence center are. Est . _ ~ ' ,.days atthe:proP°Sed~co~. _ ` e averages sage . ~ _ ~ - Based °:n theS . _ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ as folloWS~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ - ,r. X1-8 . ~ . ~ ' , 1 TABLE XI-3 STABILIZED YEAR PROPOSED COIVFEREIVCE CENTER~USAGE ESTIfVIATED USAGE DAYS ~ ' , fVumber ' IVleeting ~ ~ of Average . ~ .Usage Size - IVieetinas Leri~ Davs ` ' ~ ~ ~ - , , < 100 25-30 2~.0 50-60 .101-300 50-60 ' 3:5 ~ 1~ 75-2.10 . ~ . ' 301-600 14-18 . ~ 3.5 ~ 49-63 ' , ~ 600 ~ 2-4. ~ ~ - _ . _ , . 3.5 ~ 7 14, Total 91-112 ~ ~ 281-347 ~ Source: ~ Robert S. ,Benton & Associates and Hire ~ Associates. . - It is expected that a large number of conferences will be held concurrently, especially during peak meeting months. Thus, the usage day, estimates do not mean the - I~1 proposed conference center will- be in use 281-347 days per,year. We would expect the days with meetings' in the conference center will range 'from 200-250 days per _ yeas in a~ stabilized year. - Estimated Sleeoina Room Demand The primary reason for building a conference center in Vail is to.increase visitation and , expenditures by attendees.> ~ One of the largest expenditures by attendees is for lodging. .Estimating sleeping room demand must factor in numerous variables. For smaller, shorter meetings which. are primarily in-state,' ,hotels often find visitors stay , .only one night for atwo-day meeting. For longer meetings, especially national . meetings;, many visitors either arrive early, or stay_afiter. the' meetings for "vacations. . Room. demand is,also affected, by attendees: who..double-up in one room and,by those who brin s ouses ~ or families. Our. research indicates, however, that when all ; 9 P . factors are considered, room demand just about equals the total number,of,attendees times the average days of _attendan . - - - - _ Using the estimates of group size; average length of stay and number of meetings, we have estimated room demand that would be -generated by.the proposed coriferenc`e center~in a stabilized year. ~ The following table shows this calculation. ~ . ^ _ _ TABLE. XF-4 ~ ; STABILIZED YEAR ; - ` ~ -.PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTER USAGE ' " ~ _ fSTLMATED ROOM DEMAND - - - . _ Number .._Average Average .Estimated ' of ~.Lerrgth Nleeting .Room" _ . , Meeting Size Meetings, of Stav- Attendance " Nights Low~Estimate 100 ~ , 25 2.0 ~ 60.. 3,;000 ~ , . ~ ..101-3'00. 50 3.5 ~ _1' 75 ~ 30,.625 ~ , 301-600 ~ ~14; 3:5 ~ ~ ~ "350 17,150;- 601 > 2 ~ 3.5 700. .4.900 _ ~ Total 91 - ~ ~ ~ 55;675: ' High Estimate - ~ ~ ~ ~ " < 100 ~ 30 , . 2.0' ~ _60 ~ 3,.600 ~ - i 101.=300 ~ ~60 . 3.5 175 `•36;7.50 ~ " ' ~ ~ _ 301-600 18 3.5 35022,050:' 60.1.> ~ 4 3.5 700 9.800 , ~ N ` 112 . ~ ~ 72,,200 Source: ~ Robert ,S.-Benton & Associates and -Hire & Associates. _ XI-1,0 ~ . - ~ ~ . . competitive-hotels and . orted by size group used .was that tep 3p1-600 ~ , attendance for the will The ~ average meeting The average attendance . ~ etitors, but this - Colorado.- with comp sis, in `some cases in the analY conference.centers In~ f hotels. s ,size size o 350 average. 9rouP tends to •be limited by the .used the : ~ - in (ail. We have also be true bit conservative. that this rn?ght ~be. a ~ season for realizing a to estimate r'oo'm demantljby. it is .poss?bl ~l-2 on Page XI 6, ~ . using Table - midpoint range of meetings.. the J - ~ - .Q - ~ ~ - •.XI-11 - - , - - • TABLE •XI 5. , STABILIZED YEAR.. ~ ~ • . , PROPOSED CONFERENCE CENTS=R USAGE - ~ ESTIMATED ROOM DEMAND 61~' SEASON. ~ "Number Average, Average Estimated of ~ ,Length' Meeting Room " Meeting Siie - Meetings ~ of Stav Attendance ' ; Nights . ' ' ,Winter %Jan. -Marl . ~ , < 100 ~ 7 2:0 60 840 101-300 19 3.5 175' - 11,637 ` , 301.-600 4 3.5. 350 4,900 . - 601 > 0 3:5 . ` 700 - 0 , - .Total - . _ 30 . ' 17,37-7 ' _ ~ . ~ Spring /Apr.-May1 , ' <100. 3• 2.0 .60 3,60. • . 101-300 - ~ 6 ~ 3.5 •175. ~ 3,675 • 301-600 0 ~3.5 ' , 350 0 ~ • • I~' . 6011 > _0 3:5 700 ' 0 ' Total • ' 9~ 4;035, - • Summer /Jun.,-Aug.J. - < 100 _ ~ 13 ' ~ 2.0 60 1; 560: 101-300 20 3.5 175 12,250 ~ - 301-600 9 3.5 ~ 350. 11,025 _ `1 601 > _ 3 3.5 700. 7.350 . ° • Total ~ 45 32,185 ' _ Fa/l (Sept..-Oct.l - ~ L1 < 100 5 , ' 2.0 60 0'' ' • I ~ 101300 - 9 . 3.5 175 $ 5,512 I ' 301; 600 ~ 3 ` ~ 3.5 : 350 3,67.5 , ` 601 > 0 3,5 _ 700 _•0 , Y - - Total ~ 17 ~ ~ 9,787 - ~ ~ - . Early Winter • ~ ' - (Nov:-Dec.J - 1 ' < 1.00 0 - 2.0 _ 60 0 ~ Z • 107-300. 2 3.5 ~ 175 1,225 - - 301-600' _ 0 " 3:5 350. ~ 0 `601 > =0 3,5 , 700 - 0 , . ,:Total ~ 2 1,225 - ' Source: Robert S. Benton &.Associates and Hire & Associates. ~ ~I - ~ . XI-12 ~ . Increment t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 a Room IViahts y _ The estimate of room demand ex pected to be generated by the proposed conference .center in a stabilized. year is not a truly accurate assessment of the increase in room . demand expected from~~additional .meetings. Due to" timing factors, many of ,the meetings are .likely to be held during times when Vail hotels and condominiums are expected to be operating at or near capacity.' "iVleetings booked at the conference " center are expected to be reserved some times 18-36 months~in advance. When.this " " . occurs during times when'Vail `hotels would normally be full anyway, some business will undoubtedly be lost by booking. the meetings. Incremental room nights are defined. herein as the overall expected demand generated by the conference center, „ _ I less those rooms which are pushed out of the market because hotel rooms are full". Larger Vail- hotels with meeting space currently operate, at high, occupancy levels during the months of February, iViarch, July and~August, This is particularly true of ' hotels which would be considered rime head uarters hotels b~ meeti,n p q Y g planners. It - is during these periods that some room demand generated by the conference center will simply replace room demand already using the hotels. Rooms lost, or replaced, by meeting-related demand will be referred.to as displaced demand.. ~ . - If. aca~culation were made; which assumedthat all of the demand displaced by new . + • meeting demand were totally lost to Vail, it is likely that more than half of the demand generated by the new conference center would. be 'displaced. This might indicate that it simply would not be reasonable,, or cost-effective to build. the conference center. However, this is not the case. In most situations, booking of the conference center + will occur several months, or ~even~ years,. before tlie~ meeting. After the meeting is .booked, other groups, especially in-state organizations will contact the booked hotels for rooms,, as will individuals. Once the hotel has filled their rooms for the dates of the meetings, these "later callers."-will be denied rooms, and will be either'referred to, ~XI-13 ` _ i ` ~ . t~ n hit own•. Thus unless there ,are no available_ or they will call other hotels.m Vail o t e • . , . • facilities to meet the needs of the .meeting planner; the "newer'`` meeting will book at . • ~ another location, in Vaii, ~-1f there is not sufficient s aas, or the~meetin planner is not P 9 happy withother space; that meeting will' be forced t:o• look elsewhere.. If historical hotel room booking'.ti•ends continue, wFii'ch we believe they wi11, the last . market segi~nent to book- a,,hotel is" the leisure tray eler. .This traveler is usually , • destination-oriented, i.e., Vail isahe destination. This person will continue to call 'Vail . hotels until one is found which fits their needs and .ha:~-a vacancy." We do not expect.. that many leisure .travelers will be displaced as a result of 'the proposed conference` "center. The demand that is displaced will likely stay inn the Vail Valley; and will .most- • likely~choose-the Avon/Beaver Creek area-as their lodl.ging°alternat`ive. . ~I - 'Ouranalysis of expected displaced demand included;loo,king.atdstes of peak demand, market mix of lodging during the peaks, and the'likelihood~that demand displaced, out, ' - • Hof Headquarters hotels would be able to find .suitable :accommodations in ,Vail: 1Ne • ~ . - ' paid particular attention to.weekend :demand in the.summ~er months., as this is the ' most popular time °of the year for meetings in~mountain r'esorts,~. Summer, weekends - ~ - • are. also ver'yl popular with. in-state groups and leisure travelers: - Determining•the amount of displaced •demand resulting from new meetings. booked in' ' - ~ Vail r"equires a considerable amount of analysis of objective and subjective factors. On'e,of the major factors is the,•booking patterns of groups. Our research indicates - , ;that most groups prefer to include a Saturday night in their "stay to take advantage of dower airfaresan.d fewer•work days lost. This is~ particular,ly true of the out-of-state - groups. The weekend~is also- the' time of heaviest dE:mand gat Vail lodging facilities, especially those with meeting space. It is likely, considering. the transportation issues • _ that.a_lready exist, that meeting planners will be reluctant to hold their meetings`di~ring , - - - - _ i ~ I the be innin of- ~ h w - - ~ - . g g t e eek (with arnval on Sunday or Monday). Thus, we expect that . weekend displaced business during: the -prime meeting months' .will ,be substantial. - . . Occupancy levels in Vail during the June through August period are reported at 59.1 ' percent. Our research indicates -that this ~is a bit dece iv H pt a otels catering. to , meetings are generally at or near capacity on Friday and Saturday nights, and operate - - at reasonably high occupancy levels during many other, days of the -week. fVon- - meeting hotels and most condominium complexes operate 'at high occupancy on - Saturday nights, .a bit lower on Friday night, and have considerably lower occupancy _ .levels the rest of the week. Meeting bookings at the proposed conference center are expected to improve occupancy levels during peak periods, but a reasonably high level ~ - of displacement is expected: I,f groups can be convinced to use, the early part of the ' ' week for meetings, displacement could be substantially decreased. However, again, the expected, market of national associations and corporate groups are likely to be ' reluctant to make this changer We would expect occupancy levels~at lodging facilities close to the conference center to show .a~ small increase: , Occupancy .levels at properties removed from the conference center should show a larger increase, but early week periods are not expected have a substantial improvement. Our finding's indicafe there .will be some displaced-business from meetings booked in the proposed conference center: Most displaced demand will -occur on weekends in. - March, July and August. Some displacement will also occur in February, June •and- September weekends., Almost all displaced demand will be in groups, primarily in- state; demand for small meetings. Some leisure demand displacement is_ expected, especiaNy on Friday and .Saturday nights in .July and August. , Our estimate of room demand generated by the proposed conference center ranged ' from 55,675 to 72,2Q0 room ni'ghts~. V1/e estimate~displacement at 15,675 to 22,200 room nights. Thus,, the incremental demand expected to be generated by the- . ~ X L.-15 - - • d confe~enc ri r i x r n from 40.000 to 50 000 room ni hts ~ . propose a ce to s e pected,to a ge g • - , annually. in ~a stabilized year., ' - - • ~ ~ ' Meetin4. Absomtion to Stabilization ~ - , . _ The estimates .of .meeting demand, days of ""usage and estimated sleeping room" • demand ex ected to be enerated :b the ro osed conference center are all stated ' P 9, Y P P in. stabilized year -figures. A •stabil,ized year is defined •as. an average year iri the • - - t~, . _ operation o,f the conference center, after an allowance for time to market and promote • • the facility so that ~it is well known- and recognized. in• themarketplace. ..The . ,conference center~is not expected to,open with stabilized market demand in place. ~ i Assuming adequate.marketirig and promotion; conference centers .generally begin to stabilize in'the.fourth or fifth .year of operation. Prior.to stabilization;` the facility . - ~ • .operates below the stabilized rate- in' both number of meetings and attendance. ~ ; Because -Vail. is' a_Iready an established market with- high recognition from meeting planners; we expect that the proposed conference cE:nter would stabilize-about one • .year earlier than a.sirnilar facility in another location. I~esearch.indicates.that the 'firs't • ~ ;year of operation is "generally significantly below stabiilized results, and that business . ~ increases gradually untiLstabilized. Once .the conference center is well established, _ annua,l-results tend to vary based on marketing and the economy; but averages tend t~ • :'to be around the stabilized figure. ~ _ 1 ~ - _ 1. Our estimates .of'early. year. operating results are basE~d~ on historical data from other . conference centers. Since there .are few facilities comparable to Vail iri seasonality, • ~t~r. - - market recognition and other. factors, we ..have :adjusted th'e expected results • up , slightly~'froin those experienced by other confe"rence~ centers. _ ' - - XI-16 . c that•the smaller meetin s, rimarily based in-state will be the first to We expe t 9 p "discover" #he:conference center. These groups have shorter booking lead times and are knowledgeable,of'meetingfacilities in the state. For the~first several years, smaller . groups may represent a stronger market than will occur at stabilization. As larger " , soups be in to discover the conference center, the smaller group will be "pushed 9 9 out"'to area hotels due to the longer-booking lead times of larger groups. The larger national groups will be the last market segment to stabilize. Longer lead ifficu! marketin 'ob to attract these rou s, and transportation issues times,, a more d t g) . _ 9 P will be the_ primary reasons for slow stabilization. ~ ~ - ,Our estimates of early year operations for -the proposed conference center are a bit ~ more subjective, than,the stabilized year estimates. There is less solid research data available;and more variables involved in the estimates:. Therefore, the ranges used are larger and the estimates may be less reliable. Our estimates'of usage for the first five years of operation of the proposed Vail Valley- - Performance "and Conference Center are as follows: ~ ~ XI-17 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ - . Tpg1:E X1-6 T1O1`I ~ . _ OF~ OPERA USAGE FIVE YE R NCE DENTE S gY S1ZE ' ~ ~ ~ FIRST CONFE MEETWG - . - PR~P~SE~. BER tal p,TED .NUM ~F 00 - .60-- ~ 7 . . T' . ESTIM 301 6 - 0 14~ _2 Y51.75 Y~-f^ - ~ ~ ~ 4-8 - " 0 ~ ~ 58=82 3 ~ 7-12 81.1 p2 i 1 20-32 1-3 . . 30=35 10=14 ~Y _ _ 87=107 . 2 _ ~ - q;0.50 1-3 3 3~ 35 4&58 13 1.6 . ,2-4 g1 Al ~ ? ; :25.34 ~ ~ 4-1' 8 . . 4 5-3p 5Q-60 ~ , , ~ ; ciates.~. ~ ~ 2 & Asso 5 artid Hire - - Benton & Associates . .S . Robert - . - ~ Source ~ _ . ~ ~ ~ " ' - - - ~ ~ _ XI.1$ ~ ~ ~ - ~ . t - - . l I..: ~ ~ ' r _ ~~a~:~ ~aa r ~ ~ ~~~~~D,~~~~ DELEGATE EXPENDITURE PATTERNS . In order ~to estimate revenues which would b.e generated; for the Town of Vail businesses by delegates~attending meetings, at the-proposed~Vail'Valley Performance and Conference Center during a~ stabilized year of operation, national statistics on delegate expenditures have been utilized. Our source of data for the statistics is the International-Association of Convention and Visitors Bureaus (IACVB), which is recognized nationally as the most reliable.sou~ce of delegate expenditure data. The ~ , average expenditure per delegate day during 1991;~the most recent year for which - . data is available,,is summarized in the following table:. TABLE, XII-1 - ~ . SPENDING. GENERATED PER .DELEGATE DAY BREAKDOWN OF DELEGATE EXPENDITURES -NATIONAL AVERAGES - ' ~ ~ Percent - Expenditure Cateaorv Amount of Total Hotel Room - Incidentals ~ 577.23 50.8% , . Hotel Restaurants ' , 16.65 11.0 Other Restaurants ~ 17.31 , 11.4 ~ _ ' ~ Hospitality Suites ~ _ ~ 7.,87 ~ ~ 5.2 - ~ _ Entertainment , 7..88 ~ 5.2 - ~ Retail Stores 12, 43 8.1 ~ Local Transportation ~ 6:56 4~.3 ' 1~ - ~ - Other ~ . 6.01 ' 4.0 Total - - ' S 151.94 ~ 100.0% Source:. International Association of Conventions n V' ' a d _ isitors Bureau. _ X11-1 . ~ . More appropriate data would be to use an,expendi,ture pattern data extracted directly - ' from`"the Vail market, particularly relative to retail sales. However, no recent. studies ` of meetin visitor expenditure patterns have been cori-m" leted. While"the.IACVB .data . 9 P has been utilized as a basis for our analysis; several adjustments have kieen made to - :.reflect the Vail market. It should be,--noted that our estirna'tes are preliminary in.nature,. . , - - as further research, which is beyond the scope of this analysis, .would. need.to be. , -completed in order to accurately reflect delegate exl>end~ture patterns for the Jail . - _ market. i - - ~ - - ` • ~ The IACVB survey, reflects data gathered from around the. country -and reports • a. - ; national average ~ expenditure. ~ -The survey includes ~a~" wide; variety , of meeting. ' ' destinations with various •cost~levels, ranging from very expensive destinafi,ons such - ' as. New York City, to very inexpensive meeting sites. Therefore, an,adjustment for . - - the relative cost level of. Vail' in comparison to the .IA(:VB's-data, is necessary.. V1/e reviewed,tlie expenditure.categories into which the IACVB data is co;nipiled.-The IACVB. data- reflects an, expenditure for local trarisporta,tion .once' in :the meeting city ` - . for cabs, ~b.uses, etc.,. and is influenced. by the cost of travel yin larger cities such •as - - New,.York, Chicago, etc. As Vail offers free transportation to :area visitors, .•this . ` - ~ expenditure has not been reflected in our analysis of potential revenues to Vail. 'The - ,ground, transportation charge between Vail and Denver has not been reflected in this ' ~ category, as many of these transportation.companies are not necessarily based in Vail, ' . In order. to adjust-the IACVB data "for•the relative cost o~f Vail," the average daily rc?om. " rate. which area, lodging properties are expected to achieve` was` estimated and compared to 'the IACVB category "Hotel., Room and, Incidentals." ~ Incidental morn ~ - 'charges are typically relatively small in .comparison to the room rate.and therefore:.do ~ - _ ~ ~ -not have a significant impact oh this.analysis..•This e:>timate is based on'the level of . ~ - - _ - demand ,the `conference center is expected to generate by season and.. the average ' - _ - -.~,j - ~ daily rate achieved by Vail lodging. properties during 1992 by season, adjusted for potential rate" growth during 1993. The following table details the calculation to derive the "estimated average daily rate .for :room.~nights gerierated by conference center .demand:.during a stabilized year. ~ • TABLE XII-2 . STABILIZED YEAR ~ • ` ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY RATE ROOM iVIGHTS GEiVERATED. BY COiVFERENCE CENTER, ~ - - Room Nights . ' , ~ Generated By_ , .Average - ~ Conference Daily Room ' . Season Center Rate 121 Revenue January-March; - 17,377 5202.00 53,510,•1.54 April, May 4,035 ~ 93.48 377,192 June-August 32,185 78:82 ~ 2,536,822 . . September-October ~ 9,787 67.54 661,014 iVovember-December ~ 1,125 •159.48 179.415 _ 64,509. 5112.61 57,264 597 (1)Based on mid-point of.projections,for seasorial demand. (2)Stated in 1992 dollars. ' Source:. Robert S. Benton ~ Associates and Hire ~ Associates. ' - ` As the previous table indicates, eonfererice center delegates are expected to generate an average-daily rate of5112.61 in 1992 •d,ollars:.Adjusting for antici ated inflation P. of approximately 3.0 percent in 1993, =the average daily rate for room nights generated by the conference center is estimated to be 5115.85 in 1993 value dollars during a stabilized year of operation., As previously discussed in the Estimates of ' - XII-3 ~ ~ . - ~ ~ 1 ..Conference Center Usage Section of this report, an estimate of one room night per delegate per day has been assumed for purposes of this analysis:. ~ ' . The next step,in-this analysis is to calculate fromthe IACVB-data, "the ratio of"each , - expenditure category -tototal ,expenditures. Assuming that conference center , delegates.in Vail will have a similar expenditure pattern as outlined by the IACVB data; „ o~ the previously calculated ADR; and Hotel Room anti: Incidentals ,are' assumed to . maintain a stable ratio to total expenditures. This serves as a basis to"'estimate other . expenditures which delegates would recur.. The-foliowrng table details the-resulting analysis, " • - , ~ ~ TABLE XII-3 . : ~ STABILIZED.YEAR . ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE PATTERN - ~ ~ Estimated - - ` • Percent Expenditure/ , ~ • + • ~ IACV.B of Delegate ~ _ Expenditure Cateporv, ~ Survev, Total Dav (11 - - ~ ~ Hotel Room and Incidentals. 577.23 ~ ~ 53,.1 % . ~ 51.15.85 , Hotel Restaurants - 16:65 - 11.5 ~ ~ ~ 24:98• ' . - ~ Other.Restaurants ~ , 17.3.1 - .11:9 25.97 - . ~ ~ .Hospitality Suites ~ " _ ~ 7:87 5:4~ _ - ~ X11..81 , ~ - ~ - ' ~ Entertainment ~ - ~ .7.88 5:4 ~ 11.82 ~ ' Retail Stores ~ ~ 12:43. , 8.6 - 18.65 - ' Other , • ~ 6.01. 4:1. 9.02 ` , - Total Expenditures ~ 5145.38 .,100.0% .5218:10 ~ . (11Stated:in1993, value dollars , , , , ~ ~ ~ . - Source: .Robert S. Benton & Associates acid Hire & Associates: - - . ,X11-4 ~ • * _ The above esim ~ , . , t ate of _ 5218.10 per delegate day' .appears reasonable, with the exception of. retail stores expenditures which appear low. A retail study prepared in " 1987 by Hammer, Siler ~ George indicates that 80 percent ~of retail sales in Vail •emanated from, visitors .to the town. The remaining 20 percent came from Vail . residents. However, there is. a Lack of current market data with which to make an adjustment to these estimates. It should be. noted, once. again; that the information used to make our estimate is'based on available_national data. Specific expenditure ® data from the Vail market, which was not available, would likely provide a more ~j accurate estimate of delegate expenditure patterns. . The IACVB estimates include expenditures for the meeting attendee~orily. In .resort markets, many attendees bring spouses or families which also spend money. Based on interviews with competitive resort hotels and conference centers, it appears that 1 between, 20 and 60 percent of attendees bring spouses or families. In the meeting planner survey, the responses varied substantially, with the predominance of planners noting six percent. to 25 percent and 26' percent'- 50 •percent of attendees bring spouses. Based. on this analysis, it would• appear that a ,reasonable average for • families or spouses accompanying an attendee to a meeting in a Colorado mountain resort would be from 40 percent to 50 percent.' This will affect the economic impact ' of the proposed performance and conference center. Based on our estimate of room night demand (which is estimated to be equivalent to ' • - _ delegate days) and an -estimate of, 521.8.10 in expenditures per delegate day, an estimate can be made of the direct economic impact on the community. Based on room night demand of 55,675 to 72,200, the direct economic impact of the conference center is estimated to range from •512.,142,718 to 515,746,820, rounded to 512,140,000 to 515,750,000 during a stabilized year, stated in 1993 dollars. The _ • "incremental demand expected to' be generated by the proposed conference center is • estimated to range from 40,000 to 50,000 room nights annually,during astabilized. ' ~ XI,I-5 _ ~ . ' ~ ~ attributable. to .the omic ~ impaot OpO, rounded 1, . - ental . econ ~ $10,gp5 the' direct irc{em , . x'000 to , fra?'n $8~~72 impact. °f spouses °r .'Therefore, ~ range .apes not include the . Year. - ated~ to center is estirn This d , conference $10,900. eetin9 ~ . - O00 to the attendee tom to' S8~720, omPanY~ ~ ~ families Which- acc : • , . . ~ ~ _ r . . ~ ~ . _ ~ - ,-x_ . . ~ _ ~ ~ - Xlt-6 - ~~~~~~~y j{~8~ ~11~1Ca PR~PE~'~9ES . ~~~g~~~~~~~ ~EN~~~ 1 ' COIVFEREIVCE• CEiVTER ~ . AFFECT ON VAIL AREA~LODGING PROPERTIES • iiVTRODUCTION ~ ~ ~ • The development and successful marketing and operation, of the proposed~Vail Valley Performance and Conference, Center is. expected to generate considerable new sleeping room demand in the Vail Valley. While the majority of the groups booking • . conferences; in the new center will .house attendees at the larger, more proximate hotels to the center,. some attendee demand ~ is expected to book in the non- . headquarters hotels and condominiums throughout `the Valley. Additionally, there is expected to be a considerable amount of existing room demand "pushed out" of the headquarters hotels by the larger conference center groups: A portion of this demand will stay in,the Vail Valley, booking.at other lodging operations with available rooms. . The ~impa.ct of the conference center on the Vail lodging market should be year-round. For properties close to the conference center, the primary impact would be during periods of lower occupancy. For outlying Vail lodging properties, the impact~will most likely occur during peak periods in whiter and summer. DEi~AIVD PATTERiVS IfViPACTIIVG VAIL LODGING. PROPERTIES. • ~ ~ . The estimates of meetin demand at the ro osed conference center indicate that the 9 P P, predominance of demand will occur during the summer and winter. periods. This is a time. when some, Vaii lodgingproperties are already a't or near capacity. The timing of lodging bookings• is expected• to dictate the .room demand patters of Vail lodging facilities. For the •m~ost part, booking of meetings occurs earlier than bookings for leisure visitors. Also, bookings for national groups tend to occur prior to bookings for XIII-1 r rn state groups. Booking for large groups generally o.,cur before bookings for-small . ~ groups. i ..1 ~ ~ . ~ . By using the above booking patterns, at feast on a general basis, a logical flow of can a rmin I i x h n ionall ~ e lar ~ e~ ro swill demand b dete ed t s e pected t at at y bas d, - g g up be , the first to book Vail properties,, due to their longer required booking lead 'time., These - groups are likely to book the larger hotels with meeting space,~or properties in close . proximity to the conference center if. it is to be used. This. will have the effect of . filling; or.nearly filling hotels such as the Radisson or V'?estin. As these properties fill, . .the next group trying to book a ..meeting will: logically choose another `hotel with meeting space in Vail. BAs, this process continues, those properties capable of~housing. ; . a meeting group will have the majority of_their rooms taken..Any.,group~trying to book after this will.~likely be pushed out-of-Vail,~~either to,Beayer Creek, or;another resort . -location. ~ , , ~ ~ ~ - ~ . ~ . ~Tfie .leisure visitor tends to =ki.ook with: a shorter ;lead time M1thari groups. , This is ~ especially true during the surrrmer. As the leisure Traveler begins. to call,. the 'Vail . _ properties vvith meeting space will ,"fill iri" anyvacancies they .might have available; ~ ' :and push th'e ;rest of the 'demarid-`to~ other Vail properties once, full. ~ The above analysis on~ demand patterns should hold true during the ,peak mee~ting~ -seasons in Vail, specifically March; July,:arid August. _l;his will occur to a lesser exi:ent during other busy.months in Vail, specifically January, February',:Jurie and September, ~ .The primary days .of-displaced demand are expected 1:o~kie weekend nights of Friday . and,Saturday. In non-peak periods such as April, May, October 'and November and December, meeting demand is signifieantly.lower`.and farntess "push.out" o.f in-state groups ~arid leisure- visitors- will ,occur. However, it should ,be noted that ~ meeting ° planners iridicated that up to .10-15 percent of attendees to larger-,meetings will ;Stay . ~in non-headquarters lodging facilities, mostly condominiums°. This should occur year- ~ ~ ~ ' XIII-2 round. Also, for meetings with, over-400 attendees, there is no single~pro_perty which can easily accommodate this size ,group. This will also have the effect, of "pushing out" demand to other Vail lod in facilities. . g 9. - ~ ~ , Effect on Properties with Meeting Scace - - The effect of conference center bookings on properties with meeting space should be higher than on properties without meeting space. The existing Vail-market mix has a considerable amount of meeting. demand already, and this should be expected to increase. As more and larger groups book into the city, the lodging properties with meeting space are 'expected to be prime benefactors. Properties close to the conference center should book more and larger groups earlier than now occurs. This will .push some smaller .groups out to properties further away from the conference - center. For the. most part, this will. be ':new demand" for these outlying properties. There should be some year-round increase in demand for meetings in facilities - removed from the conference center site. However, the predominance of this'demand will be during peak periods. - - " Effect on Non-Meeting Lgdaina Facilities ~ . Lodging properties without meeting space should be affected in two wa s. First as v , meetings book; some attendees will not stay in the .headquarters hotel, preferring to get away frgm the crowds. Most impacted from this market" should be condominiums in reasonable proximity to the headquarters hotel. The'second impact will be during peak periods.` V1/ith groups filling the hotels with meeting space, leisure travelers who would normally book ,in hotels with meeting. space will be forced to alternative facilities. - ~ ~ - X111-3. .Will Visitors Stav in Vail.. or Leave the Area... . . As part of our market research,. questions were asked of competitors and Vail lodging _ property operators relative to how the market reacted whe'ri large, meetings are being held,' o`r when a visitor's first choice ro ert is full General) ;'the visitor to .Vail is . , P P Y Y _ more interested in the area than they are dedicated to one lodging property:; This ~is . particularly true of the Leisure traveler. If .the preferred .property. is full, the leisure visitor will more than likely try other lodging properties in Vail rather~.than move=to another resort., To, some extent, Beaver Creek•is considered to be' comrnen,surate to Vail-. .Guests choosing to go to the Avon/Beaver'C~eek~area are considered: to be, , "displaced."~ for this analysis. ~ = The meeting planner, especially from in-state, is a bit (less loyal to the specific :resort.= Ifi available meeting space in Vaif does riot •fit'the groups needs, the meeting planner : ,may have,.the option of changing dates, or taking less than' perfect facilities. However, there; is also the option- of moving the group to- another resort.'' In~ many cases, in Vail; the, meeting • might be .moved to Beaver Creek.._ , fn-state meeting: planners, familiar with other resort options; are more Likely to move a meeting bout.-of ~i - Vail than fhe-out-of-state 'planner who is. likely more interested in the reputation and' • image of Vail.; , ~ _ ' •-For~fhe~most part,,, we believe that most demand displaced~by new meeting demand ~ ~at the conference center will stay within -Vail. During peak periods, some demand will ' have to .relocate due: to capacity constraints., The main 6eriefactor from this' is likely ; to be the Avon/Beaver Creek market:. • ~ ~ • - - - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ .Estimates of Room Demand Imoact on Vail Lodaina Facilities - ' . V1/ h v e a e estimated incremental new room demand to Vail from the meetings expected to be held at the conference center at 40,000-50,000 ,room nights annually in a stabilized year. ,The majority of this- demand, estimated at' 15,000=30,000 annual room nights, will be absorbed by~properties within a 10-minute walk of the conference center. The remainder," or 20,000-25,000 room nights will be spread out. to lodging .properties of all types throughout the Town ofVail: ,This impact will likely occur during .the peak meeting months of February, fViarch, June, July,. August and September. - , Other Issues ~ , ~ - It would appear that during peak periods of the year, that meeting demand drawn to the..conference center would simply replace demand already staying in Vail lodging properties. To some extent' this is true. ~ However, there are some substantial " "hidden" benefits to this new demand. ~ ' - . ~ , The proposed conference center i~s expected to market and draw from a meeting base that.currently has only- limited exposure to Vail -the national meetings market. This will expose "new" visitors to Vail who are more likely to spend an extra couple of days before, or.a#ter the meeting, to explore the area. These- new visitors 'are also ' potentialaources of business during. other times of the year, such_as returning in the winte"r to ski, ~or the summer_to enjoy the mountain setting. - . - fVluch of the displacement which is expected to occur will be replacing local iri-state groups with national groups: Iri-state groups. are familiar with, Vail and tend to spend less in retail sales and food acid beverage than a visitor coming to Vail for the first .time. X111=5 - , Some dis lac m' n ,f I i r i~ i t wi11 r ~r'n h mm r,m n h Th~ p e e t o a su e y s to s occu dui g t e su a o a s ese visitors are typically in Vail for two nights (usually~Friday and Saturday) or only one night (Saturday). The 'meeting group replacing this visitor will typically come in for three to four nights, ~ increasing lodging property occupancy levels on non-weekend nights-. _ _ , a - _ ~ . ~ - . - During the busiest periods in Vail;. some meeting demand is.likely to .be turned. away. . When this occurs, there is a supply/demand imbalance. The imbalance .riot only effects, Vail,. buff also Vail s competitors. When this imbalance 'occurs,, lodging operators~h'ave the opportunity•to increase room rates to groups and, individuals alike. . ~ ~ _ ~ ~ Thus; turning away business is not necessarily.a total loss of;business. There will inevitably be some meefrng attendees who simply will. not spend the money necessary to rent rooms at headquarters hotels or condominiums in close' proximity to the conference center. These attendees would rather find-transportation toLfrom ~ . _ the center to enable therm to stay in lower-priced.lodgi~~~ng. ;This should- help properties in outlying areas such as West Vail. ~ . ~ • ~ - , In conclusion, the proposed conference center is expected to.have an overall positive effect on all Vail lodging properties. Because new visitors will be brought'to~ the.. . ~ resort, a' further benefit' is expected when meeting attendees, later return to Vail as leisure visitors to enjoy:fhe area from a more leisurel~~ perspective. - , . - l ~ ~ • • - - - - ~ XLII-6 ~ . ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Am ~~N6p r r r t r r i P~DDENDIIIVI A ~ryA@~ ~&7RVElP AND, C~LLA~EFBP~L DA"fp' r i 1 1 f ~'e4 T®i~V~l ®F VAIL 75 South Frontage Road bail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2100 FAX 303-479-2157 June 11, 1993 Dear Meetin Planner g The community of fail, C®i®ra~l® is considering the development of a~pe~®a~ance and a®n~"eg°enee ceute~ that would cater to groups that are significantly larger than the groups our local hotels can currently accommodate. A local Study Committee is currently conducting extensive market research to determine whether there is sufficient demand for a new conference facility in the mountains of Colorado. TJlne c®uuIIauuity has u® desna°e build a "white elephants" 1[ff the ®aaa~l~et deuBa~ad f®r this faeility al®es u®t egdst9 we need t® l~n®vve However, if we find that sufficient demand does exist, we will ask the citizen's of flail to commit significant resources for the development of the project. As part of this feasibility study, we are asking for your input by respondin to our surve Throu h g y g this survey we hope to determine whether fail ~®i®~ad® is a destination to which groups similar to yours would consider meeting and whether this new conference center would meet the needs of those groups. I~lease help us deter~iane whetheu~ we sh®ul~l build this new couf'ere~nce eentea~ in ~Yail by tales a flew ffi®uae~nts t® fl®®l~ ®ve~° the euncl®seal annaten°nal ausl ~°esp®ncl t® the sua-veya As an incentive to return the survey to us by the end of this month, we are having a drawing on July 1st for five individual °P~anuu~er ~etaarvays" t® ~aiIla These transferable packages include two nights lodging, a romantic dinner for two at one of our wonderful restaurants and an inspiring day on the mountain with complimentary gondola passes. Agaflnn, you must a~etua-~a the suu~vey by~uane 36D. A t® be eligible t® wnn ®ue ®ff the ~nve P1SuuuIIae~ ~etaovays" t® ~aala Thank you for your professional opinion on the proposed conference center. Vdith your input, we will be able to make an informed decision about how to proceed. iTde appreciate your time and consideration on this important project for the community of Mail. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me or the ro'ect coordinator P J , Caroline Tremblay at (303) 545-9601. Best re ards g , ~ ~ ~ Margaret A. Osterfoss Mayor Enclosures ~~~~I~~ ~~~N~~ The bail bailey is currently exploring the feasibility and passible uses of a community Performance and Conference Center. Your feedback is vital at this point in our planning process. Thank you for taking the time to assist us with this endeavor by responding to our survey. If you would like to speak to someone directly about the proposed facility, please call Caroline Tremblay, project caardinator, at (303) 845-9601. ~~,.~~.,..,,~..~.,~.A.p.... , .~w,,~, ter. 4. Please indicate the number of meetings held, by purpose, in resorts? If you do not plan a meeting in a resort for one of NamP~ ~ these purposes, please leave blank. TirIP~ A. Board Meetings B. Annual Convention organization Name: C. Conference and Seminar street Address: D. Trade Show Ciy Stare Zio E• Incentive F. Other (please specify) Phone Number: ( ~ ? Corporate Meeting Planner ? Association Meeting Planner THE REfwAINDER OF THESE QUESTIONS RELATE TO RAEETINGS HELD IN RESORTS. 5. What time of year is your group most likely to hold a meeting in a resort? (Check all that are appropriate) 1. How many meetings do you organize on an annual basis? ? January, February, March ? September, October ? 0-2 ? 6-10 ? 16-20 ? April, May ? November, December ? 3-5 ? 11-15 ? More than 20 (please specify) ? June, July, August b. Please indicate the number of meetings your group holds 2. How many of these meetings are held in resorts? during the year by number of attendees? (If you do not plan a ? 0-2 ? 6-10 ? 16-20 meeting for a particular size category, please leave blank.) ? 3-5 ? 11-15 ? More than 20 (please specify) 0-300 601-900 1,201-1,500 301-600 901-1,200 over 1,500 (please specify) 3. How many members do you have in your organization? ? 0-300 ? 601-900 ? 1,201-1,500 7• What percentage of attendees bring their spouses fo a meeting at a resort? ? 301-600 ? 901-1,200 ? 0%-5% ? 6%-25% ? 26%-50% ? over 1,500 (please specify) ? 51%-75% ? 76%-100% 8. Please rate the importance of each factor in selecting a resort to host a meeting: Not Important (1) Somewhat Important (2) Important (3) Very Important (4) Factors Considered: Circle One Accessibility of resort from a major airport 1 2 3 4 Cost of Transportation 1 2 3 4 Large membership base proximate to the resort 1 2 3 4 Meeting is held at a nationally recognized resort 1 2 3 4 Availability of a wide variety of lodging options for your group 1 2 3 4 Availability of a wide variety of restaurants 1 2 3 4 Availability of one hotel in which all members can lodge and all meetings can be held 1 2 3 4 Availability of winter recreational amenities such as skiing 1 2 3 4 Availability of summer recreational amenities such as golf and tennis 1 2 3 4 Availability of sight seeing or cultural activities 1 2 3 4 9. What is the average length of a meeting at a resort? 1 b. What activities does your group typically plan? ? 1-2 days ? 3-4 days ? 5-6 days ? Over 7 days (Check oll those that are appropriate.) ? Skiing ? Biking ? Golf Tournaments 10. What is the preferred day of arrival for resort meetings? ? Rafting ? Tennis Tournaments ? Sunday ? Monday ? Tuesday ? Other, Please Specify: ? Wednesday ? Thursday ? Friday ? Our .group does not organize planned activities ? Saturday 17. Does your group organize dine-arounds? 11. What percentage of attendees are likely to fake a pre or ? Yes ? No post convention vacation at the resort where the meeting is held? 18. Has your group previously met in a mountain resort? ? 0%-5% ? 6%-25% ? 26%-50% ? Yes ? No ? 51%-75% ? 76%-100% 19. If yes to previous question, please indicate where. 12. Which statement best describes your growp's attitude ? Qspen, CO toward the use of a conference center within a resort area? ? BrecG;enridge, CO ? We would always consider using a conference center, ? The ESroadmoor, Colorado Springs, CO regardless of the meeting facilities at other hotels in the resort. ? CopF>er Mountain, CO ? We would use a conference center if there was not a ? Durango, CO hotel with meeting and banquet facilities large enough to ? Estes Park, CO accommodate us. ? Keystone, CO ? We would consider using a conference center, even if a ? Snowmass, CO hotel with meeting and banquet facilities large enough to ? Steamboat Springs, CO accommodate us was available. ? Vail% Beaver Creek, CO ? We prefer not to use a conference center. ? Jackson, WY ? Snowbird, Utah 13. Has your group used condominium units in the past at ? park City, Utah resorts where you have held meetings? ? Yes ? No ? Other, Please Specify: 14. Which of the following statements best describes your group's attitude toward the use of condominiums to house guests. 20. If you have previously used a mountain resort, please tell us ? We would use condominiums to house our guests. the ones that best met your needs. ? We would onl use one-bedroom studio or lock-off units,_as our ayttendees would not share larger units. ? We would use multi-bedroom condominiums.~as Ion as (Please indicate in the space below what you liked about each bedroom is private), as our attendees do not mn d these facilities and/or resorts. J sharing these units. ? We would use condomrnrum unrts only after hotel rooms have been sold out. ? We would not use condominiums for our group. 21 • Based on your previous experience, would your group ' return to a mountain resort? 15. What is the general range of accommodations your group ? Yes ? No uses in resorts? (Please indicate in the space below why or why not.) ? Economy ? Moderate ? First Class ? Deluxe ~ =,lv~?~.a.M.~ rte-~Tr>'. .-v -:~+r :r i u~. U« ~4:aefs.w~.kra'rt~r.: w~.v'6'rn~p~<.o~~eMisa4i5~. _~,AYlil~eMls"gK.rt~s~ im:: 22. The facility is designed with a 950-fixed seat theatre. How 29. Does your group require food service at the conference likely would your group be to use this theatre for your center? ~ general session meetings? ? Yes ? No ? Very Likely ? Likely ? Not Likely ® 30. For which meal periods? (please check as appropriate) 1~' 23. What is the optimal number of seats your group requires for ? Breakfast ? Lunch ? Dinner your general session meetings? ? 0-300 ? 601-900 ? 1,201-1,500 ~ ? Cocktail Parties ? Coffee Breaks ? 301-600 ? 901-1,200 31. How many people do you serve at your largest meal ? over 1,500 (please specify) function? ? 0-300 ? 601-900 ? 1,201-1,500 24. What seating configuration does your group use for general ? 301-600 ? 901-1,200 session meetings? ? over 1,500 (please specify) ? Theatre ? Classroom ? Banquet 25. How many breakout rooms does your group require? 32. If the meeting facilities at the conference center are too small for your group, would you consider using this facility, ? 0-1 ? 2-4 ? 5-7 ? 8-10 ? C>ver 10 together with meeting facilities at surrounding hotels? 26. How man breakout rooms of each size does our rou ? We would definite) use the conference center facilities typically require? (Indicate number of rooms required for together with the meeting facilities at surrounding hotels. each size. If you do not need a meeting room of a particular size, please leave blank.) ? We would consider using the conference center, together 0-50 people -101-150 ppl 201-300 ppl with meeting facilities at surrounding hotels. 51-100 ppl 151-200 ppl -Over 300 ppl ? We would not use the conference center, as we prefer to 27. Does your group require exhibit space? hold all of our meetings in one facility. ? Yes ? No 28. If yes, how many booths do you require? PLE,4SE USE THE D,4TA IN THE FOLLOWING T,4BlE TO -10 x10's -8 x 10's -Tabletops ANSWER QUESTIONS 33 THROUGH 35 P~®p®sed !!®il Val9ey Per$ou~mance ®nd ~®n$erence ~en~er theater banauet classroom 8x10 booths Upper Level Grand Ballroom 184 x 86; 14,600 Sq/ft 1,475 1,150 813 88 Ceiling Height 20 ft. Divides into 4 Conference Rooms Lower Level Central Room 72 x 60; 4,500 Sq/ft 256 300 210 19 Ceiling Height 15 ft. Divides into 6 Breakout rooms A, B, C, & D 20 x 30; 600 Sq/ft 60 40 40 n/a E, & F 32 x 30; 960 Sq/ft 115 75 75 n/a Outside Room 26 x 60; 1560 Sq/ft 105 100 54 7 Ceiling Height 15 ft Divides into 3 Breakout rooms G, H, & I 20 x 26, 520 Sq/ft 60 40 40 n/a Performance Theater Orchestra Level 600 Fixed Seats Balcony Level 350 Fixed Seats 33. Based on your review of the.preliminary facility plans, what recommendations would you make to improve the meeting space design? 34. Based on the data provided for your review, do you feel that your group would have a preliminary interest in meeting in Vail, Colorado? ? Yes ? No (Please indicate in the space below why or why not.) 35. Based on the data provided for your review, do you think that your group would have a preliminary interest in using the proposed conference center? ? Yes ? No (Please indicate in the space below why or why not. J I' 36. For what size group are you likely to plan a meeting in Vail? (Please check all that are appropriate.) ? 0-300 ? 601-900 ? 1,201-1,500 ? 301-600 ? 901-1,200 ? over 1,500 (please specify) 37. Please indicate the likelihood of your group meeting in Vail during the following time periods. January, February, March ? Very Likely ? likely ? Not Likely April, May ? Very Likely ? Likely ? Not likely June, July, August ? Very Likely ? Likely ? Not Likely September, October ? Very Likely ? Likely ? Not Likely November, December ? Very Likely ? Likely ? Not Likely 38. May we contact you by phone for additional information, if necessary? ? Yes ? No Please return this survey in the pre-addressed, postage paid envelope provided, or mail ro: Robert S. Benron & Associates 1610 Wynkoop Street, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Telephone: (303) 629-6900 Fax: (303) 623-1411 ~f~®~pQ9~°$a~fl®IIIl Denver International Airport has scheduled daily service to over 100 cities around the country. Vaal Eagle County Airport, only 30 minutes from flail, has sheduled nonstop service to 10 major cities and connecting service to all major airports from December to April. Nail is located in the heart of the Rocky Mountains, a two hour scenic drive 100 miles west of Denver International Air~rt via Interstate Highway. Scheduled and chartered services are available from the airports directly to all hotels. Once in /ail, transportation throughout the pedestrian community and to lodging properties is via FREE bus service that runs every 3-7 minutes from 7:40 AM - 1:00 AM. Chartered group transportation to special events can be arranged by one of several local destination management companies. (Cflni~na~~ ' n' s an avera a of 300 sunn da s each ear with comfortabl low humidity and average temperatures ~1ai1 e boy g y y y Y of 70 degrees in summer / 43 degrees in winter. II~a~~ A wide variety of hotels and condominiums make up the bed base in the `fail ilalley. --From the Westin, Radison, Hyatt Regency ~t Comfort Inn to independently owned boutique properties and condominiums. Roam blacks of up to 5, ~ can be accommodated from over 20,000 rentable units. The Central Housing Bureau is fully computerized with all the relevant inf.,~..~arion on over 180 properties throughout the valley. This system can provide tracking and instant information on the status of any size block. Over 1 ~ different restaurants to choose from in the pedestrian villages of the Mail Malley. Theme functions for up to 1,500 can be catered in a wide variety of unique locations ranging from atop Mail Mountain to western dude ranch settings. Il~tla€CF°~t~®n~ ~~fl~~~&~ ~ World Class Skiing on North America's Largest Ski Motmtain Horsedrawn Sleigh Rides # Cross Country Skiing on Miles of Prepared Track Indoor &c Outdoor Ice Skating # Snowmobile Wildlife Tours in the National Forests Hot Air Ballooning # Five Championship Golf Courses Horseback Ridmg # Dozens of Pubfic and Private Tenais Facilities Rafting Mountain Biking on Gentle Roads and Trails # Guided Nature Homes Q:tlH~t~I4flII°i~ ~~IlVIl$ll~ Over 20 Fine Art Galleries with organized "Art Walks" compliment a summer music festival featuring the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, the Colorado Symphony and numerous smaller chamber groups. The Bolshoi Ballet Academy of Moscow ~rforms in Mail each summer along with a schedule featuring nationally recognized performers representing all types of musical styles. A wide variety of special sporting and cultural events are held throughout the year. Village Level PROPOSED Vim, ~'.~Y~I.IEg' Leper Level Vail Valley Plan El. +50 PEREORIVI~IVCE ~ CONFERE1vCE CEri t ~,tc Pian II. +70 Iti.:L..,.ance and a ® PRELIR~IA1tY IDESYGAIS _ ~ ~~....ce - c 9 c` Hotel Drop-Off ~ ,1 Shuttle ~I lil~ ,Y,'~ ' ~ Kitchen rv t ~ . Stage \ ~ i~i ~ ~ ~ a - :~i ~ ~`,'I ~ Balcony Level `t " ' ,a , _ , _ ~ i ~ " "Grand Ballroom q ~ ~ ~ J; . •:a - ~ ~ f . y ~ ~ _ ~ r PazkingGazage 1 _ !I i Parking Garage ~ . ® ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ • A- Central Conference Room ~ ~ i ^ a: - 9 ' s' .L B-Side Confemnce Rooms C- Green Room Dressinc Rooms Main Entrance Rehearsal Main Entrance Shuttle Bus-Stop Shuttle Bus-Stop r ' q~ ,s i 'r?s` . ale • ~ Va y s V~ • ,~rado • Col er2~g Zn ?Su~m F~ti a a S `i j e,d dA' ;Y~• fit, ~ a' Y 4 'A t4 I ~ r ~ iy. + 'v '1 i B~ Bimmin~sl ey ~zgel A s s e e n i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l D i g e s t . 4 ~ ~ _ 1 ,~.:-a ~'4+ J .`m .f N "~F ` i, I 4 II i f~ S7 VIII 4 +~s, u. N.:n~ 1 ~ ~l A s s e e n i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l D i g e s t ` The official state question becomes clear. Crystal for hiking and mountain biking. flower of Colorado is clear water flows vigorously Or you may decide that this vaca- the Columbine. But as one drives down mountain streams. Inuit- tion is a good time to try the thrills through the Vail Valley, it is only ingyou to dangle your of white water rafting. one of the wildflowers that seem feet, or try your - But the p a c e _ _ to blanket the round. You will hand at the fine _ - = = here is unhurried g - - ` d p also see Indian Paintbrush, a hot, art of f ly fishing. an un ressured and vibrant red-colored flower that is a You can actually see trout glisten you needn't schedule your day sharp contrast to the field of green.. in the glorious, noonday sun. with non-stop events. There is There is Elephant Head, a purple The days here are idyllic. While always the inherent charm of the flower with petals that resemble the temperature and humidity three alpine villages that make up (you guessed it) elephant soar elsewhere, the temperature the Vail Valley: Vail, Beaver Creek trunks. And then - here is comfortably cool, the and Avon. Each one of which i ~ ~ = humidity low, and the air you might call "a great place for there is the ~ . r t,>.-r elegant Fairy Trumpet, so fresh and pure, you'll wish walking." Quiet streets and Bavar- its horned shape blowing rest- you could take some home with ian style architecture clearly make lessly in the wind. you. In fact, one finds oneself this a little piece of Switzerland j It is difficult to imagine that so wishing the days here were some- in America. And ® ~ many flowers can be in the same how longer than most. For there a glass of fine i ® vi ~ ;v l place. To the naked eye, it is an are countless things to do. wine or a locally ~ explosion of color. For example, you may wish to brewed beer at a sidewalk cafe Nonetheless one cannot help start the day with a hot air balloon can be as memorable as a balloon but wonder where all the snow ride at dawn. A tranquil way to ride. Indeed, the local proprietors went. After all, the Vail Valley is view these mountains. Then again, invite you to dine in their fine res- ~ i I known all over the you may find your partic- taurants, many of which are rated world as a winter -"-`~~'pHr'"~~~ ' ular peace in attacking four star. Or shop in stores you paradise. But then, on one of the little white ball. If so, the val- don't have back home, for gifts many splendid mountain hikes, ley offers five professional courses. and souvenirs you just won't find ~ the answer to such a foolish In addition, there are endless trails anywhere else. A s s e e n i n A r c h i t e c t u r a l D i g e s t And, while the mountains often of sunlight is gone, you find your- Bolshoi Ballet Academy at Vail). conjure up a rugged experience, self beneath a sky so clear, you Making it possible to hear the when you summer in the Vail can spot con- _ sweet sounds of Mozart, Valley, you can return from a stellationsyou've ~ and smell the sweet scent day's adventure to the gracious probably only seen in picture of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens hospitality of one of the world's books. On summer nights, nearby. finest resort hotels. beneath this heavenly blanket, Summering in the Vail Valley is Perhaps it is. only fitting that outdoor concerts are performed a treat for the senses. It is beautiful, each day ends in a sunset regularly by internationally uncrowded, and waiting for you. that could easily = - renowned symphony v '-a 4~ x' ` ` be called breath- orchestras (the summer even ~ ' taking. And when the last blink includes a residency from the = Bti A~ E R CRg~~ Q - r Vl~ V ~ ~ The preceding article is sponsored by the Vail Valley Marketin Board. For more information, reservations, g or a free 80-page guide to summer in the Vail Valley, call 1-800-525-3875. Thank you. i i 1 AD~ENDUIVS ~ ~F 9VIAIL OIJT SIJRVE`f 1 !TAIL VALLEY PERFORPAANCE AND CONFERENCE CENTER - AAEETING PLANNER SURVEY . Preliminary Results July 13, 1993 1. How many meetings do you organise on an annual basis? - ~ - Percent of - ' - PJieeting Planners ~ . Responding to , Selections " Responses ~luestions - 23 >3% - 02 . 3-5 _ 53 19% 6-10 49 1>3% . 11-15 31 ~11 % ~ - 16-20 36 13°~ RHore than 20 >35 31, % 2. How many og these meetings are held in resorts? , Percent of I~Neeting Planners Responding to Selections Responses Questions 0-2 98 36% " 3-5 r 96 3196 5-1D ~ ~4 16% 11-.15 12 . 16-20 13 Rwore than 20 23 , 3., Hovv many members do you have in your organization? , _ Percent of • Meeting Planners. Respondin® to . Selections ,Resoonses Questions . . ~ 0-300 69 27% ' 301-600 34 13 % . 601-900 19 7% 901-1,200 11 1,201-1,500 28 11 % - " Over 1,500 99 - 38% . ,4. Please indicate the number of meetings •held, by purpose, in resores. If .you do not plan a meeting in ~ resort for one of these purposes, please leave blank. Percent of, ~ • • Meeting Planners " Responding to • Selections Res~oonses Questions Board Meetings 325. 95% . Annual Convention ~ 207 90% Conference and Seminar 942 Trade Show 73 3% Incentive 276 13% . Other - 338 15% 5. lMhat time of year is your group most likely to hold a meeting in a resort? / Percen4 of Meeting Planners • • Responding to Selections ResDOnses Questions • Jan., Feb., March 176 '2396 April, May 138 18% . June, July, August 173 23% September, October 169. 23% Rlovember, December ~ 94 13% 6. Please indicate the number of meetings= your group holds during the year. by number of ~ attendees (in resorts).. - ` Percent of • irdleeting Planners ~ • Respondirig to ' Selections ¢i~soonses• Questions ~ ~ 0-300 ~ 6,554 86°~6 , 301-600 419 7 % 901-900 116 2 °6 901-1,200 85 1 % • 1,201=1,500 65 1 % Oder 1,500 219 ~ 3~% • 7. M/hat percentage of attendees bring their spouses to a meeting at a resort? • Percent of , RAeeting Planners • , ~ Responding to Selections.. Responses Questions 0%-5% • 44 16% 6%=25%~ 61 23% 26%-50% 65 2~% 51-75% 42 16% 76%-100% 57 - 21 % • • • ® 8. Please rate the importance of each factor in selecting a resort to host a meeting? ' I~ ~ Blot Important (91 Somedvhat Importan4 (2) Important (3) Very Important (4) - Averaae Accessibility of resort from a major airport 3.38 Cost of transportation 2.98 - Large membership base proximate to the resort 1.63 RAeeting is held at a nationally recognised resort 2.24 Availability of a wide variety of lodging options for your group 2.33 Availability of a wide eariety of restaurants 2.75 Availability of one hotel in which all members can lodge and all meetings can be , held 3.55 Availability of winter recreational amenities such as skiing 2.03 Availability of summer recreational amenities such as golf and tennis 2.99 Availability of sight-seeing or cultural activities 2.79 9. !!/hat is the aderage length of a meeting at a resort? Percent of Meeting Planners Responding to Selections Responses ~ ,t;luestions , 9-2 days 29 3=4 days 9 94 ~ 7996 ~ ' 5-8 days 56 2096 Over 7 days ~ ~ ~ 4 996 . ~ ~ , 10. M/hat is the preferred day of arrival for resort meetings? PePCent Of ` meeting Planners Responding to " Selections 'Responses Questions - Sunday 56 17% R~ionday 28. 9% ' Tuesday 23 7% !~/ednesday~ 61 19% - 'Thursday 74 23% Friday 37 12% Saturday ~2 13% 11. ' /hat percentage of attendees are' likely to take apre-~or post-co"nvention vacation at the resort " ~ dvhere the meeting is held? - Percent of dtAeeting Planners ' Responding to Selections Responses' Questions 0%-596 58 21 % 6%-25% 120 ~4% 26%-50% 70 26% _ 51-75% 20 7% 76% 100% 6 2% 12. Which statement best describes your group's attitude toward the use of a Conference Center within a resort area? , Percent of b~eeting Planners Responding to Selections Responses ~.luestion~ We would always consider using a conference center, regardless of the meeting facilities at other hotels in the resort. ~ 19 7 % We would use a conference center if there was not a hotel with meeting and banquet facilities large enough ; to accommodate us. 118 43% We u~iould consider using a conference center, even if • a hotel with meeting and 'banquet facilities, large enough to accommodate us,. was available. 79 29% We prefer not to use a conference center. 58 2196 13. Has your group used condominium units in the past at resorts where you have held meetings? • ~ Percent of Plleeting Planners Responding to Selections Responses Questions' - Ves 151 55% Goo 123 ~t5% , 1 Which of the following statements best de_ scribes your group's attitude toward the use of condominiums to house guests. ~ , ' Percent of . Meeting Planners Responding to Selections Responses Questions We would use condominiums to house our ®uests. 52 - 19% ~ . W~ would .only use one-bedroom, studio, or locbc-off units, as our attendees would not share larger units. 74 27% We would use multi-bedroom condominiums las long as each bedroom is private) as our attendees do dot • mind sharing these units. ~6 97% We would use condominium units only after hotel. - ' rooms have been sold out. ~ 61 23% • We would not use condominiums for our_group: 37 14% - 9 5. what is the general range of accommodations your group uses in resorts? Percent .of - Meeting Planners Responding to Selections ~oonses Questions, 1=conomy 7 3% i~Aoderate 73 - 27% First-Class , 9 31. 4896 • _ Deluxe ~ 60 ~ 22% 9 6. ~l!/hat, activities does your group typically plan? (Based on 277 responses) Percent of - ' ~ Afleeting Planners • ~ Responding to • ' Selections Responses Questions i Skiing 78 28% Rafting 50 9 8% Golf Tournaments 9 94 70% Biking 43 96% , Tennis Tournaments - 137 49% - Other 69 25% 1 Our group does riot organise , " - Manned activities - 59 9 8% , ~ 7. Does your .group organize dine-grounds? ' . Percent of ' IiAeeting Planners Responding, to • Selections, Responses questions ves ~ X92 49% Rlo 9 59 59% - - - • 18. ~9as your group previously met in a mountain resort? Percent of. meeting ,Planners - Responding to . Selections , Responses (questions ` Yes 1'83 66% ' ~0 93 34% . 99. Bg yes to previous question,, please indicate where.' (Based on 183 affirmative responses) Percent ofi . R~eeting Planners Responding to Selections Resoonses ~luestions - Aspen . - ~5 25% Breckenridge, CO 38 21 % The Broadmoor Colorado Springs, CO B5 46% Copper Mountain, CO 16 9%~ ®urango, CO 25 149s; Estes Park, C0 ~ - 18 10% i~eystone, CO 51 28% Snowmass, CO ~ ~1 2296 , Steamboat Springs, CO ~ 25 14% !fail/Beaver Creek, CO 66 36% Jackson, !A/Y . • 30 16% Snowbird, UT 37 20% Park City, UT 35 19%' Other 50 27% 21. Based on your previous experience, would your group return to a mountain resort? ~ , PePCeP1t O~ ~ • ' Meeting Planners Responding to • Selections ~ Res®onses Questions • Yes 167 98% . fro ~ 2% • . ~ 22. The facility is designed writh a 950-fixed seat theater. Howl likely would your group be to use - this theater for your general session meetings? Percent of - ".(~Aeeting Planners ' Responding to Selections Responses ~ ~luestions Very Likely 37 14% Likely ~77 28% IVot Likely 159 58% 23. What is the optimal number of seats your group requires for your general session meetings? Percent of . RAeeting Planners " ~ . Responding to Selections Responses Questions 0-300 1 15 58% 301-600. 59 23 601-900 ~ 25 10% , 901-1,200. ~ s 3% 1;201-1,500 3 '196 Oder 1,500 14 5% 24. What seating configuration does your group use for general session meetings? PePCent Of Pfleeting Planners Responding to Selections Responses Questions Theater 106 40% Classroom - 145 5596 Banquet 13 5% 25. Nova many break-out rooms does your group require? Percent of ~ , • (Meeting Planners • Responding to , Selections Responses (luestions ' • ' 0-1 32 1396 2-4 37 35% 5-7 56 2396 5-10 31 13% Over 10 39 96% 26. Nova many breast-out rooms of each site does your group typically require? Percent of • RAeeting Planners . - Responding -to • Selections Responses - Questions 0-50 people 725 50% 51-100 people 324 22% - 101-150 people 194 13% 151-200 people 109 7% " 201-300 people 54 4% - Over 300 people 59 4% 27. Does your group require ~uhibit space? . Percent o$ ~ ~ , AAeeting Phnners Responding to Selections Res®onses Questions " Ves 130 48%" boo 141 52% ' • 28. If yes, ho~r+ many booths do you require? Percent ofi. Meeting Planners Responding to " Selections Responses ~2uestions • 10X10's 2,160 51 % " ` 8X10's 1,445 34%, 'Tabletops 638 95% 29. "®oes your group require food service at the conference center? 1 Percent of Meeting Planners • ~ Responding to selections Responses (luestions ' Yes 257 ~ 94% Rlo 15 6% 30. For wrhich meal periods? (based on 255 responses) Percent of • Meeting Planners " . ~ . Responding to Selections Responses .Questions Breakfast 196 77% . Lunch 214 84% ®inner 9 47 58% Cocktail Parties 162 64% Coffee Breaks 220 >37% . ~ 31. Hods many people do• you serge at your largest meal function? , Percent of . Meeting Planners ' ,Responding to Selections Resoonses ~luestions 0-300. 137 52% ' 3o1-soo , ss 2~~ = sot-goo 22 >3% . 901-1,200 16 . 6 % 1,201-1,500 9 3% Over 1,500 12 5% 32. If the meeting facilities at the conference center are too small for your group, would you consider using this facility, together with meeting facilities at surrounding hotels? . • , ~ Percent of Meeting Planners _ Responding to Selections Resoonses ~.2uestions ' !!Ve would definitely use the conference center facilities, together with the meeting facilities at . surrounding hotels. ~ 23 9% . !A!e ~nrould consider using the conference center, together dvith meeting facilities at surrounding hotels. 93 37% llVe would not use the conference center, as we prefer • - to hold all of our meetings in one facility. 136 ~ 54% 34. Sased on the data provided for your review, do you feel that your group dirould have a preliminary interest in meeting in !/ail; Colorado? Percent og • Meeting Planners Responding to ' Selections Responses Questions • Yes 1 7 0 9 6 % ~l0 50 20% 35. Based on the data prOVlded fOP yOUr ,Pevlew, do you think that your group would have a preliminary interest in using the proposed conference center? • PBPCent O~ Fleeting Planners Responding to , Selections ResQOnses Questions yes ~ 150 63% ' ~O 87 37% 36: for what size group are you likely to plan a meeting in Vail? (Based, on 2~0 responses) Percent of AAeeting Planners ~ ~ Responding. to , Selections Resoonses ~luestions 0-300 182 76% _ 301-600 35 q 5 % 601-900 15 6% . 901=1,200 33 1~% 1,201-1,500' 1 0% Over 1,500 ~ 2% , • - 37, Please indicate the likelihood of your group meeting in Vail during the following time periods? - Percent of . RAeeting Planners Responding to Selections Responses ~luestions Jan., a 37 19% Very Likely 70- 36% Likely 69 ~5% - - Rlot Likely - April, Ray 25 14% Very Likely , Likely ~ 71 39% - Riot Likely - _ >36 ~7% June, July, August , Very Likely 64 31 Likely " 94 ~5% Blot Likely 49 a~% September, October 38 19% - " Very Likely " Likely ' 87 L Blot Likely 72 37% Riovernber, ®ecember 9 3 7% . Very Likely ~5 26% - - _ Likely 116 67 % Blot Likely - , ADDENDIINd ~ °~E9.E.PF10N~ St9FtVE~ 1 r 1 i 1 ~~E~~B®6~N~~RE TELEPF9®NE 9NTE~VIEVV~ , ' @~/OT~I fVIEET~NG P~~aNIVERS I. 8ntroduction and Project Description - " Include information on Drawing for Vail Get-Away. ' 11. Acquire Name, Company Name, Address and Telephone Number. II1. .Identify Scope of Their Business. " _ A. I~ow many meetings of all types are organized annually. 13: RA in Planner handle functions for more than one or anization - et details.. Does eet, g g A 1 m in tannin their full time 'ob? Ves No C s eet g p 9 1 _ D. Do they use resorts for meetings? Ves No , " ' ~ ' Ib. for Meetings, in Resorts .How many meetings do they hold in resorts annually? 13.~ Where have they met in the pastt Why? C. Oo they consider mountain resorts in their selection process -why or why not? Get details on meetings held. I~ct #1 1~9ot ~2 ~A ~ 9. Attendance -Size of meeting 2. Type of Meeting - Board O~ ®IPeC4OPS Conference - Convention, with Trade Show Incentive ' Instructional Other (describe) Other (describe) ~ , 3. Length of meeting Nays) ' a. What day does meeting generally start? Attendee Information. ~a #.1 ~ #2 ~ .#3 a. Yotal Rembership meeting? " b. Selected membership meeting? c. Company Executives? d. Company ®epartment, heads? e. Company training f. Other (describe) - , 'm ril I r f m I r mixed? 5. Pn a y ma e o e, a e, o 6. months in vehich meetings 7. 1=lexibility, of dates (fiery, somewhat, not) >3: Any handle on. daily expenditures.per attendee? S S S S. bi/hat is lodging preference (hotel,'condo, other)? 10. ®o members or attendees double-up for lodging? !A/hat percentage? - 11. y1lhat is the decision process for resort selection? (Hove important is accessibility , of tPie resort?) 9 ®escribe accessibility to bail - Is this appropriate for your groups? 13. What facilities are used (i:e., hotel, conference fiacility, etc.)? What goes into the selection of these facilities? . " . " 9 Are existing facilities acJequaYe for your, needs, if not, why? " 9 Are existing facilities adequate for your needs, if not, wrhy? - 9 5. Piave you used afree-standing conference center in the past? Wh or vv ~ y, by not. a. What did you like, or dislike about these type of facilities? - b. What should be included to .better service your .group? . 9 5. In r~+hat months are resort meetings held, and vdhy? , 9 7, ®O your gPOUpS t@nd t0 retUPn t0 $he Same faCllltleS each year, or do they move the meetings around? Ey !Alhat percentage of attendees bring spouses or families? ~ . ®o you have- planned spousal activities? Yes i~lo What percentage of members arrive early or leave late for vacation purposes? 3. Blow long will they typically stay over? , 6=. the fOllOwing Crlterla, rank each by their importance in selecting a resort to host a meeting. - (1) dot Important .(21 Somewhat Important (31, Important. (4) Very Important ~AGTOR~: - Accessibility to a major airport _ (1) (21 131 141 ' Availability of lodging options, i.e., hotels, condo, lodges ' (1) ~ l21 13i (4) Availability.of awide variety of restaurants (1) . 121 131 (4) Availability of one headquarters hotel to house all or most. of attendees ~ 11) (2) (3) (4) Availability of one building in which to hold meetings - . (1? (21 (3) (41 Availability of, properly designed meeting space (1? 121 13) (4) Availability of recreational activities,, i.e., . winter skiing, golf, etc. for members and spouses (1) (2) (3) 14) Availability of sightseeing 11) (2) (3) (41 Abailablllty Of Cultural aCYIbIt1eS 111 121 131 (4) Availability of a single contact person. for all of the groups' needs ' 111 (2) (31 141 G. ®oes meeting in a' resort setting tend to increase or decrease attendance for your group(s)? b!/hy? _ I-I. Regarding Conference Centers versus hotels. ` . 1. ~!/ould you prefer to use a conference center or a more traditional hotel? ` ' 2. ~o your attendees and speakers tend to :have a preference? ' ~ 4' r meetin sin resort? Flat are yOUP fU4UPe Space -needs f0 g 1. Ballroom (General Session) seating - l~/ha4 style and what purpose? ' (~Aention th®atre -would they use) - 2. Breakout room space needs - Yyo. of rooms and seating numbers and types? - _ 3. ~ Eood and beverage (including break) needs? (GET IIV DETAIL) ' , .Concurrent function space needs; i.e., large meeting, breakouts, lunch all going simultan~ously_and together? l!~ - 5. What AM or special needs do you have? - - 'r n ~uhibit s ace? If so, hove many booths and of what sire? 6. Do you requl e a y p - - ' - J. What Kind og housing needs do you anticipate? I~ake sure they know what a condo is) 9 . Rlumber of lodging units? • ® a. Percent, hotel III Condominium . -Rooms Only (lower cost) • b. At what room rate (range fior each type) . Hotel Condominium Rooms Only (lower cost) ~ . ® c. Would .they use condo? (why or why not) How close to the meeting space does lodging rieed to _be? (i.e., adjacent, walkable, free shutele, etc.) 3. What is the general range of accommodations your group uses in resorts? • ~ . _ Economy _ il~oderate First Class Luxury 1 ~ -I , K: What recreational activities does your group generally like? . - Skiing Biking fsolfi Rafiting Tennis Sightseeing with flour .bus - Sightseeing on own Shopping L. ®oes your group organise dine-a-rounds? lid 6~1. • How man. of our . rou s meal functions are or aniaed and howl man. are on their • y y g p g y . own? RI. Which resorts have you liked best and why? 0. ®oes your group plan on meeting in a mountain resort in the future. If yes, can you identify which resorts? P. Would you consider using !/ail as a host resort? If so, what would your major considerations be? V. ®escribe 4he•layout of the proposed conference center, i.e., ballroom, theater, breakout rooms, ~tC. A. Based on this description, dvould you. consider using this free standing conference center for your groups? - ~ ,13. i3ased on this description, are there any additions or deletions you would recommend? C. ®o you believe your ®roup mi®ht be interested in such a facility? At what time of year {month or season) would you be likely to use this facility? E, bUhat siae group would you bring to this facility? V1/hy? F. If the conference center is not large enough for your meeting needs (not enough breakout rooms), would you consider using area hotel rooms? VI.. Are there any questions you, have on. what we discussed today? , 1~ ' ' l ' VII. fs there ariy. additional input you bade that might 4ielp us in our analysis? VIII. ~?re there any conference centers that you think are particularly well designed and operated that w+e might emulate? . Id ou be vvillin to articipate in focus groups and/or in~an advisory capacity to help Vail IX. !lVou y ® p design and make this facility the best it can be? ' m h for our hel . X. 'fhanlc you very uc y P 1- 9 ~~~~.~vDUnn ~ 1 ~gA-~~MER17 OF ~UAA.1F?CA~IONS 1 1 S 1 1 R®I~~lli~' S. ~1F~f®RT 1610 Wynkoop Street, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80202 , (303) 629-6900 l GIE 11~®1i;1E11i;1!' 8. I~E1~'!t'®N ~ TES, Denver, Colorado 1992 to present ' Provide real estate consulting and appraisal services to developers, investors and lending institutions of hospitality properties.. lisA~ll~IId. lii~ 11:®T:iSTBT~ Denver, Colorado Manager, Hospitality Consulting ' 1983 - 1991 ~1~TT1I®1~TAII. ID~D~.TS'T T!iR~ IET~NCIE ,Vi'hi]e completing undergraduate studies, held; various positions within the hospitality industry." o The Petroleum Club, Denver, Colorado (1983) - m Ramada Renaissance, Aurora, Colorado (1982 - 1983) o El Rancho Restaurant, Golden, Colorado (1979 - 1982) o Ramada Inns, Inc., Culver City, Califvmia (1978 - 1979) . ~ ®F IE o Real Estate Appraisal of a Variety of I•iotels, Resorts and Golf Courses o Market and Economic Feasibility'Analysis for Hotels, Resorts and Golf Courses o Hotel Supply and Demand Analysis Hotel flncome and Expense Analysis grid Forecasts ' o Hotel Site Selection and Analysis a Renovation and Com~ersion Studies . a Litigation Support and Reseazz h • o Hotel Market Position Analysis and Franchise Selection IElID1i.J~~'lI®Rl AQT~ -University of Denver, Denver, Colorado. Specialization in Real Estate - Finance. Graduation Date; March 19~• 113SEA - iniversity of Denver, Denver, Colorado. Specialization in Hotel and Restaurant Management with.an emphasis in marketing and finance. Graduation Date: March 1982. A~~>r~afl Itmmsd~aa¢e -Course work completed evliile working toward MAI designation. , o Real Tstate Appraisal Principles o Basic Valuation Procedu~s o Capitalization 'T'heory ~ Techniques, Part A ~ B Case Studies in Real Estate. Valuation o Standards of Professional Practice " ®~lE>13'~' ~o Il$ENT®R1 - ls~eat~~ t~ieaa~ Ass it~t~ ~ ' A~e~a~ ~ e a; or~mm Appraisal' of the Evergreen Iadge, Vail, Colorado Highesrand Best Use Analysis of a Guest Ranch Located in Ucross, a'yoming C~ ® Appraisal of the La Fonda Hotel, Santa Fe, ATew RAexico c~1~~Ie~ W~ ®p~e~ Concept Development, Market and Financial Feasrbility Analysis and facility cC,r„~.d~I.r~: recommendations for a Proposed Convention Center Headquarters Hotel, Denver, Colorado ~~Ier We~tt D~e~emm8 Concept Development, Market and Financial Feasibility Analysis and facility (C~e~e~al®n recommendations for a Proposed Convention Center Headquarters Hotel, St. Louis, Missouri Il3yymmaaaffi.,p®l~n.~an Market Study for a.Proposed Hotel, Moab, Utah ~1!~Pa~ I~ad®naIl ~®ff D~~~ Appraisal of the Super 8 Motel, Colorado Springs, Colorado ~ ~ S Litigation Support for Holiday Corporation regarding Holiday , Corporation vs Histrio Investors ' D~~~:a >i~lic 5~~~ Ht~,c~~ Appraisal of the Super 8, Castle Rock,Colorado omm IF~~e ~d mm Appraisal and Litigation Support in regards to Mamott's Mark Resort, Vail Colorado ~ , IFe~es~Il ID ~:~~i$ at C~.a ~i°atti®~ ~ Market Position Study for the Olympia Resort Hotel; Park City, Utah IFiIIJd~A, lI~c. ~ Appraisal of the Comfort Inn at,Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado ' IFilmeIln®Ie II~d C®ff~rLra~®~ Market Stud} for a Proposed Hotel, West Yellowstone, Montana lF~ Ti'itan~t.C®ffip~mmy ®ff I~®~&a~ Appraisal of the Quality Inn, Great Falls, Montana , t~IlrIl»~ 8aslfn.~ C®raal~~' Market Research Regarding the Vail, Colorado Iadging Market IHI~did D®~eat C®ffie~ Appraisal of ,the Ritz Carlton Hotel, Houston, TeAas ffi®flI~ ~C..uga..~ ~ Market,Study for the Conversion of the Raffles Hotel in Aurora, Colorado, to a Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza ffi®)fld~C,,,,o~,r„~~®rm Market Study for a Pr.,~.,~ed Homewood Suites, Albuquerque, iLew Mexico " ffi®Ild~C,:,u~:.~ rm Market,Study for a Pr„F,.,,sed Holiday Inn, Iteystone, Colorado ffi®rffi 8 ®ff Aa~mesl~ Appraisal of the Residence Inn by li9arrioct, Colorado Springs, Colorado Iffio~pltalit}y H~e~estffiaer~8 ~ura~efl®~ Research Regarding Current Market- Expectations Relative to the New Denver International Airport's Impact on Existing Hotels at Stapleton International Airport " lit®1~lEfi~'lIi' Ell;l~'II'~l~T tt~tka~e t~licaat~ ~ci As~° teats (~®mm>t.~ ffi~Il Deaello~~t C~~~e~doata ~ Market Study for a Proposed Hotel w be Located at the Cavan Sunpon Centre, Albuquerque, New Mexico • ffii~er Ili Appraisal of the Holiday Inn Kearney, ICeamey, Nebraska IItt~ ®ff,~a~ ~ Market Study and Appraisal for a Pr~.},.,~ed Luxury Hotel, Aspen, Colorado Iim~t H.'II'®. Preliminary Market Study for a Proposed 8~ Seat Theatre-to be Located in the Interlocker Business Park, Br,,.;...field, Colorado ~asl~o~ Iliole Skl C~n~...r,~eioIIL Market Study for a Proposed Hotel to be Located at the Base of the Jackson ® Hole Ski Area, Teton Village, Wyoming I~i~all II~~.:~~neat Coffiy Appraisal of the Clarion Hotel and Suites, Salt Lake City, Utah Y~t~Ilc ~ ~ Appraisal of the Hampton Inn Noigh, Colorado Springs, Colorado ~d Comes Coffi~aaty Market Study and Highest and Best Use Analysis fora 1 I7 acre site Located • in the Ciry of Broomfield, Colorado 11°NC Reality H®fl Co~...a~ilorn Appraisal of the Mamott Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado Ilgraaaflemmtial Ifteafl Mate IImm®e~tor~ Appraisal of the Wildwood Hotel,, Snowmass, Colorado I rl°ra~demmtlafl IBeaY IF~tate.II~estoa~s APPraisal of the Hilton Hotel, Grand Junction, Colorado I~anl~llic Il;ffiployee's Ilte~ ~:~:mmt Appraisal of the Holiday Inn, Craig, Colorado A~~ocdadomm off Coloa~ado ~1~, IIffic. Market Study and Appraisal for a P.,yE,.,sed Addition to the Quail Ridge Inn, Taos, New Mexico Roea.~lh I~itcl5ellfl Cry Il~tae~nip Appraisal of the Mamott Hotel, Fort Collins Colorado , Raas9~er a~ ~at~eff Appraisal ~ the Sheraton Inn -North Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado - ~c]tne1P~ Riew Rico .Market Study for a Promised Hotel to be Iacated in Taos, , New Mexico ~i~e c~~,r~J!¢ Appraisal of the Red Lion Hotel, Salt Lake Ciry ,Utah S1id aid Report Coa~d~~omm Market Study for a l?r~~ed Hotel to ize Located at the~Base of the . Steamboat Ski Area, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 5c~ne iltou~er ctr¢ C®ffi~~y Market Study and Appraisal of a F,.~,.,sed Sheraton Hotel, Boulder, Colorado 49ne IM{ei~ IFo orm Market Study for a P.~..,~ed Conference Center to )x located at Flathead Lake in Northwestern Montana QJ~Ited I~~ off fIDe~~ Appraisal of the Lodge at Vail, Vail, Colorado . ~S I~eaflty 9i9arket Studizs for the Westin Hotel -Downtown Denver, Tire Cherry Creek Inn and the Westin-Vail ~~s ~ ~ ~s _ ~ ~ Vapey inn, Ias Cnices, of ~ ~t ~~etn - que, ~eQ,, Pge~cica rtyisal of tt~ Best w~tem ~l ~v~, ~°1ara~' d Inn _ pRain, ~ - APP ~ ~ ~~assY Sw~`' an ~~ian to the 'WY~'el ApP for ~ ~ ~s~&' - ~~,zt Sru~Y~ee, Flan a ~ G~~ E~ mac. - I ® - - - - ' ' ~IJ~~•tCATI®IvTS ®F , ~ S ~V. E®~3CATI®IV: University of Denver, Bachelor of Science - Hotel and Restaurant Management Tri-State University, Bachelor~of Science - General Business NIEn/iBERSHIPS: - ` International Society of Hospitality Consultants American Hotel and Motel Association Colorado Hotel and Motel Association Utah Hotel and Motel Association PR®FESSIOIVAL HISTORY: ' Current Hire and Associates Professional Consulting Services .to the Hospitality and Tourism Industries ' 1979-1988 Pannell Kerr Forster, Denver, Colorado - Senior Principal 1971-1979 Management positions, including General Manager of_Commercial and .Resort Hotels - AREAS ®F SPECIAL C®i~PETENCE: Accor~onATloxs IxDUSTRY: Receivership; Distressed Property ,Workouts'; Market Research; Operations Analysis and Consulting; Facilities Planning and Development; Market and Financial Feasibility; Industrial Revenue Bond Offerings; Limited Partnership Offerings; Public Offerings and Condominium Hotels; Economic . Valuation and Appraisal. • LIT%GAT%Ox SUPPORT: -Market Research; Real Estate Tax Appeals; Operations Analysis; Financial Analysis; Damage Determination; Counsel Orientation and Expert Witness Testimony on Hospitality Related Cases. SECURITIES IxDUSTRY: Product Due Dil'igence'; Market and Financial Feasibility; General Partner .Fees; Structuring and Return on Investment Analysis; Limited Partner Investment and Return on Investment Analysis; Broker/Dealer Education on Product; Participated in Application,,Acquisition, and Management of NASD Licensed Broker/Dealer Firm. F'000 APID BEVERAGE IxDUSTRY Market Research; Operations Analysis;. Industrial Revenue and Bond Offerings; Limited Partnership Offerings. ' COAiVENTIOP'd AND TRADE CEAiTERS: Market Research; Financial,Feasibil'ity; Financial Impact. RETYREMEAdT COARMLiPdIT%ES: ~ ' Market Research; Financial Feasibility; Bond Issues. REAL ESTATE IATDUSTRY: Distressed Property Workout; Highest and Best Use; Economic Valuation and Appraisal; Land Planning; Mixed-Use Development Research;'PUD Research; Financial Feasibility; Due Diligence. Market Research: Office, Residential, Golf and Country Clubs, Financial Center, Retail, Residential Condominiums, City Clubs. .Residential: Market Research, 'Absorption Analysis, Design Review. RECENT MA.IOR PRO.~ECTS: - Receivership for a 180-room, mid-level, chain-affiliated hotel. Under ' receivership, occupancy, average rate and cash flows increased. Hotel was sold and receivables collected. Real estate tax appeals on five properties of a major first-class hotel chain including valuation, negotiation and expert witness testimony. operations analysis and review for two high-end dude ranches and a four-star ski resort hotel. Appraisal and valuation for numerous hotels from economy to luxury resort properties. Litigation support for owner of.-a hotel after termination of lease by.a~major hotel company. Litigation support for majority owner of hotel when sued by minority partners for mis-management. , Workout for lender of a resort hotel in major ski area. Litigation support,, including expert witness testimony involving damages resulting from .the closure of a hotel for major construction. , Market study and appraisal for the conversion of a luxury independent hotel to ' a luxury chain affiliation.. Work with outside firm and FSLIC to value savings and loan hotel portfolio. Workout consulting including market analysis, supervision of appraisal, property financial positioning and negotiation with lender fora distressed national chain affiliated hotel. ' Litigation support including arbitration expert witness testimony on claims of gross mismanagement of downtown luxury hotel (represented defendant). f Litigation support including expert witness testimony on damages resulting from inadequate construction of a major chain affiliated hotel :(represented defendant). - 2 - r Market and financial feasibility and preparation of investor return analysis for regulation D. Limited Partnership offering for resort hotel. ' Market feasibility analysis and on-going. development, consulting for a new concept amusement park and tourist attraction to be located in a retail shopping mall. Market and financial feasibility and preparation~of investor return analysis for S-1 Public Syndication for resort. hotel. Analysis of market position and potential expansion of market share for a major Rocky Mountain destination ski resort city. Analysis of construction alternatives for the renovation or re-building of the club house for a major country club including market analysis for future membership increases. ~ _ - , ' Market feasibility for a major mixed-use real estate development containing ,retail, commercial office, financial center; theaters and a.'hotel. ' Market feasibility for a 2,000=acre mixed-use development including residential, country club, equestrian, resort hotel, lifecare center, and other uses. ' J t / I ~ ~ ' - ` - 3 - ` , ~Ua~LIFICATBOWS OF ~DE~111NE1~E H. R013ERTS . PROFESSIONAL @~IS1~OR~ Present Independent Fee Appraiser. and Hotel Consultant Prior ~ Pannell Kerr Forster, Denver, Colorado Senior Consultant (1987-1991) AREAS ®F SPECIAL COMPE1rENCE Real, Estate Industry.: Hotel Appraisals, Feasibility and Market Demand Analyses for Hotels and Related Real Estate. MAJOR PRO~DEC~S Hotel A®oraisals: Appraisal of the Hilton Hotel in Grand Junction, Colorado Appraisal of the Holiday Inn in Alamosa, Colorado . Appraisal'of the Holiday Inn in Craig, Colorado Appraisal of the Holiday Inn, in Colorado Springs, Colorado Appraisal of the Marriott Hotel in. Colorado Springs, Colorado ®i Appraisal of the Residence Inn in Colorado Springs, Colorado ® Appraisal of the Super 8 located in EI Paso County, Colorado Appraisal of the Super 8 located in Castle Rock, Colorado Appraisal of a proposed Nendels Hotel in Albuquerque, blew Mexico Appraisal of the Best VNestermAirport Inn in Albuquerque, 111euv Mexico Appraisal of the Sheraton Hotel in Colorado Springs, Colorado Appraisal of the Hampton Inn in Colorado Springs, Colorado market Studies: Market Research Assistance for Appraisal of a hotel in Salt Lake City, • Utah Potential Market Demand Study fora Homeveood Suites Hotel to ~be located _in Albuquerque, I~levm Mexico Market Demand Study of a hotel to be located in Moab, Utah Markeq Demand Research for Appraisal of a resort hotel in NVir?ter Pares, Colorado . • ~UALIFICATI®NS ®F ~EANNETTE IR®BERTS ®R {I'Ei®JECTS..:(0®R!T'D. ~ . ~liarket $~,udies: baNarket Research and Penetration ~?nalyses for Litigation Support involving several Pnajor hotels in various states market PBSeaPCh in conjunction with' an appraisal of the La Fonda Hotel in Santa Fe, Blew RAexico . ' 6lAarket Demand Research in conjunction with numerous - Appraisals of chain a#filiated hotels located in various states. RAarket Demand Study of a convention center hotel to be located in Denver, Colorado f~iarket Position Studies. for existing hotels in various states ® Extensive Hotel Y1Aarket Research and Analysis for Litigation ® Support for a major lodging chain , Rflarket Study and Impact Analysis for conversion of an independent hotel to a fPanchise for a major hotel corporation Analysis, Evaluation and Publication of major- trends in the ® overall mid-level hotel market for 1987 l~ AAarket Demand Study foP extended stay housing accommodations for a major U.S. research facility •in New l~iexico Potential Market Demand Study of a cultural theme park to be located in Salt Lake City, Utah PAarket Demand Study fora 500 seat theater to be located in ' Interlocken Business Park fin Broomfield, Colorado ' Potential 1lflarket Demand Study fora 275 room Sheraton Hotel to, be located in Boulder, Colorado E®fl9C~a'~I®~l University of Denver, Bachelor of Science Business - Administration, Specialization in Hotel and Restaurant Rflanagement (laR®FESSI®Rd.~L i~lEIiABERS~IIP ,Travel and Tourism Research Association, ~Aountain States . ® Chapter, Board of Director (1990-Present) l~ bNomen in Commercial Real Estate, Board of Directions (1990-. . • - 1991) ~ - • , ,wn ~ ~ .9 41„ fi , , . „ , . m% .a^~tir Fr ~n;a~~~ '~r." . ,t, s t II~;'~'8~'14 ,G 4,._..:: 50 51 52 I-711 N. Frontage Road u ' ~y North North TOW,'VOFUAIL ~ t-~o avon /beaver creek transit west Beaver creek Blvd. Serving Vail, Beaver Creek, ~ ' ~ _ r whead at Vail Ski Areas Ar o ~w West Vail Exit mmunities. 4s and surrounding co iw., a, 949-6121 ~,r 4 o~ a , Main Vail Exit 44 ~ S. Frontage Road 39 38 ~ `^."w~. gatite ~ i t nt-~aw¢Stto Nottingham Lake ~ ~ I,iun~head Gondola Vail Transportation Center 46' ~ 42 ~r. ~a 6~.,, a6~1' ~4 Vista Kahn F,xpress Litt 410 40 37 m etc' ~yt Ica w~ 33 ~ 36 35 To Ea le River Village ~ Benchroark Rd. g a Mobile Hume Yark • Edwards 47 Highway 6 & 24 34 ,a i nA m. , Mxa. .nw.. y.m ac: an~r,mxe;, armo-wyraxiya~tacm~wmawwaw~,a:wm~aumrr~ncvtt~ Highway 6 & 24 , :;,M. ~ ~ ~ ~r~ x~ . , ~ h Highway 6 & 24 32 • 48 27 ~ west Lot P Fast Lot P 5,,. f 28 29 30 30 31 1..~~ ~ Nrater L ~Ir Ml~fTJ YJ ~o 'er one 3_~p East to Vait U iTr NAIL t, 49 ~ ewn;y~u - - - - 4 Beaver Creek Eastern Village Route Beaver Creek Golf Conrse Beaver (:reek Parking Lot Service 26 24 6V~f ~S pl ~ Beaver Creek Western Village Route k. Minturn • ~ Beaver Creek Creek Raite 25 prive ~ ArrowheadlAvon aver Creel" l}e ~ Avon/Beaver Creek Evening 23 ~ Avon/Beaver Creek Early Morning, Daytime 22 f~,~ Town of Avao Shuttle ~ ~ • Red Cliff ' k ail Beaver Cree N ~ „s.r n ~ 'w LeadvdleNaiVAvo I N a;. Edwards/Nail err c4 21 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dashed route lines mean limited service. 18 ~ Fur bus stop times and locations, d x please refer to schedules on back of map. 20 1~ ~1 • Mt. View Trailer Park Main Transfer and Pickup points ro ~a 0 a ~ ~ 19 1 ~ q U eye. Arrowhead at Vail Ski Mountain 48 lnn al Beaver Creek IS pO~~~ As ens Mobile Home Park 46 Ironwood 23 ~ g Mtn. View llrive .gG~y ..is. ~'.L.."~%x~:.,_ : ~^iZd~9:isM6?U AbY6.:5r p ~ ,r Avon Center and Transit Offices 41 Kiva 6 16 ~ Beaver Creek Chapel 14 'Phe Lodge at Beaver Creek l3 • ' 15th & Harrison Beaver Creek Golf Course Clubhouse 22 Meadows 2 Beaver Creek Reception Center 27 Park Plaza Il ]0 ~ 2 Beaver Creek WesC 44 Pines 18 ~ Benchmark Building 37 Poste Montaine ]0 12 The &rcdcrs Lodge 25 Ridgepoint 26 11 " ~ s~ • Miner's Park ~ Chair 12 `Ek! 13 Offerson Rd. ,~v " 9 River Oaks 28 Centennial ehs • 5 A artmenfs „ • Food Town P a; The Charter 21 Rrver Run 32 l5 8~. Ski School The Chateau 17 Safeway 50 dke Meets Here 4 a $i Christie lodge 38 St. James Place 8 Access to [,.ift G. Christy S orts 36 Sandstone Elementary 53 Grouse Mtn. and Ticket . p c • City Hall U •L City Market 33 Slopeside 3 Cross-Country Trails ~ Office Comfort Inn 45 Strawberry Park 16 3 L •The Center c° Creekside 20 Sunridge 47 z wg~tx~~ ~ y,,.= ~ ~ ~ • 5th & Harrison Eaglehend 34 'farnes 49 Eagle-Vail Business Center 31 Timberidge 51 The Enclave 24 Town of Avon Municipal Building 41 S n v ~ co w y Falcon Point 43 Town of Avon Recreation 92 ~ ~ ~ ~ Intro-Beaver Creek ~ a r 'd a First Bank of Avon 39 Cabin 94) 4420 N ,W v Eood and Deli 29 Village Hall 12 lq Shuttle Service Point 4 b U ~ Greystone 1 Wal-Mart 35 ~ Cty o. f ~tad~ille Highlands 4 Warner Building 31 ~ Hyatt Regency 7 West View 5 ~ 1 Klemz llesign Ollice